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 Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG


    • By Serge
      A nice picture to start :

      ZAHA
    • By Sturgeon
      Let's say you're developing a tank with a unique (AKA non-historical) gun for one of our competitions here on SH. It would be nice to have an idea of the size of the gun, its shells, and what their performance both in terms of shell weight and velocity but also penetration, wouldn't it? Well, fortunately there is a way to do this with reasonably accurate results using your solid modeling software and some free to use browser tools.

      First, you want to have a general idea of the size and performance of your gun. For this example, I decided I wanted an optimized, high velocity 85mm caliber gun with a case about as big as the 7.5cm KwK 42 (as it happened, I ended up with a case that had significantly greater volume, but that fact is unimportant for this example). The cartridge I decided on has a 130mm wide rim and a 640mm long case, of course in 85mm caliber. My first step was to model this case in SolidWorks:


       
      You will also need to model your projectile, in this case a tungsten-carbide cored APCR round:


       
      Next, we need a bit of freeware: A Powley computer. Originally developed by DuPont engineers for small arms ammunition, the Powley computer is an accurate enough tool to use for much larger tank rounds as well! When you click the link, you'll be greeted with this screen:
       

       
      You'll note the dimensions are in inches and this thing called "grains" (abbreviated "gn"). The grain is an archaic Imperial mass unit equal to 1/7000th of a pound which is still used in the small arms field, today. Another quirk of small arms has the case capacity - a volume measurement - listed in grains as well. This is in fact grains of water (gn H2O), or the weight of water that will fill the case to the top. To find this, simply multiply the volume in cubic centimeters by 15.43 - which is also the exchange rate between the metric gram and grains mass.
       
      Finding the volume of the case is easy with a solid modeling program; simply model the interior as a solid and find the volume of that solid:


       
      Filling in my Powley inputs gives me this:
       

       
      Note that I typically use the diameter of the projectile across the driving bands for "Bullet Diameter", but it really makes very little difference.
       
      So far, though, we haven't actually produced any results. That's because our gun is well outside the bounds of DuPont production IMR powders, hence the output "Much slower than (IMR) 4831" in the lower left. So, we need to override the computer by checking the box next to the blue "Pressure" function, and typing in a pressure value in CUP that is reflective of tank guns of whatever era we are trying to represent. My tank gun is trying to represent something from about the late 1940s/early 1950s, so I'm going to use 45500 CUP EDIT: USE 41000 CUP for APCBC and 42800 CUP FOR APCR (or better yet, do your own calibration!):
       

       
      This gives me an estimated muzzle velocity of 3,964 ft/s for my L/50 barrel. Not bad! Note the outputs on the left, which tell you a bunch of fun facts about your round but aren't terribly relevant to what we're doing here today. Next, we need to put this gun's performance in terms of penetration. The way I like to do this is through comparative analysis.
       
      The first thing we need is to know to find penetration the ballistic performance of our round. We can estimate this using JBM's ballistic calculator and a few rules of thumb. When opening the calculator, the first thing you'll see is this:
       

       
      We care about basically none of these settings except BC, velocity, and maximum range. Caliber, projectile weight, chronograph distance, etc are all pretty irrelevant to us. Keep the environmental settings (temperature, pressure, etc.) set to their defaults. First, change the ballistic coefficient type from G1 to G7 using the dropdown menu. Then, change the muzzle velocity from 3000 to whatever the muzzle velocity was that was calculated by the Powley computer. Finally, set the maximum range to your desired distance - in my case 2,000 yards.

      For my round, I now have inputs that look like this:
       


      We also need to get some idea of how fast our projectile loses velocity, something we can't know for certain without actually building a real gun and test firing it - or at least without some really sophisticated simulations. However, projectiles with the same shape tend to fly the same way, and that's something we can exploit here. To figure this out, we need a graph showing us the performance of a real-life gun. Fortunately, there is a handy one for an IRL gun similar to what I'm designing, the 90mm M3 from World War II, and its M304 HVAP-T, which is broadly similar in construction and shape to my 85mm APCR projectile:
       

       
      Based on this chart, we see that the M304 should drop from its 3,350 ft/s muzzle velocity to about 2,500 ft/s at 2,000 yards. Doing a little trial and error with JBM tells me that this means the M304 has a G7 ballistic coefficient of about 1.13.
       
      Now, our projectile will not have the same ballistic coefficient, due to it being a different size and mass. But, we can figure out what its ballistic coefficient would be by finding its sectional density and comparing that to the sectional density of M304. To find sectional density, take the projectile's weight in grains and divide it by the square of the projectile's diameter in inches, times 7000. So for M304, we get:
       

       


      And for my 85mm, we get:


       

       
      This means that the ballistic coefficient for an identical-shape projectile with our size and weight will be about 1.019/1.330 - or 76.6% as much - as that of the 90mm M304. That means a BC of 0.866 G7 should be approximately correct for my 85mm APCR round. Let's plug that in:


       
      And then scroll down to the bottom to click "calculate", which gives us a big ol' chart that goes out to 2,000 yards:
       

       
      O-Kay! Now we have some data. It looks like at 2,000 yards, my projectile holds about 2,800 ft/s striking velocity. It's important to note here that what we really care about isn't the striking velocity of the projectile per se, but the velocity and energy of the projectile's core. The core is what's actually doing a lot of work to the armor, so for now let's stop thinking in terms of the whole projectile, and take a look at these two cores, that of the M304 90mm HVAP, and that of my 85mm APCR round. The core of the 90mm M304 is an approximately 8 pound lump of tungsten-carbide that is about 45mm in width. My penetrator is also 8 pounds, but it's longer and thinner in proportion - just 40mm wide, rather than 45mm. This means my penetrator will penetrate more armor at a given striking velocity, and we can estimate how much more by taking the specific energy of the rounds and comparing them. That is, the energy in Joules of the penetrator alone, divided by the penetrator's diameter squared:
       

       


      So the specific energy at 2,000 yards is about 826J/mm^2. Now, we need to find out at what impact velocity the M304 penetrator produces this same specific energy. Do do that, we go backwards, using the figures for M304:
       

       

       
      Therefore, the equivalent impact velocity for my 85mm APCR round at 2,000 yards is 3,150 ft/s for the M304. That means, in theory, that the M304 would have to impact a target at 3,150 ft/s to produce equivalent penetration of RHA to my 85mm APCR striking at just 2,800 ft/s.

      Now, we head back to that chart:


       
      On the left side of the graph, we put our cursor on the line that corresponds to approximately 3,150 ft/s velocity, and follow it over until it hits the curved line that corresponds with the angle of plate we care about - arbitrarily, let's pick 20 degrees. Then, we follow that point straight down until it hits the x-axis:


       
      Therefore, we estimate that at 2,000 yards, my 85mm has just over 10 inches of RHA penetration - not bad at all for a lowly APCR round!
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Since we don't have a thread for British and Commonwealth tanks of WWII, I thought I would start one.  
       
      Check out this manufacturers instructional video on the Crusader.
       
       
×