New Chinese Military Developments

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....


says official ROK claims:

On the United Nations side, the Republic of Korea, by far, provided the largest number of troops throughout the war and suffered the largest number of casualties. Brogan cited South Korean losses at 103,248 KIA and 159,727 WIA, according to the UNC; but, the government of the REPUBLIC OF KOREA itself reported that 113,248 South Korean soldiers died in the war and 159,727 were wounded; it has been estimated by the ROK that altogether 1,312,836 South Korean soldiers and civilians died during the three-year conflict. By war’s end in 1953, South Korea had 590,911 personnel under arms.

Click to expand...

claims:

Casualties
Killed in Action/Death: 137,899
Wounded in Action: 450,742
Missing in Action: 24,495
Prisoners of War (those returned from North Korea) 8,343
Total: 621,479
NOTE: These figure did not include the losses suffered by South Korean para-militia and police units



another common figure cited 844,000 (415,000 killed, 429,000 wounded)
appears to be civilian + military.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

Now what does the Korean casuality rates gotta do with chinese next generation tanks??

Next post better be about the topic in hand or they will face me privately...and I'm not mood for romances:nono:

Gollevainen

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

nemo said:

Actually, in Gulf War US did shoot their own disabled M1s with other M1,
and the shell failed to penetrate. So M1's protection is that good.

The reason T series tanks tend to explode is because of the extra ammo
which is stored in the compartment without protection, and the lack
of flash/fire suppressor. With a good flash/fire suppressor, there
may not be that much difference between the two ammo arrangement
in practice.

Click to expand...

I can point to an instance in Gulf War II, where M1 Abrams that was disabled by a engine fire was first thermited by the escaping crew, then shot in the ammo compartment with a sabot by another M1 Abrams, and then blasted with a pair of Maverick missiles. This effectively destroyed the tank, but it compromised the SAP armour package. Your going to need a lot to destroy a M1, I'm afraid to tell you.

Also, from the report issued post-Gulf War II, the design of separating the ammunition and the crew into two separate compartments have saved lives; in once instance, the turret ready rack compartment of a M1 was hit and the main gun rounds ignited. The blast doors contained the explosion and crew survived unharmed except for fume inhalation.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

There are other ways of protecting the ammunition other than armored compartment with blast panels. Wet storage (storing ammunition emerged in fire suppressant liquid is as effective, if not more so.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

Dear Sirs:

ChinaSoldier is correct about the relationship of caliber to mass, the gun's weight indeed goes up by the cube of the bore.

But there are other considerations when increasing a gun's caliber.

A larger bore means; 1) a larger shell base area which, if the gun's operating pressures are the same, results in a greater accelerating force on the base of the projectile, thus greater muzzle velocity, hence greater kinetic energy and penetration; of course this presumes that the shell weight stays similar and does not increase very much - usually meaning a sub-caliber projectile held in place by a sabot;

2) larger chamber volume, meaning more space for more propellant, thus more energy to give to the projectile; what is not usually appreciated by casual observers is that as you increase the bore of a weapon (or any pressure vessel for that matter) the stresses that tend to split or burst the gun, (hoop stress or hoop tension)increase even if the operating pressure remains the same - if you doubled the guns' bore, maintaining the SAME operating pressure, you increase the force on the projectile by a factor of 4, but you double the stresses in the barrel itself, so you have to DOUBLE the barrels' thickness to keep the stresses the same. Now since the perimeter itself has been doubled, for the same length of barrel, the weight goes up by a factor of 4.

This is a fundamental design parameter for increasing the size of all pressure vessels, (not just guns, but hydraulic cylinders, pressure tanks, boilers, and by the way nuclear reactor pressure vessels). Yes you don't get something for nothing, even in design.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

nemo said:

There are other ways of protecting the ammunition other than armored compartment with blast panels. Wet storage (storing ammunition emerged in fire suppressant liquid is as effective, if not more so.

Click to expand...

Wet storage is only useful against fires, while a direct strike from a red-hot sabot will instantly detonate the ammunition. That is why the Western scheme of separating the ammunition from the crew is considered the superior approach as it maximizes crew protection.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

And if the sabot penetrates from the front of the turret, goes through the armored bulkhead leaving a nice hole, then detonates the ammo behind? Then the secondary effects would go through the hole and harm the crew. The fundamental problem is protecting things against fast moving sabots. If you could protect ammo from a sabot hot, why not use the same technique to protect the entire tank.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

RedMercury said:

And if the sabot penetrates from the front of the turret, goes through the armored bulkhead leaving a nice hole, then detonates the ammo behind? Then the secondary effects would go through the hole and harm the crew. The fundamental problem is protecting things against fast moving sabots. If you could protect ammo from a sabot hot, why not use the same technique to protect the entire tank.

Click to expand...

In the case of the M1 Abrams, the armour bulkhead separating the crew compartment from the ammunition has worked flawlessly in protecting the crew. Even when the ammunition compartment was penetrated by a round, the explosion is primarily vented through blowout panels.

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

How much weight do armored bulkheads and the blowout panels typically take on a MBT?

It can't be too expensive, can it?

Re: new Chinese supertank,question....

Pointblank said:

In the case of the M1 Abrams, the armour bulkhead separating the crew compartment from the ammunition has worked flawlessly in protecting the crew. Even when the ammunition compartment was penetrated by a round, the explosion is primarily vented through blowout panels.

Click to expand...

==What if there is no ammunition stored in the turret? The turret would be smaller, and tanks won't be disabled as easily. I think having ammo stored in the rear of the turret is more about providing a counter weight to the barrel allowing faster and more accurate turret traverse than crew safety.