Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

We will build it for China! New Chinese 125mm tank gun handed over for testing.


Recommended Posts

Liked the article for the most part, but they're wrong in the fact that all ZTZ-99s use two piece ammo, the A2 was upgraded to fire unitary ammo quite a bit ago and doesn't even use the same gun/autoloader as the ZTZ-96/Previous gen 99s. (It has an L/52 gun as opposed to L/48.)


Though damn, it sure as hell doesn't have a 1200mm length penetrator rod, that's goddamn massive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What enemy would make China need this gun?

It wouldn't be the Indian Army due to terrain and Vietnam doesn't have great armor either. Japan is a stretch. South Korea and U.S. Forces in SK seem likely but I know a country that just debuted a new tank and has a large border with China and is likely going to have diplomatic crises with China in the coming years over Central Asia.

Armata killer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What enemy would make China need this gun?

It wouldn't be the Indian Army due to terrain and Vietnam doesn't have great armor either. Japan is a stretch. South Korea and U.S. Forces in SK seem likely but I know a country that just debuted a new tank and has a large border with China and is likely going to have diplomatic crises with China in the coming years over Central Asia.

Armata killer?


It's not uncommon to test larger guns just as future proofing.


Hell, China has done it in the past with their 140mm high velocity gun, the USA, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and probably some other western nations have also tried 140mm Guns, the USSR/Russia have tested 152mm in the past before. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I manage it would be more likely then the 140mm they tried in the past for a few reasons, either way, an APFSDS round made of DU with a potential length of 1000-1200mm, 30mm wide (the width of a half dollar piece quoted and also the width of the current unitary rod) and traveling at 2,000 m/s might be enough to give me an erection.


.....erm.... I mean.... *quickly disappears into bathroom*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Memory serve me, ATK used to have that photo on their info PDF before their merger with OSC, they have a different one now but the text, font and color of the specs below are still the same.




New one is shittier. =/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparative measurements of gun power are interesting, and deceptively complicated.


I'll have to put up a proper thread on it as soon as I know all the physics and math, or at least more of it, but basically:



-A gun is an internal combustion engine, only it spits its piston downrange at the enemy.


-Bore volume in a gun is analogous to displacement in an engine.  (Obligatory make fun of T___A moment)  The swept volume traversed by the projectile informs how powerful the gun is.


-Pressure is the other part of the equation.  By dimensional analysis, volume times pressure is work.  (Distance cubed times force divided by area is force times distance is work).  So, the integral of a pressure/distance plot multiplied by bore area would be work:



(The jitteriness is caused by limitations in the sampling equipment.  The real curve is obviously smooth)


-Only this isn't true, because inside a gun, things are moving so quickly that Pascal's Law does not apply.  The work performed on the bullet is the integral of the distance/pressure curve times bore diameter of the pressure at the base of the projectile.  The pressure at the base of the projectile is lower than the pressure that the breech is containing, and these numbers diverge more as velocity goes up.  This is because there's a finite speed of sound in the propellant gas, and as the projectile moves faster and faster, it's outrunning some percentage of the propellant gas, which is thus not exerting pressure on it.





So, what does all this ugly math, thermodynamics and (shudder) fluid dynamics have to do with the power of tank guns?


At this point in the arms/armor race, APFSDS penetrators are the way to go for gun-launched anti-tank projectiles.  HEAT rounds of a given caliber can generally produce more penetration in RHA, but there are currently more effective countermeasures to HEAT ammunition than to APFSDS.  For best effectiveness, APFSDS needs to be very long and moving very fast.  So the gun had better have some oomph to it if it's going to fling a long enough penetrator fast enough to hurt enemy tanks.


Military Reform people (I'm thinking specifically of Blacktail Defense) love to obfuscate this facet of tank design and sign paeans about how wonderful the old L7 was, and how it's just shiny-technology-obsessed brasshat narcissist fucktards who insisted on overspecialized smoothbore 120mm that don't have the ammunition capacity or flexibility that the nonlinear modern battlefield requires.  Bullshit.  L7 was stretched to its absolute limits and kept in service far longer than it should have been.  125mm APFSDS couldn't touch a T-90 with Kontakt-5; what the hell would make anyone think that the piss-weak British rifled guns still had a place on a modern tank?

Link to comment
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.

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.


  • Similar Content

    • By Monochromelody
      The Al Khalid derived from Norinco Type 90IIM MBT. It was in the early 90s, when India started to test their Arjun MBT. Pakistanis looked for a MBT design that could be produced by herself. 
      Norinco provided their own Type 90IIM prototype, this is an MBT design which comprised many Western components, such as engine and transmission. 

      There were 4 prototypes for Al-Khalid development, namely P1, P2, P3 and P4. 
      P1 has a Chinese tank diesel engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission. 
      P2 has a British Perkins CV12 Condor diesel engine with French SESM ESM500 transmission. 
      P3 has a Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 2-cycle boxer engine with its own twin planetary gearbox. 
      P4 has a German MB871 engine with ZF LSG3000 transmission, similar to South Korean K1 MBT. 

      Norinco and Pakistanis planned to adopt one of the Western powerpack at first, but due to CoCom (Coordinating Committee for Export to Communist Countries) restrictions, China is under embargo, which means China would not import weapons form Western countries. Obviously P3 powerplant would be the only choice. All those descriptions on the internet about ESM500 in Al-Khalid is fatally wrong. 
      The Al-Khalid pre-production batch and production version all equipped with Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 powerpack.
      It is an extremely compact design, the engine laid transversely in engine room, twin planetary gearboxes connect to both left and right end. The 6TD-2 has two crankshafts: the front one drives the mechanical supercharger, while the rear one drives the gearboxes. The cooling system covering the whole engine room, the engine itself has no mechanical connection to the cooling system, and the cooling system doesn't need mechanical drive. The cooling system based on a unique principle: exhaust gas driven ejector. The exhaust gas from the engine is injected through the outlet ducting, produce a low pressure in the outlet side, that will suck in cold air from the inlet side. This principle is also used in the T-64, T-80UD and T-84, but as far as I know, Swedish Ikv 91 is the only western tank that have similar cooling principle. 
      As a result, the total length of powerpack is significantly shortened, much more shorter than the European powerpack mentioned above. This leads to a spare storage room between the fighting compartment and the engine compartment. This storage is for extra ammunition and fuel, when turret points 3 or 9 o'clock, the top cover of the storage could be opened from outside, containing 10 rounds for main gun, with projectiles on the outsides, semi-combustible charges on the inside.
      The data table from HIT also describe the ammunition capacity as 39+10, means that 22 ready rounds in the T-72 type carousel autoloader, 17 backup rounds scatter around the fighting compartment, and extra 10 rounds could be carried in the storage room. 
      The driver of Al-Khalid control the vehicle via steering wheel and an automatic gear control box. The steering wheel and gear control box send electrical signals to the computer, then computer control the hydraulic servo actuator to perform engage and disengage of brakes and clutches, making steering and gear changes, as well as adjusting the speed and torque of the engine.
      Mechanically the gearboxes are nearly the same as T-64s and T-72s, but have different side reducer unit. The KMDB side reducer unit is designed as a secondary gearbox, acting like a forward-reverse selector. When both reducers were put into reverse, the vehicle can reverse using the normal forward ranges. From 1st gear to 4th gear, all could be used as high speed reverse, and that's why KMDB said this is a 7F4R gearbox system. And if only one reducer was put into reverse, the track will be driving in opposites direction, causing the vehicle turns within its tracks, a.k.a. pivot steer or center steer. T-84 also applied this driving and steering system.  
      The advantages of Al-Khalid's powerpack is the versatility: all 3 types of MBT in the Pakistanis arsenal, T-80UD, T-84, Al-Khalid, share the same engine and gearbox. 
    • By Xlucine
      Or more specifically, why don't they burst? You have huge pressures behind them, they're thin and not really solidly fixed in place, and yet they are expected to stay intact - how?
      Me and colli were discussing this on TS yesterday, and there's no way inertia of the firing pin could be providing meaningful support - from squinting at a pressure Vs time graph of a 30.06, and assuming the firing pin can be modelled as a piston of radius ~1mm acted on by the chamber pressure, the applied impulse is on the order of kgms-1. So that firing in should be moving backwards at a considerable velocity, given the light weight, and over the ~1millisecond of the firing process it should move several mm back - yet primers retain the impression of the firing pin after firing. The peak force applied was on the order of kN, so I'd be very surprised if the firing pin spring was providing enough of a force to resist this
    • By Molota_477
      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.

      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? )

      I will really appreciate if anyone have valuable information to share
    • By Akula_941
      Anti-air bobcat design to take away driver's hearing in maximum efficiency

      SH11  155mm SPG

  • Create New...