Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Share

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:08 am


    Garry

    I hope I'm not pestering you with my flurry of questions but I find you incredibly well informed. I know that the Mi-28 currently uses the 2a42 but if it was to use the 23×115 round instead with AFPDS, what kinds of speeds could we reasonably expect?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:36 am

    It is difficult to say for sure.

    First I would mention that I don't actually know of any APFSDS rounds for the 23 x 115mm round.

    The 23 x 115mm round was developed specifically for low velocity low recoil high rate of fire weapons... the purpose was to spray a dense pattern of heavy shells rapidly... high velocity high energy rounds meant recoil and short flight time to target, but did not improve lethality against air targets.

    The 23 x 115mm round was developed specifically for aircraft use against enemy aircraft so the combination of heavy HE shell to maximise the effect of an impact along with a very high rate of fire in a small compact weapon were considered ideal.

    Aircraft generally don't fire APFSDS rounds as the Sabot tends to damage engines when ingested in the air intakes.

    For most modern helos the value of an armour piercing cannon is not enormous... there wont be an A-10 equivalent in rotary wing aircraft simply because a missile will do the job far easier and more reliably and at much greater range than any gun... range means keeping the helo safe.


    A modern helo faces a range of targets that it has to be able to deal with but the average Havoc loadout generally will include 16 ATAKA missiles and 40 x 80mm unguided rockets plus 300 odd cannon shells.

    The cannon is a good way to deal with quick soft targets, but ATAKA missiles are actually rather cheap and plentiful.

    Ugroza will make unguided rockets accurate enough to be used to 4km or so and will be relatively cheap too.

    In terms of hovering in out of ground effect... helos are not the best option in mountains... the wind can be more dangerous than enemy fire.

    Over flat terrain helos wont fly at high altitudes... the whole point of a helo is to fly low to see the target and to avoid longer range ground fire.

    Regarding performance of 23 x 115mm ammo.. if you look at US SLAP ammo for their 12.7 x 99mm ammo... you probably get an idea... the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round the Russians use has twice the muzzle energy and so the 23 x 115mm is a larger calibre so more energy can be pushed down the barrel.

    In the 1980s I would say no because having APFSDS in 23 x 115mm would be of a totally different trajectory to any other ammo the weapon might fire as the standard HE round is heavy and only leaves short barrels at about 700m/s... whereas a sabot round will be small light penetrator dart and propellant and would likely have a muzzle velocity in the 1,400m/s to 1,500m/s velocity range.

    Light and fast and very low drag vs large and slow and high drag means the aim point with one round and the aim point for the other would be very different... ie looking down the iron sights firing a mixed belt of these two rounds means one round hitting target and the other zipping miles over head or dropping well short.

    In a dual feed weapon like the 2A42 however you can swap aim points when changing ammo but only today with modern electronic sights with ballistic computers you could make a very effective anti material rifle in 23 x 115mm with powerful low velocity HE shells and effective APFSDS rounds.

    I would estimate 60-80mm armour defeat out to 1,200m or so... but that is just a guess.

    In the 1990s the west experimented with a 15mm calibre weapon based on the 14.5mm Soviet round and it managed a 40mm armour defeat capability at 1km range.

    Nobody bought it because it was not standard ammo, but the Russians already have the 23 x 115mm round in service. It would not take much to develop an anti material heavy rifle able to use the 23 x 115mm calibre as well as their 14.5 x 114mm round and of course their 30mm grenades and perhaps their new 40mm grenades. (man portable rifles are probably too small and light for their new 57mm grenade launchers...)


    _________________
    “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

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:44 am

    GarryB wrote:It is difficult to say for sure.

    First I would mention that I don't actually know of any APFSDS rounds for the 23 x 115mm round.

    The 23 x 115mm round was developed specifically for low velocity low recoil high rate of fire weapons... the purpose was to spray a dense pattern of heavy shells rapidly... high velocity high energy rounds meant recoil and short flight time to target, but did not improve lethality against air targets.

