Posted on 08/19/2004 8:47:02 PM PDT by Southack
One problem with the turbine is that it is most efficient when going full speed. They burn up almost as much fuel while idling as the do going full speed. That's why the the movements of tanks during the second Gulf War were so fast. If the tanks had an axilliary power unit (APU), they could shut off their main engine while they are not moving but could still run their onboard electronic and environmental systems while conserving fuel.
If it were a 12 Ga. I would say it was #9 shot.
However, counting about a dozen across, is that 120mm?, I'd say about 10mm.
We already have an urban assault vehicle: it's called the Fuel/Air explosive. Instead of fighting it out in crowded urban enviornments, why not just flatten them instead? We have already learned, countless times, in France, Stalingrad, Germany, Mogadishu, Vietnam, etc., that fighting man-to-man in a town or city is going to be costly in terms of casualties and of course, in the inevitable clean up when we rebuild. However, rather than expose our limited supply of infantry-persons (how's that for PC) to such murderous conditions, and spending a shitload of money for a new vehicle that will be little more than a Bradley with some Star Wars-type weaponry, why not go barbarian?
It sounds terrible, but hey, war is hell, ain't it?
Never thought of that. Thanks much!
I worked at a place that bid for some of these jobs and I can tell you that some sloppy work was shipped.
I tried going to the line leads, then tried going to the owners and finally risked going to mil spec.
I'd check the harnesses for being watertight (all were supposed to be tested and only 1 out of 100 actually were), I check for proper materials such as braiding (either having it or having the proper size), I'd check for shill tape which wasn't put on certain legs of the harnesses and is supposed to help protect the wiring from being detected by radar.
Using some for spare parts was a pretty good idea. jmo
I used to wire and assemble cable harnesses for the M1 tank and I saw a lot of garbage get passed through.
Ping on the M1A1 replcement - interesting.
whoa. I mean, what an article!!
Oh, and by the way, that tank with a GAU-8 on it was tried already. They called it the Sergeant York. If I recall, the reason why it was never adopted was because it would take a great many of them to provide adequate air defense for any sizable formation. They may not have had the range and firepower on their own to be very effective, if going by my experience with the Phalanx is any indication. Phalanx was a good weapon, but only when close-in. It could not "reach out and touch someone".
At a blog called the Green Side, a soldier in Falluja writes about what has been going on. Its not good. Hewitt read it on his show tonight.
I'd love to see variations and different types of the same tank instead of making them all identical.
Throw in an updated Tow launcher, should help on that.
Why not have 3 different types of M1's?? Why do they have to be identical?
I think you're mixing apples and GAUs...or something.
If you look at an A-10, you need to realize that the GAU-8 is so big it actually extends underneath and behind the cockpit. If you attempted to mount something like that on an armored vehicle the size of the M1 you would have to remove the turrent entirely, and box in the back end, simply to be able to enclose the ammunition feed mechanism...not only is that *not* a good idea in a tank (do a web search on a Swedish tank known as the 'S tank' which tried to do something similar) as you're stuck changing your point of aim by turning the entire vehicle; it would also throw your center of gravity off... to say nothing of covering up the exhaust grills of the engine compartment.
And while we're talking about the GAU-8 there are two more items to consider. First off, the reason the automatic loading mechanism on the GAU-8 works as well as it does is due to the fact that the gun itself is *fixed*. It doesn't elevate or depress and it certainly doesn't traverse (i.e. move left to right). A completely automatic loading system on a turreted armored vehicle is a *very* bad idea. We figured that out, the old Soviet Union never did...which is why there are a bunch of former soviet armor crewman walking around with only one arm. Secondly, you also need to remember that the A-10 can fly home to get a reload, when it runs out of ammo - something your average tank in combat cannot do. Thus the rapid rate of fire of the GAU-8 would be impossible to sustain in an armored vehicle, simply because the vehicle couldn't carry enough ammunition for the sort of sustained combat operations that are normal for tanks.
As far as the coupolas go - you need to do some reading on cobham type armor (the sort of armor on M1 tanks) and what it takes to mount non-cobham materials to it. Be careful, cobham is *not* reactive armor - that's something different but there are a number of internet sites which intentionally seem to confuse the two.
I suggest you might start by reading the relevant portions of Janes Weapons Systems and Janes Fighting Vehicles, and go from there. It's good that you're thinking about ways our armored vehicles could be made better, but you might want to do a bit more research into at least the basics of what makes up a modern tank, first.
He wasn't talking about using it for air defense. =o)
It's not my idea. I read it in the linked article below a couple of years ago.
er, turrent = turret... I hate spotting typos after I post something.
True, but it never could sustain enough firepower to be effective. If you wanted to use it in ground combat, it would have to be a moving ammo can that would need to be very close to a target (and thus, exposed) to be of any use.
Again, he's talking about turning an Abrams into a "Swiss Army Knife" type of vehicle.
It works just fine the way it does.
Since the Abrams is ALREADY capable of defeating anyone else's tanks 1-on-1 (and even 1 on 3 or 4), why add another AT weapon? The 120 mm gun is good enough.
Again, the addition of a TOW launcher would entail major design changes, added weight, increased profile, not to mention that when you add something, something else has to go.
The M1 is good to go, as is. The only improvements that should be made should concern themselves with mobility and protection (other than cupolas and gun shields). Not firepower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.