kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) (05/05/91)
From: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) In a recent posting to this list, the armament of the M1A1 tank was listed as as the main gun, and a couple of machine guns. The "tubey" things on the outside of the tank seem to be smoke grenade launchers, rather than mortars or missile launcher tubes as I had originally thought. Pictures of the M1 in Canadian Defence Quarterly (CDQ) show two machine guns on top of the tank. These are presumably operated by someone who, with laudable courage, has disdained the protection afforded by the tank armour, and exposed a portion of his body to the unfriendly attention of his adversary. I had understood the modern tank to be a highly sophisticated weapons system employing state of the art electronic fire-control, and rapid response to incoming threats. I have been told that firing a TOW against a modern tank is a task requiring selfless dedication to duty and unflappable resolve, as the tank is capable of locating the threat in seconds, and responding with "awesome" amounts of suppressive anti-personel fire. After other tanks, infantry with anti-tank TOW missiles, and tank-hunting helicopters must be the highest priority threat the tank must deal with. Somehow, a few of our lads in a tank sporting 50 tons of DU armour, a 120 mm main gun, and two externally mounted machine guns don't fit the high-tech picture I had formed in my mind. My Questions: 1. Do modern tanks (and specifically the M1) have any surface-to-air capability? Does the main gun have an anti-helicopter capability? or is one of the crew supposed to stick his nose out of the turret and use the machine gun in a fire-fight with a helicopter gun-ship? Or is the tank dedicated to surface warfare, relying on other weapons systems for air-defense? 2. Do they have any anti-missile systems? Or do they just get a warning that there's an "incoming" and it's up the the human crew to turn the tank around and respond to the TOW operator? 3. Why are the machine guns externally mounted, and manually operated? WW1 footage shows tanks with machine gun muzzles protruding from the armour, so that the operator could operate them from the relative safety of the interior of the tank. I would have expected that by the nineties, that the top of the line US tank would feature computer-controlled, electrically driven gatling guns capable of putting thousands of rounds per minute into low-flying air craft, incomming missiles, or any other threat coming to the attention of the operator who would be _inside_ the tank. Nobody is expected to poke their nose out of the turret and operate a machine gun in a high-intensity battlefield on one of the "killing zones" of central Germany are they? -- say it ain't so! [Ah, the joys and perks of being a tank commander. :-) --CDR] Thanks in advance, Kevin Broekhoven Computing Centre applications programmer Queens University K7L-3N6 (Canada) Bitnet, NetNorth: BROEKHVN@QUCDN IP: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (130.15.48.9) X.400: Kevin.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA Bell: (613) 545-2235 fax: 545-6798
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (05/08/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) >From: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) 1. Surface-to-air/anti-helicoptor capability. Not much capability. The commander's .50 is supposed to be used for low-slow flying enemy aircraft. In 1982, when the 3rd Inf Div was receiving their first M1s - I argued with the Tank Gunnery Table officials that 1) the .50 was not capable of defeating the Soviet HIND-D and that 2) the only weapon the tank 'could' use was its main gun. However, they didn't listen - and Tank Gunnery Table VII still required the tank crew to engage the mock-up HIND target with the .50. The M1A1 Commander's weapons is the M2HB .50 cal MG with 1,000 rounds. Powered 360degree traverse; manual elevation controls; maximum elevation/ depression +65degrees/ -10 degrees. However, the tank is designed to fight other tanks - leaving any helicoptor threats to other air-defense systems - Vulcan, Chapparell, Avenger, Stinger. The tank couldn't mount a mini-gun then have room for all the ammunition - it's already crowded inside - and has to carry 40 rounds for the main gun. > 3. Why are the machine guns externally mounted, and manually operated? The machine guns are for engagement of other stuff. Mainly, the 7.62 coax and the 7.62 loader's gun are for use against dismounted troops - "troops in the open". The .50 can engage 'soft skin' or 'thin-armor' vehicles. Plus - they give something for the commander to hang on to when riding, standing up in the open hatch - and a place to put your map - when you're lost. My .02 Mike Schmitt
