Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Vicious_CB said:

 

I see. So a M230LF coax is probably out the question since its eating up too much space inside the turret. In terms of ammo volume 7.62 vs .50 cal, I know the M1 Abrams particularly carries an absurd amount to coax ammo comparably to other tanks, something like 10,000 rounds. Im not quite sure what ratio would be if you swapped 7.62 to .50 cal(2:1?3:1?) you would probably still have as much coax ammo as other MBTs. Also logistically .50 cal is very common in both light infantry and with the stryker guys so there would be no shortage there. 

 

Per hunnicutt it's 11,400 rounds, which is high but not a world away from other contemporaries. M60 and chieftain are both meant to carry 6,000. Just by comparing volume for the rounds, the ratio looks like 1:2.7:5.3 (for .50:.338 NM:7.62, modelling each as a cylinder with L = OAL, D = rim diameter + 1mm to represent the belt links)

 

7 hours ago, Vicious_CB said:

 

As far as gunners lighting everything up with main gun, isnt that a training issue? Like we say in the shooting community,  sounds like a software issue not a hardware issue. Something like a technical probably doesnt warrant a main gun round. .50 cal API also makes swiss cheese out of double reinforced concrete walls that can easily stop 7.62 SLAP. Also Ive heard more than few times in Helmand where USMC tanks on overwatch were unable to support their infantry clearing a compound due to the fears of some devil dog catching a sabot petal in the back of the head. I have no idea what the danger space is when firing a saboted round is but Ive heard its a real issue when supporting infantry.  

 

Sabots are dangerous, but non-saboted rounds are available - IIRC Nick Moran said he carried a full load of M830 on patrol (not M830A1), and the USMC have a proper HE round in service now for the 120mm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Early Chrysler XM-1 validation phase model with a coaxial Bushmaster weapon system :  

AMX-30 M693 20mm autocannon superelevation (-8° to +40°) :  

Walter,  I have the blueprints for the Canadian 7.62 NATO M37retrofit if you want them let me know. Sidenote: the Browning 1919/m37 is just outright an awesome gun that you can get to run ju

16 hours ago, Vicious_CB said:

 

As far as gunners lighting everything up with main gun, isnt that a training issue? Like we say in the shooting community,  sounds like a software issue not a hardware issue. Something like a technical probably doesnt warrant a main gun round. .50 cal API also makes swiss cheese out of double reinforced concrete walls that can easily stop 7.62 SLAP. Also Ive heard more than few times in Helmand where USMC tanks on overwatch were unable to support their infantry clearing a compound due to the fears of some devil dog catching a sabot petal in the back of the head. I have no idea what the danger space is when firing a saboted round is but Ive heard its a real issue when supporting infantry. 

 

Maybe the answer is stick a M230LF on the commanders CROWS? if you used the CROWS-LP it probably wouldnt be much larger than the CROWS /w M2HB(height wise) than we have now. The question is where to store all the ammo. Now at least you have some HE throwing capability when infantry are within the danger space of the main gun. 

 

 

Tank combat involves a lot of hiding the vehicle partially or entirely behind terrain features, vehicles wear camouflage and the resolution through a thermal imager isn't the best.  IDing a target and determining the most appropriate weapon to dispatch the target is time consuming.  Or, at least, it is with current sensor technology.  Tankers put a lot of emphasis on engaging first too, so they won't be too happy about anything that slows that down too much.

 

The danger zone from firing off the main armament of a modern tank is considerable.  The sabots are a bother, and the blast overpressure from the muzzle is enough to be dangerous at a surprising distance:

PIToJj7.png

 

The conflicts in Yemen and Syria are reinforcing that decades-old lesson that tanks unsupported by infantry die.  But how are the infantry supposed to support the tanks if they have to stand at least fifty meters away from them at all times?

 

I think there is a case to be made for a less devastating weapon on MBTs, but exactly how to do it is tricky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Tank combat involves a lot of hiding the vehicle partially or entirely behind terrain features, vehicles wear camouflage and the resolution through a thermal imager isn't the best.  IDing a target and determining the most appropriate weapon to dispatch the target is time consuming.  Or, at least, it is with current sensor technology.  Tankers put a lot of emphasis on engaging first too, so they won't be too happy about anything that slows that down too much.

 

The danger zone from firing off the main armament of a modern tank is considerable.  The sabots are a bother, and the blast overpressure from the muzzle is enough to be dangerous at a surprising distance:

PIToJj7.png

 

The conflicts in Yemen and Syria are reinforcing that decades-old lesson that tanks unsupported by infantry die.  But how are the infantry supposed to support the tanks if they have to stand at least fifty meters away from them at all times?

 

I think there is a case to be made for a less devastating weapon on MBTs, but exactly how to do it is tricky.

Has any AFV ever been designed with a suppressor or alike to reduce the effects?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Has any AFV ever been designed with a suppressor or alike to reduce the effects?

Suppressed guns get the effect of reduced sound mostly from subsonic munitions. That's the last thing you'd want in a tank. 

 

But if you would take such a project seriously, you'll find out you need some serious size to actually put a suppressor there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Suppressed guns get the effect of reduced sound mostly from subsonic munitions. That's the last thing you'd want in a tank. 

 

But if you would take such a project seriously, you'll find out you need some serious size to actually put a suppressor there.

You missed the point. The point was to reduce the danger zone. 

 

A suppressor works by using sound baffles to expand the gas, slowing it down and cooling it.  It decreases both sound and muzzle blast.
Not sure how subsonic ammunition is relevant here, considering we are talking about tanks, were the engine roar can be heard from miles away.
cancross-copy.jpg

 

No need for a huge suppressor to reduce everything to comfortable levels, just a small enough reduction that the infantry can actually stand close to the tank. I am no physics engineer or doctor though, so I can't really calculate the required size of the 120mm suppressor to reduce the danger to manageable levels.

 

 

If there is not practical way of doing this, then I guess the other option is to either go the STRV 2000 route and limit the use of the main gun while supported by infantry, or have mechanized/robotic support instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On my phone so I cant link any photos, but just google M109 suppressor and you'll see what size it should be. Of course 155mm =/= 120mm but it's not going to be too far off.

 

The concept of a coaxial medium cannon is nice, but it is probably not so relevant in the presence of a critical mass of HIFVs.

 

This could really be fixed by improving protection of the infantry, although far from all are wearing any form of hearing protection from what I've seen. In the US alone, the annual compensation for hearing loss stood at $1 billion a couple years ago.

 

There are so many sources of very damaging sounds on the battlefield that trying to reduce every single one of them will prove to be so expensive and so impractical compared with very simple and relatively cheap selective hearing protection gear that has been available for a while now.

 

So dont worry about tanks being loud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>The danger zone from firing off the main armament of a modern tank is considerable.  The sabots are a bother, and the blast overpressure from the muzzle is enough to be dangerous at a surprising distance:

 

I've seen in person what happens when a freindly crunchy gets in front of the muzzle when firing a amin gun round. During a CALFEX in Germany a soldier took up a prone position in front of my tank. I was the driver on an M60A3 at the time and could see him out the left driver's periscope. After the 1st round we fired he had his hands over his ears, the 2nd he was curled up in a fetal position, the 3rd had him being dragged off by his buddies. This was with a 105, not a 120. Anything you can take out with an autocannon will brew up quite nicely with a HEAT round. Coax is for troops, a 70 ton tripod with 10x thermal sights firing 25 round bursts works quite well on troops.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZloyKrolik said:

 

I've seen in person what happens when a freindly crunchy gets in front of the muzzle when firing a amin gun round. During a CALFEX in Germany a soldier took up a prone position in front of my tank. I was the driver on an M60A3 at the time and could see him out the left driver's periscope. After the 1st round we fired he had his hands over his ears, the 2nd he was curled up in a fetal position, the 3rd had him being dragged off by his buddies. This was with a 105, not a 120. Anything you can take out with an autocannon will brew up quite nicely with a HEAT round. Coax is for troops, a 70 ton tripod with 10x thermal sights firing 25 round bursts works quite well on troops.

