Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Share
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1229
    Points : 1386
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:00 am

    Zivo wrote:They already have Refleks. Very Happy

    refleks range-5km

    LAHAT range-8km

    I'll be very disappointed if the T-99s ATGM has less than 1200-1300mm pen after ERA
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16870
    Points : 17478
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:09 pm

    Actually I don't think increased range would be all that useful... targets detected at more than 5-6km will have too much time to reach cover unless you want a dramatic increase in flight speed for the missiles.

    It might sound a little strange but 700mm is actually plenty of penetration performance if you can configure the missile as a diving top attack weapon with stand of detonation.

    One example is Self Forging Fragments where a flat metal disk with a large HE charge backing is used to penetrate armour. Basically the explosive charge detonates and blows the disk down towards the tanks top armour. The rapid acceleration and short flight through the air reshapes the disk into what looks a bit like a shuttlecock shape, if you are familiar with the game badminton you will know what I am talking about. The very high speed of the metal disk gives it reasonable penetration at targets hundreds of metres away. A shaped charge can be designed with a long focal length so it can detonate outside the triggering range of an APS and it launches a HEAT beam of plasma at speeds of 5-6km/s towards the tank roof.

    There is an existing example... the TM-83 is a side hitting anti tank mine which can be set up at the side of the road, and triggered by optics or audio... it can penetrate up to 400mm of armour with the penetration being up to 8cm in diameter from up to 50m in range.


    _________________
    “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
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Zivo on Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:21 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    Zivo wrote:They already have Refleks. Very Happy

    refleks range-5km

    LAHAT range-8km

    I'll be very disappointed if the T-99s ATGM has less than 1200-1300mm pen after ERA

    The 8km range claim comes from a misunderstanding of this paragraph on IAI's website. This paragraph pertains to the airborne use of the system.

    Despite its small size and light weight, LAHAT is highly effective against a variety of target types, including tanks, at ranges well over 8 km. LAHAT can accurately hit moving targets, including enemy helicopters. LAHAT's long range enable helicopters to engage and destroy enemy forces while avoiding the enemy's air defenses.

    The correct range is actually 6+, taken from this sentence on their product page for LAHAT

    In its tank gun launched version LAHAT is handled by the 105mm or 120mm gunner, as a standard gun round. The missile performs precision homing on a laser-designated target, ensuring first shot, tank-kill at ranges over 6Km.

    Refleks has a max range of 6km. Lahat has 6+.

    However, Refleks, being an active beam riding projectile, has some very important advantages that make it better as a gun launched ATGM. The beam used to guide the missile is weak enough to not trip laser warning systems. This is important because, unlike the semi-active laser homing Lahat, the targeted vehicle will not have 15+ seconds to react when you paint it at a 5km range. The tank being targeted by Refleks will not see it coming, and will not be able to move and deploy countermeasures. Some system when firing Refleks, have what is called "elevation mode", which is equivalent to the "top-attack mode" in Lahat. Instead of directly guiding the missile to the target, the beam is automatically aimed above the target, on the last portion of the fight the beam is directed downwards on the target, the missile follows and makes contact. Beam riding missiles are also significantly cheaper to produce, and about as simple as you can get without using wires.

    Both weapons are different, the designs have their advantages, Lahat can be deployed on more than just tanks, it can also be guided by friendlies using a laser designator. But, if you took two T-90's, one with Refleks, one with Lahat, stuck them in a field and told them to duke it out. My money would be on the one with Refleks.

    I'm very interested to see what Russia uses as their main next gen ATGM for Armata, beam riding or semi-active.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:18 pm


    refleks range-5km

    LAHAT range-8km


    Usual low level information fruit of subtle play with words : LAHAT has 8 km of maximum engagement range from "ground vehicles" .....but only when fired in direct attack's profile from pack sealed tubes , when shoot from a MBT's main gun its maximum range is 6 km , how specified in any serious ,professional source Rolling Eyes



    http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Missiles-And-Rockets-2004/India-test-fires-Israeli-designed-ATGM-from-Arjun-MBT.html


    Sorry ,Israel has not revolutioned missile propulsion technology neither aerodynamics actuators principles Smile


    Returning to the subject is important to point out also other important design characteristics that have ,up to this moment limited the export potential of LAHAT :

    The most important is that LAHAT is a semi-active laser homing guidance with direct reflected beam seeker-to-target cuing , this mean several things :

    1) That the designating laser beam must be powerful enough to allow its refracted component to be catched by missile seeker in different environmental conditions also at maximum rnages.
    This obviously mean that any relatively modern laser warning system is capable, practically always, to alert the enemy tank crew of a possible attack by part of a similar semi-active laser homing ; we know instead that, still today, detecting the laser beam of a laser beam riding missile (obviously some dozen of times less powerful) ....even admiting that the operator of the beam riding missile guide directly it toward its inteded target instead that ,as usual, above it to collimate the beam in the last seconds....represent an immnense problem.

