Senate The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology

It was in the papers over here a month or so ago that Challenger IIs are going to be 'upgraded' to smooth bore.

As understood it, the basic difference between the M1's and the Challenger 2's is that the C2 has slightly better armour, but is slower that the M1's. That's certainly the info that was carried in the media over here around the time of the recent gulf war.

 

Really, upgraded to smooth bore? That's good news.. Do you know when this is supposed to happen?

The armor comparison would depend on the model of M1 being compared..

The original M1, yes..the Challenger II beats it hands down..

However, starting with the M1(HAP) and continuing during the run of the M1A1 and with the current M1A2, there is no comparison..

Both tanks use the same type of base, but the newer M1's have an additional layer of Depleted Uranium(DU) encased within..

Top speed is actually pretty similar
listed speed for the M1A2 is 67km/h
listed speed for the Chal 2 is 56km/h

 

Really, upgraded to smooth bore? That's good news.. Do you know when this is supposed to happen?

Sorry, not sure. It sounded as if it was something for the near future, perhaps the next couple of years. However, at the rate our MOD operates sometimes, it might take a lot longer...

Both tanks use the same type of base, but the newer M1's have an additional layer of Depleted Uranium(DU) encased within..

How does this actually translate into effectiveness, or comparitive advantage? As in, how much better does this make the newer M1s?

listed speed for the M1A2 is 67km/h
listed speed for the Chal 2 is 56km/h

Okay, lesson learnt, never trust the media to accurately report on military things

 

How does this actually translate into effectiveness, or comparitive advantage? As in, how much better does this make the newer M1s?

Good question, but one which both militaries aren't answering

Both America and Britian list the effectiveness of their Chobham armor as "classified.."

However, I'd imagine a little extra DU couldn't hurt...

 

Good question, but one which both militaries aren't answering


Heh. Perhaps they don't know - I often wonder this about militaries. Since you aren't going to 'test' both tanks against each other by staging a real battle, I suppose some of it would be guess work and extrapolation. I suppose the recent war showed that both tanks were highly effective against light arms and older tank models - which is almost certainly all that will be needed to be worried about over the next few years!

However, I'd imagine a little extra DU couldn't hurt...

- though DU's evil right, and causes people to grow 17 heads and stuff? I can well imagine the reaction of certain of the newspapers over here the dreaded DU was used in armour as well as shells.

 

well, the C2 does fire a DU round, but we'll keep that among ourselves....

 

Yeah, the government have been talking about removing it from our arsenals because of public fears of health effects. Apparently, newer technology means that the same effect will be achievable without a DU round. Well, that's what the government said...

EDIT: Found this with a quick search..
Smoothbore upgrade

 

Gotta love Jane's...They always have the scoop.. I'm actually surprised I missed it..

Well, it's good that the UKMD is thinking about the German gun..The US, and of course,Germany use the Reinmetall gun as well, so commonality of technology would be achieved..

 

What is the advantage of a smoothbore over rifled, other than ease of manufacture?

 

well, basically it all comes down to velocity..

You know how a regular firearm works, where the friction from the rifling imparts spin on the bullet, etc...

A rifled tank gun works the same way, basically like a giant bullet..

Except that when you are dealing with something as large as a tank round, you have to keep the velocity down to manageable levels, or you would either tear out the rifling, or be continually regrooving the gun after a couple of shots..

Modern smoothbore tank rounds look like giant lawn darts.. The spin is created by small fins..

Since there is no rifling to wear out, smooth bore tank guns can really let loose..

The M829 family of tank rounds, which is used in the M1 series, is nicknamed the "Silver Bullet," because in Desert Storm, it used to shoot through 2 T-72's at once..

breakdown here

 

Ah. Fascinating.

 

Ah, Saint beat me to the question - I wondered what the advatage was, but that makes perfect sense.

The M829 family of tank rounds, which is used in the M1 series, is nicknamed the "Silver Bullet," because in Desert Storm, it used to shoot through 2 T-72's at once..



Good grief. Makes me feel sorry for the poor buggers having to fight against that.

 

Especially considering that alot of them were conscripts, yeah sucks for them.

 

yeah..well, actually I don't know which would be worse..

I know that the old Tungsten penetrators used to mushroom or bend once they entered a tank..

In other words, they went in one side, but then wouldn't exit out the other..

Unfortunately, they would still have to go somewhere, so they would end up bouncing around the inside of the target tank..

Ouch..Can you say giant blender...?

 

"Giant blendernfurd."

Nope, can't say it.

 

Maybe the interior of the tanks could be lined with some sort non-bounce material so that wouldn't happen?

But then again the Iraqi military wasn't exactly on the cutting edge. Either they didn't think of it, or they couldn't afford it, I guess.

 

I don't think anything is "bounce proof" to a giant metal dart travelling at 3000fps (or however fast it goes..)

I'd say it goes wherever it wants to, followed by a nice "yes Sir!"

or you could just make your tanks like the M1A2 or C2, and not let anything in through the armor

 

Hmmm, if the tanks were so vulnerable, and their weapons seemed largly ineffective against western tanks, was their any point in them even using them against the allies in either war?

A related question - in the hands of a capable and well trained army, even with the inferior tanks, would they have proved more effective against western forces? (I mean, obviously, better trained forces would do better, but would there be any way of getting their level of technology to be effective against more modern weapons?)

 

In Desert Storm and recently, Honestly, not really..

Poorly trained troops using inferior equipment= certain death.. That's why so many surrendered..

And BTW, the T-72 wasn't really that obsolete back in 91..It was still mostly Russian front line equipment (The T-80 was fielded, but in very small numbers)

It would be a good discussion about the effectiveness of highly trained troops using inferior equipment..

WWII would be a good starting point..

The American Sherman tank was utter garbage next to the Nazi Panzers..

However, the American tank crews were highly trained, so the advantage wasn't completely in the Nazi corner (training only goes so far though)

Another example would be the British in North Africa..

While the British A13 "Cruiser" wasn't as crappy as the Sherman, the tank was still out-armored by the Nazis..

However, by using extremely adaptable tactics, the British were able to overcome the Desert Fox and his tank battalions..

 

But superior training isn't always enough. The American casualty rate among WW2 armoured crews resulted in the reduction in crew strength from 5 to 3 in order to reduce losses among trained crewmen.

And rifling on a tank barrel is pretty much useless when the primary armour piercing round fired is a 35 or 40mm high density fin stabilised penetrator that needs a sabot fitted around it in order to be fired effectively. Firing an FSDS round through a rifled barrel requires the addition of an extra sleeve which neutralises the spin imparted on the round.

 

As an aside (but a related one, I assure you), I read in the latest issue of Defense Times that the Israelis *might* wind up shutting down their Merkava MBT line, and have been paying attention to the rumbles in the American arms-development circles that pertain to armor R&D.

 

Interesting. Say what you will about their politics, but those Israelis make some great weapons. I just found out that they have an smg chambered for the .30 carbine round. I though the Dominican Republic was the only country to do that

I've heard that the .30 carbine round is weak, but it's gotta be more powerful than a pistol round, otherwise why didn't they just issue 45's for PDW's back in the day? So how does that round compare to, say, the 45 ACP?

And what do yall think about the new(to me anyway) 45 GAP round? It's shorter than the ACP, so that it can fit in 9mm sized butts, so you can have a more compact 45.

Also, check this:

[image=http://home.tula.net/tularms/images/tkb-022.jpg]

 

Obviously, the main use for rifling, originally, was to give the projectile spin in order to make it more accurate. But with modern ballistic computers, thermal imaging, laser rangefinders, gun stabilization systems, and so on, smoothbore guns can be made very accurate.

I believe that HEAT (hollow-charge) rounds also perform better, when fired from smoothbore guns, though I don't remember why.

The most important ways in which the T-72 is inferior are armor, and fire control. The main gun is not as powerful as the M256, but is not terrible. Several newer models and upgrades to the T-72, used by the Soviet Union, and later by the Russian Federation, attempted to address these problems. However, the upgraded models were not widely exported. It should be noted that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union apparently exported many weapons (with air defence weaponry being at times the notable exception) a generation late, i.e. giving the Pact members and the Arabs the T-62, when Guards and regular Category A tank divisions were using the T-72. During at least some periods of the Cold War, the United States appears to have followed a contrasting policy of giving very modern weapons to client states (i.e. contemporary M60s to Israel, used to fight those same T-62s, and the older T-55s that still made up a significant portion of the Syrian and Egyptian armored forces).

Some of the T-72s used by the Iraqis probably had upgraded armor, but nothing like that of the later models of T-72, or the T-80, let alone M1A2, C2, etc. The Iraqi crews were apparently lied to by their commanders about the strength of Allied armor, which probably didn't help.

One other way in which the T-64 was innovative, was the mounting of a gun capable of firing not only ordinary projectiles, but also the AT-8 Kobra (codenamed Songster by NATO) ATGM, in the T-64B, paving the way for the mounting of such a gun in the T-80.

A few quick M1 stories from Gulf War I: Apparently an M1A1 platoon completely failed to destroy one of their own tanks that became immobilized, and which they were forced to abandon. Tales are also told of Iraqi T-72s fired on through sand berms, hit, and destroyed.

 

The .30 Carbine round was a poor rifle cartridge, but is actually a fairly good pistol round (assuming you can find a weapon chambered in it, that is). Much higher velocity than the venerable .45 ACP, but on the flip side, it's a smaller bullet. Out of an M1 carbine's barrel, it was probably only reliably capable of inflicting meaningful wounds out to 150 yards or so.

Anywho, that is an odd Kalashnikov variant you've got a picture of there, Saint... I was puzzling over its design over in the "Gun Control" thread a while ago. Strange.

As for the new .45, is this the same cartridge as the .45 Glock? It uses a similar bullet as the .45 ACP, but a case that's only as lon as either a 9x19mm NATO or .40 S&W (I can't recall which because of an undue amount of sleep deprivation and a general lack of interest in the caliber). It really seems to me like an answer to another question that virtually nobody asked, as it's not as fast as an original .45 ACP, and still not small enough to be carried in as large numbers as the 9x19mm NATO or the .40 S&W. Seems to have met with a lukewarm reception on the market, too.

 

It's the same caliber..

.45 GAP=Glock automatic pistol..catchy huh?

I would have to agree though, this new cartridge has not impacted the market very much..

I don't see it taking off in the full size/ duty market, but it may have a greater impact in the compact/concealable market..

It may have promise by offering slightly more punch than a snubbie .38 or 9mm, in the same size package..

I haven't seen any detailed performance specs for it though..

EagleJedi, that is a good M1 story, from Armored CAV if I remember..

The M1 threw a track right? So instead of leaving it intact, another M1 shot it twice, except that they couldn't destroy it..

That M1 was later towed by a recovery vehicle and placed back into service..