Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Alright, so I found this picture online and couldn't find a description of it anywhere, put some names of rounds on it, but not entirely sure about some:

Spoiler

Russian_APFSDS.jpg

Mostly care about the top right section, curious about BM29, haven't seen much written about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Militarysta said:

Well most description above are mistaken couse  most APFSDS-T above are not serial ones but R&D projects.

Thanks, the ones that aren't labelled either BM26 or BM29 seem to be mostly correct though?
 

16 hours ago, Militarysta said:

3BM29:

Strange, this still seems to have the old sabot on it, did Fofanov get this wrong?

Do we know if that slug in the back is actually DU?

 

16 hours ago, Militarysta said:

3BM26:

I find this a bit weird too, while Fofanov isn't entirely accurate, he does give a cutaway drawing and it looks different than this picture (though I do think your picture is more accurate and probably the correct)

Spoiler

3BM-26

According to Fofanov, the slug is infront of the tail section and not in it, it also has a (tungsten?) cap in the front, while also having the old sabot.
 

So, you think that Fofanov actually got them mixed up?

Is BM26 actually the one with the slug in the tail section and new sabot while BM29 is the one that has the penetrating cap at the front, slug before tail section and old sabot?

 

 

I did know about BM42 and had those pictures you linked, thanks :).

 

You wouldn't happen to know where those cutaway drawings come from?

(I've seen similar ones in some DIRD projectile and warhead identification guide).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 10:38 PM, Scav said:

Alright, so I found this picture online and couldn't find a description of it anywhere, put some names of rounds on it, but not entirely sure about some:

  Reveal hidden contents

Russian_APFSDS.jpg

Mostly care about the top right section, curious about BM29, haven't seen much written about it.

KJTdyjihYKY.jpg

Some my models
 

Spoiler

hq4H_NPpLkA.jpg
BX9CCSlUkhw.jpg
CczP9lX-Lp4.jpg
QuJLkDBtbmI.jpg
_0R6qbKVDA4.jpg
KnAv73wSLCs.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BkktMkkt said:

Some my models

Interesting, never heard of BM22M before.

Those are some nice models, if they are to scale, could you post the volume and dimensions of BM32?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 possible reasons IMO:

1. Feeding FCS rount type data (to prevent APFSDS being fired with HEAT fcs solution)

2. In-round propellant thermometer for accurate measurement.

I don't have solid info either way though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, N-L-M said:

2 possible reasons IMO:

1. Feeding FCS rount type data (to prevent APFSDS being fired with HEAT fcs solution)

2. In-round propellant thermometer for accurate measurement.

I don't have solid info either way though.

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2014/dot-e/army/2014m829e4.pdf

Quote

The ADL enables the Abrams’ fire control system to send information to the M829E4

   That is interesting part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was this unsubstantiated claim on Facebook.

 

Quote

The M829A4 defeats ERA and APS by the use of a prefragmenting penetrator that breaks apart into multiple pieces just before impact to activate the APS countermeasures and detonate ERA modules in advance and give way for the main penetrator to penetrate the armor.

This becomes possible because the Data Link system allows the tank's Fire Control System to program the penetrator the time it prefragments based on the distance of the target measured by the Laser Range Finder and other factors measured by the system's sensors.

 

Share this post


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

@N-L-M

@Mighty_Zuk

On 1/2/2019 at 1:38 AM, LoooSeR said:

One of my ideas was to put a fragmenation warhead that will work as a shotgun shell, firing before APFSDS round enters interception zone, so tank will have APS system damaged as it will have no time to react to fragmentations and rod will be able to get to a tank armor. I guess exploding small warhead on rod tip will make fragments to fly fast enough, but timings and fragments shape/speed is a question of specific design work, not a forum post about concepts.

Share this post


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

 

I still don't see it as a practical solution. The stability issues (i.e how to fire a fragmentation warhead mid-air without inducing the tilt and yawing effects an APS would attempt to induce on the rod) seem like too much of a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 5/1/2019 at 2:49 PM, Scav said:

Interesting, never heard of BM22M before.

Those are some nice models, if they are to scale, could you post the volume and dimensions of BM32?


body/core/penetrator - 226214,6547mm³ 
SIcWF35h7aM.jpg
But i think diam should be 32 mm


Penetrator mass should be 4.23 kg
Density of UZnNi alloy is unknown, but in some sources it is 18600 (95%U)

On 5/1/2019 at 9:36 PM, Bronezhilet said:

Welcome to SH by the way!


Hi!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 1:49 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

I still don't see it as a practical solution. The stability issues (i.e how to fire a fragmentation warhead mid-air without inducing the tilt and yawing effects an APS would attempt to induce on the rod) seem like too much of a challenge.

 

It doesnt need to be an exploding warhead. The concept already exists, maybe a rocket assisted tip detaches and flies ahead of the main projectile?

1-high-velocity-missile.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 6:45 PM, LoooSeR said:

That is interesting part.

Smart propellant system?
Somehow making sure the round gets the proper velocity by adjusting something in the propellant, or maybe even some primitive guidance method to limit effect of wind?

There's a few things that it might be, some make more sense than others, I think a programmed seperation action for a part of the penetrator makes the most sense.

