Tank Guns and Ammunition

[Damian]

You should check your skills, because it is the fifth time you show your inability. We are talking about Svinets-2, active part 3BM60, you think it is Svinets, 3BM46 which was 80-90 s developement So true, 3BM46 is analogue to M332, Svinets-2 was developed a decade later, passing trials in 2009-2010 . Your only knowledge comes from outdated websites (btw have you seen value of m256 gun in btvt ?)

And you again shows that you do not understand any language besides Russian. Militarysta talks about Svinets-1/2. As for BTVT, it is obvious that data there for western weapon systems is biased and unfavorable for them, but it is good source of informations about soviet weapon systems.

About gun system it is the same. Even old Mango can approach 600 kg/cm^2, and for 125 caliber this is higher energy than 120mm (can reach 10% according to chief engineer), not to mention 15 % longer barrel
and the fact that Svinets-2 uses more energic propellant according with developer, 4Ж96. About gun level, look at 120 mm M- 392 which supports use of all NATO rounds (DM-53), Артиллерийский завод №9 :: Продукция :: Военная :: Орудия для танков и САУ :: 120 мм

M-392 can't support all NATO types of ammunition. Using DM53 in this gun would end with blown off gun and crew casualties. Even firing this type of ammunition from Rh-120/L44 without modifications can be dangerous.

This shows quality of your sources, that are silly as allways. And more repsect to what Militarysta says, as he have access to sources you can only dream to have.

So about energy it is clear. About dimensions, you have no argument (And I use actual source, questions of ballistics written by academics from scientific institutefor proffesional use) . Increase of L/d ratio does not lead to lineal increase in performance, in fact to obtain improvement it is necessary to achieve optimum velocity (depends on material and l/d ratio), for example, 140 mm projectile with l/d of 40 was estimated to need 1830 m/s velocity to give improvement, it is one reason why Grifel with great ratio, velocity, energy were much increased. M322 l/d will not give any improvement as it's velocity is similar or lower (it's effectiveness coefficient is lower). Not to mention that it is much older developement using probably old monoblock, or simpler construction. From newer penetrarors it is also logical to expect measures, differential (by lenght) material properties to optimise use of energy, lower parasitic mass, etc... Only biased idiot would argue that super israeli 80 s tech while being obviously outdated is superior to modern m829.., dm... 3BM59,60 projectiles and effective against current composite structure.

T-90 trials, I did not say it was against old projectiles, it is in fact part of goverment evaluation, and of course hard to know details, but it is not different. That Leopard 2A6 was tested against projectiles representing mid 80 s level,
M332 from 2 km hardly shows anything about superior effectiveness, so less fantasies, it means nothing yet for modern rounds. Surely both T-90 and Leopard were extensively tested, but for now we do not have evidense and anything else is bias.

As far as I can see on this forum, everything you say is biased in favor of Russian made weapons, without any deeper toughts. Russian sources are greatly known to overestimate capabilities of Russian made weapon systems, and "overestimating" means hilarious claims about absolute superiority.

The fact is however, that T-90 could not had been tested against modern ammunition for several reasons, First no such ammunition in Russia's army inventory, many units do not even seen obsolete 3BM42 and use even older ammunition. Second thing is that newer ammunition is even cleared for tests, also because firing ammunition from weapon systems, in this case tank guns that are not cleared for more powerfull propelant charges, means it can be dangerous.

Just like in case of this silly claim that M-392 gun can fire DM53, firing this ammunition as well as M829A3 from this gun, would meant very dangerous situation, where gun can blow up and kill someone inside a tank.

This is why both Germans and Americans designed proper modifications and I know that Americans are very cautious firing M829A3 during peace time, and are carefully monitoring the use of tank guns, because the more gun is used, the bigger probability something bad can happen.

But why this lack of proper procedures and carefull use of weapon system does not surprise me in case of Russia. I wonder how many soldiers died during accidents in Russia with ammunition cook off's, I seen several photos, but I am sure that there were and are much more accidents with such careless approach as you represent and engineers making such claims, knowing nothing about ammunition used outside Russia.

 

[militarysta]

You should check your skills, because it is the fifth time you show your inability. We are talking about Svinets-2, active part 3BM60, you think it is Svinets, 3BM46 which was 80-90 s developement ) So true, 3BM46 is analogue to M332, Svinets-2 was developed a decade later, passing trials in 2009-2010 ).

So it's even worse for russian industry couse during T-90MS prsentation they was a lot of interviev about Sniviets. In all cases (Sniviet-1/2)they was
given value 40% better then Mango. (Even on Ghur Khan page) In any single interviev whit talks about new 125mm amunition.
So circa 640-700mm RHA at 2000m.
In propper topic on otvaga2000 there are given not better values
M332 have 650mm at 2000m
Rather pitfull that rusian ammo industry in circa 2010 is able to produce APFSDS rounds whit simmilar RHA penetration as 16 yesrs older M332
But for the other side - for lats twenty years russian tank industry was unable to export smth. better then 3BM42 Mango -so there is no reson to expect mirracle after shuch technology pasue.
But is really funy - oficcaily given value "40% better then Mango" give us cira 16 yers older M332 value. Lol, and shame for former powrfull
Soviet/Russian tank industry.

Your only knowledge comes from outdated websites (btw have you seen value of m256 gun in btvt

Yes, and like most values on BTVT it's taken form toilet paper. M2565 is clon Rh120 L-44 and have the same MPa value, Israeli clon have improved this value, the same Strv.122 and 2A5:

L-44 and L-55 pressure values:


Part officail instruction Swedish L-44:



In both cases all values ar mucht better then all avible for 2A46M4 and M5

 

[militarysta]

not to mention 15 % longer barrel

Sure, so accoding whit your "logic" russian L48 gun is longer then german L-55
And prototypes L52 guns are longer then L55 too?

"Lxx" ratio is important (barrel lenght/caliber) not how big caliber is.

About gun level, look at 120 mm M- 392 which supports use of all NATO rounds (DM-53), Артиллерийский завод №9 :: Продукция :: Военная :: Орудия для танков и САУ :: 120 мм

Sure, quite funny even as adds.

So about energy it is clear.

Yes, known now russian 125mm APFSDS hav lower anergy then DM53, DM63 and M829A2 and M829A3 -it's clear.
And Sniviets-1/2 value given in all interviev giv us value circa 640-700mm RHA at 2000. So NATO midlle 1990s. level.
:thumb:

M322 l/d staying will not give any improvement as it's velocity is similar or lower (it's effectiveness coefficient is lower). Not to mention that it is much older developement using probably old monoblock, or simpler construction. From newer penetrarors it is also logical to expect measures, differential (by lenght) material properties to optimise use of energy, lower parasitic mass, etc... Only biased idiot would argue that super israeli 80 s tech while being obviously outdated is superior to modern m829.., dm... 3BM59,60 projectiles and effective against current composite structure.

Sure, IMI data for M332 ----> 650mm RHA at 2000m DOI ~1996
Rusian intervievs about Sniviets-1/2 ("40% better then Mango") ---> 640-700mm RHA DOI 2010

So greate Sniviets-1/2 advantage! Achive circa 1996 level in 2010.

btw: and agin I didn't find any bigger then 700mm RHA value for Sniviets-1/2 on otvaga2000.

Btw, Svinets- 2 penetraror lenght was given by Fofanov, it was about 650 mm from memory, so M332 is not actually any greater.

630mm long.
So the same lenght in best case.

 

[Damian]

A simple calculation about guns barrels lenght.

125 x 52 = 6,500
125 x 50 = 6,250
125 x 48 = 6,000
120 x 55 = 6,600
120 x 52 = 6,240
120 x 50 = 6,000
120 x 48 = 5,760
120 x 44 = 5,280

Rh-120/L55 is still longer than any 125mm gun of the 2A46 family and their clones with all possible gun lenghts.

Important note, 2A46 family of guns are L48 guns, L50 and L52 are hypothetical calliber lenghts that I added to show that they still wont be as long as Rh-120/L55.

