Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Molota_477

Something interesting, the British tanks autoloader

Recommended Posts

When I read a book in Chinese ''坦克技术概论'',I found a pic showed below, it looks like a T-72s autoloader,but actually it was mounted on British tank,maybe the Centurion.I try to search for the source but I failed.

post-1581-0-10821500-1461210512_thumb.jpg

Is there anyone have more information about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honestly drawing nothing but blanks on what British tanks used an autoloader even experimentally.

 

Does it say anything about the shell diameter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

110mm? Judging by that, I'm guessing it's for the British rifled gun they pitched to the US as an upgrade to for XM1 Abrams before the 120mm M256 was ultimately chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, after searching, it would appear that the exact model of gun, judging by the projectiles and propellant charges depicted in the photo, are that of the EXP-14 series, apparently there was alot more then just 1 simple 110mm design but a rather long series of 110mm and eventually 120mm gun systems that ultimately lead to the L30 according to Colli.

 

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/39366-Experimental-110-apds-tank-round

 

I had to sign up here to see them, but this man has some inert EXP-14 charges and projectiles that look identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, after searching, it would appear that the exact model of gun, judging by the projectiles and propellant charges depicted in the photo, are that of the EXP-14 series, apparently there was alot more then just 1 simple 110mm design but a rather long series of 110mm and eventually 120mm gun systems that ultimately lead to the L30 according to Colli.

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/39366-Experimental-110-apds-tank-round

I had to sign up here to see them, but this man has some inert EXP-14 charges and projectiles that look identical.

I have created an account of there but have no permission to see the attachments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have created an account of there but have no permission to see the attachments

 

Have to wait for a mod to approve you, it took me a few hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3hc2Tfc.jpg?1

Interesting - it looks like a two-part ammunition setup (which fits for both autoloaders and the British) that tracks the gun breech. Depending on when it was developed, this might either be a pretty smart move or the dumbest thing ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's some iteration of this series of 110mm ammo development, third from left in this picture, which LooSeR posted before:

 

L9ILm83.jpg

 

 

Xlucine explained this to me over teamspeak.  Remember how an L7 is basically just a 20 pounder with a wider bore and the cartridge case necked out to 105mm?  The Brits tried to get lightning to strike again by necking out the case one more time, 'til it was completely straight-walled to make a new 110mm gun.  The idea was to have something that would be an easy drop-in upgrade for the L7, just like how the L7 was an easy drop-in upgrade for the 20 pounder.  Since basically all of NATO except the British were using L7s at this point, the potential sales were enormous.

 

Guns are basically piston engines that throw their pistons down range, so going up in caliber is basically the same thing as boring out the cylinders in a motor.  But the difference in swept volume between a 105mm tube and a 110mm tube isn't enormous; a little less than 10%.  So to get more performance they started running up the pressures.  This led to the cases sticking and not extracting properly, so they went to a semi-combustible case design, which is what you see above.

 

As the gun was developed further, the case stub got smaller and smaller until it went away entirely and the design was switched to bagged ammo.  Only thing was, by this point the pressure was so high that the breech obturator ring design from the L11 would not work and they had to come up with something better.  This breech design was recycled in the 120mm L30 on the challenger 2.  So there you go; despite using the same HESH ammunition, the L30 is actually a development of the L7, not the L11.

 

Like most ideas in British tank design, the 110mm EXP-7/EXP-14/EXP-whatever was obsolete by the time it was ready for prime time.  The British were completely, stubbornly convinced that rifled guns firing APDS were the way to go, well into the 1970s when everyone else in NATO had stopped dicking around with gun-launchers and figured out that smoothbore and APFSDS were the correct choice.  As usual they were way behind the Soviets, whose T-62 design had a smoothbore gun, had already seen combat, and was already in the process of being replaced with a next generation vehicle!

 

You can also see that it uses two-piece ammo, which is basically the way to go if you're firing APDS.  It also looks like some of the propellant charge lives with the sabot.  Very Soviet.

 

Oddly, this exact diagram shows up as a generic diagram for an autoloader on the army-guide article on autoloaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it back, that's not propellant living with the sabot.  That's two rows of big propellant charges.  It's totally unclear to me from that picture where the projectiles live.  Is that smeared blur near the middle of the carousel the sabot?  Is this like a double-stacked T-72 autoloader?  If so then how the hell did they plan on shooting their beloved HESH rounds?

 

British tank design is Kurt Cobain; occasional spasms of cleverness amidst a corpus of generally mediocre work that is for some reason praised to the heavens.  HESH is their Courtney Love; a weird dalliance from the past that they have indecorously and inexplicably held to that is holding them back and making them do stupid things.  Also both British tank design and Kurt Cobain are dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After my compares,this may just be an idea from a small company,never built and have little attraction ,

and we see the rounds holding into the loader (it should be APFSDS,as we can see the saddle shaped sabot is there),it is highly possible a 120mm ammunition,but i can't figure out the date when this idea cames out,not sure is it reference the same idea from T-72 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After my compares,this may just be an idea from a small company,never built and have little attraction ,

and we see the rounds holding into the loader (it should be APFSDS,as we can see the saddle shaped sabot is there),it is highly possible a 120mm ammunition,but i can't figure out the date when this idea cames out,not sure is it reference the same idea from T-72 .

 

It was built into several series, and eventually evolved into the L30 used on the Challenger series of tanks, but it didn't achieve it's goal of getting full NATO approval like the L7 did that the British were hoping for. Which was mostly due to the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 and later L/55 winning out instead in most countries, or some countries developing their own guns that fired the same ammunition as the Rheinmetall. (The Leclerc and Merkava are examples of tanks that use the 120mm NATO chambering but don't use the Rheinmetall gun.)

 

Colli's explanation sums it up pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Here at Sturgeon's House, we do not shy from the wholesale slaughter of sacred cows.  That is, of course, provided that they deserve to be slaughtered.
       
      The discipline of Military Science has, perhaps unavoidably, created a number of "paper tigers," weapons that are theoretically attractive, but really fail to work in reality.  War is a dangerous sort of activity, so most of the discussion of it must, perforce, remain theoretical.  Theory and reality will at some point inevitably diverge, and this creates some heartaches for some people.  Terminal, in some cases, such as all those American bomber crews who could never complete a tour of duty over Fortress Europe because the pre-war planners had been completely convinced that the defensive armament of the bombers would be sufficient to see them through.
       
      In other cases though, the paper tiger is created post-facto, through the repetition of sloppy research without consulting the primary documents.  One of the best examples of a paper tiger is the Tiger tank, a design which you would think was nearly invincible in combat from reading the modern hype of it, but in fact could be fairly easily seen off by 75mm armed Shermans, and occasionally killed by scout vehicles.  Add to this chronic, never-solved reliability problems, outrageous production costs, and absurd maintenance demands (ten hours to change a single road wheel?), and you have a tank that really just wasn't very good.
       
      And so it is time to set the record straight on another historical design whose legend has outgrown its actual merit, the British EM-2:
       

       
      EM-2ology is a sadly under-developed field of study for gun nerds.  There is no authoritative book on the history and design of this rifle.  Yes, I am aware of the Collector's Grade book on the subject.  I've actually read it and it isn't very good.  It isn't very long, and it is quite poorly edited, among other sins devoting several pages to reproducing J.B.S. Haldane's essay On Being the Right Size in full.  Why?!!?!!
       
      On top of that, there's quite a bit of misinformation that gets repeated as gospel.  Hopefully, this thread can serve as a collection point for proper scholarship on this interesting, but bad design.
       
      Question One:  Why do you say that the EM-2 was bad?  Is it because you're an American, and you love trashing everything that comes out of Airstrip One?  Why won't America love us?  We gave you your language!  PLEASE LOVE ME!  I AM SO LONELY NOW THAT I TOLD THE ENTIRE REST OF EUROPE TO FUCK OFF.
       
       
      Answer:  I'm saying the EM-2 was a bad design because it was a bad design.  Same as British tanks, really.  You lot design decent airplanes, but please leave the tanks, rifles and dentistry to the global superpower across the pond that owns you body and soul.  Oh, and leave cars to the Japanese.  To be honest, Americans can't do those right either.
       
      No, I'm not going to launch into some stupid tirade about how all bullpup assault rifle designs are inherently a poor idea.  I would agree with the statement that all such designs have so far been poorly executed, but frankly, very few assault rifles that aren't the AR-15 or AK are worth a damn, so that's hardly surprising.  In fact, the length savings that a bullpup design provides are very attractive provided that the designer takes the ergonomic challenges into consideration (and this the EM-2 designers did, with some unique solutions).
       
      Actually, there were two problems with the EM-2, and neither had anything to do with being a bullpup.  The first problem is that it didn't fucking work, and the second problem is that there was absolutely no way the EM-2 could have been mass-produced without completely re-thinking the design.
       
      See this test record for exhaustive documentation of the fact that the EM-2 did not work.  Points of note:
       
      -In less than ten thousand rounds the headspace of two of the EM-2s increased by .009 and .012 inches.  That is an order of magnitude larger than what is usually considered safe tolerances for headspace.
       
