Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tank guns Ammunition

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18624
    Points : 19180
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tank guns Ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:05 am

    The rear charge would need to have space in the center to blow through- and that cuts through the optimum geometry- cone of the other charges.

    The Hellfire has two full calibre HEAT charges in it, a Russian tank shell has three including a nose mounted small charge to deal with ERA... if you can manage three then four is just one more...

    not really dodge- more like giving more time for wind dispersion effects and the random changes in the vehicles motion to take place and reduce chances of a hit.

    The problem there is situational awareness... even if you detect the round being fired if you swerve how can you be sure you are reducing the chance of a hit... the round might have been going to miss but your swerve might put you right in line for an impact...

    You are in a situation where your tank knows somehwere behind a wall are armored targets and uses UAV's to get somehow the elevation and trejectory from a 3rd source to hit its target? In that case it would be easier to order Krasnapol like artillery shell designated via UAV or just an armed UAV.

    That is what I was thinking too. Or get a couple of tanks within the unit to fire HE shells with impact fuses to blow down the wall and try to spot the target through the dust using thermals for a shot...

    The scram-jet technology available is not nearly developed {snip}

    Totally agree... it has potential but needs work.

    the Gyrojet pistol had a rocket propelled projectile that was not effective within 10m as the velocity was too low. Pistols are the most use within 10m as beyond that range accuracy makes them a little useless except on TV.

    So the obvious growth patterns for APFSDS rounds would be the advent of quantum computing aiding in the creation of a very light weight composite plastic dart shell filled with composite liquid gel densely impregnated (like Octomom Razz ) with carbon nano-spheres and when struck with enough pressure (most likely the outer tank chassis/hull wall) that the outer plastic dart shell and the liquid gel quickly condenses in to a substance that's density nears that of diamond carbon elements...combined that with the fact that the plastic dart shell will be significantly lighter, and with the creation of more powerful and more efficient burning propellants (aided with quantum computing) you could possibly see KE penetrator's with penetrating statistics that exceeds (1.5x - to - 3x's) that of KE projectiles of this generation!

    Interesting speculation, but the issue would be with the lack of mass of such a projectile letting it down in the terminal ballistics phase. Perhaps a variation would be a cheap and simple lead penetrator capped with a gel cap and side supporting nano structures that super harden on impact so the mass of the lead pushes the super hard tip through the target...

    the field is open and new EM propellents together with left field ideas... how about instead of launching a penetrator you fire a large jar of acid to eat through the outer hull and expose the crew to small arms fire... or an EMP round that disables the tank by destroying all its electronics and sighting equipment... or even a round that generates an enormous electrical charge that electrocutes the crew...

    Current use of ramjets have a rocket motor to accelerate the projectile with a ramjet sustainer... perhaps a combination of large propellent charge with a large full calibre round that is filled with solid rocket fuel that when it burns out the cavity remaining becomes the scramjet engine where the core down the centre of the round is the penetrator.

    in fact if you adapt that to a long narrow missile like HERMES with a large solid rocket booster and then a missile payload that is all scramjet engine except for the guidance bit in the nose with guidance fins for flight control so the rocket booster accelerates the missile to high speed and the the rocket fuel in the scramjet cavity burns a few seconds more to accelerate the missile even more and then the scramjet powers up to accelerate the missile to perhaps 3-4km per second with a 2 metre long 15kg core or DU or whatever with the guidance system aiming the weapon at hard targets 15-20km distant... 4-5 second flight time to 20km and terminal effect would be impressive.

    Here are three Russian kinetic energy rounds with scramjets (not subsonic combustion ramjets). Scramjet technology is ancient technology in Russia, and they have many systems using the technology.

    Tested only AFAIK...

    the left hand one looks like an SR-71...  Very Happy 
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tank guns Ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The Hellfire has two full calibre HEAT charges in it, a Russian tank shell has three including a nose mounted small charge to deal with ERA... if you can manage three then four is just one more...
    except that two main charges are already the limit of the 3bk-31m round, and the rearmost charge is half the size of the middle one.
    GarryB wrote:
    The problem there is situational awareness... even if you detect the round being fired if you swerve how can you be sure you are reducing the chance of a hit... the round might have been going to miss but your swerve might put you right in line for an impact...
    true, but still its vastly harder to hit a moving target with HEAT than an APFSDS- and thats with modern FCS. guided rounds are the best solution- tho it would be problematic for APFSDS since it would require increase in cross sectional area to house the fins/actuators/sensors and fuel+rocket/scramjet.
    GarryB wrote:
    Interesting speculation, but the issue would be with the lack of mass of such a projectile letting it down in the terminal ballistics phase.  Perhaps a variation would be a cheap and simple lead penetrator capped with a gel cap and side supporting nano structures that super harden on impact so the mass of the lead pushes the super hard tip through the target...

    the field is open and new EM propellents together with left field ideas... how about instead of launching a penetrator you fire a large jar of acid to eat through the outer hull and expose the crew to small arms fire... or an EMP round that disables the tank by destroying all its electronics and sighting equipment... or even a round that generates an enormous electrical charge that electrocutes the crew...

