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 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.
×