gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3349
    MEMBERS
  • 190098
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Rheinmetall Panther 2 KF51 Tank with 130mm   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 14-Jun by gatnerd; 5478 views.
17thfabn

From: 17thfabn

29-Jun

The light tank is for fire support of infantry, not so much for fighting other tanks. So for that role the 105 mm is enough.   It will have limited anti-tank capability. And should be more than a match for most IFV. It can fire all the ammunition the M60 and original M1 105 mm could use. 

Hopefully the enemy will play fair and not have their modern MBT tanks go up against our light tanks.

I get the impression the new light tanks will only go to light divisions such as the 82 nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, 10 th Mountain etc.  

  • Edited 29 June 2022 23:43  by  17thfabn
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

30-Jun

17thfabn said:

Hopefully the enemy will play fair and not have their modern MBT tanks go up against our light tanks.

The problem is that even legacy tanks are a threat to a light tank.
If a T-55 gets a shot at this one it could take it out.

In reply toRe: msg 43
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

30-Jun

While not really light at 38 tons (that is about equivalent to a T62) it something built on an ASCOD hull , it seems any IFV with a 30mm cannon could shred it to pieces. I just don't get it what the fetish of sticking tank guns on APC hulls and pretend its a light tank. 

Chinese take on 35ton tank looks much more like a tank than an APC with a tank gun. Given differences in protected volume its likely much better armored than the new US light tank.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Given differences in protected volume its likely much better armored than the new US light tank.

Unless you have hard data on the protection level of the Type 15 and the MPF you can not draw conclusions.

Until now i have seen such data nowhere. The stats of the MPF that are available are vague and related to prototypes.  The stats of the Type 15 are vague as well and of questionable reliability in addition.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

I just don't get it what the fetish of sticking tank guns on APC hulls and pretend its a light tank.

That is easy to answer. Its cheaper! Its much cheaper to modify an exsiting hull for a new mission than to design from scratch.
Its also notworthy that very few of these designs actually made it into service. Most are industry projects. Few found customers. To my knowledge the MPF/Griffin is the first that will be purchased in significant numbers.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

1-Jul

Of course, the new US light tank can have some more advanced solutions to armoring that are more weight-efficient . but as the base line low profile tank hull with smaller protected volume offers much more potential for armor for a given weight

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

but as the base line low profile tank hull with smaller protected volume offers much more potential for armor for a given weight

That is a very basic assumption yet it needs several other factors to be true. For example the armor materials and quality needs to be the same.
You also assume the Type 15 is smaller than the MPF Griffin II. Do you have any basis for this assumption? I don't know any hard data on the dimensions of the MPF prototype. The M8 MGS, the second competitor in the MPF program, is smaller than the Type 15. Quite a bit really.
The Type 15 on the other hand is pretty big. Not as big as an MBT but its not far off. The Type 15 has the dimensions of a Leopard 1. Its a little bigger than a Marder. Yet its lighter than both. Does this mean its less well protected?

The adequate protection of non MBT AFVs is not a trivial problem. MBT levels are usually not required or possible. So what is the most likely threat? Once this has been determined the required protection level becomes clear. It makes little sense to improve protection further. Protection can sensibly only be increased in steps. From one threat to another. If a AFV is protected against 30 mm according to STANAG it makes no sense to improve protection a little. The next sensible step would be 35 mm. After that its 40. Then there is a pretty large gap. Regardless a 120/125 mm or heavy weight modern ATGM will blow right trough. A little more won't help. Concidering that 35 and 40 mm AC are rather rare and allmost exclusively used by Western nations it makes little sense to armor your vehicles to this level.
Since the MPF is mostly a "scare the natives" type of AFV even 30 mm is most likely not required. Mybe 30 mm over the front. 14,5 mm all round and good RPG/LAW and mine/IED protection. With an ADS against the occational ATGM.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

1-Jul

Likely taller western folks next to Griffin vs Chinese folks in front of Type 15 looks to be to massive height difference in the hull 

While i agree that once a protection against tank caliber guns is not required there is little gain in armoring past certain autocannon levels , but note T55. T62 ,T64  basically packed tank cannon levels of 'armor protection ' at weight not much above Grifinns at the 50-60's level tech due to being relatively small in terms of protected volume

Ir i rememebr correctly M8 was only armored against splinters then applique armor upped that to small arms fire  protection and level 3 huge boxes added protection against 30mm

Level 3 package on older XM-8

19.25 tons - Level 1

22.25 tons - Level 2

24.75 tons - Level 3

Griffin

Type 15 or VF5

 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

but note T55. T62 ,T64 basically packed tank cannon levels of 'armor protection ' at weight not much above Grifinns at the 50-60's level tech due to being relatively small in terms of protected volume

No they did not.
The protection of these tanks only worked against certain types of ammo. Mostly because the KE anti armor munitions used by the West at this point where on a technological platau and dead end. None of these tanks could withstand hits from its own gun for example. The gun of the T-62 can effectively penetrate them all.
The T-55 and T-62 have been vulnurable against Western HEAT ammo. Even of rather small caliber guns. They are also vulnurable to HESH.
The T-64 is better in this regard but its improvement in protection is not enough to make it proof against anything. As mentioned it is vulnurable to 115 mm APFSDS and HEAT. Its also vulnurable to 105 mm APFSDS.

Look at what happened in '73 in the Middle East. L7 105 mm guns using APDS and HESH mostly butchered T-55 and T-62 tanks. The exchange ratio was extremly in favour of the western tanks. If the protection of the T-55 and T-62 would have been "gun proof" or cannon level it would have made a difference.

Its also not that simple anymore to get something "gun proof" because the penetration of anti armor munitions has been extremly improved. The APDS rounds for the L7 originally could penetrate 300 mm RHAe this was increases to more than 600 mm nowadays. The 120 mm nowadays is in the region of 800-1000 mm RHAe. Simple steel doesn't cut it anymore. The shape of armor modules is defined by their composition. Which means the simple and efficient shapes like the Soviet pancake turret is impossible.
To put it short the situation today is so different to the situation 70 years ago when the T-55 was designed its of little use to compare.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

1-Jul

They did when they were entered service , L7 was created as a response to T54/55 like later the T62 was created as a response to L7 and M60 as way to outgun anything in the west till T64 was ready.

T54/55

 '''Like the T-55 before it, the upper glacis armour of the T-62 was essentially immune to American 90mm armour-piercing rounds (excluding HEAT to some extent) and somewhat resistant to 20 pdr. APDS (at ranges of 1 km or more). This was due to the original requirement of the T-54 for protection from the Pzgr. 39 round fired from the 8.8cm Pak 43 or KwK 43 at a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s. This requirement was created because it was expected that the Pak 43 and KwK 43 or an equivalent cannon would become the standard cannon for future German medium tanks while the existing Tiger II heavy tank would eventually be replaced with a new design equipped with a 10.5cm or 12.8cm cannon. Even though the war ended before this became a reality, the requirement was not reduced to the benefit of the future of Soviet medium tanks as a class.''
 In a separate set of tests, West German data showed that the safety limit of the 100mm upper glacis plate of the T-55 at its constructional obliquity of 60 degrees is 2,000 meters. Here, the safety limit is defined as the distance where it is not possible to defeat the armour. When the impact angle increases slightly to 61 degrees, the safety limit against DM13 increases to 1,500 meters. Based on this, the distance limit would be around 1,300 meters. It is possible for the T-62 upper glacis to achieve a compound angle of 61 degrees if the hull is turned sideways by 14 degrees, but the same effect can be obtained if the ground were only slightly inclined. At an impact angle of 63 degrees, the safety limit is 1,000 meters. From this, the distance limit would be around 800 meters. To achieve a compound angle of 63 degrees, the T-62 hull would have to be turned sideways by 25 degrees. At an impact angle of 65 degrees, the safety distance is 200 meters. To have a chance of defeating the upper glacis, DM13 would have to strike it at its muzzle velocity. It is possible for a T-62 to increase the relative obliquity of its upper glacis by being situated on a gentle reverse slope.

These results are valid for DM13 itself, L28A1, and M392A1 which is the L28A1 round licence-produced in the U.S with minor modifications. In the U.K, the L28A1 round was quickly replaced by L52 in the mid to late 1960's and the U.S Army began licence-producing the L52 as the M728 round in the early 1970's. However, even though the L52 round was available by at least 1966, it is important to note that for NATO nations outside of Britain and the U.S, the 105mm L7 itself did not become commonplace until the late 1960's when the Leopard 1 achieved an initial operating capability (IOC) in West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway, and when the Dutch finished upgrading their Centurion tanks by retrofitting L7 guns. Dutch and Norwegian Leopard 1 tanks were supplied with L52 rounds whereas in West Germany, DM13 was the standard APDS round for the Bundeswehr's Leopard 1 tanks.

With this in mind, the protection offered by the T-62 hull armour was good when the tank initially entered service and could still be considered adequate throughout the 1960's. It remained somewhat acceptable up to the early to mid-1970's

I am not suggesting they are using the same tech as in the 50-60's but, the square m2 of protection you have still adds up in weight , and big IFV hull needs more kg of armoring to get to same protection levels than much smaller tank hull no matter if today and in the 50's if you are using same tech and materals smaller hull can better protected or weigh less at same protection levels .

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

1-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

later the T62 was created as a response to L7 and M60

The developement of the T-62 is not linked to the L7 but to the fact that the 100 mm D-10 can not penetrate the frontal armor of the Centurion and M48. The M60 has nothing to do with that.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

anything in the west till T64 was ready.

This is also not true. The T-64 originally was supposed to carry a gun of the same caliber as the T-62. The 125 mm was developed later.

The problem with angeling is that its situational and usually not under the crews control. Again a prime example is the Goland Heights '73. The T-55 and T-62 have been shot at from elevation. Which meant the impact angle was worse than it theoretical could have been. With very nasty results. The very same thing would have happened at several places should the Cold War have gone hot. With NATO tanks in defensive positions shooting at the attacking Soviets and WP allies from elevated positions.

I did mentioned their protection against APDS was okish but HEAT and HESH could have easily defeated them. All of these ammo types have been available for the 90 mm and 105 mm. Why should the NATO troops not have used them?

The picture you posted also underlines the vastly improved effectiveness of APFSDS over APDS. KE is the abrevation used in Germany for APFSDS.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

I am not suggesting they are using the same tech as in the 50-60's

I did not mean that. The concepts and thinking is also vastly different. The tech is the obvious and visible part.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

if you are using same tech and materals smaller hull can better protected or weigh less at same protection levels .

Yes, so?
This alone is not false but mostly meaningless. Weight is like protection its matters in distinct levels. If the requirement is to fit two into a C-17 you need to have the proper dimensions and weight less than 38,5 t. If you managed that you are good. Why try to get the weight lower? There is no bonus of overachieving. If the requirement would have made absolutely minimising the vehicle height necessary they would have done this. Seems like this was not required.

TOP