Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:48 pm

    Check these US APFSDS rounds , Are Russian current APFSDS are more thicker but shorter then the US APFSDS ?

    http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:13 am

    Check these US APFSDS rounds , Are Russian current APFSDS are more thicker but shorter then the US APFSDS ?

    We really don't know anything about current Russian APFSDS rounds so it is pretty impossible to say.

    Russian and US projectiles will likely remain different because the armour they are intended to be used against are different.

    Long and thin penetrators are more efficient... much like a needle is more efficient at penetrating skin than a blunt pencil, but ERA will blunt a thin penetrator more easily than a thicker penetrator, and a blunted penetrator uses up more energy penetrating armour than a pointed penetrator.

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:43 am

    GarryB wrote:We really don't know anything about current Russian APFSDS rounds so it is pretty impossible to say.

    I mean the one in use on T-90 tanks not the new ones , are the existing APFSDS more thicker if shorter then US rounds.

    Long and thin penetrators are more efficient... much like a needle is more efficient at penetrating skin than a blunt pencil, but ERA will blunt a thin penetrator more easily than a thicker penetrator, and a blunted penetrator uses up more energy penetrating armour than a pointed penetrator.

    I dont think the US APFSDS are thinner as it is made out to be , I have seen the photos of modern US Tungsten penetrator and they are quite thick and i feel its as thick as Russian penetrator.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:27 am

    Different materials have different reactions to shearing forces... which is why a nylon wire can be spun up to high speed and used to cut plants in an edge trimmer.

    Against grass and light vegetation the nylon is light enough to be spun up to high speed, yet still hard enough to resist breaking up into little pieces when hitting material with a lot of water in them... water does not compress so the more energy you hit it with the more damage you do to what you hit it with.

    As an example when the myth busters fired live ammo into a swimming pool they found pistol bullets traveled further and faster than much higher velocity rifle bullets.

    The 50 cal round was practically shattered on impact with the water and was not effective at all.

    Obviously these were ball rounds which are blobs of lead with a copper jacket around the lead core. If they had been solid steel then they would have retained their shape and traveled much further though the water.

    My point is that DU resists shearing forces better than tungsten does so it does not need to be as thick.

    Penetrators need a certain thickness to give them resistance to bending over like a fishhook and losing all its penetration properties. Obviously making it too thick means it wont retain velocity well and will fly like a brick. The thicker it is, the more energy needed to push it through armour because it is applying its energy over a larger area.

    Think of it as pushing a brick through armour... the area the brick spreads the pressure over dilutes the force so you need a lot more force to get it through. Replace the brick with a sharpened rod the thickness of a pencil and the force is much better concentrated and much less energy is required to push it through. Obviously a brick sized piece of metal has more mass than a pencil sized piece of metal, so you make the pencil sized piece of metal 50 cm long so it might weigh the same as the brick, but its shape improves its flight performance through the air (by much better aerodynamic shape) and its penetration (by concentrating its weight into a very small area).

    The optimal dimensions can be calculated but things that effect those calculations are angle of impact, material the projectile is made from, and the material and structure of the armour to be penetrated.

    A 90 degree hit means a sharp point will improve penetration.

    A 60 degree hit means a sharp point might shear off or ricochet of the armour surface so a blunt tip is more efficient.

    etc
    etc

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:02 am

    Garry I do get your point but my question was specific are Russian penetrator that we know today as more thicker than US ones ? But i get the impression US APFSDS are not as thin as it is made out to me.

    I do have a nothing question , If long slim rod was good to penetrate composite armour and logically that is what US has been using which as we say get blunted by heavy ERA.

    Why is then Russian APFSDS shorter if at all thicker then US penetrator considering the West mainly relies on composite armour ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:10 am

    The problem is that most of the Russian APFSDS rounds we know about in any great detail are actually rather ancient and when you compare them with the western armour that was available at the time they were developed they were probably sufficient for the purpose.

    New improve performance rounds will be closer to current protection levels today.

    Another problem of course is that as Soviet and Russian armour performance has been revealed over the last two decades and pretty much revealed to have been more capable that was previously expected money has been put into upgrading western penetrators and guns to raise performance... something that the lack of money has largely prevented for Russian penetrators known about so far.

    The point is that each side has an idea about the performance of the other sides armour so you are making the classical rookie mistake of comparing guns with guns and ammo with ammo, when you should be comparing perceived armour with ammo and guns.

    Remember Russian tank guns have mainly faced former Soviet bloc armour in the last two decades that can be fitted with ERA.

    Another aspect is that you own experience colours you view... a good example would be CIWS on Russian Naval vessels.

    Western vessels that rely on a quad or octuple launcher for Harpoon or Exocet will often have one Goalkeeper or Phalanx.
    Soviet vessels rarely carried more than that number of Anti Ship Missiles on their destroyer sized vessels but even their small patrol boats had two 30mm gatlins, while frigates and destroyers had 4, plus point defence missiles like SA-N-4 or later Klinok, while their capital ships and cruisers were covered in Ak-630s and Kashtans and Klintoks.

