DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HEADQUARTERS US ARMY ARMOR CENTER AND FORT KNOX

FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY 40121

ATZK—CD—MS 3 February T983

g

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, USAARMC.

SUBJECT: 105mm Enhanced Gun

1. PURPOSE. To respond to CG's query next under.

2. DISCUSSION. The foTTowing paragraphs are keyed to the CG's questions as

noted on the attached copy of Dr. Rocchio's paper.

a. Nhy are 552 MPa and an increase in travel to 6O caTibers the apparent
upper bounds of the current armor systems?

A 105mm gun with an operating pressure of 552 MPa 1n a 6O caliber barre]

using an increased charge of a higher energy T9 muiti—perforation hexogonai
propellant, should be capable of producing a muzzle velocity of l725nVsec, a
l5 percent increase over the lSOlm/sec velocity of the M735. The penalties
for increasing the muzzle pressure include a lower fatigue life. The stress
on the'projectile is also increased by the higher pressures and therefore an
increase in the launch mass (projectile) for added strength to withstand the
higher pressures is usually required. This increase in the weight of the
projectile will lower the muzzle velocity. Gun tube wear and erosion will also
be increased. The gun mount and recoil system may also need to be improved
in order to handle the large recoil forces and greater recoil impulse. The
effects of a longer tube on accuracy when firing in the stabilized mode while
moving cross country must also be determined. These relationships therefore
limit the current lOSmm armor system to 552 MPa and a 6O caliber gun tube or
to a muzzle velocity of T666 m/sec.

b. is the maximum muzzle velocity achievable on a l05mm gun if muzzle

What
velocity, tube length, propellant temperature, pressure and sabot weight
(composites) are optimized? What are the optimum parameters?
Muzzle velocities may be raised by an increase in the chamber pressure,
an increase in the length of the projectile travel, an addition to the propellant
mass with an increase in the rate of burning and release of energy, an increase
in the bore diameter and chamber volume and by a decrease in the launch mass of
the projectile. These parameters allow various combinations which impact on
velocity. A l05mm with-an operating pressure of 552 MPa, a 6O caliber travel,
using a higher energy, improved grain propellant should be capable of a muzzle
velocity of l725 m/sec. Given the new propellant, this increase in velocity
ATZK—CD—MS 3 February 1983
SUBJECT: 105mm Enhanced Gun
“’1’,
W111 resu1t in lowering the fatigue 1ife of the tube to 700 EFC rounds. The 7

wear 11fe of the tube may be less. In summary, an increase in chamber volume,
bore diameter, pressure, travel, etc., within any rea] 11mits wilt always
result in an increase in velocity even when parasitic effects (e.g., increased
projectile mass to handle increased pressure) are accounted for, but may not
provide a significant return. For these reasons the cost and time that would
be required to determine the maximum velocities and/or optimum parameters ot’////
105mm gun/ammunition combination did not appear justifiable.
c. Will higher pressure cause tube/breech failure?
The pressure at which a catastrophic failure will occur to either the
breech or the tube has not been determined. Normally, excessive pressure will
cause erosion of the tube with subsequent condemnation and replacement of Un://////
tube before a replacement of the breech is required.

d. velocity
Nhat can be achieved with higher pressure and lOnger gun/
travel using existing lOSmm ammo?

(l) What would be the tube life?

(2) How is tube life defined? Safe fatigue life?
A lOSmm gun operating pressure of 552 MPa and 60 caliber travel
with an
will have a muzzle velocity of appr0ximately l666 m/sec, an increase of llh
over the current lSOl m/sec.

(l) Approximately 700 EFC rounds.

(2) Tube life is defined by two criteria.

- either safety lOOO EFC rounds (fatigue)
~ or wear .056 at origin of rifling
e. What muzzle velocity can be achieved by simply lengthening the gun
to 6O calibers?
From lSOl m/sec to l578 m/sec.

f. If sabot mass is decreased 0.5 kg what is the resulting pressure

differential?
This parameter has not been determined. The results may not be valid
because a reduction in the weight of the sabot may degrade its capability to
withstand the stress imposed by set back, pressures and travel.

g. What were the assumptions in the layout of the improved 833 round?
 1

AfzK—CD—Ms 3 February 1983

SUBJECT: 105mm Enhanced Gun

(1) The M833 w0u1d be improved by modifiying the 120mm M829 penetrator
for a 105mm cartridge.
(2) Reduce the weight of the sabot - add weight to the penetrator to
increase penetration.

(3) Increasing the veiocity through improved propeiiant.

(4) Increasing the velocity with increased tube travel in an enhanced

105mm gun.

h. What is the pressure differentiai between normai operating temperatures

and 630C?

60,000 Psi at normai; 72,000 Psi at 630.

i. Can you add more powder to sustain pressure to end of tube?

It may be possibie to add propeiiant to increase velocity providing the

charge can fit
into the available chamber volume and the design maximum
pressure of the gun is not exceeded. If the amount of propellant is increased,
the propellant web must be changed to maintain a constant maximum pressure and
insure that all of the propellant is burned in the tube before the projectile
leaves the muzzle.
j. Evaluate the statement: We canforget zeroing and not reduce the level
of hit performance achievable.

The zeroing process locks in corrections for the error that exists at the
time of zeroing. This gives the tank its best probability of hitting targets
as long as those same conditions exist.

However, as conditions change, those locked in corrections are no longer

effective and can result in a decrease in accuracy. A zero established with
the APFSDS—T cartridge does not assure a hit with the HEAT cartridge nor will
the zero apply to all lots of the same type round. Unlike a zero, which is
not constant but dependent on a variety of conditions, a muzzle boresight can
be readily updated to account for environmental changes without the cost of
zeroing and can be established in a minimum amount of time. In view of the
above, the level of hit performance with a zeroed gun in comparison with a
muzzle boresight over a period of time, and on occasions other than those
immediately following a zero, will not be significantly different.

k. DCG, CO, T0 Sec CG ref “A Tank Crew Can Qualify, or even qualify as
distinguished, with a first round hit rate of zero” and ”For the daylight
phase, a crew can qualify with a minimum hit rate of 37%.”

Assuming that all other requirements are matched, a tank crew can qualify,
but not as distinguished, providing that a 2nd round hit is obtained within
the time frame on all main gun exercises. A crew may qualify in the daylight
 \

ATZK-CD—MS 3 February 1983

SUBJECT: 105mm Enhanced Gun

phase with a minimum hit rate ofproviding a1] other requirements are met
37%
to perfection. These are true statements using the standards iisted for Tabie
VIII FM 17—32 in the current series of manuals, but these are being revised
and the new standards are not avaiiabie for comparison.

