Tanks guns and ammunition.

[David Moyes]

I don't know what they mean by Southern Asia? South Korea isn't actually in the south.

[Beer]

48 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

I don't know what they mean by Southern Asia? South Korea isn't actually in the south.

 

But... but, but it's name contains "south", so it must be in south or?  

[Lord_James]

I do wonder which country in “Southern Asia” they went to for their autoloader. If it was India... I can see why they chose an in-house design. 

[SH_MM]

6 hours ago, David Moyes said:

I don't know what they mean by Southern Asia? South Korea isn't actually in the south.

 

One should keep in mind that these terms aren't set in stone and not always the same in the same language. For example the term "Middle East" in the German language consists of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, etc.

 

Still counting either South Korea or Japan to "South Asia" seems very wrong...

[Jackvony]

 

https://www.nexter-group.fr/actualites/nos-dernieres-actualites/120-shardr-la-nouvelle-generation-de-munition-anti-char.html

 

New Nexter Munitions APFSDS called 120 SHARD. Maybe related to that round we saw with a datalink a few years ago?

Spoiler

 

[Lord_James]

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1045347.pdf 
 

“76mm gun M1A1 and M1A2: an analysis of US anti-tank capabilities during WW2” 

 

It’s a “historical piece”, but an interesting read nonetheless.
@Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, there’s some schematics for the M93 HVAP, M62 APC, and M42 HE at the very end, if you don’t already have them. 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1045347.pdf 
 

“76mm gun M1A1 and M1A2: an analysis of US anti-tank capabilities during WW2” 

 

It’s a “historical piece”, but an interesting read nonetheless.
@Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, there’s some schematics for the M93 HVAP, M62 APC, and M42 HE at the very end, if you don’t already have them. 

 

Awesome. I do not have that report, or the schematics for those shells, at least at that quality. 

[alanch90]

More info on DM73, KE2020Neo, Rh130mm and MGCS.

- Super confirmed that DM73 is the same good old DM53/63 projectile and sabot but with more powerful propellant. Existing DM63 rounds can be upgraded to DM73. 8 Percent performance improvement over DM63.

- KE2020Neo will get a new "DM" designation in 2-3 years, mass production expected for 2025. Entirely new design both for projectile and sabot. Design is not yet finalized.

- There is not enough info currently to simulate T-14 armor for trials and experiments with the new ammo.

- Rh130 has 50 percent more chamber volume than 120mm, and also 15 percent higher pressure tolerance, producing an undisclosed higher muzzle velocity.

- The intended tank engagement range with 130mm APFSDS is 4-4.5km. Engineers doubt that APFSDS can be effective at that range vs moving targets, perhaps guided munitions might be more efficient.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/more-on-rheinmetall-tank-guns-and-ammunition-evolution

[Lord_James]

Interesting they are going for 4-4.5km ranges when current ammo is made for 2-3km. Why not go for 3-4km? 

[Atokara]

On 3/5/2021 at 4:09 PM, alanch90 said:

- 99 percent implied that the autoloader is based/inspired on the Japanese Type 10´s but still is an original design (that´s what i call a discreet F-U to the French and their experience with the Leclerc).

Even if France is experienced doesn't mean they are necessarily good at it. Just comparing the speed of the Type 90 and Leclerc you can already begin to see the flaws in the Leclerc system. Mainly how long it takes between the round being pushed into the breech and how long it takes the breech block to shut afterwards.

Spoiler

 

 

 Japan's solution was to attach the rammer arm on a pivot point so that the breach can close sooner during the retraction stroke.

Spoiler

 

Then you get to the Type 10 where it's pulling out entire reloads in the time it takes for just the mechanism stage of the Type 90 (which was already incredibly fast).

Spoiler

 

 

I had high hopes for the K2's autoloader, but it just seems to be a Leclerc autoloader with faster motors.

Spoiler

 

 

This leads me to believe that there is limitations from the fundamental design and any significant improvements in speed would require a complete redesign anyways, so they might as well just copy the good one.

[FORMATOSE]

On 3/9/2021 at 4:02 PM, Jackvony said:

New Nexter Munitions APFSDS called 120 SHARD. Maybe related to that round we saw with a datalink a few years ago?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

That was never intended to be a datalink, it's just a flexible primer.

 

On 3/24/2021 at 9:54 AM, Atokara said:

Even if France is experienced doesn't mean they are necessarily good at it. Just comparing the speed of the Type 90 and Leclerc you can already begin to see the flaws in the Leclerc system. Mainly how long it takes between the round being pushed into the breech and how long it takes the breech block to shut afterwards.

 

Leclerc's autoloader loading time was increased (reducing the rate of fire to 9-10 rounds per minute instead of 12) as the ammunition were too violently rammed into the chamber,  sometimes resulting in a rebound of the ammunition.

 

How reliable are the Type 90 and 10 autoloader ?

 

I wouldn't rely my reasoning on short videos. Does any official data exist regarding the performance of these devices ?

 

Quote

I had high hopes for the K2's autoloader, but it just seems to be a Leclerc autoloader with faster motors.

 

In any case, the South Korean delegation paid much attention to the Leclerc's autoloader during their visit at Eurosatory many years ago.

 

 

[Atokara]

2 hours ago, Sovngard said:

 

I wouldn't rely my reasoning on short videos. Does any official data exist regarding the performance of these devices ?

It's Japan we are talking about here. You'll be hard pressed to find accurate numbers on how much ammo their tanks carry, let alone a full write up on the autoloader performance. That being said there is no evidence that there was any reliability issues where you might expect to see them brought up such as interviews with design leads:

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/view/download/digidepo_1283286_po_TRDI50_04.pdf?contentNo=4&alternativeNo=

Type 10 design outlines specifying improvements needed over the Type 90:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B8KVYt57g6q_QTVHN1EyMThwRnM

 

The only autoloader related "issue" I've seen in regard to the Type 90 was that the 1st prototype was unable to mount one as the cooling system for it's CITV took up too much space at the back of the turret.

Spoiler

 

Either way it seems reliable enough that such a speed was adopted into service.

Spoiler

 

As you pointed out, the Leclerc's fire rate was reduced when it ran into issues. Therefore I see no reason why Japan wouldn't reduce the speed if they were running into issues as well. it's not like Japan was brand new to autoloading designs in the 90s either when they've been prototyping systems since the 50's

Spoiler

 

Either way it seems like it's a reliable enough design where Rheinmetall would toss up a big middle finger to the French design in favor of a Japanese design for a gun that will be mounted on a joint French/German vehicle.

[SH_MM]

On 3/24/2021 at 9:54 AM, Atokara said:

Even if France is experienced doesn't mean they are necessarily good at it. Just comparing the speed of the Type 90 and Leclerc you can already begin to see the flaws in the Leclerc system. Mainly how long it takes between the round being pushed into the breech and how long it takes the breech block to shut afterwards.

Those videos have the fishy look of being sped up...

[Atokara]

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Those videos have the fishy look of being sped up...

Source videos if you want to do your own timing. All the above vids above were timed from first frame of muzzle flash to first frame of the FCS unlocking the main gun using a 30fps timer. All vids are directly from the military or military sponsored vids.

Spoiler

https://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm4239189

 

 

 

 

 

[alanch90]

Does somebody have a good list (and data) of Chinese 125mm APFSDS?

[Domus Acipenseris]

Tungsten vs DU:  https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25367911.pdf

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA395913.pdf

[Zach9889]

https://www.serdp-estcp.org/content/download/34366/332230/file/WP-200805-FR.pdf

 

Demonstration of Tungsten Nanocomposite Alternatives to Depleted Uranium in Anti-Armor Penetrators

 

A more recent comparison of DU and WA penetrator performance.

[Atokara]

So I've seen this image used a whole lot across the internet as an estimate for the proportions of DM53 and I thought I would do my own measurements on it to see how things line up.

Spoiler

 

Disclaimer: I am merely providing my own interpretation of the measurements using the same methodology as whoever originally posted the image. Pixel measuring is an inherently inaccurate measurement tool and very subjective especially on blurry images such as this as people will have different opinions on which pixels can be considered part of the rod and which cannot. I accounted for pixel bleed as best I could by ignoring the softer and less consistent outlines where it was applicable. I do not consider my measurements any more correct and encourage other people to do their own measurements to compare to as well. In the image M829A3 and DM53 are not scaled exactly the same, there is a few px difference, so the ratios for both OP and my measurements will vary between the rounds.

 

Both DM53 and M829A3 don't have any officially published lengths, so people have gone to pixel measuring as a way to get estimates.

 

I started with M829A3 first by taking the pixel ratio for OPs estimate of 930mm. At 696px long this gave a ratio of 1.3362. The sabot diameter is always 119.9mm which makes it an excellent scaling tool which is what I used for my measurements(here I rounded it up to an even 120mm for simplicity sake). At 90px wide the ratio I got was 1.333 repeating. At a 0.003 difference OP did a good job measuring 829A3 imo as my ratio gave me a total length of the projectile of 928mm, only a 2mm or less than 2 pixel difference in our measurements. For all intents and purposes I consider M829A3's measurements accurate as can be estimated using this method.

 

Now onto DM53. Using OPs estimate of 760mm that gives us a ratio of 1.381818. Going off of the sabot which is 88px wide, I get a ratio of 1.3636 repeating. Now the difference here is a bit bigger (10mm or just over 7 pixels difference which I consider far outside the margin of error of 1-2pixels from M829A3) and when applying my ratio to the 550px long rod I get to total length of exactly 750mm. I actually found that OPs measurements for the diameter of DM53 lined up pretty well with mine just being a 1mm difference, but that is understandable due to the smaller pixel count of the diameter.

 

My last issue is with how OP measured the depth that the actual penetrating rod goes into the fin section. The pic of M829A3 is a proper cross section and we can see exactly where the rod ends so there is no estimates there, however the DM53 pic isn't a cross section and OP has given his own estimate of where he thinks it might end. To find a more accurate (but not exact) estimate in the ball park of where it might end I utilized the ratio of fin length to depth that the rod goes into that section. Here I also brought in a diagram of Type 10 APFSDS and I will explain why later.

 

M829A3 has 125mm long fins based on my measurements, 28mm or 22% of that length is overlapped by the penetrating rod.

DM53 has 110mm long fins based on my measurement and OPs estimate puts his estimate of where the rod might end at a depth of 54mm or just shy of 50%

 

Here I brought in a diagram of Type 10 APFSDS, because despite how secretive the Japanese are about their military equipment, we know quite a bit on this round. I used it as a control value to compare my estimates of M829A3 and DM53.

Spoiler

At 748mm long for the projectile and 350 pixels across I got a ratio of 2.13714. With the sabot at 56 pixels in diameter applying my ratio gives 119.6mm which is well within the margin of error (which is expected as we already know the measurements).

 

Now that we know the Type 10 diagram is accurate we can go back to the fins. Type 10 has 117mm long fins and a 32mm rod depth into the fin section which gives a 27% overlap (M829A3: 22%, OP's estimate DM53: 50%). And that is where my issue lies. I went ahead and gave DM53 the same overlap as Type 10 at 27% as M829A3 has a very different and longer fin design that pushes farther past the projectile body. 27% of 110mm gives 30mm and when measuring to the penetrator tip that OP estimated we get a 625mm penetrator length and an overall projectile length of 750mm for DM53.

 

Let me know if I screwed up anywhere.

[Sheffield]

On 4/20/2021 at 7:13 AM, Atokara said:

So I've seen this image used a whole lot across the internet as an estimate for the proportions of DM53 and I thought I would do my own measurements on it to see how things line up.

  Hide contents

 

Disclaimer: I am merely providing my own interpretation of the measurements using the same methodology as whoever originally posted the image. Pixel measuring is an inherently inaccurate measurement tool and very subjective especially on blurry images such as this as people will have different opinions on which pixels can be considered part of the rod and which cannot. I accounted for pixel bleed as best I could by ignoring the softer and less consistent outlines where it was applicable. I do not consider my measurements any more correct and encourage other people to do their own measurements to compare to as well. In the image M829A3 and DM53 are not scaled exactly the same, there is a few px difference, so the ratios for both OP and my measurements will vary between the rounds.

 

Both DM53 and M829A3 don't have any officially published lengths, so people have gone to pixel measuring as a way to get estimates.

 

I started with M829A3 first by taking the pixel ratio for OPs estimate of 930mm. At 696px long this gave a ratio of 1.3362. The sabot diameter is always 119.9mm which makes it an excellent scaling tool which is what I used for my measurements(here I rounded it up to an even 120mm for simplicity sake). At 90px wide the ratio I got was 1.333 repeating. At a 0.003 difference OP did a good job measuring 829A3 imo as my ratio gave me a total length of the projectile of 928mm, only a 2mm or less than 2 pixel difference in our measurements. For all intents and purposes I consider M829A3's measurements accurate as can be estimated using this method.

 

Now onto DM53. Using OPs estimate of 760mm that gives us a ratio of 1.381818. Going off of the sabot which is 88px wide, I get a ratio of 1.3636 repeating. Now the difference here is a bit bigger (10mm or just over 7 pixels difference which I consider far outside the margin of error of 1-2pixels from M829A3) and when applying my ratio to the 550px long rod I get to total length of exactly 750mm. I actually found that OPs measurements for the diameter of DM53 lined up pretty well with mine just being a 1mm difference, but that is understandable due to the smaller pixel count of the diameter.

