Cold War British armor

>>34636117
Because T-72 had an armour that made it frontaly immune to 120mm APDS and HESH. T-64/72 seriess were imune to any Nato ammo until Abrams came with Silver Bullet APFSDS.

T-62 in the other hand well 115mm ammo is very similer to 120mm ammo. It was the first tank used APFSDS and 115 was a great cannon but T-62 was a shitty tank.

Chieftain had a good gun and very good FCS but the engine was weak and unreliable (blue smokes) It also used horstmann suspension. For looks though Chief is the sexiest

>>34636117
because the iranians were using L15 standard. in combination with the wrong bag charges.

During the battle of the bridges in kuwait some chieftains took out t72s frontally with L15A4 without loss.

The leyland engine became reliable just around mk5.

M60 was

File: Chieftain highres.jpg (389KB, 2048x1248px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 2048x1248px

>>34636117

The engine was at first pretty unreliable. But once they had upgraded them over a few years they got a lot better. Just that initial period was so bad that the reputation stuck, similar to how the Crusader MkIII fixing the reliability problems isn't well known since the MkI was so bad for it.

It was a great tank overall for its intended purpose though. Great gun, great FCS, great protection, had a few fancy innovations like the reclined driver and muzzle reference system, regenerative steering. Very upgradable too. They just were never particularly the fastest around, but as a defensive tank, it was never expected to be rolling around at 72kph anyway.

Iran-Iraq War was a poor example given >Arab tactics. Driving into an open area at medium/close range mostly side on against T-72's, yeah no wonder they suffered.

Do note though, in the Gulf War in 1991, Chieftains shrekt T-72s in return at the Battle of the Bridges, when used as Chieftains were intended to be used.

It's probably one of my favorite tanks, it's just this really interesting anomoly on the bridge between 2nd to 3rd gen tanks. Like a 2nd gen tank trying its very hardest to LOOK like a 3rd gen.

And yes, it's also sexy as FUCK.

Kuwaiti chieftains shot Iraqi army to bits in 1990 before withdrawing when they ran out of ammo.

In the right hands and being used in its intended role (defensive), is a highly effective tank.

File: single shot rifle in quotation marks.png (638KB, 1328x1968px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 1328x1968px

Yours! for only a years salary!

File: Scorpion.jpg (388KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 2000x1333px

General British Cold War armor topic?

Gotta have a Scorpion. Can't have a thread without a Scorpion.

>>34636561
>very good FCS

>1960s
>ranging machinegun
>good
>nope.jpg

>>34636632
>some chieftains took out t72s frontally with L15A4 without loss

Sauce ?


>>34636645
>regenerative steering

Every MBT of this era used geared steering with double or triple differential.

>>34636117
Pretty sure Israeli Chieftains wrecked plenty of T-62s.

>>34636698

>Every MBT of this era used geared steering with double or triple differential.

Most Soviet ones did not. Pretty sure the AMX-30 didn't either.

Either way, regenerative steering was something not universal by then, having it was always a good thing for any tank.

And yes, it did have a very accurate fire control. There's more to it than just the ranging (which was upgraded to a laser anyway quite soon after entering service). The muzzle reference system for example, the stabilisation, the sights. All of that is a combined system.

File: Saladin.jpg (88KB, 800x515px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x515px

>>34636739

You sure you don't mean Kuwaiti Chieftains? Israel never used Chieftains, quite famously so actually since they got denied it.

More random British armor of the time.

>>34636739
Israel was never approved to buy chieftain.

They did however get centurions through a middle man as the british public was reluctant to sell centurions with the sergeants hanging was still in memory.

File: 1462883859276.jpg (342KB, 2048x1232px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 2048x1232px

>>34636739

Kuwaiti Chieftains annihilated Republican Guard T72's while suffering 0 loses.

The Iranian chieftains were ambushed and surrounded, therefore a poor judge of the tank.

Chieftan was designed for defence in depth - to defend a hull down position, penetrate any Soviet tank put up against it, then retreat under cover to new positions to do the same again.

In this role, there was no better NATO tank until Challenger arrived.

>>34636561
>Because T-72 had an armour that made it frontaly immune to 120mm APDS and HESH

Stop talking utter shite unless you have a source. The 120mm gun used in Chieftain and Challenger was the most lethal tank gun in NATO until the L55 120mm smoothbore. HESH is for soft skinned vehicles and buildings.

>>34636774
>with the sergeants hanging was still in memory.
More like "with OPEC threatening to cut off their oil if the cooperated with the Zoinist Entity".
The bongs had no problem cooperating with the Israelis in designing the Chief.

>>34637287
Not just soft skinned, but anything without composite armour. The spalling HESH causes is devastating

>>34637287
>most lethal tank gun in NATO until the L55 120mm smoothbore
Thats pretty debatable.

L30A1 firing CHARM3 only has 20mm less penetration (on flat trajectories) than an L55 firing DM53, but makes up for it at closer range and on arcing trajectories. And the rumoured L28 (A tungsten round pulled out of training use) is said to have up to 30mm more penetration than the DM53/L55.

L30 is also more accurate and effective out to ~5KM but the L55 can fire LAHAT and missiles so they're pretty evenly matched.

The ideal tank gun would be a 55+ calibre british rifled gun firing american ammo, that could still fire missiles.

>>34637310
Back then britain still had Aden & bahrain and getting oil for nothing...

File: Captured Iraqi T-72.jpg (57KB, 720x443px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x443px

>>34636117
If you're talking about the battle of Dezful, most of that can be chalked up to extremely shitty Iranian command decisions
>Iranian armor is limited to roads because the ground is muddy as shit
>Iraqis are in hull-down positions
>Conflicting orders for the Iranian tankers
>When they attempt to get in formation for battle, most of the tanks are stuck in the mud and cannot maneuver
>Result is a turkey shoot for the Iraqis
Also there were no T-72s at Dezful, those came later. And while they were good, they didn't make too big of an impact on the war.
https://youtu.be/Jmo04Nw5Vdg

>>34637287
>>34637402
HESH is still useful for AT

On a 120mm it has a blast radius of 12m, and can be used to detonate ERA, knock out sights, antennae and even damage engine decks out to 8km

File: 1465423549316.jpg (1MB, 2808x1834px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2808x1834px

Can someone help ID this for me?

>>34637462
MK10 chieftain of berlin brigade and urban camo

Early Stillbrew kit on turret but no additional packages

>>34637497
Thanks!

>>34636645
>great protection
also, regenerative steering can hardly be called a fancy innovation since regenerative systems had been in use since before ww2

>>34637976
meant to add that it is sexy, though. love the sound as well

File: Chieftain rear.jpg (718KB, 1630x995px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 1630x995px

>>34637976

Yeah I misordered including regen steering in the sentence that it came after "innovation". It's more that it did have it, when many tanks still didn't by that point.

And yes, it did have great protection, by the standards of its time.

Also a great ass. Pic very related.

>>34638588
if you consider on par with the m60a1 "great protection"

>>34638704

Given the M60A1 was also a pretty well protected tank by Cold War standards, yes.

Protection was a different scale back then. NOTHING on the battlefield could resist all of what would be flying around. But tank designs like the M60 and Chieftain have a lot more protection against much of it than other vehicles did.

The hard, brutal fact of the Cold War era armor for everyone was "great protection" = "some things might not get you". At the very least it and the M60 would resist a lot of what the still thousands and thousands of older or lighter vehicles were hurling around, things that a Leopard or AMX certainly wouldn't.

Much of the Chieftain's protection by the term wasn't just its armor though. Its accuracy at range, power at range and excellent hull down layout helped protect it a lot more than its armor did.

>>34638851
>Given the M60A1 was also a pretty well protected tank by Cold War standards, yes.
fair enough, then. the chieftain has been memed into this nigh-impenetrable beast. turns out, soviet tests showed it's vulnerable to 125mm apfsds (including the goddamn 3bm-9) from 3000+m, and 115mm apfsds from 1600m

File: Chieftain Stillbrew.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>34638891

>soviet tests

Pinch of salt. Always. It's always tempting to say "And this shell existed", but what matters a lot more to the strategic scale decisions on "acceptable tank resistance rates" or whatever emotionless term they used is the wider scale. If the vast majority of incoming ammunition is not going to be the latest and greatest (and 3VBM-9 didn't enter service till 1976, let alone when it was in widespread use, and thats even if the Soviets weren't exaggerating) then they won't consider it a strategic threat yet.

But yes, it's like with anything. Some people massively exaggerate everything either above or below depending on what they're choosing to shitpost that day.

>>34639003
>and 3VBM-9
the 3bm-9, not 3vbm-9.

>>34636693
> being this poor

You know I just have to say I don't come into this board too much, but most of the its really interesting seeing how much people know about the many different kinds of weapons and vehicles and the varying ways they can be utilized and which is best or such.

The threads here make for interesting reads.

>>34639788
wish there was a little less nationalism though.

>lower glacis: 76 mm

LOL

>>34636693
The only good thing about British gun laws is that the same type of licence that lets you own a handgun will also let you own literally anything else, including a 120mm tank gun

>>34640367
you can get it on a rifle permit

File: T-72 UFP.jpg (218KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 800x600px

>>34636698
Still better than what Soviet had on their T-72s. Slavs are incapable of making FCS and good optics.

>>34637287
T-72 has RHA equivelant of 400+mm agaisnt KE rounds and that is only the LOS thinkess add that to the sloping of the armor that couses ricochet and KE to not deliver itself fully to the armor and bounce. Only way Chief can defeat T-72 is APFSDS and that didn't existed untill 80s for Chief. APDS died after the invention of APFSDS. I've seen a source that Chief APDS can defeat T-72s under 500m but I can't find it again right now. Don't underestime the armor of T-72 when it's compared to Chief my fried

>>34642899
L15A4 penetration at 2KM: 450mm
and thats with APDS-T, i think it entered service in 1972

L15 standard entered service in 1965 with 350mm penetration

L23 entered service in the 1980s and was britains first APFSDS round with the same penetration as the L15A4

For comparison
Jericho L26A1 CHARM1 entered service in 1990 with 530mm penetration

The experimental Charm 2 had about 650mm penetration

L27 CHARM3 entered service in 1998 with 720mm penetration.

L28 (a lengthened Charm3 training round) was released in 2008 for limited service with a penetration believed to be in the region of 770mm

>>34642940
L23 has way more pen than L15A4 iirc. Like I said LOS of T-72 is 400+ agaisnt KE then there is the sloping effect which gives APDS hard time to pen T-72 L15A4s 450mm pen is 90° pen midn the sloping on T-72s. T-72 today is a shitty tank but when it's first came out it was a tank much more better than Chief in armor and armament departmant. Still Chief can pen T-72 turret first models of T-72 has only cast turret not composite. later models have aliminum and sand which are not going to stop 120 APDS. But hull is whole another subject.

>>34642993
>>34642940

The thing you Have to realise is the way the british work out their effective penetration.

The british do an "Absolute Minimum" , so that its 100% guaranteed to do that penetration.

Germans do a mean average of what it should normally do.

Russians do a maximum, so when they say their rounds do 800mm, they really did a test of a thousand rounds and the one fluke that did do 800mm is the one hey use is the figure they use to put out. but could foreseeably have a minimum or average lower than others.

So when you state that 450mm pen at 90deg Median is wrong. its 450mm minimum and can penetrate more if the conditions are ideal.

Regardless Iraqi t72s were whacked with APDS rounds that were at that point replaced twice over.

>>34643044
>Russians do a maximum

No, Soviet penetration figures were that 80% of shells had to penetrate the plate.
German standard is 50% (same as during WW2) and British standard is "absolute minimum", like you said.

>>34643068
Any idea what the american standards are?

American Ammo is god tier and i was wondering if the method they use to measure could have something to do with it.

>>34643077
Not him but americans uses the V50 standard (50%)

>>34643068
Oops forgot to clarify, penetration percentage refers to the amount of the shell that penetrated the armour.
So if 300mm of a 600mm long KE penetrator went through a 500mm plate, by NATO standards that's 500mm effective penetration, but not by Soviet standards, where it would be ~450mm effective penetration.

Don't take this napkin math seriously, it's just meant to give visualization to why penetration tables differ.

>>34643077
Americans use the 50% figure, just like Germany. Makes it easy to compare German and American munitions, but once you start trying to compare them to British or Soviet/Russian munitions things get murky.

>>34636561
The T-72 had shit armor. First gen composite armor, did literally nothing except save weight (albeit at a lower protection levels).

What made the T-72 scary to the west was its ERA added in the 80s. It was a development from the israeli Blazer ERA known as kontakt 5, pretty much negating any shaped charge explosions hit (more than 90%).

Another feature was that western AP rounds were developed against the Blazer, and achieved good results. The kontakt 5 however was much better than Blazer, and western AP rounds were not able to defeat it.

In combination with the BM 22/23 ammunition, the T-72 was a formidable tank against its western contemporaries, but again; its composite armor was not impressive.

>>34643111
Did you read that Polish translated penetration table? The translation is bad and I'm sure you haven't interpreted it properly.
Its not length of penetration, but percentage chance.
Germany and America uses 50%, Soviet Union/Russia use 80%

Still brings the similar difference in penetration figures, with Soviet figures at first glance appearing consistently lower than NATO figures.

>>34643132
Fist-gen composite armour found on Soviet tanks (T-64, T-72A) was good against HEAT shells, but less effective against KE penetrators than pure RHA.
Later mixes (found in the T-72B and T-80) were effective against KE penetrators.

>>34643132
T-72B armor actually impressed West when they finally got complete information. Slap ERA on top of that and you are golden.
Sure it's still cramped as fuck and ammo placement is unlucky, but friendly reminder that Western armor never faced Russian-crewed Russian models, with proper ammo and support, and that fighting in desert with air supremacy isn't a proper test.
One thing that Russians/Soviets lacked however was thermal imaging.

File: 1480225513956.jpg (153KB, 565x659px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 565x659px

>>34643068
>>34643100
>>34643111
>>34643126
Informative posts.

So when the Comparison for:
L55/DM53 = 740mm
M256/M298A3 = 765mm
L30A1/L27A1 = 720mm

it could be the case that the british gun actually performs better under different testing methodology?

Are there any good information on penetration values?

>>34643134
this one?

>>34642940
Where are you getting these fucking numbers from?

File: 14233040_10157445814170615_5594321570598980095_n.jpg (127KB, 850x555px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 850x555px

>>34643159
Why does everyone seem to think that british ammo has low penetration value? Not even reasonably low like it actually is in comparison with others (methodology excluded), everyone seems to think CHARM3 has penetration of 650mm but its wrong.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=720mm+CHARM3

>>34643134
I thought it was length (or maybe mass) of the shell going through the armour that made the Russian figures?
I'm almost certain I read in translated Soviet WW2-era documents referred to the percentages being how much of the shells ended up behind the test plate.

>One thing that Russians/Soviets lacked however was thermal imaging.

That and range, their optics & FCS couldn't reliably engage NATO vehicles beyond 2000m or so. Within that they were on-par with Western vehicles.
Their solution was unnervingly efficient: Keep advancing & engage once you're in range. The cruel Soviet calculus of war ensured that NATO tankers would always be out-numbered.

>>34643159
>>34643176
Funny thing is it should be higher as per the methodology.

It was already stated in the Wikileaks CR2-CLIP article that the L55 only outperformed the L30 on flat trajectories and the ammunition availability. While the L30 outperformed at closer ranges, arcing trajectories, accuracy and ultimate range.

>>34643177
Superior until mid-80's when Abrams entered service in big numbers. After that, I dare say Abrams was superior, but also more expensive.
Keep in mind T-64 was deployed in big numbers while M60A1 was the only tank US possesed.
And let's consider the battlegrounds, engagements beyond 2 kilometers would be rare in Europe.

>>34643137
Later armor, are a completely different story. The difference between early t-64/t-72s (that i was discussing) and T-80U (that was a real gamechanger) is night and day. It should be added though, that the T-80U wasnt without its own issues. It has rather disconcertingly large ballistic holes (ie. areas that isn't protected very good) and its ERA is only effective on ~50% of its projected target area.

>>34643188
>engagements beyond 2 kilometers would be rare in Europe.
the BOAR set up defensive positions in areas where they could only see beyond a certain range to maximise the Conqueror and chieftain main guns.

Anywhere else was considered buffer ground for the infantry to defend and withdraw.

