Chinese Armored Vehicles

Discussion in 'China' started by Kunal Biswas, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..


    @shiphone, this seems to be the work of a shaped charge, but it seems to be an ATGM or Artillery gun's HEAT round. Diagrams seem to show a probe which points to a testing of ATGM and not tank round.

    The round didn't penetrate fully either.

    Need the following

    1) Length of plate
    2) Width of plate
    3) Standard of steel used (Usually given in HB)
    4) Type of round

    If not available,

    keep trolling along with badguy.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  2. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,175
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Well a 1,100mm of penetrated RHA is possible but for a warhead of calliber around 150mm in diameter, not for 125mm or 105mm, which is too small to achieve such penetration. And there is more, a HEAT warhead fired from tank gun, have thick shell, which also make some disturbance during jet formation process thus reducing penetration capabilities. So a 105mm HEAT round fired from a tank gun, will most likely have lesser penetration abilities than 105mm HEAT warhead fired from RPG, where shell is thinner. Same applies to ATGM's, and of course there are other variables that are responsible for armor penetration capabilities.

    Of course Chinese users can believe in whatever they want, however as far as I see, they are also very emotional about this subject and instead of rational thinking, they rather want to use their national feelings. It is very obvious that they do not as questions, like I did:

    Penetration of the mild steel will be higher than that of RHA, and then again, modern tanks armor is not RHA only, but also other steel types and other materials, also at least NATO never used passive composite armor based purely on ceramics, but added there reactive element which again reduce significantly penetration capabilities of both CE warheads and KE projectiles.

    So there is plenty variables, and observing simple photos, taking far going conclusions without understanding what happened, without having a complete data is... a nature of ignorants really.
     
    Kunal Biswas likes this.
  3. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..


    Been saying that for years. See all my previous posts. 155 mm Artillery or ATGM. Twice. Still they claim that "it has enough evidence for experts". Couldn't understand how 125 mm could penetrate so much. They keep using personal insults. Extremely tired. My head hurts if I read a post which attacks me and not my point.
     
    Damian and Kunal Biswas like this.
  4. shiphone

    shiphone Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    1,800
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    my pix? they came from the my thread about armor penetrating..just to explain the how static armor penetrating TEST of shaped charge was done(my whole post was for this)...and obviously Budguy's 2 pix are something else...

    BTW, I put a question mark with the '1100mm' data in my earlier post
    in my knowledge, so far the HEAT rounds of our 2 kinds of 125mm tank guns couldn't do this well in the combat condition test...LOL..

    which one ? if you mean the first one in #45 post , I'm afraid it was fully penetrated.

    It seems you shouold ask for these info as well when someone bring the the 300mm data of Drod's APFSDS shell ,and Germany ones,Amrican ones....no double standard here...
    but I could tell you something about the chinesee test target , it normally is 6XX serial RHA(607,617,675....), HB 321~383...and some recently revealed 6XX model reached the range of around HB 420 ~450.


    I'm not interested your sXXXy A vs B topic...in my experience on this forum, such baseless comparation is just a waste of time...I replied to those laughable statement like 'faked armor penetrating ' and question of the type of target'...of course I have some info about Chinese stuff, but unfortunately you can't read chinese...

    do you know what it is?
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Dazzler likes this.
  5. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    For data of American, German and other APFSDS, we do not have double standards. Penetration calculation is usually given on 270 HB steel on 60 degree trajectory @methos is that right?.

    See tanknet. Only the calculations on that site (Tanknet is 95 % reliable. Most of its members are tankers, ex-tankers and scientists) are referenced as accurate on DFI. Also our resident expert methos can calculate accurate values using Lanz-Odermatt equation if you give the necessary values.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  6. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    You mean post #41?

    It wasn't fully penetrated.

    [​IMG]

    The plate was split after the test to measure penetration.
     
    Kunal Biswas likes this.
  7. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    39,773
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    A Gentle suggestion to members, Keep your emotions at bay when counter points in civil ..
     
  8. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Sorry man. Forgive me. :sad:
     
  9. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,562
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    I looked at TankNet for the first time just now. Looks really interesting.

    Tanknet
     
  10. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    You kidding bro? Tanknet is no.1 authority for tank ammunition on the web.
     
  11. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    9,336
    Likes Received:
    12,951
    Location:
    India
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Ok 1 question.

    This 1000 mm penetration was done with which angle? For example if the armour is put at a higher angle then it greatly reduces the penetration of any shell.In fact the shell deflects with minimum penetration.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  12. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    9,336
    Likes Received:
    12,951
    Location:
    India
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Yeah I am not able to believe such deep penetration.Is that metal real?
     
  13. libindi

    libindi Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    2
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Thats a sexy penetration
     
  14. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,175
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Yes the metal is real, the problem is what type of steel it is. As I said, there are vast differences in different types of steel, there is alone a huge difference between simple mild steel and armor steel, not to mention that there are different types of armor steel.

    Very interesting is for example thickness efficency of different materials.

    It is meassured this way that RHA or Rolled Homogeneus Armor (of course this also apply to overall armor type, not only used steel), have a TE equivalent of 1.0, which means that 100mm of RHA = 100mm of RHA, to put it simple.

    But... For example the THS or Triple Hardness Steel have a TE of 1.3, how to calculate it, no you do such calculation, if we assume that THS plate is also 100mm thick, then it is 100 x 1.3 = 130, which means that 100mm thick THS plate is equivalent to 130mm RHA plate.

    Obviously different materials have different Thickness Efficency, so one can be better than RHA, and other types of material can offer worse TE than RHA.

