Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
EnsignExpendable

XM1 Not Very Stronk

Recommended Posts

...

 

They're making some bizarre assumptions.  Why is the probability of casualty due to rocket hits mainly a function of the hydraulics catching on fire?  Sure, this issue got a lot of attention in 1973, mainly because they hadn't thought about it before, but another one of the driving causes of crew loss and catastrophic tank loss is ammunition fire.  Ammunition compartmentalization is one of the areas where the abrams is clearly superior to peer designs.

 

Likewise, I'm not sure the person writing this report (is this another one of those military reform hatchet jobs?  It kinda smells like it) knows how infra-red imaging works.  Infra-red imagers are coated with magical, uber-expensive materials that only let through the wavelength of IR that the imager is sensitive to.  The range of frequencies of "IR" (which is a largely arbitrary designation based on the wavelength where our eyesight stops working particularly well to the approximate wavelength where things start acting more like radio waves) goes from 430 THz to 300 GHz, whereas visible light goes from 430 to 790 GHz.  You can make meaningful generalizations about the behavior of visible light, since all those wonderful, diverse colors we can see are very, very close to each other in wavelength.  IR is much harder to make generalizations about.

 

So, the fact that the abrams' turbine rejects more waste heat and rejects it at a higher temperature does not mean that it will have a higher infra-red signature to ground-based IR sensors.  Most tank thermal imagers make images like this:

 

TIS_Image_2.jpg

 

Where the people are bright white.

 

You don't need to do too much figuring with Wien's displacement law and black-body peak radiation intensity calculations to figure that a sensor that can pick up the wavelength that a 37C human body is not necessarily going to be too sensitive to 500C AGT-1500 exhaust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
×
×
  • Create New...