1.Let's discuss, ”Does the Army reaiiy expect the tank gun to hit
stationary targets reliably at ranges of 3000m?”
The 3000 meter range required of the current tank gun/ammunition/fire
control combination is the user requirement. In response to this requirement
and because of the state-of—the—art in the gun/ammunitiOn/fire controi area,
the developer has responded with a system that will enable the gunner to obtain
a first round hit with an approximate 30% reliability at 3000 meters. Target
appearance rates at 3000 meters will prUbabi3P1?‘VE?V‘TBW ‘EEE EU§E "5T terrain /
masking and other visibility limitations. However, effective engagem ent of even
a few targets at these ranges can produce valuable tactical and psychological
//
effects.

ROBERT w. DeMONT Maw

Colonel , Armor
Director
,
.

1' f
30 Apr 80g
A

DRDAR—BLP 93) «w
1, l

C
F )jw’T‘jHJt I’f‘)
3
|

>5“ '
.‘h “."ul ,U 3

I 3‘ .A n1

:33,f)}_,r’f
‘

“3' 333‘") 4‘
I,

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD ;

{7‘
SUBJECT: The Interior Ballistic Performance of the lZO-mm Tank Gun
Relative to the lOS-mm Tank Gun.
1. Background: A question has been raised as to why the large increase
in muzzle energy in going from the lOS-mm tank gun to the 120—mm tank gun
resulted in a relatively small increase in projectile velocity.
In order to answer this question as accurately and completely as
2.
possible, the interior ballistic parameters which define the performance
of a specific system must be specified as exactly as possible. The pertinent
data are given in Table l for three lOS-mm APFSDS projectiles, and the GE
DM13 APFSDS at its nominal performance (that repeatedly demonstrated in
proving ground tests) and at the performance level exhibited in the
December 1976 Trilateral Trials.
3. The table also presents some ratios (kinetic energy of the projectile
at the muzzle and velocity) comparing the performance of the two gun systems.
It is important to know what set of performance data is being used to make
a comparison between the two gun systems.

4. The answer to the principal question is perhaps best reached by posing

the question in a different form: How does the large difference in muzzle
energy between the lOS~mm and lZO-mm gun systems result from a relatively
small difference in velocity? The kinetic energy of the projectile at the
muzzle is give by:

KE = 0.5 M V2

The ratio of kinetic energies between the two systems is given by:

2
KEIZO M120 V120
R = = (—~) (~—)
KElos M105 V105

If we compare Cases 2 and S in the Table (886024 in lOS—mm and DM13 in

lZO—mm) it
follows:

= (1.332)(1.064)2 (1.332)(1.132)
'

= = 1.508
RKE
Thug can be seen that the major contribution to the larger muzzle
it
energy of the 120~mm gun is a result of the increase in projectile
maSs. It should be remembered that the muzzle energy is dependent upon
the sqnere of the velocity. The converse relation is sometimes forgotten:
the velocity is related to the square root of the kinetic energy.

5. given penetrator the mass of a projectile for the lZO-mm

To launch a
gun will always be larger than the mass of one for the lOS—mm gun for a
given sabot design. There are two reasons for this:
a. the larger bore requires more sabot material (about 0.5 kg) to
fill the increased area (and volume).

b. the higher operating pressure requires more sabot material

(about 1.1 kg) to handle the increased stresses.

The increase in parasitic mass in the 120~mm system partially offsets

the effect of a larger bore and increased operating pressure. The muzzle
energy, which is a function of both projectile mass and velocity, is signifi-
cantly larger.
6. To further illustrate the relationships, the projectile base pressure
vs travel curves must be considered.

For muzzle energy the relation holds:

xm
2
= projectile base pressure
Muzzle Energy = 1/2 MV = djr— P A dx A = bore area
o
>< H travel in bore

And the relationship for velocity ratios holds:

jg”
.‘(m

vlzo _” A120 1/2 M105 1/2 P120 dx 1/2

= ( )
Rv v (A (M xm
105 105 120 ‘jx~ dx
p105
O

and for Cases 2 and 5 in the Table

RV
= (1.274)1/2(0.75)1/2(Ratio of curve areas)1/2
pY

RV
= (1.129)’ (0.866) (Ratio of curve areasjl/Z
px

This shows:
RV
= 0.978 (Ratio of P—x curve areas)1/2

To illustrate the effect, the P—x curves are given in Figure l for cases
2, and 5. Remember the difference in velocity is related to the square root
of the area difference.
’7
a.
 There are other factors involved too. For example, the 120-m gun has
m
7.‘ to oper ate at a higher
a-lower'expansion ratio than the lOS-mm gun and need s
preSSure. A Ballistic Efficiency slightly better than in the lOS~m m gun

results (See Table l).

8. better understanding of the relationships between the interior
A
ballistic parameters perhaps may be gained from a listi perusal of the inclosed
paper from the 4th Internat iona l Symp osium on Bal cs. Table ll, in
this paper shows how percenta ge chan ges in the various interior ballistic
parameters affect velocity.
9. In summary:

(a) within the limits of a real system and similar design constra
ints,
a lZO—mm gun will always do better than a lOS-mm gun;

(b) with APFSDS KE projectiles it is velocity —

not muzzle energy -
which is important;

one has to put a lot more energy into the system to get
(c)
a little
increase in velocity - remember a square root relation ship ;

(d) increasing chamber volume, bore diameter, pres

sure, travel, etc.
within any real limits will always result in an increase in velocity even
when parasitic effects (e.g. increased projectile mass
to handle increased
presssure) are accounted for - the efficiency, or rate of return,
will
likely diminish.
(e) the question which should be asked in any comparis
on is: Does the
performance benefit warr ant the syste m cost ? »

l Incl iIO
as allistics Branch
\fpli
I terior Ballistics Division
Ballistic Research Laboratory

Copies Furnished:
Director, BRL
Chief, IBD, BRL
Chief, ABB, IBD
R. W. Deas, ABB, IBD
R. W. Geene, ABB, IBD
R. D. Kirkendall, MGSB, IBD
Chief, TBD, BRL
Chief, PMB, TBD
c, C, Candland, PMB, TBD
 .Table 1. Pertinent Interior Ballistic Performance Data for APFSDS KE
Projectiles in the lOS—mm and 120—mm Tank Guns
4N
"
Case l 2 3 5
Nominal Dec '77 Nominal Nominal '76 Trial
M735 586024 XM833 DMlS DM13

