New Cold War 2020 mod release! (RC 0.4)

[Marcello]

"Re. 152mm, we shall see if the Russians are heading anywhere like this in the real world. AFAIK no country has actually got anything beyond the 120/125 standard in service, despite numerous design efforts (Leopard-2KWS3, Leclerc, K2, Merkava-Mk4...) so the need isn't that appalling, and real-life Russians have enough work catching up on APFSDS technology and maybe transitioning to one-piece ammo (qv Black Eagle) before doing anything silly."

I have to disagree to a certain extent. No country has gone from 120/125 to 140/152 because of the post cold war circumstances. You don't need a 140mm to deal with some arab T-72M1. 152mm guns on the other hand were not fielded because they were unaffordable under the economic conditions prevalent. If, on the other hand, one is assuming an ongoing Cold War and a healthier eastern economy things get very different. The 125mm are in trouble against western third generation MBTs, while the 120mm may be insufficient against the soviet fourth generation monsters. Whether the 135mm or the 152mm are chosen may come down to MIC politics.
Although the soviets were originally heading to a dead end regarding APFSDS design, items like the BM-46 show that they have learned quickly and do not have all that to catch up.

[PlasmaKrab]

As far as my sources show, the BM-46 was still a couple of yards behind contemporary 120mm rounds, but let's not start this debate again. What I meant was that without even having taken the pains of developing and fielding a 135/152mm gun, the Russian engineers could work up the gap and match current western ammo or armor designs (whichever they think of as the target), e.g. by transitioning to bustle autoloader and one-piece ammo with long-rod penetrators. Like they look like doing on the Black Eagle concepts.
Such a solution would be leagues cheaper and could be more easily retrofitted on older tanks, e.g. T-84 Oplot, T-55AGM... There's plenty of life left in the 125mm design, so I don't see the transition as urgent.

And that reflection was regarding real-world only. As far as I'm concerned, I have transitioned the Soviet tanks to 135mm from the late 90s (T-95A) as a direct answer to the first western 140mm tanks (M1A3, Leo2A8...), which is a direct answer to the predicted armor levels of the T-95 generation. Also, this 135mm (chosen over the 152mm as an easier technical solution for transitional designs, as explained above) remains in 1st-class units only for about 10 years, while other theaters get new 125mm rounds able to deal with anything they'd encounter in Central Asia or on the Chinese border.

[Marcello]

"As far as my sources show, the BM-46 was still a couple of yards behind contemporary 120mm rounds, but let's not start this debate again."

I did not mean that the BM-46 was the bleeding edge of world APFSDS design. Merely that it shows that they are not hopelessy behind and do not have a massive amount of catch up to do. They may still have a few thing to learn but not everything.

"by transitioning to bustle autoloader and one-piece ammo with long-rod penetrators. Like they look like doing on the Black Eagle concepts."

A one piece ammo would be incompatible with the existing tanks, without what would amount to a substantially
expensive retrofitting. You might as well change caliber and be done with it. Then I am not sure about why long rod penetrator have anything to do with one piece ammo or separate charge.The british seem to have no issues with having separate charge and decent APFSDS. The limitation with the soviets tanks was the projectile lenght enabled by the autoloader design. There is a workaround which has been incorporated in the T-90/T-72BM.
I have not seen diagrams for the Black Eagle so I do not know what is supposed to be going inside it but there is a possibility that it was done just for flexibility (several weapon configurations were available for it).

[PlasmaKrab]

Why do we keep going on about this already?
I agree that transitioning to 152mm can be an option for future tank design, time will tell. I agree that the Russian isn't 40 years behind in APFSDS performance, maybe 10 or 15 though, and that rebuilding older tanks with a bustle autoloader is no mean task.
I still consider that full-length rounds allow for heavier rounds with decent L/D ratio. AFAIK the British don't field anything with penetration ratios on the level of an M829E3 or DM-53. Now if you tell me they do, I'm ready to take the evidence into account.

I was just trying to point out that it would be on the whole easier, shorter and cheaper to develop new 125mm ammo for the current tanks and upgrades thereof, than developing a brand new 152mm-gun tank, as things stand these days in the real world. Both options are not mutually exclusive and wouldn't serve exactly the same purpose, but I guess the Russian military would have to make a choice. That was just to support the "maybe not 152mm for real right now" argument.

Now as far as regards the Cold War 2020 mod, I have selected the 135mm in full agreement with myself, for various reasons ranging from compatibility with transitional tank designs to easier to model physics through ammo loadout.

[Marcello]

"and that rebuilding older tanks with a bustle autoloader is no mean task."

You still have to cut the turret though. The autoloader modification on the T-90 or the T-72BM upgrade is rather less dramatic. And even if the newest APFSDS cannot be carried in non refitted tanks, HE, HEAT and propelling charges are still compatible, which would not be the case with a new monobloc ammo. The british are going to drop their main gun for NATO standard 120mm,so there is no reason to develop a M829A3 lookalike, but that is more for standardization and rifled vs smoothbore issues than any limitation of the separate charge. I have never found the separate charge to be described as a substantial limiting factor for APFSDS performance.

[Spike11]

Re the new Russian ATGMs. As far as I can see, the next-generation versions (Sokol, Feniks etc) are all categorised as regular ATGMs, not as DC- or TA-ATGMs. Since the Russians are very much into double charge HEAT (and even triple charge, apparently...) systems, I was a bit puzzled that the next generation would use single charge charges. I'm not saying this is a big deal, I was merely a bit surprised

[PlasmaKrab]

OK, I get the idea.
Look at it closely and you'll notice that these missiles have a basic AP penetration value, not HEAT. In other words, they are KE missiles...
No need for a tandem warhead then, right?
Look up the US CKEM and LOSAT, which work the same way.
I've tested this modelization of KEMs, and the PA value doesn't draw down with range, the resistance to basic ERA is rather good, and the AP values takes on the steel armor value of the target without problem.
Only issue I'm having is that since these missiles are class-13 standard ATGMs as you noted, and with rather lower penetration values than HEAT weapons, the cost is artificially low.

[Marek_Tucan]

PlasmaKrab said:
Only issue I'm having is that since these missiles are class-13 standard ATGMs as you noted, and with rather lower penetration values than HEAT weapons, the cost is artificially low.

Use big HEAT value and for cost-calcullation swotch rounds to HEAT, then switch them back?

[PlasmaKrab]

Marek_Tucan said:Use big HEAT value and for cost-calcullation switch rounds to HEAT, then switch them back?

Sure but which HEAT value do you take? I'll have to investigate it anyhow.

[Marek_Tucan]

As big as you need to get the desired cost in calcullation Clashed on the same problem with TOW-2B (esp. M3 CFV got ridiculously cheap), but trying out this approach had to wait till now