>>34643188
>engagements beyond 2 kilometers would be rare in Europe.
uhm, no? Netherlands-Germany-Poland etc is flat as fuck

>>34643255
>What are woods?

>>34643291
there's a lot of open ground too.

>>34643231
What is this anon? OPFOR version?

>>34643255
>>34643291
>>34643325
>Soviet studies of recent conflicts concluded that tank engagements could occur at ranges over 1,200m where the new rangefinder would be most valuable. The average tank engagement during the Indo-Pakistani War in Kashmir in 1965 was 600–1,200 meters; 1967 Mid-East war engagements were typically at 900–1,100 meters and only in isolated cases at 3,000 meters. Terrain studies of central Europe found that 50 percent of targets would be acquired at 1,000 meters and another 30 percent at 2,000 meters. Even in the flat northern part of West Germany, 83 percent of targets could be spotted at ranges of 3,000 meters or less.

T-64 Battle Tank, The Cold War's Most Secret Tank by Steven J. Zaloga page 6.

>>34643176
Nice one smartass but

>worldoftanks
>armchairgeneral
>abovetopsecret
>armored warfare
>steelbeasts
Not a single source. There are all blogs or gaming forums

>>34644020
name one source for any of the competitors...
Give any value that isn't some estimate...

>>34644020
>>34644141
Can you find any other evidence to the contrary though?

Nope. thats because the only two sources were removed.

>>34644141
Burden of proof, you flaming poof.

You don't have any proof, because you're talking a load of bollocks mate.

File: laugh laugh laugh.jpg (38KB, 620x445px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 620x445px

>>34644179
> HE DIDN'T READ THE WIKILEAKS FILE ON CLIP

>>34644227
Good work making shit up, mate. I had a feeling you was autistic enough to do so.

Fuck off you cretin, you're as bad as chest beating yanks claiming their abrams is invincible

>>34644272
>Fuck off you cretin, you're as bad as chest beating yanks claiming their abrams is invincible
thats me.
Its fuckin 720mil
All the sources state it and you're just mad

>>34644297
Provide said sources then.

>>34644305
You provide sources to the contrary.>>34644297

>>34644305
JESUS H, he gave you the links, its up to you to find the sources.

>>34643176
Because the gun has lower pressure tolerances than the L44/L55

>>34644323
>anon asks for proof for a statement
>W-WHY DON'T YOU PROVIDE PROOF PROVING IT WRONG?
>I-I'M NOT LYING!!!!!
Pathetic.

>>34644342
What links? A Let me google that for you search that provided no genuine information, and rather gaming forums? Aye that sounds like a good bit of source that

>>34643176
>lmgtfy

No, you made the claim, now prove it. It's no one else's job to prove your assertion correct than your own.

File: polish chart 1.png (162KB, 888x584px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 888x584px

>>34644305
>>34644369
first page of the fucking link he gave

You are a fucking retard

CHARM3 and M298A2 have the same penetration with 60mil slope.
M298A2 penetration is stated to be 730mm.
>>34644359
Pressure tolerances aren't required to be as high as it has rifling

>>34639888

This thread's not been too bad really.

Wait, wait I just read further down from where I'd last seen. It's gotten a bit silly now.

File: Polish chart.png (174KB, 866x536px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 866x536px

>>34644393
2/2

>>34644393
>first page of the fucking link he gave
Provide said link again, because I'm convinced you're talking about another thread or completely making shit up

>>34644424
\On fucking google twat

>>34644393
>tolerances aren't required to be as high

What are you even on about? Chamber pressure produced by firing around directly relates to its velocity and energy.

>>34644430
Right, so you are talking absolute nonsense. You've clearly made something up, someone else called you out on your lies, and now you're back peddling and on full damage control.

If said "sources" are so easy for you to find, why don't you just link them on this thread here. Unless, of course, you're a baiting cretin and you're only here to stir shit up.

>>34644430
Nice link and totally not a cop out

>>34644463
>>34644409
>>34644393
>>34644465

You're making my brain hurt

>>34644473
Just post a link and end this already.

