Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Share

    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 : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: 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 : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: 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 : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: 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 : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: 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 : 4495
    Points : 4674
    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 : 774
    Points : 776
    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 : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: 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 : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: 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.
    avatar
    Project Canada

    Posts : 612
    Points : 619
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: 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 : 4985
    Points : 5093
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: 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 : 486
    Points : 490
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: 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.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Militarov on Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:58 pm

    Benya wrote:
    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.

    Tungsten is not much healthier than DU tbh, dust they both produce upon penetration is not good for you, either is or surroundings. Also DU is basically a waste, useless mass of crap they would have to store somewhere instead of turning them into new product that costs shitloads. Tungsten costs shitloads, its very valuable material for industry, DU is not.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:30 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Benya wrote:
    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.

    Tungsten is not much healthier than DU tbh, dust they both produce upon penetration is not good for you, either is or surroundings. Also DU is basically a waste, useless mass of crap they would have to store somewhere instead of turning them into new product that costs shitloads. Tungsten costs shitloads, its very valuable material for industry, DU is not.

    DU rounds are reserved only for "black days", basically a World War scenario akin to fighting off an invasion force comparable to the one seen on the Eastern Front of WW2.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3019
    Points : 3144
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  kvs on Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:12 am

    DU is by no means "waste", it is fuel for fast neutron breeder reactors such as the BN-800 and its BN-1200 successor.

    I find the concern about using DU on the battlefield to be rather strange. If any chemical weapons are used they will leave behind
    plenty of contamination that is worse than DU aerosol. And most DU aerosol will sediment out and be removed by wet scavenging
    (rain, snow). In the soil it will not be all that toxic. People should avoid planting crops on modern battlefields anyway.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:47 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Benya wrote:
    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.

    Tungsten is not much healthier than DU tbh, dust they both produce upon penetration is not good for you, either is or surroundings. Also DU is basically a waste, useless mass of crap they would have to store somewhere instead of turning them into new product that costs shitloads. Tungsten costs shitloads, its very valuable material for industry, DU is not.
    Except tungsten isn't radioactive
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:32 am

    DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.


    _________________
    “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
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 706
    Points : 726
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.
    Agreed 100%. DU is a filthy material, just about the most unethical and immoral material that one could use, short of actual nukes. The fact that the Yankistani military is so keen on its use, despite the horrendous & well documented impact it has on public health, is a great example of the intrinsic evil nature of the Western globalists and their paid enforcer class. If should only be used in very sparing circumstances, and promoting it because it is perceived as "inexpensive" is not good enough. If that is an example of the Wests guiding morality, its only a short step to underground V2 factories using slave labour...
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Militarov on Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:30 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Benya wrote:
    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.

    Tungsten is not much healthier than DU tbh, dust they both produce upon penetration is not good for you, either is or surroundings. Also DU is basically a waste, useless mass of crap they would have to store somewhere instead of turning them into new product that costs shitloads. Tungsten costs shitloads, its very valuable material for industry, DU is not.
    Except tungsten isn't radioactive

    Fresh concrete or ashes from powerplant are more radioactive than depelted uranium fyi Smile. Also we are talking mainly about U-235 which basically radiates alpha particles which are harmless for living as they cant penetrate our skin at all. It becomes dangerous after its used, as it makes cloud of very fine U-235 dust which can be inhaled, now that is not something you want.

    Tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloy which was proposed for rod penetrators is carcinogenic if you somehow end up exposed to it for prolonged periods of time like inhaling its dust or swallowing it etc, so it basically comes to same thing.

    Only difference is in the price and availability, where DU wins... big time.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3019
    Points : 3144
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Rosatom to create ammunition for Armata tanks

    Post  kvs on Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:45 am

    GarryB wrote:DU is genotoxic... if it gets into your body the body treats it like calcium and puts it in your bones.

    Irrelevant to my point. You first have to consume enough of it to matter. The civilian population is not going to be packed around every
    DU shell impact to breathe in the DU aerosol particles. Over 99% of the DU mass will sediment out in the vicinity of the impact. The
    tiny nanometer scale fraction will dilute rapidly in the turbulent atmospheric boundary layer. So the exposure to civilians is minimal.
    The problem in the middle east is that everything is one big desert so that the wind can recycle some fraction of the DU aerosol back
    into the air and increase civilian exposure. This is not going to happen in Europe and Russia.


    Outside the body its very weak radioactivity wont even penetrate skin but inside your bones the radiation mutates genetic code at the cellular level... and not comic book cool mutations like X Men... bad mutations like no arms or no legs or no brain type mutations.

    The very low level of radioactivity means they remain dangerous for thousands of years... vastly worse than any chemical or bio weapon.

    Sorry but that is a misleading statement. The soil already emits radiation from natural uranium. The tank shell DU will contaminate battle zones but
    to a degree much less than the Chernobyl fallout. BTW, DU has less radiation than natural uranium since the concentration of 235 is lower due to
    processing (natural uranium has over 0.72% of isotope 235 while DU has less than 0.4%.) The concentration of Uranium in soils varies between 0.4 mg/kg
    and 12 mg/kg. The low end is not typical.

    http://www.scitechnol.com/uranium-fixation-and-removal-from-different-soil-types-review-9t8A.pdf

    This reference suggest 2 mg/kg is a typical concentration. Say I have 1000 kg or 1 million mg of DU and I spread it around. The soil density is about
    1.3 kg/L so the upper 0.5 cm will need to have an area of 2000 cm^2 to contain 1.3 kg and a 1530 cm^2 area will hold 1 kg. This about a 39 cm x 39 cm patch.
    To contaminate the soil to the background average of 2 mg/kg I need to spread it over 500,000 such patches. So a 277 km x 277 km wasteland is needed.

    But wait.

    Who said 2 mg/kg is even worthy of discussion. I would only care about 200 mg/kg. So now we are talking about a wasteland of 27.7 km x 27.7 km.

    http://www.laka.org/info/publicaties/vu/where-how-much-01/main.html

    The US fired off around 386,000 kg of DU at its testing ranges as of the year 2000. This highlights my main points:

    1) Dispersion of DU is very limited, otherwise it would have escaped as nanoparticulate far from the testing ranges

    2) Why talk about battlefield contamination as if people will growth their food there.

    The exaggerated impact of DU is yet another example of anti-nuclear hysteria.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:39 pm