    I rather suspect the Russians had a better understanding of the threat of anti ship missiles... especially very fast, very capable ones.

    With Tanks it is all together possible that the reverse is true and the Russians haven't been making powerful enough tank gun ammo, but looking through their history the tank has largely been a heavy gun platform that shoots HE shells directly at battlefield threats and hard points and that long range engagements with enemy tanks will be done with missiles and aircraft and artillery.

    Of course they have only recently fitted excellent fire control systems and battle management computers and fitted state of the art thermal imager systems, so the demand for more powerful longer range ammo might become an issue.

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:28 am

    Thats true all the old rounds we now know off are from early 90's , in the two decades there has been no change .... the only new rounds that is openly known are the new ~ 740 mm APDS for T-90MS , though not publicly shown yet.
    avatar
    coolieno99

    Posts : 139
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2010-08-25

    Check these US APFSDS rounds , Are Russian current APFSDS are more thicker but shorter then the US APFSDS ?

    Post  coolieno99 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:11 am

    Austin wrote:Garry I do get your point but my question was specific are Russian penetrator that we know today as more thicker than US ones ? But i get the impression US APFSDS are not as thin as it is made out to me.

    I do have a nothing question , If long slim rod was good to penetrate composite armour and logically that is what US has been using which as we say get blunted by heavy ERA.

    Why is then Russian APFSDS shorter if at all thicker then US penetrator considering the West mainly relies on composite armour ?

    The older Russian APFSDS penetrator appear to be slightly thicker, the newer ones appear to be thinner.

    Russian APFSDS penetrators

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:29 pm

    This is a good thread on 3BM42 round
    http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=19411&st=0

    This is what Vasiliy Fofanov says

    Projectile assembly of BM42M: 730mm. In-flight projectile of BM42M: 700mm (approximate, unconfirmed). Penetrator of BM42M: 570mm (approximate, unconfirmed).

    The "574mm" that I stated is the length of in-flight projectile of BM42. Yes, full BM42 projectileis about the length of BM42M penetrator alone. This may seem like a truly spectacular leap, but one should note that between BM42 and BM42M there were two more rounds, BM39 and BM46 that smooth this leap out. E.g. BM46 had a ~546mm U monobloc penetrator.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:48 pm

    This is a good thread on 3BM42 round


    Yes it is a decent thread ,if we discount the inaccuracies of that Guest_pfcem - in particular calling 3BM42M : Svinets Laughing Laughing ,

    The main problem is that also V. Fofanov's site is litterally frozen at several years ago with projectile and round products and theirs GRAU denominations.

    At example the round's GRAU designations with 3BM42M prjectile is 3BM19 , after that we have also 3VBM20 round with 3BM46 projectile "Свинец" (naturally THIS projectile is the first incarnation of the "Svinet" model), after we have the 3VBM22 round with 3BM59 "Свинец-1" -Svinet-1- projectile and finally the 3VBM23 round with 3BM60 "Свинец-2" -Svinet-2 - projectile (just this subject of Svinet-1 and Svinet-2 triggered recently a very inflamed debate between Andrey Tarasenko and Alexey Khlopotov...)

    This is a link that could aid to disperse the mist on those subjects


    http://talks.guns.ru/forum_light_message/18/790481-m19830715.html


    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    This is a good thread on 3BM42 round

    Post  Austin on Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:25 am

    I saw some figure on 3BM59 and 3BM60 round that Alexey Khlopotov shared and since it is suppose to be not put up any where , the penetration values of both these rounds seems to be very competitive against the latest US M829A3 and DM53/L55 german round if we accept the so called known figure of M829A3 as 800mm at 0 degree. Exact figures ofcourse remains classified but this gives a good idea on how they stand up.
    avatar
    AZZKIKR

    Posts : 42
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 25
    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

    Posts : 3246
    Points : 3352
    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

    Posts : 42
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 25
    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

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    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

    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

    Posts : 3246
    Points : 3352
    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

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    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

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    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

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    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

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    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

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    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
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

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

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:26 pm

    I hope the armata's 152mm gun will be 50+ calibers long and have an ATGM better than the LAHAT.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:17 pm

    They already have Refleks. Very Happy

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:08 am

    I hope the armata's 152mm gun will be 50+ calibers long and have an ATGM better than the LAHAT.

    In terms of HEAT performance a major factor is the diameter of the warhead... having a 150mm calibre warhead will make it easier to increase penetration over a smaller calibre missile.

    More importantly the huge increase in internal volume should allow terminal guidance to become an option, which, while it would make the round more expensive would also add potential for top attack flight profiles which maximises the potential effectiveness of the missile.

    Very simply a MMW radar guidance head should allow the accuracy required to hit a tank target very easily, and the length potential of the round should allow wings and a substantial rocket booster motor, which should allow a rapid climb along with a glide and then rocket assisted dive onto the target to maximise lethality.

    Right now however laser beam riding is very cheap and simple and therefore able to be mass produced and put in wide spread production easily and cheaply.


    _________________
    “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: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:49 pm