Yes, I served in the US Army- which adds or changes nothing here, since your sources are wrong, regardless. My being in the Army wouldn't make any false information that I give more correct, or make information true by virtue of that, in other words. No one needs to serve in the armed forces to support the fact that the T-64 was never an export tank, nor was it licensed to manufacture abroad. Sorry, but you're using that as a false cover. In fact, some of the most knowledgeable people I have seen about tanks were never in the Armny, nor served on tanks- they have contributed greatly though, like say Paul Lakowski's modelling and engineering knowledge to Steel Beasts.

You ask Beans if he ever used the US Army's Staff round, and he says he hasn't. There's a good reason for that- it was never manufactured for production. Why didn't you pick up on that- why did you you even bother to ask that if you think you know what's going on here?

I have never claimed to 'know what's going on here'. And I didn't ask the last question as a hostility, but merely trying to get out of you what exactly what your experience was and if we could find some even ground. I asked many of those questions just to see what Beans said, and to confirm stuff that I wasn't sure on.

And Kontakt5, you did actually make a slip-up in this last post of yours. Yes, I'm sure there are some very knowledgeable people that are not in the Army - but only who work for General Dynamics, etc. Who else would have that info? And as far as Steel Beasts goes, you can't use that as an example of what's right and what's wrong. You can never truly do that with any sim.

Besides, there are always differences between what the technical experts and manuals say, compared to real, heat-of-battle, serving crewmen. Things don't always operate the way they should, in reality, no matter what a manual may say. Anyone can read a manual, and you have to make of that what you will, particularly depending on your depth of knowledge and understanding of such subjects. But it is another thing to hear it from a person that has been there, with hands-on experience.

I never intended this to go the way it has done - into an argument - this is right, this is wrong, etc.

I dunno. I've read a lot of books from WW2 about first-hand experiences and such. A common theme in many of their stories are, "they don't tell you this can happen, or this would happen in combat, but it did.." Some are wrong, some are right.

I don't see any particular reason so debate over a soldier's experience. It was his experience. I don't think Flyboy was intending the article to be a "Jane's Reference Book For Tank Combat". When it's over and the last shot has been fired, I think I'll take the soldier's word over someone who hasn't seen it firsthand. I do know one thing, for those who were vaporized by a tank round, they never lived to tell about it.

Yes TerribleTwo, you are spot on with what I was trying to put across. I'm glad you can see what I intended.

You miss the point entirely- that's not a slip up. You are attempting to suggest that no one knows what one is talking about unless they served in the armed forces. Sorry, but that's not true- there are a lot of civilians who have extensive knowledge here- some of the best knowledge base there is, I've talked to them. What you can learn from many of them is far better that what you are saying here about crew vaporizing here. They conduct analysis and work side by side with the military- they are are the ones who build the equipment to specifications, or the ones who have access to information that even military members don't have.



Again, a red herring. The fact is, real world experience does not at all point to 1) equipment which the Iraqis never owned or fielded- T-64 was for a time before arguably the most advanced tank in the world, a T-64 would have been better than anything the Iraqis possessed in 1991 or 2003, particulary their best tanks- export T-72s and the locally manufactured Lion of Babylon T-72 clones they had; no American or coalition unit could ever have encountered one, for very good reason- they never left the USSR. 2) Real world experience absolutely does not point to crew members vaporizing- Lieste and I have explained this to you before. If that were true, it would have been happening since the 1960s with the advent of the T-62 and the 115mm smoothbore with the new discarding sabot ammunition; no conflict has ever shown that in reality- and as far as I know, this false belief didn't really begin to take hold until the Internet generation, until it could be passed around as widespread rumor.

It doesn't make sense even if you think about it- why on earth would that just happen in a T-72; armor thickness and protection levels would be independent of that, since the sudden and violent change of atmospheric pressure would have nothing to do with how thick the armor is once penetrated- in fact, any effects would be worse in thicker armored vehicles- there would be more material to spall off. Light skin and non armored vehicles wouldn't feel the effect as much based on that presumption. You seem to have no answer for why that didn't happen to PCs and infantry fighting vehicles that were hit by friendly or enemy fire- why is that? Why suddenly does physics make a dramatic change and suddenly behave in such an arbitrary way?

