[Kentucky Rifle]

Sometimes, when I can't sleep at night I get up and come in the den and turn on the "History Channel". Last night was one of those times. "My war" was 30+ years ago. Things were very different.
Last night I watched some desert warfare on television. M1 Abrams Tanks up against T-72 Soviet "antiques". (At least, that's what it seemed like to me.) I saw several T-72's get hit by the depleated uranium rounds of the M1's. Incredibly, the turrets of a LOT of the unfortunate T-72's (and they were ALL unfortunate!) blew right off! Some turrets even seemed to blow 15 to 20 feet in the air. It was amazing!
What do you think happened to he "unfortunate" T-72 crew? I realize that they died instantly, but I just wonder what was left. Instantly, you're atoms on the way to Alla? Tankers, your opinions please?

Thanks,
KR

[Sven]

And here I thought you were talking about Garands convered to .308! ;)

[glockten]

I just wonder what was left.

Probably nothing recognizably human.

My father served in the ETO in World War II. He once told me about recovering a Sherman that had been knocked out by a German 88. The round had penetrated the turret and detonated inside.

Grim stuff.

[4v50 Gary]

There's a book by an ordnance Lt. whose duty it was to recover and repair tanks. They'd weld a patch over the pierced armor, clean up the insides (scrub and a fresh coat of paint) and send it back out to the tankers in the field.

[glockten]

Death Traps by Belton Cooper.

I remember reading (it may have been in this book) that Shermans were usually salvageable if they hadn't burned. It seems ammo fires were so hot that the armor lost its strength.

Not that a Sherman's armor was much proof against the German 75s and 88s anyway.

[Detritus]

the book is called Death Traps by Belton Y Cooper. Cooper was with the 3rd AD from just prior to Pearl harbor (serving his ROTC service requirement) till the end of the war. pretty much the entire time his job was co-ordinating the recovery, repair, and/or replacement of the tanks lost in combat each day. even during WW2 only the very lucky (if you can call having the attendant injuries and being alive lucky) survived a solid hit to the fighting compartment.

as to what happens to the crew of say a T-72 or T-80 when it's by a DU "Sabot" round, well typically there might be enough left to identify where they were when the round hit....... b/c of the design of soviet/russian MBTs a hit to the fighting compartment sets off most of the ammo in the tank (it's in a carosel for use by the auto loader, under the gun) so basicly in the aftermath of a hit by a sabot round, the explosion of the ammo and every other flamable material in the tank turns the crew into plasma (the state of mater, not the blood component).

[4v50 Gary]

Thanks guys! Death Traps is somewhere downstairs and not on one of the bookshelves. I need to build or buy two more (at least one floor to ceiling) bookshelf so I can find a book when I need it.

[TheeBadOne]

As said, what is left is marks/mush, and that's about it usually. Once in a while there will be a chunk large enough to recognize as something. :uhoh:

[telomerase]

If the M1s were facing an army equipped with modern missiles and PGMs (FOG, BILL, Merlin, BAT, etc.) there probably wouldn't be much left of them either. Of course said army would actually have to fire the missiles, and Saddam's army doesn't seem to have been that interested in fighting; if Lee's Army of Northern Virginia had been defending Iraq they would at least have destroyed the Euphrates bridges and done some creditable sniping.

Anyway I put my money on smart drones chasing the (full-size, manned) tanks out of the next war, but I could be horribly wrong.

[Hkmp5sd]

To quote the late and very great Bill Mauldin's "Wille and Joe" characters, "I'd ruther dig. A movin' foxhole attracks th' eye."

[KC]

"If the M1s were facing an army equipped with modern missiles and PGMs (FOG, BILL, Merlin, BAT, etc.) there probably wouldn't be much left of them either."

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. It seems that our own tanks have a hard enough time killing one of their own. Immobilize it, yes, but not render the vehicle incapable of firing it's weaponry and/or killing the crew. Given that a high velocity DU slug is probably more likely than a man-portable AT missile to penetrating a few inches of CHOBHAM-type composite and DU armor plate, it isnt too likely that the Abrahams is out of the game yet. Of course, the problem with the M1 is getting 60 tons of tank into theatre and in sufficient quantity to do some good.

The second half of having those anti-tank missiles is keeping them healthy until it come time for them to be used. Of course, the troop using them has to have sufficient experience/exposure to the weapon so that he/she/it/they have more than a tiny chance of hitting their target.

[Shawn Dodson]

I'm a former M1 Tank commander.

What do you think happened to he "unfortunate" T-72 crew? Ever seen a window that's been hit by a steel BB? It usually knocks out a cone shaped chunk of glass. This is called "spall."

The same thing happens when a DU penetrator hits armor. It produces spall that turns the crew into hamburger and then they usually burn because the spall also penetrates and ignites the ammunition onboard.

[eatatjoes]

FYI: russian tanks in general will pop a turret when hit due to the fact that in trying to save space and make the tank a smaller target the designers had no way to isolate the ammo. the t-72 has a carousel autoloader in the center of the tank that will cook-off if a penetrating hit is made. this trend appears to continue all the way up to the new black eagle MBT. most western tanks have the ammunition isolated behind blast doors to protect the crew, usually resulting in a bigger vehicle but with a higher crew survivability rate.

Also i remember reading that up to 95% of the DU in the penetrator vaporizes as it passes through armor, resulting in a molten mist that creates a pressure vacuum and actually sucks things inside the tank towards the hole for a fraction of a second before exploding inward.

::edit:: i am not a tanker, just an armor nerd.

[Sean Smith]

If the M1s were facing an army equipped with modern missiles and PGMs (FOG, BILL, Merlin, BAT, etc.) there probably wouldn't be much left of them either

Wrong-o. HEAT rounds are pretty much worthless against the armor on M1 series tanks. There are unprotected areas, of course (that's why the tanks don't weigh 150 tons), but by and large ATGMs are of limited usefulness against them... we quit making tanks out of rolled homogeneous armor plate sometime around 1980, you know. ;)

Oh, yeah: 4-67 Armor, 2-37 Armor & 1-37 Armor. But I was just MI scum along for the ride. :D

[UnknownSailor]

I don't believe that even the latest gen M-1 is proof against top attack ATGMs.

[telomerase]

>HEAT rounds are pretty much worthless against the armor on M1 series tanks.

I'm not talking about WWII warheads, but stuff from 20 years ago: e.g. forged-projectile. And really, I don't think the 2-inch top armor would stop good HEAT rounds either.

[Bill Adair]

I drove M41 and M48 surplus tanks while in the AF.

We used them as moving targets to test the seekers on Maverick missiles, which were carried captive under the wing of a C-130 test aircraft. Some of the tanks were later radio controlled, and used during live firings of Maverick missiles.

It's just amazing what an inert warhead will do, to the inside of a tank!
Imagine shrapnel coming from every possible direction, as it rattles around inside! :rolleyes:

Bill

[4v50 Gary]

Bill Adair - the first Air Force tank driver. :)

Makes sense that the Air Force operates tanks for targets. It certainly sounds more legitimate than the Herman Goering Parachute Panzer Division. Air-mobile, not! Without looking through my books, I don't think the Me-323 could transport a Tiger auf. E.

[Detritus]

the 323 couldn't even carry a Panther let alone a Tiger.

not sure if even the Pkw MkIII was light enough for the Gigant to carry. either way all you get to thr battlefield with the ME 323, are the light scout tanks, or a larger amount of the same stuff that fits in the smaller easier to Tow troop gliders...

[Bill Adair]

"Bill Adair - the first Air Force tank driver."

Gary,

Not the first by any means, but it sure was a fun job! :D

My kids and some of their neighborhood friends got the thrill of their lives one weekend, when I took them for a short ride in the M48. The hatch was removed, and they had a great view, as we toured around the desert.

They later grounded us, and limited where (and when) we could drive the tanks, because one of the guys ran over a flight line water main valve, and drove it right through the water main. Joy rides were greatly curtailed after that. :D

Bill

[Kentucky Rifle]

Pretty gruesome, guys.
Does anybody remember the accident at Fort Knox several years ago where the M-1 got stuck in some type of ditch and the driver was trying to "rock" the tank out? He somehow broke a natural gas line and the resulting explosion and fire killed all the occupants of the tank. I had a young cousin in Basic at the time.

KR

[OEF_VET]

One problem with man-portable, anti-tank, guided missiles is the training required to use them effectively. Very few armies can afford to give their gunners enough training on their weapons. When an ATGM is fired, the normal reaction for an untrained gunner is to flinch, which generally causes the missile to fly skyward for a second or two, then head back towards Terra Firma, where they dig themselves a nice hole. They also create a real large cloud of smoke, both blocking the gunner's vision for a few moments, and attracting the attention of every tanker on the battlefield. Once they see that nice big cloud, they all start targeting that poor missile gunner. With the new fire-and-forget systems, that's not too much of a problem as he can drop the launcher and dive into a nearby hole. However, with the older systems, like Dragon or TOW, he has to sit there until his missile hits.

Frank
- former 11B1OC2 - Dragon missile gunner

[Sisco]

An Uncle of mine was a tanker in Korea.
One day while off the tank answering natures call the tank took a hit. He managed to drag a couple of people away from the tank, was awarded a Silver Star but that's all I know; he won't talk about it.

