Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I don't know if it was posted here before, but I found something interesting over the IAA (International Ammunition Association) forum: forum.cartridgecollectors.org

I highly recommend occasionally visiting as they post some very interesting and most often to the point findings.

This one is supposedly a 105mm APFSDS for smoothbore cannons (the experimental 105mm SB), made by IMI and has a very unusual marking. Some of the comments contain information about the markings, and although they conflict with each other, they're very interesting.

Note the AP/TP and DM33A2/MOD markings. 

photo1_zps46fadc44.jpg

 

photo3_zps356907a7.jpg

 

 

I suggest reading their discussion in that forum post : https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/german-israeli-105mm-ap-tpfsds-t-sabot-petals-info-neede/14505

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for the DM23. 

After the 1982 war, the Israeli M111 Hetz APFSDS gained fame for piercing the armor of T-72 tanks. Although there are many conflicting reports as to whether T-72 ever met APFSDS armed tanks (Magach, Sho't or Merkava) or were only engaged with TOW missiles (9 destroyed in single ambush IIRC), there is at least the reported and yet undenied (as far as I've seen) story of T-72 armor tests in Kubinka against the M111 Hetz that was obtained through a captured M48 tank. The discovery of that KEP shell was reportedly so surprising that the USSR decided to give Syria a large batch of its domestic version of T-72(AV) and not the usual downgrades.

The M111 may or may not have been developed in cooperation with German company Rheinmetall (they have managed to keep it a secret after all, so chances are slim), but we do know Germany acquired license for its production under the name DM23. I would also like to note at this point that IMI and Rheinmetall seem to have a very high level of cooperation at least in KEP development and production, as many of their products seem to be identical (entire 105mm family at least, and DM63 and M338 are allegedly the same). 

Here are again photos from the IAA forum: https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/israeli-105mm-apfsds-projectile-made-for-germany-as-dm23/13534

 

IMG_4649_zps5f5a2523.jpg

 

IMG_4657_zps2f4e59d7.jpg

 

IMG_4654_zpse5cb45e6.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding to the DU vs WHA discussion from the first page:

 

The document "Definition and uses of RHA equivalences for medium caliber targets" by T. Farrand, L. Magness and M. Burkins provides some new information on how much better DU is as a penetrator material (at least in case of medium calibre ammo). It can be found here.

 

Medium calibre APFSDS rounds made from DU have superior armor penetration into semi-infinite targets, but they don't have better armor perforation compared to WHA ammunition! Penetration measurements focus on how deep the penetration channel of a projectile extends into a non-penetrated target. Perforation on the other hand looks at how thick the armor can be, that the round still punches a hole through it. While penetration is commonly measured, perforation values might have more application in real life (What is the benefit of a round going a bit deeper into the armor, if it is not perforated?).

 

Vcb4w3n.png

9AiXpSn.png

So in other words: DU penetrates armor more effectively, but WHA can cancel out this effect (in some cases, depending on the failure mechanism) by breaking off more material at the back of a plate. Supposedly this is the result of DU's adiabatic shearing ("the self-sharpening") causing the penetrator mass to shrink much more (speculated in another random document), thus the relative perforation ability of a DU projectile would shrink while penetrating into (steel) armor.

This is all valid for medium calibre ammo against steel sloped at 60°, but I think in general it seems plausible that this can scale up to tank calibres in theory.

 

X57DM1l.png

The conclusion of the document is something I can agree very well: "The protection level of a threat vehicle cannot be defined by one RHA-e value; it depends on several factors: penetrator material, penetrator geometry, target configuration, RHA penetration, and the method and RHA baseline used. It has been shown that the RHA-e for one medium caliber target evaluated with several projectiles can vary by more than 100%."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Medium calibre APFSDS rounds made from DU have superior armor penetration into semi-infinite targets, but they don't have better armor perforation compared to WHA ammunition!

 

Not really - with what is presented in that paper, it would be correct to state that the specific DU long rod tested performed the same as the specific WHA long rod tested, but as the paper did not even state that the penetrator weight was similar I don't feel it's justified to extrapolate to all medium calibre APFSDS rounds. It could be the WHA round had a finer L:D ratio, assuming that they were designed to be fired from the same gun - there is not enough information to make a comparison beyond the projectiles tested, whatever they might be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Farrand and Magness have tested equally sized DU and WHA rods in multiple different papers (most US tests are focused on keeping the dimensions constant despite changing density), it seems very likely that they kept the same dimensions for both rods. That would be a 9.7 mm diameter, 130 mm "medium calibre" APFSDS. Most of the plotted data comes from "Deformation Behaviour and its relationship to the penetration performance of high density KE penetrator materials" which unfortunately seems to be not available for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something from the Armored Warfare forums.

 

Seeing as I'm not having any trouble with the link, I'll paraphrase; PISH stands for Piercing Intelligent Squash Head. Another 80s experiment (so firing it from a 140mm gun is quite fitting), they were developed as HESH that could differentiate between soft and hard targets. Specifically, they were designed to just explode on impact on soft targets but act as regular HESH against hard targets. Here's a cutaway 120mm PISH shell, with a 40mm Bofors given for scale.

pish.jpg

The success of the PISH shells was contingent on developing a fuse that could tell the different between soft and hard. They couldn't, so the project was shelved. Of course AW is set 50+ years after the 80s, so just maybe...

On another note, could you post a link to the preliminary patch notes Alzoc? I can't find them anywhere.

 

Share this post


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

It seems like the fuse issue could be circumvented with a modern pre-programmable one.

 

I was thinking something similar.  Fusing has come a long way since the 1980s, it might be possible to make PISH work.  Bu then again, I'm not sure why you would want to.

 

1 hour ago, Xlucine said:

Image recognition to determine how 'hard' the target is would be cool. It wouldn't offer much over programmable SAP-HE, but it would be really cool

 

Yep.  I can't think of any reason to keep HESH around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PISH sounds a lot like a sort of ancestor of the modern PELE and ALP rounds. Or at least it does to me with my admittedly very limited knowledge base when it comes to tanks, AFV's, their guns, and ammunition.

 

Somebody please help me out here, am I seeing a sort of ancestral connection where there isn't one?

 

Or have I actually made a valid point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was thinking more about ALP than PELE itself and I know that the mechanism by which they function is pretty different.

 

I was just wondering if PISH technology is somewhere in the conceptual family tree which eventually spawned PELE/ALP.

 

However, if this isn't the case it isn't the case, and I don't know how one would go about proving this one way or another without interviewing design teams to see what their inspirations were.

 

I'm trying to get a handle on this armored warfare thing but some days I feel like the more I learn the less I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually PELE has pretty bad penetration unless it's PELE-pen (PELE fitted with an additional penetrating core behind the PELE assembly). PELE is mostly suited for larger calibres or for aircrafts, otherwise FAPDS/FAPIDS is better suited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Actually PELE has pretty bad penetration unless it's PELE-pen (PELE fitted with an additional penetrating core behind the PELE assembly). PELE is mostly suited for larger calibres or for aircrafts, otherwise FAPDS/FAPIDS is better suited.

Exactly. PELE needs to penetrate armour to work, so you need to know how stuff works. HESH is more like "I don't know how penetration works so I'm just going to sling explosives at the enemy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50th shades of the CL 3254M and  M711/8 MK.2 :)

 

Orginall IMI:

 

ZGC2Mys.jpg

 

PpyoMLk.png

 

 

 

Indian copy:

 

mZStjzj.jpg

 

SnE9AR9.jpg

 

 

Indian: 1st copy:

 

boo9tZK.jpg

 

U3BRE1Y.jpg

(on left)

 

 

PpSv97 VETRA (upper one)

LtxPaqf.jpg

 

 

Serbian clone:

 

QXjLjeM.jpg

 

 

 

Polish one (PRONIT)

 

EoHwk4W.jpg

 

YxB56Q6.png

 

 

 

It's interesting how the same sabot and penetrator can give difrrent values in sevral manufacurer data :)

 

Polish trials shown 520mm RHA on plate slopped at 60@ 

Slovakia shown >550mm RHA

Czeh shown - "more then 500mm RHA"

etc

 

 

 

And next puzzle:

 

"New Nexter 125mm munition APFSDS":

abOqYm9.jpg

 

Claimed to have up to 600mm RHA (lol, yeh, sure...)

 

And "old" Pakistani POF 125mm APFSDS:

I0VSM1Y.jpg

 

Looks quite simmilar - is't it?

POF round gave 460mm RAH at 0. so in 60. it will have slighty more then 520-530mm RHA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Methos

 

It may be interesting - relatio between lenght and penetration in APFSDS:

 

Hqsv5rJ.jpg

 

 

KO4RD6X.jpg

 

TVEcCSk.jpg

 

pffXNa3.jpg

 

 

Im interesting if we can assume that in @60 RHA plate  penetration shoud be equal to monoblock penetrator lenght whit Vdrop circa 1650-1700m/s?

 

If it's some siple "thumb rulle" :-) (joke) then we can assume some german round penetration:

YDhaJIw.jpg

 

So DM33A1 ca 510mm RHA at 60@

DM43 ca 600mm RHA at 60@

DM53 ca 680mm RHA at 60.

And BTW - polish WITU is still count penetration whit 75% not NATO (50%+1) so digrense is circa 8%, ant this ca.8% form value above is:

470mm RHA, 560mm RHA, etc...

 

 

 

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
×