In your personal opinion which is the most effective tank in Steel Beasts Pro PE

[[]_--__[]KITT]

I'm chilled.:cul:

Maybe in your world that's the consensus. The fact remains that the tube (rifled/smooth) design has little effect muzzle velocity. It's the propellent energy and the device (weight/area) going down the tube. Prove me wrong.

If a person post statements that seems to be based on facts, then he should be able to back them up.

Next we will have ppl saying they went to the moon:biggrin:

Saying comments like"hesh can't kill the enemy tank, etc" are easy to post, backing them up is another matter.

I'm reading the physics to move a projectile down the any given tube, they don't look simple:frown:

I was never in the Iraq war, and the insurgents were never my business,:confused: don't see the connection.

If the points are obvious, then showing some sources should be easy/simple, right.

What we see is more of the same, this can do that, and that can do this, all of this without any links, sources, data, even some hand drawn stick drawings, nothing, nada.

While I'm chilling out you can ponder why that is.........:confused:

Hmm if you insist on everyone providing sources then again how do you prove that the sources are reliable, you simply don't in the end in the world of proving by your way of thinking is to prove it yourself. Again the way you insists proofs is really a moot point. It made you look like a stubborn fool (sorry for saying this I just think I have to be bluntly honest). How do you even know for sure that your parents are your biological parents? DNA test? but how do you know that DNA test isn't fabricated or even reliable? I really hope the world you're living in is not Canada because I thought the West taught common sense and good judgment and respect of other people's opinion. Atm you're not using your common sense and insist on a moot point. It's like talking to a small but stubborn child. It's like talking to a robot which cannot use his common sense lacking the necessary data and capabilities to digest the information.

Look for yourself the available data. Muzzle velocity of the T-72 gun is greater than Challenger 2's and I'd think muzzle velocity of M1A1 is too greater than Challenger 2's. Look it in the internet. Muzzle velocity of T-72 gun is 1800m/s for ap while Challenger 2 muzzle velocity for its ap round is about 1600m/s if I'm not mistaken(rifled gun requires if im not mistaken lower pressure to operate hence they probably use less explosive powder to launch the projectile if not they risk dmaaging the gun real quick, service life of smoothbore is longer than rifled gun too). Of course each tank has different shape of ap round but the comparison of muzzle velocity should back the general consensus that rifled gun fires slower projectile [don't miss reading this--->in comparison to comparable smoothbore gun.] In the end lower maximum pressure requirement and greater friction of rifled gun made it to fire projectiles at lower velocity than a smoothbore equivalent.

I know you may not be or might have not been in the army I just felt you were being too confrontational needlessly hence a 'warlike' individual to put it in a phrase.

[Hunt3r]

Hate to interject, but my favorite part about this thread is that there is an identical one and for some reason people inexplicably chose to post more often in this one.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Hate to interject, but my favorite part about this thread is that there is an identical one and for some reason people inexplicably chose to post more often in this one.

Heheh they are not identical, this poll provides the link to the other poll :biggrin:

One is about the most effective tank the other is about the most COST effective tank

[12Alfa]

_--__[]KITT;217690']Hmm if you insist on everyone providing sources then again how do you prove that the sources are reliable' date=' you simply don't in the end in the world of proving by your way of thinking is to prove it yourself. Again the way you insists proofs is really a moot point. It made you look like a stubborn fool (sorry for saying this I just think I have to be bluntly honest). How do you even know for sure that your parents are your biological parents? DNA test? but how do you know that DNA test isn't fabricated or even reliable? I really hope the world you're living in is not Canada because I thought the West taught common sense and good judgment and respect of other people's opinion. Atm you're not using your common sense and insist on a moot point. It's like talking to a small but stubborn child. It's like talking to a robot which cannot use his common sense lacking the necessary data and capabilities to digest the information.

Look for yourself the available data. Muzzle velocity of the T-72 gun is greater than Challenger 2's and I'd think muzzle velocity of M1A1 is too greater than Challenger 2's. Look it in the internet. Muzzle velocity of T-72 gun is 1800m/s for ap while Challenger 2 muzzle velocity for its ap round is about 1600m/s if I'm not mistaken(rifled gun requires if im not mistaken lower pressure to operate hence they probably use less explosive powder to launch the projectile if not they risk dmaaging the gun real quick, service life of smoothbore is longer than rifled gun too). Of course each tank has different shape of ap round but the comparison of muzzle velocity should back the general consensus that rifled gun fires slower projectile [don't miss reading this--->in comparison to comparable smoothbore gun.'] In the end lower maximum pressure requirement and greater friction of rifled gun made it to fire projectiles at lower velocity than a smoothbore equivalent.

I know you may not be or might have not been in the army I just felt you were being too confrontational needlessly hence a 'warlike' individual to put it in a phrase.

You are mistaken on so many levels.

First the gun has NO Muzzle velocity, it's the projectile. On quoting the above MBT's for a MV why reference for only a certain type of round, not all of them. You as others have a convenient way of picking some numbers to make a point. It does not work that way.

My sources as I have posted are from the people who design/build, and test such systems/metals/effects, and the effects on said systems. You can say that I don't know what I'm taking about (a big leap) how ever, saying said sources are wrong says a lot about why you can't back up any of the posts, rather using insults and name calling.

Yes I live in Canada, and yes I'm in the forces, in a armoured Regt. And yes I know about what I talk about from real world usage.

So you may sit there and continue with the name calling and your defending of theories you may or may not have seen on the web, I fear this has back fired on you. When all else fails resort to the name calling and posts like the above.

I did not insist on anything, merely asking,and respect other opinions,and want to know where the data comes from to learn more about the subject I have been involved in for the last 40+ years.

Taking data of the web for a discussion that is not based in KNOWN data is wrong. But you know this, don't you.

I will end this, seeing that some people can't have a discussion in factual subjects without having there point made with name calling and other childless behavior ( don't want to say that, I'll look for a kinder way when I get time).

We have seen this behavior before here, sadly they don't last long:frown:

[Ssnake]

_--__[]KITT;217690']... Muzzle velocity of T-72 gun is 1800m/s for ap while Challenger 2 muzzle velocity for its ap round is about 1600m/s if I'm not mistaken

Apples and Oranges. The T-72's 1800m/s figure is for a steel projectile, the CHallenger would fire tungsten or depleted Uranium rounds. All three behave quite differently at different velocity ranges, dU being particularly more effective than the others at slower velocities. Second, looking just at muzzle velocities doesn't tell you anything about muzzle energy (if a projectile has less mass, it can easily be accelerated to higher V0 without necessarily having a higher muzzle energy), and the muzzle energy isn't really helpful as long as you don't know the parasitic mass of the sabot (which won't contribute to the penetration depth at impact). Even if you know the flying mass of two KE rounds and their respective muzzle velocities, for a proper assessment of their capabilities you need to know their dimensions (working length of the penetrator rod, frustrum length, ...), the velocity decay, and the materials used (armor target and penetrator material density, Brinell hardness).

Some of these factors play a bigger role than others, but the fact remains that the typical published figures won't help an estimation of a certain round's performance with less than a 20% margin of error - which is utterly useless for military intelligence. That's why you can actually find these figures all over the internet (mixed with the usual dose of disinformation), but rarely the other figures unless someone managed to snap a photo with an object of known dimension for photogrammetric analysis.

Steel Beasts doesn't claim to be better than those 20% margin of error (though we probably are in many cases), but for training purposes this is irrelevant unless you are training for some commando style action that involved firing just one or two tank rounds at a known target in a known location to achieve a specific effect ... all of which is entertaining, but has no basis in reality as I know it.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

@Ssnake

Yeah I know they fire ap rounds of different effectiveness. And to add that The ap rounds in T-72M1 had big fins so the they tend to lose energy much quicker at longer ranges reducing its tank killing potency.

I didn't say that the Challenger 2 anti tank round or performance was subpar to that of T-72M1. Not at all.

