"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GTX said:
Click to expand...
The 105mm rifle L7 was replaced by NATO 120 mm rifled (British) and smoothbore (everyone else) guns due to concerns that the L7 would not reliably penetrate the T-72 armour. I wonder what ammunition the M55 has. During GW1 were the Abrams that faced Iraq's T-72s armed with the 105mm or 120mm?

Given their upgrades to semi NATO spec and four man crews with manual loading, the M55 is a good training tank for future Leopard or similar crews.
 
Admiral Beez said:
The 105mm rifle L7 was replaced by NATO 120 mm rifled (British) and smoothbore (everyone else) guns due to concerns that the L7 would not reliably penetrate the T-72 armour. I wonder what ammunition the M55 has. During GW1 were the Abrams that faced Iraq's T-72s armed with the 105mm or 120mm?
Click to expand...

120mm, except perhaps any Marine M1s?
 
As far as I know only 120mm Abrams went into action in the Gulf War with some 105 models in reserve.

This makes sense given the time frame.

The 105 used in the Centurion and M60 tanks was countered by the Soviets in the T-62 tank being fitted with a 115mm gun.
Although the 105 could defeat the T-62/64/early 72 armour the 120mm gun was developed so it could take advantage
of different types of rounds and still ensure a high percentage of kills against later opposition.

British tanks used HESH rounds (squash head rounds) so rifling was ok.

APFSDS (fin stabilised discarding sabot) rounds were better if they didn't rotate so smoothbore was best for them - the fins
stabilised the round in the air anyway.

HEAT rounds needed a bigger diameter barrel because they have an internally shaped charge - the bigger the diameter the better.
Heat rounds suffer badly from rotation as on impact this skews the effect of the shaped charge and lowers it's ability to
penetrate.

The smoothbore also meant larger charges to increase velocity as the chrome coating helped the round slide out of the barrel. This
in turn gives better ranges and less wear although smoothbore barrels still wear over time.

Soviet tanks then went to the 125mm with the T-72 but from there it all becomes a matter of ammunition rather than barrel diameter.
For example, the 125 barrel was made thinner than the 120 since the T-72 and on are more of a medium tank with a big gun rather
than a full blown MBT like an Abrams. Replacment time for an Abrams barrel is around 1500 rounds. By then accuracy is unacceptable.
For the 125 because of it's lighter construction - 250 rounds before it is no longer accurate. A big difference.

Everything possible had to be done to keep the weight down on soviet designs and it has shown in conflicts
where soviet era tanks have come up against modern Western types.

There. Now I've run out of stuff so I'll stop.
 
WARSPITER said:
As far as I know only 120mm Abrams went into action in the Gulf War with some 105 models in reserve.

This makes sense given the time frame.

The 105 used in the Centurion and M60 tanks was countered by the Soviets in the T-62 tank being fitted with a 115mm gun.
Although the 105 could defeat the T-62/64/early 72 armour the 120mm gun was developed so it could take advantage
of different types of rounds and still ensure a high percentage of kills against later opposition.

British tanks used HESH rounds (squash head rounds) so rifling was ok.

APFSDS (fin stabilised discarding sabot) rounds were better if they didn't rotate so smoothbore was best for them - the fins
stabilised the round in the air anyway.

HEAT rounds needed a bigger diameter barrel because they have an internally shaped charge - the bigger the diameter the better.
Heat rounds suffer badly from rotation as on impact this skews the effect of the shaped charge and lowers it's ability to
penetrate.

The smoothbore also meant larger charges to increase velocity as the chrome coating helped the round slide out of the barrel. This
in turn gives better ranges and less wear although smoothbore barrels still wear over time.

Soviet tanks then went to the 125mm with the T-72 but from there it all becomes a matter of ammunition rather than barrel diameter.
For example, the 125 barrel was made thinner than the 120 since the T-72 and on are more of a medium tank with a big gun rather
than a full blown MBT like an Abrams. Replacment time for an Abrams barrel is around 1500 rounds. By then accuracy is unacceptable.
For the 125 because of it's lighter construction - 250 rounds before it is no longer accurate. A big difference.

Everything possible had to be done to keep the weight down on soviet designs and it has shown in conflicts
where soviet era tanks have come up against modern Western types.

There. Now I've run out of stuff so I'll stop.
Click to expand...
Good information. If I remember correctly to get the best of both worlds, the French AMX30 105 had a rifled barrel but the external shell effectively had ball bearing, so the actual projectile didn't rotate, whilst the outside did. Problem being that it made the ammunition very expensive
 
The article above on the M55 also mentions a shortage of 115 mm ammo for the captured T-62s, a gun Ukraine hasn't used since the 1990s. If ammo can't be found, what other use can be made of the captured T-62s?

There's the Bulgarian TV-62 armoured recovery vehicle, for example.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Three options: battle damage due to ground fire over Ukraine; undercarriage system failure due to poor Russian design or maintenance; under-trained Russian pilot omitted to put the gear down.
Click to expand...
Here's some thought for you - Soviet era aircraft are designed quite well with regards to basic systems like the landing gear. There's usually a gear warning system set up when you have flaps down and are below a certain airspeed. You can sought out the rest.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I think there's no chance of any WMD being used
Click to expand...
What about the possibility of some kind of crippling cyber-attack? The Russians and Chinese are both fond of those. I figure the only way to deter these would be to make no distinction between cyber-attacks and actual military attacks on our infrastructure. The Minuteman III's seem to be fairly resistant to hacking because they use technology from the late 1980's.
I do wonder what is Putin's next move?
Click to expand...
I think this would be the time to start hashing out some kind of agreement: I figure it would have to allow the Russians to save face and get the Ukranians to refrain from offensive action into Russia since that would force responses and escalate the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Luft.4
L
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
915
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
552
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back