Tank Guns and Ammunition

[militarysta]

For rounds M829, German, I have seen the same given in Janes, which were originally given for 60 degrees.

Maybe in first tables mady by mysef in circa 2009. In newest for German ammo I used other sources, and for US ammo -usally Russian ones -becouse they suppose to be quite good.

And if this DM53 was 20% longer, was heavier while maintaining or surpassing velocity it would give notably superior performance, simply said. So Grifel will transmit more MJ than M829A3 or M829A4.

Grifel have penetrator lenght and diameter not bigger then M829A3 (in fact silghty smaller -espacially diameter is mucht smaller). We don't know what construction is sabot. In Sniviet it's typiccal alloy, on find in Kubinka sabot- again alloy. So until now all evidences give us concusion that Grifel have metal alloy saobot -not composite. Only one advantage can came (in that scenario) from silgty bigger velocity - but as I said - velocity is not relavant to bigger MJ becouse it's depend on how long and thick is penetrator and how build is sabot. And when Grifel have thinner penetrator and slighty shorter than M829A3 and have metal alloy sabot -not composite like in M829A3 then bigger velocity can't give mucht better MJ value for penetrator. It will be better of course, but it's just impossible to achive for example 20% penetartion then M829A3 have.
Ressume:
Grifel have:
-thinner then M829A3 penetrator
- slighty shorter penetrator
- all previous Russian APFSDS have metal alloy sabot - and Grifel propably have it too. M829A3 have ultra light composite sabot.
- only one advantage can came from bigger Velocity, but it not necessery give mucht bigger abilities. Grifel will be slighty better but not quality better to be named as "new generation".

First this is just optimal perforation if only aspect was velocity, it is for same constant 10 MJ, while increase in velocity leads to greater energy and penetration, as it is bigger growth, surpassing optimum velocity means only that growth will decrease, but still notable.

We don't understand each other. Grifel have only one feture better then M829A3 - it have bigger propelant charge, so it will have better muzze and velocity but it's not equal to "quality" or "generation" better perforamce becouse still M829A3 is slighty longer, mucht thicker, and have composite sabot when Grifel - propably not (it's still unkown). So in fact only one factor is better. So Grifel shoud be slighty better, but not to be known as "new generation" becouse bigger velocity can't give mucht more MJ for pojectile during fly - and only this is important. In german 140mm APFSDS prototype incarese MJ needed penetrator long as in M829A3 but whit thickenss twice bigger.

It is obvious that big increase in energy will lead to higher performance, be it to achieve high velocity and increase mass, and increase in speed is well out of reach of the point where it will worsen performance. Grief just outperforms M829A3, 4 in energy,

But talking about "outperforms" in MJ energy is misunderstanding when we connected known fact about M829A3 and Grief.
And important is only one factor - MJ for penetrator during fly, after separation sabot. Rest is not relevant. Greate example is DM53 vs M829A3. And in Grief in compare to the M829A3 we have oly one factor better - velocity, rest is simmilar or smaller (thickens, propably lack of composit sabot) then in M829A3. So Grief shoud be slighty better but not "outperorms" becouse it's bullshit when only one thing is better and rest factor (sabot, thickens, lenght) in fact not.

For Svinets-1,2, it was explained that increase in performance came from use of more energic propellant among other aspects, indeed it uses 4Ж96 "Ozon-T" which would exceed previous limit. New series 2A46M4, 5 contemporary, and analogue to L-55, had increased resistance both to wear and pressure (increase in thoughness of barrel to 420 kg/cm...) among other improvements. Just learn something about it http://uvc.omgtu.ru/images/books/uo2.pdf

I know this pdf, and still - known data for 2A45M4/M5 shows gun not as good as L-55 Rh120 is. In any aspect.

2A46M5 and RH L-55 are analogues in technical level, delivering comparable energy to projectile.

Again You haven't idea how it look on west.
L-55 was developed whit using NPzK 140mm technology between 1988 and 2000. Thenology level as in generation is the same as for 2A83 or 2A82 gun, not for previous L-44 Rh120, 2A46M4 and others.
Btw: in comparte to the L-44 or it's israeli and Us clones 2A46M4 sucks in fact.

But L-55 is not able to provide necesary energy level, is much more limited, obviously falls behind in characteristics, pressure, achievable energy to 2A82, and has less perspective for ammunition developement.

And what deatils about 2A82 do You have -any details?
BTW: L-55 whas short term solution to stay whit 120mm caliber for gun, but using NPzK 140mm technology.

The first is no longer effective against new armour,

Till now DM63 and M829A3 haven't problem whit russian ERA and quite thick mulitialyerd amrour behind it.

the latter will pierce anything all the way throught frontal armour currently deployed, or which could now be deployed. I do not even see point in comparison.

Based on known now fact about M829A3 and Grifel I can sey that Grifel will have slighty better perforamce but slighty -not on "nex generation" level. So talks about "pierce anything" is not very clever.

 

[Damian]

@militarysta, did you noticed how he changed his talk style to typical fanboy style, how excited he is, not even knowing exact reliable data? But he already knows that another "super round" will destroy all MBT's from the front, used by evil imperialists!

