User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 8:11:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Magazine protection in monkey models is less than optimum. Light off the magazine and any orifice can spew body parts if the tank is buttoned up. In the M1, there is a port on top of the magazine which is secured with specific low strength bolts. The magazine door is only open during the time it takes the loader to extract a round, the door is strong enough to resist the magazine lighting off. The outside hatch blows off, protecting the crew from immolation. A T-72 has no magazine protection, monkey model or not. You ride on top of it. If that ammo cooks off the whole turret is coming off with it. The blowout panels work but really only if you have the hatches closed to protect you from the shitstorm coming out the back of the turret. There are also 3 rounds stored in the hull of the Abrams |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 8:14:25 PM EDT
[#2]
dammit, ya beat me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 8:16:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: Magazine protection in monkey models is less than optimum. Light off the magazine and any orifice can spew body parts if the tank is buttoned up. In the M1, there is a port on top of the magazine which is secured with specific low strength bolts. The magazine door is only open during the time it takes the loader to extract a round, the door is strong enough to resist the magazine lighting off. The outside hatch blows off, protecting the crew from immolation. A T-72 has no magazine protection, monkey model or not. You ride on top of it. If that ammo cooks off the whole turret is coming off with it. Less than optimum, no?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 8:18:32 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've heard some interesting M1 stories over the years. It's been awhile, and I can't determine what I've been told versus read in (fiction?) books or watched in movies. Maybe someone here can debunk or verify them, although it's probably already been discussed ad nauseam. In the 1st Gulf War, there were cases of Iraqi tanks being shot with sabot rounds that passed completely through one tank and into another, making a two for one shot. Sometimes there was no visible signature that a tank was "dead", as the sabot passing through would instantly kill the crew inside, but could leave the machine somewhat operational. The tank commander, not realizing that the first hit was effective, would switch to HEAT rounds and get the desired results of an explosively disabled tank. Has anyone gotten a look inside of a tank and seen what happens to a crew after a sabot passes through? I'd imagine that there would be some serious spalling in there. Would there be pressure effects too, i.e., overpressure when the projectile enters the compartment and/or vacuum as it exits the other side? Buddy that was 82nd during the first Gulf War followed behind the armored columns. Said the results basically looked like dog food on the exit side of the tank. Basically the turn riders were sucked through the exit hole, leaving a red mess on the exit side and a human shaped outline on the seats inside (with that around it charred). I'm pretty sure the physics of that is impossible. You are correct, the whole Sabot's sucking out crews nonsense is just that, it's a myth, just like the guy everyone knew in basic who killed himself via buffer, or Mattel M-16's. Yep, it's a myth. We heard it in 19K basic and had it debunked with several videos. An APFSDS kills the crew with overpressure and a rapid temperature rise. Spalling is minimal as the hole is tiny and the round doesn't actually impact the armor and transfer it's energy into it, the penetrator just passes right through it. Did they tell you anything about the effects of overpressure from the sabot round on exposed infantry? I read a claim once, that the blast wave from the sabot round being fired could potentially kill exposed troops in a 45 degree arc from the muzzle to 200 meters.  And that isn't even touching on the sabot petals that fall off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 8:19:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Less than optimum, no?
You could say that. I feel really bad for crews in combloc vehicles. I bitched a lot riding in an Abrams, and they have it so much worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 8:20:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did they tell you anything about the effects of overpressure from the sabot round on exposed infantry? I read a claim once, that the blast wave from the sabot round being fired could potentially kill exposed troops in a 45 degree arc from the muzzle to 200 meters. And that isn't even touching on the sabot petals that fall off.No idea about that, I know you cannot fire Sabots over exposed infantry but the only definitive reason I know of was because of the petals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 8:23:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Less than optimum, no? You could say that. I feel really bad for crews in combloc vehicles. I bitched a lot riding in an Abrams, and they have it so much worse. I feel for the wrench spinners maintaining the stock. I shudder to think of what their prescribed load listing offered for immediate support. Sustainability?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 9:40:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Ok, what about an IPM1 vs a "Dolly Parton" T-72?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 9:52:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oddball didn't have the best English either..WOOF-WOOF! And he didn't know how to fix them.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know the most tend to focus on the performance of the M1A1, but does anyone know how the IPM1 tank did up against the Soviet monkey models? I have a friend who TCd one with the 1st Infantry Division, he said the difference between standard SABOT and the emergency issue "for T72 only" Sabot was the standard ones killed the tank with a front armor hit, the T-72 only ones had enough energy to go out the back of the tank (and he claimed take part of the engine out with it). No matter how many times I read your post it isn't helping me understand Jack. TC is Tank Commander. Sabot is a sub-caliber penetrator that rides in a sabot or shoe (French, see sabotage) which seals it in the bore but falls off once free of the bore. The two types were tungsten-carbide (standard) and depleted uranium hardened alloy (extra special but expensive). Engines are in the rear of the tank, hitting the hull and penetrating to the engine is spectacular performance, even in a monkey model T72. Monkey models are export versions that are less than fully apportioned with armor, fire control and crew protection. It's his English skills that had me stumped.  Who are you going to call when it breaks? All the wrench spinners have negative waves 
no we didnt Bro! I have the most excelent waves! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 9:56:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Ok, what about an IPM1 vs a "Dolly Parton" T-72? Curious about this myself. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 10:28:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, what about an IPM1 vs a "Dolly Parton" T-72? Curious about this myself. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile WTF is a Dolly parton T-72? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 10:41:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, what about an IPM1 vs a "Dolly Parton" T-72? Curious about this myself. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile WTF is a Dolly parton T-72? Had a bigger frontal slope on its turret. The "official" name was the T-72A |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 11:04:18 PM EDT
[#13]
googling the image brings up a neat pic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:11:43 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oddball didn't have the best English either..WOOF-WOOF! And he didn't know how to fix them.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know the most tend to focus on the performance of the M1A1, but does anyone know how the IPM1 tank did up against the Soviet monkey models? I have a friend who TCd one with the 1st Infantry Division, he said the difference between standard SABOT and the emergency issue "for T72 only" Sabot was the standard ones killed the tank with a front armor hit, the T-72 only ones had enough energy to go out the back of the tank (and he claimed take part of the engine out with it). No matter how many times I read your post it isn't helping me understand Jack. TC is Tank Commander. Sabot is a sub-caliber penetrator that rides in a sabot or shoe (French, see sabotage) which seals it in the bore but falls off once free of the bore. The two types were tungsten-carbide (standard) and depleted uranium hardened alloy (extra special but expensive). Engines are in the rear of the tank, hitting the hull and penetrating to the engine is spectacular performance, even in a monkey model T72. Monkey models are export versions that are less than fully apportioned with armor, fire control and crew protection. It's his English skills that had me stumped. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 11:40:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oddball didn't have the best English either..WOOF-WOOF! And he didn't know how to fix them.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know the most tend to focus on the performance of the M1A1, but does anyone know how the IPM1 tank did up against the Soviet monkey models? I have a friend who TCd one with the 1st Infantry Division, he said the difference between standard SABOT and the emergency issue "for T72 only" Sabot was the standard ones killed the tank with a front armor hit, the T-72 only ones had enough energy to go out the back of the tank (and he claimed take part of the engine out with it). No matter how many times I read your post it isn't helping me understand Jack. TC is Tank Commander. Sabot is a sub-caliber penetrator that rides in a sabot or shoe (French, see sabotage) which seals it in the bore but falls off once free of the bore. The two types were tungsten-carbide (standard) and depleted uranium hardened alloy (extra special but expensive). Engines are in the rear of the tank, hitting the hull and penetrating to the engine is spectacular performance, even in a monkey model T72. Monkey models are export versions that are less than fully apportioned with armor, fire control and crew protection. It's his English skills that had me stumped. http://i.qkme.me/3owolc.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 11:52:19 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell in OIF there were Bradleys getting frontal kills on T72s with their chain guns. Says a lot about the Iraqi tanks vs. "real" T72s. In few years we may be saying the same thing about Iraqi M1's and "Real" Abrams Iraqi Abrams are watered down? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 11:53:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell in OIF there were Bradleys getting frontal kills on T72s with their chain guns. Says a lot about the Iraqi tanks vs. "real" T72s. In few years we may be saying the same thing about Iraqi M1's and "Real" Abrams Iraqi Abrams are watered down? http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/080/4/1/i__m_ok_with_this___pinkie_pie_by_megasweet-d3c6y5y.png The only country, I think, that got the complete version were the Aussies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:31:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hell in OIF there were Bradleys getting frontal kills on T72s with their chain guns. Says a lot about the Iraqi tanks vs. "real" T72s. In few years we may be saying the same thing about Iraqi M1's and "Real" Abrams Iraqi Abrams are watered down? http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/080/4/1/i__m_ok_with_this___pinkie_pie_by_megasweet-d3c6y5y.png The only country, I think, that got the complete version were the Aussies. They were the only country offered the full HC version, but due to politics they got rid of the DU inserts in the armor. Their tanks are zero mile rebuilds that have a mix and match of feautres found in Army AIM tanks and Marine Corps HC tanks. They are an interesting variant of the Abrams family. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:34:47 PM EDT
[#19]
I am interested in the commander's 50cal machine gun contraption. Powered traverse with a manual elevation crank right? How did that work out in combat?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:46:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
I am interested in the commander's 50cal machine gun contraption. Powered traverse with a manual elevation crank right? How did that work out in combat? Its controlled by a joystick in the TC's copula. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 2:00:59 PM EDT
[#21]
One thing to remember about Iraqi T-55 and T-62 armor (not sure about T-72s) is that the metallurgical content of the turrets and hulls weren't as hard as we thought they'd be. This is apparently why the LAV-25 with a 25mm Bushmaster (no, not THAT Bushmaster) cannon could penetrate some of the hull and turret armor on the older MBTs fielded by Iraq during the first Gulf War.
