• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

How about a belt fed 120mm Smooooth bore?

Protection wise the CR2 is gold standard, put APS on it, TEL protection + and it doesn’t matter what gat it has, in all honesty we ain’t going to be going up against anything that can’t be taken out by the rifled L7, in the near and distant future.

Leo’s burn when hit, Abraham’s do also.
 
Leo’s burn when hit, Abraham’s do also.
Thats the tradeoff when using larger single piece ammunition, storing it above the turret ring invites incoming rounds to hit something the crew would rather it didnt.

Interestingly CR2 follows Russian doctrine of keeping the "explosive" deep in the hull as far out of harms way as possible, rather than every other Western design (M1, Leopard 2, Leclerc, K2 Panther) which has a significant chunk (or everything) in the turret bustle. Top attack smart rounds are only going to become more widespread in the coming years so that may be a significant weakness.
 
[wah]Leo2 A4 showing 15 rounds ammo stowage in the bustle and 27 rounds to the front in the hull[/wah]
 
Thats the tradeoff when using larger single piece ammunition, storing it above the turret ring invites incoming rounds to hit something the crew would rather it didnt.

Interestingly CR2 follows Russian doctrine of keeping the "explosive" deep in the hull as far out of harms way as possible, rather than every other Western design (M1, Leopard 2, Leclerc, K2 Panther) which has a significant chunk (or everything) in the turret bustle. Top attack smart rounds are only going to become more widespread in the coming years so that may be a significant weakness.
The problem is, it’s not like belly-attack devices (be they improvised or conventional) aren’t prolific either, and a top-attack device like an EFP is more than capable of dumping enough energy into the lower hull to set off ammunition stored there.

Hull stowage made perfect sense when our principle CONOPS was to sit hull down in a scrape, and pump as many rounds as possible into the advancing hordes, whilst they flung back KE and CE in the same direction. I think those advantages have now been eroded, especially when considering the lethality advantage that the smoothbore gives us (if used with the right ammunition).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
For what, fitting to your car :-?:-?:-?
I wish, there's more than a few Audi drivers who'd get the good news!

No, this was back in the 60's as part of Project Prodigal. We had a phase of trying to make everything as small and light as possible, which meant two man crews. As project Prodigal was essentailly the MOD handing some cash out to any of our R&D branchs and saying "Go nuts, lets see what you can come up with." One of the ideas was a thirty ton AFV, with an L11 and two man crew. But of course you needed to load it. ROF was listed as one round every two seconds.
 
I wish, there's more than a few Audi drivers who'd get the good news!

No, this was back in the 60's as part of Project Prodigal. We had a phase of trying to make everything as small and light as possible, which meant two man crews. As project Prodigal was essentailly the MOD handing some cash out to any of our R&D branchs and saying "Go nuts, lets see what you can come up with." One of the ideas was a thirty ton AFV, with an L11 and two man crew. But of course you needed to load it. ROF was listed as one round every two seconds.
This? You wouldn't need the main armament to give Audi drivers the good news :)

Deited to add: FV 4401 Contentious


1280px-FV4401_Contentious.jpg
 
So ammo in bustle or in bowels?
First one won't be armoured to the same extent but will go bang without incinerating crew. The other is better protected but will provide a toastier experience.
I reckon the former for survivability, based on the fact that sooner or later something will get through. Any thoughts ?
 
So ammo in bustle or in bowels?
First one won't be armoured to the same extent but will go bang without incinerating crew. The other is better protected but will provide a toastier experience.
I reckon the former for survivability, based on the fact that sooner or later something will get through. Any thoughts ?
Also consider the other key factor is battlefield survivability - i.e. which option is likely to get you putting rounds into targets most promptly - and consistently - during a battlefield mission...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Indeed. But neither - and I know you're not suggesting such - is the domestic product*.


*As in lots of the new bits aren't British.
Nope but it would make it much easier to absorb your forces into the collective from a logistical standpoint. Let's face it the odds are pretty high that your people will be working with us Spams.
 
My simple brain, if we're changing the gun - IF - says a turret bustle. Putting one-piece rounds in the hull would seem a non-starter.

But greater minds than mine, and all that...

I'd ask who'd develop the new natures of ammunition? Part of the problem is that we binned that capability some time back. Regeneration leads back to... £££££s.

Well here is a question for you Brit Tankies, what is the rate of a fire a decently trained crew can achieve with the two piece ammunition you use for the rifled 120mm?
 
Last edited:
Well here is a question for you Brit Tankies, what is the rate of a fire a decently trained crew can achieve with the two piece ammunition you use for the rifled 120mm?
Ah, rof as in how fast you can load whats to hand and go bang, or how fast you can search, aquire, load appropriate ammo, compute and go bang in a meaningful fashion?
 

Top