LNF@psuvm.psu.edu (10/15/90)
From: LNF@psuvm.psu.edu In article <148@cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu>, bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) says: > >In article <31106@netnews.upenn.edu> sal@grasp.cis.upenn.edu (Marcos >Salganicoff) writes: >This is not clear. I am no expert on tank warfare. However, some of >the folks on sci.military are, and they have talked about the chobham >armor (developed jointly by the US and UK) that is on the M1 tanks. >Someone said that they have done extensive tests on it with just about >every type of anti-tank weapon around, and it took *three* hits of >anything *in the same spot* to penetrate (I don't know how many types >of artillery shells, if any, they tested. But artillery obviously is >going to hit tanks much less often than an anti-tank weapon aimed at >the tank). If this is true, it makes the M1 relatively invulnerable. I'm not sure about the validity of the rumor that the M-1's armor is that impervious to attack. If my memory is correct, at the time *production* of this tank got underway there were major complaints about: 1) the high profile of the tank, 2) the width & weight of the vehicle making air transportibility a problem and 3) the knowledge that we and presumably the Russians had the existing technology to breach the armor. I believe that they were talking about high density shells such as the spent uranium rounds made for this purpose. This was quite a while back and I'm not sure where the technology has improved. Larry
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (10/29/90)
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler) Ln> the vehicle making air transportibility a problem and 3) the knowledge Ln> that we and presumably the Russians had the existing technology to Ln> breach the armor. I believe that they were talking about high density Ln> shells such as the spent uranium rounds made for this purpose. This Ln> was quite a while back and I'm not sure Ln> where the technology has improved. Ln> Larry Ln> . No tank, in the history of land warfare, has failed to carry a gun that would crack it's own armor. If my senile memory serves me correctly, even Hypershot, tungston-carbide core with a light metal windscreen, would penetrate 11" of solid armor, and this was a 90mm projectile with, when compared with modern guns, low muzzle velocity. This was the reson for moving to layered or built up armor. D Squared [mod.note: I doubt the gun of the British Infantry Mk I (a machinegun tank) could penetrate its armor. 8-) - Bill ]