Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

TWMSR

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

TWMSR last won the day on August 4 2023

TWMSR had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

TWMSR's Achievements

Contributing Member

Contributing Member (2/3)

14

Reputation

  1. According to RH DM63A1 round is about 21,4 kg. If taken seriously, with same penetrator and sabot, maybe a little heavier case (fabric renforcement) and a little lighter whole round, DM73 got even lower amount of propellant. But how did RH get more velocity then? Or maybe that part of data sheet is very roughly approximation and new round is heavier.
  2. Maybe it is range of stabilized elevation which might not be same as maximum or manual elevation range.
  3. Right one is 542 kg, left one 389 kg. If you model it you can check density.
  4. The most often quoted pressure for 120 mm guns, 672 MPa, is actually Extreme Service Condition Pressure, gun-ammuniton system-related. In L55A1 it is said to be raised to 700 MPa and in case of 130 mm L52 it is about 800 MPa. It is possible that at this moment this value for ASCALON is lower than for 120 mm gun. Design pressure is gun-related, it is chamber pressure that is not exceeded more than one shot out of million when firing at ESCP. DP for 120 mm guns is about 740 MPa, 760 MPa in case of L55A1, about 880 MPa for 130 mm L52. All that values are lower than Safe Maximum Pressure, again gun-related, which is hard stop. Exceeding SMP means that tube would be plastically deformed. Detailed desctiption of ordnance system pressures and relations between them is described by STANAG 4410.
  5. You find War Thunder not good enough for being a source for reference images?
  6. KEW - tungsten variant of M829A1 KEW-A1 - variant of DM 43 KEW-A2 - tungsten variant of M829A2 KEW-A3 - probably tungsten variant of M829A3 (ever seen?) KE-T /AKE-T/KEW-A4 (?) - tungsten variant of M829A4
  7. Sheffield, max speed is for rapid traverse, f.e. when you need to turn turret from 2'oclock to 6 o'clock or TC align turret position with his Peri. Aiming speeds are minis and maxes for responsive aiming, slow for precision 'sensing', fast for target tracking and FCS solution commands (you do not want do wait too long until gun elevates for shooting far-far away targets).
  8. Could you elaborate your first point? How would you define the part of CH2 turret carcass in the process of defeating penetrator or jet? Could you also elaborate your second point? What would prove what?
  9. Properties of cast turret carcasses of Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 are not crucial for protection of those tanks. It is the last layer of armour array and it is not supposed to stop full-scale attack but to intercept residual jet or penetrator that would pierce special armour modules.
  10. It is not good simulation. BM15 is cored projectile, with tungsten carbide penetrator inside, not steel-only like BM12 or BM17.
  11. 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 balloting, sabot separation. Decreasing of sabot weight must be made with all those mentioned above things in mind. The art of firing a projectile lies in efficiency of terminal ballistics, not pureness of interior ballistics or aesthetics of exterior ballistic. As for hollow design there were many such designs during APDS era. I recall also that 152 mm APFSDS XM578/XM579 got sabot with hollow area. Some modern sabots got external grooves or ribs that both increase stiffeness and decrease weight. But the limit for that designs remains in material behaviour during very high G acceleration, when any asymetric load could lead f.e. to asymetric sabot separation, which then could ruin accuracy or even cause projectile goes wild.
  12. 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 heavier than A1 sabot. This is, probably, why in that article exact wording is 'additional 30% equivalent sabot mass reduction'. It does not sounds so simple like 'A2 sabot is 35% lighter than A1 sabot, and A3 sabot is 30% lighter than A2 sabot'. For me, at last, it sounds more like 'A2 sabot is 35% lighter than A1 sabot, and A3 sabot is 30% lighter than A2-technology level sabot if made for A3 projectile'. This makes calculations a bit more tricky, as we do not know mass of A3 sabot if made in A1-technology (aluminum), of A3 sabot if made in A2-technology (1st gen. carbon composite), and as it was eventually made. The other point now, 30% equivalent mass reduction between A2 and A3 sabots. Damn, how they did that? Both sabots are double-ramp design, A3 probably pinnacle of that design, with no easily visible means to reduce mass other than change of material. This suggest that 2nd gen. laminate of A3 sabot got much lower density - up to 30%. I would love to have a good read about that new carbon composites, anyone?
×
×
  • Create New...