140mm gun?? - Page 2




 
--
 
August 14th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
The problem with the automatic loader is that you could be stuck with the Anti Tank shells which would leave you in a bit of a fix if you needed some HE rather quickly
August 14th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
I must agree with Armyjaeger. Like my father likes to say "Its not a matter of how big you gun is, but what you shooting out of it."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote:
Originally Posted by specialasiankid
hey, im new here. well i do think the chinese hav a reason for that 140mm cannon. pretty darn big. but the russians hav like a 152mm cannon on one of their tanks.

yes their smoothbore. much more accurate right? i mean t-98 r somewhat obsolete compared to M1A2's, but with an 140mm cannon, i believe it'll level the playing field. the range is much longer and the tank can fire from a longer range, but with less ammo.

Mod edit: Avoid double posting in the future, tnx.



Depend's really. A 105mm firing APFSDS-T with a DU penetrator is almsot euqal to a 120mm firing HESH/HEAT. And a 140mm is quite large, look at the M109A6, it carries a 155mm. Not only that auto-loaders are a pain. The Chinese need to improve on armor thickness and ammo.

The Russians have a 125mm, you maybe thinking of the 152mm Shillelagh Missile/Gun Launcher on the M551 Sheridan, which had some problems.
Mod edit: Don't double post.
September 5th, 2005  
masterblaster
 

Topic: bad idea, 140 mm gun


to big, the ammo would have to be 2 peice or use a auto loader. two piece would slow up loading. An auto loader is slow, prone to break at the worst time, and restrictive of ammo types.
the recoil would demand a very big tank or a very elaborate recoil system.
The range isn't usefull. You can't see a tank at 4,000 meters.
I think that it is compensation for not being able to make quality smaller guns. therefore, get a bigger hammer.
--
September 5th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
many new tanks today have left rooms for the upgrading to 140mm guns because who knows in the future some new armors will be developed and no 120mm or 125mm will be enough to penetrate them (with any ammo).

auto loader is not a problem in my opinioin. Japan's Type-90s, French's Leclerc and China's T-99G all use auto loaders and haven't heard much serious problems with them.

I am talking about a good army with great maintanence of its equipments, not iraqi army with its t-72.
September 6th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
many new tanks today have left rooms for the upgrading to 140mm guns because who knows in the future some new armors will be developed and no 120mm or 125mm will be enough to penetrate them (with any ammo).

auto loader is not a problem in my opinioin. Japan's Type-90s, French's Leclerc and China's T-99G all use auto loaders and haven't heard much serious problems with them.

I am talking about a good army with great maintanence of its equipments, not iraqi army with its t-72.
And which of the three nations have used them in combat?

The T-72 is Russian made, Plaistine used them against Israel and Israel had M48's and M60's.

The T-66 has a 115mm and it is a very tight fit, you are cramed into a sardine can. Then there is the rear hatch for ejecting shells.
September 6th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
at least they have tested it before putting them into mass production..


and T-72s.....

if you are talking about earlier versions of T-72s used by second-rated army like Iraqis, than you got the wrong example.

We are talking about T-72S and T-80Us used by Russians.
September 6th, 2005  
Armyjaeger
 
 
With a bigger main gun for tanks there could be an unmanned turret but then there would be an autoloader and I don't really like the autoloader in anyway, perhaps Im a little old fashioned but I don't think human loaders will disappear from todays or from the short term future tank designs any time soon regarding those tanks that have human loader.

By the way, why you don't people do a little google search on "Scramjet tank round" maybe you'll see my point of view of no need for a bigger gun
September 6th, 2005  
sunb!
 
 
Interesting read, Armyjaeger, on the Scramjet. Impressed by that system.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...Army_Tests.htm

I doubt as well the disappearance of human loaders in the tank crew. On some vehicles with an automatic cannon it is vise to do so, such as the CV90 IFV, but regarding heavy armour units such systems would generate more complex machinery pounding more weight on the vehicle. What's the gain?
September 6th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armyjaeger
With a bigger main gun for tanks there could be an unmanned turret but then there would be an autoloader and I don't really like the autoloader in anyway, perhaps Im a little old fashioned but I don't think human loaders will disappear from todays or from the short term future tank designs any time soon regarding those tanks that have human loader.

By the way, why you don't people do a little google search on "Scramjet tank round" maybe you'll see my point of view of no need for a bigger gun
Geesh, the Scramjet makes the Sabot look like a childs toy.