ADFSDS vs. HEAT
Kenny Noe
I'd post to gain additional information.
In toady's environment (1980 - Present) I understand that the APFSDS round
has become the round of choice among Tankers and APFSDS has a better
penetration effect on MBTs. Is this a wrong statement? Why and defend your
answer! <grin>
Heading for the shelter now..... TIA ----Kenny
pulver
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Kenny Noe wrote:
> OK, I've gotten several different opinions from people at CW99 and thought
> I'd post to gain additional information.
>
> In toady's environment (1980 - Present) I understand that the APFSDS round
> has become the round of choice among Tankers and APFSDS has a better
> penetration effect on MBTs. Is this a wrong statement? Why and defend your
> answer! <grin>
APFSDS is the round of choice by MBTs *against* MBTs. The simple reason
for this is that Chobham armor and reactive armor are optimized against
HEAT, and thus roughly double your effective armor protection. Since a
HEAT round and an APFSDS round have roughly equivelent penetration
otherwise (HEAT slightly better at long range, APFSDS at close range) the
answer is simple: use APFSDS, because if you use HEAT, it will bounce off.
roughly speaking, a good modern tank (Challenger, M1A1, etc.) may have
about 500-600mm equivelent armor on its front, with the chobham
effectively increasing this to 1100-1300mm vs. HEAT only. A late model
T80's second-generation "heavy" reactive armor gives about the same value
(for a limited time).
A typical 120mm gun may penetrate about 500-650mm with a state of the art
HEAT or APFSDS warhead at 1000-2000m range. So, basically, HEAT is useless
against an MBT from the front, but APFSDS may (if lucky) get through.
(Note that this applies to HEAT from a tank gun. A TOW missile or
other large ATGM carries a bigger warhead. Depending on the warhead
technology, the HEAT round may or may not be large or cunning (double
warhead, etc.) enough to get through.
HEAT is, however, still carried and used by MBT, especially in
dual-purpose (HEAT with fragmenting case, or HEDP) because it is more
effective against soft
targets (infantry, trucks) and just as effective against APCs, IFVs, etc.
Ty Beard
>In toady's environment (1980 - Present) I understand that the APFSDS round
>has become the round of choice among Tankers and APFSDS has a better
>penetration effect on MBTs. Is this a wrong statement? Why and defend
your
>answer! <grin>
APFSDS is best for killing MBTs. Chobham, laminate and reactive armors have
made HEAT penetrators obsolete for attacking MBTs from the front. Missile
designers are compensating by developing top-attack missiles.
HEAT is stil viable for attcking light vehicles. The US HEAT round also
doubles as an HE round. HEAT rounds are also less accurate at all ranges.
--Ty Beard
AbnRangerX
can tell you that for firing at MBTs APFSDS (Sabot) is what you want. This
goes for shooting at Helios as well by the way. HEAT is still used against
APCs and fixed targets like bunkers and bouldings.
Sabot is better because it has a much greater penetration value. Most
tankers would prefer to go in to combat with "battle carry Sabot" (a Sabot
round loaded in the main gun) because they know they can kill anything with it,
even if it means wasting a "good" round on a lighter target.
A Sabot round is basicly a large dart with a deleated uranium tip moving
at about 3,000 meters a second. Very hard to stop. Heat is still effective
against tanks without reactive armor in most cases, but some tank designes with
heavily sloped armor can deflect the plasma jet from the shaped charge.
Rob Whiting
Brian O'Leary
The most effective kinetic penetrators seem to be the DU type but I've read
that some manufacturers of certain forged tungsten penetrators claim that
they are superior to some DU types. The APDS rounds of today offer more
energy (being fire from larger guns) and harder, denser penetrators that
have much more kinetic energy (KE) on impact than rounds of yesteryear. The
small cross-section and advantageous ballistic coefficient mean that less
energy is blead off while traveling to the target than older types of
kinetic rounds, thus maintaining a greater proportion of their already
higher KE on impact and effectively extending their useful range. Sloped
armor can still be an effective defense, as the amount of armor penetrated
is equal to the plate thickness divided by the SIN of the angle from
horizontal and the bending stress over the length of the penetrator sucks
away some of the KE. The face hardness of the armor relative to the
hardness of the penetrator is another issue. If the armor is harder, the
round will break up on contact and be deflected away. Generally though,
modern penetrators are working against yesterdays armor, so the round is
harder than the armor and has such a surplus of KE that enough slope just
isn't possible.
The applied metallurgy of armor hasn't allowed the pendulum to swing back in
favor of armor yet but in theory it will. Newer armor designs consisting of
composite materials that combine the hardness of say DU armor with an
elastic "fabric" will cause the energy of the KE penetrator to be diffused
across the cross sectional area of the entire armored face that is struck.
Some of this is already instituted in the latest generation of vehicles, but
the applied technology will get better.
Heat rounds are fired at lower muzzle velocities and the shape of the round
dictates a poorer ballistic coefficient, thus the round slows more rapidly
and becomes less accurate far sooner than the APFSDS round. Armor developed
in the late 1960's and 1970's caught up the chemical energy penetrators and
have greatly reduced the threat from these rounds. A HEAT round uses a
chemical fuel to form a plasma jet to burn through the armor. Some of these
materials burn at outrageous rates along the lines of 25,000-32,000 feet per
second. Additionally the burning plasma needs to be engaged in a specific
geometric cone shape to be at its most efficient level. Any defect,
blemish, or deformation of the cone reduces the penetration of the warhead.
Thus sloped armor can drastically reduce the penetration as it distorts the
cone, and spaced armor sets off the fuse and uses up the burn time prior to
the material actually contacting the armor to be penetrated. Chobham and
similar armors also used higher technology including the lamination or
honeycombing materials specifically resistant to this type of weapon in the
armor. For example ceramic materials withstand the high heat and conduct
the energy throughout the armor rather than letting it focus on a small
area. Reactive armor also deforms the cone. Spaced and reactive armor can
be defeated by multistaged warheads, with one warhead being set off by the
spaced/reactive armor and the real or second warhead being set off by the
primary armor of the target. Ideally the cone is best if formed at a
certain distance from the armor, thus some rounds have a pronounced "nose",
this contains the stand-off fuse mechanism. Top attack Heat weapons
partially defeat reactive and spaced armor, but still have to deal with
composites if encountered.
For the time being at least KE weapons are more effective than chemical
energy weapons, but as the technological battle continues, the pendulum is
sure to swing to and fro.
Guess it's a good to stop my long winded babble. Hope this is helpful.
Brian
Kenny Noe wrote in message <37226487$0$13...@mojo.crosslink.net>...
>OK, I've gotten several different opinions from people at CW99 and thought
>I'd post to gain additional information.
>
>In toady's environment (1980 - Present) I understand that the APFSDS round
>has become the round of choice among Tankers and APFSDS has a better
>penetration effect on MBTs. Is this a wrong statement? Why and defend
your
>answer! <grin>
>
Steve B
Steve
Nick Meredith
Uranium where the radioactive isotopes have "run out" or decayed to
being (largely) non radioactive. It is very dense, so makes an
excellent kinetic penetrator.
--
Nick Meredith, Coventry, UK
KenMDale
>Nice answer, Brian (and others) But can someone explain exactly what
>Delpeted Uranium (I assume that's what DU stands for) is and why it is used?
Naturally occurring uranium contains both U-238 and U-235 isotopes, mostly
U-238. To make the uranium useful for reactor fuel or weapons, the proportion
of U-235 must be increased. This is done by one of several processes (all very
expensive) which produce a small amount of "enriched" uranium (higher
proportion of U-235) as the main product and large amounts of "depleted"
uranium (almost no U-235) as a byproduct. The uranium enrichment plant where I
used to work had a storage yard full of large cylinders of DU that had been
accumulating for years.
Uranium is useful for penetrators because of its high density. Depleted
uranium works just as well for this as any other kind, and is available in
large quantities at practically zero cost.
Ken Dale
Justin Taylor
quicker and flatter trajectory.
Read a really interesting account of Israeli use of long range (5Km+) APDS
fire to shoot up tanks and tractors on the Golan heights before they
captured them.
Ty Beard
>...does any one know the penetration value of a
>tungsten round vs.. a DU round? What countries have DU rounds? (Can we
>assume any country that has a Nuclear power plant?)
DU must be better because the nations that can afford it use it. However,
the possible toxic effects of the round have made some nations avoid it. The
Russians have DU penetrators, but the quantity is limited.
>Also I'd like to know your opinion of the M1A2 vs.. the T-80UD (or T-90)
>going head to head with APFSDS (Ranges and number of rounds).
The M1A2 kills the T-80/90 at any range if it's using the latest DU
penetrator. The T-80/90 kills the M1A2 at close range (say 1000 meters or
less). At 2000 meters, dunno.
>I read a source (Clancy Armored CAV book) where an M1A1 was stuck in the
>sand. The decision was to destroy the tank. It took several shots (point
>blank) from another M1A1 before the ammo blast panels blew up. The tank
was
>later recovered, taken to a recovery station, the turret was replaced and
>the tank was placed back in action. OY!
Unfortunately, he didn't note which penetrator was used. If they fired a
HEAT round, for instance, the result isn't surprising.
>My question (your thoughts) is: If an M1A1 is this tough (the M1A2 is even
>tougher) what can kill it? (Rear shots are not an acceptable answer!
Top-attack missiles. APDU rounds from other tanks at close range. Very small
nuclear warheads. Anti-vehicle mines. Possibly self-forging penetrators?
