Military Review

Soviet cumulative anti-tank ammunition during the war

31



The cumulative effect of a directional explosion became known as early as the 19 century, shortly after the start of mass production of high explosives. His first scientific paper on this issue was published in 1915 in the UK.



This effect is achieved by giving a special form to the charges of explosives. Usually for this purpose, the charges are manufactured with a notch in the part opposite to its detonator. When an explosion is initiated, a convergent detonation product stream is formed into a high-speed cumulative jet, and the cumulative effect increases when the recess is lined with a layer of metal (1-2 mm thick). The speed of the metal jet reaches 10 km / s. Compared with the expanding detonation products of conventional charges in a converging stream of cumulative charge products, the pressure and densities of matter and energy are much higher, which provides a directional explosion effect and a high penetrating power of the cumulative jet.

Soviet cumulative anti-tank ammunition during the war


When the conical shell collapses, the speeds of individual parts of the jet turn out to be slightly different, as a result the jet in flight stretches. Therefore, a small increase in the gap between the charge and the target increases the penetration depth due to elongation of the jet. The thickness of the armor pierced by cumulative projectiles does not depend on the firing range and is approximately equal to their caliber. At considerable distances between the charge and the target, the jet is torn apart, and the effect of penetration is reduced.

In the 30s of the XX century there was a massive saturation of troops tanks and armored vehicles. In addition to the traditional means of combating them, in the pre-war era in some countries, the development of cumulative shells was carried out.
Particularly tempting was the fact that the armor penetration rate of such ammunition did not depend on the speed of the encounter with the armor. This made it possible to successfully use them to destroy tanks in artillery systems originally not intended for this, and also to create highly effective anti-tank mines and grenades. Germany advanced most of all in creating cumulative anti-tank ammunition; at the time of the attack on the USSR, cumulative 75-105-mm caliber artillery shells were created and put into service.

Unfortunately, in the Soviet Union before the war, this direction was not given due attention. In our country, the improvement of anti-tank weapons went by increasing the caliber of anti-tank guns and increasing the initial speeds of armor-piercing shells. In fairness it should be said that in the USSR at the end of the 30-x an experimental batch of 76-mm cumulative projectiles was fired and tested. During the tests, it turned out that the cumulative shells, equipped with standard fuses from fragmentation shells, as a rule, do not pierce armor and give ricochets. Obviously, the case was in the fuses, but the military, who already did not show much interest in such projectiles, finally abandoned them after unsuccessful firing.

At the same time, a significant number of Kurchevsky’s recoil-free (dynamo-reactive) cannons were manufactured in the USSR.


Kurchevsky's 76-mm recoilless gun on truck chassis


The advantage of such systems is a small weight and lower cost compared to the "classical" tools. Recoilless in combination with cumulative projectiles quite successfully could prove to be as anti-tank weapons.

With the outbreak of hostilities from the fronts, reports began to come in that German artillery was using previously unknown so-called “armor-piercing” shells that effectively hit tanks. When inspecting wrecked tanks, attention was paid to the characteristic appearance of holes with melted edges. At first, the version was expressed that in the unknown projectiles a “quick-burning termite” accelerated by powder gases is used. However, experimentally, this assumption was soon refuted. It was found that the combustion processes of thermite incendiary compositions and the interaction of the slag jet with the metal of the tank's armor proceed too slowly and cannot be realized in a very short time when the shell penetrates the armor. At this time, samples of armored armored shells captured from the Germans were delivered from the front. It turned out that their design is based on the use of the cumulative effect of the explosion.

At the beginning of 1942, designers M.Ya. Vasiliev, Z.V. Vladimirova and N.S. Zhitkikh designed a 76-mm shaped-charge projectile with a conical shaped-shaped recess lined with a steel shell. The shell of an artillery shell with bottom equipment was used, the camera of which was additionally bored into a cone in its head part. A powerful explosive was used in the projectile - an alloy of TNT with RDX. The bottom hole and plug served to install an additional detonator and a beam detonator capsule. The big problem was the lack of a suitable fuse in the production. After a series of experiments was selected aviation instant fuse AM-6.



Cumulative shells that had armor penetration of the order of 70 — 75 mm, appeared in the ammunition set of regimental guns from 1943, and were mass-produced throughout the war.


Regimental 76-mm gun arr. 1927


The industry has delivered to the front about 1,1 million 76-mm cumulative anti-tank missiles. Unfortunately, using them in tank and divisional 76-mm guns was prohibited due to the unreliable operation of the fuse and the danger of an explosion in the barrel. Fuses for cumulative artillery shells that meet the safety requirements for firing long-barreled guns were created only at the end of the 1944 year.

In 1942, a group of designers consisting of I.P. Dziuba, N.P. Kazekina, I.P. Kucherenko, V.Ya. Matyushkina and A.A. Greenberg developed cumulative anti-tank missiles for 122-mm howitzers.



The 122-mm cumulative projectile for the 1938 sample howitzer had a body made of steel cast iron, equipped with an effective hexogen-based explosive composition and a powerful heating element detonator. The 122-mm cumulative projectile was completed with a B-229 instantaneous fuse, which was developed in a very short time at the CDB-22, led by A.Ya. Karpov.


122-mm howitzer M-30 arr. 1938


The shell was put into service, launched into mass production at the beginning of 1943, and managed to take part in the Battle of Kursk. Until the end of the war, more than 100 thousand 122-mm cumulative shells were produced. The projectile pierced the armor with a thickness up to 150 mm along the normal, ensuring the defeat of heavy German tanks "Tiger" and "Panther". However, the effective range of howitzers of maneuvering tanks was suicidal - 400 meters.

The creation of cumulative shells opened up great opportunities for the use of artillery shells with relatively small initial speeds — the 76-mm regimental guns of the 1927 and 1943 samples. and 122-mm howitzers of the 1938 model, which were in large quantities in the army. The presence of cumulative projectiles in the ammunition of these guns significantly increased the effectiveness of their anti-tank fire. This greatly strengthened the anti-tank defense of the Soviet infantry divisions.

One of the main objectives of the armored attack aircraft Il-1941 adopted at the beginning of 2 of the year was the fight against armored vehicles.
However, the cannon armament in service with the attack aircraft made it possible to effectively strike only lightly armored vehicles.
Reactive 82-132-mm projectiles did not have the required accuracy of fire. However, cumulative RBSK-2 were developed to arm the IL-1942 in 82 year.


RBSK-82


The head part of the RBSK-82 missile consisted of a steel cylinder with a wall thickness of 8 mm. A sheet iron cone rolled into the front of the cylinder, creating a recess in the explosive that was poured into the cylinder of the projectile head. A tube passed through the center of the cylinder, which “served to transmit a beam of fire from the schooling capsule to the TAT-1 blasting cap”. The shells were tested in two types of equipment for explosives: TNT and alloy 70 / 30 (TNT with RDX). The shells with TNT had a point for the AM-A fuse, and the shells with the 70 / 30 alloy - the M-50 fuse. The fuses had a cap of the school action type APUV. The missile part of RBSK-82 is standard, from M-8 missiles equipped with pyroxylin powder.

In total, 40 pieces of RBSK-82 were spent during the tests, of which 18 was fired in the air, the rest on the ground. The captured German tanks Pz. III, StuG III and the Czech tank Pz.38 (t) with enhanced armor. Shooting in the air was carried out on a StuG III tank with a dive at an angle of 30 ° with a salvo of 2-4 projectile in one go. 200 m. Shooting range. The shells showed good stability on the flight path, but failed to get a single drop in the tank.

The cumulative action armor-piercing projectile RBSK-82, equipped with 70 / 30 alloy, pierced the armor 30 mm thick at any meeting angles, and the 50 mm armor punched at a right angle, but does not pierce the 30 ° angle at the meeting angle. Apparently, low armor penetration is a consequence of the delay in the triggering of the fuse “from the rebound and the cumulative jet is formed when the deformed cone.”

