Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

TWMSR

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TWMSR

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The clue seems to be that sabots cannot be considered only or primarly as parasitic mass. Every gram counts, of course, but the most important task of sabot is transfer of acceleration load to projectile, and to do it in such way that would not interfere launching of that projectile and, as result, the bang it would do at the end of it's trajectory. There are many other issues about sabots, also of high importance as a problem of mass, and in many cases interconnected: sealing the bore, stiffeness of sabot, penetrator-sabot interface, ration of bore erosion, risk of projectile ball
  2. TokyoMorose, thanks for that article. If those numbers are correct, level of mass reduction is phenomenal. There are however some points about that. First of all, M829A1 and A2 are very similar rounds, that got very similar penetrators and hence both uses sabots that are comparable in size. So if A1 sabot indeed weights 4,4 kg and it is stated that A2 sabot is 35% lighter, than it is easy calculation for A2 sabot. M829A3, on the other hand, is very different animal. It got long rod that is longer than just long If it's sabot is made of aluminium it would be hea
  3. Bore size plays it's role, but double-ramp sabots, developed for high elongation penetrators, needs to be long to properly support the rod during firing. Sabot design is not all about reduction of parasitic mass, it should be light enough, but it has other important tasks. Old Soviet 125 mm metal sabots got it's merits, but using ring sabots and full-bore fins and low elongation penetrators today might be considered as suboptimal. Changing sabot material, as in case of M829A1>M829A2, is one way to go (btw. where did you find information that sabot of M829A3 is 30% lighter than o
  4. Great idea It is so silly to put parasitic mass into design, why do not use zero-mass sabots instead? And why waste so much energy on muzzle blast? All energy should go into penetrator, it must be easy task.
  5. DM 53 is 13 MJ at the muzzle - with sabot. For penetrator only it would be about 8,5 MJ at muzzle, and a bit less of impact energy at 2000 m. It seeems that Ascalon gives 10 MJ penetrator's energy (muzzle or 2000 m) from the start.
  6. Someone do. It is DE102013101423. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/84/45/e5/ab7a967a9f8dd9/DE102013101423B4.pdf
  7. Maybe it is a matter of being prototype - but turrets on both vehicles that were shown are a bit different. Not only armament (gun itself, it`s craddle, mask) but look also at lower edge of turret. Looks like different masking of "core" turret. We need more better pictures, not just stills from video. Leo 2 turret would need some rework to not only look like Altays, but to be functional (f.e. reposition of sights, slight in case of gunner's, bigger in case of commander's). Sit and wait.
  8. Modified Leopard 2 turret. Applique modules, new fire control, RWS, IFF, but all on orginal turret.
  9. So Turkish bought IMI's M325 and Poongsan K277 HEAT-T ammo for their tanks. And the latter type works so-so.
  10. RH guy, when asked, stated that A1 got new primer, that meet more strict requirements on electromagnetic radiation hazards.
  11. Indeed. But if you look at pictures of Turkish "60s" you can see that it is not uncommon to put spare track links or wheel discs on turret walls. Those parts could be blown off when hit by warhead. In this case there coul be seen splash marks on yellow paint on the left.
  12. Hard to tell. L28 used WC core with WHA cap/nose and steel cup in-between. The cup would not be seen without disassembly, but core and cap material should differ in look. At this picture WC cores of older APDS looks darker than supposed WHA cores of newer APDS. Probably L52, not L28.
  13. 90 mm M36/M41, L/50, HEAT-T M431 (5,8 kg), mv =1219 m/s 90 mm JPz BK, L/40,5, unknown shell type (5,74 kg), mv=1181 m/s It could be expected in case of AP-T M318 (11 kg) mv would be circa 800/m/s when fired from 90 mm JPz BK.
×
×
  • Create New...