Imo the new composite is probably slightly lighter as i would expect a much greater increase in base weight if it wasnt for just how much extra armour were getting alongside the New Gun, Thermals/NVDs and other things that add a fair bit of heft like all the wiring for things like the APS systems, the LWS, ect.
its pretty weird tbh, altough idk if they are going for that proposal tho
“The first example of the Challenger 3 was at the main Rheinmetall Unterlüß facility in Germany where the 120mm smoothbore gun and its suite of ammunition has also been produced. While BAE Systems has been the prime contractor for the ammunition fired by the Challenger 2, it has not been involved in the 120mm EKE programme, according to a company spokesperson.”
Seems like EKE is pretty much a German-only development i.e UK pays Germany (Rheinmetall) to make a new KE projectile for the CR 3.
5 Likes
damn
Can’t even read the full thing
Edit
Article locked be hind an account just to get stuff wrong anyway
2 Likes
It’s better to remove the stolen DM53 and adjust the BR to 10.7.
it mainly uses DM63 wich only has a minimal decrease in penetration over DM53 meanwhile germany uses DM73 wich has a minimal increase in penetration, they probably dont wanna add DM63 cuz either they dont have a mechanic for explosion chances of ammo, or they dont do it for sake of balance
read the article it says “while BAE has mbeen the prime contractor for the ammunition fired by the challenger 2, it has not been involved in the 120mm EKE programme” meaning the new shell is not being made directly by the UK
For the sake of balance, it’s better not to have DM53/63. Let this waste go to the BR it should go to.
Damn
Not directly less penetration. Penetrator is the same so the only difference is speed. DM63 is faster at temperatures below ~12°C, and slower above
Yeah that’s what i meant with slightly less i meant like what 9 or 10 mm? I remember i used long rod calculator for this, since it’s like a 20 m/s decrease in velocity
what he’s saying is the “war round” isn’t L23A1, as as far as Britain is concerned that round would be most likely L27A1, unless they were referring to the Omani one, in which case they’re still wrong because L28A1 L28A2 (oops, another edit. needed to check that detail. L28A1 was a provate venture back in the 90s at a cursory glance)
Iirc L23A1 isn’t even DU either, it is Tungsten.
First DU round was L26 “Jericho” first used in action in Gulf War 1. (Edit, L23A1 is not DU. Source: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30021556 )
All of which would reduce the credibility of that article.
2 Likes
My point exactly
If it can’t get the current round correct how to do expect me to believe they got the future round correct as well
2 Likes
Am honestly curious but what’s the difference between DM63 and DM63A1 ??
Propellant
It seems the article is referring to the new Shell not the L23, it was saying how Even tho BAE had involvement on the last one referring to the last apfsds model it dosent have involvement in the EKE program, or that’s what i was reading
No, that’s the difference between DM53 & 63.
Am honestly curious but what’s the difference between DM63 and DM63A1 ??
Incendiary unit in the tail for increased lethality (and the propellant igniter[?]). @duckmartin
If that’s the case, then perhaps the writer might next time make that clear. Because from a glance over it appears, or at least from the quotation that Mytho posted, that whoever is writing is either not very good at making their point clear or is blatantly misinformed. British Challenger 2s certainly do not use L23A1 as their main round.
1 Like
Yeah whoever wrote that was not very good, but at least the comma saved it a bit