Thread: 120mm vs 125mm

Originally Posted by gunnut

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

10mm Auto.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

10mm Auto.

Correct.

But have you noticed 45 ACP is actually 11.45mm wide? A full 14.5% wider than the 10mm Auto. Yet it carries less kinetic energy.

Is it possible that a 120mm tank gun generates more kinetic energy than a 125mm tank gun?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Don't because it is obvious you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're trying to lecture us about 1st year physics when most of us has seen these guns in action and a few more has fired them and some has even been on their development.

Stop before you further embarrass yourself. You're way out of your ballpark here.

well you have not taken first year physics or at least studied kinetic energy. THE VARIABLES IN KE IS ONLY A DIRECT PROPORTION EQUATION THAT USES 0.5 MASS AND VELOCITY SQUARED, THE MAKE OF THESE GUNS AND OTHER TECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF THESE WEAPONS WILL AFFECT KINETIVE ENERGY BUT ARE NOT USED IN THE COMPUTATION OF KINETIC ENERGY. IF YOU READ MY POSTS THEY CONSIST OF STANDARDIZED HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS SOLELY FOR APPLYING THIS FORMULA.

You're lecturing me, a Lieutenant-Colonel with a Masters Degree and Shek, a Major, also with a Masters Degree on Kinetic energy?

Take the hint. You don't know crap all. Shut up and learn.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're lecturing me, a Lieutenant-Colonel with a Masters Degree and Shek, a Major, also with a Masters Degree on Kinetic energy?

Take the hint. You don't know crap all. Shut up and learn.

FNSNIPER,
I'd second that hint. You're in over your head here.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Correct.

But have you noticed 45 ACP is actually 11.45mm wide? A full 14.5% wider than the 10mm Auto. Yet it carries less kinetic energy.

Is it possible that a 120mm tank gun generates more kinetic energy than a 125mm tank gun?

with regard to the 45 ACP having less KE, its short on velocity.

its is possible to for the smaller round to generate more KE if the velocity is considerable large.

but you will notice that the situation i generated regarding these two rounds initially, involved a condition where they had the same speed(and thus maybe fired the same way), thus in that case the heavier round had more KE.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're lecturing me, a Lieutenant-Colonel with a Masters Degree and Shek, a Major, also with a Masters Degree on Kinetic energy?

Take the hint. You don't know crap all. Shut up and learn.

Major in what? if you cannot understand KE then you major matters not.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

Major in what? if you cannot understand KE then you major matters not.

Shek is a graduate of the United States Military Academy. He holds the rank of Major in the United States Army.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

Major in what? if you cannot understand KE then you major matters not.

Major in the US Army...

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

well you have not taken first year physics or at least studied kinetic energy. THE VARIABLES IN KE IS ONLY A DIRECT PROPORTION EQUATION THAT USES 0.5 MASS AND VELOCITY SQUARED, THE MAKE OF THESE GUNS AND OTHER TECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF THESE WEAPONS WILL AFFECT KINETIVE ENERGY BUT ARE NOT USED IN THE COMPUTATION OF KINETIC ENERGY. IF YOU READ MY POSTS THEY CONSIST OF STANDARDIZED HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS SOLELY FOR APPLYING THIS FORMULA.

The question wasn't about KE to begin with. It was about which round was better. You have no relevant knowledge or experience to offer here on the thread, so take the opportunity to learn when to shut and just listen - maybe you'll learn someone from those who have fired these rounds in non-standardized, non-hypothetical situations, and who have seen and smelled what happens when main gun rounds hit another tank or APC. While the trajectory of the round can be modeled using physics, it cannot replicate this experience.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Shek is a graduate of the United States Military Academy. He holds the rank of Major in the United States Army.

hey Guess what, My physics professor did not graduate in the US military academy, and Shek does not know quantum physics.

The point being that knowing KE does not require you to be in the military. KE does not care who you are.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

hey Guess what, My physics professor did not graduate in the US military academy, and Shek does not know quantum physics.

If your physics professor was here posting, instead of you, then that might mean something.

But right now it's you, a newcomer to this message board, that is posting.

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

Major in what? if you cannot understand KE then you major matters not.

I majored in whoop a$$ with a 4.0 GPA in my two-course core physics sequence. )

Now, I haven't seen the terminal ballistics of main gun rounds on the battlefield, which is why I haven't offered any opinion about the question at hand. I have, however, seen the effect of terminal ballistics of small arms ammunition on the battlefield, and having trained a rifle company on marksmanship (with my NCOs doing the heavy lifting), I do think I'm qualified to identify when folks are talking out of their a$$ and faking the funk, which you are.

BTW, please demonstrate how I "don't understand KE."

Originally Posted by FNSNIPER

hey Guess what, My physics professor did not graduate in the US military academy, and Shek does not know quantum physics.

The point being that knowing KE does not require you to be in the military. KE does not care who you are.

You're missing the entire point of this thread.

The question was which is better? 120mm or the 125mm.

The context was the 120mm round used by NATO vs. the 125mm developed by the Soviet Union.

120mm NATO round generates more energy because of the design (longer case I believe).

That is why I asked you which round, 10mm Auto or the 45 ACP, has more energy.

It is relevent in this discussion.