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
  • 190098
  • 2


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

Started 14-Jun by gatnerd; 5480 views.
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)


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.


 '''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 .


From: schnuersi


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.


From: graylion


stancrist said:

"The KF51 Panther can be easily updated and equipped with the latest capabilities and functions. Its advanced, modular, open NGVA system architecture enables iterative development, which can then be updated in harmony with innovation cycles." ^^ ...Sure they never mention any modularity or options. Precisely where in those statements do you see mention of any options for coax weapons?



From: stancrist


graylion said:

       stancrist said:  Precisely where in those statements do you see mention of any options for coax weapons?


The statement about "modular, open NGVA system" refers to electronics, not weapons.

NATO Generic Vehicle Architecture – NATO Generic Vehicle Architecture (


From: stancrist


17thfabn said:

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.

Yeah, the 82nd has been wanting a replacement for the M551 Sheridan ever since it was retired in 1996.

M551 Airborne Reconnaissance Assault Vehicle aka Sheridan Tank M551 Sheridan was developed to provide the US Army with a light armored reconnaissance vehicle with heavy firepower. The ...

Explaining the MPF Light Tank's Future Role (U.S. Army)

Join the Brigade to support us and get access to exclusive perks:• Or make a one-time donation:

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)


IF Elbit Light tank offering is any orientation, as it built on same platform just with 105 cannon instead of 120mm, this thing is armored to level 4 so 14.5mm HMG everything else will be up armoring packages

If anyone is interested in scans of the old Leopard 3 proposal.