# Tank Guns



## Manticore

Al-Khalid is designed with a 125 mm (length: 48 calibers) smoothbore, auto-frettaged and chrome-plated gun barrel which can fire the following types of conventional ammunition: APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS. Despite a common belief that the gun is Chinese, it was later changed to a modified variant of KBA-3 series of 125&#8239;mm smooth bore gun for Al-khalid mbt which provided compatibility with Ukrainian ATGMs such as Kombat. Gun-launched, laser-guided anti-tank guided missiles can also be launched and two types are believed to be in use on the Al-Khalid, the Russian-designed 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) produced in China under licence and the Ukrainian-designed Kombat,[17] which may have been modified in Pakistan to incorporate a larger warhead.[18]

Al-Khalid also fires a Pakistani DU round, the Naiza 125 mm DU round (armor penetration: 550 mm in RHA at 2 km).[19] Al-Khalid is equipped with a muzzle reference system and dual-axis stabilization system. Elevation and azimuth control is achieved by electro-hydraulic power drives. The automatic ammunition-handling system for the main gun has a 24-round ready-to-fire magazine and can load and fire at a rate of eight rounds per minute.



> HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX PRODUCES 125 MM GUN FOR AL-KHALID AND AL-ZARAR MBT
> 
> Heavy Mechanical Complex (HMC) has indigenously developed a gun which can be installed on the Main Battle Tanks (MBT) produced by the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT). HIT officials say that gun is ready for the installation on the Al-Khalid and Al-Zarar tanks.
> 
> Previously Heavy Industries Taxila was importing the 125 mm 'blanks' from France for the Al-Khalid and Al-Zarar main battle tanks. 125 mm &#8216;blanks&#8217; were the final shape of the gun barrel before it is finished which were later finished at HIT.
> 
> 
> Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) has placed an order for the production of 50 125 mm barrels with the Mechanical Complex (HMC). These 50 125 mm barrels will be installed on the Al-Khalid and Al-Zarar main battle tanks.
> 
> Heavy Mechanical Complex (HMC) officials have also said that HMC plans to produce artillery guns for the Pakistan Army.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

Altay (tank)

The barrel will be 120mm L55 .. the barrel weighs 1,324kg 





-------------------

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun
Length	L/44: 5.28 m (17.3 ft)

L/55: 6.6 m (22 ft)
Barrel length	44&#8211;55 calibers
Caliber	120 mm
Muzzle velocity	1,580 to 1,750 m/s (5,200 to 5,700 ft/s)
Effective range	4,000 meters (4,400 yd) with DM63[1]
8,000 meters (8,700 yd) with LAHAT

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

-----------
L30 120mm

The L30 is a 120mm tank gun used by the British Army and Royal Army of Oman. It is fitted in the turret of the Challenger 2 main battle tank. It is an improved production model of the Royal Ordnance L11 series of rifled tank guns

The barrel is 55 calibres long (L55) and is made of electro-slag refined (ESR) steel. The bore and chamber are electro-plated with chromium to give a barrel life of 400 effective full charges.
The breech mechanism is a split sliding-block breech. One vertically sliding block holds the obturation ring (which is necessary because the propellant charges are combustible cases or bags) and is locked for firing by a second block. When the second block falls, the first is released to open the breech.
L30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

---------------

The GIAT CN120-26/52 is a French 120 millimetre tank gun of 52 calibres. It is the primary gun of the Leclerc main battle tank. The bore is smoothed and chromed. The gun is fed by a mechanised loader that allows a rate of fire of 12 shots per minute.

GIAT CN120-26/52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






-------------------

Tanque Argentino Mediano
The new tank's firepower requirements were met by fitting a British Royal Ordnance L7A1 105 mm (4.13 in) main gun. This gun was later replaced by the modified L7A2 and finally by Rheinmetall's Rh-105-30 105 mm (4.13 in.) gun. This gun is manufactured in Argentina as the FM K.4 Modelo 1L. The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and increased lethality.
TAM (tank) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rheinmetall's Rh-105-30 105 mm 

The basic component of the Rheinmetall 105 mm rifled tank family is the Rh 105-60, a development of the British Royal Ordnance L7 series capable of firing the normal group of 105 mm tank gun ammunition.
Army Guide - Rh-105-60, Gun




-----------

*Large Caliber Tank Guns for Lightweight Platforms*


The gun versus armor dilemma regarding the evolution of tank design has catalyzed a trend to increase gun caliber in order to enhance lethality. Tank technology has witnessed this trend since the beginning of tank warfare during the First World War, but truly began to take-off in the late-1930s. For example, during the Spanish Civil War national Panzer Is, supplied to Franco&#8217;s forces by Hitler&#8217;s Third Reich, found themselves outgunned by the Soviet Union&#8217;s larger T-26s. Although during the opening armor clashes of the war during the Battle of Madrid Panzer Is found it suitable to use 7.92mm armor-piercing ammunition at a maximum of 150m range, Republican T-26s responded by engaging at longer ranges, up to 1,000m. The Panzer I&#8217;s light 7.92mm MG13 machine gun was not capable of penetrating the T-26&#8217;s steel armor plating at long-.ranges, while the T-26 could easily engage and defeat the Panzer I at almost a kilometer using their 45mm high velocity artillery cannons. Consequently, the National Front attempted to exchange the armament with an Italian 20mm model 35 anti-aircraft gun, which could penetrate 40mm of steel at 250m range. There were even attempts to fit a Panzer I with 37mm and 45mm anti-tank guns, although these failed at the drawing board. 1 The process of increasing lethality continued during the 1930s, to the point where Germany&#8217;s Panzer IIIs were armed with 37mm tank guns. During the Second World War, the process of increasing gun caliber escalated and six years of war saw the evolution of the tank gun from 37mm to up to 128mm! 2

The end of the war saw the division of the world into two separate camps, led by the United States and by the Soviet Union. The West consolidated unto one caliber &#8211; the 90mm gun which was mounted on the Pershing tank and early modernizations thereof (M46, M47 and M48, for example). The Soviet Union left the war with the 122mm gun on the Stalin tank series, and the 85mm gun on their T-34/85s. Although some prototypes of the T-44 were armed with 100mm guns (and others with 122mm guns), the first series mass production of a 100mm armed tank began with the T-54 in 1947. 3 NATO&#8217;s L7 rifled 105mm gun, of British design, was adopted due to a first-hand glimpse of the tank when a Hungarian rebel drove a T-54 onto Budapest&#8217;s British embassy. 4 The cold war saw a slower pace of gun evolution, but the Soviets quickly introduced the 115mm tank-gun on early versions of the T-64, when an Iranian M60 defected to the Soviet Union, and then a 125mm gun thereafter. NATO continued to use the 105mm gun until the late 1970s when the Leopard 2 began series production with Rheinmetall&#8217;s 120mm L/44 tank gun. It should be noted that there were heavy tank designs in both the Soviet Union and the West with 122mm and 120mm tank-guns, but these are a different class of vehicles and were not produces on the same scale as medium tanks. Although the United Kingdom decided to go with the L11 rifled 120mm gun on the Challenger main battle tank (the same gun which was fielded on their Chieftain), the 120mm caliber in general took over the 105mm in all NATO tank-producing countries (United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and the United States) by the mid-1980s. Since then, there has been no enlarging of caliber and instead nations are focusing on improving the 120mm tank gun with revolutionary technologies.5,6No nation has employed the mythical 135mm and 140mm tank-guns in a series-production vehicle to date.

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the beginning of new defense policies in NATO. Large and heavy main battle tanks were no longer considered relevant for national defense, and with the demise of the colossal Soviet Army large tank fleets became hard to justify given the required costs of maintenance and procurement. As a direct consequence, several future tank programs were cancelled &#8211; such as the Leopard 3 and the Block III Abrams. Instead, nations have begun to focus more on the development of air mobile resources to quickly deploy to trouble spots. These requirements have been magnified with recent operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. Although nations like the United States still perform large-scale invasions (Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003), most armies no longer require the shock effect of heavy tanks and instead have to focus on easily deployed, yet still powerful airmobile vehicles. The problem is that infantry combat vehicles such as Spain&#8217;s Pizarro or Sweden&#8217;s CV90-30 don&#8217;t have the firepower for direct infantry support, like a tank does. This problem is much more evident in nations that have chosen to completely replace their tank fleet, like Belgium. As a consequence, nations have begun to develop light airmobile tanks based on infantry combat vehicle chassis.

Although such vehicles may never completely replace the main battle tank, they are much more favorable for procurement. To give a rough idea, it costs roughly five to six million euros to purchase a Leopard 2A6 in bulk, while it costs over eight million to purchase a tank which has been produced in lesser quantities (such as the Italian Ariete or the French Leclerc). 7 A future tank will cost at the very least double of what it currently costs. 8 At an early production rate, for example, the non-line of sight cannon (NLOS) will cost over twenty-five million U.S. dollars per vehicle! 9 Although, currently, a state-of-the-art light tank will cost just as much (or possibly more) than main battle tanks from the 1980s,10 they are considerably cheaper than main battle tanks of the same generation. Furthermore, their costs are more easily justified given that a light tank is designed with the ability to fit in a specified tactical transport (in Europe&#8217;s case the A400M and in the U. S.&#8217; case the C-130 Hercules), while a main battle tank has only limited aerial transport capabilities in heavy strategic transport aircraft (such as the C-5 Galaxy). 

They don&#8217;t necessarily need to be considered replacements for the main battle tank, although Belgium has replaced her Leopard 1s with wheeled Piranha armored fighting vehicles and at one point Canada was contemplating the replacement of her Leopard 1C2s with the LAV Stryker mobile gun system. Nations like the United States will mix &#8216;light brigades&#8217; with &#8216;heavy brigades&#8217;, using them for different missions. Nations like Spain, Denmark or Germany are interested in heavy tanks like their Leopard 2A6s for national defense and for unmatched ground support in the field of survivability, but they&#8217;re also looking for lighter alternatives for quick reaction forces to quickly deploy contingents to trouble spots like Afghanistan, Bosnia or Kosovo. In that sense, the two can work in the same army. The United States has deployed mobile gun systems for direct infantry support, to work alongside wheeled armored personnel carriers. The Italian&#8217;s have procured large numbers of their Centauro armored fighting vehicles, in the twenty-four ton class, in order to perform cavalry missions and area security missions during peacekeeping operations.22 Their preference is exhibited by the large amounts of orders various nations have placed for these types of vehicles and the amount of money and time spent on further developments and upgrades.

In that sense, in the past seven years defense businesses have worked &#8216;night-and-day&#8217; to provide lethality improvement options for existing and future armored fighting vehicles. One of the most important areas being developed upon is lethality, and recently several new large-caliber tank guns have been advertised for integration into lightweight armored fighting vehicles between eighteen and thirty tons. These new armaments allow light armored fighting vehicles the same lethality as a main battle tank in the sixty ton class. Understandably, large caliber high velocity cannons produce high recoil forces and the increase in recoil is exponential as gun caliber increases. Consequently, the major areas of improvement remain reducing recoil mass and force and reducing the unbalance of the gun and vehicle during firing.