And he tries to lecture others about behavior.

 

[militarysta]

Ehhhhh I don't care about this, but I like this forum, and I traied to achive some dscussion level (as hight as it possible).

Grief and 2A82 will be really powerfull weapons system for Armata (if they will be ended) - I haven't doubt about this. While Sniviet-1 and Sniviets-2 where whorse then top German and US solutions in APFSDS thema then Grief will be wery good -couse it's demensions and big propalnat charge. But for me writing about "outperform" is not very celver becouse in fact Grief have only one advantage in compare to the M829A3 - bigger muzzle and velocity, while rest factors is on simmilar (lenght) or whorse level (propably lack of composite sabot, thinner penetrator, etc) then in M829A3. So whole round shoud be slighty better but slighty -not "outperforms" becouse only bigger velocity cant be transfer to much bigger MJ value, when penetrator is thinner, slighty shorter, and mettal alloy sabot weight more then composite ones in M829A3. And as I said - velocity during fly have some limit's due to penetration optimum impact velocity- circa 1750m/s max so in fact velocity will be "only" circa 250m/s better then in M829A3.
So due knowed now Grief draw, and known Russian sabot construction*, only one advantage of the Grief will be bigger velocity - on about circa 250 maybe 300m/s - bigger velocity during fly (then circa1700-1750/s) is not welcome becouse it's effect is lower penetration.


*in Russia they are work out and developmend phase about composite sabot. Many yers ago it was givent in some surces that Sniviet-2 will have compoite sabot. But till now there is no evidence, know photo, draw etc about composite sabot. And known factory photos of the Sniviets sabot shown metall alloy sabots.

BTW- and there is question how are build Grief and Sniviets. As I know - without any doubt DM53 and DM63 are not monoblock, how M829A3 -I haven't idea, but non monoblock APFSDS penetrator have very gight abilities to overcome modern double layers (and other) ERA and NERA armours, and they are pretty good in overpassing multialyerd armour.

 

[Damian]

Well nobody have doubts that Grifel is a modern and very capable ammunition, the question is, if someobody do not overestimate it's capabilities because of his "patriotism". Exactly the same situation with 2A82, no doubts it is good weapon, very capable, but overestimating it's capabilities is just as stupid, as calling it junk.

 

[hest]

Grifel have penetrator lenght and diameter not bigger then M829A3 (in fact silghty smaller -espacially diameter is mucht smaller). We don't know what construction is sabot. In Sniviet it's typiccal alloy, on find in Kubinka sabot- again alloy. So until now all evidences give us concusion that Grifel have metal alloy saobot -not composite. Only one advantage can came (in that scenario) from silgty bigger velocity - but as I said - velocity is not relavant to bigger MJ becouse it's depend on how long and thick is penetrator and how build is sabot. And when Grifel have thinner penetrator and slighty shorter than M829A3 and have metal alloy sabot -not composite like in M829A3 then bigger velocity can't give mucht better MJ value for penetrator. It will be better of course, but it's just impossible to achive for example 20% penetartion then M829A3 have.
Ressume:
Grifel have:
-thinner then M829A3 penetrator
- slighty shorter penetrator
- all previous Russian APFSDS have metal alloy sabot - and Grifel propably have it too. M829A3 have ultra light composite sabot.
- only one advantage can came from bigger Velocity, but it not necessery give mucht bigger abilities. Grifel will be slighty better but not quality better to be named as "new generation".

Increase in diameter is measure to gain energy in view of limitations, but with same energy it is decrease in penetration and M829A4 with notably lower energy will be even worse, thus lenght is preferred over diameter, if you compare with M829A3, Dm53 which could well perform better with same energy and reduced diameter, now compare a Dm53 with 20% greater lenght, higher mass (which results in more energy transfer to penetrator, after separation) and increased velocity, and realise what differense it would be.

Grifel has dimensions similar to M829A3 just in leading projectile, about 900 mm ,, penetrator likely similar, and uses significantly higher amount of propellant, is of greater caliber (more energy transmited from pressure), transmits more energy to target due to diameter, non mattering sabot, which we do not have evidence to talk about, it can well exceed in more than 20% in energy alone.

Now again, Grifel
- Same lenght
- Thinner diameter, more MJ to target
- Greater caliber, more MJ from pressure
- Longer gun, more energy to projectile
- Higher amount of propellant, much higher pressure, more energy to projectile.

In fact it would be like (vague example) DM-53 with increased lenght and notably higher penetrator energy. Difference is pretty huge actually, not to mention that Grifel is not the latest developement and there are even higher energy resources to further increase mass, lenght. 2A82 is developement having in mind future armour, with propellant amount closer to 140 mm and certainly all this is exploited.

We don't understand each other. Grifel have only one feture better then M829A3 - it have bigger propelant charge, so it will have better muzze and velocity but it's not equal to "quality" or "generation" better perforamce becouse still M829A3 is slighty longer, mucht thicker, and have composite sabot when Grifel - propably not (it's still unkown). So in fact only one factor is better. So Grifel shoud be slighty better, but not to be known as "new generation" becouse bigger velocity can't give mucht more MJ for pojectile during fly - and only this is important. In german 140mm APFSDS prototype incarese MJ needed penetrator long as in M829A3 but whit thickenss twice bigger.

M829A3 needs to be thicker to gain mass and retain more energy after separation to approach Dm53 due to lack of energy of gun system, which does not mean it will be better, in fact the latter will transfer more energy to target (more per surface). Grifel penetrator well surpasses it both in penetrator, and in transmited to target energy.

But talking about "outperforms" in MJ energy is misunderstanding when we connected known fact about M829A3 and Grief.
And important is only one factor - MJ for penetrator during fly, after separation sabot. Rest is not relevant. Greate example is DM53 vs M829A3. And in Grief in compare to the M829A3 we have oly one factor better - velocity, rest is simmilar or smaller (thickens, propably lack of composit sabot) then in M829A3. So Grief shoud be slighty better but not "outperorms" becouse it's bullshit when only one thing is better and rest factor (sabot, thickens, lenght) in fact not.

Sabot is minor issue here when we have caliber, lenght, greater amount of propellant, and we do not have any evidence that it will be lighet or heavier, despite it (even if heavier, just random assumption), due to the other parameters penetratot in energy will simply outperform it by a good margin.

I know this pdf, and still - known data for 2A45M4/M5 shows gun not as good as L-55 Rh120 is. In any aspect.

And what is it this bullshit bias talk with no evidence ? If you refer to energy which projectile is able to achieve, you cannot talk about superiority of neither, (accounting amount, energy of propellant, caliber...) Your super pressure increase of L-55 came at expense of life and reliability, resulting in serious wear as was the case with Dm-53 ammunition which was not even admited by some users, and in developement of DM63 which operates at lower pressure, so in reality this aspect for both is similar, in fact 2A46M5 achieves more energy from pressure due to caliber.

Accuracy, repairability, operation is on both of high level.

Again You haven't idea how it look on west.
L-55 was developed whit using NPzK 140mm technology between 1988 and 2000. Thenology level as in generation is the same as for 2A83 or 2A82 gun, not for previous L-44 Rh120, 2A46M4 and others.
Btw: in comparte to the L-44 or it's israeli and Us clones 2A46M4 sucks in fact.

And L-55 developement context, time, corresponded with 2A46M5 and they are analogues, to compare with 2A82 and 2A83 is foolish because they are developements of next level for different ammunition with different energic paramters. In achieved energy L-55 is much behind, but true, is analogue to 2A46M5 as legacy upgrade.

Till now DM63 and M829A3 haven't problem whit russian ERA and quite thick mulitialyerd amrour behind it.

Of course rounds DM63, M829A3, M829A4, Svinets-1,2 are quite capable against currently deployed armour, even more if you have in account that average is more than 20 years old, but it is not without issues against current models of newer production, against T-90, Leopard 2A6, A7, Abrams, deployment of new systems as 2A82 is to guarantee their defeat well in 10-20 years perspective.

Based on known now fact about M829A3 and Grifel I can sey that Grifel will have slighty better perforamce but slighty -not on "nex generation" level. So talks about "pierce anything" is not very clever.

It is actually better by a great margin and will surely go all the way throught turret frontal armour at all practical ranges, for that is investment and result of developement and testing years.

 

[hest]

Grief and 2A82 will be really powerfull weapons system for Armata (if they will be ended) - I haven't doubt about this. While Sniviet-1 and Sniviets-2 where whorse then top German and US solutions in APFSDS thema then Grief will be wery good -couse it's demensions and big propalnat charge. But for me writing about "outperform" is not very celver becouse in fact Grief have only one advantage in compare to the M829A3 - bigger muzzle and velocity, while rest factors is on simmilar (lenght) or whorse level (propably lack of composite sabot, thinner penetrator, etc) then in M829A3. So whole round shoud be slighty better but slighty -not "outperforms" becouse only bigger velocity cant be transfer to much bigger MJ value, when penetrator is thinner, slighty shorter, and mettal alloy sabot weight more then composite ones in M829A3. And as I said - velocity during fly have some limit's due to penetration optimum impact velocity- circa 1750m/s max so in fact velocity will be "only" circa 250m/s better then in M829A3.

Sorry, but you are not able to see the full picture. if the optimum was just to imitate M829A3, it would not make necessary very serious increase and years of developement of higher ballistics system, and from where is this max velocity limit, what does it mean ? M829A3 just reflects measures adopted to maintain legacy system with limited energy and it is not necessarily the best available.

So due knowed now Grief draw, and known Russian sabot construction*, only one advantage of the Grief will be bigger velocity - on about circa 250 maybe 300m/s - bigger velocity during fly (then circa1700-1750/s) is not welcome becouse it's effect is lower penetration.

No matter how you would want to see it, but MJ in penetrator will be notably greater.

*in Russia they are work out and developmend phase about composite sabot. Many yers ago it was givent in some surces that Sniviet-2 will have compoite sabot. But till now there is no evidence, know photo, draw etc about composite sabot. And known factory photos of the Sniviets sabot shown metall alloy sabots.

