Modern MBT Question

You are educating nothing!
Who do you think you are, you always think you are right, and admitted your sources are not up to date, search for google for german (or french or soething) satellite command and control system or something, you will see the US is not the only one wich is busy with its C&C system.

What you are saying is comparable with a GPS system in your car that can't give you the right directions right away because it is not connected to real time images...

 

Jeffrey wrote:

In another thread, on another subject I admitted I was wrong about one point (something I would never expect you to do) it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

I grow weary of childish insults so this last post on the subject is for the benefit of others reading this thread who might wish to learn more about the subject of the digitized battlefield, Task Force XXI, or FBCB2 (Force XXI Battle-Command, Brigade and Below)

This article from 1997 shows how long this program has been around. It is presently used in Iraq where FBCB2 is called by the troops "fuzzy bunny chocolate bunny 2" strangely enough

The text in red is exactly what I have been talking about. In this post and the previous one.
I have no doubt that the European countries will eventually devise some form of system of their own however as usual they will be following the lead of the US rather than leading. The US Army will already be working on the next generation of systems. The US is already proposing that they integrate this system so that our NATO allies gain the benefit of it (some form of sharing with British forces already exists , not sure of all the details).


As important as this system is to modern warfighting in the modern US (and British to some extent) military and as long as it has been around to be totally ignorant of it displays a near complete lack of knowledge of the subject of modern warfighting concepts on the digital battlefield.
Ignorance is not a crime (I'm as guilty of it as anyone ) But to pretend to speak authoritatively on subjects that one is ignorant of destroys credibility and does not promote healthy debate IMO.

 

Going back a bit to the Chally 2 friendly fire incident...

The MoD have released the official inquiry report on it

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publicat ... 5mar03.pdf

It reveals (on page 14 of 89) that the Chally 2 was hit on the turret, next to the open commander's hatch, and that high-velocity fragments etc entered the turret via this route, and caused the fire that destroyed the tank.

Interesting document....

 

Very interesting, and sad that two were killed and two wounded :cry:

It does perhaps highlight a weakness of the Chally in that ammo is not stored in a compartment separated from the crew compartment.

 

Not really, anthing that gets into the turret will kill.

If a HESH round lands on top as this would have done had the cupola being covered the occupants would have been killed, just a dead.

 

GP wrote:

Not necessarily. Witness the "mystery round" that penetrated an Abrams from the side and passed through with very little damage. It tore a hole in the gunners seat and struck the gunners flak jacket (who wan't injured).
If there had been main gun ammunition in the turret and it had been struck the results would have been much different.

The HESH being a squash head type round and fired with a very flat trajectory it is doubtful that it could strike the top of a tank with an angle that would permit proper operation. It isn't clear if the explosive gases and shrapnel entering the tank from the open hatch would have killed the crew or destroyed the tank but when it ignites main gun ammo that is stored in the turret/hull then it is certain to be catastrophic.

 

Returning to the earlier debate regarding FBCB2 it so happens that I just finished reading the book Thunder Run by David Zucchino who was imbedded with the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Inf Division. In the book he describes the use of FBCB2 by the tankers just as described in the earlier article I posted. Force Blue Tracker is a component of the overall FBCB2 system. In the TOC (Tactical Operation Center) radar was able to track enemy vehicles, even suicide bomber taxi's and pass the information to the digital situation screens of the units on scene who then targeted and dealt with the threat. Assets such as Predator UAVs are also able to pass on information to all the units tanks via the TOC.
Thunder Run is an interesting read if you have time.
I should note that Thunder Run is more about the tankers experiences and only mentions Blue Force Tracker in passing though the author does explain it and it's capablities.

 

That sounds like a nifty system.

I wonder how much of a mess a decent ECM suite would make out of it though?

 

Ricky wrote:

It will have to be more than decent to do that. One of the selection criteria for the type of digital link chosen was it's ESM/ECM resistance.

 

Ah, they think of everything!

To be clear - I was just wondering, not attempting to disparage.

 

ricky wrote:

No worries , Mate. I'm not that touchy

 

I don't believe that story especially if the driver wasn't injured. Just like the people who claim to fire rounds at a M1 and couldn't destroy it.


Or should I say anything fired from a British gun.

 

Hesh at distance is fired up in the air not a flat trajectory, this is why it has a greater range that KE rounds. When it hits the impact is prolonged through the squashing of the head so the angle of effective use is not as critical as pounds that penetrate. In other words it doesn't bounce off as easily. So yes it would have. After speaking with soldiers who have used HESH all that happened by having the cupola open was that the rounds inside made the explosion greater, but no more deadly.

 

GP wrote:

You are free to believe what you like but the Army Times believed it enough to print photos here:

http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/new/07sr01.html


Why would you think the driver would be hit by a penetration of the hull side turret well? The driver sits in the front hull and would be the crewman farthest away from the penetration.

 

GP wrote:

Not true. The HESH round is a direct fire projectile. While it's true that it has a steeper trajectory than a sabot round it is not commonly fired at high enough trajectory to be effective agains a horizontal surface like a turret top. The trajectory would need to be like that of a mortar for what you are suggesting. The main gun and fire control of a challenger would be totally unsuited for such extremely high trajectory fire. From the report it appears that the range was not that great since they were firing across the Shatt Al Basra canal. The exact range isn't mentioned but it appears that it was less than 1500 meters (page 36 of the report)" there is no evidence that troops in the compound were aware friendly forces from another BG were less than 1500 meters away"
At that range and with a high velocity round one would have to aim into the sky like firing a mortar to hit the turret roof at such an angle as you describe.

The report described it(page 34-35 of report) as a "near horizontal strike by a large caliber high explosive projectile hitting the front of the commanders raised hatch lid"

Since HESH depends on spalling to do it's damage it's quite ineffective against Chobham type armor such as in the Abrams and Challenger.
I'm not sure about the Challenger but the Abrams also has a kevlar liner on the inside that all but defeats spalling anyway.

One thing is certainly true; if a tank is penetrated the crew will be more likely to survive if the maingun ammo is in a blast proof compartment separated from the crew.

EDIT ..found the range on page 44 of the report approximately 1400 meters.

 

Sorry gunner.

Just because they put a photo of a tank with a hole in doesn't make it true. or the fact the gunner wasn't injured.

 

Yes missed that but it hit the was on the commanders turret and therefore no matter what was in there it was going to kill.

If a HESH round enters the turret you are dead.

As for the lining is everything covered in kevlar, all the radios. nuts, bolts little bits of metal plastic knobs and buttons. With HESH all of these items become loose and fly around.

At longer ranges the HESH round is fired up in the indirect mode. this does require the tank to raise the front of the tank.

P.S. You said the m1 doesn't use chobham. Then when I said chobham type you were still upset.

I have my thoughts, you have yours.

Neither you nor I have been in a tank while it is in action my facts come from those that were.

 

http://www.army.mod.uk/32regtra/equipment.htm

We also have sat nav, satelites and computers. We have the systems we just don't bragg about it.

Your UAV are better in that some have direct satelite links some don't but we have them.

The GPS show the locations of our troops and the UAVs can show enemy positions.

What you normally pick up on is the bragging of the US military whiles others do the job. I have no quarms with most Americans here just you.

 

Moderator stepping in -

GP please do not make the debate about personalities.

You can quite easily make the same point without accusations of bragging or singling out any 'personality clash' with individual forum members.

Ta,
Ricky.

 

gp wrote:

As I stated you are free to believe or disbelive as you like. This incident has been much reported and discussed with photos and reports detailing the incident. On the other hand we have... your opinion.