Tank Guns and Ammunition

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,572
You will look at ML of Т64-(80). No limitations in the use penetrator is long it is not. And in Russia plenty of all modifications of Т- 80, except for Т-80UD.
Nerveless same kind of auto-loader deign can be used for Single piece ammo for 120mm cannon..
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
I howewer doubt your correct interpretation of provided figures.

About DM-53 I had figures:

From L/44 11.6 MJ
From L/55 12.7 MJ
I was wrong, and I give to low MJ for DM53 from L-55:

from article: Battle Tanks for the Bundeswehr
Modern German Tank Development, 1956-2000
by Rolf Hilmes


New kinetic energy ammunition (LKE 2). These modifications increase the muzzle energy from 10 megajoules to 13.5
MJ
, and muzzle velocity from 1,650 m/sec to 1,750 m/sec.
So in fact now it's the bigger MJ value for all tank guns in serial use. The other question is how big part from this 13,5MJ is transfered into penetrator.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,194
Likes
2,799
Country flag
Nerveless same kind of auto-loader deign can be used for Single piece ammo for 120mm cannon..
ML has also limitations on the height of shell. But without problems can shoot shells "Cobra", which 970-мм is long. Here such and limitation, can be at mandrels with round of APFSDS.
 

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Ok, but it's doesn't change fact that it's impossible to put 1000mm long catrige in carosuell autoloader when is impossible to place longer then L=750mm projectile. Sekond fact is that 1000mm long smth. is more then half thick of T-72/90 hull so is no option to place so ong projectile in Korzina style autoloader.
Due this two facts (no my opinnion but fact...) there are two options:
a) there is mistake on this page (rather not)
b) it was only about gun and possible to use ammmo but not autoloader.
Of course such ammunition cannot fit in caroussell autoloader designed for two-piece rounds. But it is stated that those rounds can be fired from M-395 which has specific configuration with T-72 (guns have different configuration to operate with different mechanism, so statement refers to whole system gun-tank).

How it is done we do not know, but let's leave it anyway as it is not related.

Older gun had about 500-600MPa.
2A46M1-2 supported 6000 bar max pressure. Rounds as Mango operated at around 5600 bar.

It's not better becouse?
Because KBA guns are just offshoots of Soviet 2A46M series and production method is not better than in original plant now in Russia.

No it's not. Whole idea is to transfer more MJ for penetrator only.
Of course, but increase in projectile energy due to increased pressure, gun lenght and velocity leads to a higher potential (more energy will be transferred) and in effective range.
 

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
I was wrong, and I give to low MJ for DM53 from L-55:

from article: Battle Tanks for the Bundeswehr
Modern German Tank Development, 1956-2000
by Rolf Hilmes




So in fact now it's the bigger MJ value for all tank guns in serial use. The other question is how big part from this 13,5MJ is transfered into penetrator.
It seems that those figure are now more consistent with increase in energy in L/55 due to about 20% longer bore.

Assuming Svinets penetrator is of similar dimensions, mass, etc, if it's propellant creates similar pressure as in DM-53, it will result in an increase of about 10% in energy (propelling force of pressure on round) due to 125mm caliber, and another 10% due to longer bore as compared with L/44. So in fact energy of Svinets should be similar to DM-53 fired from L/55 gun.
But it is also possible that it operates at higher pressure.
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
Assuming Svinets penetrator is of similar dimensions, mass, etc, if it's propellant creates similar pressure as in DM-53, it will result in an increase of about 10% in energy (propelling force of pressure on round) due to 125mm caliber, and another 10% due to longer bore as compared with L/44. So in fact energy of Svinets should be similar to DM-53 fired from L/55 gun.
But it is also possible that it operates at higher pressure.
You are no only assuming, Militarysta have hard data on ammunition performance and gun performance from documentation. You can only assume, not to mention that You completely ignore the fact that older types of 2A46M series, were vastly inferior even to the Rh-120/L44. Saying that 2A46M-5 will be better, because it's offer x% increase in this characteristic and x% increase in other characteristic, without knowing where the older guns were, is just convieniant way to cover unconvieniant truth.

Not to mention that with proper ammunition old good L44 didn't said it'slast words, good example here are US M829A3 and M829A4 rounds. The fact is that Americans can't use the full potential of M829A3 right now due to L44 barrel, with something like L55, this ammunition would be a real overkill.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
Of course such ammunition cannot fit in caroussell autoloader designed for two-piece rounds. But it is stated that those rounds can be fired from M-395 which has specific configuration with T-72 (guns have different configuration to operate with different mechanism, so statement refers to whole system gun-tank).

