M1-A1 Abrams: tough to kill, but not invulnerable

U.S. News- Washington Whispers ^ | 06/09/03 | Paul Bedard

[Thunder 6]

you betcha!

[SauronOfMordor]

At least until we get the MKI BOLO. :)

I prefer the Mark XXIV

[LibKill]

That is too cool! Got any more?

[SauronOfMordor]

That is too cool! Got any more?

The Bolo's (fictional robotic heavy tanks, created by Keith Laumer) are my favorites. Here's a few more from (SF author) William H Keith's web page

[Archangelsk]

Ah, the fearsome Dutch! But they sure could shoot the lights out with those Leos...

Yes, but we stilled kicked their butts during a couple of CAT competitions. :-)

[Archangelsk]

stilled = still

[spetznaz]

What's up VaB? Long time no see!

As always nice to see you are still alive and kicking.

Anyways this whole tank issue is just plain silly! No one ever said the M1A2 is invulnerable! Its specs never said it is impossible to bring down ..........however they do say (and its operators will agree) that it is truly hard to stop! And destroying it (truly destroying one, not just messing up its tracks) is even harder. The tank is a work of genius, pure and simple.

And the best thing that can be said about the Abrams is that no Abrams crew has ever died in active combat (i think a crew perished when one went into a river in Iraq and trapped them, but none have died due to enemy combatants). In my opinion that is a great record.

So is the fact only a handful have been stopped!

This article is like some drunk loser laughing at a rich mogul because the rich guy stepped into sme muddy water! True, the rich guy's pants are soiled ......but he has the clout to buy others. However the drunk loser is still a drunk loser.

Let the pot not call the kettle black!

Take care VaB!

Spetz!

[Fred Mertz]

We'll be seeing more of him, because Daniel Inouye (another decorated combat veteran, although I have to say his medal-lobbying was kind of unseemly) is retiring, and Eric K. Shinseki, D-HI, will be taking his place in the Senate. (There'll be an election, but in Hawaii it's just a formality). You'll have plenty of years to judge whether I called his character correctly.

I heard this about Shinseki several months ago through the reliable rumor mill. Only diff, is that he was supposed to go on terminal leave on April 1st; I think the campaign in Iraq changed his timetable a bit.

[Light Speed]

M1-A1/A2 in both Iraq wars fared well...

Iraq having little to nothing in way of tank killing air package upped ABRAMS survivabiltiy ratio.

Upped again vs the targeting package of said existing Iraqi tanks as per distance engagement values.

Upped again as per intermediate range weapons such as shoulder fired ATM'S...RPG's and mounted anti tank missiles.

In the Balkans..Serbian tanks did use Russian depleted Uranium munitions..

Israels tanks look good on paper..but the claim is primarily their own Munitions testing.

Palestinian and specially brought in insergents from Hizbullah in Lebanon did get off some shots with more modern Euro ANTI tank missiles....if Merkava got the chop...Palies never claimed it..or IDF covered it up well.

Placed mines of certain volumes..such as the 2 which blew 2 Merkavas turrets from their rings would have done the same to M1A1/A2....composites and metal alloy combinations can only endure so much shock loading before failure.

IF Israel where to take her new Merkavas into Lebanon..it would be telling as the environment gives the defender multiple angles via conture to await a tank and make the best placed shot happen.

Israel would also have some airpower to contend with via Helo's with Anti tank missiles.

Neither the Merkava..nor the Abrams have yet to see Depleted munitons fired at them repeatedly and in volume....nor have they seen the better Anti tank missiles which exist in Euro and Russian arsenals.

Other goodies exist too..such as motion detection mines which propel themselves to overhead configuration and fire a hypervelocity spike into a tanks engine compartment.

Other motion response mines designed to shred a tanks tracks..

Russian tanks are catching up on target aquistion values as per distance...some are known by their demonstrations at IDEX meets and private demonstration.