 

On 5/7/2019 at 3:29 PM, BkktMkkt said:

body/core/penetrator - 226214,6547mm³ 

But i think diam should be 32 mm


Penetrator mass should be 4.23 kg
Density of UZnNi alloy is unknown, but in some sources it is 18600 (95%U)

Thanks, there's a lot of conflicting data on this round, but this volume makes sense and adds up to the possible weight.

One thing that never lines up is the penetration though, often claimed to be 430mm at 2000m 0°, but this doesn't seem possible with the dimensions of the round and velocity at 2000m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2019 at 11:07 AM, LoooSeR said:

Does anbody know why M829E4 APFSDS round have datalink ring on it? I thought that those are for AMP.

ltjG3HX.png?1

 

 

Yes, tehere is my theory  (february 2016 from here: http://forum.militarium.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5520&start=720) present by Damian on tank net, and it was posted on this topic in first post:

 

 

My theory or rather hypothesis:

 

 

Ok so it have data link to be programmed, it is said to be capable to defeat 3rd generation heavy ERA (Relikt, Knife, etc.) and active protection systems (hard kill). It seems that focus is primary on defeating heavy ERA. But then again, why do you need to program just a long rod fired by a big gun?

There are few options:

- Gudining the round,
- Precursor,
- "Intelligent" control over propelant charge ignition (dependant on propelant temperature, environment temperature, gun service life, range to target etc.)

And truth to be told hypothesis that there is some sort of precursor in the rod is the only hypothesis that makes sense. Control over propelant charge ignition is not needed and probably not possible at all with current technology, besides the M829A4 (and all newer US ammo types for 120mm smoothbore) use insensitive propelant charges. And it is nowhere mentioned in any document avaiable for public. Guiding the rod to target? Perhaps possible from technical point of view, but why? Again it was nowhere said that FCS for M1A2SEPv3 have ability to guide any type of rounds. And manouvering of the rod during flight means loss of a lot of energy, even if this manouvering would be done to "cheat" the APS for example.

So perhaps the option is to somehow use a precursor that is "fired ahead" of the main rod.

700.jpg

 

 

 

 

So how the rod designs looks like here? The rod is made from two segments, the "precursor" and the main rod behind it. How they are connected? it might be some sort of polymer, glue that can be weakened by heat and the release precursor, and during flight rods heat up pretty nicely.

The precursor can also be relased based on a simple difference of speed between it and the main rod, and main rod can be slowed down by some sort of additional fins (aerodynamic breaks) released at specific point programmed by FCS. In such case precuros would initiate ERA and the main rod would have a clear way to main armor of the target.

How to cheat APS tough? Counting that precursor will be qualified by APS as threat and APS will be initiated, creating a time gap in APS reaction so it won't be able to counter the main rod? Possible yes, but then there is question, if APS will just not ignore the precursor, and this might happen, now of course there is a question how dangerous is precursor itself? For a MBT or vehicle with similiar levels of protection, for it's front it won't be dangerous in most cases, sides? If they do not have any addon armor, very possible. For lightweight platforms, yeah precursor also will be dangerous.

Of course these are only hypothesis, and we will see if other nations will also design APFSDS rounds with data link. Then we might get closer to the truth. Right now, treat it as food for thoughts.

 

of course this data link coud be placed only for security resons, as one person on TankNet had wrote:

Quote
he ammunition is telling the computer what type of round it is thus reducing the bad things which can occur when the gunner thinks he's firing one type of ammunition and the loader has loaded something different.

 

:-)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Ronny
      I see many knowledgeable members here so i decided to make an account to ask some question
      According to many historical accounts, the armor of WW II battleship is very thick: can be between 410-650 mm of steel
      Thick enough that they can even resist penetration  from 12-16 inch canon 


       
      Compared to these massive round, it is probably obvious that missiles such as Harpoon, Exocet will do little or nothing against the armor belt: No penetration and probably nothing more than a small dent.
      Anti tank missiles such as AGM-65, AGM-114 or Brimstone can penetrate the armor but all their warhead will do is penetrating a tiny hole into the massive battleship, it likely will hit nothing significant given that a battleship have massive volume of space). Furthermore, i heard space armor is extremely effective against HEAT warhead as well).
       
      But what if the two are combined? HEAT + explosive warhead: aka BROACH.
      With a frontal shape charged and secondary follow through bomb
      This is the working principles of the system:


       
      BROACH was designed to help small cruise missile penetrate bunkers. So i have some question:
      1- Because concrete and soil are very brittle, unlike steel, I think the precursor charge likely much drill bigger hole in them than it can drill on steel armor belt of a battleship, so even if we use missile with BROACH warhead to hit a battleship, it won't drill a hole big enough to allow the secondary warhead to pass through. Is that a correct assessment?
      2-  Looking at the cutaway of the missiles. How come the detonation of the frontal shaped charge doesn't damage/destroy the secondary warhead or at very least propel it to the opposite direction? 
       
      3-  Can supersonic missiles such as Agm-88 (Mach2) , Asmp-A (Mach3) , Rampage , Asm-3 (Mach 3) , Hawc (Mach 5) penetrate the armor belt of a battleship? or they simply don't have enough velocity and density?
       
       
       
    • By Molota_477
      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 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?
×
×
  • Create New...