How it is done we do not know, but let's leave it anyway as it is not related.
Maybe is possibel to fire western tank ammo from that gun. But As I said -no way to put western ammo in estern style autoloaders (both kind - from UVZ and Charkiv).

2A46M1-2 supported 6000 bar max pressure. Rounds as Mango operated at around 5600 bar.
It's not so easy whit MPa. It's depands on many factors. And whole MPa is not relevant to armour perforation :)

Because KBA guns are just offshoots of Soviet 2A46M series and production method is not better than in original plant now in Russia.
Why are you so sure? Ukarinian metalurgy industry have some interesting solutions...

Of course, but increase in projectile energy due to increased pressure, gun lenght and velocity leads to a higher potential (more energy will be transferred) and in effective range.
Again it's not so easy. Most important is hight as possibe penetrator weight and lenght, big L:D ratio, and small as it's possible sabot weight. In fact even smaller muzzle velocity and smaller MPa pressure from shorter gun but with longer heavier penetrator whit light as possible sabot will give more MJ for penetrator then for round whit bigger muzzle velocity, and bigger MPa presure whit longer gun but whit heavy sabot and shorter and lighter penetrator.
So in fact 12,1MJ for M829A3 in 1555m/s from L-44 can give bigger MJ value for penetrator due to ultra light comosite sabot, and long (916-940mm) rod, then round whit in teory bigger MJ in muzzle but lighter rod and havier sabot.

It seems that those figure are now more consistent with increase in energy in L/55 due to about 20% longer bore.
It's not simple dependence! From fact that L-55 is 20% longer and have biger on 7% MPa pressure we can't take fact out perforation. It's not so simple becouse there are more and most important factors...

Assuming Svinets penetrator is of similar dimensions, mass, etc, if it's propellant creates similar pressure as in DM-53, it will result in an increase of about 10% in energy (propelling force of pressure on round) due to 125mm caliber, and another 10% due to longer bore as compared with L/44. So in fact energy of Svinets should be similar to DM-53 fired from L/55 gun.
But it is also possible that it operates at higher pressure.
1. You havent proper dates for Sniviets, and 3BM60 C-2. You haven't mass, diameter, etc. I don't find 3 very important data about C-2 and others:
- penetrator weight
- sabot weight
- penetrator diameter
So writing about "similar dimensions" is unfounded. The same about energy. It can be lower due to diffrent sabot constuction, or form other factors. Sorry. We know only penetrator and rod lenght. No other data.
 

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Maybe is possibel to fire western tank ammo from that gun. But As I said -no way to put western ammo in estern style autoloaders (both kind - from UVZ and Charkiv).
Agreed, and there is no purpose to use unitary rounds. Such autoloaders were designed to handle two-piece ammunition.

It's not so easy whit MPa. It's depands on many factors. And whole MPa is not relevant to armour perforation :)
Yes, but if we are talking about specific round, and higher propelling force and increase in energy is relevant.

Why are you so sure? Ukarinian metalurgy industry have some interesting solutions...
In Ukraine there was no gun manufacturing plant, and they converted production line for gas tubes for production of gun design directly from Soviet 2A46M.

And making such assumptions without any base...

Of course gun from 2005 will offer superior performance than from 80s due to advancement in design and production. But you assure there was no improvement.

It's not simple dependence! From fact that L-55 is 20% longer and have biger on 7% MPa pressure we can't take fact out perforation. It's not so simple becouse there are more and most important factors...
Of course it is not so simple, but it can be valid general aproximation.

And it should be taken in consideration.

1. You havent proper dates for Sniviets, and 3BM60 C-2. You haven't mass, diameter, etc. I don't find 3 very important data about C-2 and others:
- penetrator weight
- sabot weight
- penetrator diameter
So writing about "similar dimensions" is unfounded. The same about energy. It can be lower due to diffrent sabot constuction, or form other factors. Sorry. We know only penetrator and rod lenght. No other data.
Svinets has passed all trials, notices of numerous tests, and was readied for production, but due to bureaucratic issues it was not released for advertisement (secrecy).

In dimensions (atleast lenght) difference shouldn't be significant with DM-53, etc so it is not very important variable. But we know for sure that it would benefit with increased bore caliber and lenght, and that should be accounted.

There is also another difference, Svinets-1 DU and Svinets-2 Tungsten.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
BTW: What Is quite interesting we have misty assumptions about RHA penetration level for «Свинец-1» and DM-53 L-55.

Data for DM53 from L-55 was given in three sources: one polish industry article about Leopars-2, and two Bundeshwerr promo materials about Kampfpanzer in BW. In all upper value is 810mm RHA for 2000m. Most other soures give ~750mm RHA for 2000m.
Propably it's difrence between aguaranteed and achievable perforation.

For «Свинец-1» we know smth like this:
Выстрел «Свинец-1» с бронебойным подкалиберным снарядом на 40% превосходит аналогичный штатный выстрел Манго. Такой значительный прогресс стал возможен за счет применения новых технологий изготовления высокопрочных урановых корпусов, создания ведущего устройства нового типа, разработки новых высокоэнергетических порохов.
(Виктора Ивановича)

Well -If this 40% better then Mango level is propper for DU «Свинец-1» then it should be:

3BM42 460-500mm RHA for 2000m ( according to the most sources)
«Свинец-1» 644mm -700mm RHA for 2000m (according to performance 40% better then Mango in this article)
DM53(DM63) L-44 >650mm RHA for 2000m (in fact it can be up to 650 (710mm?) when we distinguish perforation guaranteed and achievable)
DM53 L-55 750-810mm RHA (according to one polish and two germans articles)

Of course it only misty assumption :)
 
Last edited:

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Svinets was also mentioned by NII Stali, DU variant was used in tests against Relikt to simulate modern American rounds...

Such figures are only approximations.
It seems modern penetrators have about 700-750mm in performance.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,194
Likes
2,799
Country flag
3BM42 460-500mm RHA for 2000m ( according to the most sources)
«Свинец-1» 644mm -700mm RHA for 2000m (according to performance 40% better then Mango in this article)
DM53(DM63) L-44 >650mm RHA for 2000m (in fact it can be up to 650 (710mm?) when we distinguish perforation guaranteed and achievable)
DM53 L-55 750-810mm RHA (according to one polish and two germans articles)

Of course it only misty assumption :)
Comparing the penetration of one level is necessary Rh120/L44 and 2А46М. And Rh120 \ L55 is necessary to be compared to 2А80 or L50 "Vityaz", then will be honest.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
Svinets was also mentioned by NII Stali, DU variant was used in tests against Relikt to simulate modern American rounds...
Yes, brillant -use thinner max 730mm long rod to simulate thicker 800mm long ones...

It seems modern penetrators have about 700-750mm in performance.
Rather it's seems that only in USA and Germany modern APFSDS had overpass "magic" 750mm RHA at 2000m perforation value.
In rest countries even for top construction it's about 650-700mm RHA max. And it's rather bellow 650mm RHA for 2000m.
And we should remember about difrence between guaranteed and achievable perforation its ussaly 50-70mm diffrent value, the same about perforation values and distanse.


From polish military instructions (10Tk.Bde):
3BM42 -P0:580 P2500:460
DM33 -P0:600 P2500:490
M829A1 -P0:700 P2500:560
3BM42M -P0:630 P2500:510
DM53(L44) -P0:670 P2500:560
M829A2 -P0:770 P2500:660
M829A3 -P0:920 P2500:810
PRONIT -P0:560 P2500:460
 

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Yes, brillant -use thinner max 730mm long rod to simulate thicker 800mm long ones...
It is not necessary for research institute to have same round, to simulate it in different conditions.

Rather it's seems that only in USA and Germany modern APFSDS had overpass "magic" 750mm RHA at 2000m perforation value.
In rest countries even for top construction it's about 650-700mm RHA max. And it's rather bellow 650mm RHA for 2000m.
And we should remember about difrence between guaranteed and achievable perforation its ussaly 50-70mm diffrent value, the same about perforation values and distanse.
Actually there is no proof in that statement...

From polish military instructions (10Tk.Bde):
3BM42 -P0:580 P2500:460
DM33 -P0:600 P2500:490
M829A1 -P0:700 P2500:560
3BM42M -P0:630 P2500:510
DM53(L44) -P0:670 P2500:560
M829A2 -P0:770 P2500:660
M829A3 -P0:920 P2500:810
PRONIT -P0:560 P2500:460
It is funny for polish army, how they give "instructions" for material they do not have, and for poor quality of their figures. :rofl:
 
Last edited:

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
About protection, I found this chart:

Modernisation variants of T-72M1 tank



-Variant 1 with "Kontakt"
-Variant 2 with "Kontakt-V"
-Variant 3 with "Relikt"
-Variant 4 with "Kaktus"

So old T-72M1 with Relikt ERA is protected against...M829A2 ?? Vulnerability of penetrator and destabilising effect of ERA.
 
Last edited:

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
355
Lidsky M.D , Any thing known about 3BM59 and 3BM60 round capability , it seems the former is DU and latter is Tungsten round
 

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
So in fact 12,1MJ for M829A3 in 1555m/s from L-44 can give bigger MJ value for penetrator due to ultra light comosite sabot, and long (916-940mm) rod, then round whit in teory bigger MJ in muzzle but lighter rod and havier sabot.
Well, it cannot be said it will be better in general term.

If both have same energy, a long penetrator with smaller diameter will offer better performance than another with bigger diameter, for known reasons (incidence over surface).

To increase performance generally it is preferable to increase lenght, instead of lenght and diameter, howewer rounds as M829A3 are not designed only against composite armour, but also against ERA.

M8293A3 sacrified some gain in performance, to increase in diameter and loss of velocity, because it was intended to not initiate Kontakt ERA... so it's design was seen as more optimal. Howewer apparently it was seen only as mid term solution, was purchased in limited numbers and procurement was soon terminated, it did not replaced M829 which is still main round of US forces and developement of new round was started.

Reasons were that non initiation of ERA Kontakt could not be guaranteed on most of circumstances, and appearance of replacement, Relikt, against which all developement motivations were not effective (increase of sensivity against slower and faster rounds, and new working principle).

So have in account that design of M829A3 round does not necessarily represent the best way of increasing penetration on RHA... and it does not imply that rest of rounds should follow it.
 
Last edited:

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Lidsky M.D , Any thing known about 3BM59 and 3BM60 round capability , it seems the former is DU and latter is Tungsten round
There are no specifications because officialy it is still "secret", but soon maybe they will have permission of advertisement.

Indeed, Svinets-1 is DU and Svinets-2 is Tungsten.

Only thing we know, lenght of about 740mm similar to Western (DM-53) rounds. Rest is guess based on gun potential (pressure, calibre and lenght).
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
Actually there is no proof in that statement...
Yes it is:
1.We know from more or less "offcial" sources perforation level for DM53 and DM63. The biggest value is 810mm for L-55
2. We know perforation values for 3BM32(500-550mm RHA), 3BM42 (450-500mm) and 3BM44M (550-600mm) and they are not good as DM53/63 or M829A2/A3.
3. Israeli clones M322 went to Spain, Swedish and Greece and we know perforation value due to IMI (~650mm RHA for 2000m)
4. We know DM43/KW-A1/ OLF 120 F1 perforamces. Again - around 600mm RHA.
5. Due to polish WITU and dates form russian sites anyone can check diffrences between guaranteed and achievable perforation.
6. That what we know about «Свинец-1» (40% better then Mango) give us 644mm -700mm RHA for 2000m what is rather big value (better then DM53 from L-44 but whorse then DM53 from L-55).

So rather you haven't knowledges to claim that there is no proof than there is really no proofs.



It is funny for polish army, how they give "instructions" for material they do not have, and for poor quality of their figures. :rofl:
It's funny when guy who know nothing about 10Tk Bde, WITU, NATO and others claim about "poor quality of their figures".
1. Poland is user Leopard-2A4 and DM33A1 ammo. And in Poland was tested and shown DM43 and DM53. Polish industry have technology licence for DM43 components.
2. Poland is user quite modern 125mm APFSDS ammo -clone of israeli Cl Mk.2 -it's better ammo then 3BM32 and 3BM42. And polish PRONIT program have many development branches.
3. Polish army and industry bought on Ukraina, Belorus and other ex Soviet Union countries many pieces of weapons and ammunition to the test. Good example is cloned ukrainian APS Zaslon (in Poland "Hornet" - "Szerszeń"). And Yes, modern ammo was bought in 90 and 2000. for tests.
4. 10 Tk.Bde is in one tactical unit whit german PzDiv. And it use the same manuals, instrucions, dates, etc.
5. There is obvious cooperation in NATO about manuals inteligence, etc.

So rather You are funny whit your staytsments about "material they do not have" becouse You haven't idea what in Poland industry and military have and what not :)
 
Last edited:

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
Yes it is:
1.We know from more or less "offcial" sources perforation level for DM53 and DM63. The biggest value is 810mm for L-55
2. We know perforation values for 3BM32(500-550mm RHA), 3BM42 (450-500mm) and 3BM44M (550-600mm) and they are not good as DM53/63 or M829A2/A3.
3. Israeli clones M322 went to Spain, Swedish and Greece and we know perforation value due to IMI (~650mm RHA for 2000m)
4. We know DM43/KW-A1/ OLF 120 F1 perforamces. Again - around 600mm RHA.
5. Due to polish WITU and dates form russian sites anyone can check diffrences between guaranteed and achievable perforation.
6. That what we know about «Свинец-1» (40% better then Mango) give us 644mm -700mm RHA for 2000m what is rather big value (better then DM53 from L-44 but whorse then DM53 from L-55).

So rather you haven't knowledges to claim that there is no proof than there is really no proofs.
1 It is not official, but estimations with no value on which you pay too much attention.
2 Funny how do you compare rounds from 80s to anothers developed 2 decades after :cool2: , to prove what ??
5 It does not give any valuable information about L/55 and rounds from it, neither about Svinets, and it cannot.
6 It is another absurd to take such statements so literally without knowing exact meaning, and make from them serious argument.

It's funny when guy who know nothing about 10Tk Bde, WITU, NATO and others claim about "poor quality of their figures".
1. Poland is user Leopard-2A4 and DM33A1 ammo. And in Poland was tested and shown DM43 and DM53. Polish industry have technology licence for DM43 components.
2. Poland is user quite modern 125mm APFSDS ammo -clone of israeli Cl Mk.2 -it's better ammo then 3BM32 and 3BM42. And polish PRONIT program have many development branches.
3. Polish army and industry bought on Ukraina, Belorus and other ex Soviet Union countries many pieces of weapons and ammunition to the test. Good example is cloned ukrainian APS Zaslon (in Poland "Hornet" - "Szerszeń"). And Yes, modern ammo was bought in 90 and 2000. for tests.
4. 10 Tk.Bde is in one tactical unit whit german PzDiv. And it use the same manuals, instrucions, dates, etc.
5. There is obvious cooperation in NATO about manuals inteligence, etc.

So rather You are funny whit your staytsments about "material they do not have" becouse You haven't idea what in Poland industry and military have and what not :)
Figures you gave in your earlier post shows how good estimations they make on rounds they did not have. Thus they are not representative, and were given with different intention.

And it is not possible to make estimations about round Svinets, there is no way to know, and assure anything.

Poland had access to Soviet developements as socialist state, and now can have ties and business but it is no more. They have no access now, and what they got in past is no longer relevant.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
M8293A3 sacrified some gain in performance, to increase in diameter and loss of velocity, because it was intended to not initiate Kontakt ERA... so it's design was seen as more optimal. Howewer apparently it was seen only as mid term solution, was purchased in limited numbers and procurement was soon terminated, it did not replaced M829 which is still main round of US forces and developement of new round was started.
Ah, once again Bellarusian from Moscow talks about things he do not have knowledge about.

M829A3 was bought in significant numbers, in fact it is still in procurement untill M829A4 will not be in production. This is the first thing.

Second is that old M829 is no longer in service use, maybe in magazines and in reserves, same for M829A1. Currently the standard ammunition is M829A2 also designed to defeat both composite armor and composite armor + ERA.

Figures you gave in your earlier post shows how good estimations they make on rounds they did not have. Thus they are not representative, and were given with different intention.

And it is not possible to make estimations about round Svinets, there is no way to know, and assure anything.

Poland had access to Soviet developements as socialist state, and now can have ties and business but it is no more. They have no access now, and what they got in past is no longer relevant.
You are completely wrong. Actually NATO have very good knowledge about Russian developments. Last time I seen photos of Tor AA system fully operational mockups made in USA transported to proving grounds in Alaska. They were made thanks to knowledge gathered by intelligence... or rather bought. This is how much worth is security of informations in Russia.

You probably don't even imagine how much informations were simply bought from ex soviet republics during 1990's.

And the best thing in all of this, is interesting habit of Russians to compare every type of weapon system they use with any foreing analog, this is very interesting because intentionally or not, Russians give important informations to everyone, rest can be concluded. Same goes fortunetly or not with Ukrainians, just the same thing.

In NATO countries showing a photograph of internal ERA components can mean jail, but strangely on Russians sites, many such things can be observed, and such photos are much better source of information than poor quality photos from battlefield showing damaged/destroyed tanks.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top