From "Patrick H. McAllister" <fed!m1phm02@uunet.uu.net>
In article <BzEzGM.FnM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
>
> From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
>
> Daniel F. Boyd writes:
> #Why don't we have a canister round for the M-1? It seems like such a
> #simple thing to not have! How expensive could it be to develop a
> #canister round?
>
> Because the "user" wants only two rounds: KE and HEAT-MP. Period.
>
To expand on this a little, I believe the Army's doctrine follows from:
(1) tanks are never supposed to be on the battlefield alone; there will always be infantry present as well, with artillery, AA, etc. nearby.
(2) the infantry, etc. have weapons that are optimized for killing opposing infantry, helicopters, and what have you, but tank guns are optimized for killing other tanks.
(3) the M1 has relatively limited storage capacity for the 120mm rounds (about 40, as I recall).
The conclusion is that the M1 needs to devote all of its limited capacity to storing ammo that will be useful against opposing armored vehicles -- that is, KE and HEAT rounds.
