Tank Guns and Ammunition

[Kunal Biswas]

Regarding AL-Khalid post moved to its dedicated thread:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/38864-al-khalid-mbt-2000-main-battle-tank.html


Post regarding guns and ammunition can only stay..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

the gun in the picture is nt the latest we made locally..bt rather the old of whom blanks were imported from france and the rest of workvwas done HMC

bt now everything is done in HMC(manufacturing of blanks as well),the gun is said to be bigger than the older on basic AK.as per arslan(father works in HIT)
he said that the gun is 50cal.(older 48 cal.).which translate to 6250 bars pressure,bt nabil said it is about 6500bars pressure,the official specs will be revealed in the ideas expo in november,so wait till than

The spec you provided say otherwise, Its L48 gun with just Chamber pressure of 575.5MPA cannot be as par as KBA3 or Older guns not even 2A46M..

About new Pakistani gun, well post its specs in November we will discuss about it then..

 

[hest]

However as it was said many times, the problems with two piece ammunition for 125mm smoothbore guns is that they have limited penetrator lenght.

So while for NATO tanks penetrators lenght slowly somes close to approx ~1,000mm, only Russians recently redesigned their autoloader to fit inside projectile with penetrator lenght max ~740mm.

This is of course one factor.

Ha ha, and were such figures as 1000mm, your fantasy ??

Last 125mm projectiles for 2A46 series have same penetrator lenght as latest Western rounds, DM-53, so where limitation ? Limitation is in gun, 120mm vs 125mm and lenght... Situation is the opposite.

 

[Damian]

Ha ha, and were such figures as 1000mm, your fantasy ??

I know that You have problems to read with understanding. I wrote "So while for NATO tanks penetrators lenght slowly comes close to approx ~1,000mm," approx means approximetly, close to, not nececary 1,000mm, it can be 950mm and then it is close to.

Did You even ended basic school? Because it seems that You have problems to understand even very simple text.

Last 125mm projectiles for 2A46 series have same penetrator lenght as latest Western rounds, DM-53, so where limitation ?

There is no physical possibility to place in this autoloader round of the same lenght as DM53. I know Your silly pseudo patriotism will not allow You to admitt this. And it was discussed many times.

Limitation is in gun, 120mm vs 125mm and lenght... Situation is the opposite.

Calliber have nothing to do here, neither lenght. Americans were capable to develop ammunition that greatly increased capabilities of L44 gun. So not gun is the key but ammunition.

Only primitive can increase penetration capabilities only by increasing lenght or calliber of gun.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some good inputs..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Ha ha, and were such figures as 1000mm, your fantasy ??

With advancement of ammo and longer Guns and Rods..

I dont think its something not achievable..

 

[Damian]

With advancement of ammo and longer Guns and Rods..

I dont think its something not achievable..

It is not problem of a gun, or ammunition itself, but just space inside a tank.

In western tanks, there is enough space in ammo racks to place there longer rods, M829A3 have allready impressive lenght.

It is possible to place there even longer round, M829A3 as a whole round is close to 1,000m in lenght.

It is however immposible to place such ammunition inside T-xx series, simply because there is not space inside for such long ammunition.

 

[hest]

I know that You have problems to read with understanding. I wrote "So while for NATO tanks penetrators lenght slowly comes close to approx ~1,000mm," approx means approximetly, close to, not nececary 1,000mm, it can be 950mm and then it is close to.

Did You even ended basic school? Because it seems that You have problems to understand even very simple text.

There are no current penetrators with such figure, M829A3 is no more than (maximum) 800mm, so where is point of that statement, comparison of inexisting rounds to what there is today ??

There is no physical possibility to place in this autoloader round of the same lenght as DM53. I know Your silly pseudo patriotism will not allow You to admitt this. And it was discussed many times.

Because there is no necessity ?? Autoloader is designed to handle two-piece ammunition, you understand difference between that and unitary rounds ?

And in projectile part, penetrator lenght of modern 125mm ammunition is same as in DM-53 . So where is limitation, again ?

Calliber have nothing to do here, neither lenght. Americans were capable to develop ammunition that greatly increased capabilities of L44 gun. So not gun is the key but ammunition.

