Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tanks in the Persian Gulf Crisis--The M1 Abrams
Message-ID: <1990Sep24.001741.23972@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 24 Sep 90 00:17:41 GMT
References: <1990Sep14.042819.1844@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep18.024642.21045@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: Computer Services, Australian National University
Lines: 59
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz.au
In article <1990Sep18.024642.21045@cbnews.att.com>, consp21@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Ken Hoover) writes:
> 
> 
> From: consp21@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Ken Hoover)
> 
> In article <1990Sep14.042819.1844@cbnews.att.com> jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) writes:
 
>>	Armor:
>>		Most details appear to be classified. The armor seems to be
>>		similar to Chobham armor developed in UK...
> 
>   Is this the armor that is made up of alternating layers and gaps of
> metal to break up the plasma from an exploting HEAT round or fragment
> an incoming solid-core round?

	The best similie that can be given for Chobham armour is that it is an
Aluminium composite structure backed by a ceramic armour.  It is designed to
work like the steel panels of your car when struck by an AP style round.  In
other words it crushes and collapses, slowing the round so that it is unable to
penetrate.  The Aluminium structure also disipates the energy of a HEAT round
more efficiently than normal mono-construction hardened steel armour.  The
ceramic armour backing is designed to prevent any final chance of either AP or
HEAT from gaining entry to the vehicle.  The ceramic also has the advantage of
having a much higher melting point than any metal with the result it is nearly
impossible for the stream from a HEAT round from being able to melt its way
through.

>>		Some of the TV news footage from Saudi Arabia shows M1s with
>>		what appears to be applique armor strapped to the sides of
>>		the main turret.
> 
>   Reactive armor?  I heard that Isreal (and the USSR) are ahead of us
> on this one.  Might it be being deployed now on US armor?

	What I think the original poster is referring to is not reactive armour
but rather plates of Depleted Uranium which have been attached externally to
the armour of the turret front.  I believe the correct designation for such a
vehicle, so equipped is M1e2.  However I could be wrong (not being really sure
how to decypher the very weird nomencluture (?sp) that the US Army uses).
	What was interesting about some TV news reports from the Gulf, and
which I am surprised has not been mentioned here yet is the sudden appearance
of what I believe were M60 tanks fitted with what was obviously reactive armour
packages all over the hull and turrret.  As the narration failed to identify
who actually owned these vehicles, however it was implied they were US, makes
me wonder how prevelant this modification is, and who actually owns the
vehicles.  If they were Saudi and not US, where did the Saudi's buy the armour
refit from?  I suspect from Israel through intermedaries.  Which adds an
interesting twist to the matter.
	I'm also interested in the sudden deafening silence from the media
about the Saudi's ownership of a number of Chinese Manufactured IRBM's.  The
media has been trumpeting about how dangerous it is that the Iraqi's have such
things, and they were also commenting upon how destablising was the Saudi
purchase two years ago, but now nothing.  Interesting isn't it?


Brian Ross