Comments for This will make a few regulars... irregular.

This will make a few regulars... irregular.

2008-01-17T10:06:18Z

Comment from Andrew on 2008-01-18

2008-01-18T18:00:54Z

John and Justthisguy, thank you for the education. Yeah, I understand if the bad guy can hit you with something big enough, your screwed because you can't put enough armor or protection on a vehicle and still expect it to move (from an infantry vest to a tank to a battleship). So because you can't have enough armor, you rely on speed, maneuverability, smoke, firepower and luck to avoid being hit full on? Armored vehicles are much more survivable when hit with a glancing shot which would still destroy a regular vehicle correct? Thanks again for educating me (who admittedly has learned most of this from books, History Channel and Military Channel).

Comment from SangerM on 2008-01-18

2008-01-18T07:57:39Z

One of my instructors had been the only survivor of an overturned tank: it caught fire. One of our 2/81 M60A1s lost a track during an autobahn roadmarch somewhere between Würzburg and Erlangen and without the one track, it skewed right and went over the edge of an embankment and flipped over on its top. The TC was thrown from the tank before it landed, so he was ok, and the crew was able to escape by crawling out through the driver's compartment. The story I heard later was that the power was still on, and things were sparking inside, and that a bunch of rounds had come loose (we were partially combat loaded in those days) and were as likely as not to go off, but that the Bn XO--one Major Baucom (sic), an Aggie, crawled inside the tank and turned stuff off, etc. Not sure what that entailed (just switch off, or more), but in my mind he was a true blue hero from that day on. I always liked him anyway, he was a real gentlemanly fellow in my mind, if a bit hard to please (Bn XO and all). I saw the tank as we drove by, goign r e a l l y slow because an M88 was removing the dead track from the road as we were coming up to it. It was an odd thing to see, but it was too dark for me to get any pictures. Too bad, eh?

Comment from BillT on 2008-01-17

2008-01-18T05:45:53Z

Course, if there were a crew inside, somebody might have pulled the halon bottle, and it might not have burned like that. Of course, if there were a crew inside, I doubt anyone would have survived the pyrophoric effect long enough to have activated the halon bottle. In simpler words, when a BILL (or a TOW-2B) waffles a tank, it sets the *air* inside the tank on fire, first. The crew isn't just exposed to the explosion -- they're *inside* the explosion...

Comment from Justthisguy on 2008-01-17

2008-01-18T03:28:46Z

Andrew, war between tanks is somewhat (very like, it was in North Africa) war between naval vessels. Any weapons sufficient to do important damage to a machine like that can be counted upon to do the extreme icky-poo upon the soft pink humans inside them. Tanks are wonderful if one is quite certain the enemy has no anti-tank weapons, a condition which may or may not obtain.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T23:05:43Z

Hey guys - if Olaf is correct and that is a Centurion (the running gear certainly looks like it, though I can't see the little half-roller right behind the idler I would expect - that isn't a standard Centurion turret - or was someone running around developing their own turrets and I missed the memo?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T23:03:38Z

Andrew - HL's point about there being no one on board to pull the fire extinguisher has merit. Sometimes, if you're hit by something big enough, you're just screwed. Do we consider crews expendable? No, other than we know we are going to lose crews. We spend a great deal of time and effort to make the vehicles as survivable as possible, and successfully so, given the evidence in Iraq. Strykers have taken IED hits that would have ripped a M113 into chunks and the crews walked away with ringing ears and minor injuries. Truth is, if sufficient force brought to bear, you're screwed. MajMike's point about the tank driving in a straight line also is relevant. If you always give the other guy the optimal shot, you're going to get your head handed to you on a platter. If that BILL had been 1 meter left or right of center on that turret, the outcome would have been different. And that was a wire-guided missile, so the gunner has to track the target. Jinking targets are harder to track. Which then, of course, brings us back to speed and maneuverability. The problem with sacrificing protection to gain speed and maneuverability means that while you may be harder to hit, when you get hit, you get hurt. In one on one fights, where crew drill and skill can make the difference, that may be sufficient. But in mass fights, where there is a lot of stuff flying around, you're mostly just making yourself more vulnerable. There's a reason that the Stuart tank, which performed credibly in the Western Desert, didn't hang around except as a highly modified recon platform much beyond the battles in Libya and Cyrenaica - sometimes you can't maneuver, then it's really good to have some armor. It is also telling that in between major outbreaks of militant violence, the brainiacs say "Light! Fast! Maneuverable!" and early on into real armored combat, crews are saying "Fast! Maneuverable! ARMOR AND A GUN THAT KILLS A LONG WAY AWAY!" The current generation of MBTs try to be that second tank. FCS and it's ilk are trying to be that first tank, with a gun or the ability to get access to long range precision fires to overcome the inherent weakness of their armor. All a great idea, as long as the fight develops to your design paradigm. But sometimes, the weather is bad, the terrain doesn't give you long shots, and you don't have the luxury of trading space for time - and you have to fight it out, toe to toe. I would rather be in a Bradley or an Abrams the day that fight happens.

Comment from Andrew on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T22:36:43Z

Sooo question is will the current US tanks and other vehicles (Bradley's and Stryker's) protect the crew or are the crew considered expendable? And if the armor cannot protect the crew, is less armor and more speed and maneuverability the answer? I'm a civilian so please do not roll your eyes too much when reading these questions, just hope the saying there are no stupid question is true.

Comment from Eric on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T22:22:32Z

Odd that only the propellant cooked off. Probably, only TP-T on board. That would explain that lack of secondary explosions. anyone notice that the turret started to lift about 13 to 14 seconds into the clip? then there is two sets of secondarys.

Comment from OlafTheTanker on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T21:42:11Z

GAH! What a waste of a good Centurion.. WTH? They couldn't come up with one of the bazillion Soviet tanks found in the mid east in the last 2 shootin matches? (I'm sure they could have found at least one that still ran and wasn't already swiss cheese ;) )

Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T19:49:51Z

One of my instructors had been the only survivor of an overturned tank: it caught fire. Nice video. Cheers

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T19:34:15Z

Course, if there were a crew inside, somebody might have pulled the halon bottle, and it might not have burned like that.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T18:52:35Z

I want to thank MajMike for that comment... "Not only was it authentic military gibberish, but it expressed a courage that is little seen in this day and age." For those of you bemused by it, he simply said, "Ya gotsta be able ta hit it, afore ya kin kill it."

Comment from eric on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T18:29:46Z

i think they got that one. probably.

Comment from MajMike on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T15:32:55Z

ooh, pretty sparklers! and a jiffy pop cook-off! only a remote control tanker would drive straight on out across the open like that. ya still gotta have the P-sub-H, before the P-sub-K-sub-H kicks in.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T15:29:21Z

NinjaFluff... that was fuel and ammunition cooking off in the fire caused by the missile strike. BTW - just in case anyone's not clear - the video is of a test, using a radio-controlled tank. You didn't just see a live crew get immolated. But I'm relying on our local tankers imaginations to provide all that... me so mean.

Comment from AFSister on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T15:08:31Z

*shudder* I'm not one of the regulars you're talking about, and that made ME irregular... damn.

Comment from jim b on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T14:41:42Z

Just lookat that. One shot one kill. That tank killed that missle for sure. With the cost of missles today it's almost cheaper to attack them with tanks.

Comment from NinjaFluff on 2008-01-17

2008-01-17T14:25:23Z

All the fire coming from under the turret... was that a function of the warhead? I've not seen fire spew from a tank like that before. Yeah, yeah... I know I'm still quite green, and probably need to get out more :-)