Germany begins production of a new cannon for British Challenger 3 tanks

The new 120mm gun, developed by the German company Rheinmetall, will be manufactured at the Unterluss plant. In a press release from the British Royal Armed Forces on September 21, 2021, it is said that two 120 mm Rheinmetall L55A1 smoothbore guns have already been launched well ahead of schedule.

Produced in Germany, the gun will be used to modernize 148 main combat tanks Challenger 2 (CR2) to the new Challenger 3 (CR3) modification. Recall that Challenger 2 tanks have been in service with the British army since 1995. Since tanks were being developed back in the 1990s, now is the time to improve and modernize a number of their key components, including weapons.

Concern Rheinmetall AG is one of the largest manufacturers in the West weapons and military equipment. It was created back in 1889 and for almost a century and a half of its existence, it produced a variety of weapons - from small arms to armored vehicles and armored trains. Now the concern remains one of the largest companies in the military-industrial complex of Germany.

The company's products are supplied to the armament of not only the Bundeswehr, but also the armed forces of other NATO countries. Thus, the 120 mm Rh120 tank gun under the designation M256 (M256A1) was used on American Abrams tanks, and not only on the tanks of the German army.

After the guns are produced at a facility in Germany, they will be tested and approved before being shipped to the UK. The new gun, combined with improved armor and the latest ammunition, according to the British press, will continue to leave the Challenger among the most powerful battle tanks in Britain and NATO as a whole.

Colonel Will Waugh, in charge of the implementation of the program to improve the combat qualities of the tank, noted that the production of the new gun is another step towards the modernization of the main battle tank of the British army. Combining the cannon with the latest ammunition will give the Challenger 3, according to the colonel, a genuine change in combat capability from its predecessor, the Challenger 2.

The new weapon will significantly increase the combat effectiveness of British tanks in modern conditions, and therefore make Britain's participation in the NATO bloc more effective.

- as stated in the command of the royal army.

Comments

[abrakadabre]

The new 120mm gun, developed by the German company Rheinmetall, will be manufactured at the Unterluss plant. In a press release from the British Royal Armed Forces on September 21, 2021, it is said that two 120-mm L55A1 smoothbore guns from Rheinmetall

I wonder how much the armor penetration rates would change in the case of a return from smooth-bore guns to rifled ones? In the same caliber.

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: abrakadabre

I wonder how much the armor penetration rates would change in the case of a return from smooth-bore guns to rifled ones? In the same caliber

Armor penetration would decrease. Part of the energy of the shot is spent on twisting the projectile, and the friction along the grooves is higher. The rifle's accuracy seems to be higher, but at combat distances this difference is hardly noticeable.

[nobody75]

The accuracy of the rifled is kind of higher,

For OFS above - due to gyroscopic stabilization of the trajectory, and for BOPS below - because it will spin the pallet ... and it is not a fact that the axis of rotation will coincide with the axis of symmetry of the scrap ... In this case, precession will begin with the ensuing ...
Sincerely

[Bad_gr]

Quote: nobody75

and for BOPS it is lower - because it will spin the pallet ... and it is not a fact that the axis of rotation will coincide with the axis of symmetry of the scrap ...

What pallet are we talking about? Modern BOPSs have a washer that pushes it out of the barrel, the BOPS itself, stabilizes in the air, mainly due to stabilizers, and not from rotation.
But a shaped-charge projectile, due to rotation, impairs the shape of the formed jet and therefore loses its penetrating power in comparison with a shaped-charge projectile from a smoothbore.

[nobody75]

We were talking about a rifled tank gun! Where do modern bops come from?
Sincerely

[Bad_gr]

Quote: nobody75

We were talking about a rifled tank gun! Where do modern bops come from?

There are such. They are harder than those. which are fired from a smoothbore. For example, in a modern cumulative rifled barrel, only the belt of the projectile rotates along the grooves, and the projectile itself practically does not rotate from the rifling, so that it does not interfere with the formation of the cumulative jet.

[nobody75]

For rifled guns, as far as I remember, a pallet was made for a sub-caliber projectile to ensure obturation. The leading belts were installed on the pallet. So the scrap rotated with the pallet.
Sincerely

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Bad_gr

What pallet are we talking about?

This is about the BPS pallet of rifled guns.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

Quote: Bad_gr

What pallet are we talking about?

This is about the BPS pallet of rifled guns.

Apparently, we and the British call the same things differently. We have a "pallet" - this is the part of the liner that does not burn out.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Bad_gr

We have a "pallet" - this is the part of the liner that does not burn out.

To guide the sub-caliber projectile along the bore of the gun barrel and to obturate the powder gases, the core is equipped with a light caliber guiding device (pallet) of various designs.

[svp67]

Quote: abrakadabre

I wonder how much the armor penetration rates would change in the case of a return from smooth-bore guns to rifled ones? In the same caliber.

And you are not interested in how many shots would you have to change the "rifled tube", at such speeds of the projectile departure?

[abrakadabre]

And you are not interested in how many shots would you have to change the "rifled tube", at such speeds of the projectile departure?

1. I am not suggesting switching to rifled guns.
2. I am aware of the general reasons for the transition to smooth-bore guns for armored vehicles.
3. In the case of OBD, barrel survivability issues are less important than the life expectancy of the tank itself on the battlefield. The resource of the barrel there overlaps the life of the tank with a large margin. Even if you shoot with an increased charge.
Not being a strong dock in the ballistics of both versions of modern artillery, it can be interesting to ask knowledgeable people.
It seems like a shot from a rifle is much more stable. Especially if we take unfeathered shells for smoothbore. This means that it is more likely to hit the target with a point, and not tumbling. This is just as important as some friction losses on the rifling of the barrel. Not to mention the accuracy.

[voyaka uh]

"in matters of ballistics of both variants of modern artillery" ///
----
Ballistics are better for rifled ones.
But the OBPS is losing power in the rifled barrel. Then the OBPS is slightly tightened
with the help of feathers to increase flight stability.

[Silver bullet]

Sorry to interfere. They explained everything to you correctly about ballistics, accuracy and shooting with "crowbars" from a rifled and smooth barrel, but there is one more nuance. They started firing guided missiles in our tanks from the T-62, and the entire line of T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 and T-14 is "smooth". I didn’t hear that with T-54, T-55 guns were fired. The adversary used to have "Sheridans" missiles, as modern enemy tanks have the ability to shoot a rocket, I will not say, but in the wiki this info is probably there.

[Bogalex]

The reason, rather, is not that the T-54 and T-55 had rifled guns, but that at the time when these tanks formed the basis of the tank forces of the USSR, there were no guided tank shells at all.
The rifled barrel by itself does not interfere with the launch of guided missiles through it, although it requires the introduction of additional elements into the structure, like a freely rotating leading belt. In the end, both 152-mm and 122-mm guided projectiles are successfully used in artillery.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Silver bullet

I have not heard that with the T-54, T-55 guns were fired.

Ukraine at one time modernized a couple of hundred T-55s for Syria - among other things, an ATGM appeared in the ammunition load there. 1K116-1 "Bastion". It is easy to recognize this modification - a tank with reactive armor.
In general, this is a modification of the 1985 T-55AMV.

[Silver bullet]

Thank you, I didn’t know. In the 80s, I do not remember such ammunition.

[Vikxnumx]

For a rocket, it's all the same a rifled barrel or a smooth one. Rocket caliber, make fewer grooves and huh!

[Alf]

Quote: Silver bullet

I have not heard that with the T-54, T-55 guns were fired.

Modification of T-55AMV, 1K116-1 Bastion guided weapon complex.

[parma]

Quote: abrakadabre

The new 120mm gun, developed by the German company Rheinmetall, will be manufactured at the Unterluss plant. In a press release from the British Royal Armed Forces on September 21, 2021, it is said that two 120-mm L55A1 smoothbore guns from Rheinmetall

I wonder how much the armor penetration rates would change in the case of a return from smooth-bore guns to rifled ones? In the same caliber.

The British also had a rifled gun, now they are changing it to a German smoothbore ... in terms of armor penetration - as far as I remember, the last English BOPS is approximately equal to our 125mm, but inferior to the last German and American 120mm ...

[voyaka uh]

While the main tank shell was cumulative, and the caliber was 105 mm,
rifled guns prevailed. As, for example, the famous English L7.
Accuracy was needed, and it is higher for rifled ones.
When the armor penetration of 105 mm became insufficient, they switched to 120-125 mm OBPS.
And they are beneficial to shoot from a smooth barrel.

[Bogalex]

Just for a cumulative projectile, a smooth-bore gun is much better than a rifled one. Rotational stabilization has an extremely negative effect on the effectiveness of the cumulative jet.

[voyaka uh]

Interesting ... I've never heard of that.
The cumulative jet in the funnel is formed rapidly, explosively. Hardly comparable to the speed of rotation of the projectile?

[Bogalex]

The point is not the comparability of velocities, but the presence of the initial torque during the formation of the cumulative jet.
For the sake of interest, find firing tables on the net, for example, for the 122-mm D-30 howitzer (TC No. 145). Find there such an interesting type of ammunition as the "cumulative non-rotating projectiles" BK6 and BK13 (strictly speaking, they still rotate in flight, but much slower. rotating BK1). This is a tangible example of the fact that the problem of "blurring" the cumulative jet in rotating projectiles was well known and was solved by the methods available at that time.
So if the rotating BK1 armor penetration along the burrow was estimated at 180 mm of homogeneous armor, then for the BK6 and BK13 this parameter increased to 400 and 460 mm, respectively.

[abrakadabre]

The point is not the comparability of velocities, but the presence of the initial torque during the formation of the cumulative jet.

A very interesting addition. Thank you, I didn’t know.

[Baron pardus]

The French developed a special cumulative with cunning for their 105mm F1. The outer shell of the projectile was spinning, but the inner one did not, and the penetration of the French cumulative was higher than the penetration of the cumulative on L7 and its derivatives. By the way, the BOPSIC F1 also pierced more - a long barrel - a longer initial speed.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: voyaka uh

While the main tank shell was cumulative, and the caliber was 105 mm,
rifled guns prevailed. As, for example, the famous English L7.

Not at all. The cumulative was the main one for the French, and the British for the L7 had the main BPS with a detachable pallet.
The Germans chose the English cannon for their Leopard for this very reason.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: abrakadabre

I wonder how much the armor penetration rates would change in the case of a return from smooth-bore guns to rifled ones?

So, on Challenger 3, the native 120mm L11A5 gun is a rifled one. Moreover, it is a cap-loading. That is, first a projectile is fed into the chamber, then a bag of gunpowder and the whole thing is set on fire with a primer, which is inserted into a separate clip. Of course, it is very different from a match weapon, but the transition to a smoothbore with unitary loading is of course a revolution.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Bad_gr

the transition to a smoothbore with unitary loading is of course a revolution.

At the same time, there is a nuance - the deterioration of habitability for the crew.
With unitary loading, after a shot, a sleeve flies out and poisons the crew with carbon monoxide (this is even if it is removed from the tank); with cap loading, the crew burns down an order of magnitude less.
So the choice of the cap by the British was quite sensible.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

With unitary loading, after a shot, a sleeve flies out and poisons the crew with carbon monoxide (this is even if it is removed from the tank)

Most of the tank sleeve burns out, only the pallet remains. On the T-72, it is immediately thrown out, in the T-64 it remains in the clamps, as it will be with the new Challenger - I don't know.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

On the T-72, it is immediately thrown out.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Bad_gr

Most of the tank sleeve burns out, leaving only the pallet. On the T-72, it is immediately thrown out.

This only reduces gas pollution, but does not exclude it. Habitability is still worse than with caps loading and other things being equal.

[Bogalex]

Everything would be true if Western design thought froze in its development somewhere at the level of the 40-50s of the last century. And on modern 120-mm western tank guns, unitary shots with a partially burned sleeve are used. As with us, after the shot, only the pallet with the primer remains, so nothing goes into the fighting compartment and the crew does not poison it, especially with "carbon monoxide".
But do not forget, please, that in case of cartridge loading, which we have, that beyond the cordon, electric shock tubes are used to ignite the propellant charge, inserted into the bolt socket before each shot. Not only does this noticeably reduce the rate of fire, because it requires an extra operation in preparation for firing, it also creates an additional headache in the form of an urgent need to regularly clean this very nest, which is far from always possible in the process of intensive combat work. The result can be an incomplete delivery of the tube and, as a result, a misfire. Well, in the worst case - the breakthrough of powder gases into the fighting compartment when fired. This problem is well known to our gunners serving in units armed with 203-mm 2S7M "Malka" cannons. But if in field artillery guns this is not so critical, then in a tank, where sometimes seconds can decide the fate of the crew, this is a very, very important point.
So the choice of the cap by the British does not seem so sensible and justified to me personally. However, the British tank building school is generally a separate topic for conversation.

[voyaka uh]

Thanks, interesting post
There are no professional artillerymen left on the forum.
There was one (Khlopotov?), But he has not appeared for a year.

[Bogalex]

Thank you for your rating! We'll have to pick up the fallen banner

[bk0010]

Quote: voyaka uh

There was one (Khlopotov?), But he has not appeared for a year

Shovels, yes, we haven't seen it for a long time.

[DEVIL LIFE'S]

Increasing power?

[Flooding]

Quote: DEVIL LIFE`S

Increasing power?

and weight up to 66 tons

[Zaurbek]

Remaining Indians and Arjun 1/2

[Yrec]

The Naglo-Saxons also switched to smoothbore. It is unprofitable to fence your new rifled "scrap" in a crisis. Together with the build-up of armor protection, their wunderwaffle will step far beyond 70 tons. Can only drive on public roads and hard ground. Bridges - only on highways, minor - nicht. Transfer by railway only with the closure of oncoming traffic.

[Professor]

Where is the world heading? Tank inventors buy a tank gun from their nemesis. A curtain.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: professor

Where is the world heading? Tank inventors buy a tank gun from their nemesis. A curtain.

In the 60s, everything was the same, only with a different sign - the Germans bought guns for the Leopards from the sworn English ...

[nobody75]

The British cannon maker had gone bankrupt long ago. The Germans once designed a single tank gun for the entire NATA. This is it.
Sincerely

[ccsr]

The company's products are supplied to the armament of not only the Bundeswehr, but also the armed forces of other NATO countries. Thus, the 120 mm Rh120 tank gun under the designation M256 (M256A1) was used on American Abrams tanks, and not only on the tanks of the German army.

German tank gunsmiths are traditionally the best in the West, and not in vain, according to the leadership of the GSVG armored service in the 80-90s, the German Leopard-2 was better than the American Abrams when it came to their combat use. Therefore, it is absolutely not surprising that the British ordered new weapons from the Germans, realizing that they themselves would not be able to create such, or it would be too expensive a pleasure.
But not everyone understands this, as the same Timokhin, foaming at the mouth, proves in the topic "Soviet armored car BA-10 with a 45-mm" tank "gun" that the American Abrams is the best in the world, but the Germans allegedly made a huge mistake with ammo rack, although he hardly understands what it is and how it affects modern combat.

[Vikxnumx]

German armored gunsmiths are traditionally the best in the West

Have you heard about the L7 gun? For many years he was the main one in NATO.

[ccsr]

Quote: VIK1711

Have you heard about the L7 gun? For many years he was the main one in NATO.

I heard about the comparison of tanks, and in this respect I am of the opinion of our professionals. I do not deny that the British also had excellent guns, but the very fact of ordering this gun from the Germans already suggests that they recognize the primacy of the Germans.

[voyaka uh]

"but the Germans allegedly made a huge mistake with the ammunition stowage" ///
----
The error came to light in northern Syria, where two Leopards were killed in
penetration by ATGMs of the front-side part of the tower and detonation there
shells stacked.
It is better not to place shells in the front of the turret.
By the way, a 10-round semi-automatic drum in front of the Merkava-4 tower -
not the best solution either ...

[ccsr]

Quote: voyaka uh

The error came to light in northern Syria, where two Leopards were killed in
penetration by ATGMs of the front-side part of the tower and detonation there
shells stacked.

Come on, stop inventing what any tanks suffer, regardless of the location of the ammunition rack, when ATGMs hit them in different parts:

The invasion of Yemen by the Saudi Arabian ground group, including the American M1 Abrams tanks, immediately led to the loss of armored vehicles. A video posted on the Internet suggests that the Houthi rebels opposing the invasion are armed with old Soviet-designed Fagot anti-tank systems.
The hit of the complex missile in the side of the tower led to the detonation of the ammunition placed in it. The explosion of the ammo rack in the rear of the turret is the Achilles heel of American tanks; the crew has practically no chance of surviving, reports "Rossiyskaya Gazeta".

So where do you propose to place the ammo, especially given the fact that now some ATGMs are attacking the aft part from above?

[voyaka uh]

"The explosion of the ammo rack in the rear of the turret is the Achilles heel of American tanks; the crew has practically no chance of surviving" ///
----
This is not confirmed by the practice of numerous battles in which
participated tanks Abrams in Iraq, Syria, Saudi.
The shells are stacked in a volume separated from the tower - a turret basket.
Moreover, they lie there with their heads back. When detonated, the projectiles fly back.
The crew remains intact, the tank does not catch fire.
The losses of the Abrams crews were extremely small.
The disadvantage of a hammered basket is the difficulty of feeding shells.
The shells must be taken with your hands and turned 180 degrees.

[ccsr]

Quote: voyaka uh

This is not confirmed by the practice of numerous battles in which
participated tanks Abrams in Iraq, Syria, Saudi.

There were no large-scale battles against an equal opponent, which is why your statement is devoid of common sense for any military professional. There were no numerous tank battles, but landmines were sometimes detonated, but this is more of a claim to the work of sappers.
Here are the details on Iraq:

Only in February 2005, the head of the Pentagon's armored vehicle department, General Terry Tucker, said that by that time 80 tanks had been returned to the United States for repairs. 63 cars are to be repaired, and the rest will probably not be back in service.

https://topwar.ru/89129-o-poteryah-tankov-abrams.html
But the point is not even that, but that if a modern ATGM hits a tank, the crew will die anyway, even if the ammunition does not explode. So why then pedal this question if it has little effect on the survival of the crew?

Quote: voyaka uh

The losses of the Abrams crews were extremely small.

Of course, because they did not participate in battles against an equal enemy, and old Soviet weapons were used against them. There could be no other. But in Vietnam, they somehow could not defeat the Soviet T-34s, although there were other American tanks there.

[voyaka uh]

"old Soviet weapons were used against them" ///
---
If we count the T-72 tanks with which the divisions were armed
Iraqi National Guard, old Soviet weapons,
then you are right.
The Abrams tanks defeated them in tank-versus-tank battles dry.
The frontal armor of the hull pierced through. Uranium crowbars
went along the entire fighting compartment and got stuck in the engine from behind.

The Abrams losses were carried from cumulative grenades and missiles to the weakly defended
sides of the hull.

[ccsr]

Quote: voyaka uh

If we count the T-72 tanks with which the divisions were armed
Iraqi National Guard, old Soviet weapons,
then you are right.

In fact, Iraq was under sanctions for more than ten years, and we did not even supply tank repair kits there - but you and Israel, of course, do not "know" this, your propaganda does not allow you to think.

Quote: voyaka uh

The Abrams tanks defeated them in tank-versus-tank battles dry.

Lies, because in fact there were no tank battles. In the first war in the Gulf, they were generally scared because of possible losses, to conduct tank battles at the level of formations, so all the advantages of American technology were revealed.

Quote: voyaka uh

The Abrams losses were carried from cumulative grenades and missiles to the weakly defended
sides of the hull.

Is it forbidden during the war? Why did you make this remark, especially since now it is the main method of destroying armored vehicles from distances exceeding the range of aimed fire from tank guns?
You are more serious about preparing for answers, otherwise you will be perceived as a full-time propagandist, and no more ...

[V means B]

Strange, but what the British themselves do not know how to do guns for tanks or have forgotten how?

[voyaka uh]

The British have always been leaders in naval artillery.
These traditions passed into the field and anti-tank
(Ordnance QF 17-pounder) and then into the tank (L7).
But they have always been rifled guns.
The transition to OBPS took the British by surprise.