120mm Ammo used by...

[Suhiir]

KEWA2 APFSDS-T USA, Australia, Egypt, Kuwait, Denmark, Netherlands
KEWA1 APFSDS-T USA, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
M1028 Canister USA, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands
M1002 TPMP-T USA, Denmark, Netherlands
M908 HE-OR-T USA
M865 TPCSDS-T USA, Australia, Austria, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Kuwait, Norway, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia
M831A1 TP-T USA, Australia, Austria, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
M830A1 HEAT-MP-T USA, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands
M830 HEAT-MP-T USA, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia

This IS NOT a complete list of who is using what ammo, but rather a verification that the nations listed do have/use the indicated ammo type.

Also I found this - no guarentee on it's accuracy - but it seems correct.

US M829A3 = Estimated 960mm RHAe@2000m
German DM53 fired from L55 gun = Estimated 810mm RHAe@2000m
UK Charm 3 = Estimated 700mm RHAe@2000m
French OFL120E2 = Estimated 640mm RHAe@2000m

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

Also I found this - no guarentee on it's accuracy - but it seems correct.

US M829A3 = Estimated 960mm RHAe@2000m

German DM53 fired from L55 gun = Estimated 810mm RHAe@2000m
UK Charm 3 = Estimated 700mm RHAe@2000m
French OFL120E2 = Estimated 640mm RHAe@2000m

Perhaps you'd care to provide a link so we can see just who's claiming this ? Was it here ?? http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...ttle-t521.html

because if it is it is the one and only place on the net anybody gives that data


Opinions vary and they are JUST opinions becasue the only people that know the real values aren't talking so anything you do hear or read is an estimate based on various math formulas

I have seen (1) ONE source that gives M829A3 960mm pen at 2km and it cites the Collins data as a source but Collins gives this

US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm)

and as a coincidence or not entering 96 as a pen for our game will give a 2000m result of 76

I have also not been able to find any source data with those high ratings except for one that gave > 120mm M829A3 93cm @ 1km but that's it and that source was Chinese.

As for German DM53 fired from L55 gun I have see 810mm at 2000 m and 760mm so at least that's close

and for Charm 3 720mm at 2km so it's in the ballpark as well and for the french OFL120F2 DU 647mm at 2km.

almost everything has a range of pen values that is at least within a reasonable limits of error except some of the reported M829A3 values

Don

[Imp]

Guesses I have seen that seem more reasonable, DM53 as fired from L55 but if sources are to be believed there is very little in it between current latestGerman & US rounds. I have not seen any new guesses or Russian rounds for a while. These are I would say best case estimates when you eventually get verified data if ever tend to be about 10% over the top. Best to err on the safe side what people can field.
One thing that seems to have some basis in fact is US early guns cannot fire due to pressure problems. Also note Chineses m/s seems high
M829A1 : 1575 m/s , 700mm RHA @ 2000m
M829A2 : 1680 m/s , 780mm RHA @ 2000m
M829A3 : 1580 m/s , 880mm RHA @ 2000m
DM53 : 1670 m/s , 820mm RHA @ 2000m German
Charm 3 : 1534 m/s , 730mm RHA @ 2000m English
Du 3BM42M : 1600 m/s , 660mm RHA @ 2000m Russian
125-2 : 1720 m/s , 690mm RHA @ 2000m Chinese

To be honest as on my other computer cant say if takes into account diffrent way of measuring as in marks a steel plate at back or passes through etc.

[Imp]

Note some sources claim 1750 m/s for the Russian round its all very debatable.
For basic info & if you want to see what US rounds look like this is not bad
http://www.gd-ots.com/

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Imp

Guesses I have seen that seem more reasonable,



M829A1 : 1575 m/s , 700mm RHA @ 2000m
M829A2 : 1680 m/s , 780mm RHA @ 2000m
M829A3 : 1580 m/s , 880mm RHA @ 2000m
DM53 : 1670 m/s , 820mm RHA @ 2000m German
Charm 3 : 1534 m/s , 730mm RHA @ 2000m English
Du 3BM42M : 1600 m/s , 660mm RHA @ 2000m Russian
125-2 : 1720 m/s , 690mm RHA @ 2000m Chinese

To be honest as on my other computer cant say if takes into account diffrent way of measuring as in marks a steel plate at back or passes through etc.

This is the one and only source I have seen that gives those numbers for the M829 series and the only two that gave anything close to 700 for the A1 gave the penetration at 1000 m and the only other source that gave A2 780mm gave it for 1000 m and 820 for A3 ? I HAVE seen this comment from tanknet

That Collins..
"downgraded his estimate for the M829A3 from 960mm@2000m to 820mm@2000m.''

so it woud appear at some point that the data I had that quoted Collins at 960 pen was indeed quoting collins it just wasn't up to date and the 820 estimate you are using has been revised once again


The bottom line is everyone with an opinion on this has different numbers so no matter which ones I use somebodys going to say I'm wrong. In many cases what I have done is if there is a variety of opinion where I might see five estimates with a range between say... 620 and 710 I add them all up then divide by five to get the middle estimate or , of they are just too weird I go with Collins and anybody who doesn't like Collins data can go argue with Collins.

As well, the game has a built in variation of 5 - 6 cm for the base average and best achieved penetrations players who are paying attention to messages will see a range of pen that could conceivably cover the high and low estimates out there which are, as I said before just people "guessing" using a variety of math formulas with a bit of " this penetrator or this long and this thick and that ones this and that and THEREFORE........." pontifications. The people who REALLY know aren't telling

Don

[Suhiir]

Yup, "www.military-quotes.com" is exactly where I got the info from.
The M829A3 was listed with the exact same penetration in a couple other sources but I'd bet they got their info from "www.military-quotes.com".

If you're a glutton for punishment on ammo take a look at this thread :

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.p...2714&hl=m829a3

[Marcello]

I have further looked into the M830/M830A1 issue.
There seems to be a "expert" consensus that M830A1 sacrifices a lot of penetration potential in order to achieve other effects, with penetration estimates as low as half of that of M830.
That being said M830 was still issued during OIF and beyond according to US tankers, so it might be used to avoid the apparent contradiction of a decreasing HEAT value for more modern US guns.
In regards to APFSDS the thought seems to be that M829A2 pretty much used up most of the remainin growth potential of the M256 gun in terms of "raw" power (maximum pressure etc.).
M829A3 and M829E4 play around the margins with improved materials, shapes etc probably to improve performances against advanced reactive armors (Kontakt-5,Nozh, Relikt etc.) and similar threats but with only relatively modest improvements against a RHA target.

[DRG]

I'd laugh but it would sound like weeping

The game isn't set up to handle the complexity of uses for this type of ammunition but we have code that allows HEAT to be used against helos and yes I can just imagine the howling if I reduced the HEAT pen but, as you say, nothing is really known.

For all the information I have gathered since I started looking into this and other nations "guns" the US tactical doctrine would seem to indicate than APFSDS is the tank killer and HEAT is reserved for lighter targets like APC's and now helicopters as well as 'soft' targets. No commander is going to order HEAT loaded to deal with a tank unless they are low on APFSDS and for nasty people close in they have the M1028 but we cannot simulate that in the game which is why M1028 tanks are segregated as "CS". Also, we cannot simulate accurately the subtle changes made to M830A1 over M830 except that we already allow limited targeting of helos by tanks.

On top of that the actual penetration for M830 seems to be a state secret let alone what M830A1 can actually do and what we had been giving what amounted to M830 ( 60 ) and M830A1 ( 70 ) may or may not be even close but given what's known about other HEAT rounds it seems a logical assumption. However, given the uses HEAT is put to by the US army whether it can penetrate 60 or 70 is really a moot point as it's not used against targets where it might be debateable it would penetrate or not. That's what the APFSDS is for

Now and right now I'm trying to find out of M908 is a general issue round or only issued to engineering tanks. This is a derivative of M830A1 and was first developed to deal with hard concrete objects when the 165mm M123 demolition round was removed from the Army inventory when the M728 was retired According to Globalsecurity it was found that a modification of the M830A1 high explosive multi-purpose cartridge (2-pound High Explosive warhead fielded in 1994) did as well as, if not better than, the 35-pound M123 warhead at reducing obstacles. but, of course. we don't reduce obstacles in the game with high explosive directly so much of what M908 can do isn't relevant to the game unless you are dealing with houses or bunkers and although GlobalSecurity does say "The steel nose allows the projectile to “burrow” itself inside the obstacle before the warhead functions" no mention is made about HOW FAR.

Much of what amounts to OOB work involves digging up info on things governments don't want you to dig up

Furthermore, the M830 is supposed to be the same as DM21A1 and the info I have so far for that that's close is "120mm DM12 HEAT 70cm " ( but I haven't dug to deep into German rounds yet, that's still on my to-do list )
Don

[Suhiir]

From what I know of US Army doctrine I'd suspect the M908 round is issued only when they expect to need breaching capabilities. I don't believe any US Army tanks are specifically designated as "engineer" the way the M728 was.

And, of course the USMC has to be different.
With them I wouldn't be at all suprised if a couple M908 rounds weren't included in the "standard infantry support" ammo loadout.

For the sake of simplicity however I'd probably stick this round with the "engineer" and/or "mine clearing" tanks in WinSPMBT in place of HEAT rounds. Why HEAT instead of Sabot? Simply because I'm assuming the M908 will have some "HE" type effect (similar to the current HEAT rounds) thus could replace them for game purposes. The removal of the Sabot rounds would render "engineer"/"mine clearing" tanks virtually impotent for anti-armor work.

[Marcello]

The problem with M830A1 is that it is not a conventional HEAT round.



As it can be clearly seen it is a subcaliber discarding sabot design. Since warhead diameter is one of the most important factor affecting a HEAT warhead clearly this was not designed to maximize HEAT penetration.
The estimates for the older M830 I have seen are indeed all in the 600-700mm of RHA range.
Do you need some loadouts for abrams tanks?