It still comes down to aquireing the other guy first...and then to how you move in said environment.

The tanks bad day is comming..as Missiles are way cheaper than a tank.

All that is needed is to get TOBY soldier near the tank..and hopefully his nerves are not rattled in battle to operate his new killing toy.

Was watching the American Javelin Anti tank missile on video demo...it hit a T-72..the tank just fractured into so many pieces from the overhead strike.

Iran and Syria have access to superior Anti tank missiles than Iraq...both Israel and America may encounter them if things begin to fall apart in the mid east soon.

[Z10N157]

Why is it governored?

[Thunder 6]

you betcha!
... ah, the old days, they're gone forever. Looks like the Canucks are going to give up tanks all together in the next few years.
regards,

[Archangelsk]

To keep the track pads from flying off when you brake.....

[VaBthang4]

"Iran and Syria have access to superior Anti tank missiles than Iraq...both Israel and America may encounter them if things begin to fall apart in the mid east soon."

I feel you but....the outcome will be the same.

[Tailback]

Billions wasted on new military vehicle?
Critics pan Army's 'Stryker' as poor alternative to tracked predecessors

---

Posted: June 4, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The U.S. Army's newest armored vehicle is fraught with operational problems and physical limitations that make its predecessor not only a much better choice for soldiers, but one that may be more deployable and have better battlefield survivability, say weapon-systems analysts and military critics who have studied the issue.

According to sources familiar with the Army's "Stryker" Interim Armored Vehicle the vehicle is too heavy to be transported fully combat ready by the Air Force's most numerous transport aircraft, the C-130, despite numerous attempts to lighten it, and despite an initial congressional mandate the vehicle be C-130-deliverable to the battlefield combat ready.


Stryker IAV, in its heavy armor role, fires its main gun.

Also, critics claim, the Stryker's eight large rubber wheels make it more vulnerable to weapons fire and less maneuverable in rough or mucky terrain than its predecessor, the M-113 Gavin, the U.S. military's most prevalent tracked armored personnel carrier.

Army officials deny such allegations, but analysts who have studied and used both wheeled and tracked armored vehicles during operations – such as the Marine Corps' LAV-25 vehicles – have discovered wheeled vehicles have difficulty transiting soft sand, mud, snow and other rough terrain, a problem that makes them more vulnerable to enemy fire.

At the same time, critics point out, tracked vehicles like the Army's Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and the Gavins have far fewer mobility problems and, taking into account the differences in firepower, are more survivable on the field of battle.


M-113 Gavin pulls out an Army Humvee stuck in deep mud.


"It would be fine if we could park [the Stryker] on a highway and have our enemies come to us to fight," says Lonnie Shoultz, a former member of the Army's elite 101st Airborne Division, a retired U.S. Treasury Department special agent and an established military historian. "But if you can't get to the battle, you can't win the war."

"From a super highway to dirt roads to chewed-up and muddy terrain, the Stryker is at a disadvantage" to the Gavin, Shoultz told WorldNetDaily.

Failed tests?

Such discrepancies were even noted during field-testing at Fort Irwin, Calif., last fall, according to an Army Times report.

"The biggest problem was difficulty loading the 107-inch-wide vehicle on a C-130 Hercules transport plane," said the Times, a conclusion also reached in an August 2002 document entitled "Stryker Findings," which was produced by observers from the Army Test and Evaluation Command, or ATEC, in Alexandria, Va.


Stryker rolls off a C-130 transport plane.


"Very little can be stowed in its proper place due to C-130 loading restrictions," said the findings. ATEC is monitoring the Stryker's weapon-system acquisition and development.

Also, the military paper said, a total of 13 tires on the 16 Strykers involved in the 96-hour war games needed replacing. The ATEC team also noted that troops inside the Strykers were so cramped they "found it difficult to drink from their canteens," said the Times.

Army officials nonetheless have dismissed the problems, saying the vehicle is performing well and will serve U.S. ground forces acceptably during combat.

"We've been able to fly [the Strykers] on combat missions across a full spectrum of potential threats and operational scenarios [during testing] at Fort Irwin and Fort Polk, Louisiana," Maj. Amy Hannah, an Army spokesperson, told WorldNetDaily. "Part of the certification process encompassed the different types of exercises and evaluations."

For instance, she said, in California the testing focused on "a desert environment under mid- to high-intensity combat conditions," while at Polk, "testing focused on mid- to low-intensity … including urban operations."

Throughout the process, Army brigades that will be accepting the new Strykers were "able to deploy strategically by rail, sea and air," Hannah said.

But critics maintain staying with the Gavins is a much better choice for the Army's new lighter-forces vision, even though they have been around for more than four decades.

For one, they say, the Gavin is proven and has an established line of supply. The M-113s are also in use with U.S. allies most likely to take the field alongside U.S. forces in the near future.

Also, sources said, the newest version of the Gavin, the M-113A3 – which is manufactured in York, Pa. – will more reliably carry troops and equipment into a fight anywhere, regardless of the terrain. And, they said the tracked Gavin with its upgrades is more battle-worthy, maneuverable and cheaper to procure. Plus, it's tracked configuration and better armor make it more survivable on the battlefield.

Finally, says Shoultz , the M-113s now can be fitted with "band tracks," rubberized track fittings that make for a smoother ride and less wear and tear on the tracks themselves.

The Gavin, which was introduced in 1960 and has been upgraded a number of times, has been proven in action in over 50 countries. The Stryker, meanwhile, is little more than an "oversized armored car," mounted on large inflated tires "that make great driving vehicles on super highways but cannot traverse a bog or rough terrain to get to a fight," Shoultz said.

"You cannot over emphasize that," he added.

"The Stryker program has been a fraud. Billions have been wasted on a vehicle that can't do the job as well as the vehicles that the Army has had in its inventory for over four decades," said Don Loughlin, a former Army ordinance specialist, in an October 2002 critique of the Stryker. "It is time to pull the plug' on it."

'No difference'

One report said there was no difference between the Stryker and the Gavin.

"There is no significant performance difference between the Stryker and M113 armored personnel carriers, according to the Pentagon official who oversaw testing between the two U.S. Army vehicles in September," said the Feb. 7 report in Defense News.

"Based on our review of the data from the Medium Armored Vehicle Comparison Evaluation, we conclude that the Stryker and the M113A3 were equally effective and suitable," said Tom Christie, the Department of Defense's director of operational test and evaluation. "The operational portions of the MAV CE showed no differences in unit effectiveness, weapon-system lethality or operational suitability."

Defense News reported that ATEC "compared Stryker to the M113 from April to October, using primarily instrumentation and computer modeling. The comparison evaluation culminated in the live field study in September and October, where a platoon of soldiers used both vehicles to conduct reconnaissance and attack missions."

So why spend $1.4 million on each new Stryker when the M-113 costs $300,000 per unit, has a distinguished battlefield record, a well-established supply line, is familiar to troops and has interoperability with scores of other armed forces with which the U.S. could deploy?

"The Stryker family of vehicles are considered less vulnerable to small arms and weapons fire than the M113 family of vehicles," said the Army, in an official written response to questions posed by WorldNetDaily.

"The crew and engine compartments of the Strykers are fully protected up to 14.5mm armor piercing (AP) rounds while the crew and engine compartments of the M113s are protected only up to 7.62mm AP rounds," said defense officials. "Although a 14.5mm armor design was developed for the M113s, the armor was never produced and fielded."

Also, said the Army, "in addition to greater small-arms protection, an add-on armor is currently being developed for six of the 10 Stryker vehicle configurations to protect the crews against RPG-7 munitions. Although a study was conducted to investigate the application of the Bradley RPG armor tiles to the M113s, mounting provisions and RPG armor designs were never developed for the M113s."

