Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

This is whole chart is strange... 360-370 should be M774... M833 should definitely penetrate more than 400mm.  430-440 (where M900 is on the chart) is more believable for it. Armor values are also off. "T-62 basic" looks like a T-62M with metal-polymer blocks. T-72A and M1 should have the exact same protection...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

This is whole chart is strange... 360-370 should be M774... M833 should definitely penetrate more than 400mm.  430-440 (where M900 is on the chart) is more believable for it. Armor values are also off. "T-62 basic" looks like a T-62M with metal-polymer blocks. T-72A and M1 should have the exact same protection...

 

The chart is correct. The labeling might be a bit confusing: the T-72M1 referenced in the table is not the basic T-72M1 (i.e. Object 172M-1-E5 or Object 172M-1-E6) but rather the T-72M1M (Object 172M-1-E7),  which is a T-72M1 with the more advanced NERA armor of the T-72B. Later this was export variant was superseded by the T-72S (Object 172M-1-E8) as true export model of the T-72B. At least on T-72M1M tank was operated by the Republic Guard in Iraq. Rheinmetall marketed its 105 mm smoothbore guns as capable of defeating the T-72M1M (aswell as the T-72S and T-72B), which the normal 105 mm rifled guns L7 and M68 were incapable of doing. They tried to persuade the US Army to buy smoothbore guns for the Stryker MGS among others.

Due to its rarity, the existence of the T-72M1M remained unknown for some while and I haven't seen any clear data to whom exactly how many T-72M1M tanks were sold.

 

I don't think that the "basic" belongs to the T-62 version, but rather is meant to show that this is the basic threat for which the mentioned APFSDS ammunition was adopted. The values clearly reflects the T-62M.

 

As for the penetration achieved by the M833 APFSDS: 400 mm against steel armor at normal combat ranges is not possible. The length and velocity of the longord penetrator are not enough to achieve such levels of performance. I.e. the M833 has a 427 mm long penetrator, as you can see in the following images:

clip1543.pngIOLKSbN.png

 

The following graph taken from a declassified document shows the reduction of the velocity of several APFSDS types over ranges. As one can see, the impact velocity of the M833 APFSDS at 2,000 metres (typical combat range used to measure armor penetration) will be slightly below 1,400 m/s.

03iJE1f.png

The following charts shows a comparison of different methods for measuring normalized penetration (i.e. LOS penetration against a sloped target) in relation to the length of the high-density longrod penetrator of an APFSDS round. It compares two mathematical solutions (the forumula from W. Lanz & W. Odermatt aswell as a sub-module of the ALEGRA software suite) with actual measurements (the dots) which are interpolated using a polynomial fit (spline interpolation).

Looking at the chart, the length and velocity of the M833 would roughly result in a factor slightly below 0.8 penetrated steel thickness per penetrator length (P/L). A value of 0.8 multiplied with 427 mm will result in an estimated armor penetration 341 mm. Keeping in mind that the graph below is calculated for tungsten rods, the DU penetrator might (based on the exact criteria) perform better; the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has established that there is no difference in armor perforation (punching a hole through a steel target), but a difference for armor penetration (punching a hole into a steel target without fully perforating it) - so it isn't really clear wether this matters. Earlier work from ARL suggested a 8-10% lower penetration for tungsten rods, which would suggest 360-370 mm penetration (or rather 180-190 mm sloped at 60°) at 2,000 m distance. 

KO4RD6X.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation!

 

So, what do you think where does the 500mm for the M833 (in Militarysta's chart, and also in some russian sources) comes from? And what criterias did they use to determine such result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Thanks for the explanation!

 

So, what do you think where does the 500mm for the M833 (in Militarysta's chart, and also in some russian sources) comes from? And what criterias did they use to determine such result?

No idea, most of them are taken from Bauman book (2006 Moscow) and they are put ther based on "unkown" criteria. Thats the problem whit, in theory realible sources.

Whit polish WITU is the same - sometimes they put something shamefully mistaken but generally it's good source.

Share this post


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

No idea, most of them are taken from Bauman book (2006 Moscow) and they are put ther based on "unkown" criteria. Thats the problem whit, in theory realible sources.

Whit polish WITU is the same - sometimes they put something shamefully mistaken but generally it's good source.

What if they just made some typo? Maybe that data is for the M900 and for some reason they wrote M833 instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 6:07 PM, SH_MM said:

IMml2ddeOiU.jpg

 

M833 - 360-370 mm

 

2 things: 

 

1. Source? 

 

2. Is this chart suggesting that M900 is only as powerful as M111 Hetz? Cause M111 could penetrate the T-72 at range (just barely), but the graph also shows M900 just barely penetrating a T-72 at range. 

Share this post


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

How about DM13 and DM23? 

 

Based on the graphs you posted earlier, the 120 mm DM13 and 120 mm DM23 APFSDS have rather short penetrators, but also a rather large diameter. This is relevant, since penetration increases with diameter for a given length (more accelerated mass = more kinetic energy; penetration scales with kinetic energy). A slightly thinner rod with greater length would overall be superior, but technology and/or other requirements resulted in a diameter of 32 mm for the DM23 APFSDS (thinner tungsten rod with the available alloys did shatter too often).

YDhaJIw.jpg

 

The velocity of the DM23 after traveling 2,000 m is 1,529 m/s according to Swiss firing tables, but these list the muzzle velocity at only 1,640 m/s. So either the DM23 has a muzzle velocity of 1,640 m/s rather than the usually reported 1,650 m/s or the differences are caused by the Swiss measuring methology or are result of a local modification to the 12 cm PzKan 87 (Swiss designation for the DM23). If the latter cases are true, the impact velocity should be ~1,539 m/s instead.

Given that the penetration efficiency of shorter, thicker rods is more, it seems that the DM23 might achieve a penetration per length of above 1 against German HzB A steel:

Hqsv5rJ.jpg

(from Anderson and Riegel III, 28th International Symposium on Ballistics, "Estimate of penetration/perforation performance based on semi-infinite penetration data")

 

The problem is that exact informations regarding the specific steel alloy are rather scarce. HzB. A (and other steels of the HzB classification) existed in several versions with different alloys and hardness levels. In so far it is hard to convert the exact penetration data into RHA penetration. For the graph from the previous post, the steel hardness was said to be 255 on the Brinell scale.

 

Based on the plotted data, the DM23 might achieve between ~ up to 1.05 P/L, so its 360 mm long penetrator would result in a penetration of 378 mm into semi-infinite HzB. A steel. I don't have access to the source from which the data is taken (research paper by Hohler and Stilp, who apparently work for the German Fraunhofer institute), so it is unknown to me wether the steel target was sloped or not. The penetration against sloped targets would be higher than unsloped ones. As this is semi-infinite penetration, the perforation should be higher (meaning: DM23 would probably punch a hole through a 390 mm thick  HzB. A steel plate under the same conditions).

 

 

As for the 120 mm DM13: It is hard to say due to its unconventional construction. The BM-42 Mango APFSDS (which seems to be the closest thing in terms of internal penetrator construction) supposedly achieves a penetration slightly greater than the combined tungsten penetrator length; it has a higher muzzle velocity, but due to the fin construction a greater V-drop (Fofanov lists V-drop of Soviet 125 mm APFSDS ammo as between 60 and 140 m/s/km; given that Mango has full calibre fins, it should be significantly more than 60 m/s/km). Maybe the steel sheat helps increasing the penetration efficiency by simulating a thicker rod/lower L/D ratio?

 

The DM13 should have slightly above 1,500 m/s velocity at 2,000 m distance according to the US graph from the last post (probably 1,510 - 1,520 m/s). That and its shorter rod should lead to a lower penetratioon than DM23 by quite a bit... how much? I don't know. Maybe it is 320-350 mm, if the steel has any positive effect on armor penetration. Otherwise it would again be close to a P/L of 1 (if DM13 behaves like a conventional monoblock penetrator), which would lead to a penetration of only ~310-320 mm. Perforation and penetration against sloped targets might again be higher.

 

The penetrators of both the M833 and the 120 mm DM23 APFSDS have rounded tips, which performs slightly worse than flat-tipped penetrators against sloped target (but penetration still should be higher than against unsloped ones). 

120mm_DM23.jpg

 

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

1. Source?  

 

2. Is this chart suggesting that M900 is only as powerful as M111 Hetz? Cause M111 could penetrate the T-72 at range (just barely), but the graph also shows M900 just barely penetrating a T-72 at range. 

 

Source is a Rheinmetall presentation from 2002. It used to be on DTIC, but I cannot find the full presentation at the moment... maybe the link expired or it was removed...

 

The M111 Hetz was capable of penetrating the original T-72's hull armor at very short ranges (some sources say 500-800 metres maximum). The T-72 had a glacis consisting of 80 mm steel, 105 mm stekoplastika (glass-fibre reinforced plastic) and 20 mm steel sloped at 68°. The T-72A had a different layout: 60 mm steel - 105 mm stekoplastika  - 50 mm steel (this is also 10 mm more steel), which was more effective against AP(FS)DS ammo. On later models, a 16 mm thick steel plate was added to the hull, improving protection further. The late production model of the T-72A featured spaced hull armor.

DGVZdcU.png

 

The M111 Hetz could never defeat the turret armor except for maybe a direct hit near the gun mount, where the armor thickness was only ~300-350 mm. The turret reaches a thickness of more than 475 mm at the well armored cheeks.

1451427730-t-72-ural-turret-thicknesss-c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Small Grammar nazi (or Grammar commisar?) note - not stekloplastika, but stekloplastik. 

 

I am innocent, S. Zaloga used the false form in "M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural".

Share this post


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

I am innocent, S. Zaloga used the false form in "M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural".

lol, i think that fiberglass layer is called Steklotekstolit (STB).

   Kind of terrible (for our tankers) thing is that T-72B3 still have unmodified armor from whatever T-72 they took for modernisation. I even saw T-72A (?) in one of TV reports about army training in the field. Strange to see that after so many years info on armor of Soviet tanks is still partially relevant.

Share this post


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

 

Based on the graphs you posted earlier, the 120 mm DM13 and 120 mm DM23 APFSDS have rather short penetrators, but also a rather large diameter. This is relevant, since penetration increases with diameter for a given length (more accelerated mass = more kinetic energy; penetration scales with kinetic energy). A slightly thinner rod with greater length would overall be superior, but technology and/or other requirements resulted in a diameter of 32 mm for the DM23 APFSDS (thinner tungsten rod with the available alloys did shatter too often).

YDhaJIw.jpg

 

The velocity of the DM23 after traveling 2,000 m is 1,529 m/s according to Swiss firing tables, but these list the muzzle velocity at only 1,640 m/s. So either the DM23 has a muzzle velocity of 1,640 m/s rather than the usually reported 1,650 m/s or the differences are caused by the Swiss measuring methology or are result of a local modification to the 12 cm PzKan 87 (Swiss designation for the DM23). If the latter cases are true, the impact velocity should be ~1,539 m/s instead.

Given that the penetration efficiency of shorter, thicker rods is more, it seems that the DM23 might achieve a penetration per length of above 1 against German HzB A steel:

Hqsv5rJ.jpg

(from Anderson and Riegel III, 28th International Symposium on Ballistics, "Estimate of penetration/perforation performance based on semi-infinite penetration data")

 

The problem is that exact informations regarding the specific steel alloy are rather scarce. HzB. A (and other steels of the HzB classification) existed in several versions with different alloys and hardness levels. In so far it is hard to convert the exact penetration data into RHA penetration. For the graph from the previous post, the steel hardness was said to be 255 on the Brinell scale.

 

Based on the plotted data, the DM23 might achieve between ~ up to 1.05 P/L, so its 360 mm long penetrator would result in a penetration of 378 mm into semi-infinite HzB. A steel. I don't have access to the source from which the data is taken (research paper by Hohler and Stilp, who apparently work for the German Fraunhofer institute), so it is unknown to me wether the steel target was sloped or not. The penetration against sloped targets would be higher than unsloped ones. As this is semi-infinite penetration, the perforation should be higher (meaning: DM23 would probably punch a hole through a 390 mm thick  HzB. A steel plate under the same conditions).

 

 

As for the 120 mm DM13: It is hard to say due to its unconventional construction. The BM-42 Mango APFSDS (which seems to be the closest thing in terms of internal penetrator construction) supposedly achieves a penetration slightly greater than the combined tungsten penetrator length; it has a higher muzzle velocity, but due to the fin construction a greater V-drop (Fofanov lists V-drop of Soviet 125 mm APFSDS ammo as between 60 and 140 m/s/km; given that Mango has full calibre fins, it should be significantly more than 60 m/s/km). Maybe the steel sheat helps increasing the penetration efficiency by simulating a thicker rod/lower L/D ratio?

 

The DM13 should have slightly above 1,500 m/s velocity at 2,000 m distance according to the US graph from the last post (probably 1,510 - 1,520 m/s). That and its shorter rod should lead to a lower penetratioon than DM23 by quite a bit... how much? I don't know. Maybe it is 320-350 mm, if the steel has any positive effect on armor penetration. Otherwise it would again be close to a P/L of 1 (if DM13 behaves like a conventional monoblock penetrator), which would lead to a penetration of only ~310-320 mm. Perforation and penetration against sloped targets might again be higher.

 

The penetrators of both the M833 and the 120 mm DM23 APFSDS have rounded tips, which performs slightly worse than flat-tipped penetrators against sloped target (but penetration still should be higher than against unsloped ones). 

120mm_DM23.jpg

 

 

Source is a Rheinmetall presentation from 2002. It used to be on DTIC, but I cannot find the full presentation at the moment... maybe the link expired or it was removed...

 

The M111 Hetz was capable of penetrating the original T-72's hull armor at very short ranges (some sources say 500-800 metres maximum). The T-72 had a glacis consisting of 80 mm steel, 105 mm stekoplastika (glass-fibre reinforced plastic) and 20 mm steel sloped at 68°. The T-72A had a different layout: 60 mm steel - 105 mm stekoplastika  - 50 mm steel (this is also 10 mm more steel), which was more effective against AP(FS)DS ammo. On later models, a 16 mm thick steel plate was added to the hull, improving protection further. The late production model of the T-72A featured spaced hull armor.

DGVZdcU.png

 

The M111 Hetz could never defeat the turret armor except for maybe a direct hit near the gun mount, where the armor thickness was only ~300-350 mm. The turret reaches a thickness of more than 475 mm at the well armored cheeks.

1451427730-t-72-ural-turret-thicknesss-c

Lol M111 penetrating glacis T-72A(60 mm steel+105 mm stekloplastik+50 mm steel) at distance 1500-2000 m( ОКР Отражение). 

only after welding a 16 mm high hardness plate could protect the T-72A from M111 at an impact speed of 1428 m / s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days ago the folks from Warthunder went to Minnesota and measured some details regarding the physical thickness of the armor of an original M1 Abrams tank, something which was already mentioned in the United States Military Vehicle General topic.

 

 

The English version of the article can be found here. I decided to take these values and combine them with the schmatics of the original composite armor (aka "Chobham", "Burlington" & "BRL-1") fielded on this version to estimate the overall armor thickness. The scan quality of these schematics is low (the paper wasn't flat when scanned, so the lines are not always straight), but I tried to adjust for this as good as possible. It seems that these schematics are not for scale or the measurements were wrong (though that doesn't seem likely).

 

Overall it seems that the armor thickness has been exaggerated quite a bit; some people said it would be 700 mm or even 750 mm, but most results end up being below 600 mm. I guess the most damning argument against the overall thickness being in the 650-750 mm range is the claim, that the distance between weld lines on the hull floor is just 22 inches (558 mm). Even though it isn't clear wether this includes or excludes the weld lines, it more or less means that overall cavity thickness is way below 558 mm. Add to this a 101 mm backplate and a 31.75 mm frontplate (both sloped) and 700-750 mm armor thickness becomes impossible, IMO 650 mm aswell, but I've never seen exact angles for the LFP and the hull floor.

 

ybpL955.png

 

WT also measured the thickness of the turret's armor cavities, but they didn't mention if that includes slope and they didn't mention the exact thickness of backplate, but it also doesn't seem to warrant the 700-800 mm thickness sometimes claimed. Armor cavity thickness was 19.5 inches on an unspecified side of the turret (the horizontal slope of the turret front is assymetrical), but the front plate is 1.5 inches (38.1 mm) thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, first time posting here (long time lurker), I'd like to continue the discussion on the leo 2 etc.
 

On 8/5/2018 at 8:08 PM, Militarysta said:

BTW - Im not sure DM-13. In green book (Bauman 2006 Moscow) is 220mm/60@ but IMHO it could be overestimated. From the other side - some other polish Autors found  in british archves that "unkown" german 120mm KE was able to penetrate 450mm steel from 1km in late 70's... so maybe..

I know of the Bauman book, though most of those seem to be estimates at best, the only other source I know of that could depict DM13 is this slide:

Spoiler

Image result for L23A1 APFSDS

Though this is from January 1974, atleast 5 years before the introduction of DM13, though it might be an experimental version of DM13, it does seem quite different (not to mention 5 years of ammo development could mean quite a sizeable difference example: DM23 -> DM33).
The diameter and the diameter of the penetrator don't seem to line up either, which is very weird....

It seems that it can defeat a HS (Heavy Single, 150mm at 60°) at 2500m, with a vΔ of 105m/s per 1000m this would mean an impact velocity of around 1490m/s, so extrapolating that data to PB would give us around 178mm at 60° (rough estimation).

 

This seems quite similar to M735 (forgive me, using WarThunder value for 60° here, I think it's largely correct) though XM735 in this picture only seems to defeat HS plate at around 800-1200m.....
Not quite sure what to think of this.

 

Could you provide me a link or a picture to the British document mentioning that "120mm KE" round?
DM13 overall seems like a very odd design, taking mutiple other designs and combining them...
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scav said:

Hello, first time posting here (long time lurker), I'd like to continue the discussion on the leo 2 etc.
 

I know of the Bauman book, though most of those seem to be estimates at best, the only other source I know of that could depict DM13 is this slide:

  Reveal hidden contents

Image result for L23A1 APFSDS

Though this is from January 1974, atleast 5 years before the introduction of DM13, though it might be an experimental version of DM13, it does seem quite different (not to mention 5 years of ammo development could mean quite a sizeable difference example: DM23 -> DM33).
The diameter and the diameter of the penetrator don't seem to line up either, which is very weird....

It seems that it can defeat a HS (Heavy Single, 150mm at 60°) at 2500m, with a vΔ of 105m/s per 1000m this would mean an impact velocity of around 1490m/s, so extrapolating that data to PB would give us around 178mm at 60° (rough estimation).

 

This seems quite similar to M735 (forgive me, using WarThunder value for 60° here, I think it's largely correct) though XM735 in this picture only seems to defeat HS plate at around 800-1200m.....
Not quite sure what to think of this.

 

Could you provide me a link or a picture to the British document mentioning that "120mm KE" round?
DM13 overall seems like a very odd design, taking mutiple other designs and combining them...
 

Welcome to SH!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Scav said:

Hello, first time posting here (long time lurker), I'd like to continue the discussion on the leo 2 etc.
The diameter and the diameter of the penetrator don't seem to line up either, which is very weird....
 

 

Perhaps it's a sheathed penetrator, and one number is the diameter of the inner tungsten penetrator, while the other number is the tungsten penetrator plus outer steel cladding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Collimatrix said:

Perhaps it's a sheathed penetrator, and one number is the diameter of the inner tungsten penetrator, while the other number is the tungsten penetrator plus outer steel cladding?

Yes, from what I know that's true, but the values don't match the ones I've been able to find:

Spoiler

Image result for DM13 APFSDSImage result for DM13 APFSDS

 

And it's more than just sheathed, it's also segmented with a weirdly designed ballistic cap and the first actual "penetrator" part seems to be similar in function to the ones found in 3BM15 etc (though substantially larger and with a tip reminiscent of L23A1).

Spoiler

Image result for L23A1 APFSDS


 

Share this post


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

Though this is from January 1974, atleast 5 years before the introduction of DM13, though it might be an experimental version of DM13, it does seem quite different (not to mention 5 years of ammo development could mean quite a sizeable difference example: DM23 -> DM33).
The diameter and the diameter of the penetrator don't seem to line up either, which is very weird.... 

It seems that it can defeat a HS (Heavy Single, 150mm at 60°) at 2500m, with a vΔ of 105m/s per 1000m this would mean an impact velocity of around 1490m/s, so extrapolating that data to PB would give us around 178mm at 60° (rough estimation). 

 

This seems quite similar to M735 (forgive me, using WarThunder value for 60° here, I think it's largely correct) though XM735 in this picture only seems to defeat HS plate at around 800-1200m.....

 

The data used by Warthunder for the M735 is simply wrong. It is not possible for the M735 to penetrate the same amount of armor as the DM13 APFSDS at the same distance, given that penetrator length is essentially identical (~313 mm vs 315 mm), but the muzzle velocity and length-to-diameter ratio are in favor of the 120 mm DM13. An older article published in 1982 in the US ARMOR magazine suggests that the XM827 (German 120 mm DM13) has a 20% larger penetrator mass and was able to defeat all targets during the 1976 gun trials by NATO at longer ranges than the M735 (the M735 failed to penetrate some targets).

 

Given the higher drag of the DM13, the M735 might be able to reach the same level of armor penetration at ranges greater than 4 kilometres (assuming deceleration stays constant up to this distances), but the 105 mm rifled guns M68 & L7 weren't considered accurate enough (neither was the 120 mm Rh 120 L/44 firing 120  mm DM13 ammunition).

 

22 hours ago, Scav said:

DM13 overall seems like a very odd design, taking mutiple other designs and combining them...

 

The layout of 120 mm DM13 is identical to a patented design from 1972.

 

7WqfsPl.png

Patent drawing from patent DE2234219, registered on 12th July 1972. They certainly couldn't take design aspects from other APFSDS ammunition which didn't exist at the time.

 

22 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Perhaps it's a sheathed penetrator, and one number is the diameter of the inner tungsten penetrator, while the other number is the tungsten penetrator plus outer steel cladding? 

 

AFAIK the table posted earlier was made by another internet user, who based it on a (de)classified report. He might have made some error when entering the numbers from the paper into the computer, because the DM13's penetrator diamter is listed as larger than the actual diameter of the sub-projectile, which is physically impossible. The penetrator diameters for the L15 APDS, the L52 APDS and the 110 mm APDS are all smaller than the projectile diameter - just as expected.

 

22 hours ago, Scav said:

And it's more than just sheathed, it's also segmented with a weirdly designed ballistic cap and the first actual "penetrator" part seems to be similar in function to the ones found in 3BM15 etc (though substantially larger and with a tip reminiscent of L23A1).

 

The weirdly shaped ballistic cap is in fact a windshield and a very normal design. Several other APFSDS rounds from NATO and the Soviet Union (among them the L23A1 APFSDS, Lekalo and Mango) use the same method to connect the windshield to the penetrator.

The penetrator design and working mechanism is not similar to the Soviet 3BM-15 APFSDS and its sucessors. The Soviets used very brittle tungsten-carbide cores, which were shaped like bullets and embedded into the steel, because they would break otherwise.

%25D0%2591%25D0%259F%25D0%25A1.jpg

 

The tungsten-carbide tips would break off when hitting sloped armor or become damaged when penetrating spaced armor, which significantly reduced the performance of Soviet APFSDS. That is why the tungsten-carbide core was later moved to the rear of the penetator to deal better with spaced and composite armor arrays.

d64ae9ec5a5cbd1efdda9f1c6e5b5a51c37985ca

3BM-26, the tungsten-carbide penetrator is located in the fin-section.

 

The DM13 APFSDS uses a penetrator made of WHA; the patent from 1972 suggests that 95% tungsten, 3.4% nickel and 1.6% iron would be desirable. The steel sheat is only added, because of the low yield strength of the WHA, which breaks apart when hitting (highly) sloped armor. The steel sheat apparently doesn't extend over the frontal (separate) section of the penetrator, because the tip always breaks off when impact sloped targets. Furthermore this layout was found to be advantageous against multi-plate armor arrays, as the larger frontal portion would result in a larger hole, through which the main part of the penetrator could travel without being damaged.

Share this post


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

The data used by Warthunder for the M735 is simply wrong. It is not possible for the M735 to penetrate the same amount of armor as the DM13 APFSDS at the same distance, given that penetrator length is essentially identical (~313 mm vs 315 mm), but the muzzle velocity and length-to-diameter ratio are in favor of the 120 mm DM13. An older article published in 1982 in the US ARMOR magazine suggests that the XM827 (German 120 mm DM13) has a 20% larger penetrator mass and was able to defeat all targets during the 1976 gun trials by NATO at longer ranges than the M735 (the M735 failed to penetrate some targets).

Interesting, I was assuming that they managed to improve on the M735 since the tests from that table, guess not much or not at all?
IIRC XM827 was supposed to be DU which at this point was probably superior due to alloys being better, might explain the difference?
 

59 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

They certainly couldn't take design aspects from other APFSDS ammunition which didn't exist at the time.

Well, I didn't mean that they took those aspects from other rounds, but that they used similar design features as present on other rounds (later ones).

A bit similar to how 3BM32 has the same general exterior shape as DM13.

I do wonder what the purpose of these features was.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

AFAIK the table posted earlier was made by another internet user, who based it on a (de)classified report. He might have made some error when entering the numbers from the paper into the computer, because the DM13's penetrator diamter is listed as larger than the actual diameter of the sub-projectile, which is physically impossible. The penetrator diameters for the L15 APDS, the L52 APDS and the 110 mm APDS are all smaller than the projectile diameter - just as expected.

That explains a few things I found curious.
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The weirdly shaped ballistic cap is in fact a windshield and a very normal design. Several other APFSDS rounds from NATO and the Soviet Union (among them the L23A1 APFSDS, Lekalo and Mango) use the same method to connect the windshield to the penetrator.

It seemed quite thick at the front end to me, I guess most pictures or renders of APFSDS don't quite do justice to the thickness of the windshield.

Intriguing how they left a small section hollow at the front, I realised that the attachment area to the actual penetrator was probably just that, but the empty space there seems out of place.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The penetrator design and working mechanism is not similar to the Soviet 3BM-15 APFSDS and its sucessors. The Soviets used very brittle tungsten-carbide cores, which were shaped like bullets and embedded into the steel, because they would break otherwise.

Yeah, I just figured the penetrator seemed segmented and had a weirdly shaped front section, almost as if it was supposed to penetrate the first couple of layers and then leave a rather large hole for the second segment to follow up on.
Purely speculation ofcourse.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The tungsten-carbide tips would break off when hitting sloped armor or become damaged when penetrating spaced armor, which significantly reduced the performance of Soviet APFSDS. That is why the tungsten-carbide core was later moved to the rear of the penetator to deal better with spaced and composite armor arrays.

Yeah, though they also used some kind of tungsten tip in combination with the tungsten core in some of the later versions (3BM22 IIRC).
 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The DM13 APFSDS uses a penetrator made of WHA; the patent from 1972 suggests that 95% tungsten, 3.4% nickel and 1.6% iron would be desirable. The steel sheat is only added, because of the low yield strength of the WHA, which breaks apart when hitting (highly) sloped armor. The steel sheat apparently doesn't extend over the frontal (separate) section of the penetrator, because the tip always breaks off when impact sloped targets. Furthermore this layout was found to be advantageous against multi-plate armor arrays, as the larger frontal portion would result in a larger hole, through which the main part of the penetrator could travel without being damaged.

Could you potentially give a link or something?
I've been scouring the internet for any kind of info on this round and what it's supposed to be capable of, but to no avail, I was just left with more questions in the end.
95% tungsten seems on the low end, would explain why they thought a more complex shape was necessary...
 

Thanks for the info though, that's very interesting and in line with some of my suspicions!

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

  • Similar Content

    • By Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


    • By Serge
      A nice picture to start :

      ZAHA
    • By Sturgeon
      Let's say you're developing a tank with a unique (AKA non-historical) gun for one of our competitions here on SH. It would be nice to have an idea of the size of the gun, its shells, and what their performance both in terms of shell weight and velocity but also penetration, wouldn't it? Well, fortunately there is a way to do this with reasonably accurate results using your solid modeling software and some free to use browser tools.

      First, you want to have a general idea of the size and performance of your gun. For this example, I decided I wanted an optimized, high velocity 85mm caliber gun with a case about as big as the 7.5cm KwK 42 (as it happened, I ended up with a case that had significantly greater volume, but that fact is unimportant for this example). The cartridge I decided on has a 130mm wide rim and a 640mm long case, of course in 85mm caliber. My first step was to model this case in SolidWorks:


       
      You will also need to model your projectile, in this case a tungsten-carbide cored APCR round:


       
      Next, we need a bit of freeware: A Powley computer. Originally developed by DuPont engineers for small arms ammunition, the Powley computer is an accurate enough tool to use for much larger tank rounds as well! When you click the link, you'll be greeted with this screen:
       

       
      You'll note the dimensions are in inches and this thing called "grains" (abbreviated "gn"). The grain is an archaic Imperial mass unit equal to 1/7000th of a pound which is still used in the small arms field, today. Another quirk of small arms has the case capacity - a volume measurement - listed in grains as well. This is in fact grains of water (gn H2O), or the weight of water that will fill the case to the top. To find this, simply multiply the volume in cubic centimeters by 15.43 - which is also the exchange rate between the metric gram and grains mass.
       
      Finding the volume of the case is easy with a solid modeling program; simply model the interior as a solid and find the volume of that solid:


       
      Filling in my Powley inputs gives me this:
       

       
      Note that I typically use the diameter of the projectile across the driving bands for "Bullet Diameter", but it really makes very little difference.
       
      So far, though, we haven't actually produced any results. That's because our gun is well outside the bounds of DuPont production IMR powders, hence the output "Much slower than (IMR) 4831" in the lower left. So, we need to override the computer by checking the box next to the blue "Pressure" function, and typing in a pressure value in CUP that is reflective of tank guns of whatever era we are trying to represent. My tank gun is trying to represent something from about the late 1940s/early 1950s, so I'm going to use 45500 CUP EDIT: USE 41000 CUP for APCBC and 42800 CUP FOR APCR (or better yet, do your own calibration!):
       

       
      This gives me an estimated muzzle velocity of 3,964 ft/s for my L/50 barrel. Not bad! Note the outputs on the left, which tell you a bunch of fun facts about your round but aren't terribly relevant to what we're doing here today. Next, we need to put this gun's performance in terms of penetration. The way I like to do this is through comparative analysis.
       
      The first thing we need is to know to find penetration the ballistic performance of our round. We can estimate this using JBM's ballistic calculator and a few rules of thumb. When opening the calculator, the first thing you'll see is this:
       

       
      We care about basically none of these settings except BC, velocity, and maximum range. Caliber, projectile weight, chronograph distance, etc are all pretty irrelevant to us. Keep the environmental settings (temperature, pressure, etc.) set to their defaults. First, change the ballistic coefficient type from G1 to G7 using the dropdown menu. Then, change the muzzle velocity from 3000 to whatever the muzzle velocity was that was calculated by the Powley computer. Finally, set the maximum range to your desired distance - in my case 2,000 yards.

      For my round, I now have inputs that look like this:
       


      We also need to get some idea of how fast our projectile loses velocity, something we can't know for certain without actually building a real gun and test firing it - or at least without some really sophisticated simulations. However, projectiles with the same shape tend to fly the same way, and that's something we can exploit here. To figure this out, we need a graph showing us the performance of a real-life gun. Fortunately, there is a handy one for an IRL gun similar to what I'm designing, the 90mm M3 from World War II, and its M304 HVAP-T, which is broadly similar in construction and shape to my 85mm APCR projectile:
       

       
      Based on this chart, we see that the M304 should drop from its 3,350 ft/s muzzle velocity to about 2,500 ft/s at 2,000 yards. Doing a little trial and error with JBM tells me that this means the M304 has a G7 ballistic coefficient of about 1.13.
       
      Now, our projectile will not have the same ballistic coefficient, due to it being a different size and mass. But, we can figure out what its ballistic coefficient would be by finding its sectional density and comparing that to the sectional density of M304. To find sectional density, take the projectile's weight in grains and divide it by the square of the projectile's diameter in inches, times 7000. So for M304, we get:
       

       


      And for my 85mm, we get:


       

       
      This means that the ballistic coefficient for an identical-shape projectile with our size and weight will be about 1.019/1.330 - or 76.6% as much - as that of the 90mm M304. That means a BC of 0.866 G7 should be approximately correct for my 85mm APCR round. Let's plug that in:


       
      And then scroll down to the bottom to click "calculate", which gives us a big ol' chart that goes out to 2,000 yards:
       

       
      O-Kay! Now we have some data. It looks like at 2,000 yards, my projectile holds about 2,800 ft/s striking velocity. It's important to note here that what we really care about isn't the striking velocity of the projectile per se, but the velocity and energy of the projectile's core. The core is what's actually doing a lot of work to the armor, so for now let's stop thinking in terms of the whole projectile, and take a look at these two cores, that of the M304 90mm HVAP, and that of my 85mm APCR round. The core of the 90mm M304 is an approximately 8 pound lump of tungsten-carbide that is about 45mm in width. My penetrator is also 8 pounds, but it's longer and thinner in proportion - just 40mm wide, rather than 45mm. This means my penetrator will penetrate more armor at a given striking velocity, and we can estimate how much more by taking the specific energy of the rounds and comparing them. That is, the energy in Joules of the penetrator alone, divided by the penetrator's diameter squared:
       

       


      So the specific energy at 2,000 yards is about 826J/mm^2. Now, we need to find out at what impact velocity the M304 penetrator produces this same specific energy. Do do that, we go backwards, using the figures for M304:
       

       

       
      Therefore, the equivalent impact velocity for my 85mm APCR round at 2,000 yards is 3,150 ft/s for the M304. That means, in theory, that the M304 would have to impact a target at 3,150 ft/s to produce equivalent penetration of RHA to my 85mm APCR striking at just 2,800 ft/s.

      Now, we head back to that chart:


       
      On the left side of the graph, we put our cursor on the line that corresponds to approximately 3,150 ft/s velocity, and follow it over until it hits the curved line that corresponds with the angle of plate we care about - arbitrarily, let's pick 20 degrees. Then, we follow that point straight down until it hits the x-axis:


       
      Therefore, we estimate that at 2,000 yards, my 85mm has just over 10 inches of RHA penetration - not bad at all for a lowly APCR round!
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since we don't have a thread for British and Commonwealth tanks of WWII, I thought I would start one.  
       
      Check out this manufacturers instructional video on the Crusader.
       
       
×