Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

The corners of the cylinder also provide a convenient location to keep the tungsten pellets that get ejected forward, if forward ejecting fragmentation is your thing.

 

On a related tangent, I wonder if you could do fancy stuff as described here to improve airbursting HE? Something like set the blast pattern to spray more fragments sideways and less upwards and down, depending on the angle the round is at due to the rifling? It's a pretty tight timing window, but it's predictable so shouldn't be as hard as reacting to the presence of an aircraft over a similar time period (of course, AA missiles normally have longer to react than that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2018 at 3:45 AM, Ramlaen said:

 

Someone like @Bronezhilet could answer this better but the probe on the front of the DM11 has to do with the aerodynamic stabilization of the projectile and not a HEAT warhead mechanic. Note that with the two you can see a cutaway of the 'armor piercing' part is the shell wall between the pellets and the explosive filler.

 

I do not know the technical specs of each well enough to say one has an advantage or disadvantage over the others. As far as I am aware they are functionally equal.

No idea, shape stabilisation is essentially the worst type of stabilisation. And looking at the other two they could have used fin stabilisation without running into Cg/Cl problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

Well, that probe does act like an aerospike - it basically creates a bow shock (AKA detached shock) in front of the shell's body to reduce aerodynamic drag. You can even see the ring near the tip of the probe that helps form an optimal detached shockwave that doesn't enter in contact with the shell body.

Basically correct, but not entirely correct. The things the shockwave does near the shoulder are kinda fucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 6:39 AM, Bronezhilet said:

No idea, shape stabilisation is essentially the worst type of stabilisation. And looking at the other two they could have used fin stabilisation without running into Cg/Cl problems.

Isn`t it finstabilized? It has only 4 fins vs. the 6+ of the other two types, but the fins are larger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jägerlein said:

Isn`t it finstabilized? It has only 4 fins vs. the 6+ of the other two types, but the fins are larger...

Naah the fins only help at speeds the shape stabilisation isn't optimised for. This shell is most definitely made to be shape stabilised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with using the spike to generate a mach wave and stabilize the projectile with the high-pressure zone behind the mach wave is that mach wave angles change with mach number.  So the geometry only works optimally at one speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, is it a manually set fuse? If so I guess that means airburst is out of the question since I dont see a range dial. Ive never heard of Mesko, guess they wanted to buy domestic since the 120mm HE-T from NAMMO offers the exact same capability with a 2-mode manually set fuse. And its already been tested on the Leopard 2.

 

120mm-IM-HE-T-with-cutaway.png

 

imhet1_1509156988.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New electromagnetic pulse warhead proposed to defeat APS

 



A potential weak spot for APS is their reliance on networked sensors to detect and defeat incoming missiles, which are susceptible to electronic attack and jamming. TDW's solution is an all-in-one missile designed to first disable the sensors and electronics with an EM pulse, then follow this with a traditional tank-destroying warhead.

The EMP warhead can be integrated onto different sized missiles and uses a unique system featuring an antenna, an HF source and capacitors.

The main feature of the warhead is the flux compression generator which converts high explosive energy into a high-powered EM pulse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Can anyone explain to me the difference between the 'normal' Mk44, Mk44 Stretched, and XM813?

In a simple to understand way. 

 

Stretch = legacy mk44 with programmable airburst added

XM813 = longer barrel, different recoil system, Meggitt linkless ammo boxes on both sides of the gun

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Stretched = 40x180mm

XM813 = longer barrel, different recoil system, Meggitt linkless ammo boxes on both sides of the gun

Wait, 40mm? How?

The Namer and Eitan have turrets with the stretched version, and RAFAEL is marketing its Samson turret with the Mk44-S as well. And all claim 30mm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 8:19 AM, Vicious_CB said:

Interesting, is it a manually set fuse? If so I guess that means airburst is out of the question since I dont see a range dial. Ive never heard of Mesko, guess they wanted to buy domestic since the 120mm HE-T from NAMMO offers the exact same capability with a 2-mode manually set fuse. And its already been tested on the Leopard 2

 

Polish Pz.511 HE 120mm is orginally polish ammo - developed since 2002. Basicly it's...recalibrated 125mm OF-19 new unitary catrige.

 

iXW6q0r.jpg

 

ade8lKT.jpg

 

 

Indeed polish industru is looking for programable upgreade of the Pz.511. The problem is that all best solutions are secure by patents.

BTW: Polish :Leopard 2PL  will have german programable munition standard - the same as for DM-11.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Domichan
      Hello all,
      I apologize for the fact that my first post is a question. I am a Dutch collector of medium and large calibre AP ammunition and I recently bought an 105mm APFSDS-T projectile, that is marked with the designation DM53. The 120mm DM53 is well known, but I cannot find any information on the 105mm DM53. I do know the IMI M426/DM63 round exists, for I have seen pictures of that, which would indicate that a DM53 would exist as well, in accordance with the way German ammo designations go. Questions to Rheinmetall, the Bundeswehr and various collector groups have remained unanswered. 
      Among the experts here, is there anyone who has information on this type of APFSDS-T Round?
      Thank you in advance,
      Domichan
       
    • By sevich
      I realize that sandbags provide little to no armor protection, but soldiers still used them on tanks. Would they mitigate the effects of HE warheads, or the blastwave of HEAT warheads?
    • By Molotav_DIGITANK
      M1 CATTB
      pic from TankNet.
      I feel uncertain whether its cannon's caliber was 140mm or not, I found a figure at the document AD-A228 389 showed behind, which label the gun as LW 120.But in many ways I've found its data in websites all considered to be 140mm.

      AFAIK,the first xm291(140)demonstrator was based on xm1 tank, and the successor was the''Thumper'' which was fitted with a new turret look like the CATTB but still m1a1 hull(Maybe it was CATTB's predecessor? )

      I will really appreciate if anyone have valuable information to share
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.popsci.com/china-builds-worlds-fastest-tank-gun-then-tries-hide-it
       
      New high velocity 125mm tank gun reportedly starting testing for the Chinese military.  Not surprised that the data disappeared off the university website at all.
       
      Edit: 125mm/60? oO
×