105mm low-recoil tank guns
Some of the better known 105mm tank-guns are Rheinmetall&#8217;s Rh-105-20 and Rh-105-30 series, based on the British L7A3 which had been accepted for service on the Leopard 1. However, these new Rheinmetall 105mm guns have exchanged the rifling of the L7 for the smoothbore of Rheinmetall&#8217;s 120mm guns. This, in combination with the use of chromo lining along the inner walls of the barrel, allows the gun to withstand bore pressures of 680MPa, up from 525MPa. The system&#8217;s weight has been decreased to 1,550kg through the use of innovative changes in the breech design. Most importantly, the recoil force felt by the vehicle has been reduced to 150kN, allowing the gun to be mounted on armored fighting vehicles of eighteen tons or more. The reduction in recoil has been established by allowing an extended recoil mechanism length of 750mm and by adopting a Rheinmetall specific advanced pepperbox muzzle break. The muzzle break reportedly does no damage to fin-stabilized projectiles by harming the fins and reduces the noise produced through lateral gas venting. The new 105mm series of guns by Rheinmetall can fire new German 105mm APFSDS at a muzzle velocity of 1,700m/s and these rounds can penetrate up to 560mm of rolled homogenous steel (RHA) at 1km, allowing the gun to defeat the T-72&#8217;s frontal arc.12,13

The LAV Stryker mobile gun system (MGS) is currently armed with the M68A1 105mm rifled gun, based on the British L7, which have been recycled from earlier use on M1 Abrams. Early models of the gun featured a pepperbox muzzle break, but high noise production threatened the safety of dismounted infantry and as a consequence deployed Stryker mobile gun systems don&#8217;t feature a muzzle break on their M68 105mm guns. In that sense, Rheinmetall&#8217;s new smoothbore 105mm guns might present an option for a future improvement program. United Defense, now owned by BAE Systems, developed the M35 low-recoil gun for the M8 armored gun system, now defunct.14 The aluminum turret means that the recoil force imparted by the gun had to be low enough to not damage the structure. As mentioned, the M8 program was canceled in the mid-90s and has not successfully been exported. Currently, the program continues within the Lightning Bolt II and a low-recoil 120mm gun.






Perhaps one of the most interesting new 105mm gun options is Cockerill&#8217;s 105mm CV tank gun. The new gun is bedded to a new CMI turret, weighing only 4.5 tons. At 52 calibers in length, the gun keeps the same bore geometry as the British L7 and therefore is compatible with all existing 105mm ammunition for rifled guns. Recoil is reduced through a very efficient muzzle break (70% efficiency) and an extended recoil length of 580mm. That said, the recoil force is the same as Rheinmetall&#8217;s 105mm options &#8211; 150kN. Furthermore, the new turret is designed to fit inside of a C-130.15 Fired from the 105mm CV the new Mecar 105mm M1060 APFSDS has a muzzle velocity of 1,520-1,560m/s and at 2km can penetrate 510mm of rolled homogenous armor at 60º obliquity (460mm at 0º obliquity).16 The new turret may replace the 90mm gun turret currently on Belgium&#8217;s MOWAG Piranha IIIC, which replaced their Leopard 1BEs. On the Piranha the 105mm gun turret can carry sixteen 105mm rounds at ready, and the autoloader can load six to eight rounds per minute. Very importantly, the gun can elevate up to 42º in the new turret.17

Other 105mm guns have been developed around the world. The South African company Denel offers the GT3 105mm gun, weighing roughly 2,900kg. India&#8217;s Ordnance Factory Kanpur offers a 1,287kg 105mm gun to upgrade T-54s and T-55s. This new gun is based on the British L7 and is rifled, and has an effective range of 4km. BAE systems itself is offering a new improvement of the L7, now 6.66m in length and weighing only 1,334kg.18

120mm low-recoil designs
Rheinmetall, apart from their new series of 105mm guns, offer the 120mm L/47 lightweight low-recoil (LLR) tank gun. The system is designed to fit on vehicles of the twenty-five ton class and keep compatibility with A400M transportation.19 France&#8217;s Nexter has introduced their new 120mm L/52 FER (Faible Effect du Recul) low-recoil tank-gun designed to be adopted by vehicles of the twenty-five ton class, such as the future French EBRC armored car. The 120 FER has a twin-chamber muzzle brake and features a 550mm recoil length. These two guns are similar to Italy&#8217;s 120mm L/45 low-recoil tank gun designed by Oto Melara. The new pepperbox muzzle break and 550mm recoil length has reduced recoil mass to twenty-five tons, and the weapon is currently being offered for export on the Centauro 8x8 armored fighting vehicle on a new HITFIST turret. Denel offers the GT12 120mm gun for South Africa&#8217;s Rooikat wheeled armored fighting vehicle, which is currently armed with a 76mm gun. Israel will soon offer a low-recoil 120mm gun based on Slavin Land System&#8217;s MG253 for the Sabra main battle tank.20

One of the most successful low-recoil tank guns to date is Ruag&#8217;s 120mm compact tank gun (CTG). This gun is fifty calibers in length and has been improved with a muzzle break, having an efficiency of roughly 40%, and an increased extended recoil length &#8211; from 410mm to 500mm. Recoil mass has been decreased from 50 tons to 26 tons.21 Currently, Ruag&#8217;s 120mm CTG is being used to arm Jordan&#8217;s Falcon turret for their Al Hussein turret upgrade for the M60. The gun is matted to an unmanned (the crew is below the turret ring) narrow mantlet turret and a new autoloader which carries eleven rounds.22 It should be noted that the compact breech comes at a price of gained weight. Ruag&#8217;s gun system weighs 2,600kg compared to the 1,901kg of the M256 and the 1,100kg of Rheinmetall&#8217;s L/44. The same can be seen with Israel&#8217;s compact gun systems for their Sabra M60 upgrade &#8211; the M253, based on the M251 of the Merkava III, weighs 3,300kg. Currently, Norinco&#8217;s 120mm guns for possible T-55 upgrades weigh 2,600kg and France&#8217;s F1, used on the Leclerc, weighs 2,800kg.23 The Ruag 120mm CTG, originally designed for an indigenous Swedish main battle tank (ultimately canceled in favor of the Leopard 2A5), has also been chosen to arm the upcoming CV90120-T light tank, based on the CV9030 infantry combat vehicle. The system carries twelve ready-rounds and a further thirty-three can be stowed at the rear of the chassis.24

The United States is currently testing the XM291 lightweight low-recoil tank gun, originally developed in the late 1980s. Originally, the XM291 was composed of a dual-caliber breech which accepted both 120mm and 140mm ammunition. If NATO decided to accept a 140mm gun the gun tube could be exchanged for one of the 140mm diameter, making the transition cheaper. The XM291 was simply an interim solution that increased the lethality of the existing M256 by increasing the length of the gun tube and made possible the transition to a 140mm caliber.25 At some point in the late 1990s the XM291 was turned into a technology demonstrator for an electrothermal-chemical tank gun. In late 1999 the XM291 demonstrator showed that it was coming close to achieving its goal of 16MJ at the muzzle using a M289A2 APFSDS.26 Despite this enormous power, the XM291 can be mounted on the 18.7 ton Lightning Bolt II light tank, based on the M8 chassis.27 The XM36, which will see prototypes delivered by 2009, is supposed to surpass the abilities of the XM291 and will be mounted on the twenty-five ton non-line of sight cannon future combat system.28 The recent developments on the XM291 has been discussed in other Informatives.






Some considerations on large caliber guns for lightweight vehicles
Light-caliber guns have their own limitations based on the different requirements of any given armored fighting vehicle. These requirements include weight, volume, operational area, et cetera. While there may be a multitude of arrangements for a low-recoil tank gun, including high-lengths, low weights or compactness of the breech, not all of these may be useful on a certain design, depending on the criteria. If the light tank is designed to provide infantry support in an urban environment &#8211; such as Iraq &#8211; or a forested or mountainous environment &#8211; like Afghanistan &#8211; then long guns may be a detriment to the design. Longer guns limit the ability for a vehicle to turn into a narrow street, or even ride through one, given that the length of the gun might make it impossible to traverse the turret given the threat of the gun tube hitting a building. On the other hand, light armored vehicles designed to provide a nation a light anti-tank platform, like the Italian Centauro or Belgium&#8217;s Piranha IIIC, might require longer guns to allow for higher muzzle velocities and muzzle energies in order to kill enemy tanks in a one on one basis. Therefore, the length of the gun tube should be based entirely on the design requirements of the vehicle, not just to enhance lethality.

Compact tank breeches pay the price in weight, and although they&#8217;re great for lower volume turrets they can weigh two to three times the weight of a standard 120mm gun breech. It&#8217;s true that a lower volume turret will save weight in the lost armored volume, so a designer must look at all the aspects and wisely juxtapose the possible losses in armored weight and the gained gun weight. You might be surprised to find out that although you did lose weight in armor you gained it all back, or more, through the use of a 3,000kg+ tank gun. 2,000kg is what it would weigh to add appliqué MEXAS to Spain&#8217;s Pizarro infantry combat vehicle to increase protection from 14.5mm API to 30mm APFSDS, just as a reference.

In regards to recoil reduction methods, there are trade-offs. Extra room has to be made to allow for the increase in extended recoil length by 100 to 300mm, meaning that if turret roof height is kept the same in relation to the height between the turret roof and the top of the gun breech then the ability to depress will be traded-off. There has to be enough room between the end of the breech and the roof to allow for the recoil mechanism to fully extend, or else the recoil mechanism is going to end up hitting the roof itself and will damage both the gun and the tank. Muzzle breaks have a tendency to damage the fins of fin s stabilized projectiles, so they should be used with caution. The minor damage done can induce yaw on the round, decrease muzzle velocity and muzzle energy. It&#8217;s difficult to design a fire control system that takes into consideration these aspects because they can be completely random. After the round has been fired there&#8217;s no way for the fire control system to correct the path of the round, and so when yaw has been induced it can&#8217;t be fixed. However, new muzzle break technology has allowed to reduce the damage on fins, and according to Rheinmetall &#8211; as related above &#8211; the new generation of pepperbox muzzle breaks used by Rheinmetall&#8217;s current generation low-recoil guns have little to no effect on fin-stabilized ammunition. Muzzle breaks also produce high amounts of noise, which can damage the eardrums of nearby infantrymen, and so this must be taken into account when designing a fire support vehicle. As told above, the Stryker mobile gun system had its muzzle break removed due to this problem.

In other words, the real world advancements in low recoil tank guns have made it possible to play with these technologies on NationStates. But, it shouldn&#8217;t be forgotten that there are always trade-offs and prices to pay.

