Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Tranche 7

[The Soodean Imperium]

it could perhaps be possible if it were moving >2 kps

That's my point. 1.5kps is fairly low for modern APFSDS.

Don't all the M829 variants used by the Abrams have muzzle velocities somewhere in the 1.5 to 1.6 km/s range?

[Saphirasia]

That's my point. 1.5kps is fairly low for modern APFSDS.

It's actually typical.

Only older APFSDS tend to go above 1.5 kps.

Lowest number I can find here is 1,555m/s, which is the M829A3. Highest is the DM53 at 1,750m/s.

Don't all the M829 variants used by the Abrams have muzzle velocities somewhere in the 1.5 to 1.6 km/s range?

Yes. The M829A3 actually has a lower velocity than the A1, which makes no sense to me. Most of the German-designed ammunition seems to be in the 1.7 km/s range, even when fired from the L/44 gun.

[Krazakistan]

Thanks for the input guys.

Muzzle velocity: 1,500 m/s

Penetration at 2,000m: 820mm RHA

Well outside of the bounds of reality.

http://www.longrods.ch/perfcalc.php

Haha, first try and I'm not even close. You gotta start somewhere though.

Do you happen to have additional resources that would be helpful to me?

Firstly, the penetrator seems too thick for its length. You want somewhere in the 30-40:1 range. Also, for the velocity, that's awfully high penetration.

Alright, I'll go thin it up a bit with my epic MS paint skills.

[Calla]

L (as in L50) is a measure of the length of a tank gun. Sadly I am unsure of the conversion.

L = Length, divided by caliber, x times.


For ease of demonstration, I'll use the German Panzer 4, and it's three 7.5cm guns:
So the 7.5cm L/24 of the early war had a barrel that was Length divided by Caliber (75mm) 24 times. To find length, you multiply the caliber, by the division factor: 24.
75 x 24 = 1800mm barrel.

The next was the 7.5cm L/43:
75 x 43 = 3225mm barrel

The final version was the 7.5cm L/48:
75 x 48 = 3600mm barrel

[Saphirasia]

L (as in L50) is a measure of the length of a tank gun. Sadly I am unsure of the conversion.

L = Length, divided by caliber, x times.


For ease of demonstration, I'll use the German Panzer 4, and it's three 7.5cm guns:
So the 7.5cm L/24 of the early war had a barrel that was Length divided by Caliber (75mm) 24 times. To find length, you multiply the caliber, by the division factor: 24.
75 x 24 = 1800mm barrel.

The next was the 7.5cm L/43:
75 x 43 = 3225mm barrel

The final version was the 7.5cm L/48:
75 x 48 = 3600mm barrel

Forgot about the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70:
75 x 70 = 5250mm barrel

[Questers]

Thanks for the input guys.

Well outside of the bounds of reality.

http://www.longrods.ch/perfcalc.php

Haha, first try and I'm not even close. You gotta start somewhere though.

Do you happen to have additional resources that would be helpful to me?

Firstly, the penetrator seems too thick for its length. You want somewhere in the 30-40:1 range. Also, for the velocity, that's awfully high penetration.

Alright, I'll go thin it up a bit with my epic MS paint skills.

The one I linked is the best.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index ... ition_Data

A lot of this is relatively accurate, but some of it is basically not correct (the L30 rounds and the ATGMs are a bit off, IMO. CHARM 3 has about 750mm in reality and a lot of the ATGMs need bumping upwards. But the Russian, German and American ammunition is mostly correct.)

[The Soodean Imperium]

L (as in L50) is a measure of the length of a tank gun. Sadly I am unsure of the conversion.

L = Length, divided by caliber, x times.


For ease of demonstration, I'll use the German Panzer 4, and it's three 7.5cm guns:
So the 7.5cm L/24 of the early war had a barrel that was Length divided by Caliber (75mm) 24 times. To find length, you multiply the caliber, by the division factor: 24.
75 x 24 = 1800mm barrel.

The next was the 7.5cm L/43:
75 x 43 = 3225mm barrel

The final version was the 7.5cm L/48:
75 x 48 = 3600mm barrel

Also note that this length classification must not be confused with the similar-sounding but entirely different British gun-naming convention; the famous L7 gun was not 735mm long!

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Yes. The M829A3 actually has a lower velocity than the A1, which makes no sense to me. Most of the German-designed ammunition seems to be in the 1.7 km/s range, even when fired from the L/44 gun.

The A3 pretty much says "fuck speed, bigger is better" it really doesn't have a high muzzle velocity but more than makes up for it with the size of its kinetic energy penetrator. Remember, velocity is only a portion of the equation, mass and length are also important factors.

[Krazakistan]

Thinned it up a bit and changed the stats. Excuse my terrible artistic skills, please.


Not to scale

Stats:

Penetrator material: DU

Projectile length: 800mm

Muzzle velocity: 1,650 m/s

Penetration at 2,000m: 770mm RHA

Better?

Edit: It appears with the calculator Questers sent me the round would get 20mm more penetration if it was tungsten instead of DU. Huh.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Thinned it up a bit and changed the stats. Excuse my terrible artistic skills, please.

(Image)
Not to scale

Stats:

Penetrator material: DU

Projectile length: 800mm

Muzzle velocity: 1,650 m/s

Penetration at 2,000m: 770mm RHA

Better?

Edit: It appears with the calculator Questers sent me the round would get 20mm more penetration if it was tungsten instead of DU. Huh.

A quick glance and everything looks fine. What's the penetrator diameter? Also, Tungsten tends to outperform DU at higher velocities but I thought you would at least need to reach the 1700-1800 m/s range before W outperforms DU.

[Krazakistan]

Thinned it up a bit and changed the stats. Excuse my terrible artistic skills, please.

(Image)
Not to scale

Stats:

Penetrator material: DU

Projectile length: 800mm

Muzzle velocity: 1,650 m/s

Penetration at 2,000m: 770mm RHA

Better?

Edit: It appears with the calculator Questers sent me the round would get 20mm more penetration if it was tungsten instead of DU. Huh.

A quick glance and everything looks fine. What's the penetrator diameter? Also, Tungsten tends to outperform DU at higher velocities but I thought you would at least need to reach the 1700-1800 m/s range before W outperforms DU.

The penetrator's diameter is 30mm.

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

A quick glance and everything looks fine. What's the penetrator diameter? Also, Tungsten tends to outperform DU at higher velocities but I thought you would at least need to reach the 1700-1800 m/s range before W outperforms DU.

The penetrator's diameter is 30mm.

So yeah, everything is fine unless the image only having two fins is intended instead of inability, laziness, or apathy to draw 4+ fins, because a KEP needs more than just two fins.

[Krazakistan]

The penetrator's diameter is 30mm.

So yeah, everything is fine unless the image only having two fins is intended instead of inability, laziness, or apathy to draw 4+ fins, because a KEP needs more than just two fins.

It's supposed to have 4 fins but I'm not skilled enough at MS paint to draw them, haha.

[Calla]

For ease of demonstration, I'll use the German Panzer 4, and it's three 7.5cm guns:

Forgot about the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70:
75 x 70 = 5250mm barrel

Actually didn't forget it. It was never used on the Panzer IV.
Also, doing 4 examples seemed excessive.

[Hasmonea]

And that is good.

Retrofitting a smaller bustle to a T-64 is quite possible though. Both Russia and Ukraine have demonstrated this.

You could also try using the Standard Turret, probably the most interesting Russian tank project that never went anywhere. It is derived from the Black Eagle turret, but was intended to be compatible with every Russian tank from the T-55 onwards. The case for it was good, thousands of tanks in Russia and abroad could potentially have been brought to near-modern standards using a common set of components, but the Omsk bureau never catches a break.

As an NS upgrade it is basically perfect. It was even designed to be compatible with a larger and more powerful gun, should the need have arisen.

Must...make...Western rip. More use of Western composite armor ('special armor' or whatever you call it) than ERA though there will be provision for them both.

I can imagine plenty of legacy tanks (e.g. M60, Centurion, Leopard 1, AMX 30 etc) that could benefit from such a turret, though I'd imagine making the turret fit such a diverse array of tanks could diminish parts commonality.

[Rich and Corporations]

And that is good.

Retrofitting a smaller bustle to a T-64 is quite possible though. Both Russia and Ukraine have demonstrated this.

You could also try using the Standard Turret, probably the most interesting Russian tank project that never went anywhere. It is derived from the Black Eagle turret, but was intended to be compatible with every Russian tank from the T-55 onwards. The case for it was good, thousands of tanks in Russia and abroad could potentially have been brought to near-modern standards using a common set of components, but the Omsk bureau never catches a break.

As an NS upgrade it is basically perfect. It was even designed to be compatible with a larger and more powerful gun, should the need have arisen.

How do you know this stuff?

So, what do you guys think would about be the maximum penetration a 125mm GLATGM could get (seeing how far above the refleks I could get for my T-80UM's)?

Edit: I know Ukraine has one that gets 950mm penetration, so I guess I'm actually seeing if any can beat that.

1100mm would be plausible with the most modern SC warheads.

It might increase to 1300mm if you don't have to penetrate it half the time.

[Kolintha]

Hullo there. I had a look at the Chally 2 when I was designing my nation's MBT and came across this picture:

I was wondering why the side skirts don't cover up the drive wheel. Wouldn't that make it somewhat of a target?
Sorry if it's a stupid question. I'm somewhat new to tank design.

[Imperializt Russia]

Would it be possible to create a KEP round with 800mm+ penetration for the 2-piece ammunition of a 125mm without the removal of the carousel autoloader?

I think Imperializt Russia said that they have a 1 piece for the T-80 (which uses the autoloader). And, also, the 3VBM??/3BM46 (3BM48 "Свинец-2"), which has a penetration of 800mm. I think I would just use the Refleks or maybe develop a new GLATGM.

EDIT: Not a 1-piece round, the T-80 just has a stronger auto-loader, so it can carry larger KEP's.

T-80 autoloader had a different geometry which allowed a longer warhead section, and thus more capable ATGMs and KEPs, to be carried.
The T-72 autoloader has the shells and propellant stacked one over the other, pointing into the centre of the carousel. The T-80 has a funky folding arm geometry - the two sections of the shell, propellant and warhead, are held in a two-piece hinged arrangement with the propellant pointing down and the warhead pointing into the centre of the carousel.

When loading, the hinged arrangement is moved into a folded layout with the warhead section bent upwards - the arrangement is then raised and unfolded for ramming. Imagine bending your arm in front of you with your elbow down and then straightening your arm.

Well the Soviet Union and Russia have used/are using them so i think it is safe to say they work.

That said using two piece ammunition in tern limits the size of the penetrator you can use, which means that two piece ammunition can have problems with penetration. Please note I said can, there are ways that Russia has apparently gotten around this.

so what's the benefit over single piece

Smaller autoloader requirements, reduced bulk of ammunition stowage at the cost of more stowage required.

With larger shells, it breaks up the shell into components that can be managed by human loaders. This is apparent in the 140mm and 152mm concepts, and why many of these concepts suggested autoloading.

[Kouralia]

Hullo there. I had a look at the Chally 2 when I was designing my nation's MBT and came across this picture:
(Image)
I was wondering why the side skirts don't cover up the drive wheel. Wouldn't that make it somewhat of a target?
Sorry if it's a stupid question. I'm somewhat new to tank design.

The mud or w/ever which the tracks pick up as they're pressed into the ground gets thrown back like mud spray on a car, but in typically larger, more solid lumps. The removal of armour from there ensures that there won't be any build up of material in the external moving parts which could affect their working.

[Chebucto Provinces]

Yes. The M829A3 actually has a lower velocity than the A1, which makes no sense to me. Most of the German-designed ammunition seems to be in the 1.7 km/s range, even when fired from the L/44 gun.

The A3 pretty much says "fuck speed, bigger is better" it really doesn't have a high muzzle velocity but more than makes up for it with the size of its kinetic energy penetrator. Remember, velocity is only a portion of the equation, mass and length are also important factors.

M829A3 has a thicker, and longer rod, while reducing the weight of the sabot and increasing the efficiency of the propellent. It is intended to defeat heavy ERA and so has a slightly lower L/D ratio then M829A2, but puts more mass with more or less the same velocity as the A2.

DM63 is built around the idea of faster, rather then more mass, to defeat heavy ERA. Same target to defeat, except the materials used are different. Because the German rounds are built around a Tungsten penetrator, its strength on shear forces is less, and therefore the Germans have opted to push it faster through the threat-area of the ERA. Whereas Staballoy is a stronger material. That's what I have always understood whenever I have gotten to work with American tank crews, that Staballoy is simply stronger overall for the increased density and capability over any existing Tungsten penetrator alloys.

[Registug]

Hullo there. I had a look at the Chally 2 when I was designing my nation's MBT and came across this picture:
(Image)
I was wondering why the side skirts don't cover up the drive wheel. Wouldn't that make it somewhat of a target?
Sorry if it's a stupid question. I'm somewhat new to tank design.

The drive wheel is a horribly small target when fighting at standard tank combat ranges, which is in the kilometres.

Hell, even at infantry combat ranges, if you got a shot at the drive wheel you may as well shoot for the side armour.

[San-Silvacian]

Hullo there. I had a look at the Chally 2 when I was designing my nation's MBT and came across this picture:
(Image)
I was wondering why the side skirts don't cover up the drive wheel. Wouldn't that make it somewhat of a target?
Sorry if it's a stupid question. I'm somewhat new to tank design.

The crew inside the tank are far more valuable than the tank itself.

If you lose the tank, you can put the crew in a new tank.

If you lose the crew, you need a new crew.

[San-Silvacian]

It's actually typical.

Only older APFSDS tend to go above 1.5 kps.

Lowest number I can find here is 1,555m/s, which is the M829A3. Highest is the DM53 at 1,750m/s.

Don't all the M829 variants used by the Abrams have muzzle velocities somewhere in the 1.5 to 1.6 km/s range?

Yes. The M829A3 actually has a lower velocity than the A1, which makes no sense to me. Most of the German-designed ammunition seems to be in the 1.7 km/s range, even when fired from the L/44 gun.

Thats because Russian ERA is triggered by fast moving KEPs, which was why Kontakt-5 was so effective against M829A1. M829A2 and A3 move slower, meaning that as they impact the ERA, it takes longer for the ERA to react before detonating, allowing for the KEP to perform better.

Just another day in the race of armor penetration/armor

[Bratislavskaya]

Is there any point in me using these:

It's a vehicle for airborne infantry. Its armed with a 106mm Recoiless Rifle. If I made something like this with a Soviet recoiless rifle would it be effective at anything. Bear in mind I have BMD-2s and BMD-3s in service already.

[San-Silvacian]

Why not something like ASU-85?