Panzermann Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 That rules out the British then. I wonder if its possible to make a 152mm HESH round....In that caliber Shillelagh of course! Seriously, russian HE-Frag are much better. Well I don't know. In recent years quite a lot of Leopard 2 have been converted to bridge layers, AA, AEV and other specialist vehicles. The Brits could go collect all these spare turrets from around the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Alright, admit, im impressed. Didnt do a Type 90 though did you? No. Challenge accepted and met. ChallyType 90. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 You do not happen to own a Type 10 model? We want to modernize and the Type 90 is pretty much the same time frame as the CR2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 ChallyHitoMaru! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovngard Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Make a topic dedicated to your turrets switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Make a topic dedicated to your turrets switch. I think I am done with that for right now. The request from Panzermann for a Type 10 turret has me beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanoid Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 In that caliber Shillelagh of course! Challylagh! OTOH, sounds too Gaelic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 ...when they replaced the Leopard C2 with the Leo2A6M, in Afghanistan they were underwhelmed by the smoothbores HE alternative compared to the effect of the 105mm HESH on the hard structures in the region. I understood they were working on a HESH like round for the smoothbore, but not sure were that is or still alive? Did Canadians get proper multi-mode HE for 120mm or used "HEDP" (read HEAT) for anti-personnel? Smoothbore HESH will not work proper, muzzle velocity is too low for effective long range fin stabilization. I can ask but not sure at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 swapping out the turret would do many good things, but it would not adress one serious limitation of the challenger, namely the weakened cutout on the front hull behind the drivers hatch. it would also not adress the extremely weak lower front hull of the challenger, or the limited power of the challenger powerpack. and personally i think the protection scheme on the challenger 2 turret is good. extremely well sloped front, and flat sides, which reduces front profile and saves weight, the rear turret is really the problem. FCS is quirky, but good enough. gun has to go, but with the russian fielding the Armata, and the Rheinmetall 120 basically having reached it's limit, and also possibly not being able to defeat the armata, a bigger gun might be neccesary, or a new type of top-attack round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I've read that the Perkins Condor CV12 has been tested successfully at 1500HP. No idea how true it is. Any reason why they can't upgrade the powerpacks in the Challenger to 1500HP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Falcon Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 I've read that the Perkins Condor CV12 has been tested successfully at 1500HP. No idea how true it is. Any reason why they can't upgrade the powerpacks in the Challenger to 1500HP? It can likely be done. The question is "Will such an upgrade be funded?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFiveMike Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 USMC fuel is JP8, which is similar to kerosene. It does cause added wear in fuel pumps and other tight tolerance parts like injectors, and it starts like crap in the cold. If you need a larger gun, the Abrams turret with the XM291 in 140mm would make as much sense as anything else. There's no good way around the ammunition storage issue. The Abrams has as good a FCS and sensor array as you'll find. S/F....Ken M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 swapping out the turret would do many good things, but it would not adress one serious limitation of the challenger, namely the weakened cutout on the front hull behind the drivers hatch. it would also not adress the extremely weak lower front hull of the challenger, or the limited power of the challenger powerpack. and personally i think the protection scheme on the challenger 2 turret is good. extremely well sloped front, and flat sides, which reduces front profile and saves weight, the rear turret is really the problem. FCS is quirky, but good enough. gun has to go, but with the russian fielding the Armata, and the Rheinmetall 120 basically having reached it's limit, and also possibly not being able to defeat the armata, a bigger gun might be neccesary, or a new type of top-attack round. This has a LOT made about it, but Im not sure how it can be a problem. If you fit the TES armour on the front glacis, not only does it thin out the gap in the drivers view (meaning you can only hit the drivers episcope if its coming right at you) but it also significantly reduces the area of the turret ring that can be penetrated. Im not aware its actually ever been penetrated? Weak front lower hull, absolutely spot on. But again, its not as if the TES (and its never going to deploy without this) has not already addressed the issue many years ago. Re limited power, its never really been that evident on demonstration in the UK. The problem was a lot of people came to the conclusion it was gutless in 2003 from the video footage. But as it turns out it was being run on helicopter fuel from a USMC pipeline which not only reduced the power output, it also apparently reduced engine life. As I understand it, running JP8 in an engine that is set up for Diesel will result in about a 13% power loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 USMC fuel is JP8, which is similar to kerosene. It does cause added wear in fuel pumps and other tight tolerance parts like injectors, and it starts like crap in the cold. There is no "winter fuel" or at least additives for JP-8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFiveMike Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) No, this is America. We sodomize all the combat arms to make life easy for the REMF's working banker's hours in a secure environment. S/F....Ken M There was legit DF-2 (no2 diesel) available in limited quantities for the TF IRON CLAW elements, operating the South African anti- IED vehicles. Those were theater wide priority units during OIF-2 and probably later as well. They were independent road sweeping units, complete with organic security, jamming, ground penetrating radar and so forth. Edited January 24, 2016 by EchoFiveMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special-K Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 IIRC, the Challenger 2s smoke maker (operated by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust) also couldn't be operated. I thought I read somewhere that there was fear of it causing a fire. Though that I think may more have been due to having the thermal suppression kit on the exhaust, rather than it being down to fuel reasons. I recall hearing the same thing with our vehicles too - that the (at the time recent) switch to JP-8 made the smoke makers unusable due to the fire hazard. I don't think this was an issue with just the Challenger. I specifically remember one of the mechanics 'crop dusting' us in the motor pool with his M-88, laughing like a maniac while he did it. I asked him about it and he said something to the effect that the smoke makers still work, it's just that you can only use them for very short periods of time due to the fuel/fire issue. -K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 About the turret - what about the K2 turret? Maybe they'd leave out the autoloader if we wanted. Add the essential piece of equipment (a BV) & the job's done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 The Abrams has as good a FCS and sensor array as you'll find. S/F....Ken M Not sure about the sensor array part, but the T-14 Armata allegedly has an MMW radar sensor available. Tank FCS that automatically track have been around a while too - IIRC the Merkava has had this from the 3B variant (able to track rotary winged aircraft as well as ground targets) - the Japanese Type 90's FCS auto tracks too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFiveMike Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Active emissions on a real battlefield against an enemy not constrained by subverted politicians is unwise. S/F.....Ken M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JW Collins Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 MMW radars have a relatively short range, probably not too much of a danger of somebody zeroing in on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 One Type 10 tank can track up to 8 targets and that information is automatically transmitted to the other 3 tanks in the platoon showing up in real time displays. Tracking will continue with predictive solutions if the target is temporarily out of sight. The sensor at the top of the turret actively searches for targets. Targets are identified by the database as tank, AFV, non-armored vehicle, aircraft, etc, and automatically displayed. The FCS will lock-on to not just a target but automatically aim at weak points. http://www.kjclub.com/jp/exchange/photo/read.php?tname=exc_board_53&uid=18239&fid=18239&thread=1000000&idx=1&page=1&number=13790 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 About the turret - what about the K2 turret? Maybe they'd leave out the autoloader if we wanted. Add the essential piece of equipment (a BV) & the job's done!an Altay turret basically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The problem is that K2 autoloader stores only... around 14 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Stuart, my friend is British, and she told me UK goverment and bureacracy is fucked up but this... this is just briliant! But why on earth you would be ok with only 14 main gun rounds in your tank? IMHO makes no sense at all. Edited January 25, 2016 by Damian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFiveMike Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The Abrams XM291 autoloader turret supposedly held 17rds of 140mm in the bustle. So 14rds of 120mm is pretty inadequate. S/F....Ken M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now