[Bravo11]

Ex-Tanker here.
M60A3 gunner which is the model right before M1's.
We fired DU rounds (APFSDS) except from 105mm tubes.
I've seen pics of T-72 and T-64's that have been hit by sabot rounds
and I can't see how anything could be recognizable after the spall quits tumbling around. I got out right before the Wall came down in Berlin.

[Bill Adair]

I'd love to drive one of the new tanks, as they are so much better than the M41, and M48. The M41, and APC both had dual stick steering, while the M48 had a conventional steering wheel, but still retained the dual brakes.

Our tanks picked up tons of dust and sand in their tracks and threw it all forward, where it drifted back into the drivers face. In the NM heat, we usually drove with the hatches open, and were saturated with dust. Wish I had pictures of us when we climbed out at the end of a day, as my dark brown hair, eyebrows, and every part of my tan body was coated in light tan dust, making me look like a Teutonic blond. Even had to flush the dust out of my ears, where it would build up. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, our guns were deactivated, so we had no shooting fun at all. :(

For any of you who have never been in a tank, it's quite surprising to turn off a dirt road into the open desert, and find that the tank rides just about as smooth as on the road. Bumps just about disappear. :D

Bill

[Larry Ashcraft]

every part of my tan body was coated in light tan dust
Reminds me of a story my Vietnam veteran friend, Bud, told me.

He was told to take a tank to a village about 30 miles away to have a new gun installed. He came to a bridge that said "Load Limit 10 tons", so he gunned the tank and blasted across the bridge as fast as he could. Just as he launched, he saw a jeep coming from a side road in front of him. The jeep stopped just in time, so Bud just kept the hammer down in the tank all the way to the village. He said he had been told the tank would only go about 45MPH, but it would really do about 65.

When he stopped and got out, there was a VERY dusty jeep, driver and GENERAL getting out of it. "Why didn't you stop" said the general. Bud said "Well these things don't have rear view mirrors".

Said all he got was a good chewin' out. :D

[CMcDermott]

Didn't the Iraqi's actually manage to knock out one M1 Abrams tank - using a "Kornet" (sp?) russian anti-tank missle. I remember reading about that it was a surprise that the Russians actually let them have any of these missles as they are brand new. Something about using a doubled shaped charged warhead to defeat the active armor of the M1 - the first shaped charge is disrupted by the active armor, then the second goes off and punches thru the armor. Unfortunately it seemed to work pretty well on at least one of our tanks.

[Bravo11]

I didn't hear about the Kornet incident but we trained to defend against Soviet saggers. Are saggers still used against armor?

[Sean Smith]

Didn't the Iraqi's actually manage to knock out one M1 Abrams tank - using a "Kornet" (sp?) russian anti-tank missle. I remember reading about that it was a surprise that the Russians actually let them have any of these missles as they are brand new. Something about using a doubled shaped charged warhead to defeat the active armor of the M1 - the first shaped charge is disrupted by the active armor, then the second goes off and punches thru the armor. Unfortunately it seemed to work pretty well on at least one of our tanks.

Everything I've heard from REPUTABLE sources (e.g. Jane's) indicates that NO anti-tank guided missiles (let alone Kornets, none of which were found in Iraq) scored hits on M1 series tanks in Iraq. There were ZERO catastrophic kills of the M1s in Iraq. However, there were "mobility kills" due to wheel/track/engine damage, and some that were damaged or broke down were destoryed in place and abandoned in the rush of the initial offensive. RPGs were mostly worthless, except for an occasional lucky mobility kill.

It is certainly possible that the Iraqis got off a couple of shots that got missed in the shuffle, war being what it is. But an AT-14 Kornet wouldn't be likely to do much against an M1, since an M1 doesn't have the reactive armor that the Kornet is designed to defeat... it has a distant relative of the Chobham armor invented by the Brits, which is practically invulnerable to HEAT round, tandem or not. It would be worthless against the frontal or turret armor of an M1, and would only be good for a mobility kill against the engine compartment or running gear. It sure could kill a Bradley real good, though.

There was a friendly fire incident where a Bradley's 25mm cannon firing DU rounds penetrated an M1's engine compartment and damaged the engine. According to Jane's total losses were 14 damaged and 2 destroyed.

Don't get me wrong, the M1A2 isn't invulnerable. Like every tank, it has thinner armor on the sides, rear, and roof, and its running gear and engine compartment are vulnerable to attack. But, unlike older tanks, its frontal arc is practically invulnerable to anti-tank guided missiles or tank cannons.

[Gewehr98]

Was the M1 driven off a bridge into a river, when the driver was allegedly killed by a well-placed shot. (Which makes me wonder what the rules are for drivers' heads exposed from hatches in hostile fire areas) The M1 continued over the bridge into the water, drowning the remaining crew:

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/004632.html

[goalie]

I was a TOW gunner with 2nd Tank Bn, 2nd MarDiv for the "first" gulf war. You do not want to see what the insides of the tanks looked like, although I did take some pictures, and it did not matter much if it was a T64 or a T72.

[TheeBadOne]

The kill you are refering to was a mobility kill, and it was found to be due to friendly fire (it was first atributed to Iraqi shoulder launched missles).

[Trebor]

"The other confirmed kill, as it were...
Was the M1 driven off a bridge into a river, when the driver was allegedly killed by a well-placed shot. (Which makes me wonder what the rules are for drivers' heads exposed from hatches in hostile fire areas) The M1 continued over the bridge into the water, drowning the remaining crew:"


That "Command Post" article is pretty old. It was later determined that the driver most likely fell asleep and drove into the ditch. They'd been operating on pretty much a 24 hour basis by that time and fatigue was getting to be a problem.

[telomerase]

>There was a friendly fire incident where a Bradley's 25mm cannon firing DU rounds penetrated an M1's engine compartment and damaged the engine.

Just as one would expect.

Self-forging projectile warheads fire a chunk of metal into the tank at 6,000-10,000 fps. It's like firing APDS at point-blank range. I would appreciate it if someone would post a reference about armor which defeats this (fairly old) technology; as far as I know there isn't any. So I conclude that against anyone with reasonably modern weapons, tanks are very expensive for the firepower; not worthless, but not cost-effective against lighter vehicles with missiles.

But of course I could be horribly wrong.

[Rangerover]

I would appreciate it if someone would post a reference about armor which defeats this (fairly old) technology; as far as I know there isn't any.
I have no idea if the information contained in the following link is valid or put together by some crackpot: You be the judge.

#3 toward the bottom of the page contains the more pertinent information, if it is indeed "information" as opposed to nonsense:

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html

[Sean Smith]

Self-forging projectile warheads fire a chunk of metal into the tank at 6,000-10,000 fps. It's like firing APDS at point-blank range. I would appreciate it if someone would post a reference about armor which defeats this (fairly old) technology; as far as I know there isn't any. So I conclude that against anyone with reasonably modern weapons, tanks are very expensive for the firepower; not worthless, but not cost-effective against lighter vehicles with missiles.

But of course I could be horribly wrong.

You are. Even the most expensive missiles are mostly worthless against a modern MBT, except for the occasional lucky shot to the engine compartment or suspension.

Old Brit Stillbrew and Chobham armors made what you are describing worthless against frontal and turret armors on tanks sometime around 1980. Successive generations of (highly classified) M1/M1A1/M1A1 "heavy"/M1A2/M1A2 SEP armors made the use of HEAT warheads and their relatives against the frontal and turret armor array of an M1 tank a complete joke. Once we started using DU in the armor itself sometime before Gulf War I, hyper-velocity sabots (even our own 120mm DU "silver bullets") became ineffective. The Russians are starting to look into 140+ mm tank cannons in the hope of finding something that can do more than ruin the paint job on Western main battle tanks.

Think about your argument: TOTALLY vulnerable light vehicles with weapon systems that are almost always ineffective against the tank except under certain limited engagement scenarios make the tank, which is vulnerable under only limited circumstances and has 4 different weapon systems that can reliably destroy light vehicles under any circumstances, less cost-effective.

Uh... color me unconvinced. :p

[Intune]

M60A3's Our life expectancy at the Fulda Gap against the Red Horde was 3 minutes. HHQ 3/33 Armor The Rock

The separate ammo compartment w/blast doors & blowout panels on the M1 made us oldies just giddy with the anticipation of living. The Chob' armor will put a little smile on a tankers face also! Ahhh, the dust of Graf :cool:

[Sean Smith]

That whole scenario was just sick... especially back when the Russkies had T-64 tanks and we had M60s. Probalby the smallest gap between us & them in hardware capability in recent memory, and they had some stupid force ratio against us like a Guards Tank Army for each of our divisions. but what always made my brain hurt was the artillery concentrations the Russkies had handy.

:what:

[OEF_VET]

Yeah Sean, the Soviet style RAG's and DAG's sure make our DivArty's and few Corps Arty Bde's seem miniscule. Nothing like having Mortar Battalions and MRL Brigades to fire counter battery with. Of course, up until the mid 70's with the advent of the 2S9 and 2S6, most Soviet artillery was still towed, which made it rather tough for them to displace quickly. As long as our Artillery assets weren't hit, we may have had a (small) chance to get off a few volleys of effective counter battery ourselves.

Frank

[KC]

"Once we started using DU in the armor itself sometime before Gulf War I..."
This began in 1994, at least in numbers that could reasonably be deployed. To the best of my knowledge, only the US and Germany (in Leopard II's) have this sort of armor for their MBT's.

"The Russians are starting to look into 140+ mm tank cannons in the hope of finding something that can do more than ruin the paint job on Western main battle tanks."
So did/are we. About 8-9 years ago the US Army was playing with a 150 or 155 Rheinmetal design that was shoehorned into a few Abrahms and Leopard II chassies. During Gulf II, there were incidents of M1's taking fire from T72's armed with a 140mm gun at close range; it didn't do much to the front armor on it's targets.

"There was a friendly fire incident where a Bradley's 25mm cannon firing DU rounds penetrated an M1's engine compartment and damaged the engine."
Yes, but 1) it didnt penetrate to the crew compartment or the ammo storage. 2) Not many other countries use DU; it's toxic as hell (but not radioactive), a royal pain in the arse to machine, and not exactly something that you can call up MSC and buy in bar stock off the shelf.


KC

[telomerase]

>Even the most expensive missiles are mostly worthless against a modern MBT, except for the occasional lucky shot to the engine compartment or suspension.

>Old Brit Stillbrew and Chobham armors made what you are describing worthless against frontal and turret armors on tanks sometime around 1980. Successive generations of (highly classified) M1/M1A1/M1A1 "heavy"/M1A2/M1A2 SEP armors made the use of HEAT


For the second time, I am not talking about 1940s HEAT technology. Self-forging warheads fire a solid chunk of metal into the tank at 6-10,000 fps. And even HEAT warheads will destroy the tank from the top, which is where BILL, MERLIN, FOG, etc. etc. hit. There was also at least one experimental missile ten years ago which simply carried a penetrator to the same speed as a tank shell (obviously it wasn't wire-guided).

I suspect I am missing part of the story (and I hope someone looks up the relevant info from a modern source; I ran out of time to study military affairs 20 years ago), but the argument that modern missiles can't penetrate an MBT doesn't hold water. The tank is inherently behind in the warhead/armor race, because new tank generations are 25 years apart, while new missiles come out every five. And tanks, unlike smaller vehicles, inherently emit so much IR that they can't hide. Smart drones, missiles, and mortar rounds make tanks at least as vulnerable as cheap wheeled vehicles.

[telomerase]

...100-kiloton warheads cost something like 1/4 what M-1s cost. I assume you'll admit that they'll penetrate?

[Intune]

Wow, 11B that we threw dust on or something? They never REALLY liked that walkin' part. :D

[telomerase]

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/index.html

This one looks even better:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efogm/index.html

And a bunch of others:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/index.html

I haven't found a good (free) page for info on actual current warhead effectiveness. Most stuff in current use seems to use the tandem-HEAT warhead, a pretty old idea.

[KC]

"The end of tanks"

Yes, and I hear the USAF talking about how useless strategic bombers and comparatively slow heavily armored air-to-ground aircraft are (B-52's, A-10's, etc.) AND YET, every time we get involved in a major overseas action, what are the platforms that seem to get used quite often, and instill the most fear in our enemies?

-Remember, back in the 1960's and 1970's, the experts were going on about the obsolence of the infantryman on the nuclear battlefield.
-In the 20's and 30's, it was the supremacy of the gun-armed battleship, and the comparative uselessness of the airplane and aircraft carrier. (So, why then in Gulf I we had a couple battleships, a half century old and counting, being used to soften up Iraqi positions in Kuwait, and research into a new generation of ballistic naval weaponry?)
-In the American Civil War, the Union had a Chief of Ordinance who didn't buy rifles that fired self-contained cartriges because it would discourage accruacy and promote waste by the troops. (Now, go and look up what is being done with binary liquid propellants.)
-Back in the 16th century, treatises were written on how useless firearms would always be, and the eternal reign of the sword. (In WWII, GI's were taught techniques to defeat sword-wielding German officers.)
I'm sure that way back when, there were people complaining about this new-fangled Iron stuff, and how it would never work for swords because it was too brittle. (Aren't those all ceramic and all polymer knives neat? Or how about the medical supply company manufacturing super-sharp scaples for eye surgeons, out of obsidian flakes?)

The point? Don't believe eveything you read, and be very careful about counting out a weapon system. Humans seem to have a bizzare ability to find new life for even the most basic tools. (Why else would there be such a broo-ha-ha about bayonet lugs? Someone is afraid of them, which is sometimes all that is necessary.)

KC

[telomerase]

>Yes, and I hear the USAF talking about how useless strategic bombers and comparatively slow heavily armored air-to-ground aircraft are (B-52's, A-10's, etc.) AND YET, every time we get involved in a major overseas action, what are the platforms that seem to get used quite often, and instill the most fear in our enemies?

