Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Share
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5569
    Points : 5581
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian 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 : 17756
    Points : 18320
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian 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.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5569
    Points : 5581
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian 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 : 5569
    Points : 5581
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and 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 : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian 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 : 2651
    Points : 2689
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian 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 : 17756
    Points : 18320
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian 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.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian 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 : 17756
    Points : 18320
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian 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.

    cracker

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

    Re: Russian 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 : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian 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 : 5270
    Points : 5477
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian 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.

    cracker

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

    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  cracker on Thu May 07, 2015 9:05 pm

    ok thanks, 2A46M5 is already a fantastic gun by the way. My favorite among current fielded models, i rate it superior to any western 120 cause of the russian HE rounds, ATGM and also the autoloader.

    2A82M-1 is then 20 to 25% superior to L55 120! wow that's fantastic.

    Austin

    Posts : 6701
    Points : 7090
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Tue May 19, 2015 2:24 pm

    I remember once I posted picture a new APFDS which I cannot find it is beyond Sivnets-1 & 2 , Does any one have those pictures ?
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 793
    Points : 869
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue May 19, 2015 3:41 pm

    Austin wrote:
    I remember once I posted picture a new APFDS which I cannot find it is beyond Sivnets-1 & 2 , Does any one have those pictures ?

    You mean this ?




    Full res
    http://s2.uploads.ru/xfEe3.jpg

    The Grifel.

    Austin

    Posts : 6701
    Points : 7090
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Tue May 19, 2015 4:30 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Austin wrote:Thanks for the replies on Fuel Tank clears my doubts.

    I remember once I posted picture a new APFDS which I cannot find it is beyond Sivnets-1 & 2 , Does any one have those pictures ?

    You mean this ?




    Full res
    http://s2.uploads.ru/xfEe3.jpg

    The Grifel.

    Yes Thanks , Probably the one that does 1 m penetration that Rogozin spoke about
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1148
    Points : 1149
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue May 19, 2015 4:34 pm

    Austin wrote:

    Yes Thanks , Probably the one that does 1 m penetration that Rogozin spoke about
    but grifel is 152 mm, the one the dude spoke about was 125mm if i read correctly. vacuum-1 or smthin idk dunno
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4469
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    I remember once I posted picture a new APFDS which I cannot find it is beyond Sivnets-1 & 2 , Does any one have those pictures ?

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue May 19, 2015 6:41 pm

    Austin wrote:
    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Austin wrote:Thanks for the replies on Fuel Tank clears my doubts.

    I remember once I posted picture a new APFDS which I cannot find it is beyond Sivnets-1 & 2 , Does any one have those pictures ?

    You mean this ?




    Full res
    http://s2.uploads.ru/xfEe3.jpg

    The Grifel.

    Yes Thanks , Probably the one that does 1 m penetration that Rogozin spoke about

    Rogozin was talking about a 125 mm APFSDS shell with 1 meter penetration, the 152 mm Grifel APFSDS shell would have way more penetration than 1 meter...more like 1.5 to 2 meters of penetration, which is way overkill!
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1788
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian tanks and munitions of 125 mm. Explications and illustrations.

    Post  Isos on Sun May 08, 2016 2:59 pm

    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/

    Russian tanks and munitions of 125 mm. Explications and illustrations.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1788
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Isos on Sat May 28, 2016 7:25 pm

    wiki M1 Arams wrote:For the M1A1HA, Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992, nearly double the original protection of the Abrams.[8] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural, he uses different estimates of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 700 mm vs HEAT for the front hull and 800 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT for the front of the turret.[9]

    while you are here franco Very Happy :

    Why HEAT munitions are still used if sabot are better ?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5270
    Points : 5477
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Werewolf on Sat May 28, 2016 8:24 pm

    Isos wrote:
    wiki M1 Arams wrote:For the M1A1HA, Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992, nearly double the original protection of the Abrams.[8] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural, he uses different estimates of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 700 mm vs HEAT for the front hull and 800 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT for the front of the turret.[9]

    while you are here franco Very Happy :

    Why HEAT munitions are still used if sabot are better ?

    Because SABOT's are useless against everything that is not heavy armored. They have absolutley no after armor effect on everything that is not a tank. They can not reliabely destroy a APC/IFV or any other light armored vehicle, useless against bunkers, fortifications for infantry, light cover or any unarmored vehicles. It punches a tiny hole and kills/destroys only what is right in its flight path but will not have high chances of igniting fuel in a light armored vehicle nor kill occupants of an APC. HEAT rounds create pressure, spall and still have alot of penetration value and still usefull against tanks and might even achieve sooner a mobility/firepower kill before any Sabot actually achieves an armor penetration and destruction of the tank or crew.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2120
    Points : 2213
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun May 29, 2016 11:56 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    wiki M1 Arams wrote:For the M1A1HA, Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992, nearly double the original protection of the Abrams.[8] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural, he uses different estimates of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 700 mm vs HEAT for the front hull and 800 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT for the front of the turret.[9]

    while you are here franco Very Happy :

    Why HEAT munitions are still used if sabot are better ?

    Because SABOT's are useless against everything that is not heavy armored. They have absolutley no after armor effect on everything that is not a tank. They can not reliabely destroy a APC/IFV or any other light armored vehicle, useless against bunkers, fortifications for infantry, light cover or any unarmored vehicles. It punches a tiny hole and kills/destroys only what is right in its flight path but will not have high chances of igniting fuel in a light armored vehicle nor kill occupants of an APC. HEAT rounds create pressure, spall and still have alot of penetration value and still usefull against tanks and might even achieve sooner a mobility/firepower kill before any Sabot actually achieves an armor penetration and destruction of the tank or crew.

    Moreover, kinetic bullet's power decreased as the bullet move on the way. That means, at far distance, penetrating power of APFSDS is much less that at near distance. Meanwhile, HEAT charge provides the same penetrating power disregard of the distance.

    In fact, ATGM are HEAT ammo with a robot brain and rocket engine.

    Project Canada

    Posts : 664
    Points : 667
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Project Canada on Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:31 pm


    Rosatom to create ammunition for Armata tanks

    http://tass.com/defense/929501
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6738
    Points : 6838
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:04 pm

    Project Canada wrote:
    Rosatom to create ammunition for Armata tanks

    http://tass.com/defense/929501

    Ahhhh good old depleted uranium APDS.

    Nothing packs bigger punch. I like it.
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 527
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Benya on Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:12 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Project Canada wrote:
    Rosatom to create ammunition for Armata tanks

    http://tass.com/defense/929501

    Ahhhh good old depleted uranium APDS.

    Nothing packs bigger punch. I like it.

    DU again? Mad

    I don't want to restart the argument about the DU-tipped ammo, but I think that in the future they (or anyone) will develop a Tungsten alloy tip to APDS rounds (, let's say Tungsten-carbide/Chrome/Vanadium alloy) which would be cheaper and easier to produce/handle, unlike DU.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:03 pm