On the armor penetration of Soviet and NATO shells

In the modern American BOPS, which received the designation M2016A809 in 4, the penetration value, that is, the penetration depth, is 840 mm for homogeneous steel armor. Why are BOPS of Soviet origin inferior to NATO counterparts in this indicator?

Armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells with a pallet detachable after firing were invented and first entered service in the Soviet Union. The first such projectile was the 3BM1, designed for use in the 100 mm T-12 Rapira smoothbore gun. This projectile had a steel body with a diameter of 33 mm, to the tail of which, by means of a locking screw, a 540-gram six-finger stabilizer was attached, the span of which corresponded to the caliber of the barrel.

The stabilizer was also made of steel, but softer due to the lower carbon content. From even softer steel, a 33-gram blunt tip was made. A 300-gram armor-piercing tungsten carbide core was hidden under the crushable tip. This projectile was capable of penetrating 245 mm of armor at a two-kilometer distance.

The next gun, where feathered sub-caliber shells began to be used, was the 115-mm U5TS, which was armed with the T-62 tank. BOPS for this gun were 3BM3 and 3BM2, respectively. The 3BM3 projectile pierced 300 mm of armor at a two-kilometer distance, and the 3BM2, not equipped with a tungsten carbide core, flying out of the barrel at the same speed of 1650 m/s, provided through penetration of 250 mm thick armor.

With the advent of tank The T-64, equipped with a loading mechanism, due to which it was possible to reduce the crew and reduce the size of the tower with a rate of fire of up to 10 rounds per minute, the era of the superiority of Soviet military equipment over NATO counterparts began, which lasted until the mid-1980s.

The leveling of characteristics began with the fact that in 1978 the first "non-Soviet" feathered sub-caliber projectile with a detachable pallet was adopted by the US Army. This was exactly the same M735, on the basis of which the first BOPS with a uranium core was subsequently created. The plumage of such projectiles was smaller than the caliber of the gun barrel, which improved its aerodynamics, but required the use of a full-fledged two-bearing pallet, not a drive ring. In addition, by reducing the size of the feathered part, greater accuracy and armor penetration were achieved. This ammunition became the first NATO projectile capable of penetrating the armor of T-64 tanks.

Comments

[Foul skeptic]

The modern American BOPS, which received the designation M2016A809 in 4, penetration value, that is, the depth of penetration, is 840 mm for steel homogeneous armor.

The pursuit of the number of printed characters or what? The whole construct is replaced by one human word "armor penetration/armor penetration"

[Vladimir_2U]

Spent 10 minutes, didn't learn anything new, but got bleeding from the ears from the voice acting.

[carpenter]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Spent 10 minutes, didn't learn anything new, but got bleeding from the ears from the voice acting.

It is better not to listen, health must be protected.

[TIR]

There is an introduction, but where is the very essence of the title?

[Alex_mech]

I have a feeling that they forgot to finish the article ...

[drone-expert]

Another interesting thing. Bloggers seriously compare the armor penetration of Leopards and T-90s with 1 km of real range for penetration in the forehead.

But who will let the Leopard or T-90 drive up to this 1 km? Both of them will be crammed with a pack of Javelins and Kornets before even going to the distance.

In reality, I saw the use of BOPS by tanks only from ambushes and with point-blank shooting. Usually, ambush fire is fired at the sides of targets, so academic exercises to break through frontal armor are purely fantasy here. In real life, tankers even use OFS for ambush shooting, because. which armored personnel carrier a BOPS blank can simply pierce to take off by making two holes, but not destroy it. A land mine on board an armored personnel carrier or which Humvee is much more effective. Therefore, the Humvee, after being defeated in an ambush and crumpled in the pictures, is like after being hit by a giant fist. In them, a high-explosive fragmentation tank kissed from an ambush

But an ambush is not an attack. Rolling across the field against a Cornet or TOW with 10km range is just a way to burn yourself out before you even get into range

[nedgen]

Quote: drone-expert

Another interesting thing. Bloggers seriously compare the armor penetration of Leopards and T-90s with 1 km of real range for penetration in the forehead.

But who will let the Leopard or T-90 drive up to this 1 km? Both of them will be crammed with a pack of Javelins and Kornets before even going to the distance.

In reality, I saw the use of BOPS by tanks only from ambushes and with point-blank shooting. Usually, ambush fire is fired at the sides of targets, so academic exercises to break through frontal armor are purely fantasy here. In real life, tankers even use OFS for ambush shooting, because. which armored personnel carrier a BOPS blank can simply pierce to take off by making two holes, but not destroy it. A land mine on board an armored personnel carrier or which Humvee is much more effective. Therefore, the Humvee, after being defeated in an ambush and crumpled in the pictures, is like after being hit by a giant fist. In them, a high-explosive fragmentation tank kissed from an ambush

But an ambush is not an attack. Rolling across the field against a Cornet or TOW with 10km range is just a way to burn yourself out before you even get into range

There is only a grain of truth in what Vlad says. The impossibility of shooting close is only possible in the desert or areas like Iraq. After all, it has happened more than once that the T-64bv met head-on with the Russian T-72 / T-80 / T90. It's just that in a wooded area there is always the possibility of SUDDENLY colliding with an enemy tank.

[dzvero]

Armor penetration is about the same. We open the wiki and understand that the difference is due to the method of measurement. In the West, they mean that> 50% of the shells will penetrate. In the USSR - that all 100% will give through penetration. So 740 mm for 3BM59 is comparable to 800 mm for M829A3, and the same 800 mm for 3BM60 look much better, because half of American shells will NOT penetrate such armor.

[Herman 4223]

I don't know about 50% penetration. But when testing, we and they use different grades of steel. Which? And FIG knows. And the difference can be very huge. Without taking into account the brand, all these millimeters of bullshit have become!

[sdivt]

Quote: drone-expert

a BOPS blank can simply break through by making two holes, but not destroy

Yes, the equipment, perhaps, in this case will survive (or not survive, as lucky), but the crew can be written off, with eardrums pierced from a pressure drop (shock wave), at least

[drone-expert]

Yes, there is no shock wave from BOPS there. It strikes with the blank itself and the chips of the armor. However, in the case of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, the side armor is rather thin and there are few chips. In addition, it is usually made more anti-splinter. Therefore, it is more ductile than solid frontal armor. In self-propelled guns, in general, God forgive me, aluminum is often used for armoring. There will be few chips in plastic armor, there will be an even round hole, as shown correctly in Fury.

In 2014, I saw a video of our lamer crew of volunteers from a rusty BMP-1. On it, the same lamer from the tankers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine fired a shot from the BOPS into the side. The BMP was pierced through and through, the car remained on the move. The concussion was light for the crew, but the driver was slightly wounded by fragments of the armor, and therefore they withdrew from the battle.

Even if they were in anti-fragmentation bulletproof vests, then everything would have ended with a slight shell shock and no more.

Of course, if the BOPS hits the BC or the BMP engine burns out, but a shot to fly into plastic armor often does not give the expected effects. This also applies to piercing armor into the side with large-caliber machine guns. I saw an infantry fighting vehicle that left the battle with about 20 penetrations from the queue, but it just landed successfully and didn’t hit important nodes

[yaglon]

Actually, it is called M829A4, not M809A4. In addition, 840 mm of penetration is the data for the M829A3 (2001). For M829A4 higher values ​​were declared (namely 900-950 mm). The same value was claimed for the improved Chinese 125 mm uranium projectile and the Russian Vakuum-1. I don’t see any contradictions here, almost all leading tank manufacturers came to breaking through 800 mm by the beginning of the 20s, and now it’s already the 900s and the XNUMX mm line, as I believe, is quite within the power of the new BOPS.

[Herman 4223]

Without taking into account the steel grade and its properties, it makes no sense to measure who has how many millimeters of penetration.

[Zaurbek]

The main conclusions are:
1. BOPS materials plus or minus are equal in the USA and the USSR (RF)
2. The OMS of Western vehicles at 70-80 has pulled ahead by a generation, which is why they shoot further and more accurately with BOPS ..... but all Soviet tanks have been firing ATGMs from the barrel for a long time.
3. In the Russian Federation, this issue (the length of the BOPS and the development of the SLA) has been theoretically resolved and bringing the length of the BOPS to 900mm has been worked out for variations of the T90M (SM) and for Almaty.

And the SVO shows us that it was not the BOPS that was the most sought-after projectile for the Tank, and with such shots of AZ in Soviet tanks, it was the right decision.

[certero]

Quote: drone-expert

Another interesting thing. Bloggers seriously compare the armor penetration of Leopards and T-90s with 1 km of real range for penetration in the forehead.

But who will let the Leopard or T-90 drive up to this 1 km? Both of them will be crammed with a pack of Javelins and Kornets before even going to the distance.

Just a few weeks ago there was a video where one of our T-72s fought with an enemy company column where there were several of the same T-72s. and quite one of the enemy tanks got in the forehead from ours. But the penetration did not happen.
So how ours will pierce the forehead of abrams I don’t know.
And about cramming cornets, so a recent video where the enemy calmly destroys our soldiers in a trench who had only one cornet with a tank and an armored personnel carrier does not tell you that they are simply not enough?

[Illanatol]

Quote: certero

Just a few weeks ago there was a video where one of our T-72s fought with an enemy company column where there were several of the same T-72s. and quite one of the enemy tanks got in the forehead from ours. But the penetration did not happen.
So how ours will pierce the forehead of abrams I don’t know.

A single video, which may turn out to be fake, does not prove anything. There are a lot of videos of the successful defeat of Ukrainian tanks by ours. In the end, this is Ukraine, which at the beginning of the conflict had more than 1000 tanks, is now forced to beg for armored vehicles from everyone who submits.
The facts of the defeat of abrams and leopards of Soviet-made ATGMs are up to a heap. And our modern BOPSs will cope with this task. Although it is not entirely clear why to hit in the forehead, tanks have many much more suitable places to hit in any projection.