Saying that there is a difference between the technical manuals and real world experience is a red herring here- because even real world experience doesn't support what you're saying. Beans said the crew vaporizes, but you went one further to suggest that it would happen in a T-72, while there would be a difference with an M1 or M2; that makes no sense, I assure you, unless the good guys are protected by magic.

Means nothing- again, a red herring that is not supported by any real world account, nor by the science involved insofar as crew vaporizing. That would actually be rather clean if that's what did happen- no mess left over. But a grisly detail for WW2 Sherman crews might have to entail cleaning out the insides of knocked out tanks for body matter and fluids of their former comrades so the tank could be used again. And besides, you're talking about WW2 AP solid shot- the assumption that Flyboy is depositing here is a different thing as modern subcaliber sabot ammunition is a different animal.

Does it even make sense that the crew, his coveralls, tanker boots, CVC helmet (or the Soviet counterpart) would all vaporize and exit out the hole? What is the principle involved which does that? Overpressure? Nope, sorry, that's not what happens. A tanker's biggest fear is burning alive if and when the ammunition storage is touched off. Different tanks have different post penetration survivability, the M1 being among the best, the T-72 being rather poor- but because of configuration of stored ammunition, not because the M1 is magical. On the other hand, an empty tank with ammunition removed is rather inert- you'd still have to worry about spalling, but catastrophic explosions from the ammunition would be removed. Once again, crews don't vaporize in the way Flyboy is explaining. There's at least one M1 tank that is a likely candidate for being knocked out by a T-72 in 1991 in ODS by a side turret penetration; the crew survived, they were certainly not vaporized, the tank itself was eventually consumed by fire. Again- it's not at all consistent or cogent or realistic or coherent to suggest that there is a difference in physics here- the side armor of an M1 is less than the frontal aspect of a T-72. So protection levels have nothing to do with it.

Look- it seems as if you want so badly to believe this stuff that you won't listen to reason. Your intention is not to lie, I know, but you're not doing your audience any favors by misleading them with false information that you believe to be true, either- nor does it do anyone in the armed forces a disservice by telling the truth.

If your purpose is to entertain people by regaling them with sensational hocus pocus, myths and body counts, then by all means, continue doing what you're doing. If you're actually interested in the truth, your article could use some balance. Consider researching a little more. Or not. But come here and say this stuff won't mean you'll get immunity. It's controversial. And wrong.

I think you take this way too seriously. Have you read 'Tanks for the Memories'? The purpose of that book isn't to question the accuracy of those fella's experiences, but simply to put their stories into writing. If they saw a big pink elephant with a swastika firing at them, then it goes into the book. It wasn't the author's intention to question them on their memories and experiences. I read Flyboy's article and I don't see him regurgitating the soldier's experience as the "end all be all" source for technical information regarding modern day tank combat.

The best response would have been, "hey thanks for the article!". Instead what we have is someone wanting to pound their chest on how much technical knowledge they've gained by reading books and scouring the internet. Who really cares??? It's a soldier's experience. More experience than about 99.9% of the people here on this forum have in an M1 tank.



ps. I notice you got a whole 7 posts under your belt. What's your deal anyway?

Oh brother. I have more experience than simply reading books and scouring the Internet- unlike yourself. And again, that's not the point, either.

It's not chest pounding here- which is what you're reducing this down to, if you have nothing to substantial to add, which you don't, which of course doesn't stop you from jumping in. Or otherwise explain the phenomena behind some of the sensationalism going on here. We're talking about what is true and what is not true. If you want to write an article about a particular individual's experience and observations- go right ahead. But there comes a point for whatever reason fiction, half truths and and inaccuracy has crept in- this may be obscure to you, but I recognize it right away. And it's not necessary for what Flyboy is trying to do. I see things like crew vaporization and super duper MPAT and sabots knocking down buildings and I start flagging- I lose interest in something that I have thought about much more than you. I know how it works- if I attempt to clarify something or explain why it's wrong, it makes me out to be the bad guy for no rational reason other than this notion that I'm spoiling all the fun. Personally, I tend to think that inaccuracies and recycled myths tend to detract from things, but not everyone has the same standards, I realize.

But go right ahead- the truth is an inconvenience; all that matters is that people are entertained- all that's left is entertainment once the boring truth is taken out.

Personally I found the article as interesting as any other tank crewman's personal experience. And no one cares about your technical knowledge - they really don't, trust me.

Flyboy, thanks for yet another excellent article.