Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5964
    Points : 5993
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian 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 : 4471
    Points : 4630
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian 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 : 3763
    Points : 3864
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian 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 : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian 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 : 18090
    Points : 18650
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian 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.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1328
    Points : 1330
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Russian 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 : 5964
    Points : 5993
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian 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 : 3763
    Points : 3864
    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.
    avatar
    Ives

    Posts : 44
    Points : 56
    Join date : 2017-11-09

    ATGM for Russian tanks.

    Post  Ives on Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:34 am

    Should Russia build its own top attack ATGM? LAHAT and KSTAM seems to be superior to the tank-used ATGMs Russia currently has. Don't know much about Sprinter for Armata, though. So, what do you guys think?
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Interlinked on Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:54 am

    If tanks are going to be used for long range indirect fire on a regular basis, then I would recommend an unassisted top attack shell with a laser seeker like Kitolov-2M and GRAN. A 125mm HE warhead with a delay fuze should be more than enough to deal with the roof armour of any modern tank in service.
    avatar
    Ives

    Posts : 44
    Points : 56
    Join date : 2017-11-09

    Re: ATGM for Russian tanks.

    Post  Ives on Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:07 am

    Interlinked wrote:If tanks are going to be used for long range indirect fire on a regular basis, then I would recommend an unassisted top attack shell with a laser seeker like Kitolov-2M and GRAN. A 125mm HE warhead with a delay fuze should be more than enough to deal with the roof armour of any modern tank in service.

    These toys are 120mm. Most Russian tanks use 125mm canon. The most modern ATGM they can use for now is Reflex-M, which kinda inferior to LAHAT, though. I don't know much about Sprinter, btw. Only in the case of 152mm version of T-14, Russian tanks gonna have major superiority against LAHAT and KSTAM, thanks to the ability to use Kornet-1D and Krasnopol-M. But, it seems to me, that a new modification of Reflex should be developed for T-72B3, T-90M and T-80BVM as a response to LAHAT as well.

    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Interlinked on Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:30 am

    What is the advantage of increasing the direct fire range of anti-tank missiles beyond what has already been achieved with Refleks and Svir? What are the chances of a T-80VBM seeing and identifying a tank-type target at 8 km in Central Europe?
    avatar
    Ives

    Posts : 44
    Points : 56
    Join date : 2017-11-09

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Ives on Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:36 am

    Interlinked wrote:What is the advantage of increasing the direct fire range of anti-tank missiles beyond what has already been achieved with Refleks and Svir? What are the chances of a T-80VBM seeing and identifying a tank-type target at 8 km in Central Europe?

    Tank should be suitable not only for european terrain IMHO. It should be functional in all hypothetical scenarios I think.

    Sent from Topic'it App
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Interlinked on Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:58 am

    The problem idoes not merely concern terrain obstacles, but also the weather conditions and the magnification capabilities of the sighting system. Even if a T-80BVM were sitting atop a hill in Syria and looking out into never ending plains, the weather is probably not good enough for the crew to see a tank-sized target at 8 km, not to mention the fact that Russian thermal imaging optics have very limited digital zoom capabilities. Sosna-U only has 3x optical zoom (day channel) and 6x digital zoom (thermal vision channel). That's very, very bad. Contemporary Western FLIR sights have more than 20x digital magnification.

    Plus, you can't identify a tank from a truck or even a decently sized diesel generator at 8 km with a high magnification thermal imager, especially if the target is a NATO tank and is wearing Barracuda thermoptic camouflage. Because of this, the long range of LAHAT can only be exploited by forward observers equipped with a laser designator, not by the tank alone. The tank firing the LAHAT would be doing so in an indirect fire mode, not in direct fire, and that's why I said "If tanks are going to be used for long range indirect fire on a regular basis, then I would recommend an unassisted top attack shell with a laser seeker like Kitolov-2M and GRAN."

    It's simply not feasible any other way.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:10 am