Russian Tank guns Ammunition

Some interesting information from this article

http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2014-03-28/1_artillery.html


ATGM 9M119M "Invar" entered service in 1986 on the results of the GOP

Comparative evaluation of lesion "Abrams" missile 9M119M presented Academician Arkady Shipunov
Features	Efficiency defeat tanks missile 9M119M
	M1A1	M1A2
The probability of hitting a tank missile	0.47	0.2
Number of missiles for secure destruction of the tank during the shelling of the most protected areas of frontal	3	5

Table 3 Estimates of defeat "Abrams" with various protected frontal zones when firing the cannon "Octopus-B" projectile "Lead"
Features	M1	M1A1	M1A2
The probability of hitting a tank BPS "Lead"	0.30	0.15	0.09
Number of shells for secure destruction of the tank during the shelling most protected frontal zones	4	7	12

hmm, maybe probability of hitting is better translated as probability of penetration.
the low efficiency of both Invar and Lead(Svinets?) against m1a2 should not come as a surprise since they are introduced before it.
Theres newer Invar(Invar-M),Lead-2(Svinets-2?) that would do better and then theres the next gen stuff- Grifel apfsds.

Also, T-90A has guided missiles and way more faster APFSDS- m829a3 will have a hard time touching the much smaller T-90A.

collegeboy16 wrote:hmm, maybe probability of hitting is better translated as probability of penetration.
the low efficiency of both Invar and Lead(Svinets?) against m1a2 should not come as a surprise since they are introduced before it.
Theres newer Invar(Invar-M),Lead-2(Svinets-2?) that would do better and then theres the next gen stuff- Grifel apfsds.

Also, T-90A has guided missiles and way more faster APFSDS- m829a3 will have a hard time touching the much smaller T-90A.

There's the T-90MS that has a better auto-loader that allows for longer perpetrators, and my guess there's room probably for even longer propellant stubs.

Where are they even getting these numbers from? If the Invar hits the front armor array, you can shoot 20 of them and they will not penetrate (barring the armor falling apart inside).

If you hit a weakened zone, one is all you need.

If the missile comes in at any sort of angle on the front plate, the driver will be killed.

TR1 wrote:Where are they even getting these numbers from? If the Invar hits the front armor array, you can shoot 20 of them and they will not penetrate (barring the armor falling apart inside).

If you hit a weakened zone, one is all you need.

If the missile comes in at any sort of angle on the front plate, the driver will be killed.

Exactly, either it hits a zone of the tank which has less armor than the Missile can penetrate and the tank,crew and function of the tank gets damaged or even killed, and after a penetration, even if you survive that is the ultimate moral killer.

The hit propability is BS squared and the number of missiles is only possible if this would be the amount of missiles needed to statistically hit the weak zone of the frontal arc armor of a tank, otherwise you can shoot dozens on the hard armored area without real effect.

And the most powerfull round/missile that is used by tanks is the ZBK-31M with 800mm RHA penetration trible tandem HEAT round and Invar with 900-950mm Penetration. (ERA).

So the turret is mostly safe except of gun mantled and optical housing area, the upper and lower hull are not really protective to withstand 950mm on any Abrams.

hmm, maybe its better understood as probability of hitting some spot (not necessarily weak zone) that could be penetrated.
Discussion of current best apfsds against best armor is moot anyway- realistically and statistically they wont face each other much if not at all on the battlefield.
Besides that, all will kneel before Armata MBTs anyway.

Austin wrote:Some interesting information from this article

http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2014-03-28/1_artillery.html


ATGM 9M119M "Invar" entered service in 1986 on the results of the GOP

So its like 28 Years we are using Invar ? Without any major modernisation or upgrade ?

Comparative evaluation of lesion "Abrams" missile 9M119M presented Academician Arkady Shipunov
Features	Efficiency defeat tanks missile 9M119M
	M1A1	M1A2
The probability of hitting a tank missile	0.47	0.2
Number of missiles for secure destruction of the tank during the shelling of the most protected areas of frontal	3	5

IT Says it needs 5 Invar to take out M1A2 frontal protection with probabilty of hit as low as 0.2  ?

Table 3 Estimates of defeat "Abrams" with various protected frontal zones when firing the cannon "Octopus-B" projectile "Lead"
Features	M1	M1A1	M1A2
The probability of hitting a tank BPS "Lead"	0.30	0.15	0.09
Number of shells for secure destruction of the tank during the shelling most protected frontal zones	4	7	12

And 9 Lead APFSDS to take out frontal protection of M1A2 ?


Is the result so skewed in favour of M1A2 ?

Austin i am really surprised that you have cited this "article" without seeing the author.
This "article" is from the by now infamous......Mikhail Rastopshin......and ex employed of NII Stali that was fired in 1985.

Since then it begun to spell any sort of injury against anything related to domestic military systems (in particular in the armoured department) while, contemporaneously, to praise in a comical way any western military product very often even creating literally from nothing systems not present ,even only in the design stage, among western forces
Naturally it belong to that crowd of formerly Soviet state employees who , in the difficult '90 years, sold its hearth and intellectual integrity for western dollars .

Today it publish only similar laughable garbage , full of technical non senses and true comical factual inventions in controlled or foreign-funded newspapers and publications (masked even as "analytical pieces"..... ) the unique aim of which is obviously not any other than to promote the most classical western russian-bashing, "counter-will" psy-op propaganda of its " puppeteers".

A time into a while some official take even the trouble to respond to its absurdities and inventions.........

http://onolitegi.ru/index.php/2010-02-03-17-38-52/40-war-techinc-analyzis/116-cnii-vs-rastopshin.html#.Uzm_RE2KCUk


Austin those "articles" by mister rastopshin are technically not worth even only the paper where them are written

First I was wondering where the hell you could gather such information without blind guesswork.   
After seeing Mindstorm post everything started to make sense

nah, lets cut Austin some slack... if it werent for him finding that article Mindstorm wouldnt be able to expose it for what it is.

Also, even if a T-90A cant reliably kill an M1A2 the opposite would also be true- esp. with Relikt ERA.
A T-90A fighting against an M1A2 would have the advantage of first look and therefore first shot when Nakidka is used- an M1A2 wont be able to due to the huge exhause plume of its GT engine.
Not only that, a T-90A can fire from extended ranges and reliably hit the M1A2 with the reflex- a hit on the front may not penetrate, but im sure that 120 mm gun would have extensive shrapnel damage- f-kill.
Also, with Ainet fused HE rounds, all those bradleys/ strykers/ atgm teams/ attack helos- basically anything anti-tank that is not under heavy armor protection would be toast. esp. bradleys which are rather huge and whose armor can be penetrated by an HE round like APHE.

collegeboy16 wrote:nah, lets cut Austin some slack... if it werent for him finding that article Mindstorm wouldnt be able to expose it for what it is.

Also, even if a T-90A cant reliably kill an M1A2 the opposite would also be true- esp. with Relikt ERA.
A T-90A fighting against an M1A2 would have the advantage of first look and therefore first shot when Nakidka is used- an M1A2 wont be able to due to the huge exhause plume of its GT engine.
Not only that, a T-90A can fire from extended ranges and reliably hit the M1A2 with the reflex- a hit on the front may not penetrate, but im sure that 120 mm gun would have extensive shrapnel damage- f-kill.
Also, with Ainet fused HE rounds, all those bradleys/ strykers/ atgm teams/ attack helos- basically anything anti-tank that is not under heavy armor protection would be toast. esp. bradleys which are rather huge and whose armor can be penetrated by an HE round like APHE.

All Russia needs to have their tanks ,escorted by this Kornets = D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6RDNz6dlXQ

They can penetrate the frontal armor of M1A2/3/4 or any one they have , 1300mm penetration after ERA and 8km range is not small..
and can fire 2 in salvo to defeat Active Protection. Simply in any land combat Russia can fire first and knock down any tank. The Kornet-D can be used against Troops or helicopters or war places flying slow up to 10km.. another anti tank missile could be the Hermes..
with 20km/100km range.. mounted on Attack helicopters or armored cars.

the problem with HEAT rounds is that with the advent of APS- they have become much easier to counter.
Also shooting them out of a gun barrel prohibitively limits their effectiveness- you can put as much fancy
additional warheads and exotic materials/ designs but at the end of the day what you really need is a larger
diameter of warhead.
The future is still with APFSDS- make em bigger, stronger and faster. IMO HEAT rounds will eventually be
replaced by APHE rounds with electronic fuses. These two rounds would be bread and butter for MBTs-
with the added bonus that to make both more effective in the anti-armor role- you simply put more energy
through the barrel.

collegeboy16 wrote:the problem with HEAT rounds is that with the advent of APS- they have become much easier to counter.
Also shooting them out of a gun barrel prohibitively limits their effectiveness- you can put as much fancy
additional warheads and exotic materials/ designs but at the end of the day what you really need is a larger
diameter of warhead.
The future is still with APFSDS- make em bigger, stronger and faster. IMO HEAT rounds will eventually be
replaced by APHE rounds with electronic fuses. These two rounds would be bread and butter for MBTs-
with the added bonus that to make both more effective in the anti-armor role- you simply put more energy
through the barrel.

The problem with APS is that there are only 2 countries who have APS and only one that has standardized it for only a a couple dozen vehicles, so the claim that HEAT have lower advantage than APFSDS is nonsense. HEAT rounds are still much more capable and versitile than any existing or tomorrow APFSDS round.
APFSDS rounds are absolutley useless against everything that is not a tank, IFV and APCs will not even be damaged by it if it doesn't hit ammunition or engine.

still HEAT is no substitute for the true MP round- HE. HEAT is relatively mediocre for both anti-armor and anti-softies anyway-
former is because it is outclassed by APFSDS and latter is because of the nature of HEAT round- focused blast.
Oh and APS usage will spread- Its basically a computer, some sensors and interceptor- nothing special. The anti-HEAT rounds
would be easiest to proliferate since they are the easiest of anti-armor threats to counter and well most numerous(Rpg-7)

collegeboy16 wrote:still HEAT is no substitute for the true MP round- HE. HEAT is relatively mediocre for both anti-armor and anti-softies anyway-
former is because it is outclassed by APFSDS and latter is because of the nature of HEAT round- focused blast.
Oh and APS usage will spread- Its basically a computer, some sensors and interceptor- nothing special. The anti-HEAT rounds
would be easiest to proliferate since they are the easiest of anti-armor threats to counter and well most numerous(Rpg-7)

Wrong, the most powerfull HEAT round has highest penetration capability compared with any APFSDS today or tomorrow.

BK-31M 800mm behind ERA at ALL ranges not like APFSDS which have to go at least 2km range to its target before beeing effective at all and actually even at point blank range APFSDS are incapable to penetrate tanks frontal armor.
Invar 900-950mm behind ERA penetration capability and guided!

APFSDS have zero capability to destroy anything else but tanks, if it hits an APC it will only make one inch hole without any real effect unless its engine or ammunition. HEAT rounds are the only allround AT weapon we have that are effective against tanks as IFV's or APC's or trucks even bunkers to a certain degree.

APFSDS round are much easier to counter than HEAT rounds. All MBT's today are immune to frontal attacks of less than 800-850mm penetration capability and i speak about the average armor. APFSDS round regardless of how fast they are it is an absolutley different thing to hit the exact weak spot if a projectile that is only one inch thick at a static or even moving target that can engage you with much higher hit propability and more powerfull weapon than you can. And even if Invar or HEAT round wouldn't penetrate they still have potential to inflicht damage to optics, firepower or mobility kill, APFSDS rounds are useless as long they are not capable to penetrate the armor, period.

Wrong, modern MBTs have more than 1m RHA (HEAT) equivalent. They have however lower values against KE (850-950) which can be remedied by newer rounds- (Grifel) and this is where APFSDS is better since you can improve more aspect of it like propellant/ sabot/ te penetrator the gun itself, etc. With HEAT, you what make it what quadruple charged- which I highly doubt is possible in the tiny confines of a 125 mm projectile.

Also, once ETC guns are here HEAT would be even more irrelevant in anti-armor role as part of MBT loadout.

Also, HEAT is defeinitely easier to counter than APFSDS- composite armor/ spaced armor/ and NERA/ERA and then APS- right now only ERA capable of dealing with APFSDS is Relikt, only APS capable of dealing with APFSDS is Afghanistan, and M1A1/2 have to incorporate dangerous DU layer (tungsten in case of advanced Leopard 2s) to deal with APFSDS more effectivle.

Also APCs and IFVs could be dealth with more effectively with HE round- catastrophic kill everytime.

collegeboy16 wrote:Wrong, modern MBTs have more than 1m RHA (HEAT) equivalent. They have however lower values against KE (850-950) which can be remedied by newer rounds- (Grifel) and this is where APFSDS is better since you can improve more aspect of it like propellant/ sabot/ te penetrator the gun itself, etc. With HEAT, you what make it what quadruple charged- which I highly doubt is possible in the tiny confines of a 125 mm projectile.

Do you really want me make to laugh? There is no APFSDS that can do more than 750mm RHA penetration and yes RHA already is a unifed measurement so telling me that 750mm RHA is more penetration than 900mm RHA just because one is APFSDS and the other is HEAT. That is nonsense. BK-31M HEAT 800mm (at 100m or at 5000m) vs RHA > M829A3 750mm RHA at 2km. And it also really doesn't matter what you believe about HEAT, the point is they do not use copper liners but alloys today to improve penetration capabilities. Penetrators are useless at longer distances than 2km and who has a higher chance getting killed first the tank that only has APFSDS which are useless at higher ranges then 2km or the tank that has more powerfull guided rounds which can hit up to 5km?

It doesn't matter how the enemy tank is knocked out mobility,optical or firepower kill it all counts as a kill so the enemy crew can not continue their duty.

collegeboy16 wrote:Also, once ETC guns are here HEAT would be even more irrelevant in anti-armor role as part of MBT loadout.

Also, HEAT is defeinitely easier to counter than APFSDS- composite armor/ spaced armor/ and NERA/ERA and then APS- right now only ERA capable of dealing with APFSDS is Relikt, only APS capable of dealing with APFSDS is Afghanistan, and M1A1/2 have to incorporate dangerous DU layer (tungsten in case of advanced Leopard 2s) to deal with APFSDS more effectivle.

Also APCs and IFVs could be dealth with more effectively with HE round- catastrophic kill everytime.

Funny claim, Kontakt 5 already neutralizes M829A1/2 and that is the case only for old T-72AV not even for T-90A1 with 8 layered armor compared with the 6 layered T-90.

APFSDS are countered so easy just through the longer arm on the battlefield that APFSDS equipped tanks wouldn't b able to enter effective range before getting smoked.

Just because the propaganda warmachine of the US blesses the russian invention of APFSDS doesn't mean it is the ultra dupper super weapon like you think, it is actually the least usefull weapon for Anti Tank roll, tanks today can use.

hah, HEAT maybe effective at any range but would it even reach the target- APFSDS is much faster and has a much flatter trajectory so there is a significant decrease in time the target could "dodge" it.

i stand by what i said, that higher number for HEAT is equivalent to lower number for APFSDS against realistic armor- not simple RHA steel stacks ofc. Also, what you dont get with HEAT rounds is that massive lump of metal ready to do even more damage after penetrating the main armor- a shaped charge jet more likely thins out as it travels through the spaceous interior- unless it causes cookoff or fire its not as dangerous as KE rod. Also, 10mj would give a pretty huge shock to anyone inside the tank- shattering optics mirrors, loosening electronics connections etc. HEAT rounds have small HE filler and the blast is focused straight into the jet that has small mass so impact is not so severe as apfsds+ lack of shrapnel due to low amt. of HE filler

Well, the primary murican APFSDS now is m829a3- which is supposed to defeat Kontakt-5. right now APFSDS is constrained by lack of additional energy from tank guns and propellant combo.

Regarding long range tankfights, scramjet sabot rounds could be made available. If you are getting whacked from further away use your own scramjet sabots- the further the fcker is the more fcked he is when it reaches him.

Werewolf wrote:
Just because the propaganda warmachine of the US blesses the russian invention of APFSDS doesn't mean it is the ultra dupper super weapon like you think, it is actually the least usefull weapon for Anti Tank roll, tanks today can use.

how can APFSDS be least useful for anti-tank role? Its made specifically for anti-tank role, isnt it? If its least useful how why is it the main anti-armor weapon of choice in an MBT? Heck, even the russkies recognize the need for more powerful tank guns- HEAT doesnt need one as long as the calibre sticks so I guess APFSDS(and potential APHE) would only benefit from it. Also, a nifty little feature of an APFSDS is that you can shoot through walls that would act like spaced armor if the projectile were HEAT.

With HEAT, you what make it what quadruple charged- which I highly doubt is possible in the tiny confines of a 125 mm projectile.

Heat projectiles are shorter than APFSDS projectiles so there is room to make them longer if needed.

GLATGMs are already rather long and could even better accommodate more shaped charges.

APFSDS is much faster and has a much flatter trajectory so there is a significant decrease in time the target could "dodge" it.

Dodge? Dodge something you can't even see? That would be impressive.

Personally I think you are both being silly... different targets need different types of ammo... suggesting you can get by with one type of ammo is like trying to play golf with a sand wedge and a 1 wood... sure you can play, but if you want a decent performance you need more clubs.

Also, a nifty little feature of an APFSDS is that you can shoot through walls that would act like spaced armor if the projectile were HEAT.

To make shooting through walls useful you would need to be able to see through walls to know what you are shooting at.

An enemy helicopter hovering behind a large tree 2km away would be a good target for an APFSDS round, but often very close range targets are also good targets to engage with APFSDS rounds. At longer ranges guided missiles are better but at middle distances and against the hundreds of other types of targets on the battlefield that tanks can't operate without there is HEAT and HE-FRAG.

GarryB wrote:
Heat projectiles are shorter than APFSDS projectiles so there is room to make them longer if needed.

GLATGMs are already rather long and could even better accommodate more shaped charges.

[/quote]
possible, yes, but prolly very difficult. 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. Not to mention even simple shrapnel can fck up the delicate precision arrangement of the charges. have them misalign at the last millisecond and instead of stabbing deeper they just make shallow cuts on the armor surface.

GarryB wrote:
Dodge? Dodge something you can't even see? That would be impressive.

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.

GarryB wrote:
To make shooting through walls useful you would need to be able to see through walls to know what you are shooting at.

An enemy helicopter hovering behind a large tree 2km away would be a good target for an APFSDS round, but often very close range targets are also good targets to engage with APFSDS rounds. At longer ranges guided missiles are better but at middle distances and against the hundreds of other types of targets on the battlefield that tanks can't operate without there is HEAT and HE-FRAG.

maybe a drone could act as observer in order to triangulate an aimpoint?

-i can finally use proper quotes- websites acting funny for me.

collegeboy16 wrote:
Dodge? Dodge something you can't even see? That would be impressive.

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.
Even without wind, temperature or whatever environmental influences todays FCS are not 100% accurate you would miss even a standing target at 5km range most of the time with unguided rounds.[/quote]

collegeboy16 wrote:
An enemy helicopter hovering behind a large tree 2km away would be a good target for an APFSDS round, but often very close range targets are also good targets to engage with APFSDS rounds. At longer ranges guided missiles are better but at middle distances and against the hundreds of other types of targets on the battlefield that tanks can't operate without there is HEAT and HE-FRAG.
maybe a drone could act as observer in order to triangulate an aimpoint?

-i can finally use proper quotes- websites acting funny for me.

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.

collegeboy16 wrote:
Regarding long range tankfights, scramjet sabot rounds could be made available. If you are getting whacked from further away use your own scramjet sabots- the further the fcker is the more fcked he is when it reaches him.

The scram-jet technology available is not nearly developed enough to be widely fielded anytime soon within the next 15 years, and good look trying to fit a miniature scram jet engine to fit in the confines of a smooth-bore gun barrel, there's a significant pattern regarding anything man-made that fly's at hyper-sonic speeds...have you noticed it? All man-made objects that fly at hyper-sonic speeds are quite large, ballistic missiles, Kh-32, etc. are quite large, and rail guns as they are now are not cost-effective nor are they viable technology (at least at this point).

As Garry mentioned there's lots of growth left for HEAT rounds, so they're looking better as a whole compared to APFSDS rounds...however there could be a revolutionary step-forward for sabot rounds with the advancement of quantum technology. With the creation of quantum computing, it's quite possible that the future of sabot dart rounds won't be made of tungsten/DU alloys, but may'be with liquid gel and plastic composite materials. Both the U.S. and Russia have developed BP vests with liquid gels that when struck with significant enough amount of pressure (the strike of a bullet) that the area struck turns the gel in to hardened carbon ceramics. 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   ) 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!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:
Regarding long range tankfights, scramjet sabot rounds could be made available. If you are getting whacked from further away use your own scramjet sabots- the further the fcker is the more fcked he is when it reaches him.

The scram-jet technology available is not nearly developed enough to be widely fielded anytime soon within the next 15 years, and good look trying to fit a miniature scram jet engine to fit in the confines of a smooth-bore gun barrel, there's a significant pattern regarding anything man-made that fly's at hyper-sonic speeds...have you noticed it? All man-made objects that fly at hyper-sonic speeds are quite large, ballistic missiles, Kh-32, etc. are quite large, and rail guns as they are now are not cost-effective nor are they viable technology (at least at this point).

