Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

The main problem with the L30 isn't the fact that it's rifled, it's the fact that the propellant charge is pathetic.

Here's a picture of various L30 ammunition from @SH_MM's blog:

JTE14Lc.jpg

Now here's a picture of Rheinmetall 120mm ammunition:
 

 

36ErssN.jpg


Both have (within mm) identical caliber, so you can easily scale the images based on the width of the projectile.

Or, you don't even have to, because it's really obvious that the L30 ammunition is straight-walled while the Rheinmetall 120mm is bottlenecked, and is thus burning oodles more propellant with each shot.  Max chamber pressure is similar too, although the German gun may have a small edge.  Bottom line though is that the German gun turns a lot more nitrocellulose into boom with each shot, and its projectiles therefore kill things deader.

The design of the L30 breech is quite clever, and allows slight economy in the weight and size of the ammunition.  As you can see, it entirely lacks the metallic obturating case at the bottom of each cartridge.  A gun with an L30 style breech mechanism with bottlenecked, one-piece caseless ammunition would really be something.

I doubt this affects performance in the tank biathlon at all, although it is possible that the Leo 2 has received some FCS upgrades that the Chally 2 has no equivalent to.  Chally 2, hell, the entire British military has been cash-strapped and hurting for critical upgrades for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

although it is possible that the Leo 2 has received some FCS upgrades that the Chally 2 has no equivalent to.  Chally 2, hell, the entire British military has been cash-strapped and hurting for critical upgrades for years.

 

I totally forgot the Chally 2 also has the same FCS as it did in 1998 (along with armor, gun, 1200hp engine)... now 20 years old. I feel like Britain is competing with Germany on how quickly they can self destruct their country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord_James said:

 

I totally forgot the Chally 2 also has the same FCS as it did in 1998 (along with armor, gun, 1200hp engine)... now 20 years old. I feel like Britain is competing with Germany on how quickly they can self destruct their country. 

Germany at least keeps a small # of vehicles to close to top standard.  Upgrade programs should get an obsolete Leo 2 fleet up to date as quickly as you can get them through your factories.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Roman Alymov of tanknet; the Ukrainian’s low offensive scoring might be related to the tanker in this video complaining about the dugouts being made for Abrams and therefore too tall for a T-84, which blocked their view.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Germany won.

 

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/280177/germany-takes-prize-strong-europe-tank-challenge-winner

 

Sweden got the second place, Austria came in third. Like last year, the lower places probably won't be officially revealed.

 

last I checked, 810 > 763: 

 

7 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

DfG_l9_W0AEvuds.jpg

 

... or is this chart wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

last I checked, 810 > 763: 

 

 

... or is this chart wrong? 

 

There are other events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Serge said:

What ?

Leclerc MBT are not last !

 

Makes my day. 

 

Well if the numbers for the scores are to be trusted, there is only 86 points of difference between the US and the French team.

So between the 4th and the 7th place the contenders could as well be considered equals.

 

The Ukrainian will most likely always struggle because I don't think that they use standard NATO procedures (or something close to it) so those kinds of events will always be slightly different to what they are trained to.

Put a western crew with a western tank (hypothetically) on the tank biathlon and they will perform equally bad.

 

Dat edit war on the wiki page though xD

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strong_Europe_Tank_Challenge&action=history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well if the numbers for the scores are to be trusted, there is only 86 points of difference between the US and the French team.

So between the 4th and the 7th place the contenders could as well be considered equals.

 

The Ukrainian will most likely always struggle because I don't think that they use standard NATO procedures so those kinds of events will always be slightly different to what they are trained to.

Put a western crew with a western tank (hypothetically) on the tank biathlon and they will perform equally bad.

Tank biathlon has WARPACT procedures?! :blink:

:lol:BEST-JOKE-EVER!!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

Well if the numbers for the scores are to be trusted, there is only 86 points of difference between the US and the French team.

So between the 4th and the 7th place the contenders could as well be considered equals.

 

The Ukrainian will most likely always struggle because I don't think that they use standard NATO procedures (or something close to it) so those kinds of events will always be slightly different to what they are trained to.

Put a western crew with a western tank (hypothetically) on the tank biathlon and they will perform equally bad.

 

Dat edit war on the wiki page though xD

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strong_Europe_Tank_Challenge&action=history

 

Yeah there are distinct groups in the scores.