--Ty Beard
Get your copy of A Fistful of TOWs today!
http://www.tyler.net/tbeard/home.htm
Jeff Ewing
causes a highly exothermic reaction--bursts into flame. The resulting
uranium dust is thought by some to be one factor in Gulf War syndrome.
Jeff
Steve B wrote:
>
> Nice answer, Brian (and others) But can someone explain exactly
> what Delpeted Uranium (I assume that's what DU stands for) is and why
> it is used?
>
> Steve
>
Kenny Noe
Another question.... A comment was made that the most modern Tungsten
APFSDS round is as dense as a DU round. This has made me curious.. keeping
the discussion as "open source" does any one know the penetration value of a
tungsten round vs.. a DU round? What countries have DU rounds? (Can we
assume any country that has a Nuclear power plant?)
Also I'd like to know your opinion of the M1A2 vs.. the T-80UD (or T-90)
going head to head with APFSDS (Ranges and number of rounds).
I read a source (Clancy Armored CAV book) where an M1A1 was stuck in the
sand. The decision was to destroy the tank. It took several shots (point
blank) from another M1A1 before the ammo blast panels blew up. The tank was
later recovered, taken to a recovery station, the turret was replaced and
the tank was placed back in action. OY!
My question (your thoughts) is: If an M1A1 is this tough (the M1A2 is even
tougher) what can kill it? (Rear shots are not an acceptable answer!
<grin>)
Brian Hodson
Kenny Noe wrote in message <3724e9f3$0
>My question (your thoughts) is: If an M1A1 is this tough (the M1A2 is even
>tougher) what can kill it? (Rear shots are not an acceptable answer!
><grin>)
Well, it sounds like soft sand worked like a charm here....
Brian Hodson
Jason Schmidt
>
> I read a source (Clancy Armored CAV book) where an M1A1 was stuck in the
> sand. The decision was to destroy the tank. It took several shots (point
> blank) from another M1A1 before the ammo blast panels blew up. The tank was
> later recovered, taken to a recovery station, the turret was replaced and
> the tank was placed back in action. OY!
Is it just me, or does anyone else have difficulty with taking Tom
Clancy's opinion of the U.S. military at face value?
<ducks>
--
Codeine: tugboat captain, King of Spain
Ty Beard
>Andy O'Neill wrote:
>>
>> In article <37254D...@earthlink.net>, Jason Schmidt
>> <cod...@earthlink.net> writes
>> >Is it just me, or does anyone else have difficulty with taking Tom
>> >Clancy's opinion of the U.S. military at face value?
>
>
>shots from T-80's during the ground war in Iraq that were almost as
>fantastic.
I don't believe the Iraqis had any T-80s in the Gulf War. But their T-72's
had the same 125mm SB as the T-80. One problem was that the Iraqis were
using locally manufactured ammo, presumably inferior to Russian manufactured
munitions. Still, the shots basically bounced off. It seems doubtful to me
that the DU round would have been much more effective.
I believe that the M1A1/2 is as close to invulnerable (from the front) as
you can get. The DU armor sheath provides monstrous protection. Of course,
no one will really know until M1A1/2's mix it up against top of the line
MBTs.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
<19990427145031...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
> A couple of points. Nothing in production at the moment can penetrate
the
>front armor of an M1. The only way to kill an M1 from the front is a
lucky, or
>very skilled shot that hits the turret ring. In the Gulf War M1s being
fired
>on by other M1s would turn thier turrets toward the fire and sit tight til
the
>shooting stoped because the front armor could not be penetrated by any
round.
That's interesting. I didn't know that. Is this in published sources, or do
you have inside info?
--Ty Beard
Get Your Copy of A Fistful of TOWs at http://www.tyler.net/tbeard/index.htm
Ty Beard
>.... The armour of the M1A1 being produced at the time
>was supposed to be proof to just about anything in its frontal 30 degree
>arc. However, you may be surprised to know that outside the frontal 30
>degree arc, the requirement or spec was that it be resistant to 20mm (or
>it may have been 30mm) cannon, IIRC.
That's common in MBTs these days. The problem is that by the time you
protect the front arc, there's not much weight capacity left to armor the
sides.
Carl Parlagreco
>My question (your thoughts) is: If an M1A1 is this tough (the M1A2 is even
>tougher) what can kill it? (Rear shots are not an acceptable answer!
><grin>)
Uh, the Senate Appropriateions Committee?
Justin Taylor
to ammo storage, BANG!
To stop current US tanks just give them plenty of room to run round, they
will soon run out of fuel. On the other hand there is little chance of them
fighting equal oppostion so no problem.
Seems like the US plans to fight its next wars from the air.
Andy O'Neill
<cod...@earthlink.net> writes
>Is it just me, or does anyone else have difficulty with taking Tom
>Clancy's opinion of the U.S. military at face value?
It would appear that a glowing description of US forces is perceived as
being more saleable.
Whether this iss true or not, I couldn't say.
All the English people who I know've read the series all say that the
author went well over the top with praise and they winced at times.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Liverpool Wargames Association
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/LWA.htm
AbnRangerX
front armor of an M1. The only way to kill an M1 from the front is a lucky, or
very skilled shot that hits the turret ring. In the Gulf War M1s being fired
on by other M1s would turn thier turrets toward the fire and sit tight til the
shooting stoped because the front armor could not be penetrated by any round.
top rear deck, and the top and rear of the turret. Other than that, only a
very lucky shot can take out an M1.
When I was at the Armor school they estimated it would not be until early
2000s that the Soviets could develop a weapon that would be able to kill an M1
from the front. That date is probably been pushed even further out since the
colapse of the Soviets.
The armor package on the M1A2 is the same as the M1A1 Heavy Armor. The
primary differance is the computer command and control system, and the Cobra
system.
Finnaly, one side note. the accuracy of APFSDS is so good that the
greatest restrictions on it are the resolution of the modern sights. Sabot
rounds could hit targets out to probably 6000 meters, but the sights are only
capable of identifying targets out to 2000 to 2500 meters. Beyond that range
the target is little more than a dot in the sight. The farthest confirmed kill
with a sabot round was about 4000 meters in the gulf war. Unfortunatly, the
resolution of the sight is so bad at that range it becomes impossable to
identify friends from foes.
Just some thoughts for you to consider,
Rob Whiting
Jonathan Jarrard
>
> In article <37254D...@earthlink.net>, Jason Schmidt
> <cod...@earthlink.net> writes
> >Is it just me, or does anyone else have difficulty with taking Tom
> >Clancy's opinion of the U.S. military at face value?
Tim Marshall
quite surprised at the poor performance of Iraqi tanks.
Years later, I followed an interesting discussion on this topic in
sci.military.moderated. From the posts there, it appeared that Iraqi
made submunitions were not even tungsten which accounted for the poor
performance of the 125mm.
I agree the M1A1/A2 is an excellent tank, but remember that it was
designed after the collapse of the West german/US MBT-70 endeavour and
was supposed to be a "budget" tank (this is the main reason, TACOM told
us, why the commander did not have an independant sight as most modern
MBTs have). In 1989, I toured the General Dynamics fabrication sites at
Lima Ohio and Warren, Michigan with other Canadian officers and US
officers from TACOM. The armour of the M1A1 being produced at the time
was supposed to be proof to just about anything in its frontal 30 degree
arc. However, you may be surprised to know that outside the frontal 30
degree arc, the requirement or spec was that it be resistant to 20mm (or
it may have been 30mm) cannon, IIRC. The M1 has always had a weight
problem (the reason why the early tracks were hollow and prone to
busting up and requiring a hell of a lot more track maintnance than an
M-60) so this spec makes sense to me.
John D Salt
AbnRangerX <abnra...@aol.com> wrote:
[Snips]
>the target is little more than a dot in the sight. The farthest confirmed kill
>with a sabot round was about 4000 meters in the gulf war.
For your lot, maybe. A Challenger killed a soft vehicle using
APFSDS at over 7000 metres -- and it was a first-round kill, too.
All the best,
John.
--
John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility
Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough
Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can
Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one.
AbnRangerX
>APFSDS at over 7000 metres -- and it was a first-round kill, too.
Sorry, I should have been more clear, I was refering to Tank vs. Tank
kills by the US Army. I did not say that the gunner couldn't see the target,
just that he couldn't tell what it was. At about 3500 meters the turret of a
T72 (and that is all that was vissable during most engagements in the gulf war,
the rest of the vehicle wast concealed behind a built up berm) is smaller in a
thermal sight than the center dot of the aiming retical. A good gunner could
still hit a target at that range, and many did, but they couldn't really tell
what they were shooting at. A truck in the open would be large enough to still
be visable at 7000m in a thermal sight, but a Sabot round on a truck is a
little extravigent. Still, an excellent shot by your lad.
All the best,
Rob Whiting
Mike Campbell
> I read a source (Clancy Armored CAV book) where an M1A1 was stuck in the
> sand. The decision was to destroy the tank. It took several shots (point
> blank) from another M1A1 before the ammo blast panels blew up. The tank was
> later recovered, taken to a recovery station, the turret was replaced and
> the tank was placed back in action. OY!
>
> My question (your thoughts) is: If an M1A1 is this tough (the M1A2 is even
> tougher) what can kill it? (Rear shots are not an acceptable answer!
> <grin>)
Possibly they just failed to hit any explosives inside - that doesn't
mean the tank was serviceable.
