Tank Guns and Ammunition

[Kunal Biswas]

Its the same round produce by Indian and Polish Industry originally a Israeli design ..

And this Mk1 APFSDS uses only 3.2 kg of charge to launch 7.8kg to 1.66 km/s, very impressive

 

[313230]

No. It is two part ammunition, the 3.2 kg charge is in the projectile part, the supplementary charge has to be included.

Ah, many thanks

 

[Dazzler]

@militarysta

bm-42 mango with probably type-2 apfsds

 

[militarysta]

Serbian 125mm APFSDs once again:





Slovakia 125mm (konstrukta)

(540mm RHA at 2000m)

 

[militarysta]

Official 3BM42 Mango values (copied form instruction)


3БМ42 "Манго"

Эффективная дальность пробития:
7-слойной мишени под углом 30 град. к нормали (толщина по ходу движения 630 мм) 3300 м
7-слойной мишени под углом 60 град. к нормали (толщина по ходу движения 620 мм) 3800 м
3-слойной разнесенной мишени под углом 65 град. к нормали (толщина по ходу движения 1830 мм) 2700 м
230 мм гомогенной брони под углом 60 град. от нормали 2000 м
440 мм гомогенной брони по нормали 2000 м


and 3BM32 Vant values:

 

[militarysta]

M829



M829A1




M829A2
lack

KEW-A2 i KEW-A3


M829A3

 

[militarysta]

"Poland stornk 111!!!!1"

125mm

Pronit and prototypes:


Current in production Pronit sucessor:

 

[militarysta]

"Poland stronk!11! v.2.0" this time mostly 120mm ammo:





And one seriously new round whit better abilities:

what is new in this Pz.531 APFSDS? Of course not penetration "over 500mm RHA from 2000m" but fact that penetrator is build from segments.
I have a seriously mixed feelings. Ok, "new" round but it is modern? It was developed to overpas slopped target and propably ERA, but stil im waiting for details. Hope this round have sucht advantages in overpas ERA and multilayerd armor that small penetartion "stupid" RHA plates is fine.

 

[militarysta]

Polish "Wolverwine" so "Rosomak" (AMV) whit mounted on it CMI XC-8 whit 105mm gun

And here explain why 105mm APFSDS in no longer effective enought:
Data offered for Poland ammo whit CIM 105mm:

560mm RHA on 2000m for angle 60 degree

Interesting - why not given value for NATO 0. degree?
The reson is marketing

To explain other data:

http://sus3041.sakura.ne.jp/contents/shell_db/105_m1060_apfsds.htm

0º 460mm at 2km
60º 510mm at 2km(255m/60º)

So fo our hight preassure 105mm ammo propper data is:
M1060CV:

0º ~505-510mm at 2km
60º 560mm at 2km

Why this above is not enought? Explain is hidden in tow parts. Above we have real penetration value for 0. NATO: up to 510mm RHA on 2000m
And under I give for DFI user my own armour estimatous. They are based not on taken form space values but real armour plans, factory draws, etc
(Like this:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-...AAAAAAAADg/MfTYr5ZEZIg/s512/T-64BW%20hull.png
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/dhbbxTA1zWCOl3wDLimqHtGZtmL-rzGuU7ktB0WkKs8=w732-h523-no
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1SuVTB0nBEo/U8_QJgDC-TI/AAAAAAAAADI/7TggFnmf0TM/s640/T80U.png
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...AAAAACY/EcfrFWgdx80/s659/T-80U%20model%20.jpg
and many others )
Of course I can't be 100% sure that those values are correct, but IMHO they are not so bad, and consist whit other sources And mucht better then "armour protection level" or taken form space SB values (this for open public of course).

Anyway:

M1060CV penetration form 105mm:
0º ~505-510mm at 2km
60º 560mm at 2km

T-80UD ( WITHOUT ERA!):
hull: vs APFSDS: ~630-640mm RHA
turret: APFSDS: ~620mm
so M1060CV will not pass armour for +/- 30. from turret and hull longitiudal axis


T-90A - no idea, but not worse then T-80UD, so:
so M1060CV will not pass armour for +/- 30. from turret and hull longitiudal axis


T-72B model 1989:
hull: ~600-620mm RHA (WITHOUT ERA)
turret: ~ około 550-600mm (WITHOUT ERA) (here are some problem about turret estimatous)
so M1060CV will not pass armour for +/- 30. from turret and hull longitiudal axis



T-80U (WITHOUT ERA):
hull: 550mm vs APFSDS
turret: ~550-580mm vs APFSDS
so if M1060CV haven't any solution to overpass ERA without
initialization it then M1060CV not pass armour for +/- 30. from turret and hull longitiudal axis



T-72B:
hull: 520-540mm RHA vs APFSDS
turret: 470-540mm RHA vs APFSDS
so M1060CV should overpass frontal armour


T-64B/BV:
hull: vs APDSDS ~430mm RHA (up to: 440mm)
turret: 420-450mm RHA vs APFSDS
so M1060CV will definetly overpass frontal armour

T-72M1:
hull: ~ 480mm RHA (including additional 16mm HHS palte on hull front)
turret: 410-420mm RHA vs APFSDS
so M1060CV will definetly overpass frontal armour

T-80B/BW:
hull: vs APFSDS: ~470mm RHA
turret: vs APFSDS ~420-450mm RHA
so M1060CV will definetly overpass frontal armour

So for other way:
105mm gun even whot TOP ammo like M1060CV will not overpas main frontal armour (of course without weak spots: gun mantled mask, etc) in tanks like:
T-90A, T-90S, T-80UD, Al Chalid, Oplot-M, T-72B model 1989, and rather will not pass T-80U if ERA works correct.

But the same M1060CV fired from 105mm will overpass without problem: T-72M1, T-72M1 Aleya, T-80B/BW, T-64B/BW, T-72B/BW, and of course AMX-40, Leopard-1, T-55AM, etc

 

[militarysta]

And suplement about modern russia 125mm APFSDS ammo.

Basing on official russia sources about 3BM42 Mango and 3BM32 Vant we can tell more about most modern ammo.

Offcial 3BM42:

Offcial 3BM32:

3BM32 DU (1985)
430mm RHA on 2000m (WarPac norm: 75%)
460mm RHA on 2000m (NATO norm: 50% +1)

3BM42 WHA (1986)
circa 410mm RHA na 2000m (WarPac norm: 75%)
440mm RHA na 2000m (NATO norm: 50% +1)


so:
Accoding to offiacial russian statsment 3BM42M Lekalyo was planned as "20% bigger penetration then Mango" and WHA Swiniec-1 "40% better then Mango"
Now knowing REAL 3BM42 MANGO penetration we can put this togehther:

3BM42 Mango (1986) :
410-440mm RHA on 2000m

3BM42M Leklyo (1996?) (+20% from Mango)
500-530mm RHA on 2000m

3BM48 Åšwiniec-1 (2010?) (+40% from Mango)
570-620mm RHA on 2000m


And if still for DU Swiniec-2 is true that DU give circa 8% better penetration then:
Åšwiniec-2 (DU) (2010?) (+8% from Åšwiniec-1)
615-670mm RHA on 2000m

 

[militarysta]

From A.Tarasenko blog:

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH OF SURVIVABILITY TRUNK OF A SMOOTH-BORE GUN
In article results of an experimental research of survivability trunk of a smooth
-bore gun are resulted

http://library.kpi.kharkov.ua/JUR/ITE_2011_1_Anipko_Eksperimentalnoye.pdf


and polish ones about the same:

http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j...WtP_L3eKYxo1ktSax0jrFEw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.bGQ

ŻYWOTNOŚĆ LUF 120 MM ARMAT CZOŁGOWYCH

type of the tank / type of the gun / gun life time in combat APFSDS-T / max preassure in MPa:

Т-80У-М1 / 2А46М-4 i 2А46М-5 / 500?/ 600MPa
T-90 (Ob.188)/ 2А46М-2 / 220 / 500MPa
Т-72Б;Т-72Б(М); Т-80Б;Т-80БВ; Т-80У; T-80УД; /2А46М i 2А46М-1/ 220 / 500MPa
Т-80Б; Т-64Б /2А46-2/ 170 /450MPa
Т-64A /2А46-1(Д-81ТМ)/ 170 /450MPa

Leopard-2A4/ Rh120 L-44/400-600* /670MPa
Leopard-2A5; Strv.122 / Rh120 L-44/ 400-600*/710MPa
Leopard-2A6 Rh120 L-55/ 600** /800MPa in chamber; up to 900MPa in barrel(!)
???/ Rh120 LLR L-47/ 600** /700MPa

*data for DM-33A1, trening munition up to 1400
**600 for DM-61, 200 for DM-53, 800-1400 for trening munition (SABOT/HEAT)

M1:
M1A2/ M256/ 450* /720MPa

*260 for M829A3, 360 for M929A2, 450 for M829A1, ~540 for M829

based on:

The safe service life value of the 120-mm M256 tank cannon is 1500 EFC

and for reference value (1500 EFC) we have value 1.0 for M865 munition for rest sabot we have:
M829: 2.8
M829A1: 3.3
M829A2: 4.2

accoding to:
http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j...Rgv844GzVWg0y68MSYb7Qcw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.ZWU


======================
From ukrainian pdf we have some interesting informations:

1) outdated amunition 125mm APFSDS whit 20 and 25 storage years make in gun chamber preassure (MPa) bigger then normal for sucht ammo up to 1.03-1.2
So in whore case sucht ammo will couse 20% bigger MPa value in chamber :/

2) Velocity of the propelant charge combustion in 125mm ammo older then 22 yers is bigger then normal up to 11-18% :shocked:

3) The Autors claimed that 20-25 yers old outdated ammunition (APFSDS) will cause bigger then normal barrel consumption in 20-30%(!)

 

[militarysta]

 

[militarysta]

copied from other topic:

for compare Polish Leopard-2A4:

tank was moving of course



and needed accuracy when tank is not moving:

polish 120mm trening munition APFSDS-T-TP disprencion on 1000m:

Used on M1 Abrams 120mm ammo tested on Leopard-2:

 

[militarysta]

And again Poland - "fresh" crews after basic trening and their first in life shooting.
Tank not moving, target not moving, distance 1000m:

anybody can compare whit chineese Type-96A "accuracy"...

 

[313230]

Used on M1 Abrams 120mm ammo tested on Leopard-2:

The dispersion calculation in this image is wrong, for example, the L44 is about .5m at 1000m which translates to 0.51 mil

 

[militarysta]

The dispersion calculation in this image is wrong, for example, the L44 is about .5m at 1000m which translates to 0.51 mil

And @methos proof that you have no idea about what you are talking. Despite faact that ATK company in their pdf have rather right then you.

As methos claimd:

No. The dispersion is measured from the center of all impacts. The gunner does not necessarily aim at the center of the target, hence it is not 0.5 m dispersion, but the numbers provided in the image. You apparently don't know anything about these images, they are part of a trial to use U.S. ammunition in the Leopard 2. Given that the Leopard 2 has a different fire control system than the M1 Abrams (and as the Leopard 2A6 a longer gun), the data used in the fire control are not as exact which might lead to a bad aiming point as in these photos. The dispersion however is however independent of the aiming point, a simple update with more accurate values for the fire control system and the center might be hit more easily - the dispersion however stays the same.

Your "0.5 m dispersion" is therefore 0.22 m as mentioned in the image.

 

[militarysta]

menhwile: ammo HE-FRAG test in Poland where done using 20km/h for tank:

(please notice that this is normal HE-FRAG not APFSDS-T-TP or HEAT).
Nice values anyway -like for HE-FRAG

 

[militarysta]

and example of the accuracy in move:

..:: 10BKPanc :: 2005 ::..

17.12.2005
Szkolenie poligonowe OSP
W okresie od 30.11.2005 r. do 16.12.2005 r. 2 kompania czołgów z 1bcz zrealizowała szkolenie poligonowe na OSP Świętoszów .

W dniu 01.12.05r.na SBCz 2 kcz została poddana strzelaniu szkolnemu nr 2N tj. strzelanie w ruchu, o charakterze sprawdzającym z czołgu L2A4 osiągając następujące wyniki



1. Strzelanie szkolne nr 2N , strzelaÅ‚o 14 załóg, 12 bardzo dobrych, 2 – dobre. Ocena Å›rednia 4,86 (5)

Skuteczność trafień pierwszym pociskiem 120mm - 100% tj. 14/14

Skuteczność trafień ogniem z 7,62mm km MG-3A1 - 85,7% tj. 12/14

W dniu 08.12.05 2kcz zrealizowała strzelanie bojowe nr B1 i B1N tj strzelanie różnymi sposobami w różnych reżimach i trybach pracy SKO czołgu Leo 2A4 w dzień i w nocy. Uzyskano następujące wyniki :



2. Strzelanie bojowe nr B1 , strzelaÅ‚o 13 załóg, 10 bardzo dobrych, 3 – dobre.

Ocena średnia 4,77 (5)

Skuteczność trafień pierwszym pociskiem 120mm - 97,6% tj. 41/42

Skuteczność trafień ogniem z 7,62mm km MG-3A1 - 76,9% tj. 10/13



3. Strzelanie bojowe nr B1N, strzelało 15 załóg czołgów, 11 ocen bdb, 4 oceny dobre, ocena średnia 4,73 (5)

Skuteczność trafień pierwszym pociskiem 120mm - 97,8% tj. 45/46

Skuteczność trafień ogniem z 7,62mm km MG-3A1 - 73,3% tj. 11/15

Photos:

 

[CCP]

copied from other topic:




for compare Polish Leopard-2A4:

tank was moving of course



and needed accuracy when tank is not moving:

polish 120mm trening munition APFSDS-T-TP disprencion on 1000m:

Used on M1 Abrams 120mm ammo tested on Leopard-2:

TYPE -96A at moving position + 1600-1800m distance

VS

Leopard-2 at fixed position + 1000m distance

 

[CCP]

And again Poland - "fresh" crews after basic trening and their first in life shooting.
Tank not moving, target not moving, distance 1000m:

anybody can compare whit chineese Type-96A "accuracy"...

What are you compared with?

TYPE -96A at moving position + 1600-1800m distance

VS

Leopard-2 at fixed position + 1000m distance

You are so smart.