Tanknet. Well, I'm convinced now. Who at Tanknet? Excel spreadsheets and a calculator? Let's see your sources and methods. You're suggesting you created a spreadsheet. Where is it?

See, I wouldn't know a tank from a school bus, so I need someone to walk me through it here. You're not doing it- you're dodging.




Completely irrelevant to the question you purport to answer.

Something you probably didn't really consider, perhaps the results aren't so surprising after all in light of the following information. As I recall, trials were conducted with the Rheinmetall 120mm L55 smoothbore gun fitted to the Challenger 2 as a possible replacement to the British BAE rifled gun did actually show the German DM-53 non-depleted uranium round to have superior performance over Charm 3 depleted uranium rod, although results aren't published to give exact figures.

Charm 3 was developed Operation Desert Storm era, I don't think there as been any improvements since- the reason why is that physically it can't in order to be adaptable to the gun system, there hasn't been any updates. It is a two piece ammunition consisting of the projectile and separate charge, just like the Soviet 125mm system, if the dimensions of the ammunition were changed, it wouldn't be compatible with the system.

Wonderful. I'm not asking for your source of a widely published formula, but at the source of the parameters that were used to calculate these figures. So far, I have heard none from you.


That's an unscrutinized collection of other internet pages' estimations. These aren't original sources, nor is there a critical review of those other web pages' methodology ... what's next, Wikipedia?

I'm not saying that these estimates are all wrong, but that isn't the point at all. They can't be verified, and therefore are only suitable as a first orientation.


Pot, meet kettle.

I already admitted that I am uncomfortable with the situation, but that I am unable to change it. At least I know the basis of our current estimate, and I can't ignore what I know just because you don't like the result. Likewise we sometimes get to work with firing tables and other materials from our army customers under the condition that we must not disclose them to the public. Would you, if you were in my place, advocate to ignore the original sources just because you can't publicize them as a part of your documentation? Speaking of which, how many other commercially available simulations do you know that provide a similarly broad disclosure of sources and methodology as we do?
How do you know that the performance parameters of the DCS A-10 or the F-16 in Falcon 4 are actually correct?

We don't evade this discussion, but our work must also conform to the limits of practicality. I will not uphold a principle of total disclosure just so I emerge as the victor in an internet forum discussion, even if that jeopardizes the relationship with our army customers, the very fundament of our business. It would be great if we could put all the specifications from our development contracts into the public domain. But there are restrictions that muddy the waters.
Yes, our work may lack scientific rigor. But I have yet to see a single substantial contribution from your end, other than opinionated ridicule. Unless you come forward with something that allows me to reassess parameters like frustrum length, tip diameter, working length of the penetrator rod and similar things for the L-27, we have reached the end of a sensible debate. But I can guarantee you - if you do bring me sources that allow the development of these parameters, and if the result of these new parameters is a reassessment of the terminal ballistic performance of any given round in SB Pro, we will update our estimate.

There is a discussion here about Challenger 2 being fitted with the 120 Rheinmetall L/55 gun to upgrade the lethality of the CR2. That suggests that the British even recognize some shortcoming here. It wouldn't make sense after all to look for a replacement otherwise. In other words, there appears to be real world events tied to eSim's figures.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2

Well, that project was canceled a while ago. There would have been too much redesign of the entire turret layout necessary, switching from the current separate stowage of rounds and propellant to a one-piece cartridge system. I arranged a TankNet visit to the Rheinmetall ammo factory this summer, and we could see that it is them who are now manufacturing the sabot rounds for the Challenger. Naturally, measure tape and photo cameras weren't welcome during the tour - perfectly understandable, but a pity nevertheless.

I find it amazing that people still believe that all military equipment is a step FORWARD in design and performance. Off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen heavily fielded weapon systems and vehicles that were a complete shambles on the NATO side.

-Jenrick

Well a tank is many steps forward from a trebuchet

Thanks for the video Daskal... but...everyone has had their say. Enough, lets move on.