Tank Guns and Ammunition

[hest]

Re: Al-Khalid/MBT-2000 Main Battle Tank

Oh Yes, it's very interesting thema

Value 900mm RHA is taken from space and not according to the truth It fake to be onest but looks nice in promo material

Ussaly modern SC (HEAT) warhed have some realtio between perforation and diameter. It was the same for both side of barricade (NATO/ Warsaw Pact) and it's still relevant. Unfortunatly most of HEAT capabilities are overestimated.
Israeli claims that their clon DM-12 (HEAT-MP-T M325) can perforate more then 700mm RHA armour. For 120mm diameter warhed it's give relatio 5.83.
For really modern HEAT it's relatio equal to 6,5 with precursor.
In fact for all single HEAT warhed relatio between perforation and diameter is between 5.5 and 6.5.
And most of HEAT capabilities are overestimated. You can read on otvaga2000 Wasilija Frontanowa about Kobra - this GLATGM rare have more then 550-600mm RHA perforation (4.4-4.8 ratio)! In fact it's about 200mm RHA less then btvt claims. And In fact I trust more Frontanov then btvt and others...
For other side - Imroved TOW had only 650mm RHA perforation (5.1 ratio) when most sources claim that ITOW had 800mm RHA (6.2 ratio). And german DM-12 in theory had more then 700mm RHA perforation (5,8 ratio) but in fact it's guaranteed about 620-650mm RHA (5,1-5,4).
In fact almoust all HEAT capabilities are overestimated in peforation RHA thema -and exatly the same is about Russian ATGM's and GLATGM's.
I would like only to remind case when Kornet-E went to Arab Emirates. Russian ads claims that Kornet-E can perforate even 1200-1300mm RHA. And what? And those big 152mm warhed where able to perforate only 1000mm RHA. In newest Kornet form Tula ads clair claimd that newest Kornet version have increased perforation from 1100mm RHA to 1300mm RHA. So what was perforation for oldes ones? ;-) And we are talking about 152mm diameter warhed. And 125mm will have 900mm RHA "after ERA"?
Bullshit.
This all 900mm for Panzerfast-3IT, 750mm RHA for RPG-29, 900mm for Invarare taken for one RHA monoblock whit middle HB scale and used precursor and main warhed on this plate. But without ERA counteraction!
The more funny story is when we consider that there are moe then one perforation value. In fact we have:
a) achievable perforation (the best result -ussali this vaue is given in ads)
b) guaranteed perforation (military standard)
c) multi layers armour perforation (it's varies -diffrent fo each armor model)
And in fact old DM-12 have:
a) >700mm RHA
b) ~620-650mm RHA
c) on very erly Leopard-2 armour model (~1978-1979) about 450mm deep.

Figures about decades older developements are not relevant for this discussion as you see.

You made great error.

On each facility, performance of warhead depends on many factors; understanding of each institute, facility, of physics of high velocity processes, energy of explosive element, manufacturing methods which mark precission of process (formation of cumulative jet) and quality of construction, etc.

Scientifical and manufacturing base was different for each facility, and you just assume it was the same in different countries ??

About Kornet, in 90s it had perforation of 1000 mm after reactive armour. With newer developements, improvement of manufacturing methods, performance of Kornet was increased to 1200-1300 mm after ERA.

This is in favour of stated figure for 125mm Invar of current production, from 750mm to about 900mm.

For Vampir RPG warhead perforation is given as 750 mm after ERA (all figures are given after reactive armour as norm of Soviet tests and developement, but it is not true for some Western countries).

And it may not be correct to directly compare figures as there may be difference in standart (steel hardness).

It's next nonsens:
a) typical fire range in Europe is less then 1500m (96%)
b) in tekst abur GLATGM it was about not "neutralise" but mobility kill and it's diffrense
b) this 750-800mm RHA perforation for Refleks/Invar (this is the correct value) it's to less to perforate front turret and in many case hull armour for +/-30. from longitiudal axis (turret) and +/-20. (hull).
BTW: even If Invar have this "900mm RHA after ERA" (which is bullshit) then it's still to less value. To destroy any tank HEAT wahed must have at lest 150mm RHA perforation bigerr value then armour protection.
So 900mm RHA warhed to ignit ammo or kill crew must perforate armour no stronger then 750mm RHA. In fact Burlinghton armour in middle 1970 achive simmilar protection...

