Folks,

We all know about the new active systems being developed to defeat antitank weapons from the sophisticated ones to the unguided short range infantry weapons.

Well it seems the Russians have anticipated a market for a simple and cheap throwaway antitank weapon that can defeat both reactive armor and active systems. The RPG-30 has a simple solution. A small rocket is fired micro seconds before the larger rocket either activating the active systems like the Israeli TROPHY or blowing away reactive armor tiles.

Their illustration even shows it engaging an ABRAMS (although the Abrams does not mount reactive armor tiles).


Jack E. Hammond



.

I always thought the layering in the armor was designed to displace enough of the blast that it would deter the possibility of these types of weapons to penetrate. Also, when we saw some of the demonstrations on beat up old tanks on the range these weapons only appeared to cause damage and not destroy the tank unless it was truly a direct hit. At least that is my take on it. Mobile kills are almost as effective as an actual direct hit anyway.

Dear Member,

I don't know how it would work against the CHOBHAM armor of the Abrams. But the US Army general in charge in Iraq (the one before the present one) stated that Iran was supplying the RPG-29 and it could defeat the Abrams armor (maybe it was disinformation). And the rocket warhead used is based on the RPG-29.

Also, got some more information about that little small rocket that is fired micro-seconds before the big one. It is designed basically to defeat active systems that send out those plucks that explode pellets down on incoming HEAT projectiles. It seems those systems (Russian, Israeli, USA, etc) after they engage one incoming warhead have a reset time before they can engage another (that is to stop it from engaging the one incoming over and over). Basically that small rocket projectile triggers the system and during the reset the big one come in and strikes before it can reset.

Jack E. Hammond

BTW> The Russians are interesting in weapons. I thought it was a lie, but they even developed a 125mm HEAT round for their tanks main cannons which had two HEAT warheads of the same diameter right behind each other. I thought that is impossible, because one of the HEAT warheads going off would totally warp or blow away the one behind it. But I guess they did. Seems though they have to off set them for some strange reason that is beyond my engineering.

.

Back in the day, we'd mount spare track block around the sides of the turret, bolting it on to the infantry rail.

Sometime sand bags would be placed between the track block and the outside wall of the turret.

On rare ocassions, Jerry cans could be mounted on the outside of the track block. Not much would be able to penetrate that congolmeration.

As most of you know, someone will always try to come up with a weapon to defeat any armor.

I was under the impression that the depleated uranium shell around the fighting compartment of the M-1 was so dense that nothing short of an atomic bomb could penetrate it.

As an aside I cannot post photo images to show you how it looked. If someone can post 'em, I would send you an email with several to post.

Dear Member,

Just curious, when you went into a night basing did you set up a piece of chain link fence in front of your tank like the US Army tankers and M-113 did?

Jack E. Hammond

.

quote:

Originally posted by hybenamon:
Dear Member,

Just curious, when you went into a night basing did you set up a piece of chain link fence in front of your tank like the US Army tankers and M-113 did?

Jack E. Hammond

.

Never had or used chain link fencing. At night in the field we usually had grunts in front of us and when we sat in static positions on a fire base we had massive amounts of concertina in front of our position.

If I get the story right, the doggies very often deployed armored vehicles without grunts. The USMC used tanks for support of the grunts. We seldom went anywhere without grunts.

There are several times during our operations where we did not have any infantry assistance, however, we did support the infantry in a close combat situation when called upon.

As for the comments about the use of RPG and the HEAT rounds, those are dependant upon direct hits. With the design of the M1's, any other round but a SABOT, was ineffective if it was not a direct hit. In other words, the design of the M1 was set to deflect any other type of round. The HEAT round may have an impact, but as John stated, the depleated uranium and ceramic composite in the armor protected the tank quite well. Now if there is some Tanker or some expert in the field who can provide evidence otherwise, then lets hear it. It's been a while since I have researched these specific aspects of the new M1 tank in comparison to the M60A1.