Tank Guns and Ammunition

[Damian]

Hard to tell because of variable thickness of cast turret. Still it is not immposible to penetrate more than 100mm of cast armor, we should remember that old AP rounds were mostly a HE round with more capable to penetrate armor shell.

It is not immposible to equip such ammunition like AMP with high hardness steel cap as it's quasi penetrator to improve it's capabilities against armor.

Of course it will not be very effective against armor of modern tanks, but will be very effective against structures, fortifications, less armored vehicles like APC's, IFV's and old tanks + of course it's capabilities to defeat infantry in the open, behind obstacles (via airburst mode) and other targets like slowly and low flying helicopters or even airplanes.

 

[militarysta]

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.

I had checked all avible posts on otvaga2000 about C-1 and C-2.
It's seems that
Older round have circa 640mm long projectile and core (penetrator) circa 540mm long.
There is no waye that this round can overcome M332 which have longer projectile, mucht longer core (penetrator), ad bigger MPa and slighty bigger Muzzle.
In C-2 case we have infos about 720-730mm long projectile, whit core (penetrator) shorter then 700m. As I remember it was about 640mm long.
So dimensions are slighty bigger then in M332 case, of course C-2 is mucht modern so it shoud penetrate more, or had mucht better abilities to overcome modern armour.
But still value 40% better then mango (640-700mm RHA) is possible for that, slighty bigger then M332 diamension.

 

[Dazzler]

some goodies made by POF

 

[collegeboy16]

Hard to tell because of variable thickness of cast turret. Still it is not immposible to penetrate more than 100mm of cast armor, we should remember that old AP rounds were mostly a HE round with more capable to penetrate armor shell.

It is not immposible to equip such ammunition like AMP with high hardness steel cap as it's quasi penetrator to improve it's capabilities against armor.

Of course it will not be very effective against armor of modern tanks, but will be very effective against structures, fortifications, less armored vehicles like APC's, IFV's and old tanks + of course it's capabilities to defeat infantry in the open, behind obstacles (via airburst mode) and other targets like slowly and low flying helicopters or even airplanes.

Sorry for my ignorance earlier, I forgot HE shells are distinct from AP shells, I thought all HE have penetrator caps aside from AMP having shaped charge, they have a real track record of putting MP to their HEAT rounds so i thought these is not different. anyhow what bothers me is if they would use it in HEAT roles ie the medium armor levels. Sure they can use APFSDS ammo, however that would be overkill and a waste of precious AT ammo aside from being expensive and bad for barrel life. Without HEAT rounds you lose reasonable and costeffective potential stand off capability against non heavy targets since AMP rounds are full bore and would slow down quite a bit.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

About the Topic :

 

[Damian]

Sorry for my ignorance earlier, I forgot HE shells are distinct from AP shells, I thought all HE have penetrator caps aside from AMP having shaped charge, they have a real track record of putting MP to their HEAT rounds so i thought these is not different. anyhow what bothers me is if they would use it in HEAT roles ie the medium armor levels. Sure they can use APFSDS ammo, however that would be overkill and a waste of precious AT ammo aside from being expensive and bad for barrel life. Without HEAT rounds you lose reasonable and costeffective potential stand off capability against non heavy targets since AMP rounds are full bore and would slow down quite a bit.

Who said that Americans will not have a HEAT ammunition? Stockpiles of M830 and M830A1 are huge, for decades new AMP will not completely replace them, even if it is designed to replace four types of ammunition.

And there is very important reason why AMP is intended to replace these four types of ammunition, it is lack of space inside of vehicles, today tanks can store avarage about 40 rounds, if you have 5 types of ammunition, you have a big problem.

Of course theoretically M1 tanks can be modified to store safely in two isolated compartments even approx 60-80 120mm rounds, although such modifications would be very extensive and expensive.

 

[hest]

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.

This is the old Svinets you are talking about.
--
Problem is that increase in lenght does not imply increase in performance (penetration in RHA), this is an erroneous idea. If you assign an effectiveness coefficient in function of l/d ratio, increasing l/d (with increase in mass) leads to lower coefficient, it means that growth in performance is limited, non linear, and that it will not give practical advantage. To achieve optimum performance with greater l/d you need to increase impact velocity of projectile, for example M829 series, along with increase in lenght, also increased their velocity from 1660 to 1707 m/s... Same situation with DM-33, 53, 63...

Example of efficiency is that M829A3 while having comparable energy in penetrator does not practically exceed in performance (according to claims) DM53 despite great difference in l/d ratio and the latter being 20% shorter. On this aspect DM53 would have higher l/d efficiency coefficient.

That is a reason (among others), why guns of next generation, 2A82, 140 mm... much increased chamber dimensions, amount of propellant to achieve great initial velocity with big l/d ratio, Grifel for example.

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.

It is not agreed that structure will increase performance in only 10%, unless you are talking only about RHA but against composite arrays performance is notably higher, because it optimises available energy in different stages of penetration. For example differential (in penetrator lenght) material properties, usage of different alloys, there is much difficulty in implementing such construction as problems arise during penetration process, when different segments (heavy and hard alloys) do not follow trajectory, so for some time this construction was only employed in soviet rounds, now probably most of modern projectiles have this feature.

In case of M332, it is true that this is now old round with simpler structure not really optimised to deal with modern composite armour, and not exceeding in energy parameters, so the fact that younger Leopard 2A6 was able to withstand it from some kilometers (this alone) hardly tells about it's ability to defeat modern projectiles, at much it is advertisement. Only evidence which we could get, it is that it's resistant for 80s level and that sight placement was still an issue which needed to be adressed.

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.

M829A3 is a sophisticated round and there were problems both with quality of manufacture of initial batches (were retired) and with operation, gun system wear, for this it did not completely replace previous models, same with DM53 which also had serious operational problems, to the point of not being accepted by some users and having to be replaced.

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).

Point was that it is foolish to compare only RHA penetration, on this aspect M829A2 and DM53 are analogous, but it has nothing to do with performance against composite arrays. Thus it is wrong to elevate M322 category to modern and efficient.

 

[militarysta]

This is the old Svinets you are talking about.
--
Problem is that increase in lenght does not imply increase in performance (penetration in RHA), this is an erroneous idea. If you assign an effectiveness coefficient in function of l/d ratio, increasing l/d (with increase in mass) leads to lower coefficient, it means that growth in performance is limited, non linear, and that it will not give practical advantage. To achieve optimum performance with greater l/d you need to increase impact velocity of projectile, for example M829 series, along with increase in lenght, also increased their velocity from 1660 to 1707 m/s... Same situation with DM-33, 53, 63...

Take a notice that for Grief we circa known l/d ratio, so optimum velocity is more or less possible to estimatous -of couse whit big error.

Example of efficiency is that M829A3 while having comparable energy in penetrator does not practically exceed in performance (according to claims) DM53 despite great difference in l/d ratio and the latter being 20% shorter. On this aspect DM53 would have higher l/d efficiency coefficient.

In all known estimatous DM53 have lower RHA penetration abilities then M829A3. The key in penetrator build.
BTW: DM63 is able to penetrate less RHA plate then DM53 But it's mucht new round whit better anty-MBT abilities.

...

To be onest - polish 120mm APFSDS are not better then german DM-33A1 :-/ So it's not suprosse that army didn't bought those rounds.

It is not agreed that structure will increase performance in only 10%, unless you are talking only about RHA but against composite arrays performance is notably higher, because it optimises available energy in different stages of penetration. For example differential (in penetrator lenght) material properties, usage of different alloys, there is much difficulty in implementing such construction as problems arise during penetration process, when different segments (heavy and hard alloys) do not follow trajectory, so for some time this construction was only employed in soviet rounds, now probably most of modern projectiles have this feature.

Whit known projectile and penetrator lenght (slighty longer thern M332) and known other facts the only advantages can be hidden in penetrator structure or in sabot. There is no other way, becouse known phisical diamensions and 2A46M4/M4 pressure, lenght, L48, give us no advance in taht aspect.
So or C-2 is not monoblock or it's on level just slighty above M332. Rather this first option.

In case of M332, it is true that this is now old round with simpler structure not really optimised to deal with modern composite armour, and not exceeding in energy parameters, so the fact that younger Leopard 2A6 was able to withstand it from some kilometers (this alone) hardly tells about it's ability to defeat modern projectiles, at much it is advertisement. Only evidence which we could get, it is that it's resistant for 80s level and that sight placement was still an issue which needed to be adressed.

In fact M332 was mucht better round then BM42, Sniviets-1(the shorter one), and on M829A1 and DM43 level.
Test on leopard-2 proof that only APFSDS round whit bigger then 700mm RHA (how many above this value is questionable) penetration can deal whit front armour. Of course we have still armour-round competition, but for some reson in 1998 those NERA pannel where added and whole turret is 3t hevier (without NERA) then "stnadard" 2a4.
C-2 have slighty longer then M332 penetrtor, but how mucht is batter is questionable -the only advantage can be find in non-monoblock structure on in sabot construction.

M829A3 is a sophisticated round and there were problems both with quality of manufacture of initial batches (were retired) and with operation, gun system wear, for this it did not completely replace previous models, same with DM53 which also had serious operational problems, to the point of not being accepted by some users and having to be replaced.

I will write the last time about DM family:
1. DM43 -> monoblock structure, long, fast, circa 620mm RHA max, rejected by German ary after some trials again modern multilayerd armour and ERA armour.
2. DM53 -> first non APFSDS round in Germany, it have abilities to overcome modern double layerd ERA (Kontakt-5, Relikt, etc). only problem was whit big pressure in hot climate (pick value almoust 1000MPa(!)) In stacko of RHA paltes those round have abiliteos to overcome between 750 to 810mm RHA(!) -what is still less then M829A3 was estimatous (over 900)
3. DM63 -> the reson why DM63 was introduced so fast (6yers) after DM53 is hidden in completly difrent but still segmented structure. While DM53 have 3 part structure (I suppose -two short part on front and one longer in rear) then DM63 have structure consist whit 5 parts -eacht the same lenght. This structure was therible hard to achive dur to technology problems, but finally those round just slighty overpas ERA and very modern ERA. And it have very good abilities to overpas modern multilayerd armour. And those round coud penetrate less "RHA mm" then DM53.
They real resont to introduce DM63 was to achive again better countr-ERA and countr-multilayerd armour abilities then DM53 achive.

Point was that it is foolish to compare only RHA penetration, on this aspect M829A2 and DM53 are analogous, but it has nothing to do with performance against composite arrays. Thus it is wrong to elevate M322 category to modern and efficient.

But there is no proffs that Russian industry is able to produce real modern APFSDS now - after almoust 20 yers of collapse, and non existing in serial production rounds better then 3BM42 :-/ In fact on video from factory we can see production line whit shorter one Sniviets-1 rounds (whit alloy sabots...) So where is C-2? Its so secret? or it's not existing yet?

 

[hest]

Take a notice that for Grief we circa known l/d ratio, so optimum velocity is more or less possible to estimatous -of couse whit big error.

We do not know exact l/d ratio, mass, etc we can also make some guess with gun chamber dimensions and propellant, which tells about increase in initial velocity.

For l/d ratio approaching 40 (M829A3 or greater) optimum initial velocity was estimated to be more than 1830 m/s (which is the case with 140 mm projectiles, also Grifel it seems).

In all known estimatous DM53 have lower RHA penetration abilities then M829A3. The key in penetrator build.
BTW: DM63 is able to penetrate less RHA plate then DM53 But it's mucht new round whit better anty-MBT abilities.

Yes but as you see increase in penetration is not as high as increase in l/d ratio, without increase in velocity growth is more modest, and DM53 has greater coefficient (penetration to l/d).

M829A3 is powerfull round but l/d wise it is not the most efficient.

About polish tests, what degree of protection could PT achieve against DM-33 ?

Whit known projectile and penetrator lenght (slighty longer thern M332) and known other facts the only advantages can be hidden in penetrator structure or in sabot. There is no other way, becouse known phisical diamensions and 2A46M4/M4 pressure, lenght, L48, give us no advance in taht aspect.
So or C-2 is not monoblock or it's on level just slighty above M332. Rather this first option.

We do not know value for propellant used, we know caliber, gun lenght (6 m and 5.3 or 6.6), do not know mass... so we are far from aceptable error margin.

In fact M332 was mucht better round then BM42, Sniviets-1(the shorter one), and on M829A1 and DM43 level.
Test on leopard-2 proof that only APFSDS round whit bigger then 700mm RHA (how many above this value is questionable) penetration can deal whit front armour. Of course we have still armour-round competition, but for some reson in 1998 those NERA pannel where added and whole turret is 3t hevier (without NERA) then "stnadard" 2a4.
C-2 have slighty longer then M332 penetrtor, but how mucht is batter is questionable -the only advantage can be find in non-monoblock structure on in sabot construction.

It is foolish to talk about RHA penetration and old rounds win same context with composite armour. And actually M322 had simpler construction than 3BM42, 46...Btw, Svinets-1 (shown in drawing) is 640 mm.

Construction is the most important aspect, it is as important as increase in velocity, l/d... and it is complex subject. It is hard to design and produce penetrator with differential in lenght material characteristics, segments, different alloys while this is of high importance to optimise energy of penetrator when dealing with composite array, in fact in start of 90s this characteristic was present only in soviet rounds, put into production and it is now evolved only in most modern developements, so please do not make laugh by making old M322 such a breakthrough super round only because it was shown in advertisement against Leopard 2A6. It is in fact not much better than average in 80s to deal with corresponding armour structure.

I will write the last time about DM family:
1. DM43 -> monoblock structure, long, fast, circa 620mm RHA max, rejected by German ary after some trials again modern multilayerd armour and ERA armour.
2. DM53 -> first non APFSDS round in Germany, it have abilities to overcome modern double layerd ERA (Kontakt-5, Relikt, etc). only problem was whit big pressure in hot climate (pick value almoust 1000MPa(!)) In stacko of RHA paltes those round have abiliteos to overcome between 750 to 810mm RHA(!) -what is still less then M829A3 was estimatous (over 900)
3. DM63 -> the reson why DM63 was introduced so fast (6yers) after DM53 is hidden in completly difrent but still segmented structure. While DM53 have 3 part structure (I suppose -two short part on front and one longer in rear) then DM63 have structure consist whit 5 parts -eacht the same lenght. This structure was therible hard to achive dur to technology problems, but finally those round just slighty overpas ERA and very modern ERA. And it have very good abilities to overpas modern multilayerd armour. And those round coud penetrate less "RHA mm" then DM53.
They real resont to introduce DM63 was to achive again better countr-ERA and countr-multilayerd armour abilities then DM53 achive.

2 About double ERA this generic statement can be rather vague, in fact Kontakt-5 could have been considered as such due to it's structure, sure performance level will be high but not in same degree (if during developement it was tested against ERA, armour level of 80s). Not denying the fact that it is very powerfull, but absolute statements.

For angled plates you can have an increase in penetration of 20% thus is normal to have greater values.

3 And another strong reason is also problem with employment of DM53, wear and propellant. Sure, but again I would not take such statements as entire thruth.... There were also modern developements in ERA, some which negate the efficiency of segmented structure, specifically, recent solutions shown in developements of KBTM, part of Burlak programme which is truly modern level.