There is no evidence, especially if this is secretive, but from this there cannot be any argument.

BTW- and there is question how are build Grief and Sniviets. As I know - without any doubt DM53 and DM63 are not monoblock, how M829A3 -I haven't idea, but non monoblock APFSDS penetrator have very gight abilities to overcome modern double layers (and other) ERA and NERA armours, and they are pretty good in overpassing multialyerd armour.

Yes, but there is also way to overcome it, and it was actually tested and ready for production, in earlier discussion.

 

[militarysta]

Sorry, but you are not able to see the full picture. if the optimum was just to imitate M829A3, it would not make necessary very serious increase and years of developement of higher ballistics system, and from where is this max velocity limit, what does it mean ? M829A3 just reflects measures adopted to maintain legacy system with limited energy and it is not necessarily the best available.

M829A3 was developed to put max. possible lenght penetrator in 120mm catrige whit max possible core diameter for APFSDS. This conected whit composite sabbot allowed to achive quite good MJ level for penetrator, for standard L-44 gun. Germans devleoped 20% shorter DM53/DM63 and spent bilions euros to ended L-55 whit new technology to achive the same level whit shorter, faster APFSDS whit metal alloy sabot. I fact two diffrent ways to achive simmilar result.
And max velocity limit means that eacht penetrtor have some optimum impact velocity - you can't overpas for DU rods circa 1555m/s and for WHO circa 1750m/s becouse when penetrator overspeed those velocity then penetration abilities starting to be worse and worse. And it's seems that this rule was well known for German and American developers becouse both rounds: DU M829A3 and WHA DM53/DM63 had max possible velocity - for M829A3 circa 1555m/s and for DM53 1750m/s DM63 have circa 1680m/s. This velocity is some optimum for APFSDS penetrator. So there is no possible to incarase velocity over some limit, and must be use other way to incarase MJ value - for example -like in NPzK and 140mm - incarase twice diameter, whit almoust 950mm projectile lenght, ore using composite sabot.

No matter how you would want to see it, but MJ in penetrator will be notably greater.

You still don't understand. Again:
- Grief have simmilar or slighty smaller lenght - yes? Yes.
- Grief have significant smaller diameter
So whole penetrator will have smaller mass (weight).
- Propaby Greif is using haevier and waisting more MJ mattela alloy sabot, while M829A3 use ultra light composite sabot - saving more MJ for penetrator.
- only one real advantages is goung from bigger ropelant charge in Grief - so velocity and MPA will be bigger, but - there is some optimum velocity for APFSDS penetrator and Grief penetrator from WHA cant overspeed impact velocity circa 1750m/s.
So the only real afavantage will be velocity bigger at 250m/s.
About MJ you completly misunderstanding two diffrent things:
MJ for mm2 - better for smaller penetrator (biger MJ for one mm2)
whole projectile MJ - better in thicker penetrator.
And if the target will be penetrate 1m thcik steel monoblock then indeed better is thiner APFSDS pentratrator. But when you have two - simmilar lenght penetrator, and one is thicker - then MJ value will be better for thicker ones aned the target is multilayerd structure -not RHA monoblock.

Sabot is minor issue here when we have caliber, lenght, greater amount of propellant, and we do not have any evidence that it will be lighet or heavier, despite it (even if heavier, just random assumption), due to the other parameters penetratot in energy will simply outperform it by a good margin.

Sobot construction is most important here -talking about "minor issue" is wrong. Even if we have two the same in lenght penetrator but one is thicker then this one (M829A3) have bigger weight so it can transfer more MJ. Composite sabot allowed to transfer more MJ to penetrator, becouse sabot weight is waisting MJ for nothing. So during fly MJ for M829A3 are really big - despite fact that is quite slow - muzzle is 1555m/s. If Grief gave the same (or slight samaller) lenght, but it have thinner penetrator and metall alloy sabot then whit the same muzzle it will have lower MJ for penetrator -becouse it have:
a) smaller diameter so weight
b) mettal alloy sabot "eat" some part of MJ during muzzle.
Of course Grief will have bigger muzzle - whit top possible impact velocity circa 1750m/s -so almoust 250m/s better then M829A3, but it have lighter penetrator and haevier alloy sabot. So the difrences in MJ during fly will be not so big for Grief -becouse there is no magic here and it can't be - simmilar lenght, smaller diameter, heavier sabot, circa 250m/ faster. It will be better but definetly not "outperform" -becouse there is no hell way to "outperform" whit smaller diameter, mettal heavy sabot, and "only" 250m/s bigger velocity.

of DM63 which operates at lower pressure, so in reality this aspect for both is similar, in fact 2A46M5 achieves more energy from pressure due to caliber.

2A46M5 can't have MJ value like L-55 whit DM63, or L-44 in Strv.122 whit Phj-95 when it's 710MPa in Swedish instruction. Not even mentioned fact that 2A46M5 is L48 when Rh120 is L-55.

o compare with 2A82 and 2A83 is foolish because they are developements of next level for different ammunition with different energic paramters.