    And of course besides TE there is also ME or Mass Efficency.


    So it is even more obvious that you can easy manipulate such photos and make incredible claims, it is even easier for Chinese to do that, considering their fair isolation from international community, and fact that by most countries they are treated as possible threat, so neither they have obligation to say the truth due to their politics, neither other have obligation to share data with them or aquire their real data about their weapon systems real capabilities, although we have preaty realistic estimates.

    What is not realistic are creations of Chinese fanboys... mostly people without any knowledge about weapon systems at all.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
    rock127, Kunal Biswas and gokussj9 like this.
  15. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    734
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    1.it is pierceing 1100MM for RHA under ideal experimental condition........in real war, such a ideal condition doesn't exist and piercing perfomance can not work.


    2. according to CD and other CHinese resource, it is still constroverial what kinds of round it is in the picture.

    Some think it is 105heat or 125 heat..
    the other think it is Depleted uranium piercing round

    both's piercing will create a hole with bigger inlets and smaller outlets
     
  16. shiphone

    shiphone Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    1,800
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    [​IMG]

    after the shaped charge explosion, it would split into three parts(or we count two parts mainly)
    A. Slug (slower ,big quality) B .Metallic jet(faster ,little quality) ......

    [​IMG]

    obviously what in your ' circle' was the low speed , big Slug stuck in the plate...the high-speed metallic jet made a small hole in the end

    the stuck liner's material during the armour-piercing..

    [​IMG]

    once again ,I would repeat my point: this is a typical pierced RHA target in 'Static Armor Penetrating TEST' of shaped charge under the Lab condition.and we call it single piece or connected target, the another kind of target is layered or disconnected target ... in Jan 2001, it has been reported that a R&D team achieved 9-10 times of armour-piercing/HEAT warhead diameter ratio under the lab condition in academic paper.
    --------------------------------------------
    the test in target range is another thing. since you are so pround of you Tank.net experience, I thought you might have seen this...

    [​IMG]

    I have the original Large version of this very OLD pic...the this Norinco Group's exhibition stand image was an information rich one...
    the typical target under the fire range condition---RHA, 220mm thickness , angle of inclination: 60-70, and in this case, the angle is the 68(I thought you should know why 68 degrees here)...no much difference with your so called "international standard"

    [​IMG]
    -------------------
    BTW , the old vesion of chinese 105mm APFSDS shell for export has a Penetration of 460mm@2KM , and it was 15 years ago...

    [​IMG]

    and the follow-on 105mm APFSDS shell project has two sister versions : I don't know if you have seen this and what is it?
    the development of these two kinds of APFSDS shells began in late 1980s
    [​IMG]
    ------------------
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2013
    Dazzler likes this.
  17. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Evidence please. How is that 1100 mm? Any measurement? Did any of you see it yourself? Authentic source please. If you have sources in Chinese give them. Google translate is the greatest invention of this decade :troll:

    As far as I know, the RPzB 54/1 Panzerschreck (HEAT warhead without probe) penetrated around 200 mm (WW2 warhead. not modern) during Aberdeen tests (230 HB steel). Russian tests showed around ~195 mm in 250-255 HB steel. During combat it penetrated ~200 mm of 235-240 HB steel armour of IS-2.

    HEAT wasn't 100% reliable then since they didn't have probes to ensure jet formation. But I don't see much difference between tests and reality in those days.

    Of course with a probe, HEAT warheads of 70's nearly doubled their penetration. (BGM-71 TOW 2 and MILAN 2) I don't know what ideal test condition and reality for warhead with a probe. @Damian @W.G Ewald, any info?

    @moderator, this topic is being derailed with our discussion on Chinese ammunition. Any suggestions to get it back on track?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  18. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    @shiphone,

    Don't attack the poster at start.

    Very informative post. I don't know much about Chinese APFSDS and I have never criticized it. NEVER. We don't show double standards. Also there is also another reliable source but it's for Russian ammunition. Vasily Fofanov. But he has not updated the site for the new Svinets-1 and Svinets-2.

    Also I didn't mean 270 mm thick steel. I meant 270 HB. That's tensile strength.

    Also do you have info for Chinese rounds exported to Pakistan?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  19. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    734
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    well,china was under the threaten of world largest and most advanced armor force~soviet army during 1960~1990.so,china invest heavily on anti~armor tech even when it was quite poor .
     
  20. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    972
    Re: Arjun vs Chinese Legacy tanks..

    Yes China was under the threat of the Soviet Union. But China never invested heavily in development or anything remotely close till the past 10-15 years. China was using Type 59 and Type 69 in the 60's (Type 69 had better electronics - This time from a captured T-62) After they realized that the 100 mm D-10 was nonsense in the 70's against USSR's T-64 and T-72A, they managed to get license for the Royal Ordnance 105 mm L7 from Austria in exchange for some technology.

    PLA replaced Type 59 and 69's D-10 with L7. I don't know anything about Type 79 and 88 but still both had a 105 mm. Then China bought 2 T-72, One from Romania in 88 and the other in 80. When they realized that their guns could not penetrate T-72 even with K-1 ERA, they started smoothbore research. This was in 88. You did make some good 120 mm guns.

    But the 125 was selected as did not want 4 members and could not modify AZ autoloader from T-72 properly. The 120 equipped a tank destroyer. The 125 mm ZPT 98 replaced the Type 85's and 88's gun and armed Type 90, 96 and 99.

    Finally speaking, China invested in tank gun ammunition tech only from 1985 or 86. After you developed the 120 and 125, the ammunition was developed only during 199?-1999

    Regards,
    Keshav
     

Share This Page