I was just comparing the muzzle velocity of ap round between a smoothgbore and rifled gun. I didn't imply that Challenger had subpar anti tank performance to that of T-72M1. I wasn't comparing the gun performance just the muzzle velocity and nothing else.

And I know the mass difference would affect muzzle velocity too but I was under the impression it would not be too significant (on muzzle velocity). I used the M1A1 and T-72M1 because I didn't know the muzzle velocity of the M1A1 ap rounds. I was posting that under the assumption that the gun and ap rounds were comparable. Besides there was no data available to me that 1600m/s muzzle velocity of the Challenger 2 was the muzzle velocity of the depleted uranium ap round . It could be a non Du round.

But now I found a reference to M1A1 muzzle velocity which is 1750m/s. Because M1A1 fires depleted uranium ap round too hence would that make it comparable to making the point that a rifled tank gun fire slower projectile which in the case of Challenger 2 is 1600m/s?:biggrin:

[Grenny]

@12Alfa,

Sometimes its hard with internet discussions. Esp. wrong perceptions by other players and "opinions" vs underlying "data".

Point is: many here know well how it is...but will forever be unable to quote their data, (or some S2 guy will be at their neck in now time ;-) )

Don't get wound-up, its point less

@KITT,

Do you have any idea about the weight or shape of the M1's or the CR2's projectiles?

If not, comparing their speeds will lead you.... where exactly?

[[]_--__[]KITT]

You are mistaken on so many levels.

First the gun has NO Muzzle velocity, it's the projectile. On quoting the above MBT's for a MV why reference for only a certain type of round, not all of them. You as others have a convenient way of picking some numbers to make a point. It does not work that way.

My sources as I have posted are from the people who design/build, and test such systems/metals/effects, and the effects on said systems. You can say that I don't know what I'm taking about (a big leap) how ever, saying said sources are wrong says a lot about why you can't back up any of the posts, rather using insults and name calling.

Yes I live in Canada, and yes I'm in the forces, in a armoured Regt. And yes I know about what I talk about from real world usage.

So you may sit there and continue with the name calling and your defending of theories you may or may not have seen on the web, I fear this has back fired on you. When all else fails resort to the name calling and posts like the above.

I did not insist on anything, merely asking,and respect other opinions,and want to know where the data comes from to learn more about the subject I have been involved in for the last 40+ years.

Taking data of the web for a discussion that is not based in KNOWN data is wrong. But you know this, don't you.

I will end this, seeing that some people can't have a discussion in factual subjects without having there point made with name calling and other childless behavior ( don't want to say that, I'll look for a kinder way when I get time).

We have seen this behavior before here, sadly they don't last long:frown:

Hmm chill out....you said you were not in the forces now you're saying you are....Chill out. Okay you're in Canada.

I've been gone from the forum for 5 years I see you're still your old self :biggrin:. I've grown ... my beard since.

Hair stays the same though...just picture perfect! You know congressman cut. All I need now is a congressman's income.

Chill out I was trying to put some sense I knew it wouldn't work but I'm an optimistic person mostly. I really wasn't trying to make you mad. I mean well really. Sorry if I ruined your day and if I did just consider what I wrote nothing serious.

Here's something to cheer your day

[dejawolf]

http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_tgs_120ammo.asp

now we have a basis of comparison.

from kotsch88:

L23: 8kg penetrator.

propellant 6.65kg

v0: 1534m/s

from atk:

M829A1: 9.0kg penetrator

propellant: 7.9kg

v0: 1575m/s.

The rheinmetall gun has more propellant. which could explain why the rounds are faster.

although the rheinmetall gun is an L44, and the L30A1 is an L55.

[Grenny]

Thanks deja, thats more like a diskussion here :-)

Edit: Given that date(which must be an averrage value+public available date))

L23 stands at: 18,8 MJ

M829A1 at: 22,3 MJ

Hmm??? seems a bit high...usually muzzle energies are given in the single digit MJ range.

(compare with Dathan, "Waffenlehre", or "Waffentechn. Taschenbuch" Rheinmetal)

Just remeber:

The velocity/weight of a penetrator, are usually quiete interesting numbers for the "arms" race.

