Ask the (former) Tanker.

[medstar]

What did you do to guys who deliberately farted in the tank?

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

The stetson might look goofy, but Cav at least knows how to tie bootlaces.

If you are in a turret filled with hot shell casings or aft caps you don't want nylon shoelaces. Tanker boots were designed for a reason.

Originally Posted by Gorsnak

How severe an injury do you get if you're in the path of the recoil of that thing?

Really fucking bad. In training I was in the turret when the guy playing TC had his elbow in the way. Lucky for him it was at the very end of the recoil. Still messed up the elbow pretty good.

Originally Posted by medstar

What did you do to guys who deliberately farted in the tank?

Everyone is eating MREs. Everyone is farting.

[trupa]

On behalf of my soon to be 10 year old son, who loves the History Channel's "Greatest Tank Battles" show.

1. You really fought in an M1 Abrams? Cool!
2. Were you in the battle of 73 Easting?
3. How far apart are tanks in a "combat" formation?

On behalf of me: tanks for your service!

-trupa, who ardently wishes those toy RC Abrams holding maneuvers in our family room would suffer a critical speaker malfunction. The designers scaled down the size, but apparently not the noise...

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

Why is the military miserly with the ammo? If I remember correctly, it's about 4000$ a pop, which is about 1/1000th the marginal cost of the tank. About how many rounds does a gunner fire in a year?

Does the armor have a tendency to become damaged even when not hit by projectiles?


Does the armor branch have a tendency to attract particular psychological types?

Sorry for the delay, I had stuff to do yesterday.

Why is the military miserly? Ask Congress. Every year, they want the military to do more, with less. To their credit, the branches of the Armed Forces somehow manage to pack a bit more capability into a bit smaller package.

When I was in ('86-'91), we'd do Gunnery about twice a year, and fire about 20-30main gun rounds per tank over the course of the entire Gunnery exercise. Plus additional .50 cal and 7.62mm machinegun ammo, but that's small beans compared to 105mm and 120mm main gun rounds.

After the fall and breakup of the Soviet Union, doctrinal roles for tanks changed, and an emphasis for more light, rapidly deployable forces took the lead from heavier forces, and training precedence went to them.

I'm not knocking that decision, as it is a military truism that most militaries train and equip to fight the last war (the one they were just previously in), as evidenced by the Iraq War's initial lack of training and equipment suitable for long-term anti-insurgency operations on hostile ground.

I think that the armor may be somewhat degraded from enough hits from heavy enough weaponry. For instance, I think you could fire .50 cal machineguns at the frontal armor of just about any tank until Kingdom Come and not do any appreciable damage. The same may not be true for 20mm - 40mm munitions, or anti-tank rockets. And I would think that hits from tank main gun rounds (even if they didn't pentrate the armor) would have some lasting effect on the metal of the armor.

But I'm not a metallurgist, so I really couldn't say. Maybe some other Doper with training or experince in metallurgy could chime in?

I don't think that the armed forces attract any particular psychological type for initial entry into the service. I would hazard a guess that once somoeone decides to stay in and advance, then certain broad psychological types, or maybe perhaps just certain psychological traits, become the norm.

Take Special Operations types, for instance. You not only have to want to be Special Forces, you have to prove, over-and-over again, through rigorous and arduous selection and training "check-points," that you're physically and mentally suitable for them.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Gorsnak

How severe an injury do you get if you're in the path of the recoil of that thing?

As Loach says, being in the recoil path of the main gun of any tank is not a place for Happy Fun-Time making. Do no be in that space. You will not enjoy it. Your not-enjoyment may quite possibly be terminally (and mercifully) brief.

Or they may hear your dying screams in the next grid square.

In basic, when we were first marched to the motor pool and introduced to the M1 Abrams, our Drill Sergeant said (as best I can recall from memory):

"This bitch is a stone killer. It is made to kill. Period. And she don't care one bit whether she's killing Russina tanks, or you. She will crush, smash, and slash you to ribbons if you give her even half-a-chance. If you're lucky, it'll be quick, and you'll be dead. If not, you'll be maimed and crippled for life in the most excuciating way imagineable."

There are safety barriers, and "Do Not Enter" areas depending upon current operations, there are crew drills, and safety training, and safety awareness training, and for the most part, people do pay attention and make it through their service without much more than the occasional scrape or minor laceration (an "ouchie + band-aid" level of injury).

And then there are...others.

Like a certain Tank Commander from my time at Ft. Hood who lost his left arm from just above the elbow, from the exact same type of injury Loach describes. The TC in my story had his arm sticking out into the recoil path of the main gun just a litle bit further than the TC in Loach's incident. Turned his elbow joint into gravel.

Or the kid who managed to keep his leg but now has a permanent limp from having his lower right foot and leg crushed between the turret and the hull as the turret traversed, because he neglected to put the Loader Foot Guard into place and stay on the "safe" side of that barrier-line.

Or the tanker's "urban legend" of the automatic main gun loading system the Russians developed for one of their tanks that had a tendency to want to grab one of the crew members and stuff them into the breach of the cannon like an evil, demented robot; "In Soviet Russia, gun loads you!"

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by trupa

On behalf of my soon to be 10 year old son, who loves the History Channel's "Greatest Tank Battles" show.

1. You really fought in an M1 Abrams? Cool!
2. Were you in the battle of 73 Easting?
3. How far apart are tanks in a "combat" formation?

On behalf of me: tanks for your service!

-trupa, who ardently wishes those toy RC Abrams holding maneuvers in our family room would suffer a critical speaker malfunction. The designers scaled down the size, but apparently not the noise...

1) Yeah, I guess it is at times.

2) No. The unit I was in, the 1st Cavalry Division, was playing "catch up" to VII Corps. We went through the area that 73 Easting had taken place in, and saw the remains/after-effects. Some of the photos I linked to in that album were from that.

3) That's really dependent upon terrain and visibility/sightlines. In the wide-open desert, 100 meters between tanks is practically "crowding." In the forests and hills of Germany, that would be a lot closer. Doctrine called for widest possible practical separation between individual units that the terrain allowed, to keep as many units as possible out of any enemy artillery "footprint," as artillery was the primary delivery method for chemical warfare agents.

As far as noisy toys go, take Dennis Leary's advice, and "Don't Buy The Toys That Make Noise!"

[XanderCrews]

I'm a Tank PL in the last ACR left in the Army. (11th)

I'm going to my first Gunnery Friday, what should I expect?

Should I bring a spare PC?

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by XanderCrews

I'm a Tank PL in the last ACR left in the Army. (11th)

I'm going to my first Gunnery Friday, what should I expect?

Should I bring a spare PC?

Loach being a former officer, could probably clue you in a lot better on the "officer's perspective," than I could. Expect "pressure" from Higher, as eyes will be on you.

From a purely "gunnery" perspective, and my one-and-only tour at N.T.C., I can say to expect heat (but it's a dry heat! ) dust, sand in places you don't want to share with us (we don't want you to share with us), noise (wear your hearing protection), propellant fumes (God I loved the smell of the main gun firing!).

Have fun with it; it's a good time in life to be young and have a whole tank platoon to play with.

If they still do the TC's .50 cal enganement, have your gunner discretely lase to the target and take a quick peak at that range to dial in your .50 cal before engaging. Or do they let you use your CITV to do that? We didn't have the CITV back when, and it was considered cheating to have your gunner lase to the TC's .50 cal target; the TC was supposed to estimate the range by Mk. 1 Eyeball.

But everyone did it anyway, and everyone knew that everyone did it.

Take a camera, and get lots of pics. We didn't have digital cameras back when, and I've lost a lot of great pics to casual thievery over the years, including one SOB who made off not only with the pics, but the majority of the negatives as well.

Those are mementos that are gone from me forever. Don't let it happen to you.

















Oh, and last piece of advice: keep your hand off of the TC's Override.

[ExTank]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add:

Allons!

[Baron Greenback]

A question on more domesticated matters: Do US armoured vehicles have the facilities onboard to make a nice cup of tea? (Well, a brew anyway). I've been led to believe that British Army vehicles pretty much always do.

[ExTank]

I've uploaded some more pics from my time in the desert.

For some unknown reason, I got sent a roll of B&W film from home, but used it anyway. Kinda prophetic, as the days that I took those pics were severely overcast and were a prelude to some serious rain. So the general atmosphere at the time was just as gray and drab as those pics.

Also included are some pics of the turbine engine's air pre-cleaner and V-packs, which I spoke of upthread.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Baron Greenback

A question on more domesticated matters: Do US armoured vehicles have the facilities onboard to make a nice cup of tea? (Well, a brew anyway). I've been led to believe that British Army vehicles pretty much always do.

Unfortunately, no. At least not at that time. But we'd hardly let that stop us. Many of us picked up "camp stoves" of one sort or another, or improvised methods of heating water. Here, my Driver heats up a canteen cup of water by placing it directly in front of the exhaust of the crew compartment heater. It would bring a canteen cup of freezing cold water to boiling in about 3-4 minutes.

Our favorite beverage (and what my Driver was making in the photo) was what we called a "Mocha:" a packet of hot chocolate, a package of single serve instant coffee, a packet of powdered creamer, and a packet of sugar.

I no longer recall why my Loader was giving me the Stink Eye.

I've been told and have read that modern versions of some vehicles now have a water heater device for cooking MRE pouches. We had a water-activated heater for "cooking" (heating) MRE pouches, but we hardly ever used them; we could always slap an MRE on the tank's exhaust grill and get our food plenty hot in no time.

I don't know if the armed forces still use the water-activated heating pouch.

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by ExTank

Unfortunately, no. At least not at that time. But we'd hardly let that stop us. Many of us picked up "camp stoves" of one sort or another, or improvised methods of heating water. Here, my Driver heats up a canteen cup of water by placing it directly in front of the exhaust of the crew compartment heater. It would bring a canteen cup of freezing cold water to boiling in about 3-4 minutes.

Our favorite beverage (and what my Driver was making in the photo) was what we called a "Mocha:" a packet of hot chocolate, a package of single serve instant coffee, a packet of powdered creamer, and a packet of sugar.

Heh, that's excellent.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by ExTank

I've uploaded some more pics from my time in the desert.

For some unknown reason, I got sent a roll of B&W film from home, but used it anyway. Kinda prophetic, as the days that I took those pics were severely overcast and were a prelude to some serious rain. So the general atmosphere at the time was just as gray and drab as those pics.

Also included are some pics of the turbine engine's air pre-cleaner and V-packs, which I spoke of upthread.

What became of that T-72 that you guys had towed away? Think its in a museum somewhere, or was it just blown up?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

What tanks do you think are the best in the world and what commanders have been the best tank commanders?

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

What became of that T-72 that you guys had towed away? Think its in a museum somewhere, or was it just blown up?

I'm pretty sure it went to the 1st Cavalry Division Museum at Ft. Hood, where I think it still resides.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

What tanks do you think are the best in the world...

Define "best."

Tanks are typically graded on 3 criteria:

1) Mobility
2) Firepower
3) Protection

I add:

4) Sustainability

Let's break those down:

1) Mobility: not just speed and maneuverability, but "ground pressure" under the treads that may or may not keep it from being bogged in soft ground.

2) Firepower: he who mounts the biggest gun is not always the winner. Fire-control and crew training also play key roles.

3) Protection: nowadays, is more than just thickness of armor, it's the quality of the armor (and other types of armor protection, such as reactive armor) as well as crew protection in the form of compartmentalization, blow-out panels, spalling nets, and fire detection and supression systems.

4) Sustainability: can your nation build and field sufficient quantity and quality? Can it recruit and train armor crewmen? Trained mechanics? Can your tank survive extended field conditions in all expected environments without undue numbers of mechanical or electronic breakdowns? Can your logisitcal forces keep your armored forces supplied with sufficient parts, fuel, oil, and ammo to make them effective?

The Abrams passes with "High Marks" in the first 3 categories, and is viable in category 4 (in spite of the fact that it has a much larger, possibly largest, logistical footprint than any other tank in the world) due to the U.S. Armed forces outstanding logistical support system.

But the Abrams isn't alone; in her "class" are the British Challengers, German Leos, French LeClerc and Russian T-90.

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

...and what commanders have been the best tank commanders?

There's an author by the name of Ralph Zumbro, who wrote a couple of books about that very subject. Check him out. Good stuff.

[Ranchoth]

This one is probably out of your range of experiences, as the weapon was only ever used by the M551 and M60A2, but...do you happen to know if there was ever a nickname for the [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51_Shillelagh]MGM-51 "Shillelagh"[/url] missile, among tank crews?

The name "Shillelagh" doesn't quite roll off the tongue (YMMV, of course), and seems a might tricky to spell. But, seeing as they were only ever fired about five times in combat, it doesn't seem like they'd have had much chance to develop (or have needed) a terse nickname for the heat of battle.

But I like to be thorough—it is for a story, and I'm always up for studying obscure weapons systems.

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

First off, thanks for serving. My dad was a DAT at the end of WWII and he told a few funny Army stories, but he didn't talk much about his tank or anything.

Can you tell me what range you were engaging targets with during DS/DS? I've heard the stories after Desert Storm when I went to Bragg (I was in Turkey at the time of conflict) that we were hitting Iraqi tanks over a mile away. I think those may have been the Sheridans firing the Shillelaghs though.

What was it like for tankers at the end of the Cold War? Was there a point were you were thinking your primary mission was over and the Army is going to start moving away from heavy armor?

I thought I had another question but I can't recall it. I'll swing back if I do.

[XanderCrews]

The CITV is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You'd love playing with it. Of course, my unit is on A1s, so I'll be doing gunnery the old fashoined way.

Were you ever taped to the gun tube?

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Ranchoth

This one is probably out of your range of experiences, as the weapon was only ever used by the M551 and M60A2, but...do you happen to know if there was ever a nickname for the MGM-51 "Shillelagh" missile, among tank crews?

The name "Shillelagh" doesn't quite roll off the tongue (YMMV, of course), and seems a might tricky to spell. But, seeing as they were only ever fired about five times in combat, it doesn't seem like they'd have had much chance to develop (or have needed) a terse nickname for the heat of battle.

But I like to be thorough—it is for a story, and I'm always up for studying obscure weapons systems.

Fixed link.

I'd heard the "old timers" talking about it, and never in nice terms, but I don't recall any nickname for it other than, "Biggest POS the Army ever paid good money for."

I do recall a few horror stories about it, like it had a tendency to fly erratically, occasionally getting turned around and coming back "uprange." Or simply falling out the end of the gun/missile tube, and then having the motor ignite to send it spinning around like a whirling dervish before taking off in some random direction.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Intergalactic Gladiator

First off, thanks for serving. My dad was a DAT at the end of WWII and he told a few funny Army stories, but he didn't talk much about his tank or anything.

Can you tell me what range you were engaging targets with during DS/DS? I've heard the stories after Desert Storm when I went to Bragg (I was in Turkey at the time of conflict) that we were hitting Iraqi tanks over a mile away. I think those may have been the Sheridans firing the Shillelaghs though.

What was it like for tankers at the end of the Cold War? Was there a point were you were thinking your primary mission was over and the Army is going to start moving away from heavy armor?

I thought I had another question but I can't recall it. I'll swing back if I do.

Training in Germany/Europe, typical anticipated engagement ranges were in the 1200-1800 meter range.

The laser range finder will provide an accurate range out to 8,000m, and the fire control system will calculate a solution out to 4,000m, ~2.5 miles. The reticle is graduated, so applying a bit of Kentucky Windage is not all that difficult.

I do recall a Gunner in B Co. who hit a target ~5,000m when were went to an abbreviated gunnery in SA after transitioning to the M1A1.

And we knew that the role of heavy armor was going to be diminished back in '91, when 2nd Armored Division at Ft. Hood was deactivated (inactivated?). About 1/2 our unit that went to DS/DS was from 2nd AD.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by XanderCrews

The CITV is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You'd love playing with it. Of course, my unit is on A1s, so I'll be doing gunnery the old fashoined way.

Were you ever taped to the gun tube?

No, the worst I had happen to me was my TC seriosuly threaten to make me ride on top of the turret.

Potatoes Au Gratin weren't knows as "Potatoes Au Rotten" for nothing, and I loved them, but they didn't love me.

[smithsb]

Originally Posted by Intergalactic Gladiator

First off, thanks for serving. My dad was a DAT at the end of WWII and he told a few funny Army stories, but he didn't talk much about his tank or anything.

Can you tell me what range you were engaging targets with during DS/DS? I've heard the stories after Desert Storm when I went to Bragg (I was in Turkey at the time of conflict) that we were hitting Iraqi tanks over a mile away. I think those may have been the Sheridans firing the Shillelaghs though.

What was it like for tankers at the end of the Cold War? Was there a point were you were thinking your primary mission was over and the Army is going to start moving away from heavy armor?

I thought I had another question but I can't recall it. I'll swing back if I do.

Sheridans never fired Shilleaghs at tanks in Desert Storm. Approximately a half dozen were fired at Iraqi bunkers during Desert Storm. That's it, ever, fired in combat. 88,000 produced and 6 fired in war. The missiles were never deployed to Vietnam and were not used in Panama.

We destroyed most of the deployed Shilleaghs in theater at the end of DS. I've got pictures of long rows of missles laid out in the sand with reflectors placed around them to keep the forklifts from driving over them at night. Heat exposure caused swelling and exudation of the main charge explosive; the missiles were too dangerous to ship back to the states.

As to the earlier question about practice round cost for the M1 120mm main gun: TP-T (target practice with tracer) rounds to mimic the 120mm HEAT round ranged from $497 to $1355 each depending on the contract and amount purchased. TPCSDS-T (target practice cone stabilized discarding sabot with tracer) rounds subbing for the depleted uranium penetrator rounds cost $490 to $1115 each depending on contract and exactly which model was purchased. The TPMP-T (target practice multi-purpose with tracer) round costs $2013; newer round and smaller purchase. Note that the TPCSDS-T rounds are made of high grade steel (to withstand the gun launch) and will go clean through a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and older Soviet design tanks. The DU rounds are never fired in practice.

Thanks ex-tank for your service and starting the thread.

[X. L. Lent]

Was your tank's engine named Thomas?

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

Originally Posted by smithsb

Sheridans never fired Shilleaghs at tanks in Desert Storm. Approximately a half dozen were fired at Iraqi bunkers during Desert Storm. That's it, ever, fired in combat. 88,000 produced and 6 fired in war. The missiles were never deployed to Vietnam and were not used in Panama.