But there is no proffs that Russian industry is able to produce real modern APFSDS now - after almoust 20 yers of collapse, and non existing in serial production rounds better then 3BM42 :-/ In fact on video from factory we can see production line whit shorter one Sniviets-1 rounds (whit alloy sabots...) So where is C-2? Its so secret? or it's not existing yet?

There is strong industrial, scientific base and developement ongoing. On video you cannot see everything, that rod was put with sabot of different round. For "non existing" rounds which have passed trials and are included in FCS of current tanks, there is evidence also from Kubinka tests (Grifel, etc)

Not to mention the fact that Russia was the only country which was involved in active developement for last decade, increased caliber 152 mm etc while in rest these developement practically ceased after 90s.

 

[militarysta]

We do not know exact l/d ratio, mass, etc we can also make some guess with gun chamber dimensions and propellant, which tells about increase in initial velocity.

For l/d ratio approaching 40 (M829A3 or greater) optimum initial velocity was estimated to be more than 1830 m/s (which is the case with 140 mm projectiles, also Grifel it seems).

It's seem that Grief have circa 18mm thick rod (on those draw) and whole projectile lenght (whit cap and fins) circa 880-890mm -what give use to big 48:1 it's rather unrealistic value. Without balistic cap and fins whit tracer whole rod will be circa 760-780mm long what give us more realistic circa 42:1.
Of course this is whit grate margin of error and based only on those one draw :-/

About polish tests, what degree of protection could PT achieve against DM-33 ?

During trade for Peru polish Bumar engeeners claims that in PT-91M1 they incares basick turret protection to circa 500mm RHA for turret front (and propably hull) + added ERAWA-2. And those combination was slighty above DM-33A1 posibiliteies - during test from fixed gun on circa 500m they use DM-33A1 whit lower propelant charge to simulate more then 1600m distance. They was 4 shoots (two to hull and two to turret), there whas 2x rebound, and 1 perforation, and 1 deep penetration.

We do not know value for propellant used, we know caliber, gun lenght (6 m and 5.3 or 6.6), do not know mass... so we are far from aceptable error margin.

For 2A56M4/M5 we known max MPa value, muzzle, and barrel lenght, we know projectile lenght and diameter (for Sniviets-1) and we known all about M332 from Swedish ppj95 so here I kevent doubt. The question is C-2.

It is foolish to talk about RHA penetration and old rounds win same context with composite armour. And actually M322 had simpler construction than 3BM42, 46...Btw, Svinets-1 (shown in drawing) is 640 mm.

Sniviets-1 and M332 are the same generation -in fact developmend phase was in the same time for both rounds. And diamensions for Sniviets-1 are given in most sources -640mm whole long projectile and circa 540-550mm long penetrator .

in fact in start of 90s this characteristic was present only in soviet rounds

Those non-existing? C'mon till 3BM42 and 3BM32 soviet/russian industry don't produse any new round till whole 1990 and 2000. Sniviets pass Russian trials in 2010. So we have almoust 20yers gap.
And 3BM42 as Polish "segmented 125mm" is not fully segmented penetrator - it's rather partial ones - when whole core is separated on 2-3 parts in hope that only one of them will be completly ruined by acitve Burlinghton layers:

In fact segmented penetration present in DM63 or Swizterland prototypes are completly diffrent and based on developed fully segmented round whit couple of the same lenght segments whit strong enought conectors.
And If You want compare 3BM42 then take a notice that Israeli 125mm Cl.mk.2 was choosen by most countries as the same/better options whit circa 520-540mm "stupid RHA" penetration. Becouse it was mucht modern. Even in India they choose Clm.Mk2 not BM42. (of course before put IMi on black list).
M332 is in all aspect mucht modern then 3BM42 (develpmend phase in circa 1983-1985) and is on the same level as Sniviets-1. Only one question is about rod build.
BTW: used 3 parts rod in 3BM42 can be procurated by non-existing proper technology in soviet industry in first half of the 1980s. In those Yers nobody abart Israeli and Germnas whare able to use quite long monoblock penetrator, propably the same was about soviets industry -and this can be a reson why 3Bm42 have big sheets and 3 parts rod. And on next gen. Sniviets (3BM-46?) soviet developers rejected those solutions and Sniviets was monoblock (circa 1991). So propably smth was not OK in Bm42 when only 5 yers layter they had change rod construction.

There is strong industrial, scientific base and developement ongoing

After 20years of problems? The picture is not so happy -just notice that after Sniviets (1991) next round DOI was in...2010. C-2. So smth is not ok here. And western industry had 20 yers testing top solutions from ex CCCP -mostly from Ukraina when indeed M332 and F1 fall during tests on Knive. On based this and other tests nex generation rounds was developed - M338, DM63, M829A3, M829A4, etc.

On video you cannot see everything, that rod was put with sabot of different round. For "non existing" rounds which have passed trials and are included in FCS of current tanks, there is evidence also from Kubinka tests (Grifel, etc)

On those video we have couple very interesting screensshots - for example alloy Sniviets sabot (not composite!):

And we have those 3D projectile - STGM made mesurment on it:

Of course whit some margin of error, but we can see that those 3D projectile (if its real not disinformation) have 850-860mm long projectile and circa 770mm long whole projectile -so mucht less then M829A3 but more then DM53.
So if those round give us Grifel then is shorther then we suspected on those draw.

Not to mention the fact that Russia was the only country which was involved in active developement for last decade, increased caliber 152 mm etc while in rest these developement practically ceased after 90s.

Good joke
XM360 in USA, LLR47 in Germany, SB105 in Germany, L-55 in 1990-2000 in Germany,
whole developemnd NPzK140mm etc.

 

[hest]

It's seem that Grief have circa 18mm thick rod (on those draw) and whole projectile lenght (whit cap and fins) circa 880-890mm -what give use to big 48:1 it's rather unrealistic value. Without balistic cap and fins whit tracer whole rod will be circa 760-780mm long what give us more realistic circa 42:1.
Of course this is whit grate margin of error and based only on those one draw :-/

We cannot make valid estimation yet.

During trade for Peru polish Bumar engeeners claims that in PT-91M1 they incares basick turret protection to circa 500mm RHA for turret front (and propably hull) + added ERAWA-2. And those combination was slighty above DM-33A1 posibiliteies - during test from fixed gun on circa 500m they use DM-33A1 whit lower propelant charge to simulate more then 1600m distance. They was 4 shoots (two to hull and two to turret), there whas 2x rebound, and 1 perforation, and 1 deep penetration.

Well if T-72M1 with modifications could approach level of DM-33, it is to wonder what was the situation with soviet T-72B, T-80... in 80s.

For 2A56M4/M5 we known max MPa value, muzzle, and barrel lenght, we know projectile lenght and diameter (for Sniviets-1) and we known all about M332 from Swedish ppj95 so here I kevent doubt. The question is C-2.

And what calculations did you make, what do you know exactly (dubious...), you know value for 4Ж96 propellant, mass...?

Sniviets-1 and M332 are the same generation -in fact developmend phase was in the same time for both rounds. And diamensions for Sniviets-1 are given in most sources -640mm whole long projectile and circa 540-550mm long penetrator .

No, wrong. Svinets (3BM46), Svinets-1 (3BM59) and Svinets-2 (3BM60) are different rounds. The old Svinets is same generation as M332, the others were developed in paralell decade later.

Those non-existing? C'mon till 3BM42 and 3BM32 soviet/russian industry don't produse any new round till whole 1990 and 2000. Sniviets pass Russian trials in 2010. So we have almoust 20yers gap.
And 3BM42 as Polish "segmented 125mm" is not fully segmented penetrator - it's rather partial ones - when whole core is separated on 2-3 parts in hope that only one of them will be completly ruined by acitve Burlinghton layers:

It is about usage of material with different properties, different alloys in one construction, more complex than just segments which you will not see just by looking at picture. Whole point was to achieve notably higher performance against composite structure, and this was implemented in soviet rounds in 80s (in production) and for some time those were the only ones, rest, M829, DM-33, M332 until much more modern ones had simpler, less effective construction.

In fact segmented penetration present in DM63 or Swizterland prototypes are completly diffrent and based on developed fully segmented round whit couple of the same lenght segments whit strong enought conectors.
And If You want compare 3BM42 then take a notice that Israeli 125mm Cl.mk.2 was choosen by most countries as the same/better options whit circa 520-540mm "stupid RHA" penetration. Becouse it was mucht modern. Even in India they choose Clm.Mk2 not BM42. (of course before put IMi on black list).

And so structures of modern Svinets, etc now are also different and nothing to do with old M332 DM33 or whatever. About that israeli round it is no more than advertisement.

M332 is in all aspect mucht modern then 3BM42 (develpmend phase in circa 1983-1985) and is on the same level as Sniviets-1. Only one question is about rod build.
BTW: used 3 parts rod in 3BM42 can be procurated by non-existing proper technology in soviet industry in first half of the 1980s. In those Yers nobody abart Israeli and Germnas whare able to use quite long monoblock penetrator, propably the same was about soviets industry -and this can be a reson why 3Bm42 have big sheets and 3 parts rod. And on next gen. Sniviets (3BM-46?) soviet developers rejected those solutions and Sniviets was monoblock (circa 1991). So propably smth was not OK in Bm42 when only 5 yers layter they had change rod construction.

You cannot say only question because construction is the most important and the most complex feature. It is totally different case against composite array.

About technology, sorry but it is funny bullshit. Design penetrator with structure composed by different material properties is a very difficult feat, requiring extensive tests due to problems with different alloy separation during trajectory, but it gives notable increase in performance against composite armour. In fact it was for this difficulty why this feature appeared later (in non soviet rounds), so statement about technological complexity, and about simplicity of such design is show of ignorance. And complexity of design, material is not seen just with look.

There were also soviet monoblock rounds before 3BM42 with greater RHA penetration, but this was obviously not indication of superior performance against armour. What can be said for sure is that M829, DM33, M332 have simple structure, do not employ these features and certainly won't perform any better against composite array, much less against younger armour.

After 20years of problems? The picture is not so happy -just notice that after Sniviets (1991) next round DOI was in...2010. C-2. So smth is not ok here. And western industry had 20 yers testing top solutions from ex CCCP -mostly from Ukraina when indeed M332 and F1 fall during tests on Knive. On based this and other tests nex generation rounds was developed - M338, DM63, M829A3, M829A4, etc.

Developement never ceased and now you are seeing results, wheter if it is only now when it's actually produced is different talk. Yes, and also western rounds were purchased and tested. USSR legacy is now hardly modern.

On those video we have couple very interesting screensshots - for example alloy Sniviets sabot (not composite!):

And we have those 3D projectile - STGM made mesurment on it:

Of course whit some margin of error, but we can see that those 3D projectile (if its real not disinformation) have 850-860mm long projectile and circa 770mm long whole projectile -so mucht less then M829A3 but more then DM53.
So if those round give us Grifel then is shorther then we suspected on those draw.

We have screenshot from production (which does not show everything), drawing, which differs, we also have picture of round tested in Kubinka, overall you can make an idea, but no very good approximation.

Good joke
XM360 in USA, LLR47 in Germany, SB105 in Germany, L-55 in 1990-2000 in Germany,
whole developemnd NPzK140mm etc.

And these are only developements from existing systems (and what? ) or existing paramethers (rounds, energy...) and hardly comparable with new caliber, much greater energy, chamber pressure, all such (140 mm) ceased developement in 90s while 2A82, 2A83 152 mm caliber are in developement and already passed goverment tests (2008-2009..) along with projectiles, it is entire generation difference.

 

[militarysta]

We cannot make valid estimation yet.

Yes, but more or less it will be closer to 40:1 or 42:1 then bigger value.

Well if T-72M1 with modifications could approach level of DM-33, it is to wonder what was the situation with soviet T-72B, T-80... in 80s.

Well in those test for Peru military offcierd (during trade for Peru) polish Bumar developers work hard to achive the worst possible perforamces from DM-33A1:
1) they reduce propelant charge from catrige to simulate circa ~1600m distance on 500m -but they reduce it without tested other part of ammo whit downgraded propelant charge on stack RHA plates -so it was very comfortable for Bumar developers
2) the target was placed whit really adverse angle - whit greate posibiliti to achive rebound -and in two cases that was indeed.
3) hull had redesigneted CAWA-2 module -completly diffrent then typical T-72M1 hull layout -those module is vible on the photots. So there is no suprisse that on hull there was 2x no penetration.
4) There was ERAWA-2 module on hull and turret - ERAWA is whorse against APFSDS then for example Kontakt-5 but it have 8mm HHS outisde plate, strong inner explosive layer and circa 5mm inner HHS layer -so for some angle you have circa 20-34mm HHS for only ERAWA-2 casette +explosive -so this have big influence too.

So more or less in unable to compare PT-91 whit soviet 1980s tank, and "dwongraded" DM-33A1 used on test whit "normal" DM-33A1.

And what calculations did you make, what do you know exactly (dubious...), you know value for 4Ж96 propellant, mass...?

It's rather simple for Sniviets we known dimensions for several sources. We know presure and max pressure from 2A46M4/M5. And we have the same values for M332 and Swedish ppj95, and L-44. Not even mentioned L-55. So here there is no doubt -Sniviets is worse then M332 in any aspects.

No, wrong. Svinets (3BM46), Svinets-1 (3BM59) and Svinets-2 (3BM60) are different rounds. The old Svinets is same generation as M332, the others were developed in paralell decade later.

Yes, my mistake -I was writing about Sniviets (3BM46) those whit DOI 1991. Its the same generation as slighty younger M332.
Sniviets-1/2 are diffrent story.

It is about usage of material with different properties, different alloys in one construction, more complex than just segments which you will not see just by looking at picture. Whole point was to achieve notably higher performance against composite structure, and this was implemented in soviet rounds in 80s (in production) and for some time those were the only ones, rest, M829, DM-33, M332 until much more modern ones had simpler, less effective construction.
(...)
About technology, sorry but it is funny bullshit. Design penetrator with structure composed by different material properties is a very difficult feat, requiring extensive tests due to problems with different alloy separation during trajectory, but it gives notable increase in performance against composite armour. In fact it was for this difficulty why this feature appeared later (in non soviet rounds), so statement about technological complexity, and about simplicity of such design is show of ignorance. And complexity of design, material is not seen just with look.

There were also soviet monoblock rounds before 3BM42 with greater RHA penetration, but this was obviously not indication of superior performance against armour. What can be said for sure is that M829, DM33, M332 have simple structure, do not employ these features and certainly won't perform any better against composite array, much less against younger armour.

It's not logical anymore
Soviet Union never (before 3BM32 in 1985) produce long monoblock rods made from WHA or DU. And DU rods are cheaper and simpler in production then WHA ones -and what we have? No WHA monoblock rounds before never intruduced Lekayo-1 (or Bm42M? Bm44?) planned into service in eryly 1990s. DU rounds we have 3BM32 -whit shorter penetrator, and Sniviets -whit first soviet long rod made from DU. Correct me if Im wrong.
If partial-segmented desine like in BM42 rods where so super then why Soviet industry change into full monoblock in erly 1990s? Can You explain this? I have only one explenation -mucht longer monoblock ones where better.
BM22(DOI 1976 tungstren slug)->BM26( DOI 1983 tungsten slug)->3BM42( DOI 1986 3 part structure) -> Lekayo-1(planned DOI half 1990 monoblock long rod)
BM29 (DOI 1982 DU slug) ---->3BM32 (DOI 1985 DU rod) ---> Sniviest (DOI 1991 DU long rod) ---> Sniviets-2 (??)
I see no logic in your explenation.

Yes, and also western rounds were purchased and tested.

Second series, or rejected - M332, DM43, F1, and KEW-A1/A2.

We have screenshot from production (which does not show everything), drawing, which differs, we also have picture of round tested in Kubinka, overall you can make an idea, but no very good approximation.

Those found sabot looks very closer to this from 3D model -at lest it's front part.

 

[methos]

This is the old Svinets you are talking about.

My statement is based on the photograph of Svinets-1,2. I have not seen any evidence that there exists a longer/faster Svinets version.

Problem is that increase in lenght does not imply increase in performance (penetration in RHA), this is an erroneous idea.

Length alone does not increase performance. But if all other factors are equal or very similar, then the longer penetrator will penetrate more RHA.

Example of efficiency is that M829A3 while having comparable energy in penetrator does not practically exceed in performance (according to claims) DM53 despite great difference in l/d ratio and the latter being 20% shorter. On this aspect DM53 would have higher l/d efficiency coefficient.

I don't see any "great difference" in the length-to-diameter ratio of M829A3 and DM53. DM53 has a diameter of 20.8 mm and a total projectile length of 745 mm, while M829A3 has a total projectile length of ~890 - 920 mm and a diameter of 27 mm. If the relation between penetrator to total length on both projectiles is similar, then the penetrators of both rounds will have a similar length-to-diameter ratio.

It is not agreed that structure will increase performance in only 10%, unless you are talking only about RHA but against composite arrays performance is notably higher, because it optimises available energy in different stages of penetration.

I was talking about the comparision of tungsten versus DU. During tests in the U.S. the difference in penetration performance against (homogenous) steel targets between conventional WHA and DU was 8 to 11%.

For example differential (in penetrator lenght) material properties, usage of different alloys, there is much difficulty in implementing such construction as problems arise during penetration process, when different segments (heavy and hard alloys) do not follow trajectory, so for some time this construction was only employed in soviet rounds, now probably most of modern projectiles have this feature.

The problem I have here however is that these things "could be changed" but there is no way to proof it. The Isrealis also optimized their APFSDS - even M111 Hetz did not have a conventional layout, but it's tip contained four wads made of Denal (a tungsten alloy) - this increased performance against spaced and sloped targets. Who tells me that M322 might not also be optimized against "modern" composite armour.

In case of M332, it is true that this is now old round with simpler structure not really optimised to deal with modern composite armour, and not exceeding in energy parameters

My understanding is that M322 is longer than Svinets, has a slightly higher muzzle velocity, while having the same diameter. It should have a slightly higher muzzle energy.

Point was that it is foolish to compare only RHA penetration, on this aspect M829A2 and DM53 are analogous, but it has nothing to do with performance against composite arrays. Thus it is wrong to elevate M322 category to modern and efficient.

DM53 has a 4.9 kg penetrator and a muzzle velocity of 1,750 m/s, M829A2 has a 4.7 kg penetrator and a muzzle velocity of 1,680 m/s. The penetration into RHA can only be if DM53 is fired from the short barrel, for which it was not optimized.

 

[hest]

Yes, but more or less it will be closer to 40:1 or 42:1 then bigger value.

Same as there can be error in lenght, there is in diameter, it is not possible to know yet.

Well in those test for Peru military offcierd (during trade for Peru) polish Bumar developers work hard to achive the worst possible perforamces from DM-33A1:
1) they reduce propelant charge from catrige to simulate circa ~1600m distance on 500m -but they reduce it without tested other part of ammo whit downgraded propelant charge on stack RHA plates -so it was very comfortable for Bumar developers
2) the target was placed whit really adverse angle - whit greate posibiliti to achive rebound -and in two cases that was indeed.
3) hull had redesigneted CAWA-2 module -completly diffrent then typical T-72M1 hull layout -those module is vible on the photots. So there is no suprisse that on hull there was 2x no penetration.
4) There was ERAWA-2 module on hull and turret - ERAWA is whorse against APFSDS then for example Kontakt-5 but it have 8mm HHS outisde plate, strong inner explosive layer and circa 5mm inner HHS layer -so for some angle you have circa 20-34mm HHS for only ERAWA-2 casette +explosive -so this have big influence too.

So more or less in unable to compare PT-91 whit soviet 1980s tank, and "dwongraded" DM-33A1 used on test whit "normal" DM-33A1.

Ah, the ricochet pictures. Fair point, but all such tests are set up to some degree, for example why for Leopard 2A6 they were shy and tested 80s round firing from 2 km distance when normally it is performed 10 times closer, it was probably also "optimised" for show.

It's rather simple for Sniviets we known dimensions for several sources. We know presure and max pressure from 2A46M4/M5. And we have the same values for M332 and Swedish ppj95, and L-44. Not even mentioned L-55. So here there is no doubt -Sniviets is worse then M332 in any aspects.

If you talk about old Svinets then maybe, (and with L-55...) but without knowing construction it is hard to talk about superiority. Of course this argument cannot be used in all cases, but in other aspects M332 is not that significantly greater.

It's not logical anymore
Soviet Union never (before 3BM32 in 1985) produce long monoblock rods made from WHA or DU. And DU rods are cheaper and simpler in production then WHA ones -and what we have? No WHA monoblock rounds before never intruduced Lekayo-1 (or Bm42M? Bm44?) planned into service in eryly 1990s. DU rounds we have 3BM32 -whit shorter penetrator, and Sniviets -whit first soviet long rod made from DU. Correct me if Im wrong.
If partial-segmented desine like in BM42 rods where so super then why Soviet industry change into full monoblock in erly 1990s? Can You explain this? I have only one explenation -mucht longer monoblock ones where better.
BM22(DOI 1976 tungstren slug)->BM26( DOI 1983 tungsten slug)->3BM42( DOI 1986 3 part structure) -> Lekayo-1(planned DOI half 1990 monoblock long rod)
BM29 (DOI 1982 DU slug) ---->3BM32 (DOI 1985 DU rod) ---> Sniviest (DOI 1991 DU long rod) ---> Sniviets-2 (??)
I see no logic in your explenation.

What was said about differential in lenght material properties does not exclude monoblock penetrator. Penetrator with monoblock structure can also be composed of materials with different properties (different alloys) to make up for initial normalisation effect, facilitate bending, reduce rigidness, etc when dealing against composite array, and from this could also arrive difficult problems with segmentation and change in trajectory. For this are several solutions which could also depend on factors as penetrator lenght, mass, material, etc.

Svinets construction is not known in detail, but it is not sustained to claim that it's penetrator is homogeneous, and with greater dimensions it may require different solution than shorter, thicker rod. Point is that "simplicity" of segmented structure was wrong statement because this requires complex developement, it was certainly realised to defeat composite array, if RHA penetration and simplicity were the factors, there were previous rounds (3BM32) with greater penetration than latter, more complex, costly 3BM42, but aim is to defeat armour structure.

Second series, or rejected - M332, DM43, F1, and KEW-A1/A2.

Maybe, and also according to reports recently arrived some rounds for test.

Those found sabot looks very closer to this from 3D model -at lest it's front part.

Sabot in picture has different construction, so we cannot be sure, drawing or presentation may not be definitely accurate.

 

[hest]

My statement is based on the photograph of Svinets-1,2. I have not seen any evidence that there exists a longer/faster Svinets version.

From photograph you cannot know about velocity, mass... (which you was talking about), and those were suposedly attributed to old Svinets.

Length alone does not increase performance. But if all other factors are equal or very similar, then the longer penetrator will penetrate more RHA.

But this increase is not linear, on this case the higher the increase, the lower efficiency. It can be actually modest and not practical without increase in velocity, so point is that lenght alone does not imply superior performance.

I don't see any "great difference" in the length-to-diameter ratio of M829A3 and DM53. DM53 has a diameter of 20.8 mm and a total projectile length of 745 mm, while M829A3 has a total projectile length of ~890 - 920 mm and a diameter of 27 mm. If the relation between penetrator to total length on both projectiles is similar, then the penetrators of both rounds will have a similar length-to-diameter ratio.

Truly you can attain the same ratio with bigger or smaller overall dimensions, but to increase them, increase in mass it also requires to increase energy, velocity to maintain efficiency, if direct improvement is desired.

I was talking about the comparision of tungsten versus DU. During tests in the U.S. the difference in penetration performance against (homogenous) steel targets between conventional WHA and DU was 8 to 11%.

Yes, but whole point in penetrator design is performance against armour structure, so if comparing Svinets and M332, you cannot say that this is as much as construction matters, in fact construction on this case in much more important than modest increase in lenght.

The problem I have here however is that these things "could be changed" but there is no way to proof it. The Isrealis also optimized their APFSDS - even M111 Hetz did not have a conventional layout, but it's tip contained four wads made of Denal (a tungsten alloy) - this increased performance against spaced and sloped targets. Who tells me that M322 might not also be optimized against "modern" composite armour.

M111 is well known and it was not particularly succesfull in the end, neither the only one, but described costruction features have nothing to do with what is discussed.

M332 hardly could have the same degree of optimisation as mentioned construction features were difficult to implement, difficult problems to solve with segmentation and trajectory during stages of incidence, and this appeared in Western APFSDS recently and could not be realised on this more than decades old round.

DM53 has a 4.9 kg penetrator and a muzzle velocity of 1,750 m/s, M829A2 has a 4.7 kg penetrator and a muzzle velocity of 1,680 m/s. The penetration into RHA can only be if DM53 is fired from the short barrel, for which it was not optimized.

The same M829A2 could be fired from L-55 and DU features and... whole point of this silly comparison was to show that there is no point in comparing round performance just with RHA.

 

[militarysta]

(double post)

 

[militarysta]

Ah, the ricochet pictures.

Yes, it was posted on otvaga, Tarasenko page, etc. But only in Poland is known contex of those trials :-/
In fact it was not so easy -the aim was to achive ricochet, but due trade to Peru Bumar had tried to made promo PT-91MZ/Ex.
Here You have sourse from WITU page:
http://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/zeszyty/20110117p/151.pdf

but all such tests are set up to some degree, for example why for Leopard 2A6 they were shy and tested 80s round firing from 2 km distance when normally it is performed 10 times closer,

WTF?
Greek test where on 1300m distance, and M332 was 1990-rounds -not 80s(it's bullshit). In fact M332 and ppj95 went to service in...1994-1995 so what 80s rounds? I don't get it. It's first. Second - M332 was mucht danger then Sniviets (3BM46) -mucht longer, slighty fatser, fired whit bigger pressure. And at lest 4 yers younger. In fact on first half 90s. M332 was one of the most modern rounds. So it's not strange that was choosen for Swedish army.
btw: Leopard-2A3/4 test vs Bm22 was under 400m distance.

If you talk about old Svinets then maybe, (and with L-55...)

Known facts about swedish ppj95 (M332) and L-44 used in Strv.122 give us bigger Mpa value, muzzle, and others then known data about 3Bm46 Sniviets and 2A46M4/M5. And M332 is mucht longer then Sniviets, and in fact is slighty younger - while DOI for Sniviest in 1991 means at lest 4 yers developmend phase (so 1987-1991) for M332 we have circa 1990-1994. And we can;t sey that Israel is country without modern APFSDS industry and access to modern technology from Germany and USA.

What was said about differential in lenght material properties does not exclude monoblock penetrator. Penetrator with monoblock structure can also be composed of materials with different properties (different alloys) to make up for initial normalisation effect, facilitate bending, reduce rigidness, etc when dealing against composite array, and from this could also arrive difficult problems with segmentation and change in trajectory. For this are several solutions which could also depend on factors as penetrator lenght, mass, material, etc.

In any one pdf or book about APFSDS and penetrators there is about monoblock penetrator - sheet can be made by one material but the core (rod) must be made from one meterial - it's almoust impossible to made monoblock-style penetrator made from diffrent alloys/DU. When you want to mixed materials it must be made from parts - like BM42 or fully segmented. There is no other option.
That is reson why I was writing about rejected idea and back to monoblock penetrators in Sniviets (3BM46) and Laykalo (3Bm42M? 44M?).
In fact change from 3 partial rod in 3BM42 (DOI 1986) into full monoblock penetrator in 3Bm42M Lekayo (developmend since 1988, and planned DOI in circa 1992-1993) where wery fast. 3Bm42 was uniqe and not repeted in penetrtor build in younger soviets rounds.
And acoding to btvt Leykalo-1 whit longer penetrator have 20% better penetration abilities then 3BM42 (460-500mm) so it give us:
3BM42M Lekalo ~550-600mm RHA at 2000m. Rusian sources give those round circa 600-650mm RHA at 2000m.
Quite simmilar to the M332. Only one advantage used in Lekalo was special tip optimalized to overpas ERA casettes, but - monoblock penetrator made from WHA and light mettal aloy sabot was nothing new or better then M332.
In fact both: Sniviets (DU) and Lekalo (WHA) are shorther then M332.
I-m repet - in Sniviets (3BM46; DOI 1991; DU) and Lekalo (3BM42M: DOI circa 1992: WHA) wy haven't any known technological innovations -both have convetional light mettal aloy sabots, long monoblock and homogeneous penetrator, whit tottal lenght smaller then M332:
Sniviets (3BM46) 640mm total penetrayor lenght / 540mm core(rod) lenght, muzzle 1650m/s, MPa circa 600
Lekalo (3Bm42M) 730mm total penetrator lenght / circa 630mm core (rod) lenght, muzzle 1700m/s MPa circa 600 in newest 650MPa
M332/ ppj95 720mm total penetrator lenght/ 635mm (640) core (rod) lenght. muzzle 1700m/s, MPa in L-44 680.
Only one advantage in Lekalo is special tip to overpas ERA. But in any on known parmater M332 and Lekayo are very close together -mucht ore then Sniviets (3Bm46) and M332 are.
In fact if on 1300m nacked turret Leo-2A6 HEL windtsand sevral M332shoots then it will windstand never-exist 3BM42 Lekalo. It's nothing suprising.

 

[hest]

Yes, it was posted on otvaga, Tarasenko page, etc. But only in Poland is known contex of those trials :-/
In fact it was not so easy -the aim was to achive ricochet, but due trade to Peru Bumar had tried to made promo PT-91MZ/Ex.
Here You have sourse from WITU page:
http://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/zeszyty/20110117p/151.pdf

Thanks

WTF?
Greek test where on 1300m distance, and M332 was 1990-rounds -not 80s(it's bullshit). In fact M332 and ppj95 went to service in...1994-1995 so what 80s rounds? I don't get it. It's first. Second - M332 was mucht danger then Sniviets (3BM46) -mucht longer, slighty fatser, fired whit bigger pressure. And at lest 4 yers younger. In fact on first half 90s. M332 was one of the most modern rounds. So it's not strange that was choosen for Swedish army.
btw: Leopard-2A3/4 test vs Bm22 was under 400m distance.

