Tank Guns and Ammunition

collegeboy16

New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
47
Likes
6
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.
They didn't test protection of all tanks when they were still choosing tanks , only after the leopard was chosen did they test protection. i saw a vid of tnd explaining the tests. he said that had protection were tested the cr2 would have fared better ( dorchester armor)
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
You know, I actually know Dave (TankNutDave), his knowledge is limited, his is biased, and preaty much what he says is not truth at all, only his assumptions.

Besides this, Challenger 2 uses cast backplates for Dorchester armor, while other NATO tanks like M1, Leopard 2 or Leclerc use rolled backplates for their composite armors. Cast armor is allways from 5% to 15% weaker than rolled plate of similiar thickness and hardness, so actually Challenger 2 do not have better front turret armor than other NATO tanks.

Of course it does not meant that Challenger 2 have weak frontal turret armor, as far as I remember, there was reported a friendly fire incident with Americans involved when American M1 tanks fired M829A2 and Challenger 2 frontal turret armor stopped this type of APFSDS, which is very capable one.
 

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
They didn't test protection of all tanks when they were still choosing tanks , only after the leopard was chosen did they test protection.
That is not true. It is common practice to test the armour of a tank prior buying it. The Swedes for example did test the armour of the Leopard 2, T-80U, Leclerc (prototype) and M1A2.
However the armour tests are not done with full tanks, but typically only with armour modules. The Greek government decided to test the armour of one of their Leopard 2 turrets to ensure that the protection level is the same as that of the protection modules.
 

collegeboy16

New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
47
Likes
6
well that sucked, guess i need to stick around and learn more. anyways tnx for clearing that up. btw is the penetratedleopard 2 the leopard 2a4 model?
 

hest

New Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Block III and NGP are just fantasies, they never existed. In degree of developement they were much behind of soviet Boxer/Molot which they intended to reach, and all these in projected technical level are outdated, from past decades, in comparison with ob 195 or Armata.

Current NATO tanks are unlikely to match 2A82, they would need to first start developement, and experience with Leopard 2, M1 showed that it is not possible to incorporate increased chamber dimensions, long ammunition (Grifel) without practically new turret, production (of Leopard, Challenger...) ceased, while no new developement is being carried out (on same level, this is industrial, financial reality). Even if it would eventually appear, it would be late against new armour focused on perspective 140 mm ammunition, likely even own 152 mm.

Today there are only DM53, DM63 intended to defeat armour which is for long out of production, while current models (continous improvement of T-90...) will not grant the same degree of sucess. Arguably same can be said about Svinets-1,2.

Greek Leo test is dubiously evidence. That Israeli round does not exceed Svinets-2 in dimensions, while probably behind in developement level, construction, energy achieved with propellant and gun system, (previous decade). And it also questions the protection of weaker hull. T-90A stripped from ERA turret was tested at 10 cleser range (200-150m) with succesfull results, so it could also represent solid protection level, but in reality you most likely cannot talk about superiority of neither Leopard 2
or T-90 models, side which aims for new developement is the one who will succeed...
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Oh, god, can someone kill this (pseudo)"Russian" troll?

Block III and NGP are just fantasies, they never existed.



Look, a non existing tanks! Yes ladies and gentlemen, what we see do not exist!

In degree of developement they were much behind of soviet Boxer/Molot which they intended to reach
Yes, yes, they never reached the level of decomposition as this prototype of Boxer/Molot. :pound:



Current NATO tanks are unlikely to match 2A82, they would need to first start developement, and experience with Leopard 2, M1 showed that it is not possible to incorporate increased chamber dimensions, long ammunition (Grifel) without practically new turret, production (of Leopard, Challenger...) ceased, while no new developement is being carried out (on same level, this is industrial, financial reality). Even if it would eventually appear, it would be late against new armour focused on perspective 140 mm ammunition, likely even own 152 mm.

Today there are only DM53, DM63 intended to defeat armour which is for long out of production, while current models (continous improvement of T-90...) will not grant the same degree of sucess. Arguably same can be said about Svinets-1,2.

