Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Question; has there ever been a tank gun that used both two-piece and unitary ammunition?

 

Because I don't see any reason that one could not.

 

I went over my documentation on the D-25 with one piece shells, and it doesn't mention that the breech had to be modified. The loading instructions don't suggest that it would have to be modified either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went over my documentation on the D-25 with one piece shells, and it doesn't mention that the breech had to be modified. The loading instructions don't suggest that it would have to be modified either.

 

That's what I figured.  I'm curious what, if any difference there was between the big Cold War US guns like the T15 90mm, which had fixed and two piece ammunition variants.

 

It seems like there should be no difference in the design of the firing chamber between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some excerpts from an interview of the Military Technology magazine with Dirk Gerthenrich, the Rheinmetall's program manager for all 120mm armament and ammunition programs:

 

Next German ammunition (DM73) under consideration for adoption:

"There is also increasing concern about the effectiveness of large calibre ammunition against modern protection such as that on the T-14 Armata introduced in 2015 – and that is prompting consideration of an improved KE round such as the DM73,” he said."

 

On the 130 mm gun:

"He believes there is strong evidence to support the fact that only two calibres will survive beyond the next few years as far as MBT main armament is concerned: 120mm smoothbore for ‘Western’ designs and 125mm smoothbore as the Russian and former Warsaw Pact nations standard. Despite this, there is still interest in the L51 130mm future main armament Rheinmetall unveiled last year – the advantages of an increased chamber volume and chamber pressures up to 880MPs offer an improvement in performance that is just too good to turn down."

 

On internet discussion values for armor penetration (RHA):

"Customers, however, need to become more savvy in order to derive optimal benefit from investment in improving anti-armour performance, according to Gerthenrich. 'There are some customers who still demand performance evaluation based on the ability to penetrate RHA (Rolled Homogenous Armour), despite the fact there is not a current generation MBT out there that still depends on an RHA protection solution. Such tests are expensive and time consuming – and are now of very questionable value'"

 

- This again confirms that the current DM53 and DM63 ammunition is optimized for penetrating modern armor arrays and not RHA, so the use of RHA values in discussions is very questionable.

 

Germany to be first country to adopt the L55A1 smoothbore gun:

"Further development will have to be customer financed, the company has decided, but Gerthenrich revealed that 'the pilot customer for the L55A1 is going to be the German Army.'"

 

(flashback: L55A1 + new ammunition = 20% more penetration)

 

Rheinmetall%2B130%2Bmm%2Bgun.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was 'Svinets' mass produced? And is it short enough that older autoloaders can use it?

Was 'Lekalo' mass produced?

Is 'Lekalo' another name for 'Svinets-1/Svinets-2'?

Was 'Anker' just an expermental round?

Edited by Ramlaen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Fofanov and Kotsch:

 

Svinets was a research topic, not a mass produced APFSDS. It is the longest Soviet APFSDS capable to be fired from the existing Soviet autoloaders used on the T-72 and T-80. Fofanov uses the names "Svinets-1" and "Lekalo" for the same type of ammunition, but he uses a different designation (3BM-42M projectile in assembly 3BM44M), which is not used for Svinets-1 in other sources. Kotsch calls the 3BM-42M "Mango-M" instead, which makes some sense since 3BM-42 (without "M") is the "Mango" APFDSDS.

 

BM-39.jpg

 

The 3BM-39 Anker (not Ankor) was designed with a special sabot for the 2A66 (D-91T) gun of the Object 187 tank, which is fitted with a muzzle break. This required a special sabot design. Given that the 2A66 gun never was adopted, the Anker round was probably never adopted in service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Fofanov and Kotsch:

Svinets was a research topic, not a mass produced APFSDS. It is the longest Soviet APFSDS capable to be fired from the existing Soviet autoloaders used on the T-72 and T-80. Fofanov uses the names "Svinets-1" and "Lekalo" for the same type of ammunition, but he uses a different designation (3BM-42M projectile in assembly 3BM44M), which is not used for Svinets-1 in other sources. Kotsch calls the 3BM-42M "Mango-M" instead, which makes some sense since 3BM-42 (without "M") is the "Mango" APFDSDS.

BM-39.jpg

The 3BM-39 Anker (not Ankor) was designed with a special sabot for the 2A66 (D-91T) gun of the Object 187 tank, which is fitted with a muzzle break. This required a special sabot design. Given that the 2A66 gun never was adopted, the Anker round was probably never adopted in service.

Thank you.

I am surprised that there had not been a mass produced round since Vant and Mango.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Fofanov and Kotsch:

 

Svinets was a research topic, not a mass produced APFSDS.

 

It's not true to be honest. And there are 3 diffrent "Sviniets" round in Russia:

3BM48 Sviniets  1991 DU rod for Sprut-SD, T-90, T-90A, and propably for some T-80U whit ESSA and PLISA.

