re: Tank Guns: Photo & Dicussion thread..
Limitations of 2A46-M series, that has not any base. You focus on figures on pressure without understanding that they cannot be used for direct comparison. Figure for 2A46 is specific having in account it's dimensions, chamber (more volume) than RH 120. If you want to see they are comparable, you can do your calculation, I is already known howewer already know that both are comparable.
Oh, you can tell me what I understand and what I do not understand? Interesting...
Let me tell you something: You can continue to tell me that I do not understand or know something, but I do understand this in fact and it does not help you in any form in this argument. Facts and sources help, not just saying "you don't understand". The latest "high power" APFSDS produced in the Soviet Union have a maximum chamber pressure of more than 540 MPa at 15°C. This is comparable to some NATO APFSDS used in this time - however the pressure limit of the 2A46M-x series of tank guns is lower and all types of conventional propellants are affected by temperature. That the chamber of the 2A46M-x tank guns are larger than the NATO chambers (according to you, not really in reality) does not affect the fact that the temperature does affect the pressure to the same degree it does affect the pressure in the NATO chambers. The lower pressure limit will result in less powerfull propellant. If the figures from Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building are correct, then firing the 3BM-42 Mango at temperatures above 40 to 50°C will exceed the maximum chamber pressure and disable the gun. This fact is supported by mathematics based on the laws of physic and
by official values from ROSOBORONEXPORT.
Using late Soviet APFSDS (3BM-42, 3BM-46) would essentially destroy the earlier 2A46-1 and 2A46-2 tank guns even at 15°C!
Then again the 2A46M-x series does not have a greater chamber volume... 120 mm NATO has a maximum chamber diameter of 150 mm and a length of 570 mm, while the maximum diameter of the Soviet 125 mm ammunition propellant charge is 129 mm for the projectile and aprox. 150 mm for the extra charge. the 125 mm ammunition is longer, but the part which has a diameter of 150 mm is shorter. Propellant weight is nearly the same, so is volume.
What now? Do you want to claim that the Soviets managed to produce insensitive propellants decades prior the NATO?
I am perfectly aware. I also know that these figures are for another context in different gun, so what you say about current 120 mm projectiles is not valid. Besides, I only repeated figures given by official sources. I did not calculate anything as I think it is not worth given again different context and lack of information...
And where can I find these official sources?
Modernised 2A46-M is comparable and that is objective logic, besides it is well known in Russia.
It is not objective logic. First of all you claimed that the 2A46M-x tank guns are better than the Rh 120 L/44... and even a blind person will see that this is complete *****.
Then the second point is that 2A46M-x series of tank guns can use the latest rounds only
to temperatures of maximum 50°C because else the maximum pressure will be exceeded, while the Rh 120 L/44 can use higher pressure munition at temperatures higher than 60°C... but you want to tell me that this does not make the 2A46M-x series of tank guns inferior to the NATO competitors?
There is a technical article on guns: 120-�� ����� ��� ����� �������� MCS
Sure, a Russian article about a Russian gun is definetly impartial. I have seen German and English-language sources claiming that the Rh 120 L/44 is better in terms of performance. I don't know the Russian author there, maybe he is trying to be impartial, but on the other hand he could also be a propagandist.