APFSDS DU long rod penetrators didn't create the "flash fire" from penetrating enemy armor like we thought they would. The harder the enemy armor, the more friction as the DU sabot round (DU is super-dense material) penetrates, and the more of a "flash" you get on impact and penetration. That flash will-in theory-ignite FRH, ammo, fuel, and flesh as the round passes through the crew compartment if any of the previously mentioned materials aboard the AFV are hit. M1IP Abrams tanks were able to take multiple hits from Iraqi MBTs without suffering even a "mobility" kill. It's my understanding that an Army M1IP MBT fired at an Iraqi tank as it was backing down into a turret-down position (after firing at the Abrams first), and the gunner fired his 105mm sabot through the berm and the round penetrated the earthen barrier, and impacted the tank with typical catastrophic turret-hull separation. Lets just say that late '80s-era 105mm APFSDS DU main gun ammo could penetrate more than just one Soviet-era MBT. The performance of the 105mm main gun is good, but the 120mm gives a modern MBT more range. Once you've fired Tank Table VII and VIII with a 120, you realize just how limited the 105mm is in comparison as far as range is concerned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 2:04:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
I am interested in the commander's 50cal machine gun contraption. Powered traverse with a manual elevation crank right? How did that work out in combat? I used it in training, but it takes some getting used to. Still, quite functional though if it's all you have. Some of the Marines in my company would disengage the power traverse and go manual-only. I've never used the TC station in combat, but I never really heard any complaints about it by TCs who did. IMHO, it was badly in need of updating, and my understanding is that it has been. Better than a flex mount, whatever the case may be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 2:15:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
People also forget how well the M60A1 did in USMC hands against the Iraqi's. Those Russian Monkey models really suck. The crews and ammo sucked more than anything else. The T-72 isn't a great design, but it can still kill you if the crew is well trained and the ammo is up to western standards in terms of design and material. The 125mm smoothbore main gun is nothing to dismiss. 1st, 3rd, part of 4th, and 8th Tank Battalions went to war in the M60A1 Rise Passive MBT. AFAIK, 1st and 3rd drew theirs from MPF ships that were sent to the port of Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia where the crews drove them off the ships and went north to the obstacle belt . 2nd Tank Battalion from MCB CamLej had M1A1s on loan from the Army (requested by Gen. Al Gray, CMC) as well as one company from 4th Tanks (Bravo Co.) that were attached to 2nd Tanks. Co. "C" from 4th Tank Battalion was issued actual USMC-owned M1A1s with DU armor new from the factory floor, and boy howdy were they awesome. 8th Tank Bn (USMCR) were given the opportunity to acquire a company's worth of NY ANG M60A3s when they were NETT'd on the M1. Two were taken along to accompany the Bn for spare parts during the ground war, and the rest were buried in the desert by the ANG. Somewhere out there in Saudi Arabia, they're still there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 2:40:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am interested in the commander's 50cal machine gun contraption. Powered traverse with a manual elevation crank right? How did that work out in combat? I used it in training, but it takes some getting used to. Still, quite functional though if it's all you have. Some of the Marines in my company would disengage the power traverse and go manual-only. I've never used the TC station in combat, but I never really heard any complaints about it by TCs who did. IMHO, it was badly in need of updating, and my understanding is that it has been. Better than a flex mount, whatever the case may be. That would be the M1A2SEP v2. IThe CROWS II replaced the flex mounted 50. The USMC retained the old style TC turret, however they did add a thermal optic to the TC's .50 cal mount. It's on the ammo can holder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:01:14 PM EDT
[#25]
The M900 APFSDS-T round which was fielded in 1989 was the fourth and final generation of KE rds in the 105MM family. It replaced the M833 rd. The M900 was capable of penetrating the front hull on all Soviet vehicles. Due to the excessive recoil it was not capable of being shot out of M60's and low serial Number Breech rings on IPM1's.