 

Germany, Sweden

Austria

France, Poland, UK, US

Ukraine

 

I wish they gave a more detailed breakdown, its kind of a what?!? that the US got 7th and yet won the seperate Shoot-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the website of the Austrian Truppendienst magazine (the official magazine of the Austrian military), a summary has been published by the Major of the Panzerbataillon 14:

 

https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/beitraege/artikel/die-setc18-im-rueckblick/

 

  • The Swedish team didn't finish first, because one of their soldiers got an injury during the last task, the "tanker olympics". Sweden got the last place in this discipline as a result.
  • The Polish team didn't bring its own training ammunition (is there a shortage in the Polish army?), so they did all live fire tests with high explosive ammunition (!). As this was proper HE ammo and not HE training/practice ammo, they were always the last to shoot (the hosts didn't want to replace the targets in the middle of the competition). This might also explain the poor score compared to other Leopard 2 users...
  • Leclerc required more maintenance than other tanks, but French army send more/better people to take care of that
  • Aparently the rules of the competition were slightly changed, so that having a three men crew wasn't indirectly punished (i.e. three men crews had to do less in certain competitions than four men crews). The Leclerc did a poor job at spotting targets.
  • The UK might reconsider the idea of equipping one tank regiment with AJAX vehicles, because  the Challenger 2 performed quite well. Supposedly the better shooting results of tanks with smoothbore guns might affect the decision wether the Challenger 2 LEP will adopt such a gun or keep the old rifled one.
  • The T-84's fire control system did not perform (significantly) worse than that of NATO tanks. The old Soviet-derived autoloader provided similar reload speeds compared to the manned tanks.The crews had combat experience and knew how to properly deal with drones (something that the US team apparently didn't knew).
  • Originally another German team was meant to participate, but a short time before the competition it was swapped. Still they were giving some preparattion. The Germans had higher physical fitness than others.
  • The stabilizer of (one or multiple) Leopard 2A6 tanks from Germany failed due to the unexpectedly high temperatures (and probably because they weren't replaced in the past years, as spare parts are low...). The gunners of the Leopard 2A6 tank(s) could compensate the lack of a stabilizer to some extend.
  • Germany will co-host next year's SETC aswell, but the Bundeswehr decided that they will only send teams to the challenge, which never participated before.
  • Canada, Croatia, Denmark ,Greece, Switzerland and the Netherlands had observers at the competition. Canada and Denmark will definetly not participate next year (Canada has no tanks in Europe, Denmark is switching from Leopard 2A5 to 2A7), the other countries might.
2 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

Tank biathlon has WARPACT procedures?! :blink:

 

It doesn't? Given that half of the participants are former members of the Warsaw Pact, I would expect that it might include some...

 

6 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

I wish they gave a more detailed breakdown, its kind of a what?!? that the US got 7th and yet won the seperate Shoot-off.

 

I've read different things regarding this shoot-off. Some sources say that it was the "inofficial" 14th task (the SETC however only included 13 rated tasks, unless something was changed from last year), which not all contenders did serious (like the Swedes according to the Truppendienst article). Based on videos the  "shoot-off" seems to be done from static positions at a shooting range with the targets being clearly visible. The offensive and defensive ops (for which exact scores were leaked) are also including gunnery, but from the move and without always knowing the location of the targets (the crews have to spot them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Yeah there are distinct groups in the scores. 

 

Germany, Sweden

Austria

France, Poland, UK, US

Ukraine

 

I wish they gave a more detailed breakdown, its kind of a what?!? that the US got 7th and yet won the seperate Shoot-off.

 

A bit more communication on those events wouldn't hurt indeed.

Besides that it would makes some extra cookies for our tank nerd community, it would help to show to the general public that even with the current mess on transatlantic relations operational cooperation is still going on nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

On the website of the Austrian Truppendienst magazine (the official magazine of the Austrian military), a summary has been published by the Major of the Panzerbataillon 14:

 

https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/beitraege/artikel/die-setc18-im-rueckblick/

Is that an official press organism because, some statements are pure BS.
All trials are crew based which allows to have three and four man crews without disparity in the scoring.
Nobody from French Army got sent to Graffenwöhr after the fact.
Spotting targets... they mean the SITREP trial???

 

 

37 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

It doesn't? Given that half of the participants are former members of the Warsaw Pact, I would expect that it might include some...

It's just a dumb biathlon... They run in circle, shoot stuff. Get penalties if they miss...
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was posted on 4chan with a timestamp of a medal so it might be legit.

 

Quote

I was the commander on one of the Swedish tanks.


We trained for 4 months before SETC. The Germans trained for a full year. They have already selected their crews for next year and are probably gonna start training soon.

Sweden only lost to Germany since we came in last in the "Tanker Olympics".
That is because we had one guy fall and injure his knee during the event.

 

 

 

twEuhGz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, some countries like the Ukraine even have competitions to decide which crew will be send to Grafenwoehr. However as mentioned earlier, the German unit didn't know one year ahead of time that they will participate at SETC 2018, because the original plans saw another unit participating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:55 PM, Xlucine said:

The US team really win on style points, hopefully we see the other teams following suit next year

 

You are kidding.....They almost missed the yellow car!  :lol:

 

The Challenger was clearly the winner with its perfect execution of the white people-carrier.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Monochromelody
      各位最近可能在WT论坛上见过这张图片,在一些争论陆上自卫队90式战车的讨论串里:
      Some of you may have seen this pic recently on WT forum, in some thread arguing the protection of JGSDF Type 90: 
      Discussion on WT forum
       

       
      我就直说吧,表格里的中文注解说了,这不过是个“猜想”,GUESSING。
      To be straight, the Chinese annotation in the table said it is just a GUESSING.
      注解内容可能完全是编造的,但不幸的是,不同语言间的障碍使你们无法看穿这点。
      This annotation could be totally nonsense but unfortunately a barrier between languages prevent you guys see throught it. 
       
      实际上,这又是一份关于陆上自卫队10式战车的文件,说的并不是90式。
      In fact, again, this document itself is about JGSDF Type 10 MBT, not Type 90.
      同样的花招,不一样的人,是吧?
      Same trick, different people, huh?

      ↑陆上自卫队的10式战车规格书
      JGSDF specification handbook of Type 10 MBT

      ↑59页,附录B,性能(规定)以及诸元
      page 59, Appendix B, performance (regulations) and data
       
      下面简要说说这些性能规定如何编写、如何加密。
      Let's talk about these regulations and how they were made and encrypted. 
       
      大家可能知道日语中有平假名和片假名,和拉丁语中的字母还有大写字母是差不多的。
      You may know that Japanese have Hirakana and Katakana, like Latin have letters and capital letters. 
       
      正如图中所示,一些最关键的数值和描述用平假名、片假名、罗马字(拉丁字母)隐去了。
      As you can see, some of the most crucial numbers and descriptions are covered by a Hirakana or Katakana or Romaji(Latin letters).
       
      这些数值和描述被归在一起,编入附属的手册,称为“别册”。
      These numbers and descriptions were collected and listed in some append book, called Bessatsu(別冊). 
       
      在查阅别册时,就好比在看试卷的答题卡。但如果把别册里面的数值和描述涂黑,你就根本不知道说啥。
      When you look up to the append book, just like viewing the answer sheet of an exam paper. But when numbers and descriptions were censored, you'll never know what it said. 
       
      比如说,正面防护:
      For example, the frontal protection: 
       
      “耐弾性 - 正面 - 正面要部は、【あ】に射距離【え】m相当存速において、貫徹されない。”
       
      读起来是这样的:
      耐弹性 - 正面 - 正面重要部位可抵御【あ】以相当于射击距离【え】米存速的射击,不会贯穿。
      It read like this: 
      Protection - Frontal - Frontal crucial part should withstand 【あ】 firing at a distance of 【え】meter speed reduce equivalent, and not penetrate. 
       
      【あ】代表某种弹药,可能是尾翼稳定穿甲弹,但不知道是量产弹种还是实验弹种。
      【あ】stands for certain type of ammunition, probably APFSDS, but don't know whether it is production shot or experimental.
       
      【え】代表某个射击距离,可以是1000、1500或2000(米),但这么远的距离,炮弹会受到风力和重力影响,故无法精确瞄准靶车的防护区域。
      【え】stands for certain firing distance, could be 1000 , 1500 or 2000 (meters), but on such a long distance, shot could be effect by wind and gravity, thus cannot aim on the protection area of target vehicle precisely.
       
      一个常见的解决方式是在更近的距离上开火,比如说200到550米,同时减少推进药量,使得穿甲弹的终点速度符合特定距离的速降。这是一种等效方法。
      The usual solution is to fire from a much closer range, from 200 to 550 meters, while reducing the propellant charge so that the end speed of AP shot could match the speed drop on certain distance. This is an equivalant method. 
       
      有的人争辩说90式战车可以抵挡另一辆90式战车发射的穿甲弹(JM33),距离大约250米。这一说法源自一段未知视频片段,具体什么视频他们自己也没看过。较近的射击距离是为了能更好的瞄准,为此可能使用了减装药来模拟远距离终点速度,但也无法证明。
      Some people argue that Type 90 MBT can withstand AP shot (JM33) firing from another Type 90 MBT, on a distance about 250 meters. The source of this statement came from an unknown video clip, which they have never seen. Firing on closer range is for better aim, and they could have use reduced charge to simulate a much longer range, but we cannot prove. 
       
       
    • By Toxn
      Part 5 of a multi-part series. This one's got the goods.
       



      Sherman and firefly.
       


      Early crusader.
       

      Early Valentine. The British really went through a phase where they slapped 2 pounders onto everything.
       



      Father.
       


      Son.
       

      Holy ghost.
       

      Comet, aka Hipster Centurion.
       

      Centurion, aka The entire History of South African tanks post-WW2.
       




      T-shirt cannon Churchill.
       

      Combat engineers get no respect.
       

      This thing is tiny and has an insane steering system.
       


      Somehow this thing is even smaller. Those twin barrels are for a flamethrower of some sort, because the Italians were world-class optimists.
       
       
       
×