Limitation of light armored fighting vehicles against main battle tanks
While speaking about the comparative lethality of a light armored fighting vehicle armed with a large-caliber gun one can conclude that on the level of firepower the main battle tank has been compromised. This is somewhat true, of course, but the technology applied to these guns can be applied to main battle tanks, as well. If a 120mm gun that originally produced 50 tons worth of recoil has been improved to reduce recoil, then that recoil force can be augmented through the use of larger propellant masses &#8211; as if to achieve hypervelocity, although ideally once the maximum effective velocity is reached energy should be translated more into mass of the round. Of course, such a gun is bound to weigh more than the original given that the barrel has to be strengthened to withstand higher bore pressures from large propellants. Nevertheless, the power concepts for a similar technology smoothbore gun for a sixty ton chassis are interesting. Alternatively, low-recoil guns will allow weight decreases in main battle tanks through the adoption of better armor materials and through a smarter distribution of armored mass. 







More importantly (and perhaps more realistically) light armored fighting vehicles can&#8217;t compete on the level of armor protection. Most modern infantry combat vehicles are designed to withstand hits from 30mm APFSDS, while a main battle tank&#8217;s frontal armor array is designed to withstand fire from 105mm or 120mm ammunition. All the while, modern tanks are designated hunter-killers &#8211; they have been forged as dedicated tank killing machines &#8211; and the role of the large-caliber lightweight armored vehicle doesn&#8217;t prioritize this over more pertinent missions such as infantry support. Consequently, the digital architecture of a lightweight armored gun system will be radically different from that of an advanced tank such as the Leopard 2A6 or the M1A2 SEP. In this sense, lightweight armored fighting vehicles can&#8217;t hope of taking on enemy tanks on a one-on-one basis with any semblance of parity. So, generally speaking a vehicle like the Centauro will not replace the tank in the short term. The only hopes of this will come through revolutionary technologies, such as extremely lightweight armor which will make possible armor protection levels superior to that of current sixty-ton beasts on a twenty-ton vehicle. Unfortunately, all of this also comes with increased cost penalties.

But then one can ask, what about Belgium? Belgium was the first country to procure the Leopard 1 and the first Leopard 1BEs were delivered in 1968.30 It&#8217;s possible that German defense companies were no longer able to supply spare parts to the Leopard 1, or the decreased demand as more and more nations replaced old Leopard tanks with newer Leopard 2s made it uneconomical to continue mass production of spare parts. A similar problem catalyzed Canada&#8217;s decision to purchase ex-Dutch Leopard 2A4s and Leopard 2A6s to replace their ageing Leopard 1C2s. For a country like Belgium, with little fears of getting into a war where a heavy main battle tank would be justified, Leopard 2s are too expensive to purchase and too expensive to maintain. Consequently, a light tank force makes much more sense as Belgium operates almost exclusively in peacekeeping operations. That said, these are cheaper and therefore offer a solution to nations with no interests in maintaining a large heavy tank fleet. They are also more versatile for a nation like Belgium, which requires lightweight air mobile units to deploy across large distances &#8211; not to mention, lighter vehicles which can fly on tactical aircraft like the C-130 or the A400M make more sense for the independence to deploy when wanted instead of having to use allied strategic heavy lifters.

There are probably dozens of different advantages of lightweight heavily armed armored fighting vehicles. It just requires imagination and understanding of the differences between this and a main battle tank.

Conclusions
The need for lightweight firepower has led to the development of a number of lightweight, low-recoil guns in the real world. These can provide a basis for gun development in NationStates, both for lightweight vehicles and for main battle tanks. Furthermore, it&#8217;s increasingly likely that we will see a much larger population of low-recoil guns to study from in the future.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ar/t2071.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

Nizhny Tagil New Main Battle Tank




http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-311.html
Ïåðñïåêòèâíûé òàíê Ò-95

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

-----------------------
Projet-Leclerc-Canon-de-140-mm
abandoned 





---------------

Rheinmetall Rh 120 LLR L/47 smoothbore gun (Germany) 
Rheinmetall 120-mm-Glattrohrkanone
120-mm smoothbore gun LLR L/47 [ Edit ]
The Rh 120 LLR L/47 is an evolution of the established 120-mm cannon with 47 caliber lengths and thus a tube length of 5640 mm. LLR is here for Light-Low Recoil (German about: light, low recoil ). [21] The technology used and parts of materials, such as the tempered steel of the tube and the bottom piece was from the set of project for the development of Rheinmetall NPzK-140 [22] ported to the smaller 120-mm caliber. [23]
The LLR is designed to transfer the firepower and thus penetration capability of the known 120-mm smoothbore cannon on a lighter and thus luftverlastbares weapons system. Due to the lower gross vehicle weight and the weaker structure of the carrier vehicle comprehensive measures to the weapon system, such as the reduction of weight and recoil are necessary in order to use them. Thus, in the LLR of recoil was compared to L/44 reduced by 40 percent and the weight of the returning mass by 10 percent. Concomitantly, however, is also an extension of the return of the gun when firing. It is still compatible with those established for the L/44 and L/55 ammunition, since it is designed according to the ICD

------------

Rheinmetall-New-120mm-L55-






Two Leopard 2A6s of the German Army with L55s

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

---------------
SSTC ARA 140 mm smoothbore tank gun Bagira (Ukraine), Weapons of 20 mm and upward

Development/Description 
The Ukrainian State Scientific Centre of Artillery and Rifle Arms (SSTC ARA) has developed to the prototype stage a 140 mm 55 calibre smoothbore tank gun called Bagira.This has been designed to be installed in a MBT and would use an automatic loader to feed the projectile and then charge into the breech.According to the SSTC ARA it can be installed into new design MBTs as well as being retrofitted into current MBTs such as the T-64, T-72, T-80UD and T-84.The 140 mm Bagira smoothbore gun has been designed to operate in temperature ranges from -50 to +50°C.An APFSDS projectile would weigh 9 kg, the penetrator 7 kg. This would penetrate 450 mm of conventional steel armour at an angle of 60°. The second nature of ammunition is high explosive fragmentation.
SSTC ARA 140 mm smoothbore tank gun Bagira (Ukraine) - Jane's Armour and Artillery Upgrades
http://kbao.com.ua/bagira.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GURU DUTT

Thanks anti body your realli good with such stuff kindly aslo if possible post comparrission of tank guns in asia as a whole and origins countries thanks again mate

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

RUAG Land Systems 120 mm Compact Tank Gun (Switzerland), Weapons of 20 mm and upward

Type 
Tank Gun

Development 
The incentive to design a lightweight 120 mm smoothbore gun evolved from the need to retrofit the Swiss Army Pz 68 MBTs armed with a Royal Ordnance Factories (now BAE Systems) 105 mm L7 rifled tank gun.The available 120 mm guns would not fit into the relatively small Pz 68 turret, no extensive turret modifications were allowed and a moderate trunnion load was required. For interoperability reasons the 120 mm gun was required to fire the same ammunition as the Swiss Leopard 2 MBT.To meet this requirement the 120 mm Compact Tank Gun (CTG) was designed by the now RUAG Land Systems.Development of the 120 mm Compact Tank Gun is complete but as of April 2010 no production orders had been placed.
RUAG Land Systems 120 mm Compact Tank Gun (Switzerland) - Jane's Armour and Artillery Upgrades
Compact 120 Tank Gun Brochure

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

----------------







> It seems that the next battery improvement Abrams (AED) will include the brand new cannon XM360E1 (XM360 designed for the FCS program, modified to accommodate the turret and the Abrams drives without muzzle brake) smoothbore capable of firing all the range of existing ammunition in future development and 120mm. The requirement is to provide the tank greater firepower than the M256 delivers a package more compact and lighter weight (through the use of composite materials, simultaneously reducing the impact on the mobility of the vehicle and extending the life Was the gun).



http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayReunionDavidSmith.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

KMDB - 125 mm KBM1M tank gun
125 mm KBM1M tank gun is intended for installation in main battle tanks T-72, T-72AG, T-72MP, as well as in their modifications




KMDB - 125 mm KBM1M tank gun

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

ANTIBODY said:


> RUAG Land Systems 120 mm Compact Tank Gun (Switzerland), Weapons of 20 mm and upward
> 
> Type
> Tank Gun
> 
> Development
> The incentive to design a lightweight 120 mm smoothbore gun evolved from the need to retrofit the Swiss Army Pz 68 MBTs armed with a Royal Ordnance Factories (now BAE Systems) 105 mm L7 rifled tank gun.The available 120 mm guns would not fit into the relatively small Pz 68 turret, no extensive turret modifications were allowed and a moderate trunnion load was required. For interoperability reasons the 120 mm gun was required to fire the same ammunition as the Swiss Leopard 2 MBT.To meet this requirement the 120 mm Compact Tank Gun (CTG) was designed by the now RUAG Land Systems.Development of the 120 mm Compact Tank Gun is complete but as of April 2010 no production orders had been placed.
> RUAG Land Systems 120 mm Compact Tank Gun (Switzerland) - Jane's Armour and Artillery Upgrades
> Compact 120 Tank Gun Brochure

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

KMDB - 120 mm KBM2 tank gun
120 mm KBM2 tank gun is intended for installation in main battle tanks Yatagan, as well as in modernized tanks T-72-120, T-54, T-55, T-59, T-62 ,




KMDB - 120 mm KBM2 tank gun



--------------

125mm 2A46/2A46M Mainguns
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A46_125_mm_gun

The 2A46 (D-81T) is a 125mm/L48 smoothbore cannon of Soviet origin used in several main battle tanks. It was developed by the Spetstekhnika design bureau in Ekaterinburg in the 1960s originally for the T-64A tank. They were then manufactured at Artillery Plant No.9 in Ekaterinburg and Motovilikha in Perm. Commercially produced versions 2A46, 2A46M, 2A46M-1 2A46M-2 2A46M-4 2A46M-5 and the KBA-3(Ukrainian).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

IMI 120 mm gun

The IMI 120 mm gun is a smoothbore tank gun designed and produced by Israeli Military Industries (IMI). It is widely confused as a licensed production of the Rheinmetall L44 tank gun, however it was developed by IMI from 1983 to 1988, to meet the requirements of the Israel Defense Forces' Merkava Mark III main battle tank

There are two versions of the IMI 120 mm gun: the MG251 and MG253, the first of which fitted with a thermal sleeve, developed by Vishay Intertechnology, provided with a fume extractor which can be removed for maintenance without disturbing the actual sleeve, while the second also features a new compressed gas recoil system and a thermal sleeve developed by Vidco Industries.
Both versions fire a family of ammunition developed by IMI but can also fire French, German or US 120 mm NATO ammunition if required, and may also fire the LAHAT anti-tank guided missile.

IMI 120 mm gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

Ukrainian T-84s gun




The main armament comprises a stabilised 125mm KBA3 smoothbore gun fed by a carousel-type automatic loader and fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor (bore evacuator).The gun is stabilised in both elevation and traverse. The main gun has a quick-replacement barrel which can be changed under field conditions without the need to remove the gun from the tank.

http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t84armament.php

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

GURU DUTT said:


> Thanks anti body your realli good with such stuff kindly aslo if possible post comparrission of tank guns in asia as a whole and origins countries thanks again mate



you're welcome! I've just enumerated some guns at the moment

well if If i get some time I will try to enumerate some chinese tank guns with some data links -- it's upto the members where they want to take the discussion after that ... however please do post links as you can see i've tried to find links in most of the cases

before making it a 'vs' thread let the junior TTs etc first collect data ... no fruit in discussing without data


----------



## Manticore

*Problems Encountered with Higher Caliber Tank Guns*




According to estimations from the mid-80s, the future soviet tank (FST-3) had enough armor to defeat anti-tank ammunition fired from a current 120mm powder gun. Future NATO tank guns would have to produce 18MJ worth of energy at the muzzle, for the penetrator of an armor piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) &#8211; double the energy produced by the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 gun mounted on the Leopard 2 and M1A1 Abrams (produced in the United States as the M256).1 A number of solutions were proposed, including the use of a 140mm solid propellant gun. There were a number of more extravagant solutions, including electromagnetic acceleration and electrothermal-chemical ignition and control. Despite the wide array of options in regards to enhancing vehicle lethality, the easiest and fastest solution remains the adoption of a 140mm powder (solid propellant) tank gun. In fact, most tank-producing nations have developed a number of 140mm cannons for use in future tanks and 140mm guns have been fitted into existing turrets; however, no nation has seriously considered the use of a 140mm gun. Since the late 70s tank enthusiasts have been predicting the introduction of larger caliber weapons. Yet, no Israeli Merkava tank has been seen with a 140mm tank gun2 and no Russian tank has been seriously developed with a 152mm piece.3 On the other hand, development continues with electrothermal-chemical technology for use in tank guns, and some still see electromagnetic propulsion as the future in tank armament.

Nevertheless, calibers larger than 120mm are still enticing and see extensive use in NationStates. Especially popular are either the 152mm or 155mm calibers. The use of both these calibers has been popular ever since the publication of multiple articles giving estimations on the armament of the Black Eagle &#8211; a T-80U turret upgrade &#8211; and the future T-95.4 It should be noted that the Black Eagle turret mounts a solid propellant 125mm tank gun, probably the 2A46M-4 tank gun adopted on the T-80UE.5 The T-95s armament, admittedly, remains a mystery, along with the rest of the tank. There have been actual attempts to mount a larger caliber tank gun into existing tank turrets, although very few details are published about these projects. The Swiss mounted a NATO 140mm gun into a Panzer 876 and the Russians have recently introduced a long 152mm cannon into a T-80, with some turret extensions in the front and a bustle in the rear. It&#8217;s possible that there have been prototypes of a 140mm armed main battle tank in the United States of America, although the main battle tank program was canceled in 1995







A Newsweek article with concept art of the FST-2


The lack of information on the development and testing of tank guns of a caliber between 130mm and 160mm admittedly makes it difficult to understand the consequences of implementing a gun of this caliber. These negative side effects of increasing lethality through increasing caliber only accumulate as the caliber gets larger &#8211; i.e. the effects of using a 155mm gun are much greater than those of using a 140mm gun. Consequently, oftentimes the use of these heavy cannons in tank designs in NationStates doesn&#8217;t accurately portray the negative side effects. Although this isn&#8217;t necessarily the author&#8217;s fault, it&#8217;s a mistake that should be corrected. This informative is an attempt to explain the advantages, as well as the various disadvantages, of larger caliber tank armaments. These disadvantages include increased turret volume, potential increase in hull volume and increase in weight. The informative&#8217;s argument is that these increases in volume and weight do not justify the increased lethality, especially given that there are many alternative options in tank gun technology.

140mm+ caliber lethality
The original goal, as stated above, was to achieve muzzle energy of 18MJ. In tank armor penetration by kinetic energy (armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot &#8211; APFSDS) the principle (and the simplest) factors which effect penetration are velocity and mass.8 Therefore, the simplest equation which can given an idea of a round&#8217;s penetration is KE = ½m &#8226;v2. With an increase in muzzle energy you can either increase mass or velocity of the round. With a decrease in mass there is an increase in velocity, and the same is true vice versa. This greater muzzle energy is established through the use of larger propellant charges &#8211; larger barrels can withstand larger charges because the created pressure during gas expansion is distributed along a greater surface area. The idea is the same in high-pressure guns, except that special materials are used to withstand higher pressure in the breech and barrel.9 Although the common goal is 18MJ, there is nothing that suggests that the muzzle energy produced by a 140mm caliber tank gun is and always will be 18MJ. The performance of a 140mm gun, and any gun, is based only upon the construction quality of the barrel, breech and round and the quality and volume of the propellant. In fact, a 140mm gun may produce only 16 or 17MJ of energy.10 

According to Rheinmetall, a 140mm tank gun produces energy of 23MJ at the muzzle. However, only 14MJ are relevant to the penetrator itself.11 Fired from a NATO 140mm gun, a tungsten heavy alloy (WHA) penetrator with a length to diameter (L:d) ratio of will penetrate roughly 830mm of rolled homogenous steel after penetrating a 400mm ceramic module (the ceramic is not necessarily encased in steel).12 Due to the considerable power achieved by the 140mm powder gun and the availability of the technology, it was thought as early as 1989 that the 140mm would be used as a stop-gap solution.13 The amount of technology demonstrators of this caliber make it apparent that at one point in time it was a real solution. The U.S. XM291 solid propellant gun showcased a breech which could fit both a long 120mm cannon and a 140mm cannon if it was necessary in the future.14 However, today the 140mm gun is no longer considered a real option by any NATO tank-producing country.15 Instead, the Germans introduced the new 55-caliber long 120mm tube and the DM53 APFSDS in the KWS I upgrade of the Leopard 2A5 (the 2A4 to 2A5 upgrade is the KWS II, which increases the depth of the front armor array).16 The XM291 120mm tube is also longer than the current M256 (a copy of the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44), but was never implemented and there is still no gun modernization program in sight






British advanced tank armament mounted on a Centurion chassis.


Although the 140mm tank gun, and any caliber above 120mm, offers better ballistics than existing 120mm solid propellant guns against current and future armored threats, the large-caliber gun was a solution based on the lack of time.19 Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union the FST-2 and FST-3 were considered threats beyond the capabilities of NATO tanks of that time, including the M1A1 and Leopard 2. The M1A1HA (heavy armor) upgrade was introduced at a cost of around $1 billion due to the threat posed by the theoretical FST-2.20 Beginning in 1988, there were 1,328 M1A1HA tanks manufactured and another 834 with increased armor protection (M1A!HA+).21 However, the Soviet Union fell in 1991 without producing either the FST-2 or the FST-3. Thankfully, the fall of the Soviet Union has allowed us to take a closer look at the advantages of a 140mm gun. The pace of development has decreased, along with decreased budgets for research and design work on advanced tank armaments. Instead, work has been put into upgrading the lethality of light armored fighting vehicles for deployment in peace keeping operations. This has given Western nations a chance to develop next-generation armaments in the 120mm caliber. However, if NATO wants to design a future tank with MLC 60 or 50 as its weight limit, tank designers will have to look for a smaller caliber solution.

Disadvantages
Even with a decrease in the ammunition held, the volume of thirty 140mm rounds would be roughly 3.05m3. An individual 140mm APFSDS could weigh as high as 40kg, while a 120mm APFSDS weighs between 19 and 23k. This means that thirty 140mm rounds would weigh roughly 1,200kg as compared to the 830kg of a forty round 120mm ammunition load. 22 Rheinmetall&#8217;s 120mm L/44 weighs 1,190kg, while the L/55 version increases the weight to 1,347kg. GIAT&#8217;s (now Nexter) 120mm F1 weighs 2,800kg and the M256 weighs 1,901kg. The high-pressure MG251 weighs roughly 3,300kg.23 However, let&#8217;s take Rheinmetall&#8217;s L/55 and the XM291 as the more recent in solid propellant technology (the XM291 saves about 600kg worth of weigh as compared to the M256). In comparison, a 140mm gun (including the trunnions) would weigh over 3,200kg. It would also require a breaking force of up to 1,200KN.24 In gun weight and ammunition weight alone the increase in weigh would be about 1.5 metric tons. The necessary increase in turret volume to allow a depression of the main gun to anywhere between 7º and 10º could cost another 5 to 6 metric tones in weight. The increase in gun caliber would also result in an increase in the size of the mantlet, resulting in another increase in armor volume and weight. In fact, a total weight increase due to the larger turret armor volume could amount to up to over 10 metric tons.25 Insofar, the total weight increase amounts to closer to 15 metric tones. Taking the weight of the Leopard 2E of around 63,000kg26, it would mean that based on what we have figured out a 140mm tank with the same proportions of mobility, protection and lethality would weigh almost 78,000kg. In order to keep within the maximum acceptable ground pressure of 9N/cm2 the chassis would also have to be enlarged in both width and length. The increase in weight of a 140mm gun, with a proportional increase in protection and mobility, would be a far greater difference to existing main battle tanks than is the difference between the M60 (52,000kg27) and the M1A2 (roughly 64,000 to 65,000kg28).

The maximum width of the vehicle is dictated by what is allowed by a nation&#8217;s rail system. The amounts of distance between any given points in the majority of nations in NationStates make travel by tank track improbable. NATO armies, and their allies, have always used rails, while the Soviets have always had the philosophy that a tank should be prepared to travel great distances on its own tracks. But, the Soviets have traded other aspects of their tanks for increased engine life. In terms of track life, the AMX-30&#8217;s tracks could travel an average of 5,000km. 29 Track life of current tracks is most likely similar, as no major innovations with track durability have really been made. Fuel considerations make travel by truck over long distances as improbable as travel by one&#8217;s own track. Currently, Spain&#8217;s truck transport can fit a single Leopard 2E or two Pizarro infantry combat vehicles. Assuming that a truck was made to carry a much larger main battle tank it would still only be able to carry one. Taking into consideration tank fleets in NationStates, let alone distance to travel, the amount of trucks required to transport armor material across the country would exceed a country&#8217;s capability. The width of a nation&#8217;s highway lane also plays apart in the allowable width of a tank. The use of multi-lane highways solves the problem to a certain degree, but doesn&#8217;t get rid of it. The costs of constructing a multi-lane highway network across a country the size of the Soviet Union would not allow a nation to procure an expensive main battle tank! On a more serious note, it&#8217;s not realistic to assume that a nation can change the width of its railroad tracks to accommodate a larger main battle tank. Therefore, there exists a physical limit on the width of any main battle tank.

Battlefield mobility of a tank is dictated by the relationship between the length of the track touching the ground and the width between the centerlines of each track. Ratios of over 1.5 will disallow a tank from making quick turns, and may even cause a crew to damage or break the tank&#8217;s transmission. Given the maximum allowable gun pressure we know that there is a maximum allowable weight per width. Width is hard to increase due to road and rail constraints. Consequently, one could say that there is a maximum weight limit of a tank. Taking into consideration Western rail gauge, this limit seems to be MLC 70 (roughly 64,000kg). Therefore, a 78,000kg tank would find it hard to strategically deploy long distances, not to mention the ability to deploy overseas!

