Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 623
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's interesting. Presentation (which contains this page) which available now on ontres.se is 110 pages long about 2-and-a-half years ago i've downloaded on my computer presentation which was 119

Waffentrager YOU FAKE BULLSXXT and FXXK OFF In case you guys here cannot read Japanese: It says "Height of lens assembly is about 380 mm" May be taken from a manual of digital came

I don't think there is a possible explanation, because people are beginning the argument from the wrong direction. People are making assumptions about the protection level, then try to find sources su

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.

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. 

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.

 

 

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? 

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

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:

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.

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).

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.

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...
 

 

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

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.

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.  ;)

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.
    • By Proyas
      Hi guys,
       
      Does anyone know of any military studies that analyzed the reload speeds for different tanks? The question occurred to me when I watched this video tour of the T-55's interior: 
       
      https://youtu.be/TEDhB9evPvw
       
      At the 10:00 mark, Mr. Moran demonstrates how the loader would put a shell into the tank's cannon, and the effects of the turret's small size and of the loader's awkward seating make it clear that the process would be slow. My question is: how slow? 
       
      Side question: Am I right to assume that storing the tank shells all over the inside of the turret like that is an inherent design flaw of the T-55 that makes it inferior in that regard to modern tanks? 
       
      Thanks in advance. 
    • By Collimatrix
      Sturgeon's House started with a community of people who played tank games.  At the time, most of us were playing World of Tanks, but I think there were a few Warthunder and even Steel Beasts players mixed in there too.  After nearly five years, we must be doing something right because we're still here, and because we've somehow picked up a number of members who work with, or have worked with tanks in real life.

      I know that @AssaultPlazma served as an Abrams loader, @Merc 321 and @Meplat have helped maintain and restore privately-owned armor, and @Xlucine has volunteered in a tank museum.  I'm sure I'm missing several more!

      So, what are your favorite personal tank stories?

×
×
  • Create New...