From fortifications to helicopters: M830A1 sub-caliber cumulative fragmentation projectile for Abrams tanks

44
From fortifications to helicopters: M830A1 sub-caliber cumulative fragmentation projectile for Abrams tanks

Almost thirty years ago, the American military adopted the M120A830 1-mm cumulative fragmentation projectile, which is still included in the ammunition load today. tanks Abrams. Being multi-purpose, it is designed to destroy a wide variety of objects, the list of which includes armored vehicles, manpower and even enemy helicopters.

Make a multi-purpose “cumulative” even more multi-purpose


Today, the ammunition load of American Abrams tanks includes many different types of ammunition with different functionality. However, this was not always the case, and at first there was not even a hint of an abundance of assortment in the ammunition racks.



The entire modest arsenal, to which the Abrams with a 120-mm smoothbore gun was limited after being put into service in 1984 until the mid-nineties, is a uranium armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile of the M829 family and a cumulative fragmentation projectile M830. The first, which is quite logical, was intended to combat armored targets and, in rare cases, particularly powerful enemy fortifications. The second is for literally everything taken together that can be encountered on the battlefield.

Unitary shot with an M830 cumulative fragmentation projectile. It is a modified copy of the German DM12A1 projectile. Initial speed: 1140 m/s. Weight of explosive: 1.6 kg. Armor penetration: about 480–500 mm of steel homogeneous armor.
Unitary shot with an M830 cumulative fragmentation projectile. It is a modified copy of the German DM12A1 projectile. Initial speed: 1 m/s. Weight of explosive: 140 kg. Armor penetration: about 1,6–480 mm of steel homogeneous armor.

Openly located manpower, all kinds of fortifications, buildings and structures, crews of anti-tank missile systems, firing points and armored vehicles (mostly light) - a very wide range of threats, the destruction of which fell on the shoulders of the cumulative M830. For this, it received its designation HEAT-MP-T: High Explosive Anti-Tank Multi Purpose Tracer - a cumulative multi-purpose tracer projectile.

In other words, the M830 performed two functions at once: a cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation projectile. Therefore, for American tankers, this fragmentation “cumulative” was the first choice projectile precisely because of its versatility - the ability to hit almost any enemy object that came into view.

However, despite all the advantages, this projectile had a relatively low blocking effect when firing at thick walls and armored vehicles, since its main damaging factor in this case was the cumulative jet, and the secondary one was a small amount of fragments from the inner surface of the armor or wall. In addition, the design of the M830 did not allow for a radical expansion of the range of targets that the tank could hit on a modern (at that time) battlefield.

Bottom – cumulative fragmentation M830; on top - cumulative fragmentation M830A1
Bottom – cumulative fragmentation M830; on top - cumulative fragmentation M830A1

All this led to the fact that in 1994 the new multi-purpose cumulative fragmentation projectile M830A1 was adopted for service.

During the development of the M830A1, its creators faced not only the trivial task of increasing the effectiveness of a cumulative fragmentation warhead against equipment and fortifications, but also a completely atypical requirement regarding the possibility of hitting air targets like helicopters.

According to the military's plans, the new ammunition was supposed to become a means of self-defense for tanks against attack rotorcraft in situations where air defense is absent for some reason. Which, presumably, was especially important in the conditions of waging war with a limited contingent of troops and the uselessness of standard tank machine-gun installations at long combat distances, which by inertia are still called anti-aircraft.

Therefore, in order to simultaneously ensure the increased power of the projectile and make it practically anti-aircraft, we had to resort to non-standard solutions.

Sub-caliber design


A unitary shot with a multi-purpose cumulative fragmentation projectile M830A1 in section. At first, like its predecessor, the M830A1 was called HEAT-MP-T, but it is better known as MPAT (Multi Purpose Anti-Tank). Shot length: 984 mm. Shot weight: 24.68 kg. Projectile length: 778 mm. Projectile weight: 11.4 kg. Initial speed: 1410 m/s. Mass of explosive: 966 grams.
A unitary shot with a multi-purpose cumulative fragmentation projectile M830A1 in section. At first, like its predecessor, the M830A1 was called HEAT-MP-T, but it is better known as MPAT (Multi Purpose Anti-Tank). Shot length: 984 mm. Shot weight: 24,68 kg. Projectile length: 778 mm. Projectile weight: 11,4 kg. Initial speed: 1 m/s. Mass of explosive: 410 grams.

