A long road

[cusbut]

Hi
just dropping in my 2 pennies worth, overall I think the worlds leading MBTS are pretty much the same, the differences are not enough to give one side a huge advantage in a conflict, it will be the crews that do that. Now I was a Challenger 2 commander for many years and having carried out engagements on the move at speeds up to 40kph on battle runs and across the canadian prairie with great success and thats without an autoloader. British MBT training revolves mainly around manouver warfare so nearly all live firing is carried out on the move, it is essential that the tank is capable of doing this effectively. I am sure that if Challenger 2 is capable of achieving this sort of routine success then the M1 in all its technical glory will be too.

[Gloo]

...overall I think the worlds leading MBTS are pretty much the same...

Well, that solve all the problems then!

...it will be the crews that do that.

That's a crucial element, for sure.

Now I was a Challenger 2 commander for many years and having carried out engagements on the move at speeds up to 40kph on battle runs and across the canadian prairie with great success and thats without an autoloader...

I see, thanks for your testimony. What can I say against that? Not much, indeed. It's just opposite to everything I've ever read on the subject but, well, if you say so. I can't argue against a real life experience with my second hand statements. I've never been in a MBT moving cross country at 40km/h and tasked to load 120mm shells (I served in the air forces ). I guess the debate is over and I must surrender. So be it.

[DRG]

cusbut said:<snip>Now I was a Challenger 2 commander for many years and having carried out engagements on the move at speeds up to 40kph on battle runs and across the canadian prairie with great success and thats without an autoloader. <snip>

What would have been the range you were firing at targets be typically during training at Suffield and what would be the average range expected by the training staff for first shot hits while moving at speed?

Don

[cusbut]

Engagements on the move were expected to be taken at 1000mtrs and below, given that the scenario would be advance to contact or assault from an FUP, these were normally set piece battle runs starting at individual tank level and working up through troop, squadron and eventually battlegroup tests. Targets would be a mixture of static and moving targets and would have to be aquired engaged and destroyed in a specified time limit using APFSDS, HESH and COAX, a factor that may be significant here is the fact that challenger 2 uses 3 piece ammunition therefore the ability to load on the move becomes a lot easier. First round hits on static targets on the move at 1000mtrs would be 95% assured. Individual crews were required to get a 75% hit rate to progress on to higher tests, I would say the average hit rate would be 85% but there were crews that constantly achieved 100% hit rates. Any failures would require a specialised gunnery team to examine the vehicle and crews for faults. Most failures were due to bad maintenance or crew error.

[DRG]

Have you tried simulating those RL conditions with the game?

When I do I get similar results

Don

[cusbut]

No, but thats sound quite interesting, I will give it ago
: )

[loktarr]

DRG said:
When I do I get similar results

Yes it's very impressive! I tried it too. A very good work from the oobs creators!

[Gloo]

...challenger 2 uses 3 piece ammunition therefore the ability to load on the move becomes a lot easier.

And safer... for sure! I thought the Chally 2 ammunitions were only 2 pieces. How does this translate in reloading times? I read the 2 pieces ammunition was, at times, even faster to load manually than a single piece would be with an auto-loader. Find this detail hard to believe since, on a Leclerc, this operation is said to be done between 3 and 5 seconds Some more precision please: are you affirmative the 95-100% rate you're talking about were achieved with the Chally 2 firing while moving at 40km/h, instead of decelerating then firing/reloading, then speeding up again? How many shots per minutes (average) were possible? Are you positive a M1 Abrams, during the period of 1980/1984, was probably capable of such prowess? Thanks for the info.

[cusbut]

During my time in the Royal Armoured Corps I crewed Chieftain, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, I was also a Gunnery instructor and was responsible for running range practices on many occasions, I can honestly say that Challenger 2 turret system was a joy to work with but the hull and automotive components were a nightmare. 3 Piece ammuntion includes the following the Projectile, Charge and Vent tube, 13 of which are held in a magazine at the base of the gun. The vent tube looks like a brass shot gun cartridge and is used to ignite the charge, it is the only thing left in the turret after firing. I am sure an AUTOLOADER can produce a faster rate of fire on the move, but I was referring to accuracy, remember on the tests you are under a time limit so you cant afford to slow down, the Challenger 2 platform is actually smoother the faster you go due to the suspension. I would reckon a maximum of 2 rounds a minute on the move if you want to hit your target it all depends on the skill and experience of the crew. An engagement involves a lot more than just how fast a gun loads, take into account that you have to identify your target first, not an easy thing at 40kpm. Once thats done the commander indicates the target to the gunner and the gunner lays on the target and carries out the engagenent. So although you may have a fast loader that doesnt mean a tank can fire as fast as it can be loaded. You will find that a lot of data on MBTs is released by manufacturers and is not always accurate or has been tested in perfect conditions, Challenger 2 could fire 5 rounds a minute from a static position at the same target which isnt firing back, lol.

[Gloo]

...I am sure an AUTOLOADER can produce a faster rate of fire on the move, but I was referring to accuracy...

I'm not quite sure I understand exactly what you mean here. You said: "...I think the worlds leading MBTS are pretty much the same, the differences are not enough to give one side a huge advantage in a conflict, it will be the crews that do that.". If I read you right that was supposed to mean that, all in one, most of the leading nations MBTs have close (or similar characteristics regarding their combat capabilities on the field, right? Now, if I think about that in terms of pure statistical results, can I say that, in an engagement test between two equally gifted MBTs (speed; armor; ammunition types; crew experience, and so on), the potential of one protagonist of firing five or six shells while the second can only fire twice should provide a "significant" advantage? In terms of game play, can I say this advantage should be portrayed in a way yet to determine? Would you say these deductions are correct or did I miss something primordial, once again?

I would reckon a maximum of 2 rounds a minute on the move if you want to hit your target it all depends on the skill and experience of the crew.

Should I read: an average crew can fire only one shot accurately per minute, in such conditions? In game, by 1999, a Chally 2 crew with 62pts in Exp. can fire 2 times while driving at 17mph (by the standards you set I would consider that's "almost" correct). In 1980, a M1 Abrams with a 54pts crew (fairly below average, right? By the way, is Avrg reached at 60/120 or 70/120pts?), can fire 2 times while driving at 20mph. Of course they loaded only 105mm shells but didn't they use one piece ammunitions instead of the English 2 or 3 pieces? Makes me wonder.

An engagement involves a lot more than just how fast a gun loads, take into account that you have to identify your target first...

In game terms, as far as I know, you can only fire at a target that is already considered as acquired and identified, right? In real life engagements I'm sure things are sometime VERY far from, as you say: "data (...) released by manufacturers... ".
Your testimony is of GREAT value, indeed! I'd really love to read more messages with such valuable first hand info. Sadly, as it's very rare and hard to find, I think we'll have to rely mainly on those data released by manufacturers.

Challenger 2 could fire 5 rounds a minute from a static position at the same target which isnt firing back, lol.

Do you mean that during these training runs "targets" actually fired back? What was the percentage of loss?
By the way, I would apologize! I read what I wrote yesterday and I'm ashamed and confused. I mistakenly called you: "Mr. Sucbut" ! Of course there was no pun intended and it was only due to my "lightningfasttypewritingspeed proficiency" which was turned on for that occasion.