curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) (10/20/90)
From: fmrco!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) In article <1990Oct15.033550.12173@cbnews.att.com> LNF@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> [much stuff about M-1 deleted] >>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. > I have a couple of comments: 1) The M-1 does not have a particularly high profile for a western tank. If there were complaints about it, they were uninformed. The M-1 is a little taller that the Soviet T-62,72,and 80, but not significantly. It is a lot shorter than the M60 that is replaces. (I couldn't find the exact numbers for size last night: could someone post them?). The M-1 hull is 'short' enough that the driver's seat reclines backward instead of lowering like it did on the M60. 2) The width and weight are a problem, but a lot of that is due to the chobham-variant armor that it carries. In addition to the fact that you can't carry more than one in a C-5 because of it's weight, it's too wide to fit on the loading ramp of LST's (landing ship tank), which are one of the principal means of delivering tanks ashore during an amphibious assault. This caused the Marines to think twice about buying the M1. I believe that it's also too wide to be transported on C-141's (anyone out there know for sure?) 3) As far as the armor is concerned, all real data on it's effectiveness is classified. I can tell you that the Army has conducted live fire tests against real M-1's on the range and that I would rather be in an M-1 than in anything else in the world. However, that doesn't mean that I am going to forget to take a hull-down position when I spot a T-80 coming around the corner 8^0. Chobham armor is designed to be effective against kinetic energy rounds (like the depleted uranium rounds) fired by tanks and against shaped charge rounds (HEAT rounds) on anti-tank missiles. But remember also that all weapons research is a constant cycle of weapon- armor-weapon-armor..... as soon as a new weapon is developed, a new armor (or other protection against it) is developed and it becomes a cycle. I'm sure the Soviets spent a lot of time working on tank rounds to penetrate chobham armor, just as we have spent a lot of time improving the effectiveness of chobham armor. And historically, any claims that a certain armor is 'impervious' has always proven, at best, temporary. As far as artillery is concerned, unless an artillery round lands directly on the tank, the tank armor will protect the crew against the primary effect of artillery, which is shrapnel (sp?). The odds on an unguided artillery round hitting a tank directly are very small, and remember that tanks can move out from under an artillery barrage fairly quickly. Most artillery is still of the HE variety and regular steel tank armor is more than sufficient for anything other than a direct hit. When I was a student at the armor school, they told us that our M60 tank armor was proof against the effects of 90% of the weapons on the battlefield. A misleading statistic, to be sure, but the point was made. Still, artillery can degrade the effectiveness of tank units by forcing the crew to 'button up' and by stripping off radio antennas and other outside equipment. But the actual destruction of tanks is best left to other tanks. "Target! BOT! Cease Fire!" -Curt Fennell -- ================================================================= Curt Fennell |Fidelity Investments | fmrco!curt@uunet.uu.net |82 Devonshire St. (I40C) | (617) 570-2614 |Boston, MA 02109 |
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (10/24/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >I believe that it's [an M1A1] also too wide to be transported on C-141's (anyone >out there know for sure?) Even if it wasn't, there's no way a -141 would get off the ground with it loaded. Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (10/24/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Oct19.033435.14863@cbnews.att.com>, fmrco!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) writes: >I'm sure the Soviets spent a lot of time working on tank rounds to penetrate >chobham armor, just as we have spent a lot of time improving the effectiveness >of chobham armor. I'd heard the Sovs. had developed a "cannonball" round for their 120mm gun which, upon impact, would (allegedly) shatter the underlayered ceramic armor. I don't know how they figured to hit the machine in the >Still, artillery can degrade the effectiveness of tank units by forcing the >crew to 'button up' and by stripping off radio antennas and other outside >equipment. But the actual destruction of tanks is best left to other tanks. The actual destruction of tanks is best left to a nice cluster munition ;-)