Which is one of the worst things that you can do if you do not have the gun mount actually locked in place preventing vibration and movement of the gun trunions and sight couplings while the tank is moving, excessive vibration and uncontrolled movement will in fact throw off point of aim in both deflection and elevation on either T-80 or T-72 series. Have you ever traveled in a tank at any amount of speed be it cross crountry or on pavement, especially without rubber track pads, Russian tankers are in for a real treat when they starting equipping their tanks with them, the Ukrainians and a few others have figured out that rubber tracks in conjuction of 3 point axis stabilization systems work wonders for accuracy during offensive engagements.
I think that if you did some research on area`s in the former West Germany where we set up initial defensive positions for our meeting engagements that you will find that we could start engaging Russian armor at 2,000 meters and beyond, research the Sonenburg and Rodach thrust areas, 3rd ID was responsible for these two sectors, the Warsaw Pact Forces opearating in this area had no choice but to use these two sectors because they were deliberately channeled in to them. The prize would have been too unbearable to do without, Wurzberg and Frankfurt."The M1's engine is more than capable of handling the extra weight derived from the HA package." - yes of course, but it reduced top speed and endurance, hasn't itIts a matter of fact stated by the US Army. In fact you can put even more armour on the M1 until it only crawls at 40km/h on the road and has to be refueled every 100km, and still say the engine can cope.
"The main reason it is governed is to prevent track separation at high speeds as it would simply run away and cause an accident" - you mean it doesn't work at those speeds. Accidents is where one says OOPS. Everything else has different terminology.
"iterative development" - this is a term used in project management, not in operational use of a production model. So you are saying the M1 was still an ongoing project in 1988? In fact the Army rushed the M1 into production, and subsequently it took three years to field it.
"No American TC will let an adversary approach to a range that makes the enemy's kill zone effective, period. " - yes of course. So which TC had a say in where the hills, forests and structures are located when choosing a position? You take what you get and you go with it, was the tanker law in Europe during the Cold War. Choosing a position is subject to orders that are NOT "see if you can find a max LOS and hope the Russians come through it". Ever heard of tank vs tank engagements at 50m? Neither side INTENDED to fight those either at any time in history of armoured warfare, but it happened.
We are free to communicate civilly, or not. Your choice.
Have to agree with you,
You know it would help though if they just decided to place rotary shocks on each road wheel arm.
I more than likely would not have half the battle scars that I carry today.I would tell you with experience that for how fast the modern battlefield is that any tank commander worth his salt will start busting caps at a max effective engagement range, for me this was 2400 meters with the M256, with the M68A1 1200 meters using M833, if I had M900A1 then more than likely 1600 meters. Ranges were of course dictated by what was coming after you or what you were chasing. Some folks just do not realize how fast modern warfare is, a basic combat load on a M1 series tank last how long in combat during a meeting engagement.
Soviet tanks & FT
Some definite mistakes FT:
1) "no British tiger as they were industrially exhausted"- the UK tiger is the conqueror
2) "had the Soviet Army chosen to adopt the JS-3 as their point of MBT design origin they too would have had the volume to introduce all sorts of creature comforts." Actually the JS-3 was a nightmare in terms of turret volume & set the trend for future lousy Soviet ergonomics. That is one reason why it was never made in the same numbers as the T-54. It carried very few rounds. It did however maximize the effectiveness of the armor, so that got the best bang for the buck in armor.
3) the turretless designs by the Germans & Soviets in WW2 WERE an expedient. The P-3 turret ring was to small to carry an adequate high velocity weapon so the chassis was used for the STUG series. The Soviet SU series was always made in a larger caliber than the turret of the parent chassis could carry. They were cheaper than tanks & kept obsolescent chassis in use (esp. SU-76 & STUG-III)
4)Soviets did place less emphasis on crew survival in design b/c their experience was that the death rate would be very high so it was a waste to spend a lot on survivability & would detract from sheer numbers. We will never know for sure if they were wrong. Even in Korea the US noted the high rate of catastrophic penetrations of the T-34/85 b/c of cramped conditions. They also wanted simplicity since there army would have a high percentage of mobilized, but not highly trained conscripts where as many NATO nations were moving more to long term professionals.
Some definite mistakes FT:
1) "no British tiger as they were industrially exhausted"- the UK tiger is the conqueror
2) "had the Soviet Army chosen to adopt the JS-3 as their point of MBT design origin they too would have had the volume to introduce all sorts of creature comforts." Actually the JS-3 was a nightmare in terms of turret volume & set the trend for future lousy Soviet ergonomics. That is one reason why it was never made in the same numbers as the T-54. It carried very few rounds. It did however maximize the effectiveness of the armor, so that got the best bang for the buck in armor.
3) the turretless designs by the Germans & Soviets in WW2 WERE an expedient. The P-3 turret ring was to small to carry an adequate high velocity weapon so the chassis was used for the STUG series. The Soviet SU series was always made in a larger caliber than the turret of the parent chassis could carry. They were cheaper than tanks & kept obsolescent chassis in use (esp. SU-76 & STUG-III)
4)Soviets did place less emphasis on crew survival in design b/c their experience was that the death rate would be very high so it was a waste to spend a lot on survivability & would detract from sheer numbers. We will never know for sure if they were wrong. Even in Korea the US noted the high rate of catastrophic penetrations of the T-34/85 b/c of cramped conditions. They also wanted simplicity since there army would have a high percentage of mobilized, but not highly trained conscripts where as many NATO nations were moving more to long term professionals.
There is nothing wrong with low turret height by itself, it is when that turret height interferes in a reasonable firing arc for the gun. The Wegmann low profile turret for the Leopard 2 is a case in point. It reduced turret height by 30% and in combination with the Euro Pak engine enabled a much lower Leopard 2 with a much shorter hull (only six road wheels). This enabled the tank to be under 60 tonnes with a significant increase in armour. The German designers added a flap above the breach on the turret roof that would be raised as the gun was depressed to enabled reasonable depression (~5-10 degrees).
Other designs like the S-Tank, Merkava (and to a lesser extent the M1, CR2 and Leopard 2) arranged the relationship between the gun barrel and the top of the roof to be such that when depressed in a firing position the enemy could see very little of vehicle above the barrel. While this did not reduce the overall height on level ground it did reduce the observed height in a typical tactical position.
Now if anyone has read all of these posts above and still persists in thinking there is no tactical disadvantage from not being able to depress the main gun below 5 degrees then you've probably got bigger problems in your life than a lack of military appreciation.
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, does the flap compromise topside armour?
EDIT: I shall add that my assumption is it certainly does. If so perhaps this was designed in times when top attack wasn't such an important thing to consider.
Last edited:
There is no reason why the flap would compromise armour unless the turret designers didn't provide it with protection. The flap would compromise roof armour as much as the roof hatch for the commander or other piercings like sight apertures for fire control systems. That is piercings in the roof reduce the strength of the overall structure and require additional weight for reinforcing to compensate, armour to cover the sides of the protuberance and mechanisms to move the weight of the armour for the structure to function.
So there would be a weight burden to ensure protection isn't compromised but that's it. Certainly the extra weight would be a fraction of the savings by reducing turret height by 30%.
As to the top attack threat it was very serious in the 1970s and 80s, though most tank designs didn't latch onto it until the mid 80s. Assumptions suck for everyone involved.