Blackeagle (cdupchurch@hotmail.com)
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:46:51 MST


>Blackeagle wrote:
> > Well, part of the M1's Gulf War performance was due to it's excellent
>armor.
> > The other part was because the nice Soviet made tanks were firing
>Iraqi
> > made ammunition, which wasn't up to Russian standards. Had the M1 been
> > going up against Soviet 125mm ammunition, the results could have been
> > somewhat different.
>
>Yes, but it's still very strong.
>
> > Also keep in mind that the M1 is only really armored against tank
>caliber
> > firepower in one direction.
>
>But, If you wanted to make...let's say 5 super tanks for special missions,
>You
>could make the armor thicker all around.

Not really. The issue here is not cost (depleted uranium is so cheap it's
practically free) but weight. At 65 tons the M1A1 is already too heavy for
many bridges (especially in areas like the Balkans) and nearly impossible to
move by air in any real quantities.

The future of tanks is much more likely to be stealth and active defenses
than thicker armor.

>the point is, It is scientifically feasable (at least in SF terms) to make
>an
>armor which standard munitions can't penetrate. It's certainly no more far
>fetched than the concept of a MS it's self.
>
>In other words, it's a rather silly excuse for dismissing wing.

I didn't dismiss wing because of the armor issue, I was just responding to
someone's commentary on the Gulf War. I have much deeper problems with
wing.

>---Brett Jensen

________________________________
Chris Upchurch a.k.a. Blackeagle
cdupchurch@hotmail.com

WARNING: System Failure!
Unable to insert amusing tagline.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jun 15 2000 - 15:34:02 JST