August 6th 03, 06:40 AM
|
|
On 6 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:
Dave Holford
Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?
Anti-tank mines were principally intended to immobilize a tank by blowing
off a tread or detaching a bogie wheel, not by actually penetrating the
armor.
Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
happened. But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
lot of ordinance to no particular effect.
Cheers and all,
|