Not be a tankee, my guess is that KE rounds such as APDS inflict a lot
of damage to the crew of a tank via splinters which are not likely to
ignite stored ammo or fuel if the penetrator itself doesn't hit them.
Of course this knocks out the vehicle (by killing or maiming the crew),
but doesn't destroy it. I'd guess some interna; equipment would also be
damaged - sights, radios, etc. But again these are not going to burn or
cause explosions.
Mike
Channing Anderson
> Possibly they just failed to hit any explosives inside - that doesn't
> mean the tank was serviceable.
4 rounds failed to penetrate, the fifth did and did not have enough
residual KE.
> Not be a tankee, my guess is that KE rounds such as APDS inflict a lot
> of damage to the crew of a tank via splinters which are not likely to
> ignite stored ammo or fuel if the penetrator itself doesn't hit them.
> Of course this knocks out the vehicle (by killing or maiming the crew),
> but doesn't destroy it. I'd guess some interna; equipment would also be
> damaged - sights, radios, etc. But again these are not going to burn or
> cause explosions.
Nope. The round throws splinters through the compartment and also
causes an expthermic reaction with the steel armor that ignites the
interior. Glancing rounds or lower residual energy rounds knock out
equipment.
Channing Anderson
> The farthest confirmed kill
> resolution of the sight is so bad at that range it becomes impossable to
> identify friends from foes.
I had read one account of a kill at around 5200m.
Brian O'Leary
stabaloy was in Russian armor? Do they mix the loadout or do active units
simply get the best ammo?
Whether or not the ammo used by the Iraqis was stabaloy?
And what the composition of stabaloy is?
Thanks for any help,
Brian
Ty Beard
>Something I found interesting is to compare the frontal 'rolled-steel armor
>equivalent' of the M1A1 to the belt armor of a WWII battleship. IIRC, the
M1A1
>has better armor.
According to Osprey (and Chadwick's Desert Storm sourcebook) the M1A1 HA has
the equivalent of 600mm of RHA (rolled homogenous armor) against kinetic
energy penetrators and roughly double that protection against HEAT rounds.
--Ty Beard
Get your copy of A Fistful of TOWs (modern armored combat rules) at
http://www.tyler.net/tbeard/home.htm
Ty Beard
<19990428131752...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
> The Cobra (at least thats what it was called when it was under
>development) is a system that allows the Tank Commander to scan the battle
>field and ID a new target while the gunner is engaging the current target.
>Once the Gunner has destroyed the current target the TC presses a button
and
>the gun automaticly comes to bear on the new target he has IDed. The idea
is
>to cut down on the time between engagements.
This is integrated in the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer, isn't it?
dart...@my-dejanews.com
css...@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) wrote:
> In article <19990427145031...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> AbnRangerX <abnra...@aol.com> wrote:
> [Snips]
kill
> >with a sabot round was about 4000 meters in the gulf war.
>
> APFSDS at over 7000 metres -- and it was a first-round kill, too.
>
>
> John.
According to Armor Magazine (one of 1992 issues), the longest tank kill from
the gulf was a British HESH round that zapped a T-55 at about 5500m.
The longest shot I've ever seen was a couple of new 2LT's that fired Sabot
round with HEAT indexed on their fire control and a 2800m solution from the
meter. The first shot had us rolling, when they fired again I thought the
Range Control Officer was going to tear the turret hatch off when he reached
them...<g>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Minadmiral
>system.
????
Chuck
Bertil Jonell
>front armor of an M1.
(The Maverick has a >20kg shaped charge. TOW's, Hellfires and most other
anti-tank missiles have charges weighing less than two kilos)
>Rob Whiting
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
AbnRangerX
>
>(The Maverick has a >20kg shaped charge. TOW's, Hellfires and most other
Nope. I was refering to ground and Helo carried systems. I have never seen
any data on a Maverick vs. an M1. When I was at Ft. Knox, we never really
worried about it because we were not exspecting to be shot at by US air
ordinance. But, you never know, we could have to face Egyptian M1s some day,
so its a valid question.
Rob
AbnRangerX
>>system.
>
>????
>Chuck
>
The Cobra (at least thats what it was called when it was under
development) is a system that allows the Tank Commander to scan the battle
field and ID a new target while the gunner is engaging the current target.
Once the Gunner has destroyed the current target the TC presses a button and
the gun automaticly comes to bear on the new target he has IDed. The idea is
to cut down on the time between engagements.
The original M1 had the gunner and the TC looking through the same sight.
This has a tendancy to give the crew tunnel vision because its a lot easyer to
spot targets with the thermal sight than just eyeballing the battle field.
Last I heard, the decision was to retrofit the existing fleet of M1A1s
with the Cobra as funding allowed, since the original plan of completely
re-equiping the force with M1A2s is just a pipe dream at the moment.
Hope it helps,
Rob
Tim Marshall
under development, what you call "cobra" was the CITV - Commander's
independant thermal viewer and was to be placed actually above the
loader's spot (with the visual feeds to the commander, of course).
Is the cobra the same thing? Is it still a thermal imager?
Curious - thanks! 8)
DSundseth
equivalent' of the M1A1 to the belt armor of a WWII battleship. IIRC, the M1A1
has better armor.
Doug Sundseth
Steve B
etc.) need shielding? Do the launchers of such weapons risk being sued by the
recipients if they become ill? OK, before anyone flames me, the last bit was a
(kind of) joke.
Steve
KenMDale wrote:
> Steve B <kev...@NOSPAM.eurodltd.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Nice answer, Brian (and others) But can someone explain exactly what
> >Delpeted Uranium (I assume that's what DU stands for) is and why it is used?
>
> Naturally occurring uranium contains both U-238 and U-235 isotopes, mostly
> U-238. To make the uranium useful for reactor fuel or weapons, the proportion
> of U-235 must be increased. This is done by one of several processes (all very
> expensive) which produce a small amount of "enriched" uranium (higher
> proportion of U-235) as the main product and large amounts of "depleted"
> uranium (almost no U-235) as a byproduct. The uranium enrichment plant where I
> used to work had a storage yard full of large cylinders of DU that had been
> accumulating for years.
>
> Uranium is useful for penetrators because of its high density. Depleted
> uranium works just as well for this as any other kind, and is available in
> large quantities at practically zero cost.
>
> Ken Dale
Brett
told at one time that daily contact for a year with 30mm AP rounds would be
the "roughly" equal to 2 chest xrays...... The 30mm penatrator is
considerably smaller but we dealt with lots more ammo.
G
Steve B <kev...@NOSPAM.eurodltd.co.uk> wrote in article
<372761F0...@NOSPAM.eurodltd.co.uk>...
Bob Klindworth
that dangerous. The first thing to consider is its activity. This is kind
of like the inverse of the half-life. In other words, the shorter the
half-life, the hotter the substance is. The half-life of U-238 is 10^9
years (ie 1000000000 years). Thus U-238 is not very hot. The other thing
to consider is how U-238 decays since some decay products are more
dangerous than others. U-238 is an alpha emitter. This is the least
dangerous (penetrating) form of radiation. Alpha particles are stopped by
nothing more exotic than a piece of paper (ie clothing protects you just
fine).
To sum up, U-238 emits the least damaging form of radiation and
even that at a _very_ slow rate. Depleted uranium in itself is nothing to
worry about as far as its radiation is concerned. However, like any other
heavy metal (like lead) it is poisonous if ingested, but not any more than
most other types of ordinance in common use.
Bob Klindworth, PhD
Ty Beard
>>e M1A1 HA has
>>the equivalent of 600mm of RHA (rolled homogenous armor
>
>Chuck
I did say "equivalent". I note that modern heavy ATGM's (TOW, HOT, etc.)
have well in excess of 600mm of armor penetration. The M1A1 is supposed to
be immune to those types of weapons. This implies that this level of armor
protection is correct for the M1A1 HA.
-Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>> A couple of points. Nothing in production at the moment can
penetrate the
>> front armor of an M1.
>
>
invincible.
>It's only 600/1200 KE/CE RHA equivilent or there abouts and there are
>things out there that will deal to that. The Russians make a tungsten
>penetrator for their 125 mm that the Indians have confirmed will deal to
>700 mm RHA.
Do you have a source for this info? The Russians, even more than the West,
tend to overstate the performance of their weapons.
>Both the Germans and the British have (although I don't know
>if they use them yet) penetrators that will cope.
It seems to me to be unlikely that the German and British penetrators will
be dramatically better than the American (who have tended to lead in
penetrator performance) round. If the American APDU round can't penetrate
the M1A1 HA, it seems unlikely that the British or German round could.
>> The only real week spots on an M1 are the grill doors, the air intakes on
the
>> top rear deck, and the top and rear of the turret. Other than that, only
a
>> very lucky shot can take out an M1.
>
>So now the sides are invincible as well? ;-) Look, somehow I don't
>think a M1 (of any flavour) is going to be happy to take a 120/125mm
>round in the hull side from under 1000 metres.
Agreed.
>You risk losing a lot of
>vehicles having people think things are better than they are. M1s may be
>good (albeit overpriced for what they are imo)
Actually, they're cheaper per unit than many inferior tanks because so many
have been produced.
>> Finnaly, one side note. the accuracy of APFSDS is so good that the
>> greatest restrictions on it are the resolution of the modern sights.
Sabot
>> rounds could hit targets out to probably 6000 meters,
>
>Sabot round performance falls off dramatically beyond 2000 metres,
>especially that fired from a smoothbore. Whilst you might hit something
>out at that range the round would have bugger all energy left; a KE
>round of some sort is better as the range increases.
There were confirmed kills in the Gulf War from APDS at > 2000m.
>> but the sights are only
>> capable of identifying targets out to 2000 to 2500 meters. Beyond that
range
>> the target is little more than a dot in the sight.
>
>M1 series laser range finders are calibrated out to 3000 metres. After
>that the computer will not return a solution to the gun, hence there was
>no design need to provide optics that would allow viewing at ranges over
>that. German and British gun sights don't have this restriction,
>providing solutions out to at least 5000 metres.
Except that there were confirmed 4000 meter hits in the Gilf War from M1's.
>Huh? The longest confirmed engagement range for a sabot round was 3200
>metres by a Challenger, according to both the British MoD and French
>After Action reports.
There are published reports of a confirmed US hit at 4000m; I'll see if I
can find it.
--Ty Beard
AbnRangerX
Yes, I'm sure it is. None had been fielded when I left the "tactical" Army in
95, and I never saw any while I was in Bosnia in 96 and 97, but I am sure they
will get them fielded eventually. I'm sure the name Cobra was given to it so
the Army could use a sexy name to chalenge the other services for money.
Rob
..
AbnRangerX wrote:
>
> A couple of points. Nothing in production at the moment can penetrate the
> front armor of an M1.
False. Nothing out there will have an easy time of it, but it's not invincible.
It's only 600/1200 KE/CE RHA equivilent or there abouts and there are
things out there that will deal to that. The Russians make a tungsten
penetrator for their 125 mm that the Indians have confirmed will deal to
700 mm RHA. Both the Germans and the British have (although I don't know
if they use them yet) penetrators that will cope.
[...]
> The only real week spots on an M1 are the grill doors, the air intakes on the
> top rear deck, and the top and rear of the turret. Other than that, only a
> very lucky shot can take out an M1.
So now the sides are invincible as well? ;-) Look, somehow I don't
think a M1 (of any flavour) is going to be happy to take a 120/125mm
round in the hull side from under 1000 metres. You risk losing a lot of
vehicles having people think things are better than they are. M1s may be
good (albeit overpriced for what they are imo), but they're not that
good. Hell, a decent 30mm round will go straight through the back of the
hull and result in a mobility kill at the very least, and an M1 (or
anything else) isn't much use once it's lost all power.
[...]
> Finnaly, one side note. the accuracy of APFSDS is so good that the
> greatest restrictions on it are the resolution of the modern sights. Sabot
> rounds could hit targets out to probably 6000 meters,
Sabot round performance falls off dramatically beyond 2000 metres,
especially that fired from a smoothbore. Whilst you might hit something
out at that range the round would have bugger all energy left; a KE
round of some sort is better as the range increases.
> but the sights are only
> capable of identifying targets out to 2000 to 2500 meters. Beyond that range
> the target is little more than a dot in the sight.
M1 series laser range finders are calibrated out to 3000 metres. After
that the computer will not return a solution to the gun, hence there was
no design need to provide optics that would allow viewing at ranges over
that. German and British gun sights don't have this restriction,
providing solutions out to at least 5000 metres.
> The farthest confirmed kill
> with a sabot round was about 4000 meters in the gulf war.
Huh? The longest confirmed engagement range for a sabot round was 3200
metres by a Challenger, according to both the British MoD and French
After Action reports. Another Challenger engaged and destroyed a target
at 5000 metres using HESH. I haven't seen anything about M1's engaging
at more than 3000 metres, which I always assumed was because they couldn't.
> Unfortunatly, the
> resolution of the sight is so bad at that range it becomes impossable to
> identify friends from foes.
This is a problem for US forces.... how? ;-)
tengai no kyo kyaku
Minadmiral
John D Salt
<dart...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <7g52vb$2ch$1...@molnir.brunel.ac.uk>,
> css...@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) wrote:
>> For your lot, maybe. A Challenger killed a soft vehicle using
>> APFSDS at over 7000 metres -- and it was a first-round kill, too.
>
>the gulf was a British HESH round that zapped a T-55 at about 5500m.
Longest-range kill _of_ a tank, yes.
Longest-range kill _by_ a tank, no.
DSundseth
>has
>the equivalent of 600mm of RHA (rolled homogenous armor) against kinetic
>energy penetrators and roughly double that protection against HEAT rounds.
>
>--Ty Beard
According to one of Dunnigan and Nofi's Dirty Little Secrets books, Iowa class
BBs have a belt armor of 12.2 inches (about 310mm), up to 17 inches (about
432mm) in some particularly sensitive places. Don't know if this is RHA,
face-hardened, or what. In addition, the BB is a rather large target. Of
course, if the BB engages at 30km, tank return fire shouldn't be too much of a
problem (hull down don't you know.) 8-)
Ty Beard
>Tungsten may be more expensive to buy (but slightly cheaper
>to work) and rarer, but it's more dense than DU...
Are you sure? I though that DU was denser than Tungsten and that's why it
was used. I also note the DU penetrators from the same nations have better
performance than Tungsten, which tends to confirm this.
>> >Sabot round performance falls off dramatically beyond 2000 metres,
>> >especially that fired from a smoothbore. Whilst you might hit something
>> >out at that range the round would have bugger all energy left; a KE
>> >round of some sort is better as the range increases.
>>
>> There were confirmed kills in the Gulf War from APDS at > 2000m.
>
>Who was using APDS?! Note I didn't say it *couldn't*, just that
>performance falls off dramatically. It all a matter of choices. What are
>you shooting at, what is the rounds expected performance, even what do
>you happen to have loaded at the time?
Well, if a tank can be killed at >2000m from the front by an APDS round, it
seems to me that the penetration performance doesn't drop that much.
And I think that KE (kinetic energy) and APDS are the same types of rounds.
I use APDS as shorthand -- I could have said APFSDS, APDU, etc. Your
statement that KE is better as the range increases is puzzling -- did you
mean HEAP/HESH?
>> >M1 series laser range finders are calibrated out to 3000 metres. After
>> >that the computer will not return a solution to the gun, hence there was
>> >no design need to provide optics that would allow viewing at ranges over
>> >that. German and British gun sights don't have this restriction,
>> >providing solutions out to at least 5000 metres.
>>
>> Except that there were confirmed 4000 meter hits in the Gilf War from
M1's.
>
>Yes. That doesn't stop the lasers and computers only being configured to
>provide a solution out to 3000 metres does it? Your reading more into it
>than I wrote, Ty.
No, I don't think I am. You said "M1 series laser range finders are
calibrated out to 3000 metres. After that the computer will not return a
solution to the gun."
Now it seems to me that if the kill was made at >3000 meters, and if the
kill was made with the ballistic computer providing the firing data, then
your statement was incorrect, no?
>> There are published reports of a confirmed US hit at 4000m; I'll see if I
>> can find it.
>
>Please do. I've read reports saying much the same, but they all trace
>back to either just hearsay or the US after action report and, sorry to
>say it, but that report isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
I think I'll just accept your version here. It's not important enough for me
to dig thru my FFT notenooks. Besides, I agreed. In FFT, I took the position
that such shots were rare enough to not rate inclusion in the game. In FFT,
an M1's maximum range is 3600 meters -- which I can produce data to support.
I gave the LeClerc a 3900m range because it's barrel is longer.
>The
>british and french reports seem much more balanced, and some time this
>year I'm going to try wading my way through the US GAO report as I'm
>told that that is fairly well done.
Beware of the US reports, especially the ones that Les Aspen had anything to
do with.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
<7gbig2$1n6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>As for the Genital-Waving contest over who has the best tank, it's a no-win
>situation. Everyone has their favorites. I like the M1A1, but I am not
fond
>of the M1A2. The M1A1 is combat proven, and user friendly (at least to
this
>user). The M1A2, has lots of gadets, 11 buttons on the TC's joystick
(Rather
>than 3 for the TC over-ride in the M1IP/M1A1.
My Humble Opinion:
I like the M1A2, if it's electronics will perform as expected. Otherwise,
the M1A1.
The Challenger Mk 2 is real good too (and probably invulnerable from the
front if British tank design is consistent). I'm glad they went with a
decent engine.
The latest version of the Leopard II (Sweden has some) should be pretty
good -- better armor, especially.
LeClerc is a bit small, and I don't care for the lowered rate of fire that
invariably comes with autoloaders. Longer barrel length should give a little
better maximum effective range. I personally think the French should have
bought Leopards or Challengers. Not invented here.
The Merkava Mk III should be an absolute beast in terms of protection. It's
as heavy as the M1A2 (maybe heavier -- I don't recall), yet devotes less
weight to propulsion. That extra weight, I'll bet, is devoted to armor.
As for the T-80, earlier Leopard II's, M1 w/105mm gun, Ariete and Challenger
Mk1 -- well they're better than M60's.
Seems to me that the latest Western MBT's are really very close in
performance. The edge will (as it always does) go to the best trained side,
IMHO. I'd take US Marines in M1A1's over Saudis in M1A2's any day of the
week.
This can be overstated though. I might not be as sanguine with US Marines in
M48A5's.
The T-80 will continue the Russian tradition of producing adequate tanks at
a low cost. I really liked the gas turbine model, but I guess the
maintenance costs (or fuel costs) were to high for the Russians. However, I
must say that I think the Russians squeeze more bang for the buck out of
their stuff than anyone.
>I also think their are too
>many monitors which keep the TC's head in the turret.
Nice example of real world problems that don't make it to us theoreticians!
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
<7gas1n$19l$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>All very good stuff but a bit too much of my tank is better than your tank.
>Regards any tank with super dooper armour 1944 the Soviets decided that
>regardless of how thick frontal armour was the effect of a 122mm Gun shell
>making full contact has a realistic chance of knocking out a tank with the
>concusive effect.
>Now then what about a M1A2 (or Challenger or..) taking a 152mm Gun shell or
>a 240mm Mortar round and the crew thinking "It don't count cos it can't
>penetrate"
>
>And if the story about a Challenger hittiing at 3000m+ is true then why is
>the British Army taking Challenger II? I thought the problem was that it
was
>a bit iffy in the shooting stakes
It was, in the NATO shooting competitions. I didn't like the Challenger
mk1's limited mobility (compared to the M1 and the Leopard II). Also, the
Mk2 has a better gun, doesn't it?
--Ty Beard
sc...@duncania.freeserve.co.uk
All very good stuff but a bit too much of my tank is better than your tank.
Regards any tank with super dooper armour 1944 the Soviets decided that
regardless of how thick frontal armour was the effect of a 122mm Gun shell
making full contact has a realistic chance of knocking out a tank with the
concusive effect.
Now then what about a M1A2 (or Challenger or..) taking a 152mm Gun shell or
a 240mm Mortar round and the crew thinking "It don't count cos it can't
penetrate"
And if the story about a Challenger hittiing at 3000m+ is true then why is
the British Army taking Challenger II? I thought the problem was that it was
a bit iffy in the shooting stakes
Scott
dart...@my-dejanews.com
> And if the story about a Challenger hittiing at 3000m+ is true then why is
> the British Army taking Challenger II? I thought the problem was that it was
> a bit iffy in the shooting stakes
>
> Scott
There was a good article in Armor Magazine about this in 1993. Entitled
"Tank Gun Accuracy" or something like that. The main problem with accuracy
was that targets relative verticle size decreases to less than 1/2 mil beyond
3000m. (1 mil equals 1/6400th of a circle.) This does not allow for much
error on the part of the gunner.
other problems include:
1. Bad Boresight -Crew Error
2. Thermal Expansion of the Gun Tube. (Even sunlight will cause one side to
expand over time. If the crew boresights in the morning and doesn't bother to
update it in the afternoon, it could cause a problem.)
3. Physical Damage to the Ammunition. (May affect flight characteristics)
4. Optical Path Bending. (Occurs when the ground is hot and the air is
cool/moist.)
I have never heard of a 3000m laser calibration problem for the M1IP or the
M1A1. We were told that the maximum range was 8888m, because that was where
the display for the Laser Range Finder topped out. (Can't confirm, I'm not a
Master Gunner.)
The more important issue is to consider whether or not engagements beyond 3km
are truly important. Not every battle takes place in the Desert. Also, the
risk for friendly fire or collateral damage incidents is too great in many of
today's types of actions to risk firing at targets that you can't recognize.
(Thermal Sites lose resolution quickly.)
As for the Genital-Waving contest over who has the best tank, it's a no-win
situation. Everyone has their favorites. I like the M1A1, but I am not fond
of the M1A2. The M1A1 is combat proven, and user friendly (at least to this
user). The M1A2, has lots of gadets, 11 buttons on the TC's joystick (Rather
than 3 for the TC over-ride in the M1IP/M1A1. I also think their are too
many monitors which keep the TC's head in the turret. Is the Challenger a
better tank? For what ever reason Kuwait didn't think so, but the Brits do.
To each their own.
Anyway, that's my $.02
Jake
..
Ty Beard wrote:
>
> .. wrote in message <7g8mtc$864$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>...
> >> A couple of points. Nothing in production at the moment can
> penetrate the
> >> front armor of an M1.
[...]
> >Both the Germans and the British have (although I don't know
> >if they use them yet) penetrators that will cope.
>
> It seems to me to be unlikely that the German and British penetrators will
> be dramatically better than the American (who have tended to lead in
> penetrator performance) round. If the American APDU round can't penetrate
> the M1A1 HA, it seems unlikely that the British or German round could.
The Americans have concentrated on DU penetrators, and I'd be willing to
believe that they lead the world ATM in building them, but mean while
the rest of the world is still building better and better tungsten
penetrators. Tungsten may be more expensive to buy (but slightly cheaper
to work) and rarer, but it's more dense than DU so it's always going to
be the better choice in the end. DU is only used because it is cheap.
Dirt cheap.
In outright terms of penetrator performance the Americans do well, but I
don't think they've lead for long, certainly only since the mid to late
eighties when they began producing their first 120mm rounds, and even
then the German TP rounds were noted as being better than the first DU
rounds the US came up with. The Russians have much longer experience
with smoothbore sabot rounds and it's not unreasonable to think they are
still (potentially, at least) capable of turning out some rather spiffy
ammo. The US ammo gets lots of press, yes, but that's neither here nor
there. Simply put, there isn't the hard information available in print.
> >Sabot round performance falls off dramatically beyond 2000 metres,
> >especially that fired from a smoothbore. Whilst you might hit something
> >out at that range the round would have bugger all energy left; a KE
> >round of some sort is better as the range increases.
>
> There were confirmed kills in the Gulf War from APDS at > 2000m.
Who was using APDS?! Note I didn't say it *couldn't*, just that
performance falls off dramatically. It all a matter of choices. What are
you shooting at, what is the rounds expected performance, even what do
you happen to have loaded at the time?
> >> but the sights are only
> >> capable of identifying targets out to 2000 to 2500 meters. Beyond that
> range
> >> the target is little more than a dot in the sight.
> >
> >M1 series laser range finders are calibrated out to 3000 metres. After
> >that the computer will not return a solution to the gun, hence there was
> >no design need to provide optics that would allow viewing at ranges over
> >that. German and British gun sights don't have this restriction,
> >providing solutions out to at least 5000 metres.
>
> Except that there were confirmed 4000 meter hits in the Gilf War from M1's.
Yes. That doesn't stop the lasers and computers only being configured to
provide a solution out to 3000 metres does it? Your reading more into it
than I wrote, Ty.
>
> >Huh? The longest confirmed engagement range for a sabot round was 3200
> >metres by a Challenger, according to both the British MoD and French
> >After Action reports.
>
> There are published reports of a confirmed US hit at 4000m; I'll see if I
> can find it.
Please do. I've read reports saying much the same, but they all trace
back to either just hearsay or the US after action report and, sorry to
say it, but that report isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The
british and french reports seem much more balanced, and some time this
year I'm going to try wading my way through the US GAO report as I'm
told that that is fairly well done.
tengai no kyo kyaku
Minadmiral
>Only the YAMATO carried this kind of armor,
>I did say "equivalent"
I was only trying to give a perspective. Yes current tanks have equivalent
armor equal or better than WWII battleships. I was only being amazed at the
comparison. And glad I never had to go into battle in the aluminum M-113 I
drove.
Chuck Duggie
John D Salt
<sc...@duncania.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>All very good stuff but a bit too much of my tank is better than your tank.
>Regards any tank with super dooper armour 1944 the Soviets decided that
>regardless of how thick frontal armour was the effect of a 122mm Gun shell
>making full contact has a realistic chance of knocking out a tank with the
>concusive effect.
A very good point -- and "Concussive effect" in this context possibly
includes complete removal of the turret. I've seen pictures of the
mess a WW2 60-lb SAP rocket makes of a Covenanter and a Churchill in
live-fire trials, and to be honest, the theoretical inability of
the round to penetrate a great thickness of armour doesn't matter
much if the unpenetrated plates are scattered randomly about the
place.
This makes me wonder what the critical size of round or amount of
bang-stuff is for dealing with an MBT. 25-pdr HEs are quite safe
even if detonating in direct contact with the top armour of a
Churchill, apparently not even causing mild discomfort to the
crew. A 5.5", on the other hand, would probably make it look as
if someone has taken a can-opener to the tank. I wonder how
harmful a 4.5" or 105mm would be. Anyone know?
>And if the story about a Challenger hittiing at 3000m+ is true then why is
>the British Army taking Challenger II? I thought the problem was that it was
>a bit iffy in the shooting stakes
Depends what you mean by "iffy"; a PRO document I recently had sight
of seems to indicate almost 100% first-round hit probability on a
hull-up target up to about 2,000 yards for the venerable Chieftain
with a first-generation laser range-finder and APDS, and I'd
consider that already pretty worrying to be on the wrong end of.
As I understand it, the main attraction of the Challenger II
gunnery arrangements is the "hunter-killer" sight, which means
that the commander can acquire targets independently of the
gunner. This means either that you can lase from turret-down
and pop up briefly to zap a single target, or that you can
engage multiple targets very rapidly by having the commander
acquire the n+1th target while the gunner is dipatching
target n.
Jeff Ewing
crew of an M1A1 in San Diego not long after the tank was introduced,
they were *wild* about it. They reacted with scorn to the dust/sand
issue: "Yeah, the filters clog up--that's what they're for, to keep the
dust out of the engine!" I should add parenthetically that this was in
a laundromat, and these guys were all wearing M1 T-shirts as they did
their laundry; that's how I knew to ask them about the M1.
Now, maybe these guys were just brainwashed by arms salesmen, but it
seems to me that motivation and enthusiasm are quite important to any
fighting force, and as
Ty Beard wrote:
>
> IMHO. I'd take US Marines in M1A1's over Saudis in M1A2's any day of the
> week.
>
> This can be overstated though. I might not be as sanguine with US Marines in
> M48A5's.