 

Yikes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also saw a 2LT lose his helmet and get knocked on his ass when he was standing next to the muzzle of a 105 when it went off. Our unit was boresighting the tanks and he was looking for the boresight device, M26 Boresight device, and went up the end of the gun tube just as the crew fired off a round for calibration. I spoke with him about it a couple of weeks later, he said that his ears were ringing so loud that he couldn't hear the CO chewing him out, just saw his lips moving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2018 at 3:11 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Suppressed guns get the effect of reduced sound mostly from subsonic munitions. That's the last thing you'd want in a tank. 

 

Not true.  7.62x51mm rifles with a suppressor are borderline hearing safe and can be fired comfortably, if not necessarily perfectly safely, without hearing protection.  I've done it.  The bullet makes enough noise to make its presence known, but the sound from the bullet isn't anywhere near loud enough to cause hearing damage.

 

Same deal with tank guns.  The problem is the blast overpressure from the muzzle, not the supersonic shockwave from the projectile.  I would imagine that the sound of a 105mm projectile going overhead might cause a few soiled pants, but pants can be replaced, hearing damage from blasts cannot.

 

Simply making the main gun have a longer barrel would improve things somewhat, but there are obvious limitations here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Not true.  7.62x51mm rifles with a suppressor are borderline hearing safe and can be fired comfortably, if not necessarily perfectly safely, without hearing protection.  I've done it.  The bullet makes enough noise to make its presence known, but the sound from the bullet isn't anywhere near loud enough to cause hearing damage.

 

Same deal with tank guns.  The problem is the blast overpressure from the muzzle, not the supersonic shockwave from the projectile.  I would imagine that the sound of a 105mm projectile going overhead might cause a few soiled pants, but pants can be replaced, hearing damage from blasts cannot.

 

Simply making the main gun have a longer barrel would improve things somewhat, but there are obvious limitations here.

Wouldn't it require very frequent replacement of the suppressor?

 

Anyway, I still think personal protection for the infantry is the one and only solution that should be developed for this issue.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By N-L-M
      ATTENTION DUELISTS:
      @Toxn
      @LostCosmonaut
      @Lord_James
      @DIADES
      @Datengineerwill
      @Whatismoo
      @Kal
      @Zadlo
      @Xoon
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Wednesday the 19th of June at 23:59 GMT.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name

      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here)



      Table of basic statistics:

      Parameter

      Value

      Mass, combat


       
      Length, combat (transport)


       
      Width, combat (transport)


       
      Height, combat (transport)


       
      Ground Pressure, MMP (nominal)


       
      Estimated Speed


       
      Estimated range


       
      Crew, number (roles)


       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)


       

       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.

      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.

      3.     Transmission- type, arrangement, neat features.

      4.     Fuel- Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.

      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.

      6.     Suspension- Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.

      Survivability:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Link to Appendix 2- armor array details.

      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks- low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.

      Firepower:

      A.    Weapons:

      1.     Link to Appendix 1- RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.

      2.     Main Weapon-

      a.      Type

      b.      Caliber

      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)

      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.

      e.      FCS- relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.

      f.      Neat features.

      3.     Secondary weapon- Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.

      4.     Link to Appendix 3- Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using Soviet 1961 tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on extimated performance and how these estimates were reached.

      B.    Optics:

      1.     Primary gunsight- type, associated trickery.

      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.

      C.    FCS:

      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.

      2.     Link to Appendix 3- weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.

      Fightability:

      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.

      Additonal Features:

      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.

      Free expression zone: Let out your inner Thetan to fully impress the world with the fruit of your labor. Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.


       Example for filling in Appendix 1
    • By N-L-M
      Restricted: for Operating Thetan Eyes Only

      By order of Her Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII

      The Dianetic People’s Republic of California

      Anno Domini 2250

      SUBJ: RFP for new battle tank

      1.      Background.
      As part of the War of 2248 against the Perfidious Cascadians, great deficiencies were discovered in the Heavy tank DF-1. As detailed in report [REDACTED], the DF-1 was quite simply no match for the advanced weaponry developed in secret by the Cascadian entity. Likewise, the DF-1 has fared poorly in the fighting against the heretical Mormonhideen, who have developed many improvised weapons capable of defeating the armor on this vehicle, as detailed in report [REDACTED]. The Extended War on the Eastern Front has stalled for want of sufficient survivable firepower to push back the Mormon menace beyond the Colorado River south of the Vegas Crater.
      The design team responsible for the abject failure that was the DF-1 have been liquidated, which however has not solved the deficiencies of the existing vehicle in service. Therefore, a new vehicle is required, to meet the requirements of the People’s Auditory Forces to keep the dream of our lord and prophet alive.


       
      Over the past decade, the following threats have presented themselves:

      A.      The Cascadian M-2239 “Norman” MBT and M-8 light tank

      Despite being approximately the same size, these 2 vehicles seem to share no common components, not even the primary armament! Curiously, it appears that the lone 120mm SPG specimen recovered shares design features with the M-8, despite being made out of steel and not aluminum like the light tank. (based on captured specimens from the battle of Crater Lake, detailed in report [REDACTED]).
      Both tanks are armed with high velocity guns.

      B.      The Cascadian BGM-1A/1B/1C/1D ATGM

      Fitted on a limited number of tank destroyers, several attack helicopters, and (to an extent) man-portable, this missile system is the primary Cascadian anti-armor weapon other than their armored forces. Intelligence suggests that a SACLOS version (BGM-1C) is in LRIP, with rumors of a beam-riding version (BGM-1D) being developed.

      Both warheads penetrate approximately 6 cone diameters.

      C.      Deseret tandem ATR-4 series
      Inspired by the Soviet 60/105mm tandem warhead system from the late 80s, the Mormon nation has manufactured a family of 2”/4” tandem HEAT warheads, launched from expendable short-range tube launchers, dedicated AT RRs, and even used as the payload of the JS-1 MCLOS vehicle/man-portable ATGM.
      Both warheads penetrate approximately 5 cone diameters.

      D.      Cascadian HEDP 90mm rocket
      While not a particularly impressive AT weapon, being of only middling diameter and a single shaped charge, the sheer proliferation of this device has rendered it a major threat to tanks, as well as lighter vehicles. This weapon is available in large numbers in Cascadian infantry squads as “pocket artillery”, and there are reports of captured stocks being used by the Mormonhideen.
      Warhead penetrates approximately 4 cone diameters.

      E.      Deseret 40mm AC/ Cascadian 35mm AC
      These autocannon share broadly similar AP performance, and are considered a likely threat for the foreseeable future, on Deseret armored cars, Cascadian tank destroyers, and likely also future IFVs.

      F.      IEDs

      In light of the known resistance of tanks to standard 10kg anti-tank mines, both the Perfidious Cascadians and the Mormonhideen have taken to burying larger anti-tank A2AD weaponry. The Cascadians have doubled up some mines, and the Mormons have regularly buried AT mines 3, 4, and even 5 deep.

      2.      General guidelines:

      A.      Solicitation outline:
      In light of the differing requirements for the 2 theaters of war in which the new vehicle is expected to operate, proposals in the form of a field-replaceable A-kit/B-kit solution will be accepted.

      B.      Requirements definitions:
      The requirements in each field are given in 3 levels- Threshold, Objective, and Ideal.
      Threshold is the minimum requirement to be met; failure to reach this standard may greatly disadvantage any proposal.

      Objective is the threshold to be aspired to; it reflects the desires of the People’s Auditory Forces Armored Branch, which would prefer to see all of them met. At least 70% must be met, with bonus points for any more beyond that.

