P.P. Isakov, Theory and Design of a Tank, 1982
Parameter
|
Type of shell (Gun)
|
||
3BM11 (M-62)
|
3BM9 (D-81)
|
3BM15 (D-81)
|
|
Caliber, mm
|
122
|
125
|
|
Type of shell
|
Rotating
|
Fin stabilized
|
|
Shell mass, kg
|
7.4
|
5.67
|
5.9
|
Core mass, kg
|
2.8
|
-
|
0.26
|
Muzzle velocity, m/s
|
1575
|
1800
|
1785
|
Muzzle energy (kJ)
|
9200
|
9200
|
9400
|
Penetration at 2000 meters at an angle from
normal of:
|
|||
0 degrees
|
320
|
245
|
400
|
45 degrees
|
190
|
185
|
200
|
60 degrees
|
110
|
140
|
150
|
The M-62 blows its AP performance out of the water. However, you can see that this is an era of HEAT, as the American intelligence talked about a 460 mm penetration HEAT shell. The subcaliber ammunition of the 125 mm gun is no slouch, however. The mediocre performance of 3BM9 is due to the shell being made from high hardness steel. Once tungsten carbide ammunition is used, the penetration soars to 400 mm, more than enough to combat any tank of the era.
Via andrei-bt.
While the BM-9 seems to be 'mediocre', the performance vs inclined armour (at 60°) is better than the 122 mm, and almost on pair with BM-15. This means that the inferiority of the BM-9 was really not important if the target had a sloped armour. At that range the gun could still kill a M-60, the only difficult target would be the Conqueror/Chieftain, and still the hull front would be likely vulnerable as the Conqueror had 130 mm at 60°
ReplyDelete