SeaLion Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 If radar-directed guns, like the Soviet ZSu-23-4, were so effective against airplanes (Israel in particular) why don't they slave the 120mm cannon on the M1 Abrams to a radar? The computer/servo motors would do most of the work and the gunner could just press the button after verifying the target. It would extend the range of the M1's smooth bore cannon and would give the tankers a much better first shot capability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PondScum Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Because a plane in the sky stands out MUCH better on radar than a tank in ground clutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaLion Posted July 8, 2003 Author Share Posted July 8, 2003 OK, valid point. However, the US army has a weapon called the Javelin -- basically it is a heat seaking, anti tank rocket launcher. When you get a growl in the head set, it means the seeker has a lock on and you can fire and duck for cover while the missile is in the air. Also, more to the point, if you have line of sight on the enemy tank, then your radar waves will bounce back from the steel tank hull but not so much from surrounding vegetation or sand. And, they should beam in data from orbiting J-Stars aircraft, and the tank should fire using that info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Lee Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 If that were a better option then they would use it. Obviously there is some reason that all the R&D produced the fire and control system the M1 has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by SeaLion: OK, valid point. However, the US army has a weapon called the Javelin -- basically it is a heat seaking, anti tank rocket launcher. When you get a growl in the head set, it means the seeker has a lock on and you can fire and duck for cover while the missile is in the air. Also, more to the point, if you have line of sight on the enemy tank, then your radar waves will bounce back from the steel tank hull but not so much from surrounding vegetation or sand. And, they should beam in data from orbiting J-Stars aircraft, and the tank should fire using that info. Javelin heat seeking.... You want radar slaved 12cm main tank guns... Dissimilar technology... Javelin development, deployment and "success" is immaterial to your idea. This "what if" idea would be better off in the general forum.... [ July 07, 2003, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emodin- Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Originally posted by SeaLion: OK, valid point. However, the US army has a weapon called the Javelin -- basically it is a heat seaking, anti tank rocket launcher. When you get a growl in the head set, it means the seeker has a lock on and you can fire and duck for cover while the missile is in the air. Also, more to the point, if you have line of sight on the enemy tank, then your radar waves will bounce back from the steel tank hull but not so much from surrounding vegetation or sand. And, they should beam in data from orbiting J-Stars aircraft, and the tank should fire using that info. The problem with this idea is that radar is a Line-of-Sight system. If you put a radar antenna on a tank, in most situations you are probably only going to get as much range and potential target acquisition as you would if you used your own eyes (lots of folds in the ground, trees, ect). This is probably why the Longbow Apache's have radar and the M1A2 does not (it has elevation above the ground, thus a longer LOS for the radar). Furthermore, the laser rangefinder they have in the Abrams does essentially what I understand you think the radar should do (using it as an accurate computer assisted aiming device), and it is much less likely to be defeated (think ECM: radar jamming). Then you have the really nasty problem that you would have to turn on the radar to aim the gun, thus giving away your position and probably your force size to an enemy who had Radar Warning Recievers deployed. All the enemy would have to do then is attach a radar-homing package to a missle or guided bomb, and you would be in for a world of hurt. Just my opinion (definitely not an expert). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts