±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 549
Total: 549
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Downloads
03: Community Forums
04: Statistics
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Community Forums
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Photo Gallery
12: Community Forums
13: News Archive
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Home
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Home
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Downloads
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Home
31: Community Forums
32: Photo Gallery
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Photo Gallery
40: Community Forums
41: Home
42: Community Forums
43: Photo Gallery
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Home
53: Photo Gallery
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Home
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Home
70: Photo Gallery
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Photo Gallery
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Your Account
77: Community Forums
78: Community Forums
79: Photo Gallery
80: News Archive
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Photo Gallery
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Downloads
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Photo Gallery
91: CPGlang
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Photo Gallery
97: Community Forums
98: Home
99: Photo Gallery
100: Photo Gallery
101: Photo Gallery
102: Community Forums
103: Photo Gallery
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Member Screenshots
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Community Forums
123: Home
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Community Forums
127: Photo Gallery
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Statistics
132: Home
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Photo Gallery
136: Community Forums
137: Community Forums
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: Photo Gallery
141: Community Forums
142: Photo Gallery
143: Community Forums
144: Home
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Your Account
148: Community Forums
149: Your Account
150: Statistics
151: Downloads
152: Community Forums
153: Community Forums
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Photo Gallery
157: Photo Gallery
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Downloads
161: Photo Gallery
162: Community Forums
163: Community Forums
164: Community Forums
165: Community Forums
166: Downloads
167: Downloads
168: Community Forums
169: Community Forums
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: Community Forums
173: Community Forums
174: Community Forums
175: Community Forums
176: Community Forums
177: Community Forums
178: Community Forums
179: Photo Gallery
180: Community Forums
181: Home
182: Home
183: Community Forums
184: Community Forums
185: Member Screenshots
186: Community Forums
187: Community Forums
188: Photo Gallery
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Downloads
192: Photo Gallery
193: Community Forums
194: Your Account
195: Photo Gallery
196: Photo Gallery
197: Community Forums
198: Photo Gallery
199: Community Forums
200: Community Forums
201: Community Forums
202: Community Forums
203: Community Forums
204: Community Forums
205: Home
206: Photo Gallery
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Community Forums
210: Member Screenshots
211: Photo Gallery
212: Photo Gallery
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Downloads
217: Community Forums
218: Home
219: Community Forums
220: Community Forums
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Community Forums
228: News Archive
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: CPGlang
235: Community Forums
236: Home
237: Member Screenshots
238: Home
239: Your Account
240: Community Forums
241: Community Forums
242: Community Forums
243: Downloads
244: Community Forums
245: Community Forums
246: Your Account
247: Downloads
248: Photo Gallery
249: Community Forums
250: Community Forums
251: Community Forums
252: Community Forums
253: Downloads
254: Photo Gallery
255: Home
256: Community Forums
257: Community Forums
258: Home
259: Photo Gallery
260: Community Forums
261: Community Forums
262: Community Forums
263: Photo Gallery
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Photo Gallery
267: Community Forums
268: Community Forums
269: Community Forums
270: Photo Gallery
271: Community Forums
272: Community Forums
273: Community Forums
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Community Forums
277: Home
278: Community Forums
279: Community Forums
280: Photo Gallery
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Photo Gallery
285: Community Forums
286: Community Forums
287: Community Forums
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Photo Gallery
292: News
293: Community Forums
294: Community Forums
295: Your Account
296: Photo Gallery
297: Home
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Home
301: Community Forums
302: Community Forums
303: Home
304: Community Forums
305: Home
306: CPGlang
307: Home
308: Community Forums
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Community Forums
312: Photo Gallery
313: Community Forums
314: Downloads
315: Community Forums
316: Member Screenshots
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Photo Gallery
320: Downloads
321: Photo Gallery
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Photo Gallery
325: Community Forums
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Home
329: Community Forums
330: Community Forums
331: Community Forums
332: Photo Gallery
333: Photo Gallery
334: Your Account
335: Photo Gallery
336: Community Forums
337: Community Forums
338: Photo Gallery
339: Community Forums
340: Photo Gallery
341: Photo Gallery
342: Home
343: Community Forums
344: Community Forums
345: Community Forums
346: Community Forums
347: Community Forums
348: Community Forums
349: Community Forums
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Downloads
353: Home
354: Photo Gallery
355: Community Forums
356: Photo Gallery
357: Community Forums
358: Community Forums
359: Home
360: Community Forums
361: Community Forums
362: Community Forums
363: Community Forums
364: Downloads
365: Community Forums
366: Community Forums
367: Community Forums
368: Photo Gallery
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Home
373: Community Forums
374: Community Forums
375: Your Account
376: Your Account
377: Community Forums
378: Community Forums
379: Member Screenshots
380: Community Forums
381: Community Forums
382: Community Forums
383: Community Forums
384: Community Forums
385: Community Forums
386: Community Forums
387: Community Forums
388: Community Forums
389: Community Forums
390: Home
391: Community Forums
392: Photo Gallery
393: Community Forums
394: Member Screenshots
395: Home
396: Community Forums
397: Community Forums
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: CPGlang
401: Community Forums
402: CPGlang
403: Photo Gallery
404: Community Forums
405: Photo Gallery
406: Community Forums
407: Community Forums
408: Community Forums
409: Community Forums
410: CPGlang
411: Downloads
412: Community Forums
413: Photo Gallery
414: Photo Gallery
415: Home
416: Community Forums
417: Community Forums
418: CPGlang
419: Community Forums
420: Community Forums
421: Community Forums
422: Community Forums
423: Community Forums
424: Community Forums
425: Community Forums
426: Home
427: Downloads
428: Community Forums
429: Photo Gallery
430: Photo Gallery
431: CPGlang
432: Community Forums
433: Community Forums
434: Member Screenshots
435: Community Forums
436: Community Forums
437: Community Forums
438: Your Account
439: Community Forums
440: Downloads
441: Home
442: Statistics
443: Community Forums
444: Community Forums
445: Photo Gallery
446: Community Forums
447: Photo Gallery
448: Community Forums
449: Community Forums
450: Community Forums
451: Downloads
452: Community Forums
453: Community Forums
454: Home
455: Community Forums
456: Community Forums
457: Photo Gallery
458: Community Forums
459: Photo Gallery
460: Community Forums
461: Downloads
462: Community Forums
463: Community Forums
464: Member Screenshots
465: Photo Gallery
466: Community Forums
467: Statistics
468: Community Forums
469: Photo Gallery
470: Photo Gallery
471: Home
472: Community Forums
473: Community Forums
474: Community Forums
475: Community Forums
476: Photo Gallery
477: Photo Gallery
478: Photo Gallery
479: Community Forums
480: CPGlang
481: Community Forums
482: Community Forums
483: Community Forums
484: Community Forums
485: Community Forums
486: Photo Gallery
487: Community Forums
488: Community Forums
489: Photo Gallery
490: Community Forums
491: Community Forums
492: Community Forums
493: Community Forums
494: Downloads
495: Community Forums
496: Community Forums
497: Community Forums
498: Community Forums
499: Community Forums
500: Community Forums
501: Downloads
502: Community Forums
503: Community Forums
504: CPGlang
505: Photo Gallery
506: Community Forums
507: Home
508: Community Forums
509: Community Forums
510: Community Forums
511: Community Forums
512: Community Forums
513: Photo Gallery
514: Community Forums
515: Community Forums
516: Community Forums
517: Community Forums
518: Community Forums
519: Community Forums
520: Photo Gallery
521: Community Forums
522: Photo Gallery
523: Home
524: Community Forums
525: Community Forums
526: Community Forums
527: Community Forums
528: Community Forums
529: Home
530: Community Forums
531: Community Forums
532: Community Forums
533: Community Forums
534: Community Forums
535: Community Forums
536: Community Forums
537: Your Account
538: Community Forums
539: Community Forums
540: Downloads
541: Community Forums
542: Community Forums
543: Community Forums
544: Community Forums
545: Your Account
546: Community Forums
547: Home
548: Community Forums
549: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Skeet
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 15, 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 7:12 pm
Post subject: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

