Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Tjay

Upgrading the CR2.

94 posts in this topic
1 hour ago, Marko said:

I suppose the theory is two regiments of modern capable tanks is worth more then three or four regiments of less capable tanks.

 

 

Odd coming from someone who used to embrace "quantity has a quality all its own" when in the Soviet VU. ;)

 

1 hour ago, Marko said:

Watched a very interesting interview on the BBC news last night by a recently retired senior British army general.

He was being very diplomatic but he stated clearly the British army needs to modernism some of its conventional equipment

 

Its a shame he did not make his case more aggressively when he was a serving senior officer.

I suppose its career suicide to rock the boat like most large organisations The out spoken very rarely progress.

 

Well not really.

 

Its more a case of serving people are not allowed to speak against announced Government policy. The fact that you are "serving" implies you agree (at least publicly).

 

If you don't agree, stop serving.

 

Once you leave, you regain (within limits) an ability to critique the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

18 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Odd coming from someone who used to embrace "quantity has a quality all its own" when in the Soviet VU. ;)

LoL.

I still do depending on the Era 1950/60/70s IMO, the soviets would have overwhelmed Nato forces by sheer numbers

As they did in WW2 against the Wehrmacht and other Axis forces

But when smart munitions and advancements in Tank fire controls etc. started to be introduced in the 80's the soviets lost there advantage.

 

18 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...except that the war with Ukraine shows that the Russians not only managed to catch up, but get the upper hand with the (very) liberal application of area fire by rocket artillery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 9.11.2016 at 3:10 AM, Maj.Hans said:

 

Russia has always envied the Baltic states, after all, they invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, AND Poland 

 

Edit: Sorry, got mixed up the words invade and occupy.

Edited by Abaddon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, rump said:

I wonder if the whole Brexit debacle will play a part in the decision.

There's a lot at stake, trade wise between the two nations.

And to be honest is buying second hand older generation tanks the best option.

Unless there up to A7 standard. only speculation on my part but I was under the impression the CR-2 had thicker and better armour then the leo-2

No argument about the fire control system the leo-2 wins hands down also the smoothbore on the leo is superior.

mobility wise the leo has a stronger engine with more horse power.

But I have been told the suspension system on the CR-2 is pretty decent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe buying Armata will yield positive headlines. ¬¬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Maybe buying Armata will yield positive headlines. ¬¬

 

 

Well the president elect is cosying up to putin maybe the right honourable Theresa may should. LoL

With out turning this thread political, chancellor merkel telling the Uk government what it can ant cant do in relation to brexit

does not help relations and UK public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Maybe buying Armata will yield positive headlines. ¬¬

 

Can it fire HESH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rump said:

 

Can it fire HESH?

 

No. Needs to be rifled barrel to fire HESH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Pfft. Just rifle the HESH itself like a slug for a smooth bore shotgun. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not. The spin rate must be much higher than fin stabilization can attain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

No, it's not. The spin rate must be much higher than fin stabilization can attain.

 

Which leads me to two questions:

 

1. Why?  Says who?  I personally just don't buy that.  I am certain that it is possible to get a projectile that will flatten it's nose against a target to achieve the desired HESH effect without having to spin it at some crazy speed.

 

ETA: Case in point: "Malkara" HESH ATGM...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malkara_(missile)

A Malkara can be seen being launched here, apparently without much if any spin:

 

 

I submit that if you can make a HESH ATGM, then you can make a HESH-FS.

 

2. Why bother trying to persist with HESH anyway?  The way I understand it, it's inferior as an anti-armor round due to the way it penetrates armor.  Spaced/layered arrays are very resistant to it.  Furthermore, because it was made to squash against an object before detonation, it's case isn't as effective at making fragmentation as a dedicated HE or HE-Frag round.  So it is a dual purpose round that's not the best at either thing.

Edited by Maj.Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) That's what I've been told all the years by HESH users; that you can have an impact only in a relatively narrow velocity band so the explosive mass doesn't disintegrate before it's set off, and that a high spin rate was needed to distribute the explosive mass over the target surface in an optimal way. Maybe that's BS, but as far as I know the British decision to go with a rifled 120mm gun was largely dictated by the desire to keep firing HESH. That might indicate a functional requirement for a rifled gun.

That said, maybe it was dictated by existing stocks of 120mm HESH rounds purchased for Conqueror tanks a decade before (IOW, penny-wise and pound foolish, a recurring theme), and the existing STOCK demanded a rifled gun.