      -The EM-2 was less reliable than an M1 Garand.  Note that, contrary to popular assertion, the EM-2 was not particularly reliable in dust.  It was just less unreliable in dust than the other two designs, and that all three were less reliable than an M1 Garand.
       
      -The EM-2 was shockingly inaccurate with the ammunition provided and shot 14 MOA at 100 yards.  Seriously, look it up, that's what the test says.  There are clapped-out AKs buried for years in the Laotian jungle that shoot better than that.
       
      -The EM-2 had more parts breakages than any other rifle tested.
       
      -The EM-2 had more parts than any other rifle tested.
       
      -The fact that the EM-2 had a high bolt carrier velocity and problems with light primer strikes in full auto suggests it was suffering from bolt carrier bounce.
       
       
      As for the gun being completely un-suited to mass production, watch this video:
       
       
       
      Question Two:  But the EM-2 could have been developed into a good weapon system if the meanie-head Yanks hadn't insisted on the 7.62x51mm cartridge, which was too large and powerful for the EM-2 to handle!
       
      Anyone who repeats this one is ignorant of how bolt thrust works, and has done zero research on the EM-2.  In other words, anyone who says this is stupid and should feel bad for being stupid.  The maximum force exerted on the bolt of a firearm is the peak pressure multiplied by the interior area of the cartridge case.  You know, like you'd expect given the dimensional identities of force, area and pressure, if you were the sort of person who could do basic dimensional analysis, i.e. not a stupid one.
       
      Later version of the British 7mm cartridge had the same case head diameter as the 7.62x51mm NATO, so converting the design to fire the larger ammunition was not only possible but was actually done.  In fact, most the EM-2s made were in 7.62x51mm.  It was even possible to chamber the EM-2 in .30-06.
       
      I'm not going to say that this was because the basic action was strong enough to handle the 7x43mm, and therefore also strong enough to handle the 7.62x51mm NATO, because the headspace problems encountered in the 1950 test show that it really wasn't up to snuff with the weaker ammunition.  But I think it's fair to say that the EM-2 was roughly equally as capable of bashing itself to pieces in 7mm, 7.62 NATO or .30-06 flavor.
       
       
      Question Three:  You're being mean and intentionally provocative.  Didn't you say that there were some good things about the design?
       
      I did imply that there were some good aspects of the design, but I was lying.  Actually, there's only one good idea in the entire design.  But it's a really good idea, and I'm actually surprised that nobody has copied it.
       
      If you look at the patent, you can see that the magazine catch is extremely complicated.  However, per the US Army test report the magazine and magazine catch design were robust and reliable.
       
      What makes the EM-2 special is how the bolt behaves during a reload.  Like many rifles, the EM-2 has a tab on the magazine follower that pushes up the bolt catch in the receiver.  This locks the bolt open after the last shot, which helps to inform the soldier that the rifle is empty.  This part is nothing special; AR-15s, SKSs, FALs and many other rifles do this.
       
      What is special is what happens when a fresh magazine is inserted.  There is an additional lever in each magazine that is pushed by the magazine follower when the follower is in the top position of the magazine.  This lever will trip the bolt catch of the rifle provided that the follower is not in the top position; i.e. if the magazine has any ammunition in it.
       
      This means that the reload drill for an EM-2 is to fire the rifle until it is empty and the bolt locks back, then pull out the empty magazine, and put in a fresh one.  That's it; no fussing with the charging handle, no hitting a bolt release.  When the first magazine runs empty the bolt gets locked open, and as soon as a loaded one is inserted the bolt closes itself again.  This is a very good solution to the problem of fast reloads in a bullpup (or any other firearm).  It's so clever that I'm actually surprised that nobody has copied it.
       
      Question Four:  But what about the intermediate cartridge the EM-2 fired?  Doesn't that represent a lost opportunity vis a vis the too powerful 7.62 NATO?
       
      Sort of, but not really.  The 7mm ammunition the EM-2 fired went through several iterations, becoming increasingly powerful.  The earliest versions of the 7mm ammunition had similar ballistics to Soviet 7.62x39mm, while the last versions were only a hair less powerful than 7.62x51mm NATO.
       
      As for the 7mm ammunition having some optimum balance between weight, recoil and trajectory, I'm skeptical.  The bullets the 7mm cartridges used were not particularly aerodynamic, so while they enjoyed good sectional density and (in the earlier stages) moderate recoil, it's not like they were getting everything they could have out of the design.
       

      note the flat base
       
      In addition, the .280 ammunition was miserably inaccurate.  Check the US rifle tests; the .280 chambered proto-FAL couldn't hit anything either.
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       

×
×
  • Create New...