There are still substantial stocks around the world (Even Pakistan got about 10,000 rds....  ) and is used in the Styker Gun system. it's still a formidable rd.
The CWS on an M1 until lately always seemed to be an afterthought when it came to operating the .50. The Power control handle that automatically traversed the Commaders stastion was a joke, Oversensitive and jerky. Most of us traversed manually using the skate ring. the Elevation handle on the early models sucked with the "Schwin Bicycle cable" you had to pull down on to fire the gun... the later M1A1's had the Electric solenoid but you still had to crank the handle to traverse/elevate the gun... Unless you were in a Hull down/stationary position you were not going to hit shit with that .50. During Gunnery, most of us would cheat and align the 50 with the main gun left/right and then have the gunner lase to the tgt and then you could apply that range to the reticle in the 3X day only optic for the .50. If your lucky your first burst got target effect, after that, there was too much smoke and vibration to see the target. No night firing capability and you have to crack the hatch and stand tall in the saddle to put another box of .50 on the mount and reload the gun... Guess what time I would take my shot if I were a sniper...... 
The Israelis had it right with mounting the 50. to the gun Mantle and tie it in to the main gun optics and firing controls... Let the Gunner gun and let the TC command... Makes a fine middle of the road system when Coax is not enough and Main gun is too much... 50 cal ...just right.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:09:59 PM EDT
[#26]
And I always chuckle when I hear about ow SABOT rds suck out the crew.....
The Problem with KE rds is you do not get the catastrophic effect right away unless you hit something that goes boom... Since the T-72 kept it's ammo on a rotating cassette on the hull floor (Brilliant) to accommodate the auto loading system, there was no compartmentalization of ammo on any of there tanks... so when the ammo went up.....KaPow.. 12 ton turret fly's into the air like a skillet.... As long as the Ammo door is kept closed on the M1, the blow off panels that Keith described do there job well.Hydraulically operated with a knee switch the loader activates to gain access to the ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:11:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
<snip> Good to see you back again Harv. I was hoping you'd jump into this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:25:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Hell in OIF there were Bradleys getting frontal kills on T72s with their chain guns. Says a lot about the Iraqi tanks vs. "real" T72s. I'm pretty sure that happened in DS too. n/m; covered by USMCTanker |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:26:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
I've heard some interesting M1 stories over the years. It's been awhile, and I can't determine what I've been told versus read in (fiction?) books or watched in movies. Maybe someone here can debunk or verify them, although it's probably already been discussed ad nauseam. In the 1st Gulf War, there were cases of Iraqi tanks being shot with sabot rounds that passed completely through one tank and into another, making a two for one shot. Sometimes there was no visible signature that a tank was "dead", as the sabot passing through would instantly kill the crew inside, but could leave the machine somewhat operational. The tank commander, not realizing that the first hit was effective, would switch to HEAT rounds and get the desired results of an explosively disabled tank. Has anyone gotten a look inside of a tank and seen what happens to a crew after a sabot passes through? I'd imagine that there would be some serious spalling in there. Would there be pressure effects too, i.e., overpressure when the projectile enters the compartment and/or vacuum as it exits the other side? I have a picture of me standing next to such a kill(s). Although the second one was actually being towed by the first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:29:12 PM EDT
[#30]
I had a Bradly gunner claim he was killing export T-72s with the
25MM |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:32:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've heard some interesting M1 stories over the years. It's been awhile, and I can't determine what I've been told versus read in (fiction?) books or watched in movies. Maybe someone here can debunk or verify them, although it's probably already been discussed ad nauseam. In the 1st Gulf War, there were cases of Iraqi tanks being shot with sabot rounds that passed completely through one tank and into another, making a two for one shot. Sometimes there was no visible signature that a tank was "dead", as the sabot passing through would instantly kill the crew inside, but could leave the machine somewhat operational. The tank commander, not realizing that the first hit was effective, would switch to HEAT rounds and get the desired results of an explosively disabled tank. Has anyone gotten a look inside of a tank and seen what happens to a crew after a sabot passes through? I'd imagine that there would be some serious spalling in there. Would there be pressure effects too, i.e., overpressure when the projectile enters the compartment and/or vacuum as it exits the other side? I have a picture of me standing next to such a kill(s). Although the second one was actually being towed by the first. I'd love to see it if you could post it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:34:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