If you have gun with higher potential, caliber, lenght, sooner or later it will reach higher performance, that is being reflected now with modern ammunition.

Only primitive can increase penetration capabilities only by increasing lenght or calliber of gun.

Ha ha, what ??

 

[hest]

It is not problem of a gun, or ammunition itself, but just space inside a tank.

In western tanks, there is enough space in ammo racks to place there longer rods, M829A3 have allready impressive lenght.

It is possible to place there even longer round, M829A3 as a whole round is close to 1,000m in lenght.

It is however immposible to place such ammunition inside T-xx series, simply because there is not space inside for such long ammunition.

Western 120mm rounds are unitary, reach 1000mm projectile lenght, 125mm are two-piece ammunition. You are comparing two very different things.

So I do not understand statement about fittinп meter long rounds in autoloader designed to operate two-piece ammunition, what is this nosense ?

 

[Akim]

It is not problem of a gun, or ammunition itself, but just space inside a tank.

In western tanks, there is enough space in ammo racks to place there longer rods, M829A3 have allready impressive lenght.

It is possible to place there even longer round, M829A3 as a whole round is close to 1,000m in lenght.

It is however immposible to place such ammunition inside T-xx series, simply because there is not space inside for such long ammunition.

We with you talked at the beginning about rounds "Cobra". They had length 980 мм.

 

[hest]

Missile "Cobra" was intented only for T-64 and T-80 with different autoloader (МЗ) than T-72 which used "Svir".

 

[Akim]

Missile "Cobra" was intented only for T-64 and T-80 with different autoloader (МЗ) than T-72 which used "Svir".

It was then "for all T-series tanks".
And then that they only for ML - it I know

 

[militarysta]

Ha ha, and were such figures as 1000mm, your fantasy ??

Rather form here:

And yes, total lenght 982mm is very close to 1000mm... And total penetrator lenght 916-940mm is close to this value too..

Last 125mm projectiles for 2A46 series have same penetrator lenght as latest Western rounds, DM-53, so where limitation ?

I shown it for you - the limitation is here:

There is no option to place longer then red line on draw penetrator, whit carussele style autoloader.
And yes Lead-1/2 have simmilar penetrator lenght then DM53/63 -but in 120mm famili you can incarase lenght like in M829A3 -in 125mm you have limit - 750mm lenght penetrator. So tehere is very obvious limit for lenght.

 

[hest]

Rather form here:

And yes, total lenght 982mm is very close to 1000mm... And total penetrator lenght 916-940mm is close to this value too..

We are talking about penetrator lenght (important thing) not projectile lenght. 1000mm is irrelevant, it is unitary round.

M82E4, It is same as M829A3, does not reach 800mm (and it does not exist, will appear only in 2014). In fact M82A3 has lower velocity (1600 compared to 1750+ of German and Russian 120mm-125mm. Has bigger diameter, and less energy due to gun limitation, so do not know how it is better... More important is gun 2A46M5 and RH L/55.

I shown it for you - the limitation is here:

There is no option to place longer then red line on draw penetrator, whit carussele style autoloader.
And yes Lead-1/2 have simmilar penetrator lenght then DM53/63 -but in 120mm famili you can incarase lenght like in M829A3 -in 125mm you have limit - 750mm lenght penetrator. So tehere is very obvious limit for lenght.

Current 125mm ammunition Svinets is about the same as DM-53 which is latest round, so how it is limited in performance ?

 

[militarysta]

We are talking about penetrator lenght (important thing) not projectile lenght. 1000mm is irrelevant, it is unitary round.

M82E4, It is same as M829A3, does not reach 800mm (and it does not exist, will appear only in 2014).

The penetrator lenght in M829A3 is ~940mm : balistic cap +rod + fins. The most important part: rod is 780-800mm long.

In fact M82A3 has lower velocity (1600 compared to 1750+ of German and Russian 120mm-125mm. Has bigger diameter, and less energy due to gun limitation, so do not know how it is better... More important is gun 2A46M5 and RH L/55.

Not 1600 but 1555m/s. It's first. Second it basic physicist - even slower object but with bigger mass (heavy and thick rod in M829A3) will be have biger MJ energy. And in M829A3 is composite sabot with wery low weight -so almoust whole energy from this 12,1MJ is transfered in to penetrator. Please come back to my post about polish modernization 125mm APFSDS with composite sabot...

Current 125mm ammunition Svinets is about the same as DM-53 which is latest round, so how it is limited in performance ?

Have you posibility to put in Lead-1/2 longer then 740mm penetrator? No. Have you posibility to put in to DM63 longer then now penetrator? Yes.
It's all.

btw:Now it's look that 3БМ60 «Свинец-2 is somwhere (in perforation) between DM53/63 from L-44 and L-55 what is very good level - better then most of APFSDS round now.

 

[hest]

The penetrator lenght in M829A3 is ~940mm : balistic cap +rod + fins. The most important part: rod is 780-800mm long.

That is what we were talking about. Rest is not relevant.

Not 1600 but 1555m/s. It's first. Second it basic physicist - even slower object but with bigger mass (heavy and thick rod in M829A3) will be have biger MJ energy. And in M829A3 is composite sabot with wery low weight -so almoust whole energy from this 12,1MJ is transfered in to penetrator. Please come back to my post about polish modernization 125mm APFSDS with composite sabot...

If pressure created by M829A3 is about same as DM-63 from L/44, projectile (not necessarily rod) will have same energy.

Only possible situation on which M829A3 will have more energy is that it's rod (and cap and fins) had more weight in relation to projectile than DM-63, howewer there is no base to believe that. Neither there are figures about weight, etc.

If energy is same in both, then thinner and faster rod of DM-63 could perform better than M829A3 with greater diameter (incidence on surface, but this is specialised field, and I do not know how increased lenght of A3 will affect performance despite energy being the same, and the drawback of increased diameter).

Anyway DM-53 from L/55 gun will have more energy and better performance.

Have you posibility to put in Lead-1/2 longer then 740mm penetrator? No. Have you posibility to put in to DM63 longer then now penetrator? Yes.
It's all.

Possibility, there is also possibility, 2A82 gun will soon be adopted :cool2: but now Svinets is same as DM-53 so there is no argument.

btw:Now it's look that 3БМ60 «Свинец-2 is somwhere (in perforation) between DM53/63 from L-44 and L-55 what is very good level - better then most of APFSDS round now.

I would not state any figures on this moment, because there is no knowledge. Only thing we can assure, is that it is no worse.

To have in account, rod diameter and lenght, weight, gun calibre and lenght, pressure created and difference in material, Svinets-1 DU and Svinets-2 Tungsten, but we have no such knowledge now.

 

[militarysta]

That is what we were talking about. Rest is not relevant.

It was about posibilities about placed the longer penetrator then now in estern 125mm APFSDS.

If pressure created by M829A3 is about same as DM-63 from L/44, projectile (not necessarily rod) will have same energy.

Of course not. The most important is MJ only for penetrator during fly. Rest is not so important. In fact this 12,1MJ for M829A3 due lighter composite sabot and longer and heavier penetator can give more MJ during fly then even L-55 and 13,5MJ for DM-53.

Only possible situation on which M829A3 will have more energy is that it's rod (and cap and fins) had more weight in relation to projectile than DM-63, howewer there is no base to believe that. Neither there are figures about weight, etc.

And lighter sabot, and other factors... its not so simple.

If energy is same in both, then thinner and faster rod of DM-63 could perform better than M829A3 with greater diameter (incidence on surface, but this is specialised field, and I do not know how increased lenght of A3 will affect performance despite energy being the same, and the drawback of increased diameter

Energy durig fly is not the same.

Anyway DM-53 from L/55 gun will have more energy and better performance.

in theory yes -13,5MJ vs 12,1MJ. But this whole "MJ" are for penetrator and sabot on muzzle. And it's not relevant becouse for exampe 13,5MJ for Dm53 L-55 can have only 9-10MJ during fly for penetrator only, and slower but weight more and having ultralight composite sabot M829A3 can have for example 10-11MJ during fly. Of course it's only example. But as I said: the most important factor is MJ value for penetrator during fly and transfered into target. MJ for muzzle and sabot+penetrator is not relevant. The same muzzle velocity or MPa pressure Sorry but it's not so simple.
And penetration process is again probem becouse now on battlefield there is no tragets like stack of RHA plates. Perforarated armour after ERA and multi layers Burlinghton-style armour is diffrent then go trought simple RHA plate.

Possibility, there is also possibility, 2A82 gun will soon be adopted :cool2: but now Svinets is same as DM-53 so there is no argument.

In T-72/90 hull there is no possibility to have longer then 740/750mm long penetrator. There is no way whit this autoloader! It's impossible.
2A82 and Armata will be diffrent story and autoloader in Armata will be diffrent then knowed Korzina-A. All projectiles will be stored in carossel but vertically not horizontally! So projectile lenght will be close to hull height. It's a completely different story.

I would not state any figures on this moment, because there is no knowledge. Only thing we can assure, is that it is no worse.

Apart that what Виктора Ивановича had said: "40% better then Mango " which give us: «Свинец-1» 644mm -700mm RHA for 2000m
And yes it's world top level.

 

[hest]

It was about posibilities about placed the longer penetrator then now in estern 125mm APFSDS.

Now it is the same. In future will appear new gun 2A82.

Of course not. The most important is MJ only for penetrator during fly. Rest is not so important. In fact this 12,1MJ for M829A3 due lighter composite sabot and longer and heavier penetator can give more MJ during fly then even L-55 and 13,5MJ for DM-53.

Yes, perforation will depend on energy of rod, but it is not that simple, there are other factors, diameter, velocity, etc.

And those figures are only guesses and estimates, they are not official as weight, etc, characteristics are not known.

in theory yes -13,5MJ vs 12,1MJ. But this whole "MJ" are for penetrator and sabot on muzzle. And it's not relevant becouse for exampe 13,5MJ for Dm53 L-55 can have only 9-10MJ during fly for penetrator only, and slower but weight more and having ultralight composite sabot M829A3 can have for example 10-11MJ during fly. Of course it's only example. But as I said: the most important factor is MJ value for penetrator during fly and transfered into target. MJ for muzzle and sabot+penetrator is not relevant. The same muzzle velocity or MPa pressure Sorry but it's not so simple.

Yes, I said what will define perforation is energy of rod on my earlier post.

I howewer do not see any objective arguments to state that M829A3 rod has more weight in relation to projectile, and why it should have higher energy than DM-63, when no figures are known in detail. And even if, indeed, M829A3 would have higher energy, it would be not so simple, question is, how much, and if it would be better having in account factors as diameter (because smaller diameter of DM-63 will make better use of energy), velocity and such.

And penetration process is again probem becouse now on battlefield there is no tragets like stack of RHA plates. Perforarated armour after ERA and multi layers Burlinghton-style armour is diffrent then go trought simple RHA plate.

I know, I talked about that on my post about M829A3. But theoretical perforation (on RHA) and energy, I do not see any reason why M829A3 should be better.

In T-72/90 hull there is no possibility to have longer then 740/750mm long penetrator. There is no way whit this autoloader! It's impossible.
2A82 and Armata will be diffrent story and autoloader in Armata will be diffrent then knowed Korzina-A. All projectiles will be stored in carossel but vertically not horizontally! So projectile lenght will be close to hull height. It's a completely different story.

In T-90 there is possibility to adopt 2A82 gun, and it will be fielded in Armata. Such gun is on another league... so this comparison is no longer valid.

I know how was autoloader of ob.195 and it's sucessor in Armata.

Apart that what Виктора Ивановича had said: "40% better then Mango " which give us: «Свинец-1» 644mm -700mm RHA for 2000m
And yes it's world top level.

He is journalist, it was statement from representative.

Well, I would not take such statements in so literal sense. Especially if it is approximation. Error margin is too high

 

[Damian]

Now it is the same. In future will appear new gun 2A82.

Gun do not have anyting to the ammunition lenght, only how ammunition is placed inside vehicle, and vehicle physical dimensions.

 

[militarysta]

Has anyone have knowledge about CL 3254 ?

OMG... Kunal, I had wrote about CL3254 many many times here...It's the same round known as polish PRONIT.

On tank net some one said : 300 mm/@60o/2000 m that is 600mm LOS.. ?

Bullshit. No more then 540mm for 0. for 2000m.