Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!emory!att!cbnews!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tank Info/ Chobham Armor
Message-ID: <1990Oct24.144954.13899@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 24 Oct 90 14:49:54 GMT
References: <1990Oct19.033435.14863@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 18
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
In article <1990Oct19.033435.14863@cbnews.att.com>, fmrco!curt@uunet.UU.NET (Curt Fennell) writes:

>I'm sure the Soviets spent a lot of time working on tank rounds to penetrate
>chobham armor, just as we have spent a lot of time improving the effectiveness
>of chobham armor. 

I'd heard the Sovs. had developed a "cannonball" round for their 120mm gun
which, upon impact, would (allegedly) shatter the underlayered ceramic
armor. I don't know how they figured to hit the machine in the

>Still, artillery can degrade the effectiveness of tank units by forcing the
>crew to 'button up' and by stripping off radio antennas and other outside
>equipment.  But the actual destruction of tanks is best left to other tanks.

The actual destruction of tanks is best left to a nice cluster munition ;-)