Jump to content


Photo

Main Gun Ammo - Revisited


  • Please log in to reply
883 replies to this topic

#861 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2017 - 0627 AM

Does anyone produce an MBT APHE round for use against reinforced structures etc. ?

 

That would be the M908 HE-OR, a modified M830A1 with a steel cap to penetrate walls (and as far as I know no shaped charge liner).



#862 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 23 July 2017 - 2013 PM

 

Does anyone produce an MBT APHE round for use against reinforced structures etc. ?

 

That would be the M908 HE-OR, a modified M830A1 with a steel cap to penetrate walls (and as far as I know no shaped charge liner).

 

The only modification to the M830A1 is the steel cap to replace the proximity switch in the nose of the round.


Edited by DKTanker, 23 July 2017 - 2015 PM.


#863 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,854 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2017 - 2241 PM

Using this pic again here...this makes it pretty clear that the 105mm APDS round (at least the early versions), had limitations. While the 105 is a great gun (and I served as the TC on four different 105mm-armed tanks), it suffered from ammo limitations for a significant part of it's life. Here's some well-known info from Gen Starry:

 

"The Army is again faced with a disappointing turn of events in tank ammunition development with the recent in-bore projectile breakups of XM774 APFSDS-T. This represents a continuation of past tank ammunition development/production problems. This problem first surfaced in the early 1970s with the discovery of in-bore breakup of M392 APDS-T. The first APFSDS-T round (M735) continued the trend so that today there are more M735 rounds being held in CONUS ammo plants as a result of lot failure than there are deployed in USAREUR. The latest XM774 failure could significantly delay its fielding date. XM833, the third-generation round, is still some years away (1983–1984). However, its problems may be beginning with the recent BRL acknowledgment that it may not achieve its predicted muzzle velocity.

 

The Army cannot provide a viable anti-armor force in the near term unless effective ammo can be provided for the M68 105mm tank gun. The 105mm tank fleet represents a significant investment, not only to US forces but to our allies. It must remain a potent asset throughout the remainder of the 1980s and well into the 1990s. If the XM774 program slips one year, the round will be fielded in the same timeframe as the T80 tank. Against the frontal 60 degree arc it will be marginal to ineffective (defeats turret at 1.3 kilometers but will not defeat the glacis). The Army must take action now to improve our current record of multiple-generation R&D ammunition programs, each of which is obsolete before it is fielded."    

 

IS-3M_Live-fire%20Testing_IDF_1.jpg



#864 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 25 July 2017 - 0140 AM

 

Using this pic again here...this makes it pretty clear that the 105mm APDS round (at least the early versions), had limitations.

 

all APDS for any gun have same problems, no ?

 

 

L15 for 120mm was very unstable in characteristics for example

 While the 105 is a great gun (and I served as the TC on four different 105mm-armed tanks), it suffered from ammo limitations for a significant part of it's life. 

and same situation with soviet D-10, U-5, D-81 etc, we still don't have modern APFSDS for example... D-10 never had good APFSDS, only reason to create APFSDS for D10 was the fact that 3BM8 uses too much tungsten and because of it very expensive, so all "new" soviet APFSDS pursued one goal - make cheap APFSDS(used much less tungsten, because of the small core) but keep quality of 3MB8, thats all... 


Edited by Wiedzmin, 25 July 2017 - 0140 AM.


#865 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2017 - 0216 AM


 
Using this pic again here...this makes it pretty clear that the 105mm APDS round (at least the early versions), had limitations.

 
all APDS for any gun have same problems, no ?
 
 
L15 for 120mm was very unstable in characteristics for example


 While the 105 is a great gun (and I served as the TC on four different 105mm-armed tanks), it suffered from ammo limitations for a significant part of it's life. 

and same situation with soviet D-10, U-5, D-81 etc, we still don't have modern APFSDS for example... D-10 never had good APFSDS, only reason to create APFSDS for D10 was the fact that 3BM8 uses too much tungsten and because of it very expensive, so all "new" soviet APFSDS pursued one goal - make cheap APFSDS(used much less tungsten, because of the small core) but keep quality of 3MB8, thats all... 
S-1 and S-2 are not moderns?

#866 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 25 July 2017 - 0538 AM

For this ex-sailor, the following questions:

1. Did other NATO armies have the same problems with their apds/apfsds ?

2. Was this problem resolved?

3. HEAT was going to stop the Soviet tanks?



#867 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 July 2017 - 0608 AM

For this ex-sailor, the following questions:
1. Did other NATO armies have the same problems with their apds/apfsds ?
2. Was this problem resolved?
3. HEAT was going to stop the Soviet tanks?

About 3 - depends of tank and round. Early HEAT-FS rounds had problems with fuzing at angles of 60 deg and more. So any soviet glacis can be a problem. Plus since T-64 arrival armor itself was able to stop HEAT(sans initial T-72 turret).

#868 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tropical paradise

Posted 02 August 2017 - 1331 PM

 

For this ex-sailor, the following questions:
1. Did other NATO armies have the same problems with their apds/apfsds ?
2. Was this problem resolved?
3. HEAT was going to stop the Soviet tanks?

About 3 - depends of tank and round. Early HEAT-FS rounds had problems with fuzing at angles of 60 deg and more. So any soviet glacis can be a problem. Plus since T-64 arrival armor itself was able to stop HEAT(sans initial T-72 turret).

 

 

Despite not having a composite insert, the early cast steel turret of the T-72 was physically thick enough at the cheeks that 105mm HEAT will not be able to get through.



#869 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 03 September 2017 - 0428 AM

mDDKe_xXBRI.jpg

 

M774, M829, M829A2, M829A1, M833



#870 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2017 - 0555 AM

mDDKe_xXBRI.jpg
 
M774, M829, M829A2, M829A1, M833

Great one. Where this from?

#871 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 03 September 2017 - 1128 AM

 

mDDKe_xXBRI.jpg
 
M774, M829, M829A2, M829A1, M833

Great one. Where this from?

 

https://m.sohu.com/n...?wscrid=95360_8



#872 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2017 - 1235 PM


 

mDDKe_xXBRI.jpg
 
M774, M829, M829A2, M829A1, M833

Great one. Where this from?
 
https://m.sohu.com/n...?wscrid=95360_8
Thanks. Will try my google-translate-fu.

#873 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 13 September 2017 - 1413 PM

BD26 predecessor to L26 ? L26 have uranium or tungsten core ?

 

judging by drawing, it's more like L27 imho...

 

CHARM U 3/4 Ti

 

BD26 is a 120mm APFSDS projectile which incorporates the latest tungsten-nickel-iron penetrator technology to achieve an increase in penetration performance of the order of 15% over the current in-service L23(OE)APFSDS projectile. BD26 is designed for operation with the existing Lll ordnance and L8 charge.
The penetrator is made from a Tungsten/Nickel/Iron alloy (TF49P) with a 6 blade steel tail unit and steel nose tip. It is located in a 3-segment aluminium alloy saddle type sabot with a buttress form screw thread which provides the 'drive' between the sabot and penetrator.
 

Edited by Wiedzmin, 13 September 2017 - 1437 PM.


#874 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tropical paradise

Posted 13 September 2017 - 1437 PM

Does anyone know how the T-90 loads longer shells? Tankograd says that it has nothing to do with the autoloader carousel, and that it has more to do with the ammo hoist system, but the author doubts that there were any improvements after the T-72B. Also, I just learned that the T-72B has a different carousel than the T-72 Ural, and the T-72B3 uses the same carousel as the T-72B, but the autoloader system itself has elements of the T-90 thrown in and mixed together :blink: . Muddy waters are made muddier, it seems.



#875 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 13 September 2017 - 1445 PM

Stefan Kotsch described changes in AZ-185 autoloader. In summary, hub diameter was reduced to make room in magazine, and during vertical movement projectile is tilted to fit between the gun block and the turret basket.

 

Bild_14_T-72BA_2204776.jpg


Edited by Przezdzieblo, 13 September 2017 - 1446 PM.


#876 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tropical paradise

Posted 13 September 2017 - 1623 PM

Yeah, I read Kotsch's explanation and saw the patent, but it seems weird to me. I made this GIF of a T-90A (from the TV Zvezda show, episode "diary of a tanker"), and it doesn't show what Kotsch described.

 

 

output_m1kcMk.gif



#877 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2017 - 0107 AM

Yeah, I read Kotsch's explanation and saw the patent, but it seems weird to me. I made this GIF of a T-90A (from the TV Zvezda show, episode "diary of a tanker"), and it doesn't show what Kotsch described.
 
 
output_m1kcMk.gif

That's HE shell. Probably for APFSDS sequence is different.

#878 charliebravo

charliebravo

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima

Posted 14 September 2017 - 0931 AM

the T-90 carousel definitely has an engine with a smaller diameter than the T-72 system.


Edited by charliebravo, 14 September 2017 - 0932 AM.


#879 charliebravo

charliebravo

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima

Posted 14 September 2017 - 0934 AM

Cheers :)

Attached Files



#880 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ludwigslust, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks - fire control, guns, ammo, autoloader

Posted 14 September 2017 - 1343 PM

Yeah, I read Kotsch's explanation and saw the patent, but it seems weird to me. I made this GIF of a T-90A (from the TV Zvezda show, episode "diary of a tanker"), and it doesn't show what Kotsch described.

 

It seems to give a misunderstanding. The sketch is part of a russian patent. And it is embedded in a general view to autloaders. There are no assignments to a special tank.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users