CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

I was sort of expecting the ammo rack to be enlarged a bit, otherwise there's the complete rounds being stored in the hull, where you'd only have previously had bag charges.
I'm very keen to see the interior layout. As the ammo is in the bustle, I'm wondering how change from APFSDS to HE or back is handled.
 
I'm very keen to see the interior layout. As the ammo is in the bustle, I'm wondering how change from APFSDS to HE or back is handled.
Also apparently they've added Gun launched missile capabilities to it. Which adds even more weirdness in space. I wonder if some of the smaller systems from the hull haven't been moved to the rear of the bustle, under the optical system. Which would free up space in the hull.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Also apparently they've added Gun launched missile capabilities to it. Which adds even more weirdness in space. I wonder if some of the smaller systems from the hull haven't been moved to the rear of the bustle, under the optical system. Which would free up space in the hull.
Or some of the stuff that was in the bustle has now been moved down into the hull where the charges used to be.
 
Or some of the stuff that was in the bustle has now been moved down into the hull where the charges used to be.
But doing that means you've got no blow off panels for that ammo, which is now in the line of fire. As the sight system is in that position. Putting blow off panels in the sides weakens your armour integrity.
Maybe blow off pannels at the rear of the tank is an option?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
But doing that means you've got no blow off panels for that ammo, which is now in the line of fire. As the sight system is in that position. Putting blow off panels in the sides weakens your armour integrity.
Maybe blow off pannels at the rear of the tank is an option?
Which ammo?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
For the stuff in the turret. Sorry, should have have used the word turret instead of tank.
I'd kind've assumed that all main gun rounds would have been moved to the bustle, because of length. Where the propellant charges used to be in the hull would then be vacant. Some of the systems that used to be in the bustle would then be redistributed, leaving the whole bustle for ammunition stowage.*

How far into the turret does the panoramic sight penetrate, or does it just sit atop with power/data connections?



*Qualifier, I've never designed or built a tank.
 
Be good if the optics just sat on the turret. Easier maint ( they WILL get shot up , so you'll always loose an element ) Ream-me can get to them easier etc.
 
I'd kind've assumed that all main gun rounds would have been moved to the bustle, because of length. Where the propellant charges used to be in the hull would then be vacant. Some of the systems that used to be in the bustle would then be redistributed, leaving the whole bustle for ammunition stowage.*

How far into the turret does the panoramic sight penetrate, or does it just sit atop with power/data connections?



*Qualifier, I've never designed or built a tank.
It's been pointed out to me, it looks like there's fifteen rounds in the turret bustle as fighting rounds, like on the Leopard.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Be good if the optics just sat on the turret. Easier maint ( they WILL get shot up , so you'll always loose an element ) Ream-me can get to them easier etc.
It looks like it sits high enough.
It's been pointed out to me, it looks like there's fifteen rounds in the turret bustle as fighting rounds, like on the Leopard.
That's really not a lot. It's about a third of the rounds of an M1 or Leo2.

Leo2 has ammunition stowage to the left of the driver in front of the loader (hence why the tank is right-hand drive). C2 has a central driver's position. M1 carries more rounds in the bustle - in fact, does the M1 store main gun rounds anywhere other than the bustle?
 
It looks like it sits high enough.

That's really not a lot. It's about a third of the rounds of an M1 or Leo2.

Leo2 has ammunition stowage to the left of the driver in front of the loader (hence why the tank is right-hand drive). C2 has a central driver's position. M1 carries more rounds in the bustle - in fact, does the M1 store main gun rounds anywhere other than the bustle?
M1 has a fighting rack behind the loader, and a Replen rack behind the commander. Although theoretically the loader can reach the rounds behind the commander, its going to be a hell of a unpleasant movement, well outside the norms of MHE.
The Leopard has 15 fighting rounds behind the loader, in a spring loaded ammo rack. From the footage it appears the RHM turret uses the same, or very similar arrangement. The rest of the rounds are stored in the hull:


So assuming an identical turret layout, that's 15 fighting rounds in the turret. and, if memory serves, it was stated the RHM turret would have 36 rounds earlier in the thread. So we've got to find locations for another 21.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The Leopard has 15 fighting rounds behind the loader, in a spring loaded ammo rack. From the footage it appears the RHM turret uses the same, or very similar arrangement. The rest of the rounds are stored in the hull:


So assuming an identical turret layout, that's 15 fighting rounds in the turret. and, if memory serves, it was stated the RHM turret would have 36 rounds earlier in the thread. So we've got to find locations for another 21.
So 15 in the ready rack and the rest behind the commander, per M1?
Room downstairs for a further 6 - the answer is indeed 42 - and thats your lot.
Which is comparable with other Western 120mm-armed MBTs.
 
the much over vaunted bagged charge system is very wasteful of space.
Bollocks.
Do you know why the bagged charge system was brought in? To save space and improve ammo handling. You see when we were settling on the weapon for Chieftain a part of the requirements was dimensions of the rounds. As the Chieftain was designed to be quite low, which placed certain limits on the MHE of rounds during loading. The only way to get the performance required in the dimensions was to have a split round, which at the time, had no drawbacks over fixed rounds.
 
Bollocks.
Do you know why the bagged charge system was brought in? To save space and improve ammo handling. You see when we were settling on the weapon for Chieftain a part of the requirements was dimensions of the rounds. As the Chieftain was designed to be quite low, which placed certain limits on the MHE of rounds during loading. The only way to get the performance required in the dimensions was to have a split round, which at the time, had no drawbacks over fixed rounds.
Except for the need to store them in bins with water jackets that take up a lot of space compared to a bustle rack.
 
Im somewhat lost

Q1) Does 1 piece ammunition not require wet storage - logically it would seem to - I can see how the Bustle could perhaps do away with this, opting for venting a blast (blow out panels) rather than preventing it. but i would have thought hull storage (where applicable) would be wet.

Q2) How does 1 piece ammo take up less room - that seems counter intuitive - I would have thought the ability to cram smaller pieces in odd corners and the fact things like the kinetic darts are inert so dont need armoured bins, etc would be more space freindly.

You can add to that When you have circa 50 rounds of 2 piece ammunition and you enlarge the bustle significantly and have space for 40 rounds of 1 piece - that doesnt seem to be making the space saving case for 1 piece

Edit Q3 Could blow out panels replace wet storage n the hull?
 
Top