why do tanks have smooth bore guns

#1) It's cheaper, although this might not really matter that much, since a tank costs a helluva lot of moneyP
#2) Modern shells are thinner and dart shaped, therefore rifling will not affect it that greatly, and can make them very inaccurate. Longer rounds require more rifling sections to stabilize them, and tank shells have a relatively high L/W ratio (Length/Width)P #3) Modern shells have fins on them, and are propelled using KEP technology (Kinetic Energy Penetrator). This makes rifling unnecessary. P #4) Smoothbore barrels can deliver greater stopping power than rifled barrels, simply due to the fact that there is nothing holding the bullet back during firing. However, with smoothbore cannons, bullets tend to be inaccurate at medium to long ranges (Think of a shotgun). Therefore, the task of stabilizing the round is left to the devices built on the round itself.


Examples would be either fins or thrusters. P Oh, and by the way, the M1 Abrams DID originally have a 105mm M68 rifled cannon, which was very effective at the time. It was a good AT (Anti-Tank) and AP (Anti-Personnel) gun. The 105mm M68 rifled gun has similar accuracy as the newer M256 (120mm) that replaced it, however, it lost too much kinetic energy (stopping power, power, etc. ) past 3000 meters, and was replaced with the 120mm M256 smoothbore cannon. This weapon served as the default loadout on the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks. The smoothbore cannon allowed newer technologies such as the M1028 AP Canister (Anti-Personnel. Fires over 1000 metal balls out of the barrel for a shotgun like effect) and the XM1111 Midrange-Munition Kinetic Energy rounds (MRM-KE, effective upto 7. 5 miles, propelled using the barrel for the Internal ballistic, Transition ballistic, and first External ballistic sequences of flight, and thrusters for the later stages of External ballistics and Terminal ballistic sequences of flight).


Both of these new technologies would have not been effective in the M1A1. The rifled barrel would channel all 1000 metal balls into a more concentrated blast, therefore eliminating the shotgun effect, and would also decrease the operational range of the XM1111 significantly due to it's rifling. OK, I know I don't usually do these kinds of Topics, least not very often, but I've taken an intrigue into Smoothbore Guns and there's not much of a difference between them, except the type of ammo, accuracy and Muzzle Velocity and I kind of did think about what is the actual problem with having them in game?


The real issue I see using common sense is Balancing, especially on the map sizes we currently have in WoT. There not known to be that big, though in time and developement we can probably see bigger maps. The next problem is the type of Ammunition, since all smoothbore tank guns fire APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding-Sabot) Rounds. Apart from them 2 problems there is not really much of a problem with adding them ingame, which would be very hard to do with the current map sizes as they would have to be much bigger than they are now. So what are your views on Smoothbore guns? Do you think they should be added once we get bigger maps or not? Pichu_Trainer P. S. This seemed like the correct place to put it since it is still about General Game Discussion

  • Views: 25

why does my fish tank water go cloudy
why does my fish tank water get cloudy so fast
why does a gun recoil when it is fired
why does a fish tank get cloudy
why do you put eggshells in coffee
why do they use depleted uranium in bullets
why do they use depleted uranium in bullets