    2) The guidance of LAHAT is obviously much more vulnerable to both battlefield obscurants and soft kill defensive systems.
    Image this common battlefield situation : a designated enemy tank detect LAHAT designating laser beam or directly missile lauch or receive from external assets, via BMS, info on the attack against it , some seconds after its aerosol dispensers create on its position ,up to 60-70 meters far, a thick layer of laser/IR opaque obscurants (which ,how you well know ,being lighter than air and dispersing accordingly ,are much more efficient at block up to down LOS than direct ground to ground ones); a weapon like LAHAT in this common battlefield situation , not being capable anymore to receive refracted signal from designation laser beam ,would become suddenly an unguided flying piece of metal, in the same situation a beam riding missile continue to be guided without any problem (the obscurant layer at 70-80 m from the enemy tanks would represent a distance covered by a missile like 9M119M1 in less than 20 hundredth of a second !).
    About "soft kill" defensive systems appear evident that the exposed seeker of a missile like LAHAT would result exposed and vulnerable to a similar soft kill APS while the "beam riding" sensor placed in the tail of a missile like Invar-M would result completely unjammable by a defensive system placed on the attacked vehicle.

    LAHAT ,moreover , is a subsonic missile (average speed of 285 m/s) 9M119M1 is a supersonic missile (average speed of 353 m/s) ,this don't only establish an important difference in the time at disposition of the enemy for find a cover or use defensive systems but also allow 9M119M1 to engage with far greater chances of success slow flying vehicles (such as UAV, helicopters or CAS aircraft) and to engage more targets in the same unitary times.



    How you can see a shallow observation of....moreover wronged Rolling Eyes .....numbers on Wikipedia don't allow you to realize the true capabilities of a weapon system and its real value on the battlefield.


    Austin

    Posts : 6445
    Points : 6846
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:33 pm

    As you do most of time Good Post Mindstorm my vote
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1229
    Points : 1386
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:12 pm

    Thanks for enlightening my my ind so full of western disinformation Smile


    However one last question remains: is the LAHAT more powerful than the 9M111M1(did I get the designation wrong?)?

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:07 pm


    Thanks for enlightening my my ind so full of western disinformation


    Western disinformation ? This one ? Laughing

    Oh not, KomissarBojanchev, absolutely !

    Disinformation is a very serious ,subtle and extremely more complex and refined practice ; nothing to do with similar garbage.That is ,much more simply, the product of very low level of information, often exacerbated by the ridiculous bias of scarcely knowledgeable and emotionally involved contributors.

    Do you see ,this is a very common instance on the net : take for example the ,by now (in)famous, article of designation-system site on AIM-120 missile .
    The figures provided for range of those missiles are ,obviously and laughably out of line for any person with even only a minimum of specific knowledege and access to serious sources ; but that has not prevented those comical figures to be used for years (some use them still today !!! Laughing Laughing ) in low level debates among ignorants - but emotionally involved - people.

    Simple like that ; leave outside "western disinformation" from similar information-trash , a real western disinformation operative could eat you alive for the offense to its professionality Very Happy .


    is the LAHAT more powerful than the 9M119M1 (fixed for you Wink ) ?


    Obviously not, it is a weapon designed to provide western MBT 120mm guns with a some kind of that stand-off guided missile capability like that present in practically any eastern-built MBT since Soviet times.

    LAHAT show also ,obviously, interesting features like its limited third party target designation thanks to coded signal -on the like of today Kornet-M/EM - (very useful when the unit has no means to directly track or designate the intended target) and its "universal" nature (shortening logistical tail and greatly simplifying repair and maintenance operations) ,but against an advanced opponent it would result truly too frail and easy to neutralize to be employed effciently.




    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Zivo on Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:10 pm

    Question, is their any talk of switching from two piece, to single piece ammunition in Armata?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16870
    Points : 17478
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:09 am

    Question, is their any talk of switching from two piece, to single piece ammunition in Armata?

    For what benefit?


    _________________
    “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
    GarryB

    Posts : 16870
    Points : 17478
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:39 am

    BTW regarding the SOKOL-1 guided gun tube fired round which uses optical guidance is interesting for a comparison to LAHAT.

    The SOKOL-1 is described as having an electrooptical guidance, it has an optical port in the nose of the missile and can be guided to hit targets like bunkers or trenches or indeed parts of buildings using a laser target marker. Against armour however it uses passive homing against stationary and moving targets.

    This description is very similar to that of the Ugroza guidance kit of unguided Russian aircraft launched rockets. ie they can be used in passive mode against equipment located in the open or moving, or in active mode homing on a laser spot projected onto the target by a laser designator.

    Against a modern tank of course the laser will immediately trip the smoke grenades and the tank will likely try to move behind cover in relation to the source of the laser beam. A helo of course could use this to their advantage by sweeping an area with a laser and look for the tell tale puffs of smoke to locate enemy armour no matter how well camouflaged it is or what sort of IR or optical systems it is using to hide. The natural next response would be to launch a barrage of sensor fused submunitions from a Smerch battery up to 90km away into the smoke screen... the MMW radar will have no problems penetrating the smoke to find the armour beneath...


    _________________
    “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
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Zivo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:22 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Question, is their any talk of switching from two piece, to single piece ammunition in Armata?

    For what benefit?

    I'm just curious if it has been discussed. I've seen some drawings of soviet concepts through the years and some featured single piece rounds for their auto loaders. It doesn't really offer a benefit, just a different approach with the same result.
    avatar
    AZZKIKR

    Posts : 42
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2012-07-18
    Age : 25
    Location : singaporean

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  AZZKIKR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:26 am

    Will the Russians develop a 152mm version of the Refleks (ATGM)? Or will the 152mm have improved long-ranged capabilities that removes the need for the Refleks?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16870
    Points : 17478
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:43 am

    Two piece ammo is only slower to load if done manually... one piece at a time.

    In an autoloader having two piece ammo makes the parts more compact and easier to handle.

    AFAIK if NATO goes for 140mm rounds they will be two piece rounds because one piece ammo would be both too heavy and too long for the crew to handle in the confines of the turret.

    Personally I would like to see new design liquid propellent guns being used.

    The liquid propellent can be more powerful than solid propellent and can be separated into two inert fluids that are not flammable until mixed.

    Such an arrangement is called a binary propellent where mixed together they are a powerful explosive, but while separated they are nonflammable.

    The obvious advantage is that stored separately the propellent is no fire risk at all and stored in tanks widely separated on the vehicle it makes the vehicle much safer. Of course the two fluids wont necessarily be non toxic or even safe to bathe in, but being able to pump them into the chamber behind the projectile with real precision should allow propellent to be more efficiently used for different situations like a howitzer. The combination of barrel angle and propellent charge size would allow trajectory shaping to make targets behind frontal cover no longer safe. It could even be used to adapt the trajectory of HEAT rounds to result in near vertical impact angles to get a cheap top attack capability...

    Very high temperature liquid propellants could be used with EM equipped barrels as plasma can be shaped and controlled with magnetic fields to accelerate projectiles to higher speeds without higher propellant pressure.

    Will the Russians develop a 152mm version of the Refleks (ATGM)? Or will the 152mm have improved long-ranged capabilities that removes the need for the Refleks?

    There is no one magic technology... even if the 152mm gun is effective to 8km or more I rather suspect they will develop a diving top attack missile anyway, simply because fitting it with MMW radar guidance it could be launched fire and forget over dead ground. The simple fact is that new technology is a race and as each side develops new stuff other sides develop counters so it makes sense to have as many options available to you as possible.

    In other words a guided gun launched missile is already mature technology and with a few extra tweeks it can offer capabilities other rounds of ammo can't... including a dedicated MMW radar guided anti helo missile... or anti UAV missile.

    Not every enemy vehicle will have APS systems.


    _________________
    “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
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Zivo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:58 am

    The decision whether to use the 125mm or 15Xmm gun will rest solely on what the west uses for their next gen MBT, if they even adopt one at all. If they go for another 70-80 ton behemoth, expect the larger gun. If it's a smaller 60ton vehicle, Russia will most likely just keep the 125mm and use longer rounds. Engineers make the gun just large enough to pen the target MBT at a reasonable range. After all the larger the round is, the less you can carry.

    If they go with the 15Xmm gun, I fully expect them to put a 15Xmm ATGM into service. Refleks is effective don't get me wrong, but it doesn't seem to guarantee first shot kill capability. However, a top attack 125mm or one with downward facing shaped charges would also be very effective at destroying any foreseeable armor over the next few decades.

    As you can see, they have a lot of options for Armata's weapons.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Zivo on Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:00 am

    The liquid propellant idea is an interesting concept, has there ever been any formal research into that approach?
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1229
    Points : 1386
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:47 pm

    Zivo wrote:The decision whether to use the 125mm or 15Xmm gun will rest solely on what the west uses for their next gen MBT, if they even adopt one at all. If they go for another 70-80 ton behemoth, expect the larger gun. If it's a smaller 60ton vehicle, Russia will most likely just keep the 125mm and use longer rounds. Engineers make the gun just large enough to pen the target MBT at a reasonable range. After all the larger the round is, the less you can carry.

    If they go with the 15Xmm gun, I fully expect them to put a 15Xmm ATGM into service. Refleks is effective don't get me wrong, but it doesn't seem to guarantee first shot kill capability. However, a top attack 125mm or one with downward facing shaped charges would also be very effective at destroying any foreseeable armor over the next few decades.

    As you can see, they have a lot of options for Armata's weapons.

    It isnt all about AT capability. IMO a 152mm HE or even thermobaric shell will be a welcome antipersonell capabilityimprovemnt and the possibility for better armor penetration and more Powerful ATGM.

    Increasing the clibre of the gun gives more advantages than just increasing the velocity and improving the AT lethality of the shells.


    As long as the T-99 will have an autoloader thereis no big setback in using a 152mm gun.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    I hope the armata's 152mm gun will be 50+ calibers long and have an ATGM better than the LAHAT.

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:13 pm

    Will the Russians develop a 152mm version of the Refleks (ATGM)? Or will the 152mm have improved long-ranged capabilities that removes the need for the Refleks?

    152mm ? We talk here of a far introduction ....152 mm main gun was the gun developed for Object 195 , MBT on the platform "Armata", at least initially, will not follow its father's road.



    Personally I would like to see new design liquid propellent guns being used.

    The liquid propellent can be more powerful than solid propellent and can be separated into two inert fluids that are not flammable until mixed.

    It is possible ,but for perspective KE weapons the road that will be likely followed will be railguns (extensive pioneering studies and also very advanced experimentations on this technology was conducted since Soviet times ).

    This is a recent article on this subject coming from btvt.narod site and commnented, with some "veiled details" added in the final comments, on the site of Andrey Khlopotov's site

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.it/2012/08/blog-post_4274.html


    Anyone can realize that the realization of a full "electric" MBT with a very high and efficient energy's cycle, generators and storage ,around which so much R&D's efforts in the latest years has been commited in Russia, was not aimed only to the engine and suspension department.... Wink




    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16870
    Points : 17478
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    The decision whether to use the 125mm or 15Xmm gun

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:20 am

    The decision whether to use the 125mm or 15Xmm gun will rest solely on what the west uses for their next gen MBT, if they even adopt one at all. If they go for another 70-80 ton behemoth, expect the larger gun. If it's a smaller 60ton vehicle, Russia will most likely just keep the 125mm and use longer rounds. Engineers make the gun just large enough to pen the target MBT at a reasonable range. After all the larger the round is, the less you can carry.

    I agree, but changing to a new calibre is very very expensive, so it would need to be for a very good reason.

    At the moment I think they have happy just to develop new ammo and new 125mm guns to see how far they can improve them and they will likely be adequate for a few years yet.

    An increase in calibre means less rounds on platforms, but the issue is not having the most rounds on board, but can it do its job.

    For instance with 40 ton IFVs being developed in the west the 30mm gun of the BMP is no longer effective as an anti IFV weapon. Even if a BMP can carry 500 round in 30mm it doesn't matter if it can't penetrate an enemy IFV.

    The solution of the 57mm round is a problem because the ammo is huge and likely only about 40 rounds will be carried.

    Note the PT-76 was converted to carry the 57mm gun and it could carry about 90 rounds but the PT-76 is a light tank, not a troop carrier and it had plenty of space in the hull for extra ammo, which the new IFVs wont... they need to carry troops in the hull.

    The best solution is new ammo design that is powerful but more compact and easy to handle and store.

    Unlike the fiasco in the US over gun launched missiles the Soviets and Russians approach the concept rather differently. The US wanted a super missile firing tank, so they designed the missile and then the gun to fire it. It was incredibly impressive for the time, but at the end of the day it was unreliable and while on paper it was far superior, in practise a modified M113 APC with a TOW launcher on top was much simpler, much cheaper, and much much more effective.
    The Russian/Soviet approach was that they were not developing a super missile tank (they had already tried that), what they were after was another type of ammo that the commander could choose to use or to not use to make existing tanks much more flexible and capable. The result is an enormous range of gun tube launched missiles from the 100mm rifled tank gun of the T-54/55, the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3, the 115mm gun of the T-62, and a wide range of missiles for the 125mm gun for the T-64/72/80/90 and other tanks and towed anti tank guns, but also for 120mm mortars, 122mm artillery pieces, 130mm naval guns, 152mm land and naval guns, 203mm guns, and 240mm mortars.

    Some of the early models were radio command, but most of the later models were laser homing or laser beam riding.

    Even the French were impressed with the 155mm guided shells and bought some... they were compatible with French laser target markers too.

    Anyone can realize that the realization of a full "electric" MBT with a very high and efficient energy's cycle, generators and storage ,around which so much R&D's efforts in the latest years has been commited in Russia, was not aimed only to the engine and suspension department....

    The technology is coming... electric trains and electric cars are just the beginning and the technology has huge potential... I look forward to the day when the Tank commander orders the gunner to transfer power from the shields to the main gun ready to fire, then to the wheels to get out of there before the return fire arrives... Smile


    _________________
    “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

    Austin

    Posts : 6445
    Points : 6846
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:17 pm

    information on Svinet-1 newer APFSDS from Lidsky M.D and GurKhan post

    They are of penetrator lenght analogous to latest German ammunition and use new propellant operating at higher pressure. Based on prototype drawings, it should have a penetration level around 700 mm for 0 inclination, but more important are design features to defeat modern composite armour, tip design, speed to perform better against sloped armour

    Also it seems the indian T-90 which uses 2A46M2 Gun has auto loader that allows maximum penetrator length of 580-600 mm while Svinets-1/2 are 720-740 and it fire at higher chamber pressure due to more energetic propellent , so the older M2 Guns cannot fire the newer rounds unless they change the gun and autoloader which happens during capital repair.

    I think what we can say the newer round have average penetration of 700 mm at 0 degrees which make it comparable to US M829A2 rounds in penetration but newer APFSDS rounds are also under development so we can expect more improvement over that figure of 700 mm


    Austin

    Posts : 6445
    Points : 6846
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:18 pm

    Even the figure of 850 mm for M829A3 round should not be able to defeat the frontal armour of T-90MS with Relikt which are in aprox range of 1100-1200 KE i believe.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:16 pm

    850mm for A3 sounds pretty inflated, no?
    Most modern estimates I have seen place it @ sub 800.

    OFc penetration is more than just a thickness value, there is round drop over flight time, performance against certain kinds of materials, etc etc.


    Last edited by TR1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  TR1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:18 pm

    Austin wrote:Even the figure of 850 mm for M829A3 round should not be able to defeat the frontal armour of T-90MS with Relikt which are in aprox range of 1100-1200 KE i believe.

    Well the thickness depends on the penetration of the round itself, since Relikt takes off a large capacity of penetrative potential (in some cases, completely shattering rounds ability to penetrate even mildly thick arrays. It is integrated armor at this point, not bolt on like earlier K-1 and K-5, but it makes calculating armor equivalency difficult.

    Austin

    Posts : 6445
    Points : 6846
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:59 am

    TR1 wrote:850mm for A3 sounds pretty inflated, no?
    Most modern estimates I have seen place it @ sub 800.

    OFc penetration is more than just a thickness value, there is round drop over flight time, performance against certain kinds of materials, etc etc.

    Do you have better quotes from say more reliable sources on A3 ?

    Yeah I agree Relikt would be effective against any type of APFSDS it faces blunting it significantly before it faces the composite armour.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:36 am



    My vote to you Austin.


    Even the figure of 850 mm for M829A3 round


    I don't see anything supporting this figure in the chart (neither sincerely ever heard someone come to this degree of impudence Very Happy Very Happy in its attempts to inflate M829A3's penetration value).

    The figure of 700 mm RHA penetration for Svinets-1 is very likely the guaranteed penetration value at 2000 m of distance and 0 degrees angle of incidence.

    An M829A2 has ,at the same condition, a penetration value practically identical (but this figure in western literature represent average penetration value at a particular range).

    An M829A3 instead present a penetration value around 760-770 mm RHA, but it is significantly slower and has a monoblock rod with a greater L/D ratio and ,as explained previously, those factors increase the efficiency of flying-plate ERA's defeating mechanism and sensibly lower the probability to hit against targets moving in not-uniform way. (in reality M829A3 slow speed and tip design was purposely designed on the bet to do not trigger K-5 ERA at all instead to attempt to defeat it Wink ).




    Austin

    Posts : 6445
    Points : 6846
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:46 am

    Thanks for your vote Mindstorm ..... Wink Laughing

    I am just waiting for September where at Tagil they will show the new rounds and end the suspense for all

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tanks guns and ammunition

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:30 am