How do you stop a tank?

John Clifford

unread,

Apr 21, 1993, 7:15:31 PM4/21/93

to

I've always wondered if a bullet or two down a tank barrel wouldn't
detonate the shell, or at least ding up
the projectile/barrel/sabot enough to abnormally raise pressures and
perhaps burst the tube upon firing.

Of course, if you were at such an angle, the tube would pretty much be
looking you in the face...

I always thought that Molotov cocktails worked by making the inside of
the tank uncomfortably hot -- but it would take several to make the
inside of the tank untenable. A flamethrower would be similarly useful
because I'm sure a few gallons of burning fluid would heat the tank up
in short order. Re homemade antitank devices, I'd hate to be the guy
dragging around an acetylene tank with a long tube on the end of it,
trying to get close enough to a tank to burn a hole in it. I would
think that the best tactic for a guerrilla force would be to make
'mines,' or big explosive charges that could either be
command-detonated or perhaps have triggers (trip-wires, extended
triggering fingers, etc.). Rig one of these up under a manhole cover,
for instance, with a wire whip antenna out of one of the cover's holes
for a trigger. The tank runs into the antenna and detonates the charge
(a 55 gallon drum filled with explosives) which then sends the manhole
cover slamming into the bottom of the tank while also collapsing the
road. Hopefully, the dead tank will also block the road so others
can't come any further. Of course, any military unit worth it's salt
would also have air cover in the form of helicopter gunships to make
life unpleasant for guerrillas who would then try to swoop down on the
bottled-up tanks.

Yep, things were easier before the advent of armor.

John Clifford
Developer, Applications
Microsoft Corporation

Disclaimer: I speak for me, Bill speaks for Microsoft.

Bob Leone

unread,

Apr 21, 1993, 9:46:41 PM4/21/93

to

> Yep, things were easier before the advent of armor.

This started me thinking, and reaching for my encyclopedia.

Back in the Middle Ages, the dominant weapon was the armored knight on
horseback. He was effectively invulnerable to anyone other than a similarly
armed knight. He had nothing to fear from the peasantry. The dominant
political system was feudalism, where the knights ruled everything.

In the period 1300-1500, gunpowder came on the scene. Now the advantage
was with kings and cities, who had the finances to afford cannon. Coincident
with this development came the Renaissance. The dominant political system
became monarchy.

In the period 1700-1900, particularly in America, personal firearms became
ubiquitous and the common man was as well armed as any soldier. And if he
lived in rural areas (like most did in America) he was far more likely to
be a good marksman. Coincident with this development came democracy.

In the period 1900 to present came the development of machineguns, tanks, and
military aircraft, with which a relatively small force armed with such, could
defeat a much larger force armed only with rifles. Coincident with this
development came totalitarian dictatorships.

In the absence of a right of the people to keep and bear military-class
arms, this line of thought bodes ill for our continuing to live in freedom.

Bob Leone (le...@gandalf.ssw.com)
(The opinions expressed are my own.)

"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed
power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the
law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the
courts must abide by that decision."
- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006