The Abrams carries a 120 mm non-rifled cannon. I understand the non-rifled cannon allows a shaped charge projectile to function better, but it also seems to be able to hit targets waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there.

How's it do that?
Back to top
View user's profile
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:26 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

Skeet,
I can name two basic changes. Modern fire control systems that compensate for variables such as Range, Air Temp, Barometric pressure, Ammo temp, Cant, Lead, etc. coupled with ballistic solutions that can be calculated for individual type rounds within 1 meter using this data. All is done with the gunner pressing a lase button. The other is that almost all modern tank rounds are fin stabilized and do not need to be spun to stay accurate. Even the old 105mm rifled guns eventually fired primarily fin stabilzed rounds. Quality of production also reduces round to round dispersion within round types allowing longer more accurate engagements too. I guess that makes three. I can write pages of what has been done in the last 30 years to improve accuracy, but basically what modern electronics has done for automobiles pretty much applies to tanks.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 5:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

I dimmly recall in the early 80s someone (the British?) held a competition to see which gun they were going to choose for their next generation tank. They used the standard 105mm gun as a baseline for comparison, firing its APFSDS round. To everyone's horror the 105mm solidly outperformed all the modern technology 120mm contenders as far as accuracy went. It seems even with driving bands a 105mm APFSDS round would still be given a slight rotation. Apparently this was enough to turn any tendency to drift into a corkscrew path as the dart flew downrange. - I hope I'm recalling this story correctly.

Rheinmetall in particular didn't like the results of those tests. It's possible this embarrassment in trials drove much of the insane standards in modern fire controls. Everything from tube wear to weather to propellant temperature is thrown into the mix.
Back to top
View user's profile
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

I have a dumb question.
I read somewhere how when firing the Russian 125mm gun the ballistics calculations are adjusted according to propellant temps. I also read somewhere that one flavor of Merkava or another includes temperature-controlled ammo storage to maximize performance (or more accurately, to avoid degradation). At least at one point Israeli 120mm gun ammo was quite temp-sensitive.

Here's the dumb question - What about Abrams? How do they monitor propellant temps? Is that rear turret bustle temp-controlled at all? or is it monitored by a themostat in order to automatically adjust ballistics computations? I believe for T-72s they'd simply take an air temp reading in the morning and use those calculations all day (yesterday was -8 c, today its +40 c).
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

- mike_Duplessis
....Here's the dumb question - What about Abrams? How do they monitor propellant temps? Is that rear turret bustle temp-controlled at all? or is it monitored by a themostat in order to automatically adjust ballistics computations? I believe for T-72s they'd simply take an air temp reading in the morning and use those calculations all day (yesterday was -8 c, today its +40 c).


No such thing as a dumb question....

Actually there is an ammo temp gauge in the turret. One simply input temp into FCS and the 'little hamsters in the white box' ( Shocked - Just kidding on the hamsters...) calculates the ballistic solution with all inputed info.

Ammo 'wells' seem to run much cooler than crew compartment. Ammo doors block out residual heat from turret & outside.

Many times (as am M-1, IPM-1, & M1A1 gunner) I remember temps in ammo wells running in 100-120 degree range. Ft Polk actually seemed to be the worst.

Don

_________________
"Gonna hold my breath until Armor returns home..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

- mike_Duplessis
I dimmly recall in the early 80s someone (the British?) held a competition to see which gun they were going to choose for their next generation tank. They used the standard 105mm gun as a baseline for comparison, firing its APFSDS round. To everyone's horror the 105mm solidly outperformed all the modern technology 120mm contenders as far as accuracy went. It seems even with driving bands a 105mm APFSDS round would still be given a slight rotation. Apparently this was enough to turn any tendency to drift into a corkscrew path as the dart flew downrange. - I hope I'm recalling this story correctly.

Rheinmetall in particular didn't like the results of those tests. It's possible this embarrassment in trials drove much of the insane standards in modern fire controls. Everything from tube wear to weather to propellant temperature is thrown into the mix.


Mike

In 1988 'we' had some serious problems with the 120mm ammo. Initially it was packaged, shipped, and delivered in wooden crates like the 105 ammo. This caused serious preformance reliability problems.

When 'we' were doing CAT 89 train up, we found that round to round dispersion was way off the scale. 'Our' goal was to hit a coke can at 1500m. With the first generation (training) Sabot, it was difficult to hit the Screening panels at 1500m with more than one round, let alone a coke can.

After 'much pain' it was finally determined that the ammo was at fault. This is about the time that the sealed 'catacomb' containers made their appearence.

Voila!!! We started screening and hitting a 12 inch 'bulls-eye' at 1500m, round after round.

Don

_________________
"Gonna hold my breath until Armor returns home..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 12:33 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

Hey Dontos,
Yeah, there were some issues with the old M865 anyway when it first came out. With the newer PA-116 (I think that's what they're called)containers you probably got the newer M865IP (PIP) or whatever they called it then. We used to have to ID it from the older ones by the groves cut in the petals. Both had the same ID and DODIC. I think we are on our 4th or 5th connotation of the M865 now.
Mike, gotta remember that unless you are firing service ammunition results may vary. Training ammo has to be good but the other factor is cost as opposed to service rounds where money doesn't factor in that much. I can believe the 105 was more accurate during the test just because the rounds for the 120mm were not a mature of a system at that time. My experience with 105 training APDS compared to 120 training APCSDS was that the 105 seemed more accurate. I will tell you when they screened service rounds in Kuwait prior to the war (OIF) the results we most impressive, especially the shot groups. 1st UK didn't screen, they zero'd using L29 and then switched to L27 CHARM. Fired a lot more ammo but I personally believed they had a more accurate final result. They do have some impressive long range gunnery ability.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 1:04 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

PIP...thats it.

I believe it had a lot number of '88F' the only APCSDS-T that we were allowed to use.

In the days prior, (CAT89) we zeroed every different lot we got. 5 rounds. Fire 3 at 'bull', determine MPI, toggle adjust, then fire 2 confirmation rounds. No 'Fleet Zero' for us.

(I still have my zero data from May - June 89.... I'm NOT a 'pack-rat' damn it!!!) Laughing

Of course, that was 'E-ONS' ago.... Cool


_________________
"Gonna hold my breath until Armor returns home..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 2:30 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

Dontos,
I still think that zeroing is better than screening Smile , but of course money talks Rolling Eyes . The theory is that if all tanks were made and maintained to a equal level of quality and the ammunition was constructed within certain tolerences than one could reasonably expect the same firing results across the board. Screening just verifies that the tank and ammo meet these tolerances. It may not be the most accurate but the standard is 2 rounds within the circle of the ST-5 panel (formerly ST-4 octogon). If it can accomplish this it meets the accuracy requirements. The problem with zeroing is you can potentially hide a maintenance problem Sad . Just because you can adjust the reticle to get a bulls eye at 1500 meters doesn't mean you can do the same thing at 1000 or 2000. The FCS could be flawed and not correctly calculate the ballistic solution. All you accomplished was make it hit at 1500 meters standing still. Other factors are also mechanical. It can be very frustrating with older systems Evil or Very Mad .That's the reason why Master Gunner's look the way they do on a range. But..., if the tank is good and the ammo is good, zeroing is far more accurate Wink . All comments made are my personal opinion and do not reflect any official doctrin or procedures

Enjoy the Armor conference
Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Skeet
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 15, 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:00 am
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

Thanks folks.

