Rheinmetall has announced the delivery of qualification samples for its latest 120mm KE 2020 Neo (enhanced Kinetic Energy) tank ammunition to both the Bundeswehr and the British Army.
The new ammunition is designed to counter state-of-the-art protection systems on modern battle tanks, showcasing Rheinmetall’s leadership in tank armament technology, according to an official announcement.
The contract, signed in September 2020, underlines Rheinmetall’s strong position in the field of main battle tank armament. The qualification samples are part of a German-British project aimed at equipping Leopard 2 and Challenger 3 main battle tanks with advanced kinetic energy ammunition.
This ammunition is intended to defeat advanced armour systems that are increasingly becoming a challenge for modern tank forces.
Rheinmetall’s KE2020Neo continues the successful legacy of the company’s kinetic energy rounds, which have been in service since the 1980s. Earlier versions, such as the DM13, DM23, and DM33, have gradually improved over the decades.
The current DM73 is the latest enhancement in this series, designed for use with high-pressure weapons like the L55A1. This development also builds on previous iterations, including the DM53 and DM63, which have been adopted by NATO forces.
Rheinmetall’s 120mm smoothbore technology is widely regarded as the standard for NATO and other Western military forces. It is deployed in the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams tanks and will now enhance the combat capabilities of the British Army’s Challenger 3 tanks.
With this contract, Rheinmetall say that it reinforces its role as a key supplier of advanced tank armament systems for both Germany and the UK.
Ammunition for our latest Challenger will not be supplied by a British company! How the hell did that happen?
Who cares where it comes from. The important thing would be that we have it and in quantity.
Little chance of that Mark. NATO cannot supply Ukraine with sufficient 155mm ammunition to sustain the systems we gave them for the war with Russia. Incidentally, their most common artillery is the old soviet 122mm and 152mm types. So the acute shortage of 155mm ammunition should not be the result of Ukraine’s full wartime consumption. Only part of it. When it comes to MBTs the new 120mm KE 2020 is interoperable with all NATO tanks. Now imagine the rate of ammunition consumption by NATO if we become involved in a war on several fronts against the Sino-Russian, North Korean-Iranian alliance.… Read more »
I would have thought Japan and South Korea would also manufacture 120mm because of their alliance with the US.
It might interest you to learn that 155 is an artillery round, while 120 is a MBT round, and thus the quantities that need to be delivered are very different.
Artillery ammunition shortages are a very common feature in almost every modern war as generally a lot of artillery is fired, tank ammunition shortages are considerably rarer.
Yep
Point taken.
High consumption yes- but you only need to hit an enemy vehicle once with one of these rounds and its mission killed permanently.
Russia only has so many armoured vehicles to destroy- so by my reckoning as long as NATO has access to a minimum of 100,000 rounds of these shells we would win any conflict with Russia and its axis of moronic states.
With the ability to replace at speed those 100,000 rounds of course- Uk requirement must be in the 10-20K region surely?
The lessons of WWI and WWII are clear. The side with the greatest and most resilient industrial capability, will prevail. Not only keeping pace with wartime expenditure/battle losses from pre-war military numbers. But also able to rapidly equip new conscripted formations in the field at breakneck speed. WWIII will be even more technology based and industry dependant.
Because any military hardware that’s imported comes with rules..what happens of Germany decided it does not like a war we are fighting and bans exports of 120mm ammunition.
quite frankly we go on about sovereignty and the importance of it..but every bit of military kit we buy from other nations reduces our sovereignty, every bit of strategic industrial capability we loss is a reduction in sovereignty.
You are getting a little tied up with the rules. Firstly I am thinking we are buying for our own use if there are contractual rules stopping that we really are in trouble. Buying foreign kit is not a loss of sovereignty. Clearly I am not keen on losing skills but I think we can be honing those skills just supplying Ukraine and building ships and aircraft. If there is a threat against that it doesn’t come from buying some shells.
These ‘rules’ usually only apply to platforms not consumables.
Just to clarify do you feel the same way about all of our defense procurement or do you have a certain criteria that identifies what should involve UK design/development/manufacture/supply.
Not really. The UK has made a decision, for better or for worse, to go German with C3. We need shells – it is a necessary part of the deal. I am merely sugesting we stock up for our own use. You never know we might need them. C3 is an interim arrangement in my view. We need a future strategy for the Army. I can’t see that strategy at the moment – can you? When we have that strategy, and one day we will, we would do well to build British unless there is a very good reason for… Read more »
CR3 is Anglo-German. If it is an interim arrangement I would be surprised as I can’t see HMG stumping up £billions for a successor tank in about 10 years time, or less.
We do of course have Observer status on the future Franco-German tank project.
It matters a lot where it comes from Germany has a habit of forcing it’s views on others what if they didn’t like what we were doing as a sovereign nation and cut off our supply we have some of the largest defence companies in the world we should be making everything we need regardless of cost like the French do
The biggest issue I have at the moment Tim is I’m a little unsure about the views of the Labour Government on such issues – never mind the Germans.
The other issue is Kier planning on doing anything?
And that’s a fair point but if Labour carry on like they are there will be a large lurch to the right and all them people who didn’t vote last time will be coming out next election
I agree with you, George, that ammunition needs to be homegrown as it is essential logistics, which should not (in total) rely on foreign suppliers. The assumption here is that Germany has no intention of opening a conflict with Britain and is now a dedicated fellow member of NATO, so it is, in reality, not a threat. Hmmmmm !!! how quickly politics can change, and we are all in the midst of a period of dire threats from so many sources. Okay, we have to buy the tank turrets from Germany but the amo must be home-sourced, don’t we learn… Read more »
The Turrets are apparently produced on Tyneside by Pearson Engineering. Although the tank gun is produced by our “german allies.”
I stand corrected, thank you. However, the amo should be sourced from home.
To be pedantic the Base Turret ( Citadel ) is manufactured by Pearson Engineering, then it is passed on to RBSL for fitting out with the Armour Modules,Gun and ancillary Equpment etc,
correction. Pearson Engineering in Newcastle will make turret armour for the British Army’s new Challenger 3 tanks.
– I must admit I thought they were doing more than just that.
Agreed, fair enough its common buying AFV etc from over seas parts made here or there I suppose .But do think it’s best if we could rely on ourselves rather than others specially on Ammunition .Absolutely we never learn from History 🤔 🙄
We have often used foreign ammunition. Much SAA from India back in the 90s, 120mm tank ammo from Belgium in the last 20 years…and we have bought a lot of foreign platforms.
Like almost every product more complex than a knife, I suspect that there is something of a global supply chain for the materials needed to make ammunition nowadays. The idea that it is ‘british’ or ‘german’ only relates to where materials sourced from mines across the world get brought together into the finished product.
I won’t be surprised if in some of our ammunitions there has historically been raw materials sourced from siberian mines.
And of course the moment we think of programmable ammunition (CTA40 for instance) we introduce electronics. And then the supply chain gets truly global.
Hahaha, you still think the UKgov is working for us. Adorable.
Not “is” working for us but should be working for us. There is a difference.
Not only that but we learn the government had to fund forgemasters to enable us make the barrels for the tanks. Now even an armchair gunner like me knows these things need replacing if in full battle use.
It hasn’t for ages. British 120mm ammunition supply closed down nearly 20 years ago, we used to source it from Belgium.
Also, taking advantage of NATO allied 120 ammunition production was one of the main reasons for the switch to the Rh120/55, so not sure why anyone would be surprised.
I thought we purchased challenger 2 ammunition from Belgium can someone confirm or deny?
BAE still show 120 mm tank ammunition production on their website. Whether it’s made here or subcontracted out isn’t clear.
BAE also has presence in US. Maybe there?
Seems unlikely. The US don’t use 120 mm rifled ammo. Also it’s a one piece round, unlike L30.
We did.
Challenger 2 ammunition however is not the same as Challenger 3 ammunition.
Yep, HESH is being bought from Belgium. The APFSDS is still made in the UK
Safe to assume this is WHA not DU?
Pretty sure Rheinmetall has never produced a Depleted Uranium round so this will be Tungsten.
Do you think the penetration will be as good as compared to British DU used in CR2?
I think better. It’s a longer rod, fired at higher velocity since it doesn’t need to have a slip band to neutralise spin, and the single piece ammunition means the rod can go right back into the casing.
DU in CR2, I’m under the impression, is to mitigate the limitations of rifled 2 piece ammunition.
Thanks Dern. Hopefully that higher muzzle velocity offsets the less dense nature of Tungsten.
Yes, Germany has a law banning the use of DU based ammunition.Germany no longer has the means to produce DU, the raw material would have to be imported. The U.K. can and does produce DU based ammunition.
All well and good, would like to find out what other natures we’ll be getting; history has time and again shown that tanks spend most of their time shooting stuff that isn’t other tanks.
What’s the replacement for HESH?
Probably a combination of a variant of the DM11 HE round and the DM12 HEAT round.
Thanks, will go and see how they’re rated.
I think NATO as a whole got into the thinking post-WW2 that tanks were armour killers; to stop the mass waves of Soviet tanks and sort of reinforced by the Gulf wars, where PGMs did a lot of the killing of bunkers, strongpoints etc.
But it seems that is coming round again, and direct fire HE is proving its worth. May be completely wrong though…