Militarysta

And what about the status of Ukrainian 3BM-44U1/U2 rounds?

It's like Arsen Pavlov "Motorolla"  -so lovely dead

Menhwile in Donieck Republic T-72B1 Anno Domini 2016

Ps. Poland is using Dm-53 LKEII round - Germans give us whit Leopard 2A5 few thousands rounds (circa 2k) as first use stock.

@Methos

Well, Fofanov usually knows his stuff. In the Otvaga forum he wrote in 2010 that it was not known that 3BM-48 (Svients) went into production; I don't think that keeping the round secret after 19 years of service is possible. IMO the photograph shows that the FCS is programmed to accept the Svinets APFSDS, but it doesn't mean that it was used in service... or do you think the 3BM-22 Zakolka APFSDS from 1976 is still used with the T-72B3/T-90?

Im not sure if Fovanow is living in empty space Who really know usally don't wrote anythink... The true is that 3BM48 is placed in offcial KB Tula statsment as DOI in 1991:

(source from circa 2010's (previous decade)

Год  принятия  на   вооружение - DOI

Существующие  образцы - existing amunition

Находящиеся   в   разработке - In development

Планируемые   к разработке - Planned to develop

And it's present in FCS contol pannel in Sprut-SD:

And it have GRAU designation.

And yes - whole BM9, 15, 22 etc are still using in Russian Army as in Polsih army - what is stupid - mostly for trening purpose, couse APFSDS-T-TP is not ussaly avaible...the same think is in Polish and Russian army unfortunatly. What more - polish PT-91 are still using 3BM15... And Russian tanks - 3BM26

According to Russian Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a source. Read english wiki about Leopard-2 tanks and You will see why.

That doesn't make sense to me. I could believe that Svinets-1 and -2 started production after the second batch of T-90A tanks (120 tanks made between 2006 and 2011 according to Russian Wikipedia) was finished; the first video footage of Svinets-1 or -2 production was published in 2014, after converting T-72B3 tanks and the third batch of T-90A tanks was started.

Answer is very simple - Sowiet and Russian DOI is before amunition is mass placed in tanks.

3BM32 was developed in 1985 but DOI and 1987 and  introduced in mass production in circa 1988-1989 3BM42 was developed in 1986 but DOI in 1988 and introduced in mass production in 1989-1990, 3MB48 was DOI in 1991 and introducen in mass prduction - well good question if or in what number At least Sprut-SD have it in FCS.

Svieniets-1 and 2 was developed in end 1990s and  DOI in 2002 but propably indeed mass production was redy in 2010 - or even later. So there is no discrepancy here. Offcial DOI in to service and give GRAU designaton is few (or even more) years before mass  production.

According to Fofanov and Kotsch:

 

Svinets was a research topic, not a mass produced APFSDS.

It's not true to be honest. And there are 3 diffrent "Sviniets" round in Russia:

3BM48 Sviniets  1991 DU rod for Sprut-SD, T-90, T-90A, and propably for some T-80U whit ESSA and PLISA.

3BM59 Sviniets-1 2002 DU for T-90A and T-72B3 since 2014

3BM60 Sviniets-2 2002  WHA as above.

And even the oldes "Sviniets" 3BM48 (DOI 1991) was in mass production:

@UP

PTUR or rather ATGM ;-) in western nomenclature.

And big gap after ERA hit was commpon porblem in case ERA:

More or less most study from 1980 -so no wery younger then DM13 and XM833 give us huge gap between DU and WHA penetration:

heavy single NATO target - 60% (!)

heavy tripple NATO target - 43% (!)

unkown incarease tragets: from 13% up to 38%

All for XM833 for DU and WHA core.

More fresh studies - from end of the 80s give us diffrence on 13-15% level.

BTW:

It is also hard to believe that the M829A3 should penetrate 800 mm of steel, when the same forum page suggests that it has only a 625 mm long penetrator...

It's only depend on one "factor" - real penetrator lenght in M829A3. My sugestion is that there is special "tip" or rather segment to overpas heavy ERA. In sucht case this segment should not take part in main armour penetration and this more then 800mm is BS. But...it's not so simple.

What if this "segemnt" will take a part in penetration process if there is no ERA? Then whole penetrator lenght is circa 800mm. And there is of course possibility that there is no any single sophisticated solution and we have just long and heavy rod. Again -at least 800mm long.

How big will be penetration of RHA monoblock by 800mm long rod whit V-drop circa 1500m/s? For 0. plate circa 800, for 60. plate - slighty more up to 880-900mm... Again - value "over 800mm RHA" is fully possible in M829A3 case.

next one:

@SH_MM

About DU and WHA:

It is difficult to find information in the public domain about the effectiveness of DU and information that
makes an exact comparison with other materials is even more difficult to access. However, internal UK
government documents cite an improvement of about 15% in performance. A US government document
suggests that DU offered an average of a 52% increase in penetration above that of the tungsten alloys.

from:

David Cullen, Researcher, ICBUW

yes, poor sources couse to muchrt "green" ones...

So maybe better:

As We can see - for XM833 difrense is is between WHA and DU:

heavy single NATO target - 60% (!)

heavy tripple NATO target - 43% (!)

unkown incarease tragets: from 13% up to 38%

So yes, penetration difrences between DM13 and M827 may be so big...

More fresh study:

And form 1990:

Hi Methos,

to be onest - In article I had used two russian sources :-) couse they have the same metodology:

Of course some of them was estimatous.

In term this polish military press - no hard data, just form context - couse diffrent gun.

btw: DU vs WHA it's old story,  in some sources there is 18% difrences between both material...

My "favorite" myths abut tanks:

1) Leopard-2AV main  armour was worse then XM1 :-)

2) Leopard-2A4 was inferior in armour protection in compare to M1 and M1IP

3) T-72B was poor protected in compare to western tanks

4) T-80U was poor protected in compare to western tanks

The favorite one:

5) T-72B and T-80B and T-80U and T-64 have therible "Ronson quality" survivialibity on battelfield after hit

From my article in Polish military press:

http://www.magnum-x.pl/artykul/tendencje-rozwojowe-przeciwpancernych-pociskow-podkalibrowych

Table whit APFSDS data:

Value above is for @60 degree slopped plate in 2km distance.

There is one mistake above. For person who find it - full article (in Polish)

and value for DM53 from Polish industry (lol)

http://www.altair.com.pl/magazines/htmlissue?issue_id=827&ref=issue

page 5-6:

So in theory  DM53 can achive 670 to 700mm RHA penetration acoding to manufacurer. Polish industry downgaraded this value in tabel in minus 40mm RHA to between 630 - 660mm RHA couse L50 barrel and 1710m/s muzzle.

Eurostatory2016 - Nexter munition (IMHO mucht more interesting then intenrational onanism on 130mm Rheinmettal gun)









Yes...datalink and programator in APFSDS-T Nexter F1B-NG:



And it's not firs western APFSDS-T whit data link and programator:



Why there is data-link/progamator in APFSDS-T round?
I have a theory:
Propably it is to somehow use a precursor that is "fired ahead" of the main rod.



So how the rod designs looks like here? The rod is made from two segments, the "precursor" and the main rod behind it. How they are connected? it might be some sort of polymer, glue that can be weakened by heat and the release precursor, and during flight rods heat up pretty nicely.

The precursor can also be relased based on a simple difference of speed between it and the main rod, and main rod can be slowed down by some sort of additional fins (aerodynamic breaks) released at specific point programmed by FCS. In such case precuros would initiate ERA and the main rod would have a clear way to main armor of the target.

How to cheat APS tough? Counting that precursor will be qualified by APS as threat and APS will be initiated, creating a time gap in APS reaction so it won't be able to counter the main rod? Possible yes, but then there is question, if APS will just not ignore the precursor, and this might happen, now of course there is a question how dangerous is precursor itself? For a MBT or vehicle with similiar levels of protection, for it's front it won't be dangerous in most cases, sides? If they do not have any addon armor, very possible. For lightweight platforms, yeah precursor also will be dangerous.

Of course these are only hypothesis, and we will see if other nations will also design APFSDS rounds with data link. Then we might get closer to the truth. Right now, treat it as food for thoughts.


And now French "new generation" OFL have progrmator. In case Abrams - datalink can be used for secure resons. In M1 gunner (not loader like in Leo-2) is setting type of ammo, so in theory there is posibilty that loader put for example APFSDS-T but gunner have still HEAT set up in FCS. So programator was some theory how to avoid sucht mistakes. But in Leclerc ammo? There are two barcode scaner in Leclerc Seriee XXI and bar code on ammo. So there is no posibility to "mistaken" loaded ammo.
So meybe my crazy theory about precursor in APFSDS could be real?

ps. USA had tested T-84 whit Knive = programator in new M829A4
Frencht had tested Knive ERA = pogramator   in new F1B-NG
Poland had tested Kinve ERA = "new" Leopard-2PL will have programator in Rh120mm gun...
Strange...

Militarista should repost here his otvaga view on Nexter new ammunition. Or i will do that  

I will repost

German designs have a helical rib on the penetrator which prevents it from buckling or snapping too easily

 

Not entirely sure whether this is a German design (seeing the Asian text), but it does show the helical rib:

DM53 is segmented: short-short-long

DM56 is segmented in short-short-short-short-shoer

Of course it's not segmented during fly, but "semi segmented" - heavy tungsten alloys slugs (something like 30mm APDS ammo) are "melti" in diffrent material and coverd by diffrent mettal jacekd.

DM-53 can overcome K5 without it's initiation and overcome double-reactive (IMHO Relikt) armour.

Maybe this will be helpfull:

http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t

(table with data)

http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,23,8924,wojska-ladowe,wyposazenie,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-ii-a-ile-to-przebija-czyli-o-szacunkach-i-metodologii-slow-kilka

again - table with data + google translator will help I suppose

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:

And here better photo of the new 130mm:

IFV Rosomak (fully polonisated AMV)

Wait.. ETC?

No. It;s not ETC.

Notice

Unfortunately very offen there is replicated myth about soviet Kontakt 1 ERA (4s20) as captured BLAZER copy.

It's completly false statment - developed 4s20 was independent soviet work and had started even erlyer then Blazer..

All is visible on cut-viev of the Blazer and Kontakt 1 ERA:

First of all - erly Blazer mostly have ONE reactive element inside ERA casette, Kontakt - always TWO elements.

Second - there is diffrent build of reactive elements in Blazer and 4s20 -what is visible.

1989; old good conscript army of "People Republic od Poland"

from 0:33 on movie - hand granades vs T-72M1 )

ps:

More tank and APC/IFV videos I will post soon :-)

Polish ANAKONDA-16 (Anaconda) trening on videos. NATO and polish soilders in the bigest (after 1989) trening in Poland:

couple of videos:

US Tanks, IFV, and motars + polish 2S1:

paratroopers:

SAAM Kub in action:

Making bridge on Wisła river (yes, huge river) in 45minutes

Did a little Googling and Octastit is 95% HMX with a binder.

 

With the use of Gurney equations the jet velocity can be calculated. However I don't know how to do that.  (yet)

I don't know Octastit's detonation velocity nor it's , but I do know LX-14's det velocity and , which are 9110 m/s and 2970 m/s. LX-14 is 95.5% HMX and 4.5% binder. I suspect Octastit has a similar det velocity, but using a different binder might throw things off. Compare to PETN (8260 m/s, 2930 m/s) and RDX (8700 m/s, 2830 m/s). (Values from Explosives Engineering*)

 

Another way to improve is indeed with using a different liner material. Copper isn't the best penetrator, but it's generally sufficient. And it's easy to manufacture copper liners. I don't know how much improvement a different material will give, but it will make the round more difficult and expensive to make.

 

They could also have done funny things with a wave shaper and the shape of the liner itself. Current simple conical liners are, again, easy and cheap to manufacture, but you can gain penetration by changing the shape of the liner and/or by adding a wave shaper.

 

 

But then again, the Panzerfaust 3 supposedly has 700 mm of penetration with a 110 mm warhead. The same as claimed here.

The Pz 3 has a pretty simple copper liner with a wave shaper:

 

The 900 mm they claim is bullshit. "Yes we have an estimated penetration of 700 mm, but in a static, optimised test we get 900 mm and that's way better than 700 mm so we have a really good warhead!!!"

 

 

tl;dr: Possible, but do you want to?

 

 

*

 

Surely buying those two won't raise an eyebrow or two

PzF-3IT600 had those over 900mm RHA.

Proven in Poland

It have new warhed.

Tommorow will wrote more.

WTF?!

It's Ukrainian T-84:

Warta ASP soft kill not Sthora

Erly Knife/K-5 casette 

KBA-3 gun

etc

It's not T-90M!

But funny mistake.