Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Merkava-chains etc Message-ID: <7594@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 20 Jun 89 03:46:48 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 83 Approved: military@att.att.com From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) [ mod.note: The following posting was received anonymously. - Bill ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a comment on two matters: 1. the merkava(sp?) chains, you wrote: >[mod.note: While skimming (i.e., reading without paying for 8-) ) a >"Defense International" magazine last night, I noticed a picture of an >Israeli Defense Force Merkaval. The rear turret overhang (quite prominent >on this tank) had been fitted with a "fringe" of metal balls dangling on >chains, which reached almost to the deck; while I've never seen this >before, and no explanation was offered in the article, I think this must >be to prevent thrown grenades, etc, from entering the area beneath >the turret overhang. Clever... - Bill ] According to armor experts the purpose of the chains is to disturb the forming of the penetrator jet from a shapecharge warhead by forcing the warhead to explode at a less-than-optimum standoff distance from the armor. Ive seen photos of WP tanks with chains hung in frames across the front of the tank, so apparently they too uses the same idea. It could also be assumed that with the proliferation of reactive armour (eg "blazer"), intermediate measures, like the WP chains, would become obsolete, or at least , be moved to second rank units. However, i think that the merkava chains fill a gap where it would be hard or impossible to apply reactive armor. The turret/deck border is well known to be one of the weakest points in a tank The function of keeping throw objects off this area IS a possibility, however. Especially since molotovs are a so populaar weapon for unconventional forces. Indeed, they are even used on the westbank & gaza today! 2. Tankturrets&engineplacement: An other MBT that got its engine in gront of the crew,gun&ammo assembly is the swedish Strv-103 collocially known as "The S Tank". (Im on REALLY thin ice with tis one, ive only driven one once, and that was some years ago. But i THINK it got its engine in front, The chance that i am correct is as high as 90%). The S tank is a turretless design with a fixed gun that dates from the late 60's. The traning ofthe gun is accompliced with hyudraulics that moves the whole track assembly. The glacis is EXTREMLY sloped and the hull defillade signature is very small, viritually all you can see is the gun and the commanders cupola and the antennas. The hyudraulic design has one great disadvantage, it is impossible to fire on the move with great accuracy, so the main purpose of the S tank is as an defensive tank killer. This design is an obvious forerunner of the now popular concept with a MBT mounting its gun in a small, unmanned barbette over the hull. The technology to make the ammo-transfer work in this configuration was unfortunately not available in the late 60's. There is an other interesting example of a swedish design so before iths time that it couldnt be realized: In a book on the history of the Bofors40mm FLAK gun, there is a picture of a swedish concept vehicle from the 50's or 60's. The vehicle is a airdefence tank, It's got a normal hull & a BIG square turret. The turrets got two 40mmL70 in a dual mounting in the center-front of the turret, and to big radars on the back of the turret! Get the image? Unfortunately this early attemt was as illfated as the late Sgt York (DIVAD) and apparently for the same reason: The radar tecnology then was not suffici- ent to make it work as planned. 3. Exploding bullets & Banned bullets: Some authors have claimed that the geneva and other conventions regarding banned weapons will be recognized, just because iv one side begin using them the other soon will follow and so the advantage is lost. I dont belive that this is a correct prediction of what will happen, The reasons are twofold: ONE: One side might not be prepared. If you havent manufactured bullets that are extremely unstable or have some other means to impact excessive damage on the target BEFORE the war the enemy is free to use them against you, knowing that you can't retaliate before it is to late! TWO: The winner always decides who is a warcriminal and who isn't. That this is especially evident when fighting against some ideology or religion that belives that is is destinied to win in the end, like nazism or communism belived (belives(?)). The atrocities thats been committed by these kind of people are numerous & well known, but as an example: In the Korean war, during the first assault by the North Koreans, both captured US soldiers and South Korean citizens was massacred on several occations. This seems now to have been a knowingly preformed deed, planned in advance of the attack and with the purpose to speed up the attack by not having to detatch troops for the keeping of prisoners. And, in hindsight, it is obvious that, had they won, No-one would ever have known about this. (ie The winner writes the history) SUMMARY: When put against forces with ideologies or religions that decree that they are destinied to win; Expect _anything_ from the part of the enemy.