Doesn't sound all that threatening: its ammo load-out will be reduced, inless the vehicle is made larger to accomodate the larger rounds in considerable numbers. it seems that it still will not be able to match its biggest threat: an adversary's attack helicopters with heavyweight ATGMs (Hellfire types), and strike aircraft with heavy guided weapons (Mavericks, LGBs, Brimstones, etc). An MBTs enemies are not limited to solely other MBTs. Question is, is its fire control system sufficient enough to match the performance the gun may offer, and is its armor capable of withstanding any adversaries' 105-120mm APFSDS shots fired at it, or top-attack (fire and forget) ATGMs? Just spouting a bigger gun will not dominate the battlefield for you. Besides, the US and several european nations have already done their research on guns up through this caliber, but realized that, with the end of the Cold War and advances in PGMs, there is little need to fit and field guns of this magnitude on current MBTs.

About the only reason to have a significantly larger gun in a current- generation MBT would be to take on the best armor, from the front, in other MBTs. Late model Abrams and Challengers. But, gun technology seems to be at the point of diminishing returns as far as tanks are concerned. A gun larger than 120mm is just too large. It requires too large a chassis and too much ammo stowage space. If a larger weapon is needed, specifically for antitank, it's probably better to go with missiles. If the goal is artillery support, then you don't need a tank, at all, and can use a lighter and cheaper self-propelled gun. If you try to pack a much larger gun into an MBT design, you'll wind up with a tank so heavy that it's highly restricted in it's movements and prone to break-downs, and has so small an ammunition supply that this becomes a major limitation. Or, a tank so lighly armored that it's too vulnerable to too wide a variety of weapons to be useful. It's not as if you absolutely need an MBT to kill an MBT. You can do so, effectively, with weapons other than the main gun of an MBT. If you want an MBT, you want more than sheer firepower. You need protection and, even more, mobility. Such a large gun, especially in context of engineering which seems a bit behind western standards, seems to me to be a dead end.

CCTV 7(Chinese Central Television 7) report “The Chinese claim the gun has 3 times the KE of a 120mm American tank gun. The gun will be used not only as anti-tank but also for demolishing enemy infrastructure.” 140mm is the limit for tank guns. The 140mm type-98 has some problems in handling the recoil force. The weapon on top of the turret is not a coaxial but a 40mm grenade launcher. Believe the chassis is of the same size as other Chinese modern MBT no scaling up has been done. Wonder how much ammo it can hold? NOTE: if u get an error in clicking the URL (of the original message) try copy/pasting the URL in the browser.

You guys do realise that the 140mm gun has a diameter somewhat around 3/4 of an inch bigger than the 120mm, right? Ammunition stowage would, at the most, be reduced by just a few rounds. Compare, say, the M1 against the M1A1. The 140mm that was trialled by the US, UK and Germany did indeed totally outperform the 120 in every measurable test. It was deemed that the 140 was at the upper limit of tank guns, not because of ammunition stowage, but because it was the limit at which human loaders could handle. The reason the 140 was not procured was because their was no identifiable threat that could not be defeated by the 120mm. Obviously, the Chinese see an identifiable threat, possibly in the shape of Leo2, M1 and Challenger 2's? I don't think that anyone would argue too much that the frontal armour on modern western tanks can overmatch 120/125 AP ammunitions. I also don't think that anyone would argue that the overmatch may NOT be there for the 140mm.

A 140mm gun ensures a sure kill over a tank like the Abrams over the frontal armor, not sure a 120mm cannon can penetrate an Abrams from the front (never happened to be proved). Even the Russians have selected a 135mm cannon for their future MBT’s.

"CCTV 7(Chinese Central Television 7) report “The Chinese claim the gun has 3 times the KE of a 120mm American tank gun. The gun will be used not only as anti-tank but also for demolishing enemy infrastructure.”" Actually a 140 mm gun (depending of course on the round type) tends to have a muzzle energy of approximately 20-23 MJ or about twice that of current M1 rounds (3 times that of the 105 mm rounds, or probably early variant 120mm guns, I believe so in that sense the article is correct, just that they got the wrong round type). As for the weight of the shell, I believe it was mentioned somewhere they are in the range of 40-45kg? Also in addition to the weight (which most likely will have to be handled by autoloader), there is the capacity scenario. Current M1 loads are about 40 rounds. Depending on the length of the sabot/round we could easily see an increase of volume occupied per round by 25-30%.

In my opinion, either this Chinese 140mm tank gun is propoganda alone and does not exist, or it is a research project and will never enter service. The Type 98 MBT has a 125mm gun.

In fact, it's based on Rheinmetall technology and design, though don't ask me how they got their hands on that tech (spying and reverse-engineering is my bet). The T-96 (different tank, earlier design) is the one with Russian 125mm. Ammo stowage: I think if an MBT can hold at least 30 rounds of main gun ammo, that ought to be enough. The current M-1A2 holds 40 rounds of 120mm, so still a bit of room for a larger gun there. Also, the Chinese are working on a post-Russian design of MBT in the 70-ton class, so the 140mm will be just the ticket to arm that tank. (The photo is prolly of a test-bed vehicle). As for production, don't bet on it. Ultra-low rate production is their philosophy. They try to master the design phase and learn how the manufacturing works in small lots. They starve their military for funds in peacetime, so mass production is out. But they have the designs ready so if a war comes, they mobilize their industry and crank 'em out.

T72 with 125mm gun. http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/ta/t72-3.jpg http://www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/T72B_Minsk_Parade_May_2005_1.jpg German 120mm on a Leo2 http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/images/leopard2tank-14.jpg On an Abrams http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/images/abram19.jpg Chinese T98 http://flash.jschina.com.cn/top81/up/20055101919040.jpg Yup, it's based on a Russian 125mm. China does have a 120mm smooth-bore tank gun, but as far as I know they only have it mounted on anti-tank vehicles.

Well War the interesting part is the profile of the T-98 and the mass/weight. I believe they limited it to 50 tons and its turret volume appears to be much smaller than an M1 tank design, so that begs the question...just how much ammo is actually involved here? A good chunk of the M1's armor protection scheme is given over to protect both crew and ammo and to keep them separate. My offhand guess is that depending on the bulkiness of the autoloader system we're seeing around 20-25 rounds for this tank.