| From: | WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Barriers |
| Date: | Sun, 18 Jun 1995 04:11:41 -0700 |
>Actually, shaped charges can be quite marginal on tanks. There are many cases
>from World War 2 and the Middle East where tanks were hit by HEAT rounds and
>didn't notice! The crew didn't notice until they saw the hole in the turret:
>thought it was just something ricocheting off the hull. The way to make them
>more effective is to use a wider "jet" of plasma, but this pierces less
>armour. You trade off drilling a hole in the armour against inflicting damage
>when you get to the other side.
Some of the newer missiles (the BILL) have warheads that are angled downward
and are designed to attack the top of the vehicle, where the armor is
typically thin (I know that an M-60a3 turret roof is only about an inch
or so). And some of the artillery rounds have been designed to shoot down
into the top of the tanks. These were designed because of the numerical
superiority that Soviet/WP armies enjoyed during the Cold War.
>Russian tanks and APCs, by the way, have very exposed fuel and ammo storage
>compared to Western vehicles: it reduces bulk and makes the tank smaller
>and faster, so less likely to be hit. The downside is that hits which would
>barely register on a Challenger, Abrams or Merkava blow the turret off a
>T-72 when the ammo cooks off in the racks.
There was an episode of Wings on missiles. They showed a cook off after a
TOW hit a radio-controlled tank/target. The _jet_ of flame blew the turret
up and out. I'm glad I wasn't a tanker. They try to instill a sense of
invulnerability in tankers, so for the most part, they drive and position
themselves in the open. I _knew_ my APC was weak, so I hid and always parked
well back from the tree line. I think that after training at NTC, tankers
get the message.
>One point from my Army training: anti-tank weapons are not much use on
>buildings, especially houses: they make a small hole in the brick and
>anything directly behind it, but that's all. Against bunkers they are
>very useful provided you can hit the firing slit.
The French have the ERIX missile, which can be fired from inside a room or
bunker, with no backblast. It uses a ballast system, expelling plastic
pellets instead of exhaust gases. I don't know how effective it is.
>The Russians have two warheads for their newest missile, the Kornet, for
>just this reason: a HEAT warhead for vehicles, and a "thermobaric" (probably
>fuel-air explosive) warhead for use on structures, trenches et cetera.
Pretty nasty. FAE warheads are bad news. Against most other explosives,
bunkers and entrenchments provide pretty good cover (excepting delay fused
artillery and the like). FAE mists a heavier-than-air explosive into the
air and is then detonated by a explosive primer. Some have said that FAE
coupled with precision guidance have made the nuke obsolete. Unfortunately,
there are a lot of people who would rather have nuclear warheads.
The TOW II has two shaped charges, to combat reactive armor. It's supposed
to work really well. Where did you here about the Kornet? I'm afraid I
haven't been keeping up. Do you have any pointers so those of us inclined
to can keep current?
Later
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu
