Beyond The Sprues

Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Land => Topic started by: dy031101 on December 13, 2011, 02:39:44 AM

Title: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on December 13, 2011, 02:39:44 AM
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/matilda_upgunned.jpg)

Taking the idea of installing a Cavalier turret further, this Matilda now has a Cromwell turret with a QF 75mm (though whether the gun is a 6 pounder or a 75mm, the upgunned tank ought to have competitive firepower against the Type 3 Chi-Nu lol)......  I was inspired by the World of Tanks game and a picture of the aforementioned Cavalier turret upgrade and hope I can do the same thing when the game introduces the UK tank tech trees......

(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/t34m-85.jpg)

This is inspired by not only the WoT game as well but also a past conversation with Arc3371.  T-34M, in addition to using the torsion bar suspension, seems to have fixed a host of other weaknesses with the original T-34 design.  Too bad the Germans came too early.

(Having said that, T-34 as a tank equipped with Christie suspension remained influential long enough to hold a special place in my mind.  Not a place better than the Sherman, but special nonetheless.)

Originals taken from WW2 Drawings (http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Vehicles/Vehicles.htm).
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on December 13, 2011, 08:14:05 AM
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/matilda_upgunned_Crusader6pdr.jpg)

Something doesn't seem right on this one, since the Crusader tank is said to have a turret ring diameter of 55.5" whereas Matilda has one of 54.3", yet I couldn't seem to match the drawing......?

Either way, I like the Cavalier/Cromwell turret better.

Source of the originals is the same as the previous post.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: BadersBusCompany on December 13, 2011, 10:48:50 AM
It looks great either way!!
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on December 13, 2011, 01:32:38 PM
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/valentine_upgunned_SentinelAC3.jpg)

Valentine infantry tank with a 25 pounder gun turret of Sentinel AC3.

According to this (http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65:valentine-infantry-tank&catid=38:infantry-tanks&Itemid=56) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_tank#History), Valentine actually has a bigger turret ring (57.5") than the Sentinel AC1~AC3 (54")!  Hum......

WW2 Drawings does not have a good drawing for the AC3 Sentinel, however, so I was forced to make do with a rough drawing from here (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?4098-Most-succesful-british-tank.&p=94205#post94205), and the turret part therefore doesn't look as good......
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 13, 2011, 05:58:59 PM
How about a Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger upgunned post war with a Royal Ordnance L7 105mm gun?

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on December 14, 2011, 07:02:33 AM
How about a Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger upgunned post war with a Royal Ordnance L7 105mm gun?


Hum......

(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/tigerI_upgunned_L7.jpg)

Same source of originals.  The L7 gun barrel is a result of my manipulation and my best guess in a hurry......
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: BadersBusCompany on December 14, 2011, 07:51:57 AM
 :want: HOLY SH*T!!   :in-love:
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: sotoolslinger on December 14, 2011, 10:51:32 AM
(http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh50/sotoolslinger/CAT%202/IMG_2659.jpg) :D
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on December 14, 2011, 11:00:24 AM
(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/upgunnedM3Part1.jpg)

(http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab22/dy031101/Parallel%20World%20and%20What-if/upgunnedM3Part2.jpg)

Virtually 2D version of Wyrmshadow's stuff.  Same source of originals, except I didn't bother going monochrome for them because the curtains match (roughly) the carpets this time around.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: sotoolslinger on December 14, 2011, 11:11:32 AM
Yep loooove Wyrmy. Has anyone invited that boy over here?
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 14, 2011, 05:26:55 PM
Yep loooove Wyrmy. Has anyone invited that boy over here?

Not yet - anyone got his email?
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: sotoolslinger on December 15, 2011, 11:29:14 AM
Went there, did that :yarr:
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on December 15, 2011, 12:49:36 PM
Question- how does the 25 pounder do as a tank gun?  It is said that it gives the AC3 a serviceable anti-tank and high-explosive weapon- okay, but can I assume that they are effective against late-war tanks over normal combat range except for the aspect of rate of fire?

I mean...... the AC3 turret just might make for an interesting combination with all those other infantry tanks......
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 18, 2011, 05:08:42 AM
How about some M1s, ChallengerIIs and Leclercs upgunned with 140mm (or larger? guns?
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 18, 2011, 05:19:15 AM
It might not seem like a lot, but what about a Panzer II upgunned with a 37mm instead of the standard 20mm antitank gun?

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on December 18, 2011, 05:37:09 AM
It might not seem like a lot, but what about a Panzer II upgunned with a 37mm instead of the standard 20mm antitank gun?


According to Achtung Panzer! (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-ii.htm#panzer2), experiments were done but never completed on re-arming the Panzer II with captured French SA 38 gun (30mm penetration at 1000m).  Maybe someone in the turret will have to pull double-duty as a loader, too.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: ChernayaAkula on December 18, 2011, 04:39:45 PM
Diggin' the re-turreted Matildas!
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on December 19, 2011, 10:45:50 AM
Diggin' the re-turreted Matildas!

If there were a lot more Type 3 Ka-Chi and Type 5 To-Ku than in real-life, maybe the Matilda with Cavalier turret would have been more appreciated?  :want:
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 23, 2011, 03:24:04 AM
Question- how does the 25 pounder do as a tank gun?  It is said that it gives the AC3 a serviceable anti-tank and high-explosive weapon- okay, but can I assume that they are effective against late-war tanks over normal combat range except for the aspect of rate of fire?

It was a low velocity weapon in comparison with established anti-tank and tank guns such as the 6pdr and 17pdr.  The power of the 25pdr was in the chemical energy available in the high explosive capacity of the shell.  Consider it in roughly the same category as a mortar, it was excellent as an indirect fire weapon system with a limited effectiveness in direct fire. 
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on April 06, 2012, 07:47:01 PM
A serious effort to increase firepower of the Sherman in real life was done by mating an M26 Pershing turret with an M4 Sherman. 

Click on thumbnail to view larger image. 

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg/120px-T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg)
(Image source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg)) 

Marcos Serra has begun a conversion in 1/35th scale by kit bashing the Tamiya M4 (105) and the M26 Pershing (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1333706950/M4+Sherman+with+T26+Pershing+turret+-+starting...) with an aftermarket resin hull for this project which can be viewed at the Missing-Lynx (http://www.missing-lynx.com/) forums.

From ArmchairGeneral.com forums (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/index.php):

Profile view image of the drawing (http://i342.photobucket.com/albums/o431/Cowboy31a/US%20Army%20Tanks/M4%20series%20medium%20tanks/Sherman90side.png) depicting the Sherman with Pershing turret that originally appeared in Hunnicutt's book
Front view image of the drawing (http://i342.photobucket.com/albums/o431/Cowboy31a/US%20Army%20Tanks/M4%20series%20medium%20tanks/Sherman90front.png) depicting the Sherman with Pershing turret that originally appeared in Hunnicutt's book
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: The Big Gimper on April 06, 2012, 11:04:01 PM
I'm not a tank builder anymore but this is cool.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 07, 2012, 03:50:46 AM
At first glance, this could easily be confused with some of the post way Israeli developments:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/M51-Isherman-latrun-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Weaver on April 08, 2012, 09:17:12 PM
Interesting.... I had it in mind to put a 1/76th Fujimi Type-61 turret on a 1/76th Easy-Eight chassis. The results looked top heavy, causing me to go looking for a 1/7nd hull instead, but it was actually no worse than that M26/M4 combo.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on April 10, 2012, 01:59:18 AM
Marcos Serra finished his 1/35th scale conversion and kit bash of the Tamiya M4 (105) and the M26 Pershing (http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/thread/1333921155/M4+Sherman+with+T26+Pershing+turret+-+FINAL.). 
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 10, 2012, 02:26:32 AM
If done in bulk, they could have been an interesting addition to the war in Europe.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on April 11, 2012, 08:03:05 AM
Didn't Zod do something similar before?  ;)
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Jacques Deguerre on April 12, 2012, 12:30:18 AM
Didn't Zod do something similar before?  ;)
Yeah, I think I remember him doing a similar vehicle in 1/48 uh, sorry, 1/35 scale, using a Tamiya Pershing turret and the Hobby Boss Academy 'E8 suspension.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Jacques Deguerre on April 12, 2012, 12:47:29 AM
Oh, and on the subject of upgunned Sherman tanks, this one is on my "to do" list:
US Army M4A3 (17 pdr) Firefly (http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/48/m4a3fireflysz48_1.html)
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Feldmarschall Zod on April 19, 2012, 06:27:52 AM
Didn't Zod do something similar before?  ;)

Yeah,a 1/35 version. Not sure if I posted it here or not.  :)
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Feldmarschall Zod on April 19, 2012, 06:29:00 AM
Didn't Zod do something similar before?  ;)
Yeah, I think I remember him doing a similar vehicle in 1/48 scale, using a Tamiya Pershing turret and a Hobby Boss 'E8 Sherman.

That one was an M10 turret with a longer barrel on the Hobby Boss kit. :)
Title: FT-17 TD courtesy of World of Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on October 22, 2012, 12:45:40 AM
Top: With a high-velocity 47mm gun.

Bottom: First time in action.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 22, 2012, 02:13:35 AM
Interesting.  WW1 era?
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on October 22, 2012, 02:41:39 PM
It'd still be a bit too early for Pz. II and Pz. 35(t) as victims.  ;D

(Ignore the T2 for a sec. here)

Now upgraded Matilda tank in 3D, again courtesy of World of Tanks.

Top: with Cavalier turret and QF 6-pounder gun.

Bottom: with ZiS-96 76mm gun.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on November 04, 2012, 03:59:50 PM
Churchill Mk.I re-equipped with a 6-pounder gun turret.  Hull-mounted howitzer is retained since 6 pounder has ineffective HE shells anyway.

(WoT actually allows for it to be armed with Vickers 75mm HV as its biggest gun, but I don't think it's do-able in real-life: Churchill has a smaller turret than Cromwell, IIRC, and Cromwell couldn't take the 75mm HV......)
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: arc3371 on November 05, 2012, 07:53:10 AM
I have been thinking about a T-28 based TD with the 107mm M-60 gun (that I love in WoT, the gun not the tank)
Title: Tank Hunter Theme
Post by: dy031101 on November 06, 2012, 12:00:26 PM
While I was cursing WoT a while ago for taking away my T-28's 85mm gun and putting in its place a ZiS-4, I was reminded of the T-34-57, a tank hunter version of the pre-85mm T-34.

Then I figured that a tank hunter theme might not be so bad after all...... so here come the two tanks in my inventory armed with ZiS-4.  Good against distracted enemy tanks.

I heard the 75mm gun used by early versions of the M4 Sherman uses the same ammunition of the famous French 75?  I couldn't think of a scenario for this to happen, but I couldn't help to think of how a 75mm tank gun with the same kind of upgrade that made the German Pak-97/38 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Pak_97/38) (muzzle brake, HEAT shells, amongst others) might have performed, either......

(I know it'll never beat the 76mm gun M1A1, and WWII HEAT shells weren't exactly the most reliable stuff, but that ought to still bring about some improvement......)
Title: Re: Tank Hunter Theme
Post by: Rickshaw on November 15, 2012, 05:23:32 PM
I heard the 75mm gun used by early versions of the M4 Sherman uses the same ammunition of the famous French 75?

Well, essentially any 75mm gun can fire the shell from any other 75mm as they are the same calibre.  As the US 75mm tank gun was indeed essentially the French 75mm slightly tarted up and put in a tank, the shells they fired were from the same stocks that had been put aside for the 75mm Field Gun.

M3 Grants/Lees used German 75mm shells (after they were remanufactured to British standards) in the Western Desert in 1942-3.

The German captured Russian 76.2 Field Guns used German 75mm ammunition with changed/enlarged driving bands to ensure they engaged the lands in the barrel properly, when the Russian shells ran out.  When Russian cartridge cases ran out, they "rechambered" (essentially gave it a new breech) the weapons to accept German rounds as a complete unit.

Title: Re: Tank Hunter Theme
Post by: dy031101 on November 16, 2012, 07:53:39 AM
M3 Grants/Lees used German 75mm shells (after they were remanufactured to British standards) in the Western Desert in 1942-3.

Curiosity...... did they have a chance to see how far they could go with Ex-German HEAT projectiles?
Title: Re: Tank Hunter Theme
Post by: Rickshaw on November 16, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
M3 Grants/Lees used German 75mm shells (after they were remanufactured to British standards) in the Western Desert in 1942-3.

Curiosity...... did they have a chance to see how far they could go with Ex-German HEAT projectiles?

I don't think there were any HEAT rounds in the Western Desert.  Hunnicutt who mentions the remanufacture of German shells only refers to HE rounds.  The shells had to have their driving bands machined to allow them to fit the US 75mm barrel and they had to be put on US 75mm shell cases (the powder from the German shells was reused).  Apparently they had to make the lathes run in reverse because running them clockwise had an unfortunate effect on the fuses - arming them!  :o
Title: Re: Tank Hunter Theme
Post by: dy031101 on November 17, 2012, 01:58:55 PM
I don't think there were any HEAT rounds in the Western Desert.  Hunnicutt who mentions the remanufacture of German shells only refers to HE rounds.

I see- it would still have been interesting to see if HEAT round would have been a (all be it crude and temperamental) way to counter "Mark 4 Special" and even Tiger I......

The top attachment is a T25E1 equipped with a larger turret and a 105mm gun; granted my fascination is with the T25 with HVSS (below attachment)......

In addition, I also wonder how that turret can be up-amoured.  Magach-like armour pack, or Russian/Ukrainian-style ERA placement?
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Rickshaw on November 17, 2012, 02:43:32 PM
To be realistic, I think you're going to encounter the same problems they did in real life with trying to put massive heavy tank turrets on medium tank hulls - it becomes too heavy for the suspension/engine and mobility suffers.  it also becomes top heavy and unstable.  The only up-armouring which could actually save you from that is ERA.  It's lighter than passive steel armour.  However it means your vehicles no longer have close infantry protection.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Frank3k on November 18, 2012, 01:42:09 AM
 
Quote from: Rickshaw
The only up-armouring which could actually save you from that is ERA.  It's lighter than passive steel armour.  However it means your vehicles no longer have close infantry protection.

Well you can... just not for long.

What about an early version of Chobham armor/armour? Reactive and ceramic armor were developed/built at about the same time. The ceramics would still be heavy, but not as heavy as a thick steel armor plate.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on November 18, 2012, 10:59:38 AM
To be realistic, I think you're going to encounter the same problems they did in real life with trying to put massive heavy tank turrets on medium tank hulls - it becomes too heavy for the suspension/engine and mobility suffers.  it also becomes top heavy and unstable. 

Okay, I see.  But the capacity to increase its turret ring to 80 inches seems to open up a few possibilities...... can I assume that's also what the M26/M46 is theoretically capable of?

(Oh...... for some reason I'm thinking East-meets-West again......)
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Rickshaw on November 18, 2012, 06:36:56 PM
Quote from: Rickshaw
The only up-armouring which could actually save you from that is ERA.  It's lighter than passive steel armour.  However it means your vehicles no longer have close infantry protection.

Well you can... just not for long.

Not after the first tile goes off anyway.

Quote
What about an early version of Chobham armor/armour? Reactive and ceramic armor were developed/built at about the same time. The ceramics would still be heavy, but not as heavy as a thick steel armor plate.

The US Army experimented with glass armour, utilising both blocks of glass and glassfibre mats on tanks in the 1950s when HEAT was the most common AT round.   Worked but was considered too fragile to be able to be used on a battlefield.

The Royal Navy experimented with asphalt armour in the 1940s but found it wasn't effective against AP ammunition.

Chobham's primarily designed to defeat kinetic energy rounds, with a secondary role against chemical energy ones.

I think you have to be clear as to what time period you're talking about.   I don't think Chobham was possible before aluminium armour and that doesn't appear until the 1960s when aluminium comes into widespread use in the civilian market and the automatic industry started looking at "crushability" as a safety feature in cars.  The combination, plus a bit of lateral thinking created Chobham.

If however, you were talking about the 1950s, an asphalt and glass fibre combination - the glass fibres held in an asphalt matrix might have had possibilities in defeating HEAT rounds, and it would have been durable.   Wouldn't work in hot climates though.  ;D

Ceramics have real possibilities but don't really start being developed for industrial uses until the 1970s.  The Soviets ingeniously used to pour ceramic marbles into a steel matrix for the T-72 turret, so you got a combination of both which made it highly resistant to HEAT and kinetic energy rounds.  I wonder, now if someone had thought of that with glass beads, in the 1950s, what effect do you think that would have had on tank design?
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Frank3k on November 19, 2012, 04:35:14 AM
Ceramics have real possibilities but don't really start being developed for industrial uses until the 1970s.  The Soviets ingeniously used to pour ceramic marbles into a steel matrix for the T-72 turret, so you got a combination of both which made it highly resistant to HEAT and kinetic energy rounds.  I wonder, now if someone had thought of that with glass beads, in the 1950s, what effect do you think that would have had on tank design?

From a link on the Wikipedia entry on Chobham armor: "In 1918 Maj Neville Monroe-Hopkins found that a thin layer of enamel improved the ballistic performance of a thin steel plate"

So this was a possibility even before aluminum - imagine thinner steel armor faced, bonded or sintered with a ceramic layer. I don't know how advanced large scale powder metallurgy was in the late 40s and 50s, though, so this may still be a 60s-70s technology. Dropping ceramic powder pellets into molten steel (like the T-64 armor) is probably similar in principle.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Rickshaw on November 21, 2012, 07:49:58 PM
I don't think that would work.  You'd see an increase in both calibre and velocity, earlier.  The ceramics wouldn't be hard enough to withstand the penetration of the kinetic energy rounds.  You might see chemical energy weapons later.
Title: ARL-44...... Upgunning them even more?
Post by: dy031101 on October 02, 2013, 06:54:15 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/NHYoNgy.jpg)

Other than giving French weapons engineers time to get up to speed, the one saving grace ARL-44 had is its aim to carry a gun capable of effective beating the Tiger II.

What if WWII lasted long enough for E-75 (88mm/L100 or 10.5cm gun) to show itself on the battlefield, or maybe the Soviet for some reason turned hostile, and the Allies found themselves now facing the IS-3?

Did ARL-44 have the potential for an even larger gun?
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on April 21, 2014, 05:02:14 AM
Reposting Cockerill's old chart of 90mm gun options (low-pressure Mk.3 and medium tank grade Mk.8 guns) as an upgrade:

(http://i.imgur.com/V4t5ytX.jpg)

Something I'm paying attention to this time: is the Mk.8 really an upgrade from SK-105's 105mm gun?  Or is the Mk.8 somehow more effective against armours than SK-105's gun?
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Rickshaw on April 21, 2014, 10:35:28 AM
Both rely on HEAT.  You might get a higher MV out of the Mk.8 but I doubt it's HEAT round would be spectacularly more effective than the Mk.3.  Of course with higher MV comes higher recoil.  You'll note that the Mk.8 is only fitted to larger vehicles.  You need a higher AUW and a larger turret to absorb the recoil.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on April 21, 2014, 12:05:15 PM
Oh well, I also found out just today that I can presumably go for the SK-105A3, which is armed with a LRF version of MBT-grade 105mm gun......

(http://i.imgur.com/OfIBaXB.jpg)

I wonder if the AMX-13 can be upgraded with that turret though.  Google suggests that the A3 turret is three-tonne heavier than stock......
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Volkodav on April 21, 2014, 03:03:58 PM
Indonesia is currently upgrading their AMX-13 fleet to 105mm

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6243&d=1397528060 (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6243&d=1397528060)

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/indonesian-army-10167-42/ (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/indonesian-army-10167-42/)
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on April 22, 2014, 12:57:07 AM
Which one, the French 105mm or those developed in the rest of Europe, is better-developed as an anti-armour weapon?

I've been under the impression that the French 105mm, at least with the exception of its latest MBT-grade iteration, is not NATO-compatible; but then again, most of NATO quickly moved on to the Rheinmetall 120mm......
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Rickshaw on April 22, 2014, 06:15:02 PM
The French 105mm was optimised to fire HEAT.  It was non-STANAG standard.  It utilised shallower grooves and a lower twist than the Vickers L7 and its derivative guns.   It also utilised a specific HEAT round called "Opus-G" which had a teflon slip ring, which stop (well actually significantly decreased) the round from spinning.  HEAT's effectiveness is decreased by spin, which is why most modern HEAT rounds are designed not to spin.   However, in order to ensure accuracy at longer ranges, the round must have some spin imparted by the rifling, even if it is significantly lower than other rounds.

Anyway, NATO guns were designed primarily to fire kinetic energy rounds (AP/APDS), with HEAT or for the British HESH as a secondary round.   So they retained their twist and deeper rifling.  The French reversed that priority.   While HEAT relies on chemical energy to penetrate, muzzle velocity becomes a secondary consideration as well.  However, to ensure a flatter trajectory and faster time of flight (and hence ease the fire control computations), standard NATO 105mm guns fired their HEAT at a higher MV than the French.

With the development of long-rod penetraters, all that went by the wayside and HEAT and HESH were basically relegated very much to second-place as far as anti-armour use goes.   Low pressure guns rely on them still, though.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on September 11, 2018, 04:45:38 AM
Found some scans on the FL-12 oscillating turret HERE (https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/314078-amx-13105-turret-fl12/&page=2).

And with at least a gun upgrade to CN105-G1 standard, APFSDS would be available for use as well ( la the SK-105; I think the SK-105's turret is designated FL-15; correct me if I'm wrong).

Does anyone know the total length of an APFSDS ready round for the CN105G1?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: Rickshaw on September 13, 2018, 12:18:53 PM
105x527R cartridges for the rounds used in the AMX-10RC.

105 x 528R, 120 mm rim diameter for CN 105 G1/CN-105-57 gun.

105 x 607-617R, 147 mm rim diameter for the CN 105 F1

(http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/01/1452358746-obus-de-105-pour-amx30.jpg)



Title: Re: Upgunned Tanks
Post by: dy031101 on November 05, 2018, 12:07:09 PM
MECAR KEnerga 90/46.  The Cockerill Mk.8 is a licenced-built version of it.

Both companies have their own turrets designed for the gun; Cockerill offers the autoloader-equipped LCTS-90, whereas MECAR's product seems very similar to the old Cadillac Gage turret and can be more-comfortably fitted to lighter vehicles.