Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I am not sure if you folks noticed:

TJRfD53.jpg

Ck0b-RyWgAAckCr-696x522.jpg

 

We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun.

From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.

 

What concerned me is the size of the shell. It rules out the carousel autoloader in any future western tank with this gun and a unmanned turret, unless you want a tank that makes the T-14 look short. I also wonder if they have the extend the ammunition rack for the old vehicles to make it fit.

 

If this is already posted or something like that, feel free to notify me and delete the post.

 

 

Mvh

Xoon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, you've won the exceptional prize of drawing my attention for being a particularly noteworthy bag of flaming shit, let me honor you on this occasion by shitfucking you back to the stone age real fa

I am not sure if you folks noticed:   We got two images of the new gun and it shell. It's a 130mm L51 tank gun. From the looks of it, the new shell is roughly 1200mm high.   What concerned me

Object 770 would like to have a word.   I wonder what the breech pressure limit is, and also how gigantic the overpressure zone around the muzzle is.

Wait.. ETC?

From what I know, yes, but I don't have any solid sources. 

 

Only real info on the gun has been a random German magazine and a promotional poster.

 

This was published in the European Forum on Ballistics of Projectiles, article "Status and Results of the German R&D Program on ETC Technologies". The LKE II (DM53 prototype) fired from the L55 gun reached a muzzle velocity of 1750 meters per second (mps) at 21° centigrade, whereas a projectile with the same mass, fired from the ETC prototype gun with 110 KJ of electrical energy added, managed to reach a muzzle velocity of 1822 mps and an energy output of 14 MJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds interesting.

It is entirely possible that it is a ordinary gun. It just seems weird to develop a new tank gun, with a new caliber a and with ETC technology around the corner.  It could have been a quick way to up gun Leopard 2s in service in reaction to the T-14, but having a 50% performance increase from the L55 seems hard with a shorter gun. Even if the case it longer,and it is not wider from the looks of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

DvHTqhs.jpg

 

 

 

And here better photo of the new 130mm:

 

13434847_1018024224917825_55788638287397

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate on this point?

Going off of a report I saw a while back, rods over a certain length, say 1100 mm, begin to become noticeably impractical versus shorter counterparts. Basically, the longer length makes them more fragile and likely to shatter on impact (and against ERA). The solution around the issue is to make the rod thicker, but this dramatically increases weight and reduces its aerodynamic efficiency.

Interestingly enough, this new rod appears no thicker, maybe even thinner, than the 63A1's. Most likely b/c it is a mock up.

@Militarysta

Maximum muzzle energy, IIRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going off of a report I saw a while back, rods over a certain length, say 1100 mm, begin to become noticeably impractical versus shorter counterparts. Basically, the longer length makes them more fragile and likely to shatter on impact (and against ERA). The solution around the issue is to make the rod thicker, but this dramatically increases weight and reduces its aerodynamic efficiency.

Interestingly enough, this new rod appears no thicker, maybe even thinner, than the 63A1's. Most likely b/c it is a mock up.

@Militarysta

Maximum muzzle energy, IIRC.

 

 

On a lot of modern APFSDS designs the length of the projectile is longer than the length of the penetrator per se.  On M829 and related penetrators there's a break-off portion at the front of the projectile which sacrificially shears off to protect the rest of the penetrator in case it whacks into K5 or similar "heavy" ERA:

 

P0RBMKC.png

 

On some European APFSDS designs there's a sub-caliber pre-penetrator which pokes a hole in any ERA without initiating it through which the rest of the penetrator follows.

 

So there are reasons to make the projectile really, really long even if the penetrator doesn't get that much longer.

 

Article at defense update.  Not a lot of new information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much bending resistance could that thread add?  It doesn't have that much volume of material in it and doesn't stick that far out from the center of bending.

 

Pretty sure the main purpose of the thread is to provide the sabot grip during acceleration in the tube.

46%, according to my napkin calculations.

 

if that was the main purpose, they could do with a lot less thread, couldn't they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

46%, according to my napkin calculations.

