Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Xoon

Rheinmetall's New Tank Gun

Recommended Posts

I am not sure if you folks noticed:

TJRfD53.jpg

Ck0b-RyWgAAckCr-696x522.jpg

 

We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun.

From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.

 

What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit.

 

If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post.

 

 

Mvh

Xoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait.. ETC?

From what I know, yes, but I don't have any solid sources. 

 

Only real info on the gun has been a random German magazine and a promotional poster.

 

This was published in the European Forum on Ballistics of Projectiles, article "Status and Results of the German R&D Program on ETC Technologies". The LKE II (DM53 prototype) fired from the L55 gun reached a muzzle velocity of 1750 meters per second (mps) at 21° centigrade, whereas a projectile with the same mass, fired from the ETC prototype gun with 110 KJ of electrical energy added, managed to reach a muzzle velocity of 1822 mps and an energy output of 14 MJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds interesting.

It is entirely possible that it is a ordinary gun. It just seems weird to develop a new tank gun, with a new caliber a and with ETC technology around the corner.  It could have been a quick way to up gun Leopard 2s in service in reaction to the T-14, but having a 50% performance increase from the L55 seems hard with a shorter gun. Even if the case it longer,and it is not wider from the looks of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

130mm is an interesting choice, I thought 140mm was traditionally the next step up from 120mm for ~*future*~ NATO tank guns.

 

IS-7/WZ-111 5A best tank of all years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in how it will compare with the 2A82-1M -- which itself claims to have 20-25% over the L/55 cannon.

Also, I doubt the new APFSDS's rod will be much longer than 900-950 mm in length as performance begins to decrease eventually.

We will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in how it will compare with the 2A82-1M -- which itself claims to have 20-25% over the L/55 cannon.

Also, I doubt the new APFSDS's rod will be much longer than 900-950 mm in length as performance begins to decrease eventually.

We will see.

 

Could you elaborate on this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in how it will compare with the 2A82-1M -- which itself claims to have 20-25% over the L/55 cannon.

Also, I doubt the new APFSDS's rod will be much longer than 900-950 mm in length as performance begins to decrease eventually.

We will see.

 

1) I would be very cearfull whit sucht statment like this about 20-25% "over Rh120 L-55 gun". Becouse it was about what exatly?

muzzle MJ for sabot and penetrator? MJ for penetrator during fly? or what?  

 

2) Optimum velocity and penetrator  lenght is diffrent for gun systems and ammo 

More or less simmilar lenght have M829A3 penetrator right now:

DvHTqhs.jpg

 

 

 

And here better photo of the new 130mm:

 

13434847_1018024224917825_55788638287397

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate on this point?

Going off of a report I saw a while back, rods over a certain length, say 1100 mm, begin to become noticeably impractical versus shorter counterparts. Basically, the longer length makes them more fragile and likely to shatter on impact (and against ERA). The solution around the issue is to make the rod thicker, but this dramatically increases weight and reduces its aerodynamic efficiency.

Interestingly enough, this new rod appears no thicker, maybe even thinner, than the 63A1's. Most likely b/c it is a mock up.

@Militarysta

Maximum muzzle energy, IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going off of a report I saw a while back, rods over a certain length, say 1100 mm, begin to become noticeably impractical versus shorter counterparts. Basically, the longer length makes them more fragile and likely to shatter on impact (and against ERA). The solution around the issue is to make the rod thicker, but this dramatically increases weight and reduces its aerodynamic efficiency.

Interestingly enough, this new rod appears no thicker, maybe even thinner, than the 63A1's. Most likely b/c it is a mock up.

@Militarysta

Maximum muzzle energy, IIRC.

 

 

On a lot of modern APFSDS designs the length of the projectile is longer than the length of the penetrator per se.  On M829 and related penetrators there's a break-off portion at the front of the projectile which sacrificially shears off to protect the rest of the penetrator in case it whacks into K5 or similar "heavy" ERA:

 

P0RBMKC.png

 

On some European APFSDS designs there's a sub-caliber pre-penetrator which pokes a hole in any ERA without initiating it through which the rest of the penetrator follows.

 

So there are reasons to make the projectile really, really long even if the penetrator doesn't get that much longer.

 

Article at defense update.  Not a lot of new information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much bending resistance could that thread add?  It doesn't have that much volume of material in it and doesn't stick that far out from the center of bending.

 

Pretty sure the main purpose of the thread is to provide the sabot grip during acceleration in the tube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much bending resistance could that thread add?  It doesn't have that much volume of material in it and doesn't stick that far out from the center of bending.

 

Pretty sure the main purpose of the thread is to provide the sabot grip during acceleration in the tube.

46%, according to my napkin calculations.

 

if that was the main purpose, they could do with a lot less thread, couldn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46%, according to my napkin calculations.

 

if that was the main purpose, they could do with a lot less thread, couldn't they?

 

I don't think so.  Look at M111 Hetz:

 

7467_zpsc9aad0ab.jpg

 

The grooves for the sabot to engage are simply circular grooves, not a thread, and they go almost the entire length of the dart.

 

The issue, per Ogorkiewicz, is that tungsten and uranium alloys have low sheer strength relative to their inertia.  You have to spread the gripping out over a lot of grooves as a result.  You can get away with smaller gripping surfaces with all-steel penetrators, which have better sheer strength and lower inertia, and also look like finned dildos:

 

xqBEkBl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rough approximation, using sigma equals flexural force over width times depth (for a rectilinear cross section), I get that the increase in maximum axial load will be proportional to the increase in cross sectional area afforded by the thread vs just using ribs.  Using that model the increase is, needless to say, not worth getting excited about.  The thread ID doesn't look to be more than 10% smaller than the OD, 110% squared is 121%, so the cross sectional area difference will be less than that, exact amount depending on thread form and pitch.

 

Even if we account for the slight increase in tensile stress for a given flex load at the edge of a thread and the reduction of stress risers (or at least the re-direction of them to be not perpendicular to the long axis of the rod), I don't see how we can get a situation where the rod would have gotten fucked up by K5 without the thread, but not fucked up with it.

 

Given that very long grooved sections predate knowledge of K5, and are not present on earlier all-steel penetrators, I think we can safely say that the main purpose of the design is to give adequate material for the sabot to hold on to without sheering.  I'm not sure why Rheinmetall and others are using helical threads instead of simple circular ribs on their design.  It may have advantages to manufacture.  But I can't see how it could possibly prove a decisive counter-countermeasure to heavy ERA.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      The idea for a design competition predates SH itself, actually going all the way back to the 2011-2012 timeframe on the World of Tanks North American Forum. Before the Exodus of 2014, there were several tank design competitions, two of which I entered. Earlier today, I found my entries to those competitions saved in various forms on my computer, and I thought I would post them here for people to reference moving forward.

      Entered in: Design a Tank - 1938 Germany
       
      The Early History of the Mittlerer Panzer Greif
       

       
      In 1936, as Heinz Guderian was writing Achtung – Panzer!, he was solicited by the Heereswaffenamt Wa Prüf 6 to create a specification for light, medium, heavy, and super-heavy tanks, as part of Germany's ongoing re-armament. The tanks then in development, the Panzer III and IV, were seen as adequate for future needs, but the purpose of Wa Prüf 6's solicitation was to gain a greater understanding of upcoming panzer technologies and tactics.

      Guderian's submission eliminated the heavy and super-heavy categories entirely, in favor of fast light and medium tanks requiring large engines and excellent suspensions. Wa Prüf 6 immediately began design studies on panzers to fill these needs, while still allocating some effort towards a heavy breakthrough tank design.
      Early panzer designs focused on improving the existing Panzer III, but a special division of Wa Prüf 6, the Spekulativpanzerabteilung, was tasked with pushing the limits of what was possible. One design, the Mittlerer Panzer K, was selected for further study.
       
      The original MPK design used a forged armor steel hull welded together into an elliptical shape, which the Spekulativpanzerabteilung determined would give the best internal volume to weight ratio, providing the best protection, but still maintaining the high power-to-weight ratio specified by Guderian's white paper. Armor at the front was 30mm thick, sloped at around 45 degrees, for the hull. The turret was a simple welded design, mounting the latest 5cm L/60 high velocity cannon, while the suspension was torsion bar similar to the Panzer III, but with more roadwheel travel. Sighting was with stadia reticles, and the tank was powered by a 300 horsepower Maybach HL 120TR, which gave 15 hp/tonne to the 20 tonne tank.
       
