In article <Bzo8Iw.Bqz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Patrick H. McAllister" <fed!m1phm02@uunet.uu.net> writes:
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.
Let's think this through... If you fire two and sometimes three
rounds to get a tank kill, that works out to 15-20 tanks destroyed
without reloading. (None of this, "But what about misses?" It may
not have been the case in the desert with the M1A1, but in general
miss twice and the the tank destroyed is yours. The possible third
round is in case the enemy is playing possum.)
So force planning should be based on each tank destroy one enemy
company, then go home for lunch? Give me a break. If you are that
outnumbered, the enemy infantry is much more of a threat than the enemy
tanks. (Tanks without infantry support are dead tanks, so defend your
local GI. :-)
Adding a few rounds of cannister and smoke (white phosporous) to
a tank's basic load would do a lot for survivability, and only in some
fantasy world would it limit lethality. During WWII there were many
tank battles in which tanks took on fuel and ammo during the battle.
Any Desert Storm vets out there know the story on our tanks? I assume
they refueled and reloaded during the four days of combat. And did
any single tank have more than a dozen armor kills? In a single
engagement?
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