Speaking about non-standard solutions, first of all it is worth noting that in order to destroy a cumulative fragmentation projectile, even fortifications and light equipment, even helicopters, its flight speed is of no small importance.

Firstly, its increase enhances the armor effect - a high-speed projectile, due to high kinetic energy, manages to completely or partially break through a wall or armored barrier with its body before detonation.

Secondly, no matter how trivial, it is easier to hit a maneuvering target, especially an air one, with a high-speed projectile, without resorting to developing significant range leads and lateral corrections.

Therefore, unlike most tank "cumulatives", the M830A1 has a sub-caliber design, similar to classic sub-caliber armor-piercing projectiles with carbide and heavy alloy cores. It was used for one simple reason: a decrease in the diameter of the projectile entails a decrease in its mass, which has a positive effect on the flight speed. That is why the diameter of the active part of the M830A1 is only 80 millimeters - four centimeters less than the caliber of the gun for which it is intended.

Dimensions of the M830A1 projectile and its active part
Dimensions of the M830A1 projectile and its active part

True, in order to guide the projectile in the barrel and seal the powder gases, it was necessary to introduce a three-section aluminum driving device, which, by analogy with sub-caliber “crowbars,” is separated when leaving the gun. However, even taking into account its weight, such a design move allowed saving a little more than two kilograms of projectile mass - 11,4 kg for the M830A1 versus 13,5 kg for the M830.

The composition of the propellant charge was also revised. If in a unitary shot with the M830 projectile a charge of DIGL-RP gunpowder with a total mass of about 5,6 kilograms was used, then in the case of the M830A1 - a charge of two-component JA-7,1 increased to 2 kg, which was used as part of shots with sub-caliber projectiles M829A1 and M829A2 . As a result: the pressure in the barrel bore was increased to 5 Bar instead of 600 for its predecessor.

The process of separating the master device from the M830A1 after leaving the barrel of a tank gun
The process of separating the master device from the M830A1 after leaving the barrel of a tank gun

As a result, the M830A1 became a kind of record holder among cumulative ammunition: its initial speed was 1 meters per second - slightly less than that of the uranium sub-caliber projectiles then in service in the United States. Thus, the designers killed two birds with one stone: they provided the ability to more or less accurately fire from a cannon at helicopters and increased the effectiveness of the projectile (relative to the M410) against fortifications and bunkers by 830%, and against light equipment by 20%.

But there is also a big disadvantage in the sub-caliber design: a cumulative fragmentation warhead with a diameter of 80 millimeters simply cannot be made powerful. 966 grams of explosives placed in the M830A1, in comparison with the same M830, which has almost 600 grams more explosives, cannot give a strong fragmentation and high-explosive effect. And the penetration of the cumulative jet is low - about 400 millimeters.

However, taking into account the multi-purpose nature of the ammunition and the priority in hitting heavily armored targets with sub-caliber armor-piercing projectiles, the reduction in the mass of the warhead was not a significant drawback.

Power generation, fuses and shooting at helicopters



Despite the fact that the M830A1 cumulative fragmentation warhead is made without any frills in the form of ready-made submunitions, the system for its detonation is organized in a very original way. And first of all, this concerns the detonator located at the bottom of the charge. It is located inside a kind of movable rotor with a traction load - a structure that simultaneously ensures that the projectile does not explode prematurely and generates the electrical energy necessary to trigger the detonator when it hits a target.

At the moment of firing, when the projectile accelerates in the barrel bore, the rotor moves backward under the influence of acceleration. Like a magnet and a coil, it, due to its movement, produces an electric current according to the principle of electromagnetic induction and charges a capacitor. After leaving the barrel, the projectile naturally begins to lose speed - the traction weight moves forward and puts the detonator in the firing position. Therefore, detonation of ammunition is possible only at a safe distance from the tank.

When cocked, the detonator is connected to an electrical circuit, which includes two fuses operating in the “ground” and “air” modes, respectively. Their activation (only one mode can be selected), depending on the type of target, is preliminarily carried out by the loader manually by turning the switch in the head of the projectile.

Hitting a helicopter-type target with an M830A1 projectile. To visually identify explosions against the sky, a component that forms a cloud of black smoke has been added to the warhead of all projectiles of this type.
Hitting a helicopter-type target with an M830A1 projectile. To visually identify explosions against the sky, a component that forms a cloud of black smoke has been added to the warhead of all projectiles of this type.

“Earth” is, as is already becoming clear, a contact fuse designed to destroy ground targets in the form of equipment, fortifications, enemy manpower, and other things. It is brought into firing position after a projectile leaves a cannon at a distance of approximately sixty meters and is triggered both upon a direct hit on the target and upon a tangential impact with it.

With “air” the processes are somewhat different. The fact is that hitting a helicopter directly with a shell from a tank gun, especially if it is in motion, is quite problematic and is fraught with a large consumption of ammunition. Just as problematic is the use of programmable fuses, capable of detonating a projectile at the required distance, but requiring significant modifications to the tank’s artillery system.

Therefore, for these purposes, a proximity fuse with a proximity sensor - a Doppler radar - was introduced into the M830A1. Unlike the contact type, it comes into operation approximately half a second after the projectile leaves the barrel, that is, at a distance of about 600 meters, in order to avoid false alarms from objects on the ground as much as possible.

In flight, it continuously scans the space in front of the projectile and, if any object is detected at a short distance, instantly closes the electrical circuit and activates the detonator. Next, an explosion occurs and the rotary-winged enemy is hit by fragments of the cumulative jet and fragments of the hull.

Schematic representation of the operation of the M830A1 proximity fuse
Schematic representation of the operation of the M830A1 proximity fuse

Considering that the radar radiation is not limited to a straight line, the projectile explodes not only when the helicopter is on its trajectory, but also when flying next to it. This partially eliminates errors in developing leads and determining range when firing at an air target - even if you miss, there is a chance of damaging or destroying it.

But a low-power radar, operating from a weak power source in the form of a small-capacity battery, is not capable of recognizing objects in its field of view. It will work equally quickly both on a helicopter in the sky and on some tree encountered along the way.

In this regard, instructions were developed for the crews of Abrams tanks on how to act in a situation if the “turntable” is hidden behind natural obstacles. Basically, it consisted in the fact that the aiming mark must be moved away from the target - to where there is free space, because a proximity fuse will in any case detonate the projectile, even if it is next to it.


Examples of displacement of the aiming mark if an air target is located behind natural obstacles when firing an M830A1 projectile
Examples of displacement of the aiming mark if an air target is located behind natural obstacles when firing an M830A1 projectile

It is also worth dwelling on two issues, the first of which is the firing range of the M830A1 projectile.

Theoretically, it is limited by a self-destruct mechanism built into the detonator in order to minimize “post-battle” losses among military and civilians from unexploded ordnance. It fires nine seconds after the projectile leaves the barrel of a tank gun. So, given the high flight speed, the range is decent - significantly more than five kilometers.

However, the manufacturer indicates a target engagement distance of around 4 kilometers, which, in general, correlates with the real capabilities of the fire control systems of Abrams tanks - after all, the field of visibility is not endless.

Second question: is it possible to use a proximity fuse to destroy ground targets with an air blast?

Of course no. Projectiles with programmable fuses, which are pre-introduced with a time delay determined by a tank laser rangefinder, cope well with this. Such operations cannot be performed with the M830A1 - it does not have programming functionality, and is not able to explode directly over the target. But it can detonate from anything that comes along the way, regardless of where the gunner was aiming.

Conclusions


Since the M830A1 was adopted, tens of thousands of complete rounds have been fired with this round for the US Army, including the Marine Corps. But, despite the fact that it was never possible to test these ammunition against helicopters in real combat - they simply never met - the Americans still managed to fight with them in the Iraqi campaign of 2003-2011.

And, judging by the feedback from operators, this product of American “projectile manufacturing” was not created in vain: at least it worked in full against fortifications, buildings and structures. Yes, not a full-fledged high-explosive fragmentation projectile with several kilograms of explosives in a thick steel casing, but within the framework of the Western concept, it is a good multifunctional weapon capable, in extreme cases, of besieging a flying enemy.

Today, the M830A1 is one of the main projectiles in the Abrams ammunition, intended both for domestic consumption and for export. And the lack of specific requirements for the fire control system makes it possible to use it on other NATO tanks with 120 mm smoothbore guns.

But the old always gives way to the new. In connection with the decision taken to reduce the range of ammunition for American tanks modernized to the M1A2 SEP v.3 standard, the place of the M830A1 will be taken by the M1147 AMP, a multi-purpose projectile with a programmable fuse.

The latter has the possibility of an air explosion over a given point in order to create a fragmentation field to destroy manpower and light equipment. It also has the qualities of classic high-explosive fragmentation ammunition: an explosion upon contact with a target and a detonation with deceleration in order to break through an obstacle. Therefore, the need for cumulative fragmentation, grapeshot and concrete-piercing ammunition for American tanks in the future will completely disappear.

Information sources:
Technical manual TM 43-0001-28.
Tank Gunnery (Abrams) FM 3-20.12.
U.S. ARMY CENTER & FORT KNOX: Northern training complex draft environmental impact statement Fort Knox, Kentucky. Volume 2. April 2001.
M1 Abrams at War (Michael Green).
Journal ARMOR (May-June 2005).
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    19 January 2024 04: 56
    A good article for its size. hi

    Yes, not a full-fledged high-explosive fragmentation projectile with several kilograms of explosives in a thick steel casing, but within the framework of the Western concept, it is a good multifunctional weapon capable, in extreme cases, of besieging a flying enemy.
    In addition to a certain concept, there is one more consideration against a full HE projectile on Abrams: an isolated ammunition rack with ejection panels simply cannot cope with the detonation of a full-weight projectile.
    1. +2
      19 January 2024 08: 05
      Therefore, for these purposes, a proximity fuse with a proximity sensor - a Doppler radar - was introduced into the M830A1. Unlike the contact type, it comes into operation approximately half a second after the projectile leaves the barrel, that is, at a distance of about 600 meters, in order to avoid false alarms from objects on the ground as much as possible.

      A radar in the projectile... these are the ones you need in an FPV UAV, it will greatly facilitate the operator’s work.
      1. 0
        19 January 2024 22: 17
        A radar in the projectile... these are the ones you need in an FPV UAV, it will greatly facilitate the operator’s work.

        This one in particular is unlikely. But if you somehow attach the “head” from the TOW-2B to the drone, then that’s a different story. Ukropatriots haven’t done this yet?
    2. 0
      19 January 2024 20: 39
      So the knockout panels do not save the vehicle from detonation, they prevent this detonation.
      1. -2
        20 January 2024 08: 19
        Quote from Nesvoy
        So the knockout panels do not save the vehicle from detonation, they prevent this detonation.

        And how does this happen? How do you extinguish the fire of gunpowder or the detonation of a projectile by taking off? Think about it a little... The panels allow you to relieve pressure and prevent the breakthrough of gases and the relatively weak explosion of a shell through the armored door into the turret...
        1. +2
          20 January 2024 21: 49
          You will study the mat part first. Namely: fire of propellant charges, detonation of propellant charges and detonation of ammunition (offs and kum shells). Offs shells explode extremely rarely. Often our tanks are left without a turret precisely because of the explosion of powder charges; high-explosive shells almost never detonate. If the OFS detains, it is from a direct hit on these projectiles.
          1. -4
            21 January 2024 09: 26
            Quote from Nesvoy
            Often our tanks are left without a turret precisely because of the explosion of powder charges; high-explosive shells almost never detonate.

            And you write something else about the materiel... It’s the shells that throw the turrets and the sides that fall apart, but the charges, especially with the hatches open, are not capable of this.

            Quote from Nesvoy
            If the OFS detains, it is from a direct hit on these projectiles.
            Not only do the detonators detonate when the gunpowder ignites, but your direct hits in the rear niche of the turret are more likely than in the AZ/MZ carousel.
            1. +1
              21 January 2024 18: 03
              Teach, teach and teach again. When the OFS shells are detonated from the tank, what remains is something like this https://youtu.be/zLrB3TWjO-k?si=VXuZK6IoQok3zzNd Have you seen a lot of our T-72 (90) and the same T-64 in this condition? But the detonation of only powder charges https://youtube.com/shorts/5Jt0LTvAwSA?si=OCUAjUlXFc1be_s0 The tank hull is in place without torn sides, and the turret landed 5 meters away.
            2. -1
              21 January 2024 18: 08
              To make it clear to you, I’ll describe it in a simple way: we take a firecracker, set it on fire and it explodes. We open the firecracker, pour out its contents, and when set on fire, it will simply burn out. It's the same in tanks. The hatches are closed, explosive pressure is generated and the powder charges explode, tearing off the turret. The hatches are open or with expelling panels, the gunpowder will simply burn out without any detonation. Based on your logic, why didn’t the BC detonate here, but on the Abrams, if it suddenly loads full-fledged OFS, it should lead to detonation? https://youtu.be/gbI1EAPONWs?si=p1VOmJy1zhtShwVu
              1. 0
                22 January 2024 04: 34
                Quote from Nesvoy
                Teach, teach and teach again. When the OFS shells are detonated from the tank, what remains is something like this https://youtu.be/zLrB3TWjO-k?si=VXuZK6IoQok3zzNd Have you seen a lot of our T-72 (90) and the same T-64 in this condition? But the detonation of only powder charges https://youtube.com/shorts/5Jt0LTvAwSA?si=OCUAjUlXFc1be_s0 The tank hull is in place without torn sides, and the turret landed 5 meters away.

                According to the first example. There are a lot of such personnel from the Northern Military District. And specifically with the detonation of shells AFTER the fire.
                https://yandex.ru/video/preview/3723303575901221590
                According to the second. Nndaaa... And where did the crew tell you about the detonation of only charges? What if only one shell detonated? More precisely, not if, but it is...

                Quote from Nesvoy
                Based on your logic, why didn’t the BC detonate here, but on the Abrams, if it suddenly loads full-fledged OFS, it should lead to detonation? https://youtu.be/gbI1EAPONWs?si=p1VOmJy1zhtShwVu
                Do you observe any intense outflow of gases from the barrel? What about the issue of releasing pressure when the gunpowder ignites? And where did such confidence come from that it didn’t detonate? Do you have video at least a couple of minutes after the fire? And why does the surviving tanker, like the vast majority of his colleagues in such cases, run away from the burning tanks?
                Well, about logic, you provided a video that in no way confirms your opinion. laughing

                By the way, here is a video of the fire of Abram’s ammunition rack, followed by repeated detonations of K-shells.
                https://yandex.ru/video/preview/14350410220648386624

                Yes, shells do not always detonate when the charges ignite, but often enough.
                1. 0
                  22 January 2024 13: 30
                  Did you read my posts carefully or just a word? We were talking about detonation immediately after the destruction of the armored vehicle of the tank, and not after some time. And even the landmines smoldering after a fire detonate oh so rarely. I understand that you don’t want to admit to yourself and change your mind on this issue. But the fact remains that 90% of torn off turrets in tanks are a consequence of the detonation of gunpowder, and not of the shells.
            3. +1
              25 January 2024 22: 23
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              and the charges, especially with the hatches open, are not capable of this.

              But the crew dies in any case, and it costs more than the car - both compensation for the families and training for new ones.
              1. +1
                26 January 2024 03: 45
                Quote: eule
                But the crew dies in any case, and it costs more than the car - both compensation for the families and training for new ones.

                I don’t argue, and that is why the amers did not introduce a full-bodied HE projectile, because the stern stowage could no longer cope with it. And this combined one may be good due to the fuse, but in terms of explosive mass it is even weaker than the original 120 mm cumulative projectile.
  2. +11
    19 January 2024 05: 47
    It’s nice to read an article from a person who really understands what he’s trying to write about! good
    Unfortunately, there are not many such authors on Military Review.
    1. +5
      19 January 2024 20: 33
      Thank you for rating! True, it turned out a little long, but oh well. hi
  3. +3
    19 January 2024 08: 53
    Hmmm...! Russian tank crews would also benefit from a multi-purpose tank projectile...for example, with a transverse SFZ and non-contact sensors complemented by a multi-mode contact fuse! I’ve seen this in “free patents” ... and “a long time ago”! recourse
    1. +4
      19 January 2024 20: 38
      Hmmm...! Russian tank crews would also benefit from a multi-purpose tank shell

      So there is, though, without any special frills. It's called a "telnik" - it can detonate above a given point or work like a regular OFS. It also has ready-made destructive elements in the form of metal buckshot in the bow. It seems like they are even used in the SVO, but it only works with T-90M tanks.
    2. +1
      19 January 2024 22: 20
      The main thing here is not to overdo it. Ours have had Ainet since the 90s. The problem is that this is only available to special guns on command modifications of vehicles, and even then not to all.
      1. +4
        19 January 2024 23: 01
        Ours have had Ainet since the 90s.

        The system is too archaic and in many ways of little use. Especially in the sense that the shells equipped with a fuse for “Ainet” are, let’s say, “non-real time” shells. That is, after setting the detonation delay and loading a shot into the breech, it is no longer possible to change the detonation distance. Here the American M1147 looks much more advantageous - the delay is set using an electronic system built into the breech of the gun, so it can be changed and set to the one that is required at a given second.
        1. +3
          19 January 2024 23: 16
          I agree, Ainet is not a cake. But personally, I think that Ainet copes with its task - defeating infantry in shelters. An infantryman in a trench is not a fighter; a tank has ten seconds. And hitting a moving target. Well, it’s somehow doubtful to hit armored vehicles with remote detonation, a direct hit is better, but hitting hidden vehicles, even some kind of armored personnel carrier, on the roof promises vague prospects. And if it’s a helicopter, then I’m only for proximity fuses. Modern turntables are equipped with a laser irradiation sensor, so it will definitely start moving or change the vector when trying to determine the range, and then even a small delay, which will always be there and also a small error, can increase the miss by ten to two meters, and when shooting at a combat helicopter , quite tenacious, this is a half measure.
          And the load on the mind of the tank crew is noticeably less when using a projectile with proximity fuses.
          In general, back in the 40s, they switched to radio fuses to destroy aircraft, because that was the only way. And putting a radio fuse into a 125mm HE is no problem, and it’s not that expensive. I think if ours want something against turntables, then this will be the best option.
          On the ground, of course, there is only a “tube”. Moderation is needed in everything, when it comes to money; you don’t need an expensive, ultra-sophisticated projectile to defeat infantry in the trenches.
          1. +4
            19 January 2024 23: 27
            But personally, I think that Ainet copes with its task - defeating infantry in shelters. An infantryman in a trench is not a fighter; a tank has ten seconds. And hitting a moving target. Well, it’s somehow doubtful to hit armored vehicles with remote detonation, a direct hit is better, but hitting hidden vehicles, even some kind of armored personnel carrier, on the roof promises vague prospects.

            So the essence of the Ainet problem is not hitting moving targets. The point is that the tank itself, after setting the range on the projectile, cannot move until the shot is fired. The M1147 provides this opportunity: the shot lies quietly in the breech until it is required to be used. But in Ainet the range is already fixed and is set during the loading process and cannot be changed in any way.

            Moreover, both for Ainet and for other systems, there is one significant drawback. The range in them is set based on data from a laser rangefinder, but it has a measurement error. For example, in our rangefinders it is about 10 meters, both in the smaller and in the larger direction. Such insignificant flaws do not affect shooting with conventional shells, but with programmable ones... You shoot at a trench in order to stun the infantry sitting in it with shrapnel from above, and the shell flies over it or falls short of about 10 meters - the main heap of fragments goes into the ground.
            1. +2
              20 January 2024 09: 31
              After setting the range on the projectile, the tank itself cannot move until the shot is fired

              But I forgot about this. You're right - it's an annoying drawback. In any case, the contact ring in the treasury and the microcircuit in the projectile are the ceiling, more is a whim.
              measurement error

              need to measure correctly

              Well, this is no longer a question for the projectile. There is still no choice, a radio fuse for a projectile flying along the ground and near various objects is even worse
              1. 0
                20 January 2024 20: 17
                In any case, the contact ring in the treasury and the microcircuit in the projectile are the ceiling, more is a whim.

                Well, that’s what I’m talking about - I gave the M1147 as an example. But a non-contact radio fuse for hitting ground targets - yes, using the M830A1 as an example, is a bad solution.
              2. 0
                25 January 2024 22: 27
                Quote: English tarantass
                The question is no longer about the projectile. There is still no choice, a radio fuse for a projectile flying along the ground and near various objects is even worse

                And if you think about a fuse with a laser detonation signal receiver in the bottom of the projectile, which receives a detonation command from the tank’s laser rangefinder?
                The projectile will be cheaper, and modifying the rangefinder so that it can transmit commands is unlikely to be expensive
                1. 0
                  25 January 2024 23: 06
                  And if you think about a fuse with a laser detonation signal receiver in the bottom of the projectile?

                  Are you talking about the one that was made on 2A42/72? We know.
                  The system has a number of limitations, the source of laser radiation is external on the rod, there is no need to talk about its actual survivability. Look, the Germans with the MK-30 and a programmer on the muzzle end snatch out how much slop. Plus, the system itself does not seem to me to be so trouble-free; precision is still required, and the operation of this requires calibration of how it will behave under shock loads. How to repair? The sights are replaced, the crew is very difficult to teach to repair such a complex thing, the contact ring in the breech is indestructible. How will a laser flashlight perform on a modern battlefield? Yes, and they are making a fuss about it, not so much because it is cheaper, we never really had the money for these laser projectiles, but because we do not have the technological capabilities to put a microprocessor into 30mm for adequate money and time.
                  As far as I understand.
          2. +4
            19 January 2024 23: 29
            And this despite the fact that the range itself must be correctly measured using landmarks from this very trench.*
  4. +7
    19 January 2024 09: 45
    Thanks to the author for a good article. There are not enough such high-quality works in VO.
    1. +5
      19 January 2024 20: 35
      Thank you for your feedback and rating. hi
      1. +3
        20 January 2024 03: 29
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        Thank you for your feedback and rating.

        Eduard, you are one of the most professional authors of Military Review! good
        I’m especially impressed that you don’t shy away from communicating with readers on technical topics and answering questions. It’s only a pity that not so many people read your very high-quality publications. request
        I wish you health and creative success!
        1. +6
          20 January 2024 04: 34
          It’s kind of fun, but thank you! You have 10 years more experience in VO and, I think, you have more good materials. hi
          1. +3
            20 January 2024 04: 43
            Quote: Eduard Perov
            It’s kind of fun, but thank you! You have 10 years more experience in VO and, I think, you have more good materials. hi

            It is not for us to judge the materials, but for the readers. And it’s certainly not a matter of experience, but of competence and the ability to use one’s own knowledge without bias, without unnecessary politicization. You're fine with this!
            1. +5
              20 January 2024 05: 12
              Well, I also think that it’s not for us to judge, but for the readers. But thank you!
              1. +3
                20 January 2024 05: 18
                Eduard, at one time at the Baranovsky training ground near Ussuriysk, I saw a T-54 whose armor was literally “gnawed through” by armor-piercing 30-mm shells fired from a BMP-2 cannon. In connection with the recent incident with the T-90M, I have a question: how protected are our tanks from the rapid-firing small-caliber BMP guns available to the Ukrainian Armed Forces? It would be very interesting if you found it possible to cover this in a separate publication.
                1. +5
                  20 January 2024 05: 54
                  Our 30-mm shells can hardly be compared with their Western counterparts in the form of 25-mm Bushmaster ammunition in the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. These ancient and almost extinct sub-caliber “armor-piercing” sub-calibers of the M791 type have a penetration rate of about 60 mm of steel armor per kilometer. And with M919 uranium sub-caliber projectiles this figure is under 80 mm. Both of them from the pistol range that was in the video are a terrible thing for a tank.

                  They are not able to pierce the forehead of the turret and hull of a tank even from a hundred meters, but they are quite capable of damaging sights and other observation devices. As do the sides and stern, especially with the M919. If the infantry fighting vehicles were in the area of ​​these projections, then the tank would have had a pretty bad time when the onboard remote sensing, which is a natural screen, was broken.

