Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

M829A4 and M829A3 having similar dimensions, weight and velocity was confirmed years ago. That they look so similiar isn't very surprising.

 

On an unrelated note, unidentified APFSDS rounds with 140 mm sabots from an article written by a German author - very confusing.

U25WYBA.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jackvony said:

I can try to take more pictures today, especially to compare with photos of M829A3. I mentioned the hypothesis stated earlier in this thread that the datalink is used to program some kind of precursor to fly infront of the round to defeat heavy ERA to the Master Sergeant in charge of the display. He asked me if my parents worked for the military and when I said no, shook his head, smiled, and told me I knew too much. I know this is "heresay" but to me, it's pretty good confirmation you guys are on the right track.

 

And and that this info's came public due to sevral polish military journalist in 2015 ;-)

 

More seriously - sucht german patent:

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4a/31/76/4c24841d62e3ce/US20180224251A1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1SAv9tFXS7rPPAqhy4YDU6Cu10vt5sGK7tYRqBN8BW55NaOliQHJI-JLA

 

Show this idea:

QE8geVi.jpg

 

 

When we are talking sevral years ago the only posiblities to overcome sucht thick and multi-ERA-layerd armour like on Oplot-M (whit some consist Lmax for western 120mm ammo) was to change idea of the attack, and infos about data-link for M829E4, Nexter OLF-F1NG, and...KE2020 whare some aditional help to think how to hell it could work.

And really the only resonable option is detached during fly precursor -in fact it can be very elegeant and simply solution but onnly whit state-of-art metalurgy. Just metal  conection beetween main rod and precursor which overheat during fly  lets go "precursor" - rest is pure areodynamic or in more complex way - small air breakers somwhere near fins or tracer - just tiny ones to very small incarase aerodynamic resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).S3Lgg2l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

https://imgur.com/a/VyV5q3k

Edited by CaptainBallistic
some corrections after finding an error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 2:39 PM, Jackvony said:

I can try to take more pictures today, especially to compare with photos of M829A3. I mentioned the hypothesis stated earlier in this thread that the datalink is used to program some kind of precursor to fly infront of the round to defeat heavy ERA to the Master Sergeant in charge of the display. He asked me if my parents worked for the military and when I said no, shook his head, smiled, and told me I knew too much. I know this is "heresay" but to me, it's pretty good confirmation you guys are on the right track.


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.

 

19 hours ago, Militarysta said:

 

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 3:12 AM, CaptainBallistic said:

But is anyone able to answer why a new round has suddenly been put on public display?

 

It is very normal, nothing special. Dimensions and velocity of M829A4 were already confirmed during development (due to US Army's report on development programs). Many countries display even their new rounds before they enter service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent article from the Drive about the US military planning on disposing of old DU ammo has some interesting implications for the M1128 Stryker MGS and the coming MPF 'light tank'.

 

Among the old ammunition to be disposed of is stocks of 105mm M833 and M900 APFSDS, as both the aforementioned vehicles are armed with a 105mm this would leave them without a KE anti armor round.

 

Additionally the US Army only recently started procuring M724A2, a training round ballistically matched to M900. Its predecessors, M724 and M724A1, were ballistically matched to M392 APDS.

 

With this I see a few possible things going on;

1) MGS and MPF will have no KE round.

2) MGS and MPF will use training rounds as their KE round.

3) A new 105mm APFSDS will be procured.

4) MPF will use a 120mm gun instead of a 105mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option: M900 remanufactured.

Considering how the same contract has HEI ammo of similar vintage, its possible that it's the propellant (or in the HE rounds, perhaps also the explosive fill) which is past its use-by date, and that the projos and cases will then be available for re-loading with fresh (perhaps IM or temp-independent?) propellant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

As promised mid August to @BkktMkkt  here my simulation of 3BM60 @ 1600 m/s versus 600 mm RHA semi-infinite stack

https://photos.app.goo.gl/FtyBUqT3BjGE8drXA erosion of rod only

 

 

And here the temperature distribution within the same simulation

https://photos.app.goo.gl/8Mtzn8cPLL5xbBCn7  much more meaningful information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

What program did you use to simulate this?

The program name is SPEED and is a multi-material Eulerian / Lagrangian hydrocode with explicit solver technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1988&p=30#p1261485

List of 2A66 gun ammunition (D-91 gun)

fVwsM.jpg

 

  • 3VBM14 shot with 3BM39 APFSDS
  • 3VBM15 shot with 3BM40 APFSDS
  • 3VBK21 with 3BK29 HEAT shell
  • 3VOF85 with 3OF26 HE-frag shell
  • 3UBK18 shot with 9M125 GL-ATGM
  • 3BSh7 with 3Sh7 training round (APFSDS-like)

 

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...