My apologies. I had thought the 130mm CR2 footage had accompanied it at NEDS in winter 2019 when the proposal for CR2 with a 130mm gun was first made public, and DSEi with the 120mm had been the following summer not the preceding one.
RBSL’s NEDS 2019 presentation for CR2LEP had included the proposal for the 130mm Challenger but only displayed the shell, not the gun.
4 Likes
“oh, 63 new messages, wonder if they found anything new about the challenger 2”
→ look inside
→ german mains arguing again over 130mm chally 2
4 Likes
this is how this thread is ending
1 Like
Thats a bad way to end it
1 Like
God damn that is a long fucking rod.
8 Likes
I mean, if that was legal, then almost every single tank using the Rh120 would be allowed into the US tree as the progenitor of that gun was the 120mm Delta gun trialled by the USA for the T95 medium tank.
Hunnicutt’s “Abrams” book pretty clearly states that while the USA had to fight tooth and nail to get the MBT-70 to use driver-in-turret layout and the 152mm Gun-Launcher approved by the Germans, the Germans were absolutely fine with buying the old 120mm smoothbores from the USA and even suggested them as an option for the MBT-70 program.
It’s actually a bit of a shame the brainrot over ATGMs won in the USA for a short time.
Ahem digression over, please return to standard discussion of the topic at hand.
On that note though:
The 130MM demonstrator uses the same sights as on the CR 2 LEP RBSL, CR.3 and Ajax and not those found on Leopard or any future planned development of Leopard. So whilst neither went for the gun, the UK is the only of the two countries that had the government purchase any of the technology shown on the tank.
Not that I particularly care about this argument because its a no-brainer that it should be in the British tree because Germany have other options.
I know it might sound rude, but dont. Let it die.
1 Like
I am currently reading through this, regretted it once i read all the way to the bottom.
the ascalon so far can only go up to 20 MJ in chamber presssure and its naturally put up to 16 MJ and as i said this may be because of the DU rounds performing worse at over 1600 m/s according to tests and hence why some rounds like M829A3 have been limited to 1550 m/s in exchange they are really long, or at least that’s my suspicions on why they developed the ascalon
Pause…
Because this thread is cluttered by talks about the 130 all further discussion will be made here:
It’s currently limited to 20MJ as no further increase has been deemed necessary. Similarly, there’s been no intention as of yet to use DU. Rather the focus is on a hypervelocity anti-tank missile as a means of extending range. Nexter was already developing such a thing (PROCIPAC) for the Leclerc but it will probably arrive with Ascalon. French didn’t choose a 140mm for a “low pressure” cannon they chose it so it could reliably defeat the next generation(s) of ERA for the next 50 years after introduction.
(Among other reasons) Ascalon fits with French needs and Germans will use their own cannon on their own tank once KNDS splits. To keep it relevant to this thread, it will be interesting whether the British choose between what the French develop or what the Germans develop for their Challenger 3 replacement. Interestingly, the British were interested in a sub-50 tonne tank back in 1997:
So they may very well end up buying what the French produce. The French army also want a sub-50t tank.
…are you a Suggestion Moderator?
1 Like
No, but feel free to ask one. They are very helpful.
So can i ask for the M10 booker because BAE made it
It was made for the US so it wouldn’t be accepted as a suggestion for Britain.
and the Challenger 130 was a modified Challenger 2 intended for the UK. By your own logic. The Challenger 130 would then end up in the Britain TT
3 Likes
The Challenger 2 LEP was intended for the UK, the Challenger 130 was not. If you disagree you can discuss it with the suggestion mods.
Dont need to. There is already a suggestion for the challenger 130 for British TT
2 Likes