Jump to content
4 hours ago, Leplivo said:

 

that .pdf file doesn't prove anything, anywhere you search on the internet it says that the 3BM upgrade package is for the tank biathlons and it just add an additional commander optic. Having just one source or file is nothing.

Pages 52 to 65 details the t-72b3m upgrade, what it includes, how many units were bought (in 2017) etc etc

 

the first paragraph translates to:

 

The last modification of the tank T-72B3M (T-72B3 obj. 2016) has a new cannon 2A46M-5-01, improved fire control system (with multi-channel sight PNM "Sosna-U", a modernized sight TKN-3 with a system "Double", as well as night binocular observation devices TVN-5), the forced engine in 1130 hp, automatic gear. The survivability of the vehicle is also significantly increased due to installation of new modules of dynamic protection "Relik" and hinged lattice screens. Tanks T-72B3M in batches of 10-20 units. entered service with the 20th OV ZVO (20 in the 144th MRD), 49th OA Southern Military District (10th in the 205th Motorized Rifle Brigade), as well as to the Kazan Tank Command school (9 units) and in the Omsk Automotive Armored Engineering Institute (3 units)

 

And there are 14 pages discussing all the upgrades, specifications, dates, performance, tests, etc etc So yea, your random internet searches will tell you "T-72b3m was only for biathlon" when no, it wasnt. It was the obj 2016 upgrade package.

Edited by CorsairJazzCat
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/08/2020 at 18:25, Leplivo said:

it uses 2A46M-5 and it can fire the Svinets APFSDS shells that have 600+ penetration.

Yes it CAN do that.

But it doesn't need that shell in game at all.

Russia has like what, 5 tanks with 3BM42

Germany has a single nerfed Leopard 2A5 with DM33.

The maximum you have after it is DM23 on the mediocre 2A4

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on date of introduction you want T-72B3 mod.2016 to have Svinets-1 and 2? Sure.

 

600mm LOS penetration at 2k will be I guess nice.

Spoiler

kghYli_KMcQ.thumb.jpg.468bd4bbdee66085f2

 

But if you wanna argue based on timelines, don't be upset when the M1A2 gets M829A2, which will yeet your T-72B3 from kilometers away (at least according to Nii Stali, ya know the people who made Kontakt-V).

Spoiler

c9336047d307.thumb.jpg.94a90903658f174bc

 

Be careful what you ask for. The Russian tanks have the most to lose out of anyone if we start giving top tier MBTs the best ammo available in their time period.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jackvony said:

But if you wanna argue based on timelines, don't be upset when the M1A2 gets M829A2, which will yeet your T-72B3 from kilometers away (at least according to Nii Stali, ya know the people who made Kontakt-V)

A bit off topic, but the Nii Stali graph always confused me. If m829a2 was so effective against K5, why bother with M829A3? Maybe the hull can be penned but not the turret? I'd still imagine m829A2 would be more than adequate according to Nii Stali. All this assumes Nii Stali got their hands on accurate m829a2 performance data too...

Also, I'd love to see how m829a3 performs against relikt going by these estimates; especially if a round from the early 90s can defeat the mid-2000s ERA from near-combat ranges. 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ariesv said:

If m829a2 was so effective against K5, why bother with M829A3?

 

A couple things. The welded turret of T-90A might necessitate a round with stronger after ERA effects, hence M829A3 essentially being M829A2 with a 100mm add-on anti era tip. Also, Kaktus was a thing in the late 90s and even in the early 2000s, we saw the T-72B2 with Relikt. So the idea of a better ERA was always around the corner.

 

Still, I do believe the performance of M829A2 is exaggerated by Nii Stali. 6km is very far out for M829A2 to still be effective. However, I do believe it is reasonable to assume that T-72B/early T-90 tanks were vulnerable to M829A2 at standard combat ranges. 

 

As for M829A3 vs Relikt, it may be effective but I think it would struggle past 2km, hence why M829A4 is now here. Though M829A4 seems to have been tested around defeating T-84 Oplot-M tanks equipped with the highly effective Duplet ERA. This ERA is more effective vs APFSDS than Relikt, so while A3 might not be reliable against Relikt, M829A4 certainly appears to be.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ariesv said:

A bit off topic, but the Nii Stali graph always confused me. If m829a2 was so effective against K5, why bother with M829A3?

That's the reason why i prefer that M829A2 be skipped over ingame in favor of M829A3, to avoid the ambiguousness. 

 

53 minutes ago, Ariesv said:

Also, I'd love to see how m829a3 performs against relikt going by these estimates; especially if a round from the early 90s can defeat the mid-2000s ERA from near-combat ranges. 

M829A3 is early 2000s, Relikt started development a little after. Both the manufacturers of M829A3 (ATK) and Relikt (Nii Stali) agree that M829A3 can't defeat Relikt and its pretty reasonable why that's the case.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jackvony said:

M829A3 essentially being M829A2 with a 100mm add-on anti era tip.

I strongly disagree with that statement. The penetrator might be the same because at the end of the day both rounds are meant to penetrate the same base armor (T-72B/90 level). But A2 and A3 deal with Kontakt 5 in opposite ways. A2 has a tip to delay the K5 detonation and is a faster round, the objective being that the entire or most of the penetrator is meant to pass through K5 before it has important effects on it. I believe that Dm53 and L27 also relay on this method, but better since both of those are way faster rounds than M829A2. M829A3 does the opposite, this round is by far the slowest among those fileded on the same time period and aiming to defeat the same tank, and deals with K5 by making it detonate prematurely so that the penetrator can pass through safely, hence the convenience of a slower impact velocity.

 

6 minutes ago, Jackvony said:

As for M829A3 vs Relikt, it may be effective but I think it would struggle past 2km, hence why M829A4 is now here. 

Based on what i said, it's easy to understand that if M829A3 works by making the ERA detonate prematurely, if that ERA "works twice" (which is the distinctive working principle of all 3rd gen ERA, Relikt, Duplet, FY-IV) then the penetrator will certainly be affected by at least one of those "instances" enough to not being able to defeat the base armor. In addition, both of the manufacturers agree that M829A3 doesn´t defeat tanks equipped with Relikt. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I strongly disagree with that statement. The penetrator might be the same because at the end of the day both rounds are meant to penetrate the same base armor (T-72B/90 level). But A2 and A3 deal with Kontakt 5 in opposite ways. A2 has a tip to delay the K5 detonation and is a faster round, the objective being that the entire or most of the penetrator is meant to pass through K5 before it has important effects on it. I believe that Dm53 and L27 also relay on this method, but better since both of those are way faster rounds than M829A2. M829A3 does the opposite, this round is by far the slowest among those fileded on the same time period and aiming to defeat the same tank, and deals with K5 by making it detonate prematurely so that the penetrator can pass through safely, hence the convenience of a slower impact velocity.

 

DM53 from the L44 has a muzzle velocity of 1670m/s.  L27A1 is 1675m/s, and M829A2 is 1680m/s.  So no, M829A2 isn't the slowest of the bunch.  

 

And people asking for the Russians to get 3BM59/60.  Be careful what you ask for.  You'll be disappointed by their performance compared to other nations rounds that came out before them.  The Abrams aren't using their best ammo for their time period.  Same goes for the Leopard 2's and Challengers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

The penetrator might be the same because at the end of the day both rounds are meant to penetrate the same base armor (T-72B/90 level).

 

Which is exactly what I meant with that statement. M829A2 is a roughly 690mm DU penetrator. M829A3 is a roughly 690mm penetrator with a 100mm tip. The lower velocity of M829A3 also has nothing to do with aiding in defeating ERA. It is a side effect of M829A3 being a heavier projectile than M829A2. If at the time there was a way to make the round faster, the US would have. Look at M829A4, which is likely using a more advanced break-off tip than A3, has increased MV to 1650m/s thanks to better propellant which wasn't available to be used in M829A3. 

 

15 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

(which is the distinctive working principle of all 3rd gen ERA, Relikt, Duplet, FY-IV)

 

Not really. The use of two staggered flyer plates seems to be the principle for Relikt and in turn it's copy FY-IV, but Duplet is very, very different. It uses three layers of ERA, each with multiple charges. A far more complicated ERA setup than Relikt, and according to Ukrainian testing, more effective as well. But it too is called 3rd generation ERA. So when M829A4 is said to defeat 3rd generation ERA, that means it can likely defeat all kinds but not all are created equal. M829A3 may be effective against some tanks equipped with Relikt, especially older models like T-80BVM with weak base armor, while M829A4 is effective against all tanks equipped with 3rd generation ERA and hard-kill APS. The protection difference between a T-80BVM and a Opolot-M is large.

 

Duplet:

Spoiler

Rm4wcpP.jpg

 

Relikt:

Spoiler

59102_198249369_T-90S%20Relikt%20ERA.JPG

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conraire said:

DM53 from the L44 has a muzzle velocity of 1670m/s.  L27A1 is 1675m/s, and M829A2 is 1680m/s.  So no, M829A2 isn't the slowest of the bunch.  

I meant M829A3 being the slowest of the bunch (1555 m/s). In the case of DM53, there must be a reason why the Germans introduced it along the L55 gun (1750 m/s). As for the L27, people in the Cr2 thread claim much higher velocities, do you have a source for that velocity?

 

 

51 minutes ago, Jackvony said:

The lower velocity of M829A3 also has nothing to do with aiding in defeating ERA. It is a side effect of M829A3 being a heavier projectile than M829A2.

I would say that is a very "convenient" side effect. Again if your objective is to cause the ERA detonate prematurely, having a slower projectile makes a lot of sense. As long as this slower projectile with the same penetrator (under the turret ring blogspot does argue for an increased diameter in the A3 though) still penetrates 650mm or more at 2km, it´s still more efficient against the intended targets than the M829A2 even if the older round may be more effective against tanks without ERA.

 

1 hour ago, Jackvony said:

Not really. The use of two staggered flyer plates seems to be the principle for Relikt and in turn it's copy FY-IV, but Duplet is very, very different. It uses three layers of ERA, each with multiple charges. A far more complicated ERA setup than Relikt, and according to Ukrainian testing, more effective as well. But it too is called 3rd generation ERA.

Couple of clarifications:

 

- Despite what RedEffect said multiple times in his videos, FY-IV has no relation to Relikt. Even in the ZTZ99A thread in this forum someone posted a very nice source on FY-IV, from a Chinese manual. It is stated to be effective against HEAT warheads and diminishes APFSDS penetration by 30 percent, in other words being somewhat in the middle of K5 and Relikt in effectiveness. It´s not entirely clear yet if FY-IV is effective against the anti K5 APFSDS.

 

- Duplet is not more "complex" or effective than Relikt, the truth is a little more nuanced. Firstly, and you can check this just by drawing a straight line, only on the turret front there is a triple stack of reactive tiles (2 on the UFP), the reason for that is so that at any point of impact, a projectile will always go through 2 of those tiles, hence, the "double action". In fact Duplet is a much crude design than Relikt, it´s just stacking Nozh ERA on top of each other whereas Relikt is not "multiple K5 tiles stacked on top" but rather a single tile that works by a "double action" (this is as described in the patent, have fun trying to make any sense of it XD). Hence Duplet is much more voluminous than Relikt and that affects negatively the armor array of the UFP, unlike Relikt which doesn't require much more volume than K5. In terms of effectiveness against something like M829A3, both should perform about the same. If "some" tanks with Relikt (certainly not T-90M) can be defeated with M829A3 just falls in the realm of ambiguous speculation, for that i just adhere strictly to what Nii Stali claims for Relikt "protects against all modern rounds such as M829A2 and M829A3 and other rounds with penetration up to 800mm" and to what ATK says about M829A4 (justifying its development for replacing M829A3) "There is a capability gap against 3rd generation ERA".

 

 

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conraire said:

And people asking for the Russians to get 3BM59/60.  Be careful what you ask for.  You'll be disappointed by their performance compared to other nations rounds that came out before them.  The Abrams aren't using their best ammo for their time period.  Same goes for the Leopard 2's and Challengers.  

This, this is why I'm currently fine with BM42. Russians getting BM59/60 would meant that other nations would ask their in-service rounds (and quite possibly ruined the balans). :burned:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add better ammo for every tank that they don't have it. Then no one complain about it...isn't it? Historical accuracy is already gone. WW2 tanks already fighting against Cold war tanks.Some actually did, but is it really balanced? Adding new ammo for every tanks is not bad like chopper ruined the battle with missiles from first spawn.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2020 at 16:52, PvtNewb said:

So far the interior photos and videos of T-90M and MS showed that it is in fact the breech assembly and autoloader assembly of 2A46M-5 (also look up the T-90MS suggestion thread in forums), it's much more complex than swapping out a new longer gun into an old chassis, but whatever dude, let's get back to discussing T-72B3.

 

AFAIK, the autoloader reload rate is almost similar to the MZ of the T-64 and T-80 series, but the problem with T-72's AZ style is that it has to ram two times during the cycle instead of once like in the MZ. Gaijin now basically take averages in reload rate, and yes it is kind of unrealistic, for example, loading an ATGM should add around 1-2 seconds to the cycle, but in-game it stays 7.1 or 6.5 seconds flat.

  Reveal hidden contents

1773786581_translatedautoloadercyclogram

This is a translated autoloader cyclogram in English. Should give you a nice idea.

I researched a bit more on the T-90M and it has the 2A46M-5 gun my bad, I admit that I was wrong. For the reloading times you can just find videos on youtube or anywhere else of a T-72 reloading and you see for yourself what the reload time is.

On 23/08/2020 at 19:24, NoodleCup31 said:

Yes it CAN do that.

But it doesn't need that shell in game at all.

Russia has like what, 5 tanks with 3BM42

Germany has a single nerfed Leopard 2A5 with DM33.

The maximum you have after it is DM23 on the mediocre 2A4

The FIRES the 3BM60 NOT the 3BM42. If you believe in Germany suffering just leave this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2020 at 20:59, Jackvony said:

Based on date of introduction you want T-72B3 mod.2016 to have Svinets-1 and 2? Sure.

 

600mm LOS penetration at 2k will be I guess nice.

  Hide contents

kghYli_KMcQ.thumb.jpg.468bd4bbdee66085f2

 

But if you wanna argue based on timelines, don't be upset when the M1A2 gets M829A2, which will yeet your T-72B3 from kilometers away (at least according to Nii Stali, ya know the people who made Kontakt-V).

  Hide contents

c9336047d307.thumb.jpg.94a90903658f174bc

 

Be careful what you ask for. The Russian tanks have the most to lose out of anyone if we start giving top tier MBTs the best ammo available in their time period.

Well this was a stupid argument. Because I want and other people want the T-72B3 to have the shells that it actually fires and not outdated shells that it never used, you want the Abrams to have an even more op round than the Italian 625mm shell and the Russian Svinets-2. I don't know why I even bother on these forums anymore, people on Reddit are way smarter.

On 26/08/2020 at 06:50, Polish_Satan said:

Svinets can be too op, but atleast T-72B3 should get 3BM33 with 500mm at 2000m instead of 450mm like 3BM42 mango.

 

Why is Svinets too op with 650mm pen and the Italian with 625mm pen isn't too op??? Which is already in the game! Oh and btw real penetration values of the Mango shell is 520mm

Edited by Leplivo
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Leplivo said:

Because I want the T-72B3 to have the shells that it actually fires

You want the Abrams to have an even more op round than the Italian 625mm shell

 

Let me get this straight.

You ridicule him for suggesting that , if vehicles get ammunition based on introduction dates, the M1A2 should also be given this treatment.

You then follow that up by saying you want the T-72B3 to get a shell based on introduction dates.

 

You really didn't notice the horrendously obvious double standards here?

 

Quote

people on Reddit are way smarter.

 

I love the irony here in you saying that whilst using this forum, implying yourself as being of lesser intelligence.

 

Quote

Why is Svinets too op with 650mm pen

 

More like 530mm.

Unless you're referring to LoS @ 60 degrees, but you weren't with CL3143.

 

-Edit-  Wait, you do know what Svinets isn't the same shell as Svinets-1 right?

 

Quote

and the Italian with 625mm pen isn't too op???

 

No, because that shell is the only reason for the Ariete's not to be completely useless.

They've got abysmal protection and survivability, their mobility is average at best and their gun handling characteristics are nothing special either.

CL3143 is what keeps them relevant.

 

Quote

Oh and btw real penetration values of the Mango shell is 520mm

 

Which is exactly what it penetrates in-game already.

 

Edited by Necrons31467
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

Which is exactly what it penetrates in-game already.

So what's your point?

Mango penetrates only around 496mm LoS @60 degrees @point blank in-game btw (248x2). It is objectively the worst top-end KE shell in 10.7.

Spoiler

Mango.png.70b4152dfa6eda4f32ff5cd73ee9af

And if we refer to that thread, the calculated performance of BM32 at 60 degrees is indeed a bit better than BM42. IRL BM42 is better against heavy NERA arrays than BM32 due to its multiple WHA penetrators. BM32 has a higher performance against monolithic RHA due to its monoblock construction, and as far as I know, BM42 has no multiplier or special modifier against NERA arrays in-game (cmiiw) and WT is just using the usual RHA numbers. I'm just saying instead of just Mango after Mango, maybe it's time for the first Soviet longrod DU round to enter the game (BM32 Vant), rather than taking it to the extremes and introduce BM59/60.

Edited by PvtNewb
grammar lul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I'd take my numbers from that thread seriously at the moment.  The values for 3bm32 are likely wrong, due to being based on bad information, I've since found a dimensional diagram for the penetrator.  Doing research I've found that there are 3 pen criteria that the Soviets use.  Nominal/Conditional Defeat, which is similar to US Army pen criteria.  Initial defeat, which is similar to US Protection criteria, partial penetration.  And Guaranteed defeat, which is similar to US Navy Criteria.  I've also found information on Soviet armor ballistic plate hardness.  For plate over 160mm thick, it ranges from 255bhn at 160mm down 217bhn at higher thickness's.  So it's very likely that 3bm46 could penetrate 300mm of 217bhn plate.  But, when normalized to 260bhn, it comes down to about 285mm at 60 degree's 2km.  

 

The other issue is, the sources that list penetration, don't describe what criteria it's under.  It's likely that they could be using Nominal/Conditional Defeat, it could be completely dependent on the source material.  Where as Lanz-Odermatt is based on US protection Criteria complete penetration.  

 

Quote

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/694948484561895534/701564082154635264/soviet_steel_grades.png

 

3BM46 Svinets Est Revised

L:546mm D:25mm

Uranium-Nickel-Zinc

Density 18,600kg/m3

 

Target

Density 7850kg/m3

217BHN                ~260bhn

 

Vertical

    10m = 544mm  ~522mm  1650m/s

  100m = 543mm  ~520mm  1643m/s

  500m = 537mm  ~514mm  1615m/s

1000m = 529mm  ~506mm  1580m/s

1500m = 521mm  ~497mm  1545m/s

2000m = 513mm  ~488mm  1510m/s

 

60 Degree

    10m = 318mm  ~305mm

  100m = 317mm  ~304mm

  500m = 314mm  ~300mm

1000m = 309mm  ~295mm

1500m = 304mm  ~290mm

2000m = 300mm  ~285mm

 

3BM32 Vant Revised 2

L:380mm D(avg):27.6mm

Uranium-Nickel-Zinc

Density 18,600kg/m3

penetrator Mass 4.23kg

 

Target

Density 7830kg/m3

217bhn                ~260BHN

 

Vertical

    10m = 438mm ~421mm  1710m/s

  100m = 437mm ~419mm  1701m/s

  500m = 432mm ~414mm  1668m/s

1000m = 425mm ~406mm  1625m/s

1500m = 418mm ~398mm  1583m/s

2000m = 410mm ~390mm  1540m/s

 

60 Degree

    10m = 256mm ~246mm

  100m = 255mm ~245mm

  500m = 252mm ~242mm

1000m = 248mm ~237mm

1500m = 243mm ~233mm

2000m = 239mm ~228mm

3bm32 core from bkkt.

Quote

3bm32 core.jpg

 

3BM32 and 42 are estimated to have a similar velocity loss at range.  Given both have a 31mm in flight diameter, and approximately the same in flight mass of 4.85kg.  I re-estimated velocity loss for 3bm46, due to it having a smaller 25mm in Flight diameter, which puts it closer to other similar diameter/mass rounds.  Mass is conflicting, as I've found anywhere from 4.95 to 5.2kg.  

 

As far as 3BM59 or 3BM60 are concerned.  Don't expect performance to be any better than M829A2.  The penetrator rod on M829A2 is likely longer.  The total in flight length of M829A2 is 40mm longer than 3bm59/60.  And M829A2 fires at a 30m/s higher muzzle velocity.  Going by an estimated rod length of 640mm and diameter of 24.6mm it only gets about 327mm at around 2km at 60 degrees for 3bm59, just slightly better than M829A1.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conraire said:

As far as 3BM59 or 3BM60 are concerned.  Don't expect performance to be any better than M829A2.  The penetrator rod on M829A2 is likely longer.  The total in flight length of M829A2 is 40mm longer than 3bm59/60.  And M829A2 fires at a 30m/s higher muzzle velocity.  Going by an estimated rod length of 640mm and diameter of 24.6mm it only gets about 327mm at around 2km at 60 degrees for 3bm59, just slightly better than M829A1.  

Indeed they are in the ballpark of DM53 and M829A3. My estimation on a model displayed at Army Forum yielded a total projectile length of 735mm and a rod width of 20mm (pasted below). How to estimate the actual penetrator dimensions with this is beyond me for the moment. In addition there are the "special features" advertised by NIMI about hese rounds being able to defeat heavy ERA and "complex externally mounted spaced armor arrays" (Leo 2 wedges), among other not so ambiguous claims. On the other hand, @Conraire how do you estimate velocity loss at range?

 

My BM59-60 estimation:

1086506041_BM60estimation2.thumb.png.072

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are are Ansys Spaceclaim 3D models done by @BkktMkkt, which were posted on the sturgeon house forums.  

Spoiler

 

O99Ru8JOzHI.jpg

Left to Right are 120mm DM13, DM23, M829, DM33, M829A1, M829A2, DM53/63.  

 

bP7ALwQYQ3E.jpg

Left to Right are 3BM22, DM13, 3BM26, DM23, 3BM32, 3BM42, DM33, DM53/63, 3BM59/60

 

Posting these models to give a bit of perspective.  Total projectile length for M829A1 and A2 are 780mm, Actual core length for M829A1 is 680mm, M829A2 is about 685-690mm.  This difference isn't seen here as the tip of A1 is modeled wrong, should be flat blunt tipped.  We can see that M829A1/A2 are both longer in flight than DM53.  Then going by the second set of models.  We can see that DM53 is slightly longer than 3BM59.  3BM59 has an apparent in flight length of 740mm, at least thats what I can find on multiple web sites..  With an in flight L/D ratio of 30:1.  740/30=24.666.  As far as rod length for 3BM59/60, it's just estimated to be 640mm due to the 40mm length difference between it and M829A1/A2.  Which gives us approximate core dimensions of 640mm x 24.6mm.   With those dimensions, using the standard DU density of 18,600kg/m3, at a muzzle velocity of 1660m/s we get 598mm Vertical, and estimated 325-327mm at 1510-1520m/s at 60deg 2km.  The other version 3bm60, being Tungsten alloy, comes out to 308-311mm at 60 degree 2km, 588mm vertical at 1660m/s muzzle velocity..  These values seem to fit with what is stated on below the turret ring site.  As well as other sources.

Spoiler

3VBM23_ARMIA-2019_02.jpg

 

As far as how I'm estimating Velocity loss.  I have firing velocity tables for most US 105mm and 120mm apfsds.  More or less it's educated guessing based on velocity loss of similar rounds.  

M829 at ~27mm Diameter and 4.2kg loses 123m/s over 2000m

M829A1 at 22mm Diameter and 4.88kg loses 135m/s over 2000m

M829A2 at 21mm Diameter and 4.92kg loses 120m/s over 2000m

3BM42 at 31mm Diameter and 4.85kg loses 170m/s over 2000m  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Conraire i knew about these ·d models. At least the one for BM59-60 is wrongly modelled, its proportions are not in scale with the physical mockup seen in exhibitions. THe official NIMI chart that you posted as well states 735mm for the projectile and i corroborate that figure with my estimation on the physical mockup. DM53 is at least claimed (since i haven't seen a good estimation or cutaway) to be 745mm long and having a core of 680mm and also having a rod width of about 20mm. In other words, virtually the same as BM59-60. Then why these russian rounds wouldn't be able to have cores of greater length than you stated? 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/08/2020 at 15:42, mursuttaja said:

FTFY.

the reason i said that is there are ppl out there who ask for DM53 and M829A1, cause Russia got this new T-72B3 !

that just doesn't make any sense...

 

anyway even if they don't add a new Shell for Russian the BM42 is fine and still among the best shells out there... 

 

 

Edited by Solid_Fire
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/08/2020 at 19:52, Alan_Tovarishch said:

i knew about these ·d models. At least the one for BM59-60 is wrongly modelled, its proportions are not in scale with the physical mockup seen in exhibitions. THe official NIMI chart that you posted as well states 735mm for the projectile and i corroborate that figure with my estimation on the physical mockup.

 

You don't know that unless you have the 3D models on hand, to check their dimension  in Space Claim.  Appearances in pictures can be deceiving, as some times if things accidentally get resized, it changes what you see..  There's a chance that the physical mock up may not be the exact dimensions either.  I choose to go by published data, not by pixel counting.  And that official data says that the round is 735mm (740mm on some sites) long with a 30:1 L/D ratio in flight.  The core is likely no longer than 640mm, as you have to have space in the dart for the ballistic cap, and Tracer element.  

 

On 28/08/2020 at 19:52, Alan_Tovarishch said:

DM53 is at least claimed (since i haven't seen a good estimation or cutaway) to be 745mm long and having a core of 680mm and also having a rod width of about 20mm. In other words, virtually the same as BM59-60. Then why these russian rounds wouldn't be able to have cores of greater length than you stated? 

 

The Cutaways for DM53 that I've seen claim anywhere from 740-760mm Total length, with a Rod length of 680mm. Given that part of that length is a frustum, inside the ballistic cap, the actual working length of the rod would be less than 680mm.  With a diameter of 22-24mm around the threads. 

 

I don't think it's a coincidence when you divide 735mm by 30, it comes out as 24.5mm for 3BM59.  I also don't think it's a coincidence that my estimates come out pretty much matching NiMi penetration data.  In fact, the round can indeed penetrate 600mm at vertical at 2000m, granted, thats against ~205bhn ductile Armor steel.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...