Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
The original reason for the switch was the fact that HEAT (i.e. shaped charge) rounds lose much of their armor penetrating capability if the round is spinning when it hits the target. The first solution was to fin-stabilize HEAT rounds, until somone realized it's silly having a rifled gun impart a spin on the projectile if we're going to stop itand what does this historic lesson prove? That West eventually saw more benifits in smoothbores rather than rifled. Soviets were using 115 mm (t-62, early 64s) and later the 125mm D-81 smoothbores since T-64s, everyone knows this.
spinning as sono as it's left the barrel. In addition, smoothbore guns have a longer service life and are easier
(=cheaper) to manufacture.
"1976 smoothbore vs rifled gun trials, smoothbore defeated every rifled version from L7 to L11. This experiment proved the worth of smoothbores."
Pitting the venerale L7 (105mm) against a german 120mm smoothbore is not a good measure.
The L11, the Chieftain's gun, which differed from all previous tank gun in using a 2-piece ammunition with separate bagged propellant charges, was not even in the trilateral trials for the XM-1. Instead the Brits initially entered the EXP-19M7, also with 2-piece ammo. As this would make it incompatible with XM-1, the Brits entered EXP-19M13A, which was a redesigned M7 specifically to suit fitment to the XM1, and using a single-piece stub case ammunition.
"The Amreicans went for localized L7 in M-1 series but then switched M-256 (Rheinmetal) 120 smoothbores for better performance and chamber pressure provided by smoothbore guns due to advantages such as adding a better barrel life (in some cases, almost double to what a Rifled barrel provided) and metallurgy to name a few, the increased accuracy provided by rifled guns has been proved to be wrong as L44/ 55 provide perhaps the most accurate ammo delivery out there."
Obviously, the 105mm L7 was replace by the 120mm Rheinmetal, who wouldn't (altough under 3000m the differences are marginal)? Again, pitting the venerable L7 (105) against a german 120mm smoothbore and seeing the latter win, is not good proof of rifled gun's inferiority.
Also, 120L55 Barrel wear is tremendous.
"It is established that Rifled gun tech is obsolete tech for a modern main battle tank due to several resaons. "
Not really, since e.g. the EXP-19M13A's performance was quite close to that of the German gun (not bad despite 2 handicaps: hasty developed experimental gun, and a maker relatively new to apfds ammo).
"Your argument on more rifled guns are still fielded than smoothbores is weak"
I didn't refer to number of rifled guns. I referred to smoothbore tankguns being all greater than 100mm, possibly to accommodate a sufficiently powerfull HEAT warhead, for normal shells as well as gun-launched ATGWs
"L7s and L11s and later variants fielded due to, cost, availablility of ammo through either local facilities (POF in our case) but surely NOT as a technological advancement over smoothbores. "
I've not claimed smoothbores to be inferior either.
The Brits only gave up on development of new rifled guns after they finished development of the 120mm L30, and in the context of the future tank main armament, which resulted in e.g. 140mm smoothbores, being tested on LEO2 and M1. This is the period 1982-1988. However, by 1995, interest was lost in 140mms and attention returned to 120mm
I mentioned the t-64 and T-72. As well as the 100mm and 115mm smoothbores.