We destroyed most of the deployed Shilleaghs in theater at the end of DS. I've got pictures of long rows of missles laid out in the sand with reflectors placed around them to keep the forklifts from driving over them at night. Heat exposure caused swelling and exudation of the main charge explosive; the missiles were too dangerous to ship back to the states.

I didn't realize those things were crap. I just remember seeing one and thinking firing a missile from a tank gun is not a bad idea, especially if it's a smaller tank that wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with a MBT.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by X. L. Lent

Was your tank's engine named Thomas?

Herbert.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by smithsb

Sheridans never fired Shilleaghs at tanks in Desert Storm. Approximately a half dozen were fired at Iraqi bunkers during Desert Storm. That's it, ever, fired in combat. 88,000 produced and 6 fired in war. The missiles were never deployed to Vietnam and were not used in Panama.

We destroyed most of the deployed Shilleaghs in theater at the end of DS. I've got pictures of long rows of missles laid out in the sand with reflectors placed around them to keep the forklifts from driving over them at night. Heat exposure caused swelling and exudation of the main charge explosive; the missiles were too dangerous to ship back to the states.

As to the earlier question about practice round cost for the M1 120mm main gun: TP-T (target practice with tracer) rounds to mimic the 120mm HEAT round ranged from $497 to $1355 each depending on the contract and amount purchased. TPCSDS-T (target practice cone stabilized discarding sabot with tracer) rounds subbing for the depleted uranium penetrator rounds cost $490 to $1115 each depending on contract and exactly which model was purchased. The TPMP-T (target practice multi-purpose with tracer) round costs $2013; newer round and smaller purchase. Note that the TPCSDS-T rounds are made of high grade steel (to withstand the gun launch) and will go clean through a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and older Soviet design tanks. The DU rounds are never fired in practice.

Thanks ex-tank for your service and starting the thread.

Thanks for contributing some good info! I honestly thought that those rounds were easily double the prices you gave. Still not cheap, but better than I'd thought.

[kombatminipig]

I have an oddball question: during training, how much did you guys get to "play war"? Was training simply unloading on targets at a range and running around prepared tracks, or did also involve the fun stuff, running around terrain chasing tanks from the enemy team?

Also, thanks for this thread =) As a child I got to see firing demo of Merkava Mk3s, I've never forgotten how bloody huge those things were in real life.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by kombatminipig

I have an oddball question: during training, how much did you guys get to "play war"? Was training simply unloading on targets at a range and running around prepared tracks, or did also involve the fun stuff, running around terrain chasing tanks from the enemy team?

The "maneuver" training had just a smuch (possibly more) emphasis than gunnery. We'd practice platoon and company level maneuvers in conjunction with other companies in our battalion, playing "war" against another unit designated as OPFOR (Opposing FORces).

We'd use the MILES system (an Army-tough laser tag system for personnel and vehicles) on just about all of our armored vehicles to play war with.

The maneuver training emphasised tactical movement, coordinated offensive and defensive tactics. The "Big Test" was our ARTEP (Army Training and Evaluation Program), which was an important graded test to determine if a unit was combat-ready and deployable. Failing an ARTEP was a career-ender for an officer.

The military's training philosophy (when I was in, and I don't see it having changed too much) was, "Crawl, Walk, Run." Every soldier, regardless of their specific job, or MOS, had several "Common Tasks" that every soldier should know, and training on them was called CTT or Common Tasks Training.

Passing CTT, a unit would move on to job-specific training. Infantry has the EIB or Expert Infantry Badge. Tankers didn't have an equivalent "Badge" they could be awarded, but we'd do lots of UCOFT, a large tank gunnery simulator for the TC and Gunner. I think that the Army now has a complete tank simulator for the whole crew.

But the UCOFT is what I had to deal with, and there was a matrix of increasingly difficult gunnery exercises. We'd train "all-up" with the fire control system fully operational, in daylight, night (Thermal) and low visibility (fog and low-light). We'd train to use the Gunner's Auxillary Sight, an optics-only (there wa san illuminated reticle for night-fire) tank gun sight that many gunners claimed was more accurate than the computer-assisted fire control.

We'd train to shoot (from both stationary positions and "on-the-move") stationary targets, moving targets, troops, and even helicopters, in daylight, low-light (dawn/dusk), fog/rain, and night time with mortar-fired illumination rounds.

Yes, we could shoot down aircraft with the main gun. I'm not saying it was easy; it wasn't. But it was a gunnery scenario we at least trained for in the UCOFT simulator.

After UCOFT, it was out of the motorpool and into the field for maneuver training and gunnery, followed by the ARTEP. Tank Table XII was the platoon-level gunnery exercise, in which a tank platoon would maneuver and fire on a firing range against a simulated enemy. Since both Gunnery and ARTEPS were the final grade of a tank unit, both would often be held in very close conjunction with each other.

Originally Posted by kombatminipig

Also, thanks for this thread =) As a child I got to see firing demo of Merkava Mk3s, I've never forgotten how bloody huge those things were in real life.

You're welcome. Like I said upthread, MBTs have a presence mere pictures can't convey, and a massiveness that isn't truly appreciated until you feel one roll by.

[Mr. Excellent]

Other than the tank commander being in charge, is there a chain of command on a tank? For example, is a gunner normally senior to a driver, or vice-versa?

[MichaelEmouse]

How vulnerable are tank tracks to small arms fire? If replacing tracks is such a big deal, I'd expect infantry to shoot the tracks.

During the second Iraq war, I read about an manoeuvre during the Invasion of Iraq where a column of tanks put a lot of smoke in the middle of Baghdad and just rolled through and then exited the city. There was no mention of infantry support. What's the purpose of a manoeuvre like that? Apparently it went well but but weren't tanks vulnerable to being hit by RPGs fired from a few stories up?

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Mr. Excellent

Other than the tank commander being in charge, is there a chain of command on a tank? For example, is a gunner normally senior to a driver, or vice-versa?

Typical (but by no means mandatory) progression as a newbie comes up through the ranks is Loader, Driver, Gunner, then TC. But a 'cruit (new recruit fresh out of Basic) may get thrown into a Driver's slot, if that's where they need the warm body.

In addition to loading the gun, the Loader also sets up/programs the radio system, and takes care of most routine turret maintenance, and assists the Gunner with more advanced turret/gun system maintenance.

The Driver, aside from driving the tank, typically handles all routine hull maintenance, often with assistance from the Loader, and maybe the Gunner, too, for heavier tasks.

The Gunner is primarily in charge of the main gun and fire control system, and it's calibration, as well as supervising and occasionally assisting the Loader and Driver
in their routine maintenance tasks.

The Tank Commander is on overall charge, and is tasked with training his crew, and having an operational, combat-ready vehicle.

The tank can run on just three people (doing without the Gunner as the TC can fire the main gun), but it's not as efficient as having the full four-man crew. What may typically happen is the Loader will be shanghied for Shit Detail, so the Gunner will move over to the loader's station and play Loader for a while.

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

How vulnerable are tank tracks to small arms fire? If replacing tracks is such a big deal, I'd expect infantry to shoot the tracks.

Well, to a certain extent, yes. But most infantry-portable lead-chuckers won't bother a tank's tracks. They'd need at least small rockets to accomplish that, and they aren't the most accurate.

And it's not like we'll just sit there and let you shoot us. Expect to eat some lead.

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

During the second Iraq war, I read about an manoeuvre during the Invasion of Iraq where a column of tanks put a lot of smoke in the middle of Baghdad and just rolled through and then exited the city. There was no mention of infantry support. What's the purpose of a manoeuvre like that? Apparently it went well but but weren't tanks vulnerable to being hit by RPGs fired from a few stories up?

Any armored fighting vehicle is vuilnerable to anti-armor rockets fired from above.

The scenario you described may be the [in]famous "Thunder Run." A ballsy move, but not without its consequences.

Speed/mobility is one of the key protections of a tank. And a city has lots of highways, roads, and streets by which to navigate. So a "Thunder Run" through a modern city like Baghdad has the advantage of being able to pick their routes though more lightly defended sectors (possibly using Cavalry to "feint" in one direction to draw the bulk of the defenders away from the "Thunder Run" route )

And, once again, there's two good machineguns on the turret, one of which can be fired from inside the tank. So any notional rooftop defenders (which are relatively easy to spot due to their silhoutetting themselve against the sky when they show themselves) had better be ready for a fight, and to receive fire.

Ever see what a .50 cal bullet, or better yet, a whole bunch of .50 cal bullets, do to a modern building? It's not pretty.

"Ma Deuce: Teaching People The Difference Between Concealment And Cover For 75+ Years."

[XanderCrews]

Bump.

Finished crew gunnery last week. It was a blast. We Q1ed with 764 and 8/10. Very good score for never having worked together as a crew before.

On the last night I had the TC's engagement and as they were loading the sabot round they slammed my patrol cap over the spike and I shot it out of the main gun.

[MaxTheVool]

What an interesting thread. I do have a few questions:

(1) Do you really steer a tank by having two levers, one for the left tread and one for the right tread, and you push them both forward to go forward, one left and one right to turn, etc? (Ie, the way it works in video games.)

(2) Tanks are one of those things that have this feel of testosteroneish badass awesomeness to them... in fact, they're very near the top of that list. Did they seem that way to you before you actually worked with them? And did that feeling increase or decrease over time?

(3) Do tanks have an ignition key? If some bad guys who knew as much as you did snuck into your camp in the middle of the night and managed to get to where the tanks were parked, could they just hop in, close the hatch, and go on a savage terror rampage?

(4) On a similar (admittedly morbid) note, suppose a fully trained tank team based at some army base near a major US city just lost it one day, got into a fully armed tank (I'm sure tanks aren't generally kept fully armed, but just go with the hypothetical), drove off the base, drove into the US city, and just started driving around blowing things up, what do you think would happen? Could a single tank bring down a full-sized office building or skyscraper? Could a metro police department ever stop a tank before it ran out of gas? (Granted, I assume/hope there are plenty of safeguards in place to keep anything like this from happening...) (I know there was one incident where a guy got a tank from a national guard armory, but as I recall it was just one of him, not a full crew, and he was just driving it, not shooting stuff.)


Thanks for your answers.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

What an interesting thread. I do have a few questions:

(1) Do you really steer a tank by having two levers, one for the left tread and one for the right tread, and you push them both forward to go forward, one left and one right to turn, etc? (Ie, the way it works in video games.)

(2) Tanks are one of those things that have this feel of testosteroneish badass awesomeness to them... in fact, they're very near the top of that list. Did they seem that way to you before you actually worked with them? And did that feeling increase or decrease over time?

(3) Do tanks have an ignition key? If some bad guys who knew as much as you did snuck into your camp in the middle of the night and managed to get to where the tanks were parked, could they just hop in, close the hatch, and go on a savage terror rampage?

(4) On a similar (admittedly morbid) note, suppose a fully trained tank team based at some army base near a major US city just lost it one day, got into a fully armed tank (I'm sure tanks aren't generally kept fully armed, but just go with the hypothetical), drove off the base, drove into the US city, and just started driving around blowing things up, what do you think would happen? Could a single tank bring down a full-sized office building or skyscraper? Could a metro police department ever stop a tank before it ran out of gas? (Granted, I assume/hope there are plenty of safeguards in place to keep anything like this from happening...) (I know there was one incident where a guy got a tank from a national guard armory, but as I recall it was just one of him, not a full crew, and he was just driving it, not shooting stuff.)


Thanks for your answers.

1 No. Older models such as the Sherman I believe had something like that. Tried to find a picture but couldn't. Its a T-bar assembly on the M1.

2 For me it was pretty cool. But its a job and it feels like a job. Usually when shooting its for a qualification and there is pressure to perform so you don't have time to enjoy it.

3 Pretty much. No ignition key. you can lock them from the outside but I won't tell you how.

4 Outside of combat tanks, or any Army equipment, is not stored with ammo. The ammo is at the ASP (ammunition supply point) which is guarded and regulated. It would not be easy to get tank rounds and a tank. Tank ammo is generally anti-armor. Although HEAT rounds are explosive its a shaped charge. They are not ideal for taking down buildings. Tank rounds would tend to go through and leave holes rather than blow up buildings. Sabot rounds are just depleted uranium darts going at high speed.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Loach

1 No. Older models such as the Sherman I believe had something like that. Tried to find a picture but couldn't. Its a T-bar assembly on the M1.

I actually have an interesting story about that... it sounds like an urban legend, but it was related to me by the actual person involved. So I work in the video game industry, and my boss used to be Ed Rotberg. He had previously worked on the arcade tank game Battlezone. So after Battlezone came out, he was approached by some guys from the military (presumably the army, but I don't want to add details that I don't really know the truth of) who wanted a slightly modified version of Battlezone with more information presented on the screen (and presumably other differences now long forgotten). Anyhow, while talking to these guys, he got to take a ride in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and saw its control yoke, and liked it so much that he copied/adapted it as the control system for the classic Star Wars video game.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

I actually have an interesting story about that... it sounds like an urban legend, but it was related to me by the actual person involved. So I work in the video game industry, and my boss used to be Ed Rotberg. He had previously worked on the arcade tank game Battlezone. So after Battlezone came out, he was approached by some guys from the military (presumably the army, but I don't want to add details that I don't really know the truth of) who wanted a slightly modified version of Battlezone with more information presented on the screen (and presumably other differences now long forgotten). Anyhow, while talking to these guys, he got to take a ride in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and saw its control yoke, and liked it so much that he copied/adapted it as the control system for the classic Star Wars video game.

That is actually pretty similar to the gunner's controls. Third picture down on this link is the gunner's station.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...st-quot-7-4-07

[ExTank]

What he said ^ .

[MichaelEmouse]

What do you think of putting the engine in front of the crew compartment, like the Merkava design?

Would a lot of shrapnel or 20-30mm explosive rounds be effective in rendering a tank severely impaired? Would it break the tracks and viewports/sensors, thus rendering the tank blind and immobile?

[ExTank]

Eh. If it works for the Israelis, then whatever. Personally, I'm not too keen on putting up front, since that's where the main armor belt is for the hull, and like a Claymore, it's there for a reason: "Front Towards Enemy."

So I'd think the chance of a "mobility kill" (tank rendered immobile due to engine/drivetrain damage) would be increased in that kind of arrangement.

[MichaelEmouse]

Originally Posted by ExTank

Eh. If it works for the Israelis, then whatever. Personally, I'm not too keen on putting up front, since that's where the main armor belt is for the hull, and like a Claymore, it's there for a reason: "Front Towards Enemy."

So I'd think the chance of a "mobility kill" (tank rendered immobile due to engine/drivetrain damage) would be increased in that kind of arrangement.

Isn't the alternative putting the crew compartment in front of the engine instead of the other way around? I got the impression that the Merkva roughly puts the crew compartment where the engine normally is and puts the engine where the crew compartment normally is.

In a tank with a normal configuration, what's in the front? There's a lot of armor, the driver, what else?

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

Isn't the alternative putting the crew compartment in front of the engine instead of the other way around? I got the impression that the Merkva roughly puts the crew compartment where the engine normally is and puts the engine where the crew compartment normally is.

In a tank with a normal configuration, what's in the front? There's a lot of armor, the driver, what else?

I forgot about the short-squad of infantry the Merkava carries. Yeah, I'd guess it's better to keep the crunchies in back and leave the engine up front.

On an Abrams, there's also two fuel tanks up front, but in separate compartments, to either side of the driver. The Abrams uses compartmentalization extensively.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

(4) On a similar (admittedly morbid) note, suppose a fully trained tank team based at some army base near a major US city just lost it one day, got into a fully armed tank (I'm sure tanks aren't generally kept fully armed, but just go with the hypothetical), drove off the base, drove into the US city, and just started driving around blowing things up, what do you think would happen? Could a single tank bring down a full-sized office building or skyscraper? Could a metro police department ever stop a tank before it ran out of gas? (Granted, I assume/hope there are plenty of safeguards in place to keep anything like this from happening...) (I know there was one incident where a guy got a tank from a national guard armory, but as I recall it was just one of him, not a full crew, and he was just driving it, not shooting stuff.)


Thanks for your answers.

If you can steal even an unarmed tank, you can still wreak massive havoc. Have you not seen this video?

Although I believe this was an M-60, you get the idea.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/149488...e_stolen_tank/

[Capt Kirk]

I know it's kinda morbid. But I have to ask in training did they talk to you about surviving a penetrating hit? I saw the pics from GW1 and the destroyed Iraqi tanks and you guys must have had an idea by then, and I am sure knew what to do in case you needed to get out of a damaged tank but did they tell you how bad it could be? I am curious and feel free to pass on this one if it's too much

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

I know it's kinda morbid. But I have to ask in training did they talk to you about surviving a penetrating hit? I saw the pics from GW1 and the destroyed Iraqi tanks and you guys must have had an idea by then, and I am sure knew what to do in case you needed to get out of a damaged tank but did they tell you how bad it could be? I am curious and feel free to pass on this one if it's too much

No, it was never officially touched on in training. What was emphasized was armor, compartmentalization, fire detection/suppression system; IOW, crew survivablility. What was given even more emphasis was safety: as I mentioned upthread, there's 101 ways an Abrams will hurt/maim/cripple/kill you before you ever get in range of an enemy.

But we always kind of figured that if a hit got through, we'd probably be dead before we even knew what hit us. In a catastrophic kill, like most of the Iraqi tanks, it was probably like that. But there were horror stories from the "Old Hands" (think of an older uncle who likes to scare the kids with spooky/creepy stoies) about burning alive inside a tank because hatches are jammed after being hit, and other morbid tales of various ways to go.

[AK84]

What do you think of autoloaders in MBT's.

[Capt Kirk]

Originally Posted by ExTank

No, it was never officially touched on in training. What was emphasized was armor, compartmentalization, fire detection/suppression system; IOW, crew survivablility. What was given even more emphasis was safety: as I mentioned upthread, there's 101 ways an Abrams will hurt/maim/cripple/kill you before you ever get in range of an enemy.

But we always kind of figured that if a hit got through, we'd probably be dead before we even knew what hit us. In a catastrophic kill, like most of the Iraqi tanks, it was probably like that. But there were horror stories from the "Old Hands" (think of an older uncle who likes to scare the kids with spooky/creepy stoies) about burning alive inside a tank because hatches are jammed after being hit, and other morbid tales of various ways to go.

Yeah I was thinking about the horror stories from WW2 and the Shermans/Ronsons thanks for answering, if I win the Lotto I am buying from Tanks for Sale

http://www.milweb.net/home.php

[ExTank]

Originally Posted by AK84

What do you think of autoloaders in MBT's.

It's a tradeoff. I'd personally rather have the extra pair of hands for when heavy vehicle maintenance is required.