As stated single missile has more than half, about 0.6 probability to neutralise enemy tank. Neutralisation figure is given by probability of hit (from 5 km) in dependance of probability to disable target (+/- 30 degres, frontal engagement), as can be perforation and after armour effect (warhead, protection and distribution of armour), damage and innutilisation of firepower, optics, gun by direct hit or fragmentary effect of nearby explosion, and such important elements to the point of disability for enemy to perform in combat.

For Lahat probability is about 0.4 on same conditions (based on figures of Arkan missile of analogous figures, medium perforation of 700 mm) requiring 2-3 missiles to neutralise target.

And guidance system, semi-active laser designation with power of rangefinder, it is just outdated. In most situations against modern tank it will not even reach target, leading to opposite situation for user by alerting enemy tank at range of 5 km...

In modern engagements rangefinder for measuring distance is not directly pointed at enemy as to not alert, and Lahat requires direct incidence of laser designator of similar power in opposition with fighting doctrine.

 

[Damian]

Figures about decades older developements are not relevant for this discussion as you see.

You made great error.

On each facility, performance of warhead depends on many factors; understanding of each institute, facility, of physics of high velocity processes, energy of explosive element, manufacturing methods which mark precission of process (formation of cumulative jet) and quality of construction, etc.

Scientifical and manufacturing base was different for each facility, and you just assume it was the same in different countries ??

About Kornet, in 90s it had perforation of 1000 mm after reactive armour. With newer developements, improvement of manufacturing methods, performance of Kornet was increased to 1200-1300 mm after ERA.

This is in favour of stated figure for 125mm Invar of current production, from 750mm to about 900mm.

For Vampir RPG warhead perforation is given as 750 mm after ERA (all figures are given after reactive armour as norm of Soviet tests and developement, but it is not true for some Western countries).

And it may not be correct to directly compare figures as there may be difference in standart (steel hardness).

Actually You are wrong, West have preatty good knowledge about Soviet developments. You know that British BRIXMIS teams even stolen T-64 and T-80 (variants unspecified) composite armor documentation that was added to tank manuals in one of units? I seen a CIA armor protection estimations based on these stolen documents. So also western sources are more accurate than You think.

So I also do not belive in the official figures, that are nothing more but advertisement from manufacturers, as Militarysta said, penetration levels in real world are much smaller.

Besides this, even if RPG-29 have 750mm after ERA, then it means it is nothing impressive, when it was unable to perforate front hull armor of M1 series, that is in most cases estimated as max 800mm RHAe vs CE, and there is no additional ERA. Of course armor estimations are as "reliable" as penetration estimations for these types of ammunition mentioned here.

As stated single missile has more than half, about 0.6 probability to neutralise enemy tank. Neutralisation figure is given by probability of hit (from 5 km) in dependance of probability to disable target (+/- 30 degres, frontal engagement), as can be perforation and after armour effect (warhead, protection and distribution of armour), damage and innutilisation of firepower, optics, gun by direct hit or fragmentary effect of nearby explosion, and such important elements to the point of disability for enemy to perform in combat.

For Lahat probability is about 0.4 on same conditions (based on figures of Arkan missile of analogous figures, medium perforation of 700 mm) requiring 2-3 missiles to neutralise target.

All these numbers are far from reality, it looks like a computer game to me, not a real world, where is more chaos, and unexpected situations, than in some silly simulations.

And guidance system, semi-active laser designation with power of rangefinder, it is just outdated. In most situations against modern tank it will not even reach target, leading to opposite situation for user by alerting enemy tank at range of 5 km...

In modern engagements rangefinder for measuring distance is not directly pointed at enemy as to not alert, and Lahat requires direct incidence of laser designator of similar power in opposition with fighting doctrine.

Equally obsolete is beam riding system, future belongs to passive electro-optical guidance system, like in Spike or FGM-148. Americans after all developed autonomous guidance system based on electro-optical components for XM1111 and it was working. I do not see a reason why to use obsolete ammunition like 9M119.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Al-Khalid/MBT-2000 Main Battle Tank

Figures about decades older developements are not relevant for this discussion as you see.

Yes they are, becouse it;'s simple rato between SINGLE SC diameter and its perforation value. There is no mirracle here.

You made great error.

Sure, enlight me.

On each facility, performance of warhead depends on many factors; understanding of each institute, facility, of physics of high velocity processes, energy of explosive element, manufacturing methods which mark precission of process (formation of cumulative jet) and quality of construction, etc.

Yes, and simmilars factor are propper for ERA, and others, and...? where is the poin?


Oh, here:

Scientifical and manufacturing base was different for each facility, and you just assume it was the same in different countries ??

Yes becouse we can't say that in western institute and developmend study they had whorse HEAT warhed tn in Soviet Union. In fact in NATO countries erlier they start and developed on HEAT warhed. So If "offcialy" western estimatous for Dm-12, TOW, ITOW, etc where/are overestimated then Soviet/Russain are overestimated too. And as Wasilij prove in Kobra themat -they are! Becouse 550mm RHA is much less then "paper" 650-700mm given in mos sources.
So problem is the same for both sides - overestimated data for preforation SC warheds.

About Kornet, in 90s it had perforation of 1000 mm after reactive armour. With newer developements, improvement of manufacturing methods, performance of Kornet was increased to 1200-1300 mm after ERA.

Rather was, in fact only 1000mm during test in Arabi Amirates not 1200mm RHA given in factory datas. So again - overestimated.

This is in favour of stated figure for 125mm Invar of current production, from 750mm to about 900mm.

Sergiej Suworow in big articles (two) in Nowa Technika Wojskowa gave for Refleks-M 750mm RHA after ERA it was not so long ago...

As stated single missile has more than half, about 0.6 probability to neutralise enemy tank. Neutralisation figure is given by probability of hit (from 5 km) in dependance of probability to disable target (+/- 30 degres, frontal engagement), as can be perforation and after armour effect (warhead, protection and distribution of armour), damage and innutilisation of firepower, optics, gun by direct hit or fragmentary effect of nearby explosion, and such important elements to the point of disability for enemy to perform in combat.

There is no adavntages using GLATGM in Europe warfare teatr when in 96% max combat fire range is 1500m.
APFSDS is better.


BTW: again: to destroy target (ignit ammo, or kill crew) HEAT warhed must have perforation about 150mm RHA bigger then target armour protection. It's mean that this all GLATGM have to less perforation values to kill tank for +/-30. for longitiudal axis.
Refleks-M 750mm RHA - 150 = 600mm RHA. Well...in 1985 NATO tanks have mucht better protection vs HEAT.
Your false satsmen about Invar - 900mm RHA (in fact 800mm after ERA) - 150mm = 750mm RHA it's Les then Leopard-2A4 had in 1988...and it's value close to turret sides for 30. protection (660mm LOS).

Using GLATGM whit direct LOS profile attack is pointles when shot range is 1500m (96%) and warhed is to small to perforate tank armour for +/-30. for longitiudal axis.

 

[hest]

Re: Al-Khalid/MBT-2000 Main Battle Tank

Yes they are, becouse it;'s simple rato between SINGLE SC diameter and its perforation value. There is no mirracle here.


Sure, enlight me.


Yes, and simmilars factor are propper for ERA, and others, and...? where is the poin?

Point is, that it is futile to talk about such different weapons when relation between diameter and performance is different, therefore figures for one missile will imply nothing to another as it is obvious.

Oh, here:

Yes becouse we can't say that in western institute and developmend study they had whorse HEAT warhed tn in Soviet Union. In fact in NATO countries erlier they start and developed on HEAT warhed. So If "offcialy" western estimatous for Dm-12, TOW, ITOW, etc where/are overestimated then Soviet/Russain are overestimated too. And as Wasilij prove in Kobra themat -they are! Becouse 550mm RHA is much less then "paper" 650-700mm given in mos sources.
So problem is the same for both sides - overestimated data for preforation SC warheds.

