|
|
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 | 1375 |
| Messages | 4972 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: 105mm versus 120 smoothbore |  |
| Date: | May 19, 2001 |
| From: | Kurt Isbrecht | |
Graham:
I don't know if maintenance costs of rifled guns are a factor or not. When I
was a tank crewman in the Marines the gun tubes had to be replaced after
what I thought was a rather low number of firings. I can't remember the
exact number after 30 plus years though. The work was done on a battalion
unit level for just the tubes. If the breach or recoil system needed work
they were sent to division. We did utilize some SABOT rounds at the time of
my service.
Cheers, Kurt
"Graham" wrote in message news:3b03b6ab@cr243322-a....
> 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 |
|
|