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/08/91)
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) writes: >1. Do modern tanks (and specifically the M1) have any surface-to-air >capability? Does the main gun have an anti-helicopter capability? No, modern tanks (at least not any US or Soviet ones) do NOT have any anti-air capability. While they can use their main gun and/or machine gun against a helocopter, this has NEVER been done in combat (e.g. against an armored attack helocopter). And how effective these weapons would be is doubtfull. >2. Do they have any anti-missile systems? Or do they just get a >warning that there's an "incoming" Main Battle Tanks, an also all other ground vehicles I can think of (barring SAM launchers) have NO anti-missile systems. They also do NOT get a "warning that there's an 'incoming'" unless they SEE the missile in flight. The good news is that most of these missiles are wire-guided: That is, the firer must guide the missile, by hand, untill it hits the tank. If he is killed, or even shot at, the missile will miss. The bad news is that most missiles have a longer range than the tank's guns... >3. Why are the machine guns externally mounted, and manually operated? The problem with a machine gun protruding out of the tank is armor: To mount a gun like that would require a opening in the hull. This is, at \ least, a weak point in the tank's armor. At worst, it would allow in shrapnel from near misses, and thereby kill the crew. There is very little use for the commander's machine gun. (Poor anti-air capability against low flying aircraft is all I can think of, and it wouldn't be at all effective for that.) The machine gun is on there since it costs almost nothing (compaired to the tank itself) and it couldn't hurt. Frank Crary UC Berkeley
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (05/08/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >Pictures of the M1 in Canadian Defence Quarterly (CDQ) show two machine >guns on top of the tank. These are presumably operated by someone who, >with laudable courage, has disdained the protection afforded by the >tank armour, and exposed a portion of his body to the unfriendly >attention of his adversary. The Commander's .50 cal M2HB heavy machine gun can be aimed and fired from inside the turret--the TC does not have to expose himself. The Loader's MG does not have this capability. There is also another MG mounted coaxial to the main armament, controlled by the gunner. Tanks have to rely on other systems for air defense simply because there isn't room on the vehicle for both AA and AT systems. The MBT's job is destroying the armored vehicles of the enemy, no more no less. We have dedicated air defense vehicles, like the M113/M61 Vulcan and the LAV(AD)-25. Putting anti-air systems on the tank would also violate the most important military doctrine: keep it simple, stupid. The crew can only train for one mission--the M1's being anti armor--if you expect them to be good at it on the modern battlefield. Specifically, the LAV(AD)-25 will be fully deployed with all USMC Light Air Defense and Light Armored Infantry Battalions by 1993 or 1994. It uses a 25mm rotary gun, Stinger Missiles, and Hydra 70 rockets. It is unlikely that the main gun would have any utility against attacking aircraft. It can only be elevated to about 20 degrees from horizontal. Allan I would expect that rotary guns aren't mounted on MBT's simply because the ammunition would take up much too much room. M1A1's only carry *40* rounds for the 120mm. -- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213 The opinions in this post/mail are only those of the author, nobody else.
phipps@solitary.Stanford.EDU (Geoff Phipps) (05/10/91)
From: phipps@solitary.Stanford.EDU (Geoff Phipps) >fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >No, modern tanks (at least not any US or Soviet ones) do NOT have >any anti-air capability. While they can use their main gun and/or >machine gun against a helocopter, this has NEVER been done in combat >(e.g. against an armored attack helocopter). And how effective these >weapons would be is doubtfull. In the book "The Heights of Courage", Avigador Kahalani claims to have shot down a Syrian helicopter with the main gun of a centurion tank. Kahalani was an armoured battalion commander in the Yom Kippur War (1973 Arab-Israeli). I don't have the book in front of me, but I think that quite a number of tanks took pot shots at the helicopter, and that it was not an armoured attack helicopter. It certainly was not standard practise, and Avi was quite surprised. It is an interesting book. -- Geoff Phipps phipps@cs.stanford.edu
BXR307@CSC.ANU.EDU.AU (05/10/91)
From: BXR307@CSC.ANU.EDU.AU > From: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) > I had understood the modern tank to be a highly sophisticated weapons > system employing state of the art electronic fire-control, and rapid > response to incoming threats. I have been told that firing a TOW > against a modern tank is a task requiring selfless dedication to duty > and unflappable resolve, as the tank is capable of locating the threat > in seconds, and responding with "awesome" amounts of suppressive > anti-personel fire. After other tanks, infantry with anti-tank TOW > missiles, and tank-hunting helicopters must be the highest priority > threat the tank must deal with. This presumes that in the smoke and confusion of battle that the tank actually notices the missile being launched at it. If it does, I would rather suspect that while it might attempt to undertake some counter action, like firing its maingun (usually with a beehive/splintrix round) at the launcher in order to spoil the firer's aim, in actual fact what would be happening would be the commander ordering the driver to take some form of evasive action (such as swerving, stopping, finding a funkhole, etc). That would make it much harder for the gunner to be able to adequately respond or even aim his weapon until after the vehicle has become a little steadier (yes I know about stabilisation systems, I just question their real value when you have a 60 ton tank slewing around the countryside under you ;-) The main disadvantage of most missile launchers is that because of the time to the target that the missile itself takes as its relatively slow flying, the launcher cannot move. Some launchers have overcome this problem by providing a facility for the actual launcher to either be disconnected from the person guiding it (the most extreme form of this is of course the Copperhead) and the launcher to be hidden, or for the launching vehicle to assume a completely hull down position and use some form of extending arm for the either the launcher or the guidance system. This is one reason why guns are still favoured by most countries over missiles for the primary armament of tanks. Once you shoot, you can scoot. A APFSDS round is essentially a very high velocity, fire and forget missile. > 1. Do modern tanks (and specifically the M1) have any surface-to-air > capability? Does the main gun have an anti-helicopter capability? > or is one of the crew supposed to stick his nose out of the turret > and use the machine gun in a fire-fight with a helicopter gun-ship? > Or is the tank dedicated to surface warfare, relying on other > weapons systems for air-defense? The 120mm gun has had a specific anti-helicopter round developed for it. It's basically a modified splintrex round with a proximity fuze attached which is fired at a hovering helicopter and is designed to destroy it before it can launch its missiles. However as far as I know this version, plus its proposed followon development, a laser guided version, have not been adopted by any users of the 120mm gun. Normally however the idea is for the tank to rely on other specialist air defence assets to protect it. However a couple of years ago at one of the British Army Expositions Royal Ordnance was offering to develop a radar controlled twin machine gun mount which could be bolted onto the back of a tank turret for defence against aircraft and missiles. > 2. Do they have any anti-missile systems? Or do they just get a > warning that there's an "incoming" and it's up the the human > crew to turn the tank around and respond to the TOW operator? The system mentioned above is the only one I know of, apart from the direct use of the maingun against the launcher of an anti-missile defence for a tank. The system was very similar in concept to naval CIWS and was intended to in the same manner, be the last ditch defence against missiles which are about to hit their target. There are various laser detectors which will alert tank crews (I am unsure if they have been fitted to the M1 though) if their vehicle has been illuminated. This allows them to take evasive action and also to perhaps to locate the source of the laser beam. However if its airborne, then they are unequipped to really be able to respond. While if the missile is wire-guided this is no help at all. There was tested on an M1 development vehicle a millimetre radar system which was intended to act, with conjunction of some sophisticated computers to act as a battle engagement system. It was designed to detect incoming threats and slew the turret around to the most immediate danger, indicating to the commander and gunner where the source of the fire was. However as far as I know this was not then developed further. > 3. Why are the machine guns externally mounted, and manually operated? > WW1 footage shows tanks with machine gun muzzles protruding > from the armour, so that the operator could operate them from the > relative safety of the interior of the tank. I would have expected > that by the nineties, that the top of the line US tank would feature > computer-controlled, electrically driven gatling guns capable of > putting thousands of rounds per minute into low-flying air craft, > incomming missiles, or any other threat coming to the attention of > the operator who would be _inside_ the tank. Nobody is expected > to poke their nose out of the turret and operate a machine gun > in a high-intensity battlefield on one of the "killing zones" of > central Germany are they? -- say it ain't so! Unfortunately it is so. While I know the MG's on the Chieftain/Challenger/Leopard can be operated from inside the vehicle remotely, against ground targets, I am unsure about those of the M1. However, even so, they cannot be operated usually against aircraft effectively due to limited fields of view, thats why if they are to be effective (and as recent wars such as the Falklands, Afghanistan and now the Gulf have shown, even small arms can be an effective AA weapon) you have to get out and look around to see where your target is. The MBT-70 project, which was cancelled and replaced by the M1 featured, as did early versions of the Leapard 2, a dedicated AA 20mm cannon which could be operated from under armour. However due to reasons of cost, and worries about effectiveness, the matter was dropped. Only the AMX-30 has, as far as I know, a weapon mounted under armour which can be used as an AA weapon. It has a 20mm cannon mounted co-axial with the maingun and which has been given a much higher elevation for use against airtargets. As to whether or not the turret's slew rate would be up to what is necessary for effective AA work is questionable IMO. Why MG's which pierce the armour have gone out of style is basically because having such a weapon makes the hull/turret of a vehicle much harder to construct and slightly weaker. You have to remember its pretty bloody hard working metals and composites which are as hard as most modern armours are. When added to the problem of needing room to stow more rounds of ammunition for the maingun, which meant that the "co-driver" or hull MG gunner had to be eliminated, such weapons basically went out of style. There were some attempts during the 1950's to provide for MG's which were operated by the driver and mounted either piercing the hull (such as on the T54, the STRV-103) or on the mudguards over the tracks (as on the M47/48). However the driver usually has his hands too full of driving to actually use such weapons effectively. We are seeing though IMO a movement towards turning tanks into the "Land-battleships" which they were originally intended to be. With the adoption of such concepts as CIWS, battle management systems and its need to be supported by "escort" vehicles in order to achieve its objective, the Tank is starting to resemble a naval battlegroup. The Germans during the 1970's/early 1980's even considered such a concept and actually built "escort" tanks which were modified Marder MICV's equipped with medium calibre guns, ATGW and some infantry on board. There role was to escort the tanks to their objective, screening them from enemy light armoured elements like BMP's and allowing the tanks to concentrate on their prime enemy, other tanks. However for reasons of cost the matter was dropped. [AAAAGH! Land Battleships!! If anyone remembers my previous stint as moderator a couple of years ago they may recall why this particular phrase sends an icy chill down my spine. :-) --CDR] -- Brian Ross
johnhall@microsoft.UUCP (John Hall) (05/10/91)
From: johnhall@microsoft.UUCP (John Hall) Someone has mentioned (maybe Dunnigan) that a modern tank like the M-1 can do quite a number on a slow flighing helicopter -> with the main gun.
jeffj@cbnewsm.att.com (05/11/91)
From: jeffj@cbnewsm.att.com johnhall@microsoft.UUCP (John Hall) writes: >Someone has mentioned (maybe Dunnigan) that a modern tank like the M-1 >can do quite a number on a slow flighing helicopter -> with the main gun. I read that during the Iran/Iraq war that Iraq developed a method for shooting down virtually all of the Iranian helicopters. During Iranian assualts in the early days of the war the Iraqis would aim all of their weapons towards the helicopters and shoot them down in a hail of lead. While primitive it took the Irainian helicopters right out of the war. They also tried this against Tomahawks with some limited success. -- Jeff Jones KC6SKV/KT UUCP uunet!seeker!jeffj Infolinc BBS 415-778-5929
silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) (05/15/91)
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) (I cannot recall the exact source where I read this, it be from an S&T article.) During the '73 war, the Israelis developed a fairly effective form of overwatch against wire-guided missles. While moving, one tank in the platoon was designated to look out for missles (or one tank in each direction). When they saw a launch, they alerted the entire platoon and took evasive action while laying down suppressive fire with machine guns. According to one witness, it was not uncommon to see tanks with several sagger control wires drapped over them. -- ami silberman - janitor of lunacy silber@cs.uiuc.edu