Even so, 78,000kg doesn&#8217;t take into consideration several more weight augmentations. An increased weight requires increased engine volume and fuel volume. Fuel tanks, within themselves, constitute a substantial increase in weight due to protection requirements. It would be nearly impossible for a human loader to load 40kg ammunition in the ideal loading time of 5 to 7 seconds, and therefore an automatic loader would be necessary. Nevertheless, the weight of the ammunition would require a loading system of at least 600kg, so there are no weight savings in that area. And, we are assuming an armor protection equal to current tanks. Ideally, a 140mm armed tank would also have an increase in armor protection. That constitutes a large increase in weight. 35 metric tons of the Abram&#8217;s weight is armor,30 meaning we&#8217;re looking at a weight increase of armor by a factor of at least ten metric tons. In terms of aerial density armor protection can weigh up to 4 metric tones per meter.31 Therefore, if current lethality and protection patterns are kept the 140mm armed tank could weigh well over 80,000kg.






A comparison chart, offered by Rheinmetall, with three different Rheinmetall tank armaments.


Taking weight into consideration, one should also figure in logistics. The cost of logistics can be related to as the eighth power of the tank&#8217;s weight (for a tank of the weight we&#8217;re discussing).32 Therefore, the logistics slice of a 80 ton tank would be roughly 5 times greater than an existing 63 ton tank! And this fails to mention the cost of construction of each individual tank. The cost considerations in manpower, man hours and logistics resources are exponentially greater than those in a modern real-life main battle tank. The use of advanced technologies, such as computerized active hydropneumatic suspensions and computerized transmissions will add to the cost of the tank, but this fact remains the same in all tank design.

Unconventional Solutions
If weight is the principle cause of the problem, any user of a large caliber tank gun should look into solutions which reduce weight. Nominally, this means unconventional turret designs. As an example, Jordan&#8217;s King Abdullah Development and Design Bureau (Kaddb) revealed the new Falcon turret at Idex 2001. The turret is designed to reduce he frontal profile as much as possible (although, it should be known that the smaller the frontal profile of the turret, the larger the sides will be33), as well as weight, and is an upgrade option for Arab M60 Patton tanks and Jordan&#8217;s own Challengers (Al Husseins). The two man turret crew (the driver is still in the hull) is seated in the turret basket, reducing the required amount of protection in the front. By reducing the front turret profile and moving the position of the crew Kaddb radically decreased the armored volume of the turret reducing weight just as dramatically. However, moving the crew into the turret basket results in disallowing the tank commander from a good panoramic view &#8211; in essence, he&#8217;s commanding the tank based on computers. Furthermore, the Falcon turret&#8217;s autoloader only holds eleven rounds (with plans to increase to sixteen), compared to the forty rounds held by the M1 Abrams34 &#8211; the Falcon turret is wedded to Ruag&#8217;s 120mm compact tank gun (CTG), which weighs 2,600kg.35 

Reducing turret volume, as shown by the Falcon turret upgrade, is always an option and may result in a hefty reduction of weight, given the reduction in armored value. As a reference, assuming full nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection each crew member will require about .4m3 and the loader .8m3 to achieve the fastest loading rate possible (as close to 5 seconds as possible)36 and to this we add another 10% for crew comfort and freedom of movement. So we can come to the conclusion that a conventional four man crew requires just about 2.5m3 in terms of volume. This is even larger for tanks which attempt to move the driver into the turret, since that driver now needs to counter-rotate meaning his required volume will be based on the spine of his seat and not on his center of mass, effectively doubling the required volume. A three man crew, however, requires less than 2m3 plus the required volume for the tank autolading system. In terms of turret volume, however, we&#8217;re talking about a volume reduction of a little bit over 1m3. Jordan pays the price in the weight of its gun (heavier breech) and the relatively small ammunition hold, and the inability to replenish the autoloader&#8217;s ammunition under armor (instead, the crew has to replenish from the outside). One can also reduce the crew from four or three to two, reducing fighting compartment volume from 10m3 to around 3m3. 37 There are, as always, important considerations including the requirement to train multiple crews per tank &#8211; a two-man crew will not be able to successfully guard the tank at night, or maintain the tank on their own. Furthermore, each crew member now has a larger share of the tasks.38

Other turret options include the cleft turret and the externally mounted gun. The former reduces turret volume, and the latter almost gets rid of it completely (you only have to armor the breech against small arms). Both have huge ballistic weaknesses, although if you can guarantee the first-round and the necessary lethality of that first-round then ballistic weaknesses are almost irrelevant.

However, it&#8217;s questionable whether a 140mm solid propellant gun or even a 155mm solid propellant gun can penetrate the armor of a NationStates tank on the first hit. Let&#8217;s say that a M289A3 APFSDS scaled up to be fired from a 140mm gun (larger mass) has a penetration of roughly 1,200mm of RHAe (rolled homogenous armor equivalent); this is still insufficient to penetrate a large number of tanks with over 2,000mm RHAe along the front 60º arc. Always hitting the side armor is unlikely, as that&#8217;s what the Israelis did during the Six Day War yet close to 35% of the hits are registered to hit the tank front 60º. During the Yom Kippur War near 55% of the hits were registered on the front 60º and during the Second World War (the most &#8216;copied&#8217; war of NationStates) this percentage increases up to the 70% mark! 39 This doesn&#8217;t even begin to take into consideration the armor protection between the 60º and 90º protection arc in main battle tanks, or up to the 120º degree arc! The Black Eagle, for example, has explosive reactive armor integrated into the front 120º arc of the turret.40 One source claims a turret armor protection of up to 880mm for the Black Eagle, although if an improvement in side turret front armor over the T-80U is assumed then we&#8217;re looking at more than 400mm worth of protection against kinetic energy (KE) threats in terms of conventional armor.41 If Kontakt-5 provides 300mm worth of equivalent armor against APFSDS,42 then it&#8217;s possible that the Black Eagle has a side turret front protection level of over 700mm RHAe, and possibly up to 800mm RHAe. That means that the Black Eagle may have a side turret front armor protection level close to the front protection level of current generation main battle tanks. Improvement in passive armor thickness and mass efficiency, as well as improvements in explosive reactive armor, might mean an even higher level of protection. Although the Black Eagle is not going to be adopted by the Russian Army, it serves as an example as what future tanks can achieve (like the T-95).






A comparison between the T-95 and the M1 Abrams in size.


For example, with a weight increase of just 1.5 to 2.5 metric tons43 the M1A2 SEP can adopt a heavy explosive reactive armor suite increasing protection by about 300mm RHAe. This would increase effective protection along the front 60º arc to over 1,200mm RHAe and the side turret front armor to about 650mm RHAe. 44 The most important consideration to take into consideration is that Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor proved to completely stop the M289 APFSDS.45 Although the new M289A3 APFSD was specifically designed to defeat Russian explosive reactive armor, new reactive armor concepts may prove more difficult to puncture. For example, Ukraine&#8217;s Nozh explosive reactive armor uses a series of explosively formed penetrators to literally cut the APFSDS into several pieces. However, Nozh suffers from the disadvantage of relying on a dramatic impact angle. Regardless, the point remains that the efficiency of explosive reactive armor shouldn&#8217;t be measured in RHAe as opposed to its ability to break the incoming APFSDS.

This takes us back to turret design. If one can reduce armor volume to reduce weight, one can rearrange previous armor in order to increase the thickness of the surface area left. In other words, a tank with a narrow mantlet turret can have an increased thickness in armor for no penalty in weight (you just don&#8217;t lose the weight). So, if by maximizing line of sight thickness of the armor, like the Leopard 2A5, a future tank can achieve armor protection of around 1,500mm RHAe then a 140mm gun is incapable of penetrating the frontal arc of that tank. Of course, an electrothermal-chemical gun might be incapable as well, but it doesn&#8217;t have the added weight penalties! 

Technological solutions
There are advances in tank technology which may allow for weight savings. The German MTU 880 series of diesel engines produce around 215kW/m3, a substantial improvement over prior diesels &#8211; it is 35% smaller in volume and 14% lighter in weight.46 In other words, the MTU 880 produces 288hp/m3, which means that to provide a hp/t ratio of at least 20:1 the engine bay would require at least 5.6m3 (based on a 80,000kg tank). This would produce 1,600hp, while a 2,000hp engine would require about another 2m3 worth of volume. MTU claims that the MTU 890 series engine is 50% smaller than the MTU 880 series in terms of volume47, which to me says that the MTU 890 can produce 430kW/m3, or that a 1,600hp engine bay would require a volume of about 2.8m3. There are claims that the MTU 890 produces 1.2MW/m3, 48 but these are highly suspect &#8211; nevertheless, the lack of an alternate source disallows me from discarding the figure. Nevertheless, use this latter figure as carefully as possible; else we might have another buckyball trend! Regardless, new diesel engines provide a heavy savings in weight, forgive the pun.

There are also weight savings in the areas of future transmission systems, and the use of certain materials in vehicle and armor construction.49 Alternate armor could be a consideration, or even the reduction of armor protection to save mobility. This concept was the guideline for the French AMX-3050 and the German Leopard 1,51 and may have been the guideline for the U.S. future main battle tank (FMBT) which aimed for a combat weight of 20 metric tons.52 Of course, the problem isn&#8217;t as severe as it is for a twenty ton tank with the goals of a sixty ton tank, but there are similarities. While technological breakthroughs may save some weight, any heavy NS tank design that scales up with current technology will have to rely more on ingenuity than on technology. Cost should also be taken into consideration when using high technology. Currently, more than 60% of a tank&#8217;s cost is the high technology and electronics used. 53 If a M1A2 costs $5.4 million to produce54 then $3.24 million is applied to electronics. That said, any future tank with the most advanced in terms of electronics and high technology to save weight or enhance features that now have to support greater weight may cost over $10 million. These systems include electric transmission, active hydropneumatic suspension and advanced remote controlled weapon stations. There&#8217;s also a high cost in the technology provided to manufacture certain parts of the future tank (like advanced armor).

Alternatives
There are great deals of alternatives to 140mm guns in smaller calibers which can be explored.55 This includes the more well known electrothermal-chemical technology, which will provide the necessary energy to match the muzzle energy of a 140mm gun. Unfortunately, this comes with the added costs. Technologies which may be applied to the future, assuming advances in energy storage and efficiencies, are electromagnetic propulsion systems &#8211; for example, rail guns and coil guns. However, these are not solutions to be considered for a long while. Simpler alternatives are improved solid propellant guns. The 120mm L/55 firing the DM63 can penetrate as much as 900mm of rolled homogenous steel, 56 while the penetration of the same gun firing the M289A3 may exceed 1,000mm of penetration! Advanced solid propellants might also offer short-term improvements in lethality, with smoother burn patterns and higher amounts of energy per volume. The alternatives are out there, they just require some researching!






Swiss Pz87 with a 140mm gun.


On the other hand, advances are in the form of the ammunition. Rounds like the XM943 can engage tanks at long ranges and defeat them by engaging the roof armor with an explosively formed penetrator57 &#8211; in other words, a gun-launched long-range anti-tank missile. Rounds like SADARM58 can drop multiple submunitions on a target, increasing chances of penetration. This type of guided ammunition greatly increases the engagement ranges of tanks and questions the requirement of heavy armor. For example, a 155mm howitzer can knock out one or more tanks using submunitions while those tanks can&#8217;t even respond. The introduction of indirect fire munitions may merge the roles of heavy armor and self-propelled artillery, although the former could never provide the necessities for occupation (the lack of heavy protection) while the latter is simply too expensive to replace the artillery vehicle. Indirect fire munitions may also argue in support of large guns &#8211; the larger the gun, the larger the round the more submunitions it can hold. However, it also argues for the use of smaller caliber guns. A tank designed with a 105mm high velocity gun has superior mobility than larger variants, may have an equal level of protection and can engage enemy tanks at non-line of sight (NLOS) ranges. Its armor protection would be enough to protect it against infantry armaments such as light anti-tank rockets or top-attack missiles through the use of explosive reactive armor and an active protection system. It would also be cheaper and a nation could deploy more for the same costs.

In the end, the use of alternatives is up to the creator. There are always design specifications and operational requirements to take into consideration. Each creator might also have different opinions and perspectives. It&#8217;s all part of the game. However, it&#8217;s important to always take into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of any given piece of equipment &#8211; including large caliber tank guns.

Problems Encountered with Higher Caliber Tank Guns (Nsdraftroom)

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Maximum Chamber pressure for different guns.

2A26 and early 2A46 5100 bars (T-72)
2A46M-1 and later models 6500 bars (T-90 and T80U)
British L30 6180 bars (Challanger-2)
Rheinmetall 120mm L44 and US M256 7100 bars (M1A2 and older Leo)
Rheinmetall 120mm L55 7600 bars (Leo 2A6)
Morozov KBA3 6374 bars (Ukrainian T-80UD)
Morozov KBM2 7060 bars (Ukrainian T-84 Oplot)
ARDE 120mm L52 8400 bars (Arjun)

Although some people claim L55 to be having Max Camper pressure of 9000 bars... making it the most powerful tank gun in service.


----------



## Manticore

---------------------
*Promising 140-mm tank gun*
http://army-news.ru/2012/03/perspektivnye-140-mm-tankovye-pushki/



Today, the vast majority of today's world of tanks used smooth-120 and 125-mm guns. The exceptions are Indian Arjun and British Challenger I and II, which are equipped with 120-mm rifled guns. The transition to the second half of the XX century in smoothbore guns could markedly increase the kinetic energy of the projectile, thereby improving penetration.

 This free miracles, as we know, does not happen, and the smooth-bore guns rifled inferior in accuracy and range target shooting. These features and give rise to the use of sophisticated modern tank fire control systems.

 In the near future increase the firepower of tanks will be as through improved artillery, and increase the power of weapons. The increase in the caliber of tank guns is not a prerequisite. Improved design tools is on the way to improve the quality of steel used for the manufacture of the barrel, in order to increase the gas pressure in the chamber and the barrel when fired. And also on ways to reduce the uneven heating backlash, moments, and other phenomena affecting the trunk and accuracy.

 In the future, we can expect an increase firepower MBT and through the use of large-caliber guns. Currently, the Swiss company RUAG of gunsmiths created smoothbore tank gun, 140-mm. Characteristics of the new tools is not fully known, but there is information that RUAG worked version of the installation tool in fighting compartment tank Leopard 2A4. The development in this field are in the U.S., where he developed smooth dvukalibernoe gun XM291 120/140 mm. Leads the development in this area and the Ukraine, where the instrument was created 55L "Bagheera".






Tank gun 2A75 (left) and 2A46M-5 (right). Cannon 2A46M-5 - the most modern Russian tank gun, 125-mm

 In Russia, most experts agree on the judgment to leave as a main tank gun artillery system caliber 125 mm, but with the length of the barrel and the ability to use armor-piercing projectiles with increased long-piercing core. You also created and tested larger caliber smoothbore gun.

 It should be understood that an increase in the caliber of tank guns to 140 mm leads to almost halve carried in tank ammunition. That is what is at present a major deterrent to the use of a large-caliber tank guns.

German 140-mm smoothbore gun of "Rheinmetall"

 Under contract with the Federal Office of arms supplies (VWV) German company "Rheinmetall" produced six prototype 140-mm smoothbore guns and ammunition series APFSDS-T (armor piercing tracer feathered with detachable leading parts) for testing.

 This development was conducted in the framework of the international program for the creation of the main gun of the tank of the future FTMA, which is implemented by the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the USA. New 140-mm gun received the designation NPz K-140. This instrument is equipped with a heat insulating cover, wedges vertically incident type extractor of smoke. The gun was designed to increase the firepower of the German main battle tank "Leopard 2" .







Tank guns production "Rheinmetall" 120mm with a barrel 44 and 55 gauge and 140-mm gun NPz K-140

 It is assumed that the installation of the tank 140-mm guns will require replacement of the tower, which would get the automatic loader for separate loading 140-mm ammunition. Made test stand, but in production, nor in weapons this gun yet.

Swiss 140-mm tank gun

 Work to build a new 140-mm tank gun began in Switzerland in the late 1980s of the XX century. The firm "Ordnance Enterprise" started a program that was intended to demonstrate the ability to use more powerful guns not only to modernize the standing armed with tanks "Leopard 2", but also as a fortress guns. As a new tool to be used to its integration and new ammunition available MBT with minimum cost and to verify the expected performance of new ammunition.

 The first test of a new ballistic 140-mm smoothbore gun in a real combat situation took place in the summer of 1988, and the first firing ammunition from a gun mounted on a tank "Leopard 2" , took place in autumn 1989. To the new gun was created separate loading ammunition, consisting of the main propellant charge, which is a steel base and combustible container (about 10 kg warhead) and the projectile kinetic action, plus an additional 5 kg warhead. Also created a multi-purpose missile (MR), which most likely will not require the use of additional charge.

 The kinetic projectiles have extended core, which is made of base metal, not from depleted uranium, which is employed in the U.S. Munitions and body with a plastic driving bands. At the same time, the first shot is a multipurpose shaped-charge projectile having a strong enough additional fragmentation






 Swiss Cumorah 140-mm gun is somewhat shorter than the layout adopted by NATO countries, while according to the "Ordnance Enterprise," this weapon and ammunition to it when necessary can be quickly adjusted to the current international standards on the bolt.

 The main efforts of Swiss engineers to create new weapons based on the analysis of external ballistics on the final trajectory ammunition Kinetic Energy having different structural characteristics (diameter, mass, length, speed) against a number of test objectives. Parallel to this, the impact of multi-purpose shells studied in static tests.



> Tests showed that the new 140-mm ammunition in a position to penetrate steel armor thickness of up to 1000 mm, which is a significant increase in armor penetration when compared with in service with 120-mm projectiles.



 It should be noted that the Swiss 140-mm smoothbore gun is still only a test gun. And given the significant reduction in the threat of war in Europe since the beginning of its development in the foreseeable future it will not be put into operation.

Development of 140-mm guns in the UK

 Over the years, former British Defence R & D management (DRA) to work on the project 140-mm tank gun for future FTMA. At first it was planned to create tools that will be ready to be in force at the beginning of XXI century, but the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Warsaw Pact significantly slowed work on the program, and an instrument had been received in the industrial production.

 In the UK, implemented two programs: one funded by the Ministry of Defense, and manage DRA, the major work on it were made &#8203;&#8203;from 1989 to 1992. The second program was initiated by "Royal Ordnance" and ran from 1989 to 1993.






MBT UK "Challenger 2" 140-mm gun has not got

 By early 1993, "Royal Ordnance" and DRA conducted firing their 140-mm shells at landfills country. The company "Royal Ordnance" spent about 120 rounds of ammunition APFSDS its 140-mm gun mounted on a test bench. This gun provides 40% increased armor penetration compared with 120 mm guns. 140-mm ammunition for the new guns were significantly heavier than the existing 120-mm shells were therefore made separate, consisting of two parts (projectile and charge), which charges a weapon with automatic loader.

 As it turned out, the installation of a new 140-mm gun with an autoloader for tanks "Challenger-2" or M-1A1/A2 Abrams was very costly. On the new French tank "Leclerc" in the recess of the turret was installed automatic loader, but the main gun of the tank remained 120-mm gun. It was assumed that the shells APFSDS, which were to be used in the tank of the future FTMA, will have a core of depleted uranium. Such weapons have better armor penetration, but at the same time have a high cost of production and can not be used in peacetime for environmental reasons.

140-mm gun prospective U.S. system ATAC

 In the U.S. system perspective smoothbore tank gun caliber 140-mm (ATAS) consists of a gun XM-291, XM automatic loader-91 and a family of new ammunition. It was assumed that this system will be the main weapon of the future MBT project "Block III», which is being developed for the U.S. Army.

 140-mm gun XM-291 is a powder tank gun with a monolithic installation and rollback mechanism that leads fire munitions, consisting of 2 parts (projectile and charge). Muzzle energy of the gun 2 times greater than the energy of a standard 120-mm gun M-256, which are armed with tanks "Abrams" M1A2 . The gun has an extractor of smoke, heat insulating cover and 91 pounds lighter than the standard M-256 guns.






140-mm gun XM-291 based on the tank "Abrams"

 originality of the proposed system is that after replacing the barrel (it takes about an hour), the system can fire 120-mm solid conventional and future ammunition. The gun works in conjunction with the automatic loader XM-91, which is able to recognize the selected types of ammunition. The mechanism of transfer of ammunition created by "Lockheed Martin".

 In the niche turret contains 17 pieces of 120-mm or 140-mm rounds, ready for immediate use, an additional 22 140-mm round two-piece or 33 unitary warhead caliber 120 mm can be placed in the body of the tank. Using the automatic loader allows for the rate of fire at 8-12 rounds per minute.

 The family of ammunition for ATAC system is represented by three shells: shaped-charge projectile XM-965 projectile Kinetic Energy XM-964 and XM-training projectile 966. Each shot is made up of the charge and projectile. The charge is the same for all three rounds and consists of a detonator and the base of the truncated parts combustible side wall of fire and a propelling charge. When fired, the sleeve is burned, leaving only the base. Snap connection charge of ammunition allows you to remove the shell from the breech end of the barrel.

 The prototypes developed system ATAC tested in the land forces of the U.S., with a commercial scale 140-mm tank gun promising not performed.

Ukrainian 140-mm gun, "Bagheera"

 In Ukraine also were developing weapons caliber 140 mm. As a result of construction work came to light gun L55 "Bagheera", number 55 in the title indicates the length of the barrel in calibers. This gun is designed to upgrade existing weapons and advanced models of armored vehicles. An option for installing it on the T-84M "Hold", but realized he was not







MBT Ukrainian T-84 "Hold" too while the 140-mm gun has not got

Characteristics of the experimental tank gun L55 "Bagheera": 
Calibre - 140 mm 
Barrel Length - 7000 mm (55 gauge) 
Most recoil length - 310 mm 
Muzzle velocity - 1870 m / s 
Kreshernoe pressure - 564 MPa 
Muzzle energy - 15.74 MJ 
Receiver weight BPS - 9 kg 
Flight weight BPS - 7 kg.

Sources used: 
www.btvt.narod.ru/4/140mm_gun.htm 
www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/maintheme/2011/0808/14487070/detail.shtml 
http://gunm.ru/news/140_mm_tankovaja_pushka_iz_shvejcarii/2012-02-18-850 
www.kbao.com.ua/pushka_55l_bagira.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PRINCE_THE_SHOWSTOPPER

Here's the indian one*120 Millimetre MBT Arjun Armament System*

A state-of-the-art weapon and ammunition system has been developed by the DRDO for the Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun by adopting novel design concepts and latest technological advancement at par with the industrially advanced countries. The system is capable of destroying modern heavy targets up to a range of 5000 m. All aspects leading to ergonomics, product reliability, maintenance, ease of operation, and futuristic performance enhancement have been incorporated in the design of the system. 

The following indigenous technologies have been developed and established during the course of the system development.

Electro slag refined (ESR) steel for gun barrels 

Partial length autofrettaging of gun barrels

High pressure packing rings for recoil system

Tungsten alloy penetrators

Fin stabilised kinetic energy shot 

Special alloy steel obturating cups for cartridge cases 

Semi-combustible cartridge case and primer

Armament System

*Gun System*

The 120 mm rifled gun for MBT Arjun is made of special steel produced by the latest ESR/Vacuum Arc Remelting process. This has enhanced the performance and fatigue life of the gun barrel. The gun barrel has been partially autofrettaged to a pressure of 800 MPa to achieve a proof pressure of the order of 612 MPa. This is the first indigenously developed gun capable of firing at such a high service pressure achieving muzzle velocity of 1650 m/s and above. Efficient fume extractor of the gun ensures that no toxic fumes are left in the crew compartment. The gun is fitted with FRP Thermal Insulating Jacket to obviate differential thermal effect, thereby enhancing the accuracy of the weapon system.

*Recoil System*

The Arjun recoil system is a compact, lightweight, short recoil hydro-spring type, capable of absorbing the thrust of high pressure and high velocity gun. The system consists of two hydro-spring buffers mounted diagonally to meet the stringent space requirement inside the fighting compartment. The innovative design of taper control rod gives uniform recoil and run-out, thereby enhancing the accuracy and life of the system and the high rate of fire. The high pressure and durable packing rings coupled with high surface-finish of mating components ensure longer life and high reliability. This is a sealed system, which requires practically no maintenance.

*Ammunition System*

Two types of ammunition, namely, Fin Stabilised Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS) and High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) have been fully developed and productionised for MBT Arjun.

The complete round of Arjun ammunition system consists of a semi-combustible cartridge case with steel obturating cup, semi-combustible primer, propellant, additive liner for wear reduction of gun and FSAPDS shot/HESH shell. The semi-combustible cartridge case (SCCC) ammunition has the advantage of reduction of round and chamber length, weight of the round, ease of handling, higher muzzle velocity, higher rate of fire, longer barrel life, and logistics.

*Steel Obturating Cup*

The SCCC technology is being used in the contemporary tanks. Steel cup is a major component of SCCC technology used for indigenous development of the ammunition for the Arjun tank, and has been designed, developed and productionised by the DRDO for the first time in the country. This component provides effective obturation during firing of the ammunition.



*FSAPDS*

FSAPDS is the primary antitank ammunition for Arjun. The complete FSAPDS round consists of semi-combustible cartridge case, semi-combustible primer with steel obturating cup, triple-base propellant, and wear-reducing additive liner. The sub-calibre kinetic energy projectile has a very high-density long rod tungsten alloy penetrator enclosed in a three-piece sabot segment and a tail unit for in-flight stability with tracer. The shot is machined to a very high degree of precision with best CNC machines and online inspection to achieve the high standard of accuracy. This hyper velocity ammunition can defeat all the modern targets at a range of 5000 m and above. The accuracy and consistency of the shot is of the order of 0.2 mil standard deviation.

*HESH* 

High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) is the secondary ammunition for Arjun and is effective against a variety of soft targets, tanks, fortifications, etc. The complete HESH round consists of a semi-combustible cartridge case, primer with steel obturating cup, and a single-base propellant. The optimised explosive composition of HESH defeats rolled homogenous armour plate detaching a scab of about 9 kg mass moving with a velocity of 100 to 120 m/s. Besides the scabbing effect, blast and shock imparts a tremendous jolt to the enemy tank stripping off explosive reactive armour and incapacitating the crew severely, thereby affecting their fighting capabilities. The accuracy of the HESH is of the order of 0.25 mil standard deviation.



The gun/ammunition system has been fully optimised and integrated with the MBT Arjun, meeting the stringent GSQR for consistency, penetration, lethality and high rate of fire. The production in ordnance factories has been well established. Strict quality control measures in the production stage and the final inspection stage are being maintained by DGQA/SQAE to ensure highest standard of quality.


* Ordnance &Ammunition Data*

Ordnance Ammunition 

Calibre 120 mm rifled Scab mass 9 kg 
Breech type Vertical sliding breechblock Scab diameter 280 mm 
Semiautomatic/hand operated Scab velocity 120 m/s 
Firing mechanism Electrical 
Ordnance length 6050 mm HESH/T 1A 
Ordnance mass 2025 kg 
Barrel life 500 EFC Type of ammunition Fixed SCCC 
Muzzle velocity 735 m/s 
Thermal Insulating Jacket (TIJ) Round length 996 mm 
Round mass 22 kg 
Material FRP Consistency 0.25 mil 
No. of units 2 (front and rear) 
Type Split type, hinged FSAPDS/T 1A 

Recoil System Type of ammunition Fixed SCCC 
Muzzle velocity 1650 m/s 
Type Hydro spring taper rod type and above 
No. of cylinders 2 Round length 940 mm 
Normal recoil 350 mm Round mass 20 kg 
Recoil fluid Oil mineral hydraulic buffer Consistency 0.20 mil 
Mass of each buffer 90 kg 
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...iYHgBg&usg=AFQjCNF-ixpnk4XUBceVWycEgKxhEh-jWg

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...el-cleaning-machines-tank-artillery-guns.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/140269-loading-tank-guns.html


----------



## MilSpec

@fatman17
@ANTIBODY : I have always wondered if there was a possibility of converting the gun assembly from decommissioned tanks into light arty for troop support. Both India and pakistan have nearly thousands of tanks which will be decommissioned/mothballed soon which haventt seen any combat, (less wear on the barrel). Any comments

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## anonymous_bot

Can anybody tell the specifications of Chinese tank guns.?


----------



## LegionnairE

sandy_3126 said:


> @ANTIBODY : I have always wondered if there was a possibility of converting the gun assembly from decommissioned tanks into light arty for troop support. Both India and pakistan have nearly thousands of tanks which will be decommissioned/mothballed soon which haventt seen any combat, (less wear on the barrel). Any comments



From what I know, Pakistan doesn't have any APCs over 30+ tons, so i strongly doubt any of the M113 variants(Hamza?) can support a turret heavy enough or withstand the recoil of an MBT gun without tipping over 

A few of them can be used to fortify stationary outposts in terror-infested areas.


----------



## Manticore

sandy_3126 said:


> @fatman17
> @ANTIBODY : I have always wondered if there was a possibility of converting the gun assembly from decommissioned tanks into light arty for troop support. Both India and pakistan have nearly thousands of tanks which will be decommissioned/mothballed soon which haventt seen any combat, (less wear on the barrel). Any comments



@fatman17 or @Xeric will be able to give first hand info in this regard

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

@fatman17 or @Xeric, Is it possible to decouple the the Gun, swivel/traverse system and the loading mechanism from the turret and mount it onto a howtzer like rig, to in other words recycle obsolete tanks for bolstering up border posts??


----------



## DARKY

High Caliber Gun Images.

Object 195 with its 152 mm smoothbore gun.






Object 292 with its 130 mm smoothbore gun.[experimental tank]






Leopard 2A4 with its 140 mm smoothbore gun.






M1A1 with its 140 mm smoothbore gun.






ZTZ99 with its 140 mm smoothbore gun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

LegionnairE said:


> From what I know, Pakistan doesn't have any APCs over 30+ tons, so i strongly doubt any of the M113 variants(Hamza?) can support a turret heavy enough or withstand the recoil of an MBT gun without tipping over
> 
> A few of them can be used to fortify stationary outposts in terror-infested areas.



Well.... if you can put a 105mm on a 3x3 Cadillac Gage LAV or a 4x4 Piranha, you can also put it on a M113. If it were a 120mm, a stretched M113 - like the 18 ton MTVL - might take it. By comparison, the Russian 2s25 Sprut-D at 18 tons has a 125mm tank cannon.... see also the 25 ton Centauro B1 with 120mm turret.

CG LAV-600





Piranha/Lav-105





2s25 Sprut SD





Centauro b1 120mm






Or, picture yourself a 6 roadwheel version of an XM103 with a 120mm cannon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

m113 with various 90mm turrets (besides those with 76mm M24, Saladin and Saracen turrets and 60mm hvms turret).

Cadillace cage / Cockerill 90mm





CMI turret





GIAT/NEXTER TS90





Cockerill LCTS90MP turret.





Undefined on FNSS 6wheel stretched chassis

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

M113 with 60mm HVMS turret





M113 with M24 turret (76mm)





M113 w. Saladin 76mm turret





M113 w. Scorpion 76mm turret





ACV-S with BMP/BMD-3 100mm/30mm turret

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keshav Murali

@Penguin, the ACV-S with BMP-3 turret is a bit irrelevant since the BMP-3's gun is actually a launcher and is supposed to have a ridiculously low chamber pressure and recoil.


----------



## Manticore

2A46M gun with T-80-style autoloader and gunner's instruments

125mm mainguns (D-81T and D-81TM; artillery department indices 2A26 and 2A46 respectively) equip all Soviet and Russian tanks starting with T-64A MBT. They were developed by the Spetstekhnika (OKB-9) design bureau in Ekaterinburg (former Sverdlovsk), and are manufactured at the artillery plants Plant No.9 in Ekaterinburg and Motovilikha in Perm.

One of the drawbacks of this gun is that a high strain on internal surfaces during firing, as well as sheer size of it demands strict manufacturing discipline which initially caused difficulties for the Soviet industry. This resulted in unsatisfatory fire consistency of original models due to all kinds of manufacturing defects, including substandard materials, poor machining, barrel drooping, and so on. It is worth noting, however, that this problem has received due attention during the upgrading efforts (2A46 mainguns), culminating in the purchase of the Western machining equipment for 2A46M/M-1. Improved manufacturing process and better stabilization and recoil equipment provided for increase in accuracy especially on the move and at medium to long ranges.