Jeff
Martin Rapier
<7gc2bb$jcc$1...@molnir.brunel.ac.uk>...
{snip}
> This makes me wonder what the critical size of round or amount of
> bang-stuff is for dealing with an MBT. 25-pdr HEs are quite safe
> even if detonating in direct contact with the top armour of a
> Churchill, apparently not even causing mild discomfort to the
> crew. A 5.5", on the other hand, would probably make it look as
> if someone has taken a can-opener to the tank. I wonder how
> harmful a 4.5" or 105mm would be. Anyone know?
I'm sure it is possible to dig around published stuff and work it out. From
the recently discussed 'Steamroller Farm' battle, we know that an aerial
bomb from a Stuka(?) can make quite a mess of a Churchill. Such a
projectile of course has rather more explosive in it than the average 5.5"
shell.
In the 'War Walks' series, the one that featured Arras pointed out that the
majority of Matildas destroyed were knocked out by the 7th Pz Div artillery
firing over open sights, great chunks of individual tanks being blown away.
Now, a Matilda I was reasonably well armoured, and Div Arty would have been
firing mostly 105mm plus some 150mm. Being direct fire though, they
wouldn't have been likely to score any top hits.
Finally, in John Foleys 'Mailed Fist' his tank got hit by an 81mm mortar
bomb on the front plate.
Although it didn't inflict any damage or even concuss the crew, it did
'blow dust out of every crack in the tank' and the tank certainly stopped
for a while as they sorted themselves out an dchecked everyone was OK.
I guess being on the wrong end of any sort of HE direct hit is bad news.
{snip}
> As I understand it, the main attraction of the Challenger II
> gunnery arrangements is the "hunter-killer" sight, which means
> that the commander can acquire targets independently of the
> gunner. This means either that you can lase from turret-down
> and pop up briefly to zap a single target, or that you can
> engage multiple targets very rapidly by having the commander
> acquire the n+1th target while the gunner is dipatching
> target n.
Whilst camping in France a couple of years ago I was fortunate enough to
pick a spot next to a Lt-Colonel in the Royal Engineers. We had lots of
fascinating discussions about current weapons technology, and he was
extremely enthusiastic about the Challenger II fire control system - it
certainly sounds very nifty. I also heard about the rather grimmer time
clearing mines in Bosnia.
Cheers
Martin.
Kenny Noe
>>the British Army taking Challenger II? I thought the problem was that it
>was
>>a bit iffy in the shooting stakes
>
>
>mk1's limited mobility (compared to the M1 and the Leopard II). Also, the
>Mk2 has a better gun, doesn't it?
>
>--Ty Beard
The Osprey Book New Vanguard series #23 - Challenger Main Battle Tank
1982-1997 has detailed information concerning the Challenger's fire control
system (FCS).
It also discusses the Canadian Army Trophy competition held in 1985 and
1987. The Challenger 1s sent to this competition had the same FCS as the
Chieftains (i.e. 60's tech.) The Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sights
(TOGS) were not installed. The Challenger didn't fair well coming in last
in both '85 and '87 in the Percentage of Rounds Hit category. Also just
barely beating the Leopard 1 and M-60 in Average Kill Times category.
This embarrassment was one reason the British moved on to the Challenger II.
I also the TOGS system was retro fitted to the Challenger 1s.
The book also discusses British doubts concerning the armor of the
Challenger I being on par with the Leo II and M1A1. So much so that ERA and
improved side armor was added to the Challenger 1s sent to the Gulf in
1990-91.
Also I find it interesting that the export model of the Challenger 2 is
"less than 50 percent British" (quote from Osprey). It has German
automotives, French Sights, and American FCS. (Hmmm, smart business, why
remake the wheel??)
IMHO - Great book on the tech aspect of the Challenger MBT.
---Kenny
Ty Beard
>Ty Beard wrote:
>> I also note the DU penetrators from the same nations have better
>> performance than Tungsten, which tends to confirm this.
>
>seem to hold for other countries to the same degree. The Russians, in
>particular, seem happy enough to keep on turning out tungsten
>penetrators.
Well, they apparently do have DU penetrators, just not a lot. If the DU is
more expensive/difficult to work/whatever, this would make sense.
>Given their longer experience in building them over
>everyone else I can understand (well, rationalise ;) ) why, although
>even they issue DU penetrators for reasons of cost these days.
Do you have a published source that references the comparative expense of DU
and Tungsten? I've always "heard" that DU was more expensive. Heard from
"them" of course...
>Who's numbers are we to believe? ... Nationalism by at
>least one party involved, no? Why not both? Who's got more to lose by
>being shown to be fudging the truth?
The Russians have told some serious whoppers in the past. (420mm - 500mmm
RHA armor on the front of a T-72A -- bah!) Maybe the free presses at least
keep out the most excessive claims of Western countries. And of course, the
Western defense press tries to be fair as well.
>...Take an example, the first US DU penetrators were,
>compared to the then-available latest Russian tungsten penetrators,
>complete shite.
According to Steve Zaloga, here are some values (penetration RHA at 2000m)
(from my FFT notes):
Round Pen (RHA) Year Note
US M735 105mm Tungsten 350mm 70's
US M774 105mm DU 400mm? 79 (1)
US M833 105mm DU 420mm/462mm 83 (2)
US M900 105mm DU more than M833 late 80s?
Ru 3BM15 125mm Tungsten 150mm/165mm 70's (2) (3)
Ru 3BM17 125mm Tungsten 200mm? (guess) late 70's
Ru 3BM32 125mm Tungsten 250mm/275mm 80's (2)
Unspecified Russian 125mm DU? 450mm 80's
British 120mm Tungsten 400mm 80's
Notes
(1) This is my guess. Zaloga says the round was "superior" to the M735. The
later M833 was a significant improvement over this round.
(2) The test on was against armor inclined at 60 degrees, so the real
penetration should be increased by at least 10%.
(3) Used by the Iraqis in Desert Storm. Against M1A1's with 600mm front
armor. (Boink!)
This data, at least, indicates:
1. The US M735 105mm Tungsten round was superior to the Soviet Tungsten
rounds. This is even more surprising since the US round is a 105mm round and
the Russian round is a 125mm round. In FFT, I assumed that Zaloga's figures
were low on the Russian guns. Nontheless, it seems clear that the US made
much better penetrators than the Russians.
2. The US 105mm DU rounds are significantly better than the US (or Russian)
tungsten rounds, which strongly indicates that DU is a better substance to
use than tungsten.
3. By 1983, the US 105mm DU round was better than (or at least equal to) the
larger Russian DU round. This further supports the hypothesis that the
Americans make better penetrators than everyone else.
4. IMHO, the excellent performance of the US 105mm round explains why the US
Army was in no real hurry to improve to 120mm guns. At least through the mid
1980s, the US Army was satisfied that the 105mm gun could penetrate the
armor of Russian tanks at 2000m.
5. I note also, that the Isreali tungsten penetrator, which was said to be
inferior to the US M735 round, easily penetrated Syrian T-72's in the Bekaa
Valley. So US confidence in the penetration characteristics of the 105mm DU
rounds was pretty well founded.
>But they improved. Lots. They quickly outstripped the
>Russian penetrator of the time. Who's to say that if the same amounts
>aren't invested by both sides the balance won't swing back and forth?
No one. But that's "if" not "is".
>Given that the Russian still invest heavily in tungsten penetrators I'm
>happy to believe the Indians when they say they've tested one offered by
>Russia that'll handle 700mm RHA.
Not me. The highest estimate I've seen on the latest US 120mm DU round is
750mm RHA. I can't imagine that the Russians (or anyone else for that
matter) could make a tungsten penetrator of virtually comparable
performance.
I'd have to have more proof than "the Indians say so."
But --- the Russians *do* claim that the Svir/Reflecks missiles fired by the
Russian 125mm gun have a penetration of 700mm. That's within the performance
of 125-150mm ATGM warheads. But then they also say that it can defeat the
armor of the US M1A1. Bah! Perhaps you (or the Indians more likely) are
confusing the two systems?
This looks to me like an example of the inflated claims the Russians are
prone to. Heavy ATGM's with warhead diameters of 150+mm and heavier tandem
warheads can't penetrate the M1A1. It seems unlikely that Russians have
found a magic breakthrough that will let a HEAT warhead with 700mm
penetration slice through 1300mm RHA equivalent armor.
>But then again, what on earth would India need to bother
>buying a round capable of this?
Well, the M1A1, with its 600mm RHA vs KE / 1300 RHA vs CE comes to mind.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>Don't forget the handy-dandy WW2 armour basis curve figures from
>my WW2 penetration figures file, which says that armour sloped at
>60 degrees is worth 150% more than vertical plate:
>
>Slope (degrees) Multiplier Divisor
>10 1.01 0.99
>15 1.03 0.97
>20 1.07 0.935
>25 1.15 0.87
>30 1.25 0.8
>35 1.37 0.73
>40 1.52 0.658
>45 1.69 0.59
>50 1.89 0.53
>55 2.13 0.47
>60 2.5 0.4
Thanks John, that's very useful. I think (but I don't know) that the 60
degree slpe is probably 30 degrees on your chart. I'll bet your chart lists
degrees *from verticle*.
Still, that's 1.25 times rather than 1.1 times.
--Ty
Andy O'Neill
<css...@brunel.ac.uk> writes
<< damn, snipped too much >>
The 60 Lb shell of the Russian 152mm would've only been 4% HE, and thus
a lot less than a 60 Lb rocket.