Greek Leo test is dubiously evidence. That Israeli round does not exceed Svinets-2 in dimensions, while probably behind in developement level, construction, energy achieved with propellant and gun system, (previous decade). And it also questions the protection of weaker hull. T-90A stripped from ERA turret was tested at 10 cleser range (200-150m) with succesfull results, so it could also represent solid protection level, but in reality you most likely cannot talk about superiority of neither Leopard 2
or T-90 models, side which aims for new developement is the one who will succeed...
Russia Strong!!!111!!!. :pound:

But you know what Lidsky, you are brilliant example of such moron from former Soviet Union. You think why people do not like Russia? Because of such idiots like you, that spreads Kremlin propaganda all around the world threatening others with Russian supremacy.

Not to mention that you are not even ethnic Russian, you are just damn Bellarussian that tries to be more russian than ethnic Russians are. And this is damn wrong that they need to care about such parasites like you, that makes bad image of Russia as imperialist state, you are just the same moron like Putin and his acolites that still have cold war mentality and sees NATO or west as it's enemies, same for Russias neighbours.

But you can still delude yourself, good thing is, that you won't live too long anymore, old fool.
 

hest

New Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Well, just some answer to Polish butthurt (to come more)...

No, those pictures show only platform models, projects were not further realised. That is not prototype of Molot, but same plattform test bed with no representation of rest of systems. This is seriou conceptual error Damian...

Btw, If you want to know personally, I am from eastern part, my relatives belong to western russians, but there is no such ethnic difference anyway. Most Poles in fact are of German, Czech, etc ascendancy, so I would not make difference between Slavic people. Immature child with no concept of USSR and their people's history, of computer generation is not serious discussion. And this is off topic
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Well, just some answer to Polish butthurt (to come more)...
And this will be answer to the (pseudo)"Russian" butthurt that is incapable to accept reality.

No, those pictures show only platform models, projects were not further realised. That is not prototype of Molot, but same plattform test bed with no representation of rest of systems. This is seriou conceptual error Damian...
These photos shows prototypes, programs were later cancelled because Soviet Union disappeared (which was good, mistake was to cancell these projects).

Btw, If you want to know personally, I am from eastern part, my relatives belong to western russians, but there is no such ethnic difference anyway. Most Poles in fact are of German, Czech, etc ascendancy, so I would not make difference between Slavic people. And this is off topic
You are Bellarussian, which means you are not Russian, simple as that. If I have Germans or Czech in my lineage does not means I am German or Czech, neither I feel any connection to these nations, simple as that.

Furthermore, this does not change a fact that you are a moron, that born in a state rulled by completely idiotic ideology, and you still sees your neighbores and other countries as enemy, that Russia should invade, defeat and change in to it's subjects.

That is the truth, and more, I see it funny, that people like you, completely lacking any realistic thinking, are spreading here propaganda, about some superiority, based only on their wishfull thinking.

You think that Svinets-1/2 is so superb, is it? Where is the proof? You thing that Grifel is so superior? Again where is the proof? Besides some estimations based on assumptions we do not know lenght of penetrator, in fact it can be the same lenght as Svinets but just with more propelant charge, or it can be very different, many options, but instead of being smart, you as typical idiot, start to create images of Russias super ammunition, super guns and super tanks. In english this is called fanboyism.

And again, is Russia really capable to start production of such highly expensive weapon systems? This is really good question, because contrary to what you probably believe, there is no significant economic increase in Russia. Russia is still poor, because how rich is dsicussed country, is how well majority of population lives.

I wonder if anyone here outside central and eastern Europe seen common city in post socialist state? Or how common people live in Russia. These people are poor, simply because their goverment, instead of seeking ways to improve their lifes and economy, preffers to create enemies (be it USA, NATO or any other country, like Georgia) and spend unaffordable sums of money for a new arms race, to show how mighty is Putin and his associates.

Russia is just a poor former super power, that spends billions on unnececary luxuries like nuclear weapons, overweighted army etc. so it can threatens smaller countries (like Poland that do not have any nuclear weapons and wants only to improve it's security is threatened by Russia with nuclear weapons... I think this clearly shows what idiots are rulling Russia).

