A few MBT related questions

Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The T-62M doesn't mount K-1. It has applique armor, mainly around the turret, new FCS, new laser range-finder, new gunner and commander sights, new ballistic computer, new stabilizer, new engine, and AT-10 capability. Other minor changes.
 
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Feanor said:
The T-62M doesn't mount K-1.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there was a subsequent version with K-1 ERA replacing BDD. This version had better performance against HEAT, but sacrificed KE performance for it. Was introduced in 1985, in relatively small numbers. Kontakt-1 in itself was specifically designed to defeat Milan-1, BGM-71C and SS.11/140AC missiles, all of which had virtually identical RHAe performance.

Of course by the time the T-62M rolled around Western militaries were fielding 120mm gun systems and ATGM like HOT-1 and BGM-71D (and Milan-2 was just around the corner) - which could defeat its armour.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The T-62M was post USSR iirc only in service with the former 42nd MRD. The variants they had didn't have K-1. Only BDD. I don't know of anyone else who had acquired the variant. Do you know if any T-62M with or without K-1 were exported?
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Exactly. Not only is there no difference between
Those are just guesses and not even good ones...

They also gave DM63 less penetration than DM53... :rolleyes:
 
I

IronsightSniper

Member
You can go talk to a certain scientific forum about that :v

But as far as I know, they get those figures from the either estimations from photos or they end up measuring the armor during exhibitions.

Waylander said:
Exactly. Not only is there no difference between
Those are just guesses and not even good ones...

They also gave DM63 less penetration than DM53... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'll quote them.

It is you who needs to take a hint.

DM-53
1990's technology (introduced ~1996)
745mm, 8.35kg projectile (including sabot)
1670m/s (from L44); 1750m/s (from L55)

M829A3
2000's technology(introduced ~2003)
924mm, 10kg projectile (including sabot)
1555m/s (from L44)

Do the math...

M829A3 (L44)

P/L = (1.044 x V(km/sec) - 0.194 x Ln(L/d) - 0.212) x (1+(d/6.5 x .05)) x (Penetrator Material Modifier) + 1.2 x d (2.4 x d for 60deg)

L = 830mm
D = 25mm
V = 1555m/s @ muzzle; 1455m/s @ 2km
Penetrator Material Modifier = 1.2

---

@ muzzle
P = 830 x (1.044 x 1.555 - 0.194 x Ln33.2 - 0.212) x (1 + (25 / 6.5 x 0.05)) x 1.2 + 1.2 x 25
P = 830 x (1.044 x 1.555 - 0.194 x 3.50255 - 0.212) x (1.1923) x 1.2 + 30
P = 830 x (1.62342 - 0.67949 - 0.212) x (1.43076) + (30)
P = 830 x (0.73193) x (1.43076) + (30)
P = 830 x 1.04722 + 30
P = 869 + 30
P = 899mm

@ 2km
P = 830 x (1.044 x 1.455 - 0.194 x Ln33.2 - 0.212) x (1 + (25 / 6.5 x 0.05)) x 1.2 + (1.2 x 25)
P = 830 x (1.044 x 1.455 - 0.194 x 3.50255 - 0.212) x (1.1923) x 1.2 + 30
P = 830 x (1.51902 - 0.67949 - 0.212) x (1.43076) + 30
P = 830 x (0.62753) x (1.43076) + (30)
P = 830 x 0.89784 + 30
P = 745 + 30
P = 775mm

--- *** ---

DM-53 (L55)

P/L = (1.044 x V(km/sec) - 0.194 x Ln(L/d) - 0.212) x (1+(d/6.5 x .05)) x (Penetrator Material Modifier) + 1.2 x d (2.4 x d for 60deg)

L = 650mm
D = 22mm
V = 1750m/s @ muzzle; 1640m/s @ 2km
Penetrator Material Modifier = 1.1

---

@ muzzle
P = 650 x (1.044 x 1.750 - 0.194 x Ln29.54 - 0.212) x (1 + (22 / 6.5 x 0.05)) x 1.1 + (1.2 x 22)
P = 650 x (1.044 x 1.750 - 0.194 x 3.38593 - 0.212) x (1.16923) x 1.1 + 26.4
P = 650 x (1.827 - 0.65687 - 0.212) x (1.28615) + 26.4
P = 650 x (0.95813) x (1.28615) + 26.4
P = 650 x 1.2323 + 26.4
P = 801 + 26.4
P = 827mm

@ 2km
P = 650 x (1.044 x 1.640 - 0.194 x Ln29.54 - 0.212) x (1 + (22 / 6.5 x 0.05)) x 1.1 + (1.2 x 22)
P = 650 x (1.044 x 1.640 - 0.194 x 3.38593 - 0.212) x (1.16923) x 1.1 + 26.4
P = 650 x (1.71216 - 0.65687 - 0.212) x (1.28615) + 26.4
P = 650 x (0.84329) x (1.28615) + 26.4
P = 650 x 1.0846 + 26.4
P = 705 + 26.4
P = 731mm
Click to expand...
and for the DM63:

I believe the only real difference between the DM63 and DM53 is a new propellant that is much less sensetive to temperature variations. The projectile of the DM53 is given as 8.35kg with sabot and the penetrator is said to be around 5kg. The muzzle velocity of the DM63 is slightly less than the DM53. 1650m/s from the L/44 and around 1730m/s or so in the L/55 barrel. So Muzzle energy would be around 11.4MJ from the L/44 and 12.5MJ from the L/55.

The total projectile weight of the M829A3 (come on guys it's a whole different critter than the M829, can't we come up with a new number?) is around 10kg. Estimating from the few cross sectional photo's I've seen the projectile looks to be around 920-925mm or so and the diameter a little bigger than the M829A2. I estimate a penetrator about 830mm, an L/d of 37 and a mass around 6kg. The muzzle velocity is usually quoted as 1555m/s. So Muzzle energy would be around 12.1MJ.

I get a perforation at 2000m into 800MPa RHA at 0deg / 60deg of:

DM63-L/44...........58cm / 68cm
DM63-L/55...........61cm / 72cm
M829A3...............68cm / 79cm
Click to expand...
Lastly:

Like I said, I am assuming the publicly released information is at least reasonably accurate. And the publicly released information on the DM-63 is that it is the same as the DM-53 except for using new propellants that are less sensitive to temperature variations. The publicly released photos certainly indicate that the dimensions have not significantly changed. And what do you know it the publicly released information indicates that in the process the DM-63 lost 20m/s (not a lot & it is conceiveable that some projectile/penetrator improvement has made up for that) compared to the DM-53. :p
Click to expand...
Nail in the coffin: (from Rheinmetall's site)
The DM63 cartridge is based on the already fielded DM53. The essential difference between the two cartridges lies in the propulsion unit. Instead of a conventional propulsion unit, the DM63 is the first 120mm high-performance KE round to be equipped with a temperature-independent propulsion system (TIPS®), based on SCDB® technology.

Apart from temperature-independent performance data,the design of the propulsion unit of the DM63 was aimed not so much at achieving an improvement in performance but instead at attaining a distinct reduction in erosion while maintaining the same level of performance (+15°C same vo as DM53). To achieve this objective in optimum fashion, the one-piece combustible case was modified with respect to the erosionreducing characteristics of its combustion gases.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the long copy and paste :U
 
Last edited:
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Waylander said:
Exactly. Not only is there no difference between
Those are just guesses and not even good ones...

They also gave DM63 less penetration than DM53... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
DM63 is a better suited performer,

DM63 did recieve other improvements besides a more consistant powder burn, has to do with longer range engagements.
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Actually the alloy of the DM53 is already of a new generation with lots of characteristics formerly only known with DU rods like self sharpening etc.

Also defeating modern (N)ERA went already into the design of the DM53.
The improvements of the DM63 went into another direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top