Iraq has used Russian made anti-tank missiles to knock out two M1-A1 tanks

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
Wow, name calling. I am shocked and awed by your maturity.

To be fair, you were the one who turned the focus of our debate from the point I was making to me personally. Instead of attacking my point, you directed your slants at me personally. I just replied in kind.

Previously I had not made any type of personal attack on you. But when you said "In other words, when a post is made that makes what you wrote look factually incorrect, it's because of different versions of the news. I get it", you were attacking me and my personal credibility instead of attacking the point I was trying to make. Hence the "you". My words weren't your target, I was.

One of the most elementary rules of a debate is to attack the point, not the person. You crossed that line.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Marshallj = Grasshopper?

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch
the USA sold weapons to the afghani mujahedin when russians were there. what makes anyone think russia would have any problem selling some weapons to iraq?

That was back in the Soviet Union days, when they were still our arch rival. Don't forget that the SU supplied the Vietnamese with weapons when we were over there. We were just returning the favor. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the cold war ended. Russia is not supposed to be our enemy. In fact we have given them aid to help their newly growing democracy.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Marshallj = Grasshopper?

Why? Grasshopper got banned?

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MadRat
Marshallj = Grasshopper?

What is that supposed to mean?

Two peas in a pod.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: MadRat
Marshallj = Grasshopper?

What is that supposed to mean?

Two peas in a pod.

Another uncalled for personal attack. Can't one on here stick to the issues and not focus on the person saying it? Conversations seem to degrade into personal attacks.

 

[MadRat]

Enough of the whine. Are you Grasshopper or not?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Enough of the whine. Are you Grasshopper or not?

No! I am not Grasshopper.

I do not even know who Grasshopper is.

Quit it with the accusations.

 

[Jmman]

Was Grasshopper banned or something? I haven't seen any of his "Iraq posts" recently....

 

[Marshallj]

I used to come on here waaaayyyy back, but the search won't even bring up posts that far back.

When I used to come on here I used to always get in fights with some loser named "Guy Under the Bridge". He was the biggest troll. He'd use hit and run tactics and always start flame wars by saying "Let's keep it real" and then spouting some pro-Intel, pro-Rambus crap.

There also used to be a guy on here that always claimed he'd get abducted by aliens. But I think it was all in his head since he's be abducted a few times a week. If they wanted him that bad they would have kept him.

 

[AndrewR]

These missiles are able to penetrate 3.9 feet of armor......very dangerous weapons indeed.....

Keep in mind that the number is referring to 1200mm of rolled steel armor, not the composite armor which modern Western tanks use.

yes the main gun in the M1A1/M1A2 is a smooth bore, not rifled like the older M60/m1 105mm cannons.
the reason for this so they can shoot many more different types of ammo

I don't think so. I don't know the technical aspects of it, but it's essentially the difference between a shotgun and a rifle. The shotgun has a larger charge based on the larger diameter, which the smoothbore cannon imitates and compensates for the loss of rifling with fin stabilization to maintain accuracy. The problem with large caliber rifled guns is the length of the barrel -- it's John Holmes-ish in comparison. I believe that the rifled gun also wears out faster than a smoothbore, for obvious reasons.

I am fairly sure that the Brits still use rifled guns on their tanks.

 

[Marshallj]

I've read that the reason they switched to smoothbores is because the barrel lasts longer. Firing conventional rounds, rifled barrels will be more accurate at first, but large caliber rifled barrels wear quickly. So they switched to a smoothbore and use finned projectiles.

Here's a pic of an anti-tank sabot that it fires:
linky

 

[HappyGamer2]

ok, LOL
the barrels my last longer and that's a reason for it
but they also can shot more types of rounds out of a smooth bore

 

[HappyGamer2]

it's the standard 120mm nato bore

 

[HappyGamer2]

you guys can read all this off the net or out of a book, I don't

 

[Marshallj]

I don't see what you think is so funny about that.

I also don't see why you needed to make a condescending comment like that anyway, since I agree with the reasons that you stated. There were a number of good reasons to go with smoothbore. Nato chose it due to a number of reasons, and that fact (increased commonality) was yet another good reason to switch to it.

For those of us who don't design tanks for a living, the best thing we can do is read up on the subject. It's better than some of these clueless individuals who feel the need to have their voice heard about a subject, yet feel no need to do any type of research on the subject.

 

[HappyGamer2]

don't take it personnally Marshallj, at least I'm not mad
the number one reason for the smooth bore is becuase they can shoot more types of ammo out of it
the m1a1 barrels were made in germany, unsure if they still are now

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
don't take it personnally Marshallj, at least I'm not mad
the number one reason for the smooth bore is becuase they can shoot more types of ammo out of it
the m1a1 barrels were made in germany, unsure if they still are now

That's cool.

I understand that we use it because NATO uses it and we can use their rounds, but what made Nato choose a smoothbore design over a rifled one? Are any of the rounds guided? Or is there another reason that the drawbacks of a spinning round outweigh the benefits of having a spin stabilized round?

 

[HappyGamer2]

I don't remember all the details or the exact numbers anymore, but there are some types of ammo that will not work very well in a rifled barrel, if I remember right we have like 7 or 9 different types of ammo, the m1 holds 39 to 44 rounds depending on the model, most of the ammo is is in the turret ammo compartment, put there is also some stored in the hull.
are there any guided?, I think so, but am not 100 percent sure
they can track two moving targets at the same time, fire at one and go back on target on the second while they reload
they reload manually and don't have auto loaders like some of the russian tanks do
the M1A2 has much better electrionics than the A1

 

[Marshallj]

Cool, thanks for the info.

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: HappyGamer2
don't take it personnally Marshallj, at least I'm not mad
the number one reason for the smooth bore is becuase they can shoot more types of ammo out of it
the m1a1 barrels were made in germany, unsure if they still are now

That's cool.

I understand that we use it because NATO uses it and we can use their rounds, but what made Nato choose a smoothbore design over a rifled one? Are any of the rounds guided? Or is there another reason that the drawbacks of a spinning round outweigh the benefits of having a spin stabilized round?

The reason everyone went with smoothbore cannons for tanks was simply that you can use much longer sabot rounds when they are fin-stabilized as opposed to when they aren't. It's simple physics really since when you shoot a sabot round out of a rifled barrel, the sabot spins to maintain a stable flight path, like any other projectile fired out of a rifled barrel. However, a sabot is much narrower than the barrel itself and so there is a limit to how long you can make the sabot before it starts to wobble in an chaotic manner when fired out of a rifled barrel. When you fire a sabot out of a smoothbore barrel, the round doesn't need to spin anymore to maintain stability because fins at the back end of the sabot round serve that purpose. As the round no longer spins, the sabot can be considerably longer now while maintaining a stable flight path and results in a projectile that can deliver more kinetic energy to an armored target. As a note, while it's possible to fire armor piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot rounds (APFSDS) from rifled barrels with specially designed munitions, what's the point when your most important munition is an APFSDS? More heat, more barrel droop and more barrel wear for what?

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
These missiles are able to penetrate 3.9 feet of armor......very dangerous weapons indeed.....

Keep in mind that the number is referring to 1200mm of rolled steel armor, not the composite armor which modern Western tanks use.

To be more precise, the penetration number refers to 1200mm of homogeneous steel at no deflection angle, meaning the round hits flush head on. Whether it's kinetic energy (KE) based, or high-explosive-anti-tank based (HEAT) as the above mentioned missile is, greater angles of deflection increase the amount of armor that the weapon needs to overcome. Also as AndrewR has already stated, modern tank armor is no longer just plain homogeneous steel. Rather at the very minimum it's spaced steel which reduces the effectiveness of HEAT-based weaponry, or as is the case with the M1 and British Challanger tanks it's an advanced composite armor incorperating: steel, ceramics, DU, etc ...

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: AndrewR
These missiles are able to penetrate 3.9 feet of armor......very dangerous weapons indeed.....

Keep in mind that the number is referring to 1200mm of rolled steel armor, not the composite armor which modern Western tanks use.

To be more precise, the penetration number refers to 1200mm of homogeneous steel at no deflection angle, meaning the round hits flush head on. Whether it's kinetic energy (KE) based, or high-explosive-anti-tank based (HEAT) as the above mentioned missile is, greater angles of deflection increase the amount of armor that the weapon needs to overcome. Also as AndrewR has already stated, modern tank armor is no longer just plain homogeneous steel. Rather at the very minimum it's spaced steel which reduces the effectiveness of HEAT-based weaponry, or as is the case with the M1 and British Challanger tanks it's an advanced composite armor incorperating: steel, ceramics, DU, etc ...

Oh, yes, forgot about the angle of the armor.

Loralon: It may be simple physics, but I hated physics. Why would the length of the penetrator matter when the sabot (sleeve) can be lengthened to compensate for a longer one? There's no room to wobble when the sleeve takes up the space between the barrel and the penetrator. I'm not doubting your explanation, but it just doesn't make sense to me (liberal arts major).

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: AndrewR
These missiles are able to penetrate 3.9 feet of armor......very dangerous weapons indeed.....

Keep in mind that the number is referring to 1200mm of rolled steel armor, not the composite armor which modern Western tanks use.

To be more precise, the penetration number refers to 1200mm of homogeneous steel at no deflection angle, meaning the round hits flush head on. Whether it's kinetic energy (KE) based, or high-explosive-anti-tank based (HEAT) as the above mentioned missile is, greater angles of deflection increase the amount of armor that the weapon needs to overcome. Also as AndrewR has already stated, modern tank armor is no longer just plain homogeneous steel. Rather at the very minimum it's spaced steel which reduces the effectiveness of HEAT-based weaponry, or as is the case with the M1 and British Challanger tanks it's an advanced composite armor incorperating: steel, ceramics, DU, etc ...

Oh, yes, forgot about the angle of the armor.

Loralon: It may be simple physics, but I hated physics. Why would the length of the penetrator matter when the sabot (sleeve) can be lengthened to compensate for a longer one? There's no room to wobble when the sleeve takes up the space between the barrel and the penetrator. I'm not doubting your explanation, but it just doesn't make sense to me (liberal arts major).

Armor piercing discarding sabot (APDS), as well as fin-stabilized ones (APFSDS) come in three parts: propellent, sabot, and a sleeve to take up the excess space between the interior of the barrel and the sabot, which is much narrower than the barrel. The sleeve itself can be described as like a coffee can without a lid, as the forward portion is open to air. After the propellent is ignited, the sleeve holding the sabot securely travels down the length of the gun barrel as any normal gun munition would. No wobble from the sabot yet as it's still securely attached to the sleeve. Immediately after the sleeve holding the sabot exits the barrel, the sleeve will open up like a flower along designed creases in its length due to the air pressure as it's travelling at around 2,000m/s and the sabot will be released as the sleeve is being discarded. As the sabot is being released it's possible that an unrecoverable wobble will develop if the ratio of length to diameter of the sabot is too high. The forces acting on the sabot at this point in time: propellent forces, friction from the sleeve when the sabot seperates from it, and aerodynamic resistance are all interacting with one another to affect the stability of the sabot in varying degrees. Was there slightly more propellent energy applying itself to one part of the sleeve as opposed to the rest? Was there slightly more friction between the one part of the sleeve and the sabot than elsewhere? Was there just a touch more dense air meeting with one half of the sabot as opposed to the other half? The answer to these questions is in all likelihood an emphatic yes. These small force variations introduce an inherent instability, or wobble, in the sabot which must be overcome with a method of stabilizing it using aerodynamic forces. In the case of a rifled barrel, the projectile is spun to overcome the initial instablility, while in a smoothbore the projectile has fins to achieve the same goal. Stabilizing a sabot with fins just happens to be a more effective than spinning it, thus allowing the length-to-diameter ratio to increase without losing accuracy. As an FYI: spin-stablizied sabots usually have a length-to-diameter ratio around 5:1, while fin-stabilized ones can be in excess of 12:1.