Author Topic: Something nocks out an M1A1 and no one knows what? (Read 2000 times)

Boroda · « **Reply #45 on:** November 06, 2003, 12:19:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d

The damage to the tank was likely formed by a regular well-formed shaped-charge jet that kept it's coherence longer than usual.

miko

Right words here!!!

Cummulative stream = "jet".

Some shaped charges are designed to keep jet's coherence for up to several dozen meters.

Thanks, Miko!

miko2d · « **Reply #46 on:** November 06, 2003, 12:27:27 PM »

Boroda: Some shaped charges are designed to keep jet's coherence for up to several dozen meters.

Designed - yes. Keeping tight manufacturing tolerances is another matter altogether...

miko

Boroda · « **Reply #47 on:** November 06, 2003, 12:55:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Boroda: Some shaped charges are designed to keep jet's coherence for up to several dozen meters.

Designed - yes. Keeping tight manufacturing tolerances is another matter altogether...

miko

"Tolerances" = "dopusk" (äîïóñê)?

Miko, I can tell you long stories about production of shaped charges. There are hundreeds of manufacturing conditions that influence the way they work. But long-focus charges exist, and can be mass-produced. They are out of experimental stage for several decades.

Anyway, I understand that what I was shown in college sometimes was unknown in regular units. But this things are in production and availible under certain conditions.

Fishu · « **Reply #48 on:** November 06, 2003, 01:18:53 PM »

Boroda,

This Abrams which ended up swimming in Tigris, was parked somewhere along the river bank, when it collapsed and fell into the river, killing the driver who was alone there IIRC.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 06, 2003, 01:22:05 PM »

Quote

Fourth one mysteriously "sank in Tigris". So three plus one makes one.

I know an Iraqi soldier shot the driver of an M1 and it crashed off a bridge (into a river), killing the whole crew.

Boroda · « **Reply #50 on:** November 06, 2003, 01:22:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Boroda,

This Abrams which ended up swimming in Tigris, was parked somewhere along the river bank, when it collapsed and fell into the river, killing the driver who was alone there IIRC.

IIRC they told they couldn't get it out of the river. So it's ok, commisioned, but just is underwater. Very American. They know how to hide losses from public.

miko2d · « **Reply #51 on:** November 06, 2003, 01:29:06 PM »

I am not sure it would make much difference to public opinion if we lost 2 tanks or 20.

Americans were expecting a bigger war with casualties in hundreds or even thousands. The right-wingers were praying for our troops to be massively hit with Chem/Bio weapons just to say "I told you so" to the democrats.

Hiding a loss of two tanks would seem silly. Not that they wouldn't do a silly thing.

I am much more interested in the number of soldiers wounded - it is not reported and the estimates differ drastically.

miko

Fishu · « **Reply #52 on:** November 06, 2003, 01:41:57 PM »

Non-amphibious tanks gone swimming:

"Cpl. Robert M. Rodriguez, 21, of Queens, N.Y., was killed in action on March 27 when the tank he was riding in fell into the Euphrates River during combat operations northwest of An Nasiriyah. His remains were recovered on March 30. He was assigned to the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st marine Division, Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, Calif."

"The Department of Defense announced today that Pfc. Jesse A. Givens, 34, of Springfield, Mo., was killed on May 1, 2003, in Al Habbaniyah, Iraq. Givens was parked in an M-1 main battle tank alongside the bank of the Euphrates River. The riverbank gave way resulting in the tank falling into the river. "

I suppose Boroda meant Euphrates instead of Tigris?

Innominate · « **Reply #53 on:** November 06, 2003, 02:00:44 PM »

An m1 is not invulnerable. Anyone who thinks so is misguided as is anyone who thinks it's possible to have an invulnerable tank. Disabling and burning the tank is not all that difficult. How many tank crewmen have been killed? Even the M1 tank can be 'killed'. It's the crew protection that makes it what it is. Killing the tank, and killing the crew are two very seperate things. A 'killed' tank is simply one that is no longer able to fight.

So a riverbank collapsed and a tank fell into the river, thats an accident, they happen. Not a combat loss.

One M1 "Killed" by the iraqi's was immobilized by an RPG, and abandoned. There were videos of it burning, taken long after it was abandoned.

Fishu · « **Reply #54 on:** November 06, 2003, 02:29:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Innominate
One M1 "Killed" by the iraqi's was immobilized by an RPG, and abandoned. There were videos of it burning, taken long after it was abandoned.

Wasn't the burning because of self destruction charges?

Pongo · « **Reply #55 on:** November 06, 2003, 03:39:39 PM »

I agree boroda, though I am no expert just an ex user of heat warheads. The effect of the initial impact makes it look like it was fused to initiate quite some distance from the vehicle. The effect inside the vehicle just looks like a very coherent penetrator jet.
I am pretty sure it was just an advanced heat warhead and I am pretty sure the US army knows exactly what it was.

Scootter · « **Reply #56 on:** November 06, 2003, 04:41:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda

US has such weapons since 80s. They even had a disposable robot with one charge focused at several dozen meters. The charge looked like a searchlight on top of a tiny tank.

Are you going on about the IR light mounted on top of the M-60 years ago?

Not really sure what you are talking about please explain

This light was mounted inline and above the main gun, a big box like thing.

That searchlight looking thing is just that not some focused beam weapon.

I have also seen the versions that had reguler white light built in as well as the infared.

http://www.3ad.us/pio/photos/action/tank.turret.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m48-pics.htm

After the Yom Kippur war in 1973 the United States transfered a large number of M-60s to Israel for replacing the large combat losses. This devepopment created a shortage in US Army tank units and soon it was decided that a number of M-48s would be remanufactured in order to reach the M-60A1 level capabilities. The new version was the M-48A5 equipped with a new M68 105mm gun, new track system and a 12,7mm with a 7,62mm M-60 machine guns. Almost 2,000 M-48A1/2/3s were converted to the A5 version and despite the fact that the armor protection had no match with the M-60s, the A5 had the same armament and engine.

from this site

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m48.htm

The M48A5E1 h was a upgraded M48A5, with full resolution digital fire, a laser range finder, and an improved day/night sight assembly.

The M48 vehicle is separated into three compartments: the driver's compartment, the fighting compartment where the Gunner, Loader, and Tank Commander [TC] fought, and the engine compartment. Above the main gun was a 1 million candle-power Xenon searchlight. This light had both a white light and an infrared mode. It was boresighted with the main gun and gunsights so that it could be used to illuminate a target at night.

Pongo · « **Reply #57 on:** November 06, 2003, 04:59:30 PM »

No he is talking about the shape of that kind of warhead. It doenst look like a long funel like a normal heat warhead. It looks like a hocky puck with a slight funnel indent like the old IR lights had.
At least thats what I think he meant. It is what the bomlet like anti armour munitions look like anyway.