Energy Weapon Analysis

[Elydo]

I remember learning about efforts to try and scuttle (or whatever the land equivalent is) an M1 during the first Gulf War. They had to escalate their efforts until several other M1 firing for effect were shown to be ineffective. Then they had it recovered and repaired once the recovery vehicles showed up.

Here's a pretty good account of the incident: http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/index.php/t-1238737.html

[NoirWolf]

Now you're simply trying to pick apart word choice; you know what he meant

And that said... this is true of any tank constructed in a similar matter. Can it happen? It's a possibility. But most Abrams that - through whatever means - suffer a catastrophic kill simply stay intact; even when you have one run over some thousand-pounder platter charge or some shit, it's usually a tank hull sitting there. There's a hole, a burnt-out compartment, but it's not torn to pieces.

Scant comfort I'd guess for tank crews . Though the whole remaining intact part can also be claimed by any tanks built after the HEAT round craze went down ( when I was looking for links of T-72s getting hit and having their turrets pop off I found very few instances of the tanks actually being wrecked when hit, allot of them just turned into furnaces destroying internals but the hull was largely intact for the most part and this can be said of most tanks though more modern ones have a greater likelihood to stay intact even after the crew dies due to advanced armour, like the M1's Chobham).

[StellarRat]

...in combat if a tank takes a direct hit to the ammo storage area it's gonna pop its lid, if it takes a hit that breaches into the ammo storage area it's gonna pop its lid, the only times I know that the newer storage racks help with preventing explosions and crew death directly is when it's a hit that doesn't breach the ammo storage area...

Yeah, but the "ammo storage area" aka magazine in the M1 is covered by blow out panels. That's the whole point. Inside the turret, the loader has to hit a button to open the magazine, grab ONE round for the breech, then a very thick steel hatch closes automatically and isolates the magazine again. The whole system is designed to idiot proof . So, the worst case scenario is that the turret gets penetrated at the exact moment the loader is reaching in for the next round, very unlikely. If the magazine gets hit, it's isolated from the rest of the turret and the blow out panels vent powder fire out the top of the magazine. In theory this gives the crew enough time to evacuate the tank before the situation becomes lethal. The tank, of course, is ruined, but the crew survives.

[NoirWolf]

Yeah, but the "ammo storage area" aka magazine in the M1 is covered by blow out panels. That's the whole point. Inside the turret, the loader has to hit a button to open the magazine, grab ONE round for the breech, then a very thick steel hatch closes automatically and isolates the magazine again. The whole system is designed to idiot proof . So, the worst case scenario is that the turret gets penetrated at the exact moment the loader is reaching in for the next round, very unlikely. If the magazine gets hit, it's isolated from the rest of the turret and the blow out panels vent powder fire out the top of the magazine. In theory this gives the crew enough time to evacuate the tank before the situation becomes lethal. The tank, of course, is ruined, but the crew survives.

On the M1 shells are stored horizontally or vertically? ( in either case: is the tip of the shell pointing away from the tank? I ask because if the rack does get hit and one of those puppies is pointing inward...yeah, you get why I ask).

[EchoFourDelta]

They're stored horizontally, with the front of the round facing toward the rear of the turret.

[StellarRat]

On the M1 shells are stored horizontally or vertically? ( in either case: is the tip of the shell pointing away from the tank? I ask because if the rack does get hit and one of those puppies is pointing inward...yeah, you get why I ask).

[NoirWolf]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2684[/ATTACH]

Pretty good design then ^^.

[StellarRat]

Pretty good design then ^^.

It should be for 5 million dollars. It's probably not going to be replaced for a very long time. Tanks really aren't needed for fighting irregular forces and terrorists. IMO, the only mistake they made on the design was giving it a gas turbine engine. Granted it is very fast, but it is a huge fuel hog even compared to other tanks and the engine is complex to work on since it is, in essence, a jet engine. The German's have the Leopard II which is just fast but uses a diesel engine and has the same gun.

[NoirWolf]

It should be for 5 million dollars. It's probably not going to be replaced for a very long time. Tanks really aren't needed for fighting irregular forces and terrorists. IMO, the only mistake they made on the design was giving it a gas turbine engine. Granted it is very fast, but it is a huge fuel hog even compared to other tanks and the engine is complex to work on since it is, in essence, a jet engine. The German's have the Leopard II which is just fast but uses a diesel engine and has the same gun.

Uhmm.. when it comes to quality and its direct relationship to money things can get a bit...hazy with the US army at least... I mean there are quite a few past blunders that cost allot of cash for the US and took several iterations to get right in the end ( I think the Bradley still isn't that good for the amount of money thrown on its R&D and the M3 Lee in World War 2 was also a steaming pile of crap compared to its contemporaries).

[StellarRat]

Uhmm.. when it comes to quality and its direct relationship to money things can get a bit...hazy with the US army at least... I mean there are quite a few past blunders that cost allot of cash for the US and took several iterations to get right in the end ( I think the Bradley still isn't that good for the amount of money thrown on its R&D and the M3 Lee in World War 2 was also a steaming pile of crap compared to its contemporaries).

