|
|
Forums - Research / Post-WW2 |
This Post WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to any time after WW2 (1945+) subjects. |
| Topics | 1378 |
| Messages | 4981 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore |  |
| Date: | May 17, 2001 |
| From: | Steve Tyliszczak | |
120mm is a bigger cartrige which if you'll excuse the pun gives you more bang for your buck, the smoothbore i think i what you are leading at is the issue? well, form what I understand, Sabot rounds are not really affected by rifling, Smoothbore is still only a large caliber tank weapon remember, not an infatry weapon like in the Civil War, so the smoothebore will
give you better performance for SABOT rounds which are the principal ammunition for modern tanks, smoothebores also present a problem in some aspects, as an example of this its very difficult to design a canister round since the dispertion of a smoothebore round will be fairly small in size, I believe the Isrealis have come up with a canister round for the IMI 120mm
gun and the USMC is currently working on one for the M256 120mm. HTH
Steve
Graham wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Just wondering if anyone out there has an opinion, thought or knowledge on the current practise of replacing 105mm tank guns with 120mm smoothbores. It seems that 120mm are considered the better tank killing weapon. Why is smoothbore so much better all of a sudden? Has the ammo changed so much that smoothbore is "back in fashion" after the American civil war?
>
> Guys, I'd really like to hear your opinions.
>
> Thanx
>
> Graham |
| |
|
|
 | 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Graham - May 17, 2001 |
| . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Steve Tyliszczak - May 17, 2001 |
| . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Axel Ackens - May 17, 2001 |
| . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - David Nickels - May 18, 2001 |
| . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Andreas J. Elesky - May 18, 2001 |
| . . . . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Haydn Neal - May 20, 2001 |
| . . . Re: 105mm Rif vs 120mm SB - Don't forget HEAT - Nemanja Pavlovic - May 18, 2001 |
| . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Kurt Isbrecht - May 19, 2001 |
| . . . . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Lawrence Salerno - May 19, 2001 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Andreas J. Elesky - May 19, 2001 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Shooty - May 21, 2001 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Lawrence Salerno - May 22, 2001 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Graeme - May 22, 2001 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Kurt Laughlin - May 23, 2001 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore - Tuve B - May 23, 2001 |
| . . . Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore-logistics - mark hazzard - May 22, 2001 |
|
|
