|
|
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 19, 2001 |
| From: | Andreas J. Elesky | |
Other things to consider is the make up of the rounds. I.E. DU, Tungsten,
having been on M60A1's, M1A1's, Leo's, and hanging out with the British on
some Challengers, I would say that the smoothbore is the way to go. On
rifled tubes, they wear unevenly based on the type of round, weather, and
temperature. Lots of things to consider when looking at the lifespan of a
barrel. As it stands now on the 120mm smoothbore, regardless of the
elements or rounds 1 EFC = 1 round. Having seen tests of some of the
potential Soviet stuff, if they could ever afford to build it, you might
want to reconsider 120mm smoothbore or better. Having talked to British
Master Gunners and talking muzzle velocities, the smoothbore is higher,
whick equals more penetration, then again at almost a mile a second how much
faster do you want to get.
Andy
"Lawrence Salerno" wrote in message
news:3B0648E9.6CAA9341@csionline.net...
> The gun tubes on a105mm gun , that would be the M68 breech and barrel
mounted on
> the M48A5 to the M1 were replace after 1000 Effective full charge (EFC)
rds. The
> breech could be retubed 5 times be the breech would have to be replaced
also.
> The EFC for the rds change depending on temp and type of rds. What wears
the
> barrel out is not the round but the corrosive gas's from the propellant.
> Larry
>
> Kurt Isbrecht wrote:
> |
| |
|
|
 | 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 |
|
|
