Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Share
    avatar
    AZZKIKR
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 42
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 24
    Location : singaporean

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  AZZKIKR on Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:06 pm

    Not sure if this was shown here but


    http://btvt.narod.ru/3/t-95.html

    The T-95 turret seems like a departure to traditional Russian turret design, although it is unmanned, but the fact that it is slab sided seems dangerous o.o
    avatar
    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3196
    Points : 3312
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:43 pm

    AZZKIKR wrote:Not sure if this was shown here but


    http://btvt.narod.ru/3/t-95.html

    The T-95 turret seems like a departure to traditional Russian turret design, although it is unmanned, but the fact that it is slab sided seems dangerous o.o

    But because it's unmanned, it really doesn't matter.
    avatar
    AZZKIKR
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 42
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 24
    Location : singaporean

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  AZZKIKR on Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:47 pm

    Although it maybe unmaned, a slab sided turret, if hit, does increase exponentially the chances of a firepower kill, where the gun and its vital portions, might get damaged if any APFSDS round did penetrate. In any conventional MBT, the leopard and M1, both have pretty "boxy" turret, but rely more on Armour thickness to prevent penetration rather than angled armour. In the context of the T-95, there is only so much armour one can add to prevent penetration, since the volume of the T-95 turret is much more smaller compared to the M1 and Leopards.

    Correct me if I am wrong *
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:22 am

    The purpose of angled plate is to maximise the protection that armour provides.

    The cost is that the internal volume is greatly reduced for equipment.

    When people are inside however it makes more sense to make protection better than to make it really "roomy". The exception to this is when lots of space is required... an example of the latter is the MSTA 2S19 SPG where a box shaped structure gives more room for a vehicle that should avoid the front lines.

    There is not point in moving the crew from the turret and into the hull if you are going to make the turret tiny and heavily protected with thick angled armour.

    At the end of the day if the enemy had the precision to "take out" the tank by hitting the main gun then they could do that anyway, or they could hit the vehicles tracks for a mobility kill or perhaps the turret ring where the turret and the hull meet where protection is minimal.

    The simple fact is that even with high accuracy guns and ammo a moving tank is a difficult target to hit and there is no guarantee of hitting any specific part of the vehicle... otherwise the Abrams would be rubbish because hitting the turret bustle and destroying all its ready to use main gun ammo would render it useless on the battlefield.

    In reality hitting any specific part of a tank in real combat is problematic.

    APFSDS rounds punch clean holes through light armour... even the DU models. If you put heavy armour there then they disintegrate and do a lot more damage including starting fires.

    HEAT rounds also punch small holes in very thick armour so unless either type of round actually hits something critical in that big turret then there is no real problem.

    Think of firing a rifle through a large trucks rear trailer. If you make the trailer tiny so it only covers all the vital bits then every shot through has a good chance of hitting something important. With a full sized trailer with parts spread out and the important stuff duplicated then firing into it and doing real damage is rather less likely. Also keep in mind that it is also firing back at you so the result is that you are trying to damage its gun or optics and they are trying to kill you.

    ...sounds like they have the better design.

    Also keep in mind that when they fit the 152mm gun then it will likely be shooting at targets out to 5km or more with APFSDS rounds and likely double that with diving top attack fire and forget missiles...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Kysusha
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Kysusha on Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:06 pm

    GaryB, I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re implying here;

    “APFSDS rounds punch clean holes through light armour... even the DU models. If you put heavy armour there then they disintegrate and do a lot more damage including starting fires.

    HEAT rounds also punch small holes in very thick armour so unless either type of round actually hits something critical in that big turret then there is no real problem.”


    The energy dissipated in penetrating armour will ensure that there is sufficient heat inside the tank to cook the occupants. While HEAT rounds do punch a small hole in the armour, they in turn spray paint the interior with incredibly hot particles of molten metal and a large volume of extremely hot gas.

    Regardless of the thickness of the armour – there is a lethality about a hit in the turret.

    An old(er) guy I know was serving in the Middle East in WWII and he was telling me of a time they they were hit by a German 88mm in the turret. [I believe they were in a Matilda]. He said they had initiated an engagement with a Panzer and missed with their first shot, then he said the inside of the turret started to glow an eerie orange/light red colour and the temperate inside the tank rose immediately – he could smell insulation smouldering. They continued with the engagement and their second round disabled the German Panzer. It was only then that they saw a German 88mm anti-tank gun get a direct hit and the crew knocked out. After the engagement, they returned to base and dismounted. They then saw a large scalloped shaped gouge out of the turret armour – it had almost penetrated but must have glanced off on account of the angle it was fired at and the position of the turret. Whatever, he said he was within 12mm of dying that day.

    Make a hole in armour and you will generate heat.
    avatar
    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3196
    Points : 3312
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:42 pm

    AZZKIKR wrote:Although it maybe unmaned, a slab sided turret, if hit, does increase exponentially the chances of a firepower kill, where the gun and its vital portions, might get damaged if any APFSDS round did penetrate. In any conventional MBT, the leopard and M1, both have pretty "boxy" turret, but rely more on Armour thickness to prevent penetration rather than angled armour. In the context of the T-95, there is only so much armour one can add to prevent penetration, since the volume of the T-95 turret is much more smaller compared to the M1 and Leopards.

    Correct me if I am wrong *

    Well, I suppose extra armour can always be added around the existing box-turret; if it really proves to be that much of a design flaw or something. Reading GarryBs post though, I would rather think that the enemy would be better off trying to hit and penetrate the crew compartment, rather than attempting a bullseye on a cannon barrel or small turret box.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5728
    Points : 5768
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:45 pm

    I'm not sure how thats any more of a flaw than every other tank on the planet with slab sided turret.

    With modern armor, for the past several decades, sloped armor for heavy arrays has been mostly abandoned.
    I dont see why T-95 turret side can't be more armored than Leo or M1 if the vollume is less, in fact that would mean quiet the opposite.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:43 am

    The energy dissipated in penetrating armour will ensure that there is sufficient heat inside the tank to cook the occupants. While HEAT rounds do punch a small hole in the armour, they in turn spray paint the interior with incredibly hot particles of molten metal and a large volume of extremely hot gas.

    On the tank we are talking about the heavily angled thick armour designed to stop APFSDS and HEAT rounds is in the hull front protecting the three crew members stationed there. The flat vertical thin plate on the turret on the other hand covers an unmanned turret. Any vulnerable parts inside the turret can be protected with anti spall liners and individual metal shells.

    If I go back to my example of a truck trailer... a large box... when you fire an SLR into its side it makes a single channel hole... in fact lets make this a 14.5mm SLAP round from an anti tank rifle... it will punch clean through both sides of the trailer and anything in its path on the way through will also be demolished but anything outside that path might only get fragment hits. With an RPG hit it will be the same. The point is that if you stack that trailer full of stuff and give it a sheet metal protection cover or shell surrounding it with anti spall liner or Kevlar and perhaps a bit of nomex (fireproof) then each penetration might damage or destroy several internal components, but the fuel is not stored in the turret and the main gun ammo is stored below the turret ring so electronics boxes and sensor masts could be vulnerable but duplication and wide separation of these items means it is incredibly unlikely that both copies of things will be hit. Look at videos of light cannon hits on targets... there is a random pattern to the hits... it is not like the bullseye at a sniper shoot there will be hits all over the place so it is very unlikely that the enemy will be able to precisely hit the gun or autoloading mechanism for instance.

    The front turret armour doesn't need the same front turret armour of a MBT... ie 1.2m equivalent RHA, just having the equivalent of 200mm to stop frontal shots of light cannon ammo will suffice most of the time. The sides and rear can be half that to make it safe from HMG.

    Remember also that an Active protection system will also be in operation that will likely be designed to deal with HEAT and APFSDS rounds and that soft kill systems like smoke and Shtora like systems will also be in operation.

    The point is that if the enemy are hitting your turret then your crew are safe and the chance of actually knocking out the vehicle is actually quite low.

    Tests with RPGs showed that when hitting an APC that unless fuel or ammo was hit, in which case the vehicle exploded, that only those humans in the path of the high energy plasma beam and those either side of them risked death or injury.

    Translate that to a large turret with no people or ammo or fuel and the risk is zero of injuries and low of incapacitation.

    If enemy fire is accurate enough to take out the gun then they could have taken out the tracks and then shot the gun barrel on any tank ever made.

    They then saw a large scalloped shaped gouge out of the turret armour – it had almost penetrated but must have glanced off on account of the angle it was fired at and the position of the turret. Whatever, he said he was within 12mm of dying that day.

    That is called Spall, and it occurs when a solid wall of metal is hit on one side without a full penetration. The energy goes through the metal armour and causes flakes or even large sections of the inner armour to flake off with considerable energy and damage things inside the tank.
    The British stuck to rifled guns because one of their favourite rounds is called HESH or high explosive squash head. If you consider it simply a round made of solid HE with a tail mounted fuse so the round is fired at the enemy tank and when it hits it flattens like a big ball of putty slammed against a wall. After a short delay to allow the charge to spread against the armour the fuse detonates and the explosive sends an enormous shockwave through the armour as if it was a very high velocity projectile hitting the tank. The result is that while the armour is never penetrated an enormous scab of the armour itself kills the crew.

    The problem of course is that modern layered armour often includes cavities which result in the spall being created in those cavities and separated from the crew. The spall is generally sharp and fast moving but not the right shape to penetrate armour so it stays in the cavities. Early tanks with solid armour added anti spall liners that also reduced the problem. Spall is also a problem with rounds that penetrate as the projectile or HEAT beam often carry fragments of the armour with them into the vehicle, which spall liner can reduce or even eliminate.

    The point is that even just sheet metal will stop spall and with no crew in the turret spall becomes a threat only to the components inside the turret and these items can be protected with a mix of anti spall liners (kevlar) and fire resistent covers (Nomex) to stop fires from starting from hot fragments, and even a bit of mesh or sheet metal.

    Make a hole in armour and you will generate heat.

    Very true, but metal is a good conductor too so as long as the electronic components can take it there is no problem. All the crew are safely sitting under the thickest angled armour in the front hull, while the big relatively thinly armoured turret will have important bits protected, but not overly so, with duplication and redundancy dealing with potential problems of combat damage.

    BTW Austin if the Indian Army purchase of Mango rounds is not just a stopgap, there is no reason why they couldn't set up a joint venture with the Russians to develop an improved Mango made of acceptable materials (ie not DU) that will still fit within their existing autoloaders and be fired from their current guns and still have the performance they want. I mean if the Israelis can do it surely the Israeli ammo they will have on hand together with Indian and Russian specialists they could develop something useful to the Indian Army.

    The other option of course is short term local production of a few tens of thousands more Mangos and then a decision to upgrade to a newer gun and autoloader arrangement and perhaps adoption of a T-90MS standard, which means they could look at newer Russian Ammo from off the shelf to meet their current and near future needs over a longer term.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:05 pm

    The other option of course is short term local production of a few tens of thousands more Mangos and then a decision to upgrade to a newer gun and autoloader arrangement and perhaps adoption of a T-90MS standard, which means they could look at newer Russian Ammo from off the shelf to meet their current and near future needs over a longer term


    GarryB something say to me that all this story on local production in India of "Mango" projectiles has been the product of an....inauspicious parenthesis.... ,added by the writing journalist, in a report on the words of Igor Sevastyanov.

    “We have completed the first round of negotiations on the delivery of 3UBK20 (Mango)... Razz Razz ..... tank projectiles and will open the second round on Monday for their licensed production in India.”


    Several secondary sources reporting the news have, in facts, simply repeated the news saying that "India is in talk with Russia to establish local production of Mango rounds" , when in reality India was in talk with Russia for the local mass production of 3UBK20 rounds for Invar missiles

    The deal for the APFSDS rounds has been still not defined and NO TECHNICAL HURDLES at all would exist for Indian T-90S and theirs autoloader to employ 3VBM19 rounds with 3BM42M projectile.

    The T-90S's autoloader limit at which someone has refered to is instead related to the employment of 3VBM20 ,3VBM22 and 3VBM23 rounds with 3BM48, 3BM59 and 3BM60 (svinet, svinet-1 and svinet-2) projectiles and it has NOTHING to do with 3BM42M .
    One more time this "herpes" information has been triggered by someone confusing the demonination "Свинец" -Svinet- refered to 3BM48 projectile (that had accomodation problems with older autoloaders; problems grown with Свинец-1 and 2 ) with 3BM42M Very Happy

    It is still possible that india will ,at the end, opt for 3BM42 projectiles (for a mere price question of a so big deal), but i don't think it will be the most likely outcome (for a question ,conversely ,related to Indian Army's parametrical requirements).


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:59 pm

    Mindstorm there is no evidence that 3BM42M round has ever been exported to any country including India or Algeria.

    I would be surprised if this turns out to be 3BM42M rounds though my money is on Mango which gives decent performance of 400-500 mm for the subcontinent , the IA future needs is for 600 mm and DRDO is working on it more below.

    GarryB DRDO is already working on different AFSDS for T series tank.

    Right now the mass produce APFSDS developed by DRDO does 400-425 mm

    The new one which has now put into production does 500 mm

    The one under development will do 600 mm

    This according to DRDO chief recent interview , The Indian Army wants 600 mm , it got that via Israel IMI 125 mm Mk2 round but soon the deal was cancelled and IMI got blacklisted at it got involved in corruption.

    So the best option for IA right now is Mango until DRDO develops and puts into production 600 mm APFSDS.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:39 am

    I think the thing to keep in mind is that no matter what they choose to do a manufacturing licence to make Mango in 2012-2013 would be like a decision to make an Amiga 500 in 2012-2013. Very simply it would likely be smaller and lighter and much faster and more capable than the old model from the mid-1980s... with a multi core processor and dedicated graphics chips with their own dedicated RAM, the fixed hardware nature of the design would make writing software for it easier because you know what hardware will be in it and it wont change much over time.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:17 pm

    information on Svinet-1 newer APFSDS from Lidsky M.D and GurKhan post

    They are of penetrator lenght analogous to latest German ammunition and use new propellant operating at higher pressure. Based on prototype drawings, it should have a penetration level around 700 mm for 0 inclination, but more important are design features to defeat modern composite armour, tip design, speed to perform better against sloped armour

    Also it seems the indian T-90 which uses 2A46M2 Gun has auto loader that allows maximum penetrator length of 580-600 mm while Svinets-1/2 are 720-740 and it fire at higher chamber pressure due to more energetic propellent , so the older M2 Guns cannot fire the newer rounds unless they change the gun and autoloader which happens during capital repair.

    I think what we can say the newer round have average penetration of 700 mm at 0 degrees which make it comparable to US M829A2 rounds in penetration but newer APFSDS rounds are also under development so we can expect more improvement over that figure of 700 mm


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:18 pm

    Even the figure of 850 mm for M829A3 round should not be able to defeat the frontal armour of T-90MS with Relikt which are in aprox range of 1100-1200 KE i believe.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5728
    Points : 5768
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:16 pm

    850mm for A3 sounds pretty inflated, no?
    Most modern estimates I have seen place it @ sub 800.

    OFc penetration is more than just a thickness value, there is round drop over flight time, performance against certain kinds of materials, etc etc.


    Last edited by TR1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5728
    Points : 5768
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:18 pm

    Austin wrote:Even the figure of 850 mm for M829A3 round should not be able to defeat the frontal armour of T-90MS with Relikt which are in aprox range of 1100-1200 KE i believe.

    Well the thickness depends on the penetration of the round itself, since Relikt takes off a large capacity of penetrative potential (in some cases, completely shattering rounds ability to penetrate even mildly thick arrays. It is integrated armor at this point, not bolt on like earlier K-1 and K-5, but it makes calculating armor equivalency difficult.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:59 am

    TR1 wrote:850mm for A3 sounds pretty inflated, no?
    Most modern estimates I have seen place it @ sub 800.

    OFc penetration is more than just a thickness value, there is round drop over flight time, performance against certain kinds of materials, etc etc.

    Do you have better quotes from say more reliable sources on A3 ?

    Yeah I agree Relikt would be effective against any type of APFSDS it faces blunting it significantly before it faces the composite armour.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:36 am



    My vote to you Austin.


    Even the figure of 850 mm for M829A3 round


    I don't see anything supporting this figure in the chart (neither sincerely ever heard someone come to this degree of impudence Very Happy Very Happy in its attempts to inflate M829A3's penetration value).

    The figure of 700 mm RHA penetration for Svinets-1 is very likely the guaranteed penetration value at 2000 m of distance and 0 degrees angle of incidence.

    An M829A2 has ,at the same condition, a penetration value practically identical (but this figure in western literature represent average penetration value at a particular range).

    An M829A3 instead present a penetration value around 760-770 mm RHA, but it is significantly slower and has a monoblock rod with a greater L/D ratio and ,as explained previously, those factors increase the efficiency of flying-plate ERA's defeating mechanism and sensibly lower the probability to hit against targets moving in not-uniform way. (in reality M829A3 slow speed and tip design was purposely designed on the bet to do not trigger K-5 ERA at all instead to attempt to defeat it Wink ).




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:46 am

    Thanks for your vote Mindstorm ..... Wink Laughing

    I am just waiting for September where at Tagil they will show the new rounds and end the suspense for all

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:25 am

    via mp.net





    svinets-1 and 2 for old T-series tanks, has a length - 680-690mm(piercing will be around 600-650mm)

    grifel-1 and 2 new found certainly not for T-series tanks has a length about 900mm

    all pictures from Otvaga2004.
    avatar
    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6324
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Viktor on Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:31 pm

    900mm - that would be the make one hell of a penetration.

    Any info about the round.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:44 pm

    This is the reply i got at mp.net , if you read russian then the link would tell you better , share if you find any thing interesting

    it's real from NIMI(Nauchno-issledovatelʹskiy mashinostroitelʹnyy institut) book

    http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=594&p=14

    T-90MS autoloader no different from T-90A autoloader and can take shells no longer than 700 mm

    "Grifel" created for the object 195 or armata, and can load only in new autoloader, or turret autoloader like on "Burlak" turret

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:18 pm

    via DFI



    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:58 am

    T-90MS autoloader no different from T-90A autoloader and can take shells no longer than 700 mm

    What has the export version got to do with this?

    The T-90AM has a new modified autoloader, the T-90A had an older modified AL to allow longer ammo to be loaded, but newer even longer rounds have been developed since the T-90A entered service.

    The new longer rod rounds have been developed since the T-90A and the new autoloader goes with the new gun in the T-90AM.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:32 am

    As per many Russian posters T-90A/M autoloader cannot hold rounds more than ~ 740 mm in length , thats the autoloader limitation and not related to export model.

    So the long round Grifl round cannot be fired from existing T's

    They have developed 2A82 Gun to fire higher chamber pressure rounds.

    Lidsky M.D had posted 2A82 patent link http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/231/2311603.html

    Check interesting discussion here link
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  medo on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:40 pm

    Are those new longer APFSDS rounds developed for Armata?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri May 26, 2017 7:24 am