As Garry mentioned there's lots of growth left for HEAT rounds, so they're looking better as a whole compared to APFSDS rounds...however there could be a revolutionary step-forward for sabot rounds with the advancement of quantum technology. With the creation of quantum computing, it's quite possible that the future of sabot dart rounds won't be made of tungsten/DU alloys, but may'be with liquid gel and plastic composite materials. Both the U.S. and Russia have developed BP vests with liquid gels that when struck with significant enough amount of pressure (the strike of a bullet) that the area struck turns the gel in to hardened carbon ceramics. 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   ) 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!

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.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:
Regarding long range tankfights, scramjet sabot rounds could be made available. If you are getting whacked from further away use your own scramjet sabots- the further the fcker is the more fcked he is when it reaches him.

The scram-jet technology available is not nearly developed enough to be widely fielded anytime soon within the next 15 years, and good look trying to fit a miniature scram jet engine to fit in the confines of a smooth-bore gun barrel, there's a significant pattern regarding anything man-made that fly's at hyper-sonic speeds...have you noticed it? All man-made objects that fly at hyper-sonic speeds are quite large, ballistic missiles, Kh-32, etc. are quite large, and rail guns as they are now are not cost-effective nor are they viable technology (at least at this point).

As Garry mentioned there's lots of growth left for HEAT rounds, so they're looking better as a whole compared to APFSDS rounds...however there could be a revolutionary step-forward for sabot rounds with the advancement of quantum technology. With the creation of quantum computing, it's quite possible that the future of sabot dart rounds won't be made of tungsten/DU alloys, but may'be with liquid gel and plastic composite materials. Both the U.S. and Russia have developed BP vests with liquid gels that when struck with significant enough amount of pressure (the strike of a bullet) that the area struck turns the gel in to hardened carbon ceramics. 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   ) 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!

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.

Well Russia has talented physicists no doubt about that, but I'm going to make a wild guess and say that their not widely deployed are they?

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:
Regarding long range tankfights, scramjet sabot rounds could be made available. If you are getting whacked from further away use your own scramjet sabots- the further the fcker is the more fcked he is when it reaches him.

The scram-jet technology available is not nearly developed enough to be widely fielded anytime soon within the next 15 years, and good look trying to fit a miniature scram jet engine to fit in the confines of a smooth-bore gun barrel, there's a significant pattern regarding anything man-made that fly's at hyper-sonic speeds...have you noticed it? All man-made objects that fly at hyper-sonic speeds are quite large, ballistic missiles, Kh-32, etc. are quite large, and rail guns as they are now are not cost-effective nor are they viable technology (at least at this point).

As Garry mentioned there's lots of growth left for HEAT rounds, so they're looking better as a whole compared to APFSDS rounds...however there could be a revolutionary step-forward for sabot rounds with the advancement of quantum technology. With the creation of quantum computing, it's quite possible that the future of sabot dart rounds won't be made of tungsten/DU alloys, but may'be with liquid gel and plastic composite materials. Both the U.S. and Russia have developed BP vests with liquid gels that when struck with significant enough amount of pressure (the strike of a bullet) that the area struck turns the gel in to hardened carbon ceramics. 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   ) 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!

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.

Well Russia has talented physicists no doubt about that, but I'm going to make a wild guess and say that their not widely deployed are they?

Well, if you had instead guessed that they have been widely deployed, and it's just that you haven't seen them, then you could have possibly been right.

May be some of the forum members that have been IS-9 or T-85 crew members can enlighten us.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
As Garry mentioned there's lots of growth left for HEAT rounds, so they're looking better as a whole compared to APFSDS rounds...however there could be a revolutionary step-forward for sabot rounds with the advancement of quantum technology. With the creation of quantum computing, it's quite possible that the future of sabot dart rounds won't be made of tungsten/DU alloys, but may'be with liquid gel and plastic composite materials. Both the U.S. and Russia have developed BP vests with liquid gels that when struck with significant enough amount of pressure (the strike of a bullet) that the area struck turns the gel in to hardened carbon ceramics. 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   ) 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!

hot damn! wheres my crysis suit? also can i get sources for these? thnx
anyway HEAT would still be good up until the near future- light MBTs with NLOS capabilities would only have top attack HEAT as viable anti-armor weapon for example. but for a more efficient loadout in heavier MBTs- an HE(APHE/AMP?) round, APFSDS round, and a guided sabot/HEAT round. Also, another problem with HEAT rounds is that man-portable weapons like Kornet easily beats them performance wise- you wouldnt want to arm your tanks with weapons inferior to your infantry's.