N-L-M

From: Mahapya Smith, Chief Engineer, SCHV department
To: Caliber Selection Committee, Rapid City Union Ammunition Plant
Enclosed is the final TDP for the new proposed round, 0.22 Rapier.
Following the Committee's advice, certain dimensions have been altered, to allow good growth margins, ease of manufacture, and low weight and cost, thus ensuring that this small but deadly bullet may best serve the needs of the scouts. Case head thicknesses have been reduced, as has case length, and the shoulder angle has increased to 25 degrees.
Following extensive field trials (see enclosed report), it has been decided to electrically bond the bullet core to the jacket. This advanced technological process ensures the best performance can be attained out of small bore bullets.
I and my faithful assistants, as the department, look forwards to your acceptance of this design; Initial batches have already been produced and tooling acquired for mass production, paid out of department funds.
 
From the personal diary of Mahpiya Smith
 When this RFP first came out, I was highly suspicious. While it's a common joke that nobody from the main offices would be caught dead in the "pest control" SCHV department, it appears to actually be true. For the past 4 years since I got the job of running the place (and it does get awfully lonely here sometimes), I have not seen anyone from the company other than the occasional runner. Were it not for the regular paychecks and occasional company-wide memos, one might even think I was shunted into a dead end job with no authority (or indeed employees), where the management can keep me out of both sight and mind. This RFP seemed tailor-made to be the final nail in my career's coffin. I must either submit a design, lose, and thereby lose my job, or fail to submit, be seen as useless, and again lose my job. In either case, the prospects are dim. A lone solution presented itself - deliver a nominally competitive design, but at minimal cost, while reporting moderate expenses. This approach means my pension fund will be, if not undamaged by my firing, at least strongly and creatively augmented. My totally-real-they-just-aren't-in-today assistants hired from the development budget, Gladys and Fred, have also aided the cause of moving project funds to where they actually belong.
Today I sent in the final draft. It'll take them a week to select a winner, another to write me a sufficiently patronizing letter of termination, and at least one more week to send in the wreckers to clear out the department shack and reclaim the tooling. By the time they get here, I should be long gone.

Interesting article about T-64 turrets by Andrey
https://warspot.ru/5447-probnye-shary-sovetskogo-tankostroeniya
 
 
 
 

   Turret with with ultraforcelain inserts (cylinders) from the technical project of “Izdelie 432”, 1961. They returned to this idea in 1968, but the final version was corundum balls KVP-98, which were produced by a ceramic factory in Slavyansk (assembly of inserts with balls). The very development of the turret from the project to the adoption in 1973 took 12 years.
 
 

   T-64 production model turret with aluminum filler
 

   T-64 production model turret with aluminum filler, overall sections. When fired, the turret with combined armor provided full protection against 85-mm and 100-mm HEAT shells (similar to 105-mm cumulative shells of NATO countries), 100-mm armor-piercing blunt-headed shells with in arc of ± 35 °
 
 

   The T-64 tank with a turret with aluminum filler and a upper frontal hull plate with "cheekbones".
 

   T-64 tank with a turret with aluminum filler and a straight upper frontal part of the hull, 1967
 
 
 

 
 
 

   Ceramic ball with diameter of 70 mm
 
 
 
   T-64A turret with ceramics
 
 

   Serial T-64A turret, sections
 
 
 

   View of IVth belt of the serial-production turret 
 
 

TO: THE SECOND JOINT COMMITTEE FOR CARTRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, RAPID CITY, DAKOTA UNION
 
Dear sirs,
 
We are saddened to confirm the death of Fudd 'Bigbore' Taylor, whose body was discovered in an apartment in Sioux Falls last week when we attempted to reach him for comment regarding forthcoming improvements to his recent submission to the committee according to your previous instructions. 
 
Here we should note that the circumstances of his death are still being investigated, although the initial police report has the cause of death as "self inflicted from siting (sic) on a big bullet". We will, of course, contact you immediately in this regard should any further relevant information come to light.
 
Regarding your other instructions; we were fortunately able to gather enough of his latest work to recreate the fundamentals of his design, and have sent the same to the Rapid City Union Ammunition Plant ("RCUAP") for further analysis and development. Copies of the photographs and transcripts of the blueprints will be duly sent to you by post, as the original blueprints are unfortunately not in a format suitable for transport by virtue of being written on the apartment walls. Test samples of the projectiles and cartridges developed by Mr Taylor will be delivered to the committee by courier at the earliest possible convenience.
 