152mm 2A83 was developed in middle 1980s on those technology level -so it's not "next level" but Soviet avaible 1980s. level. And I just want to remind that Germans 120mm L-44 outperform Soviet 125mm main guns in most aspects in almoust whole 1980s.
Rh120 L-55 was developed next to NPzK140mm since circa 1991/1992, due some technology probems it was ended in circa 1999, but with new technology.

 

[hest]

M829A3 was developed to put max. possible lenght penetrator in 120mm catrige whit max possible core diameter for APFSDS. This conected whit composite sabbot allowed to achive quite good MJ level for penetrator, for standard L-44 gun. Germans devleoped 20% shorter DM53/DM63 and spent bilions euros to ended L-55 whit new technology to achive the same level whit shorter, faster APFSDS whit metal alloy sabot. I fact two diffrent ways to achive simmilar result.

Different ways to reach to a certain level with different limitations, which does not mean they should be taken as models, much less if compared with 2A82 system.

And max velocity limit means that eacht penetrtor have some optimum impact velocity - you can't overpas for DU rods circa 1555m/s and for WHO circa 1750m/s becouse when penetrator overspeed those velocity then penetration abilities starting to be worse and worse. And it's seems that this rule was well known for German and American developers becouse both rounds: DU M829A3 and WHA DM53/DM63 had max possible velocity - for M829A3 circa 1555m/s and for DM53 1750m/s DM63 have circa 1680m/s. This velocity is some optimum for APFSDS penetrator. So there is no possible to incarase velocity over some limit, and must be use other way to incarase MJ value - for example -like in NPzK and 140mm - incarase twice diameter, whit almoust 950mm projectile lenght, ore using composite sabot.

And what is this limit, how performance is reduced, on what point does increase in velocity reduce performance having in account that it also provides more energy (because it is cuadratic growth, while the other is not)? You showed graphic which put maximum at more than 2000 m/s, current velocities are not necesarily the limit and optimisation may be different depending on construction and gun system.

There are DU rounds with higher velocity than this (arbitrary?) limit, Svinets, Grifel in WHA and DU variants differ only in material and not in construction, use the same propellant, so this is not important issue on this level. If you put as example M829A3, DM53, DM63 this limit is due to lack of energy rather than other reason.

You still don't understand. Again:
- Grief have simmilar or slighty smaller lenght - yes? Yes.
- Grief have significant smaller diameter
So whole penetrator will have smaller mass (weight).
- Propaby Greif is using haevier and waisting more MJ mattela alloy sabot, while M829A3 use ultra light composite sabot - saving more MJ for penetrator.
- only one real advantages is goung from bigger ropelant charge in Grief - so velocity and MPA will be bigger, but - there is some optimum velocity for APFSDS penetrator and Grief penetrator from WHA cant overspeed impact velocity circa 1750m/s.
So the only real afavantage will be velocity bigger at 250m/s.
About MJ you completly misunderstanding two diffrent things:
MJ for mm2 - better for smaller penetrator (biger MJ for one mm2)
whole projectile MJ - better in thicker penetrator.

You miss the fact that your established ideas are not necesarily true. Take a look at gun characteristics and great increase in energy, and past experience, there were Soviet APFSDS with thick penetrator, and they took the optimal path. If it was better to develop super thick penetrator, then there would not be problem to do so given past experience, but we do not yet know exact dimensions, but anyway Grifel would have notably bigger energy in penetrator. Also do not forget that there are more factors determining performance, and certainly more powerfull system will allow to exploit them.

And if the target will be penetrate 1m thcik steel monoblock then indeed better is thiner APFSDS pentratrator. But when you have two - simmilar lenght penetrator, and one is thicker - then MJ value will be better for thicker ones aned the target is multilayerd structure -not RHA monoblock.

So then according to you DM53 is not affected by this "rule", because how with shorter and thinner penetrator, having (according to you) similar energy in penetrator to M829A3, it can (according to you) achive the same level whit shorter, faster APFSDS whit metal alloy sabot ?

Also, if true, then shouldn't DM53 exceed in notable degree if it had 20 % additional lenght (maintaining velocity) ?

Thruth is that it is more complex, depending on construction and not only some magnitudes, but APFSDS from system able to provide notably higher energy will outperform on all these aspects.

Sobot construction is most important here -talking about "minor issue" is wrong. Even if we have two the same in lenght penetrator but one is thicker then this one (M829A3) have bigger weight so it can transfer more MJ. Composite sabot allowed to transfer more MJ to penetrator, becouse sabot weight is waisting MJ for nothing. So during fly MJ for M829A3 are really big - despite fact that is quite slow - muzzle is 1555m/s. If Grief gave the same (or slight samaller) lenght, but it have thinner penetrator and metall alloy sabot then whit the same muzzle it will have lower MJ for penetrator -becouse it have:
a) smaller diameter so weight
b) mettal alloy sabot "eat" some part of MJ during muzzle.
Of course Grief will have bigger muzzle - whit top possible impact velocity circa 1750m/s -so almoust 250m/s better then M829A3, but it have lighter penetrator and haevier alloy sabot. So the difrences in MJ during fly will be not so big for Grief -becouse there is no magic here and it can't be - simmilar lenght, smaller diameter, heavier sabot, circa 250m/ faster. It will be better but definetly not "outperform" -becouse there is no hell way to "outperform" whit smaller diameter, mettal heavy sabot, and "only" 250m/s bigger velocity.