So this is a good question, if we can realistically talk about Russia and it's weapons systems, or we will follow insane people like Lidsky, who tries to conveince us that Russia is the most powerfull, the most technologically advanced country on this planet.

As for focusin on this thread more.

No Russia will not manufacture a lot of "Armata" platforms. Realistic estimations are that manufacturing will be less than 100 per year, because of how expensive this vehicle will be and how complex it will be.

Of course more could be manufactured after Russia would make it's armed forces smaller, would send to junkyards approx 70-80% of vehicles of different types it have in inventory, and would withdraw from service most if not all nuclear weapons. Tranzition from conscript army to proffesional army would also help.

But there is no other way, especially if Putin wants to realize his social programs, so he will definetely have dillema, or please society or please military.
 
Last edited:

hest

New Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Fact is that it is not correct to talk about projects which were not realised in some fantasy way... and let's continue in this forum without inmature behaviour. My home country (and still for most of people on this position) is USSR, and someone like you will hardly understand what it is. After all experience I became russian national with work and relatives.. Anyway Damian can continue with this off topic emotions and silly behaviour until moderators will (again) pay him attention...

No more reply to this as there is nothing related with this topic.
 
Last edited:

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
btw is the penetratedleopard 2 the leopard 2a4 model?
According to all claims known to me, it was a "naked" Leopard 2A6 HEL turret (which means that it didn't carry the wedge shaped applique armour normally used). Two rounds hit the location of the main sight where the armour was thinner than on the rest of the turret. One of the two rounds managed to penetrate the armour at this location, which lead to the redesign of the armour package there.


Greek Leo test is dubiously evidence. That Israeli round does not exceed Svinets-2 in dimensions, while probably behind in developement level, construction, energy achieved with propellant and gun system, (previous decade).
The Isreali round used there is longer than Svinets-1/2. 72 cm length, muzzlevelocity 1,700 m/s.


And it also questions the protection of weaker hull. T-90A stripped from ERA turret was tested at 10 cleser range (200-150m) with succesfull results, so it could also represent solid protection level, but in reality you most likely cannot talk about superiority of neither Leopard 2
or T-90 models, side which aims for new developement is the one who will succeed...
The problem was the main sight placement, not the hull. The hull is very likely having a different armour array and also has the applique armour on most modern models (all newly produced tanks after 1992).
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Fact is that it is not correct to talk about projects which were not realised in some fantasy way... and let's continue in this forum without inmature behaviour.
So all Soviet project that were not realized are also fantasy. Russian Object 195 is also fantasy by your own definition.

My home country (and still for most of people on this position) is USSR, and someone like you will hardly understand what it is.
Soviet Union, and accept this fact, was artificial country, that was created by psychopats, sociopats, murderers, criminals, simple thugs. Your home country and it's goverment, is reponsible for mass murdering of Russians, Ukrainians, and other smaller nations, as well as nations that were not included in to Soviet Union.

And yes, I can hardly understand anyone who claims to be human being, to love and miss such abomination.

After all experience I became russian national with work and relatives..
No, you are not Russian, besides it is shamefull to even try to change that who you was when born.

Anyway Damian can continue with this off topic emotions and silly behaviour until moderators will (again) pay him attention...
Moderators on this forum actually completely understand my position towards people like you, useless trolls like you.
 

hest

New Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Actually M332 is pretty old projectile if I am not mistaken, so I would not be so quick to make conclusions, especially with few details. About relation with penetrator lenght and performance increase, and previous arguments about optimum velocity, I have good information about this and now can simply say that increase is not lineal, but now to compare M332 with Svinets-2 would be sincerely dubious.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Actually M332 is pretty old projectile if I am not mistaken
You are mistaken, as allways when it comes to military threads. M332 was designed and inducted in to service in the 1989-1990 when Merkava Mk3 was designed and inducted. This means it is still relatively modern and effective type of ammunition, comparable to M829A1 also designed and inducted in these years.
 

hest

New Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Then it would be harder to compare round with developement level belonging to 80s to modern developement, with different gun system, construction and aimed against Leopard 2A6, it really does not show much about solid protection, neither to be compared with rounds of current level.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Ok I put it straight, as you have allways problems with using your brain.