 

if that was the main purpose, they could do with a lot less thread, couldn't they?

 

I don't think so.  Look at M111 Hetz:

 

7467_zpsc9aad0ab.jpg

 

The grooves for the sabot to engage are simply circular grooves, not a thread, and they go almost the entire length of the dart.

 

The issue, per Ogorkiewicz, is that tungsten and uranium alloys have low sheer strength relative to their inertia.  You have to spread the gripping out over a lot of grooves as a result.  You can get away with smaller gripping surfaces with all-steel penetrators, which have better sheer strength and lower inertia, and also look like finned dildos:

 

xqBEkBl.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rough approximation, using sigma equals flexural force over width times depth (for a rectilinear cross section), I get that the increase in maximum axial load will be proportional to the increase in cross sectional area afforded by the thread vs just using ribs.  Using that model the increase is, needless to say, not worth getting excited about.  The thread ID doesn't look to be more than 10% smaller than the OD, 110% squared is 121%, so the cross sectional area difference will be less than that, exact amount depending on thread form and pitch.

 

Even if we account for the slight increase in tensile stress for a given flex load at the edge of a thread and the reduction of stress risers (or at least the re-direction of them to be not perpendicular to the long axis of the rod), I don't see how we can get a situation where the rod would have gotten fucked up by K5 without the thread, but not fucked up with it.

 

Given that very long grooved sections predate knowledge of K5, and are not present on earlier all-steel penetrators, I think we can safely say that the main purpose of the design is to give adequate material for the sabot to hold on to without sheering.  I'm not sure why Rheinmetall and others are using helical threads instead of simple circular ribs on their design.  It may have advantages to manufacture.  But I can't see how it could possibly prove a decisive counter-countermeasure to heavy ERA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By pizza654
      This is my first post and im no physicist so if this sounds stupid to you please explain to me why its dumb because I always like learning new things about gun design. Anyways ive had this idea in my head for a while now about a rifle concept and it first popped into my head when I was looking at the mechanics of a pkm. Like a lot of belt fed guns the piston is on the bottom of the barrel instead of the top and because the bolt and piston is so low it gives the pkm a good recoil impulse. My thought was how come no ones ever designed a rifle with the gas system below the barrel instead of on top? Imagine a SCAR but the barrel and the piston gas block is reversed.
       
       
    • By Toxn
      You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 
       
      However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 
       
      In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.
       
      Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).
       
      It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.
       
      The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.
       
      Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.
       
      The foreign vehicles available for modification are:
      Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C  
      The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
      15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)
      3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43  
      Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.
       
      IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.
       
      Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.
       
      Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).
      If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.
    • By Proyas
      Hello everyone,
       
      I'm very impressed by the technical expertise on this forum, and so I'd like your feedback on my theories about what a crew-less, robot tank would be like. I wrote about it here, on my blog:
       
      https://www.militantfuturist.com/what-would-a-robot-tank-look-like/
       
      I might edit the blog entry based on any feedback I get from you guys.
       
      Thanks.
    • By Proyas
      Is there any way Sherman tanks could be upgraded at reasonable cost to still have a role on the battlefield? Assume that your military will never fight with a world-class army (U.S., Russia, China, etc.) and instead will only fight with second-rate armies using 1990s technology at best, or with terrorists, or go on peacekeeping missions. 
       
      I'm thinking that the Shermans could have their turrets removed and modern autoloading turrets from other armored vehicles--like the 105mm Stryker gun, or the 40mm autocannon from the CV10, or the 30mm from the BMP-2 (would any of these fit in the Sherman's turret ring?)--could be dropped in, along with their sensors and computers. ATGM launchers could be installed as well. Explosive reactive armor bricks could be attached to the outside, as is common among modern Russian tanks. 
       
      Assume that your Sherman fleet is 1,000 tanks, in various states of (dis)repair, so you have enough spare parts to last for many years. 
       
      What do you guys think? Thanks. 
       

×
×
  • Create New...