Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CaptainBallistic

  1. 10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

    It is very unlikely that this hypothesis is correct. The effort of launching a "precursor" tip at the pre-determined distance is too much to be viable (not only the volume taken up by the fuze and explosive charge, but also the cable running to the back of the fins will create issues in an APFSDS penetrator). Chances are high that the Master Sergeant doesn't know the exact working mechanism of the round either.


    M829A4 has essentially same velocity as M829A3 (based on US reports), so the mass will be similar.



    The tip section is screwed in by hand and it is implied that this is mostly related to the qualification process of the ammunition (otherwise the loader would need to know which tip is best suited for which specific target, which is pretty hard to achieve once autoloaders are added into the mixture).

    But is anyone able to answer why a new round has suddenly been put on public display? I'd usually expect this to be more tight lipped for another decade at least. Heck even the M829A3 to my knowledge still doesn't have official measurements out.

  2. 4 hours ago, Jackvony said:

    So these are the measurements I made counting pixels. Feel free to critique. I'm afraid I was unable to get a picture of the bottom as I wasn't allowed to pick the round up. I'm tempted to bring a meter-stick down to measure the thing but I'll probably look waaaaayyy too suspicious. Already got some weird looks for measuring the add-on armor on a Bradley (35-55mm plates, thicker plates on the front turret).

    hmm I'm measuring with paint.net select tool and I was getting 21mm after measuring 90-92 pixels(lighting can be tricky with shiny metal apparantly) I broke it down to 4.358:1 pixel to mm.

    And I am also wondering how others pixel measured the penetrator core to be between 780 and 840mm when I use the sabot diameter as the scale and measure a bit shorter. and this is measuring by placing a selected section of the rod to the tip where the diamater is at the maximum before the windshield is too thin to fit, then making a select highlight all the way down to the end that is inside the fin assembely. 3181 pixels measured and that puts me at 729.92mm almost like they shrunk it down a tad compared to the m829a3. I am confused on where I could have done wrong.


  3. 3 minutes ago, Militarysta said:

    I'm seriously doubt if this is real M829A4 cut-view. IMHO it's preapared mock-up for sucht shows and exibitions and some parts are  removed. For example - where is  data link?

    Igniter from M829A3 whit no changes? etc..

    I'd say they are at the bottom of the cartridge

    Image result for m829a4


    What changes would be nessacary for the igniter to deviate much from the a3? Where is a picture of the A3's igniter for comparison? 

  4. 9 hours ago, Jackvony said:

    New here, but I've followed this thread (and Mech Warfare) for a good while.


    I attend the United States Military Academy and it is branch week here. Armor brought an M1A2 SEPv2 which, while awesome and cool to get inside of, was nothing new. However, they had a cutaway of a M829A4 round, which was on public display so it's not breaking OPSEC. Thought it would interest you guys.





    Edit: I have no official measurements but I've looked at some photos of M829A3 and the penetrator definitely seems longer based on the sabot petals seeming to be longer at the top.

    Thats amazing and completely unexpected. btw do you have a picture of the cartridge with the tip of the penetrator not cut off from rest of photo?


  5. 19 hours ago, SH_MM said:

    well dang thank you!


    figure I should make it worth your while in return, ignore the stat cards.png's it's for a different purpose

    Mostly just my estimations on two different American rounds with firing tables created and some minor sourcing. I had a friend with 3d software help get me the drag Coeff


    also a pdf series that spans 3 years, a computational model for armor penetration:


  6. Greetings from the Gaijin's Snailhouse forums I have come to ask questions and share information as needed.


    I had a quote provided to me that apparently was sourced from somebody here.


    "The M1A1 HA added 4,400 lbs of weight according to the weight "Historic Weight Growth of U.S. Army Combat Vehicle Systems" by the Military Traffic Management Command, this is just ~1,995 kg. Apparently, the adoption of the heavier T158 tracks raised the weight of the M1A1 from 120,000 lbs to 130,800 lbs, thus creating the illusion of a much larger weight gain for the M1A1HA (which always uses the T158 tracks) due to incorrect comparisons with the M1A1 with T156 tracks. The M1A1 with T158 tracks (59.1 metric tons) is only ~ 2 tons lighter than the M1A1HA with first generation DU armor (61.2 metric tons). Two metric tons are equal to about ~254 mm RHA per square metre. Given that M1A1's turret cheeks cover an area of ~1.73 m², this means the armor weight increase is roughly equal to 147 mm RHA."



    One thing I'd like to ask is where somebody can find "Historic Weight Growth of U.S. Army Combat Vehicle Systems" by the Military Traffic Management Command" So I can verify the information provided myself and seek out more accurately the effects of a DU mesh against KE penetrators. Currently, the great and almighty search engines provide nothing for me as of yet.


    I'm mostly just trying to get all the information I possibly could about the Abrams protection, firepower, FCS, APS, and Mobility and protection seems to be one of the few things I need to be covered in detail beyond just speculated guesses and Swedish trial graphs that tbh are somewhat hard to read accurately.

  • Create New...