Against the target located at 2,000m, it was likely 4 hits out of 6 but this is not confirmed:
60cm was taken as a worst case scenario. You think it should be less?
On other note: You have any sources for the Challenger 2’s accuracy? Or anything about the stabilization error of its gun drives? I could only find info from the Kuwaiti trials but these don’t seem like a fair comparison as the CR2 was still a prototype at this time and it’s also an American source.
Yes:
M865s actual dispersion results show an avg of LESS than 0.2 mil.
And although M324 isn’t M865, it is stated to have similar ballistics, and it has 0.2 x 0.2 dispersion:
This only considers the accuracy of the ammunition alone and not any FCS inputs such as the muzzle reference system, tilt of the vehicle, meteorological sensors, etc.
Here every square is 1 metre:
Importantly, however, the FCS wasn’t updated with the ballistics of KEWA2.
Anyway, have any sources for the accuracy of the Leopard 2?
That’s cool and all, but your whole argumend is based on how two rounds were not within 0.3x0.3 mrad of the aim point where 16 had landed, that is 88% that have landed within that specified aim point. This an error that can be attributed easily to the fact M865s ballistics are only somewhat similar to M829-series UP TO a certain distance (hence why “training range” is an actual metric given to training rounds) or gunner’s error, simple as that.
On the other hand, do you have any data on whether the 16 rounds that have hit within the 24 inches couldn’t have had a dispersion equal to or less than 0.2mil?
How about mentioning the conditions of the tests? Because higher temperatures do tend to make accuracy worse, especially on pre-insenstivie rounds as propellant gases would not expand linearly and thus affect the dispersion.
What you’re doing is a plain old reach.
Anyway, have any sources for the accuracy of the Leopard 2?
You’ve asked me this before.
CR2s FCS and stabilization were both completed by then to the best of my knowledge, but here’s some “data” on CR1s accuracy:
Of those 16, only 4 were against the target located at 2,000m. The other 12 rounds were at considerably less distance.
Except that M865 is stated to have a target range of 2,500m:
The 4 rounds which hit the target at 2,000m within 60cm are considered to be the extreme. I should rephrase what I stated in the bug report: the spread should be considered up to 60cm.
This is a fair point considering 128° F falls outside the temperature limits. In this case, I’ll leave it up to the devs to make a decision.
I found a source from Jenoptik stating =/< 0.2mrad for the stabiliser. But I would prefer to avoid marketing material where possible since it’s usually still under-stating performance. Even a secondary source stating under “x” conditions, the accuracy is “y” cm would be preferable if the author is reliable enough.
Challenger 2 used a different cannon. Oh well, I suspect the British mains are gate-keeping the info much like the CR2’s real armour… but what can you do?
It still hadn’t entered service. And its results in the trials were pretty underwhelming at the end of the day. Which is why I was curious if the British mains were willing to share.
Quite frankly, no, this is a completely made up interpretation by you. The document states that they shot three rounds each (800m, 1200m and 2000m) at 18 targets.
So it was actually 18 * 3 for a total of 54 rounds, with 18 of them at 2km’s.
2 targets were however, completely missed, we don’t know the reason for that, so it’s 48 rounds that did hit within 0.3x0.3 mrad aim point.
“Three rounds were fired at each target by each of the two Kuwaiti crews”
3 x 3 x 2 = 18
6 rounds were fired at each of the 3 targets.
Bruh.
Bruh…
There were two M1A2s.
There were two crews for the M1A2:
Fair enough, I concede, my understanding here was wrong lol. I assumed “each crew” meant “M1A2” crew and “CR II” crew.
Shame, I was looking forward to perhaps our own version of the “supercruise” debate where we distort the meaning of English words to fit our own agenda
You may hate him. I just enjoy watching the show:
(But I digress)
That data is based on the pretty disastrous UK performance at CAT 87, which was apparently primarily down to human error and poor crew training.
Results from L23A1 APFSDS trials suggest that a standard deviation dispersion of around 0.25 mils was achievable on Chieftain and Challenger.
Some trials had higher dispersion, but for the most part they seemed to achieve in the region of 0.25 mils standard deviation:
I don’t have any data for Challenger 2, but presumably with the improved FCS and the L30 gun (plus more modern ammo) it would be at least the same or better.
Guys, it’s nice and all, but you are well past the off topic now
Just curious to see how other tanks would compare. Fun fact: earlier versions of the Leopard 2 (up until the 2A5) and M1 Abrams (up until the SEP) had a fire control which was comparable to the AMX 30 B2:
“The B2 version distinguished itself thanks to its 105mm Mle F1 canon capable of firing APFSDS rounds (OFL) with a muzzle velocity of 1525 m/s, its COTAC automatic fire control that gave it a first-hit hit rate of 90% and its Castor thermal all-weather and day/night camera. So equipped, the AMX 30 was a fearsome predator, even though the anglophone press considered it obsolete in comparison to new NATO MBTs such as the Leopard 2 or the M1. It was not untrue in terms of protection, but in terms of firing accuracy, it was on a par with the MBTs of the major Allied countries during firing exercises, and there, the Allied - but not necessarily friendly press - kept hidden the performances of the AMX 30 B2.”
Leclerc will be ok .
Once they figure how to add few logs on side and nice net
Then you buy it for 70 euros and it is insta buff