 

2) I don't know. I agree with all your points. But then again, we're talking about Britain in general, the MoD in particular, and the Army. Making sense is strictly optional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2017 at 5:00 AM, Ssnake said:

1) That's what I've been told all the years by HESH users; that you can have an impact only in a relatively narrow velocity band so the explosive mass doesn't disintegrate before it's set off, and that a high spin rate was needed to distribute the explosive mass over the target surface in an optimal way. Maybe that's BS, but as far as I know the British decision to go with a rifled 120mm gun was largely dictated by the desire to keep firing HESH. That might indicate a functional requirement for a rifled gun.

That said, maybe it was dictated by existing stocks of 120mm HESH rounds purchased for Conqueror tanks a decade before (IOW, penny-wise and pound foolish, a recurring theme), and the existing STOCK demanded a rifled gun.

 

2) I don't know. I agree with all your points. But then again, we're talking about Britain in general, the MoD in particular, and the Army. Making sense is strictly optional.

 

Well...I submit that in terms of technical difficulty, it may be easier to make a HESH round that will be spin-assisted to distribute it's explosive, but still...

 

Further to point one, I submit the "Gammon Bomb" or "Gammon Grenade" as a SECOND example of a British weapon using the HESH effect.  This time the weapon is a soft cloth bag filled with plastic explosives, and which detonates upon contact with a target.  Essentially when thrown at a tank it will squish and detonate, thus damaging the vehicle by HESH effect......And it's a freaking bag grenade that you throw...

 

 

Also, I agree completely.  The British MOD has done very few things that made sense.

Off the top of my head, I think the Tornado was a great aircraft.  Buying the F-4 Phantom II was a great idea.  Just so happens that Germany also did both of those things...Aaaaaand........................I can't think of anything else they did that I liked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2017 at 7:07 AM, Maj.Hans said:

 

Well...I submit that in terms of technical difficulty, it may be easier to make a HESH round that will be spin-assisted to distribute it's explosive, but still...

 

Further to point one, I submit the "Gammon Bomb" or "Gammon Grenade" as a SECOND example of a British weapon using the HESH effect.  This time the weapon is a soft cloth bag filled with plastic explosives, and which detonates upon contact with a target.  Essentially when thrown at a tank it will squish and detonate, thus damaging the vehicle by HESH effect......And it's a freaking bag grenade that you throw...

 

 

Also, I agree completely.  The British MOD has done very few things that made sense.

Off the top of my head, I think the Tornado was a great aircraft.  Buying the F-4 Phantom II was a great idea.  Just so happens that Germany also did both of those things...Aaaaaand........................I can't think of anything else they did that I liked.

 

Malayan "Emergency"?

Avro Vulcan?

EE Lightning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2017 at 4:20 PM, Hedgehog said:

 

Malayan "Emergency"?

Avro Vulcan?

EE Lightning?

 

Malayan Emergency....Maybe.

 

Avro Vulcan, OK, I'll give you that one, if only because of the 'Black Buck' raids AKA "Surprise you Argie jerks!  SPECIAL DELIVERY!"...However it's a totally butt-fugly plane.  I would say it's the butt-fugliest of all, but you brought up the...

 

EE Lightning.  Even more butt-fugly than the Avro Vulcan.  So butt-fugly that it makes the Vulcan look good if you park them next to each other.  An ugly only a mother could love.  Good performance as an interceptor, but absolutely horrible armament!  Who in their right mind makes such a great point defense interceptor and then puts a bunch of crap on it for weapons!?  Two missiles that only work on a clear, cloudless day, and they're toxic?

 

 

I'll give the MOD credit for a few more things...

Buying the Jaguar, good idea, worked well in Iraq IIRC.

 

British forces did a bang up job of stomping all over the Argies, despite having to go to the other end of the world with outdated, obsolete, and lacking equipment.  The effort to "Put Sidewinders on all the things!" like the Harrier Gr.3's converted for shipboard use, the Nimrods, etc.  In my estimation it turned into a case of Argentina's second-rate, surplus-based 'most of our stuff is from WW2' military getting it's butt kicked by Britain's second-rate, budget-starved '1960's is still state of the art, right?' navy, after it sailed to the other end of the globe.

 

Bonus style points for the "Hey, hold my pint and watch this!" act of realizing their SeaSlug SAMs were worthless as SAMs, and then turning them into an ad-hoc land attack rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Avro Vulcan was not ugly.  I think was one of the more handsome British plane that came out of that era.  Ugly is the Hanley (Handley?) Page Victor.

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