It's seem that Grief have circa 18mm thick rod (on those draw) and whole projectile lenght (whit cap and fins) circa 880-890mm -what give use to big 48:1 it's rather unrealistic value. Without balistic cap and fins whit tracer whole rod will be circa 760-780mm long what give us more realistic circa 42:1.
Of course this is whit grate margin of error and based only on those one draw :-/
We cannot make valid estimation yet.
During trade for Peru polish Bumar engeeners claims that in PT-91M1 they incares basick turret protection to circa 500mm RHA for turret front (and propably hull) + added ERAWA-2. And those combination was slighty above DM-33A1 posibiliteies - during test from fixed gun on circa 500m they use DM-33A1 whit lower propelant charge to simulate more then 1600m distance. They was 4 shoots (two to hull and two to turret), there whas 2x rebound, and 1 perforation, and 1 deep penetration.
Well if T-72M1 with modifications could approach level of DM-33, it is to wonder what was the situation with soviet T-72B, T-80... in 80s.
For 2A56M4/M5 we known max MPa value, muzzle, and barrel lenght, we know projectile lenght and diameter (for Sniviets-1) and we known all about M332 from Swedish ppj95 so here I kevent doubt. The question is C-2.
And what calculations did you make, what do you know exactly (dubious...), you know value for 4Ж96 propellant, mass...?
Sniviets-1 and M332 are the same generation -in fact developmend phase was in the same time for both rounds. And diamensions for Sniviets-1 are given in most sources -640mm whole long projectile and circa 540-550mm long penetrator .
No, wrong. Svinets (3BM46), Svinets-1 (3BM59) and Svinets-2 (3BM60) are different rounds. The old Svinets is same generation as M332, the others were developed in paralell decade later.
Those non-existing? C'mon till 3BM42 and 3BM32 soviet/russian industry don't produse any new round till whole 1990 and 2000. Sniviets pass Russian trials in 2010. So we have almoust 20yers gap.
And 3BM42 as Polish "segmented 125mm" is not fully segmented penetrator - it's rather partial ones - when whole core is separated on 2-3 parts in hope that only one of them will be completly ruined by acitve Burlinghton layers:
It is about usage of material with different properties, different alloys in one construction, more complex than just segments which you will not see just by looking at picture. Whole point was to achieve notably higher performance against composite structure, and this was implemented in soviet rounds in 80s (in production) and for some time those were the only ones, rest, M829, DM-33, M332 until much more modern ones had simpler, less effective construction.
In fact segmented penetration present in DM63 or Swizterland prototypes are completly diffrent and based on developed fully segmented round whit couple of the same lenght segments whit strong enought conectors.
And If You want compare 3BM42 then take a notice that Israeli 125mm Cl.mk.2 was choosen by most countries as the same/better options whit circa 520-540mm "stupid RHA" penetration. Becouse it was mucht modern. Even in India they choose Clm.Mk2 not BM42. (of course before put IMi on black list).
And so structures of modern Svinets, etc now are also different and nothing to do with old M332 DM33 or whatever. About that israeli round it is no more than advertisement.
M332 is in all aspect mucht modern then 3BM42 (develpmend phase in circa 1983-1985) and is on the same level as Sniviets-1. Only one question is about rod build.
BTW: used 3 parts rod in 3BM42 can be procurated by non-existing proper technology in soviet industry in first half of the 1980s. In those Yers nobody abart Israeli and Germnas whare able to use quite long monoblock penetrator, propably the same was about soviets industry -and this can be a reson why 3Bm42 have big sheets and 3 parts rod. And on next gen. Sniviets (3BM-46?) soviet developers rejected those solutions and Sniviets was monoblock (circa 1991). So propably smth was not OK in Bm42 when only 5 yers layter they had change rod construction.
You cannot say only question because construction is the most important and the most complex feature. It is totally different case against composite array.
About technology, sorry but it is funny bullshit. Design penetrator with structure composed by different material properties is a very difficult feat, requiring extensive tests due to problems with different alloy separation during trajectory, but it gives notable increase in performance against composite armour. In fact it was for this difficulty why this feature appeared later (in non soviet rounds), so statement about technological complexity, and about simplicity of such design is show of ignorance. And complexity of design, material is not seen just with look.
There were also soviet monoblock rounds before 3BM42 with greater RHA penetration, but this was obviously not indication of superior performance against armour. What can be said for sure is that M829, DM33, M332 have simple structure, do not employ these features and certainly won't perform any better against composite array, much less against younger armour.
After 20years of problems? The picture is not so happy -just notice that after Sniviets (1991) next round DOI was in...2010. C-2. So smth is not ok here. And western industry had 20 yers testing top solutions from ex CCCP -mostly from Ukraina when indeed M332 and F1 fall during tests on Knive. On based this and other tests nex generation rounds was developed - M338, DM63, M829A3, M829A4, etc.
Developement never ceased and now you are seeing results, wheter if it is only now when it's actually produced is different talk. Yes, and also western rounds were purchased and tested. USSR legacy is now hardly modern.
On those video we have couple very interesting screensshots - for example alloy Sniviets sabot (not composite!):
And we have those 3D projectile - STGM made mesurment on it:
Of course whit some margin of error, but we can see that those 3D projectile (if its real not disinformation) have 850-860mm long projectile and circa 770mm long whole projectile -so mucht less then M829A3 but more then DM53.
So if those round give us Grifel then is shorther then we suspected on those draw.
We have screenshot from production (which does not show everything), drawing, which differs, we also have picture of round tested in Kubinka, overall you can make an idea, but no very good approximation.
Good joke
XM360 in USA, LLR47 in Germany, SB105 in Germany, L-55 in 1990-2000 in Germany,
whole developemnd NPzK140mm etc.
And these are only developements from existing systems (
and what? ) or existing paramethers (rounds, energy...) and hardly comparable with new caliber, much greater energy, chamber pressure, all such (140 mm) ceased developement in 90s while 2A82, 2A83 152 mm caliber are in developement and already passed goverment tests (2008-2009..) along with projectiles, it is entire generation difference.