Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+58
Swede55
Book.
Bankoletti
TK-421
galicije83
Isos
SALDIRAY
OminousSpudd
max steel
George1
Stealthflanker
Walther von Oldenburg
Godric
KoTeMoRe
kvs
VladimirSahin
victor1985
NationalRus
Morpheus Eberhardt
im42
higurashihougi
Vann7
Mike E
nemrod
Werewolf
magnumcromagnon
flamming_python
bantugbro
etaepsilonk
As Sa'iqa
KomissarBojanchev
Rpg type 7v
AlfaT8
a89
Regular
collegeboy16
ali.a.r
Sujoy
psg
Zivo
Mindstorm
TR1
runaway
medo
Acrab
KRATOS1133
Cyberspec
nightcrawler
GarryB
Pugnax
Viktor
IronsightSniper
Austin
milky_candy_sugar
sepheronx
Admin
solo.13mmfmj
Stalingradcommando
62 posters

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1113
    Points : 1280
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Mindstorm Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:18 am

    lyle6 wrote:If ever some retard appears and says the current firepower suite of the Leopard 2s are in parity let alone overmatch versus modernized Russian armor:


    Be it resolved by the Committee on Defense:

    The Federal Government is requested,

    to include in the 2021 budget the residual development and qualification of the 120mm KE2020Neo ammunition for the Leopard 2 CPC and to conclude a contract without delay. A report on implementation is to be submitted to the Defense Committee by March 31, 2021 at the latest.

    Substantiation:

    1. The L55 120mm tank gun system in use today in conjunction with the KE DM63 is no longer capable of successfully engaging the modernized portion of the Russian KPz fleet (several thousand vehicles) in the duel situation.

    2. development of new 120 mm ammunition (KE2020Neo) would significantly reduce the capability gap to VJTF 2027 and provide the technological basis for closing this gap.

    3. the current generation Leopard 2 main battle tank currently uses a KE ammunition with a penetrator technology dating back to 1995. modern reactive armor (Explosive Reactive Armour; ERA) such as the 3rd generation ERA (Relikt), which are and will be retrofitted to Russian main battle tanks even of older design (e.g.use in KPz T72B3, KPz T90M/MS), can no longer be successfully engaged with the existing KE ammunition. Therefore, there is an acute capability gap of the entire Leopard fleet in Germany and in the worldwide 120 mm user community including all NATO partners.

    https://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/233/1923326.pdf
    pp. 5-6

    Thanks lyle6 for the interesting document.

    Anyway this is a situation going on since a long while for western tank ammunitions designers; in the frontal projection, at tactically relevant distances, theirs most advanced tank's main gun subcaliber kinetic and cumulative ammunitions would have a very hard time in penetrating the latest modified (beginning of 2000 years ) "Контакт-5" in combination with realtively outdated passive armor composition let alone modern domestic armor compostition with "Реликт".

    As said also in the same document the projected KE2020Neo ammunition (around 20% improvement over DM63) will only partially reduce the penetration potential gap against "Реликт" - it will represent an intermediate step and the technological basis for the exaustion of the potential of the 120 mm caliber guns -.

    The main problem for them is that, after "Реликт", two entire gerations of dynamic protections has been completed in domestic scientifical Institutions of the field ,the second of which (barely calssifiable for working mechanism in the same class of K-5 or Реликт) will be mass produced in the new line of unified armoured vehicles family and begun already research for a third generation after "Реликт".

    Within some years, very likely, also theirs researchs on 130 mm main guns will be quickly redirected toward 140 mm caliber.

    magnumcromagnon, x_54_u43 and LMFS like this post

    Atmosphere
    Atmosphere

    Posts : 144
    Points : 146
    Join date : 2021-01-31

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Atmosphere Tue May 11, 2021 10:09 pm

    I have heared some claims that M829A4 could defeat Monolith.

    Obviously not. We dont even know if it can defeat relikt , let alone the new generation DZ.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 742
    Points : 744
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Tue May 11, 2021 11:42 pm

    Atmosphere wrote:I have heared some claims that M829A4 could defeat Monolith.

    Obviously not. We dont even know if it can defeat relikt , let alone the new generation DZ.

    Supposedly a precursor section peels off to trigger the ERA well ahead of the main body of the subcalibre projectile. How exactly you impart the relative velocity to separate the two parts remains unknown but some speculate use of drag fins to slow the primary section while the precursor races ahead. Personally this seems iffy considering you have to impart rather huge drag forces to slow the larger mass and of course keep the trim well balanced to avoid tumbling or instability or the core/s. Much better to install within the precursor a mini rocket with twin oblique nozzles that eject gases off-axis, minimizing the disturbance to the following main section
    Atmosphere
    Atmosphere

    Posts : 144
    Points : 146
    Join date : 2021-01-31

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Atmosphere Wed May 12, 2021 3:40 am

    This is the same principle as in Rpg-32 and Volley firing with kornet. 

    This however raises several questions. 
    When you peel off mass you peel off energy.
    And when you slow down the round you also reduce energy. 

    Further , Arena-E already solved the issue of multi target engagement , (against 1000 m/s targets) , so id expect afghanit to also have a same capability within Its speed envelope of 1700 m/s.
    Also , 
    Will this defeat the main armor then? People have this very wrong idea that russian base armor is weak or outdated. 
    Not at all , nii stali is a highly active researcher in the field of armor compositions , they just keep a lot under wraps.
    The physical thickness of the T-90M'S turret is comparable to nato tanks while having less height. During trials the export T-90S shrugged off KEW-A2 rounds from 250 m , and could defeat Mango rounds with *only the upper section being damaged* , this latter detail is what makes this feat impressive. 

    As for the T-14 then i don't even think it should be included
    Its Armor is crazy stuff. Given the Weight savings of having no turret Armor
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 742
    Points : 744
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Wed May 12, 2021 6:20 am

    That's why my approach is so much smarter - why reduce the performance of the main section delivering the bulk of the damage when you can achieve the same effect by tampering with the precursor instead?

    And while there might be APS that have multiple engagements down pat, its highly unlikely they would be able to discriminate and defeat this kind of attack: The two projectiles are to separate only in the very final approaches until impact putting the main body of the projectile well behind the shadow of the precursor relative to the sensors on the vehicle. The precursor which would have been treated to have a much higher signature than it would appear in multiple spectrums (which is certainly far easier to do than the opposite) thus effectively shielding the main section from being spotted. In effect only the precursor would be engaged and with only a few tens of meters between it and the target its impossible to engage the main section in time.

    For added bonus, make that two precursors that race off to trigger the APS and ERA respectively.

    And no, even composite armor is proving to be increasingly vulnerable to APFSDS rounds. Keep in mind behind that thickness is mostly empty space - the main working mechanism of base armors today are based on the NERA principles which require empty air pockets between the layers to work effectively deflecting and reflecting itself against the penetrator to cause it to yaw or erode more than it needs to or break up into many pieces outright. The problem though is the increasing sophistication of simulation tools which means you can design for rather complex interactions of the armor and the penetrator cores, provided of course you have good models for the enemy armor available on hand. If you can mitigate much of the anti-penetrator action that NERA relies on it would be pretty much like penetrating the rather pathetic physical thickness of the actual armor material itself which wouldn't really require the absurd lengths of penetrator you'd see on cold war and today's prospective armaments for NATO tanks.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30648
    Points : 31178
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB Wed May 12, 2021 10:24 am

    How exactly you impart the relative velocity to separate the two parts remains unknown but some speculate use of drag fins to slow the primary section while the precursor races ahead.

    Probably the simplest method would be explosive separation in flight with the front portion with its own stabilisation fins.

    The real problem of course will be that the front piece will likely be lighter than the rear piece so will likely slow down faster... and this will be compounded by the rear piece effectively flying through the disturbed air of the piece in front... sort of like the front part creating a wake of disturbed air the following piece will find easier to cut through so it will probably catch up quickly too... so the front portion would probably need a constant acceleration of a rocket motor.

    Honestly I can't see both bits hitting the same point on the tank if they are far enough apart for one to set off the APS and the other to sneak through before it resets, so each piece will have a separate ERA panel to try to penetrate and then the hull armour.

    The fundamental issue is that we are not even talking about Armata... we are talking about upgraded existing tank types they can't reliably penetrate with their main APFSDS rounds from their best tank gun... the new one the British are now switching too... just before they stop having tanks all together.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 742
    Points : 744
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Wed May 12, 2021 1:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Probably the simplest method would be explosive separation in flight with the front portion with its own stabilisation fins.

    The real problem of course will be that the front piece will likely be lighter than the rear piece so will likely slow down faster... and this will be compounded by the rear piece effectively flying through the disturbed air of the piece in front... sort of like the front part creating a wake of disturbed air the following piece will find easier to cut through so it will probably catch up quickly too... so the front portion  would probably need a constant acceleration of a rocket motor.

