# AC-130 vs M1 Abrams? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 9, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ac-130-vs-m1-abrams/592089 "2011-08-09T15:26:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ac-130-vs-m1-abrams/592089/21 "2011-08-10T21:23:44Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > **ExTank** , from your experience, could an Abrams successfully engage an AC-130 with either the commander’s .50 or the main gun? I’d think the 5000 foot + orbit altitude would make the COAX ineffective. Highly doubtful. See below. > [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > I’ve spoken with tankers who claimed, _if they had no other choice_, their countermeasure to a helicopter engaging with ATGMs was to try and kill it with the main gun (M-48A5’s 105-mm). They seemed confident they could do it. Of course, hitting a hovering Hind near the ground is probably a LOT easier than trying to see/track an AC-130 at night. (Could you even see it, even with NVG? I’m guessing the Thermal Viewer could pick it up, provided the AC-130 was within the F-o-V) Still, sabot rounds have sufficient range to hit the AC-130. And the ungodly muzzle velocity would make the lead calculations a little easier. We’ve practiced engaging helicopters in the UCOFT (Unit Conduct Of Fire Trainer) tank gunnery simulator, and that includes everything from full-up computer-assisted to engaging manually (hand cranking the turret through azimuth and elevation), at night, with the auxiliary sight, using mortar-flares for illumination. It ain’t easy; with practice, it’s certainly doable. But like you say, that’s engaging a stationary or slowly moving helicopter at near-ground altitudes. Most aircraft, and certainly an AC-130 operating at the altitudes **LSLGuy** describes, is quite outside an Abram’s engagement envelope, in both range and angularity. Even at near-ground level, “fast movers” (just about any fixed-wing aircraft) will be very difficult to hit, even with computer assist, unless you get just the right angle on them; the system just isn’t designed to hit targets moving that fast. And aircraft show up _very_ well in the thermal sight. > [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Can the Abrams’s main gun even be fired while the turret was traversing, like a wingshooter swinging through the bird? Or would you just put the sights “X” plane lengths ahead, and then shoot? Oh, certainly. Computer-assisted gyro stabilization does wonders. The tank can be turning left, while the gunner tracks a target moving right, lase it for range, the computer adjusts, and one big bang/pow later, you have one dead target (assuming the gunner doesn’t bobble the shot). We even practiced doing that completely manually, with zero computer assist, with the auxiliary sight, at night, in the UCOFT. Again, it ain’t easy. But with practice, and some small degree of skill, it _is_ doable. And just for the record, the Abrams is hardly alone in the world of Armor in having these capabilites. The English, Germans, French, and to a lesser degree, the Russians, can do these kinds of things. Hell, the Chinese might be able to do it. Whether they devote the kind of doctrinal/gunnery training to do it is another matter entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ac-130-vs-m1-abrams/592089/22 "2011-08-11T16:36:31Z")
I must share this: [http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded\_images/ac130\_gunner-798727.jpg](http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/ac130_gunner-798727.jpg) The bottom line, obscured by the #&%^! website tag, reads, “Her dislikes include feed tray stoppages, tracer flareout of her NVGs and premature fixed-wing strikes scattering her high-value targets.” ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ac-130-vs-m1-abrams/592089/23 "2011-08-11T20:26:33Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > I must share this: [http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded\_images/ac130\_gunner-798727.jpg](http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/ac130_gunner-798727.jpg) > > The bottom line, obscured by the #&%^! website tag, reads, “Her dislikes include feed tray stoppages, tracer flareout of her NVGs and premature fixed-wing strikes scattering her high-value targets.” I don’t think the AC-130 has window-mounted guns like that. More likely it’s some variant of the Blackhawk. I want to say our Search and Rescue birds like to carry miniguns to make sure the bad guys are ducking when they’re grabbing the guy they’re rescuing. ---
**Author:** ![mac\_bolan00](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b3f665/32.png) [@mac\_bolan00](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mac_bolan00)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ac-130-vs-m1-abrams/592089/24 "2011-08-12T05:13:39Z")
an A-10 or even a C-130AC firing DU could destroy the gun or the tracks. what use will the tank be then? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ac-130-vs-m1-abrams/592089.md?page=1)