It was different in USSR with different entities, and you just assume it would be the same in all the world, and used that silly argument.

Figures are given in accordance with standart tests. Rest is just your negation for whatever the reason.

Rather was, in fact only 1000mm during test in Arabi Amirates not 1200mm RHA given in factory datas. So again - overestimated.

In 90s it was 1000 mm after ERA, in fact that was the first figure I have seen. It then was improved to current 1200-1300 mm, so what is your point, that performance will improve due to new developements ??

Sergiej Suworow in big articles (two) in Nowa Technika Wojskowa gave for Refleks-M 750mm RHA after ERA it was not so long ago...

It is another mistake. 9K119M Refleks-M is guidance system. Figure for 750 mm is for 9M119M Invar missile (late 80s, 90s). 9M119M1 Invar-M is about 900 mm.

There is no adavntages using GLATGM in Europe warfare teatr when in 96% max combat fire range is 1500m.
APFSDS is better.


BTW: again: to destroy target (ignit ammo, or kill crew) HEAT warhed must have perforation about 150mm RHA bigger then target armour protection. It's mean that this all GLATGM have to less perforation values to kill tank for +/-30. for longitiudal axis.
Refleks-M 750mm RHA - 150 = 600mm RHA. Well...in 1985 NATO tanks have mucht better protection vs HEAT.
Your false satsmen about Invar - 900mm RHA (in fact 800mm after ERA) - 150mm = 750mm RHA it's Les then Leopard-2A4 had in 1988...and it's value close to turret sides for 30. protection (660mm LOS).

Using GLATGM whit direct LOS profile attack is pointles when shot range is 1500m (96%) and warhed is to small to perforate tank armour for +/-30. for longitiudal axis.

I detailed estimation made by KBP in accordance with Soviet standart. And as I explained you use the wrong figures...

 

[hest]

About 125 mm round Svinets-1. Figure stated by VIM (otvaga) of 40 % increase in performance over Mango, was stated about 10 years ago. But round finalised trials and was accepted in service in 2010 if I remember correctly. So as you see, and I already said, do not pay more attention than needed to that figure.

Wheter Svinets-2 (Tungsten) is being purchased it is not certain. Seems only DU for now.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Al-Khalid/MBT-2000 Main Battle Tank

Point is, that it is futile to talk about such different weapons when relation between diameter and performance is different, therefore figures for one missile will imply nothing to another as it is obvious.
(...)
It was different in USSR with different entities, and you just assume it would be the same in all the world, and used that silly argument.
(...)
Figures are given in accordance with standart tests. Rest is just your negation for whatever the reason.

Point is simple: all HEAT warhed are overestimated - NATO ones and Russian ones. So marketig ads about "900mm after ERA" is overestimated too. Value is just lower.

In 90s it was 1000 mm after ERA, in fact that was the first figure I have seen. It then was improved to current 1200-1300 mm, so what is your point, that performance will improve due to new developements ??

Poin is simple - Russian dates and articles based on material from KBM Tula was...overestimated when first figure ~1200mm RHA was given, and after Kornet test in Emirates it was "only" 1000mm RHA. Just again overestimated.

It is another mistake. 9K119M Refleks-M is guidance system. Figure for 750 mm is for 9M119M Invar missile (late 80s, 90s). 9M119M1 Invar-M is about 900 mm.

You know...Sergiej Suworow is guy who rather know more about 9M119M then You..so if the biggest valu in articles about this is 750mm RHA after ERA so (if this value is not overestimated to) it's true. About in Your idea improwed Invar-M this date is in oposite to other data: 800mm RHA after ERA whih have more sense.

I detailed estimation made by KBP in accordance with Soviet standart. And as I explained you use the wrong figures...

My figures about terrein in Europe are proper, about armour in western MBTs rather too. Even if perforation level is not overestimated for Invar-M (im sure it is overestimated like for almoust all Soviet/Rusian and NATO ATGMS) then its to little to perforate frontal MBT armour. And even side turret for 30. degree.

 

[militarysta]

About 125 mm round Svinets-1. Figure stated by VIM (otvaga) of 40 % increase in performance over Mango, was stated about 10 years ago. But round finalised trials and was accepted in service in 2010 if I remember correctly. So as you see, and I already said, do not pay more attention than needed to that figure.
.

And this value: 40 % increase in performance over Mango is confirmed even now during presentation T-90MS. So there is no change. Even in this month in big article in polish Nowa Technika Wojskowa about T-90MS and Oplot-M this figure is repeted - and article was writen whit sourses given by UWZ and Charkiv. So there is rather no change.

 

[hest]

Re: Al-Khalid/MBT-2000 Main Battle Tank

Point is simple: all HEAT warhed are overestimated - NATO ones and Russian ones. So marketig ads about "900mm after ERA" is overestimated too. Value is just lower.

Well, they are given after rigorous tests and it is not just up to producer.

I see no reason to call everything overestimated.

Poin is simple - Russian dates and articles based on material from KBM Tula was...overestimated when first figure ~1200mm RHA was given, and after Kornet test in Emirates it was "only" 1000mm RHA. Just again overestimated.

I still do not see your point.

152 mm Kornet had stated perforation of 1000mm in 90s. Current production is 1200-1300mm.

130 mm Hermes has stated perforation figure of 1000mm as well as modern Shturm of same caliber.

Invar had stated perforation of 750mm, Invar-M about 900mm.

So what here is out of logic ??

You know...Sergiej Suworow is guy who rather know more about 9M119M then You..so if the biggest valu in articles about this is 750mm RHA after ERA so (if this value is not overestimated to) it's true. About in Your idea improwed Invar-M this date is in oposite to other data: 800mm RHA after ERA whih have more sense.

You just got figure for the wrong missile. He said about 9M119M, we are discussing 9M119M1.

Same as when you confused 3BM48 Svinets with 3BM59 Svinets-1

My figures about terrein in Europe are proper, about armour in western MBTs rather too. Even if perforation level is not overestimated for Invar-M (im sure it is overestimated like for almoust all Soviet/Rusian and NATO ATGMS) then its to little to perforate frontal MBT armour. And even side turret for 30. degree.

Figures are correct and I will trust official estimations.

 

[hest]

And this value: 40 % increase in performance over Mango is confirmed even now during presentation T-90MS. So there is no change. Even in this month in big article in polish Nowa Technika Wojskowa about T-90MS and Oplot-M this figure is repeted - and article was writen whit sourses given by UWZ and Charkiv. So there is rather no change.

It seems to me just like they repeat the same old figure all the time because that is what they have...

But many things change after tests, especially after such time. I am just saying, that figure of 40% is very rought estimate.

 

[militarysta]

It seems to me just like they repeat the same old figure all the time because that is what they have...

But many things change after tests, especially after such time. I am just saying, that figure of 40% is very rought estimate.

Knowing Russian military industry and tendency to overestimated weapond dates - if performance Sniviet would be better then they had placed them in ads or articles.
And even for newest articles dates is the same.
BTW: for ony 700mm long penetrator achive more then 640-700mm RHA is very difficult or impossible without incarasing penetrator lenght. This value is on DM53 level (slight better then for L-44 , slighty worse then from L-55) so it's very possible.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Al-Khalid/MBT-2000 Main Battle Tank

Well, they are given after rigorous tests and it is not just up to producer.

I see no reason to call everything overestimated.

Becouse the same "after rigorous tests and it is not just up to producer" data for Kobra, for ITOW, TOW-2A, DM-12, Kornet, etc where overestimated.

I still do not see your point.

152 mm Kornet had stated perforation of 1000mm in 90s. Current production is 1200-1300mm.

But in 90. ads claim that it was 1200mm level -in fact it was 1000mm. Again - overestimated.

Invar had stated perforation of 750mm, Invar-M about 900mm.

So what here is out of logic ??

Only hyperoptimistic perforation values. For Invar-M it's max 800mm RHA, for Invar 650-700mm RHA.

You just got figure for the wrong missile. He said about 9M119M, we are discussing 9M119M1.

I know that, but in the same time what we have on other sources about 9M119M? In most of them (even on btvt... 700-750mm RHA, and 650mm RHA after ERA) it was no better then 750mm RHA. But it's rather overestimated and it bellow 700mm... For 9M119M1 it's for best datea 850mm RHA after ERA. Agains overestimated and propably 750 maybe 800.

Figures are correct and I will trust official estimations.

It's just pure marketing.

 

[hest]

Knowing Russian military industry and tendency to overestimated weapond dates - if performance Sniviet would be better then they had placed them in ads or articles.
And even for newest articles dates is the same.

There is no goverment permission to advertise Svinets because it is still considered secret. It is bureaucratic issue.

So they repeat figure of 40% which was stated back in 1998.

BTW: for ony 700mm long penetrator achive more then 640-700mm RHA is very difficult or impossible without incarasing penetrator lenght. This value is on DM53 level (slight better then for L-44 , slighty worse then from L-55) so it's very possible.

Since there is difference in material (DU) and in gun (energy) this specific example is not necessarily valid.

 

[militarysta]

Since there is difference in material (DU) and in gun (energy) this specific example is not necessarily valid.

DU haven't adavntages in compare to the modern tungsten rods. WHA in modern penetrator have self-sharpening abilities too and it's harder aterial then DU using in alloy.
Well MJ for penetrator and sabot is between DM53 L-44 and DM-53 L-55 so it's again "on the middle".

 

[hest]

Re: Al-Khalid/MBT-2000 Main Battle Tank

Becouse the same "after rigorous tests and it is not just up to producer" data for Kobra, for ITOW, TOW-2A, DM-12, Kornet, etc where overestimated.

It is because you look to sources which you shouldn't and then realise it is not correct...

But in 90. ads claim that it was 1200mm level -in fact it was 1000mm. Again - overestimated.

There is no overestimation.

Original missile 9M133 is advertised as 1000-1200mm. Improved 9M133M as 1100-1300 mm.

Only hyperoptimistic perforation values. For Invar-M it's max 800mm RHA, for Invar 650-700mm RHA.

Stated figure of about 900mm for 125mm fully corresponds with figures of about 1200 for 152mm Kornet, 1000mm for Hemres, etc...

So no argument here.

It's just pure marketing.

It is valid estimation.

 

[hest]

DU haven't adavntages in compare to the modern tungsten rods. WHA in modern penetrator have self-sharpening abilities too and it's harder aterial then DU using in alloy.
Well MJ for penetrator and sabot is between DM53 L-44 and DM-53 L-55 so it's again "on the middle".

It migh have advantages, so it was chosen...

If round operates under same pressure then it will be equivalent to DM-53 L/55.

 

[Akim]

Modernization of tank of Leclerc under a 140-mm gun.

 

[methos]

Regarding the Pakistani tank gun:
You guys notice that the data is about the pressure of the projectile (at unkown conditions, probably some rather high temperature) and not about the maximum supported pressure.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Regarding the Pakistani tank gun:You guys notice that the data is about the pressure of the projectile (at unkown conditions, probably some rather high temperature) and not about the maximum supported pressure.

I dont see its written pressure of the projectile rather Max pressure..

 

[methos]

The file lists the pressure in a table which compares different types of ammunition and charges used. It does not say that this is the maximum design pressure of the gun. In contrast it even contains values for two different types of propellant charges.

 

[hest]

125 mm gun of increased power 2A82

"(..)
In breech of bore is present an additional conical portion that interacts with the leading part of the new ammunition of increased power shifted from the regular conical section near the muzzle allowing to place in chamber projectile with increased amount of propellant.

The invention allows the use of both already available ammunition, and newly developed high power ammunition, also increases the strength and vitality of the bore, and decreases content of resultant gas in crew compartment ..."

So it is also compatible with ammunition developed for 2A46M series.

Description