Jump to content

usa made ammo for leo 2e and leo 2a6


jppsx
 Share

Recommended Posts

can they use usa made ammo like the m829a3,kew-a1,kew-a2  in real life ?
And if they are able to use those ammo will at some point we be able to select those munition in the mission editor .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The guns (and munitions) are supposed to be interchangeable.

So, for emergency use, I have no doubt that it would work.

 

In practice each ammunition type typically undergoes a certification process which is somewhat costly, and is therefore not always attempted. Case in point, the Swedish HE-T round, which is a converted mortar shell. Sweden decided to skip the certification process to save money. As it turned out, the mortar shells were about .01mm too big in diameter, and subsequent firings scraped off the protective chromium coating of the tube interiors; the overall damage was, of course, massively higher than the costs of a certification process which would have revealed the problem early on (and if not, would have made it a problem of KMW and Rheinmetall which, of course refused to take responsibility in this case).

That at least was the story as related to me. I cannot vouch that it's true in every detail. But it should help to illustrate that (and why) there are these certification trials even though supposedly everything's "manufactured to the same standards". Denmark, before adopting the M1028, performed such certification processes.

 

Another problem is the question of ballistic parameter sets in the fire control computer. In the M1 the firing data are simply flashed into memory. In the Leopard 2 each firing table is, in fact, a specific circuit board that needs to be physically inserted into the computer, and you can insert only what's available of course. All the APFSDS rounds have such a flat trajectory these days that, in an emergency, you wouldn't care. With slower rounds, the differences can be substantial. Either you need to equip the crews with a 'translation rule' like "if the lased range is 2,500m, set the range manually to 3,400" or "when firing 'b', subtract a third of the range", or you wait until the new circuit board becomes available. It's a legacy of the 1970s, like brown cord pants, and floral wall papers in mad orange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a little surprising to me that they didn't catch the diameter problem, even without a full on certification process...But then again the whole converted mortar round thing...Eh...

 

Small arms ammunition has been pretty well standardized for a long time, wouldn't it make sense to do the same with other larger ammunition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"The beauty of standards is that there are so many of them", someone once said to me.

And in all fairness, as far as artillery munitions and tank cannons are concerned, that largely seems to be the case. Most 105mm ammo is exchangeable, so are 155mm artillery shells, mortar rounds etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

That's a little surprising to me that they didn't catch the diameter problem, even without a full on certification process...But then again the whole converted mortar round thing...Eh...

 

Small arms ammunition has been pretty well standardized for a long time, wouldn't it make sense to do the same with other larger ammunition?

Even with small arms it is not easy. The are a lot of different production methods and variations in load that you must have a look into. So some small arms ammo will not match the ballistics of your sights, have a larger CEP or outright will damage your gun in the long term.

 

For example, FMJ rounds made to german army spec, will usually have a rather thin tombak jacket, and a steel-jacket underneeth...this may cause issues with mny civilian guns or mil. guns of other nations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2021 at 2:11 AM, Grenny said:

Even with small arms it is not easy. The are a lot of different production methods and variations in load that you must have a look into. So some small arms ammo will not match the ballistics of your sights, have a larger CEP or outright will damage your gun in the long term.

 

For example, FMJ rounds made to german army spec, will usually have a rather thin tombak jacket, and a steel-jacket underneeth...this may cause issues with mny civilian guns or mil. guns of other nations

German FMJ ammunition in 7.62x51 hasn't been reported to cause any adverse effects in any civil or military weapons here that I am aware of, although some ranges with steel targets or steel backstops ban it's use due to the steel jacket.

 

I've got several rifles here that use 5.56x45, and there aren't any safety concerns with using a wide array of foreign ammo, although Russian made stuff is known to be hard on barrels due to the steel jackets with cosmetic copper coating, but only when you talk about high round counts near 10,000 rounds.  There is some issue with accuracy and with certain special rounds.  Rifles made for light ball (55gr) M193 will not accurately shoot the heavy ball or heavy tracer (62gr), and rifles made for the heavy ball will sometimes cause frangible ammunition to shatter in the bore or just after exiting the muzzle.  Ironically, the only round known to be dangerous or truly damaging to weapons is the new army standard round, the M855A1 EPR...

 

I've got a pair of 8mm Mausers and they've had no trouble with shooting modern US and foreign made commercial ammo, and military ammo made in Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, and Israel from as early as 1936 to as recent as 1993 and never had any trouble with function or safety... although the Romanian stuff left some accuracy to be desired.

 

I had to reject and not shoot surplus from Germany (1944, 1945) and East Germany (1960) because the steel cases were rusting inside, Yugoslavia (Factory #11, 1953/54) due to bad brittle brass, Iran and Ethiopia (1950s) due to external corrosion, but I wonder how much of that was due to age as some of it was over 70 years old by the time I got my hands on it...

 

Interesting that the artillery is relatively standard while the tank shells apparently are not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2021 at 6:22 AM, Maj.Hans said:

Interesting that the artillery is relatively standard while the tank shells apparently are not?

 

Well, with artillery you generally want to try and keep all the ballistic arcs the same.

Helps with plotting fire missions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2021 at 2:05 AM, Hedgehog said:

Well, with artillery you generally want to try and keep all the ballistic arcs the same.

Helps with plotting fire missions.

 

Whoever said that arty shells is relatively standard, except for the fact that each shell has weight markers on them 

Vnbfr_1dsOryAh1CfulI2-tVHmx4NQnMHNEb09Yt

 

Or weight zone markings and each and every shell is being logged so that there can be kept a strict log/knowledge about where and tare because almost every shot is different then the last one with temperature, shell weight(even in the same Batch of arty shells there can be differences), barrel ware, how many gromets there are , charge nr and type , Temperature, weather, windspeed and wind direction at each height, charge temperatur, placement of guns etc...
There is a lot more science to shooting with arty then there is with a Tank no offense, because of the much longer distances thereby every little difference will influence the shell that much longer and make it much more imprecise right up til we got self guided shells that is still why arty and mortars are still an area weapons except with guided ammo types and that is with all the science.
And it will become worse with the longer range projectiles that are being developed for the multi domain strategy except when its a guided shell which those longer range more less necessitate. 

and to some of your previous topics i found this quote on a site http://fighting-vehicles.com/leopard-2a6-tank/:
A 2008 report by ATK, the main American manufacturer of 120mm smoothbore ammunition for the Abrams Tank family, confirmed the succesful trials of firing a number of their different 120mm smoothbore rounds from a Dutch Leopard 2A6 and Danish Leopard 2A5.

i dont have that report cause its prolly classified but the heading at least says its stanag 4385 compatible which is 120mm x 570 Ammunition for Smooth Bore Tank Guns - ED 1; Amendment 1: 5/31/94

 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...