It is very loose idea just throwing random values, with no knowledge of construction, mass or other aspects. Dm53 has comparable performance with M829A3 no mattering the fact of heavier sabot, even shorter lenght, lower mass. Grifel is heavier, longer (same as M829A3) and has much greater energy in projectly, not mattering if we do not know it's exact mass, diameter, wheter it's sabot is ligher or heavier, it is clear that performance increase is of bigger margin.

2A46M5 can't have MJ value like L-55 whit DM63, or L-44 in Strv.122 whit Phj-95 when it's 710MPa in Swedish instruction. Not even mentioned fact that 2A46M5 is L48 when Rh120 is L-55.

And you overrate it by comparing maximum allowed value with practical. Regardless of maximum pressure of L-55, it cannot make practical use of it, when DM53 caused serious wear problems and it was not even fully acepted, instead developing DM63 operating under reduced pressure, which in amount of propellant, energy is not really higher than latest 2A46M5 projectiles, while the latter make better use of it because pressure will transmit more energy in bigger caliber. So there is no practical difference, only ammunition lenght restriction.

152mm 2A83 was developed in middle 1980s on those technology level -so it's not "next level" but Soviet avaible 1980s. level. And I just want to remind that Germans 120mm L-44 outperform Soviet 125mm main guns in most aspects in almoust whole 1980s.
Rh120 L-55 was developed next to NPzK140mm since circa 1991/1992, due some technology probems it was ended in circa 1999, but with new technology.

And this is serious lack of knowledge. 152 mm gun for tank Molot, other projects is level of NATO 140 mm (80s, start of 90s) and distinct from new 2A83 and it's projectiles which developement went throught the 2000s passing state tests atleast in 2008, 2009.. on period when such developement in West was ceased in 90s and now being behind in level.

About 125 mm vs 120 mm, it is the opposite. Both allowed similar amount of propellant, energy while the first achieved significantly higher energy in projectile due to increase in lenght and caliber. In fact it was not until appearance of L-55 when it reached it's potential.

 

[methos]

M829A3 is not operating at the optimum velocity. The graph from Odermatt's website shows the impact velocity, not the muzzle velocity. For DM53 the reported deacceleration is 55 m/s/km (e.g. at 2,000 m impact velocity is only 1,640 m/s), for the thicker M829A1 it is even 65 m/s/km.

I also don't think that the greater diameter of M829A3 is an advantage. It is required to achieve the desired penetrator length, because it is currently not possible to design penetrators with a length-to-diameter ratio of 40. They will bend and have problems with the sabot separation, which leads to a decrease in penetration performance (see here page 71).

If the new Russian Grifel APFSDS has really the same dimensions as estimated earlier in this thread, then it has to use a jacketed penetrator to counter the bending/tilting problems. Jacketed penetrators have a slightly lower energy efficiency because the jacket - typically made of steel - does not work as penetrator. Also in tests (same file as above, page 73) against spaced and sloped armour plates, jacketed penetrators penetrate much less armour than monoblocs. In the tests the monobloc projectile with a L/D of 30 penetrate as much armour as 90% of it's penetrator length, while the jacketed penetrator with a L/D of 40 penetrated only as much armour as 50% of it's length.

Based on the currently available information about Grifel - which happens to be a compeltely scaleless drawing - I would be rather careful about assessing it's performance. Maybe the projectile does not extend completely to the rear of the projectile or it does have a jacketed construction reducing it's energy efficiency compared to non-jackteted penetrators (monobloc & segmented).

DM63 does not use a weaker charge in order to reduce barrel wear. It uses a different charge - which does depending on the temperature outperform conventional propellant (see here). Militarysta, I don't know where you got the muzzle velocity of 1,680 m/s, that must be wrong. Fired from the L/44 the muzzle velocity is 1,650 m/s.

 

[militarysta]

MPa for L-44 and L-55.

As we can see pressure in chamber is for L-44 equal to circa 710-720MPa, and for L-55 is circa 780MPa, but - slighty after chamber on first 2m is almoust 900MPa (!).

 

[hest]

M829A3 is not operating at the optimum velocity. The graph from Odermatt's website shows the impact velocity, not the muzzle velocity. For DM53 the reported deacceleration is 55 m/s/km (e.g. at 2,000 m impact velocity is only 1,640 m/s), for the thicker M829A1 it is even 65 m/s/km.

I also don't think that the greater diameter of M829A3 is an advantage. It is required to achieve the desired penetrator length, because it is currently not possible to design penetrators with a length-to-diameter ratio of 40. They will bend and have problems with the sabot separation, which leads to a decrease in penetration performance (see here page 71).

If the new Russian Grifel APFSDS has really the same dimensions as estimated earlier in this thread, then it has to use a jacketed penetrator to counter the bending/tilting problems. Jacketed penetrators have a slightly lower energy efficiency because the jacket - typically made of steel - does not work as penetrator. Also in tests (same file as above, page 73) against spaced and sloped armour plates, jacketed penetrators penetrate much less armour than monoblocs. In the tests the monobloc projectile with a L/D of 30 penetrate as much armour as 90% of it's penetrator length, while the jacketed penetrator with a L/D of 40 penetrated only as much armour as 50% of it's length.

Based on the currently available information about Grifel - which happens to be a compeltely scaleless drawing - I would be rather careful about assessing it's performance. Maybe the projectile does not extend completely to the rear of the projectile or it does have a jacketed construction reducing it's energy efficiency compared to non-jackteted penetrators (monobloc & segmented).

True. Point is that we do not know much about Grifel to conclude, but it is likely that correct design is implemented, diameter should not be any problem and be the required to achieve optimal performance.

About dimensions,

But it is not so much this what should worry me, but 2A82 gun and it's chamber dimensions, amount of propellant and achievable energy, which is what will define projectile construction and performance..

DM63 does not use a weaker charge in order to reduce barrel wear. It uses a different charge - which does depending on the temperature outperform conventional propellant (see here). Militarysta, I don't know where you got the muzzle velocity of 1,680 m/s, that must be wrong. Fired from the L/44 the muzzle velocity is 1,650 m/s.

DM63 of course gives more uniform performance. As I know, DM53 pressure at some temperature ranges was excessive for gun and caused serious wear problems, which is excluded in DM63. Point in my discussion was that despite advertised maximum pressure, in practice it will not be reached, cannot be exploited.

 

[militarysta]

As I know, DM53 pressure at some temperature ranges was excessive for gun and caused serious wear problems, which is excluded in DM63.

DM53 do not overpass abilities L-55 to windstand MPa, but each shoot thorn circa 125g mettall from barrel...

 

[militarysta]

Militarysta, I don't know where you got the muzzle velocity of 1,680 m/s, that must be wrong. Fired from the L/44 the muzzle velocity is 1,650 m/s.

My mistake
DM53 have for L55 1750m/s and for L-44 1670m/s.
Swedish clon of the M332 (pilprojektil95) have for L-44 1700m/s and 670MPa
DM63 diffren value

 

[methos]

About dimensions,

The sabot used in the drawing posted earlier is of a different type of construction, The sabots above are conventional sabots as used on most/all NATO APFSDS rounds, where the frontal section and the mid section both have a diameter equal to the full caliber. The sabot in the drawing is from the same type of construction as the sabot of Svinets and Lekalo - only the mid section has the full caliber, while the frontal has a smaller diameter and is strengthened by some type of bars.

 

[hest]

I think pictures from actual tests and production line are predominant over drawing (which may not be exact or detailed), to show what to expect.

 

[Austin]

but it is not without issues against current models of newer production, against T-90, Leopard 2A6, A7, Abrams, deployment of new systems as 2A82 is to guarantee their defeat well in 10-20 years perspective.

It is actually better by a great margin and will surely go all the way throught turret frontal armour at all practical ranges, for that is investment and result of developement and testing years.

Thats a very sweeping statement to say 2A82 and Griffil would take out any thing developed in the next 20 years , we need really strong evidence to back such statement from official source and some real world examples even then it would be premature to call it such , since 20 years is a long time to envisage developement in armour,

I think a fair statement would be with 2A82/Grifel/Sivinets Russian armour would remain very competitive against modern ammo/guns deployed or under development , it simply means a tanker operating it would have a fair chance if he every has to go against an enemy and not will be heavily outclassed against NATO/US armour like say with current 2A42M Gun/Mango/ combination would be specially against frontal armour and more modern armour with ERA.

I am sure NATO/US would come up with something in due course that can be an effective match.

 

[militarysta]

(...)

Austin - the Russian tan problem is based on many factors -cut cooperation between ex-Soviet Union countries, lack of new "futuresoviet main battle tank" etc. The best devloped biuro and factory stay on free Ukriana, etc.

On west we have quite diffrent, and mucht better storry. In the end of 1980s. when NATO inteligence and developers realize that new FST-1 and FST-2 (future soviet tank) will entire service soon (before 1995) in Germany and USA they had started two long and short term program:
a) long term - developed new tank;
- in Germany NGP or others programs
- in USA Tank Block III
Both with completly new amunition, new 140mm gun, with 3 person crews in hull, whit unamned very small turret, etc.
BTW: In fact Ob.195, EGS-NGP, Tank Block III have the same ideas and generally build.

b) short term solution:
- better armour (in USA -DU, in Germany external NERA layers) changed armour composition, etc
- better 120mm APFSDS munition able to overpass ERA armour
- possible deep mods whit 140mm gun fit in deeply rebuild turrets.
- better C3

For all this programs part a) was stopped/canceled near 2000 when it was sure that Bear is dead and Jelcyns goverment almoust colapse Russia. Thanks good Rusia dosen't colapse (Yes I know - it's strange that guys from Poland said that, but for geopolitical point of viev world whit Russia is better then without quite strong, but not to strong, Russia). But almoust all programs for part b) was ended in 1990s.
In fact front turret armour (+/-30.) M1A2 and Leo2A5-A6 is immune to known now 125mm APFSDS amunition -inluding Sniviets-1/2. Greek tests shown that Leo-2A6 turret is able to windstand more then Sniviets is able to achive. But it's not suprise becouse improved M1 and Leo-2 armour was developed to windtand future soviet 125mm APFSDS rounds suspected in all 1990s. And economy tragedy in 90s. in Russia, and firs half of 2000 caused some pause on Russian side in armour technology, guns, rounds, etc.
For other side - im verry unhappy that I can't post here some sources about ammo and amunition - par of them I showned to Damian on one other user. In fact after DM43 Germans developed "tandem" weapons sytem - DM53 +L-55 whit conclusion that this is able to overcome all Rusian tanks exist now (~2000) and for next 20 years. Of course it was not including "Armata" or "Ob.195" but all T-80U, T-84, T-90, T-90A, Ob.640, etc. And tests proof that DM53 have no problem whit overpas Kontakt-5 and other double layered ERA. DM63 was introduce servise not only for barrel reson - this APFSDS have diffrent penetrator structure, and is able to overcome double and more ERA armour whit L-44 gun.
In USA they developed max big APFSDS able to fit in 120mm round.

In fact Armata and 2A82 whit Grifel will turn back some ballance between tanks in Russia and NATO, becouse now situation is not very comfortabe for Russian tankist. And we will see western response for 2A82. Meybe quite quick.

BTW: infos form Russian industry claims that Armata will cost ~4x more then T-90A, and propably after production start it will made in vary small numbers 15-30 per year, so before 2020 they willbe not many Armata in sevice - less then 150.

 

[Austin]

The problem is we will see many claims and counter claims from both sides and it will be hard to find the truth , German , US will claim we have developed xyz tank and ammo model that can defeat any Russian tank out there and we will hear similar claim that Armata is good for the next 20 years to defeat any thing out there.

Its hard to know the truth and probably we will never know unless and until NATO and Russia will fight in real combat which will never happen knowing the nuclear equation.

I guess we will just have to see what solution each one has come with and logically look at pros and cons as far as possible beyond that its not possible to know unless we see real combat which we all hope doesnt happen

Personally I doubt we would see many developments in Defence Industry in the west as they are going through their own economic down turns with huge debt and stuff like that Russia experience in 90's and trying to over come , while the only rich country with money to splurge seems to be China which will try to catch the ROW as far as possible in next 10 years

 

[collegeboy16]

Austin - the Russian tan problem is based on many factors

For all this programs part a) was stopped/canceled near 2000 when it was sure that Bear is dead and Jelcyns goverment almoust colapse Russia. Thanks good Rusia dosen't colapse (Yes I know - it's strange that guys from Poland said that, but for geopolitical point of viev world whit Russia is better then without quite strong, but not to strong, Russia). But almoust all programs for part b) was ended in 1990s.
In fact front turret armour (+/-30.) M1A2 and Leo2A5-A6 is immune to known now 125mm APFSDS amunition -inluding Sniviets-1/2. Greek tests shown that Leo-2A6 turret is able to windstand more then Sniviets is able to achive. But it's not suprise becouse improved M1 and Leo-2 armour was developed to windtand future soviet 125mm APFSDS rounds suspected in all 1990s. And economy tragedy in 90s. in Russia, and firs half of 2000 caused some pause on Russian side in armour technology, guns, rounds, etc.

hmm iirc greek trials (1997ish)didnt test protectionof tanks. also 2a82 gun patent iirc in 2006 so they been working at least on one project.

In fact Armata and 2A82 whit Grifel will turn back some ballance between tanks in Russia and NATO, becouse now situation is not very comfortabe for Russian tankist. And we will see western response for 2A82. Meybe quite quick.

is it the xm360- m829a4 combo?

BTW: infos form Russian industry claims that Armata will cost ~4x more then T-90A, and propably after production start it will made in vary small numbers 15-30 per year, so before 2020 they willbe not many Armata in sevice - less then 150.

I shudder to think how much would next gen western mbts cost esp. given the fact that these are the same mbts that rely the most on exotic materials and tech. in their design.

 

[methos]

hmm iirc greek trials (1997ish)didnt test protectionof tanks.

They did test the protection of the tanks. That's done in (nearly?) all tank evaluations. Buying a tank without knowing what it is capable of resisting is stupid.
What militarysta is talking about however was done later. As part of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) betweeen the Greek government and the German tank manufacturers, the Greek government was given the right to randomly select one turret from the production lines for guaranteeing that the quality of the licence made tanks had the same level of protection as the tested prototype from Germany.
According to a Greek member of TankNet, thirty 120 mm rounds were fired at the selected turret - two hit the location of the main sight of which one penetrated. Following this occasion the main sight armour had to be redesigned on all modern Leopard 2 tanks.