Saudi considers T-95 MBTs?

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry, I missunderstood this.
I thought you think there is a difference between Strv122/Leo 2E and other modernized versions. :)
Do you know which maingun the british have decided to go with, last I heard it was either L44 or L55, I`ll give it to the L55 due to maingun ammunition concerns. (DU)

Saudi Arabia will most likely go with a western designed tank, I do not think that they are real comfortable with Russia having close relations with Iran, could cause big issues down the road. I will place my bet on the Leclerc, but wouldn`t it be cool to see LEO2 A6`s decked out in a desert camoflage.:)
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
They go with a little bit modified L/55 so that it fits into their turret and can use their heat collar.

There are some Leo IIA5DK desert camo (They are now ready for sending them to A-stan if necessary).
But the site I found the pictures is down. Maybe I find them again. :)
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They go with a little bit modified L/55 so that it fits into their turret and can use their heat collar.

There are some Leo IIA5DK desert camo (They are now ready for sending them to A-stan if necessary).
But the site I found the pictures is down. Maybe I find them again. :)
When you can get at them, please post them. That would be pretty neat to see, has Germany tried to market the LEO2 A6 to Saudi Arabia.
 

jaffo4011

New Member
challenger

the main reason for changing the challenger 2 main armament(which is superb in any case) is greater inter operability with other nato forces,the majority of which use the 120 mm smoothbore ammo.
british forces have traditionally utilised rifled weapons as they prefer the greater range of ammunition available for roles other than just anti armour eg;bunker busting an building clearances.
the new l55 weapon though does have a greater range than the current rifled weapon...................

source; janes

Friday, 16 September, 2005
Smoothbore gun gets first test firing
Christopher F Foss

BAE Systems Land Systems has confirmed at DSEi that the 120mm L/55 smoothbore tank gun has carried out its first test firing at the Eskmeals firing range in the UK. For these trials, the weapon was installed in a static mount fitted to a Centurion chassis.

Today the British Army’s Challenger 2 MBT is armed with a 120mm L30 rifled tank gun, which fires separate loading ammunition, projectile and charge. This weapon system is not interoperable with the UK’s NATO allies and to develop a new weapon system is no longer affordable.

Under a Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) Future Business Group contract awarded in 2003, BAE Systems Land Systems teamed with Rheinmetall W & M in developing a 120mm L/55 smoothbore tank gun. This fires standard ammunition obtainable from a variety of sources, including the latest generation of APFSDS (armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) types, which do not use a depleted uranium penetrator. The L/55 has a greater effective range than the current weapon installed in Challenger 2.

This 120mm smoothbore weapon has been manufactured by Rheinmetall W & M of Germany and is ballistically similar to that installed in the latest production German Leopard 2A6 MBT, but externally is almost a direct replacement for the current 120mm L30 rifled tank gun.

After static firing trials the complete weapon system will be integrated in a Challenger 2 turret for a series of unmanned trials, which will take place early in 2006. The UK MoD is continuing to derisk 120mm smoothbore technology for both the projected Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) direct fire platform and the in service Challenger 2 MBT. An additional package of work is expected to extend the TDP.
 

jaffo4011

New Member
incidentally the british rifled item more than lived up to expectations and was probably the best tank gun (with its various derivitives) up until the new l55 weapons were developed....and as i said the fcs is an improved abrams system and there have been no reported problems with its integration with the challenger 2 at all.please see its performance at various gunnery competitions of late if in an doubt!
the abrams is a very good tank though and its still probably the 2nd best mbt out there although the leopard 2 runs it very close(although unproven to date in battle).:p:
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
There is another question.
If the Challi 2 is that superior in terms of protection and FCS than why do they lost nearly every competition against its opponents?

And when I talk to comrades who did some live fire exercises together with the Brits in Bergen they claim that there is no superiority of the Challi 2 FCS more vice versa (Even against Leo IIA4s).

