Revenant said:
Well, apparently all those obstacles were overcome by UWZ during developing T-95. According to the available data T-95 weights ~50 tons. Of course Russian tank, mostly thanks to its turret construction, isn't overweighted and must be rather stable during firing. I only wonder if Black Eagle form Omsk is really equiped with 152mm gun. But on the other hand modern self propelled 152/155mm howitzers have no problem with stability although their centre of gravity is located much higher than in tanks.
I am also curious why Russians decided to use 152mm tank cannon, because it is known that it's possible to use even 50% stronger charges with 2A46M-4 125mm gun than those which are in use.
I'm really sceptical about the Russian figures released into the public domain on platform weight (+/- 50 tonnes)
A 120mm weapon exerts a minimum of 15 tons of recoil, a 140mm - 152mm weapon exerts exponentially greater tonnage. The platform movement is significant. Remember also that a SPG/SPH is designed to absorb recoil alomg it's axis
at length which is thus better able to absorb the effect. Trying to achieve the same level of absorption at all arcs of fire and elevation, (and on the move) is a very very different exercise.
Bear in mind also that in the early years of development, the Russians went to a larger calibre weapon as they could achieve the same performance levels as the L7 heritage guns. ie it was an exercise in overmatching. Russian metallurgy was just not as good as that achived by Rheinmetal. This became apparent when the US managed to obtain access to 120-125mm platforms and pulled them apart for analysis.
There are more efficiencies to be gained from improving the round or shot used than there are in lifting the calibre. Logistically, there is not a lot of benefit in going to a larger round either. Your load out is reduced (especially on a smaller tonnage platform) You either start trading off on loadout - defensive armour etc... or you lose mission flexibility. The design intrusion into the crew compartment
is significant
Revenant said:
I've got some questions, as long as it isn't confidential, of course. What type of APFSDS rounds were fired during those test you witnessed? And how much the achived penetration results were better from 'official' ones?
Best regards!!!
Sorry, not in a position to give that kind of detail. The tests were held against varying thickness of a nominal RHA rated armour plate (typically representing known "enemy" platforms, and set at realistic angles to represent front glacis etc...)
All I'm able to say that 650mm RHA equivalent is clearly understating the penetration capability of a Euro 120mm calibre weapon be it rifled or smoothbore.