      As Spekulativpanzerabteilung improved the design, it morphed beyond recognition. To improve the cross-country performance, the suspension was changed to an early form of hydropneumatic suspension, with more roadwheeltravel, mounted in units bolted to the side of the hull. A tank's mobility, SPA reasoned, was greatly affected by its ability to stay in repair, and thus the modular suspension was developed. Due to marginal increases in weight, the engine was modified to mount a supercharger, increasing the engine power to about 400 horsepower. A mockup was built, but a prototype was never completed.
       
      In early 1938, Germany intercepted Russian plans to build a tank in the 100 tonne range, with upwards of 100mm of armor. A requirement was set to build, as quickly as possible, a panzer that could counter such a behemoth. SPA's medium panzer design suddenly went from a low-priority technical study, to a full procurement program. No guns in the German arsenal could reliably penetrate 100mm of armor at combat ranges without special ammunition, so immediately a new gun was sought. Eventually, it was decided that a Czechoslovakian artillery piece, the 8cm Kanon 37, would form the basis of the new medium tank's armament. Production was licensed from Skoda immediately, and it entered service as a towed anti tank gun in June of 1938 as the 7.65cm Kanone 38. The Kanone 38 differed from the K37 by firing the same projectiles as the 7.5cm KwK 37, which had been adopted a year earlier for German AFVs, but at nearly three times the velocity (900 m/s). 
       
      Fitting this monster cannon to the MPK required a total redesign. The ambitious elliptical hull was kept, but everything else changed. The turret ring swelled to a (then-enormous) 175cm, and accommodated an advanced turret, mounting a reduced-weight variant of the 7.65cm PaK 38, the 7.65cm KwK 38 to sturdy forward-mounted trunnions, with low-profile recoil recuperators. The turret was a semi-elliptical tetrahedron shape, constructed from welded forgings, with dual stabilized, stereoscopic rangefinders for both the commander and gunner, something seen only on battleships at that time. The commander's cupola sported 360-degree panoramic periscopes with a Leiteinrichtung - or slaving device, to slew the turret onto new targets. Armor on the new turret consisted of eighty millimeters of frontal armor on the mantlet, with fifty millimeters all around protection. The hull armor's slope was increased to 60 degrees, and thickened to fifty millimeters to cope with the new generation of guns. The weight of the tank ballooned to 34 tonnes, and the suspension was completely redesigned as a new compound hydropneumatic/Horstmann design, called Schwebesystem, which utilized 60cm wide tracks. The old 400 horsepower turbocharged Maybach was not deemed sufficient to power this new tank, and so the suspension was lengthened by a roadwheel to accommodate the new Jumo 250 engine, a two-stroke turbocharged diesel, which produced 650 horsepower. Transmitting this power to the roadwheels was a brand new compact Merritt-Brown-derived transmission, with an automatic planetary gearbox, which allowed the tank to steer in place, as well as travel in reverse at 30 km/h. Upon an early prototype demonstrating this ability, Guderian exclaimed "sie bauen es!" - "build it!"
       
      The first prototypes of the newly renamed Mittlerer Panzer Greif rolled off the line in January of 1939. These new panzers were the last to be produced by Germany by the old method of batch production, and as a result, each was slightly different than the next. Full rate production would begin once testing was concluded in August of 1939, at the brand new WPW plant in Obendorf.
       
      Specifications, Mit.PzKpfw. V Greif Ausf. A:
       

       
      Dimensions
      Weight: 34 t
      Length: 6.95 m
      Width: 3.00 m
      Height: 2.85 m
      Armament
      Main armament: 7.65 cm KwK 38
      Caliber length (KwK): 55
      Tube length (KwK): 4.053 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × MG 34
      Cannon ammunition: 45 
      MG ammunition: 2700
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 50 mm / 60 °
      Lower Hull: 30 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 25 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 20 mm
      Hull Floor: 20 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 80 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 50 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 50 mm / 75 °
      Turret Roof: 20 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Jumo 250 six-cylinder turbocharged opposed two-stroke diesel, 650 hp
      Displacement: 16.63 L
      Gears (F / R): 7/5
      Power to weight ratio: 19.2 hp / t
      Top speed: 55 km / h
      Fuel storage: 720 l
      Reach: 525 km (road), 350 km (off road)
      Track width: 65 cm
       
      Leichter Panzer IV


       
      (The writeup for this one appears to have vanished into the aether, but I do recall that it was armed with a short 7.5cm gun and an autocannon!)
       
      Entered in: Design a Tank - NATO 1949
       
      NATO Medium Tank
       
      Concept: License-produceable medium tank "kit"
      By 1949, it had become clear that not only were tensions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO going to escalate, but that Soviet-aligned countries were actively readying for a full-scale conventional conflict. Because of this, the then-new civilian Operations Research Office was tasked with development of new weapons to be proliferated throughout - and, if possible license produced by - NATO member nations. The Armored Vehicles Team of the initiative, which was dubbed Project FOUNDRY, contained a scant seven members who began brainstorming ideas for a cheap, easy to produce, and eminently maintainable NATO-wide tank.
       
      Such a tank, it was reasoned, would not need to necessarily be the standard and only fighting vehicle of all NATO forces, but would allow less industrially capable NATO nations to defend themselves independently, as well as member nations who so chose to fast-track development of their own customized versions of the basic vehicle, without need for multiple lengthy, independent, and redundant tank development programs.
       
      While many concepts were explored, the one that gained the most traction was for a generously roomy welded chassis, with standardized turret ring dimensions, so that turrets and hulls could be exchanged at the depot level. Running contrary to current Army thinking, which emphasized small hulls with advanced, efficient transmission layouts, the concept had a large hull rear, supporting space inefficient, but widely available automotive components.
       
      As the AVT refined the design, they worked closely with British and American automotive engineers to try and create a design that could easily be adapted for the different automotive components then available, and projected. The design was intended from the outset to contain at least the British Meteor engine, and the Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission used in the Centurion. Because of this, the tank could not be made very much smaller than the Centurion, but this was deemed acceptable.
       
      The hull design received the most attention initially, and design of the turret and armament initially languished. The AVT had to solve, satisfactorily, the problem of producing specialized fighting vehicle components - the gun, turret, and sighting systems - in a variety of nations. Eventually, it was decided that the facilities in more developed countries, such as the US, Britain, France, and Germany, that could produce armed turrets and rings for all users, to be shipped abroad and mated to locally produced hulls.
       
      One further problem facing the AVT was ensuring the transportability of the new tanks by the various trucks, ships, and railcars that were in use at the time by member nations. The solution was to limit the weight of the new tank to 40 tonnes, enabling it to be transported by the majority of surplus wartime infrastructure.
       
      The resulting hull design was highly convergent with, but distinct from the British Centurion tank. The armor plates were to be rolled, heat-treated, and cut to shape by industrially capable member nations with the industrial capacity, and then shipped along with automatic welding equipment, if needed, to member nations for assembly. Each welded part assembled together using dovetails - like a cardboard model - to improve the strength of the welds, allowing for somewhat expedited welding practices. The turret ring race and other senstitive contact areas were finished before the plates shipped. When assembled, the hull used a series of mounting rails for engine and transmission, which approximated very nearly the modern "powerpack" concept, albeit in a much less space-efficient form. The driver's position was accommodating, with appreciable space as well as adjustable controls and seating, and power-assisted steering levers and shifter.
       
      Armor on the hull consisted of a two three-inch plates joined at a 60 and 45 degree from the normal, attached to side plates two inches thick set at an angle of twelve degrees, like the Centurion. Top and bottom armor plates were one inch thick, while the rear armor plate was 1.5" thick. Like the Centurion, there was provision for .25" thick standoff plates mounted to the side of the hull, encasing the suspension.
       
      The hull was to be furnished with automotive components in-situ, so there was no standard engine or transmission. However, most studies were done with either the British Meteor engine and Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission of the Centurion, or the AV-1790 engine with CD-850 transmission of the T40 experimental US medium tank. Special mention, however, should be made of the design study of the tank using a Ford GAA engine and syncromesh transmission from an M4A3 Medium, intended as a backup configuration in the event that a member nation could not obtain more modern engines and transmissions. In this configuration, the mobility of the tank would be significantly decreased.
       
      Suspension was provided via a series of mounting points to which suspension elements could be attached. The "default" suspension configuration was for an individually sprung Horstmann derivative, but the design accomodated both single and bogied forms, as well as internal and external torsion bar, Bellevile washer, and volute spring methods of suspension. Track pitch, width, and design were likewise left up to member nations, but most early scale models used standard US 6" pitch 24" wide T81 tracks.
       
      Ancillary components, such as stowage boxes, lights, fuel tanks, and other minor details, were to be produced by the receiving nations, with stamping equipment and technical know-how distributed as needed. 
       
      With all of the allowed variation, AVT realized it would need to publish an "engineering guide" to the new tank design, by early 1950 somewhat uncreatively christened the "NATO Medium Tank". This was accomplished with the first trials of automotive pilots, and "AN ENGINEERING GUIDE TO THE NATO MEDIUM TANK" was published by ORO on July 21st, 1950, and distributed to member nations. As the document only detailed the dimensional and production aspects of the tank, it was not considered a security risk, as member nations couldn't possibly leak any sensitive information from it that they did not already possess.
       
      By 1950, the first mild steel turret mockups had been created, giving two of the automotive pilots a "proper" look, even though they were no more combat capable than before. The turrets were cast in a single piece, and fitted with a 90mm high-and-low velocity gun based on the British 20 pdr but utilizing experience gained from the American 90mm series of cannons. It was determined that for member nations, the most common type of shot available would be solid APC shot. Because of this, a high velocity conventional AP round would be needed to deal with anticipated Soviet vehicles. The resulting round fired essentially the same T33 AP shot as the 90mm M3 gun, but at a much higher velocity of 3,200 ft/s. Testing revealed the round could penetrate a 100mm RHA plate at 60 degrees from normal 80% of the time at 500m. This was considered, initially, sufficient to defeat the anticipated armor of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.
      In order to allow more fragile, and thus higher capacity HE and utility (smoke) shells, ammunition was also developed for the gun that used a foam-lined, reduced volume case loaded with a smaller charge. This high explosive round produced 2,100 feet per second with its unique 22 pound shell, loaded with 2.6 pounds of Composition B high explosive. The technical data packages for these two types of ammunition were widely disseminated to member states, for their local production.
       
      The new 90mm gun was also compatible with any projectiles for the older M3 series of cannons, including HEAT and HVAP. Further, it was expected that the cannon would serve as the basis for a new 100-120mm gun, designed to fire a new generation of HEAT and APFSDS projectiles.
       
      Also included with the armament were three unity periscopes for each crewman, a single-plane stabilization system for the main gun, and a gunner/commander cowitnessing system. The turret had two ready racks of five rounds a piece, with additional ammunition stowage planned to be in the floor of the vehicle, and adjacent to the driver.
       
      The turret was cast with 3.5-3.6" all around armor, improving to six inches at the front. A large, wide mantlet/gun shield of 6" thick was provided, partially to help balance the gun in its cradle. The turret ring was 74".
      NBC protection was available through a "kit" modification that was distributed to member nations upon request.
       
      Specifications, NATO Medium Tank:
       

       
      Crew: 4
      Dimensions
      Weight: 39.4 t
      Length (Hull): 7.2 m
      Width: 3.4 m
      Height: 3.05 m (without roof MG)
      Armament
      Main armament: 90mm T104E3/M56
      Caliber length: 62
      Tube length: 5.60 m
      Tube life: 500 shot
      Secondary armament: 1 × M1919, M60, MAG, MG3, etc GPMG
      Cannon ammunition: 65
      MG ammunition: 3200
      Elevation: +25/-12
      Penetration with T53 Shot, 10.9 kg at 976 m/s:
      100 m: 22.2 cm
      500 m: 20.0 cm
      1000 m: 17.9 cm
      2000 m: 14.3 cm
      Armor
      Upper Hull: 76.2 mm / 30 °
      Lower Hull: 76.2 mm / 45 °
      Rear Hull: 38.1 mm / 90 °
      Hull Roof: 25.4 mm
      Hull Floor: 25.4 mm
      Turret Mantlet: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Turret Front: 152.4 mm / 90 °
      Rear Turret: 90 mm / 90 °
      Turret Roof: 50.8 mm
      Mobility
      Engine: Depends on variant, often AV-1790 w/ CD-850 transmission or Meteor with Merrit-Brown Z.51.R transmission. Variant with Ford GAA and syncromesh transmission also trialled.
      Displacement: Depends on variant
      Gears (F / R): Depends on variant
      Power to weight ratio: Depends on variant
      Top speed: Depends on variant
      Suspension: Depends on variant
      Fuel storage: Depends on variant
      Range: Depends on variant
      Track width: Depends on variant
       
       
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Here we will discuss all topics related to the LAND program, including, but not limited to, LAND 400 which is the flagship project of the entire program.
    • By Akula_941
      12 March fresh new video here
      just so many of good footage,praise the IRINN.IR

      so,Karrar MBT aka T-90MS mod 2017 Iranian limited Edition 2.0
      Has finally have a bit long TV report,and what is this?

      when i see this ‘barrel protective case’ thing,the only thing in my mind is
      "NO,T-72I4! It's him! He is Back!"


      but after watch the video i pretty sure it's nothing but reference ~
      first noticed difference is the ERA kit

      Karrar 'ERA kit is smaller, have 6 plate on each slide front
      compare to T-90MS 's 4 larger size Relikt ERA

      the thickness of the ERA are pretty close so i guess it's just the smaller new Relikt variant

      RCWS/Commander panoramic sight Station
      huge muzzle brake but it seems just a 7.62mm RCWS,but looks cool

      also the sight itself looks a cheaper product compare to T-90MS


      Digital map,commanding system and Vehicle information Display 
      this is pretty good, Karrar may have the best digital equipment in all Iranian tanks,not even Zulfiqar-3

      normal vision channal of the commander sight
       
      for the gunner,i noticed something interesting

      now this is something new, the Karrar have a whole new gunner sight,so obviously the new gunner sighting system is not simply rip-off from russian
      but the really interesting thing is, it keeps the 1K13,which compare to T-90MS removed 1A45 completely and replaced by Sosna-U and a back up sight

      why is this?  @Lightning think, that Iran hasn't prepare or able to create their own laser guide coding equipment,if they want to use 9K120 ATGM system,they need keep the 1K13 for laser coding
      which i found is a high possibility that could be true

      karrar‘s gunner displayer compare to T-90MS

       
      let's expect more information of this tank in the future

       
       
    • By Collimatrix
      PELE (Penetrator with Enhanced Lateral Effectiveness) rounds are a new type of ordnance developed by Rheinmetall in the late nineties and early two thousands.
       
      As the patent shows, they are similar in outward appearance to traditional long-rod penetrators, but are different in cross section:
       

       
      The basic principle of a PELE is that the outer walls of the penetrator are made of a denser material than the core.  At the extremely high velocities that the penetrator strikes the target, density (rather than material strength) is one of the most important factors in determining penetration.  So the outer walls are able to penetrate the target, but the inner core is not.  The outer walls of the penetrator continue moving forward, which compresses the inner core.  This presentation from ATK has a helpful diagram:
       

       
      As this Rheinmetall presentation shows, this gives much greater behind armor effect than a traditional long rod penetrator:
       

       
      This new ammunition is available both in large-caliber and autocannon calibers.
       
      Compared to traditional high explosive rounds, PELE rounds have the advantage that there is no explosive material in the penetrator.  This means that there is no UXO risk at training ranges.  Additionally, a tank with APFSDS and PELE ammunition types would be able to tackle most target types.  If the ammunition were two-piece, then the inert APFSDS and PELE penetrators could be stored in the turret while the propellant charges could be stored separately in isolation.  Britain's chieftain MBT used an ammunition stowage scheme like this, keeping inert APDS projectiles in the turret and propellant bags underneath the turret ring in wet ammunition containers.  An ammunition stowage scheme like this would have the advantages of isolated ammunition stowage, but would require a less bulky isolated section of the tank, which often adds to the silhouette of the vehicle (e.g. abrams' enormous turret bustle).
       
      The biggest disadvantage of PELE compared to traditional high explosive rounds is that the rounds do not fragment unless they hit something hard.  As the presentations above show, the 120mm rounds will produce considerable fragmentation patterns after hitting something as light as 10mm of sheet metal, but they still need to hit something.  So airburst or proximity fused options are out.
×