    Honestly I can't see both bits hitting the same point on the tank if they are far enough apart for one to set off the APS and the other to sneak through before it resets, so each piece will have a separate ERA panel to try to penetrate and then the hull armour.

    An explosion would have to be very precise to not cause either piece to tumble in flight. With a rocket the separation could be made much smoother minimizing the generation of turbulent airflow that the main section would fly into and maintaining its trajectory. Since its much shorter relative to the diameter the precursor could be spin stabilized as well by means of oblique nozzles to ensure it matches the trajectory of the original projectile.

    GarryB wrote:
    The fundamental issue is that we are not even talking about Armata... we are talking about upgraded existing tank types they can't reliably penetrate with their main APFSDS rounds from their best tank gun... the new one the British are now switching too... just before they stop having tanks all together.
    A round that could beat the Armata would pretty much demolish anything NATO can churn out so it does make sense for the Russians to talk about how to defeat their own tanks. Russian artillerists have their work cut out for them though, not gonna lie.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30648
    Points : 31178
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  GarryB Thu May 13, 2021 8:17 am

    An explosion would have to be very precise to not cause either piece to tumble in flight.

    Both pieces would need fin stabilisation which will also increase drag for both parts... but the real problem will be when... these rounds will be travelling at the best part of 1.8km/s, so immediately after sabot separation the explosive will have to activate to separate the lead penetrator and accelerate it far enough forward so the two pieces can't be intercepted together with the same munition...

    Actually the best option would be an outer shell that is maybe a tube with an internal diameter for the sabot round penetrator and then a body perhaps 3cm thick and then an outer metal shell... when the round is fired the entire full length tube can be launched forward with a solid rocket motor propellent between the two layers of the tube... it can disrupt the air in front of the penetrator and reduce its drag in flight so it should be able to fly faster and further than it would without this feature.

    The reason I suggest this is about weight... having a section of the penetrator means reducing the penetrators weight and length which is going to reduce its performance against anything it actually hits.

    Essentially having a sheath that is launched with the core and accelerates ahead after launch and sort of clears a path through the air and sets off the APS system for the closely following penetrator to streak past...

    Problem is that modern APS systems will have been developed knowing one way of trying to defeat the is the way the RPG-32 does with two rockets in quick succession to the dangerous threat gets by while the system resets after having engaged the decoy.

    Both objects might be intercepted anyway...

    With a rocket the separation could be made much smoother minimizing the generation of turbulent airflow that the main section would fly into and maintaining its trajectory

    With the amount of time available I would think explosive separation might be the only option... what if the target is less than 500m away?

    Since its much shorter relative to the diameter the precursor could be spin stabilized as well by means of oblique nozzles to ensure it matches the trajectory of the original projectile.

    In that case I would say a much better and much cheaper option would be to fit a 14.5mm HMG coaxial with the main gun and load APFSDS rounds in it with a corner reflector nose tip to make it appear much larger on radar... fire them at enemy tanks till the enemy tanks run out of interception munitions and then just use normal tank ammo....

    A round that could beat the Armata would pretty much demolish anything NATO can churn out so it does make sense for the Russians to talk about how to defeat their own tanks. Russian artillerists have their work cut out for them though, not gonna lie.

    The future will likely be dominated by diving top attack threats... and remote control vehicles.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 742
    Points : 744
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Thu May 13, 2021 10:01 am

    GarryB wrote:
    In that case I would say a much better and much cheaper option would be to fit a 14.5mm HMG coaxial with the main gun and load APFSDS rounds in it with a corner reflector nose tip to make it appear much larger on radar... fire them at enemy tanks till the enemy tanks run out of interception munitions and then just use normal tank ammo....

    I'd go one step further and mount a full-on 2500 rpm 2A38M gun as a coaxial. Against heavily protected vehicles, fire a one second burst of the coax and then quickly follow up with the main gun firing the APFSDS round timed so that the APFSDS penetrator arrives just milliseconds after the barrage of ~40 30 mm shells have done their work.

    GarryB wrote:
    The future will likely be dominated by diving top attack threats... and remote control vehicles.
    Until lasers come about - then its back to firing dumb unguided projectiles over open sights.

    Sponsored content

    General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread: - Page 22 Empty Re: General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:52 am