[sci.military] Why aren't tanks air-conditioned?

osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) (09/24/90)

From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn)

I have a feeling I'm asking a naive question here, but I keep hearing about
how temperatures can reach 130 degrees or more inside of U.S. tanks. Given
the effects of such heat on battlefield performance, what on earth is the
problem with putting a 200-pound cooler into a 60-ton tank? It defies
reason, as far as I can see.

Ron Morgan
osmigo@emx.utexas.edu

"I just don't understand."

amoss%BATATA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Amos Shapira) (09/27/90)

From: Amos Shapira <amoss%BATATA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) writes:
>the effects of such heat on battlefield performance, what on earth is the
>problem with putting a 200-pound cooler into a 60-ton tank? It defies
>reason, as far as I can see.

>Ron Morgan

Don't know how it is with other tanks, but the Merkava III is air conditioned.
Maybe it was more worthy to add air condition on it than on other tanks since
it's also supposed to be fully protected from chemical and biological warfare
(allowing the crew to continue operation without having to wear the protective
gear). I'm not sure what about protection from atomic warfare (I mean the
radiation in "infected" areas).

Amos Shapira
amoss@batata.huji.ac.il


--Amos.

phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (10/03/90)

From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
|From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn)
|I have a feeling I'm asking a naive question here, but I keep hearing about
|how temperatures can reach 130 degrees or more inside of U.S. tanks. Given
|the effects of such heat on battlefield performance, what on earth is the
|problem with putting a 200-pound cooler into a 60-ton tank? It defies
|reason, as far as I can see.

The San Jose, Ca, based Food Machinery Company, maker of fine armored
fighting vehicles, is selling a large number (200?) of Bradleys
to the Saudia Arabians which will be equipped with air conditioning.
Cost to be over $1,000,000 each.

The SA originally wanted $21 billion of equipment (not limited to
Bradleys) but Congress would only allow $7 billion.  They will be
back asking for the sale of another $14 billion of equipment.

--
Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com		{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
The Sierra Club is trying to stop CA-237 from being made into a freeway.

cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) (10/03/90)

From: convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash)

In article <1990Sep27.031901.8178@cbnews.att.com> amoss%BATATA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Amos Shapira) writes:

>Don't know how it is with other tanks, but the Merkava III is air conditioned.
>Maybe it was more worthy to add air condition on it than on other tanks since
>it's also supposed to be fully protected from chemical and biological warfare
>(allowing the crew to continue operation without having to wear the protective
>gear). I'm not sure what about protection from atomic warfare (I mean the
>radiation in "infected" areas).

Could it be that the Israelis know they're going to fight in a hot
climate--and equip their tanks accordingly--while ours are designed with
the climatic conditions of Central Europe in mind? Seems a bit
short-sighted, if true. I sure hope that our tanks are equipped to filter 
air for chemical weapons,though...



--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (10/03/90)

From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)

In article <1990Sep24.001654.23763@cbnews.att.com>, ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) writes:
> 
> 
> From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn)
> 
> I have a feeling I'm asking a naive question here, but I keep hearing about
> how temperatures can reach 130 degrees or more inside of U.S. tanks. Given
> the effects of such heat on battlefield performance, what on earth is the
> problem with putting a 200-pound cooler into a 60-ton tank? It defies
> reason, as far as I can see.
 
  You almost answer you're own question...."200-pounds".... What with all
  the on-board equipment; electronics, radios, main gun ammo, coax ammo, 
  OVM, spares  +  all the personal equipment; tanker's roll, rations, tentage,
  NBC gear, personal weapons, load-bearing harness, etc etc etc - there 
  simply is no room.  (At least they get a heater - that works 50% of the 
  time).  Usually a crew can rig up a fan - put blocks of ice (in baggies)
  on their radios to cool them off -  

  mts
 

woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (10/04/90)

From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood)

In article <1990Oct2.235023.23220@cbnews.att.com> convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) writes:
>short-sighted, if true. I sure hope that our tanks are equipped to filter 
>air for chemical weapons,though...

they aren't... or at least AMTRACs and APCs weren't when i was in...

it's hard to decide if quick death from chemical weapons could
be any worse than the slow death by asphyxiation caused
by the leakage of exhaust fumes into the troop compartments
of these rolling coffins.

i'd rather walk, thank-you...

/***   woody   ****************************************************************
*** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I...            ***
*** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd                                            ***
****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/