New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[12alfa]

Understand more of this now....
No the book talks about long rods and the r&d to up to 40;1 to find a no spun rod to hit sq on.

But if i understand this correctly, a rod moving at (est) 1600 mps, would  rotate around its axis 2 times to a target at 3600m.
So its not all that much, but still there. Sort of corkscrewing to the target is what they do to overcome aerodynamics and precession, and to aid in accuracy?

Smoothbores don't have (if i understand this) rifled induced spin to overcome, but rather it is applied to the round by the fins?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

You are most likely correct that not all of the spin would be negated, especially in the extremely short flight times we are talking about.

A note I found on the M1A1 FCS built by CDC has this comment

"Since the projectile is not spin stabilized, rotational forces and lifting forces were not considered. These forces would need to be considered for any projectile that is spin stabilized. The computational expense of determining these forces would need to be determined on aiming systems for spin stabilized projectiles."

Which would lead one to believe that the FCS computer for smoothbores are simpler than the ones for rifled guns.  Which may be why the FCS on the Leo2A4 through to A6 is the EMES 15, while the Leo 1A5 (and ours) is the more complex EMES 18.  It would also indicate that the minor spin on the FS rounds is not worth calculating.

 

[12alfa]

Now this is intersting....

You posted "The KE round fired from both the rifled and smoothbore cannons are fin stabilised, and do not spin.  The APFSDS designed for rifled barrels has a slip ring, so the ring bites the lands and spins, while the projectile doesn't spin.  "

And now you say it does "spin"

So what is it?

Sorry ...just pullin your chain, next to GW i'm have fun with you Lance,,,,,, I'll stop now. ;D


PS: tanks for some additional info/data in your posts.

 

[TANKIE]

Sorry to say this but the APFSDS does spin during flight due to it being produed by the rifling in the barrel and continues after leaving the barrel. :threat:

 

[TANKIE]

The two piece ammo on chally 2 is easy to load and it can be done in 2-3 seconds per round and thats fast loading for two piece ammo :skull:

 

[Lance Wiebe]

And on the barrels with no rifling?

And I have loaded a Challenger.  Sorry, nobody, not even superman can load a round that fast.

Even with the projectile in your hand, you have to open the gate, insert the projectile, open the propellant door, remove the propellent, close the door, feed the propellent into the chamber, close the breech, insert primer, and close the gate, then report "loaded".

A good Challenger crew can fire 6 rounds per minute.  For about one minute, then they slow down.  A really good M1 crew can get 8 out in the first minute with their one piece ammo.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Oh hey, 12 Alfa.

The offer of a beer is still open. 

 

[12alfa]

Oh hey, 12 Alfa.

The offer of a beer is still open.  

Stop teasing me!
You know the army does not let me drink anymore. LOL

 

[DOOG]

Lance..
12 Alpha doesn't drink beer. He drinks Bud.

 

[12alfa]

They call it the "KING of beers" for a reason!

Did you get your moralota working yet?

 

[TANKIE]

A good challenger 2 crew can get 9 rounds off in a minute and thats been recoded on film and a crew can get 3 hesh rounds off in 12 seconds 

 

[cpl forrester]

i agree thats at a push but if your a well trained gunner then yes you can and i would also like to add that its a part of the internal testing a commander will push you to c how much he can get out off you so he knows what you can do when the shit hits the fan

and also we do this all the time not just 5-20 times its like us steping into a Leo and banging out rounds like you do?

to differant layouts and gates and breaches

sorry but its well known with in the tank units in the UK that it can be done

and to reply to tanker its about 7 m1's that have been knocked out of service "so much for being the best package"
more America propaganda  and we all keep falling for it ............

need proof go to the posting called proof  :sniper:

 

[George Wallace]

i
need proof go to the posting called proof :sniper:

Thanks for clarifying that..... I was wondering what "proff" was supposed to mean.

If only you could use the Queen's English correctly I may have the chance to understand what you are trying to convey to us.

GW

 

[G .Dundas]

Thanks for clarifying that..... I was wondering what "proff" was supposed to mean.

If only you could use the Queen's English correctly I may have the chance to understand what you are trying to convey to us.

GW

  Careful George ,he may be a thirteen year old and as we all know they know "EVERYTHING"! Did'nt you at his age?

 

[cpl forrester]

13 lol i love you guys no im 30  just because my gramer aint that good dont mean that i cant do my good


if i was giving you fire support would you make a joke about it then

NO ......so get your head out of your arse lol

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheers mate.

Your about on par with a Brummie cousin of mine.  He can't speak neither.

;D

 

[Lance Wiebe]

i agree thats at a push but if your a well trained gunner then yes you can and i would also like to add that its a part of the internal testing a commander will push you to c how much he can get out off you so he knows what you can do when the crap hits the fan

and also we do this all the time not just 5-20 times its like us steping into a Leo and banging out rounds like you do?

to differant layouts and gates and breaches

sorry but its well known with in the tank units in the UK that it can be done

and to reply to tanker its about 7 m1's that have been knocked out of service "so much for being the best package"
more America propaganda  and we all keep falling for it ............

Can somebody translate this?  I have no idea what point, if any, he is trying to make.

 

[Kirkhill]

I believe Lance that the good Corporal was addressing this post by Tankie wherein Tankie asserted that your suggestion that a Challenger crew could only get off 6 rounds per minute was suspect.

A good challenger 2 crew can get 9 rounds off in a minute and thats been recoded on film and a crew can get 3 hesh rounds off in 12 seconds 

In response Corporal Forrester offers these observations in support of Tankie's position.

i agree thats at a push

Translation: I agree that that (9 Rds APFSDS per minute and 3 rds HESH in 12 seconds) requires a lot of effort

but if your a well trained gunner then yes you can

Translation: but it is possible for a well trained gunner

and i would also like to add that its a part of the internal testing a commander will push you to

Translation: and I would also like to add that its a part of the internal (presumably Regimental/Troop) testing a commander will drive you to

c how much he can get out off you so he knows what you can do when the crap hits the fan

Translation: to see how much he can get out of you so he knows what you can do when the next roun of unpleasantries eventuates

and also we do this all the time not just 5-20 times its like us steping into a Leo and banging out rounds like you do?

Translation: This is something we do on a regular basis, not just occasionally.  For us its our standard procedure and presumably much like the way that you punch out rounds on the Leo.

to differant layouts and gates and breaches

Translation: presumably this refers to the layout of the ranges but it is beyond the ability of this ex-infantry civilian to speculate

sorry but its well known with in the tank units in the UK that it can be done

Translation: apparently this standard of achievement is common knowledge in the Mother Country.

and to reply to tanker its about 7 m1's that have been knocked out of service "so much for being the best package"
more America propaganda  and we all keep falling for it ............

Translation: Apparently an assertion by tanker was incorrect, Cpl Forrester believes that 7 M1 Abrams have be knocked out/brewed up or rendered "hors de combat" and thus he questions the suggestion that the Abrams is the best vehicle, apparently suggesting that that statement is mere American marketing to which we all apparently succumb.

Translation ends.  Verification by Cpl Forrester requested. Over. ;D

Cheers

 

[cpl forrester]

thanks lol do u translate for free lmao.

will be more carfull what i type lol because the British don't eat a thesaurus on a regular basis.

we believe in action.

that speaks louder than words.

so from now on i will post like this!

as to not confuse you all.

also i would like to say that the point my well schooled translator said.

on the American marketing!....

an American genrial of the army said.

no m1 a2 was destroyed in combat in the recent actions in the gulf .

this statement is wrong.!

thats what i meant.

if an rpg hits a tank but the crew only have minnor injury's then it has done its job.
but if it lights up (catches on fire) then there clearly is a fault in its design

as the army's in the world swing to the idea that most wars will be rogue nations where insurgency will be the main factor.(men with rpgs and small arms/terrorists or small units of troops not well armed but with fundamental ideals)
then why is the "best" tank in the world not designed to deal with this

the fact that the American government is in sales talk with the Australian government over sales also most of the middle eastern
NATO/united nation contreys has no bearing on the statement "no m1a2 mbt was destroyed in combat"of course it has

the charm3 main gun means that with the rifled barrel this allows the gun to be used as an artilary piece (troop suppport) vital for the above said anti insergency roll as well as bunker and building clearance as it fires the hesh round giving it the edge in this roll above smooth bore main guns but also is more than capable of being used in the hunter killer roll this was the main factor in the design of the charm3

the British have worked on tactics for along time now and believe that in the tank hunter roles most fire will be to the front of
of the tank but also to the sides and now more so from above as most anti tank weapons employ the same type of technology as
the hellfire anti armour weapon "hit them from above" using the up-armour/passive/reinforced armour/plastic armour inserts in the effected areas
as keep them from being venerable from the likes of main gun ammo/rpg/guided missiles but then again every tank has a week spot-
the rear end but the advancement of new armours has helped this since the days of the challenger 1

the need for Du inserts has been raised, but seen as only develop if need as only NATO forces use these rounds i.e the united states.
the need is not there only if a rogue state employs the technology "not in the near future"
the threat is from blue on blue but advancements in communication and vehicle recognition will eliminate this threat

the power plant of the challenger 2
as we all know the power plant is the floor in all tanks the bigger the more power it provides
but in return the size of the tank increases also
so to keep it in the size that British transports can handle it could not be as large as the m1a2 power plant
this maybe a downfall but the extended range of challenger 2 is a plus
as the need for fuel is more Conservative

as the gulf war proved resupply of fuel the m1 was at times very stretched
as it was for all NATO forces but because of the extended range the challenger 2 had the edge
as it could always wait (but still have reserves to counter any forseeable threats) or move closer to supply's
this gave it an edge in the field.
the m1 did not have this luxury

hope this post is better if not feel free to translate it  ;D

 

[Genetk44]

Haveing just read about our $9 billion surplus I am just curious as to how much of that money it would cost to replace all of our present Leopards with the newest,most modern model Leopards and logistics/spares for them?
Just idle curiosity on my part.
Cheers
Gene