      Ideal specifications are the maximum of which the armored forces dare not even dream. Bonus points will be given to any design meeting or exceeding these specifications.

      C.      All proposals must accommodate the average 1.7m high Californian recruit.

      D.      The order of priorities for the DPRC is as follows:

      a.      Vehicle recoverability.

      b.      Continued fightability.

      c.       Crew survival.

      E.      Permissible weights:

      a.      No individual field-level removable or installable component may exceed 5 tons.

      b.      Despite the best efforts of the Agriculture Command, Californian recruits cannot be expected to lift weights in excess of 25 kg at any time.

      c.       Total vehicle weight must remain within MLC 120 all-up for transport.

      F.      Overall dimensions:

      a.      Length- essentially unrestricted.

      b.      Width- 4m transport width.

                                                                    i.     No more than 4 components requiring a crane may be removed to meet this requirement.

                                                                   ii.     Any removed components must be stowable on top of the vehicle.

      c.       Height- The vehicle must not exceed 3.5m in height overall.

      G.     Technology available:

      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a SEA ORG judge.
      Structural materials:

                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA

      Basic steel armor, 250 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 150mm (RHA) or 300mm (CHA).
      Density- 7.8 g/cm^3.

                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083

      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.

       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 100mm.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 2.7 g/cm^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).

      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:

      For light vehicles (less than 40 tons), not less than 25mm RHA/45mm Aluminum base structure

      For heavy vehicles (70 tons and above), not less than 45mm RHA/80mm Aluminum base structure.
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:

                                                                  iii.     HHA

      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately twice as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 25mm.
      Density- 7.8g/cm^3.

                                                                  iv.     Glass textolite

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 2.2 vs CE, 1.64 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.52 vs CE, 0.39 vs KE.
      Density- 1.85 g/cm^3 (approximately ¼ of steel).
      Non-structural.

                                                                   v.     Fused silica

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 3.5 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.28 vs KE.
      Density-2.2g/cm^3 (approximately 1/3.5 of steel).
      Non-structural, requires confinement (being in a metal box) to work.

                                                                  vi.     Fuel

      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.

      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.

      Density-0.82g/cm^3.

                                                                vii.     Assorted stowage/systems

      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.

                                                               viii.     Spaced armor

      Requires a face of at least 25mm LOS vs CE, and at least 50mm LOS vs KE.

      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 10 cm air gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.

      Reactive armor materials:

                                                                  ix.     ERA-light

      A sandwich of 3mm/3mm/3mm steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.

      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                   x.     ERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 15mm steel/3mm explodium/9mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 3 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).

                                                                  xi.     NERA-light

      A sandwich of 6mm steel/6mm rubber/ 6mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

                                                                 xii.     NERA-heavy

      A sandwich of 30mm steel/6m rubber/18mm steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.

      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.

      b.      Firepower

                                                                    i.     2A46 equivalent tech- pressure limits, semi-combustible cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USSR in the year 1960.

                                                                   ii.     Limited APFSDS (L:D 15:1)- Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.

                                                                  iii.     Limited tungsten (no more than 100g per shot)

                                                                  iv.     Californian shaped charge technology- 5 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 6 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.

                                                                   v.     The general issue GPMG for the People’s Auditory Forces is the PKM. The standard HMG is the DShK.

      c.       Mobility

                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:

      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)

      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)

      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)

                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).

                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).

                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.

      d.      Electronics

                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable

                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable

                                                                  iii.     I^2- limited

      3.      Operational Requirements.

      The requirements are detailed in the appended spreadsheet.

      4.      Submission protocols.

      Submission protocols and methods will be established in a follow-on post, nearer to the relevant time.
       
      Appendix 1- armor calculation
      Appendix 2- operational requirements
       
      Good luck, and may Hubbard guide your way to enlightenment!
    • 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

×
×
  • Create New...