New Type98/99 MBT thread

[totenchan]

A lot of people don't realize that barrel improvements is minimal compared to projectile improvements. The M829 series, is in the end, extremely length constrained at 985mm total length including propellant and case. A longer case and a longer round (1100mm+ total) simply is more effective. Not to mention that the L44 gun is in fact an outdated platform which is about 20% shorter than the 105mm L60.

I mean exactly long can it possible be while still fitting inside the turret of the new tank? The turret itself is not really exceptionally long.

 

[Tanker_MG]

I mean all we know is that it's a 105mm gun, nothing about the case capacity, barrel length, metallurgy, so constraining ourselves to the idea that a 105mm must be weaker sounds like 5.56 must be worse than 7.62x39

True that all we know is that it is just a 105mm main gun, and you are right about not knowing the facts, but it is physics. A 5.56 or 5.8mm comparison to 7.62x39 is not the same physics and requirements.
Which the requirements that drone this vehicle to have a 105mm is not known. It could be just that the PLA determine the threat does not warrant a 125mm or 120mm or larger gun to accomplish the mission.
I am stating to compare the 120mm M829A4 to a 105mm is not the same. There is a reason why Army and arms manufactures went to larger gun tube diameter sizes to allow performances to achieve the effects and accomplish the mission parameters. Physics is physics.

Totenchen just posted a great answer too. Great discussion though and I appreciate it.

 

[qwerty3173]

I mean exactly long can it possible be while still fitting inside the turret of the new tank? The turret itself is not really exceptionally long.

Because the ammunition is not stored in the turret. Which would be a ridiculous idea in the first place considering the turret is not protected against high threat firepower.
The decision to use the 105mm is mostly ammunition restrained. Powerful as new 130mm guns are, the ammunition takes too much space to be manageable. KF51 shows this pretty clearly with a truly ridiculous sized magazine that can still only hold 20 rounds.

 

[totenchan]

Because the ammunition is not stored in the turret. Which would be a ridiculous idea in the first place considering the turret is not protected against high threat firepower.
The decision to use the 105mm is mostly ammunition restrained. Powerful as new 130mm guns are, the ammunition takes too much space to be manageable. KF51 shows this pretty clearly with a truly ridiculous sized magazine that can still only hold 20 rounds.

Even with a carousel autoloader, the ammunition length can be constrained by the length of the turret. What do you mean by "high threat firepower" anyways?

 

[plawolf]

The ammunition can be longer if it’s stored in the hull and fed up into the gun virtually. The autoloader itself could also be designed such that instead of using a ram from behind to load the shell into the breach, the pistons are fixed either side of the gun, with only a small end cap needed behind the shell to load it. So you take up more horizontal space in the turret to allow for longer shells to be loaded. Not a great trade-off in a manned turret, but perfectly acceptable in an unmanned turret.

Also, this whole fixation on sabots is a bit weird when gun fired 105mm ATGMs have been in operational deployment for decades. A little modernisation to add top attack capabilities and you just straight up laugh at enemy frontal armour thickness.

 

[Torquemada]

The ammunition can be longer if it’s stored in the hull and fed up into the gun virtually. The autoloader itself could also be designed such that instead of using a ram from behind to load the shell into the breach, the pistons are fixed either side of the gun, with only a small end cap needed behind the shell to load it. So you take up more horizontal space in the turret to allow for longer shells to be loaded. Not a great trade-off in a manned turret, but perfectly acceptable in an unmanned turret.

Also, this whole fixation on sabots is a bit weird when gun fired 105mm ATGMs have been in operational deployment for decades. A little modernisation to add top attack capabilities and you just straight up laugh at enemy frontal armour thickness.

I think you mean a system like the French Lecrec battle tank?