Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: BXR307@CSC.ANU.EDU.AU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tank surface to air, anti missile capabilities
Message-ID: <1991May10.064005.26615@amd.com>
Date: 9 May 91 18:33:26 GMT
References: <1991May7.062305.12334@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Computer Services, Australian National University
Lines: 154
Approved: military@amd.com


From: BXR307@CSC.ANU.EDU.AU


> From: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven)
> I had understood the modern tank to be a highly sophisticated weapons
> system employing state of the art electronic fire-control, and rapid
> response to incoming threats.  I have been told that firing a TOW
> against a modern tank is a task requiring selfless dedication to duty
> and unflappable resolve, as the tank is capable of locating the threat
> in seconds, and responding with "awesome" amounts of suppressive
> anti-personel fire.  After other tanks, infantry with anti-tank TOW
> missiles, and tank-hunting helicopters must be the highest priority
> threat the tank must deal with.

	This presumes that in the smoke and confusion of battle that
the tank actually notices the missile being launched at it.  If it
does, I would rather suspect that while it might attempt to undertake
some counter action, like firing its maingun (usually with a
beehive/splintrix round) at the launcher in order to spoil the firer's
aim, in actual fact what would be happening would be the commander
ordering the driver to take some form of evasive action (such as
swerving, stopping, finding a funkhole, etc).  That would make it much
harder for the gunner to be able to adequately respond or even aim his
weapon until after the vehicle has become a little steadier (yes I know
about stabilisation systems, I just question their real value when you
have a 60 ton tank slewing around the countryside under you ;-)

	The main disadvantage of most missile launchers is that because
of the time to the target that the missile itself takes as its
relatively slow flying, the launcher cannot move.  Some launchers have
overcome this problem by providing a facility for the actual launcher
to either be disconnected from the person guiding it (the most extreme
form of this is of course the Copperhead) and the launcher to be
hidden, or for the launching vehicle to assume a completely hull down
position and use some form of extending arm for the either the launcher
or the guidance system.  This is one reason why guns are still favoured
by most countries over missiles for the primary armament of tanks.
Once you shoot, you can scoot.  A APFSDS round is essentially a very
high velocity, fire and forget missile.

> 1. Do modern tanks (and specifically the M1) have any surface-to-air
> capability?  Does the main gun have an anti-helicopter capability?
> or is one of the crew supposed to stick his nose out of the turret
> and use the machine gun in a fire-fight with a helicopter gun-ship?
> Or is the tank dedicated to surface warfare, relying on other
> weapons systems for air-defense?

	The 120mm gun has had a specific anti-helicopter round
developed for it.  It's basically a modified splintrex round with a
proximity fuze attached which is fired at a hovering helicopter and is
designed to destroy it before it can launch its missiles.  However as
far as I know this version, plus its proposed followon development, a
laser guided version, have not been adopted by any users of the 120mm gun.

	Normally however the idea is for the tank to rely on other
specialist air defence assets to protect it.  However a couple of years
ago at one of the British Army Expositions Royal Ordnance was offering
to develop a radar controlled twin machine gun mount which could be
bolted onto the back of a tank turret for defence against aircraft and
missiles.

> 2. Do they have any anti-missile systems?  Or do they just get a
> warning that there's an "incoming" and it's up the the human
> crew to turn the tank around and respond to the TOW operator?

	The system mentioned above is the only one I know of, apart
from the direct use of the maingun against the launcher of an
anti-missile defence for a tank.  The system was very similar in
concept to naval CIWS and was intended to in the same manner, be the
last ditch defence against missiles which are about to hit their
target.

	There are various laser detectors which will alert tank crews
(I am unsure if they have been fitted to the M1 though) if their
vehicle has been illuminated.  This allows them to take evasive action
and also to perhaps to locate the source of the laser beam.  However if
its airborne, then they are unequipped to really be able to respond.
While if the missile is wire-guided this is no help at all.

	There was tested on an M1 development vehicle a millimetre
radar system which was intended to act, with conjunction of some
sophisticated computers to act as a battle engagement system.  It was
designed to detect incoming threats and slew the turret around to the
most immediate danger, indicating to the commander and gunner where the
source of the fire was.  However as far as I know this was not then
developed further.

> 3. Why are the machine guns externally mounted, and manually operated?  
> WW1 footage shows tanks with machine gun muzzles protruding 
> from the armour, so that the operator could operate them from the
> relative safety of the interior of the tank.  I would have expected
> that by the nineties, that the top of the line US tank would feature 
> computer-controlled, electrically driven gatling guns capable of 
> putting thousands of rounds per minute into low-flying air craft, 
> incomming missiles, or any other threat coming to the attention of
> the operator who would be _inside_ the tank.  Nobody is expected
> to poke their nose out of the turret and operate a machine gun
> in a high-intensity battlefield on one of the "killing zones" of
> central Germany are they?  -- say it ain't so!

	Unfortunately it is so.  While I know the MG's on the
Chieftain/Challenger/Leopard can be operated from inside the vehicle
remotely, against ground targets, I am unsure about those of the M1.
However, even so, they cannot be operated usually against aircraft
effectively due to limited fields of view, thats why if they are to be
effective (and as recent wars such as the Falklands, Afghanistan and
now the Gulf have shown, even small arms can be an effective AA weapon)
you have to get out and look around to see where your target is.  The
MBT-70 project, which was cancelled and replaced by the M1 featured, as
did early versions of the Leapard 2, a dedicated AA 20mm cannon which
could be operated from under armour.  However due to reasons of cost,
and worries about effectiveness, the matter was dropped.

	Only the AMX-30 has, as far as I know, a weapon mounted under
armour which can be used as an AA weapon.  It has a 20mm cannon mounted
co-axial with the maingun and which has been given a much higher
elevation for use against airtargets.  As to whether or not the
turret's slew rate would be up to what is necessary for effective AA
work is questionable IMO.

	Why MG's which pierce the armour have gone out of style is
basically because having such a weapon makes the hull/turret of a
vehicle much harder to construct and slightly weaker.  You have to
remember its pretty bloody hard working metals and composites which are
as hard as most modern armours are.  When added to the problem of
needing room to stow more rounds of ammunition for the maingun, which
meant that the "co-driver" or hull MG gunner had to be eliminated, such
weapons basically went out of style.  There were some attempts during
the 1950's to provide for MG's which were operated by the driver and
mounted either piercing the hull (such as on the T54, the STRV-103) or
on the mudguards over the tracks (as on the M47/48).  However the
driver usually has his hands too full of driving to actually use such
weapons effectively.

	We are seeing though IMO a movement towards turning tanks into
the "Land-battleships" which they were originally intended to be.  With
the adoption of such concepts as CIWS, battle management systems and
its need to be supported by "escort" vehicles in order to achieve its
objective, the Tank is starting to resemble a naval battlegroup.   The
Germans during the 1970's/early 1980's even considered such a concept
and actually built "escort" tanks which were modified Marder MICV's
equipped with medium calibre guns, ATGW and some infantry on board.
There role was to escort the tanks to their objective, screening them
from enemy light armoured elements like BMP's and allowing the tanks to
concentrate on their prime enemy, other tanks.   However for reasons of
cost the matter was dropped.

	[AAAAGH!  Land Battleships!!  If anyone remembers my previous
	stint as moderator a couple of years ago they may recall why
	this particular phrase sends an icy chill down my spine. :-) --CDR]

-- 
Brian Ross