[quote=Firral;493234]
Quote:
Let's not name the facts - a myth.
|
Firral, you know me well enough that I don't usually speak out my arse. Take a good hard look at a T-90. With its sloping the real surface area is greater than the Abrams tank that uses near vertical slabbing to reduce the real area.
.l
.l
.l
.l
takes up less space than
..../
.../
../
./
Quote:
Not truly.
Reduction of loading of an ammunition is practice of use of the tank without lateral jet protection in Groznom in 95-96 years. Only in this case you can get in an ammunition load from RPG. Even if on the tank rubber "skirt" is established, this shot will not bring result.
|
Unless your in a T series you genrally want more ammo in combat.
Quote:
You again have confused all  :
3BM32 3BM39 3BM48 3BM52 - uranium cores.
|
As far as I know Russia has not deployed them. and I believe the 3Bm48 in a Tunsten-cobalt alloy.
Lastdingo
Quote:
|
But remember that the increase of 120mm APFSDS penetration from about 1980 till today was primarily a function of ever longer and thinner penetrators. That increased their susceptibility to heavy ERA (and IIRC: DU is more susceptible to lateral influences than tungsten).
|
That may have held true through the M829A1, but not the next 2 generations. The A2 was designed to have improved penetration and sheer resistance vs the k5 type of ERA. The M829A3 is designed to defeat more modern HERA. The M829 is both longer but also heavier maintaining roughly the same 30/1 LD ratio used by almost all real long rod penetrators.One of things being rumored is a DU staballoy made with molybdenum that is very durable and able to resist sheer.
Quote:
|
The lower MMP / ground pressure and weight of Russian tanks allows them to negotiate more terrain and smaller bridges - that could be an advantage.
|
ground pressure is function of weight divided by on the gorund track length and width. A 20 ton tank with a thin enough track will have more ground pressure than a 60 ton MBT with wide and long tracks. Bridges of course are dependent on total load bearing so ground pressure is not as much of a factor. 46 tons does mean more bridges are open vs 62 tons but most armies with MBT's have CL 70 bridging capability.
Skywatcher,
Quote:
|
Doesn't the latest Chinese tanks have heavier armor than the Russian ones? The ZTZ-99 has at least eight to ten more tons than the T-90.
|
yes, but whose is better? The Russians put thier ceramic insierts on the inside, the Chinese on the outside. The Chinese tanks are modular, Russians are not but the Russian's have a lot more experiance with military ceramics.
Quote:
|
As for the Chinese APFSDS penetration claims, the only reason I can think of is that the Chinese have messed around with the autoloader to fire both single and dual piece ammo.
|
No, public domain pictures show a round no more than 650mm long 2 peace ammo. The Chinese claim thier gun creates more 'energy', but thats just propaganda. Ke is a function of mass and velocity- Ke=.5mxV^2 joules. They give a muzzel velocity equal to the newest 2A46m5 guns and the pictures show a typical L/D ratio. Since Russia uses both Tungsten and DU rounds the mass of the Chinese rounds cannot be noticeably greater than a Russian round of the same dimensions. The secrets in round design is not how to get it shaped right (its a dart) but how to get it to keep from deforming on impact so that it can transmit its Ke into force upon impact. Russia anjd NATO have been at that game for decades and for China to come out of nowhere and have the worlds best round is hogwash. No round in the world has penetration equal to 150% of its length. The best I have seen claimed and still find credible seems to top out around 115% for long rod penetrators and 125% for short rod penetrators
As I learn more i revise my estimates but I have found that most rounds penetration can be roughly estimated by taking estimated Ke and dividing by 10500 to 12,500 depending on how conservative you are
M829A3 if we assume a sabot and fin weight of 1kg thats a 9kg penetrator 4.5mx 1555m/s=10881112.5j/1000= 10.8mj of energy/ 11,500 (middle of the pack) penetrating 946mm RHAe. The M829A3 is 835mm long so 115% of 835 would be 960mm RHAe so my estimate is within that range
/12,500=906mm RHAe
/10,500=1036mm RHAe
A Chinese round with a penetrator weight of 6.5kg 650mm long traveling at 1750m/s generates 9953125j 9.9mj max penetration/ 10,500=947mm- way past the max of 812. shorter rounds can translate thier energy into force more effectively than longer rounds, but as total penetration is a function of length longer is better.
/11,500= 865 (again past the max of 812)
/12,500= 796
800mm seems to be the max the Chinese round will do.