New 130mm MBT gun

J

jlvfr

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
2,682
It finally happened: a new MBT gun caliber. Not the 140-rummoured for years, but a 130mm, courtesy of the folks that designed the 120 that arms half the western world.

And, with a 130mm HE round, can it not pull double-duty as indirect fire artillery? Won't replace a 155, but...
 
jlvfr said:
It finally happened: a new MBT gun caliber. Not the 140-rummoured for years, but a 130mm, courtesy of the folks that designed the 120 that arms half the western world.

And, with a 130mm HE round, can it not pull double-duty as indirect fire artillery? Won't replace a 155, but...
Click to expand...

Negative on the indirect fire artillery. Tank cannon trajectory is too flat. It's a line of site weapon only.
 
It's been occasionally done. There was an M48 tank company in Vietnam, B Co. 1-69 Armor, that actually was briefly employed in an indirect mode at Ben Het. If I further recall, they even built ramps.
 
So...does Rheinmetall expect sales from retro-fitting this gun to existing vehicles or is this going onto a new tank?
 
S2 said:
So...does Rheinmetall expect sales from retro-fitting this gun to existing vehicles or is this going onto a new tank?
Click to expand...

This article states it's for a new gun, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was used to update tanks with turrets big enough to fit it...






Edit: forgot article link...
 
Last edited:
They're supposedly gonna offer a remodeled Leo 2 turret with it as a potential upgrade. Systemwise, the gun is built for a relatively easy upgrade from the 120mm L/55. It's a longterm project though, with planned serial production from 2025.

Rheinmetall is apparently also working on a 120mm upgrade, L/55A1, which might be introduced from 2018.

The main problem of the 140mm was the ammunition weight btw. Heavy enough that manual loading would not be possible. Hence requiring entirely new turrets and internal reconfiguration to accomodate the autoloader.
 
kato said:
The main problem of the 140mm was the ammunition weight btw. Heavy enough that manual loading would not be possible. Hence requiring entirely new turrets and internal reconfiguration to accomodate the autoloader.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would almost be like loading a 155 round; if I am not mistaken, loading arty rounds requires a loading tray and a rammer, not something you could do by hand.
 
Can always resurrect this ,lol


T28_xx-1024x680-640x425 (1).jpg

The T28 Super Heavy Tank was an American heavily armored tank self-propelled gun designed for the United States Army during World War II. The 100-ton vehicle was initially designated a heavy tank, it was re-designated as the 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 in 1945, and then renamed in 1946 as the Super Heavy Tank T28.

The T28/T95 was designed to be used for attacking the heavy defenses expected of the German Siegfried Line. The gun selected was known to have very good performance against concrete and “expected to be extremely effective at reducing heavy fortifications”



The need for an assault tank was first identified in 1943, Ordnance proposing that 25 vehicles could be ready for operations. A conference in March 1944 between Ordnance Department and Army Ground Forces resulted in agreement to build five. The Pacific Car and Foundry Company were supplied with the design in March 1945, completed final design and had the first hull welded by August. By the time the first tank was completed and ready for combat, the war was over. The plan for five was reduced to two.
 
tankie said:
Can always resurrect this ,lol

The T28 Super Heavy Tank was an American heavily armored tank self-propelled gun designed for the United States Army during World War II. The 100-ton vehicle was initially designated a heavy tank, it was re-designated as the 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 in 1945, and then renamed in 1946 as the Super Heavy Tank T28.
Click to expand...

That's a 105mm... not a 130. So the insides of the tank would probably be too small, since most of it's weight was old school brute-force armour...
 
You Brits did something similar towards the end of the War with your "Tortoise", but the gun was a bit smaller:

Bovington_146_Tortoise_1.jpg
 
Well, if we're going for madness-in-armour, may I present the TOG II...

TOG2_Tank_Bovington.jpg
 
Well, if we're at it... Char 2C. With a bigger gun, at least on the bis. And a couple decades earlier...

1329733608_1-605.jpg

It's a real pity there's none left in museums. The last survivor was supposedly photographed in Sowjet hands in East Germany in 1948.

Armour was about comparable to a T-34, which is no small feat in 1917.

One of the design studies for a successor in 1940 called for a 135mm gun (or alternatively using a 155mm as used in one Char 2C prototype). That design was round-binned as there were no 135mm guns available.
 
Albany Rifles said:
Negative on the indirect fire artillery. Tank cannon trajectory is too flat. It's a line of site weapon only.
Click to expand...

Negative, wit some prep work like building ramps to get the right elevation, tanks can do artillery barrages. The last time the US did so on a wide scale was Korea. We even trained to do so on the Patton as a 19E. Don't know if the 19k guys did or not.
 

Attachments

  • tank.jpg
    tank.jpg
    90.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
zraver said:
Negative, wit some prep work like building ramps to get the right elevation, tanks can do artillery barrages. The last time the US did so on a wide scale was Korea. We even trained to do so on the Patton as a 19E. Don't know if the 19k guys did or not.
Click to expand...

Now you've got me thinking. Could you (in theory) combine direct and indirect fire roles in the one fighting vehicle i.e. design and engineer an effective, conventional tank with a steep enough elevation to replace tracked artillery platforms in some circumstances. I'm not saying you could engineer a 155mm gun into an AFV and avoid all the drawbacks/limitations mentioned previously when it comes to larger bores in a conventional frame but could you for instance equip an armored force with one platform toting say a 125mm gun that could handle both roles even if it fires less of an explosive charge than its conventional 155 mm tracked artillery brethren. (Noting of course that most modern armies seem to be transitioning, at least in part, to missiles in the H/A role. The idea would be to do away with conventional tracked artillery and just utilize M270s or 142s etc backed up by your new 'tanks' and/or towed artillery as needed.)

Just asking.
 
Last edited:
I could see a role for an "Excalibur lite" round for tanks to fire. If the tank can loft the round high enough, it can glide towards whatever target is being lased. Since it will impact the target directly, it probably doesn't need to be as big as a 155mm to get the job done.
 
Last edited:
SteveDaPirate said:
Since it will impact the target directly, it probably doesn't need to be as big as a 155mm to get the job done.
Click to expand...
Eh, the HE darts used in Vulcano are only 90mm. Perfectly fine, just sleeve it the right way in a sabot like they already do it to fire from 127mm and 155mm. Terminal result equivalent to a 120mm mortar shell, except terminally guided and with a "slight bit" more range. Would have to rebuild it with fins and add a cartridge case though...
 
Overtasked comes to mind. Tank crews and gun crews train to different missions. Tanks are maneuver assets. Guns are positional assets. There is some overlap but the main difference is that tanks need to find the enemy and kill the enemy. Guns just need the target area. To ask the gunner to know both how to saturate an area and how to zero in on a target is simply overtasking the poor bugger. Hell, just keeping munition expenditure in mind would be a nightmare.
 
All true sir but I had in mind the fact that modern fire missions use a lot less ammunition due to technical innovation than was previously the case. Also you would be substituting the new platform for tracked artillery units, not eliminating the former artillery components of the brigade etc. So there wouldn't be any actual reduction in the number of tracked vehicles required or deployed. And you are right of course there would have to be a new generation of reloading systems, probably including vehicles to support the increased munitions expenditure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top