The average barrel life of production 2A26 guns, according to USSR standards, is 600 EFC. The barrel life of 2A46M guns is twice that (1200 EFC); this modernization also provided for a quick gun barrel replacement in field conditions.

Starting with T-64B, the gun has also been modified to allow it to be used as a launcher tube for ATGMs.

This main gun was developed from the early 60s and first introduced on a T-64A MBT, with the installation series of 20 vehicles delivered in 1967. The main reason for its introduction were the intelligence reports about a new British Chieftain MBT which couldn't be defeated frontally by 115mm D-68 gun originally installed on T-64.

With the upgoing gun and ammo design efforts this gun managed to stay quite abreast with the armor developments in the West until the introduction of M1A1HA model of the Abrams MBT, the reliable counter to which did not materialize due to a tremendous economic and political upheaval associated with the collapse of the USSR.

Currently the ammunition for 2A46M gun still corresponds to the level of threat that existed 15 years ago, and there are certain technical hurdles, primarily the autoloader dimensions, that prevent simple solutions to the problem.

Solutions do exist. These include a complex of deep modernization measures utilising an increased-power 125mm 2A82 gun, new ammunition with 740mm battle parts, and redesigned autoloader to accomodate those. There is also the project of radical increase in main gun caliber to 152mm (2A83?). Given the current geopolitical climate and Russian defence spending priorities, any efforts in this direction are unlikely to materialize in nearest years.

In the middle of the 90s the 125mm caliber gun 2A75 has been developed for a new light airborne tank 2S25 Sprut-SD. Designed to fire all types of 125mm ounds from a much lighter platform, this gun differs from D-81 line of guns in several important respects, including the more than doubled recoil length.

An interesting more recent development of high-caliber Russian mainguns are two 120mm guns M-393 and M-395, designed to fire NATO ammunition. These guns, intended for export only, are offered as an upgrade option for T-62 and T-72 tanks respectively.






http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/2a46.html


----------



## Manticore




----------



## Penguin

Keshav Murali said:


> @Penguin, the ACV-S with BMP-3 turret is a bit irrelevant since the BMP-3's gun is actually a launcher and is supposed to have a ridiculously low chamber pressure and recoil.



It is a low pressure gun, just like the 73mm on the BMP1 was. The switch to 100mm gives a larger HE-round and allows use of the 100mm gunlaunched ATGW also adopted for the T-54/55's. It is for infantry fire support, just ast the 76mm Saladin and Skorpion turrets are. And so are most older 90mm cannon mounted on light armored vehicles.

Newer 2 man turrets feature long barreled high velocity 60mm, 76mm, 90mm, 105mm and even 120 and 125mm guns, which can pretty much kill anything tracked they encounter, with the possible exception of modern MBTs from the frontal arc (not a problem for 120mm and 125mm).


----------



## Umair Nawaz

is there a double/triple barrel Gun concept?
and small gun on back?
radbot.net - the most radical website around




[/IMG]


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh




----------



## shumailatariq

wow its very nice


----------



## Falcon29

anonymous_bot said:


> Can anybody tell the specifications of Chinese tank guns.?



Yes, I have an encyclopedia I bought that I want to put to use, LMAO.

You know what, I can't find any Chinese machine guns used for war but I have specifications of German, Japanese, American, Russian, Czech, and more.

Actually I do, but they are mounted guns mostly not what I think you want.


----------



## Eland76

There is something to be said for light armoured vehicles (LAFVs) with big guns being used as ersatz tanks or tank destroyers. Not the easiest solution but if you're a developing country worried about the cost of MBTs it can be done. 

I remember when over here in RSA we were still training on thin-skinned Eland/Panhard AML-90 armoured cars. These vehicles had a huge 90mm gun on a very small chassis. Armour thickness was under 10mm - the plate couldn't even stop HE fragments. And the turrets made them so top heavy rumour said it was dangerous to fire them sideways!

In order to understand why we depended on LAFVs instead of main battle tanks (MBTs) in most South African military ops, you have to grasp our tactical doctrine. The idea was to fight as mobile a war as possible, forever staying on the move to retain the initiative and keep the enemy off balance. We couldn't do this with tracked MBTs. So a decision was made to go with mobility and speed over protection and firepower (less armour, less armament, etc). Whenever our LAFVs were engaged by Soviet T-34/55 tanks in force, they executed flanking maneuvers, came up behind them and finished them off with concentrated HEAT. This was made possible by several factors:

1) Superior situational awareness. Saffies could stand on top of our taller armoured cars and see other troops over the thick vegetation, while crews in those squat T-55s couldn't see _them_. 

2) Tactical competence. When being engaged, the enemy Cuban and Angolan soldiers more often than not panicked and failed to identify the threat until it was too late. But if you missed, you had to assume the OPFOR tank now knows where you are - serious indeed for three guys in a little 'noddy car' that can't even resist AP ammo from an AK. Accordingly, our chaps became very skilled at achieving "one shot, one kill". 

3) Superior mobility. Our armoured cars were so much faster and mobile they could outmaneuver the slower tanks every time. We did this with T-34s, PT-76s, T-54/55s, and even T-62s. Sometimes when the LAFVs attacked from behind or the flank the enemy tank turrets couldn't turn to engage in time because they kept smacking into old-growth trees. Stupid but true. 

So, yes it is possible to get away with light tank destroyers, even if your opponent's MBTs have thicker armour and bigger cannon. You just have to find the right doctrine for local conditions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Eland76

Examples of big guns on wheeled LAFVs:














And of course, personal favourite, Panhard AML:






90mm, 60mm, and 76mm high-velocity cannon are easy fits on LAV-type platforms - thanks to advancements in stabilisers, recoil control, etc. And all of them are at least capable of destroying a T-72 tank with SABOT.


----------



## Penguin

Keshav Murali said:


> @Penguin, the ACV-S with BMP-3 turret is a bit irrelevant since the BMP-3's gun is actually a launcher and is supposed to have a ridiculously low chamber pressure and recoil.


You have a point.

Like the 73mm gun preceeding is in BMP1, the 100mm 2A70 semi-automatic rifled gun / missile launcheris meant to fire either low velocity 3UOF HE-FRAG rounds in an anti-infantry role. Further, it fires 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missiles. 
Effective range for the HE-FRAG round is 4,000m. Muzzle velocity is 250m/s. 22 HE-FRAG rounds can be carried in the automatic loader, total ammunition load being 40 rounds. Rate of fire is ten rounds a minute.
The 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missile round consists of the 9M117 laser beamriding missile and container. This missile is used in the Bastion missile system (Nato designation AT-10 Stabber) and in 100mm tankguns (old T-54/55). It can engage tanks with explosive reactive armour as well as slow, low-flying targets such as helicopters. Range is 100m to 4,000m. Hit probability is given as at least 0.8 with armour penetration of 600mm. Ammunition load is eight rounds.


----------



## Penguin

@Eland76: what do you make of this? (it's a Saracen, obviously, but what of the gun: same barrel as on Eland, but its appears the standard MG turret. Fake barrel?)

From APCs,Anti tank tracked & wheeled systems | Page 11

ps: interestingly, SAF defence forces adopted Rooikat with 76mm rather than 105mm (export version)


----------



## Penguin

sandy_3126 said:


> @fatman17 or @Xeric, Is it possible to decouple the the Gun, swivel/traverse system and the loading mechanism from the turret and mount it onto a howtzer like rig, to in other words recycle obsolete tanks for bolstering up border posts??


Simply dig in the tank, after removing any unnecessary (re)usable parts. Reinforce it with concrete. Or just put the turret onto a bunker. If you need a mobile unit, you might use a reinforced container (which would have to be dug in)





















Osprey Publishing - Military History Books - The German use of tank turrets as fixed fortifications

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1


----------



## Penguin

Dutch example. This is actually an encapsulated Sherman tank, with crew entering via the hatch and tunnel to the former engine compartment at the rear of the tank.











This is of interest, from Switzerland: World Military and Police Forces: Switzerland

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
2 | Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

8.8cm PaK 43/3 mit Behelfslafette (2012)





Sockellafette





Tankturret fortification


----------



## Penguin

Sadr city T-72 turret





Modified T-54/55 turret as coastal artillery in Finland

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Eland76

Penguin said:


> @Eland76: what do you make of this? (it's a Saracen, obviously, but what of the gun: same barrel as on Eland, but its appears the standard MG turret. Fake barrel?)
> 
> From APCs,Anti tank tracked & wheeled systems | Page 11
> 
> ps: interestingly, SAF defence forces adopted Rooikat with 76mm rather than 105mm (export version)



I've seen that same Saracen myself - it's a training target/mock up with a dummy gun from the AML armoured cars. Now on display at Sandstone Estates, near Ficksburg in RSA. Fully restored, still runs and drives well. The 90mm cannon obviously doesn't work, there's no firing mechanism plus no room in that tiny turret for the recoil!!

I'd take the 76mm over the 105mm any day because it has a much faster rate of fire, better recoil, and is more than capable of dealing with anything South African armour can reasonably expect to encounter (T-55/62 tanks, etc). That's why the 105mm Rooikat is only for export.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keshav Murali

Penguin said:


> Modified T-54/55 turret as coastal artillery in Finland



How is it controlled? By remote or are there people underground


----------



## Penguin

Keshav Murali said:


> How is it controlled? By remote or are there people underground


With a crew in a bunker. The 100/56 TK coastal gun (100 mm caliber, length of the barrel - 56 calibers) was invented in 1969. Now it is a history because these systems were decommisioned in 2007. It was made on the basis of Soviet tank T-55 gun.The turret has camouflage coverings of fiberglass.

Northern Fortress: Coastal Artillery - Santahamina - 100/56 TK - practice gun (series of pics)
Northern Fortress: Coastal Artillery - Santahamina - Helsingfors roadstead

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## skybolt

*Challenger II fitted with 120 mm*


----------



## skybolt




----------



## skybolt




----------



## skybolt




----------



## Yazp

In my opinion the German 8.8cm Flak 18/36/37/41 (for it's time ofcourse) was the best gun.
Used as an Anti Aircraft weapon:




Check

Used as an Anti-Tank weapon:




Check.

Used as a field howitzer:




Check.

Used in the Tiger tank:




Check

Used on an SPG/Mobile AA:




Check.

Used on Soviet T34 captured by Germans:




Check

Rate of fire was a whooping 20 RPM.




Basically this was a German universal "blow shit up" gun used on almost everything and almost all roles.

bonus picture:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Truong Le

So nice about tanks


----------



## AirDefence

Hi Guys, 
Is there anyone who can tell me all the type of guns being used for firing ammunition. Let's say, gatling gun, machine gun, cannons. Please add few more, its really important. 
Being very precise, i need to know the type of gun used on naval ship, fighter aircraft, helicopter, howitzer, tank, IFV, APC, MRAP, among others.


----------