Newer does not means better, understanable? Well for human being it should be.

Only because something was designed in XXI century it does not means it will be better, there are many factors, for example financial, Russia do not have as much money for research and development as Israel, Germany or USA have (especially USA that spends more money on research and development than rest of the world combined).

Also there is problem with engineers and scientists, after Soviet Union breakdown, many scientists just left Russia or other republics, simply because in the west or China or anywhere else, they would be well payed and could afford good life for them and their families, not sitting in some sh(i)thole.

Try to think realistically at least one time.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
. Arguably same can be said about Svinets-1,2.

Greek Leo test is dubiously evidence. That Israeli round does not exceed Svinets-2 in dimensions, while probably behind in developement level, construction, energy achieved with propellant and gun system, (previous decade).
Sniviets-1/2 was developed slighty elier then M322. Israeli round is quite simmilar for first look, but M332 is more potent -is longer, and in Israeli gun and L-44 have more pressure then aviable infos about Sniviets, and other russian rounds 125mm gives. You can't discus this becouse in all possible sources Sniviets lenght, and 2A45M4/M5 pressure are lower then for M332 +L-44
Sorry -there is no doubt here.

Sniviets data from: Vasiliy Fofanov's Modern Russian Armour Page
length, mm :635
penetrator dimensions, L x davg, mm: 546 x 25
penetration: 600mm RHA (Certified)
Predicted average penetration at 2000m, 0°: 650mm RHA
Muzzle velocity, m/s 1700m/s

from other sources: MPa value for 2A46M4/M5 is circa 600-650MPa max

data from here: Т-64/72/80/90 - БПС Бронебойные оперенные подкалиберные снаряды
Whit other name "Свинец":
Lenght projectile 640mm
Muzzle: 1650m/s
Penetration circa 600-620mm RHA

data from here: Das Panzerdetail - Ladeautomaten, Munition und Feuerleitanlagen
diameter: ~25
projectile lenght: ~640
l:d ratio:~26:1
Muzzle: 1650
Penetration is no given.


And now Israeli M332 -in fact ist Swedish clone


1. Projectile (penetrator) lenght:
M332 -720mm
Sniviets- 635-640mm

2. Core/Penetrtor lenght
M332 - 635mm
Sniviets - ? unkown in Fovanov page it's circa 560mm...

3. Muzzle
M332: 1700m/s
Sniviets: 2 for 3 sources give 1650m/s

4. MPa in gun:
M332: 670MPa
2A46M4/M 600 or 650MPa max in most sources

5. Projectile weight:
M332: 8kg
Sniviets: 10kg or in other sources

There is no any one loggical evidece that Sniviet have better perforation value then Israeli M322
Given in offciala IMI materiall M332 penetration is circa 650mm RHA at 2000m for 0. plate.
Values given for Niviets are ussaly simmilar or lower.

Greek Leopard-2A6HEL nacked turret -without NERA wedges - windstand more then 18 shoot -including M332. On middle distance (one version give 1500m, second 1300m ). M332 have bigger penetration then Sniviet, so there is no ----!n mirracle - if Leopard-2A6HEL turret windstand on ~1300-1500m M332 then it can slighty windstand less potent Sniviets, and whit added NERA wedges there is no doubt - Leoopard-2A5/A6 turret is simple immune against Sniviets for frontal arc.

T-90A stripped from ERA turret was tested at 10 cleser range (200-150m) with succesfull results,
Sure - just count fins marks on those turret. 3BM42 Mango on 150-250m. Grate protection against 1986 APFSDS :)
Are You joking?

Block III and NGP are just fantasies, they never existed. In degree of developement they were much behind of soviet Boxer/Molot which they intended to reach, and all these in projected technical level are outdated, from past decades, in comparison with ob 195 or Armata.
Tank Block III and NGP they are Younger then Boxer/molot and Ob.195, it's first, second, known prototypes shown simmilar developed stadium - exluced Ob.195 of course.


And Ob195 was canceled due to lack of propper FCS and others.
And Armata is just refresh OB.195. SO yes -greate advantages. Like in engines in russia :lol:
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
@militarysta, we should also consider all possible differences in metallurgy. You can have two very similiar penetrators, but both will be different when it comes to metallurgy level and also production quality, and of course quality control.

It is very easy to have super ammunition on paper when in reality it quickly becomes less capable due to manufacturing defects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
@militarysta, we should also consider all possible differences in metallurgy. You can have two very similiar penetrators, but both will be different when it comes to metallurgy level and also production quality, and of course quality control.

It is very easy to have super ammunition on paper when in reality it quickly becomes less capable due to manufacturing defects.
Of course, but even if we consider that fallen in economical tragedy, and now risen Russia have super-duper metalurgy and the best avaible factories, whit the best quality, etc, then there are many factors given us one conclusion: there is no ----en way that Sniviets have better penetration then longer, faster, whit bigger MPa M332. In best case they can be simmilar if Russian rounds have mucht better metallurgy :)

But in fact there is no reson to argue about M332 and Sniviets posibilites. Both are given in offcial interviev or data sheet by both industry or engeeners:
M332 - 650mm RAH at 2000m.
Sniviets: 40% better then 3BM42 Mango. Mango have circa 460mm RHA at 2000m so for Sniviet we shoud have circa 640mm RHA. Maybe achivable penetration can be up to 700mm RHA whit some lucky.

But Sniviets is mucht shorter, slower, and have lower MPa pressure. So it's really hard to belive that it can be better then M332. Rather bout round are simmilar -if russian value "40% better then mango" is true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hest

New Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
You should check your skills, because it is the fifth time you show your inability. We are talking about Svinets-2, active part 3BM60, you think it is Svinets, 3BM46 which was 80-90 s developement :)) So true, 3BM46 is analogue to M332, Svinets-2 was developed a decade later, passing trials in 2009-2010 :)). Your only knowledge comes from outdated websites (btw have you seen value of m256 gun in btvt :) ?)

About gun system it is the same. Even old Mango can approach 600 kg/cm^2, and for 125 caliber this is higher energy than 120mm (can reach 10% according to chief engineer), not to mention 15 % longer barrel
and the fact that Svinets-2 uses more energic propellant according with developer, 4Ж96. About gun level, look at 120 mm M- 392 which supports use of all NATO rounds (DM-53), Артиллерийский завод №9 :: Продукция :: Военная :: Орудия для танков и САУ :: 120 мм

So about energy it is clear. About dimensions, you have no argument (And I use actual source, questions of ballistics written by academics from scientific institutefor proffesional use) . Increase of L/d ratio does not lead to lineal increase in performance, in fact to obtain improvement it is necessary to achieve optimum velocity (depends on material and l/d ratio), for example, 140 mm projectile with l/d of 40 was estimated to need 1830 m/s velocity to give improvement, it is one reason why Grifel with great ratio, velocity, energy were much increased. M322 l/d staying will not give any improvement as it's velocity is similar or lower (it's effectiveness coefficient is lower). Not to mention that it is much older developement using probably old monoblock, or simpler construction. From newer penetrarors it is also logical to expect measures, differential (by lenght) material properties to optimise use of energy, lower parasitic mass, etc... Only biased idiot would argue that super israeli 80 s tech while being obviously outdated is superior to modern m829.., dm... 3BM59,60 projectiles and effective against current composite structure.

T-90 trials, I did not say it was against old projectiles, it is in fact part of goverment evaluation, and of course hard to know details, but it is not different. That Leopard 2A6 was tested against projectiles representing mid 80 s level,
M332 from 2 km hardly shows anything about superior effectiveness, so less fantasies, it means nothing yet for modern rounds. Surely both T-90 and Leopard were extensively tested, but for now we do not have evidense. Btw, Svinets- 2 penetraror lenght was given by Fofanov, it was about 650 mm from memory, so M332 is not actually any greater. Block III, etc were in fact younger than Molot or FST-2, and did not materialise to the same level. Now thet are non existing developement :)
 
Last edited:

Articles

Top