    The 23 x 115mm round was developed specifically for aircraft use against enemy aircraft so the combination of heavy HE shell to maximise the effect of an impact along with a very high rate of fire in a small compact weapon were considered ideal.

    Aircraft generally don't fire APFSDS rounds as the Sabot tends to damage engines when ingested in the air intakes.

    For most modern helos the value of an armour piercing cannon is not enormous... there wont be an A-10 equivalent in rotary wing aircraft simply because a missile will do the job far easier and more reliably and at much greater range than any gun... range means keeping the helo safe.


    A modern helo faces a range of targets that it has to be able to deal with but the average Havoc loadout generally will include 16 ATAKA missiles and 40 x 80mm unguided rockets plus 300 odd cannon shells.

    The cannon is a good way to deal with quick soft targets, but ATAKA missiles are actually rather cheap and plentiful.

    Ugroza will make unguided rockets accurate enough to be used to 4km or so and will be relatively cheap too.

    In terms of hovering in out of ground effect... helos are not the best option in mountains... the wind can be more dangerous than enemy fire.

    Over flat terrain helos wont fly at high altitudes... the whole point of a helo is to fly low to see the target and to avoid longer range ground fire.

    Regarding performance of 23 x 115mm ammo.. if you look at US SLAP ammo for their 12.7 x 99mm ammo... you probably get an idea... the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round the Russians use has twice the muzzle energy and so the 23 x 115mm is a larger calibre so more energy can be pushed down the barrel.

    In the 1980s I would say no because having APFSDS in 23 x 115mm would be of a totally different trajectory to any other ammo the weapon might fire as the standard HE round is heavy and only leaves short barrels at about 700m/s... whereas a sabot round will be small light penetrator dart and propellant and would likely have a muzzle velocity in the 1,400m/s to 1,500m/s velocity range.

    Light and fast and very low drag vs large and slow and high drag means the aim point with one round and the aim point for the other would be very different... ie looking down the iron sights firing a mixed belt of these two rounds means one round hitting target and the other zipping miles over head or dropping well short.

    In a dual feed weapon like the 2A42 however you can swap aim points when changing ammo but only today with modern electronic sights with ballistic computers you could make a very effective anti material rifle in 23 x 115mm with powerful low velocity HE shells and effective APFSDS rounds.

    I would estimate 60-80mm armour defeat out to 1,200m or so... but that is just a guess.

    In the 1990s the west experimented with a 15mm calibre weapon based on the 14.5mm Soviet round and it managed a 40mm armour defeat capability at 1km range.

    Nobody bought it because it was not standard ammo, but the Russians already have the 23 x 115mm round in service.  It would not take much to develop an anti material heavy rifle able to use the 23 x 115mm calibre as well as their 14.5 x 114mm round and of course their 30mm grenades and perhaps their new 40mm grenades. (man portable rifles are probably too small and light for their new 57mm grenade launchers...)

    Garry

    Thank you so much, mate. This certainly clears up a lot of things for me. You're right...It does make more sense to use rockets against armor and the new laser guided rockets strengthen the case for this. How much penetration does the current standard 23x115 HE round achieve at 2km? I understand that the 2a42 can reach out to 4km (double that of the M230) so is this why the 23x115 was replaced for certain platforms in the Russian military?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:52 am

    How much penetration does the current standard 23x115 HE round achieve at 2km?

    Zero.


    HE shells are for soft targets, not armoured targets.

    Against troops out in the field a HE round is vastly more effective than Armour piercing rounds because the exploding shell scatters shrapnel all over the place so even a near miss can be lethal. With AP rounds you need to actually hit the target to damage it. A HE round just needs to hit the ground near by.

    I understand that the 2a42 can reach out to 4km (double that of the M230) so is this why the 23x115 was replaced for certain platforms in the Russian military?

    AFAIK the 23 x 115mm round has only ever been used in fighter aircraft for use against enemy fighter aircraft and as a defensive round for transport aircraft.

    The first interceptors like the MiG-15 and MiG-17 had 37mm cannon and 23mm high velocity cannon... but when they went to the MiG-21 they changed to low velocity 23mm cannon rounds.