As to rifled guns.
They are very good when it comes to HESH rounds but is is more difficult to reach the same capability with APFSDS like fired from smoothboore guns.

Saying that one tank is the best out there is also very optimistic.
Do you know the real armor stats of a M1A2SEP, Strv122 or Challi 2?

And mobility is also not a plus of the Challi 2. There is a reason for them integrating the 1500ph MTU powerpack into it during the greek tank trials.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
incidentally the british rifled item more than lived up to expectations and was probably the best tank gun (with its various derivitives) up until the new l55 weapons were developed....and as i said the fcs is an improved abrams system and there have been no reported problems with its integration with the challenger 2 at all.please see its performance at various gunnery competitions of late if in an doubt!
the abrams is a very good tank though and its still probably the 2nd best mbt out there although the leopard 2 runs it very close(although unproven to date in battle).:p:
No - the gun did not live up to their expectations to carry it into the next century, it wasn`t just a matter of having a gun that is compatable to NATO ammunition. When will the British start replacing TOGS 2 on the Challie 2, how is it more improved over a M1A2. Which gunnery competitions can I observe so that I can get this information. Every country that has looked at the Challenger 2 for purchase has turned it down, exception being Oman.
 

jaffo4011

New Member
challenger gun

heres the main reason for changing challengers main weapon...and its not because it didnt live up to ecpectations.quite the contrary........

UK Army's New Tank Gun Will End Use of Controversial Uranium-Tipped Shells
by Sean Rayment


The army is planning to end the use of depleted uranium tank rounds, the most controversial weapon in its armory.

The depleted uranium rounds, which were used with great success by British armored units in both Iraq wars and in the Kosovo campaign, are expected to be removed from service within six years and replaced with a new type of tank shell, which uses a different warhead.


Iraqi children sit near a British Challenger tank in the city of Basra
The phasing out of depleted uranium rounds, which are used because of their armour piercing qualities, will please critics of the munition, including veterans of both the 1991 Gulf war and the Kosovo campaign.

They have long argued that the shells can be directly linked to leukemia, kidney damage and lung cancer and is also one of the causes of Gulf war syndrome.

France, Spain and Italy all claim that soldiers from their armies who served in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the rounds were used by NATO forces, have contracted leukemia and other cancers. However, medical opinion on the dangers is mixed with very few studies having been conducted.

The Government continues to insist that the munition is safe, but is preparing to remove depleted uranium rounds from service under Ministry of Defense plans to improve the fighting capability of the Army's Challenger 2 tank.

As part of the enhancement program, the tank will be fitted with a different gun which can fire a wider variety of more effective, and less controversial, ammunition types.

British tanks currently use a rifled gun which can fire only two types of ordnance, high explosive and depleted uranium rounds. This limitation will disappear in the next few years, if, as expected, the MoD decides to have its new tanks built with a smooth bore 120mm gun, which is now used by most NATO armies.

Recent advances in tank ammunition have also led to the development of a new generation of rounds that will no longer be dependent on depleted uranium to achieve the same level of penetration against modern armour. The production of depleted uranium ammunition by the Royal Ordnance, the British arms manufacturer, ceased earlier this year.

The number of depleted uranium rounds in the British Army is classified information, but is estimated to be several thousand, sufficient to last for many years.

The Government has maintained that the munition does not pose any risk to servicemen and has offered those who fear that they may have been contaminated the opportunity to have independent medical tests.

Despite the Government's insistence that depleted uranium is safe, it is now accepted by many Defense chiefs that its use is increasingly politically unacceptable because of its perceived threat to health and the environment.

It is estimated that up to 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium may have been used during the recent war in Iraq.

Towards the end of the war, the United Nations Environment Program said that there was likely to be a risk of inhaling depleted uranium dust, with large doses of potentially dangerous radiation within 150 meters of buildings and vehicles being hit by American and British munitions.

Soldiers returning from Iraq are now being offered tests for the level of depleted uranium in their bodies, which the MoD says it intends to publish.

Depleted uranium ammunition was designed to penetrate the armour of Soviet and Warsaw Pact tanks during the Cold War. It is a by-product of making nuclear bombs and fuel for reactors.

It is called "depleted" because it is far less reactive than uranium. It is 1.7 times as dense as lead, so only small amounts are needed to be able to punch through armour.

In the Kosovo war in 1999, NATO forces used 31,000 rounds tipped with depleted uranium. About 18,000 rounds were also used in the alliance's previous campaign in Bosnia.

British tanks use the munition in a round called the "armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot". The round is fired at such a speed that against lightly armored vehicles, such as those used by the Iraqis, it punches a hole straight through the tank. When it hits more modern armour it burns fiercely at very high temperatures, releasing a cloud of radioactive dust.

Both Britain and the United States have admitted that this dust can be dangerous if inhaled but they argue that there is more risk of chemical poisoning from the heavy metal than from the radiation, and that both dangers are only short-lived.

An MoD spokesman said: "Research is continuing into the alternatives to depleted uranium. We are considering investigations into the main armament options for tanks and the result of that will effect future equipment decisions but there are no specifics available at the moment."

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
heres the main reason for changing challengers main weapon...and its not because it didnt live up to ecpectations.quite the contrary........

UK Army's New Tank Gun Will End Use of Controversial Uranium-Tipped Shells
by Sean Rayment


The army is planning to end the use of depleted uranium tank rounds, the most controversial weapon in its armory.

The depleted uranium rounds, which were used with great success by British armored units in both Iraq wars and in the Kosovo campaign, are expected to be removed from service within six years and replaced with a new type of tank shell, which uses a different warhead.


Iraqi children sit near a British Challenger tank in the city of Basra
The phasing out of depleted uranium rounds, which are used because of their armour piercing qualities, will please critics of the munition, including veterans of both the 1991 Gulf war and the Kosovo campaign.

They have long argued that the shells can be directly linked to leukemia, kidney damage and lung cancer and is also one of the causes of Gulf war syndrome.

France, Spain and Italy all claim that soldiers from their armies who served in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the rounds were used by NATO forces, have contracted leukemia and other cancers. However, medical opinion on the dangers is mixed with very few studies having been conducted.

The Government continues to insist that the munition is safe, but is preparing to remove depleted uranium rounds from service under Ministry of Defense plans to improve the fighting capability of the Army's Challenger 2 tank.

As part of the enhancement program, the tank will be fitted with a different gun which can fire a wider variety of more effective, and less controversial, ammunition types.

British tanks currently use a rifled gun which can fire only two types of ordnance, high explosive and depleted uranium rounds. This limitation will disappear in the next few years, if, as expected, the MoD decides to have its new tanks built with a smooth bore 120mm gun, which is now used by most NATO armies.

Recent advances in tank ammunition have also led to the development of a new generation of rounds that will no longer be dependent on depleted uranium to achieve the same level of penetration against modern armour. The production of depleted uranium ammunition by the Royal Ordnance, the British arms manufacturer, ceased earlier this year.

The number of depleted uranium rounds in the British Army is classified information, but is estimated to be several thousand, sufficient to last for many years.

The Government has maintained that the munition does not pose any risk to servicemen and has offered those who fear that they may have been contaminated the opportunity to have independent medical tests.

Despite the Government's insistence that depleted uranium is safe, it is now accepted by many Defense chiefs that its use is increasingly politically unacceptable because of its perceived threat to health and the environment.

It is estimated that up to 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium may have been used during the recent war in Iraq.

Towards the end of the war, the United Nations Environment Program said that there was likely to be a risk of inhaling depleted uranium dust, with large doses of potentially dangerous radiation within 150 meters of buildings and vehicles being hit by American and British munitions.

Soldiers returning from Iraq are now being offered tests for the level of depleted uranium in their bodies, which the MoD says it intends to publish.

