Can this be rigth?

[JanTog]

Relax people... no need to get all worked up.

Kingtiger. The danish army doesn't use conscripts as tankers, unlike the swedish army.

We believe that that experience counts for much, and you can't get much experience as a conscript.

So all danish tankers are professionels.

And to Gilbert and Cutter try to relax, no one has said that they don't believe you..they are just asking some questions.

There's a lot of present and former tankers in here.....so don't just take people here for virtual geeks (no offence)

just tone down your attitude a bit.. you're new on this forum

Just a :thumbup: from me.

[JanTog]

Cool, you just stated another reason why Scania should go back to denmark

I dont now about that, do you have eny good beers in Scania. :men_ani:

[GH_Lieste]

They did have...

...but I think KT drank them all.

<g.d.r>

[Ssnake]

I think the typical application of a 6km engagement would be a non- or weakly armored high value target. Say, a mortar crew that is harrassing you or some villagers. Or you have observed some evildoers and tracked them to a certain house.

I don't think that we're talking tanks in hull-down position as possible targets here.

[Volcano]

...What I'm trying to understand, and it seems a few others like Volcano, is 'why', because the experience we have using the same gun is such that we have no reason to believe that what we would consider acceptably reliable hits at such a range are possible....

I guess I am just a bit of a pessimist when it comes to engaging a target beyond 4km but, then again, maybe that is just because I never had a FCS that would calculate beyond 3999m.

My apologies if I seemed like I was saying that 6km engagements are a lie (and I would have to see a 10.5km non missile engagement to believe it), I was just doubting whether or not it would be something that would be practical, in the sense that it would be reliable enough to not be considered being a wasteful use of expensive ammo. If it is practical on the newest tanks, then that is great and I am about a decade behind in the technology department. :eek:

[PS-SCUD]

I never had a FCS that would calculate beyond 3999km

Ya. Intercontinental ballistics calculations can be tricky. ;-)

[IrishHussar]

I think a major point that is being missed is that we are talking about KE being fired at 6km.

If you are firing at soft skin vehicles, inf or buildings, like Ssnake indicated, why would you not use HESH or HE.

Upto and around 4km was acceptable practice during gulf war 1 when firing at hotspots (non identifiable thermal signatures) using TIS from Challenger 1 and firing APFSDS. This was possible because the thermal FCS calculated out to that range and provided a Ballistic aiming mark for the gunner to use. With hesh rounds on engagements that had tangent elevation above 49 degrees and out to ranges of upto 9999m it used a system of reverse autolay after the round had been fired in order that corrections could be applied.

Like I previously stated with modern tank sights now using cameras instead of optics it is entirely fesible that a crew could observe point targets past the 4000m mark.

If you are telling me that your FCS system cannot calculate the ballistics beyond that and you are still hitting targets at whatever your acceptable ratio is, then I would have to say that you have some very good gunners or indeed a massive ammo budget.

Irish

[Volcano]

I think a major point that is being missed is that we are talking about KE being fired at 6km.

If you are firing at soft skin vehicles, inf or buildings, like Ssnake indicated, why would you not use HESH or HE.

I must of missed it but who indicated that the discussion was initially about HE / HEAT vs soft skin vehicles or infantry? Initially Ssnake was commenting on APDS engagement on Syrian bulldozers out to 10.4km.

It seems that the discussion turned into an HE / HEAT after some pessimism. In any case, if we are now talking about HE and HEAT, then I would agree that you could area fire at targets at those ranges (4-6km). You could also area fire with HE / HEAT at stationary soft targets out to 10 to 15km (and beyond) with the use of a map, gunner's quadrant, radio, and a spotter. But now we are talking about something that can be classified as indirect fire. This is one of those things you always hear about in theory but I have never heard of it being done. Ranges of 4km to 6km could definitely be possible with HE / HEAT on a stationary target and still be considered direct fire. 7.7cm, 75mm and 18 pounder field guns in World War I were firing HE rounds direct fire at 5-6km and there were no fancy gun sights there.

Ya. Intercontinental ballistics calculations can be tricky. ;-)

Thanks, I corrected it now. :razz:

[gilbert]

Im sorry for the attitude, i just don't like being compard to conscripts, nor do i like people demanding proof of what i say

[3Star]

If you are telling me that your FCS system cannot calculate the ballistics beyond that and you are still hitting targets at whatever your acceptable ratio is

It's not even that. I am perfectly happy to concede that modern optics are capable of identifying targets at such ranges, and magnifying them to such an extent that laying on is possible. I'm willing to accept that some ballistic computers can calculate to 6km or more. After all, it's really just mathematics.

What is throwing me is not the concept of theoretical calculation, but the practical downsides caused by dispersion of the cannon and round, which neither a fire control system nor a gunner, no matter how good, can compensate for. Froggy says he'll reliably hit a tank sized target at 4km. Fair enough, but he's firing a different, more modern, gun than is in Leo2A5/M1A1. The oft-quoted 5.3km hit by Challenger 1 is considered rather a good stroke of luck, and any 4.5km or so misses by Challenger are almost totally ignored: They're expected.

NTM

[Tacbat]

Gilbert, I think you need a new avatar.

StalinTC's looks very similar....

[12Alfa]

The oft-quoted 5.3km hit by Challenger 1 is considered rather a good stroke of luck, and any 4.5km or so misses by Challenger are almost totally ignored: They're expected.

Well its a rifled tube after all, and that gives it a bit more accuracy. From what I've read the rifled 120 on both Challengers are dam fine wpns. I would go head to head with any smooth bore given the same ammo, however that not possible.

As for a stroke of luck, well with all the M1a1 running around in combat the last 10 years we have not seen such a long range kill for the smooth bore. Given that the numbers would favor the 120mm SB due to so many being in the right place at the right time, and given the American fetish of shooting things ( no offense) where is the smooth bores record?

