Ask An Expert- LAND Forces.

C

cr9527

New member
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
517
I've seen many tanks, including Leo2s fire, then have their turret stare blankly into the sky for a few seconds then come back down.

I understand this is the limitation of the loading mechanism, correct?

Does the M1 Abrams have this limitation?

How big of a problem is this?

Also, I understand the Abrams is a fast beast, but how fast is it (max speed and acceleration), is it compared to our ally's tanks?

Thanks.
 
cr9527 said:
Does the M1 Abrams have this limitation?
Click to expand...

The Abrams does not elevate as you describe after firing - the gun tube stays on target during reloading until it receives the next input from the gunner.

I'm not familiar with how other (non-U.S.) tanks cycle after firing, but I assume that's an automatic part of the cycle that elevates the gun tube slightly to position it to help load the next round. I'm guessing it's designed to place the breach at the optimum angle to reload.

I doubt crews would consider this a limitation, and some would probably say it helps with reloading. I personally feel very comfortable with the idea that my Abrams is keeping the gun laid on target and not moving around at all while reloading / tracking the next target. Our loaders don't have any issues with reloading in that position.

Also, I understand the Abrams is a fast beast, but how fast is it (max speed and acceleration), is it compared to our ally's tanks?
Click to expand...

Most M1s will do 40-45 mph on level ground, but you do see some variation from one tank to the next. You'll always hear guys make claims about going 60 mph (or more) in a tank, but it's equipped with a governor to keep it from going too fast. It's capable of going faster, but for the safety of both the tank and crew, it's limited to the 40-45 mph range.

One neat fact about the M1 is that it has two gears in reverse - it's strange at first to be backing up and feel it shift gears. Not many vehicles have that feature (I'd be interested to know if other tanks do). This allows us to back up and displace from one position to another very quickly.

Dave
 
The Merkava 4 has a neat little gizmo called "Index". When the loader presses the Index button, the cannon will revert to a straight and level position to facilitate the loading of the next round. In the meantime, the gunner's primary sight is still tracking the target. Left/right is not a problem, but up/down the sight moves while the cannon stays level. As soon as the next round is loaded and the index button is off, the cannon returns to being slaved to the GPS and is right back on target, thus allowing the best of both worlds, staying on target and making it easier on the loader
 
Ask An Expert- LAND Forces.

This is a thread for non-military or non-defense professional members to ask specific questions of the experts who will then reply if the question is in their specialty. Non-MP/DP members may not answer, I will delete them.

Opsec is in effect- don't ask for classified information or trade secrets.

Follow on questions may not be rebuttals of the answer provided, but you may ask for clarification.

question format (sample)

Field- Fighters/bombers

Question- Does the camo on tactical aircraft actually work? Does the grey underside/camo top make a noticeable difference in how far away you can put eyes on the target?
 
3ACR_Scout said:
The Abrams does not elevate as you describe after firing - the gun tube stays on target during reloading until it receives the next input from the gunner.
Click to expand...

This is untrue, after recieving the next load command, or if simply choosing sabot/HEAT as the next round absent a command the loader will hit the EL-uncouple switch and the gun goes to zero elevation in relation to the turret floor. If the gun stayed on target it could not be reloaded as the breach would be traveling up and down as the gunner tracked a target and the stablization kept the gun on target.

This in turn creates a danger zone around the barrel of the Abrams when it is at rest since if the turret is powered and someone exiting the loaders hatch hits the switch the gun slams down to about shoulder height on the average man. This would be leathal to anyone standing under it.
 
Field - tank on tank warfare

Question - (I am embarrassed to ask but I don't know jack about tanks) - Looking at a MBT, there are obvious areas well protected by the most advanced armor imaginable. But the layman like myself looks at the tracks and wheels, and these same painfully vulnerable below any skirting. It would appear that a hit by any enemy main gun, or even 25mm or 30mm cannon fire, would shred these and create an instant mobility kill. Once immobilized, it is not much of a threat and can be dealt with later.

Are these wheels and tracks vulnerable in this way? If so, is it possible to actually aim at them?
 
First of all, it's kinda hard to properly aim at the tracks system, since they're a much smaller target than the hull/turret. Second of all, a mobility kill will stop the tank from moving, but will most definitely not immobilize the tank. In essence, the only thing you've done is create a static pillbox in the middle of the battlefield, a pillbox that can still shoot quite accurately. You now need to expend another shot to kill the immobile tank.

In essence, you're using 2 rounds to kill a tank when one round will do just fine, thank you very much
 
Chogy Reply

Chogy Reply

Immobilizing an MBT is a viable option for hand-held anti-tank rockets fired in salvos from ranges close enough to reasonably aim the weapon at discrete targets like tracks and rolling wheels. Doing so place those firing these weapons at severe risk and doesn't necessarily assure the vehicle will be completely immobilized.

There are immediate and down-the-road benefits to immobilization, however. While now a pillbox, it IS static and can block the movement of vehicles behind it. It's also more vulnerable to killing shots from heavy ATGMs until recovered. As such, it needs and would benefit by detailing security for the vehicle. Those are therefore troops, like casualties, that can't contribute to the overall mission.

Finally, the vehicle is not proceeding with the mission towards its ultimate objective location nor providing supporting direct fires for others whom are doing so.

This is most applicable in either urban, built-up or otherwise channelized/constrained battlefields.
 
Last edited:
The heck with sneak up with a handheld AT rocket. My coffee will be cold and the doughnuts stale.

Plt 1rd, shell RAAMs...........:biggrin:
 
Damn idiots just ruin my perfectly laid minefield.
 
I'd hate to inconvenience you too, Ooe. Is there anyone else that would like to speak up now, so as not to bother anybody else?
 
How easy/hard is to knock off a tank's thermal sight? Can a 50(or is it .50?) caliber sniper shot do it? Artillery shell splinters?

Is it worthwhile to knock of the thermals?
 
n21 Reply

n21 Reply

"Is it worthwhile to knock of the thermals?"

Sure...if you don't get killed in the process.

Russian anti-tank riflemen used the PTRD/PTRS to dent gunbarrels, snipe main gun telescopes and tank commanders.
 
Chogy said:
Question - (I am embarrassed to ask but I don't know jack about tanks) - Looking at a MBT, there are obvious areas well protected by the most advanced armor imaginable. But the layman like myself looks at the tracks and wheels, and these same painfully vulnerable below any skirting. It would appear that a hit by any enemy main gun, or even 25mm or 30mm cannon fire, would shred these and create an instant mobility kill. Once immobilized, it is not much of a threat and can be dealt with later.
Click to expand...

The tracks, yes; if you lose a track, the tank stops. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe a tank (even a heavy one like the M1) can lose one or two road wheels and still move; it won't move very fast, obviously, and the ride will suck, but it can still get around under it's own power.
 
Stitch said:
The tracks, yes; if you lose a track, the tank stops. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe a tank (even a heavy one like the M1) can lose one or two road wheels and still move; it won't move very fast, obviously, and the ride will suck, but it can still get around under it's own power.
Click to expand...

The tanks can move with blown off road wheels, snapped torsion bars etc, but it will affect mobility, speed, range and main gun accuracy.

However except at close range, hitting a road wheel is not really a big threat. If the enemy already has the tank in the broadside profile, why not aim for the much easier to hit crew areas? Aiming for roadwheels means aiming, aim too low and you kill fluffy bunnys not tanks.

As for tank sights, most are "proofed" vs splinters and machine gun fire in various ways. For example on the Abrams the primary FLIR is set back from the edge of the turret in an armored box. It would be very difficult for shrapnel to hit the sight after exploding close enough to keep enough energy to actually do the job. The leopard II makes the primary sight untouchable from every angle but the direct front.

So while you can target the sights, like roadwheels is a hard target to get.
 
Question: AT defenses

Erm... Wouldn't AT defenses be pretty effective if you just dug some foxholes and stuck limpet mines (or whatever they are called now) on the tank's underside? Can the main gun depress low enough to take the foxhole out? I doubt the MG could.
 
Sure, it would work if you managed to make it all the way to the tank without being noticed by the tank crew, without the infantry in the area surrounding the tank lager, if you managed to attach a strong enough mine to get through the belly armor (think in the hundreds of kg range) and managed to not get your ass run over by any maneuvering tanks

If you're working on the premise of the tank coming to you, then the tank has all the time in the world to shoot at defenses before they actually reach them. Even if the cannon isn't aimed properly at the foxhole, the pressure from the round is still plenty damaging and can rupture your eardrums and give you a nosebleed, at the very least
 
Thanks. But if your nation is composed of illiterate two bit conscripts it might be better than other options wouldn't it? Or what is the favored attack?

IIRC I saw some photos of some very brave fellows on horses charging panzers... So horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top