dl3a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Christopher Ladd) (09/25/90)
From: Daniel Christopher Ladd <dl3a+@andrew.cmu.edu> In Article <1990Sep18.024642.21045@cbnews.att.com> consp21@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Ken Hoover) Writes: * 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? In an Article in ARMOR magazine (March-April 90, I think), there was an article about the U.S. Marine Corps using reactive armor on their M60's. It seems the armor was originally intended for use on U.S. Army M-60's in Korea, with the 2nd Infantry Division. However, a decision was made to equip the armor Battalion(s) of the 2nd with M1 or M1A1 tanks. The Marine Corps took the armor and placed it on the MPS ships around the world for contingency use (like the current Persian Gulf situation). For training, USMC used ceramic blocks of the same size and shape, except for the ones mounted on the gun- it would unbalance the aiming mechanisms when the real ones were added. The real stuff is probably being used now, although I haven't seen any pictures on CNN etc. I don't remember where the blocks came from, although I'm pretty sure it wasn't Israel. It said that there were 2 styles of block, interchangeable aroung the vehicle- apparently the Israeli's tailor-fit their armor for the location on the tank, with different sizes and shapes. The article went on to say that the Army doesn't use reactive armor. It didn't say why, though. I had also heard that the govenor is usually taken off the M1, allowing speeds of up to 60 mph on a good road or down a hill cross-country. The price for this, though, is horrendus fuel consumption! This is all non-classified info. ************************************************************** Dan Ladd U.S. ARMY ROTC Carnegie Mellon University/ University of Pittsburgh **************************************************************