The RBKS-82 shells in TNT pierced armor 30 mm thick only at meeting angles of at least 30 °, and 50 mm armor was not pierced under any hit conditions. The holes obtained through the penetration of armor had a diameter up to 35 mm. In most cases, the penetration of armor was accompanied by a metal spall around the outlet.

Cumulative PCs were not accepted for service due to the lack of a clear advantage over standard rocket projectiles. On the approach was already a new, much stronger weapon - PTAB.

The priority in the development of small cumulative aerial bombs belongs to domestic scientists and designers. In the middle of 1942, the well-known developer of fuses, I.A. Larionov, proposed the design of a light anti-tank bombs cumulative action. The Air Force Command has shown interest in the implementation of the proposal. TsKB-22 quickly carried out design work and tests of the new bomb began at the end of 1942. The final version was PTAB-2,5-1,5, i.e. anti-tank aerial bomb of cumulative action of mass 1,5 kg in the dimensions of 2,5-kg aviation fragmentation bomb. The State short-term bonds quickly decided to adopt PTAB-2,5-1,5 and organize its mass production.



The first PTAB-2,5-1,5 cases and riveted cylindrical-shaped stabilizers were made of sheet steel 0,6 mm thick. To increase the fragmentation effect, the cylindrical part of the bomb was additionally put on a steel 1,5-mm jacket. The combat charge of PTAB consisted of a mixed BB type TGA, equipped with a bottom point. To protect the impeller of the AD-A fuse from spontaneous collapse, a bomb was put on a stabilizer made from a square-shaped tin plate with a plug of two wire whiskers attached between the blades fixed on it. After dropping a PTAB from an airplane, it was blown off a bomb by an oncoming airflow.



When hitting the tank's armor, the fuse triggered, which through the tetrile detonator bomb caused the detonation of the explosive charge. During charge detonation, due to the presence of a cumulative funnel and a metal cone in it, a cumulative jet was created, which, as field tests showed, pierced armor up to 60 mm thick at an 30 ° meeting angle followed by a destructive action behind the armor: defeating the tank crew, initiating detonation of ammunition , and also ignition of fuel or its vapors.

The bomb charging of the IL-2 included up to 192 PTAB-2,5-1,5 aerial bombs in 4-x small bombs cassettes (48 pieces each) or up to 220 pieces when they were rationally placed in bulk in 4-x bomb racks.

Adoption of the PTAB for some time kept secret, their use without the permission of the High Command was prohibited. This made it possible to use the effect of surprise and effectively use new weapons in the Battle of Kursk.



The massive use of PTAB had a stunning tactical surprise effect and had a strong moral impact on the enemy. The German tankers, by the way, like the Soviet ones, were already accustomed to the relatively low effectiveness of the bombing attacks of aviation by the third year of the war. At the initial stage of the battle, the Germans did not use dispersed marching and pre-combat orders at all, that is, on the routes of movement as part of columns, in concentration points and in initial positions, for which they were severely punished - the PTAB expansion zone blocked the 2-3 tank removed one from another on 60-75 m, as a result of which the latter suffered significant losses, even in the absence of massive use of IL-2. One IL-2 from a height of 75-100 meters could cover an area of ​​15x75 meters, destroying all enemy equipment on it.
On average, during the war, the irretrievable loss of tanks from the actions of aviation did not exceed 5%, after the use of PTAB on certain sectors of the front this figure exceeded 20%.



Having recovered from the shock, the German tank crews soon turned exclusively to dispersed marching and pre-battle formations. Naturally, this greatly complicated the management of tank units and subunits, increased the time needed for their deployment, concentration and redeployment, and complicated the interaction between them. On the parking lots, German tankers began to place their cars under trees, light net canopies and install light metal nets over the roof of the tower and the hull. The effectiveness of IL-2 strikes using PTAB decreased approximately 4-4,5 times, remaining, however, on average 2-3 times higher than when using high-explosive and high-explosive bombs.



In 1944, the more powerful anti-tank bomb PTAB-10-2,5 was adopted, in the dimensions of 10-kg aerial bomb. It provided armor penetration thickness up to 160 mm. According to the principle of operation and purpose of the main units and elements, PTAB-10-2,5 was similar to PTAB-2,5-1,5 and differed from it only in its shape and dimensions.

In service with the Red Army in the 1920-1930-ies consisted muzzle-loading "Dyakonov grenade launcher", created at the end of the First World War and subsequently modernized.



He was a mortar of 41-mm caliber, which was put on the rifle barrel, fixing on the front sight. On the eve of World War II there was a grenade launcher in each rifle and cavalry unit. At the same time, the question arose of giving the "anti-tank" properties to the rifle grenade launcher.

During the Second World War, in 1944, the cumulative VKG-40 grenade entered service for the Red Army. The grenade was fired with a special blank cartridge with 2,75 g powder VP or P-45. The reduced charge of the blank cartridge allowed firing with a grenade direct fire with emphasis on the butt in the shoulder, at a distance of up to 150 meters.



The cumulative rifle grenade is designed to combat lightly armored vehicles and the enemy’s mobile equipment not protected by armor, as well as firing points. Used VKG-40 is very limited, due to the low accuracy of fire and poor armor penetration.

During the war in the USSR, a significant number of hand-held anti-tank grenades were launched. Initially, these were high-explosive grenades, as the thickness of the armor increased and the weight of anti-tank grenades increased. However, this still did not ensure penetration of the armor of medium tanks, so an RPG-41 grenade with a weight of 1400 g explosive could penetrate 25-mm armor.



Needless to say, the danger posed this anti-vehicle for the one who used it.

In the middle of 1943, a fundamentally new grenade of cumulative action RPG-43, developed by N.P. Belyakov. It was the first cumulative hand grenade developed in the USSR.


Manual cumulative RPG-43 grenade in a cut


The RPG-43 had a body with a flat bottom and a conical lid, a wooden handle with a safety mechanism, a ribbon stabilizer and a shock-igniting mechanism with a fuse. Inside the case there is a bursting charge with a cumulative notch of conical shape, lined with a thin layer of metal, and a cup with a safety spring fixed in its bottom and a sting.

At its front end of the handle there is a metal sleeve inside which the holder is located and the pin holding it in the rearmost position. Outside, a spring is put on the sleeve and fabric tapes are fastened to the stabilizer cap. The safety mechanism consists of a flap and checks. A folding bar serves to hold the stabilizer cap on the grenade handle until it is thrown, not allowing it to crawl or turn in place.

During the throw of the grenade, the flap is separated and releases the stabilizer cap, which, under the action of a spring, slides off the handle and pulls the tapes behind it. The safety stud falls out under its own weight, freeing the holder of the fuse. Due to the presence of the stabilizer, the flight of the grenade took place head-first, which is necessary for the optimal use of the energy of the cumulative charge of the grenade. When a grenade strikes a barrier with a bottom of the body, the igniter, overcoming the resistance of the safety spring, imposes a sting detonator on the sting, which causes a bursting charge to explode. The cumulative RPG-43 charge punched armor with a thickness of up to 75 mm.

With the advent of German heavy tanks on the battlefield, a hand-held anti-tank grenade was needed with greater armor penetration. A group of designers consisting of M.Z. Polevanova, L.B. Ioffe and N.S. Zhitkikh has developed a cumulative RPG-6 grenade. In October, 1943, the grenade was adopted by the Red Army. Grenade RPG-6 is in many ways similar to the German PWM-1.


German anti-tank hand grenade PWM-1


The RPG-6 had a drop-shaped body with a charge and an additional detonator and a handle with an inertial fuse, a primer-detonator and a ribbon stabilizer.



Drummer fuse blocked check. The tapes of the stabilizer were laid in the handle and held by the safety bar. The safety pin was removed before the throw. After the throw, the safety bar flew off, the stabilizer was pulled out, the drummer's check was pulled out - the fuse was set.

Thus, the protection system RPG-6 was a three-stage (the RPG-43 - two-stage). In terms of technology, a significant feature of the 6 RLG was the absence of chiseled and threaded parts, the extensive use of stamping and knurling. Compared with the RPG-43, the RPG-6 was more technological in production and somewhat safer to handle. RPG-43 and RPG-6 on 15-20 were rushing in m, after the throw the fighter should have taken refuge.

During the war years in the USSR, anti-tank grenade launchers were never created, although work was being done in this direction. The main anti-tank infantry weapons were still PTR and hand-held anti-tank grenades. In part, this was offset by a significant increase in the number of anti-tank artillery in the second half of the war. But in the offensive anti-tank guns could not always accompany the infantry, and in the event of the appearance of enemy tanks, this often led to large and unjustified losses.

Based on:
http://operation-barbarossa.narod.ru/artelleria/76-mm-m1927.htm
http://weapon.at.ua/load/261-1-0-540
http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/AiKOut13/RBSK-82/RBSK-82002.htm
Author:
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kars
    Kars 8 February 2014 08: 42
    +9
    Informative article. It's a pity there is no photo where exactly the work of the cumulative ammunition is visible. For example, the photo ferdinand is the work of the FAB 100
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 8 February 2014 11: 31
      -11%
      Quote: Kars
      For example, a photo of Ferdinand is the work of the FAB 100

      Are you sure? I read that a direct hit is 100kg. air bombs did not lead to the destruction of the tank. Except for the lungs of course.
      1. igordok
        igordok 8 February 2014 11: 35
        -8
        Quote: Nayhas
        I read that direct hit 100kg. air bombs did not lead to the destruction of the tank. Except for the lungs of course.

        As far as I know, the bomb hit the open hatch. Germans are not always meticulous.
        1. svp67
          svp67 8 February 2014 23: 24
          +11
          Quote: igordok
          As far as I know, the bomb hit the open hatch. Germans are not always meticulous.
          The kinetic energy of 100 kg of an aerial bomb upon falling is enough to break through the roof of a tank ... well, maybe with the exception of Leclerc ...
        2. igordok
          igordok 9 February 2014 11: 30
          +3
          Quote: igordok
          As far as I know, the bomb hit the open hatch. Germans are not always meticulous.

          To blame. Mixed up.
          http://topwar.ru/11940-ferdinand-samaya-strashnaya-sau.html
          The combat compartment is destroyed by the hit of an 203-mm shell in the commander’s hatch -

          But this is about another tank.
      2. Kars
        Kars 8 February 2014 14: 54
        +12
        Quote: Nayhas
        I read that direct hit 100kg. air bombs did not lead to the destruction of the tank

        weaving, direct hit will destroy the modern tank
    2. svp67
      svp67 8 February 2014 12: 00
      +4
      Quote: Kars
      It is a pity there is no photo where exactly the work of the cumulative ammunition is exactly visible.

      Here there is a little of what interests you ... And these photos from there

      All that remains of the tank T-34, destroyed as a result of the explosion of ammunition after it hit the PTAB. District D. Podmaslovo, Bryansky front, 1943 g

      SU "Marder III", PTAB got into the compartment, the upper part was blown up, the crew was destroyed



      PTAB was used not only with the IL-2, but also with the Yak-9B fighter-bomber.
      1. revnagan
        revnagan 8 February 2014 13: 17
        0
        Quote: svp67
        All that remains of the T-34 tank, destroyed as a result of the explosion of ammunition after falling into it PTAB.

        Well, what kind of T-34 is this? Judging by the stern and the remaining road wheels, this is a Panther.
        1. svp67
          svp67 8 February 2014 13: 49
          0
          Quote: revnagan
          Well, what kind of T-34 is this? Judging by the stern and the remaining road wheels, this is a Panther.
          Well, firstly, it is written in the article
          http://politicon1.at.ua/forum/34-781-2
          and secondly, do you observe the remnants of the B-2 engine installed alongside?
          in the third, on the "panthers" there were "plates" - "narrow" rollers, and here "double-disc - wide", ours, from t34 ...
          Panther

          T34
      2. Kars
        Kars 8 February 2014 14: 53
        +5
        Quote: svp67
        what are you interested in.

        Yes, the fact of the matter is that it is not visible. It is possible to say that any damaged tank is that its PTAB is arson.

        And the Tiger Sieve - Where is the pub? It was shot for training purposes, and most likely breakdowns that can be mistaken for 45 cumulative mm, not even saying that the PTAB did not pierce the tiger.
        1. builder
          builder 8 February 2014 21: 43
          +1
          This one looks like PTAB arson
          1. Kars
            Kars 8 February 2014 22: 52
            +2
            Quote: stroitel
            This one looks like PTAB arson

            http://waralbum.ru/29576/
      3. Bongo
        9 February 2014 01: 27
        +4
        The Tiger has multiple holes on board from artillery shells.
    3. Bongo
      9 February 2014 01: 25
      +4
      I wonder how you determined that it was FAB-100? In the photograph, on the face, the internal detonation of the ammunition, which is why it is unlikely anyone can determine.
    4. La-5
      La-5 9 February 2014 17: 24
      +1
      You are right, this Pe-2 worked with a dive.
  2. Anatole Klim
    Anatole Klim 8 February 2014 08: 56
    +6
    Thanks to the author! Especially for the description of penetration of armor by a cumulative jet, otherwise I still meet articles where it is written that cumulative shells burn through armor, which is incorrect in principle.
  3. BARKAS
    BARKAS 8 February 2014 09: 11
    +7
    It used to be that a metal stream burns through the armor and does not penetrate, but someone still thinks so I know such, a useful article!
    1. Kars
      Kars 8 February 2014 09: 23
      +4
      _______________________
    2. badger1974
      badger1974 8 February 2014 12: 25
      +4
      I do not think that people are mistaken when talking about armor burning, describing the nature of the breakdown of the "kiss of a witch" of cumulative ammunition (temperature and gas velocity), if we describe the nature of overcoming armor with armor-piercing or sub-caliber ammunition, then we will describe it as a breakdown of armor (cracks and chipping), it is clear that in both cases, this is a breakthrough, but to describe the character, here in more detail burn and break
      1. alex86
        alex86 8 February 2014 22: 17
        +6
        Once again: the speed of the cumulative jet is higher than the speed of sound in steel, under these conditions the processes are similar to the interaction of liquids (in other words, the deeper layers of armor "do not have time to learn" that the armor is breaking through and does not affect (do not reduce) the process of breaking through the armor ). Such a process cannot be called "burning through"; if we use primitive analogies, it is rather "pushing through". The temperature of the cumulative jet is not high (not to be confused with the explosion of a charge with a recess), and the cumulative jet is not a jet of gases either - it is a jet of lining metal that has passed into a plastic state under the action of high pressure. If it is primitive and popular. All these processes are described in various sources, you just need to want ...
        1. alex86
          alex86 8 February 2014 22: 26
          +2
          A kind of cumulative charge is an ammunition with a shock core - the fact is that after the formation of a cumulative jet, the remainder of the cumulative funnel lining also moves towards the pierced armor and has significant potential (high speed and mass). When the funnel opens more than 90 degrees, the main energy goes to these remains of the funnel, which are called "pestle". This is the shock core. It has a significantly lower armor penetration, but retains it at a distance of tens of meters, this is the basis of the action of anti-aircraft anti-tank mines and anti-helicopter mines (as well as a wide range of ammunition that hit targets in the roof). At the same time, the effect of the cumulative jet itself is negligible ...
          1. badger1974
            badger1974 8 February 2014 23: 51
            +2
            the same thing, energy transfer in an isothermal process, the temperature in the cumulative is the main and determining property, it is the low-temperature plasma that is the basis of autogenes, it is it that makes the energy transfer to the material instantly involving this material in the process,
            and now the question of knowledge, how do you think, where does the mass of armor metal go from the hole of the breakdown of a cumulative BS? after all, there are no chips and detachments of armor
            1. Bongo
              9 February 2014 03: 55
              +4
              where does the mass of armor metal go from the hole of the breakdown of the cumulative BS? after all, there are no chips and detachments of armor

              Why not available? Volodya, the article says about this, in the above privacy when it comes to testing cumulative MS.
              In the photo there is a trace from the premature operation of the COP.
        2. badger1974
          badger1974 8 February 2014 23: 40
          0
          you forgot to add or deliberately ignored that the cumulative jet is an isothermal process, that is, it passes due to temperature turning the substance into the fourth type of aggregate state-plasma, which involves the armor section in the process of conversion from solid to gas and then into the plasma transferring part of the energy to a limited area, the pressure of the medium occurs due to giving the molecules energy due to the temperature, so that burned is the cumulative effect
          but as you put it, "deeper layers of armor" do not have time to learn "that the armor is breaking through" this is for a dynamic phenomenon, that is, for armor-piercing and sub-caliber BS is true
          1. Kars
            Kars 8 February 2014 23: 48
            +3
            Quote: badger1974
            t armor section in the process of conversion from solid to gas a

            Nothing of the kind happens.
            there is such an abstruse book physics explosion look.
            and the main thing that breaks through the armor is a pestle made of funnel material dispersed to hypersonic speeds.

            and here’s another thought.
            http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/206/2062433.html
            1. alex86
              alex86 9 February 2014 21: 56
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Nothing of the kind happens.

              In this I will support, no transformation of "solid into gas" occurs, as well as the formation of plasma - pressure and velocity. Of course, high, but the matter does not reach plasma.
              Quote: Kars
              the main thing that breaks through the armor is a pestle made of funnel material dispersed to hypersonic speeds.

              I don’t agree here - after all, the pestle is not a cumulative stream, but the rest of the cumulative funnel, which participated in the creation of the cumulative stream, but is a secondary (spent) element of the cumulative charge, and only in the case of ammunition with an impact core
              1. Kars
                Kars 9 February 2014 22: 00
                +3
                Quote: alex86
                nevertheless, the pestle is not a cumulative stream, but the rest of the cumulative funnel, which participated in the creation of the cumulative stream, but is a secondary (spent) element

                it is strange then why the penetration characteristics vary from the tim of the material of the cumulative funnel.

                therefore, I repeat that the cladding material in modern ammunition is the basis of an armor-piercing jet.
                1. alex86
                  alex86 10 February 2014 18: 40
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  penetration characteristics vary from the tim of the cumulative funnel material.

                  Quote: Kars
                  cladding material in modern ammunition is the basis of an armor-piercing jet.

                  I absolutely agree, I only said that during the formation of the cumulative jet, two elements arise: the cumulative jet itself, into which part of the funnel (cladding) material is transformed, and the pestle, which is the funnel (cladding) material that has not turned into a cumulative jet moving at a lower speed, but having greater stability, as a result of which it is capable of hitting a target at substantially greater distances - tens of meters (anti-aircraft and anti-helicopter mines, as well as ammunition that affects the roof).
                  1. alex86
                    alex86 10 February 2014 18: 59
                    +1
                    Now, regarding the cladding material: naturally, even according to the formal signs of the interaction of the cumulative jet (sometimes the term "needle" is used) and the obstacle, the material with the maximum density should have the greatest efficiency, as a result of which we came here (as in the BPS) to depleted uranium (3BC -21B caliber 125 mm, for example) and the sworn friends have "different things". Since the interaction is like that of liquids, the denser the penetrating jet, the better. Well, the zabronevoe effect due to the pyrophoricity of uranium is significantly higher.
  4. avt
    avt 8 February 2014 10: 16
    +3
    It is sensibly and popularly stated. good +
  5. Stas57
    Stas57 8 February 2014 11: 21
    -3
    The song PTAB, although their effectiveness after the first cases of application was extremely small due to a change in tactics, the kumas for technical training almost went under the list and so on and so forth. All these issues have been sorted out for a long time, the calculations of losses by type of weapon are googled for one or two, and here straight Technique youth 1993 year
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 8 February 2014 11: 38
      +5
      Quote: Stas57
      pouches for pt almost walked under the painting

      Confused with the sub-caliber. They were difficult to manufacture and tungsten was a rather rare metal ...
      1. svp67
        svp67 8 February 2014 17: 29
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        Confused with the sub-caliber. They were difficult to manufacture and tungsten was a rather rare metal ...
        Do you think that CS are cheap? Even now, if the BPS are still allowed to shoot, and this is despite the fact that they wear out the barrel more, then there are no KSami ... Hexogen, even the phlegmatized "fruit", and the detonator is not the simplest ...
        1. Bongo
          9 February 2014 02: 02
          +3
          Intermediate BPS with high armor penetration, as far as I know, do not shoot at exercises.
        2. Bongo
          9 February 2014 04: 06
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          Hexogen, even the phlegmatized "fruit", and the detonator is not the simplest ...

          RDX in its pure form is not used in tank combustors, as a rule it is an alloy with TNT; at present, RDX in production is not much more expensive than TNT. The warehouses have accumulated huge stocks of 125-mm KS and the question of their disposal is urgent. They do not shoot them during the exercises, most likely for security reasons. The BPS in the barrel will not explode and it is not necessary to look for it to detonate if the fuse fails, which can happen to the COP.
        3. Nayhas
          Nayhas 11 February 2014 09: 50
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          Do you think cops are cheap?

          Yes, there is absolutely nothing expensive. BB + copper funnel + fuse. And where did you get that RDX is expensive?
  6. Max_Damage
    Max_Damage 8 February 2014 21: 57
    0
    Wow ... that's the death of a tanker. Not tanks, but piles of mullah.
  7. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 9 February 2014 01: 52
    +3
    My question is: what is the minimum caliber of a cumulative projectile?
    1. Bongo
      9 February 2014 02: 00
      +7
      Theoretically anyone, that's not the point. The main problem is the creation of reliable, safe and miniature fuses. At the moment, the smallest caliber of serial cumulative ammunition is in the range of 30-40 mm (grenade launcher shots). The armor penetration of rotating projectiles is greatly reduced (due to the centrifugal force "splashing" the cumulative jet), so there is no point in making cumulative bullets for small arms laughing
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 9 February 2014 12: 41
        0
        cumulative THV bullets for 9mm, they say developed they gnaw all classes of bronikov
        1. Bongo
          9 February 2014 12: 44
          0
          Volodya, do you want to say that they contain explosives and a cumulative recess?
          1. badger1974
            badger1974 9 February 2014 21: 11
            0
            honestly speaking, I slapped from memory that there are such bullets, I even remember the structure, but the composition in the context of somewhere was in the jury "Science and Technology" there and about domestic developments there are also about French ones, in my opinion the article was called "non-standard bullets" , you will not tell me how to organize the magazines so that the necessary articles can be quickly found, there are a lot of magazines, when you start to overwhelm, you forget what you were looking for, so many of which you involuntarily cling
            1. Bongo
              10 February 2014 13: 52
              +3
              These bullets are oboe-shaped, with a spout made of solid material, explosives and notches in them, of course not.
              Bookmark in paper magazines smile
  8. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 9 February 2014 04: 10
    +4
    In the series of television films "Striking Force", in the series about the IL-2, there is a fragment where they interview a pilot who flew on this attack aircraft. He explicitly says that before the introduction of PTABs, the ability to destroy a medium and even more heavy tank with missile or artillery fire was rather low, but when these cluster anti-tank bombs appeared, the effect was absolutely amazing.

    To the author plus, for the expanded post about cumulative ammunition.
  9. Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer 26 March 2014 03: 26
    0
    For infantry, a Faust cartridge and a bazooka would be more optimal than just grenades.
  10. Antokha NN
    Antokha NN 5 May 2018 14: 23
    0
    Quote: zyablik.olga
    My question is: what is the minimum caliber of a cumulative projectile?

    I read somewhere that the Germans developed and used the COP even for their transported anti-tank rifle 28/20 (2,8 cm PzB 41). So anti-tank small things were also with the cops.