Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:58 am

    laser beam riding guidance plus small fins would be enough i think.

    Indeed, scramjet engine nacelle around the core penetrator could not just overcome drag but generate enough thrust to greatly accelerate the missile on its trip to the target.


    _________________
    “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
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:25 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Indeed, scramjet engine nacelle around the core penetrator could not just overcome drag but generate enough thrust to greatly accelerate the missile on its trip to the target.
    It would be neat if they manage to make it thrust vectoring too- give the missile some rise and then dive into the target armor at 30 degrees or so- enough to negate some elements of the enemy armor that work best when at the normal impact angles Even better if they make one without exotic materials and as cheap as possible as the HEAT atgms which imo is very possible considering the fact that it would only fly for a few seconds at best.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:21 am

    When is Russia's new KE round (for Armata, the T-90? and B3) coming out?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:51 am

    The new round for Armata will not be compatible with T-72 or T-90 IIRC.

    2A82 will have backwards compatibility with older shells though.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:01 am

    TR1 wrote:The new round for Armata will not be compatible with T-72 or T-90 IIRC.

    2A82 will have backwards compatibility with older shells though.
    TBH the only reason I asked that was because I completely forgot... Embarassed

    I just wish we had more information. Maybe after the Armata's revealing we will. 

     - Has anybody seen the T-55 upgrade package that turns it into what is basically an older 80U? Russia might actually be able sell a few to the countries that still actively use the T-55.

    TR1, what do you think about these KE missiles? I'm bummed the US didn't put them into service, and yes that wouldn't be the best thing for a certain country that starts with R and has 5 other letters coming after that.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:34 am

    I think that such KE-ATGM's are technically possible and plausible but i also think they are out of proportion between cost and effecience. KE rounds have 4 crucial points, if one of them sucks they become quite useless, since one effects all the rest of parameters, weight, velocity, angel to armor and hardness of tip, if one sucks the rest is worsten beyond a point which makes it good enough to penetrate even mediocre armor. With that parameters it needs a very powerfull boosting rocket with a following missile that controlls and adjusts the angle to the armor and sustains the hypervelocity that is necessary to make it effective. Speaking that this is supposed to be a KE (APFSDS) the design would quite interesting to have a tiny little spike as warhead with a wide body rocket that can bring it up to 2km/s.


    I personally think based on on the information of the BK-31M and its tripple HEAT layout that it still holds more potential than we can get for same money and resources spend on KE development.

    According to Fofanov's side (haven't researched much other sources), then the BK-31M with its tripple tandem HEAT warhead has the tip shaped charge to predetonate ERA, the 2nd charge that exploseds is the rear charge which is 2nd biggest and forms its penetrator through small opening of the middle charge and opens up some of passive armor of the tank for the main charge (middle charge) that has then an easy opening created by rear charge and therefor less armor to defeat.

    Since the Rounds for T-64/80 and T-72/90 are shorter due the autoloader then any foreign tank, means that the Armata rounds can be longer and therefore have higher charge capacity. Fofanov also believes based on the picture that the main charge uses some alloy, since it differs by color from the front and rear shaped charge. HEAT rounds are nothing else but Kinetic Penetrators that use explosive to accelerate this tiny piece of metal to insane velocity and form it to a needle to penetrate armor and this fact makes newer Alloys with similiar molecular structure that is hard to disrubt by twisting or bending similiar to copper and should make a very formidable penetrators.



    With longer rounds they indeed can or could fit longer or more shaped charges.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:36 am

    Mike E wrote:
    TBH the only reason I asked that was because I completely forgot... Embarassed

    I just wish we had more information. Maybe after the Armata's revealing we will. 

     - Has anybody seen the T-55 upgrade package that turns it into what is basically an older 80U? Russia might actually be able sell a few to the countries that still actively use the T-55.

    TR1, what do you think about these KE missiles? I'm bummed the US didn't put them into service, and yes that wouldn't be the best thing for a certain country that starts with R and has 5 other letters coming after that.

    personally i also think KE rounds and missiles are cool, but facts on the ground state that most of the targets you are gonna be encountering are not heavily armored MBTs, so it would make rather more sense to have something that has more versatility. it would make sense if you are up against armata brigades tho.

    that being said, i doubt the new vacuum series of rounds(900mm penetrator length) being shot from 2a82 is anything but adequate for the near future, then there is the matter of just simply bypassing all that armor by firing top attack atgms.


