Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Molota_477

Some questions about the US 140mm gun thread

Recommended Posts

post-1581-0-21471900-1459744282_thumb.jpg M1 CATTB

pic from TankNet.

I feel uncertain whether its cannon's caliber was 140mm or not, I found a figure at the document AD-A228 389 showed behind, which label the gun as LW 120.But in many ways I've found its data in websites all considered to be 140mm.

post-1581-0-62156700-1459747467_thumb.jpg

AFAIK,the first xm291(140)demonstrator was based on xm1 tank, and the successor was the''Thumper'' which was fitted with a new turret look like the CATTB but still m1a1 hull(Maybe it was CATTB's predecessor? )

post-1581-0-73322100-1459746725_thumb.png post-1581-0-18190300-1459754915_thumb.jpg

I will really appreciate if anyone have valuable information to share

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather, the CATTB/ATAC program used 2 different gun systems, one 120mm, one 140mm, both used an auto loader.

 

From a rather old article in a defense magazine.

 

gl0GQju.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the ATAC also had an 120mm demonstrator based on M8 Thunderbolt ,compared to the cannon on CATTB it was a bit short...

What I concern about is which one was actually mounted on the tank in photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well,i didn't get much information about it,but seems like Thumper and CATT-B with 140mm gun were both exist

Thumper-1.jpg

atac_khk1.jpg

this picture showing Thumper with the ATAC or i believe it is

M1CATTB_2.jpg

compare to the CATT-B with 'XM291',the bore evacuator are different, but just compare each other,the size of the gun are very close to each other , and the barrel part out of the thermal sleeve looks the same

i guess they are both XM291 but in early or late version 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the ATAC also had an 120mm demonstrator based on M8 Thunderbolt ,compared to the cannon on CATTB it was a bit short...

What I concern about is which one was actually mounted on the tank in photo.

 

The gun on the 1st picture you posted looks to be the 120mm version, I could be wrong on this so don't quote me, but the bore evacuator on the 140mm appeared much smaller in proportion to the gun on the 120mm version if you compare them side by side, the photos Akula posted seem to show this aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they post good information I'm not going to lose any sleep over a 20x20 pixel animea.

 

you've gotten soft

 

anyways if you folks have questions about the Abrams, i recommend PMing this gentlemen. He's the resident American armour expert 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I got it

Don't listen to Tied, Tied has zero power here, you can use whatever you want short of like Nazi avatars or things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,I dont mind, after all, I'm just a freshman here. Obey the tradition is what I should do.

However,I found I cant post any picture from my mobile phone successfully. It seems that there are some limitations on the file size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,I dont mind, after all, I'm just a freshman here. Obey the tradition is what I should do.

However,I found I cant post any picture from my mobile phone successfully. It seems that there are some limitations on the file size.

 

i do everything by URL, i recommend using imgur as a way to store host photos. 

 

No problem and welcome to SH  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some figures about 140 mm tank gun ballistics that I don't understand. 

2IQf6vR.png

Article Here

 

Since its from Switzerland, I assume this relates closer to the Pz87 140 mm prototype instead of any US project but is still probably relevant.

 

900+ mm of penetration with KE penetrators vs 750 mm of pen with 120 mm KE penetrators seems like a decent upgrade in firepower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The preference is for non-anime/manga avatars, but there's no strict policy against it.

There's a certain critical mass a forum can reach where everyone has cartoon avatars and I'd like to avoid that. You can imagine a certain kind of person with a serious technical background getting on a forum and seeing Japanese anime girls everywhere and that driving them away, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to see how the American 140mm compared to the one the Swedes were considering for the Strv 2000 concept.

 

Incidentally, tank-net says a whole bunch of concepts were considered for the Strv 2000;

 


T140

Conventional turret with autoloader
Crew - 3 men
Combat weight - ~60 metric tons
Engine - MTU 883
Armament - 140mm gun with 40 rounds and 2x7,62 MG's

T140/40

Conventional turret with autoloader
Crew - 3 men
Combat weight - ~60 metric tons
Engine - MTU 883
Armament - 140mm gun with 29 rounds, 40mm AC with 148 rounds and 2x7,62 MG's
Length (gun excluded) - 6,8m
Width - 3,7m
Height (to turret roof) - 2,26m
Armour (frontal) - rated as 800mm vs. KE and 1200mm vs. HEAT
Armour (side) - rated as 90mm vs. KE and 450mm vs. HEAT

O140/40

Externally mounted unmanned turret with autoloader
Crew - 3 men
Combat weight - ~60 metric tons
Engine - MTU 883
Armament - 140mm gun with 34 rounds, 40mm AC with 140 rounds and 2x7,62 MG's

T120B

Conventional turret without autoloader
Crew - 4 men
Combat weight - ~60 metric tons
Engine - MTU 883
Armament - 120mm gun with 48 rounds and 2x7,62 MG's

L140

Conventional turret with autoloader
Crew - 3 men
Combat weight - ~35 metric tons
Engine - 1000hp MTU V8
Armament - 140mm gun with 40 rounds and 2x7,62 MG's
Based on CV90

T120

Presumably like T140 but with a 120mm gun

T120/40

Presumably like T140/40 but with a 120mm gun

L120

Presumably like L140 but with a 120mm gun.
So in essence CV90120.

 

T140/40 sounds like the one that made it to mockup form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.zhuangjiacheliang.com/data/attachment/forum/201604/05/125904j8kdeklzc8llkqnn.jpg

According to the construction of its autoloader(if this one really belong to it),I can sure it was 120 gun.

The ATAC(XM291) is quite intreseting but with too less information about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh...the URL was disabled...

Sometimes the forum host in particular we use sort of messes up if you image link to an attachment from another site or a URL that ends in something that isn't like .jpg/jpeg, .gif, png, etc (that's not the case here, but regardless, it probably was the attachment thing, I get the same errors linking to attachments on Tiexue for example.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, while I'm not sure how closely it resembles the above design, Meggitt does actually still manufacture a 120mm autoloader to this day that was originally based on the turret dimensions of the M1 Abrams.

 

https://www.meggittdefense.com/index.php/120mm-compact-automatic-magazine-236?task=view&id=363

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Militarysta
      About tank guns and amunition, hope it will be interesting topic :-)
       
      In penetration data I will base on russian sources -they are ussaly most credible (the best). I will ussaly give value for monolith steel plate slopped on 60@ - it's the best scenario for APFSDS penetrator. In sucht scenario (slopped on 60@ plate) penetration value can be bigger at even 17-20% then on 0.degree plate - this is caused by "asymmetry loads back surface" of the plate):

       
       
      First:
      M829
      M829A1
      M829A2
      M829A3
      M829A4
       
      M829:
      DOI: 1985
      penetration at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: 540-560mm RHA:
       
       

       
       
      M829A1
      DOI - 1989 (in some sources - 1988) 
      penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: circa 700mm RHA
      this round was to weak to overcome T-80U and T-80UD and T-72B m.1989 whit Kontakt-5 ERA, what was "suprisly" discover on tests in circa 1994. The same story was whit DM43 prototypes..
       

       
      M829A2
      DOI - 1992
      penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: circa 740mm RHA
      Fist US round whit composite sabot.
       
      (lack good photos)
      insted of this:
       
      KE-W so M829A1 but whit WHA penetrator, and KEW-E3 so M829A2 whit WHA long rod.

       
       
      M829A3
      DOI - 2003
      penetration: at 2km, on plate slopped by 60@: propably circa 800mm RHA, but is not sure value,
      round devleoped to everpas heavy ERA but whit unkown result
       

       
       
      M829A4
      DOI -2016 :-)
       
      penetration - no idea 
      It's very interesting round
       

       
      data link is  for APFSDS round?!
      I have a hypothesis...
      Ok so it have data link to be programmed, it is said to be capable to defeat 3rd generation heavy ERA (Relikt, Knife, etc.) and active protection systems (hard kill). It seems that focus is primary on defeating heavy ERA. But then again, why do you need to program just a long rod fired by a big gun?

      There are few options:

      - Gudining the round,
      - Precursor,
      - "Intelligent" control over propelant charge ignition (dependant on propelant temperature, environment temperature, gun service life, range to target etc.)

      And truth to be told hypothesis that there is some sort of precursor in the rod is the only hypothesis that makes sense. Control over propelant charge ignition is not needed and probably not possible at all with current technology, besides the M829A4 (and all newer US ammo types for 120mm smoothbore) use insensitive propelant charges. And it is nowhere mentioned in any document avaiable for public. Guiding the rod to target? Perhaps possible from technical point of view, but why? Again it was nowhere said that FCS for M1A2SEPv3 have ability to guide any type of rounds. And manouvering of the rod during flight means loss of a lot of energy, even if this manouvering would be done to "cheat" the APS for example.

      So perhaps the option is to somehow use a precursor that is "fired ahead" of the main rod.


       
       
      So how the rod designs looks like here? The rod is made from two segments, the "precursor" and the main rod behind it. How they are connected? it might be some sort of polymer, glue that can be weakened by heat and the release precursor, and during flight rods heat up pretty nicely.

      The precursor can also be relased based on a simple difference of speed between it and the main rod, and main rod can be slowed down by some sort of additional fins (aerodynamic breaks) released at specific point programmed by FCS. In such case precuros would initiate ERA and the main rod would have a clear way to main armor of the target.

      How to cheat APS tough? Counting that precursor will be qualified by APS as threat and APS will be initiated, creating a time gap in APS reaction so it won't be able to counter the main rod? Possible yes, but then there is question, if APS will just not ignore the precursor, and this might happen, now of course there is a question how dangerous is precursor itself? For a MBT or vehicle with similiar levels of protection, for it's front it won't be dangerous in most cases, sides? If they do not have any addon armor, very possible. For lightweight platforms, yeah precursor also will be dangerous.

      Of course these are only hypothesis, and we will see if other nations will also design APFSDS rounds with data link. Then we might get closer to the truth. Right now, treat it as food for thoughts.
       
      of course this data link coud be placed only for security resons, as one person on TankNet had wrote:
       
      :-)
       
      ps. prefragmentet APFSDS during flying exist now, as smal-scale models and test object:

    • By Belesarius
      http://www.popsci.com/china-builds-worlds-fastest-tank-gun-then-tries-hide-it
       
      New high velocity 125mm tank gun reportedly starting testing for the Chinese military.  Not surprised that the data disappeared off the university website at all.
       
      Edit: 125mm/60? oO
    • By chebuRUSHka
      Hello,
      I was wondering what were the Rh-105 penetration capabilities with 60s and 70s ammo?
      This is the only information i found thus far:

      Thank you sovngard! 
      130mm @ 60° @ 2000m
      150mm @ 60° @ 800m
      What about 100m and 1000m? What about 0°?
×
×
  • Create New...