FCS can get the targets out to 4+ km, the rounds will travel that far (will the do damage or not is the question), and the gunners will probably get the retical on the target. My question still is can you still make a positive ID on the target? The optics are just now getting good enough, and some are only magnification of picels. Would you issue the fire command on so-so ID of the target?

[Ssnake]

It all depends on the circumstances. Just because you are training for these engagement distances it doesn't mean that you are going to do it on a regular level.

As far as HESH is concerned, you can't use it for essentially one reason - they're not available for smoothbore guns because they can't be properly stabilized with fins because HESH only works in a rather narrow band of 300-800m/s impact speed. Therefore the air speed isn't high enough to achieve proper fin stabilization.

As far as HE is concerned, Denmark doesn't have a dedicated HE round for the Leo 2. I imagine that at some point they might decide to procure the DM22, but so far they haven't. Besides, it is pointless to attempt engagements beyond the range of what your fire control computer is willing to compute if you can't substitute the ballistic parameters. It works with sabot rounds because the needed superelevation at ranges exceeding 4000m is matching the HEAT superelevation for 2300m+. So, with the wrong round indexed and manual range input you can overcome the limitations of the fire control computer. It's a workaround, not the ideal solution.

Of course the ballistic computers could be upgraded. They don't get upgraded because Denmark doesn't want to spend the money for it just yet. Likewise they are waiting patiently for long-term experience reports from L55 gun users. Once that there is an operational requirement to make the transition, I'm pretty sure there will be an upgrade package ready with both L55 barrel and new control logic boards for the fire control computer. The acceleration sensor that is needed for the L55 stabilization is already in place, after all.

As far as using tanks as a substitute for artillery, it could, theoretically, be done, but it is an incredibly wasteful and expensive way to do it. First, because the actual loadout of HE rounds typically is very small and HEAT is even less effective than a pure HE artillery shell of the same caliber. So a tank company could fire 30 rounds at best on target with abysmal accuracy and even less effect on target but huge risks for collateral damage. Finally there's the issue of barrel erosion.

In combination the conclusion is obvious - you'd have to be extremely desparate (or extremely stupid) to attempt this. Which is why it never gets done in training.

[GH_Lieste]

The russians did doctrinally use their tanks as assault artillery - hence the roughly 50% loadout of HE in the normal warload. Admittedly this is direct-fire artillery, but it was planned, and intended to strongly complement the organic and attached conventional artillery during preparatory fires.

BTW the OF series are notably absent from the T series tanks right now...

[Tacbat]

How bored are you?

Long range.rar

[3Star]

As for a stroke of luck, well with all the M1a1 running around in combat the last 10 years we have not seen such a long range kill for the smooth bore. Given that the numbers would favor the 120mm SB due to so many being in the right place at the right time, and given the American fetish of shooting things ( no offense) where is the smooth bores record?

Somewhere just over 4km. Ray Manning on TankNet explained the way he calculated the required superelevation in emergency mode for a 4160m engagment, speculative shot. (i.e. They knew they were at the front line, no friendlies beyond, and they were bored). There have been claims of 4.3km or more, but I think those were just cases where 'dispersion happened to go up'

Would you issue the fire command on so-so ID of the target?

If you have no reason to believe they're friendly, yes.

NTM

[Ssnake]

If you have no reason to believe they're friendly, yes.

Trigger-happy Yank, you! :sonic:

[Norfolk]

12Alfa wrote:

As for a stroke of luck, well with all the M1a1 running around in combat the last 10 years we have not seen such a long range kill for the smooth bore. Given that the numbers would favor the 120mm SB due to so many being in the right place at the right time, and given the American fetish of shooting things (no offense) where is the smooth bores record?

In The Generals' War by Michael R. Gordon and LtGen Bernard E. Trainor (USMC ret'd.), there were accounts of US Army M-1A1's, from the 24th Infantry Division I seem to recall, taking out Iraqi tanks from the flank with sabot at ranges of nearly 3 miles in ODS. So perhaps a little under 4,800 m, if true. Unreal.

[Ssnake]

One should mention that the experiences in ODS resulted in doctrinal changes for long range engagements, at least in the Bundeswehr. Both the hit rates as well as the ammunition effectiveness were better than previously expected. On the other hand, since the ballistic computers were limited to 3990m range calculations this put a cap on long range engagement gunnery training. Finally the issue of proper target identification procedures.

[LtGeorge]

The russians did doctrinally use their tanks as assault artillery - hence the roughly 50% loadout of HE in the normal warload. Admittedly this is direct-fire artillery, but it was planned, and intended to strongly complement the organic and attached conventional artillery during preparatory fires.

This was also the case with Iraqi tanks in the 1980s. I recall reading an article a number of years ago where their T-72s were used as artillery, but it killed the barrels and helped prompt them to start their tank factory.

But I thought the high HE loadout in Russian tanks was a concession to a belief that tank-on-tank engagements were less likely than tank-on-infantry engagements. It may have been a holdover from WWII, where many doctrines were more concerned with defeating infantry than tanks. ??

[GH_Lieste]

Doesn't recent experience (and the rush to service of a number of HE/Cannister/Enhanced lethality MPAT rounds) support this idea that tanks are often used/required to act as fire support for infantry?

[Volcano]

I would say that in a MOUT environment, yes, that is absolutely true. The roles are switched in such an environment where the tanks are secondary and support the infantry, rather than the other way around in open terrain.

[GH_Lieste]

One could argue that there are harldy any areas devoid of urbanisation in central europe - except those which are rugged enough to be a barrier in their own right.

Open areas are usually broken up by hedgerows/woods/rivers, and bordered by villages/towns/cities.