    Last edited by collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:19 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:46 am

    Mike E wrote:

    Next future-weapon-tech I'm excited about is something like Lockheed's new MHtK (Miniature Hit to Kill) missile that is like an alternative to a Pantsir or something of the like. They could counter artillery shells, mortars, drones etc and do it in number because they are both small and somewhat affordable. AFAIK current handheld AA missiles can't do the same. 
    not really alternative to pantsir- esp. the newest model. artillery and mortar fire problem? It would send a hermes atgm from where those came from and kill the launchers themselves. drones could be engaged at a leisure with missils or even guns.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:01 am

    Werewolf wrote:I think that such KE-ATGM's are technically possible and plausible but i also think they are out of proportion between cost and effecience. KE rounds have 4 crucial points, if one of them sucks they become quite useless, since one effects all the rest of parameters, weight, velocity, angel to armor and hardness of tip, if one sucks the rest is worsten beyond a point which makes it good enough to penetrate even mediocre armor. With that parameters it needs a very powerfull boosting rocket with a following missile that controlls and adjusts the angle to the armor and sustains the hypervelocity that is necessary to make it effective. Speaking that this is supposed to be a KE (APFSDS) the design would quite interesting to have a tiny little spike as warhead with a wide body rocket that can bring it up to 2km/s.

    I personally think based on on the information of the BK-31M and its tripple HEAT layout that it still holds more potential than we can get for same money and resources spend on KE development.

    According to Fofanov's side (haven't researched much other sources), then the BK-31M with its tripple tandem HEAT warhead has the tip shaped charge to predetonate ERA, the 2nd charge that exploseds is the rear charge which is 2nd biggest and forms its penetrator through small opening of the middle charge and opens up some of passive armor of the tank for the main charge (middle charge) that has then an easy opening created by rear charge and therefor less armor to defeat.

    Since the Rounds for T-64/80 and T-72/90 are shorter due the autoloader then any foreign tank, means that the Armata rounds can be longer and therefore have higher charge capacity. Fofanov also believes based on the picture that the main charge uses some alloy, since it differs by color from the front and rear shaped charge. HEAT rounds are nothing else but Kinetic Penetrators that use explosive to accelerate this tiny piece of metal to insane velocity and form it to a needle to penetrate armor and this fact makes newer Alloys with similiar molecular structure that is hard to disrubt by twisting or bending similiar to copper  and should make a very formidable penetrators.


    With longer rounds they indeed can or could fit longer or more shaped charges.
    They have shown to work well, very in fact and that's why I support the whole thing. Tests showed the newer Lockheed models could penetrate 1000 mm RHAe *at TEN KILOMETERS while flying at 2000 (!) m/s the WHOLE way*. Any KE round today would struggle to do the same.... At point blank range! Of course they will cost more, but they are missiles after all. They have the advantage of being controlled and supposedly able to change targets. If testing over a period of many years, using many different models shows the concept to work, then by all means it must work well... You can find the designs online though it is a big PITA. Because the projects were never actually put into real motion information is scarce. I've heard that LM did produce a few hundred examples though.

    Gotta remember that HEAT starts at a large disadvantage vs. KE when against modern-age armor. The M1A2's lower glacis should have more armor than the -31m's 800 mm of penetration based on info from the weaker-armored A1. This while the same lower plate will have 150 mm (or more) less RHAe vs. KE rods. Doesn't matter if it has 1 or 2 or heck even 4 charges if it can not penetrate. A lot of other Western MBT's have spaced armor as well, which as we all know affects HEAT in one way or another. 

    @collegeboy16

    Yes and no... You want to prepare for the worst of situations when it comes to just about anything. Assuming the enemy will be riding on horses isn't gonna do anybody much good now is it? It would be no less effective than an equivalent HEAT round or missile.

    Do you mean adequate or anything but? The latter would imply it wouldn't be...

    Top-attack ATGM's are great until they have to deal with APS systems. They are slow, and much easier to destroy than a faster flying missile. Much like AShM's I'd like to add.


    Last edited by Mike E on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:44 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:05 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:

    Next future-weapon-tech I'm excited about is something like Lockheed's new MHtK (Miniature Hit to Kill) missile that is like an alternative to a Pantsir or something of the like. They could counter artillery shells, mortars, drones etc and do it in number because they are both small and somewhat affordable. AFAIK current handheld AA missiles can't do the same. 
    not really alternative to pantsir- esp. the newest model. artillery and mortar fire problem? It would send a hermes atgm from where those came from and kill the launchers themselves. drones could be engaged at a leisure with missils or even guns.
    Maybe I should have said supplement. The only reason the US wants it is because they don't have a mission-specialized Pantsir-equivalent yet. The only thing they have is the CRAM for **** sake... 

    They are like the last level of defense. Almost got to think of it like a miniature ICBM defense systems. - You want as many layers as possible, and you want those layers to be able to supplement the other layers for the greatest efficiency..
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:27 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Yes and no... You want to prepare for the worst of situations when it comes to just about anything. Assuming the enemy will be riding on horses isn't gonna do anybody much good now is it? It would be no less effective than an equivalent HEAT round or missile.

    Do you mean adequate or anything but? The latter would imply it wouldn't be...

    Top-attack ATGM's are great until they have to deal with APS systems. They are slow, and much easier to destroy than a faster flying missile. Much like AShM's I'd like to add.

    i meant adequate(kinda like 'i doubt that its not adequate' would be better phrasing now that i think about it).

    and top attack atgms may not even need to get close- fit them with EFP warhead instead, those are even faster than current apfsds.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:10 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Yes and no... You want to prepare for the worst of situations when it comes to just about anything. Assuming the enemy will be riding on horses isn't gonna do anybody much good now is it? It would be no less effective than an equivalent HEAT round or missile.

    Do you mean adequate or anything but? The latter would imply it wouldn't be...

    Top-attack ATGM's are great until they have to deal with APS systems. They are slow, and much easier to destroy than a faster flying missile. Much like AShM's I'd like to add.

    i meant adequate(kinda like 'i doubt that its not adequate' would be better phrasing now that i think about it).

    and top attack atgms may not even need to get close- fit them with EFP warhead instead, those are even faster than current apfsds.
    Ok, that's what I thought. Very Happy

    EFP's are only so effective and would be incredibly hard to properly aim when travel at such high speeds.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:28 am

    I'd love to hear your thoughts on this kind of tech and anything else Tank/Anti-Tank related.

    One of the models of the Armata... namely this one:



    I assumed showed a mine laying vehicle with vertical launched mine deployment.

    From what I have read however it is actually a lock on after launch ATGM that uses diving top attack capability to defeat enemy armour.

    the enormous energy needed to accelerate a heavy penetrator or large HEAT warhead is largely wasted... it makes rounds of ammo heavier and more expensive while attacking the vulnerable top of a vehicle is far easier... even 300mm penetration performance is enough for most targets.

    The new round for Armata will not be compatible with T-72 or T-90 IIRC.

    2A82 will have backwards compatibility with older shells though.

    Why?

    If they can fit the 2A82 to the T-90AM and T-90MS I don't see why it could not be fitted to any T-72 or later T series tank.

    - Has anybody seen the T-55 upgrade package that turns it into what is basically an older 80U? Russia might actually be able sell a few to the countries that still actively use the T-55.

    The entire turret is replaced with a T-72 turret and the engine and tracks and wheels and transmission are all changed... would make more sense to convert any T-55s into BTR-Ts and buy T-72s to upgrade.

    EFP's are only so effective and would be incredibly hard to properly aim when travel at such high speeds.

    Easy to aim... having them pointing forward and have the missile fly to impact the target...

    Self Forging Fragments however are often made of exotic materials that are not particularly hard and rely on velocity. Most have penetration performance inadequate to penetrate the sides of most tanks, though the roof of most tanks is very vulnerable anyway.

    Of course there is always overkill... GLONASS guided FAB-100s dropped from UCAVs would be very effective against any tank.


    _________________
    “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
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:37 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Why?

    If they can fit the 2A82 to the T-90AM and T-90MS I don't see why it could not be fitted to any T-72 or later T series tank.


    2A82 has never been fitted to any T-90 , only Obj 187 and experimental tanks. It is certainly not planned for any T-72 modernization.

    And even if we ignore the gun issue, Armata will have new rounds that are longer than even the T-90A allows for, since there will be no carousel width to account for. Can't make those fit into any T-72 legacy tank without essentially making a new vehicle.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:40 am

    The newest rounds I have read about are not excessively long and are compatible with the 2A82 gun.

    The whole point of having a 125mm gun in Armata was to save costs and weight and ammo commonality.

    AFAIK 2A82 is the gun fitted to the T-90AM and therefore also T-90MS.

    It was originally from this page:

    http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/xlopotov_8/t90m.htm

    Which if you follow the above link gives a 404 page missing message as it has clearly moved or deleted, but information from that page is here:

    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.co.nz/2010/01/90-new-specs.html

    where is says:

    - Totally new 2A82 125 mm MG (2A46M5 - optional).

    If they can fit it to an upgraded T-90M then they can fit it to any T-72 based design.

    Armata could carry rounds that are much longer... if needed, but a lock on after launch diving anti tank missile doesn't really benefit from being longer and neither to HEAT rounds generally.


    _________________
    “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
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:05 am

    Igor is wrong- all the info @ GurKhans indicated the gun is 2A46M5- and you can tell by the appearance. Looks identical to T-90As piece.

    The 2A82 is optional, but to date has not been seen. No reason why the barel can't be fitted to the T-90 or even T-72, if you are willing to pay for it.


    The reason they chose 125mm for Armata had a lot to do with ammunition capacity on the tank, plus lack of good 152mm rounds any time soon. With 125mm they are backwards compatible, so no need to change the whole stock right away. I imagine technical readiness and cost were also factors.

    But while the 2A82 can technically be fitted to both T-90AM or similar and Armata, the latter won't have the carousel, in order to use longer ammo (among other reasons). No reason to think they will not exploit the possible length to its full. We already saw some leaked photos of prototype rounds that were of massive length.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:13 am

    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mike E on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:41 am

    Thanks for the info TR1. Very Happy Looks like this thread is off to a good start. 

     - We've all gone 15 posts without insults and arguments! How can that be?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mike E on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:49 am

    GarryB wrote:

    EFP's are only so effective and would be incredibly hard to properly aim when travel at such high speeds.
    Easy to aim... having them pointing forward and have the missile fly to impact the target...

    Self Forging Fragments however are often made of exotic materials that are not particularly hard and rely on velocity. Most have penetration performance inadequate to penetrate the sides of most tanks, though the roof of most tanks is very vulnerable anyway.

    Of course there is always overkill... GLONASS guided FAB-100s dropped from UCAVs would be very effective against any tank.
    He is referring to the EFP getting fired from distance while traveling in air at high speeds. That would be like flying at Mach 2 and trying to hit a plate at 100 meters with a pistol...

    UAV's like that would be easy targets for just about anything.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:01 am

    But while the 2A82 can technically be fitted to both T-90AM or similar and Armata, the latter won't have the carousel, in order to use longer ammo (among other reasons). No reason to think they will not exploit the possible length to its full. We already saw some leaked photos of prototype rounds that were of massive length.

    The information I have calls the 2A46M5 the 2A82... just like the Su-27M is called the Su-35S in service.

    Why develop a 2A46M5 AND a 2A82? Do they have money to burn?

    With no crew the armata MBT might have a spiral carousel to allow much longer rounds with a small turret bustle to allow the rounds to be loaded into the gun, but most of the new rounds that were talked about that were undergoing testing did not sound excessively long to me.


    _________________
    “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
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:35 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The information I have calls the 2A46M5 the 2A82... just like the Su-27M is called the Su-35S in service.

    Why develop a 2A46M5 AND a 2A82? Do they have money to burn?

    With no crew the armata MBT might have a spiral carousel to allow much longer rounds with a small turret bustle to allow the rounds to be loaded into the gun, but most of the new rounds that were talked about that were undergoing testing did not sound excessively long to me.
    maybe they developed the 2a46m5 back when they thought the T-95 was gonna be a thing- that monster was meant to serve as elite tank alongside more numerous T-90. when the whole thing got cancelled they prolly applied a lot of the technical solutions for the 152 mm gun to a new 125 mm gun- ive read propellant chamber volume on the level of 140mm guns, this 2a82 aint your l/55 to the l/44.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:13 am

    He is referring to the EFP getting fired from distance while traveling in air at high speeds. That would be like flying at Mach 2 and trying to hit a plate at 100 meters with a pistol...

    A SFF warhead is just a warhead like a HEAT warhead... the HEAT warhead of the HERMES or Vikhr have no problem hitting a target while flying faster than mach 2.

    Moving at about 6km/s a SFF moves in a fairly straight line... ground based anti helicopter mines developed by the Soviets quite a few years ago can hit a helicopter in flight with a SFF warhead fired from the ground...

    And as I said submunitions using a SFF warhead was developed in the late 1980s in the Soviet Union and deployed in the Late 1980s using MMW radar aiming.

    UAV's like that would be easy targets for just about anything.

    A MALE or HALE might be, but a micro UAV from 10 kms is neither an easy to see target or easy to track with IR or radar.

    they ended up having to deploy MiG-29s against Georgian UAVs in the 8 8 8 conflict because standard MANPADs wouldn't lock on such high altitude small targets and it was above the effective range of 23mm cannon. SA-17 could kill them but was over kill.

    maybe they developed the 2a46m5 back when they thought the T-95 was gonna be a thing- that monster was meant to serve as elite tank alongside more numerous T-90.

    they aren't working in a vaccuum... the developments of the 152mm gun will be known to the workers working on the upgrades of the 125mm gun and technology developed for one that is a step forward would no doubt be added to the other in 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

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  cracker on Thu May 07, 2015 7:54 am

    i need help, what gun all russian T-90A really use? and also de facto, do the modernised T-72B3 use the same gun+autoloader as the T-90A? (allowing to use longer APDSFS as the T-90A vs old basic T-72B?)

    so is it the 2A46M-5 gun on both tanks? what's the main difference compared to older 2A46 variants? concretely... The 2A46M-5 how does it compare with 120mm NATO guns? which of the following is more true?


    2A46M-5 < 120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55
    120 L44 < 2A46M-5 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55
    120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 2A46M-5 < 120 L55
    120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55 < 2A46M-5

    also, the 2A46M-5 is a L52 or L48 long caliber gun? Sources contradict...

    The gun and autoloader on T-90MS are also identical to T-90A / T-72B3? or is it even another variant? (i think it's just a 2A46M-5 with muzzle reference system)

    I pretty much don't care about T-80 gun, but it says the modernised T-80 saw their gun replaced by the 2A46M-4, which is the same as the M-5 adapted to T-80 autoloader, etc... So, is it as capable as the M-5? and sabot length? (by the way it should concern only the overhauled / modernised T-80u and T-80Bv that may even be called like T-80UM unofficially)

    so in the end, is the new 2A82-M1 well above 2A46M-5 performance?

    How is the performance of the 2A66 125mm gun on the object 187, and, the 2A75 gun on the 2S25 Spurt ?
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu May 07, 2015 8:23 am

    120 L44 < 2A46M-5 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55 < 2A82-1M according to energy

    first 4 have similar pressure(adjusted; smaller pressure rating on 125mm gun is bigger when converted to 120mm ), its only difference of caliber that matters here since the powder volume and quality is very similar.

    last one supposedly has a lot more pressure owing to larger propellant volume.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Werewolf on Thu May 07, 2015 6:06 pm

    cracker wrote:i need help, what gun all russian T-90A really use? and also de facto, do the modernised T-72B3 use the same gun+autoloader as the T-90A? (allowing to use longer APDSFS as the T-90A vs old basic T-72B?)

    so is it the 2A46M-5 gun on both tanks? what's the main difference compared to older 2A46 variants? concretely... The 2A46M-5 how does it compare with 120mm NATO guns? which of the following is more true?


    2A46M-5 < 120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55
    120 L44 < 2A46M-5 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55
    120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 2A46M-5 < 120 L55
    120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55 < 2A46M-5

    also, the 2A46M-5 is a L52 or L48 long caliber gun? Sources contradict...

    The gun and autoloader on T-90MS are also identical to T-90A / T-72B3? or is it even another variant? (i think it's just a 2A46M-5 with muzzle reference system)

    I pretty much don't care about T-80 gun, but it says the modernised T-80 saw their gun replaced by the 2A46M-4, which is the same as the M-5 adapted to T-80 autoloader, etc... So, is it as capable as the M-5? and sabot length? (by the way it should concern only the overhauled / modernised T-80u and T-80Bv that may even be called like T-80UM unofficially)

    so in the end, is the new 2A82-M1 well above 2A46M-5 performance?

    How is the performance of the 2A66 125mm gun on the object 187, and, the 2A75 gun on the 2S25 Spurt ?


    T-90A has 6000mm length 48 calibres long and the gun is always 2A46M5.

    http://www.zavod9.com/?pid=10106


    http://topwar.ru/57191-tankovye-pushki-2a46m-5-i-2a46m-4.html


    The gun says can field all nomenclature 125mm rounds while the 2A46M ad M1 can not.

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.de/2011/10/90.html

    The performance of 2A82M1 is suppossed to be higher than L55 Rheinmetall.

    Дульная энергия пушки 2А82 существенно больше дульной энергией широко известной пушки Rheinmetall Rh 120/L55. По техническому уровню превосходство новой пушки оценивается в 1,2-1,25 раза.

    Muzzle energy of the gun 2A82 is significantly more muzzle energy as the widely known gun Rheinmetall Rh-120/L55. On a technical level, the superiority of the new gun is estimated at 1.2-1.25 times.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:48 am