Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian Ross)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Reactive armor
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.074352.14928@amd.com>
Date: 16 Jun 91 08:58:39 GMT
References: <1991Jun15.021352.29639@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Lines: 25
Approved: military@amd.com


From: bxr307@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian Ross)


brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu writes:
>A lot of postings on tank technology mention reactive armor. What
>nobody mentions is what it's like for the crew of a tank when an
>incoming projectile is rejected by reactive armor.

What is even more lightly passed over is the effects on your own
accompanying infantry.  You think what it would be like if your
standing near a tank which has ERA and it gets hit by an anti-tank
missile.  You not only have to contend with the fragments flying around
from the missile, but also from the ERA boxes which have exploded.
Even worse for the tankers is what happens to all that extra gear they
have stowed on the outside of the vehicle? ;-)

	[Still seems like a good deal for the tankers, considering
	 the alternative... 
	 But can anyone comment on Military Tactics for Infantry
	 accompanying tanks with Reactive Armor?  Do they change anything?
	 --CDR]

--
Brian Ross