Re: [ds] modern tanks was Re: [ds] Ogres

At 03:34 PM 11/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Thomas Anderson wrote:
>> 
>> i'm not too happy about the stealth. is an m1a1 actually harder to
hit
>> than a 60-tonne tank from a less-developed army?
>
>Actually, since the M1A1 and similar modern MBTs have much lower
>physical profiles than older tanks, the stealth (lowering the profile)
>makes perfect sense.
>

Lower is very relative.  If an older tank is like the side of a hanger,
an
M1 is like the side of a barn.	Much smaller profile - but it still
sticks
out like a sore thumb.	You have hundreds of square feet of flat metal
surface reflecting back at a sensor no matter what the tank is, or the
direction you emit at it from.	If you could build a tank to look like
the
F117 or B2, and construct it out of similar materials, then "stealth"
would
be relevant.  Until you do, it isn't.  How tall is an M1?  7, 8 feet?
That's eight feet of metal reflector.  So an M60 is taller?  Wouldn't
make
a difference.  Tanks are giant moving radar reflectors, no matter what
the
type or era (up to now, anyway).  Older soviet tanks, like the T34 or
the
T54/55 are lower and smaller than an M1, AND their turrets are
considerably
lower and rounded which gives a smaller radar profile.	They still show
up
on all kinds of sensors like a beacon.