Talk:Rheinmetall Rh-120/Archive 1

US Abrams
Is there any project for equipping M1 Abrams with L-55? I don't think so. The U.S. Army is searching for a new lighter, faster, more lethal. and more crow survival supporting to be it's main fighting vehicle - No, i donot mean "IFV"; I mean a vehicle to replace MBT's and IFV's-. That one is supposed to be equiped with a new Main Armament system that includes 30mm, and 25 mm barrels and amunitions and firing them like a chain gun. 12:11MD 16 February 2008 One last pharaoh (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been talks of spiraling the XM36 tank gun for a future modernization of the M1 Abrams. The XM36 is a lightweight 120mm tank gun, based on the XM291 which was originally supposed to be mounted on the M1 Abrams in the early 1990s (the supposed Block III which never materialized). JonCatalán(Talk) 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture is incorrect
The first picture on the article page is captioned saying the M-1 firing the Rheinmetall L-44.

The picture appears to be an M-1 firing the M68 105mm gun, the American version of the British L7. The gun and bore evacuator look too thin to be the M256 120 mm and their is no bustle rack on the back of the turret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.239.250 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, it's not firing its gun, it's firing the hoffmann mounted on top of the gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.79.96 (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

list of Users
Denniss seams to be having a problem with seeing the word "Egypt" in this article. at the beginning the unacceptable excuse was that the list is not for licensed production, ignoring the fact that all countries other than Germany and USA -or even Germany only- are license-producing the Gun. after failing to reach an end with him about that, the L-44 list was divided so that it separates the two groups of producers; But amazingly he've simply undid with no discussion -and excuses-. So Denniss would you please discuss changing that before doing it again ?!

Thanks in advance 12:00MD, 16 February 2008 One last pharaoh (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not ?
JonCatalán, you have done a great job improving the quality of this article, i did not see your edits as vandalism so i did not discuss, or revert them; however, when i started to do my part you simply reverted it! i suppose that you know very well that wikipedia is based in the cooperative constructive work of different editors, meaning that any one can improve the article, or at least edit the article with the intention to improve it, without having to discuss his edits first. If you have a feedback about my edits other than that they were not prediscussed, please let me, and other editors know so that we take the article another step forward towards being a featured article. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was organized in the way I wrote it. You aren't improving the article by changing the organization.  I reinstated some of the edits you made, but otherwise I don't agree with the way you are organizing it (as far as I know, I wrote the information and so the organization makes more sense in the method I wrote it).  I have written nine featured articles, and I know that my organization was not an impediment to getting the article featured. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please, before making certain edits, look up Wikipedia's Manual of Style. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all i want to make it clear that i said that you have done a great job improving the quality of this article, so i am not saying that your edits are impediments in the way of getting the article featured; what am i saying is that we should cooperate instead of following a single user's "organisation/way".
 * And, with my respect, and admiration to your editing activity, the nine articles do not include a single artillery, or tank gun article. in this case, i would rather go with following a featured tank gun article organization, and as there are not any as far as i know, i think that we all are doing some thing for the first time here.
 * Finally, i understand that maybe i do not have as much experience as yours in getting the articles featured, so i am welcoming any note you have on the reorganisation i made to the article. State to me what is wrong with my organisation, and make it clearer than just my and your organisation, please.
 * As i said, i respect your edits, i know you have more experience, and i am welcoming any notes. One last pharaoh (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several problems. You are splitting up paragraphs, adding in unreferenced information, and changing the order in which the text was written in originally.  You are hurting the context of what was being written. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article stays as is, it might be able to pass a FAC (I plan to nominate it as soon as people stop changing the layout). The operators section is ugly, and it looked and felt better how it was before, but I don't want to start an edit war.  Let's just keep it the way it is right now.  JonCatalán(Talk) 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good choice. The section below solves the "unreferenced edits" misunderstanding, i think. I believe that what have i done was changing the design so that instead of the operators are mentioned in the same sub article, where the gun features are mentioned, they have a separate sub article, added flags to the operators tables, and created the infobox, using information cited here in this article, and using only two figures (the muzzle velocity numbers) from another article where they are cited there.
 * Any way, you have improved some thing i have already created; some thing that did not exist until i created it, and added more value to the article, and even a greater value after being improved, so let's suppose that my edits have a positive effect on this article.One last pharaoh (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
Either you need to reference that information, or it needs to be taken off. I'm not a fan of including muzzle velocity, because muzzle velocity is largely dependent on the round and not the gun (the muzzle velocity of a high explosive round will be radically less than that of a kinetic energy penetrator). Furthermore, I wouldn't add a lot of that ammunition added to the infobox, given that a lot of it is experimental or will never be developed (X-ROD, for example). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the X-ROD to the projectile where work is still going on. the info box has only three types of ammunition categorization, regular rounds (without motor/non missiles), the LAHAT, and the new american round still in development. if it's correct to remove the american round because it is not in service yet, i do not have a problem with it.
 * All of the information in the infobox came directly from the article it self where it is sourced, or other articles where it is sourced there too. I wanted to make the range between the least, for the M829A1, and the highest for the M829A3 according to as fare as i know, or maybe the DM53. One note is that the ammunition section does not link to a single ammunition article f the ones concerned, some thing i suffered form when i wanted to go to these article -a single click on a word is way easier-. One last pharaoh (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, i linked the "you" in your previous post to my user page as i think i was the one meant; please use names, when directing your post to a specific user starting a new talkpage topic, it looks better that way. One last pharaoh (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the information is sourced in another article, then it has to be referenced in this article. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be cross-referenced (a surefire way of failing a FAC).  If it's already sourced in this article, then that's fine (I normally reference it anyways by naming the reference and using it twice). JonCatalán(Talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to replace the MRM-KE round, as that round is supposedly designed for the XM36/360 (I, unfortunately, do not have a copy of the technology magazine that I had when I was at Ft. Sill, but the round is being designed for the XM36). JonCatalán(Talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this is where cooperative work is a bless; since we now are sure that the figures are sourced, we can source them in the infobox as well.
 * It is stated in the round's article that it was designed to be fired from the Rhinmetall 120mm gun, the article also states that the launch platform is the M1 tank, and mentions that an M1 has successfully hit a moving T-72 at the range of 8,600 meters using the MRM-CE, the chemical energy variant.
 * By the way, i have no idea what the XM36 is. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound cocky, but then I believe that the article is incorrect. The XM36 is based on the XM291, as is the future lightweight 120mm gun designed for the FCS (which may be spiraled down to the M1 Abrams). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But again, I rather keep it to existing rounds, rather than rounds in development (where information are just estimated figures, anyways). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to pop in here I think John has the right view here; better to keep things in development out of an article until they're developed. Makes things easier to reference. And citing other wiki articles is usually a no-no anyway unless they're well cited. Skinny87 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish ammunition
Poland also currently produces 120 mm rounds for the Rheinmental gun. Mieciu K (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add that information in. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 03:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ammunition list
I suggest making a list of munitions in a table, or maybe several tables regarding different types of ammunition that can be used. I am too busy to do it my self, sorry. One last pharaoh (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to, because there are dozens of types of ammunition. The section on ammunition is really an overview, because it would be impossible to go over every single piece of ammunition (and there is a lack of reliable sources for every piece of ammunition). JonCatalán(Talk) 15:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC
 * Yeah. an article should be made about them. i am not very experienced in wiki-language, and so, so what about appending a to-do list in this page so that all the efforts become going in the same direction? One last pharaoh (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I could red-link a few of the major types of ammunition that this article goes over, and people can start from there (clicking on red links and expanding). JonCatalán(Talk) 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. FA Reviewers frown on redlinks. Skinny87 (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if they're in the lead. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

incorrect
Israel does not license produce the 120mm gun. While the gun seems to have served as the basis for the Merkava's gun, it was developed and tested in Israel. http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-2-06/merkava-brief.htm. Likewise South Korea does not license produce the gun. For the L44 the license is for the US M256. While the M256 is a license built gun itself the license for South Korea comes form the US not Germany. The new South Korean Tank likewise uses a native L55, not a license built version of the new German gun. This is why for example the South Joreasn were able to ink a deal with Turkey for the Altay MBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zraver (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give me a few hours, and I will come and address this. Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 00:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some responses; I clarified the sentence about the Israeli 120mm gun, but the text originally did say that the gun is manufactured in Israel. All the facts are sourced to reliable sources, including the fact that the barrel retains the inner geometry of that of the L/44.  But I clarified that the gun was designed in Israel.  I also clarified that the South Koreans procured their gun off the Americans in the footnote.  I'm not sure how using Rheinmetall's gun would disallow the South Koreans from partaking in the development of the Altay (given that Turkey fields the Leopard 2A4); but I will take it off the article. JonCatalán(Talk) 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

incorrect development
The date 1964 is wrong. Rheinmetall writes: ''As early as 1965, under the direction of future-Rheinmetall CEO Dr-Ing. Raimund Germershausen, work began on developing a 120 mm smoothbore tank gun.'' Source: Corporate History, News from the Past, The main armament specialist for Leopard 2 --88.72.180.27 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, edit made. I left the original ref, with a note that Janes' claims that development began in 1964. JonCatalán(Talk) 04:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorized as Artillery?
Why is this gun (as well as the British and Israeli 120mm tank guns) categorized as 120mm artillery? Tank guns are most certainly not artillery pieces under the modern definition of the term (read the Artillery article for yourself) and these are very modern weapons.--SEWalk (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

gun/rifle
Projectile weapons with rifling are rifles by definition. A gun has no rifling. Third para has the expression "rifled gun." This is a contradiction by definition and should read "rifle".MichaelWattam (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You could make this change yourself. Be WP:Bold! Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * However, to the average reader the word rifle refers to the average soldier's weapon and gun covers all sorts of "shooty" weapons, smoothbore or otherwise. A change in sentence structure rather than strict terminology might be a better idea. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange... our own article on rifles even uses the term "rifled gun". Can it be that we're using wrong terminology in these articles? The rifle article also defines a rifle as a gun intended to be fired from the shoulder... which is wrong if MichaelWattam is correct. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pointers
Thumbs up for getting such a detail-conscious article promoted and featured. I've found two issues that I think could use tweakage:


 * Conversion to Standard of calibers seems to me to do more harm than good. Constantly interrupting a text with parentheses makes it more difficult to read, especially since it's already quite heavy on other figures, and most conversions are repeated once every paragraph. These are standardized ammunition sizes rather than measurements of range or length that is actually interesting to know more specifically. In statements like "The L/55 is 1.3 meters (1.4 yd) longer" the conversion seems relevant, but not "the other seven were equipped with the larger 120-millimeter (4.7 in) gun". In an article discussing the importance of the calibers themselves, it might be relevant, but not when discussing a specific type of gun.
 * The sentence "The gun had made a huge turn in technological history." seems very non-specific to me, even when read in context. What exactly is the "huge turn" in this case and why is the sentence placed directly after the mention of the Japanese and Korean MBTs?

Peter Isotalo 09:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Once a value has been converted once it ought not need converting again. The sentence you've quoted seems to make little sense gramatically perhaps someone could check the quoted source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed 15 conversions of 120 mm, though I'm skeptical if standardized calibers of that type should be converted even once.
 * I agree that the sentence is grammatically correct, but it still reads rather awkward and looks like a forgotten afterthought. The phrasing "huge turn" isn't ideal either. Most importantly, though, it doesn't say explicitly what that huge turn in technological history was. It's a pretty broad statement when you think of it.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect about the M1 Abrams using this gun. The M1 Abrams used a 105mm, it wasn't until the M1A1 (developed shortly thereafter) that the Abrams was fitted with the 120mm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illwrath (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Propellant loading ?
M103 heavy tank includes the statement : "The M1 tank's 120mm main gun is a smooth bore firing a semi-caseless round, ejecting only a back cap of the original loaded round; the bulk of the M1's 120mm shell casing is consumed during firing." Is that correct ? There's currently nothing in this article about the nature of the cartridge, an important part of the ammo story. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Differences between M256 and M256A1?
I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the differences are between the American-built versions of this weapon, specifically the M256 and the M256A1 variant? Are there any visual differences at all? Orca1 9904 (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Non APFSDS round stabilization
The section on Ammunition implies that some nations use AFDS round, while the US chose to develop a fin-stabilized APFSDS round instead. All of these guns are smoothbore; how does one use an APDS round WITHOUT fin stabilization? Without rifling, the round would just tumble. I suspect that both are actually APFSDS rounds, and someone just assumed that the US was the only one that had them, for some reason. I mean, technically, an APFSDS round IS an APDS round, just with an additional feature, thus one could call a fin stabilized round a form of APDS round. Perhaps the US was the first to give fin-stabilized ammunition a separate designation, and thus the confusion? Which brings me to my original question...what about the demolition rounds, etc? Presumably the gun is capable of firing full-caliber high-explosive rounds, etc, since a sub-caliber penetrator would be at a disadvantage here. One wants the maximum capacity for such rounds; muzzle velocity is secondary, thin diameter for penetration irrelevant. Are these fin stabilized as well, and how does that work? Are the rounds like oversized darts, or what (full bore diameter warhead section, finned tail behind)? And if somehow they have developed a NON-fin stabilized APDS or HE round that can be fired with even marginal accuracy from an unrifled barrel, it'd be nice if it explained that as well. Because I can't imagine how that would work, barring a rocket-like charge and vectored nozzles in the base of the round to give a spin effect, something like a spin-stabilzed rocket, only limited to providing spin instead of propelling the round as well..45Colt 02:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, yes. I should have just done this first. Google. Yes, the gun fires fin-stabilized HE rounds, as can be seen on this page: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html All ammunition is fin stabilized, for obvious reasons. Thus, I reiterate my statement that it is highly unlikely that Europeans were stupid enough to try to use discarding sabot rounds out of a smoothbore gun without fin-stabilization, and that the US was the first to develop an APFSDS round for the Rheinmetall gun after they adopted it, which is exactly what the text implies at the moment. The Europeans developed APFSDS rounds for the gun. The US chose to develop their OWN APFSDS round rather than adopting the existing one already in service. The gun was never meant to use APDS rounds, unless one wants to use my technical argument that ADFSDS rounds ARE a form of APDS round..45Colt 02:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This clerical error was introduced on May 1 2014. Sabot round had always been fin stabilized, see --Denniss (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rheinmetall 120 mm gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925053910/http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=3210 to http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=3210

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rheinmetall 120 mm gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.rheinmetall-ag.com/index.php?fid=1657&lang=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217100209/http://www.bumar.com/files/document/249.pdf to http://www.bumar.com/files/document/249.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)