3BM59 Sviniets-1 2002 DU for T-90A and T-72B3 since 2014

3BM60 Sviniets-2 2002  WHA as above.

 

And even the oldes "Sviniets" 3BM48 (DOI 1991) was in mass production:

54hlr4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Fofanov usually knows his stuff. In the Otvaga forum he wrote in 2010 that it was not known that 3BM-48 (Svients) went into production; I don't think that keeping the round secret after 19 years of service is possible. IMO the photograph shows that the FCS is programmed to accept the Svinets APFSDS, but it doesn't mean that it was used in service... or do you think the 3BM-22 Zakolka APFSDS from 1976 is still used with the T-72B3/T-90?

 

What sources do claim that Svinets-1 and -2 were introduced in 2002?  According to Russian Wikipedia, the first T-90A entered service in 2004, but only 32 tanks. So did Russia produce ammunition for two years without having tanks that could fire it? Did Russia start the production of new ammunition in 2004 when they only had 32 tanks (so they realistically needed less than 1,000 rounds of proper ammunition)? Such a low production volume would be very expensive, given that this would require retooling the Russian factories in order to produce longer ammo and tungsten monoblock penetrators.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. I could believe that Svinets-1 and -2 started production after the second batch of T-90A tanks (120 tanks made between 2006 and 2011 according to Russian Wikipedia) was finished; the first video footage of Svinets-1 or -2 production was published in 2014, after converting T-72B3 tanks and the third batch of T-90A tanks was started.

 

Photos from the recent visit of Interpress at the Russian Karl Liebknecht ammunition facilities show only two types of KE ammunition being manufactured: the 3BM-42 Mango APFSDS and the 3BM-59/60 Svinets-1/2 APFSDS. There is no trace of 3BM-48 Svinets. The Mango could be meant for export, but all photos I have seen of Russian tanks with ammunition show at best Mango...

 

ammo_t90.jpg

(Standard loadout for T-90 according to Fofanov, 8 x Mango)

 

16705_original.jpg

 

(That's 3BM-26 or 3BM-22? At least certainly no Svinets...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Methos

 

 


Well, Fofanov usually knows his stuff. In the Otvaga forum he wrote in 2010 that it was not known that 3BM-48 (Svients) went into production; I don't think that keeping the round secret after 19 years of service is possible. IMO the photograph shows that the FCS is programmed to accept the Svinets APFSDS, but it doesn't mean that it was used in service... or do you think the 3BM-22 Zakolka APFSDS from 1976 is still used with the T-72B3/T-90?

Im not sure if Fovanow is living in empty space :) Who really know usally don't wrote anythink... The true is that 3BM48 is placed in offcial KB Tula statsment as DOI in 1991:

(source from circa 2010's (previous decade)

vGiAoTz.jpg

Год  принятия  на   вооружение - DOI

Существующие  образцы - existing amunition

Находящиеся   в   разработке - In development

Планируемые   к разработке - Planned to develop

 

And it's present in FCS contol pannel in Sprut-SD:

54hlr4.jpg

 

 

And it have GRAU designation.

 

And yes - whole BM9, 15, 22 etc are still using in Russian Army as in Polsih army - what is stupid - mostly for trening purpose, couse APFSDS-T-TP is not ussaly avaible...the same think is in Polish and Russian army unfortunatly. What more - polish PT-91 are still using 3BM15... And Russian tanks - 3BM26

 

 

 

According to Russian Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a source. Read english wiki about Leopard-2 tanks and You will see why.

 

 

 

That doesn't make sense to me. I could believe that Svinets-1 and -2 started production after the second batch of T-90A tanks (120 tanks made between 2006 and 2011 according to Russian Wikipedia) was finished; the first video footage of Svinets-1 or -2 production was published in 2014, after converting T-72B3 tanks and the third batch of T-90A tanks was started.

Answer is very simple - Sowiet and Russian DOI is before amunition is mass placed in tanks.

3BM32 was developed in 1985 but DOI and 1987 and  introduced in mass production in circa 1988-1989 3BM42 was developed in 1986 but DOI in 1988 and introduced in mass production in 1989-1990, 3MB48 was DOI in 1991 and introducen in mass prduction - well good question if or in what number :) At least Sprut-SD have it in FCS.

Svieniets-1 and 2 was developed in end 1990s and  DOI in 2002 but propably indeed mass production was redy in 2010 - or even later. So there is no discrepancy here. Offcial DOI in to service and give GRAU designaton is few (or even more) years before mass  production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's all a misunderstanding due to different nomenclature.

 

Based on the Sprut-SD, we can assume that 3BM-59/60 have not entered service by 2005/2006; the 3BM-48 might have entered active service at this time, but it might be just a really low quantity or there must be some other reason nobody has seen it since 2010 (maybe hold back in storage and is only used to equip tanks in war times, while old stocks are currently issued to the troops).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question; has there ever been a tank gun that used both two-piece and unitary ammunition?

 

Because I don't see any reason that one could not.

The 115 both used two piece and unitary ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But did they ever use both types of ammo in the same gun?

 

 

They are the same gun though, they only have different designation because the T-64 has to use two piece. I have not seen anything to indicate that they aren't interchangeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know of any good books or other resources for dimensioned drawings of tank guns and ammunition?

 

 

 

 

They are the same gun though, they only have different designation because the T-64 has to use two piece. I have not seen anything to indicate that they aren't interchangeable.

 

Same goes for several American test guns like the T15.

 

Has anyone ever actually put two-piece ammo in a gun that could also fire one-piece ammo?  I see no reason that it couldn't be done, but I'm curious if it ever actually has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted here since I don't really think it's big enough to warrant its own thread.

 

60mm HVMS

 

Development of the 60mm High Velocity Medium Support weapon (HVMS) began in the late 1970s as a joint Israeli-Italian project. The original intent was to develop a rapidly firing weapon with superior armor penetration and ballistics compared to existing 20-25mm autocannons. The new weapon was planned for mounting on light platforms such as the M113 and similar vehicles.

 

1-42.jpg

M113 with HVMS mounted

 

While it was planned that the Italian-Israeli cooperation would result in a single common weapons system, a few variants ended up being developed. The Italian variant was fitted in a specially designed turret and loaded from two 32 round drums. It is claimed that this gave a rate of fire of up to 100 rounds per minute.

 

Centauro%2B60p.jpg

HVMS fitted to Piranha 8x8. The specially designed turret weighed approximately 5 tons, and the main armament could elevate from -5 to 40 degrees. 

 

The Israelis developed several different variants. They also fitted the 60mm HVMS to a specially designed turret. The Israeli turret was much lighter (2200 kg vs. 5000 kg), although the Italian turret could be equipped with up to two TOW missiles.

 

4-13.jpg

 

Third, the Israelis developed a version of the HVMS loaded either manually or with 3 round clips. It appears that this had a somewhat lower rate of fire than the drum fed variant, but could be more easily fitted to existing vehicles.

 

Neither the Israelis nor the Italians ever deployed the 60mm HVMS, to my knowledge. However, the system did have a minor export success; Chile bought roughly 150 of the guns to refit their Shermans and Chaffees with more modern armament. While the 60mm gun did not have adequate performance to engage high end Soviet tanks such as the T-64 or T-72 frontally, it would be enough against other tanks in use in South America (such as the T-55, TAM, AMX-13, or SK-105).

 

hqbNAXN.jpg

image.jpg

t0.gif

 

 

The guns were sold to the Chileans in 1989, and were fitted to their Shermans and Chaffees in the 1990s. They were retired in the early 21st century when the Chilean Army replaced its Shermans and Chaffees with upgraded Leopard 1s.

 

 

The 60mm HVMS used a unique 60x410mm round as ammunition. It appears that two main rounds were developed; an APFSDS round, and an HE round. One source also says that the Israelis developed smoke and incendiary rounds, though I have found no concrete information about them.

 

As one would expect, the APFSDS round was the main antiarmor round. The dart weighed 870 grams (compared to a total projectile weight of 6 kg), and was 292mm long with a 17mm diameter (length to diameter ratio of  17)

6-5.jpg

 

Chamber pressure was roughly 430 MPa. The muzzle velocity of the round was quite high, at ~1600 m/s (roughly Mach 4.7). Penetration was claimed to be superior to 105mm APDS ammunition, though I imagine later L7 APFSDS would outperform the 60mm.

 

JanesIMI60MM.jpg

(This sheet gives slightly different specifications for the APFSDS round. The other specifications appear to be for the Israeli rounds in use by the Chilean Army, while this one is a Belgian round probably built for the Italians.)

 

MICVcart2.jpg

60mm APFSDS compared to other rounds

 

The high explosive round was fairly typical, with a 2.9 kg payload.

 

7-2.jpg

 

BOX6nBXVIinfEE2hzR1zhHRhdZtF2fupdhmA4leE

This claims to be the wreck of a T-62 used in testing of the 60mm HVMS by the Israelis.

 

 

 

 

Sources:

 

https://2s14.blogspot.com/2016/07/szescdziesiatka-od-bwp-2000-otobreda.html

https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/israeli-imi-60mm-apfsds-t-ammunition/10221

https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/comments/3fgxmj/t62_test_target_penetrated_by_60mm_apfsds_rounds/

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WLIP.htm

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

×