Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
It would have been hopelessly outclassed by the P.1000 Ratte. The main turret was based on the one for the Scharnhorst class battlecruisers with one gun deleted. Anyone proposing using anything less for a reconnaissance vehicle is just showing his lack of practical military knowledge.

tank-ratte-painting.jpg


panzer-ratte.png


That Jgdpz IV needs to get a wiggle on or he's going to get squashed...
 
If the Warrior 2 is shitcanned, then the 40mm CTA will be even more of an orphaned system.

Now that is an interesting point. Would we keep the 40cta for the next gen IFV

open to correction but wasn’t rifled much more superior to smoothbore until relatively recently?

the main issue afaik is the ammunition is now very much made to order

With a wild assed stab in the dark, with vague information, I suspect that the crossover was in the early 2000s. I suspect that was down to lack of development funding in weapon development.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
open to correction but wasn’t rifled much more superior to smoothbore until relatively recently?

the main issue afaik is the ammunition is now very much made to order
At the point we got CR2 into service, the rifled gun's anti-armour performance with fin rounds was competitive.

However for historical reasons we were wedded to the use of HESH, as that also had (at the time) an appreciable anti-armour capability in addition to being a useful multi-purpose round (a big 'cowpat' of explosive is useful for knocking down buildings, etc.). HESH required a rifled barrel. So, given that we wanted HESH and the fin round capability was comparable to that of a smoothbore, we went rifled.

Rifled was also regarded as more accurate.

Over time, the 120mm smoothbore's anti-armour capability has left our rifled solution's behind. In the main, this is due to the ammunition nature, in that penetration is a function of length and the smoothbore uses a one-piece round ('dart') of greater length.

We use two-piece rounds, also for historical reasons. Separating the round and charge meant being able to put combustible bits under the turret ring in the place most out of harm's way.

To maintain overmatch, we need the performance of the smoothbore penetrator. We won't be developing a one-piece rifled round, and getting more of the DU two-piece rounds is going to be difficult. Essentially, we have what we have stored and then that's it. So, by default, if we want to have/match the anti-armour performance of the smoothbore, the answer is the smoothbore.
 
At the point we got CR2 into service, the rifled gun's anti-armour performance with fin rounds was competitive.

However for historical reasons we were wedded to the use of HESH, as that also had (at the time) an appreciable anti-armour capability in addition to being a useful multi-purpose round (a big 'cowpat' of explosive is useful for knocking down buildings, etc.). HESH required a rifled barrel. So, given that we wanted HESH and the fin round capability was comparable to that of a smoothbore, we went rifled.

Rifled was also regarded as more accurate.

Over time, the 120mm smoothbore's anti-armour capability has left our rifled solution's behind. In the main, this is due to the ammunition nature, in that penetration is a function of length and the smoothbore uses a one-piece round ('dart') of greater length.

We use two-piece rounds, also for historical reasons. Separating the round and charge meant being able to put combustible bits under the turret ring in the place most out of harm's way.

To maintain overmatch, we need the performance of the smoothbore penetrator. We won't be developing a one-piece rifled round, and getting more of the DU two-piece rounds is going to be difficult. Essentially, we have what we have stored and then that's it. So, by default, if we want to have/match the anti-armour performance of the smoothbore, the answer is the smoothbore.
Smooth bore 120mm APFSDS ammunition evolved into what is effectively 120mm CTA. The AP shot is telescoped into the cartridge case.

The UK 120mm rifled round uses separate loading projectile and charge, so a telescoped round is not practical.

The 40mm CTA gun takes the CTA concept a bit further. It's not however something fundamentally different from what is being used in larger guns now.
 
he 40mm CTA gun takes the CTA concept a bit further. It's not however something fundamentally different from what is being used in larger guns now.
I don’t know the official terminology, but the 40mm CTA is a bit different to the 120mm smoothbore. The former might be termed fully telescoped, as the projectile is entirely contained within the case and has to jump from the case to engage in the barrel. The latter is only partially telescoped, as the projectile is at least partially clear of the ‘case’ and is engaged in the barrel before firing.

Coupled with the right cylindrical ammunition and push-through feed the CT40 is quite different from the conventional tapered case and feed of the 120mm smoothbore, despite the similarity of having a sub-calibre penetrator embedded within the propellant.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
What? Don't you fire Div or corps level units at dispersed skirmishing units?

Look, it's only the divisional deep-fires capability, it's not as if it's high up on the priority target list, nobody's looking for it with homicidal intent, and it's got all the ammunition it could ever require with instant reloads...

"Go on, comrade, have the whole battalion unload on that single sighting of a recce vehicle, what could possibly go wrong?" as великий император Монг says from amidst the purple smoke and demonic laughter...
 
I don’t know the official terminology, but the 40mm CTA is a bit different to the 120mm smoothbore. The former might be termed fully telescoped, as the projectile is entirely contained within the case and has to jump from the case to engage in the barrel. The latter is only partially telescoped, as the projectile is at least partially clear of the ‘case’ and is engaged in the barrel before firing.

Coupled with the right cylindrical ammunition and push-through feed the CT40 is quite different from the conventional tapered case and feed of the 120mm smoothbore, despite the similarity of having a sub-calibre penetrator embedded within the propellant.
I realise there is a difference, which is why I said "the 40mm CTA gun takes the CTA concept a bit further". There were two points that I was trying to get across. The first is that the 120mm smooth bore gun has the characteristic that it presently uses a highly telescoped round of ammunition. This was not a practical line of development for the 120mm rifled gun, as the latter happened to use separate loading ammunition. Separate loading was not inherent to a rifled gun, but since it did use it, there are lines of development in ammunition that were closed off to it by that decision.

The other point was that telescoped ammunition isn't a foreign idea, even if the 40mm CTA ammunition takes the idea further, as you detail in your post.
 
Smooth bore 120mm APFSDS ammunition evolved into what is effectively 120mm CTA. The AP shot is telescoped into the cartridge case.

The UK 120mm rifled round uses separate loading projectile and charge, so a telescoped round is not practical.

The 40mm CTA gun takes the CTA concept a bit further. It's not however something fundamentally different from what is being used in larger guns now.

I always wondered. Why didn't we simply core out the bag charge so we could extend the rod? Or have the rod extend further up the barrel?
I guess that it messes with the internal ballistics and burn rate.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Smooth bore 120mm APFSDS ammunition evolved into what is effectively 120mm CTA. The AP shot is telescoped into the cartridge case.

The UK 120mm rifled round uses separate loading projectile and charge, so a telescoped round is not practical.

The 40mm CTA gun takes the CTA concept a bit further. It's not however something fundamentally different from what is being used in larger guns now.
You deal with this in your later post. We use two-piece rounds for storage and safety reasons. They’re not inherent to a rifled gun. We won’t be developing a one-piece rifled round. The answer is the Rheinmetall smoothbore.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I always wondered. Why didn't we simply core out the bag charge so we could extend the rod? Or have the rod extend further up the barrel?
I guess that it messes with the internal ballistics and burn rate.
Storage. Where in the current turret would you put bloody long rods?

The answer is move into the bustle. But given that we’re not going to be developing new rounds, the answer is the smoothbore.
 
Bollocks.
Presumably he hasn't seen this from 30 years ago:

On 26 February 1991, Callsign 11B, the Commanding officer of the SCOTS DG achieved the longest range confirmed kill of the war, destroying an Iraqi tank with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) round fired over a distance of 5,110 metres (3.18 mi)—the longest tank-on-tank kill shot recorded.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Presumably he hasn't seen this from 30 years ago:

On 26 February 1991, Callsign 11B, the Commanding officer of the SCOTS DG achieved the longest range confirmed kill of the war, destroying an Iraqi tank with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) round fired over a distance of 5,110 metres (3.18 mi)—the longest tank-on-tank kill shot recorded.
That was CR1 with an L11.

The point is that the L30 on the CR2 wasn't 'comprehensively outclassed' 20-30 years ago.

The current DU round is competent, it just doesn't offer the levels of overmatch that it did on service entry - and we've a limited stock of them.

CR2, the basic vehicle, is still very relevant. Mobility is good (CR2, on paper, is slower than M1/Leo2 but the suspension makes a difference over ground - it's far superior to torsion bars), protection is good (Dorchester is world-leading, and arguably only the Merkava matches it). The gun is the sticking point of the traditional armour triangle.

New gun and optics and we're as good (and better) than anything out there. In fact, were the world different and the facilities/money were there, there's a good case to be made for acquiring new CR2s over new M1s or Leo2s.

That doesn't match with the knockers' opinions, though.
 

Latest Threads

Top