Russian missles take out 2 American Battle Tanks

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-26 11:55am

Vympel wrote:
Ted wrote:I heard that MBT's have shit protection in the back, that a 14.5mm HMG can penetrate and take out the engine, true?
Hmmm ... not sure. I doubt it.

It was a few years ago that I saw that show.

It also said that the turret ring could be penetrated and set off the ammo inside.

It may be possible, but you gotta be an insanely good shot.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-26 03:00pm

Ted wrote:
Vympel wrote:
Ted wrote:I heard that MBT's have shit protection in the back, that a 14.5mm HMG can penetrate and take out the engine, true?
Hmmm ... not sure. I doubt it.
It was a few years ago that I saw that show.

It also said that the turret ring could be penetrated and set off the ammo inside.

It may be possible, but you gotta be an insanely good shot.

The M1 was designed with all round RPG-7 protection as I recall. However unlike many tanks, the M1 series has the hull totally built out of RHA steel, which gives it a lot more protection on the flanks and rear.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-03-26 03:07pm

Vympel wrote: Unless burning embers ignite a round the loader may be holding.

IIRC loaders are prohibited from doing that precisely because of the danger of accidental detonation.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-26 03:15pm

Axis Kast wrote:I always thought that an idea from James Bond was cool. A sort of mini-CIWS in the form of a high-powered automatic shotgun. Not that I'm sure this is feasible given speeds involved. Anyone?

I'm sure the infantry support would love it.

Anyway, it wouldn't work. The weapons would be inaccurate and too slow to respond.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-03-26 03:15pm

Rubberanvil wrote:
Vympel wrote: Unless burning embers ignite a round the loader may be holding.
IIRC loaders are prohibited from doing that precisely because of the danger of accidental detonation.

Not that it helps any if the loader had just grabbed the round to load it...

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-03-26 03:30pm

Beowulf wrote: Not that it helps any if the loader had just grabbed the round to load it...

True, but the tank have to be hit right when that happens.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-26 03:34pm

Beowulf wrote:
Rubberanvil wrote:
Vympel wrote: Unless burning embers ignite a round the loader may be holding.
IIRC loaders are prohibited from doing that precisely because of the danger of accidental detonation.
Not that it helps any if the loader had just grabbed the round to load it...

Even firing as quickly as possibul, there would only be a round exposed half the time at most. , But given the lack of massed armor targets its unlikely tanks are firing at anything like maximum.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-26 07:32pm

Does anyone know why the Cadillac Gage Stingray wasn't put into production? Given that tanks can't really survive modern AT weapons, and that it's only 1/3 of the weight of an Abrams with a 105mm gun, it would seem to be a good, inexpensive, light-weight tank.

BTW, I saw a Scimitar (or Scorpion, couldn't see the barrel length) on the news the other day. I didn't realize they were still in use...guess I need to check more updated information

.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 07:44pm

The Cadillac Gage isn't necessary when one has the M1A1 series tank. It's an expensive novely tank that serves for use only in isolated theaters where encounters with larger tanks are unusual. If you want a light combat vehicle, the Bradley is more than enough.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-26 09:35pm

Axis Kast wrote:The Cadillac Gage isn't necessary when one has the M1A1 series tank. It's an expensive novely tank that serves for use only in isolated theaters where encounters with larger tanks are unusual. If you want a light combat vehicle, the Bradley is more than enough.

A Bradley has a 25mm chain gun; Stingray has the NATO standard 105mm cannon. The two are not intended for the same situation. And out of curiosity, just how expensive is this exported tank, compared to the $3 million Abrams (or $9.12 million for each M1 being refitted to M1A2 status?). To quote Philip Trewhitt, author of Armored Fighting Vehicles, "the Stingray has performance and power at a much lower unit cost when compared to a main battle tank"

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 09:44pm

The Dark wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:The Cadillac Gage isn't necessary when one has the M1A1 series tank. It's an expensive novely tank that serves for use only in isolated theaters where encounters with larger tanks are unusual. If you want a light combat vehicle, the Bradley is more than enough.

A Bradley has a 25mm chain gun; Stingray has the NATO standard 105mm cannon. The two are not intended for the same situation.
And out of curiosity, just how expensive is this exported tank, compared to the $3 million Abrams (or $9.12 million for each M1 being refitted to M1A2 status?). To quote Philip Trewhitt, author of Armored Fighting Vehicles, "the Stingray has performance and power at a much lower unit cost when compared to a main battle tank"

The US was going to procure the XM8 Buford Armored Gun System, but it got cancelled last minute- from the looks of it it's a superior light tank to the Stingray. Light tanks would be quite useful to provide the paratroopers with some intergral armor support. This is why the Russian paratroops have their BMD airborne IFVs, BTR-D airborne APCs, 2S9 airborne turreted SP mortars (replaced the previous ASU-57 and ASU-85 airborne assault guns), and are now getting 2S25 Sprut-SD light tanks (125mm main gun- 18 ton weight).

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 09:47pm

The Stingray might be useful, but that doesn't mean it'll replace the M1A2 Abrams. We don't use it precisely because we don't see the need for a new light tank given the Bradley and its ability to mount ATGMs.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 09:54pm

Axis Kast wrote:The Stingray might be useful, but that doesn't mean it'll replace the M1A2 Abrams. We don't use it precisely because we don't see the need for a new light tank given the Bradley and its ability to mount ATGMs.

Like The Dark said, the Bradley is by no means a light tank- it's puny main weapon is incapable of delivering direct fire, shock action (unlike the XM8 Buford), and it's way too heavy to fulfill the role of light tank that can help the paratroopers out. It also wastes a lot of internal space with troops. It's ATGMs, while giving it respectable anti-tank ability, can't substitute for a 105mm main gun firing HEF and canister rounds.

The US Army is however acquiring the Stryker MGS (Mobile Gun System), which is just the new Stryker hull (8x8 APC) with a 105mm gun. So they definitely see the need for it- unfortunately the paras won't be getting it and the Stryker is too heavy/large to efficiently airlift anyway.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 10:11pm

If all this is true, why don't we employ the Stingray?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 10:18pm

Axis Kast wrote:If all this is true, why don't we employ the Stingray?

No idea- same reason why they don't employ the XM8 Buford- which was fully ready for production when it was cancelled oh ... a few years ago? Procurement politics. The US Army wanted Stryker for their new, easier to move 'medium brigades'. They also aren't hot on giving paratroopers their own armor, even though both the German Fallschirmjager (Wiesel series) and Russian VDV have it.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-26 11:00pm

Vympel wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:If all this is true, why don't we employ the Stingray?
No idea- same reason why they don't employ the XM8 Buford- which was fully ready for production when it was cancelled oh ... a few years ago? Procurement politics. The US Army wanted Stryker for their new, easier to move 'medium brigades'. They also aren't hot on giving paratroopers their own armor, even though both the German Fallschirmjager (Wiesel series) and Russian VDV have it.

I was about to protest that the Wiesel only has a 20mm cannon with 20 rounds of ammunition, but I found a section discussing the 210 Wiesels with wire-guided missiles. I do wish I knew how the US is supposed to be able to rapidly deploy units; the Hercules, Galaxy and Globemaster can only carry so much...I'm not even so worried about giving paratroopers armor (though it is a good idea) as I am about the fact that any buildup requires months.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 11:04pm

Yeah- the Wiesels are quite dinky in comparison to the well-developed BMD series and all it's modifications, but still, it's better than nothing.

Sebastin · Post by **Sebastin** » 2003-03-27 04:09am

The Wiesels are a really cool concept in my opinion but they shouldn´t be compared to light tanks, they´re a different concept. Incidentialy the german designation is Waffenträger which means weapons carrier and they are the direct replacement of tha KraKa which was essentially a heavy ATV.

Add to this that there is a 120mm mortar Wiesel, a Wiesel based light air defence system and prototypes of Wiesel troop carrier(6 men), command, recon and ambulance vehicles and that CH53 or CH47 each can transport 2 combat ready Wiesels internaly you have a very interesting asset for airborne troops.