New Cold War 2020 mod version!

[RecruitMonty]

It would cost too much to replace them. Bigger and heavier tanks can be developed. LOSAT toating weapons are too expensive armies will one day realise they will have to balance costs with numbers. I hope to one day see all those techies get theirs from some good old fashioned armoured warfare.

[Pats]

I hope it wont be necessary to build all those weapons ;-) anyway.
Better use them in games then in reality!

[MarkSheppard]

Well, originally, the M1 Abrams entered service weighing about 50-55 tons. Now, the latest M1A2 SEPs are what 60-65 tons.

So I would think that a lot of R*D would be going on so that we can get M1A2 SEP protection on M1 Abrams weight levels; to restore the "Expansion" potential that was lost during the Abrams' lifetime.

I've looked up the specs for the US Army's XM291 140mm ATAC gun; it weighed 91 kg *LESS* than the M256 120mm Gun, and it could even be converted to fire 120mm ammo, in about an hour by replacing the gun tube. This 120mm version of the XM291 is right now the current gun of FCS.

Then we got the various other armor technologies; like electromagnetic armor, which can defeat RPG-7 warheads, yet total power drain is less than starting the tank on a cold morning; advanced explosive reactive armor which can defeat incoming APDFS rounds by snapping the penetrator in mid flight, ARENA/TROPHY close in defense systems that launch projectiles to defeat incoming threats....

I've looked up the various Electrothermal Gun technologies; and they offer about 30% imprvoement in muzzle velocity and energy over current conventional propellant guns; while not requiring the total technological base redo that liquid propellant guns do.

Presently, the M256 120mm gun with the M829A3 round can penetrate 81cm at 1000m. If we assume muzzle velocity increases by 30% with an ETC version of the M256, then that means that a ETC M829A3 would have a penetration of around 100cm + at the same range.

[pdoktar]

DU warheads do not support higher velocities. At least yet. That´s why the L55 was abandoned by the US army as a upgrade. Tungsten penetrators can use the potential of higher velocities, but current DU is stuck in 1500-1700 m/s. That´s why the latest US DU penetrator is heavier and goes slower.

And I don´t know if M829A3 is the same as M829E3.

[PlasmaKrab]

DU warheads do not support higher velocities. At least yet. That´s why the L55 was abandoned by the US army as a upgrade. Tungsten penetrators can use the potential of higher velocities, but current DU is stuck in 1500-1700 m/s. That´s why the latest US DU penetrator is heavier and goes slower.

Not 100% sure about your reasoning here. As a matter of course Uranium is heavier than Tungsten, so DU rounds are heavier than Tungsten rounds for the same length/caliber values. So for the same initial energy (same propellant, same gun, same sabot, same temperature/pressure/whatever) a DU round will simply have lower velocity due to higher mass (kinetic energy being related to mass and square velocity and all that).
Now I don't see why DU rods wouldn't support higher velocities per se. Modern US APFSDS rounds appear to be particularly thin and long compared to equivalents (21mm for the M829E3 vs 27mm for the DM53), and this may give them a disadvantage in withholding the pressures in longer guns (though is is apparently an advantage once on target).
The French OFL-120F2, which is believed to be largely similar to the German DM-43, is DU-based and still slated with an initial velocity of 1740m/s in the Leclerc's L52 gun.
As I said, this may be due to the European rounds being substantially thicker than their US counterparts, but probably not to some intrinsic DU property.

[pdoktar]

Well check out tanknet for such reasonings. Theres been some discussion about it. However I don´t remember the exact thread, but have a strong recollection that DU does not benefit from hyper-velocities above some limit of maybe 1700m/s - 2000m/s.


Try this one:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18511

The problem with MarkSheppards thing of just increasing the velocity of M829A3 by 30% means that it´ll travel somewhere over 2000m/s that is a problem, what I´ve read from the tanknet. However, if they chance the round to a heavier one with less velocity, is OK reasoning.

And I know that everything on internet is not true. But lets face it where do you have better conversation of such things than tanknet. There´s got to be a point somewhere, if everybody seems to agree..?

[Marcello]

"However I don´t remember the exact thread, but have a strong recollection that DU does not benefit from hyper-velocities above some limit of maybe 1700m/s - 2000m/s."

IIRC tungsten was supposed to outperform DU, but only at extremely high velocities. These are my vague recollections anyway.

[PlasmaKrab]

OK, if there's one internet source I tend to trust on these subjects, Tanknet is the one. Don't take offense from what I said, I just wanted to confront your info with my own data and the low-brow calculation I can come up with.

After reading the whole thread I get a better idea of what you meant: apparently DU loses its edge over tungsten in the higher velocity range (from 1700-1800m/s upwards). I have no doubt better alloys of both metals could be (or already have been) developped to withstand ETC-like MVs.

[Spike11]

Actually, tungsten is slightly heavier than uranium. Their respective densities are 19.26 g/cm3 and 19.05 g/cm3. According to a Norwegian science site (and my memory from science class )...

[Djuice]

Tungsten Heavy Alloy (WHA) is usually rated @ 17.0-17.8 g/cm3 compared to Deplete Uranium @ rough 18.0-18.5 g/cm3.