 

[hest]

You used Fofanov's page which showed value of 3BM46 and confused it with Svinets-1,2 Same level as always. Statement about Svinets-1,2 (40%) is not from T-90ms presentation but was first given in 2002when it was in developement, and all is repeat of the same. It is funny to see your notion, that current apfsds are intended to perform against steel, so old monoblock approach is the superior one )) Dm53 was pathetic, much more effort, new gun and only limited improvement against steel, on level of M829A2 )) No, for some reason we do not consider construction, effect against composite arrays which is the point.

About pressure, you also seem to ignore on purpose that gun with different lenght and caliber does not transmit the same energy, that 120 mm would need higher pressure to be equivalent to 125 mm. Anyway, you have a link from producer entity, plant n9 which shows the level, their produced 120 mm model supports pressure of nAtO DM53 (you want also links about expositon or article ?) so your baseless stayement about 125mm is just nosense, while it also goes against all evidence. Do you want also to hear story about DM55, how was it evaluated and discarded by countries purchasing Leopard ? (Spain even Germany to some degree...)

 

[militarysta]

Few intersting parts from otvaga:
Василий Фофанов

Да ладно вам. Предельно допустимые АЗ/МЗ размеры БПС мы не просто за всю историю 125-мм пушки не выбрали, но даже к ним и не приблизились (в серии). Тот же свинец совместим со штатным АЗ по габаритам, или аналогичный ему параллельно со свинцом-2 отрабатывался снаряд, с длиной активной части 632 и сердечником порядка 558х20 (28:1). Эти снаряды показывают предельный уровень для наших АЗ, по техническому уровню они западом вполне реализуемы в середине 80-х. Так что вопрос таки именно к отсталой конструкции снарядов. Но не сказать что она очень удивляет учитывая что нам их с середины 50-х по середину 80-х разрабатывал один и тот же дедушка

Но я не согласен с вами что если это уровень "только" М829А1 то это барахло. М829А1 это на самом деле довольно страшный снаряд. В частности я сомневаюсь, что его держит сам абрамс, может за исключением самых последних вариантов. Снаряд такого уровня это очень хорошее улучшение огневой мощи наших танков, а главное не требует в отличие от более мощных снарядов переделки машин. А для "арматы" это все неактуально, там-то будет 2А82 с грифелями.

Все бы ничего, но как я уже не раз писал, на серийных наших БПС предел длины, допустимый для размещения в АЗ, не выбран. То есть глядя на М829А3 можно конечно сказать что ТАКОЕ к нам не влезет, и это правда. Однако глядя на М829А1 например можно сказать что такое - влезет, а однако и такого боеприпаса у нас так и не появилось в серии пока.p А значит разговоры о недостаточном модернизационном потенциале несколько лукавы.

БМ-46: 25х546
М829: 28х615
М829А1: 22х684

"Активная часть" - это то что летит. То есть с крыльями, трассером, баллистическим наконечником и т.п. А "корпус" и "сердечник" - это в случае моноблока одно и то же и описывает как раз поражающий элемент. Иначе говоря: 640 (точнее 635) - длина самой стрелы, 546 - длина сердечника. У М829 длина сердечника 615, а полная стрела уже даже не влезет в наши автоматы заряжания.

Активная часть С-2 имеет длину 724...729 мм (разброс с учетом допусков). Какой длины сам сердечник сказать не могу поскольку не знаю конструкции носовой части под обтекателем. Порядка 70 см.]

 

[Damian]

You used Fofanov's page which showed value of 3BM46 and confused it with Svinets-1,2 Same level as always. Statement about Svinets-1,2 (40%) is not from T-90ms presentation but was first given in 2002when it was in developement, and all is repeat of the same. It is funny to see your notion, that current apfsds are intended to perform against steel, so old monoblock approach is the superior one )) Dm53 was pathetic, much more effort, new gun and only limited improvement against steel, on level of M829A2 )) No, for some reason we do not consider construction, effect against composite arrays which is the point.