You said earlier (otvaga..) your source varied from 1300 to 2000m so why sudden change ? According to greek official report test was realised from 2000 m distance. And this test was also set up, greek representatives had right to choose turret from production line but the test conditions were set by producer as per agreement and carried out in Germany, advertisement was just general "protection ability against 3 rd western APFSDS generation", the fact that they selected the weakest projectile they could and performed test from 2000 m distance (which is 10 times more than test standart, made to reduce performance similar to poilish test) to their comfort shows that they were somewhat shy. In fact this test shows nothing special about protection, late 80s armour, T-72, T-80 with hevy ERA could achieve such protection against this round. Also if I am correct M332 (CL3143) was deployed in early 90s, and design, test phase belongs to late 80s decade.
-----
Here you have value for DM53 and DM63 rounds http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007im_em/ABriefs/8Vogelsanger.pdf

You see that value changes notably in function of temperature, maximum pressure for 20 degrees is under 550 Mpa, here it is similar to 3BM42, 5660 kg/m^2 for 15 degrees. So what does your M332 maximum pressure (680 MPa) mean ? Perhaps it is maximum practical, this round hardly employs temperature independant propellant, and it is dubious that it would be much different from these rounds, so what temperature conditions are you comparing ?

I do not think propellant would have much different performance than soviet 4Ж63 (3BM42,56..) but note that 2A46 is > 10% longer and uses greater caliber, which is cuadratic relation, so in fact M332 would have to operate at 1.1-1.2 higher pressure to have equivalent energy, vague estimate, in view of this it would have lower l/d efficiency, dimensions not offering significant advantage, not to say material and construction, Svinets employs DU.. So M332 is hardly better than contemporary, but not fielded, soviet rounds.

Btw characteristics RH 120 mm gun are not any better, projectiles operate under similar pressure and, neither in operational life, it varies between 400-600 rounds (DM33, DM63) and DM53 has 3 times higher barrel wear (!) 2A46M5 is guaranteed for >500 rounds.

In any one pdf or book about APFSDS and penetrators there is about monoblock penetrator - sheet can be made by one material but the core (rod) must be made from one meterial - it's almoust impossible to made monoblock-style penetrator made from diffrent alloys/DU. When you want to mixed materials it must be made from parts - like BM42 or fully segmented. There is no other option.
That is reson why I was writing about rejected idea and back to monoblock penetrators in Sniviets (3BM46) and Laykalo (3Bm42M? 44M?).
In fact change from 3 partial rod in 3BM42 (DOI 1986) into full monoblock penetrator in 3Bm42M Lekayo (developmend since 1988, and planned DOI in circa 1992-1993) where wery fast. 3Bm42 was uniqe and not repeted in penetrtor build in younger soviets rounds.
And acoding to btvt Leykalo-1 whit longer penetrator have 20% better penetration abilities then 3BM42 (460-500mm) so it give us:
3BM42M Lekalo ~550-600mm RHA at 2000m. Rusian sources give those round circa 600-650mm RHA at 2000m.
Quite simmilar to the M332. Only one advantage used in Lekalo was special tip optimalized to overpas ERA casettes, but - monoblock penetrator made from WHA and light mettal aloy sabot was nothing new or better then M332.
In fact both: Sniviets (DU) and Lekalo (WHA) are shorther then M332.
I-m repet - in Sniviets (3BM46; DOI 1991; DU) and Lekalo (3BM42M: DOI circa 1992: WHA) wy haven't any known technological innovations -both have convetional light mettal aloy sabots, long monoblock and homogeneous penetrator, whit tottal lenght smaller then M332:
Sniviets (3BM46) 640mm total penetrayor lenght / 540mm core(rod) lenght, muzzle 1650m/s, MPa circa 600
Lekalo (3Bm42M) 730mm total penetrator lenght / circa 630mm core (rod) lenght, muzzle 1700m/s MPa circa 600 in newest 650MPa
M332/ ppj95 720mm total penetrator lenght/ 635mm (640) core (rod) lenght. muzzle 1700m/s, MPa in L-44 680.
Only one advantage in Lekalo is special tip to overpas ERA. But in any on known parmater M332 and Lekayo are very close together -mucht ore then Sniviets (3Bm46) and M332 are.
In fact if on 1300m nacked turret Leo-2A6 HEL windtsand sevral M332shoots then it will windstand never-exist 3BM42 Lekalo. It's nothing suprising.

Core is not the only part involved in penetration process and round can make use of different alloys to improve performance, this was used even in older projectiles, my source explains that there are different ways to realise it and it was implemented on produced soviet rounds, this has special importance against composite structures but some solution were not possible to achieve (in non soviet rounds) due to difficulties with segmentation among other reasons. It would be difficult to affirm that latter rounds would lack such feature, it is just realised in different way. Have in mind that shorter, thicker 3BM42 would need to employ different construction than longer, thinner and made from different alloy Svinets, which could well have less rigid behaviour, for him it would not be necessary to employ such segmented structure, we do not know it's construction in detail either, and it is hard to claim that it has the same homogeneous material structure as earlier 3BM32... It is not about rejection (far from thruth), but that different dimensions, material need another solution.

 

[militarysta]

Thanks

In fact there was two rial DM-33A1 vs PT-91M

First - in 2009 when Bumar had tried to understimated DM-33 and overestimeted PT-91MZ (this whit 4 shoots, two ricochets, one perforation, one deep peneration without perforation) and second - this whit those pdf fro WITU when aim was to achive ricochets not to test armour senso stricto - but as I known in both cases CAWA module was placed on hull -so lack perforation there is no strange.

You said earlier (otvaga..) your source varied from 1300 to 2000m so why sudden change ?

Becouse there are two sources -Greek report, and KMW engeneers and asked them about this polish 10ThBde offciers. And they are two diffrent stories. I have hierd about 1300-1500m distance as avarage max possible in typical greek teerein. The same is in Gemrnay (1300m) and in Poland (1500m). So infos about 2km is very strange.

Also if I am correct M332 (CL3143) was deployed in early 90s, and design, test phase belongs to late 80s decade.

DOI for ppj95 is in 1995, as I remember M332 was developed since circa 1990 to 1994 but I must check, more or less it's 90s rounds not 80s, and it's lenght, material, sabot construction makes it close to DM43, Lakalo, and M839A2.

Here you have value for DM53 and DM63 rounds

He he he - hee You have onle MPa pressure in chamber not in barrel -rest under

You see that value changes notably in function of temperature, maximum pressure for 20 degrees is under 550 Mpa, here it is similar to 3BM42, 5660 kg/m^2 for 15 degrees. So what does your M332 maximum pressure (680 MPa) mean ? Perhaps it is maximum practical, this round hardly employs temperature independant propellant, and it is dubious that it would be much different from these rounds, so what temperature conditions are you comparing ?

Again -we have some misunderstand here - those fabout insensitive propelant charge in DM63 and others give pick value in chamber. Values in barrel for modern round are diffrent
Maybe I shoudn't post this, but here you have uniqe in internet part some sources about DM53 and MPa in barrels:

MPa in L-44 in chamber is circa 710-720MPa (for DM53) and on first 1,5m barrel its over 900MPa(!) and next its decrase in non-linear vay, so even in 2m distance we have ~700MPa(!).
In L-55 is total space becouse we have "normal" in chamber max pressure circa 730-750MPa and total space in over 900MPa in first 2m, and over 700Mpa until 3m.
More or less modern propelant charge have bigest MPa value after chamber and it MPa is non-linear. You can slighty compare this whit older ones MPa for "standard" propelant charge (red on picture).

And about your question:

So what does your M332 maximum pressure (680 MPa) mean ?

Then I can answer -it's pic value in chamber, not in barell. This value is given in offciall data sheet ppj95 + L-44 from Sweden, I used it in table:

We have here 670MPa max. And now is question -if M332 and ppj95 have "standard" propelnat charge then value in barre will be slighty smaller, for "new" propelant charge pick value in barrel will be over 700Mpa on first 2m.
BTW: 550MPa for BM-42 is for chamber, in barrel value will be diffrent - Im almoust sure that lower

Btw characteristics RH 120 mm gun are not any better, projectiles operate under similar pressure and, neither in operational life

You misunderstand pick value in chamber, and in barrel - just chceck diagram - 720MPa (chamber) --->950MPa(barrel) ---->700-670MPa(barrel) ---> lower value. In Lh55 we have total space from 750Mpa to 950MPa in barel.
That DM63 have circa 550MPa in chamber dosn't mean that the same/lower value is in barrel (as was in older -80s.- rounds) in fact in L-44 and L-55 DM-53 have biger at ~230-250MPa value (L-44). Whit propelant charge on simmilar idea we can have for DM63 initial 550MPa in chamber up to 780-800MPa in barrel.
It's difrence unable to achive in older generation rounds. So yes, tandem Rh120 + DM53/DM63 shoud be mucht better.

3BM42 would need to employ different construction than longer, thinner and made from different alloy Svinets, which could well have less rigid behaviour, for him it would not be necessary to employ such segmented structure, we do not know it's construction in detail either, and it is hard to claim that it has the same homogeneous material structure as earlier 3BM32.

Until new sources will be avaible all posible sources give for Sniviets (3BM46) homogenous monoblock DU round, and for Lekalo (3Bm42M?) homogoneus mnoblock long-rod WHA, whit special tip to overpas ERA. If new sources will proof tajt both round hav not moboblock lon-rods then I will change my opinnion, but now IMHO Sovet developers rejected 3BM42 build and turn in to long monobock rods made form WHA or DU -like developers on west did 3-5yers erlyier. Only ne advantage was special tip to overpas ERA.

 

[hest]

Becouse there are two sources -Greek report, and KMW engeneers and asked them about this polish 10ThBde offciers. And they are two diffrent stories. I have hierd about 1300-1500m distance as avarage max possible in typical greek teerein. The same is in Gemrnay (1300m) and in Poland (1500m). So infos about 2km is very strange.

What is strange, or suspicious is that KMW insisted on imposing it's conditions, they had chosen the weakest round and fired from great range on purpose, when it doesn't make sense because on firing range such test is normally carried out from 200 m, it is obvious that they wanted comfortable for them situation. According to greek report it is 2000 m.

DOI for ppj95 is in 1995, as I remember M332 was developed since circa 1990 to 1994 but I must check, more or less it's 90s rounds not 80s, and it's lenght, material, sabot construction makes it close to DM43, Lakalo, and M839A2.

CL3143 is M322 or M332 ? Those last aren't different rounds ?

He he he - hee You have onle MPa pressure in chamber not in barrel -rest under

I already understood that it is not the same, the point is how could you talk about M332 pressure value and somehow claim it would achieve higher energy, without knowing value in function of temperature, or paramethers in barrel. Only new propellant gives such energic characteristics while conventional decreases pressure after chamber, this applies to both CL3143 and old Svinets. As shown, amount of propellant and it's energy, pressure in chamber is comparable while being caliber and lenght of 2A46 greater, so it is unsastained to claim CL3143 is more energic.

Again -we have some misunderstand here - those fabout insensitive propelant charge in DM63 and others give pick value in chamber. Values in barrel for modern round are diffrent
Maybe I shoudn't post this, but here you have uniqe in internet part some sources about DM53 and MPa in barrels:

MPa in L-44 in chamber is circa 710-720MPa (for DM53) and on first 1,5m barrel its over 900MPa(!) and next its decrase in non-linear vay, so even in 2m distance we have ~700MPa(!).
In L-55 is total space becouse we have "normal" in chamber max pressure circa 730-750MPa and total space in over 900MPa in first 2m, and over 700Mpa until 3m.
More or less modern propelant charge have bigest MPa value after chamber and it MPa is non-linear. You can slighty compare this whit older ones MPa for "standard" propelant charge (red on picture).

Great. But this shows what are maximum values gun can support, not specific DM53 performance, which depends on temperature. On graphic you can see that it does not surpass 550 MPa in chamber well after 20 degrees and reaches what is maximum velocity, 1700 m/s and chamber pressure after 40. DM 63 is not able to surpass 1650 m/s... but it is not practical, in reality average value will be lower and these will not be reached due to wear, life problems, with DM53 barrel life is only 150-200 rounds, worse than 1970s soviet level.

This reflects the difference between previous rounds, same case with 2A46M5 which employs such construction, differential barrel thickness in lenght and increased rigidness, and new more energic propellant as announced for Svinets-1,2. But for CL3143 and old Svinets this is not the case.

And about your question:

Then I can answer -it's pic value in chamber, not in barell. This value is given in offciall data sheet ppj95 + L-44 from Sweden, I used it in table:

We have here 670MPa max. And now is question -if M332 and ppj95 have "standard" propelnat charge then value in barre will be slighty smaller, for "new" propelant charge pick value in barrel will be over 700Mpa on first 2m.
BTW: 550MPa for BM-42 is for chamber, in barrel value will be diffrent - Im almoust sure that lower

Both CL3143 and old Svinets employ conventional propellant so on this aspect there cannot be difference. Their propellants have also comparable performance in function of temperature, chamber pressure.. (for 25, 20, 30 degrees..) so I ask on what base you claim any superiority. Svinets howewer is fired from barrel 6 meters long vs 5.3 and of greater caliber.

You misunderstand pick value in chamber, and in barrel - just chceck diagram - 720MPa (chamber) --->950MPa(barrel) ---->700-670MPa(barrel) ---> lower value. In Lh55 we have total space from 750Mpa to 950MPa in barel.
That DM63 have circa 550MPa in chamber dosn't mean that the same/lower value is in barrel (as was in older -80s.- rounds) in fact in L-44 and L-55 DM-53 have biger at ~230-250MPa value (L-44). Whit propelant charge on simmilar idea we can have for DM63 initial 550MPa in chamber up to 780-800MPa in barrel.
It's difrence unable to achive in older generation rounds. So yes, tandem Rh120 + DM53/DM63 shoud be mucht better.

Yes but also distinguish maximum value from average, with DM53 you know about problems, DM63 is not able to approach maximum value, it's maximum is around 10 degrees, under 600 MPa in chamber, 1650 m/s.

Until new sources will be avaible all posible sources give for Sniviets (3BM46) homogenous monoblock DU round, and for Lekalo (3Bm42M?) homogoneus mnoblock long-rod WHA, whit special tip to overpas ERA. If new sources will proof tajt both round hav not moboblock lon-rods then I will change my opinnion, but now IMHO Sovet developers rejected 3BM42 build and turn in to long monobock rods made form WHA or DU -like developers on west did 3-5yers erlyier. Only ne advantage was special tip to overpas ERA.

I do not understand how they "rejected". There are several solutions. 3BM42 employed this complex solution because of requirement to increase performance against composite, and probably because of it's dimensions and material, it was shorter, thicker more rigid round. Longer, thinner Svinets' dimensions and it's alloy could allow it to reduce rigidness and be more flexible, withstanding initial denormalisation effect and effectively inciding on material after being deformed, which for rigid 3BM42 required segmentation. It has no less features to overcome armour, you do not know in detail elements of construction involved in process.