415 427 420 514 514

Pressure (MFA)

1570 1506 1650 1670

Velocity (m/s) 1501

Launch Mass (kg) 5.82 5.33 5.99 7.1 7.1

Charge Mass (kg) 5.67 5.97 5.90 7.4 7.4

Geometry 7MP 19MP-Hx 19MP-Hx 7MP 7MP

1076 1076 1141 1141

Energy (J/g) 1076

Travel (m) 4.77 4.77 4.77 4.75 4.75

Chamber Volume (dms) 6.47 6.47 6.47 10.0 10.0

Bore Diameter (mm) 105 105 105 120

Ballistic Efficiency .258 .245 .257 .262

Piezometric Efficiency .382 .372 .392 .350

Expansion Ratio 7.47 7.47 7.47 6.37 6.37

Bore Area (cmz) 88.8 88.8 88.8 113.1 113.1

Muzzle Energy (MJ) 6.57 6.79 9.66 9.90

Ratios: KE/KE 3 1.00 1.04

~ KE/KE é
"33 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.46

n V/v 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.10

n V/v 1.00 0.96

n LM/LM 1.00 1.12 1.332

 -.._\ ' x-u
(~14;

/——-120—mm DMl3,Case S, Table 1

uw

,__4
(/3
O. I

>1 394 1

V Case 2, Table 1~1,>\

LLJ
Oi
D
kw 29
960
LL]
Oi
0..

l
I I I l I
0 I 1

180 200
180
I
140
I

0 2G #0 80 80 199 120
*TRRVEL (IN)

and lZO-mm APFSDS KE Projectiles

Figure 1. Pressure at Projectile Base vs Travel for IDS—mm
‘ International Sympoium on
Monterey, CA, Oct 78
’Ll

HIGH PERFORMANCE PROPELLING CHARGE DESIGNS FOR THE IOS-hh M63, TANK GUN
.

‘ J. J. Rocchio, R. W. Deas, J. M. Frankie

Ballistic Research Laboratory
US Army Armament Research and Development Command
Abcrdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

A computer analysis was performed to determine the effect of the

majorinterior ballistics system parameters on the velocity of
armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding—sabot (AFFSDS) ammunition
for tank guns. The parameters studied were pressure, launch mass,
charge mass, propellant grain progressivity, propellant energy, in-bore
travel, bore diameter, and chamber volume. Based on this analysis,
an experimental program was conducted to verify the calculated velocity
increases which could be achieved in a lOS-mm tank gun. The results
corroborated the calculations. Velocities to about 1700 m/s should
be reached in an improved lOS-mm tank gun with state-of—the—art technology
and launching high performance APFSDS ammunition-

INTRODUCTION ence case in the work described in this paper was

the IDS-mm, M68, tank gun and the M735E2 APFSDS
Today the primary objective of new tank gun cartridge.
propelling charge designs is to provide higher
muzzle velocities for armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, Interior Ballistic Cycle. lhe energy imparted
discarding—sabot (APFSDS) ammunition. This is a to the projectile—is the result of gas pressure
result of the increased toughness of armor threats acting upon the base of the projectile throughout
(current and projected) and the greater emphasis the distance traveled in the gun. The pressure
being placed upon kinetic energy penetrators to at the base of a projectile, as a function of its
defeat these threats. travel down the gun tube, is shown graphically in
Figure l for tne reference case described in Table
The requirement for increased velocity has an l. The kinetic energy of the projectile at muzzle
impact upon both existing and developmental gun/ exit is given by the integral of the pressure—travel
ammunition systems. In existing systems. small curve (Equation l).
improvements in velocity can have significant ef- x
m
fects; a crcent increase in velocity can result
2— 2
bezle Energy 1/2 = (PA-f)dx (1)
0.5-km increase in effective range because of
a MV
in a
the low aerodynamic drag of an APFSDS projectile.
New systems (e.g., UK and FRG IZO—mm
tank guns and
ammunition) are being developed principally to pro- Projectile Mass
vide APFSDS.rounds with greater effectiveness. 'U<!
u Projectile Velocity
Pressure at the Pro—

The objective of this paper is to discuss the jectile Base

results of recent efforts at the Ballistic Research Area of Bore
Distance Traveled
Laboratory (BRL) to investigate theoretically and
experimentally both propelling charge designs which in Bore
Bore Resistance Force
can lead to increased performance in existing sys-
M

tems and those system parameters which have

the
most impact on velocity in a modified or
completely The shape of the pressure-travel curve is the
new gun system. This purpose reflects the current result of a competition between :he rate at which
choices facing the US Army: the IDS-mm, M68 tank gas is generated by the burning propellant and the
gun, now in the field can have its useful
life ex— rate at which volume behind the projectile is in—
tended by improving the APFSDS projectiles and pro— creased by the movement of the projectile. Early
pelling charges within current system constraints; in the interior ballistic cycle, gas is generated
a new lOS—mm gun, compatible
with existing ammuni- more rapidly than the volume is being increased
and the pressure rises. As the projectile accel—
tion, can be designed with improved performance;120- a
totally new high performance gun system (e.g., erates, a point is reached where volume is incr‘ased
selected or designed and developed. more rapidly than gas is generated. Therefore, the
mm) can be
The propelling charge is emphasized
in this paper pressure decreases during the remainder of travel.
because it is involved in all three system choices,
To increase the muzzle velocity, chamber pros-
TANK GUN INTERIOR BALLlSTlCS sure;'lcngth of projectile travel, propellant grain
progressivity, propellant charge mass, propellant
Computer modeling wcs used extensively in our energy, bore diameter, and chamber volune can be
efforts to improve the interior ballisticparameters
perfor— increased, while the launch :ass of the projectile
mance of tank guns. The various system can be decreased. These parameters can he varied
were varied and the effects on velocity
were com- separately or in combinations. Tne interrelations
puted. The computations were utilized to design of these parameters are complex and they can have
and evaluate confirmational test
firings. A lumped profound effects on the overall gun S}stem. A sum—
parameter interior ballistics Computer code was mary of these parameters along with their inter-
used which was developed by R.N. Dons from the relations is given in Table 2. The following dis—
Bocr—Frankle code (l).The system used as a refer— cussion of each of these parameters is intended to
 400-—

(we)

PRESSURE

aAse

0
0
TRAVEL (m)
Figure 1. Projectile Base Pressure vs.
Travel for Reference Case

Table 1

Interior Ballistic Data for the IOS-mm, M68, Tank Gun {Reference Case)

Parameter Reference Value

P ~ Maximum Pressure (MP3) 415,

V - LMZzle Velocity (m/s) 1501
U - Launch Mass (kg) $.82
CM — Charge Mass (kg) 5.67
GEOM - Grain Geometry 7MP
E - Propellant Energy (kj/kg) 1076
TRAV - In—bore Travel (m) 4.77
VOL - Chamber Volume (dm ) 6.47
BDIA - Bore Diameter (mm) 105

Table 2

Variable System Parameters

Parameter Change Effect on Velocity Other Parameters Affected

Pressure (P) + v LH(*)

Launch Mass (LM) - .