About pressure, you also seem to ignore on purpose that gun with different lenght and caliber does not transmit the same energy, that 120 mm would need higher pressure to be equivalent to 125 mm. Anyway, you have a link from producer entity, plant n9 which shows the level, their produced 120 mm model supports pressure of nAtO DM53 (you want also links about expositon or article ?) so your baseless stayement about 125mm is just nosense, while it also goes against all evidence. Do you want also to hear story about DM55, how was it evaluated and discarded by countries purchasing Leopard ? (Spain even Germany to some degree...)

As far as I can see, you are patethic. Desperately trying to lie further, even when any of your argument is easy defeated.

And it is even more funny to watch how angry you are, by the way how your writing skills degradate.

As for countries not using DM53, it very well obvious why many countries resign from using it, it is simply because for them, it is unaffordable to use ammunition that can be dangerous to their crew due to propelant charge, that is very powerfull, but also very dangerous.

These countries choosen older or modern but also weaker ammunition, mostly of Israeli origin. As for Germans, they did not discarded DM53, but developed DM63 that is DM53 with different propelant charge, more stable and safer. Simple as that, and really, none of your silly "sources" (what you use as base of your "revelations" hardly can be called a source) will change a fact, that you are simple troll here, advertising products that loose against what NATO offers.

 

[hest]

If you share his opinion, then just armament of T-72, T-80, etc park with ammunition of M829A1 level(with simple modificarion) just will be enought to defeat current NATO, be it M1 or Leopard 2, frontally. Given that Svinets-1,2 already finished trials and are included in current fcs (seen in T-90A, probably also T-72B modernised), this would be quite interesting ))not that I actually believe...

 

[Damian]

If M829A2 was not capable to perforate front turret armor of Challenger 2 (which in theory should be the weakest in all modern NATO tanks due to use cast components and having less composite insert due to cavity dimensions), then M829A1 will not be capable to defeat NATO tanks of late 1980's through 1990's period front armor protection.

Also there are known reports that M829A1 in 1991 during ODS was not capable to be very efficent against M1A1HA armor during several incidents when Americans fired to their tanks, due to friendly fire or on purpose to further damage disabled tanks, preventing OPSEC break.

 

[militarysta]

As I remember He was talking about level bigger then circa 700mm RHA at 2000m, and only maybe most modern tank will be able to windstand sucht ammo. And whole contex was that amunition on simmilar level is still unavaible in Russia. As I remember (I may be wrong) - including C-2

BTW:
C-2 adn DM53 diamension are quite simmilar (penetrator lenght and core/rod lenght).
BTW:
here is smth.not clear -maybe my non-existing russian language not allowe to understand:

Тот же свинец совместим со штатным АЗ по габаритам, или аналогичный ему параллельно со свинцом-2 отрабатывался снаряд, с длиной активной части 632 и сердечником порядка 558х20 (28:1).

compare with:

Активная часть С-2 имеет длину 724...729 мм (разброс с учетом допусков). Какой длины сам сердечник сказать не могу поскольку не знаю конструкции носовой части под обтекателем. Порядка 70 см.]

It's about two completli difrent rounds isn't it?

 

[Damian]

As far as I understand it is about Svinets (Svinets-1?) and Svinets-2 as pararell designs and the differences between them.

 

[hest]

---------------

 

[hest]

"That Svinets (the old seems) which dimensions allowed it to fit in standart autoloader, or the other analogous projectile, developed in paralell with Svinets-2, having active part of 642(...)" Yes, different rounds. I will check, i do not remember. He once mentioned figures of this 700 mm lenght, another he posted values directly from prototype drawing he had and made estimation (about Svinets-2), now we have producer's probably incomplete. There were reports about different value (740 mm projectile) and modification of autoloader (which does not seem even necessary for the shown one), so it could be possible that different variant could exist...

Edit: Earlier Svinets-1 or 2 in nomenclature used older propellant, same as current rounds 3BM42 Mango, while now it is listed in inventary of T-90A with new model (4Ж96 "Ozon-T")), so in simple thought, there may be variant with different dimensions for new autoloader and gun (M5) and another for standart vehicles. Just vague opinion.

 

[collegeboy16]

Is it true that m256 can only fire about 50-60 m829a3 rounds before the gun barrel is to be replaced?
My take on Svinets-1/2 is that they would do perfectly well against their intended targets( not state of the art abrams or leo but ~1990s models) because they were designed in that time period. against newer armor then it would be crap, same as m829a2 is crap. It also doesn't help that the Russiansdon't really put a premium on APFSDS rounds, if they did we would have seen svinets round with m829a3 optimization levels ie penetrator reaching the base tracer, ultralight sabot, very powerful propellant. However such a round would be too expensive and would require expensive mods of 2a46m gun which was due for replacement anyway.
Hmm... regarding Grifel, i think it is a neat round, however i think it is purelyagainst latest abrams (not m1a3 )armor. The penetrator is similar in length to m829a3 while having very slightly bigger energy. It also has non composite sabot, and the propellant is only a marginal(iirc) increase over the last onebutmore than makes up for it in amounts ( similar to 140mm i think). In short it is not an efficient nor that powerful round that uses the vast potential of the 2a82. No, not just yet, its kinda like m829 vs m829a3.

 

[asianobserve]

Army Developing New 120mm AMP Tank Round
by Army News Service on Friday, March 22nd, 2013
Defensetalk

The army is developing a new advanced multi-purpose 120mm tank round that combines six different capabilities into a single round, service officials said.

The advanced multi-purpose, or amp, is ready to enter into the engineering and manufacturing development phase after a prototype successfully demonstrated technology readiness level 6 through a science and technology program at picatinny arsenal, n.j., in 2006.

The new round will replace a rapidly aging inventory of tank munitions, said col. Paul laughlin, the 47th chief of armor and commandant of the armor school at the maneuver center of excellence, fort benning, ga.

"The new amp round is long overdue," laughlin said. "tankers have struggled for years with a growing number of main gun rounds capable of defeating single types of threats; this resulted in a mix of ammunition types carried on board the tank that was always a problem.

"This is not just an issue of logistics," he said. "it creates both operational and survival issues. No one wants to get into a tank engagement and not have the right ammunition to defeat the range of threats that we will see on the future battlefield. The amp round is a game changer that greatly increases our effectiveness. We need to make a very modest and affordable investment, spread over 30 years, to field a highly versatile and reliable round with the capabilities we need for the future fight."

The amp round will replace four tank rounds now in use. The first two are the m830, high explosive anti tank, or heat, round and the m830a1, multi-purpose anti tank, or mpat, round. The latter round was introduced in 1993 to engage and defeat enemy helicopters, specifically the russian hind helicopter. The mpat round has a two-position fuze, ground and air, that must be manually set.

The m1028 canister round is the third tank round being replaced. The canister round was first introduced in 2005 by the army to engage and defeat dismounted infantry, specifically to defeat close-in human-wave assaults.

The m908, obstacle reduction round, is the fourth that the amp round will replace; it was designed to assist in destroying large obstacles positioned on roads by the enemy to block advancing mounted forces.

Amp also provides two additional capabilities: Defeat of enemy dismounts, especially enemy anti-tank guided missile, or atmg, teams at a distance, and breeching walls in support of dismounted infantry operations.

"The amp round is a significant advance in tank ammunition capability," said lt. Col. Brian gruchaz, product manager for large caliber munitions at picatinny arsenal. "it uses an ammunition data link and a multi-mode, programmable fuze to achieve multiple effects that currently can only be achieved by selecting, loading and firing one of four different 120mm tank rounds the amp round will replace. Together with the two additional capabilities provided by the amp round, a single amp round can now achieve desired effects against atgm teams, reinforced walls, bunkers, light armor, dismounts, and obstacles."

"To demonstrate these individual effects with a single round is the result of the efforts of the men and women at the army's armament research, development and engineering center, picatinny arsenal, n.j. They demonstrated the amp capability using two key technologies that are actually quite mature, an ammunition data link and a multi-mode programmable fuze. Using these technologies, commands to select the desired effect are transmitted via data link to the fuze on the round. The fuze setting determines whether the round will function with a point-detonate, point-detonate delay, or airburst effect," gruchacz said.

"While not yet approved to proceed to the next developmental phase of the acquisition cycle, the engineering manufacturing and development or emd, phase, the amp capability has been successfully tested and demonstrated," gruchacz said.

