What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

120mm APFSDS XL23E1

Has anyone ever heard or seen the XL23E1 projectile before ?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5943.jpg
    IMG_5943.jpg
    251.4 KB · Views: 150
  • IMG_5958.jpg
    IMG_5958.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 129
  • IMG_5949.jpg
    IMG_5949.jpg
    290.2 KB · Views: 117
Last edited:
Looks to be an early experimental L23 APFSDS-T round before it was adopted and type classified based on the stenciling, purple stripe and date code?

Jason
PS: Nice score!
 
Thank you for the help APFSDS! , I'm getting pretty good at finding unusual ordnance related stuff.
Correct me if I'm wrong but from looking at other experimental bits I belive the purple stripe can be an experimental modification to the APFS dart ?

Tim
 
Tim, to my knowledge, I believe the UK uses purple to indicate experimental ammunition. In this case, I personally cannot confirm that the experimental designation concerns the sub-projectile dart or its sabot. Being that it is an early experimental L23, I would guess that the entire projectile was considered experimental until it was fully adopted and formally type classified as the L23? Your round was probably designed for testing until all the quirks have been worked out? I have seen a few experimental L23 APFSDS variants over the years manufactured before the final mod was adopted.

Jason




Jason
 
It is an unchanged original XL23E1. Had there been any changes it would have become E2 and any subsequent changes would have become E3 etc. Purple has indicated experimental ammunition through several marking systems and is still the same.
 
Just noted that your version has a hand written weight of 17lb 7.2 oz. The stated weight of the production L23 version is given as 7.89kg or 17lb 6.30z - a shade lighter than the experimental version.
 
Thank you everyone for the information! I've attached a picture of the whole round , the " case " isn't technically correct but I think it's unlikely I'll find the correct case for it
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5993.jpg
    IMG_5993.jpg
    180.6 KB · Views: 133
Sorry for late entry to this thread. Just joined. The XL designation indicates that the projectile was from the period between design freeze, and full approval. The procedure was that at RARDE we used an 'in-house' designation during development, in this case C type. A type and B type were 110mm. the letter was followed by a number for the sub-projectile/ a number for the sabot, so C1/1 was the first 120mm APFSDS. At design 'Chill' materials are firmed up, and at 'Freeze' the whole design is finalised, and marking and nomenclature applied for. Hence XL23E1. This was followed by exhaustive approval trials, and at the completion of these the designation was 'upgraded' to L23A1. The 105 round was a Royal Ordnance private venture type H1/1 as a follow-on to the L64.
 
does L23 uses W-Ni-Cu alloy, and L23A1 W-Ni-Fe ?

L23A1 514mm length and 29mm diameter ?

and L23 414-420mm length with same diameter ?
 
A version of the L23 (can't remember which) was used in the Gulf War of 1991. I saw - and had to move - a few hundred of them after hostilities had finished.
 
Last edited:
iwasthere,
very interesting information. Can you say anything about few following UK APFSDS and it`s designations - XL21E1, C24 (both WHA), C11 and C31 (those two DU)? All tested in late 1977 during trilateral gun trials. And C10/11, from 1979?



Wiedzmin,
fFrom my readings UK interest in W-Ni-Fe penetrators started around 1979, because of circa 10% advantage in penetration over W-Ni-Cu. W-Ni-Cu, however, could be much easier to obtain by utilizing penetrators from APDS rounds. In 1979 it was said that UK would be ready to introduce new technology (W-Ni-FE) in 1984.
 
Wiedzmin,
fFrom my readings UK interest in W-Ni-Fe penetrators started around 1979, because of circa 10% advantage in penetration over W-Ni-Cu. W-Ni-Cu, however, could be much easier to obtain by utilizing penetrators from APDS rounds. In 1979 it was said that UK would be ready to introduce new technology (W-Ni-FE) in 1984.

thank you, i read W-Ni-Fe for british rods were similar to soviet VNG90(ВНЖ-90)?

and L23A1 have OSD(Out of Service Date) in 2008 ?

btw is there any info about alloy density for W-Ni-Cu used in L23 or in L15 ? and accurate measurements for L23 rod ?

and of course penetration for L23 and L23A1, i often read it's something about 400-450/0 at 2km, but for such low and short rod, is it real ?

p.s i tried find something in national archive, but reporst about L64 closed( only 1 available), and almost no reports about 120mm APFSDS ?
 
There is a lot of documents on 120 mm development, but it is sparsed in many files. F.e. files on trilateral gun trials contains some facts and some data. But in the most cases it is not specificly technical and development sources, rather material on internal UK policy. Blind searching from far far away might be costly and much fruitless.

From circa 1987 doc from Bovington - L23 is said to penetrate 400+ / 2km, while new BD26 - 500+. BD26 was longer (540 mm, l:d 18,6:1) than L23 (l:d 14:1) and used W-Ni-Fe.
 
400/0 or 400 = 200/60 ? so it's something like 350-370/0 ?

it's sound strange for such short and low round.

3BM42 with 566mm dart(16:1?) get only 420/0(same W-Ni-Fe) at 2km. even DU 3BM32 only 430/0

btw maybe you remember name of report about L23 and BD26 ?
 
Note that 3BM-42 got quite big velocity drop (AFAIR circa 100 m/s at 1000 m). In case of BD26 it was 55 m/s at 1000 m, I guess L23 could be similar. Also composite penetrator of 3BM-42 probably does not show its merits when the target is just RHA. IMHO it is not very strange situation and advantage of 3BM-42 over L23 fits well into imagination.

The document you were asking for is titled "120 mm tank APFSDS BD26, unsolicited proposal". I noted it is from 1987, but marked it with the question mark, because it was not legible enough. So let say it is from 198X, where X is uncertain. Source - archives of The Tank Museum, box 623.45(41) on 120 mm ammunition.
 
thank you

vtTxVR0rf_s.jpg

something about L23A1
 
Top