Thread: 120mm vs 125mm

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

HEY HEY HEY!!!!!

Enough of THAT kind of talk!!!!

BTW, APDS is great against Infantry if you are REALLY, REALLY accurate!

Showing your age there AB. APDS is looooooooooooong gone.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

HEY HEY HEY!!!!!

Enough of THAT kind of talk!!!!

BTW, APDS is great against Infantry if you are REALLY, REALLY accurate!

And all standing lined up ,one after the other

Originally Posted by Fury

Which tank main gun is better the Rheinmetall 120mm or russian 125mm, all you tank experts here tell me. Things I know is that the 120mm has longer effective firing range, I dont know if this a rumor but I read long time ago that some british Challenger 2 MBT in operation desert storm scored the longest tank vs tank hit&kill, the shot was fired from about 5.1 kilometers and the poor bastard was T-62 I think but that was desert storm and Iraqi tanks were crap, what about both cannons with modern ammunition?
Are there any HEAT rounds being used anymore for tank main guns?

I would say that the 125 mm round is better than the 120mm round, because of simple physics. The 125mm round has more kinetic energy upon impact, assuming that the places where they were fired form have the same muzzle velocities.

I will elaborate on the implications of kinetic energy later if need be.

Is the 125 mm as as accurate though?

Also if you go back aways on this thread you'll get the correct info regarding the T55 that our CO's waggon took-out at 5110 meters.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

I would say that the 125 mm round is better than the 120mm round, because of simple physics. The 125mm round has more kinetic energy upon impact, assuming that the places where they were fired form have the same muzzle velocities.

I will elaborate on the implications of kinetic energy later if need be.

Here's a question for you:

Which round has more energy?

10mm Auto
45 ACP

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

I would say that the 125 mm round is better than the 120mm round, because of simple physics. The 125mm round has more kinetic energy upon impact, assuming that the places where they were fired form have the same muzzle velocities.

I will elaborate on the implications of kinetic energy later if need be.

This is a worthless answer. The question was directed towards very specific rounds, not just the caliber in general. Since the question was directed at very specific rounds, it comes part and parcel with the main guns that are designed to fire said rounds. You then have to factor in the design of the rounds themselves, not just their caliber.

Bottomline, this is a question that is best left to those who know what they are talking about, which is why we see a whole host of tankers participating in the thread. Assumptions and high school physics doesn't get the job done here - it's not that simple.

To Gunnut:

well kinetic energy is the product of half mass times velocity squared. This equations has a directly proportional relationship. in the case of these two bullets, lets assume we fire from the same distance. I am going to assume, we are taking single shot instances, and that the propellant composition of the cartriges when burnt to propel the respective bullets here give different muzzle velocities, which the nature of the propellants are responsible for. given the setup of the kinetic energy equation, the Larger round at a higher velocity> the smaller round at smaller velocity. If the masses of these two bullets are negligible then the bullets with the considerably larger velocity will have bigger energy.


Note how ever i am not talking about kinetic energy on impact. I am simply talking about initial kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by Shek

This is a worthless answer. The question was directed towards very specific rounds, not just the caliber in general. Since the question was directed at very specific rounds, it comes part and parcel with the main guns that are designed to fire said rounds. You then have to factor in the design of the rounds themselves, not just their caliber.

Bottomline, this is a question that is best left to those who know what they are talking about, which is why we see a whole host of tankers participating in the thread. Assumptions and high school physics doesn't get the job done here - it's not that simple.

Kinetic Energy takes mass and velocity into account only, all the other factors you mention, is not relevant to calculating kinetic energy. All the other factors you mention, including the technologies of both rounds , eventually contribute to the masses and eventual velocities of these two rounds.

kinetic energy does not at all concern the Guns firing these rounds. All these things are contributory to the velocity that is involved in the calculation of kinetic energy.

If you noticed in my answer my case was a hypothetical case to calculate kinetic energy in terms of mass, by giving both rounds the same initial speed.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

well kinetic energy is the product of half mass times velocity squared. This equations has a directly proportional relationship. in the case of these two bullets, lets assume we fire from the same distance. I am going to assume, we are taking single shot instances, and that the propellant composition of the cartriges when burnt to propel the respective bullets here give different muzzle velocities, which the nature of the propellants are responsible for. given the setup of the kinetic energy equation, the Larger round at a higher velocity> the smaller round at smaller velocity. If the masses of these two bullets are negligible then the bullets with the considerably larger velocity will have bigger energy.


Note how ever i am not talking about kinetic energy on impact. I am simply talking about initial kinetic energy.

You haven't answered the question. Which round, the 10mm Auto or the 45 ACP, has more kinetic energy?

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

Kinetic Energy takes mass and velocity into account only, all the other factors you mention, is not relevant to calculating kinetic energy. All the other factors you mention, including the technologies of both rounds , eventually contribute to the masses and eventual velocities of these two rounds.

kinetic energy does not at all concern the Guns firing these rounds. All these things are contributory to the velocity that is involved in the calculation of kinetic energy.

Once again, the above information is useless. The question that was asked wasn't whether a 120mm or a 125mm round would have more KE, but about specific rounds that have a specific context. It sounds like you're excited about physics, which is great, but this isn't a high school physics problem. It's a real world problem that has a whole host of other factors that you must take into account. Also, muzzle ballistics don't equal terminal ballistics, so you're not even addressing a whole segment of the question.

This is a life lesson that's waiting to be plucked like low-hanging fruit - knowing when to shut up. You're not adding anything to the conversation here, so let others that fired main gun rounds for a living educate us.

Originally Posted by DragoonGuard

Is the 125 mm as as accurate though?

Also if you go back aways on this thread you'll get the correct info regarding the T55 that our CO's waggon took-out at 5110 meters.

The Accuracy question is too open ended, you have to narrow a lot of thing down to give a specific set of conditions in which accuracy can be measured.

Originally Posted by Shek

Once again, the above information is useless. The question that was asked wasn't whether a 120mm or a 125mm round would have more KE, but about specific rounds that have a specific context. It sounds like you're excited about physics, which is great, but this isn't a high school physics problem. It's a real world problem that has a whole host of other factors that you must take into account. Also, muzzle ballistics don't equal terminal ballistics, so you're not even addressing a whole segment of the question.

This is a life lesson that's waiting to be plucked like low-hanging fruit - knowing when to shut up. You're not adding anything to the conversation here, so let others that fired main gun rounds for a living educate us.

like i said before all other factors you are talking about from firing to hitting targets, all influence the KE. the KE can be measured at every point of the objects path in the air. The useful KE of course is the KE prior to impact Duhhh. i know that muzzle ballistics is not the same as terminal ballistics, in no way have i actually implied that how ever i still know that the construction of the machinery, and round, how it fires, how the round behaves on its way to the target, are important factors that can be used to determine its kinetic energy if you read my posts well i have said that kinetic energy uses the end of all these other factors for calculation.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

like i said before all other factors you are talking about from firing to hitting targets, all influence the KE. the KE can be measured at every point of the objects path in the air. The useful KE of course is the KE prior to impact Duhhh. i know that muzzle ballistics is not the same as terminal ballistics, in no way have i actually implied that how ever i still know that the construction of the machinery, and round, how it fires, how the round behaves on its way to the target, are important factors that can be used to determine its kinetic energy if you read my posts well i have said that kinetic energy uses the end of all these other factors for calculation.

And once again, useless.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

The Accuracy question is too open ended, you have to narrow a lot of thing down to give a specific set of conditions in which accuracy can be measured.

No it's not. The Russian 125mm round is fired from specific platforms and has a specific performance record. This isn't a theoretical construct, but a question about actual peformance.