IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester) (01/23/90)
From: "Nicholas C. Hester" <IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
In article <13380@cbnews.ATT.COM>, muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark B. Muller)
says:
:
:From: muller@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Mark B. Muller)
:
:>>From: animage%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Cal-Animage Club)
:
:>Aw, hell. It seems apparent to me that it's becoming more and more
:>complicated and expensiveto try to think and research ways of defeating
:>reactive armor. Has anyone even thought about disabling the tank WITHOUT
:>having to blast it to pieces? Why don't we just go with a simple and cheap
:>solution of firing gooey substances that get sucked into a tank's engine that
:>react thermally and expand choking out the air intake into the engine thereby
:>immobilizing the tank by killing the engine.
:
: Ther is a substance that will do this even better than you described;
: Napalm. Against tanks, it tends to get into any opening available,
: including things like hatches, air intakes, and exhaust sytems. Of
: course, it also burns real well, causing it to not only stop the engine
: in question, but also burn out the whole vehicle very nicely. This has
:
Aren't todays tanks NBC rated? Wouldn't the overpressurization of the crew
compartment keep out the Napalm? Also, I read that the M-1 has extensive fire-
control systems for the outside of the hull, is this true, and would it be
enough to take care of Napalm?
Nicholas C. Hester
ia80024@Maine.Bitnet
ia80024@Maine.Maine.edu