From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 07:40:53 PST
>< I saw where the report is sensitive. Not classified.
The report was Sensitive, the pictures were Classified. The report was
also deliberately vague about details that the pictures clearly
illustrate. Hence the Classified nature of the photos.
>I also did not
>notice any great uproar anywhere else over these pictures being bandied
>about.
I have a Colonel friend at the Pentagon that would beg to differ. There
is a rather large uproar. Just because we civilians aren't hearing about
it doesn't meant it isn't happening.
There is also an age old way to deal with leaks... don't draw attention
to them. If the government went on some huge media blitz about the pics,
it would only increase the chances that the bad guys would find out about
them and then study them.
>The Abrahms has been sold to foreign countries. One can easily assume other
>nations intelligence outfits have looked at the tank very carefully. And
>that is an assumption that I could take to any bank and cash.
True, but until you actually fire a weapon at the actual vehicle an
examination doesn't yeild that much information. This is why we spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars to aquire running T-72s with reactive
armor kits to blow up on test ranges. If it was all about getting out a
tape measure and taking a few pics, we could skip the expensive practical
testings.
>In testing weapons, if you have a good idea the composition of the armor you
>are trying to breech, its a standard practice to be able to establish a test
>material and then extrapolate that data to give you an idea how it would
>perform if that weapon hit the real McCoy. Obviously, you can not plan in
>that test for Clausewitz's fog of war, but you can understand what the
>projectile will do to a roughly equivelent armor shield. Then, if you are
>worried about any fudge factors, just dial up the performance a notch or
>two. Overkill is never a bad idea.
The thing is that the armor of the Arbams is not something you just pour
into a mold and test. The armor itself is still Top Secret. In addition
there are a lot of interesting things that can be done metalurgically
that can only be replicated if you know the manufacturing process. For
example, in WWII there were times when tank guns were tested and rated to
be able to penetrate such and such thickness of armor, but in the field
the rounds bounced off like spitballs. Sometimes, like in the case of
the 76mm AT round used in the Hellcat, the round shattered when in theory
it was supposed to penetrate.
Again, my point is that this is a complicated science and giving the bad
guys their most likely FIRST practical data is a very bad idea.
>The Golden BB theory? No. Although its done, and we all know it, one
>should never field a weapons system based on the hope for lucky shot.
The weapon itself might have been fielded without any known hope of
KILLING an Abrams. It could have been fielded knowing it would kill
anything less and potentially disable an Abrams. My point is that the
weapon might have got lucky and the pictures show exactly where and how.
>True. We should have not then allowed FMS of these tanks to other nations.
It certainly isn't the best way to keep secrecy, but this is something
different.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:26:25 PDT