Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

The reason all those graphs level out at around 1.5 at 3000 m/s is because 3000 m/s is the hydrodynamic limit for wolfram vs steel. Above the hydrodynamic limit the P/L is simply "sqrt(penetrator density/target density)", which for wolfram vs steel is ~1.5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/04/2017 at 11:58 AM, Militarysta said:

And next puzzle:

 

"New Nexter 125mm munition APFSDS":

 

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

 

And "old" Pakistani POF 125mm APFSDS:

 

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

 

Different powder and penetrator technology, improved performances compared to the previous Giat Industries 125G1 APFSDS-T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sovngard said:

 

Different powder and penetrator technology, improved performances compared to the previous Giat Industries 125G1 APFSDS-T.

 

Well in theory it is possible but with composite sabot:

 

Pronitcombo_zpscb0cafab.jpg

(second row)

 

If this frencht round have sucht sabot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/04/2017 at 8:42 PM, Militarysta said:

Well in theory it is possible but with composite sabot:

 

If this frencht round have sucht sabot?

 

High quality powder which is extremely stable even in India’s capricious climate and penetrating power of up to 600mm. ABG told us.

 

I do not see why ABG would lie about the penetrating power, the Ammunition Business Group (ABG) includes Nexter Munitions, MECAR and SIMMEL companies.

 

This is just an exposure model, nothing more, I am not even sure that this life-size mock-up was produced by Nexter. This does not necessarily represent the finished product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.janes.com/article/69809/russia-working-on-new-medium-calibre-ammo



Russia has confirmed that it is working on what it calls "special shrapnel" ammunition for use by 30 mm and 57 mm cannons, with the latter likely developed with a view to engaging unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The work is being carried out by Russia's NPO Pribor research and industrial association, which is affiliated with Rostec subsidiary TechMash (Russia's largest ammunition manufacturer), and is still in its early stages, with no projected initial operational capability (IOC) as yet.

The new Russian 57 mm ammunition will probably be along similar lines to the Rheinmetall Air Defence Oerlikon AHEAD (Advanced Hit Efficiency and Destruction) 35 mm ammunition, which is used by a number of air defence weapons. AHEAD 35 mm is programmed as it leaves the weapon and contains a number of small submunitions that are ejected at the correct time of flight in front of the target.

The Russian 57 mm round would be for a new mobile air defence weapon that is currently being developed as the Derivatsiya - PVO anti-aircraft artillery system, or ZAK-57. This is based on a modified BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle fitted with a brand new turret.

The Derivatsiya's 57 mm cannon is probably the same as that installed in the ASU-220M Baikal remote-controlled turret (RCT), which has been developed by the Burevestnik Central Research Institute, part of the UralVagonZavod group. The ASU-220M RCT is also armed with a 7.62 mm PKTM co-axial machine gun (MG) and the weapons are coupled to a computerised fire control system (FCS), with both crew members provided with stabilised day/night sights incorporating a laser rangefinder.

The AU-220M turret has already been shown installed on a modified BMP-3 IFV hull and has been marketed to a number of countries overseas, especially in the Middle East.

Russian sources have confirmed that in addition to firing conventional natures of 57 mm ammunition it was also fire a guided 57 mm round to enable targets to be engaged at ranges beyond the 57 mm weapon's direct-fire range, which is quoted as 12 km when fired horizontally and up to 8 km when fired vertically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This months issue of DTR has an article about BAE's choice to offer a 35mm gun in Australia's LAND 400 competition.

 

-4km effective max range vs 3km with a 30mm

-the APFSDS-T has 135mm RHA penetration at 1km

-Rheinmetall's 35mm KETF round (Kinetic Energy Timed Fuze) has 407 tungsten sub-projectiles, the 30mm version has 152

-Danish(?) CV9035 crews in Afghanistan apparently have come to prefer 100% KETF loadouts

 

There is also some debate over range vs armor for survivability and 35mm vs 30mm stored kills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35 mm KETF is a very odd round developed for the Royal Netherlands Army. The decision to develop a round with more payload (of smaller tungsten pellets) compared to the already existing 35 mm AHEAD round was the Dutch requirement to have a high probability of knocking out every optic of a T-80U MBT with a single salvo. However in Swiss testing, two 35 mm AHEAD rounds (each with 152 pellets) already were capable of knocking out all relevant optics of a Pz-68 (upgrade prototype), including the gunner's sight, the two openings of the optical rangefinder, the laser rangefinder, aswell as vision blocks of the commander's cupola and the driver. So one has to wonder, if there really is an advantage over the 30 mm KETF round in this regard...

yW15fRT.png

But the one thing that I think is odd in the DTR magazine's article is that they ignore that the Boxer CRV is offered with both options; they speak about possible protection gained by the greater standoff capbility of the 35 mm gun of the Patria AMV, which could equalize the lower armor protection (level 4 vs level 6), but completely forget that one of the two Boxer CRV prototypes has a 35 mm gun, while the other also has Spike-LR launchers...

 

Btw. unprogrammed the 35 mm KETF and AHEAD can penetrate a 55 mm steel plate.

d8XZy5m.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rheinmetall calls the ammunition for the air-defence gun "Ahead munition" in several occasions, e.g. in most of their press releases and some presentations:

 

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/publicrelations/pressemitteilungen/2016/mspo/05_2016-09-06_Rheinmetall_MSPO_Medium_Calibre.pdf

 

The term KETF is pretty much only used in case of ground vehicle ammunition.

Share this post


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

Rheinmetall calls the ammunition for the air-defence gun "Ahead munition" in several occasions, e.g. in most of their press releases and some presentations:

 

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/publicrelations/pressemitteilungen/2016/mspo/05_2016-09-06_Rheinmetall_MSPO_Medium_Calibre.pdf

 

The term KETF is pretty much only used in case of ground vehicle ammunition.

 


Okay I understand the difference now.

 

-35mm AHEAD has 152 3.3g sub-projectiles

-35mm KETF has 407 1.24g sub-projectiles

-30mm KETF has 162 1.24g sub-projectiles

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another WITU pdf (whit mistaken rod image)

witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2017/141/87.pdf

 

ANALYSIS OF ENERGETIC PARAMETERS FOR ANTITANK KINETIC


AMMUNITION OF CONTEMPORARY BATTLEFIELD
Mariusz MAGIER
Wojskowy Instytut Techniczny Uzbrojenia
Military Institute of Armament Technology

 

TElcgta.jpg

 

 

bZsW28f.jpg

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...