Any "Tankers" here?

Status
Not open for further replies.
every part of my tan body was coated in light tan dust
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
I didn't hear about the Kornet incident but we trained to defend against Soviet saggers. Are saggers still used against armor?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/004632.html
 
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.
 
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).
 
"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.
 
>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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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:
 
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:
 
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
 
"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
 
>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.
 
"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
 
>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.
 
>-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.
 
"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.
 
>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.
 
"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.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top