Finally, the Army said while Gavin tracks "are less vulnerable to small arms fire," the Stryker's wheels contain "a run-flat device consisting of a solid core of rubber that allows the tire to be driven 30 miles without replacement when punctured."

Regarding its mobility, the Army admitted that "for vehicles weighing 10-20 tons, tracked vehicles have better cross-country mobility in sand, mud and snow than wheeled vehicles," while "wheeled vehicles were found to have much better speed and ride quality over primary and secondary roads than tracked vehicles."

"To improve its overall mobility, especially for cross-country operation, the Stryker employs a Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS) to increase it's tire pressure for operation over primary as well as secondary roads and to reduce its tire pressure for improved mobility over soft and sandy soils," Army officials said.

But critics were unfazed.

Stanley Crist, a former tank crewman, armor training NCO and author who served in Vietnam, said General Dynamics was developing armor for the Stryker that would repel RPGs – rocket propelled grenades – but "I imagine it will only cover the hull above the wheels, in front of the front wheels and perhaps behind the rear wheels, since the front four wheels are used for steering."

"It is unlikely [the front wheels] could have armor skirts, but it is possible to design armor skirts to protect the four rear (non-steering) wheels," he told WorldNetDaily.

"It is true that add-on armor of various protection levels has been developed for M113, but not fielded by the US Army," Crist said. However, he said such "appliqué" armor "is used in Israel, New Zealand, Switzerland and some other armies" that use the Gavins.

And, he said, "the Army's claim that RPG armor has not been developed for M113 is definitely not true. The Israeli company Rafael developed reactive armor several years ago that was seen fitted to some IDF M113s during the 1996 incursion into Lebanon."


Israel Defense Forces M-113 with reactive 'appliqué' armor.


Shoultz also questioned the Army's deployment requirements for the Stryker. He says the mandate was to "deploy the [Stryker] brigade in 96 hours by C-130s."

"Using choo-choo trains cannot do that," he said.

Mike Sparks, Army Reserve officer and co-author of the book "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century," told Defense News, "Twenty-four Army programs will be canceled in 2004, all for wheeled peacekeeping brigades the service doesn't need and are too impotent to play a vital role" in the war against Iraq.

The Pentagon also confirmed April 1 that weight is still a problem for the Stryker, though officially the Army is denying it, according to an Anniston Star newspaper report last month.

In March, the Air Force certified eight versions of the Stryker to fly in C-130s, said the paper, but Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and another committee member said those versions can only be transported by C-130s under a narrow range of altitude and weather conditions. Shoultz confirmed that.

And Pete Aldridge, under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, acknowledged April 1 the Defense Department was aware of that problem and was working to get it solved.

"I think the most important thing here is that we can move the Stryker with the C-130 under certain conditions," Aldridge said. "We can also move the Stryker – three Strykers – with C-17s under other conditions. So, depending on where you want to go and what mission you want to accomplish, we will have to adapt our deployment to that capability that will exist."

The Anniston paper also said the C-17 transport can carry three Strykers but needed a longer, paved runway.

Hunter said the Stryker's advertised ability to be transported by C-130 aircraft was a big reason why Congress went for it.

"When Saddam Hussein came marching south with seven Iraqi divisions, we had only a light infantry, that is the 82nd Airborne, to throw in his way, and we needed to have something that was semi-hard to get in there quickly. And we were sold a good deal of this on C-130 transportability," he said last month.

"It did not start out to be the same weight that we have now," Aldridge said. "It still is on a diet, as a matter of fact. The Army's still looking for ways to carry it."

In a recent military exercise, "the Infantry Carrier Vehicle variant required multiple alterations to fit into a C-130," said and assessment of the Stryker by GlobalSecurity.org. "The crew removed two smoke grenade launchers, all antennas, a left rear bracket that blocked egress over the top of the vehicle, the Remote Weapons System and the third-row wheel's bump-stop. Reassembly upon landing took as long as 17 minutes."

[centurion316]

No doubt that critics abound. Might be useful to consider their motivation. Some possibilities:

a. General malcontents who rail against anything the military does, would turn over defense of the country to the UN and the Bangladesh Army.

b. Armored vehicle buffs who started out with an honest argument in the wheels vs. tracks (its been going on for years - no clear winner - like most things depends on the mission, the terrain, the enemy. Included in this group are those who are sore about the loss of the M8 Buford. Too bad the Army didn't buy it, it was a good vehicle. But, these folks forget that the other part of that package for the 9th Div was (get ready...): The LAV-25.

c. Those who love to drag the Army through the muck.


I have more than 30 years experience with the M113 family of vehicles and know well its strengths and weaknesses. I also know some of the shortcomings of the Stryker (it is essentially and off-the-shelf vehicle) I also know that many of these problems will be resolved within the next few years.

I have been in a few gun fights in my day, including ones where M113s and M551s came up on the short end of the stick. Drag a few smoldering bodies out of the ashes of an M113 and you might dampen your praises - Remember the M113 was developed to be a "battlefield taxi" It was never intended to be a fighting vehicle. Stryker fits into the same envelope. It is meant to transport troops on the battlefield and protect them from indirect fires and small arms. You can't do more and stay within 20 tons

The diry little secret is that the Army will not deploy by air. There are not enough lift aircraft - plus the USAF has fist dibs on airlift to deploy USAF units - and they don't go light. Air conditioned pre-fab billets and mess halls for every man jack (and girl jack) in the outfit. They load APUs into C-17s using only 10% of the aircrafts lift capbility - but they do it because they own the aircraft and that's what's easy - compare what the USAF does with its loads and how the loadmasters treat army loads. This is nothing sinister,its just human nature. Bottom line, the Army will deploy by sea, except for those rare occasions when you have to seize an airfield by parachute assault.

So, my advice, get over it. The decision has been made. 3/2 just finished its CERTEX. It will be deployed after a Sept rotation to NTC. Shinseki retires in a week. The Army will lose two divisions. Life goes on.

[Tailback]

Oh I don't think it's over yet. There's going to be another article coming out soon that will be very interesting.

[centurion316]

Thought all you guys might be interested in the following:

Source is Operation Iraqi Freedom Lessons Learned from the G3 of the 1st Marine Division.

G-3
Topic: Light Armored Regiment And Battalion Organic to the Marine Division

Discussion: During OIF, nimble, hard-hitting LAR units proved themselves highly versatile and employable across the spectrum:
- In advance guard, screening, covering force missions
- Put together under the ADC, three LAR Battalions executed a 150 mile attack beyond Baghdad to Tikrit and Bayji
- Dominating in stabilization operations.

They can be the most lethal, versatile force on the battlefield if we:
- Add the best FAC suite equipment available
- Add an assault gun/120mm mortar.

We should also consider use of the Army Stryker vehicle to defray R&D costs/lower unit cost.

Recommendation: 7th Marines become an LAV Regiment to work in cooperation with a DS towed artillery battalion and tank battalion. One independent LAR Battalion remains to source MEUs and provide the Division Commander with his own GS LAR capability.

[Fred Mertz]

Thanks for sharing.

[SLB]

You hit the nail squarely on the head. The M113 was developed as a follow-on to the M59, another battlefield taxi. I have talked to many old soldiers who have not so fond memories of it. I am only old enough to remember converting the M113 to M113A1. Getting rid of the gasser was a blessing.

How many were actually razy enough to ride on the inside of an "ACAV" in Viet Nam? Try this - http://www.users.qwest.net/~huffpapa/vietnam.html it should look familiar to many FReepers. Scroll down on the left side until you come to the "two loaded" and have a look.

Take care and thanks again for a great post.

[SLB]

razy=crazy. Stubby fingers.