Russian Tank guns Ammunition

He is referring to the EFP getting fired from distance while traveling in air at high speeds. That would be like flying at Mach 2 and trying to hit a plate at 100 meters with a pistol...

A SFF warhead is just a warhead like a HEAT warhead... the HEAT warhead of the HERMES or Vikhr have no problem hitting a target while flying faster than mach 2.

Moving at about 6km/s a SFF moves in a fairly straight line... ground based anti helicopter mines developed by the Soviets quite a few years ago can hit a helicopter in flight with a SFF warhead fired from the ground...

And as I said submunitions using a SFF warhead was developed in the late 1980s in the Soviet Union and deployed in the Late 1980s using MMW radar aiming.

UAV's like that would be easy targets for just about anything.

A MALE or HALE might be, but a micro UAV from 10 kms is neither an easy to see target or easy to track with IR or radar.

they ended up having to deploy MiG-29s against Georgian UAVs in the 8 8 8 conflict because standard MANPADs wouldn't lock on such high altitude small targets and it was above the effective range of 23mm cannon. SA-17 could kill them but was over kill.

maybe they developed the 2a46m5 back when they thought the T-95 was gonna be a thing- that monster was meant to serve as elite tank alongside more numerous T-90.

they aren't working in a vaccuum... the developments of the 152mm gun will be known to the workers working on the upgrades of the 125mm gun and technology developed for one that is a step forward would no doubt be added to the other in time.

i need help, what gun all russian T-90A really use? and also de facto, do the modernised T-72B3 use the same gun+autoloader as the T-90A? (allowing to use longer APDSFS as the T-90A vs old basic T-72B?)

so is it the 2A46M-5 gun on both tanks? what's the main difference compared to older 2A46 variants? concretely... The 2A46M-5 how does it compare with 120mm NATO guns? which of the following is more true?


2A46M-5 < 120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55
120 L44 < 2A46M-5 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55
120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 2A46M-5 < 120 L55
120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55 < 2A46M-5

also, the 2A46M-5 is a L52 or L48 long caliber gun? Sources contradict...

The gun and autoloader on T-90MS are also identical to T-90A / T-72B3? or is it even another variant? (i think it's just a 2A46M-5 with muzzle reference system)

I pretty much don't care about T-80 gun, but it says the modernised T-80 saw their gun replaced by the 2A46M-4, which is the same as the M-5 adapted to T-80 autoloader, etc... So, is it as capable as the M-5? and sabot length? (by the way it should concern only the overhauled / modernised T-80u and T-80Bv that may even be called like T-80UM unofficially)

so in the end, is the new 2A82-M1 well above 2A46M-5 performance?

How is the performance of the 2A66 125mm gun on the object 187, and, the 2A75 gun on the 2S25 Spurt ?

120 L44 < 2A46M-5 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55 < 2A82-1M according to energy

first 4 have similar pressure(adjusted; smaller pressure rating on 125mm gun is bigger when converted to 120mm ), its only difference of caliber that matters here since the powder volume and quality is very similar.

last one supposedly has a lot more pressure owing to larger propellant volume.

cracker wrote:i need help, what gun all russian T-90A really use? and also de facto, do the modernised T-72B3 use the same gun+autoloader as the T-90A? (allowing to use longer APDSFS as the T-90A vs old basic T-72B?)

so is it the 2A46M-5 gun on both tanks? what's the main difference compared to older 2A46 variants? concretely... The 2A46M-5 how does it compare with 120mm NATO guns? which of the following is more true?


2A46M-5 < 120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55
120 L44 < 2A46M-5 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55
120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 2A46M-5 < 120 L55
120 L44 < 120 L52 (french) < 120 L55 < 2A46M-5

also, the 2A46M-5 is a L52 or L48 long caliber gun? Sources contradict...

The gun and autoloader on T-90MS are also identical to T-90A / T-72B3? or is it even another variant? (i think it's just a 2A46M-5 with muzzle reference system)

I pretty much don't care about T-80 gun, but it says the modernised T-80 saw their gun replaced by the 2A46M-4, which is the same as the M-5 adapted to T-80 autoloader, etc... So, is it as capable as the M-5? and sabot length? (by the way it should concern only the overhauled / modernised T-80u and T-80Bv that may even be called like T-80UM unofficially)

so in the end, is the new 2A82-M1 well above 2A46M-5 performance?

How is the performance of the 2A66 125mm gun on the object 187, and, the 2A75 gun on the 2S25 Spurt ?

T-90A has 6000mm length 48 calibres long and the gun is always 2A46M5.

http://www.zavod9.com/?pid=10106


http://topwar.ru/57191-tankovye-pushki-2a46m-5-i-2a46m-4.html


The gun says can field all nomenclature 125mm rounds while the 2A46M ad M1 can not.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.de/2011/10/90.html

The performance of 2A82M1 is suppossed to be higher than L55 Rheinmetall.

Дульная энергия пушки 2А82 существенно больше дульной энергией широко известной пушки Rheinmetall Rh 120/L55. По техническому уровню превосходство новой пушки оценивается в 1,2-1,25 раза.

Muzzle energy of the gun 2A82 is significantly more muzzle energy as the widely known gun Rheinmetall Rh-120/L55. On a technical level, the superiority of the new gun is estimated at 1.2-1.25 times.

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.

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 ?

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.

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

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

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!

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

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

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 :

Why HEAT munitions are still used if sabot are better ?

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 :

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.

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 :

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.

Rosatom to create ammunition for Armata tanks

http://tass.com/defense/929501

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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...

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?

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 . 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.

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.