Any number picked on the interweb has to be taken with a pinch of salt :-P

[[]_--__[]KITT]

http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_tgs_120ammo.asp

now we have a basis of comparison.

from kotsch88:

L23: 8kg penetrator.

propellant 6.65kg

v0: 1534m/s

from atk:

M829A1: 9.0kg penetrator

propellant: 7.9kg

v0: 1575m/s.

The rheinmetall gun has more propellant. which could explain why the rounds are faster.

although the rheinmetall gun is an L44, and the L30A1 is an L55.

L23 has less propellant could be because rifled gun requires lower maximum pressure to use. That and more friction cause the projectile fired to be slower than a smoothbore comparable.

Speaking of comparable guns both guns are not identical of either type meaning that to discuss this on reliable ground basing on Alfa's insistence is to make another gun of the different type for each the British rifled gun and the US smoothbore using firing exactly the same round(at least mathematically speaking).

Do you see that even with this data the discussion is still moot....

Like I said COMMON SENSE. It has become a God damn super power. Come on what's the difference between muzzle velocity and V0? mere wording. Alfa couldn't even understand the term or wouldn't accept the term muzzle velocity. I wasn't referring to velocity of the muzzle but muzzle velocity of [each specific] rounds fired......simple English really.

If you want to be specific you need to USE solely theory since these guns are not the same. I'm not insisting that.

The discussion has become a matter of vanity it seems.

If anyone claims a rifled gun to fire faster or comparable projectile velocity than a comparable smoothbore then I must say NUTS! *AP rounds in Challenger 2 is designed to be fired with minimum spinning so I guess it would help but still without innovations rifled guns fire slower projectile or have lower muzzle velocity in general. That's all I'm trying to say.

[dejawolf]

some more information from tanknet:

"According to an older article by Jane's, the L11A5 has an operating pressure of 26t. The L30A1 has a maximum design pressure of 40t and an operating pressure of 33t at 21°C (with a peak pressure of 37t at that temperature). "

"The Exp 32 M 1 has a maximum chamber pressure of 6,180 bar. According to wikipedia and literature this gun was later redesignated and entered service as L30. L11 has therefore a max. chamber pressure significantly below 6,000 bar. "

6180/40. = 154.5

operating pressure of L11A5:

154.5*26 = 4017.0 bars

operating pressure of L30A1:

154.5*33 = 5098.5 bars

now the L23 round was originally fired from the L11A5 gun, so the 6.65kg charge could be for this gun, so the L30A1 gun might be able to fire the L23 round with a heavier charge.

[Grenny]

_--__[]KITT;217783']L23 has less propellant could be because rifled gun requires lower maximum pressure to use. That and more friction cause the projectile fired to be slower than a smoothbore comparable.

....

....

Come on what's the difference between muzzle velocity and V0? mere wording.

...

Forgive me for picking just 2 points(with the danger of missquoting)

But "lower required pressure" and "more friction" seem to contradict each other ;-)

and the second one: to be correct the in the "V0", the v should be small, and have a vector sign attached.

And edit: I'm not a native english speaker, but shouldn't it be "velocity at the muzzle..."

The reachable velocities between in smooth/rifles guns based on many factors, so the disscuss different gun spec. is indeed without value.

One would need 2 gun with: same caliber lenght, same applied preasure over time (so: same charge, with same combustion behaviour), same cage design...etc etc.

Then we can compare values.

[dejawolf]

Any number picked on the interweb has to be taken with a pinch of salt :-P

hmmh, you screwed up your calculations. the formula for muzzle energy is:

the correct figures:

L23 stands at: 9,4 MJ

M829A1 at:11,2 MJ

[Grenny]

hmmh, you screwed up your calculations. the formula for muzzle energy is:

the correct figures:

L23 stands at: 9,4 MJ

M829A1 at:11,2 MJ

Yes...bugger, forgot to put that *0,5 thingy into exel :-P.

Got to wake up my second brain cell.

That corrects the formula, still weight and muzzle velocity numbers are...well ;-)

[[]_--__[]KITT]

And to compare that data to the L55 Rheinmettal gun on the Leopard 2E....

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Forgive me for picking just 2 points(with the danger of missquoting)

But "lower required pressure" and "more friction" seem to contradict each other ;-)

and the second one: to be correct the in the "V0", the v should be small, and have a vector sign attached.

And edit: I'm not a native english speaker, but shouldn't it be "velocity at the muzzle..."

The reachable velocities between in smooth/rifles guns based on many factors, so the disscuss different gun spec. is indeed without value.

One would need 2 gun with: same caliber lenght, same applied preasure over time (so: same charge, with same combustion behaviour), same cage design...etc etc.

Then we can compare values.

Yes it should be velocity at the muzzle I know but I wrote what I wrote on purpose since by saying velocity at the muzzle for muzzle velocity it would directly refer to projectile which muzzle velocity refers to but Alfa missed.

You're right lower pressure requirement and more friction seems to contradict with each other but the reason they are not is that they are compared to comparable smoothbore. In comparison with a smoothbore both higher friction [than smoothbore] and lower pressure requirement [than smoothbore equivalent] makes rifled gun to fire slower projectile. Hope it clears it out. If people need to explain in such a detail i'd say no communication is possible. People need to use common sense otherwise communication would become cumbersome. This is no scientific journal afterall. Even scientific journals usually are lacking details as they just put the essence of their calculation results to get their point across(plus the resulting analysis and summary). It is assumed the readers would understand the necessary steps to reach those results.

as for smaller case v yeah you're right again but this isn't math/physics class(I know using the '/' is wrong here but...) To communicate is primarily to express yourself and made your point across. In that regard smaller v or uppercase V wouldn't matter much but you're right it's suppsoed to be smaller case v as for a vector sign attached that depends if you're just refering it as a speed as non vector variable and computing for non vector variable then I think it's okay to do away with the vector sign.

Hmm all these made me wonder it seems you guys are still in school or college? Once you go out in the real world all that matters is getting(giving) the easiest explanation. Unless of course you talk to people with similar background then you can be more technical and specific. Or you guys are probably law student which I don't think so or pollice officer hehehe. Those people are trained to be specific, really specific, they are trained not to leave room for ambiguity and not to assume anything. You know the square kind of people who cannot see round edges in everything hehe. That 'quality' is needed in their line of work but would fail them miserably in other lines of career such as financial/market analysts or political analysts.

Edited August 8, 2012 by []_--__[]KITT

[dejawolf]

Yes...bugger, forgot to put that *0,5 thingy into exel :-P.

Got to wake up my second brain cell.

That corrects the formula, still weight and muzzle velocity numbers are...well ;-)

hmmh, well, according to wiki (of all things)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829

the weight of penetrator and sabots are 9kg. penetrator alone is only 4.6kg.

[Stuart666]

some more information from tanknet:

"According to an older article by Jane's, the L11A5 has an operating pressure of 26t. The L30A1 has a maximum design pressure of 40t and an operating pressure of 33t at 21°C (with a peak pressure of 37t at that temperature). "

"The Exp 32 M 1 has a maximum chamber pressure of 6,180 bar. According to wikipedia and literature this gun was later redesignated and entered service as L30. L11 has therefore a max. chamber pressure significantly below 6,000 bar. "

6180/40. = 154.5

operating pressure of L11A5:

154.5*26 = 4017.0 bars

operating pressure of L30A1:

154.5*33 = 5098.5 bars

now the L23 round was originally fired from the L11A5 gun, so the 6.65kg charge could be for this gun, so the L30A1 gun might be able to fire the L23 round with a heavier charge.

Im not sure about that. L23 round was pre CHARM ammunition, and in Challenger2 would almost certainly have been little more than a training round. The main service APFSDS rounds for Challenger 2 would have been L26 and L27. Challenger 1 for example actually had XL26 (the prototype L26 round) issued in 1991 which rather points to its general obsolecence by that point. Would they have developed a new charge to take advantage of the higher pressure of the L30? Ive my doubts.

Thats the main reason why Challenger2 had miserable export sales. It didnt have a non DU penetrator that could do more than scuff paint till very late in the day. I think they only got serious about developing L28 after the Greek tank trial.

Note that L23A2 as I vaguely understand it was another name for L28. From what little I understand of it, it has no relationship with the original L23.

Ive looked to see what the gun pressure was in the Chieftain gunnery manual but its not even listed there. I think the nearest you are going to get to it is looking through some of the documents online related to Conqueror barrel wear.

[12Alfa]

From a defense paper states:

L30 120mm high-pressure rifled gun has a new design with self-obturating breach to give quick, yet reliable , operation up to 6,180 bars.

Goes on with materials used and the process, and, the gun is designed to fire all current UK 120mm ammunition, as well as a high-pressure APFSDS round.

Not from the web.:biggrin:

[[]_--__[]KITT]

According to this http://www.rtbot.net/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun

Rheinmetall L55 gun has been tested as a possible replacement for the L30 rifled gun currently fitted on Challenger 2 though I doubt the British would use a German gun. Anyway wouldn't that imply something?

I'm not saying L30 or any rifled gun as not being a decent tank gun(I think the L30 is a very good gun in itself) but all I'm saying for anti tank purposes of firing sabot round smoothbore would be a better gun.

Hmm it seems my own country(Indonesia) is indeed buying 100 Leopard 2A6(and 12 Apache attack helicopter) some of which are expected to arrive soon to take part in Army parade on 5th of October. I wonder what the color scheme would be.

I would love taking a peek inside the turret, slim chance though, would have to compete with the flock of masses.

As for the poll it's quite a tie between M1A1(HA) and Leopard 2E so far.

Hehehehe those depleted uranium slabs must be a very tough nut to crack.

[Gibsonm]

_--__[]KITT;217823']Rheinmetall L55 gun has been tested as a possible replacement for the L30 rifled gun currently fitted on Challenger 2 though I doubt the British would use a German gun.

Why not, the Germans used the British 105mm L7 in Leo 1.

The bigger issue is that the turret layout in Challenger 2 is setup for two piece ammunition while the German gun used "fixed" (one piece ammunition).

Would require a pretty major turret redesign.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Would require a pretty major turret redesign.

Yeah I heard(read) that too.

[Stuart666]

From a defense paper states:

L30 120mm high-pressure rifled gun has a new design with self-obturating breach to give quick, yet reliable , operation up to 6,180 bars.

Goes on with materials used and the process, and, the gun is designed to fire all current UK 120mm ammunition, as well as a high-pressure APFSDS round.

Not from the web.:biggrin:

Im not disagreeing or disbelieving you, I just find it impossible to corroborate. Its not in any of the manuals on Challenger 1, Chieftain or Khalid. Its not even in any of the Janes books ive got going back over 30 years, which include the AFV retrofit books which had the same data on autocannons. The data on L11A5 might be in the maintainance checklist of the Challenger1 but I cant find it at the moment. I rather doubt it because that would be mainly related to oil levels and other checklists.

You got a link for that because a friend of mine would find it very interesting.

As for the Rhinemetal gun, its been officially binned for some time according to a source of mine. I also gather Challenger 2s are still being cut up, and not just war damaged ones either.

Last I checked L28 is still under development though, and its got a penetration apparently higher than L27, which is not bad for a non du round.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

I also gather Challenger 2s are still being cut up, and not just war damaged ones either.

Aww I gather now would be the perfect time for some rich Arab nations to buy Challenger 2 then?

You know to save them from being cut up?:frown:

(I don't think you cut up a tank), probably putting them in reserves basically just parking them without doing maintenance or minimal one. Unless the tank is old then it is stripped of its electronics and sold for scrap metal.

Eurozone is really in trouble huh. They are opening local investment office soon at the building where my parent works(and the company she work for owns). Rumor has it they are turning to Asia(including Indonesia) to make money(invest here) that situation there in the Eurozone is bad. Spoke to one of them just briefly over the phone, a German judging from the name and voice(Germans often sound like Finnish or Norwegian when they speak English)