Depleted uranium ammunition was designed to penetrate the armour of Soviet and Warsaw Pact tanks during the Cold War. It is a by-product of making nuclear bombs and fuel for reactors.

It is called "depleted" because it is far less reactive than uranium. It is 1.7 times as dense as lead, so only small amounts are needed to be able to punch through armour.

In the Kosovo war in 1999, NATO forces used 31,000 rounds tipped with depleted uranium. About 18,000 rounds were also used in the alliance's previous campaign in Bosnia.

British tanks use the munition in a round called the "armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot". The round is fired at such a speed that against lightly armored vehicles, such as those used by the Iraqis, it punches a hole straight through the tank. When it hits more modern armour it burns fiercely at very high temperatures, releasing a cloud of radioactive dust.

Both Britain and the United States have admitted that this dust can be dangerous if inhaled but they argue that there is more risk of chemical poisoning from the heavy metal than from the radiation, and that both dangers are only short-lived.

An MoD spokesman said: "Research is continuing into the alternatives to depleted uranium. We are considering investigations into the main armament options for tanks and the result of that will effect future equipment decisions but there are no specifics available at the moment."

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003
One of the major issues with Challies gun is the length, making it very prone to thermal bending during extreme desert temperatures.
Yes - the justification for using DU type rounds will continue to be debated.
Getting back on topic, can anyone confirm if Saudi Arabia has visited Russia yet to take a gander at the Black Eagle.
 

Chrom

New Member
Yes - the justification for using DU type rounds will continue to be debated.
Getting back on topic, can anyone confirm if Saudi Arabia has visited Russia yet to take a gander at the Black Eagle.
Can anyone explain me what relation have DU rounds and rifled/smoothbored guns? I cant see any...
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Then what have this loong article about DU rounds to do with replacing rifled gun with smoothbored in british army?
Hey - I am not the one that posted it, @Jaffo4011 is the one, I just responded. I know that pretty much everyone in NATO would like to get away from DU because of health and environmental issues and because of this, alot of different militaries are looking at the German L-55 so that they can revert back to Tungsten KE projectiles. Because of the thermal bending issue experienced on Challenger 2 in extreme hot temperatures it is my opinion that the British felt it would be a good time to change out with the other reasons listed also - No more DU rounds, compatable to NATO ammunition. The U.S has no current near term plans to do this, we are content with DU and we get better performance firing DU in the M256/L-44 than what is experienced firing Tungsten in the L-55.
have you heard anything in-regards if Saudi Arabia actually looked at the Black Eagle.:)
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
In the end the L/55-DM54/63 combo still has a better performance than the L30 with latest DU rounds.
So you cannot say that getting away from DU rounds is the reason.
Even when staying with DU rounds you would have inferior capabilities while using the L30 compared to the L/55.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I found the photos of the danish Leopard IIA5DK in desert camo. :)
 
Last edited:

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I found the photos of the danish Leopard IIA5DK in desert camo. :)
The reason that there are Danish Leo 2's with desert camo is probably that there is a detachment of 4 Leos on standby for quick reaction deployment if anything goes down in Afghanistan (and Iraq).
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Jup, I know that. :)

There are some Leo IIA5DK desert camo (They are now ready for sending them to A-stan if necessary).
But the site I found the pictures is down. Maybe I find them again.
We talked about them in this thread on the page before and now I found the photos and so I posted them.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
In the end the L/55-DM54/63 combo still has a better performance than the L30 with latest DU rounds.
So you cannot say that getting away from DU rounds is the reason.
Even when staying with DU rounds you would have inferior capabilities while using the L30 compared to the L/55.
That was just one of their reasoning behind it, 1. DU ammunition, NATO ammunition compatability, and thermal gun bending in extreme temperatures.

Was their actual testing done to get them to admit that the L-55 outperforms the L30 with latest DU ammunition.

We have experienced that our latest DU rounds actually perform better or on par in the M256/L-44 versus the L-55.:)
 
Top