A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

asymetric warfare



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 27th 03, 03:59 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" writes:
In message , Peter Stickney
writes
Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.
The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
the 1990-91 Gulf War.


5,150 metres by a Challenger 1. (Allegedly a first-shot hit)


Thanks, Paul & Andew - I knew it was an exceptional shot, but had the
details a bit mungled up. It doesn't change the point, though.

Even in open country like Iraq, the usual
longest range for a Main Gun shot on an opposing tank was 2000m. In a
European rural environment, the most likely engagement range would be
1000m. In more closed country, like, say, the Northeastern U.S., or
Maritime Canada, engagement ranges as close as 50-100m are not
unlikely.


Open-fire ranges tend to be considerably longer, 2-2.5 kilometres being
frequent when visibility permits: however, the enemy rarely agrees to
cooperatively sit at that range.


Sure. It only makes sense to shoot at the longest viable range.
Hand-to-Hand Combat is what you do when you're unarmed, naked, and one
foot is nailed to the floor, after all.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #2  
Old December 27th 03, 06:12 AM
Johnny Bravo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:41:06 -0000, "John"
wrote:

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.


Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.


In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle.


At 1,000 yards the travel time of a 120mm APFSDS round is .52
seconds, Average human reaction time for someone doing nothing but
sitting there and waiting for an event they have to respond to by
flipping a switch is .3 to .8 seconds with a good 60% being above the
..5 second mark. Someone performing a complex task in reaction to a
signal, like driving around and then having to dodge in a specific
direction at a signal ranges from .35 to 1.5 seconds with 85% being
over .5 seconds. - Henry and Rogers, 1960

Assuming that your system is so good that it can classify every
round on the battlefield, tell what is coming and going, be scanning
the air for cluster bombs and rockets and take 0 seconds to illuminate
a light on the dash telling you which way to swerve, it won't help you
at all.

85% of your vehicles will be killed by the first shot because they
didn't respond in time and none of the rest will be able to get that
half width in the .15 seconds they have to move the vehicle. At 40mph
the vehicle will move 9 feet forward in .15 seconds, about 1/2 it's
length, leaving the back half of the vehicle beind the center point.

Claiming that the tanks will
close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated AT
fire.


1,000 yards isn't exactly point blank range.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! John Cook Military Aviation 35 November 10th 03 11:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.