Armata’s next supreme 152mm gun to sport super-piercing shell that can penetrate a "metre of armour"

[Penguin]

In 1998, MTU and General Dynamics Land Systems of the US signed an agreement under which the MTU 880 series of diesel engines will be manufactured in the US and offered on the home and export markets.

For trials purposes, a EuroPowerPack has been installed in a new version of the Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2 called Challenger 2E. For the export market, especially Turkey, a General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 MBT has been fitted with a EuroPowerPack and this completed initial trials late in 1998

Applications

• German PzH 2000 155 mm self-propelled artillery system,
• US programme Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle
• French Giat Industries' Leclerc Tropicalise (UAE)
• Challenger 2E.
• Merkava 4 & Namer

GD 883 V-12 diesel engine
The Merkava 4 is powered by a V-12 diesel engine rated at 1,500hp. The engine compartment and one fuel tank are at the front of the tank and two fuel tanks are at the back. The new engine represents a 25% increase in power compared to the 1,200hp powerpack installed on the Merkava 3. The German company MTU manufactures the engine components and the GD 883 engine is manufactured under licensed production by General Dynamics Land Systems in the USA. The engine is transferred to Israel for installation and integration with the automatic transmission and with the engine computer control system. The tank has automatic five-gear transmission rather than four gears as in the Merkava 3. The transmission system is manufactured by Renk.

Merkava 4 Main Battle Tank - Army Technology

 

[IND151]

152mm gun is nothing new. ISU-152 from WW2 had a 152mm gun, it's not the caliber that matters but the velocity and type of shell.

If you are given 2 options- 130 MM/ 39 Cal Howitzer and 155 MM/ 52 Cal Howitzer, what will be your choice?

 

[ptldM3]

Finally someone talking sense.

Technically he is wrong when he said, "it's not the caliber that matters but the velocity and type of shell." The caliber has a lot to do with velocity and "type of Shell". Larger calibers generally have more powerful propellant charges. Howitzers would never have any wear the range that they have if they would use tank caliber rounds--120-125mm vs 152-155mm.

In any gun velocity and mass are critical. The bigger or heavier the mass or rod penetrators the lower the velocity, the smaller the mass of a penetrator the higher the velocity. That is where a larger caliber can have a larger rod penetrator and still have similar or better velocity which equates to better range and penetration.

And then they get a better engine e.g. see Leo 2 Original powerpack:
MTU MB 873 Ka-501 liquid-cooled V-12 Twin-turbo diesel engine
1,500 PS (1,479 hp, 1,103 kW) at 2,600 rpm

MTU is already offering 3rd gen 880 and 4th gen 890 series for some years, which are both more compact and have better fuel efficiency, for the same power output. The Europowerpack in which they are employed is the most compact, modern rear drive PowerPack in its power class for modern MBT
Heavy Vehicles (Series 870, 880): MTU Online

870


880


890

We were talking about protection, i'm not sure why you are mentioning engines or where you get your information for the T-14 engine.

 

[Takshashila]

My god, This Tank is Hugggeeee !

 

[Penguin]

the problem with most western tanks is that they are growing heavier and heavier for the sake of better protection, with that they kill mobility, fuel efficiency.

That's why. Better (smaller, more fuel efficient) engine options are available for both Leo 2 and Abrams (also freeing up space for additional dieseltank). Wider track can allleviate groundpressure issues (or track extensions. See mt-lb versus mt-lbv)

 

[Rajkumar]

Read my previous post about limits. A spall liner has its limits, just like everything. A kevlar vest may withstand a 9mm but a 50 bmp will go threw multiple layers of Kevlar. As for your last part, yes for every action there is a reaction, the T-14 was a reaction to other tanks, it went several steps further by placing the crew in a sealed compartment and then deciding to up the caliber to 152mm in the future. Don't expect any new western tanks anytime soon, Merkava, Challenger 2 Leclerk, K-2, Leapard 2 A6 and Type 10 are all fairly new tanks, the Abrams is old but upgraded to M1A2 standards and there is no plans for a new replacement anytime soon, the problem with most western tanks is that they are growing heavier and heavier for the sake of better protection, with that they kill mobility, fuel efficiency.

I like your profile picture

 

[Omega007]

152mm cannon 1m penetration and this is suppose to be revolutionary?

What a load of bull crap!!No APFSDS rounds,in service anywhere in the fucking world at present,is even nearly capable capable of achieving that level of penetration.Neither your M829A3 nor the DM53 can achieve that!!The highest value for both of them is stated to be around 700 mm and that too is not proven beyond doubt.

pretty sure the current tank gun and ammunition the russians,chinese, and the west use can kill any tank in the world.

120mm nato with M829A3 would shred Armata as well as the new M829A4

More bs.No bud,as it is,the armor technology has beaten the armor piercing technology by a good mergin and it will remain so for the foreseeable future,at least until some revolutionary breakthrough is achieved in the armor piercing technology.What I'm trying to say here,is that the best front armor of a tank can not be defeated by the best APFSDS rounds.For example,an M829A3 can not defeat the frontal turret armor of the M1A2 SEP,neither can the Rheinmetall L/55 - DM 53 defeat that of a Leopard 2A6!!

 

[C130]

What a load of bull crap!!No APFSDS rounds,in service anywhere in the fucking world at present,is even nearly capable capable of achieving that level of penetration.Neither your M829A3 nor the DM53 can achieve that!!The highest value for both of them is stated to be around 700 mm and that too is not proven beyond doubt.



More bs.No bud,as it is,the armor technology has beaten the armor piercing technology by a good mergin and it will remain so for the foreseeable future,at least until some revolutionary breakthrough is achieved in the armor piercing technology.What I'm trying to say here,is that the best front armor of a tank can not be defeated by the best APFSDS rounds.For example,an M829A3 can not defeat the frontal turret armor of the M1A2 SEP,neither can the Rheinmetall L/55 - DM 53 defeat that of a Leopard 2A6!!

I would think the latest APFSDS could defeat the frontal armor of M1 Abrams,Leopard, and Challenger. you gotta realize the armor of these tanks was specialized to really defeat HEAT rounds from the soviet union during the 70's and 80's and not modern APFSD.

but can we prove this?? besides believing what the military tells us?? the only modern enemy the West has faced in the last 3 decades has been Sadam and his army was using the crappy T-72M with HEAT rounds like this

any who this topic is wrong. 152mm tank gun isn't in the works I bet . it's about putting the 152mm howitzer on the Armata chassis unless they plan using the howitzer as a tank gun which I wouldn't find that hard to believe since this was common during WW2

 

[kollang]

Hi

Those ww2 tanks with 155 mm gun were turretless,I guess.in Armata case, 155 mm gun is going to be installed on a turret and I must say thats not an easy task at all.but if Russian engineers manage to make the turret feisty enough in comparison to other world class tanks and make it able to fire while moving, that tank will become the best Tank ever.

 

[Penguin]

What a load of bull crap!!No APFSDS rounds,in service anywhere in the fucking world at present,is even nearly capable capable of achieving that level of penetration.Neither your M829A3 nor the DM53 can achieve that!!The highest value for both of them is stated to be around 700 mm and that too is not proven beyond doubt.



More bs.No bud,as it is,the armor technology has beaten the armor piercing technology by a good mergin and it will remain so for the foreseeable future,at least until some revolutionary breakthrough is achieved in the armor piercing technology.What I'm trying to say here,is that the best front armor of a tank can not be defeated by the best APFSDS rounds.For example,an M829A3 can not defeat the frontal turret armor of the M1A2 SEP,neither can the Rheinmetall L/55 - DM 53 defeat that of a Leopard 2A6!!

Well, I found this:

The M829 round has been through successive generations; the most advanced KE round fielded today is the M829A3. Unofficial estimates indicate that the M829A3 has a maximum effective range of over 3,000 meters and can penetrate over 900mm of rolled homogeneous armor at 2,000 meters. The result of work on penetration mechanics, the M829A3 is designed to mitigate the effect of reactive armor.

http://ctnsp.dodlive.mil/files/2013/07/DTP-022.pdf

Values for DM53 appear similar (800mm or so)

Which suggest a key point: 1000mm ... at what range?

 

[Penguin]

If you are given 2 options- 130 MM/ 39 Cal Howitzer and 155 MM/ 52 Cal Howitzer, what will be your choice?

What 130mm howitzer are you talking about specifically? The 130 mm towed field gun M1954 (M-46) has a 52 calibre barrel. It has a range of 27.5 km (unassisted) and 38 km (RAP).
The 152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1) has an 24.6 caliber barrel. Unassisted range is 12.4 km.
The original M109 155mm has a 39 caliber barrel. Effective range with conventional ammo: 18 km and 30 km using RAP.

Barrel length translates to range (via velocity).* Caliber translates to weight of explosive on target. One needs to compare same caliber at different barrel lengths.

* for AT guns therefore barrel length also contributes to penetration (via velocity). For an KE round, caliber is less relevant (sabot shot: penetrator is much smaller than calibre). For a CE round (i.e. HEAT) caliber does matter for penetration.

 

[Davos]

Wooooow



Dude 152mm vs 120mm ... Which is powerful ? Its very simple not rocket science. I guess it will also have more range than anything else

G'day Mate

It's a lot more complicated than that.

Are bigger tank gun more powerful? Not necessarily. What the gun can do is only limited to how fast the muzzle velocity and also the trajectory. The term power is not determined by the gun itself, but the round instead.

For example, the larger the round, the more propellant the round can takes, that means the projectile can goes further, that means increased range, also, if a projectile is larger, there are going to be more TNT on the warhead, that's translate to more bang and since the projectile is bigger, you would also expected more shrapnel too.

However, that only were the case of all HE related round. It does not work that way for a kinetic round. In Fact, the bigger the KE round, the more unstable they are as the excessive force pushing out the round would dissipate around the round itself, affecting the flight paths. Just think of it like this, you are playing dart, what happen if you throw your dart extra hard? the tail of the dart will wobble from side to side and it will never goes where you want it to go. So in this case, the bigger the gun, the harder it was for KE round.

Another problem associated with larger round is, the projectile is heavier and it will have a higher parabolic effect, or what we tanker called it "drop". Drop happen because of the gravitational force pull the round down and a heavier round never shot straight. Now this translate to two problems. 1, since the round does not shoot straight, the fire control computer would have to put in extra calculation. 2, it affect the elevation of the gun angle.

Now, I we go back to the question if 152mm gun or 120mm gun more powerful? It really depends on the round you fire and how you want to hit your target. For the West, 120mm have more advantage than 152mm gun, mostly because the west uses sabot extensively. But for the Armata. who knows.

Davos

 

[vostok]

Of course, for the new 125mm gun and 152mm gun of Armata new shells of all types are under developing.