People also forget how well the M60A1 did in USMC hands against the Iraqi's. Those Russian Monkey models really suck. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:43:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've heard some interesting M1 stories over the years. It's been awhile, and I can't determine what I've been told versus read in (fiction?) books or watched in movies. Maybe someone here can debunk or verify them, although it's probably already been discussed ad nauseam. In the 1st Gulf War, there were cases of Iraqi tanks being shot with sabot rounds that passed completely through one tank and into another, making a two for one shot. Sometimes there was no visible signature that a tank was "dead", as the sabot passing through would instantly kill the crew inside, but could leave the machine somewhat operational. The tank commander, not realizing that the first hit was effective, would switch to HEAT rounds and get the desired results of an explosively disabled tank. Has anyone gotten a look inside of a tank and seen what happens to a crew after a sabot passes through? I'd imagine that there would be some serious spalling in there. Would there be pressure effects too, i.e., overpressure when the projectile enters the compartment and/or vacuum as it exits the other side? I have a picture of me standing next to such a kill(s). Although the second one was actually being towed by the first. I'd love to see it if you could post it. I've been trying for forever to get all my pics scanned. I've got someone working on it for me right now, but I'm trying to be polite and not rush her. I'll post when I can get it done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:55:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Harv, how would you feel about a .338 or .375 caliber coax?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:57:14 PM EDT
[#35]
I just want to post a pic of the beautiful M60A1 RISE:
Followed by the M60A4: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:24:59 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I just want to post a pic of the beautiful M60A1 RISE: http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/m60-patton-mbt_3.jpg Followed by the M60A4: http://neo-tarakia.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/0/7/1607449/5884072.jpg?440 That looks like a M60-2000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:37:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just want to post a pic of the beautiful M60A1 RISE: http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/m60-patton-mbt_3.jpg Followed by the M60A4: http://neo-tarakia.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/0/7/1607449/5884072.jpg?440 That looks like a M60-2000 M60-2000 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:16:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just want to post a pic of the beautiful M60A1 RISE: http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/imgs/m60-patton-mbt_3.jpg Followed by the M60A4: http://neo-tarakia.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/0/7/1607449/5884072.jpg?440 That looks like a M60-2000 M60-2000 http://media.desura.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/120SMainBattleTankHR.jpg I thought this project died, but Wiki says Egypt bought them to upgrade its 60 fleet which would make sense. I wonder if that ever went through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:27:12 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Harv, how would you feel about a .338 or .375 caliber coax? I think it would be pretty damn cool... The coax is a good close in weapon with lots of at the ready ammo, but we really never had a intermediate range weapon that would be slaved in with the FCS. The French had a 40mm co axially located GL on the AMX 30 which I always thought was pretty cool and would give the crew a nice intermediate punch, The Merkava use to have the roof mounted 60mm mortar (Not sure if it still does) and I thought that would be another nice tool for the tool box. What does a Tank crew do when you have soft skin vehicles or troops at 1500meters?? With 40 rds of Main gun and knowing what a pain it is to cross-load from one side of the ammo bustle to another, I'm not going to let my gunner squeeze one off on a target like that. Sure I could hunker down onto the .50 and take a whirl, but with the amount of range time TC's get, and the mount/sights, the odds are not in your favor to get your first rds on target without everyone going to ground. That's where I think a larger caliber coax could be useful I have a love /hate relationship with the MaDuece... I think it may be time to move on from that and find the next generation system, and for the love of all that is holy, I hope someone with some combat experience gets to design the mounting and controls for a day/Night capability. Sounds Like putting the CROWS up top has done that. I have no experience with it so I can't say if that is a successful marriage of man and machine or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:34:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Harv, how would you feel about a .338 or .375 caliber coax? I think it would be pretty damn cool... The coax is a good close in weapon with lots of at the ready ammo, but we really never had a intermediate range weapon that would be slaved in with the FCS. The French had a 40mm co axially located GL on the AMX 30 which I always thought was pretty cool and would give the crew a nice intermediate punch, The Merkava use to have the roof mounted 60mm mortar (Not sure if it still does) and I thought that would be another nice tool for the tool box. What does a Tank crew do when you have soft skin vehicles or troops at 1500meters?? With 40 rds of Main gun and knowing what a pain it is to cross-load from one side of the ammo bustle to another, I'm not going to let my gunner squeeze one off on a target like that. Sure I could hunker down onto the .50 and take a whirl, but with the amount of range time TC's get, and the mount/sights, the odds are not in your favor to get your first rds on target without everyone going to ground. That's where I think a larger caliber coax could be useful I have a love /hate relationship with the MaDuece... I think it may be time to move on from that and find the next generation system, and for the love of all that is holy, I hope someone with some combat experience gets to design the mounting and controls for a day/Night capability. Sounds Like putting the CROWS up top has done that. I have no experience with it so I can't say if that is a successful marriage of man and machine or not. What are your thoughts on integrating an AGL in plce of half the M2s per platoon? With CROWSII you have that capability... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:40:43 PM EDT
[#41]
The new 40MM rounds have the capability to destroy everything short of a building or a tank, which is impressive.
