Posted on 01/28/2021 4:53:33 AM PST by Onthebrink
Too ‘fat’ to fight?: Ironically the M1 Abrams tank has become more logistically complicated as it has become better armed and better protected, resulting in a platform that some would argue is of dubious combat effectiveness.
The Challenge
There is an argument to be made that the United Sates’s main battle tank, the venerable M1 Abrams, is the best-protected, most effective, and certainly one of the most combat-tested tanks in the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
What's ironic about that? It would be ironic if the tank became less logistically complicated as it became increasingly capable.
You make an interesting point: maybe logistical complexity needs to be given a higher priority in the evaluation of the efficacy of modern weapon systems?
It’s troubling that ‘taking the meat out of the seat’ is now the rallying cry with new weapons systems.
That has never worked out well. Keeping the meat in the seat is as important as making these weapon systems both effective and readily deployable.
It’s the old elephant versus the ants parable.
I remember some Nazi general on the historic World at War BBC series said that the more capable German Army was like the elephant, and crushed and stomped millions of Soviet ants but in the end they were able to use their numbers to overwhelm Jumbo.
The key to fighting a populous foe is to not engage him on the ground mano-to-mano but to kill as many from far away until the numbers go down to an even fight.
We did so during the first Gulf War against Saddam’s huge army.
Since then, we’ve only fought strong but few in number guerilla forces in a kind of whack-a-mole manner.
If we have to face the Chinese and/or Russians, we need to go back to the Air Land Battle tactics we developed in the 1980s and perfected in Desert Storm.
And then, yes, the M1 has a very important job once the raw numbers of lesser armor is reduced as part of the Air Campaign. The superior M1 takes up the Land Campaign AFTER we sprayed the Ant poison, sort to speak.
What war are we going to fight with tanks?
At least it’s not a tranny.
What war are we going to fight with tanks?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CW II, against lightly armed civilians?
Next time we’re up against an enemy who has his own tanks, I imagine.
Whatever one the Hawks and military-industrial complex decides on, now that they got that pesky Pres. Trump out of the way. Best way for them to make money, and who cares about the dumb grunts (Meat?? really?).
The Abrams needs to be simplified for the influx of transgender recruits so they can service and repair the tank,as well as operate it.
Future MBTs will likely have a 130mm main gun or larger, and will get to the point where they need an autoloader. They'd still be smart to somehow work a fourth crew member into the design.
In a protracted operation, even in a static defense, somebody needs to pull radio watch and security. A fourth crew member in that rotation means that each person gets more sleep. No matter how good the design, a tank in rough terrain will sooner or later throw track, and righting that situation is not done without having people outside the vehicle exerting a lot of muscle power. Three people doing that instead of four is very problematic, especially when you want one on top manning the .50 or need one in the driver's hole to creep the vehicle back and forth to set the track.
They may see some play in the second American civil war.
My best friend was an Abrams platoon leader too. He was in the Gulf War.
He feels the same way. You need four guys.
Guys. Not girls, either.
I worked on the Abrams for ten years as an engineer at General Dynamics. The evolving battlefield means that tankers miles behind the lines are vulnerable to tiny drones. The army has known this for a long time. The army repeatedly asked for smaller, lighter, more logistically friendly vehicles. I was at a meeting were they asked and a VP laughed at the Colonel and told him dismissively, no, you want the Abrams. (If looks could have killed, that VP would have burst into flakes.).
GD is of the opinion that small vehicles means small profits.
ALWAYS need ground mechanized weaponry. But what bothers me is the overabundance of electronics vulnerable to failure. I only hope the tank electronics fails in a mode that enables the crew to still operate the tank and weaponry, but I have my doubts.
Like the MA Deuce, it will be around a long, long time. Another gift from a better generation.
“What war are we going to fight with tanks”
No action where the US has time to get tanks on the battlefield is still a war, tanks, A-10s and apaches are the maids, cleaning up the faithful that think they still have a chance.
Not too sure our smart that is, personally. You don't always get to pick and choose your opponents. Politicians do that.
YEp, I was a tanker first on M60A3s and then on M1IPs. Fourth crew member gives a _lot_ more flexibility. But count on having some MBA with a spreadsheet disprove that.
The recent conflict in Azerbagani demonstrated that armor did not do well against modern well armed drones. It would be wise for the US to have war games evaluating the Abrams tank against the Israeli made drones that decimated the Armenian armor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.