                  Well, what about the behavior of the T-90M in battle... The footage is not shown from the beginning of the battle. The tank was initially already hit by something (possibly a drone), since the canopy above the roof was broken. What kind of damage he entered the battle with that affected his combat effectiveness is still a big question. But this was definitely not a planned ambush - entering into battle in an infantry fighting vehicle with an automatic cannon, without using standard missiles in pre-prepared positions, is possible only when the battle is unexpected.
                2. +4
                  20 January 2024 07: 29
                  I haven’t written about entering battle in an infantry fighting vehicle with an automatic cannon. *
  5. +1
    19 January 2024 12: 34
    despite the fact that it was never possible to test these ammunition against helicopters in real combat - they ///

    However, it is expensive to have a projectile with a radar, but to use it only in the form of a simple OFS, because for many years there was simply no use for the anti-helicopter version. I think they’ve gone too far with universalization here. It is better to have cheap OFS in your pack and one (albeit very expensive) anti-helicopter one, just in case, which was produced in a limited edition. Why, instead, crawl around huts and dugouts with expensive (albeit reduced due to mass production) shells with individual radars. Perhaps this is also related to the transition to a new universal projectile with detonation programming.
    1. +5
      19 January 2024 20: 50
      However, it is expensive to have a projectile with a radar, but to use it only in the form of a simple OFS, because for many years there was simply no use for the anti-helicopter version

      Well, it was never intended as an exclusively anti-helicopter munition - it was multi-purpose. In addition, the introduction of the M830A1 into service did not mean that its predecessor, the M830, would immediately disappear from the Abrams’ ammunition racks. After all, we, too, have adopted sub-caliber "Leads" into service a long time ago, and we fight with everything we have, including "Mango" and sometimes even "Barrettes".

      The M830 is still in warehouses and is included in the tank's BC. So there is still a choice between an expensive and relatively cheap projectile. But to Israel, for example, they were going to transmit the M830A1 as OFS (if they haven’t already, the news was more than a month ago) against Hamas.
  6. 0
    20 January 2024 09: 49
    But the question still worries me.
    Adoption of the M830A1 into service in 94.
    We subtract a couple of years of development, a couple of years of formulating TTT and we get the end of the 80s.
    Was it not based on the experience of the Iran-Iraq war that the decision was made to develop such anti-helicopter weapons?
    As far as I remember, it was there and then that it was clearly shown that helicopters armed with NAR unwind armored vehicles without serious air defense systems, and neither anti-aircraft guns nor anti-aircraft guns without armor protection and a good radar can protect anyone.
    We estimate that at the same time, the best helicopters had special software, advanced navigation equipment, ballistic computers, jamming stations and countermeasures, which aggravate the situation and we see the root of the ammunition.
    1. 0
      20 January 2024 20: 37
      But the question still worries me.

      I can’t say for sure about the full history of the issuance of technical specifications for the projectile - I wasn’t interested.
  7. +1
    20 January 2024 17: 12
    An insightful article: to the point and without forced humor!
  8. 0
    20 January 2024 17: 22
    Quote: Eduard Perov

    Well, what about the behavior of the T-90M in battle... But this was definitely not a planned ambush - entering into battle in an infantry fighting vehicle with an automatic cannon, without using standard missiles in pre-prepared positions, is possible only when the battle is unexpected.

    So the Bradley crew ended up with titanium balls from their gunner operator?
    1. 0
      20 January 2024 20: 35
      So the Bradley crew ended up with titanium balls from their gunner operator?

      Well, to go out on an infantry fighting vehicle into battle with a tank at pistol range, you obviously need courage. In their right mind, they can do this only when there are no more missiles in the BC, or by chance, if there is no choice. As a matter of fact, most incidents with similar collisions between light vehicles and tanks happened precisely by accident. This does not mean that the Bradleys were driving around and suddenly stumbled upon the T-90M - even before that, drones were targeting it; it was just that there was apparently nothing to fight the tank in that area other than these infantry fighting vehicles. If there had been a pre-planned ambush, the Bradley crews could have used the missiles.

      But this is all speculation. God knows what really happened.
  9. 0
    13 February 2024 22: 50
    70 mm cumulative funnel is nothing. The increase in initial speed is not worth it.
  10. 0
    27 February 2024 00: 02
    The amers are doing this out of desperation. It is obvious that the Western concept of “self-propelled anti-tank pillboxes” did not justify itself. And without a normal land mine, a tank is simply not needed.
    It is unrealistic to make an OFS in the form factor of a partially combustible unitary unit (the cardboard is torn) + blacks are not made of iron.

    But we must give credit to the engineers for stuffing a mortar shell into the casing and putting it in the pan. This needs to be figured out.

    And yet, this does NOT make it a good ammunition. Light too. That's why the fuses are smart. To at least somehow cover

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"