±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 410
Total: 410
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Home
03: Home
04: Photo Gallery
05: Home
06: Community Forums
07: Home
08: Downloads
09: Community Forums
10: Home
11: Home
12: Home
13: Photo Gallery
14: Community Forums
15: Photo Gallery
16: Member Screenshots
17: Downloads
18: Community Forums
19: Photo Gallery
20: Photo Gallery
21: Home
22: Home
23: Community Forums
24: Home
25: Member Screenshots
26: Community Forums
27: Downloads
28: Home
29: News Archive
30: Community Forums
31: Home
32: Community Forums
33: Member Screenshots
34: Community Forums
35: Home
36: Home
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: News
40: Community Forums
41: Photo Gallery
42: Home
43: Supporters
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Home
48: Home
49: Home
50: News Archive
51: Home
52: Community Forums
53: Downloads
54: Home
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Home
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Statistics
62: Community Forums
63: Member Screenshots
64: Community Forums
65: Downloads
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Home
69: Community Forums
70: Photo Gallery
71: Home
72: Community Forums
73: Downloads
74: Home
75: Community Forums
76: Photo Gallery
77: Community Forums
78: Home
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Photo Gallery
82: Home
83: Home
84: Community Forums
85: Photo Gallery
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Home
89: Home
90: Home
91: Community Forums
92: Photo Gallery
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Downloads
96: Home
97: Photo Gallery
98: Photo Gallery
99: Member Screenshots
100: Community Forums
101: Downloads
102: Home
103: Downloads
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Home
108: Home
109: Home
110: Photo Gallery
111: Member Screenshots
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Home
117: Member Screenshots
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: News
121: Community Forums
122: Home
123: Home
124: Community Forums
125: Downloads
126: Member Screenshots
127: Home
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Home
132: Home
133: Downloads
134: Community Forums
135: Home
136: Photo Gallery
137: Photo Gallery
138: Community Forums
139: Home
140: Home
141: Photo Gallery
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Home
145: Statistics
146: Home
147: Member Screenshots
148: Photo Gallery
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Downloads
152: Home
153: Home
154: Home
155: Home
156: Home
157: Home
158: Statistics
159: Home
160: Community Forums
161: Home
162: Downloads
163: Home
164: Home
165: Community Forums
166: Photo Gallery
167: Home
168: Home
169: Photo Gallery
170: Photo Gallery
171: Photo Gallery
172: Community Forums
173: Downloads
174: Home
175: Downloads
176: Photo Gallery
177: Home
178: Home
179: Photo Gallery
180: Member Screenshots
181: Photo Gallery
182: Downloads
183: Downloads
184: Community Forums
185: Photo Gallery
186: Community Forums
187: Community Forums
188: Photo Gallery
189: Member Screenshots
190: Treasury
191: Home
192: Photo Gallery
193: Photo Gallery
194: Home
195: Home
196: Home
197: Member Screenshots
198: Photo Gallery
199: News Archive
200: Home
201: Photo Gallery
202: Photo Gallery
203: Home
204: Member Screenshots
205: Member Screenshots
206: Member Screenshots
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: News Archive
210: News Archive
211: Photo Gallery
212: Photo Gallery
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Home
216: Home
217: Photo Gallery
218: Home
219: Member Screenshots
220: Photo Gallery
221: Member Screenshots
222: Community Forums
223: Photo Gallery
224: Photo Gallery
225: Community Forums
226: News Archive
227: Home
228: Community Forums
229: Photo Gallery
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Downloads
234: Photo Gallery
235: Statistics
236: Home
237: Community Forums
238: Home
239: Home
240: Home
241: Member Screenshots
242: News Archive
243: Home
244: Community Forums
245: Home
246: Community Forums
247: Home
248: Home
249: Downloads
250: Home
251: Community Forums
252: Home
253: Photo Gallery
254: Member Screenshots
255: Photo Gallery
256: Photo Gallery
257: Photo Gallery
258: Photo Gallery
259: Your Account
260: Photo Gallery
261: Photo Gallery
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Home
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Community Forums
268: Community Forums
269: Photo Gallery
270: Home
271: Photo Gallery
272: Community Forums
273: Home
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Member Screenshots
277: Member Screenshots
278: Photo Gallery
279: Home
280: Home
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Photo Gallery
284: Home
285: Home
286: Community Forums
287: Community Forums
288: Home
289: News
290: Community Forums
291: Home
292: Photo Gallery
293: Community Forums
294: Photo Gallery
295: Downloads
296: Photo Gallery
297: Home
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Photo Gallery
301: Community Forums
302: Community Forums
303: Your Account
304: Photo Gallery
305: Community Forums
306: Community Forums
307: Community Forums
308: Community Forums
309: News Archive
310: Home
311: Home
312: Community Forums
313: Home
314: Community Forums
315: Member Screenshots
316: Community Forums
317: Member Screenshots
318: Home
319: Home
320: Photo Gallery
321: Community Forums
322: News
323: Community Forums
324: Home
325: Photo Gallery
326: News
327: Home
328: Community Forums
329: Member Screenshots
330: Community Forums
331: Home
332: Home
333: Community Forums
334: Community Forums
335: Community Forums
336: Community Forums
337: Downloads
338: Photo Gallery
339: Community Forums
340: Community Forums
341: Community Forums
342: Member Screenshots
343: Photo Gallery
344: Community Forums
345: Home
346: Community Forums
347: Community Forums
348: Community Forums
349: Community Forums
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Community Forums
353: Home
354: Photo Gallery
355: Community Forums
356: Home
357: Community Forums
358: Home
359: News Archive
360: Home
361: Community Forums
362: Community Forums
363: Community Forums
364: Community Forums
365: Photo Gallery
366: News
367: Member Screenshots
368: Member Screenshots
369: Member Screenshots
370: Photo Gallery
371: Statistics
372: Home
373: Home
374: Member Screenshots
375: Photo Gallery
376: Community Forums
377: Photo Gallery
378: Home
379: Home
380: Downloads
381: Downloads
382: Downloads
383: Community Forums
384: Statistics
385: Community Forums
386: Photo Gallery
387: Member Screenshots
388: Home
389: Community Forums
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Home
393: Downloads
394: Home
395: Photo Gallery
396: Photo Gallery
397: Community Forums
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: Home
401: Home
402: Home
403: Home
404: Home
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Photo Gallery
408: Home
409: Member Screenshots
410: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Skeet
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 15, 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 7:12 pm
Post subject: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