Further; given the urgency of the work being undertaken by Mr Taylor on behalf of the Committee, as well as the nature of the agreement entered into by virtue of his submissions to yourselves, we believe that there are no legal impediments to continuing his work while the process of winding up his estate continues. We have accordingly instructed the engineers at the RCUAP on your behalf to begin work on the improvement and finalisation of the design.
 
Here we are given to understand that slight adjustments to the dimensions of the projectile have already been done in accordance with your instructions, and that these adjustments have yielded "a small projected decrease in drag (0.260 G7 BC), along with a small drop in weight (121.7gn)". The plant engineers have further confirmed that they will communicate directly with you on this matter in future.
 
We should note, however, that they have categorically refused to reduce the calibre of the projectile as you requested, with the explanation for the aforesaid refusal being that the spirit of the deceased "invades their collective dreams" whenever they attempt to do so.
 
Given all of the above, we trust that the present matter is finalised for the moment, and accordingly attach our invoice for your further consideration.  
 
With kind regards,
 
Chayton Jones
 
Smith, Jones and Wambleeska
Sioux Falls
Dakota Union

Some footage of the only LT vz.35 tank in running condition. In fact it's Pz.35(t) - naturally - as can be seen from the fact that it has four men crew instead of original three (the German modification of original Czechoslovak tanks added fourth crew member) including some shooting. You can see a lot of machine gun scars on the tank. It was originally captured by US Army and displayed in Aberdeen before getting back to Czechia some ten years ago or so. 
 
More of LT-35 driving.
 
Here preserved and running original LT-38. 
 
Praga AH-IV tankette driving, this tankette was exported to Sweden, Iran and other countries before WW2. It was never used by Czechoslovak army. You can see that it was pretty fast and nimble machine (although its engine is a bit more powerful today when it runs on modern petrol). 
 
Nicely done replica of tankette vz.33 running. This rather useless thing (modification of Carden Lloyed Mk.VI tankette) was actually fielded with the border units and even saw some combat with Sudettendeutsche Freikorps before the WW2.
 
In this reanectment event you can see running an armoured car Austin from Czechoslovak legion (1919), replica of Renault FT, original LT-38, replica of tankette vz.33, replica of armoured car vz.30.
 
A running LTP tank. Despite it being in Czechoslovak camo it is in fact an export predecessor of the LT-38. This particular one served in the army of Peru and fought against Equador. It served well in the high mountains for some 30-40 years. 
 

Having now delved into this issue a bit, the bias of the judging committee becomes clear. They are determined to snuff out the manly, big bore cartridge and replace everything with weak, womanly micro-bullets!
 
Well, two can play at that game. Here is the 5x58mm PoS (Poodle Shooter); a cartridge designed specifically to wound small animals and burn up barrels:


We considered other names: the 5x58mm WaNK (Wound and Not Kill), the .197 StFU (Stupid-small, Fast and Useless), the 19-55 Shamebringer and so on. We would be happy to elaborate on these monikers further should the committee so require.
 
The bullet (barely more than a pellet) is turned brass, because we cannot imagine anyone wanting to make the fiddly tooling to jacket it. The case is lacquer-coated steel, so that soldiers can waste ammunition more easily without so much as having to stoop to pick up expensive brass. Proof that it fulfils the despicable requirements of the biased commitee is provided below (OOC note: the BC is based on the Berger 6.5mm 140gn VLD bullet, using 0.307 G7 BC):
 



This includes the lower-velocity requirements:


I think we scarcely need to provide proof that such a pathetic round meets the recoil requirements - simply give weapons to women and children and ask them for their opinion (OOC note: 3.8186). Penetration is... uh, acceptable (OOC note: 27 1/2" pine boards, stopping in the 28th at 600y using the lower-velocity test cartridge).
 
Moving on: as to the economy of the round, the calculated value is 8.77 cents. This proves that, even when shooting such microscopic bullets, there is simply no value for money over the venerable M80! Given how expediently we intend our offering to be produced (because we intend to warn our government, not rob it), we cannot imagine that our competitors will do anything more than burn through tax-payer's money in their feckless pursuit of speed over power.
 
A final word: know that we, the designers, have seen through this comical charade and are one step ahead! We have now bought into a barrel making and rifling tooling company, in the expectation of making a fortune on future government contracts for worn-out barrels when this contract is inevitably handed to one of the small-bore "iconoclasts" that litter this great city.
 
In conclusion; we hope that the government of our great Dakota Union soon sees the light and kicks out the charlatans running this rigged competition out. Until then, we offer the 5x58mm PoS as a warning, and a plea to return to a more sensible procurement approach based on the stopping power of big bullets.
 
Edit: so, as @Sturgeon pointed out, I done goofed up with the bullet's BC. When you use something more appropriate, the bullet actually fails on the energy requirement. Which is just more proof of the inferiority of micro bullets! Etc etc.

Considering the base armor of the AMX-30, AP ammo could be side hits of 14.5 or 23mm. Against which any extra spaced steel, whether sandwiched with explosives or not, would be helpful.

And the first GAk-81 salvo:
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Part 4: Onslaught of German heavy armor
   We made a radio contact with our main forces and now they are under my command. We have a defensive line of AT guns and infantry ready for upcoming attack of tanks and other AFVs.

   Captured vehicles are used to cover left flank, near a hill with radio-carrier jeep.
 
 

   Left flank is under very heavy pressure.
 
 

   Left flank is completely overrun and enemy is moving for my main defense line.
 
 

   2nd defense line. We have a bit more time to prepare for German attack.
 
 

   Tanks arrived to help me to deal with those assaults. IS-2, T-34-85s, KV-85 are now under my command.
 
 

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/9dEX/djuwzbp4V

I've concluded that with my current pace of "processing" my photos of pages from some military-related magazines and books from and usually on 1950s-2010s, stored at Russian State Library, it would take months or years until finally done, 
so I've decided instead to upload it asap, "as is", with most uploaded by now, and few (in subfolders which would be available via the same link) in following couple of days. 

12-cm Mörser 16
 

 
 
 
 

heretic88; first of all...the quote I included above regarding the performance of the 122mm gun is from official Soviet sources...that's not my opinion. As far a performance against the M48 is concerned, I've dug-up reports that claim that the bow (or lower glacis), and the turret front can be penetrated by the D-25...also, a lot of the reporting available on the performance of the D-25 relates to testing of the BR-471 APHE and BR-471B APBC rounds, not the more capable BR-471D APCBC round. It's important to remember that according to authoritative Israeli sources, IDF M48s were knocked out by Egyptian IS-3s in 1967. So far, I haven't been able to confirm the AP rounds the Egyptians were using...it's possible that in combat, the significant amount of force created by being hit by a full-bore 122mm AP round alone did enough damage to knock out the Israeli tanks.
 
According to previously classified US reports, Soviet assault gun organizations used 122mm-armed assault guns at least through 1969/1970...including both the ISU-122S and the SU-122-54. Getting organizational details about the SU-122-54 is challenging since most of the details were highly classified at the time. You're right about medium tank regiments having an "SU" company, but it was more than "some" and included MRRs as well. According to official US references, both tank divisions and mechanized divisions had 122mm-armed assault guns. Some of the references include: 1955 = SAU-122 company, 1958 = SU-122 assault gun company, and 1964 = assault gun battery. In rifle divisions, by far, most of the regimental assault gun/tank destroyer companies were equipped with SU-100s. In some select cases however, those were replaced by SU-122-54s...confirmed in the 128th Guards Motorized Rifle Division for example (when they were deployed in Czechoslovakia during Operation Danube in 1968). It's likely, that the ISU-122S was pulled from front line service when the tank division Heavy Tank/Assault Gun Regiment was dropped and replaced by a third Medium Tank Regiment in the 1962-1964 timeframe.
 
IMO, it's much more likely that the ISU-122S was finally removed from service because the MBTs it was supporting evolved to the point where they simply no longer needed assault guns or gun-armed tank destroyers. That's also the likely reason that (AFAIK), the SU-122-54 wasn't ever seen supporting T-62-equipped units...only T-54/55 units. As far as gun accuracy is concerned, the D-10 is an excellent gun...with a good gunner, it could be very accurate. The advantage the SU-122-54 and it's D-49 main gun had was the use of the TKD-09 stereoscopic rangefinder. As a retired "Tankist" myself, I have a lot of experience with rangefinders...and I know what a good gunner can do with a rangefinder...especially at longer ranges. This system gave the SU-122-54 an accuracy advantage over all other fielded Soviet assault guns, tank destroyers, and tanks until the introduction of the T-64.
 
Finally, there are actually two surviving SU-122-54s; the one at Kubinka (which I have seen in person), and the one at the military museum in Krasnodar. The Krasnodar SU-122-54 is shown below:
 

 
 

So, a bit older than most of the things in this thread, but @Sturgeon and I noticed something while crunching numbers for the current competition-

If you take the 0 degree penetration of the 90mm HVAP and compare it to APDS, you get that it substantially over-performs according to the Demarre equation. Far beyond what you'd expect as reasonable error from Demarre. A possible explanation occurred to us- The HVAP has a heavy steel base, which on normal impact strikes the core from the rear like a hammer driving a nail, thus substantially raising its effective sectional energy.


 
This explanation also goes a long way to explain why it is that HVAP suffers so badly from sloped armor, much more than any other AP ammo type- much like trying to drive a nail at an angle, it skips rather than go in.

While waiting for the competitors to continue their work, I got bored and decided to produce a design at the other end of the scale:

This is the Maxcat, an experimental heavy wheeled AFV which uses a rather insane hydraulic drive system which uses three engines to power the 14 individually-articulating road wheels (each provided with hydraulic motor). The drive system is a power hog, and requires the use of an elaborate hydraulic control system to make it all work. The final wrinkle is that the inner set of wheels need a complex geared torsion bar system to provide the correct amount of travel using stubby torsion bars. 
 
The results are impressive, however: the Maxcat sports a 120mm/L60 gun with the same ballistics as the pre-war M58 (including a useful APDS round based on the one used in the old British L1A2), and has impressive survivability thanks to the large distances between the outer hull and the major components. The hull front has respectable KE resistance (260-350mm RHA equivalent depending on the angle and the region targeted) and frankly insane CE resistance (well over 1000mm of RHA equivalent in some places). The turret front is actually less protected over all, but still manages up to 270mm/750mm KE/CE resistance depending on the angle and area hit. The brow armour is also notable, and gets around 300mm/>1000mm KE/CE resistance against attacks from the front. The Maxcat weighs in at just under 70st unloaded, and hits the minimum range requirement by dint of six massive fuel tanks with a maximum capacity of just over 1150 gal. It hits 90km/h on roads, and will try to do the same offroad if the driver is foolish enough to open the throttle.
 
With all of the above, the Maxcat is designed to be an MBT in all but name - meant to take on all comers head-on and win. It would probably be an expensive, resource-devouring maintenance queen at base, but while out in the field it would be an unholy terror to anything foolish enough to get in its way.  

https://warspot.ru/17005-teoriya-bronetankovyh-zabluzhdeniy-tanki-v-chistom-pole-i-amerikanskie-stanki
   Yuri Pasholok's article about some of myths about Soviet armor (1943-1944).
 
   1. Turret ring diamter increase problems
 

    Translation of text:
   Is there an ability to increase turret ring of T-34 tank? Yes, they are. According to preliminary assesment ring can be made wider by 200mm.
   Is it possible for production to make it? Yes, Mariupol factory doesn't have any problems with it, factory N183 also have necessary machinery
 
 
 

   T-34-85 with 1600mm turret ring instead of 1430 during testing.
 
 
 
   2. SU-76M is bad
 

   Manual river crossing of the ZIS-3 cannon. Those wishing to tell that the SU-76M was a bad self-propelled gun can mentally send themselves to the place of one of the numbers of this crew
 
 

 
 
 
   3. About ISU-122 existance: myth and reality.
 

   The main reason for the appearance of the A-19 as a weapon for tanks and self-propelled guns. The demolished Tiger turret is the result of an A-19 armor-piercing shell hit from a 1.5 km
 
 

 
 

   Thanks to the ISU-122s, it was possible to reduce the requirements for the production of A-19 for self-propelled guns to 100 pieces per month. Nevertheless, the cases when the plant No. 172 did not keep up with the orders are not rare.
 
 
 
   4. About IS tanks
 

   To the question of when the D-25 was created. The middle of July 1943, and there is already a project of Object 240. The fighting on the Kursk Bulge is still ongoing
 
 

   Distance - 2000m. R50 (half of shots) - 72sm, R100 - 130 sm. "+" is point of aim, central part of the group is 10 sm above and 100sm to the right from point of aim.
   To the question of the accuracy of the D-25T. And such accuracy was achieved during standard warranty tests.
 
 

   One of the tanks that participated in the battle of Ternopol. The vehicle was hit, but, as you can see, served in the Red and Soviet armies for more than a decade
 
 

   In August 1944, the mass production of the IS-2 began with a straightened frontal part of the hull, which was significantly stronger than the original design
 
 
/..../
   6. Optics
 

   Visibility from T-34-85. During the war years, Soviet observation devices and sights made a big step forward
 
 

   For comparison, the visibility from the Panther. Loader is blind, the gunner looks only forward, only the commander can look on the sides. For this reason, defeats on the sides were a frequent result of the combat use of new generation of German tanks.
 
 

This is a thread I wanted to post in for a while, and now I'm getting around to it. Spoilered to avoid wall-of-text syndrome.

*weapons-grade naval autism warning*
 
The reason the US carriers are the size they are is pure capability. The 90kton carriers have significantly more capability than their smaller bretheren, for a few reasons.
There are a few notes I want to address on this point.
1. Deck size
 

 
2. Survivability
 

3. Force concentration
 

4. Why then, if big is so good, aren't they larger?

5.  Are carriers the future? 
 
There is more to say, and I may have a follow-up post at some point.

To defeat the Norman in the frontal arc you'd need around 300mm KE or around 400-450mm CE pen.
This translates to around 115mm BM-6 and around 80mm LP HEAT or 100mm HP HEAT.
At least as long as the Norman hasn't gotten its uparmor package yet...

Greetings all, I've been pulled on as a judge for this one, so none of the following should be construed as competition so much as... encouragement.
 
This is the Mogcat:



 
It's designed to exactly nail the minimum specs, while being relatively easy to produce and long-legged. It sports a 3"/76mm main gun, a bunch of machineguns and the sort of conveniences you'd expect from a late-40s design (gunner's panoramic sight, wet ammo racks, internal firefighting equipment and smoke launchers). It's otherwise very bare-bones, and comes in at all of 10.3st/9.3mt.
 
I'll add further specs as this goes along, but for the moment all you have to know is that this is the minimum, lowest bar that I can think of. This thing is intended to be the product of unimaginative minds working at what passes for the ordinance department in the Lone Free State - men who spent their lives designing incremental improvements on machineguns and recoilless guns, and think that their lightweight 3" gun is a world-beating novelty.
 
For what it's worth; what I would like to see is something that grabs the requirements by the balls and works out a way to wring something that can beat @N-L-M's Norman design in a reasonably fair fight out of the thin gruel that the Provisional Government has put out. Remember that the Texans don't know what they don't know - their official line is that the arrival of Deseret light tanks is some sort of shocking revelation. But they aren't stupid - the smarter engineers will already be looking at what they could do with their given automotive and gun tech, and what was achieved in the pre-war era, and are probably staying up late at night worrying about their conclusions.
 
Update 1:
I had a think last night, and decided to swap out the turret crew to a commander-loader and gunner configuration instead of the T-34-esque commander-gunner and loader configuration (now included with the rest of the pictures).
 
Here's a bonus picture of the vehicle in travel configuration - turret rearward and gun in cradle:

 
Update 2:
Here's some more stats on the vehicle, in the prescribed units...
 
Description
The Mogcat is a 6x6 armoured scout car designed for mobility and extended operations. The design boasts an innovative engine, drivetrain, suspension package and gun, all built with an eye to ruggedness and light weight. The Mogcat's 3-inch cannon is able to provide useful anti-armour (APHE and HEAT-FS) and anti-infantry (HE, canister and shrapnel shell) firepower, while the plethora of machineguns it sports allows it to tackle dismounted infantry and light vehicles with confidence. The combination of purpose-built drivetrain components, long operational range and firepower makes the Mogcat a strong contender for the present production contract.
 