Let me clarify what I'm looking for. I'm interested in technologies for fighting between armed forces or at least middle-class developed-world civilians. The use of B-52s for dropping bombs on Afghan villages says nothing about the usefulness of B-52s against modern air forces or SAMs.

Analogously, I'm sure that the M-1 will be very effective when used against civilians with no access to current weapons; it does resist RPGs from the front (at least without tandem warheads) and that is pretty impressive. I am trying to determine what the utility of heavy tanks is on a modern battlefield where the opponents have modern missiles. I'm not sure that tanks have no utility or I wouldn't be bringing this up at all. But it seems to me that at this point we are at diminishing returns, and that money spent on another generation of tanks would be better spent on lighter vehicles.

[telomerase]

>-Remember, back in the 1960's and 1970's, the experts were going on about the obsolence of the infantryman on the nuclear battlefield.

In a large-scale nuclear war with thousands of tactical detonations and fallout killing everything aboveground, I could imagine that infantry might start to feel obsolete... especially given the level of US equipment and training for NBC.

>-In the 20's and 30's, it was the supremacy of the gun-armed battleship, and the comparative uselessness of the airplane and aircraft carrier.

Yes, that was completely wrong, and it proves my point: everyone hangs on to the last war's weapons long after they are obsolete.

>-In the American Civil War, the Union had a Chief of Ordinance who didn't buy rifles that fired self-contained cartriges because it would discourage accruacy and promote waste by the troops.

Let's give the Chief of Ordnance a break; metallic cartridges were very expensive. (He was still wrong, but it wasn't completely wacky).

>-Back in the 16th century, treatises were written on how useless firearms would always be, and the eternal reign of the sword. (In WWII, GI's were taught techniques to defeat sword-wielding German officers.)

There aren't many procurement contracts out for swords now. I think it might have been Japanese that thought swords were still useful, and the best technique I saw in WWII literature on the matter was "shoot them".

>I'm sure that way back when, there were people complaining about this new-fangled Iron stuff, and how it would never work for swords because it was too brittle.

No doubt. Of course at first that was true, bronze was superior for a long time. But eventually bronze became not cost-effective... which is just my point. No weapon stays current forever, and it may be the tank's time to pass.

[KC]

"I'm interested in technologies for fighting between armed forces or at least middle-class developed-world civilians."
oh, sorry..my bad

"I'm sure that the M-1 will be very effective when used against civilians with no access to current weapons; it does resist RPGs from the front "
There does not exist a non-nuclear RPG (in the precise definition) that can crack a tank. They are great against soft-skinned helicopters, but unless you hit the tracks, useless on a tank. Man-portable missiles: against front armor, no. Top and rear, most of the newer missiles are thought to have a fighting chance of ruining a tankers day. However, it very quickly becomes an expensive prospect to knock out a tank in this way.

"But it seems to me that at this point we are at diminishing returns, and that money spent on another generation of tanks would be better spent on lighter vehicles."
...which is exactly the idea the Stryker brigade vehicles were designed with in mind. It's been a while, but Teledyne Land Systems used to have some really neat prototypes on the net, and Jane's Information Systems, especially the "Armor & Atrillery" and ""Armor & Atrillery Upgrades" books have a lot of the next generation stuff that manufacturers are trying to find buyers for.

[telomerase]

>Teledyne Land Systems used to have some really neat prototypes on the net, and Jane's Information Systems, especially the "Armor & Atrillery" and ""Armor & Atrillery Upgrades" books have a lot of the next generation stuff that manufacturers are trying to find buyers for.

Thanks, I'll look for Teledyne... I know about Jane's, but can't afford their products and neither can DFW-area libraries. Sigh.

[KC]

"metallic cartridges were very expensive"
Which costs more to train and equip: a box of 100 cartriges, or 1 infantryman? The guy was narrow-minded and short-sighted as hell....

"bronze was superior for a long time"
except for those embarassing moments when your opponent with the iron sword cut your bronze sword in half:)

"In a large-scale nuclear war with thousands of tactical detonations and fallout killing everything aboveground, I could imagine that infantry might start to feel obsolete..."
Excuse me; I did not mean simply a nuclear positive battlefield. This is when designers were playing with the idea of tanks and aircraft with nuclear propulsion. (Not just in sci fi--I think it was somebody at General Atomics that took out patents on nuclear powered surface ships, subs, land vehicles, trains, ariplanes, etc.) The idea was that a nuclear power pack would give such a surplus of availble energy that vehicles could be armored to the point of being invulnerable to infantry, and armed so heavily that attacking infantry wouldnt be able to close. (Imagine a 12.7mm CWIS on a tank, or maybe a couple.)

[KC]

"I know about Jane's, but can't afford their products and neither can DFW-area libraries. Sigh."

Yeah..I've passed up a couple pistols to get Jane's books. Try calling around to the local aviation companies, engineering libraries, etc. They used to buy that sort of thing every year. Also, go bug your local university(s); most, especially federal depositories, will have moderatly current volumes floating around. If nothing else, they are higher on the begging list when companies dispose of surplus property.
What the heck, try calling your local congressthing, and see if it will lend a helping hand. There also used to be government grants for private people and students to buy 'professional literature'.

[RJ]

Intune, when were you stationed at Ayers ? I was with the 122nd maint. Bn there 1983-1985, 63hotel Tracked vehicle mechanic.
I don't miss "the Rock " at all!
RJ;)

[another okie]

If you want an eyewitness account of what happens to a tank crew when the armor is pierced and to infantry around a tank read My War by Andy Rooney. There is section called My Grimmest Vision which will make you lose sleep for a week.

[Preacherman]

For those who followed Telomerase's links to new missile technology, the LOSAT is a wonderfully effective missile, and would be effective even against a DU-armored tank like the latest M1 Abrams or its German or Russian equivalents. It has no warhead at all, relying on the kinetic energy of a multi-pound hardened penetrator flying at 5,000 fps.

To watch it in action, see this video (http://www.vampirebat.com/obeythefist/losat.avi) - it uses Windows Media Player. Two things to look for:

1. In the second half of the video, the camera is near the target tank. Note the speed at which the missile travels nearly 3 miles to hit the target!

2. If you advance the video frame-by-frame just before the missile hits, there's one frame at the moment of impact where the tank completely disappears behind a halo-like flame. This is, of course, obscured by dirt the next instant, and you can't really see it without frame-by-frame viewing: but it's most impressive.

[Intune]

July '81 to Jan '83. I went over there unaccompanied by my wife (#1) and then went to Carson. Big mistake. #1 & Carson! M1's were coming to the Rock and stateside sucked bigtime compared to Germany. I really enjoyed my time over there, most of us did ;) I was born in Nuremberg and lived in Wurtzburg & Heidleberg growing up. I'm looking forward to the day that I can take the family over and enjoy the rich history of europe. Anyone remember HEP rounds?

As far as all the talk about the demise of the MBT, all those fancy missle platforms don't get a free pass on the battlefield either. That's why it's called Combined Arms. I had & have faith in my brothers at the helm of the Apaches, the A-10s & the 155's. Any cannon cockers or flyboys wanna pipe up as to the damage a humvee could expect from a visit by you guys? Which platform would YOU want to be in during an attack on your position? Something that a handgun could chew up? ;) WWII was the last of the "good" wars guys. Now they have too many ways to kill you long distance.

[OEF_VET]

Intune is quite right about the combined arms concept.

Infantry and armor units are normally organically made up of their own type of force. However, when the war bugles blow, they combine into what are known as teams at the company level and task forces at the battalion and brigade level. A typical heavy brigade is made up of 3-4 battalions of infantry/armor, a self-propelled 155mm artillery battalion, an ADA battery, a foward support battalion, an engineer company, and various attack aviation assets.

There are several reasons for combining these forces. One of the most important is that they have different jobs, but can't do them effectively without the aid of the others. Tanks are great for fighting tanks, but they are susceptible to crunchies (infantrymen) getting behind them with an AT weapon. The friendly grunts are there to take out those guys before they're able to engage the tanks. Most often, the friendly infantrymen will stay buttoned-up in their vehicles until they are close to the objective. This is to stay protected from all that hostile lead being randomly tossed through the surrounding air. In my opinion, the biggest reason for infantry working with armor is simple: the only people authorized by God to take and hold terrain are U.S. Army Infantrymen! Treadheads can't do it, gun-bunnies can't do it, fly-boys can't, only grunts can.

Another important asset available to the manuever commander is his artillery. With the current systems in the inventory, a commander has the ability to unleash a torrent of fire unlike anything else this side of Hell's Gates. With proper target location (from a highly trained forward observer -the smartest soldier on the battlefield), good meterological data, and the right ammo, just about any enemy weapon system can be taken out by artillery, including enemy armor! Things like Copperhead and FASCAM can make short work of an enemy armor attack. Also, those AT missile gunners attempting to get a lock-on on a tank have to be mindful of shrapnel. As soon as a gunner is spotted a trained FO would call an Immediate Suppression mission and whatever indirect fire asset is alloted to him will begin to fire on his target. You also have to remember that no ground manuever commander is going to go onto a high-intensity battlefield without firing some prepatory fires. This generally involves several minutes of non-stop firing by virtually every indirect fire asset within range. After those missions are concluded and the guns are displacing, the Air Force CAS aircraft and Army attack helicopters would come in and make several passes over the battlefield. Then there are the Global Hawk unarmed and Predator armed UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles). They can stand-off several klicks and spot targets of opportunity for other air assets to come in and engage, or, in the case of the Predator, engage on their own. Other assets, such as B-52's, B-1's, and B-2's are usually in the area to drop JDAM's (Joint Defense Attack Munitions) and iron 'dumb' bombs on anybody stupid enough to hang out in the area.

As you can see, the modern battlefield is a very dangerous place to be. Especially for an unarmored two-man ATGM team or a thin-skinned AT vehicle. We've been training to conduct these types of operations for quite a long time, and through the use of places like NTC, JRTC, Graf, Hohenfels, Ft. Knox, and other training areas, we've pretty well perfected the art of war.

If you do want to learn more about the Stryker Brigade from the perspective of one of the soldiers in the unit, talk to JShirley. He's in one of the two brigades at Ft. Lewis, I believe the 2nd ID's brigade. I haven't seen him around in awhile though, so he may be out in the field or deployed somewhere right now.

frank

"On the eighth day, God created the Infantry, the gates of Hell flew open, and the Devil stood at Attention."

[65_Toy]

Intune and RJ:

Good to see more "Rock graduates". Spent 86-90 there with 3/36Inf / 5/5Cav (redesignated after conversion to M2 and M3s). I visited Kirchgons later in the 90's and "the Rock" was turned into an Auslander/refugee center.

[Intune]

Welcome aboard 65_Toy! That's about all the Rock could've been turned into. Did they still have the Hawks for ADA? Our military equipt was in the dark ages back then.

Man, I miss those flippee's. We'd get a couple of cases at that place across the main gate and then go to the bridge to the left and consume. It was always entertaining when the newb's drank their fourth or fifth one. This ain't your daddy's Bud! :cool:

[dport]

Someday we will see as many tanks on the battlefield as we see chariots on battlefields today. For now and for the immediate future the tank will have a place on the battlefield if for no other reason than our opposition has nothing to effectively deal with them. However, if we ever face an enemy that can kill whatever they see, like we can, the tanks days will be numbered, and armor will take a back seat to stealth.

[Bravo11]

In-Tune, 65 Toy,
I was tooling around the German countryside around the same time.
I didn't get a permanent duty station in Germany(stuck in Ft Polk-5th Mech) but I participated in an extended REFORGER in '84. For those who don't know about REFORGER it's Return Forces Germany and simulated when the Red Horde came across we were the backup to the forces stationed in Europe. Those were the Cold War days.

[Detritus]

For those who don't know about REFORGER it's Return Forces Germany and simulated when the Red Horde came across we were the backup to the forces stationed in Europe. Those were the Cold War days

i always heard it called "Re-Failure" as in even at the peak of our force readiness, by the time the bulk of stateside reinforcements arrived on scene the russians would have already reached the coast and be making moves to take England (or turn the UK to glass, depending)

[Bravo11]

Yeh, it was a pretty extreme concept.
I always thought if it got that bad the nukes would be flying anyway.
Remember the nuke attack training. Take the antennas down, turn off the radios, put the oil cans inside the tank(never did get that one), and turn the tank to face away from the blast.

[telomerase]

>turn the tank to face away from the blast.

Why? To protect vulnerable sensors? Obviously if crew survival were involved you would keep the front armor toward the prompt radiation source.

[Intune]

They knew we could never convince the drivers to be the first to go! ;) I don't remember. On the 60's could the driver drop his ballistic glass when he was buttoned? I seem to recall that he could but my recollection and flippees are intertwined ;) We were screwed in 60's anyway. No overpressure or filtration. Might as well throw an unopened can of beenie weenies in the loaders heater for entertainment. :evil:

[telomerase]

>No overpressure or filtration.

What century did you think you were in? Was the coax a hand-cranked Gatling? :uhoh: :scrutiny:

Actually I remember reading that, and thinking that our "leaders" were counting a little too heavily on the Danegeld. Guess it worked for them though.

[DF357]

go to www.tankbooks.com and read several on line books about the 90th Division tankers in Europe. The books are full of actual interviews with the tankers and troopers who were there. I personally know several of the guys interviewed for the books and one who had his leg cut off when an 88 went thru his tank at Hill 122.

Aaron Elson, the author, writes from the heart as his Dad was in the 712th tank Bn.

Really good reading - and lots of it.

[Bravo11]

Another good tanker book, fiction.
TEAM YANKEE by Harold Coyle
About M1 tankers in the 80's after the ballon goes up.
Takes place on the border in Germany.