    AFAIK the only Soviet or Russian army platform that uses the 23 x 115mm calibre is the late model Hinds in a chin turret.

    The ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4 both use the much more powerful 23 x 152mm shell for shooting at aircraft from the ground... recoil and ammo size is less of an issue.

    The 30 x 165mm ammo replaced the 23 x 152mm ammo in army use when the Tunguska replaced the Shilka... and that was for extra effective range.

    For a helo the cannon is pretty much close range self defence for which I would expect the 23 x 115mm round is perfectly suited... not too big, not too powerful in terms of recoil, high rate of fire if needed, heavy HE shell for its calibre.



    As you can see above there is a difference between 23x115mm and 30x165mm ammo... Smile


    _________________
    “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

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    How much penetration does the current standard 23x115 HE round achieve at 2km?

    Zero.


    HE shells are for soft targets, not armoured targets.

    Against troops out in the field a HE round is vastly more effective than Armour piercing rounds because the exploding shell scatters shrapnel all over the place so even a near miss can be lethal. With AP rounds you need to actually hit the target to damage it. A HE round just needs to hit the ground near by.

    I understand that the 2a42 can reach out to 4km (double that of the M230) so is this why the 23x115 was replaced for certain platforms in the Russian military?

    AFAIK the 23 x 115mm round has only ever been used in fighter aircraft for use against enemy fighter aircraft and as a defensive round for transport aircraft.

    The first interceptors like the MiG-15 and MiG-17 had 37mm cannon and 23mm high velocity cannon... but when they went to the MiG-21 they changed to low velocity 23mm cannon rounds.

    AFAIK the only Soviet or Russian army platform that uses the 23 x 115mm calibre is the late model Hinds in a chin turret.

    The ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4 both use the much more powerful 23 x 152mm shell for shooting at aircraft from the ground... recoil and ammo size is less of an issue.

    The 30 x 165mm ammo replaced the 23 x 152mm ammo in army use when the Tunguska replaced the Shilka... and that was for extra effective range.

    For a helo the cannon is pretty much close range self defence for which I would expect the 23 x 115mm round is perfectly suited... not too big, not too powerful in terms of recoil, high rate of fire if needed, heavy HE shell for its calibre.



    As you can see above there is a difference between 23x115mm and 30x165mm ammo... Smile

    Garry

    Sorry, mate I meant a High-Explosive Incendiary round. What kind of penetration could we get out of a High-Explosive Incendiary 23x115 round? The M789 HEDP from the M230 can apparently penetrate 25mm of RHA at 500m, so what can a comparable 23X115 round achieve? The M230 (a "light 30") is much weaker than all other 30mm and so I doubt that it can penetrate more. The 25mm penetrates more so I assume that the 23x115 can penetrate at least as much as the M230.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:21 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Garry

    Sorry, mate I meant a High-Explosive Incendiary round. What kind of penetration could we get out of a High-Explosive Incendiary 23x115 round? The M789 HEDP from the M230 can apparently penetrate 25mm of RHA at 500m, so what can a comparable 23X115 round achieve? The M230 (a "light 30") is much weaker than all other 30mm and so I doubt that it can penetrate more. The 25mm penetrates more so I assume that the 23x115 can penetrate at least as much as the M230.

    23x115mm do only use HE/HEFI and Target practice rounds for GSh-23L on Hinds. That means they do not have any number figures of what they can penetrate because of their purpose and design. The contact fuze HE rounds have  two fuzes -  a) contact fuze that detonates with a small delay to have the capability to penetrate the surface and detonate inside rather than on the surface to enhance the damage. The second b) fuze is a safety contact fuze that initiates a detonation on contact when the surface is to hard for the HE shell and the delayed contact fuze is to slow to initiate the detonation. This safety contact fuze will detonate the round before it squashes itself and the shell open from the kinetic energy against the surface to prevent a dud.

    The M789 is an HEDP (HEAT) round that is why it has such penetration and the penetration rather goes up with distance due to the rotating and negative spinning (centrifugal effect) on the copper liner of the shaped charge. The penetration performance is horrible at close range and goes up with every hundred meters to the ~25mm.

    Exactly by that two contact fuzes or measurements it is hard to say what penetration it can have, for sure is that it will penetrate any armored BTR-60 up to BTR-80 or any MRAP and detonate inside. It won't have any chances of penetrating tanks or any better armored IFV in head on engagement. That round was never designed for such purpose. There are also no APFSDS 23 nor 30mm rounds in service, few designd like ZUBR-9/10 and new one now ZUBR-11 but non adopted so far. The current one is ZUBR-8 with 45mm penetration at 100m and 28mm at 1km, 22mm at 2km.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:37 am

    Sorry, mate I meant a High-Explosive Incendiary round. What kind of penetration could we get out of a High-Explosive Incendiary 23x115 round?

    HEI is High explosive Incendiary... in other words it is a HE with a material in it to make it burn.

    It is used to start fires in combustible material. Or set fire to ammo and fuel.

    HE is not actually that good at starting fires as its high velocity blast wave tends to put small fires out rather than encourage them.

    The M789 HEDP from the M230 can apparently penetrate 25mm of RHA at 500m, so what can a comparable 23X115 round achieve?

    HEDP is High Explosive Dual Purpose... it contains a shaped charge to penetrate armour and is designed to fragment like a HE shell, so it can kill exposed troops and penetrate light armour.

    There is no equivalent 23mm round AFAIK.

    The M230 (a "light 30") is much weaker than all other 30mm and so I doubt that it can penetrate more.

    The M230 is like the 23 x 115mm round... a heavy projectile with a light short case to give relatively low muzzle velocity and therefore low recoil.

    The 25mm penetrates more so I assume that the 23x115 can penetrate at least as much as the M230.

    Shaped charges derive their penetration from their diameter so a larger calibre round all other things being equal should be better at penetrating than a smaller calibre.

    The effect under armour of a 30mm HEDP cannon shell would be debatable, and I rather doubt developing a comparable 23mm version would be worth while.

    Whether you are shooting enemy aircraft or soft ground targets a good HE round is much more use than an anti armour cannon shell.

    If you spot an armoured vehicle, first of all you don't want to be within 2km because even a HMG is a threat to you and armoured vehicles often carry such weapons... even light unarmoured civilian vehicles have them.

    An 80mm rocket with a laser homing head is the best way to deal with light armoured vehicles and ATAKA and Krisantema for heavier vehicles and bunkers.


    _________________
    “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

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 68
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  kopyo-21 on Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:07 am

    Hi Garry,

    I wonder why Mil did not re-arrange the 2A42 gun position on Mi-28 by moving it back to the center of gravity like Kamov did with the same gun on Ka-50/52 to reduce the firing vibration. Of course the gun barrel traveling would be limited between 2 landing gear but still much wider than Ka-50/52's.

    Werewolf wrote:The current one is ZUBR-8 with 45mm penetration at 100m and 28mm at 1km, 22mm at 2km.

    The ZUBR-8 is for Naval CISW gun and much shorter than other rounds so they have to belted it with other ones for 2A42 or 2A72 firing. In that case I don't know how the gun's FCS system solve the big different muzzle velocity between them to calculate the ballistic.


    Last edited by kopyo-21 on Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:19 am; edited 1 time in total

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 68
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  kopyo-21 on Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:59 am

    Hi Werewolf,

    I had a mistake between ZUBR-8 AP-T round and ZUBR-10 "Kerner" APFSDS-T round. So although they have published ZUBR-10 "Kerner" since long time a go but it has never been in service yet?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Cannons in Russian Fighters and Helicopters

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:20 am

    I wonder why Mil did not re-arrange the 2A42 gun position on Mi-28 by moving it back to the center of gravity like Kamov did with the same gun on Ka-50/52 to reduce the firing vibration. Of course the gun barrel traveling would be limited between 2 landing gear but still much wider than Ka-50/52's.

    To be useful the 30mm gun has to be pointable. Having on the chin of the nose means it can swing around freely and more importantly rapidly at targets that appear suddenly.

    For the Kamovs the nose turning ability comes from the momentum of the main rotors so it has a strong nose turning ability at low flight speeds.

    For the Mils the tiny tail rotor has little turning force once the aircraft is flying forward so it needs a turret to aim and mounting the turret forward gives it the best arcs of fire over a wider range of flight speeds.

    The 2A42 and 2A72 have dual feed ammo belts so it can fire one or other type of rounds. when it changes between belts it can change aiming points for the different rounds.

    For weapons like the 2A38M twin barrel 30mm guns and the AO-18 Gatlings they use rounds in a continuous belt so they all need to have similar ballistic performance so they all print around the aim point.


    _________________
    “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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:53 am

    The topic is about the Army, but I think the discussion about calibers must be done looking at the entire Armed Forces. The main reason is that there is not a real optimization of calibers if it is done by branches. If some caliber must disappear must disappear in the entire Armed Forces.

    I have been looking at the weapons present in the Russian Armed Forces, and I found present the following calibers (not included grenade, rockett or missilie calibers):

    240 mm
    203 mm
    152 mm
    130 mm
    125 mm
    122 mm
    120 mm
    100 mm
    082 mm
    076 mm
    073 mm (out of production)
    057 mm
    045 mm (out of production)
    030 mm
    025 mm
    023 mm
    014.5 mm
    012.7 mm
    009 mm
    007.62 mm
    005.45 mm

    In adition to this I found all these calibers still in production except in the case of the 73mm and 45mm calibers.

    Also it is possible to see how the less used calibers are the biggest, or are used by a good number of different warfare (like different warship projects), or by warfare with high number of units still present in the Russian Armed Forces.

    Aditional calibers offered by Rosoboronexport today:

    155 mm: Nato caliber.
    005.66 mm: Underwater caliber. Decommissioned weapons liquidation. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
    004.5 mm: Underwater caliber. Decommissioned weapons liquidation. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.

    Other calibers used and/or produced until recently that are not offered today to export:

    180 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
    160 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
    115 mm: Ammunition out of production at the begin of this decade.
    107 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
    085 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
    037 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
    011.43 mm: Foreign caliber. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
    005.6 mm: Ammunition out of production at the begin of this decade.
    005.56 mm: Nato caliber. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
    005.5 mm: Foreign caliber. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.

    Conclussions:

    1.- These 21 calibers of the first block are the result of a process of selection done in the last decades and finnished now with the decommission wave of 2010-2013. While 21 calibers remain, 11 are out of the Russian Armed Forces in recent years (without to count the NATO calibers).
    2.- To see all these calibers still in production and to know that Russia has been directly involved in 5 wars in the last 25 years, likely means that the amounts of ammunition of these calibers in storage have not too much size.
    3.- The weakest calibers, and the first calibers to disappear, maybe the 82mm caliber used by the 2B14 Podnos (man-portable), and attached to some MT-LBs (2B24), and the 73mm caliber used by the BMD-1 and the BMP-1.
    4.- The rest of the calibers can remain easily until at least 2030.
    5.- There is not need of new calibers, but surely will be changes inside the current range of calibers.


    Last edited by eehnie on Tue May 09, 2017 2:49 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:18 am

    Could 180mm be potentially a good compromise between heavy 8'' and medium 6'' artillery? This caliber was shown in soviet WW2 cruisers to have very good ballistics. Maybe the same could be done for a modern version installed on an SPG, which could be fully enclosed and still be more mobile, have a larger ammo supply and have a more rapid ROF compared to a 203mm piece. In short, a 180mm round could be more wieldy, and have the same effectiveness as a 203mm round in destructive capability and range due to the application of modern guidance and propellant technologies.

    Oh, they managed to build such an artillery piece in the 50s, the S-23, perhaps the Russians can adapt into an SPG.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:19 am

    Is there a chance that 76mm will become extinct due to being replaced by either 100mm in the navy and 57mm in the army?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:55 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a chance that 76mm will become extinct due to being replaced by either 100mm in the navy and 57mm in the army?

    The 76mm caliber is present in a good number of warship projects, that in some cases are recent, like the Project 11660/11661. It will not be retired in decades. Even taking your argument about the 180mm between (I imagine, because I'm not fluent with inches) the 152mm and the 203mm, the 76mm is a good compromise between the 57mm and the 100mm. Even maybe more necessary as a compromise in relative terms.

    About the 180 mm caliber, I do not think it will be a return.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:42 am

    eehnie wrote:
    About the 180 mm caliber, I do not think it will be a return.
    But with a 180mm you could make an MSTA with the same shell power and range as the 2S7.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:48 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    About the 180 mm caliber, I do not think it will be a return.
    But with a 180mm you could make an MSTA with the same shell power and range as the 2S7.

    I think they will try it but with the 203 mm caliber. They have guidded ammunition and even rocket assisted projectiles if I remember well.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:05 am

    [quote="eehnie"]
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    About the 180 mm caliber, I do not think it will be a return.
    But with a 180mm you could make an MSTA with the same shell power and range as the 2S7.

    However a new 203mm SPG will most likely be turretless, completely unarmored, and have <10 rounds.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:53 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:However a new 203mm SPG will most likely be turretless, completely unarmored, and have <10 rounds.

    The difference between the 180 mm and the 203 mm is not big in relative terms. Where it is possible to have only 10 rounds of 203mm, it is not possible to have more than 12-13 of 180mm.

    Still, I think it is possible to do better than this in a armata platform with a weapon of 203mm.

    Even I expect a new self propelled vehicle with a weapon of 240mm based on the armata platform to replace the current 2S4.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:05 am

    The difference between the 152mm calibre and the 203mm calibre is shell weight... the 152mm guns fire 40-45kg rounds, while the 203mm guns fire 100-110kg rounds.

    The old 152mm guns tended to fire from 20km to about 40km for the longest barrel models, while the 203mm guns tended to fire over very similar ranges but with a much heavier projectile that would be rather more effective against specific targets.

    The point is that the new 152mm guns have guided shells (and therefore very high accuracy which makes them rather more effective) and much improved range... up to 70km.

    The 203mm shells in a new gun would be expected to have similar improvements in range and accuracy, but the increased power and recoil would be significant.

    I agree that a 203mm gun on land would probably lose the turret and 360 degree angle of fire that a turret offers but having a limited traverse... say 10 degrees left and 10 degrees right would mean a recoil spade could be used to soak up the enormous recoil and make the gun smaller and lighter.

    The new gun would be autoloaded and the gun mount unmanned. A crew of perhaps three in the hull front with a driver, commander and gunner.

    A naval version would obviously have a proper turret as water absorbs recoil very efficiently.

    I would expect projectile weight to be 110-120kgs and gun range to be of the order of 90-100km. the enormous calibre would allow a very large and effective shaped charge arrangement and would be wide enough for a large seeker and control equipment for both gun launched UAVs and gun launched diving top attack guided missiles to be fired from the weapon.

    With guided shells perhaps even a smoothbore design for extra range...

    I have read about guidance kits that fit in the nose fuse position of existing ammo that has both the Glonass guidance system and also steerable control vanes to steer the projectile in flight... having a non spinning projectile would greatly simplify guidance and control...


    _________________
    “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
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:32 am

    I think the recoil problem can be solved by 180mm rounds.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:14 am

    The recoil problem is created by physics... shell weight multiplied by the velocity it leaves the muzzle of the gun gives you recoil.

    You can reduce recoil by going for a smaller lighter shell or by going for shorter range with lower muzzle velocity.

    The point is that shell weight and range are useful things with artillery so you really don't actually want to give up either of those things.

    The 180mm shell weighs under 90kgs and has a standard range of about 30km but that extends to about 44km with a further reduced HE charge and a rocket booster to extend range.

    The point is that you could easily do exactly the same to a 152mm shell and get a 30kg shell with extended range... if you reduce it down to a 5kg HE shell you could probably extend the range to hundreds of kms... but what would be the point with only a 5kg warhead?


    The 180mm gun was a specialist weapon... like the 175mm in US use... a long range counter battery round.

    It simply makes more sense to go larger in the 203mm round for the few situations you would find it useful.

    The Typhoon based units and the Kurganets and Boomerang based units are unlikely to want such weapons but for heavy use an Armata force might need some extra heavy support. 130kg shells coming in at an almost vertical angle would be ideal in terms of anti personnel use as it is the walls of the rounds that generate the fragments, meaning a dense pattern of fragments with no gaps for nose fuses or rear bodies...

    For harder fortified targets a long range 120kg HE shell would be devastating, but most of the time for most targets 120mm and 152mm rounds will be enough as long as they are accurately delivered.

    A 120mm shell hitting a target does more damage than a 110kg HE 203mm round that misses by 200m...

    Against particularly hard targets the heavier shell can be rather more effective than even repeated hits from the smaller rounds.


    _________________
    “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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  eehnie on Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:55 pm

    If the option would be to replace the 203mm caliber by the 180mm caliber, I do not think there is a chance. In overall terms I think the position of the 152mm, 203mm and 240mm (around 150, 200 and 250 mm) is significantly more solid in the Russian Armed Forces than the position of the 180mm caliber (around 175mm).

    In my opinion the decission about the 180mm caliber was made decades ago, in the 1960s and the 1970s, when the possible movements to design and to adopt a self propelled weapon of this caliber failed, while succeed for the 203mm and 240mm calibers. And has been reinforced since then by the following decissions. The line since the 1960s seems to be to keep the 152mm, 203mm and 240mm calibers while to go not forward with the 180mm caliber.

    Despite it, there is some point in the argument in favor of the 180mm caliber as a caliber around 175mm, between the 152mm and 203mm calibers, like Russia has the 120mm, 122mm, 125mm and 130mm as calibers around 125mm, between the 100mm and 152mm calibers. This would be one of the 5 most likely positions to see a new caliber

    Still, very difficult to see a return.

    After many years of working, almost all has been proved at this point. In overall terms it is very difficult to see new calibers. Most of the calibers that survived hold a strong position in the weapons system of the Russian Armed Forces, and only a few can be considered redundant and as consequence more likely to disappear in the future. As example, 4 of the 5 positions where it would be more likely to see a new caliber, are options that had previously some caliber that has been retired. The 180mm caliber would be in one of these positions.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:43 am

    Actually there were not a huge number of 180mm guns actually made... it was never in large scale service.

    It was a very powerful and very useful weapon for its time, but I don't see it being adopted.

    The 203mm round has the advantage that is was at one stage used by the Navy too and could be returned to service in the future as a potential heavy gun for Cruisers, but the 180 was a niche weapon.

    It would only be useful if it could be made to have an amazing feature... when it first entered production its amazing feature was its range.

    With the 152mm guns firing to 70kms then 44km with a reduced charge is no longer amazing.

    The developments that made the 152mm rounds able to reach 70km could be applied to a 180mm gun to extend its range and accuracy but it makes more sense to do the same to the 203mm as it is also a standard round and with a reduced payload and increased charge and onboard rocket propulsion you could get even more range with a better payload.

    Artillery is all about range and payload... the latter more important than the former most of the time.

    the larger shell size of the 203 would allow more variety of options like jammers, guided rounds, even UAVs and cluster payloads...


    _________________
    “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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1465
    Points : 1490
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  eehnie on Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:13 am

    Next question would be to see which calibers can be redundant, and can disappear.

    First we can remember the active calibers today:

    240 mm
    203 mm
    152 mm
    130 mm
    125 mm
    122 mm
    120 mm

    100 mm
    082 mm
    076 mm
    073 mm (ammunition out of production)

    057 mm
    045 mm (ammunition out of production)
    030 mm
    025 mm
    023 mm

    014.5 mm
    012.7 mm
    009 mm
    007.62 mm
    005.45 mm

    1.- There is a group of 4 calibers that are redundant in terms of size more than use, because every use can be achieved for everyone of them:

    130mm
    125mm
    122mm
    120mm

    Until 3 of them can disappear in the long term. Today are important calibers (the 125mm caliber is the most used) and it is not clear which of them will fall.

    Between the 4, the 122mm caliber can be the first to be out of the Russian Armed Forces. This caliber likely will disappear with the total decommission of the 2S1, a veteran weapon that is modern still as combat concept. The transformation of 2S1 in 2S34 (120mm) is not fast enough to cover all the units of 2S1 before its natural decommission. The retirement of the 122mm caliber can come in the decade of the 2030s.

    2.- There is a second group of 2 calibers that are also redundant in terms of size:

    25mm
    23mm

    One of them is likely to disappear. The 23mm caliber would be in the most solid position to survive by its higher development in the past that gives a better basis for a development in the future.

    The 25mm has been less used and less developed. It is the most likely naval caliber to disappear. Only has been used in 4 of the current Russian warships commissioned after 1980 (1989, 1989, 2000 and 2008, all of them of the Project 1265). The retirement of this caliber can come also in the decade of the 2030s.

    3.- And finally, there is a third group of 3 calibers that are also redundant in terms of size:

    82mm
    76mm
    73mm (ammunition out of production)

    Until 2 of them can disappear in the long term. Today the most solid of them seems to be the 76mm caliber. Despite to be not the most used of the three, this caliber is used today in modern warship projects like the Project 22800 Karakurt or like the Project 11660/11661.

    The 73mm caliber is used today only by the BMD-1 and the BMP-1, which total decommission can come in the decade of the 2020s. The big number of units of BMP-1 in the Russian arsenals may delay the total retirement of this caliber. The total retirement of the caliber can come in the late 2020s.

    The 82mm caliber is very used today but has a less solid position. At this point the alone heavy weapong using this caliber, the 2B9 Vasilek mortar, seems out of the Russian armed forces. In adition to this, the caliber is used by the 2B14 Podnos and 2B24 (included in a few MT-LB) light mortars. It makes the retirement of this caliber far less expensive and difficult than in other cases. Also the retirement of this caliber can come in the decade of the 2020s.

    My impression:

    1.- 82mm: The firts caliber to disappear in the future, likely in the decade of the 2030s. The easiest case.
    2.- 73mm: The second caliber to disappear in the future, likely in the decade of the 2020s.
    3.- 122mm: The third caliber to disappear in the future, likely in the decade of the 2030s.
    4.- 25mm: The fourth caliber to disappear in the future, likely in the decade of the 2030s. Its presence in 2 young warships can delay the total retirement of this caliber.


    Last edited by eehnie on Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:27 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:28 am

    240 mm
    203 mm
    152 mm
    130 mm
    125 mm
    122 mm
    120 mm
    100 mm
    082 mm
    076 mm
    073 mm (ammunition out of production)
    057 mm
    045 mm (ammunition out of production)
    030 mm
    025 mm
    023 mm
    014.5 mm
    012.7 mm
    009 mm
    007.62 mm
    005.45 mm

    Actually it is worse than that... there are at least three different 152mm gun systems with different ammo.

    There are also different 100mm guns... the 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55 which is also used as a towed gun, but there is also the 100mm rifled medium pressure gun used by the BMP-3, and also a 100mm towed smoothbore gun that is used as an anti tank gun.

    There are also other calibres... 9x18mm is for the Makarov pistol and Stechkin machine pistol, but the 9 x 19mm round is also used with the new PYa pistol and some new SMGs. There is also the 9 x 21mm round used in the SR-1 pistol and SR-2 SMG. And again there is the 9x39mm round used in the AS and VSS suppressed weapons used in recon units and the new 12.7 x 55mm round used in the larger heavier equivalents.

    there are also specialist rounds too for special small arms including suppressed grenade launchers...


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-Tank-AA-Naval guns)

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:44 am