nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo) (09/25/90)
From: nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo) ||M1 and M1A1 Abrams || Performance: || Maximum road range: 300 miles. || Maximum speed: 45 mi/hr. | | It is noted in Tom Clancy's _Red Storm Rising_ that the governor |limiting the tank to that 45 mph speed is one of the first things |removed by the tank crews when they get assigned to a tank; producing |a new top speed of about 60 mph (!). Can anyone verify this? As a former tank commander....yes! I can't verify this with current crews of M1/M1A1s, but I would speculate that they do this also. I was a tank commander when M60-series tanks were the mainstay. Our top-speed was supposed to be 35-36 mph. After removing the governor, our speed would easily get to the 45-55-range in mph. I've heard of some im- pressive speeds for the M1/M1A1, but that is usually media-hype ---- I've never talked with a crewmember who could/would verify that. I must admit, though, as a former tank commander (and a tax-payer), I would love to get my hands on one to get/give my own personal evalua- tion!!!! || Armor: || Most details appear to be classified. The armor seems to be || similar to Chobham armor developed in UK... | | Is this the armor that is made up of alternating layers and gaps of |metal to break up the plasma from an exploting HEAT round or fragment |an incoming solid-core round? Supposedly, yes....specifics about Chobham armor is classified. || Some of the TV news footage from Saudi Arabia shows M1s with || what appears to be applique armor strapped to the sides of || the main turret. | | Reactive armor? I heard that Isreal (and the USSR) are ahead of us |on this one. Might it be being deployed now on US armor? This is a distinct posibility, as I read something somewhere a couple days ago about M1A1s with reactive armor in a comparison of technology in the Middle East between Iraqi and U.S. capabilities matching Iraqi T-72s and M1/M1A1s....in which it stated that 'while the T-72s didn't have reactive armor, they had maingun (125-mm) ammo capable of defeat- ing reactive armor on the Abrams.' Something didn't sound quite right in the article, but I just can't place it just yet. Sorry, I couldn't give you more.... -- Mark Aldo UUCP: (osu-cis)!dsacg1!waldo INTERNET: waldo@dsac.dla.mil Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center | 614-238-8111 DSAC-ZTB, P.O.Box 1605, Columbus, Ohio (USA) 43216 | AV 850-8111 I'm not authorized to have an opinion....;-)
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (09/27/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> All tanks in the USMC (M60A3's and very few M1A1's) all mount reactive armor. There are also RA kits for the LAV-25. I read somewhere that the Army had developed a reactive armor kit for the M2/M3 but that it wasn't widely used because it blocked all the infantry firing ports. A 125mm round from an Iraqi T72 would penetrate the reactive armor if it was a Sabot or a very good HEAT round. So what? That's what we mount Chobham armor for. BTW, I heard that the UK is sending a significant number of Challenger tanks (100+), the M1A1's British counterpart, to Saudi Arabia. No matter what the Iraqis mount on their tanks, a APFSDS round from any American or NATO ally tank will go right through... --Allan (MIDN 3/C, CMUNROTCU) The opinons expressed in this posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps, or the United States Navy; so there!
curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) (09/29/90)
From: fmrco!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) In article <1990Sep27.031241.6460@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: > >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >All tanks in the USMC (M60A3's and very few M1A1's) all mount reactive >armor. There are also RA kits for the LAV-25. > Um, not to be nitpicky or anything, but the last I heard, the USMC was equipped with the M60A1 tank - not M60A3's. The difference in the models is primarily in the fire-control system, with the M60A1 having a mechanical ballistic computer, optical sights and a stereo-coincidence range finder. The M60A3 has a digital fire control computer, optical & thermal sights and a laser range finder. These differences could be very important to long range combat in the desert. In 1985, the USMC had no plans to buy the M60A3, prefering instead to wait for the M1A1. As I recall, there was some problem with this also, because the M1A1, being wider than the M60, was too wide to be loaded and unloaded on Navy LST's. Also: In article <1990Sep27.031847.8107@cbnews.att.com> nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo) writes: > >These surely are NOT the only types that can be utilized; what about >HEP, AP, APFSDS, or any of the other good stuff? > >[mod.note: APFSDS-DU (depleted uranium) is the M1's kinetic penetrator. >I don't know if HE is carried; perhaps HEP is used for this role ? I >suspect that cannister (Beehive) is also carried. Anyone ? - Bill ] > When I was at the Armor School at Ft. Knox in 1982, they told us that the M1 with the M68 105mm Main Gun could fire all of the standard 105mm rounds, including HEP, HEAT, APDS, APFSDS, Smoke (White Phosphorus - also an effective incindiary), APFSDS-DU, and Beehive (5000 steel flechettes - effective against troops in the open!). However, when the M1A1 came out with it's 120mm Gun, the ammo available was only going to be APFSDS-DU and a dual- purpose HEAT round that would have both HEAT and HE properties. This dual- purpose HEAT round was supposed to take the place of the HEAT and HEP rounds. This info is 8 years old and could have changed, but that was the situation then. -- ================================================================= Curt Fennell |Fidelity Investments | fmrco!curt@uunet.uu.net |82 Devonshire St. (I40C) | (617) 570-2614 |Boston, MA 02109 |
scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) (10/03/90)
From: boulder!boulder!scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) I was told of a demonstration of a 120mm discarding sabot round fired against a T-55 by a good friend who spent 4 years in the U.S. Army. The tank target had two sheep carcasses placed inside it to demonstrate the effect of a penetration by a non-exploding round on personnel inside a tank. The discarding sabot round penetrated the front of the turret near the turret ring, and exited out the turret rear. One of the sheep carcasses was pulverized completely by (apparently) the shock wave that passed through the vehicle, sucked out the exit hole, and sprayed over a considerable bit of the landscape behind the tank target. The other sheep carcasse was merely splattered all over the inside of the tank. The turret of the tank was moved several feet backward, coming to rest on the rear decking of the vehicle. Admittedly, this is second hand, but from a normally reliable source, not much given to fabrication or exaggeration. Do any of the readers have any first hand information on effects of anti-tank weapons on vehicle personnel? Send replies by email. Thanx. --don't like snow, miss Deirdre, and wish I was still in Santa Cruz.