Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Light Ground Fire Vs. Fancy Helicopters And Planes
Message-ID: <1990Oct29.030602.7924@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 29 Oct 90 03:06:02 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: FidoNet node 8:391/7.14 - Ozark Connection, Fayetteville AR
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler)

 Ln> the vehicle making air transportibility a problem and 3) the knowledge
 Ln> that we and presumably the Russians had the existing technology to
 Ln> breach the armor.  I believe that they were talking about high density
 Ln> shells such as the spent uranium rounds made for this purpose.  This
 Ln> was quite a while back and I'm not sure
 Ln> where the technology has improved.

 Ln> Larry
 Ln> .
No tank, in the history of land warfare, has failed to carry a gun that would crack it's own armor.  If my senile memory serves me correctly, even Hypershot, tungston-carbide core with a light metal windscreen, would penetrate 11" of solid armor, and this was a 90mm projectile with, when compared with modern guns, low muzzle velocity.  This was the reson for moving to layered or built up armor.

D Squared

[mod.note:  I doubt the gun of the British Infantry Mk I (a machinegun
tank) could penetrate its armor.  8-)  - Bill ]