BaronTibere

Interesting information on Nexter's 120 SHARD ammo:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexter-120-mm-shard-towards-tailored-apfsds-solutions

Redesigned sabot to use part of the barrel forward of the breech to hold more propellant.

38 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

Catherine range is British.

IIRC the MP is made in Glasgow but the XP is made in France, and both use French detectors. But I guess its less french than say SAFRAN.

Do you have any info on the autoloader? I have an old elbit PDF but it mentions 6rpm for the gun system which seems rather long for a 105 autoloader in this day and age.

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I don't see any indication that armor was added (as claimed by the Twitter user), however it also might have been existing Dorchester armor rather than weight simulators or "fillers". Weight simulators are usually thick blocks of steel, not spaced plates.

I was just implying that the only mention of different armour is with the CR3 and the twitter implies the "CR3" has similar armour, but the demonstrator is not really a CR3.  Also doesn't appear spaced at all, but the weight simulators might also just be a series of stacked plates (metal or otherwise).

Those are very likely just ballast or filler. IIRC LEP originally didn't require improved armour, that came with the CR3 specifications (LEP+), so there is no reason the demonstrator would reflect that.

I can certainly understand that, but it does seem a bit late in the game. Also not sure if they can really avoid it if it's already on AJAX.

Seems like a total waste to dump both the CTA40s and all the money they spent on the Warrior CSP turret. Now AJAX will just be another orphaned gun system for the UK. Also wonder who they think is going to buy all of them.

Not to mention what you do gain is longer ranges at which the round is still in optimal velocities.

Here is a better copy of the comparison image (stolen from the RBSL site):
 

The whole mobility angle seems mysterious. I don't think it would be impossible for the "new" build standard to run at 1500hp in the CR3, and they keep dropping lines about improved mobility. The 60mph figure has ruffled some feathers and confused a lot but with 1500hp it doesn't seem that unreasonable for an unrestricted road speed, one that will likely not be the final top speed anyways (anecdotes say the current cr2 can hit 80kph on roads if pushed, so a 16kph boost with new suspension and more HP doesn't seem that far fetched, certainly not for a click-bait headline).

From the British army twitter account:
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-army-to-possess-most-lethal-tank-in-europe

They really love that camo. I wish they didn't.

Striker 2

17 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

I would think that the use of mild steel and a wider sabot would more than make up for the sabot length difference, given the strength/weight ratio of laid-up composites versus mild steel.

I don't know if 5mm of extra bore and steel can make up for all this extra volume (excuse the use of steel beasts):

The entries all seem somewhat phoned-in but that doesn't really surprise me considering how many failed programs to replace the bradley have preceded this one. BAE's entry seems lazy but perhaps the easiest to implement; GD's perhaps the most capable and at least the chassis has been well developed and paid for by other nations. The Lynx seems like Rheinmetall isn't even trying and i don't know enough about the other 2(?) options.

Weren't the old soviet sabots also much smaller because the use of steel for the projectile didn't require nearly as many teeth/groves between the sabot and perpetrator? Seems like a totally irrelevant comparison.

https://www.nexter-group.fr/en/actualites/nos-dernieres-actualites/nexter-prepares-future-battle-tank-armament.html

I also did this while talking with someone else:

It would seem to be a similar if not identical case diameter to current 120s and the Rh130. (obviously a good margin of error on those dimensions)

Sorry it was referred to as a white paper elsewhere but yeah its only slightly less vague than the defense review itself. At least the name Challenger 3 is finally confirmed by the government.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-army-tank-numbers-drop-to-148-from-227/

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/warrior-upgrade-scrapped-but-remaining-in-service/

The full white paper:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-in-a-competitive-age/defence-in-a-competitive-age-accessible-version

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/03/12/80bn-equipment-revealed-defence-review-tanks-jets-drones-hovering/

Looks like the defense review will be out on tuesday and the theme will be RIP warrior and "Boxers for everyone".

Edit: annnnnddd no details, there is a more specific defense report coming on monday that might have them.

13 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Nazi-Germany has no advocates.

Franz Halder would like a word.

He was spurred on this because the tank museum mislabeled the FMBTA1 as the FV4211 again.

I believe earlier on (mid century) they provided more power than electric drives but seems like at least by the mid to late 80s pure electric drives were able to deliver similar speeds.

Marconi IFCS (Chieftain Mk.9/10/11/Khalid, nearly identical to Challenger 1 FCS):

There are more images in the entire brochure but these are the figures. Bold choice of colours.