Why didn't they move forward with the 140mm Abrams?

Why didn't they move forward with the 140mm Abrams?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't they move forward with the 140mm Abrams?
    The end of the Cold War brought about massive defense spending cuts. There wasn't enough money to build a new fleet of tanks. I guarantee that the successor to the M1 Abrams will have a 130mm+ gun with an autoloader. The penetration statistics on it will be insane

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Or they might go with just 120mm ETC gun.

      Necessity. The Abrams was mainly designed with russian tanks in mind and had a 105mm before they decided to upgrade it to a 120mm. Even though overkill is almost always good in warfare, you have to account for weight and fuel efficiency at some point.
      Also reminder that the russians actively decided not to build a counter to the Abrams when it was first built because of the 105mm cannon and when the US decided to upgrade it to a 120mm they couldn't because the USSR was collapsing and they couldn't afford to.

      The main reason US Army initially went with 105mm gun on Abrams is because their own homegrown 120mm smoothbore gun was stuck in development hell. NIH is hell of a drug. It took them few years to accept reality of buying production license for kraut 120mm gun. 105mm was considered adequate at the time, but it writing was on the wall that it was about to become obsolete.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >kraut
        God, remember that poo that kept spamming the Rheinmetall tank?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Make new higher calibre tank gun
    >Now have to make and stockpile all new ammo for it as well as the old stuff won't fit
    >Is any increase in effectiveness actually worth having to do all that?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      gee thanks, dad

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't need it.
    Still don't.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      if it can t pen the front plate of a t 90 at 2000 meters than we must upgrade to a bigger caliber

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        what do you think a T90s front plate is made of, adamantium? M829A3 can easily penetrate it IRL, maybe not in WT

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          source: trust me bro

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >he's on /k/
            >is pretending M829A3 couldn't annihilate things being penned on the UFP by Ukrainian 3BM42
            You have to go back.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            About that

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You couldn't puncture a western MBT at 2000m with sabot.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >he doesn't know

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >fricking wikipedia as a source
              the grand mark of the dunning kreuger moron

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Wikipedia
              You don't know

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There's nothing a 140 can kill that a 120 can't

                >morons still replying
                I know whatever brown country you're from has to round up all of their numbers to make their MIC look good, but it's embarrassing to apply the same logic to the U.S.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Those numbers are blatantly false, but I cannot prove it to you even if I wanted to because I'd rather not get giga fricked.

                [...]
                thats steel beasts penetration calculator with Steven Zaloga's estimates, morons

                >Steel beasts
                >Ammo being accurate
                As great of a sim as it is, the ammo is not very reflective of real life capabilities

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >fricking wikipedia as a source
                the grand mark of the dunning kreuger moron

                thats steel beasts penetration calculator with Steven Zaloga's estimates, morons

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >steel beasts
                >Steven Zaloga

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Wow, I've never seen something that can penetrate so much reactive heavy armor. What kind of black magic are the Americans performing here??

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >M829A3 can easily penetrate it IRL, maybe not in WT
          You're probably right, which is why gaijin refuses to add it. They've added the SEP v1 with only M829A2 to keep the T-80BVM's upper front plate relevant. lol, lmao even.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If wt had a Russian bias they would just release the armata

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Why would they add a tank with less armour that would get one shot by other tanks even if the crew survive?
              It has the same weakness of any late Russian tank of anything hitting the laughably weak turret or the hitting the side, sending shrapnel right down into the ammo rack and killing the tank straight away.

              Propaganda wise they know it's a peice of shit even if they buffed all the soft stats.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Then HMS Vanguard came out and went 'lol faster firing is better'.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You know, its kind of insane how big tanks had gotten as the years went by. Will there ever be an end to the size upgrades?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      bolo when?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >megatons per second cannons
        this will always be dumb

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        When you'll be willing to pay for the gas. Actually, with how large this thing can get, its probably only possible on nuclear power.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes.

      Think of an onion. A layer on the outside has way more mass than one on the inside even if the thickness is identical. The amount of mass needed to add volume isn't linear, so you hit diminishing returns on bigger tanks.

      As drones become more common and lighter than air drones allow for constant "eyes in the sky," I do expect engagement ranges to get much longer. Mortar and rocket launched drones offer the prospects of getting designators on targets far away very quickly. Surveillance capabilities between LEO satalites, high altitude balloons, aircraft and UAVs, small spotters, and air dropped or rocket dispersed seismic detectors, mean figuring out where to send spotters gets much easier.

      All this might mean we see even 155mm guns, simply for economies of scale on smart munitions and because engagement ranges will mean you will use primarily those types of munitions.

      That is until coil gun efficiency and power output is figured out. Then tank sizes will shrink rapidly and body armor will likely go back to WWII, "why bother" levels, since the velocity ceiling on electric guns is way, way higher than chemical propellant. No point loading up on armor when some dense 55mm projectile is screaming into you hat 18,000 FPS and has enough kinetic energy to frick your day up without HE.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What were the most likely targets and were they available in such numbers as to justify the whole cost of that shift in gun, ammunition and logistical weight ?

    Let's remember that something able to survive a 120mm hit is still unlikeky to survive a air-to-ground missile.
    So if they ain't thousands of them, why bother retrofiting tanks when the air force alone can take care of it ?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Heh, it looks like a Texan.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Necessity. The Abrams was mainly designed with russian tanks in mind and had a 105mm before they decided to upgrade it to a 120mm. Even though overkill is almost always good in warfare, you have to account for weight and fuel efficiency at some point.
    Also reminder that the russians actively decided not to build a counter to the Abrams when it was first built because of the 105mm cannon and when the US decided to upgrade it to a 120mm they couldn't because the USSR was collapsing and they couldn't afford to.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Also reminder that the russians actively decided not to build a counter to the Abrams when it was first built because of the 105mm cannon
      uh, no
      >when the US decided to upgrade it to a 120mm they couldn't because the USSR was collapsing and they couldn't afford to.
      That's a touch overly optimistic.
      It's not like the USSR didn't already possess things in its arsenal that could kill an Abrams from the front, the problem was that the weaponry they had that could do it was pretty limited. Towards the end of the 1980s they developed several 125mm rounds and ATGMs that could frontally penetrate the hull of an M1 and possibly the turret of earlier models.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Eh, idc I like making shit up

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    FCS (future combat systems) boondoggle.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      completely wrong and moronic, educate yourself

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Holy shit you're moronic.

        >we need to go lightweight! heavy has no place in the future!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit you're moronic.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is this yet another example of Americans making shit in the 90s better than anything that vatniks and chinksects can make today?

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Slavshit and chinkshit tanks don't need it to die so it'd just be overkill.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >people dont understand technology demonstrators episode 8721309
    if we're asking moronic questions why don't we ask why the soviets didn't adopt object 772?

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    140mm shell is too heavy for your average loader.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      autoloader?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Autoloaders suck ass, they always have.
        It's extra weight, complexity, and takes up too much space. They limit how much ammo a tank can carry and all because they can't bither training one dude how to move a shell from a rack to a chamber.
        At most a tank should have a loading assistance device but even that is kind of moronic.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I mean shit dude, if you don't know anything specific about the demonstrator tank in question, why bother looking like a moron and spouting bullshit?

            https://i.imgur.com/4NySqNx.jpg

            [...]
            >he doesnt know

            Utterly clueless.

            Ive always loved this kind of absolutely inept and moronic bullshit a bunch of armchair generals spout. The kinds of buttholes that read something somewhere about how something is always one way or another and will absolutely fricking CLING to it forever. Auto loaders have their issues but they have their good points too and a bunch of buttholes that likely have never seen a tank much less been in one spouting a bunch of shit they heard from a bunch of other buttholes that likely never have either always make me laugh.

