Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler)
Subject: Dimensions Of Tanks
Organization: FidoNet node 8:391/7.14 - Ozark Connection, Fayetteville AR
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 21:13:05 GMT
Approved: military@att.att.com
Message-ID: <1990Nov4.211305.5450@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Lines: 20



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


 RW> reportedly, american tanks are more effective at working from
 RW> `hull down' positions as a result of their height; moreover,
 RW> the crews are much less cramped than in their soviet counterparts.
 RW> in an extended combat situation, we can presume that the more
 RW> cramped crews will decline in effectiveness more rapidly than
 RW> those with better working space.

I had my thought for the year, so I computed the ratio of length/
width area with height.  Not too surprising results.  The ratios
were remarkably similar for both the US and Soviet tanks.  Crew
packing seems to be a function of the vehicle.  Although the M48
was considerably bigger than the M4, IMHO it had less crew space.

D Squared