In reply to another question I made, this link was provided:

www.globalsecurity.org...m830a1.htm

That pretty much answers my question. I didn't know that that all the 120mm rounds were fin stabilized.

Interesting idea about using that round being used on helicopters. I wouldn't think you could bring a 120 mm to bear on such a target.
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 6:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

HI Skeet! Hi Folks!

- Skeet

Interesting idea about using that round being used on helicopters. I wouldn't think you could bring a 120 mm to bear on such a target.


That idea has been around for bit. The MPAT round makes it work a lot better.

Sometime around 1972-73, when I was stationed at Hunter Liggett Military Reservation, the unit I was in conducted a test to see if it was possible for Soviet Tanks to engage US Cobra Attack Helicopters firing Sabot ammo. The unit had five platoons of M60A1 tanks which were fitted with a Soviet type of sight retinal. Using the Great Grand Father version of the system used now days at the NTC, it was learned that Soivet's Tanks using Sabot could not hit a moving Cobra most of the time.

After the test was over, then some one asked the question, "Can US tankers using our current FCS and Sabot, hit a Soviet gunship"? Back to range with the nomal sight retianls reinstalled. It was found that our system could nail a hovering or slowly moving helo. Last I heard of that test program was they where going someplace else to try and learn how much damage a Sabot round could do to a helicopter. I wonder if somewhere in the developement of MPAT round, those old tests had anything to do with it's design?

Some of my old history.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 12:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

I recall reading somewhere (warning, I may be remembering this all wrong) that German tanks were slated to get a 'dual-purpose' laser rangefinder for combatting helicopters. I believe the article said - and I'm really shakey on this info - that a laser reflection can give multiple range returns due to laser scatter. A standard ground combat rangefinder will, I think, discard all but the last return. This is the opposite of what you want for a helicopter which would be primary laser return followed by background clutter. So I think the article said the German rangefinders had a switch that would allow either accepting last or first laser return depending on the target type.

What this implies is a helicopter close enough to be within the APFSDS dart's flat trajectory would be dead meat, but if ballistics calculations are involved (beyond 2500m?) then hit probability may be hindered by the ground-optimized ranging equipment.

Any REAL tankers willing to help me on this?
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Abrams, 120 mm cannon accuracy?

- mike_Duplessis
I recall reading somewhere (warning, I may be remembering this all wrong) that German tanks were slated to get a 'dual-purpose' laser rangefinder for combatting helicopters. I believe the article said - and I'm really shakey on this info - that a laser reflection can give multiple range returns due to laser scatter. A standard ground combat rangefinder will, I think, discard all but the last return. This is the opposite of what you want for a helicopter which would be primary laser return followed by background clutter. So I think the article said the German rangefinders had a switch that would allow either accepting last or first laser return depending on the target type.

What this implies is a helicopter close enough to be within the APFSDS dart's flat trajectory would be dead meat, but if ballistics calculations are involved (beyond 2500m?) then hit probability may be hindered by the ground-optimized ranging equipment.

Any REAL tankers willing to help me on this?


Mike

I 'used' to be a REAL Tanker, so I'll try to take a stab at explaining this....

The Abrams LRF has dual settings for '1st return' & 'Last return'.

If lasing on a target on a hill top (or in the air) with a limited possibility of any obstructions then this means the LRF will give a range to the actual target.

Many times multiple range returns are noted due to tree limbs, grass, (etc) that are in the line of sight between the tank and the intended target. When in 'Last Return' the indexed range should be the target you are lying the reticle on.

There is a 'multiple range return' bar in the symbology of the GPS which lets the gunner know that more than one range return has been received. Its up to him to assess if the indexed range seems appropriate.

Hope this helps,
Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum