> > Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
> >> All joking aside that's pretty much the idea. A small munition that
> >> doesn't (or can't) destroy the target through conventional effects for
> >> various reasons, but nevertheless detonates close enough to whack the
> >> electronics.
>
> > Will the EMP effect get into the tank? The steel armor would make the
> > whole vehicle a giant Faraday cage.
>
> > Pat
>
> I honestly don't know. The EMP makers would want to choose a frequency
> that's useful against target cables, wires and antennas, but not a
> frequency band heavily attenuated by atmospheric moisture etc. The EMP
> hardeners OTOH would have to look at the possible frequencies, and see
> what maximum hull aperture sizes would be acceptable, or otherwise have
> to be screened, and also do something about external conductors (like
> antennas) penetrating the hull. And so forth.
>
> I'm guessing that for something as expensive as a modern MBT that the
> designers made the effort.
>
> AHS
Considering at one time there was a possibility of using them in an environment with tactical nukes going off around them, yeah, they were, at least the US did it. I'm sure we shared enough with NATO allies so they were in on it also.
I can remember doing calculations for prompt kills of crews by nuclear effects. Pretty nasty business. I seem to remember 8000 rems for immediate death, 6000 for sick enough not to be effective as a fighting force. Infantry, well.....