            >a bunch of armchair general neverserved losers try to cope that the moronic gizmo they like is shit
            Autoloaders are dogshit and always have been they are made for weak euros and asiatics any real army is capable of actually training someone to load a gun.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >t. average 14 second reload

              Manual loaders lost. Autoloaders won. Pierre Sprey is dead.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >>t. average 14 second reload
                That would disqualify an Abrams loader. At bare minumum, they need to load the gun in 8.5 seconds. An Abrams loader isn't qualified and will not pass TCGST) unless they can load any/all round types in 7 seconds or less.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I mean shit dude, if you don't know anything specific about the demonstrator tank in question, why bother looking like a moron and spouting bullshit?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Utterly clueless.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Ive always loved this kind of absolutely inept and moronic bullshit a bunch of armchair generals spout. The kinds of buttholes that read something somewhere about how something is always one way or another and will absolutely fricking CLING to it forever. Auto loaders have their issues but they have their good points too and a bunch of buttholes that likely have never seen a tank much less been in one spouting a bunch of shit they heard from a bunch of other buttholes that likely never have either always make me laugh.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The tank in OPs picrel had an autoloader.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They should have made it, if only because it would justify North Korea making a tank destroyer that is somehow based on a T-62 that weighs 80 tons, has 9 road wheels and a 170mm koksan cannon with APFDS rounds.

    I once spent a half hour talking to a former Iranian artillery officer who showed me pictures of a Iraqi T-55 that got hit with a direct fire 'bunker buster' (HESH equivalent i think) round from a Koksan, it was ripped in half like a tin can. I just want to see what a APFDS round from one of those can do.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Same reason they didn't go ahead with the M46 with a GAU-8 as an AA gun. Because it was a silly idea.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There's nothing a 140 can kill that a 120 can't

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This gun was crazy.
    Was a ECT...it had more like 3x the energy of the 120mm

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Even with an autoloader, I cannot imagine you're going to have that many rounds available.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/8yttlsq.jpg

        Autoloaders suck ass, they always have.
        It's extra weight, complexity, and takes up too much space. They limit how much ammo a tank can carry and all because they can't bither training one dude how to move a shell from a rack to a chamber.
        At most a tank should have a loading assistance device but even that is kind of moronic.

        >he doesnt know

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Okay, we've fired the stuff in the mag...who wants to reload it?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the robotic arm dumbass

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What the frick

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >you vs the round she tells you not to worry about

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >for when you need to penetrate the front armor plate of a t90 that is on the moon

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I think it was 2000mm of RHA at 2000 meters

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >sails through 6 and a half feet of RHA at 2000 meters
          I never thought I would say this but that might actually be too much gun but it also makes me moist thinking about it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      good lord what a chonky mofo

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Need to use telescoped ammo like the Nexter 140mm.
      I think we should use CT ammo for everything. When you look at the 40mm CTA the french/brits have, looks pretty great, the concept should be use for all mm. A pretty light 20/25 CT autocannon to replace for example some mounted .50 on vehicles would be great.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Previously, with the Leclerc 140 "Terminateur", they were going the classical route, same autoloading system, but longer.
        Here is some very rare firing tests footage of this Leclerc modification

        However the 140mm round planned for the Ascalon gun is going to be much shorter and easier to carry around since it's case-telescoped. It also adds, for now, and without a full case length-long arrow, only +70% more penetration compared to the best 120mm APFSDS. For comparison Rheinmetal's 130mm is supposed to procure +50% penetration.
        Nexter also deleted the only140mm Ascalon video showing test firing from their YT channel but I got it saved
        >https://streamable.com/nrhcm8
        Notice how impossible it is to carry the 140mm shell in your arms cause it's too big and heavy, or I've been told so. kek.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Considering the 120 KE has 13 MJ muzzle energy this is insane. A locomotive going 80 km/h and weighting 50 tons has the same energy. So this would be 3 of these.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They didn’t think they’d ever fight a near peer war again.

    /thread

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The shells are too big for a human loader, plus you can't fit many inside the tank.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *