So multiple german newspapers report, that the ammo of the Leopard 2 is not able to defeat Russian T-90, because it is tungsten and not DU?
Best part in the reports is, that the new ammo which is stated to be used from 2017 can only be fired from the A7 and not the A6 or A5, even though it is the same gun basically.
Truth, or did the journalists simply fuck up?
Looking at the fact that other nations are picking the German smoothbore gun with similiar tungsten rounds (see South Korea) and don't have a problem with the penetration power.
It sounds like a case of hyperbole that a tank gun isn't capable of penerating the frontal armor at any range.
It's basically just one source (Welt am Sonntag). Other leading papers aren't reporting the news.
>"im Einzelfall nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass es moderne Panzerungen gibt, die der Wirkung der gegenwärtigen Panzerbordmunition des Leopard 2 widerstehen"
>it can not be excluded in individual cases that modern armor can withstand the impact of current KP ammunition of the Leopard 2
That's a completely meaningless statement. Of course it's not impossible that some armor sometimes might stop the round. That's not the same as what the OP said, which was a specific claim that requires specific evidence.
Well, the article talked about T-80, T-90 and the new Russian tanks but there is not a single quote or source in the article that talked about the Russian tanks but just what I quoted.
That is basically all there is. Still....
Not that fag, but is the complaint about the G36 about the weapon, or the integral optics?
I always found it very funny that in all pictures of German special units, G36 is always in a flat-top railed configuration, never with carry-handle and integral optics.
I found the article. It takes that statement (which is true of any ammunition of any tank gun of any era) and then assumed without any evidence it meant that T-80s and T-90s are immune to it. I would say something about the quality of German journalism, but that would imply reporting on military matters is good anywhere in the world.
The joke is that DU ammunition is a dead end.
You can't really increase the muzzle velocity anymore because DU would just break apart then (too brittle).
That's the reason why American DU ammunition are heavier but significant slower than comperable tungsten rounds and why the new rail guns will use tungsten rounds.
>"in individual cases can not be ruled out that there are modern armor that can withstand the effects of the current tank ammunition aboard the Leopard 2"
That could mean that a Leopard 2 can't penetrate the front armor of a M1A2 SEPv2 at 4km at a highly oblique angle, or that it can't penetrate the side armor of a T-72B3 straight on at point blank range, or anything in between.
>More expensive than DU.
Really? I was under the impression that TC was cheaper. Though then again, I'm not familiar with what it takes to make a TC penetrator as opposed to DU.
I do believe that DU is more dense, however. Whether density or hardness is more desirable in APFSDS, I'm also unaware.
lowest estimate for DM53 120mm out of the Leopard 2A6's L55 is 760mm @ 2000m
highest estimate for T-90A front turret is 860mm
for reference during desert storm the lowest estimate for M829A1 is 590mm vs 420mm on T-72A, a whole 150mm of difference and we all saw that had no problem at all penetrating
Das ist Journaillen-Blabla.
Wann hast Du das letzte Mal einen Journalisten in Deutschland gesehen (der nicht für ne Waffenzeitung schreibt), der Ahnung von Waffen und Militär hat?
The german military is underfunded as fuck.
We dropped drafting a few years ago and now we got some 10k soldiers too few
We also have the biggest troubles to field usable, mission-fitting and reliable equipment.
We got tons of problems with all sorts of stuff ranging from the G36 over the Tiger helo to the Airbus A400 transporter.
Seriously, we had better chances to defeat the russkies if we disbanded the whole german military and armed the volunteer fire departments.
Comparing numbers is bullshit.
Modern armor isn't simple RHA steel anymore. In the same way that rounds aren't just have steel core anymore.
All the various armor and round types are quite differently efficient to each other.
The spaced armor of the Leopard 2 post A4 was extra designed to reduce the efficiency of DU rounds.
Fair enough. I'd heard in passing that Euro nations use TC penetrators because DU is more expensive, so I'm not surprised that it was incorrect.
The Korean TC penetrators are self-sharpening. Is DU capable of such a property?
As someone who works in the material industry I'm pretty impressed that Russia is capable of producing such a miracle of tank armor - although their material industry is like 20 years behind the Western world.
I guess one of the many Russian wonder weapons.
The total projectile weight of the M829A3 (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
and for good measure
M829...................48cm / 57cm
M829A1...............54cm / 63cm
M829A2...............57cm / 67cm
The US is also fielding the M829E4, not much is known about it other than its designed to defeat the latest Relikt, russian ERA.
>what the fuck am i reading /thread
someone better confirm that the "source" is bullshit....DU ammonition is slightly better than tungsten, yes...but what the hell is wrong with the germans (im a german too)...first the thing with the G36 - no country has problems but "hey...fuck the taxpayer"
@T90-Its fucking slavshit...ERA upgraded T72s...why the hell shouldnt they be able to defeat the armour of fucking T90s?
That makes no sense...
If they really have to upgrade the military against thouse scaarrry russians...they better do it at the Eurofighter or building SAMs and ATGM if you ask me...
It's stupid. DU and Tungsten carbide are about equal. DU is heavier, tungsten carbide harder. The nice thing about DU is that in fine powder form it's pyrophoric. But that's a post penetration capability. For actually penetrating armor both rounds are about equal.
but, im starting to ask my, why they dont just take pure tungsten (W) instead of tungsten carbide (WC)...
The melting point is nearly the same, so the production would more or less the same or is W (that much) more expensive?
I've heard that DU had some special thing going with shear modulus or whatever the fuck they called it which made the penetration channel narrower, giving it better penetration. You always hear about this self sharpening about DU.
Again, the only reason that Yurops don't use DU is political because the left betrayed them to the russians in that matter.
>You always hear about this self sharpening about DU.
>The behavior of a 00 penetrator attacking an armor array is noticeably different from that of its WA counterpart. The DU rod tends to "ablate" as it passes through armor. Its nose is worn away in relatively fine pieces while a reasonably efficient front cross section is constantly presented to the remainder of the target. Although minor bending of the rod may be observed, longitudinal breaking is not likely, This behavior is primarily attributed to the high duntility, high strength and low elastic modulus (e.g. sound speed) inherent in DU penetration.
It's because the integrated optics idea was a good idea for the time before everyone realized the US Army was into something with the rails. The Army got rails in like 1995 and the Germans adopted the G36 in the same year. Of course they go with the railed option now since modularity is great.
No, only a complete fucking autist like yourself would take the statement self sharpening and think the projectile is getting better as it penetrates. Reasonable people can understand that means it maintains most of its effectiveness as it penetrates through ablation.
How do they even know it will not penetrate when they have not even seen combat against each other? How do they even test this stuff?
Naww. they are quite good. In the first Versions the red dot is horrendously big, so it will cover the target over 100m distance. Next version fixed that or replaced the red dot sight for a small rail.
The optical sight is just a simple normal one, nothing fancy, but it gets shit done.
Remember the whole rifle was designed to be a cheap, lightweight, precise semi auto gun that every hobknob of a draftee could shoot adequately -- and that is does.
Probably a defense research group who estimated that that the latest APFDS is ineffective against Russian tanks beyond 3 km or something.
Journalists go "LATEST AMMUNITION INEFFECTIVE!", cutting out all relevant data.
Considering how corrupt the Russian MIC is, I think it's safe to say that anyone with the right connections could find out with a few bottles of high quality vodka and some beets.
>Aren't those typical monkey models?
India doesn't get monkey models of Russian equipment, if they did they would have gone all British or American during the Cold War instead of attempting to stay non-aligned.
A little bit off topic, but since this is where all the materials scientists seem to be hanging out, I figured it's the best place to ask.
How useful would a tungsten carbide wedding band be at increasing the effectiveness of a punch, assuming that the punch consistently uses the ring as a striking surface?
Oh boy, I haven't had a chance to post this picture in forever.
Here's why DU is considered to generally be superior as an AT munition.
In this picture you can see how a standard APFSDS rod moves through armor via x-raying a block of steel that was used for testing (entry at the bottom, hitting a sloped armor covering, they used a few different shots at identical pieces of armor at different speeds to get a good idea of how it actually moved). Generally, as the rod is moving through armor the tip is blunted and bent, this results in the penetrator losing its energy and bending more and breaking as it passes through the armor.
DU in contrast tends to ablates at its entry point instead of bending, focusing the energy of the penetrator in a small area, thus increasing penetration as its energy is bled off less drastically.
There is no evidence that the penetrator will act in composite layers the same way as in a steel block.
The bend in a penetrator occurs on impact,the material afterwards is essentially irrelevant as the damage has already been done to the rod and any further movement through materials exacerbates the deflection of the rod and the stresses involved. This, along with heavy era was a key factor in the developments of segmented penetrators.
Explain? I'm aware of the dangers of combing palm-loading and improper form. By my experience so long as you're not holding something to break your fingers over, the natural space inside a closed fist is sufficient to prevent injury, assuming the first two knuckles as the point of impact and that you're not punching the skull directly.
>If they really have to upgrade the military against thouse scaarrry russians...they better do it at the Eurofighter or building SAMs and ATGM if you ask me...
Taurus KEPD 350
RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile
PARS 3 LR
All missiles that either entered service in the German Army around 2005 or are in the process of being adopted. Also the German Army got the MATADOR new and has given the Panzerfaust 3 a update.
>He doesn't know about adiabatic shear bands
>He doesn't realize that it prevents mushrooming
>He doesn't realize that it shears off layers of the penetrator, keeps the tip sharp as fuck
>He doesn't realize that it softens the armour with heat
I mean, really man? Pyrophoric materials are nuts.
DU is better because it's cheaper. Easier to work with than tungsten carbide and it's close enough in density although not as hard.
DU is a waste by product with limited general use.
Great for ballast, and little else.
However it's effective as an anti armor KE projectile, much better than steel or most other options. Tungsten carbide is simply stronger harder and a bit heavier. DU being pyrophoric is often claimed as a big advantage but only by people ignoring that a round going from 1.5km/s to 0 releases a fuck ton of heat anyway. Both rounds if they get inside a tank will almost surely kill the crew and start a fire.
As for the report it's either reporters being retards or the Germans being German.
For example of Germans being German; Switch from DM53 to DM63 and the Germans want to reprogram the fire control computer in their factory back in Germany. Solution used was to fire a few rounds from a few different tanks then use the built in standard value adjustment to slightly change the round performance in the FCS. So from +1.34, +0.02 to +1.36, +0.02. Or what amounted to about a hand width at 2,500m.
The A5 gun is the 44/L while the A6+ is 55/L. Both can fire the same round but the fire control computer needs different numbers because the 55/L barrel is moving the round much faster. If a new round is made that has different enough performance the older 44s won't be able to accurately fire it unless someone is willing to either write up new FCS software or make a standard value adjustment and make the Germans cry.
Whether the round may or may not have been able to defeat the armour of the T-90, citing the fact that tungsten in lieu of DU was the primary cause of such failure is simply an unsubstantiated remark, and generally unlikely.
>And yet all of that is inferior to indigenous Chinese missiles that have never been proven in an armed conflict against modern systems.
Fixed that for you.
Never had this problem with the G36. Could well enough hit my target. Granted when shooting with NSAK the accuracy went down, but NSAK is using the 36 as an lmg in CQ situations,which is bollocks.
Given that german doctrine has the normal engagement range of 2km for MBT and the L/55 has an average v0 of 1600 to 1700 m/s I can see that TC is around the same effectiveness as DU, if not better. Only on long ranges DU actually has the better performance because of higher weight. However, as said, German doctine centers around the 2 to 2,5 kilometer mark the difference should be marginal.
The G36 has been known to be fucked for a long time
As far as the Leopard 2, assuming its true the DM63 cannot defeat a T-90 (which I doubt but whatever) its not like the Leopard 2 is unable to fire M829 rounds.
A6 does not use the same as the A7. The A7 has again the L/44, the same as the A5. This was a deliberate design choice. The A7 is not intended to replace, but complement the A6.
The current plans (as told me by my teachers at the Panzertruppenschule) are to upgrade all A5 to either A6, for tank engagement, or A7 for UrbOps.
The A6 has the L/55, the A7 the L/44. This is also the reason why the A6 will never get a CROWS or dozer blade, but still retains the FLA MG on top of the tanks operated by the Loader.
>The A7 has again the L/44, the same as the A5.
This is false, you are thinking of the 2A7+ which was optimized for urban combat.
The vehicles on display when the first 2A7's were handed over to the German army in December all had the L/55.
Almost every one of them is better and several technology level above China and can do things, for which the Chinese need several different systems or have no equivalent. Most of Germanys Missiles from the Cold War are even still better, than the shit China has.
Not even a Chinafag but based on several reports on that matter that's not correct that we talking of being generations apart - the missile systems are pretty close to each other now or getting close with the incoming missile generation.
That one is a troll though with his baiting.
Then something changed in the tank doctrine since I participated in my obligatory tactics course in the armys tank school. To my knowledge the A7 is to be the UrbOp tank while the A6 stays the "anti-tank" tank.
This possibly the most retarded thing I've read tonight.
The F2000s integrated optic works fine. Although it's mounted to a rail....
The Missiles are on different development circles and enter service almost an entire decated apart from each other. China still has to catch up.
Germany had Cold War shit, updated it in the late 90s/early 2000s and is now introducing "Future Tech" Missiles since 2005, which are better than most of the stuff China has.
China was until the late 2000s on Cold War shit level, now most of Chinas new Missiles is updated Cold War shit and better than Germanys updated Cold War shit, because China got its hand on technology developt half a decade after Germany updated its own Cold War shit, which makes many people think Chinas has "Future Tech" Missiles, but their actual "Future Tech" Missiles are still in development and if they make it out of it, will only enter service years after Germanys "Future Tech" missiles.
That doesn't make sense. And no actual Chinese missiles aren't on the same level as "updated Cold War" stuff. Alone the modern guidance and EW hardware is miles ahead of everything was used 20 years ago.
And in fields like antiship there is even an empty hole in the Nato. Exocet or Katamaran are truly Cold War shit.
>That doesn't make sense.
It does, NATO countries update their stuff to stay at the top, meanwhile Countries with emerging economies try to use their new wealth to reach the top while having to watch that they don't over do it and collapse.
>And no actual Chinese missiles aren't on the same level as "updated Cold War" stuff. Alone the modern guidance and EW hardware is miles ahead of everything was used 20 years ago.
You failed to understand my sentence, otherwise you wouldn't write this bullshit. There is a difference if you update your Cold War Technology with 90s shit(NATO) or if your update it with 2000s shit(Emerging Economies). China and a lot of other country have skipped a lot of steps in development, because 10-15 years after the end of the Cold War, they could just buy, steal and copy technology from the Global market and update their weapons, without doing the work themselves. Also they have a goal(NATO) to reach and surpass, while NATO countries have to look how far they can or should go.
>And in fields like antiship there is even an empty hole in the Nato. Exocet or Katamaran are truly Cold War shit.
They don't have it, because they don't need it.
Well I sure hope german starts replacing those old Leo 2's with more modern ones.
seeing how the old leos are "shit" I'd asume that noone would want them and they would have to sell them cheap
how about 2 million for each tank?
Only difference between T-90s that Russia and India operate regarding armour and protection is that the latter one has two additional ERA blocks on the place of Shtora-1. Now T-90SM is a whole different story, but it isn't operational anywhere,
Kaktus ERA is just R&D for Object 640 that was never finished anyway.
Its a pretty cut and dry political maneuver, some newspapers gain favor with the powers that be, politicians gain the opportunity to boost military spending without being made to look like Hitler 2.0 and the military gets bigger budgets to buy things to scare russians.
Its a win-win for everyone.
It's called planar shearing, which is a relatively unique property of du. This makes it superior to tungsten in penetrating capabilities. The only way to get an equal performance out of tungsten is to pew pew that motherfucker at higher rates of speed to get the old f=ma working in your favor
On the topic of G36 failure or not I`d like to quote from: http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Neues-Rohr-statt-neues-Gewehr-article14983656.html
> The only gun tested that could withstand the new testing regiment was the HK416BW. The HK416BW is the german version of the M27 IAR, so it is not an aussault rifle but a light machine gun. The article states that comparing light machine guns to assault rifle is not legit. The german army already has a new light machine gun - the MG 4.
These are not official claims, but a mere two posts on a weapons blog without a source. Spiegel online treated these claims as facts. It is simply not known at this point. What is known is that the export versions of the G36 are all heavier than the german ones. They have a bigger diameter bore and where twice as expensive as the cheap german ones.
Because they're the nation's major firearms manufacturer and what happens when you don't buy from your nation's firearm manufacturer and don't have 130 million people propping up the firearms industry is that it dies.
It actually does. This phenomenon is (I believe) called shatter gap, which prominently happend with the British 6pdr in WWII. They had very hard and fast penetrators, that shattered against certain German tanks, that they in theory should be able to penetrate.
In material science overdoing it, is not always the right thing.
DU is massively cheaper, and is essentially free as leftovers from any country with a functioning nuclear industry (which the Germans used to have.)
It's fallen out of favour because of health & safety bullshit and the shift in focus of Western militaries from being as efficient killing machines as possible to being extremely overspecced kind-to-dolphins, phosphate-free aid workers.
The source for this "leak" is a guy who last held a office in 1988 so even befor Nato had their hands on the newest russian shit.
Since then he had no security clearance and no political carrer.
It's pretty obvious that somebody is paying him for this the only question is who and why.