File: 1498055319661.png (160KB, 519x358px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 519x358px

>>34644169
>there was source I saw it with my own eyes
>oh but it doesn't exist anymore and there's no proof it ever did lol
>looks like you're just going to have to take my word for it lol

>>34644479
Do you have images enabled on your computer or not because i can see what he posted as clear as day
>>34644393
>>34644409
Stay mad mate, stay mad

>>34644479
He won't because he's lying scum trying to puff his chest out and make something appear better than it actually is.

All these statements and sources are absolute nonsense, and I can tell you that for a fact.

>>34644498
What's so difficult about just posting a link to the source?

You said you had the site and that it was easy to find, so what's the problem?

File: i cant see.jpg (25KB, 489x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 489x500px

>>34644504
>>34644508
Look at these
>>34644393
>>34644409

>>34644504
>I can tell you that for a fact

Prove it.

>>34644512
> DURR POST EVIDENCE
> evidence posted
> WHAT EVIDENCE POST EVIDENCE DUURRR

>>34644512
So what's the source? You said you had the site, just post the site you got it from and this is all over.

>>34644512
Don't bother feeding the trolls

File: IMG_5215.jpg (286KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 2048x1536px

>>34644519
5 years KRH at Tidworth with heavies driver operator and gunnery proficiency

>>34644537
That's not proof. Post proof, not your opinions.

>>34644537
>KRH
Fuck off box 500. I'm not going to slip in a shower and end up in an MOD issue black deployment bag.
No way.

>>34644512
A graph with no link to any website with facts is proof. I could as easily go onto photoshop, make up a mockup and easily claim that the 3VBM6 has a penetrative value of 1000mm RHAe

>>34644561
It's funny because it's true.

>>34644537
Sure cadet sure.

>>34644512
so wheres the link?

File: 1448085456279.jpg (38KB, 429x501px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 429x501px

You guys are aware of the difference of primary and seconday source and that google give users different results based on their search habbits among other things like geographical location?

What you have in first result might be the 20th result for some other guy. Stop being rude to each other.

>>34644613
The point hasn't anything to do with that, rather someone made a bold claim, others have called them out for it, and said individual has stated that he's getting his information from a website.

When asked for the link to that website, he has refused to given it, and avoided any direct answer. Therefor, people here are calling him out as a lying fuck

>>34644613
It's funny because it would have all been settled at the start if someone just copy and pasted a link.

>>34644578
Still waiting for that evidence on your statement, mate. I've got all day.

>>34644537
Dits and didgets or you're a fucking walt.

I bet you're the same guy in the previous thread who said that CHARM3 only weighed 5 kilos and uses a fucking L3 charge bag that weighs another 5 kilos
> A fucking L3

T. proper tank crewman

>>34644650
Not even him and i reverse image searched.

Said guy who posted it writes professionally for an official military journal in poland

well this thread turned into a clusterfuck

>>34644651
Charm3 actually weighs closer to 3kg

t. Royal Hussars member

>>34644667
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1086-tanks-guns-and-ammunition/
Forgot the link

>>34644651
Me last four's 1042 and I'm at Aliwal right now. Rec room fag area mate.

>>34644680
Walting cunt.

If you genuinely served you would have never given up a weight regardless whether it be right or wrong as you know what OSA gets you.

>>34644693
3062 with 2 prefix.

>>34644714
Like anyone cares. Everything has been given up by wiki leaks anyway.

>>34644714
What reg mate

Why are american rounds so much better than the euro rounds? Is it because euros are too beta to use depleted uranium?

>>34644714
I'm going to roll him for OPSEC anyway.

~Reginald

>>34644720
A proper tank regiment.

No i don't wear joggers and stupid hats

>>34644736
British rounds are shorter and fatter.
German rounds are tungsten so natrually shit.

>>34644750
So you're a paddy wog instead?

How's germany?

>>34644680
>>34644717
PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOF!

File: 1498773709586.jpg (23KB, 894x786px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 894x786px

>>34644717

>Like anyone cares

Err...

>>34644667
>official military journal in poland

>>34644762
I can't tell if this is a wind up or a trick question.

>>34644783
It's a wind up mate I'm only having a laugh

>>34644781
He's a legit dude, he's been on national TV.

>>34644771
>cunts already saying they'll report me

lol what kind of retard actually obliges after that?

>>34644810
Still waiting for that evidence on your statement, mate. I've got all day.

>>34644826
Lol why would I even consider it when you guys are being cunts about it? Answer that first

>>34644834
Because everyone knows its bullshit.

>>34644844
lmao okay m8, your reaction to it says everything tho

>>34644852
This is sad.

>Pretty decent thread with a few Brits in it
>Discussing ups and downs of a vehicle
>General agreement of it looking sexy
>Some cool other pictures

>Suddenly bunch of shitposters + that one British autist who shits up every British thread
>Thread ruined

>>34644844
>>34644852
Weight of complete charm round: 10.1KG
NATO standard obturation ring : ~3 KG
10.1-3 is about 7KG.
Bag charges weigh 6-7KG depending on whether you're firing desertised, tropical or temperate rounds
Total Weight 16 or 17Kg.

Standard.

File: Perforation flèches françaises.jpg (85KB, 698x960px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 698x960px

>>34643144

This Polish chart is pure bullshit.

For example, in their data table, the French OFL 120 G1 APFSDS is supposed to penetrate 540-580 mm at 2000 m but in reality, according to the Giat Industries official documentation, the OFL 120 G1 penetrate 550 mm ...at point blank.

File: post-5310-0-32864300-1471629781.jpg (24KB, 406x654px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 406x654px

>>34642940
>L28 (a lengthened Charm3 training round) was released in 2008 for limited service with a penetration believed to be in the region of 770mm


The L29A1 C3TR is shorter than what the Britbong had originally thought.

File: 13735181_1653677044954360_680963450_n.jpg (94KB, 960x752px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x752px

>>34643185
>It was already stated in the Wikileaks CR2-CLIP article

Link ?

>>34644802
so has jack atwater

>>34642899
>Still better than what Soviet had on their T-72s. Slavs are incapable of making FCS and good optics.

The TPD-2-49 optical coincidence rangefinder is always better at measuring distances than a mere ranging machinegun.

>>34636753
>And yes, it did have a very accurate fire control. There's more to it than just the ranging (which was upgraded to a laser anyway quite soon after entering service). The muzzle reference system for example, the stabilisation, the sights. All of that is a combined system.

The French AMX-30's thermal sleeve was more innovative than the Chieftain'one. Sights being mechanically linked to the main gun was common in the 1960s. The American M60 had an analog ballistic computer, the Soviet T-62 had a smoothbore gun firing APFSDS, the Swiss Pz 61/68 featured a hydrostatic steering system like the Swedish STRV-103 which had all of its ammunition in a separated compartment. The FV4201 Chieftain was no more innovative than the others.

>>34644802
So has Pierre Spey, and nobody but retards take anything he says as facts anymore

>>34645893

Gotta love that strawmanning.

At no point was it said it was "the most innovative". Every new tank of the era had SOMETHING others didn't, and the bad ones were those that didn't.

Chieftain had its share of innovations, and where they weren't brand new, it was their presence on it that kept it very relevant and considered an advanced tank for the time. If it DIDN'T have some of those technologies, then it'd be lagging, as many of those things were still quite new. Bear in mind it was more than just the gun being mechanically linked to the sights, it was a projected dot on the sights itself that informed the gunner of any barrel droop or wind sway on the barrel. That was certainly not common at the time, you can spot a muzzle reference system for the sights easily by looking at the barrel of guns at the time to spot the mirror.

It also had a thermal sleeve, too.

>the Swedish STRV-103 which had all of its ammunition in a separated compartment

In theory, separated yes.

However it wasn't like the Abrams where it was a protected compartment. An ammunition detonation would have torn them apart still.

>>34646133
>strv 103

This is certainly true, an ammunition detonation in the strv 103 means the crew dies. However, the ammunition is stored in the rear, meaning that you're not likely to hit it in the first place. A direct shot in the rear would most likely kill the crewmen anyway.

In the chieftain, as well as the leopard 1, the ammunition is stored behind its lower front armor. Again, its less likely to be hit low, but the front is meant to be the business side. And in the leopard case, the armor protecting the ammunition was laughably thin. most AT weapons then and now is able to defeat it and achieve an ammunition hit.

>>34647706
I wrote chieftain instead of centurion.