Talk:D-10 tank gun
 | A fact from D-10 tank gun appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 December 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Citation needed for APFSDS penetration
editAll of the figures in the article are from the two Zaloga references. But I have seen no reference supporting the APFSDS round's penetration of 400 mm at 2,000 m. —Michael Z. 2006-12-15 23:40 Z
Barrel length
editBattlefield.ru's articles on the SU-100 and D-10 gun cite a length of 56 and 53.5 calibres, respectively, although their big table lists 53.5 for them both. Did the D-10S and D-10T have the same barrel length, or different? —Michael Z. 2006-12-16 02:11 Z
- 53.5 calibers is probably the "bore length" of D-10, while 56 is probably the "overall length" including breechblock. Bukvoed 10:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
HVAPDS penetration
editThe ammunition section states: "In 1967 the 3BM6 hyper-velocity armour-piercing discarding-sabot round (HVAPDS) entered service, which could penetrate 290 mm of armour at 2,000 m, or 80 mm of armour angled at 60 degrees from the vertical."
This is obviously wrong. If an 80mm plate were sloped at 60 degrees from the vertical, it would have a relative thickness of only 160mm, not 290mm. The plates true thickness must be 145mm, since that would (at a 60 degree slope) give it a relative thickness of 290mm.
To repeat, an 80mm plate cannot have a relative thickness of 290mm, that is factually incorrect and in need of an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myopia1 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The stats are quite possible...
From what I understand the term “HVAPDS” (when applied to Soviet shells) applied to older, spin stabilised APDS, as used by the British from the late 1940s. Unlike later “long-rod” penetrators these short (1:3 – 1:6 width/length factor) penetrators suffer *at least* as badly as traditional AP shot when it came to deflection effects.
Thus at any meaningfully angled plate can be expected to perform a lot better than it’s line-of-site thickness; a good example would be the first generation UK 120mm L1 APDS, which was tested to penetrate 446mm of vertical RHA but only 125mm at 60°.
3BM6 was a steel APDSFS projectile for the 115mm Molot, not to sure why it’s mentioned in this article… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.230.132 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The unknown "naval gun".
edithttp://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_39-56_m1940.php Idumea47b (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)