Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How good would a M1 be without computerized targeting system?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    IIRC, the M-1 was the first operational tank to use blow out panels. There was a nasty accident in Germany in 1985-86 during a Table VIII Night Gunnery exercise in which the crew of one tank fired a TPDS round into the turret rear of another tank about 150 meters or so in front of them.

    I was in the admin area preping for my turn down range when we saw the fireball. Almost as soon as Range Control was screaming "Cease Fire!", my tank and two others as well as the ambulance and Safety Officer were heading down range to give what aid we could.

    When we arrived, the tank was on smoldering after the halon extinguishers had fired, and bits and pieces of shell casings, ammo racks and the blow out panels themselves were scattered over a rather large area. Remembering stories I had read about, I was expecting the worse when the loaders and tank commanders hatches swung open.

    All four crew members were shaken up by the concussion and were flown to the Grafenhower aid station, they were back with the unit the next day.

    Inspection of the tank showed no charring and only minor damage inside the crew compartment. The tank was driven back to the main post motor pool for a more detailed inspection.

    As to what happened, there was a certain Platoon Sergeant who had returned to tanks after eight straight years of recruiting duty. As an "experienced tanker" he failed to attend the training classes on the IPM-1 and had his gunner initial him as completing all classes. It turns out that he wasn't supposed to have his weapons loaded (and was still displaying a green light to confirm his unloaded and weapons elevated status). Not used to the thermal sight, he thought that the tank on the firing line was a heated target and put a training round almost dead center of the turret rear. Kudos for a great shot! But this E-7 was found guilty of several charges and sentenced to eight years for disobeying a lawful order and negilance. Demoted to E-1 and a bad conduct discharge...after having served 17 years! His gunner was busted from E-5 to E-1, and got to spend four years at Fort Leavenworth before getting his BCD. The Platoon Leader, Company Commander, the Safety Officer and the Training Officer all received letters of repimand, signed by a lieutenant general (ending their careers) for failing to properly oversee training.

    And before some asks how a TPDS round penetrated armor, please remember that the penetrator element of a TPDS is forged from stainless steel, the same stuff that was used as an armor piercing round in WWII, it has quite good armor penetration at ranges under 500 meters.
    The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post
      And before some asks how a TPDS round penetrated armor, please remember that the penetrator element of a TPDS is forged from stainless steel, the same stuff that was used as an armor piercing round in WWII, it has quite good armor penetration at ranges under 500 meters.
      Not to mention that turret armour is designed to take shots from the front, not the back.
      Better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven.

      Comment


      • #18
        When I attended the gunner course at Ft. Knox, we were briefed on the actual performance of the current antitank rounds. In the course of the brief, the actual performance of the TPDS round was included, it will penetrate frontal armor on T-55/T-62 tanks under 500 meters.
        The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by dragoon500ly View Post
          When I attended the gunner course at Ft. Knox, we were briefed on the actual performance of the current antitank rounds. In the course of the brief, the actual performance of the TPDS round was included, it will penetrate frontal armor on T-55/T-62 tanks under 500 meters.
          Hmm from a Twilight war perspective wouldn't TPDS be a valid alternative to SABOT and HEAT for use against things like BTRs and BMPs
          Better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Panther Al View Post
            Which was a good thing when we got in a tussle by Karbala and Bimp pulled a snoopy on our doghouse.
            Translation, please Pretend you're speaking to an middle-aged officer, use medium-sized words.
            My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.

            Comment


            • #21
              Bimp = BMP, doghouse = the armored box that protects the external bits to the gunners sight. By pulling a snoopy the bump put a round over the top of it, trashing the sight but not low enough to do anything else other than give yours truly the fright of my life!
              Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

              Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 95th Rifleman View Post
                Hmm from a Twilight war perspective wouldn't TPDS be a valid alternative to SABOT and HEAT for use against things like BTRs and BMPs
                It was always there to be used against light armored vehicles.

                The chief issues with TPDS, is that its peak performance falls off rapidly over 500 meters. And the quaility control of the penetrator is not as exact. Shooting a standard NATO tank target, it was considered to be good performance if the TPDS round hits within 1-meter of the aiming point. That's a lot of error when engaging a real life vehicle, just enough to insure that the round may fail to penetrate or bounce off. The service rounds are made to a higher standard, I have seen tanks shoot groups as tight as 8 inches with warshots.
                The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The accuracy of warshots always surprised me when we got them issued to us when we arrived in country - enough so we really wanted to take the time and spend the ammo to really find out how much, alas we never got the chance.
                  Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

                  Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    We did a live fire for a group of visting congressmen and their familes. And got to use warshots to do it!

                    A certain Senator who was rather well known for his abilities with a bottle and an intern made the comment that the M-1 couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and that the program should be killed and the money spent elsewhere (I'm assuming in his district so his drunken arse could be reelected again, but I degress).

                    We decided to show off. A standard NATO tank target was set up at 1,500 meters. All twelve tanks of the troop would speed down the course road and make a hard right turn. At some point in the turn, the tower would raise the target and we would engage.

                    Twelve tanks down range, twelve APDSFSDU rounds later, we took the congressmen down range and let them look at the results. All twelve rounds were within a 32-inch circle, dead center of the target.

                    Of course, we were accused of replacing the target before the delegation got downrange and the pukes went back to their hotel to drink, eat and harass the female members of the staff.

                    It was damn impressive shooting and was a feat that I saw repeated several times as the crews got more familier with the M-1.
                    The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Strange! As someone with afinity to the bottle, he should have loved tanks.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Well, if you are hinting that a US Senator would be a world class drunk and womanizer.....

                        Then I have to agree with you!!!!!

                        The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Panther Al View Post
                          Bimp = BMP, doghouse = the armored box that protects the external bits to the gunners sight. By pulling a snoopy the bump put a round over the top of it, trashing the sight but not low enough to do anything else other than give yours truly the fright of my life!
                          Thanks. I figured something happened to the turret, but the "Snoopy" threw me.
                          My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X