Charge Mass (CM) + + GEOM(#)

Progressivity (GEOND + + CM(+)

Propellant Energy (E) + + GEOM(+),CM(+,-)

ln-bore Travel (TRAV) + +

Chamber Volume (VOL) + a CM(+)

Bore Diameter (BDIA) + +

provide a simplified guide to these interrelations The penalties for increasing the pressure
as well as the penalties associated with achieving include a lower fatigue life for an existing gun
higher velocities. or a heavier gun designed for a given fatigue life.
The stress on the projectile is also increased and,
Pressure. The area under the pressure—
Chamber therefore, an increase in the launch mass for adjed
travel curve can be increased by raising the maxi- strength is usually required. Gun tube wear and
mum pressure produced by the propellant. If this erosion will also be increased. The gun mount and
is done by keeping the charge mass constant (using recoil system may need to be improved in order to
a propellant grain with a smaller web), Curve "A" handle the larger recoil forces and greater recoil
in Figure 2 results, with a 33— percent increase in impulse.
pressure giving a 6.1-percent increase in velocity
(Table 3). If the charge mass is also increased Prolsctile~j_ravel Additional energy can be
(the propellant web must be adjusted), Curve "B" extracted from the propellant gases by increasing
in Figure 2 results. The velocity increase is the length of the gun tube. This increase is she n
greater (7.7 vs. 6.1 percent) for the second case in Figure 3 as the shaded area under the pressure-
because the pressure at the later stages of travel travel curve. An increase in travel from 45 to o0
is higher. calibers (SS—percent) results in a S.l-percent
increase in velocity (Table 4).

40° ‘ 'A‘ INCREASED P

400 r
E
’Ja.
é - 2
B' lNCREASED P+CM
m UJ
c: -
a:
:3 :3
”1 U1
V‘ v1
UJ
g
a- Sf
u:
“7
g R
I
REFERENCE
CASE
uu
in
<
“3
45
CALIBERS
RS

0 l
o j
o ._
p
4.77 o 4.77 6.35
TRAVEL (m) TRAVEL (m)
_

Figure 2. Projectile Base Pressure vs. Figure 3. Projectile Ruse Pressure vs. Travel for
Travel for Reference Case, Increased Reference Case with Increased Travel
Chamber Pressure (552 MPa), and (60 Calibers)
x

Increased Chamber Pressure with

Increased Charge Mass.

Table 3

The Effect of Increase Maximum Pressure

Parameter Reference Case Case ”A" [Increased P) Case ”B” (Incr eased P and C;—

P (MPa) 415 552 552 I

V (m/s) 1501 1592 1616 l

LM (kg) 5.82 5.32 5.82

CM (kg) 5.67 5.67 6.12
GEOM 7MP 7MP 7MP
E (hi/kg) 1076 1076 1076
va(m 4J7
6.47
4.77
6.47
4.77
6.47
VOL (dm3 )
BDlA (mm) 105 105 105
 ‘””Tab1e 4
“‘ ”“ ' "" ‘
Effect of Increased Travel

‘ j
Parameter Reference Case Increred Travel Case

P (MP3) 415 415

V (m/s) 1501 1578
LM (kg) 5.82 $.82
CM (kg) 5.67 5.67
GEOM 7MP 7MP
E (kj/kg) 1076 1076
TRAV (m)3 4.77 6.35
VOL (dm ) 6.47 6.47
BDIA (mm) 105 105

Alonger tube results in an increase in weight

which mayaffect the mounting and recoil systems. (3 C)
Maneuverability of the tank may also be affected.
Propellant Grain Progressivity. The rate of (D C) C)
'
pressure rise in the gun is controlled by'the rate '
.
-

of gas generation from the burning propellant and (:) C)

the rate of volume increase by the moving projec-
'
~ SP
tile. The rate of gas generation is described by
Equation 2. 7MP
.
n = p s r (2)
m = rate of mass generation of propellant
gas

p = density of solid propellant

s = surface area of the propellant
r = linear burning rate of the propellant
The rate of gas generation must be controlled
through control of the surface area because the 19MP,CY I9MP.HEX
linear burning rate solid propellant density
and
are Phy51cal conStantS f°r a given t}?c 0f Pr°‘ Figure 4. Propellant Grain Cross Sections for
penant. 5P, 7MP, 19MP—cy and mar-HEX
Propellant grain geometries of interest are
shown in Figure 4. These include the single per—
foration cylinder (SP) and the 7—perforation cy—
linder (7b?) which is used in most tank gun ammuni—
tion today. The 19~perforation cylinder (l95P—CY)
and lS—perfdration hexagonal cylinder (lQMP—HEX) ”(I

shown are relatively new grain designs currently

being developed. [WINK

The most important aspect of any grain design

is the surface progressivity, i.e., the increase ”(A/IIHII.

in surface area as a function of the distance burned

into the grain. The ratios of the surface area to
the initial surface area for the four geometries
shown are coumared in Figure S.
IUIVRCI

The 19bP—HEX geometry provides the best pro-

gressivity. As shown in Figure 6, part of this
improvement is in the reduction in the volume of
outer slivers which result
_
when the webs burn
. Ll Ll Lo
through. The volume or propellant slivers elimi—
. .
Inmymu-m~u
nated by the hexagonal geometry from a given charge Figure 5. Burning Surface Area Ratio 35 a Fuqc.;q
'
mass can be put to more effective use in the form of the Fraction Burned
of additional propellant grains.
 Progellant Charge Mass. If the Charge mass
is increased, additional chemical energy is avail-
able and the velocity can be increased. There are
two constraints which must be met. The charge :vs.
physically fit
into the available chamber volu _
and the design maximum pressure of the system m;
not be exceeded. The effect of charge mass on:
.\"’ \\ \ zle velocity is shown in Figure 8 for 7MP and ‘

\C) \\\\
‘ grain geometries. It can be seen that as the
\ \ mass is increased, the propellant web must be
x creased to maintain the maximum pressure constant.
Muzzle velocity goes through a maximum. The decrease
in velocity with higher charge masses results from
a web which is too large for all of the propellant
to be burned in the tube.

WEB (mm)
0-l.l7
Figure 6. Reduction in Outer Sliver Volume With 13— 1.24
Hexagonal Geometry A_L32 l9 MP‘HEX
'

o —
1.40

‘2 1525— ”Ti—CY
The effect of improved progressivity is to in—
crease the area under the pressure—travel curve
following maximum pressure as illustrated in Figure tL)
>—

7 and Table S. A greater velocity for a given maxi-

C)
mum pressure or a lower maximum pressure for a given d
velocity can be achieved with the 19km grain geo- >
metries. If progressivity alone is improved, a
velocity increase of about one percent can be ach- 1500
ieved.
The production of lQMP-CY and lQhW—HEX grain
geometries should not present any significant pro-
blems or additional costs.
is 60 . 65
CHARGE MAS$(kg)

400 ~
\
'; x
Figure 8. Muzzle Velocity as a Function of Charge
Q. Mass for 7b‘and 19M? Grain Geometries at 415 MP3
2
19M? -CY
xw Depending upon the location of a given system
D on the velocity—charge mass curve, some improvament
In
W in velocity may be achieved by varying charge mass
UJ
M
Q.
alone. For the reference system, the increase
(Table 6, 0.3 percent) is small.
LU
Ln
<
m
The 19M? geometries give higher velocities
CASE (7MP) compared to the Tb? geometry at all charge masses.
Progressivity and charge mass are complementary,
as evident in Figure 8, and the maximum velocities
for the geometries are displaced to larger
19M?
charge masses. The velocity increases for the cem—
J bined effects, as shown in Table 6, are 1.5 to 2.3
o 4.77 percent as compared to about 1.0 percent for pro-
TRAVEL (m) gressivity alone and 0.3 percent for charge mass
alone.

Projectile Sasc Pressure vs. Travel for Increasing the charge mass may result in
Figure 7. slightly increased cost for the propellant com-
7MP (Reference Case), 19>W-CY, and
ponent of the ammunition. Care must be taken to
lQbP—HEX Grain Geometries
assure that the propellant can be loaded in the
available volume.
.w

Table S

Effect of Progressivity

Parameter Reference Case lQbP-CY Case lQMP-HEX Case

P ‘(MPB) 415 415 415

V (m/s) 1501 1512 1520
UM (kg) 5.82 5.82 5.82
CM (kg) 5.67 5.67 5.67
GEOM 7MP lQMP-CY lQMP—HEX
E (kj/kg) 1076 1076 1076
TRAV (mJS 4.77 4.27 4.77
VOL (dm ) 6.47 6.47 6.47
BDIA (mm) 105 105 105

Table 6

Effects of Charge Mass and Progressivity

Parameter Reference Case Increased Increased CM

CM Case and GEOM Cases

P (93) 415 415 415 415

V (m/s) 1501 1505 1524 1536
UH (kg) 5.32 5.82 5.82 5.32
CM (kg) 5.67 5.99 6.24 6.24
GEOM 7MP 7)? lQMP-CY lQhW—HEX
E (kj/kg) 1076 1076 1076 1076
TRAV (m)3 4.77 4.77 4.77 4.77
VOL (dm ) 6.47 6.47 6.47 , 6.47
BDIA (mm) 105 105 lOS 105

Launch Mass. A lighter projectile can be accel-

eratea to a higher velocity for a given maximum pres-
sure and charge configuration. with APFSDS pro-
jectiles, the sabot represents a parasitic mass.
A significant increase in performance can result
400 __
from a reduction in its mass. However, the sabot
represents a small fraction (30 to 40 percent) of ea
the launch mass, and it must be strong enough to 1:
withstand the maximum stress. For a given pene-
trator, sabot design, and material, sabot mass will ‘JE
increase if the pressure (maximum stress) is in- Lu

'
creased. g
3
The computed effects of launch mass are sum-
2:
marized in Table 7. A reduction in launch mass of n.
8.8 percent results in a 3.3-percent increase in (u
veloc1ty. :2
a:
Propellant Energy. More chemical energy for
a given charge mass and volume can be achieved by
using a propellant with greater specific energy
(impetus). This is particularly useful when the
chamber volume is a limiting factor. Increasing I

the impetus, like increasing the charge mass, has 0

77
the effect of raising the trailing portion of the o 4
pressure-travel curve when the web is adjusted to TRAVEi(m)
maintain a given maximum pressure as shown in Fig-
ure 9. A 6.1—percent increase in propellant energy
results in a 1.5—percent increase in velocity as
shown in Table 8. Figure 9. Projectile Base Pressure vs. Travel for
Reference Case and with Increased Pro—
pellant Energy
 Table 7

Effect of Projectile Launch Mass

Parameter Reference Case Decreased LM Case

P (MP3) 415 415

V (m/s) 1501 1551
LM (kg) 5.82 5.31
CM (kg) $.67 5.67
GEON 7MP 7MP
E (kj/kg) 1076 1076
TRAY (m)3 4.77 4.77
VOL (dm ) 6.47 6.47
BDIA (mm) 105 10$

Table 8

Effect of Propellant Energy

Parameter Reference Case Increased E Case

P (MPa) 41s 415

V (m/s) 1501 ‘ 1524 1

LH (kg) 5.82 5.82

CM (kg) 5.67 5.67
GEOM 7MP 7MP
E (kj/kg) 1076 1142 ,.
TRAV (n03 4.77 ”4.77
VOL (dm ) 6.47 6.47
BDIA (mm) 105 105 ‘

An increase in energy is usually accompanied course, requires family of ammunition. For

a new
by_an increase in the propellant flame temperature. APFSDS ammunition, this should also result in an
This is shown in Table 9 where the thermochemistry increase in the parasitic mass of the sabot for a
of high impetus tank gun propellants used by the US given penetrator.
$RG, and UK are given. The FRG and UK propellants
have 4-to 40-percent higher energy than the US M30 A larger Chamber volume makes it possible to
propellant, and the higher flame temperatures may use a larger charge mass. All other factors being
result in greater wear and erosion of the gun tubes. equal, a higher velocity results. Like bore
Production of a higher energy propellant may also diameter, a larger chamber volume reuslts in a
be more expensive than for a conventional propel— system mass penalty and the need for a new family
lmtleMw. of ammunition. The UK and FRG lEO-Tm gun systems
have larger chamber volumes than the lOS-mm
Bore Diameter and Chamber Volume. A larger dia— M68, tank gun [approximately 9.3 and 6.6 dm ,
meter bore results in a larger area for the gas respectively).
pressure to act upon and, therefore, a'higher velo—
city for the projectile. The UK and FRG are devel~ The computed effects of bore diameter and
oping new tank guns which have 120-mm bore diameters chamber volume are given in Table 10. A 14—per Cr..mye
to replace the current lOS—mm system. A larger increase in bore diameter is a 30-percent incre 2 as
bore increases the mass of the gun system and, of in bore area and results in a S-percent increase Hn
velocity. A 10-percent increase in chamber volume
 >7Table 9

Thermochemistry of US, FRG and UK High Impetus Propellants

Propellant Impetus Flame Temperature Ratio of Spec. Heats

(k5 /kg) (K)

US (M30) 1088 3040 1.24

FRG (JAZ) 1141 3412 1.22
UK (F 527/428) 1228 3770 1.22

Table 10

Effects of Bore Diameter, Chamber Volume, and Charge Mass

Parameter Reference Case Increased BDIA Case Increased VOL Case Increased VOL and CM Case

p (ma) 415 '41s 415 415

V (m/s) 1501 1579 1505 1523
LM (kg) 5.82 5.82 $.82 5.82
CM (kg) 5.67 5.67 5.67 6.24
GEOM 7MP 7MP 7MP 7MP
E (kj/kg) 1076 1076 1076 1076
TRAV (m)3 4.77 4.77 4.77 4.77
VOL (dm ) 6.47 6.47 7.13 7.13
BDIA (mm) 105 120 105 10$

alone offers little increase in velocity (0.3 per- to achieve the best results. An increase in pres-
cent) but coupled with a 10—percent increase in sure will require an increase in launch mass due
charge mass, the velocity increase is five times to the higher stresses (unless a sabot design im—
that from charge mass or chamber volume alone. provement is made). Thus, an»increase in pressure
from 415 to 552 MP3 should also result in an in-
Summarz of Effects. A summary of the effects crease in launch mass from 5.82 to about 6.35 kg
of changes in the various system parameters on with a corresponding change in velocity increase
velocity is given in Table 11. Charge mass and from about 6 percent to about 3 percent.
prbgressivity should be varied together in order
Table 11 \

Summary of the Effects of Changes in System Parameters on Velocity

Parameter Change (x) ‘ Velocity Increase (R) 1
I

P +33 +6 y
t

P +33 +3
LM + 9

LM — 9 +3

GEOM 19MP-HEX /
+2
CH +10

TRAV

E
+33

+ 6
g
+2
-'

VOL +10
+2
CM +10

BDIA +14 +5 J
 The increases in velocity in this table are
roughly additive. Ibu5+~g‘;Q§—mm gggyith an opcrg7\l
ressure ofSSZ MP3 (6-peFEEt23’g
tin ~%F'~ 60-caliber/j l KI.
»- '
V .

"Y?§§e (§:2grg§pp), and using an increased charge

‘

l if I“
«hirikfher engfgy (ercrcent), 19bW-HEX (2 per-
;gnt}”propb113nt should be capable of a veloci ty I“
-§§:1725 m/sgcq(1§:pergent increase). R 3i.
3
The computed velocity increases for the IDS—mm
Q.
E no
system looked quite promising- Therefore, based U
on this analysis, an experimental program to verify m
2S.
a
the computations was carried out. aul an

Test Procedures and EguiBment E 1n

I"
Confirmational test firings were conducted at
the BRL Sandy Point Firing Facility. The IDS—mm, I.
M68, gun tube used in the high pressure (552 MP3) L1,: 20,0 22.5 22'!
12.: 15.1
tests was produced by Watervliet Arsenal (WVA) %,. 1.: 10.:
TlHE (HS)
without the dog-leg breech locating slot to increase
the safe fatigue life of the tube. An M68 tube
with 60-caliber travel, produced by WVA, was also Figure 10. Pressure vs. Time at Seven Locations
used. The tubes were mounted in an APG Medium B
in a 105»mm, M68, Gun Tube
Sleigh on an Ml, lSS—mm Gun Carriage. Pressure
ports for BRL minihat gages (2) were located at
0.56, 0.86, 1.70, 2.68, 3.86, and 5.16 m from the u
rear face of the tube. Back-mounted minihat t)
gages were installed (3) in the base of shortened
(0.457—m long) M115 brass cases. M83 igniters a n
were used in the majority of the tests to simulate v
% r.
the ignition system which would be used with a long It
rod APFSDS projectile. The test projectiles were
LU
2 I.
lOSommproof slugs with nylon bourrelets (3). These g n
projectiles approximate the ballistics of the M392 uJ
LL I!
APDS and give slightly lower velocities
projectile u.
2|
than the H735 reference case. The launch mass was o
u
adjusted by adding lead wool to a hole drilled m
K
3
axially in the muzzle end of the projectile. Stan-
Is
(n
u
dard titanium dioxide/wax wear-reducing additive
m
Lu
Z
liners were used. m x

i.
D

Velocities and projectile travels were meas- -:v r

ll.‘
s.r
li.‘
e; 4
‘-. 7.: ILI 11.‘ 2'1 22.: 26..
ured by microwave interferometry with a transmitted TXHE Ins:
frequency of lS gHz. Data were recorded on analog
magnetic tape and by real-time digital acquisition
using the computerized BRL Ballistic Data Acquisi~ Figure ll. Differential Pressure vs. Time in a
tion System. lOS-mm, M68, Gun Tube

Differential pressures (pressure at rear of of evaluating the

chamber minus pressure at forward location in was produced at RAAP as a means
effect of prope llant energy . The propellant was
chamber) were recorded as a diagnostic of ignition
system performance. Examples of typical recorded extruded in a 19MP~CY geometry by the Naval Ordnan
pressure-time data (at several tube stations) and Station—Indian Head, Maryland
differential pressures are shown in Figures 10 and s DiscussionV-
ll, respectively. Eyuerimental Result
..A. A
and
n-

fired at the beginning

Two warmer rounds were Firing tests series were designed for a parn«
of each day's test series. A calibration lot of meter or combination of parameters. For each test
M30, 7B? propellant (RAD 67878) was used to establish series, a set of base line firings was included to
the base line performance of the test system. establish an experimental basis for evaluating :he
results.
M30 propellant grains in
lSlW—CY and lQlT—HEX
geometries were designed by BRL and produced at the Travel. The effect of increased travel was I.‘

Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP). uated by comparing the performance of a standard c

bration lot of propellant in a new, standard MoB

A solventless, high force propellant formula- tube (4S-caliber) and in a 60-caliber, gun tube.
c‘ tion (Table 12), similar to the FRG JAZ formulation,
 'A velocity increase of 2.5 percent over that this paper are, perhaps, upper bounds on these
of the base.line test was observed. The computed parameters for use in current armor systems.
velocity.increase from the combined effects is
about 3.5 percent (energy, 1.5 percent; progres- ln summary, it should be noted that the re—
sivity and charge mass 2 percent). The charge sults this technology study have been used
from
mass increase in the test case was only 3.8 per— in the design of the US ”growth potential"
cent (due to adjustment in charge mass to reduce ADTSDS cartridge which was fired as part of the
the pressure from 552 MP3, design to 410 bma, Tripartite Tank Main Armament Evaluation Tests
test) vs. the 10—percent increase necessary to in December 1977. The results of this study and
realize the full complementary effect of progres- the latter demonstration indicate that a standard
sivity and charge mass. Thus, although the full or improved lOS-mm tank gun can be qui competi_
2 percent expected from the effects of charge mass tive with the state-of—the-art lZO—mm gun systems
and geometry was not realized. we can use this value which, relative to the lOS-mm system, utilize in—
to place a lower bound of 0.5 percent on the return creased operating pressure, bore diameter, chamber
from propellant energy. The full evaluation of the volume, and charge mass.
performance of the higher energy formulation must
await completion of the high pressure tests.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the experimental tests agree

quite well with out‘computer modeling and thus
verify that significant increases in velocity
can be achieved with APESDS projectiles in a 105-
mm tank gun. Velocity increases can be reached
within the present operating limits (414 HPa max-
imum pressure at 21 C and 4.77—m travel) of a L

standard IDS—mm, tank gun through improve~

M68,
ments in progressivity and charge mass, lower
launch mass, and perhaps increased propellant
energy. Further velocity increase can be achieved
with an improved IDS-mm tank gun which would pro-
vide for highgrupressure and‘longer travel while l
potentially.retainingcop' '
m ““ ”"”” ain't; sci th “exist rng
ammunition.

The more progressive 19lW-HEX grain geometry

may offer other benefits in addition to increased
velocity. Because of the larger size and lower
initial surface area of lSlW—HEX grains, pressure
wave problems should be reduced (4,5). Pressure
waves could potentially arise from poor unifor-
mity of ignition along the charge axis which may
result from the use of short igniter tubes. The
use of shorter igniters is required by the in-
trusion of the long rod penetrators into the cham- l“
\

ber in newer APFSDS designs. lt is also possible

that a 37vaHEX geometry, currently being evalua-
ted, may offer additional improvements in velocity.
A decrease in the launch mass offers a sig—r
nificant increase in muzzle velocity. New sabot
designs have demonstrated that about 0.5 kg may
\
be removed from the mass of a conventional sabot ;51V.
designed for a given penetrator and operating
pressure.
The potential velocity increase from the
higher energy propellant, SHF-l, has not been
fully demonstrated as yet. 0f significant impor-
tance may be system problems such as the effect of
the higher flame temperature on wear and erosion,
the effect of a lower solid propellant density on
bulk density, and the effect of maximum operating
temperature on the maximum operating pressure.
Further work to answer these questions is in pro—
gress.
Any new lOS—mm gun should be designed after
a system analysis determines the best combination
of increased operating pressure and projectile
travel. The increase in operating pressure to
552 bWa and the_jncrease in travel to 60—calibers
which were evaluated in the effort described in
 REFERENCES

P.G. Baer and J.M. Frankie, "The Simulation of

'
-1-
Interior Ballistic Performance of Guns by
Digital Computer Program," Ballistic Research
Laboratories Report No. 1183, December 1962.
T.L. Brosseau, "Development of the Minihat Pres-
sure Transducer for Use in the Extreme Environ-
ments of Small Caliber Gun Barrels, Ballistic
Research Laboratories Memorandum Report
No. 2072, November 1970.

J.M. Frankie, "Interior Ballistics of High—

Velocity Guns," Ballistic Research Laboratories
Memorandum Report No. 1879, November 1967.

J.J. Rocchio, K.J. White, C.R. Ruth, and I.W.

May, "Propellant Grain Tailoring to Reduce
Pressure Wave Generation in Guns," Proceedings
of the 12th JANNAF Combustion Meeting, CPIA
Publication 273, Vol. l, pp. 275-301,
December 197$.

J.J. Rocchio, C.R. Ruth, and 1.”. May, "Grain

Geometry Effects on Wave Dynamics in Large
Caliber Guns," Proceedings of the 13th JANNAF
Combustion Meeting, CPIA Publication 281,
Vol. I, pp. 362-382, December 1976.
 JO DECEMBER 1982

INTERIOR BALLISTICS DIVISION

O APPLIED BALLISTICS BRANCH

o Range Facilities
o Tank Gun Propulsion

o Low Vulnerability Ammunition

O MECHANICS & STRUCTURES BRANCH

o PAT? Precision Aim Technique

o Structural Integrity of XE Projectiles

DEC 82
P83-OOl
-“‘_—.-——__.-n“~
 APPLIED BALLISTICS BRANCH

O ARTILLERY PROPULSION TEAM

O EXPERIMENTAL BALLISTICS TEAM >

O TANK GUN PROPULSION TEAM

DEC 82
P83-OO2
—‘—_———~-_ ___
 TANK GUN PROPULSION

TEAM

Advanced Propulsion Concepts for Tank Guns

o l9MP—HexGrain Designs
o Nitramine PropeTTants
o Deterred PropeTTants
o MuTtipTex and ConsoTidated Charges
Interior BaTTistics / Charge Design
o XM833
o XM829
o SUPERSLUG
Systems Studies
o Tank Main Armament Evaiuation
o ICAS Study
o MlEl RecoiT System Design
o BRL 6.3A Program & 105 Enhancement
Troubie Shooting
o XM774 & XM827 Pressure_Nave ProbTems
LOVA Program DEC 82
P83-003
M—._—_mmvm—nmw—.
 Anti-Armor Kinetic Energy Penetrator Systen Design

System Design Hatrix

Gun System —-————-

x__Design Pressure ——1

.—
(PIHF)
Fatigue Life

—-Chamber Volume-/\-J

En-bore Travel -/‘i f'\_/‘\_ fl

[

Penetratcr #L—E—HL
x
_____f\_.____________
_..r ‘-{aunch Hass______1
IL
[H
iesign
\——-Retardation
-dV/dx
/\_e f LJ
éercdyna:ics
H355 A Fins -—-Charge Hess——

Sabot Design
_J,
—-Hax. Pressure
c——_.
at 21 C
ax. Operating
Temperature
\———Huzzle Velocity-
Energy and DensityQ
Fropellant-—~—-——{:::
Temp. ‘Coeff:-—-—-4
dP/dT -———-Effective Range
Fropeilant
Grain Design
*-- Lilit Velocity -——

Target
 HO T0 iNCREASE‘MUZZLE VELOCH’Y

KE-J/ZIN% IIjr/EFMeJng

.ElLilithiii

,zi: vs. AVOLUME.

. “\ ‘

m - S )9 r gxgw

rate oflnass generanon

YRAVEL (H) surface area
«ng.

donsny ~

Ilnear burning rate

OCT 8|
 SYSTEM DESIGN

”CONSTRAINTS”

Existing performance requirements for tank

cannon and their ammunition:

o May be unreaiistio
o Act as design constraints iimiting our
abiiity to meet the threat within
reasonabie time and resources

e m}
\‘p‘fk
f,‘
{

O Fatigue Life Requirements tjenngd

O Operating Temperature Requirements

O Tube Length Restrictions
DEC 82
P83—OOB
‘7 .1... m... “a -a- —._ a... u.‘ _»...,._ -....
 ”IMPACT OF
TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT
0N SYSTEMKDESIGN

ON FATIGUE LIFE OF TUBE OR

SAFE WA
x .~ BREECH
a. .

I\v/ MAX. PRESSUREMAI HOT OPERATING

CONDHIONs/w30cu'z
'//I ’ y;
‘. V" a" f
hf a V
;;/
'
. 6
3. (’—
'

f ,-
~

If
1g<un )ZCKUII’S ZCJQCL fth?” 2.563
LI

«+—- PRESSURE INCREASE DUE TO SYSTEM

TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT

MAX. PRESSURE,NI21°C

6 MAR 79
 400 INCREASED P

(MP0)

/
PRESSURE I
I

BASE f\\\—REFERENCE
CASE

4.77 6.35
I

TRAVEL (m)
 JTCG

Munitions Survivability Program

~ LOVA ~

Low Vulnerability Ammunition

OCT 82
 m- ‘2 LL! pt :1 ,a' \t‘ L' '.._: r x: ‘ t

SPALL }ESTS

Test Schematic
M30: Burning with smoke on ground.

M26, Shot l: FWames.

M26, Shot 2: F1ames.

JA2, Shot l: B1asts & f1ash 1n smoke.-

JA2, Shot 2: B1asts and f1ash 1n smoke.

CAB/ATEC/RDX, Shot l: No reaction.

CAB/ATEC/RDX, Shot 2: No reaction.
CAB/NC/RDX: No reaction. FEB 8y
L82-Ol:
 LOVA PAYOFF

K KILL

PROBABILITY
W M60

M1

“:97 Ml/M6O LOVA

ATTACK AZIMUTH

JAN 82
L82-OlO
 LOVA

THRUST

The LOVA Techno1ogy Base N111 Support

DeveTOpment Programs & Spawn New AppWications
& CapabiWties

/
/
\ \

j/
Es I> PIP l> V
Fonowon PIPE?

\
\
LOVA TECHNOLOGY

/
\\\\\_Other Neapon§>>

Navy Guns
DEC 82
L83aOl9
maa~_~__~—K.—.—_. H
 THE LOVA

TEAM

_
ARMY
ARRADCOM
Ballistic Research Lab
Large Caliber Weapon Systems Lab

ARRCOM

Army Research Office

NAVY
Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head
OfiCE: Of. {LXI/Lil pfle‘JLH"Ch

“awn—a .._.___.—_——-—-—. _._.__.__..__——‘——\_.‘..___.

 LOVA

STATUS

Best materiaW from Engineering Study

seWected and VaWdation Test in
progress

PIP is ”1n pTace“ pending successfuT

'
outcome
of ES

Performance equivaTent to M30 achievable in

HEAT and KE ammunition

Future: HELOVA .
-

DEC 82
L83-027
—.~—--—-——_——— -——
 LOVA _PROGRAM

SCHEDULE

’FY 81 FY82 was FY84 FY86 FY36

. ..OPELLANT DEVELOPMENT

.JGINEERlNG STUDY
. .‘a

TC
 LOVA
and the
USER

O Expand dia109ue

o LOVA and its capab111t1es

o User's needs

O Introduce concept of increased survivability

of ammunition into requirements dcccuments

‘O
Continued user support of R&D efforts in the
DA / DARCOM reviews

DEC 82
L83-O28
_—.
J'HE LATEST FROM THE ARMOR 8c ENGINEER BOARD:
"The studies, testing, and initial experience
of some 0f our units suggest that we may
forgo the burden of zeroing and not reduce
the level of hit performance we can ach1eve

BASED 0N TABLE VIII -- Ranges of 500 - 2200 M

,
\ \r/
QUALIFICATION FOSTERS USE 0F ”BATTLE SIGHT” \ i
l

AND ”BURST— ON-TARGET” GUNNERY l

/l/' /

z \ .

A TANK CREW CAN QUALIFY, 0R EVEN QUALIFY As \ \k \

DISTING UISHED, WITH A FIRST—R0 UNI) Hg”

k/
'\ ,_

HIT RA TE 0F ZERO.
‘

I 0R DA YLIGHT PHASE, A CREW CAN QUALIFY WITH A

MINIMUM POOLED HIT RATE 0F 37%. \

BUT PARTIALLY DRIVEN BY REALITY

'

—-

BPB/WORD-NOB/Oct 82 ~
 SUMMARY
* We already know enough to obtain precision
from tubes undergoing simple forced motion
We see things that can be implemented to
improve accuracy
1"
he recognize areas that still need to be
investigated
We seem to have a better (but not complete)
technological grip on gun system dynamics.
and dispersion ‘

* We can test the experience of others (UK)

DOES THE ARMY REALLY EXPECT THE TANK GUN.

TO HIT STATIONARY TARGETS
RANGES OF 3000M?
RWY AT

JNW/SUM—NOG/Oct 82