With the fusing available they also have a large number of stowed kills. A three round burst can kill a rifle squad in defilade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:42:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
The new 40MM rounds have the capability to destroy everything short of a building or a tank, which is impressive. With the fusing available they also have a large number of stowed kills. A three round burst can kill a rifle squad in defilade. HEDP can also kill a BMP without much effort, make damn short work of recce vehicles like BRDMs without touching off the big gun as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:00:41 PM EDT
[#43]
From My perspective, it's another weapon system to train on, clean and maintain... on an already complex platform.. and there is the height issue depending on how it's integrated. then there is another fire control system with optics that need bore sighting. I like the idea of a AGL, I have never been impressed with the MK 19's reliability.
One thought is to perhaps put it over on the Loaders side. give him an optic for Day/Night . The Loaders 240 is just a wasted bullet hose and spare parts place holder for the coax. That way the TC can run the tank and have several options at his disposal.. the Loader;'s AGL, or the gunner with a .338 coax or if shit gets real in a hurry, some Kinetic or chemical 120mm love ...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:56:12 PM EDT
[#44]
If you were running a 40MM and a 120MM would you really need a weapon above the hatch?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 3:05:59 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
I was a 19K in the Guard, our "new" tanks were M1s and M1IPs
We trained on M1A1s in basic and when I got back to the unit and had to load for the first time I was like  ...There's something wrong with the breech.
At least the command of "Up" made sense in an M1A1 or newer. I wouldn't call the "UP!" a command, more like an announcement.
BTW, I've heard gunners get a bit miffed when a loader yells "UP!" with the GTD left in EL UNCPL.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 3:22:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
I had a Bradly gunner claim he was killing export T-72s with the 25MM I don't think I got a hard kill on the tanks I shot with the 25mm, but I sure as hell shot the fuck out of them. Pop them with a TOW2A and they would burn everytime. The 25mm would fuck up a BMP or BRDM big time. Bradley Gunner Charlie Co. 3/15 Inf. 24th ID A few pics for ya'll 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 3:49:20 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Magazine protection in monkey models is less than optimum. Light off the magazine and any orifice can spew body parts if the tank is buttoned up. In the M1, there is a port on top of the magazine which is secured with specific low strength bolts. The magazine door is only open during the time it takes the loader to extract a round, the door is strong enough to resist the magazine lighting off. The outside hatch blows off, protecting the crew from immolation. A T-72 has no magazine protection, monkey model or not. You ride on top of it. If that ammo cooks off the whole turret is coming off with it. The blowout panels work but really only if you have the hatches closed to protect you from the shitstorm coming out the back of the turret. There are also 3 rounds stored in the hull of the Abrams Yep. On some model Abrams they have weights attached to the panels to control how they separate from the turret and improve the odds of the heavy panels landing far away from the escaping crew. Slow burn of stowage ammo after a penetration: 
Also, the 3 rounds in the hull are in a pretty well protected armored box so it would take pretty much a direct hit for them to be ignited. (should be safe from most spall) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 3:54:18 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
I am interested in the commander's 50cal machine gun contraption. Powered traverse with a manual elevation crank right? How did that work out in combat? Kind of a PITA. Prone to breaking down. They completely nixed the powered CWS on the M1A2 in favor of a simple flex mount .50. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 4:01:34 AM EDT
[#49]
I'm no expert and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but that looks like an M1. Or is just an M1 turret on an M60 hull that has M1 style skirts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 4:03:11 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
I'm no expert and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but that looks like an M1. Or is just an M1 turret on an M60 hull that has M1 style skirts? It IS an M1 turret on an M60 hull. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