Based on the amp round's performance during development, many tankers and army capabilities developers believe the amp will also provide warfighters an improved battle carry capability.

Battle carry is a term used by tank crews during combat when they are preparing to engage the enemy; they load the round they believe is the most likely needed to defeat the most likely threat target. If amp were available to army tankers, they'd be able to battle carry one round capable of achieving the desired effect across a wide range of targets.

"I have commanded tankers from platoon through regiment; i wish that each of my units would have had the capabilities that the amp round provides," laughlin concluded. "now, as the chief of armor, i can influence the system to give future tankers the ammunition they need to be more lethal, more survivable, and more effective."


Read more: Army developing new 120mm AMP tank round | Army & Land Forces News at DefenceTalk

uruurururururururururururururur

 

[collegeboy16]

IMHO it would be better to optimize AMP for HE role than to squeeze HEAT in. Despite relying on explosives to destroy their targets, the two round types differ in operation and purpose- HEAT uses a shaped charge that diverts most of the frontal blast into a singlt point unlike HE rounds which explode with a shower of thousands of fragments and a powerful blast. Having them both together just makes them mediocre at both roles.

 

[Damian]

against newer armor then it would be crap, same as m829a2 is crap.

Such words do not show great degree of professionalism or knowledge.

Even old 3BM15 can be dangerous to modern armor.

IMHO it would be better to optimize AMP for HE role than to squeeze HEAT in. Despite relying on explosives to destroy their targets, the two round types differ in operation and purpose- HEAT uses a shaped charge that diverts most of the frontal blast into a singlt point unlike HE rounds which explode with a shower of thousands of fragments and a powerful blast. Having them both together just makes them mediocre at both roles.

And again, you talk about things you do not have knowledge about.

AMP do not use HEAT or shaped charge warhead, it use programmable fuze, so it can be set to delay and can penetrate armor. AMP during tests was capable to penetrate side turret armor of T-55 tanks (this is approx 150-200mm of cast steel armor) and explode inside, in battle conditions this would kill whole crew and ignite ammunition stored inside tank.

The principle on which AMP works as anti armor ammunition is similiar to the full bore AP ammunition used during WWII.

In the same time AMP is real HE round, but as I said, it have programmable fuze, this is why it is so flexible and can replace M830, M830A1, M908 and M1028.

Is it true that m256 can only fire about 50-60 m829a3 rounds before the gun barrel is to be replaced?

It depends on how much gun is used, when you fire new ammunition. M256 production didn't ceased so it is possible that newer production batches are modified to be better optimized in firing new ammunition.

 

[methos]

I think we should focus on the available facts:

Svinets-1 and Svinets-2 are based on the currently available informations not better than M332. The projectile is shorter than that of M332, the muzzle velocity is slightly smaller or in best case equivalent while the diameter of both rounds is the same. Svinets-1/2 are more modern developments, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily better. The Polish 120 mm APFSDS is also newer than DM53, but not better.
What could be changed in Svinets which is affecting the penetration performance? The penetrator's structure - but we don't have any way to proof that nor any reason to assume that. The alloy - which in best case improves performance by 10% (assuming that M332 is using conventional WHA and Svinets the best avialable DU alloys). The propellant composition - not really possible, because already older rounds like 3BM-42 and 3BM-46 did reach the pressure limits in hot terrain.

AMP did penetrate the side of a T-55 turret, but the angle of impact is unkown. The hit location is also in the same level as the hatch of the commander 150 - 200 mm penetration doesn't seem to be justified by this case.

Official U.S. documents show that in some cases after firing less than 200 M829A3 rounds the barrel had to be exchanged. That is not really something special, DM53 had similar wear characteristics.

Saying DM53 is on the same level as M829A2 is also odd. Fired from the L44 gun DM53 has a slightly higher muzzle energy for the penetrator and a slightly lower velocity drop. The penetration performance then will be similar depending on the exact material composition (there are numerous rumors about an adiabatic shearing WHA alloy) and penetrator construction (which might be a segmented penetrator in case of the DM53).

 

[asianobserve]

 

[methos]

Seems rather like less than 10 cm penetration: