Messages 31-39 from thread
Prev 10   
Message 31 in thread
From: mjsmith@primenet.com (mjsmith@primenet.com)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/08/26
From mjsmith@primenet.com

jrc@nai.net (Joe Claffey Jr.) wrote:


> Ah, so the secret of the M1's success is not its gun or its armor, but
>its 1500 hp gas-turbine engine?

  The success of the M1, or any tank depends on how well
armor, firepower, and mobility are proportioned out.   Along
with that goes the doctrine that determines the way the
vehicle is used, and the training of the crew.
Message 32 in thread
From: Andrew Jaremkow (johnj@wchat.on.ca)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/08/26
From johnj@wchat.on.ca (Andrew Jaremkow)

jrc@nai.net (Joe Claffey Jr.) wrote:

> Ah, so the secret of the M1's success is not its gun or its armor, but
>its 1500 hp gas-turbine engine?

	Well, not completely. Imagine the 1500 hp engine in an M-60, with
feeble armour and a 105mm gun. Fast and nimble, but vulnerable and
impotent in the face of good opposition. Imagine the M-1A1 with a 750
hp M-60 engine. Potent weaponry (120mm) and superb armour, but awfully
slow, with a power to weight ratio worse than the old Centurion.
Defensively the mobile bunker would be fearsome, but its offensive
cpability would be reduced. The engine grants the enormous offensive
potential demonstrated in Desert Storm. 

	So what is the secret to the M-1's success? Its the fact that they
managed to combine excellent firepower AND very heavy armour AND
tremendous mobility at the same time. Its a feat very rarely
demonstrated in tank design.

			Andrew Jaremkow
			johnj@wchat.on.ca
Message 33 in thread
From: Paul F Austin (paustin@harris.com)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/08/30
From paustin@harris.com (Paul F Austin)

In article <Dwr73u.8tG@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com> johnj@wchat.on.ca (Andrew Jaremkow) writes:
>From: johnj@wchat.on.ca (Andrew Jaremkow)
>Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:28:42 GMT


>From johnj@wchat.on.ca (Andrew Jaremkow) 
>jrc@nai.net (Joe Claffey Jr.) wrote: 
>> Ah, so the secret of the M1's success is not its gun or its armor, but
>>its 1500 hp gas-turbine engine? 
>        Well, not completely. Imagine the 1500 hp engine in an M-60, with
>feeble armour and a 105mm gun. Fast and nimble, but vulnerable and
>impotent in the face of good opposition. Imagine the M-1A1 with a 750
>hp M-60 engine. Potent weaponry (120mm) and superb armour, but awfully
>slow, with a power to weight ratio worse than the old Centurion.
>Defensively the mobile bunker would be fearsome, but its offensive
>cpability would be reduced. The engine grants the enormous offensive
>potential demonstrated in Desert Storm.  
>        So what is the secret to the M-1's success? Its the fact that they
>managed to combine excellent firepower AND very heavy armour AND
>tremendous mobility at the same time. Its a feat very rarely
>demonstrated in tank design.

An often overlooked virtue of the Abrams is superb automotive reliability. 
Back when the Defense Reform Project was bashing the M1 for being a gas hog, 
they also predicted that the turbine would eat itself regularly. 

In real life, real death, the M1A1s turned in unbelievable reliablity and 
availability performances. Traditionally armor units suffer awful attrition 
during road marches. During DS, very few if any US tracks fell out.

During the 24th Mech's drive of 250 miles, no Abrams (or Bradley) fell out. 
Historically, a road march like that would lose you more than half your force.


In politics, sincerity is everything.
If you learn to fake that, you've got it made.
-------------------------------------
Paul Austin
PAUSTIN@HARRIS.COM
Message 34 in thread
From: Gareth Bull (Gareth.Bull@cc.monash.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/08/28
From Gareth.Bull@cc.monash.edu.au (Gareth Bull)

jrc@nai.net (Joe Claffey Jr.) wrote:
>Gareth.Bull@cc.monash.edu.au (Gareth Bull) wrote: 
>>Look at the German "super-tanks" of WW2, they had very powerful guns
>>and very tough armour, but could only travel very slowly. They weren't
>>much more than slow moving bunkers in reality. The Panther was
>>generally considered to be one of the "best" tanks of WW2, because it
>>had a particularly good balance of armour, firepower and mobility.
>>Mobility is probably the most overlooked quality of a tank. The most
>>powerful gun and toughest armour in the world are wasted if you can't
>>get the tank to the place it needs to be. 
> Ah, so the secret of the M1's success is not its gun or its armor, but
>its 1500 hp gas-turbine engine? 
>From a certain point of view, yes. The ability to maintain mobility is
a tactical asset in it's own right. It's a balanced combination of
firepower, protection and mobility that makes the difference. Take
away any one of those attributes and you have significantly limited
both the strategic and tactical value of the vehicle. 
                      Gareth Bull
               Gareth.Bull@CC.Monash.edu.au
    I'm just a jaywalker on the Information-Cul de sac
Message 35 in thread
From: Subhendu Kumar Mishra (misras@matisse.its.rpi.edu)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/08/24
From misras@matisse.its.rpi.edu (Subhendu Kumar Mishra)

Gareth Bull <Gareth.Bull@cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Bernt.Budde@its.uu.se (Bernt Budde) wrote:
>
>>British and US tanks use Chobham? The old Eastern Bloc used this special
>>active armor. What do the Leopard (and others, like the new Indian) use
>>instead? Nothing? Secret? 
>As for India, They got into the tank business building copies of
>Russian designed T series tanks, including the T-72. They certainly
>won't be using Chobham, but they might have something similar. More
>likely they use something more conventional, perhaped spaced hardened
>steel. 

India makes the T-72s, but I think Bernt was asking about the
Arjun, the new MBT developed/deployed by India. It uses Kanchan
(means gold in hindi) armor. Its supposed to be a composite
armor of some type, not much has been announced though the DRDO
(the main agency in charge of its development) claims it is very
comparable to Chobham. 

-- SKM
Message 36 in thread
From: Andrew Wicken (andrew.wicken@stonebow.otago.ac.nz)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/09/11
From andrew.wicken@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Andrew Wicken)

In article <Dx6315.L4M@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>
null@diku.dk (Niels Ull Jacobsen) writes:

> >At this point the laser designator crew would have gotten out of the way.
> 
> Isn't the main problem with this that you need 3 systems to take out
> the tank? Unmanned machine gun, laser designator and conventional tank
> killer. And the machine gun should be placed well away from the
> operator(s) as it will give away it's position as soon as it fires
> while the tank is still able to respond. All need to be placed so that
> they see the same side of the tank. 
> 
> I just don't believe in getting all this set up and working in the
> field.  If you're defending a fortified position, yes, but then mines
> would probably be simpler and cheaper.

But surely the gun would be more versatile than just being a one-off
weapon. Sure, when the big tanks come the gun gets wasted, but it would
be able to provide varied response levels. Say, three types of
designation: at the first the gun fires a three round burst (anti
personnel), at the second maybe 50 rounds (anti soft vehicles) and at
the third designator it fires everything at once (big bad tank). Seems
to me to be the ideal ambush weapon (esp. if easily portable): the
threat to the enemy is away from your people but it still has their
intelligent target choosing capabilities.



                     Andrew Wicken
Message 37 in thread
From: John Davey (jrdavey@jrdavey.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/08/24
From John Davey <jrdavey@jrdavey.demon.co.uk>

In article <DwHzKC.CGn@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>, Bernt Budde
<Bernt.Budde@its.uu.se> writes
>
>are there any simple non-top attack solutions to this T72 with its
>reactive armor? Are there some secret sexy ammunition tricks? (No, I don't
>expect an answer. :-)
>
An ammo ninja told me that one of the most effective anti armour rounds
he had come across were actually training rounds for 155mm arty pieces .
They are a shell filled with concrete , and are supposed to be able to
knock holes in pretty much anything . 
As a generalisation , you increase the kinetic energy of a round either
by increasing the velocity of the round ( APFSDS etc ) or increase the
mass of the round ( concrete-filled shells ?) . I don't know how they
survive the impact , but they are supposed to work ......


-- 
Regards
John Davey
Artillery is the God of War - J Stalin
All opinions are my own etc etc

Message 38 in thread
From: Moo's Access Point (moobox@access.digex.net)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/08/26
From moobox@access.digex.net (Moo's Access Point)

In article <DwMA2D.DJD@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com>,
>From John Davey <jrdavey@jrdavey.demon.co.uk>

Uh, I believe that basic physics says that

	Kinetic energy = 1/2*mass*velocity**2

So even even a minor hiking of velocity gives you a much greater deliver
of kinetic energy on target. 

While concrete-filled shells may fly down range with a lot of mass, I
doubt you could really get the velocity going to equal a sabot'ed round,
especially since the sabot round is a tungsten (if we want to be
environmentally friendly) or depleted uranium dart which delivers all of
its energy at the "point." 

I'm not saying that such a round wouldn't be shrugged off by an MBT, but
at the same time I doubt it would "kill" the tank as effectively as
something designed to penetrate the armor all the way through.

>As a generalisation , you increase the kinetic energy of a round either
>by increasing the velocity of the round ( APFSDS etc ) or increase the
>mass of the round ( concrete-filled shells ?) . I don't know how they
>survive the impact , but they are supposed to work ......



-- 
	Doug Mohney				mohney@access.digex.net
	Advanced Solutions Project Manager - "Square Peg, Round Hole"
				   DIGEX
	(V) 301-847-5105 		     	(F) 301-847-5215

Message 39 in thread
From: Andrew Jaremkow (johnj@wchat.on.ca)
Subject: Re: Invulnerable T72?
Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated
View this article only
Date: 1996/08/26
From johnj@wchat.on.ca (Andrew Jaremkow)

John Davey <jrdavey@jrdavey.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>
>An ammo ninja told me that one of the most effective anti armour rounds
>he had come across were actually training rounds for 155mm arty pieces .
>They are a shell filled with concrete , and are supposed to be able to
>knock holes in pretty much anything . 

	I remember reading one of Simpkin's books (although I can't recall
which one) in which he referred to seeing concrete filled training
shells (HESH?) from Chieftains carry the turrets off target tanks on
the range. I have no idea how firmly attached the turrets were at that
point, but it still points out the power of the weapon and the
weakness of the turret-hull interface.

				Andrew Jaremkow
				johnj@wchat.on.ca
Prev 10   

©2001 Google