The Abrams carries a 120 mm non-rifled cannon. I understand the non-rifled cannon allows a shaped charge projectile to function better, but it also seems to be able to hit targets waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there.

How's it do that?
Back to top
View user's profile
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2068
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:26 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

Skeet,
I can name two basic changes. Modern fire control systems that compensate for variables such as Range, Air Temp, Barometric pressure, Ammo temp, Cant, Lead, etc. coupled with ballistic solutions that can be calculated for individual type rounds within 1 meter using this data. All is done with the gunner pressing a lase button. The other is that almost all modern tank rounds are fin stabilized and do not need to be spun to stay accurate. Even the old 105mm rifled guns eventually fired primarily fin stabilzed rounds. Quality of production also reduces round to round dispersion within round types allowing longer more accurate engagements too. I guess that makes three. I can write pages of what has been done in the last 30 years to improve accuracy, but basically what modern electronics has done for automobiles pretty much applies to tanks.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 5:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

I dimmly recall in the early 80s someone (the British?) held a competition to see which gun they were going to choose for their next generation tank. They used the standard 105mm gun as a baseline for comparison, firing its APFSDS round. To everyone's horror the 105mm solidly outperformed all the modern technology 120mm contenders as far as accuracy went. It seems even with driving bands a 105mm APFSDS round would still be given a slight rotation. Apparently this was enough to turn any tendency to drift into a corkscrew path as the dart flew downrange. - I hope I'm recalling this story correctly.

Rheinmetall in particular didn't like the results of those tests. It's possible this embarrassment in trials drove much of the insane standards in modern fire controls. Everything from tube wear to weather to propellant temperature is thrown into the mix.
Back to top
View user's profile
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

I have a dumb question.
I read somewhere how when firing the Russian 125mm gun the ballistics calculations are adjusted according to propellant temps. I also read somewhere that one flavor of Merkava or another includes temperature-controlled ammo storage to maximize performance (or more accurately, to avoid degradation). At least at one point Israeli 120mm gun ammo was quite temp-sensitive.

Here's the dumb question - What about Abrams? How do they monitor propellant temps? Is that rear turret bustle temp-controlled at all? or is it monitored by a themostat in order to automatically adjust ballistics computations? I believe for T-72s they'd simply take an air temp reading in the morning and use those calculations all day (yesterday was -8 c, today its +40 c).
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

- mike_Duplessis
....Here's the dumb question - What about Abrams? How do they monitor propellant temps? Is that rear turret bustle temp-controlled at all? or is it monitored by a themostat in order to automatically adjust ballistics computations? I believe for T-72s they'd simply take an air temp reading in the morning and use those calculations all day (yesterday was -8 c, today its +40 c).


No such thing as a dumb question....

Actually there is an ammo temp gauge in the turret. One simply input temp into FCS and the 'little hamsters in the white box' ( Shocked - Just kidding on the hamsters...) calculates the ballistic solution with all inputed info.

Ammo 'wells' seem to run much cooler than crew compartment. Ammo doors block out residual heat from turret & outside.

Many times (as am M-1, IPM-1, & M1A1 gunner) I remember temps in ammo wells running in 100-120 degree range. Ft Polk actually seemed to be the worst.

Don

_________________
"Gonna hold my breath until Armor returns home..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

- mike_Duplessis
I dimmly recall in the early 80s someone (the British?) held a competition to see which gun they were going to choose for their next generation tank. They used the standard 105mm gun as a baseline for comparison, firing its APFSDS round. To everyone's horror the 105mm solidly outperformed all the modern technology 120mm contenders as far as accuracy went. It seems even with driving bands a 105mm APFSDS round would still be given a slight rotation. Apparently this was enough to turn any tendency to drift into a corkscrew path as the dart flew downrange. - I hope I'm recalling this story correctly.

Rheinmetall in particular didn't like the results of those tests. It's possible this embarrassment in trials drove much of the insane standards in modern fire controls. Everything from tube wear to weather to propellant temperature is thrown into the mix.


Mike

In 1988 'we' had some serious problems with the 120mm ammo. Initially it was packaged, shipped, and delivered in wooden crates like the 105 ammo. This caused serious preformance reliability problems.

When 'we' were doing CAT 89 train up, we found that round to round dispersion was way off the scale. 'Our' goal was to hit a coke can at 1500m. With the first generation (training) Sabot, it was difficult to hit the Screening panels at 1500m with more than one round, let alone a coke can.

After 'much pain' it was finally determined that the ammo was at fault. This is about the time that the sealed 'catacomb' containers made their appearence.

Voila!!! We started screening and hitting a 12 inch 'bulls-eye' at 1500m, round after round.

Don

_________________
"Gonna hold my breath until Armor returns home..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2068
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 12:33 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

Hey Dontos,
Yeah, there were some issues with the old M865 anyway when it first came out. With the newer PA-116 (I think that's what they're called)containers you probably got the newer M865IP (PIP) or whatever they called it then. We used to have to ID it from the older ones by the groves cut in the petals. Both had the same ID and DODIC. I think we are on our 4th or 5th connotation of the M865 now.
Mike, gotta remember that unless you are firing service ammunition results may vary. Training ammo has to be good but the other factor is cost as opposed to service rounds where money doesn't factor in that much. I can believe the 105 was more accurate during the test just because the rounds for the 120mm were not a mature of a system at that time. My experience with 105 training APDS compared to 120 training APCSDS was that the 105 seemed more accurate. I will tell you when they screened service rounds in Kuwait prior to the war (OIF) the results we most impressive, especially the shot groups. 1st UK didn't screen, they zero'd using L29 and then switched to L27 CHARM. Fired a lot more ammo but I personally believed they had a more accurate final result. They do have some impressive long range gunnery ability.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 1:04 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

PIP...thats it.

I believe it had a lot number of '88F' the only APCSDS-T that we were allowed to use.

In the days prior, (CAT89) we zeroed every different lot we got. 5 rounds. Fire 3 at 'bull', determine MPI, toggle adjust, then fire 2 confirmation rounds. No 'Fleet Zero' for us.

(I still have my zero data from May - June 89.... I'm NOT a 'pack-rat' damn it!!!) Laughing

Of course, that was 'E-ONS' ago.... Cool


_________________
"Gonna hold my breath until Armor returns home..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2068
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 2:30 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

Dontos,
I still think that zeroing is better than screening Smile , but of course money talks Rolling Eyes . The theory is that if all tanks were made and maintained to a equal level of quality and the ammunition was constructed within certain tolerences than one could reasonably expect the same firing results across the board. Screening just verifies that the tank and ammo meet these tolerances. It may not be the most accurate but the standard is 2 rounds within the circle of the ST-5 panel (formerly ST-4 octogon). If it can accomplish this it meets the accuracy requirements. The problem with zeroing is you can potentially hide a maintenance problem Sad . Just because you can adjust the reticle to get a bulls eye at 1500 meters doesn't mean you can do the same thing at 1000 or 2000. The FCS could be flawed and not correctly calculate the ballistic solution. All you accomplished was make it hit at 1500 meters standing still. Other factors are also mechanical. It can be very frustrating with older systems Evil or Very Mad .That's the reason why Master Gunner's look the way they do on a range. But..., if the tank is good and the ammo is good, zeroing is far more accurate Wink . All comments made are my personal opinion and do not reflect any official doctrin or procedures

Enjoy the Armor conference
Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Skeet
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 15, 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:00 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

Thanks folks.

In reply to another question I made, this link was provided:

www.globalsecurity.org...m830a1.htm

That pretty much answers my question. I didn't know that that all the 120mm rounds were fin stabilized.

Interesting idea about using that round being used on helicopters. I wouldn't think you could bring a 120 mm to bear on such a target.
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 6:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

HI Skeet! Hi Folks!

- Skeet

Interesting idea about using that round being used on helicopters. I wouldn't think you could bring a 120 mm to bear on such a target.


That idea has been around for bit. The MPAT round makes it work a lot better.

Sometime around 1972-73, when I was stationed at Hunter Liggett Military Reservation, the unit I was in conducted a test to see if it was possible for Soviet Tanks to engage US Cobra Attack Helicopters firing Sabot ammo. The unit had five platoons of M60A1 tanks which were fitted with a Soviet type of sight retinal. Using the Great Grand Father version of the system used now days at the NTC, it was learned that Soivet's Tanks using Sabot could not hit a moving Cobra most of the time.

After the test was over, then some one asked the question, "Can US tankers using our current FCS and Sabot, hit a Soviet gunship"? Back to range with the nomal sight retianls reinstalled. It was found that our system could nail a hovering or slowly moving helo. Last I heard of that test program was they where going someplace else to try and learn how much damage a Sabot round could do to a helicopter. I wonder if somewhere in the developement of MPAT round, those old tests had anything to do with it's design?

Some of my old history.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 12:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

I recall reading somewhere (warning, I may be remembering this all wrong) that German tanks were slated to get a 'dual-purpose' laser rangefinder for combatting helicopters. I believe the article said - and I'm really shakey on this info - that a laser reflection can give multiple range returns due to laser scatter. A standard ground combat rangefinder will, I think, discard all but the last return. This is the opposite of what you want for a helicopter which would be primary laser return followed by background clutter. So I think the article said the German rangefinders had a switch that would allow either accepting last or first laser return depending on the target type.

What this implies is a helicopter close enough to be within the APFSDS dart's flat trajectory would be dead meat, but if ballistics calculations are involved (beyond 2500m?) then hit probability may be hindered by the ground-optimized ranging equipment.

Any REAL tankers willing to help me on this?
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

- mike_Duplessis
I recall reading somewhere (warning, I may be remembering this all wrong) that German tanks were slated to get a 'dual-purpose' laser rangefinder for combatting helicopters. I believe the article said - and I'm really shakey on this info - that a laser reflection can give multiple range returns due to laser scatter. A standard ground combat rangefinder will, I think, discard all but the last return. This is the opposite of what you want for a helicopter which would be primary laser return followed by background clutter. So I think the article said the German rangefinders had a switch that would allow either accepting last or first laser return depending on the target type.

What this implies is a helicopter close enough to be within the APFSDS dart's flat trajectory would be dead meat, but if ballistics calculations are involved (beyond 2500m?) then hit probability may be hindered by the ground-optimized ranging equipment.

Any REAL tankers willing to help me on this?


Mike

I 'used' to be a REAL Tanker, so I'll try to take a stab at explaining this....

The Abrams LRF has dual settings for '1st return' & 'Last return'.

If lasing on a target on a hill top (or in the air) with a limited possibility of any obstructions then this means the LRF will give a range to the actual target.

Many times multiple range returns are noted due to tree limbs, grass, (etc) that are in the line of sight between the tank and the intended target. When in 'Last Return' the indexed range should be the target you are lying the reticle on.

There is a 'multiple range return' bar in the symbology of the GPS which lets the gunner know that more than one range return has been received. Its up to him to assess if the indexed range seems appropriate.

Hope this helps,
Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum