140mm gun??

W

WARmachine88

Banned
Jane's defence

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw050617_1_n.shtml

China tests new AFV developments

By Christopher F Foss JDW Land Forces Editor
London

China is testing a number of new armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), including a modified Type 98/99 main battle tank (MBT) fitted with a 140 mm smoothbore gun, it has been revealed. If fielded, the latter would constitute the largest MBT armament currently deployed.

For many years Chinese AFVs have been based on foreign designs, especially Russian, or used foreign sub-systems. However, the Chinese defence industry has made rapid progress in recent years and is now self-sufficient in most of the key areas of AFV design, especially MBTs and light AFVs.

The Type 99 MBT is now in production and service with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and is a further development of the Type 98, which was first seen in public late in 1999 during a parade of Chinese equipment.

The main difference between the two MBTs is that the latter has a more advanced arrowhead passive armour package over the frontal turret arc, similar to that of the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5/Leopard 2A6 MBT, which has been in service for some years.

The MBTs are both armed with a 125 mm smoothbore gun fed by an automatic loader, which has enabled the crew to be reduced to three: commander, gunner and driver.
 
in my opinion that 140mm gun is beyond sane limits, increasing the gun size isn't an answer they need to work on the ammunition for their existing tank guns. Bigger gun would mean less ammunition, heavier ammunition, more stress to the tank structure overall more negative sides comparing to the benefits.
Just my two cents.
 
I can see what you mean, Armyjaeger. It makes sense.
Less is more concept....kind of like the rooikat we discussed earlier. Maybe a smaller, higher velocity gun. I would be extremely nervous if I was in an abrahms and a 140mm anything was aimed at me. It's not like it will just bounce off the armour like some other rounds!
 
Sherman is right. The US has developed a 120mm canon that can be easily switched out to a 140mm. It's part of the FCS (Future Combat Systems).

The 120 mm XM291 Gun used enhancements developed by Watervliet Arsenal (WVA) and Benet Laboratories to improve gun performance. Compatibility for refit to the M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams MaBattle Tank was another design requirement. Gun enhancements include improved breech design, thermal shroud, modular recoil design, and improved firepower. The cannon can be increased in caliber, if required, to 140mm with a simple tube change.
The 120mm/140mm XM91 Autoloader was designed, fabricated, installed, and successfully tested in the Advanced TAnk Cannon (ATAC) System vehicle testing. The Autoloader automatically takes rounds from tank storage areas and loads them into the breech of the tank gun -- previously a manual operation. The Autoloader can be upgraded to support automated replenishment of the tank's ammunition from a resupply vehicle. Development has involved mechanical design and analysis, writing of control algorithms, and control system design. The project also involved extensive prototype testing, both in the laboratory and at proving grounds. An innovative feature of the Autoloader is control of projectile loading velocity by gripping the shell and adjusting (in real time) its acceleration and deceleration.
Click to expand...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-t.htm

BTW the concept seems to have been around since at least 1997.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1997/4fcs97.pdf[/url]
 
It sounds more like the soviets. Since their T-90s are using a 125mm gun. Eventally, someone might build a gun like a battleship. The Chinese are smart, so it is possible that they will use the 140mm on their tanks. Only question is, how much ammo they can fit inside the tank.
 
Hi there,
Is there any info on the 140 example: what is it smoothbore or rifled, and whats the actual ammunition caliber?

thanks,

Nick
 
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.
 
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
 
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."

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

specialasiankid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mod edit: Don't double post.
 
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.
 
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.
 
WARmachine88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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 ;)
 
Interesting read, Armyjaeger, on the Scramjet. Impressed by that system.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2003/Aug/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?
 
Armyjaeger said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

Geesh, the Scramjet makes the Sabot look like a childs toy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top