Tank Guns and Ammunition

[Dazzler]

The modified Kombat ATGM provided by Ukraine for both AK and T-80ud has a larger warhead and approximate length of 900mm. A while ago, i came to know that AZ autoloader in AK has had 29 modifications to accommodate longer ammunition.

 

[Dazzler]

Artem's Kombat has interesting profile, particularly guidance. What is interesting is the presence of former Air Chief Rao Suleman


Kombat - 125mm AT Missile - YouTube

 

[Dazzler]

Thanks!
I was aksing becouse that what I known is max lenght limit circa 750mm for 6ETS -like for modernizated AZ Korzina-A autoloader,. so I was suprised.

So does this mean that longer penetrator in the AK advert brochure is possible?

 

[Akim]

ATGM "Kombat" has a length of 1083 = (675 + 408) mm. So that it can be applied in different types Autoloaders.

 

[militarysta]

So does this mean that longer penetrator in the AK advert brochure is possible?

Ech, yes and not. Not becouse Al Chalid autoloader is based on AZ series from T-72 and ZTZ-90 tank. So it's completly diffrent autoloader then describe by Akim. But for the other hand - Russian in modernizated AZ autoloader incarase lenght up to ~750mm so at least the same lenght is possible in AK and Type99 tank. Incarase those lenght needed deeply hull rebuild whit thinner hull sides, and changed suspession and other components - so it's low possible.
Those "brochure APFSDS" is to long (800-820mm) to be fit even in modernisated AZ autoloader. So propably Methos have right. And take a notice - AZ modernisated have projectile circa 740mm long (AZ - T-72, T-90, Type-99, AK) but described by Akim 6ETS autoloader (T=64, T-80, T-80U, T-84, Oplot-M) have simmilar known projectile lenght - under 750mm lenght for whole projectile (rod equal to circa 700mm) .
So in both families we haven't bigger possible lenght (in Ukraina -6ETS and Russia -AZ) then circa 740-750mm. And known hull draws proof that.
So again - propably Methos have right and those "brochure APFSDS" is just badly rescaled.
But for the other hand - take a notice on those Chgineese APFSDS whit green balistiuc cap. Those APFSDS projectile have overall lenght circa 630-650mm and penetrator lenght whit circa 600mm (balistic cap + rod + fins) and rod (core) lenght circa 560-580mm. So it's better then 3BM42 and only slighty smaller then Sniviets-1. Penetartor whit that lenght shoud be able to perforate circa 600mm RHA at 2000m and maybe 650mm RHA under 1000m. So it's nice value.

 

[militarysta]

BTW: and please remember that penetration values are:
a) ussaly stupid factor becouse modern tank is not stack of the RHA plates
b) they can be some mesurmen method but it's depend on many factors.

APFSDS posibilities to penetration are depend not only on gun or size of the penetrator. Good example are known polish WITU work on new composite sabot:

Take a look - on left polish PRONIT so clon of the IMI Cl Mk2 APFSDS. Penetration circa 500mm RHA on 2000m -in polish industry pdf the same round achive circa 530mm RHA at 2000m. But on the right table we have modernisation the same round but whit composite sabot.
Projectile weight is smaller:
composite - 5,55kg
vs.
PRONIT - 7.55kg

new sabot is twice lighter:
composite - 1.85kg
vs
old sabot (PRONIT) - 3.85kg

rod mass (weight) is the same - 3.7kg in both rounds

But - initial velocity (it's not muzzle) is 114m/s bigger for composite sabot, MPA pressure for chamber is lower whit composite sabot (408MPa and for old PRONIT is 532MPa), and penetration value is circa 110mm better (610mm RHA on 2000m for composite sabot). So almoust ~20% better. And this all thanks to only one thing - composite sabot.
And how about APFSDS rounds whit oter factors - beter proppelant charge, better penetrator build, etc?
In fact two - very simmilar or almoust the same in size APFSDS rounds, and whit the same penetrator lenght, can have very diffrent penetration values - round whit composite sabot, whit segemnted penetartor, whit smaller diameter, etc will be better. In fact only one factor is important - how many MJ penetrator will transfer in to the target and on how big area (mm2). Rest is less important.

 

[Dazzler]

BTW: and please remember that penetration values are:
a) ussaly stupid factor becouse modern tank is not stack of the RHA plates
b) they can be some mesurmen method but it's depend on many factors.

APFSDS posibilities to penetration are depend not only on gun or size of the penetrator. Good example are known polish WITU work on new composite sabot:

Take a look - on left polish PRONIT so clon of the IMI Cl Mk2 APFSDS. Penetration circa 500mm RHA on 2000m -in polish industry pdf the same round achive circa 530mm RHA at 2000m. But on the right table we have modernisation the same round but whit composite sabot.
Projectile weight is smaller:
composite - 5,55kg
vs.
PRONIT - 7.55kg

new sabot is twice lighter:
composite - 1.85kg
vs
old sabot (PRONIT) - 3.85kg

rod mass (weight) is the same - 3.7kg in both rounds

But - initial velocity (it's not muzzle) is 114m/s bigger for composite sabot, MPA pressure for chamber is lower whit composite sabot (408MPa and for old PRONIT is 532MPa), and penetration value is circa 110mm better (610mm RHA on 2000m for composite sabot). So almoust ~20% better. And this all thanks to only one thing - composite sabot.
And how about APFSDS rounds whit oter factors - beter proppelant charge, better penetrator build, etc?
In fact two - very simmilar or almoust the same in size APFSDS rounds, and whit the same penetrator lenght, can have very diffrent penetration values - round whit composite sabot, whit segemnted penetartor, whit smaller diameter, etc will be better. In fact only one factor is important - how many MJ penetrator will transfer in to the target and on how big area (mm2). Rest is less important.

Agreed,

usually, an analysis underline most appropriate values to represent the most rational case. However, as highlighted above, there can be exceptions.

For e.g, a sabot may not always manage a hit within 30deg angle, yet the victim vehicle sustained damage, at time irrecoverable damage.

this is the best case scenario, there may be several vulnerabilities.

One way or another, nothing is invincible in modern battlefield

 

[Dazzler]

Pakistan Ordinance factory , notice the grey coloured APFSDS in the background, seems new to me

 

[militarysta]

Nope - olde one - those known from other photos (circa 460mm RHA at 2000m) it's definetly not new round.

 

[Dazzler]

Nope - olde one - those known from other photos (circa 460mm RHA at 2000m) it's definetly not new round.

In fact, penetrator length of the front most and the one at the back is the same.

Thanks

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

The latest in the series of tanks which can be fitted with a 140mm gun but currently uses 120mm gun is k2 black panther from south korea which uses an autoloader.The south koreans have done a great job and apart from the main gun(which is l55) everything is indegeneous though it is very expensive.Anywas I was wondering what are the barrel lengths of these higher caliber 140mm/155mm gun made by france,germany,america and russia and what barrel velocity can it acheive compared to l55(which is 1750m/s),if someone can shred some light on that.

 

[methos]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

The 140 mm gun is as long as the 120 mm L/55, the greater caliber however reduces the caliber length to just 47.
The K2 is not "completely indigenous". There are many things imported or build as joint venture. The South Korean engine for example had reliability problems, which is why the first batch(es) will be fitted with German MTU engines. The autoloader is based on the Leclerc's autoloader, the KSTAM (Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition) is a cooperation between South Korean companies and Diehl.

Muzzle velocity is depending on the ammunition fired. 1,800 m/s with a 1,000 mm long projectile was achieved by the Swiss 140 mm gun, which uses smaller ammunition than the quadro-lateral gun developed by Germany, France, the UK and the U.S. Hilmes claims that 1,900 m/s (with a similar long projectile) was planned to achieved by their gun.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@shuvo@y2k10, post about foreign tank guns here..

 

[militarysta]

German NPzK 140mm:


And it's MJ value:

Notice -those MJ value is for SABOT + penetrator not only for penetrator.

bTW:
@darklabor - do You have any infos how many 140mm rounds in autroloader coud carry Leclerc whit 140mm gun? 14?

 

[darklabor]

German NPzK 140mm:


And it's MJ value:

Notice -those MJ value is for SABOT + penetrator not only for penetrator.

bTW:
@darklabor - do You have any infos how many 140mm rounds in autroloader coud carry Leclerc whit 140mm gun? 14?

According to unofficial (yet serious enough to be heard) the autoloader for 140mm ammunition would contain the same amount of rounds as the regular 120mm autoloader. So 22.
The point is that the turret bustle is modified to be fitted with a longer, taller and wider autoloader.

[Edit] Nevermind, Mr Chassillan's book claim the same 22 rounds capacity.[/Edit]

 

[militarysta]

[Edit] Nevermind, Mr Chassillan's book claim the same 22 rounds capacity.[/Edit]

Thank You

 

[darklabor]

I've took the opportunity to re-read the chapter about it and to add some stuff:
The main gun volumes are quite the same with the 120mm, the brakes were really amazing in the fact that they were doing the job while being small. But the doubled recoil energy was too strong to be fully stopped, that's why they had to go for the muzzle brake as well.

 

[Damian]

Well the muzzle brake is not the best option but it seems they did not have much movement options here if they wanted to keep old turret.

BTW @darklabor, I have a question regarding a turret for a "Turkish" Leclerc that was presented when they were searching a foreing design as their new MBT.

Turret seems to be a better designed in terms of ballistic protection and reduction of weak zones than the original turret, can you tell more about it? It was only realized as a model, 3d model, drawing or it was actually build for tests?

 

[darklabor]

Well the muzzle brake is not the best option but it seems they did not have much movement options here if they wanted to keep old turret.

"... if they wanted to keep the same internal positionning of all components (without changing them all)." Would be a correct statement.

BTW @darklabor, I have a question regarding a turret for a "Turkish" Leclerc that was presented when they were searching a foreing design as their new MBT.

Turret seems to be a better designed in terms of ballistic protection and reduction of weak zones than the original turret, can you tell more about it? It was only realized as a model, 3d model, drawing or it was actually build for tests?

From what I know there was no actual turret built.

It is interesting to note that when the TNMBT (Turkish National Main Battle Tank) was submitted to the turkish gouvernment, the Leclerc was in his last effort to see new export contracts. This marked the end of any hope for the Leclerc. Now the production line is stored just in case.

Naturally, Nexter was ready to sell something that looks more M1ish more sane in terms of protection (I use those words but actually it's not what I really think. It's just a matter of taking the GPS as part of the armor or not).
But on the other hand, I don't really think that this design was really good. In terms of dynamic movements. The turret rotation would be a problem while engaging high speed targets from left to right (at least for day sight...).

 

[farhan_9909]

New APFSDS round being developed by ARDE with enhanced penetration
Directly from Ministry of Defence Production

Could be the Major Reason why the Autoloader in Late Basic AK as well as Latest AK1 was Modified

[PDF]http://www.modp.gov.pk/gop/index.php?q=aHR0cDovLzE5Mi4xNjguNzAuMTM2L21vZHAvdXNlcmZpbGVzMS9maWxlL01vRFAlMjBEYXRhL2FyZGUucGRm[/PDF]

http://www.modp.gov.pk/gop/index.ph...lcmZpbGVzMS9maWxlL01vRFAlMjBEYXRhL2FyZGUucGRm