Reply With QuoteAbout 50%.Originally Posted by blilov
Effective energy and penetration is complex and depend on a number of factors so it's a bit misleading. But if we look at just muzzle energy.
How much more? I would like numbers here.
About 50%.
Effective energy and penetration is complex and depend on a number of factors so it's a bit misleading. But if we look at just muzzle energy.
one question? What is wrong with the current M1A2 SEP other than logistic costs? I ask because seems like they are always upgrading M1's and it's like the government is throwing money to the contractors?
latest M1A3 prototype on the train:
^^ Repost..
Nothing is wrong with current M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEP, but if You can upgrade tank to even better standard, why not? Besides this M1 Block III (in future M1A3) was planned from the start of the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank program.Bob the Builder on Crackone question? What is wrong with the current M1A2 SEP other than logistic costs? I ask because seems like they are always upgrading M1's and it's like the government is throwing money to the contractors?
Maybe with L55 barrel, but in reality eastern guns have better ballistic performance where western guns have much greater service life and wester APFSDS ammo is better.Should also be noted that Western 120 mm produces a lot more energy than the Eastern 125 mm.
I thought you would be better informed than that. No, I'm talking the most widely used 120mm and 125mm respectively. Someone quoted Rheinmetall stating that the DM-53 produces barely 1 MJ more in L55 compared to L44. Some sources say nearly 2 MJ more. In that range anyway.
Last edited by Breerman; 01-17-2011 at 08:58 AM.
Well it was not my main interest in modern tank technology thread, if I will have some free time, will ask better informed people about that, or I will try to find in books, maybe there are some info's about guns performance.
Just to clarify things, the Abrams Block III is not the same design/variant that we see in these rail car pics. You guys are mixing apples and oranges...the Block III tank was intended to counter the expected Soviet "FST-3" tank and was fitted with a small low-profile turret.
Your sure?
As I understand from sources there were several different concepts and prototypes, like SRV, ATD, TTB (low profile unmanned turret), CATTB, this thing on railcar... or we actually don't know that much and You seen something interesting?
Yes, I'm sure...I'll post a pic this evening.
If this is really something that I never seen then, great!
First things first...guys, the tank in question is almost certainly the (or one of the) Advanced Tank Cannon (ATAC) System Demonstrator Vehicles. The new (back in the day) turret was designed to integrate the XM291 140mm main gun into a new turret (with auto-loader), fitted to an M1 hull. The gun fired two-piece 140mm ammo "with twice the muzzle energy of the standard 120mm M256." The program also included the testing of a millimeter wave radar target acquisition system. The first (maybe only) demonstrator vehicle was named "Thumper" (see pic below - without the cammo paint).
Shot at 2011-01-17
Here's some more info:
"Due to a shortage of funding, the CATT-B was never completed as a fully integrated system. Prior to being installed in the CATT-B, the ATAC System has been installed in a modified M1 turret on a standard M1 chassis (Thumper). This also features the Benet Laboratory designed automatic loader, modified M1A1 fire-control electronics, Rockwell Multisensor Target Acquisition Sensor, standard M1 gunner's primary sight and a new fire-control computer. In this vehicle the gunner is on the right, as in the M1, while the tank commander is on the left in the space normally occupied by the loader."
^^Nice Info!
It looks like some thick plate ( Depleted Uranium plates, ERA ? ) welded over frontal turret..
If this can be done on front than its possible to do the same on back and sides..
Last edited by Kunal Biswas; 01-18-2011 at 02:22 AM.
Posting Permissions