A fair bit of steel though.
A 122 also had a similarly low HE fill, I'm told.
>This makes me wonder what the critical size of round or amount of
>bang-stuff is for dealing with an MBT. 25-pdr HEs are quite safe
>even if detonating in direct contact with the top armour of a
>Churchill, apparently not even causing mild discomfort to the
>crew.
The only reference I've seen to this was when the shell hit one of the
'horns'. I think this was 9th btn RTR, "Tank Tracks".
If this is the event you mean, then a top hit on the turret or engine
compartment might've been a different kettle of stoats (!?)
Churchills were pretty tough beasts. There's a description of the after
effects of an 88 hit on the turret front in the above.
Described as being like someone had taken a huge drill and drilled 6"
straight into the armour.
>A 5.5", on the other hand, would probably make it look as
>if someone has taken a can-opener to the tank. I wonder how
>harmful a 4.5" or 105mm would be. Anyone know?
Isn't it something like the 4.5" has the same amount of HE as the 60 Lb
rocket... or was that the 5.5".
On the ww2 newsgroup someone posted about this inbetween the usual
comparison of my country's x tank gun's bigger than your country's y
tank gun kinda stuff....
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Liverpool Wargames Association
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/LWA.htm
Andy O'Neill
<m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> writes
>Finally, in John Foleys 'Mailed Fist' his tank got hit by an 81mm mortar
>bomb on the front plate.
>Although it didn't inflict any damage or even concuss the crew, it did
>'blow dust out of every crack in the tank' and the tank certainly stopped
>for a while as they sorted themselves out an dchecked everyone was OK.
There's a rather dramatic picture of a sherman exploding like a firework
from an 81mm mortar hitting the rear decking.
In some works the photo caption says that the tank was carrying ammo.
John D Salt
Ty Beard <tbe...@e-tex.com> wrote:
[Snips]
>Yeah, but I'd think that armor *must* have some effect on resisting
>concussion (any physics professors lurking out there?) Or perhaps vehicle
>size. Something.
I think the important points here are factors other than armour thickness
-- thickness is righlty beloved of wargamers as good first-order
approximation to an MBT's defensive value, but it _is_ still only
a first-order estimate. The quality of the joins would seem to be
important here. In WW2, for example, German armour was noted for
the poor quality of the welds, and welding runs were often exposed
to direst attack; IIRC Max Hastings' otherwise undistinguished
"Overlord" contains an account of a Panther crew taking their tank
out of action with some of the turret plates cracked apart. This
sort of thing will be done very much better on modern MBTs. The
strength of the join between turret and hull also matters; the
report on the rocket trials I mentioned above pointed out that
the Churchill used was an early model, and that later models had
more secure arrangements for attacking the turret. Again, I should
think modern designs do a better job of this than WW2 ones, and
also probably have less in the way of "HE traps" in their shape.
>After all, M1's in the Gulf were hit by 125mm rounds and the crews survived.
>So were Merkavas in the Bekaa Valley. Besides, if concussion were that
>effective, why wouldn't everyone be armed with smoothbores firing HE rounds
>for antitank work? Heck, I'd arm my ATGW (150mm + warheads) with HE rounds
>and not worry about that top attack or tandem stuff. I can't believe the
>world's armies would overlook such a simple solution.
The cynic in me says that the world's arms manufacturers wouldn't
like things to be done that cheaply :-) , but this is a good point.
The main issue here, I think (speaking as no kind of expert in this)
is weight. It would not be practical to put enough oomph behind a
smoothbore HE shell to get the flattish trajectory so desirable
for direct tank shooting when you want first-round hits. Likewise,
weight is an important consideration for ATGWs, and most are
I believe rather smaller than 150mm in calibre. If bulk is no
object, I imagine that the old Malkarra missile, with its big
fat HESH head, would do a pretty good job on most modern MBTs.
The trouble is, you can only carry a couple of them.
John D Salt
Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote:
[Huge snips of interesting stuff]
>(2) The test on was against armor inclined at 60 degrees, so the real
>penetration should be increased by at least 10%.
Don't forget the handy-dandy WW2 armour basis curve figures from
my WW2 penetration figures file, which says that armour sloped at
60 degrees is worth 150% more than vertical plate:
Slope (degrees) Multiplier Divisor
10 1.01 0.99
15 1.03 0.97
20 1.07 0.935
25 1.15 0.87
30 1.25 0.8
35 1.37 0.73
40 1.52 0.658
45 1.69 0.59
50 1.89 0.53
55 2.13 0.47
60 2.5 0.4
Anyone got anything more up-to-date than 1945? :-)
Bertil Jonell
Ogorkiewicz says that for AP and APDS the thickness is multiplied by
(Cos^2 n)^-1
While for long rod penetrators it multiplied by
(Cos n)^-1
>John.
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Jussi Saari
> >least one party involved, no? Why not both? Who's got more to
> >lose by being shown to be fudging the truth?
>
> The Russians have told some serious whoppers in the past. (420mm
> - 500mmm RHA armor on the front of a T-72A -- bah!)
Actually that's not an unreasonable frontal protection against HEAT,
at least, and not exactly a "whopper" even against KE. (In export
versions the protection would be around 300-350mm vs KE and maybe 400mm
vs HEAT, but that's with a 130mm synthetic quarz sand insert between the
steel plates, and Russian T-72As may use a better insert.)
> Round Pen (RHA) Year Note
> US M735 105mm Tungsten 350mm 70's
> US M774 105mm DU 400mm? 79 (1)
> US M833 105mm DU 420mm/462mm 83 (2)
> US M900 105mm DU more than M833 late 80s?
> Ru 3BM15 125mm Tungsten 150mm/165mm 70's (2)(3)
> Ru 3BM17 125mm Tungsten 200mm? (guess) late 70's
> Ru 3BM32 125mm Tungsten 250mm/275mm 80's (2)
> Unspecified Russian 125mm DU? 450mm 80's
<snip>
> This data, at least, indicates:
>
> 1. The US M735 105mm Tungsten round was superior to the Soviet
> Tungsten rounds. This is even more surprising since the US round is
> a 105mm round and the Russian round is a 125mm round. In FFT, I
> assumed that Zaloga's figures were low on the Russian guns.
> Nontheless, it seems clear that the US made
> much better penetrators than the Russians.
You should double your figures for Russian rounds; they represent the
thickness of the plate that can be penetrated at a 60 degree angle, not
the distance that the round can travel through armour...
> 2. The US 105mm DU rounds are significantly better than the US
> (or Russian) tungsten rounds, which strongly indicates that DU is
> a better substance to use than tungsten.
It depends what form of tungsten is used: older rounds used tungsten
carbide, which is rather brittle and can in practise be used only as a
core material inside steel. Modern rounds use better materials, however,
and tungsten monobloc penetrators made of W-Ni-Fe alloys get to similar
penetration figures as DU rounds. Mecar's 105mm M1060 for example has
similar performance to M833, and the Russian 3BM42M is apparently even
better than their 3BM32 DU round...
> 4. IMHO, the excellent performance of the US 105mm round explains
> why the US Army was in no real hurry to improve to 120mm guns.
> At least through the mid 1980s, the US Army was satisfied that
> the 105mm gun could penetrate the armor of Russian tanks at 2000m.
In mid-80's Russian T-72B and T-80U tanks with heavy Kontakt-5 ERA
plates started entering service. This means that you could add at least
100mm (a conservative estimate) of KE protection to the already pretty
good 400-500mm KE protection figures in those tanks, and that means that
the then-latest M833 was completely inadequate to penetrate them at
2km...
> 5. I note also, that the Isreali tungsten penetrator, which was
> said to be inferior to the US M735 round, easily penetrated
> Syrian T-72's in the Bekaa Valley. So US confidence in the
> penetration characteristics of the 105mm DU rounds was pretty
> well founded.
Actually the M111 that the Israelis used in -82 was better than M735,
it could penetrate 390mm at 2km...
Jussi
Ty Beard
>Ty Beard wrote:
>> The Russians have told some serious whoppers in the past. (420mm
>> - 500mmm RHA armor on the front of a T-72A -- bah!)
>
>at least, and not exactly a "whopper" even against KE. (In export
>versions the protection would be around 300-350mm vs KE and maybe 400mm
>vs HEAT, but that's with a 130mm synthetic quarz sand insert between the
>steel plates, and Russian T-72As may use a better insert.)
My quotes were of KE penetration resistance and were for export models of
the T-72. They're demonstrably false, because Isreali Tungsten APFSDS rounds
of supposedly inferior penetration than the US round (350mm) easily
penetrated the glacis and the turrets of Syrian T-72s purported to have the
500mm RHA. Bah!
>You should double your figures for Russian rounds; they represent the
>thickness of the plate that can be penetrated at a 60 degree angle, not
>the distance that the round can travel through armour...
I don't think so.
The quote was "penetrated 125mm of RHA plate at a 60 degree angle." This
seems to indicate that the round penetrated a 125mm plate angled at 60
degrees. The amount of RHA that the round could penetrate if the plate were
at a 90 degree angle would be higher but not doubled.
>> 2. The US 105mm DU rounds are significantly better than the US
>> (or Russian) tungsten rounds, which strongly indicates that DU is
>> a better substance to use than tungsten.
>
> It depends what form of tungsten is used: older rounds used tungsten
>carbide
<snip>
>Mecar's 105mm M1060 for example has
>similar performance to M833, and the Russian 3BM42M is apparently even
>better than their 3BM32 DU round...
Source? I took the available research (from a reputable source) and found
that in every case, the DU penetrator was better. If you have a source to
the contrary, then I'd like to know about it.
>> 4. IMHO, the excellent performance of the US 105mm round explains
>> why the US Army was in no real hurry to improve to 120mm guns.
>> At least through the mid 1980s, the US Army was satisfied that
>> the 105mm gun could penetrate the armor of Russian tanks at 2000m.
>
> In mid-80's Russian T-72B and T-80U tanks with heavy Kontakt-5 ERA
>plates started entering service...and that means that
>the then-latest M833 was completely inadequate to penetrate them at
>2km...
Agreed. But there was the M900 (penetration unavailbale) that was a
"significant improvement" over the M833. And in the mid to late 1980s, the
120mm gun came into service in the US Army. The Army also considered a 105mm
gun with a longer barrel in the 80s as well. I suspect that the Army wasn't
so sure by the late 1980s and wanted the 120 "just in case".
>> 5. I note also, that the Isreali tungsten penetrator, which was
>> said to be inferior to the US M735 round, easily penetrated
>> Syrian T-72's in the Bekaa Valley. So US confidence in the
>> penetration characteristics of the 105mm DU rounds was pretty
>> well founded.
>
> Actually the M111 that the Israelis used in -82 was better than M735,
>it could penetrate 390mm at 2km...
Source? Seems I got that info from (scratches head trying to remember) *I
think* an article by Frank Chadwick. If what you say is correct, then this
indicates that the T-72's were better armored than I thought. But still not
as well armored as the Russians claimed. In Fistful of TOWs, by the way, I
gave the Russians every benefit of the doubt.
My requests for sources are not an implication that you're lying. I just
want to make Fistful of TOWs as accurate as I can. To do this, I have to
verify anectdotal evidence whenever possible. And if a published source
disagrees with the anecdotal evidence, I usually take the published source.
--Ty Beard
John D Salt
Andy O'Neill <An...@l-25.dont-spam-me.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Snips -- mentions of 25-pdr HE hits not hurting Churchills]
>The only reference I've seen to this was when the shell hit one of the
>'horns'. I think this was 9th btn RTR, "Tank Tracks".
>If this is the event you mean, then a top hit on the turret or engine
>compartment might've been a different kettle of stoats (!?)
Naaah. From my collection of junk in WW2eff.rtf at
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~csstjds/WW2stuff.html:
<Quote>
WO 291/399 Casualties to Churchill tanks in 25-pdr concentrations.
A trial conducted in 1943 tested proposed new tactics, whereby Churchills
would advance though concentrations of friendly 25-pdr fire, by twice
driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire. It is
concluded that the worst that can happen to a Churchill in these
circumstances is immobilisation. The effect of a 25-pdr round exploding
on a Churchill is described thus:
"There is no adverse effect on the crew from a 25 pdr direct hit.
Fragments cannot penetrate the tank, and the blast is not at all
uncomfortable."
</Quote>
If an 81mm mortar can prang a Sherman, I'm tempted to conclude that
the design of engine decks might be significant.
Fabet
penatrator. The were claiming that the round itself ignites. Thats why almost
all kills in the gulf produced flying turrets from secondary exsplosions. The
residue from the from produces the potentially harmful after effects.
Faron
Faron Betchley
Little Wars
11213K Lee Highway
Fairfax Virginia 22030
(703) 352-9222
(703) 352-9279 <FAX>
Steve H.
John D Salt wrote:
> Naaah. From my collection of junk in WW2eff.rtf at
> http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~csstjds/WW2stuff.html:
>
> <Quote>
> WO 291/399 Casualties to Churchill tanks in 25-pdr concentrations.
>
> A trial conducted in 1943 tested proposed new tactics, whereby Churchills
> would advance though concentrations of friendly 25-pdr fire, by twice
> driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire. It is
> concluded that the worst that can happen to a Churchill in these
> circumstances is immobilisation. The effect of a 25-pdr round exploding
> on a Churchill is described thus:
>
> "There is no adverse effect on the crew from a 25 pdr direct hit.
> Fragments cannot penetrate the tank, and the blast is not at all
> uncomfortable."
>
> </Quote>
Yee Gods - hope they paid the blokes in the Churchill's well!
Steve H.
Tim Marshall
My first troop warrant officer (the senior NCO in a platoon/troop), Dean
Lowerison, spent many a gun camp at Canadian Forces Base Borden driving
a Centurion across a firing range to be used as a moving target for the
AT missiles the Canadian troops were using at the time. I've no idea
what kind of missiles: SS something or others. This was in the late
60's early 70's and the live warheads were replaced with concrete
warheads.
AFAIK, he did not get any bonus to his corporal's pay at the time. 8)
Concrete is used in squash head (HESH & HEP) practice rounds too, BTW.
Another aside: when I was in Canada's MBT replacement office in the late
80's, a story came to us of an accident on a firing range in Germany
(forget the range) with BAOR and their Challengers. Someone did not
clear their guns and let off a SH-PRAC (the HESH practice round
described above) which hit the rear turret of the Challenger in front of
it. We were told that the concrete filled round knocked out all the FCS
and other electronics and that the crew were stunned and had to be
helped out. We were stunned ourselves to hear of the damage a prac
round could do! Mind you, this was from less than 100m from a rifled
120mm.
Steve H. wrote:
>
> John D Salt wrote:
> > driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire.
> Yee Gods - hope they paid the blokes in the Churchill's well!
>
> Steve H.
--
Tim
____ "Which way did they go? ____
__|____>====_ How fast were they going? __|____>====_
\_____________> I must find them; \_____________>
D(_)(_)^^(_)^ I am their leader." D(_)(_)^^(_)^
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
David L. Pulver
> > Actually the M111 that the Israelis used in -82 was better than M735,
> >it could penetrate 390mm at 2km...
>
>
> Source? Seems I got that info from (scratches head trying to remember) *I
> think* an article by Frank Chadwick. If what you say is correct, then this
> indicates that the T-72's were better armored than I thought. But still not
> as well armored as the Russians claimed. In Fistful of TOWs, by the way, I
> gave the Russians every benefit of the doubt.
If it's of any help, I recall Frank Chadwick discussing (briefly) Israeli
105mm "arrow" APFSDS rounds in the Designers Notes for the GDW Assault
boardgame. Could this be your source?
Bertil Jonell
><m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> writes
>>Finally, in John Foleys 'Mailed Fist' his tank got hit by an 81mm mortar
>>bomb on the front plate.
>>Although it didn't inflict any damage or even concuss the crew, it did
>>'blow dust out of every crack in the tank' and the tank certainly stopped
>>for a while as they sorted themselves out an dchecked everyone was OK.
>
>There's a rather dramatic picture of a sherman exploding like a firework
>from an 81mm mortar hitting the rear decking.
>In some works the photo caption says that the tank was carrying ammo.
Was that an ordinary 81mm round or a Merlin round?
>Andy O'Neill
Ty Beard
Could be (scratches head again). Ahhh Assault. A Real Man's game.
--Ty Beard
Binhan Lin
Bertil Jonell wrote:
> In article <19990427145031...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> AbnRangerX <abnra...@aol.com> wrote:
> > A couple of points. Nothing in production at the moment can penetrate the
> >front armor of an M1.
>
> Really? Are you claiming that it could shrug off a hit by a Maverick?
>
> (The Maverick has a >20kg shaped charge. TOW's, Hellfires and most other
> anti-tank missiles have charges weighing less than two kilos)
>
> >Rob Whiting
Actually the big thing with shaped charge warheads is not the amount of explosive,
but the diameter of the cone - more force concentrated into a small area.
Unfortunately
this is a cross-purposes to making the warhead aerodynamic and portable so there is
usually a compromise. I don't recall what the diameter of the Maverick warhead is,
but
it's probably not all that much bigger than a TOW-2. Besides, if you can launch a
Maverick,
why would you aim for the front of vehicle anyway - the top is always much more
vulnerable.
Mike Campbell
>
> In article <7gc2bb$jcc$1...@molnir.brunel.ac.uk>, John D Salt
> <css...@brunel.ac.uk> writes
> << damn, snipped too much >>
>
> The 60 Lb shell of the Russian 152mm would've only been 4% HE, and thus
> a lot less than a 60 Lb rocket.
> A fair bit of steel though.
> A 122 also had a similarly low HE fill, I'm told.
In WW2 the British 4.5" gun had a 1.5 kg HE fill for its 25kg shell
(6%), which was considered a very poor load. Russian 152mm shells of
the same era weighed 45 kg, 122mm 25 kg and both were considered fine
weapons, but I don't know the HE fill of their rounds - I would be
surprised if it was as low as 6%, let alone 4%!
Mike
Mike Campbell
> My first troop warrant officer (the senior NCO in a platoon/troop), Dean
> Lowerison, spent many a gun camp at Canadian Forces Base Borden driving
> a Centurion across a firing range to be used as a moving target for the
> AT missiles the Canadian troops were using at the time. I've no idea
> what kind of missiles: SS something or others. This was in the late
> 60's early 70's and the live warheads were replaced with concrete
> warheads.
I have photos of a SS-11 dummy round hit on a Centurion - the track was
knocked off, and thte rubber tyres of the road wheel were burning from
the explosion of residual fuel.
Mike
Boyinblue9
>
I loved this game. It was my first modern game. I still have all of the boxed
sets.
Dave
"The only tactical principle which is never subject to change is to use the
means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction
on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."