 

My last issue is with how OP measured the depth that the actual penetrating rod goes into the fin section. The pic of M829A3 is a proper cross section and we can see exactly where the rod ends so there is no estimates there, however the DM53 pic isn't a cross section and OP has given his own estimate of where he thinks it might end. To find a more accurate (but not exact) estimate in the ball park of where it might end I utilized the ratio of fin length to depth that the rod goes into that section. Here I also brought in a diagram of Type 10 APFSDS and I will explain why later.

 

M829A3 has 125mm long fins based on my measurements, 28mm or 22% of that length is overlapped by the penetrating rod.

DM53 has 110mm long fins based on my measurement and OPs estimate puts his estimate of where the rod might end at a depth of 54mm or just shy of 50%

 

Here I brought in a diagram of Type 10 APFSDS, because despite how secretive the Japanese are about their military equipment, we know quite a bit on this round. I used it as a control value to compare my estimates of M829A3 and DM53.

  Hide contents

At 748mm long for the projectile and 350 pixels across I got a ratio of 2.13714. With the sabot at 56 pixels in diameter applying my ratio gives 119.6mm which is well within the margin of error (which is expected as we already know the measurements).

 

Now that we know the Type 10 diagram is accurate we can go back to the fins. Type 10 has 117mm long fins and a 32mm rod depth into the fin section which gives a 27% overlap (M829A3: 22%, OP's estimate DM53: 50%). And that is where my issue lies. I went ahead and gave DM53 the same overlap as Type 10 at 27% as M829A3 has a very different and longer fin design that pushes farther past the projectile body. 27% of 110mm gives 30mm and when measuring to the penetrator tip that OP estimated we get a 625mm penetrator length and an overall projectile length of 750mm for DM53.

 

Let me know if I screwed up anywhere.

 

Don't hold me on this but as far as I know, there was a picture of a brochure of DM53 posted sometime in the past on the net where it said the penetrator body was 685mm though I don't remember if it also said anything about the diameter;

 

Regardless of this, i think comparing DM53 to Type 10 AFPSDS is a bit of a moot point and it would do us better to compare DM53 to M829A1/2 which both have 680x22mm and 690x22mm penetrators respectively in a projectile body roughly ~760mm long (though it's 779mm long in total).

 

There's also the case of yet another, I believe Rheinmetall brochure from 2014 or so stating that the projectile body of DM53 is 745mm long (i'm assuming that they excluded the fins that extend beyond the body of the main body of the projectile.

 

I've done my own share of estimates on DM53 and 63 in my free time and this is what I had got:

DM53:

 

DM63:

 

Did an estimate for DM53 once again just a moment ago;

 

 

In regards to the DM63 estimate, since i already had numbers for diamater and the stuff, i just did a comparison of how long fins on the 53 and 63 are, substracted the difference and that's how i got to ~770mm total length and 745mm "effective projectile length" (or perhaps it could be called in-flight length?).

 

 

edit: just found this, i don't know where this comes from but the penetrator length matches what was said in the Brochure, diameter is a bit too high though it also matches if you count in the ribs which in my estimates were roughly 25.8mm

 

 

And overall i think this graphic is legit; 

DM13 estimate:

 

DM23:

 

DM33:

 

They all roughly fit with penetrator length, diameter is a bit iffy cause I dunno what kind of criteria they used for diameter there.

 

[Atokara]

3 hours ago, Sheffield said:

Regardless of this, i think comparing DM53 to Type 10 AFPSDS is a bit of a moot point and it would do us better to compare DM53 to M829A1/2 which both have 680x22mm and 690x22mm penetrators respectively in a projectile body roughly ~760mm long (though it's 779mm long in total).

My primary reason for this is the fact that its got a proper diagram with listed lengths which is pretty hard to come by past DM33. It acted as essentially a control group to make sure I was doing proper measurements. However after cross checking with your measurements I can't find any fault in your measurements either despite them being different from mine and I have a few guesses as to why.

 

3 hours ago, Sheffield said:

There's also the case of yet another, I believe Rheinmetall brochure from 2014 or so stating that the projectile body of DM53 is 745mm long (i'm assuming that they excluded the fins that extend beyond the body of the main body of the projectile.

Here is the first one. When measuring I was measuring from tip to ends of the fins. I found a diagram of 105mm Type 93 to compare against the Type 10 as there was no indication for either method and saw that the fin tips weren't included in the measurement for the Type 93 meaning that you were right with the exclusion of fins. Now this is a big problem for my control. By all accounts my numbers appeared to line up despite this error, but I went back to check anyways and found that I mis-measured the sabot diameter at 56px instead of the actual 57px and this would've tipped me off immediately to the fact that my scale was wrong. Going and measuring the cartridge diameter also shows the scale was off in a much bigger way. As it turns out that somewhere in the process of the Type 10 diagram being passed around the internet, it got stretched in the vertical axis, and when correcting for this, the exclusion of the fins got me an actually accurate scale.

 

Basically I went into it thinking my control group was accurate, but it ended up just throwing off my other measurements. That combined with the fact that the images are so blurry means that a few pixels can make a big difference. Just switching the sabot size on DM53 from 88px to 87px changes the overall length back up to 759mm alongside OPs original estimate. With the DM53 picture being so blurry compared to the M829A3 it's not surprising that one was accurate and 1 got messed up just from image clarity. Either way I found my mistake and also what just can't be helped with such an imprecise and subjective measurement system and this is exactly why I wanted other people doing their own measurements.

[Lord_James]

How / how often did they replenish the CO2 canisters for the M81E1 gun on the Sheridan?

[Ramlaen]

 

[eggs benedict]

Helo.

Is there accurate data on the projectile weight of 3BM59/60?

 

And why are the bore tip speed values so inconsistent from source to another? I have a feeling that NIMI is somewhat lowballing it's rounds. Either because its export or Because they dont want to Publicly declare .

[SH_MM]

On SHARD:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexter-120-mm-shard-towards-tailored-apfsds-solutions

 

Key points:

• there will be two SHARD rounds (SHARD Mk. 1 and SHARD Mk 2)
• SHARD Mk. 1 uses old double-base propellant, SHARD Mk 2 will utilize much higher pressure one
• SHARD has a longer penetrator than OFL F1 and F1B+ and is made of a new D10 tungsten carbide (this seems like a mistake from the author?) alloy from Plansee
• the sabot design and the fact that it is seated further down the barrel allows the SHARD catridge to contain more propellant (US did that already earlier...)
• accuracy is close to 0.2 mil at 1,500 m - much better than OFL F1
• overall performance increase (for SHARD Mark 2 over OFL F1B+?) will be 20%
• SHARD Mk. 1 is to be fully qualified by 2022

[Wiedzmin]

 

experimental 120mm APFSDS tested in 1968

 

 

 

so 105mm APFSDS has a name 33V10(blueprint name) 480mm from tip to fins 38 diam 4,47kg flight weight, 6,4kg projectile with sabots

 

Die Soll-v0 = 1470 m/s ist mit diesem TL-Aufbau NICHT ZU REALISIEREN, fall nicht der zulassige Temperatubereich fur das Shciessen eingeengt wird. Die Abhangigkeit der v0 von der Mun-te, peratur war mit dV = 3,4m/s pro C extrem hoch. Einzelwerete siehe Anl. 3 und 4. Die Truppenversuchsmunition wurde beshalb nur mit einer V0=1390 m/s ausgeliefert. 5.4.1 Einplattenziel(VTL-Material) Die Durchschlagsleistung der KE-Munition wurde im direkten Vergleich, d.h. jeweils auf derselben Pz-Platte zur PART 105x617, DM13 erprobt. Durch Reduzieren des TL-Gewichtes wurde die v bei der APDS-mun Auf Vz = 1294 m/s entsprechend E = 2000m und bei der KE au Vz = 1290m/s eingestellt. Die KE-Geschosse durchschlugen über den gesamten Winkelbereich um ΔD= +25mm dickere Pz-Platten als die APDS munition.

 

NATO medium Triple 10,5-25-61,3

KE 3o 2x(V50=1320)

APDS o.M

HEAT mod o.M

HEAT o.M

NATO double medium

KE 3 Bor max (vmax=1390)

APDS 2 1 Bor(vmax =1380)

HEAT mod 2o 1x

HEAT 3o

Heavy single

KE 3o 2x (v50=1380)

APDS o.M

HEAT mod 3o

HEAT 3o

 

Ziel 1(NHS) und III(NMT) wurden durchschlagen. Ziel 2(NDM) zeigte max.Beulen an der Plattenruckseite. Eine V-steigerung in mind.50 m/s erscheint notwendig, um auch dieses Ziel zu durchschlagen. Die Verlgleichsmunition DM13 hat nach den vorliegenden Ergebnissen keine Chance, je ein STANAG-Ziel zu durchschlagen.