From: Ryan M Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 08:15:20 PST
At 10:40 AM -0500 11/6/03, Steve Grammont wrote:
>
>True, but until you actually fire a weapon at the actual vehicle an
>examination doesn't yeild that much information. This is why we spend
>hundreds of thousands of dollars to aquire running T-72s with reactive
>armor kits to blow up on test ranges. If it was all about getting out a
>tape measure and taking a few pics, we could skip the expensive practical
>testings.
Funny, I had someone try to tell me that a picture of a T72 on a
trailer in Texas was proof of a UN build up in the US. My response
was, "no you dork, they're taking it to a range to blow it up with
our newest weapons!"
>
>
>The thing is that the armor of the Arbams is not something you just pour
>into a mold and test. The armor itself is still Top Secret. In addition
>there are a lot of interesting things that can be done metalurgically
>that can only be replicated if you know the manufacturing process. For
>example, in WWII there were times when tank guns were tested and rated to
>be able to penetrate such and such thickness of armor, but in the field
>the rounds bounced off like spitballs. Sometimes, like in the case of
>the 76mm AT round used in the Hellcat, the round shattered when in theory
>it was supposed to penetrate.
I met an older chap at VMMV 2 weekends ago that worked on the Chobham
armor back in development. Oh to have seen those photo's and 3 weeks
back. Still, he'd have probably been able to say all of "yep, they're
interesting." :-/
>Again, my point is that this is a complicated science and giving the bad
>guys their most likely FIRST practical data is a very bad idea.
They probably knew they penetrated when the crew in the tank went all
angry on them. A wounded TC getting hauled out probably didn't help
for letting them know they got to the soft squshy inside of the tank.
I'll bet the Halon going off didn't do much for keeping it a secret.
> >The Golden BB theory? No. Although its done, and we all know it, one
>>should never field a weapons system based on the hope for lucky shot.
>
>The weapon itself might have been fielded without any known hope of
>KILLING an Abrams. It could have been fielded knowing it would kill
>anything less and potentially disable an Abrams. My point is that the
>weapon might have got lucky and the pictures show exactly where and how.
A few flukes don't make a killer weapon. AT rifles worked on WWII
tanks early on, sometimes. They didn't spell the deathknell of those
tanks by any means. This weapon certainly isn't going to make an
Abrams brew up easily (somehow I think the turret is thicker.
The thing is, this isn't an example of a kill in my mind. The tank
quite likely still had crew that was able to fight (after the halon
cleared) and was clearly recovered with little real damage. A kill is
where the remains of some of the crew is washed out with a hose and
someone patches up the armor with stainless welding rods. A burnt out
tank is an example of a kill. This is barely a mission kill when you
get down to it.
-- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Ryan Montieth Gill '01 Honda Insight - - rmgill@SPAmindspring.com '85 CB700S - - ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com '76 Chevy Monte Carlo - - www.mindspring.com/~rmgill '72 Honda CB750 - - '60 Daimler FV701H Mk2/3 - - '42 Daimler Scout Car Mk II - - I speak not for CNN, nor they for me - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - The director of Home Security encourages you to - - turn in your neighbor & spy on your friends. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - C&R-FFL / Protect your electronic rights! \ EFF-ACLU - - SAF & NRA/ Join the EFF! http://www.eff.org/ \ DoD #0780 - ----------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:26:25 PDT