Major dimensions and mass
Crew: 3 (driver, commander-loader, gunner)
Length: 16'/9" (hull), 19"/4' (gun forward)
Width: 6'/7"m
Height: 9'/6"m (top of commander’s cupola)
Unloaded weight:  8.7 ton
Loaded weight:  10.3 ton
Ground pressure: 4900lb/ft2 (unloaded, muddy ground) to 5785lb/ft2 (loaded, muddy ground)
Axle loading: 3.4t/axle loaded
 
Mobility
Engine: 4-cylinder turbodiesel, 732cu displacement, 200-280HP
PWR: 19.4HP/t loaded, detuned
Ground clearance: 17.7"
Max road speed: 60mph
Max offroad speed: 20mph
Operational range (on road/offroad): 850mi/500mi
 
Protection
 
Armour:
2" LOS on hull front (1" RHA @ 60°)
0.8" LOS on hull sides with 30° angle (0.8" RHA @ 90°, 0.5"mm @ 45°)
0.6" RHA on hull rear
0.5" LOS on hull bottom (0.4" RHA @ 45°)
2" LOS on turret front (1.8" RHA @ 30°)
2" CHA mantlet
0.8" LOS on turret sides with 30° angle (0.6" RHA @ 25°)
0.6" RHA on turret rear
0.4" RHA on roof
0.4" RHA on turret floor
2" RHA turret neck ring and splash guard
0.4" Aluminium turret basket, skeletonised
 
3.2" smoke dischargers (2 reloads).
Fuel tanks on driver’s sides improve protection against threats from the front.
Ammunition stowage in wet racks in turret bustle, turret floor and driver’s compartment.
Internal fire control system (BCF canisters in engine compartment and fighting compartment, driver has access to removable CO2 extinguisher).
 
Firepower
 
Turret ring diameter: 4'/5"
Main gun: 3" L/40 medium-pressure gun, 12" recoil travel
Ammunition stowage: 50 rounds main gun ammunition stowage
+30/-10 degree elevation.
Ammunition:
3"x15.2" cartridge (3.7" base, 19lb max all-up weight)
APHE: 13.9lb, 2425ft/s, 3.5" RHA penetration at 1000m
HEAT-FS: 15.4lb, 2295ft/s, 9.8" penetration
HE: 13.7lb (1.35lb fill), 2460ft/s, 0.4" RHA penetration
APFSDS (spindle-type, 15L/D ratio, maraging steel penetrator): 1.5lb, 5900ft/s, 6.5" RHA penetration at 1000 yards.
Secondary weapons:
.30 cal coaxial MG (600 rnds)
.30 cal gunner's MG (600 rnds)
.50 cal commander’s MG (500 rnds)
 
Additional features
 
Long-range transistor radio.
Vehicle intercom system.
Ancillaries (fire tables, gunner’s quadrant, traverse markings etc) for indirect fire missions.
Commander has access to panoramic sight (x1) and telescopic sight (x4) for target acquisition and lay-on.
Turret traverse is electric (30 degrees per second rotation).
Fume extractor on main gun
Large hatches in hull rear allow easy servicing of engine and gearbox.
Storage lockers in hull rear flanking the engine for personal/supplies stowage.
Hydraulic jacks on the hull bottom between the first and second wheels and at the rear make changing tires easier.
 
Update 3: I reworked all the images.

No, definitely a 1 or 2.
The merkava 3, 4, and Namer have individual swing arms, the mounts for which are these large bases built into the hull side. The lack of such mounts means it must be a Merk 1 or 2, where the arms are attached to the bogies which are mounted to the hull.

This is a Namer hull, but the idea is the same. There are a few pics of merkava 3s with the swing arm ripped off where you can see it more clearly but my Google fu is weak.
In the pic posted earlier there's no sign of these swing arm hub bases.

No, definitely a 1 or 2.
The merkava 3, 4, and Namer have individual swing arms, the mounts for which are these large bases built into the hull side. The lack of such mounts means it must be a Merk 1 or 2, where the arms are attached to the bogies which are mounted to the hull.

This is a Namer hull, but the idea is the same. There are a few pics of merkava 3s with the swing arm ripped off where you can see it more clearly but my Google fu is weak.
In the pic posted earlier there's no sign of these swing arm hub bases.

You could always just hose down everything with a 100 round burst 

I was tempted to mount ye old M135 demolition cannon as a secondary mount to meet the HE requirement while being under armor. I am quite certain the 165mm HEP round would satisfy even the most ardent of rangers.
 

After review of firing trials, the Rangers approve cutting that spec significantly, to 1.6 lb or 26 oz HE fill, approximately the fill of a so called "75mm" 3 inch M48 HE shell of old.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
 

After review of firing trials, the Rangers approve cutting that spec significantly, to 1.6 lb or 26 oz HE fill, approximately the fill of a so called "75mm" 3 inch M48 HE shell of old.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
 

Improved hull:

 
Currently 5,38 Metric Ton.