Jump to content


Photo

Main Gun Ammo - Revisited


  • Please log in to reply
939 replies to this topic

#921 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 20 December 2017 - 1226 PM

unfortunately i don't have any good docs about A4 and A5 

 

http://www.tank-net....showtopic=39743

 

but maybe this link will be useful


  • 0

#922 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 22 December 2017 - 0517 AM

IMG_1481.jpg

 

BTW maybe someone have good cutaway of L28 APDS ?  german DM13 as far as i understand(copy of L28?) closest version to L28 ?


  • 0

#923 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels city-state, Belgium
  • Interests:various

Posted 23 December 2017 - 1828 PM

The tungsten cores of Soviet Cold War APFSDS were made of tungsten carbide or tungten alloy ?


  • 0

#924 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 23 December 2017 - 1936 PM


Edited by DKTanker, 23 December 2017 - 1937 PM.

  • 0

#925 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 24 December 2017 - 1656 PM

The tungsten cores of Soviet Cold War APFSDS were made of tungsten carbide or tungten alloy ?

different APFSDS uses different alloys 

 

for example APDS and some APFSDS

 

soviet 100mm APDS 3BM8 used VN8 alloy, which is sintering tungsten carbide  with 8% nickel binder 

soviet 122mm APDS 3BM11 used VN10 alloy which is sintering tungsten carbide  with 10% nickel binder 

british 105mm APDS L28A1 used VK12(soviet data from tests of L28A1, 5-15% cobalt binder by british data) which is sintering tungsten carbide  with 12% cobalt binder 

soviet 125mm APFSDS 3BM15 core used VN8 alloy 

british 120mm APFSDS L23 and L23A1 used W.Ni.Cu (tungsten nickel copper)  alloy called - S.T.A

soviet 125mm APFSDS 3BM22 used VN8 for core and  used W.Ni.Fe alloy ВНЖ-90МТ for buffer

soviet 125mm APFSDS 3BM26(or 29 IIRC) used W.Ni.Fe alloy ВНЖ-90

 

etc

 

maybe someone know difference between L28A1 and L28A1B1 ? and how L36 look like? and L52A2 ? L52A3B2 ?


Edited by Wiedzmin, 26 December 2017 - 0432 AM.

  • 0

#926 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 30 December 2017 - 1900 PM

Late in 1978, ARL-MD, Watertown was asked to participate in an investigation of several failures on launch of depleted-uranium cored XM774 rounds during low temperature firing. Failure occurred in the vicinity of the rear-most buttress groove of the core where the fillet stress approximates the yield strength of the U-0.75 wt% Ti core alloy. A simple fracture mechanics approach suggested that poor low temperature fracture toughness of the core alloy was contributory. As a consequence, a systematic investigation of the fracture toughness of the currently produced U-0.75 wt% Ti core alloy was carried out. The U-0.75 wt% Ti alloy was provided by National Lead of Ohio (NLO) and Battelle Northwest (BNW). The failed cores were processed by NLO. The XM833 U-0.75 wt% Ti core material was also obtained from Rocky Flats (RF) for comparison. Representative cores from each source were fully characterized and Processing parameters, mechanical properties, microstructure, and test temperature were correlated with fracture toughness.


Materials The NLO XM774 penetrators were fabricated from a 1.4 in. diameter rod which was rolled from 8 in. diameter ingots. The bars Were solution treated for 10 minutes at 899°C in NUSAL, plunge oil Wenched, and aged at 350°C in a lead bath. Six bars, 6 in. long and 1.4 in. in diameter, were received from BNW. These bars were the bottom portions of longer 16 in. bars and the first to enter the water on vertical quench. The 16 in. long e *truded bars were vacuum solution treated at 800°C for two hours and 850°C for one-half hour, vertically water quenched at 18 in. per Minute, and aged at 350°C in a lead bath for 16 hours.

 

The RF XM833 penetrators were fabricated from 1.4 in. diameter bars which were alpha extruded from 4 in. diameter ingots. The ingots were homogenized in vacuum at 1050°C for six hours prior to extrusion The extruded bars were then solution treated for two hours at 800°C and one-half hour at 850°C, vertically water quenched at 18 in. per minute, and aged at 350°C in a lead bath for 16 hours. Four additional 1.4 in. diameter bars which were received from NLO in the as-rolled condition were given STA treatments comparable to BNW and RF processing; i.e., they were vacuum solution treated at ARL-MD, Watertown for two hours at 800 C and one-half hour at 850°C, vertically quenched in water at 21 in. per minute and aged in vacuum at 350°C, 370°C, and 390°C, respectively, for seven hours.

 


Edited by Wiedzmin, 30 December 2017 - 1901 PM.

  • 0

#927 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels city-state, Belgium
  • Interests:various

Posted 31 December 2017 - 0725 AM

Thanks Wiedzmin,

Regarding the 3BM9 and the 3BM12 125 mm APFSDS :

Why did they bother to develop the more-expensive 3BM12 APFSDS (with a tungsten-carbide core inside) if the latter had less penetration against sloped targets than the previous, pure maraging steel 3BM9 APFSDS ?


  • 0

#928 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 31 December 2017 - 0754 AM

Thanks Wiedzmin,

Regarding the 3BM9 and the 3BM12 125 mm APFSDS :

Why did they bother to develop the more-expensive 3BM12 APFSDS (with a tungsten-carbide core inside) if the latter had less penetration against sloped targets than the previous, pure maraging steel 3BM9 APFSDS ?

there was a problem with rounds like 3BM12, when they penetrating inclined target(more than 45degree IIRC), tungsten core stepped off the trajectory of main steel body

 

btw, something about DU etc

 

The new M919 cores are being manufactured from cycling demiled M833 (demiled 105mm tank round) DU cores.
 
 
In the case of the tank round (M735) a two-tier production capacity problem presents itself. The metal parts components are the pacing items and a combined capability of 40,000 of these components per month is represented in the factories of two commercial manufacturers. The GOCO LAP facility has a maximum assembly capability of 78,000 per month if sufficient components could be provided. Even at this rate, however, the production of the end item would fall far short of the mobilization requirement of 147,000 rounds per month for the Army and the Marine Corps.33

 

 


Edited by Wiedzmin, 31 December 2017 - 0806 AM.

  • 0

#929 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 01 January 2018 - 1158 AM

105mm M68 firing table 

UCi0F8jNotE.jpg

m393 hep

6407_6ld3cs.jpg

and my attempts to restore m392a2 apds data


  • 0

#930 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 02 January 2018 - 0930 AM

Can anyone confirm which 105mm APDS rounds these are? 

 

105mm%20APDS_Tilt%20Cone_British_2.jpg

 

105mm%20APDS_Tilt%20Cone_3.jpg

maybe someone saved that pictures ? IIRC there was M392 ?

 

fg5VJbbzOmQ.jpg

 

made pic about L28 and L52

 

hKP8dQv3eMU.jpg

and 3BM8 on right 


Edited by Wiedzmin, 02 January 2018 - 1009 AM.

  • 0

#931 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,528 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 02 January 2018 - 1034 AM

I've held the dissected parts of the M392, there was no fiber cap.  The M392 parts I held in my hand had the penetrator as depicted, and the ballistic cap as shown, but the "buffer" cap was made of steel and was referred to as a wobble bearing.  Also, the wobble bearing didn't fit snuggly atop the penetrator, rather it wobbled on the penetrator while fitting snuggly within the ballistic cap.


Edited by DKTanker, 02 January 2018 - 1034 AM.

  • 0

#932 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 02 January 2018 - 1046 AM

interesting, maybe it was US upgrade to L28/L36 design ?  i have soviet photo of L28 but it very old and bad quality, can't understand material of buffer/wobble bearing 


  • 0

#933 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,887 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 03 January 2018 - 1519 PM

In case of L28A1 penetrator was three-part: core was WC, penetrating nose was WHA and cap/pad between was steel. In later designs upgrade was that core was WHA and steel cap was eliminated, leaving two-part penetrator.


  • 0

#934 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 04 January 2018 - 1812 PM

hm, just take "fibre" from british scheme(will change pic later), btw maybe you have something about L28A1B1 ?


  • 0

#935 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,897 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2018 - 2319 PM

It seems pretty clear that the Soviets believed that their various D-25 122mm main guns (including the D-49), didn't have the necessary firepower to take on the the frontal armor of the M60, Chieftain, and M48A2. While this situation improved with the T-10M's M-62S main gun and it's 3BM11 APDS round, the reality of a large number of tanks (and a small number of assault guns), armed with the D-25/D-49 was a critical problem.

So, just how useful was the aging D-25/D-49? According to one source, "representatives of the higher generals believed that the caliber armor-piercing shells of the 122mm D-25 cannon, which was in service with the heavy tanks IS-3 and T-10, would be able to disable the new heavy tanks of the probable enemy." That said...what damage could these Soviet main guns expect to inflict on these US and British MBTs? Excluding the critically important 122mm HEAT rounds, was there still life in these D-25/D-49 main guns?
  • 0

#936 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 995 posts

Posted 11 January 2018 - 2327 PM

deleted. stupid idea.


Edited by KV7, 11 January 2018 - 2333 PM.

  • 0

#937 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted 12 January 2018 - 2155 PM

It seems pretty clear that the Soviets believed that their various D-25 122mm main guns (including the D-49), didn't have the necessary firepower to take on the the frontal armor of the M60, Chieftain, and M48A2. While this situation improved with the T-10M's M-62S main gun and it's 3BM11 APDS round, the reality of a large number of tanks (and a small number of assault guns), armed with the D-25/D-49 was a critical problem.

So, just how useful was the aging D-25/D-49? According to one source, "representatives of the higher generals believed that the caliber armor-piercing shells of the 122mm D-25 cannon, which was in service with the heavy tanks IS-3 and T-10, would be able to disable the new heavy tanks of the probable enemy." That said...what damage could these Soviet main guns expect to inflict on these US and British MBTs? Excluding the critically important 122mm HEAT rounds, was there still life in these D-25/D-49 main guns?


IMHO the D-25 was obsolete as an anti-tank weapon by the sixties, but was still pretty useful given the role of Soviet heavies because 122mm HE-Frag shells were the heaviest ones you would ever come across if you happened to run into a Soviet tank division.

Still, if AP didn't work on the M60A1 et al., maybe throwing some of that HE at them wouldn't be such a bad idea?
tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/01/120-mm-hesh-vs-125-mm-he.html?m=1
  • 0

#938 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 995 posts

Posted 13 January 2018 - 0129 AM

 

It seems pretty clear that the Soviets believed that their various D-25 122mm main guns (including the D-49), didn't have the necessary firepower to take on the the frontal armor of the M60, Chieftain, and M48A2. While this situation improved with the T-10M's M-62S main gun and it's 3BM11 APDS round, the reality of a large number of tanks (and a small number of assault guns), armed with the D-25/D-49 was a critical problem.

So, just how useful was the aging D-25/D-49? According to one source, "representatives of the higher generals believed that the caliber armor-piercing shells of the 122mm D-25 cannon, which was in service with the heavy tanks IS-3 and T-10, would be able to disable the new heavy tanks of the probable enemy." That said...what damage could these Soviet main guns expect to inflict on these US and British MBTs? Excluding the critically important 122mm HEAT rounds, was there still life in these D-25/D-49 main guns?


IMHO the D-25 was obsolete as an anti-tank weapon by the sixties, but was still pretty useful given the role of Soviet heavies because 122mm HE-Frag shells were the heaviest ones you would ever come across if you happened to run into a Soviet tank division.

Still, if AP didn't work on the M60A1 et al., maybe throwing some of that HE at them wouldn't be such a bad idea?
tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/01/120-mm-hesh-vs-125-mm-he.html?m=1

 

A decent 122mm heat round, i.e. BK-6M and Bl-13 would have been enough for anything before the M1 appears surely ?


Edited by KV7, 13 January 2018 - 0413 AM.

  • 0

#939 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted 13 January 2018 - 0322 AM

 

 

It seems pretty clear that the Soviets believed that their various D-25 122mm main guns (including the D-49), didn't have the necessary firepower to take on the the frontal armor of the M60, Chieftain, and M48A2. While this situation improved with the T-10M's M-62S main gun and it's 3BM11 APDS round, the reality of a large number of tanks (and a small number of assault guns), armed with the D-25/D-49 was a critical problem.

So, just how useful was the aging D-25/D-49? According to one source, "representatives of the higher generals believed that the caliber armor-piercing shells of the 122mm D-25 cannon, which was in service with the heavy tanks IS-3 and T-10, would be able to disable the new heavy tanks of the probable enemy." That said...what damage could these Soviet main guns expect to inflict on these US and British MBTs? Excluding the critically important 122mm HEAT rounds, was there still life in these D-25/D-49 main guns?


IMHO the D-25 was obsolete as an anti-tank weapon by the sixties, but was still pretty useful given the role of Soviet heavies because 122mm HE-Frag shells were the heaviest ones you would ever come across if you happened to run into a Soviet tank division.

Still, if AP didn't work on the M60A1 et al., maybe throwing some of that HE at them wouldn't be such a bad idea?
tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018/01/120-mm-hesh-vs-125-mm-he.html?m=1

 

A decent 122mm heat round, i.e. BK-6M  Bl-13 would have been enough for anything before the M1 appears surely ?

 

 

Well, he said "Excluding the critically important 122mm HEAT rounds"...


  • 0

#940 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 995 posts

Posted 13 January 2018 - 0413 AM

OK, my apology then.


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users