    Current use of ramjets have a rocket motor to accelerate the projectile with a ramjet sustainer... perhaps a combination of large propellent charge with a large full calibre round that is filled with solid rocket fuel that when it burns out the cavity remaining becomes the scramjet engine where the core down the centre of the round is the penetrator.

    in fact if you adapt that to a long narrow missile like HERMES with a large solid rocket booster and then a missile payload that is all scramjet engine except for the guidance bit in the nose with guidance fins for flight control so the rocket booster accelerates the missile to high speed and the the rocket fuel in the scramjet cavity burns a few seconds more to accelerate the missile even more and then the scramjet powers up to accelerate the missile to perhaps 3-4km per second with a 2 metre long 15kg core or DU or whatever with the guidance system aiming the weapon at hard targets 15-20km distant... 4-5 second flight time to 20km and terminal effect would be impressive.
    acid jar idea seems too silly- while Hermes scramjet APFSDS sounds awesome. a smaller MBT-friendly version would be neaat too.
    oh and another 2 cents: imo the russkies are gunning for hypersonic laser rider KE atgms. sabot rounds are nice- tho the problem is that you have lots of parasitic mass- plus the front of the projectile is just empty space. encase the penetrator within GarryBs scramjet/rocket instead of the sabot and not only you lose the parasitic mass- it provides energy too.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18624
    Points : 19180
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tank guns Ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:38 am

    except that two main charges are already the limit of the 3bk-31m round, and the rearmost charge is half the size of the middle one.

    There is no reason why the shape of the projectile cannot be adjusted to allow full calibre shaped charges in the front and rear of the round if needed.

    There is plenty of scope for 4 or more charges to be fitted into GLATGMs...

    true, but still its vastly harder to hit a moving target with HEAT than an APFSDS- and thats with modern FCS. guided rounds are the best solution- tho it would be problematic for APFSDS since it would require increase in cross sectional area to house the fins/actuators/sensors and fuel+rocket/scramjet.

    Correction... it is vastly harder to hit a moving target with an unguided round... whether it is travelling at 1.8km/s or 900m/s. It is far easier to hit a target using a guided round and today most guided rounds have HEAT warheads...

    acid jar idea seems too silly- while Hermes scramjet APFSDS sounds awesome. a smaller MBT-friendly version would be neaat too.

    Doesn't need to be acid... a container with thermite that simply burns its way through the roof armour it lands on... like a gas torch through metal...

    There was talk of two stage 2.5km/s missiles using kinetic kill penetrators and rocket sustainers where the flight speed to 10km was about 5 seconds and terminal effects of course would be tremendous... the main issue is guidance... and keeping it on target.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tank guns Ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:00 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    There is no reason why the shape of the projectile cannot be adjusted to allow full calibre shaped charges in the front and rear of the round if needed.

    There is plenty of scope for 4 or more charges to be fitted into GLATGMs...
    we'll just wait and see then...
    Correction... it is vastly harder to hit a moving target with an unguided round... whether it is travelling at 1.8km/s or 900m/s. It is far easier to hit a target using a guided round and today most guided rounds have HEAT warheads...
    true- mostly because HEAT guided rounds move slowly and its way cheaper to make a rocket + actuators for a slower projectile.
    There was talk of two stage 2.5km/s missiles using kinetic kill penetrators and rocket sustainers where the flight speed to 10km was about 5 seconds and terminal effects of course would be tremendous... the main issue is guidance... and keeping it on target.
    laser beam riding guidance plus small fins would be enough i think.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18624
    Points : 19180
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 2646
    Points : 2684
    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 : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 2646
    Points : 2684
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 2646
    Points : 2684
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 2646
    Points : 2684
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 2646
    Points : 2684
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 18624
    Points : 19180
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 18624
    Points : 19180
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Tank guns Ammunition

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

    For example:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qb9XwMuM0sQ/Tov_kMZIA2I/AAAAAAAAAwI/t-JNcezMh24/s1600/T-90MS_eng-8.jpg
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2646
    Points : 2684
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 2646
    Points : 2684
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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 : 18624
    Points : 19180
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tank guns 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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tank guns Ammunition

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:33 pm