Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: animage%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Cal-Animage Club)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: HEAT shell question and proposal.
Message-ID: <13348@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 90 03:18:29 GMT
References: <12756@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13188@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 32
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: animage%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Cal-Animage Club)

In article <13188@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!csc1.anu.oz.au!dxb105@uunet.uu.net writes:
>From: munnari!csc1.anu.oz.au!dxb105@uunet.uu.net

>There's been a lot of discussion lately on how to make HEAT rounds penetrate
>reactive armour, but it seems to me thte most dramatic effect reactive armour
>is going to have is on tank vs. infantry, ie. shaped-charge tipped rockets. I'd
>like to know what ideas have been proposed for using _rockets_ on reactive
>armour, and whether the idea below makes sense (and if I've made any errors of
>fact).

Aw, hell.  It seems apparent to me that it's becoming more and more
complicated and expensiveto try to think and research ways of defeating
reactive armor.  Has anyone even thought about disabling the tank WITHOUT
having to blast it to pieces?  Why don't we just go with a simple and cheap
solution of firing gooey substances that get sucked into a tank's engine that
react thermally and expand choking out the air intake into the engine thereby
immobilizing the tank by killing the engine.  Heck, if it can't move it
can't bother anyone and if you fire enough of them, they can stop an entire
tank column very very quickly.  Who says you gotta destroy all your
enemies, when just immobilizing them and making them squirm is 10 times
more enjoyable.  Plus non-moving targets are easier to hit than moving
targets.  :-)


The Daimyo


"War is a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it."