Why does the Chieftain have a rifled cannon?

>>35079439
Bongs gonna Bong, next they're going to add a ramp to it.

>>35079515
This, a fixation with HESH, and the fact that they were too poor to buy Rheinmetall L55s like the cool kids.

File: tankfest2006a%20(90)[1].jpg (118KB, 1024x679px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x679px

>>35079515
>next they're going to add a ramp to it

>>35079439
Cheiftan entered service in 1966 had the most lethal gun in NATO - using an upgraded version of the 120mm gun from Conqueror (1955).

The 120mm L55 was then used in Challenger which entered service in 1983 and then continued into Challenger 2 in 1998.

Thoughout the life it's had upgrades, but it's still more than capible of engaging other tanks.

The diference between CHARM 3 and US equivilents is minor and at some ranges CHARM 3 outperfroms it's NATO counterparts.

The main reasons for keeping the rifled gun are:

1: Amunition storage - CHallenger 2 is designed to store two part rounds, there would not be space for longer single peice rounds.

2: Lack of demand for a more lethal gun. CHARM 3 is still able to deal with any tank on the battlefield, there is no reason to spend money on ugrading the gun

3: HESH (high explosive squash head) - high explosive/anti vehicle/anti fortification utility round that can only be fired from a rifled gun.

File: flying tank.jpg (27KB, 499x331px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 499x331px

why is it that tanks and big guns are generally smoothbore as opposed to rifled? of course in small arms rifling makes the projectile stable by adding spin, so what benefit does smoothbore present?

>>35079730
criminally underrated

>>35079869
Most anti-tank rounds are fin stabilized darts, right?

>>35079832
>The diference between CHARM 3 and US equivilents is minor and at some ranges CHARM 3 outperfroms it's NATO counterparts.

So you should have no problems at all finding a source for this, right?

But lets get down to where the rifled cannon is abyssmal - it's EFC limit is horrendous compared to the Rheinmetall L44 and L55 500 vs 2000+ is sickening.

>>35079869
because most anti-tank ammunition is fin stabilised, so rifling would not impart useful spin.

there's also a minor gain is pressure as gas can't escape through the rifling.

People quote barrel life but this is basically a non-issue.

>>35079910
>People quote barrel life but this is basically a non-issue.

Anything that adds a logistical burden is an issue.

>>35079903
Not one I'm going to post online, and not one that anyone should post online. So I guess you'll have to pretend that you're right because you found a forum post or a shitty infographic that supports your opinion.

>>35079917
No Challenger 2 has ever had a barrel replacement due to rifling wear.

While the lifetime rounds of a barrel is lower than a smoothbore, the number is still so high that for most vehicles it'll never be an issue. Tanks that have seen extensive combat and training might require an overhaul - but this wasn't the case of any of the vehicles used in Iraq.

>>35079920
>Being this salty over someone asking you to prove your assertions

Incredible.

>>35079900
>>35079910
>>35079917
thanks for the info boys. so then small arms-scale ammunition fin stabilized projectiles don't exist because they aren't cost-effective or easy to manufacture, correct?

>>35079978
>expecting people to post classified information just to win internet arguments with irrelevant strangers.

>>35080032
I'm sure you have access to classified material. I believe you.

>>35079949
>>35079917
Wasn't barrel wear a huge issue for T-72s in Iraqi service? I heard that they reduced training due to that before the gulf war.

>>35079903
>EFC limit is horrendous compared to the Rheinmetall L44 and L55 500 vs 2000+ is sickening.

500 is way off bit it is lower.

The most active tanks in 2003 were in Scots DG, some of them fired around 30 rounds, mostly low pressure HESH. Training rounds can be fired numerous times without depleting the life of the barrel. Hence why no CR2 has ever had a barrel replacement due to wear - drivers tend to be the main cause.

>>35080049
My life goes on exactly the same regardless of what you think anon. sorry.

File: unknown.png (152KB, 301x281px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 301x281px

>>35079920
>Ask for proof of a claim
>Pull the classified card before bemoaning about shitty infographics
>While posting on a Mongolian Throat Singing board

>>35080065
T72's have smoothbores.

And like most arab nations, they buy their equipment but don't buy spares or train mechanics properly. they like to play with their toys not look after them.

The Saudi's are the worst for just buying new gear rather than maintaining what they've got.

>>35080023
They do. SLAP rounds for the M2. However rifles are mainly intended to do damage to flesh, not vehicles. Bullets are better than flechettes for this.

>>35079439
what tanks had smoothbore at the time the Chieftain was introduced, anon?

>>35079527
L55 can't shoot DU properly weighed retard amounts more and are less accurate. their's a reason every new design is defaulting back to the 45 barrel length realm

>>35080184
SLAP is saboted not finned.

>>35080065
it also didn't help that there were reports of iraqi's digging mounds so they could elevate the front of some of their tanks in an attempt to use them as indirect fire artillery pieces early war

File: 1496273485624.png (264KB, 864x722px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 864x722px

>>35079730

>>35079527
HESH does god's work.

File: T-62.jpg (2MB, 2250x1458px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1458px

>>35080262
*cough cough*

Honestly though the Chieftain's rifled gun is really nothing odd for it's time. I think a lot of people forget how old the tank is, and how long ago they started development. Aside from the Russians and at point barely the Germans, nobody was really giving ti much thought. I think the really odd part is the choice to continue with the 120mm gun, even after the failure of the Conqueror and M103 programs. In hindsight it was a sensible move, but at the time there had to be some pushback.

>>35079439
The real reason is that if they used the same gun, the tankies would rob other NATO forces to the point they couldn't fight effectively.

>>35080124
>The Saudi's are the worst for just buying new gear rather than maintaining what they've got.

THREE DIFFERENT MODERN WESTERN TANKS IN SERVICE!

>>35080084
So basically you're wrong. I have classified info your mom used to fuck a bunch of pigs for frat parties, before being exclusively pulling a negro train.

I'd post proof, but it's classified.

Oh you're also a faggot.

File: 1500897851373.jpg (153KB, 565x659px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 565x659px

>>35079903

File: 1500914341775.png (162KB, 888x584px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 888x584px

>>35079903
2/3

File: 1500914404586.png (174KB, 866x536px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 866x536px

>>35079903
3/3