The Lee was a stop gap measure to prevent the US and Allies from being slaughtered by the superior Axis tanks. It worked well enough in Africa against the short barreled German PZIII's and PZIV's then was rapidly replaced by the Sherman. I think the US record on development is good on the whole, with a few notable failures. I can't think of any countries that have done a better job anyway. Every country has had their miracle designs and their flops. The problems are usually related to politics and being behind the current world situation. Example: What use is there for the F-22 at 200 million a whack?, etc... Edited September 24, 2013 by StellarRat

[NoirWolf]

The Lee was a stop gap measure to prevent the US and Allies from being slaughtered by the superior Axis tanks. It worked well enough in Africa against the short barreled German PZIII's and PZIV's then was rapidly replaced by the Sherman. I think the US record on development is good on the whole, with a few notable failures. I can't think of any countries that have done a better job anyway. Every country has had their miracle designs and their flops. The problems are usually related to politics and being behind the current world situation. Example: What use is there for the F-22 at 200 million a whack?, etc...

Actually the M3 Lee wasn't supposed to be a stop gap measure but due to interdepartmental "small dick" syndrome the artillery department demanded that the only cannon on the initial tank schematics (the long 75) be put in the hull lest it encroach on their area and their designs (because apparently 75 mm guns were artillery only back then ) and the designers of the tank then put a the 40 mm gun (or whatever calibre it had) in the now empty turret because it's not really a tank with only a hull mounted gun.

As to the US track record...there's failures and then there's armouring a APC with aluminium armour years after it was proven that aluminium couldn't stop most things with even slight AT capacity and burned like a mofo while producing highly toxic smoke and quite a few different types of missiles and vehicles which also didn't really work ( the M26 was a disaster in terms of medium tank mobility and couldn't really engage anything higher than Panther 1 tanks on equal footing, the M48 in its initial batch was a roman torch due to flammable hydraulic fluid and a fragile hydraulic system which would douse the interior of the tank when a penetration occurred, the M103 in its initial batch, the T43E1 if memory serves, was even worse than the IS-4, the M551 couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with its 152 mm missile most of the time, don't get me started on the M-16 rifle and the rampant misinformation with that thing in it initial runs, etc). I don't mean to sound contentious of course but I wouldn't call the US's track record with military development good either (it's decent with both excellent innovations but also absolutely appalling failures).

[StellarRat]

I don't mean to sound contentious of course but I wouldn't call the US's track record with military development good either (it's decent with both excellent innovations but also absolutely appalling failures).

I said compared to other countries it was good. There have been horrible failures by every nation. Your M3 example was a perfect example of politics messing up a design. But I can list a probably a dozen failures by other countries too off the top of my head and there are probably dozens more you could find. British battlecruisers, German ME-262 bombers, Russian aluminium APCs, Japanese planes with no armor and none self sealing gas tanks, etc, etc... Then there are brilliant successes that surprise even the designers: Mustang, Spitfire, Tiger I, T-34, Long Lance torpedo, 88mm AA gun, etc...

[NoirWolf]

I said compared to other countries it was good. There have been horrible failures by every nation. Your M3 example was a perfect example of politics messing up a design. But I can list a probably a dozen failures by other countries too off the top of my head and there are probably dozens more you could find. British battlecruisers, German ME-262 bombers, Russian aluminium APCs, Japanese planes with no armor and none self sealing gas tanks, etc, etc... Then there are brilliant successes that surprise even the designers: Mustang, Spitfire, Tiger I, T-34, Long Lance torpedo, 88mm AA gun, etc...

Mustang wasn't a success until it got the british engine (it was decent but not extraordinary) and the British Battlecruisers ( I assume you're referring in particular to the HMS Hood) were World War 1 designs for the most part retrofitted for World War 2 (the Hood in particular was based on the HMS Tiger and designed for short range exchanges as its armour was angled towards the horizontal not the vertical, it's this flaw which screwed it over when it fought the Bismark). The Tiger 1 also wasn't much to write home about either but the King Tiger (with good grade steel) was a tank that was excellent in almost all respects and which was only really completely surpassed in potency in the early 1950s.

[Elydo]

Whenever I think of battlecruisers I think of the Battle of Jutland.

[NoirWolf]

Whenever I think of battlecruisers I think of the Battle of Jutland.

You mean where the tortoise proved to the hare that speed isn't a good substitute for armour?

Edited September 24, 2013 by NoirWolf

[StellarRat]

No, I'm referring to entire concept of battlecruisers. It was flawed from the beginning including in WW I. The Hood was just the final nail in the coffin. Tiger I was dominant on the WWII battlefield until nearly the end of the war something that could not be said for any other design. It was absolutely devastating on open steppe in Russia. One could argue for the King Tiger, but it was highly unreliable even more so than the Tiger I and had a much shorter combat history. The Mustang concept was brilliant from the beginning, but the engine upgrade turned it into best all around fighter of WW II, IMO.

[StellarRat]

You mean where the tortoise proved to the hare that speed isn't a good substitute for armour?

Only if the hare is faster than a cannon shell.

[NoirWolf]

No, I'm referring to entire concept of battlecruisers. It was flawed from the beginning including in WW I. The Hood was just the final nail in the coffin. Tiger I was dominant on the WWII battlefield until nearly the end of the war something that could not be said for any other design. It was absolutely devastating on open steppe in Russia. One could argue for the King Tiger, but it was highly unreliable even more so than the Tiger I and had a much shorter combat history. The Mustang concept was brilliant from the beginning, but the engine upgrade turned it into best all around fighter of WW II, IMO.

Actually the King Tiger wasn't much worse than the Tiger 1 in reliability terms (it didn't have nearly as severe transmission issues as the Panther 1 for example), it's credited with having shitty reliability mostly because the majority of King Tigers destroyed were due to crews destroying their own tanks to prevent their capture but this was in equal parts due to inferior metals used in the construction of the engine and the transmission and lack of fuel, the Panther 1 in exchange had a badly designed transmission that never got fixed (that was one of the goals of the Panther 2 that never saw more than a prototype hull built). As for the Mustang being the best all round fighter...uhmm... the Me-262 has that crown by virtue of actually flying with the crap they had to build its engines out of and the conditions of assembly and the fact that allied fighters could only snipe them while they were landing (credit where credit is due though the armament of the Mustang was superior to the Me-262's at the speeds the 262 flew at ).

[StellarRat]

As for the Mustang being the best all round fighter...uhmm... the Me-262 has that crown by virtue of actually flying with the crap they had to build its engines out of and the conditions of assembly and the fact that allied fighters could only snipe them while they were landing (credit where credit is due though the armament of the Mustang was superior to the Me-262's at the speeds the 262 flew at ).

Could the ME-262 fly from Berlin to London? Could it perform CAS? I said best overall fighter, not fastest, or best dogfighter, or the best interceptor. Yes, the ME-262 was revolutionary in that it was the first truly practical/effective jet fighter, but it certainly wasn't the best all around fighter in the war. It was also extremely vulnerable to any kind of engine damage. The Komet was pretty awesome too, but you'd have to have balls of tungsten steel to fly one of those. Anyway, this is way off topic.

When are they going to get the next build out has anyone heard anything?

Edited September 24, 2013 by StellarRat

[NoirWolf]

Could the ME-262 fly from Berlin to London? Could it perform CAS? I said best overall fighter, not fastest, or best dogfighter, or the best interceptor. Yes, the ME-262 was revolutionary in that it was the first truly practical/effective jet fighter, but it certainly wasn't the best all around fighter in the war. It was also extremely vulnerable to any kind of engine damage. The Komet was pretty awesome too, but you'd have to have balls of tungsten steel to fly one of those. Anyway, this is way off topic.

When are they going to get the next build out has anyone heard anything?

To answer your questions:

Yes (barely, same as the Mustang without its external tanks).

Yes in theory ( not exactly precise but nor was the P-51's rocket complement ).

No clue when the next build will be, likely a month, maybe 2 even (worse case scenario: Christmas present).

[Elydo]

I would expect V20 to be quite a few weeks yet, but they want that to be feature complete so new builds of V19 are going to be coming more imminently I'd think, and each will bring changes.

[StellarRat]

To answer your questions:

Yes (barely, same as the Mustang without its external tanks).

Yes in theory ( not exactly precise but nor was the P-51's rocket complement ).

No clue when the next build will be, likely a month, maybe 2 even (worse case scenario: Christmas present).

Oh please, it could get to London ONE WAY! Getting back is always handy in combat. The Mustang had nearly double the range without tanks and nearly three times with tanks.

[NoirWolf]

Oh please, it could get to London ONE WAY! Getting back is always handy in combat. The Mustang had nearly double the range without tanks and nearly three times with tanks.

My math is kinda rusty, how's that:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/p51_mustang.htm

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=513

http://acepilots.com/planes/p51d_mustang.html

Thrice this:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/messerschmitt_262.htm

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwariiaircraft/p/me262.htm

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=108

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me262-specifications.html - this one I find interesting because it specifies "On internal fuel" which could imply the Me-262 could have external tanks (drop or otherwise).

?

[EchoFourDelta]

That's likely done to provide distinction as compared to other aircraft that could, in fact, carry external fuel containers.

[NoirWolf]

That's likely done to provide distinction as compared to other aircraft that could, in fact, carry external fuel containers.

Actually a couple of the variants of the Me-262 did have external tanks (though not drop tanks) for various reasons (either more range or, as in the case of the night fighter variant, moving internal fuel tanks outside to make room for more equipment within the plane).

http://www.aviation-history.com/messerschmitt/me262.html also notice that the range stated is for the A-1 variant (the first production fighter variant).