Posted on 08/19/2004 8:47:02 PM PDT by Southack
The US Army has wasted billions of dollars to upgrade a few hundred tanks to the M1A2 configuration (right), and wants to spend billions to convert more. The US Army claims that no tanks were lost to enemy fire during the Persian Gulf war, so why upgrade their anti-tank capabilities with a few gadgets which cost twice as much as the tanks themselves? Tanks remain vital, but the US Army spends half of its operations and maintenance budget for all ground equipment to keep 5000 M1 series tanks ready for World War III with the Soviets. There is much debate about the future organization of US Army combat forces, but no sane soldier believes a heavy division needs over 300 heavy M1 tanks. The Army should cut that number in half to make these divisions more mobile. The Army should scrap 3000 of these excess tanks to produce a 10-year supply of spare tank parts and engines, and upgrade the remainder as M1A3s to make them better people killers. An outstanding book on the employment of armor against light infantry is Mounted Combat in Vietnam, which was produced as part of the US Army's Vietnam Studies series. If the Army would have paid attention to its own lessons learned books, it would have sent a mechanized infantry brigade to Somalia rather than a light infantry brigade. After the Ranger fiasco, tanks were sent to Somalia and convoys escorted by tanks were never attacked. As a result, the US Army sent tanks for peacekeeping duty in Bosnia, and they were decisive intimidators in several confrontations. Unfortunately, Abrams tanks are poorly equipped to combat infantry. The Army needs to immediately procure 120mm canister "beehive" rounds and 120mm Improved Conventional Munition "bomblet" rounds. These rounds should have reduced propellant charges so they can be fired near friendly infantrymen. Current 120mm rounds produce so much force that infantrymen in front of the tank or within 50 meters to the side can be injured by the gun blast. A long-range laser-guided round (like the Israeli LAHAT) is also needed, perhaps modified 120mm Hellfire missiles. The Abrams also needs improved secondary armaments. The tank gunner has sights which allows him to engage targets at over 3000 meters. However, his 7.62mm coaxial machine gun only reaches out 1100 meters, so it should be upgraded to a .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine gun which can reach out over 2000 meters with far greater power. In addition, the loader’s basic M240C 7.62mm machine gun should be replaced with a M134 7.62mm mini-gun, which can fire ten times faster and pulverize nearby infantry. Finally, the tank commander also needs a better weapon to engage infantry, so replace his M2 .50 cal machine gun with the Mk-19 40mm automatic grenade launcher. Since these weapons provide far more firepower, they consume more ammunition. As a result, large steel ammo boxes would be added to the top of the turret.
The 7.62mm mini-gun and the 40mm auto grenade launcher These external gun mounts also need shields. When the M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier made its debut in Vietnam at the battle of Ap Bac, the .50 cal heavy machine gun mounted atop the M-113 had no armored shields. Anyone who rose out of the top hatch to employ the weapon became the primary target for enemy infantrymen and was quickly gunned down. The Army soon mounted gun shields to correct the problem, seen today on many M113A3 models.
The amtrack turret or Sheridan gun shields are good options One option is the small turret now used on Marine Corps amtracks which mount both a .50cal and 40mm gun. The M551Sheridan light tank used gunshields to form a "crow's nest", while the M-48 and M-60 tanks have large armored cupolas. However, the M1 Abrams has nothing, probably because its designers wanted a clean/mean look. The machine gun can be fired remotely from inside the tank, but visibility is poor, it may jam, and tank commanders have a fatal habit of riding in their open hatch anyway. The Abram tanks need armored shields on the tank commanders' and loaders’ gun mounts, perhaps shields from scrapped tanks could be used.
M-60 tanks had cupolas, but M1 tank crews are totally exposed There are low cost elements of the M1A2 program which should be adopted. GPS systems cost as little as $100 on the commercial market, and even the top-line military versions cost only $5000. An independent thermal viewer for the tank commander is a good idea, but it should cost no more than $10,000. Finally, a small external electric generator is essential, which cost less than $1000 on the commercial market. This allows the tank to shut off its gas guzzling engine while in defensive or overwatch positions. All of these upgrades should cost less than $100,000 per tank, and the Army could designate these infantry killer tanks as M1A3s. This would allow the Army to upgrade thousands of tanks to M1A3s at a lower cost than the M1A2 fiasco in which the Army paid $6 million dollars for minor upgrades to each $3 million dollar M1 tank. A final improvement is to replace the gas guzzling gas turbine engine with an economical diesel, and add a tank roof; ideas described in other G2mil articles. Follow this link for an excellent overview of the M1 tank program. Carlton Meyer editor@G2mil.com Update A year after this article appeared, the US Army began to purchase canister munitions, something I had recommended directly to the Marine Corps back in 1993. The Marines looked into it and wanted some, but determined it would be too expensive unless the Army joined in production, which it refused. XM1028 120mm Canister Tank CartridgeThe Tank Cartridge, 120mm, Canister, XM1028, is a tank round comprised of 1150 (est.) tungsten balls, which are expelled upon muzzle exit. There is no fuse on this round. While the dispersion pattern increases with range as the velocity of the balls decreases, the dense tungsten balls are used to minimize the velocity fall-off. This program responds to the USFK urgency of need signed by the CINC in Dec ‘99. RAPT Initiative Funding to be used for 6.0M in FY02 to accelerate development by one year earlier than previously planned. This round meets urgent CINC, USFK requirements to provide effective rapid lethal reaction against massed assaulting infantry armed with hand held anti-tank and automatic weapons at close range (500 meters or less) thereby improving survivability. Additionally, this round will significantly increase the tank’s lethality and enhance the tank crew’s survivability. This additional capability will give the Abrams Tank the ability to survive RPG ambushes and to fully support friendly infantry assaults.
 ___________________________________________
"Iron Soldiers" is a good Gulf war book, written by tankers from the 1st Mech Division. They disclosed that Soviet-made 125mm guns were unable to penetrate the M1A1 frontal armor, even a close ranges. Their tungsten penetrators stuck into the armor like arrows. However, a T-62 took out two M1A1s at night with flank shots. This Iraqi understood infra-red sensors, so his crew stayed inside their tanks and left the engines off. They used the back-up hand turret crank to aim their gun and blew away two M1A1s at close range before they were hit after their hot gun barrel exposed them. Iraqis who ran their engines to keep warm and power their turret where destroyed at long ranges. Others left their engines off, but stood on top of their tanks to find targets. US tankers thermal systems were so good they could pick up Iraqis "floating" off the ground, and simply fired at their feet. If all the Iraqi tankers sat "cold" at night, VII Corps would have been bloodied in some battles. Letters Some countries field tanks with a light cannon in addition to a 7.62mm machine gun as a coaxial weapon. A 50 caliber MG will be easier to retro-fit and should be nearly as effective, giving the gunner cost effective capability against light armour to at least 2000m. The Israelis use .50 BHMGs mounted above the main gun and these are used for both combat and training. Main Gun improvements. Many years ago Jane's Defence Yearbook compared the Rheinmental smooth bore and Royal Ordinance rifled 120mm guns. It concluded that the rifled gun was the better weapon since it was more versatile. American and German operational experience has confirmed this. One of the reasons that the British gun is more versatile is that it has a HESH round. As well as being an effective anti-tank round it is also a potent demolition round and eliminates the need for a separate HE round. It is unlikely that the Abrams will switch to the Royal Ordinance but it should be possible to issue a fin or drag stabilised HESH round. Other rounds that may prove useful are Canister, WP, Thermobaric and Flame-capsule. Loader's position. I've suggested Mk-19 GMGs mounted above the main gun for other vehicle types, but for a system such as the Abrams that has a human loader it makes more sense to mount this weapon on the loader's hatch. This allows the most suitable belt of ammunition to be loaded to suit the tactical situation. Possible loads include HE/HEDP, smoke, flare and chaff decoys or flechette rounds. Commander's position. The commander's firing position may retain the BHMG, probably with a mantellet so the commander can operate "heads up". The capabilities of BHMG tend to complement those of the loader's Mk-19. The Commander might have a Mk-19 instead of an M2 and the use of two such weapons would allow one to use offensive loads such as HE while the other fires decoy, smoke or flechette ammo. Alternate armaments for this position include the .50 calibre mini-gun The ability to fire rapid ten round bursts may actually reduce ammo expenditure. Gun Shields: Some Israeli tanks have a commander's hatch that can be lifted straight up like a manhole cover. A transparent armored screen could be fitted beneath this. This would be opaque to infra-red so the commander can operate heads up and enjoy good visibility while not giving away the tank's position to thermal imagers. Phil West phil.west@angelfire.com Great article. I have liked the idea of the Mk19 on the M1 for a while. As for the beehive round, that's currently in development, as is a laser guided munition. Also, bring back HEP ammo. Like the idea of the .50 cal coax, though ammo storage would be a problem (but do we really need 14,400 rounds of coax?) and a counter weight would have to added to the gun barrel, but its doable. I like the idea of slaving the commander's weapon to the CITV, though I still like the .50 Cal. Some other additions that could be added for low intensity are grenade launchers mounted on the loader's hatch that can be fired internally like that can be fitted to the Leo and a camera placed on the rear of the tank so the driver can back up from his station without the TC having to unbutton. As for the turbine, you know my position (and a vast majority of the users of this tank) is to get a new turbine, not a noxious, loud, unresponsive diesel. I found this 2001 article in "Armor" magazine which recommends many of your M1A3 ideas: Modifying the Abrams Tank For Fighting in Urban Areas. Phil West |
c#160
c#151
Oh please. What other options do you think exist?! The old M1's are sitting around collecting dust right now.
Do nothing, and they continue to collect dust.
Updgrade them, and then they can be used in combat again.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
No, I'ld choose the right tool for the job in Iraq.
Follow this link.
National Defense | October 2004: Abrams Tank Still Far From Retirement (Army Future Force)
shot-through-their-bow BUMP!
We've had tanks get hit as many as 15 times with RPG fire (Various types).
One particular tank was hit 8 times in one battle in Karbala. Zero crew members were lost under armor of an M1 in Baghdad from enemy activity.
The M1 is liked because it'll take even more than the best Tom Clancy fan would ever believe. That tank is made to be pummeled.
Even knowing where the weak armor is, the enemy most often couldn't even immobilize the M1 and then often paid with his life for trying.
The M1 is a beast. A tank that was mathematically designed and engineered to meet anything out there and kill it. Nothing on the M1 is random or coincidence! That machine costs more than what some countries pay for their fighters! For a SEP tank you pay over $7.2 million dollars (Empty). Many Americans saw this as a waste. Today, many Americans are at home because of this tank and its design.
NEVER in history, not even in WW2 with a King Tiger, has a tank had this track record. What your relative rode on in 1AD is a M1A1HA (AIMS and D model) which came out about 1985 (AIMS is to make an old tank like new for reliability and the “D” made them capable of dealing with digitalization)! The M1 is actually OLDER than some of its enemies in Iraq which were built AFTER 1985 (Even though the T72 is an older design). This tank has seen real world combat in three separate campaigns. There is only ONE case where two crewmembers have EVER been killed under armor from enemy activity in 24 years service and three campaigns.
The M1 proved invaluable in urban operations. With its 50cal which is remote controlled from within (Under armor) a coax and main gun the M1 was able to do things which spared the Infantry from conducting dangerous missions. The 50cal in particular was VERY effective because it can reach into building better and was able to super elevate (Allowing to shoot into higher floors of tall adjacent buildings) without needing to expose anyone. The M1A1 in this one respect has an advantage over the newer M1A2 and M1A2SEP.
The M1 is an awesome machine! Now, years later, and after a lot of criticism, no one really wants to admit that they were a skeptic of this machine.
Red6
5.56mm
Improvements for the M1.
1. Driver has rear view camera with night image intensifier.
2. Loader has a cammera with 360 degrees viewing and with night image intensifier.
3. 50cal on A2 and SEP are agian operational from within the tank and under armor. NO MORE FLEX MOUNT. The new 50cal should be the M3 electric 50 cal as on the OH58 and Avenger systems. This means that the gun is charged and cycles etc all at the push of a button. The Old periscope is digitized and runs into the new screen in the tank so that the old periscope is not needed and the TC can see good and easily. Again, the sight needs a night image intensifier.
4. Ballistic skirts need to run the whole length of the tank.
5. The APU needs to go outside again and more fuel needs carried as on the older M1A1. Range and duration is always good.
6. The fuel system needs to use a nitrogen fire suppression system (Push the O2 out) so that the JP8 which don't ignite easy to begin with is even less flamable.
7. Since were going all the way and mobility is out the window anyway with the additional balistic skirts we might as well add more armor. Forget air transportability at this point, but we could up armor selected areas that have been statistical weak spots.
8. ADD AN ACTIVE AND PASSIVE DEFENSIVE COUNTERMEASURE SYSTEM! Not of great use against RPGs in Iraq, but very much needed against enemies with highly capable ATGM threats.
9. Add hardhat bomblet protection so that DPICM type munitions are less capable against the M1.
10. Replace the APG1500 with the LV100! Stay turbine since it's hands down the best answer, but just go to a newer and better design.
Red6
Well it does sound like it could be possible. What about heat? I think the gun would surely melt.
However the barrel could be shrouded inside the turret itself and a sealed cooling system could be added around it inside the turret. It would not expose the crew to any hot rotating parts and the turret could be extended a little to the rear.
Actually what you're proposing has already been done by the Russians who built a super heavy urban tank based on an actual MBT. They mount the Kliever turret on it with 4 ATGMs (Ready to fire), 2x30mm cannons (super elevating) and a coax.
I guess we could do the same, but why? The Bradley (ODS and A3) with ERA as we use it in combat is very capable, especially when task organized with just a few tanks (with plows). What some need to do is learn how to employ their assets.
Red6
Why? Because the M1 and M1A1 are almost completely imperveous to RPG fire, for reason #1, and for reason #2, we have hundreds (possibly thousands) of mothballed M1 and M1A1 MBT's collecting rust in Anniston, Alabama rather than being upgraded and sent into combat.
What our ground troops need is better close-in urban fire support. We need vehicles that can maintain a "presence" under the most withering of RPG fire in crowded urban environments such as Fallujah. We need the firepower of the A10 Warthog, but on the ground in a package that can hold territory for extended periods of time, all while taking out large numbers of enemy ground troops.
So you want to take adavantage of the armor on currently unused, stored, mothballed, rust-collecting old M1's and M1A1's back stateside. That armor can handle RPG attacks.
But the 105mm and 120mm cannons have limited anti-personnel value in urban environments. You can only fire so many rounds of cannister, and rapid manual reloading is archaic.
So you want a main weapon on those particular armored platforms that is more in line with urban anti-personnel operations rather than rural anti-tank combat.
Likewise, there is little incentive to stick with a century old 2 track design when four half-tracks would maintain mobility even if an entire track was thrown off in manuevers or blown off in combat.
So keep the M1 armor. Keep the M1 turbine. Lose the loader. Switch to an auto-loaded machine gun, upgrade to 4 half-tracks instead of two giant treads, add a small arms direction detection system, and add a speaker/intercom system to allow rudimentary communication with nearby friendly troops.
Now take that new beast into the darkest enemy-occupied town and become a human lawnmower.
"We need vehicles that can maintain a "presence" under the most withering of RPG fire in crowded urban environments such as Fallujah."
And that's where we use the M1A1 or better. A M2ODS or M2A3 (Either with ERA) does pretty well against RPGs and other HEAT weapons. But they can carry troops. No matter what you do to a M1, it will not be an effective troop carrier. It was never laid out for that. The best missions for the M1 are:
Make rubble
Clear barricades with plow
Create rapid entry point into buildings.
Reduce fortified enemy fighting positions with 120 or 50cal
Use FLIR/THERMALS to ID enemy
Power amp and antennas give long range/better comms.
Use as mobile shield for movement of troops through city
Generate smoke
Deceive enemy as to real main effort
Use as mobile road block
Disperse crowds with hot exhaust and swinging tube
IED route clearance (Designed to take the biggest mines they will just get damaged but seldom suffer any personnel casualties)
Why mention this? The M1 and M2 compliment one another. Where one lacks the other picks up. Adding capabilities like the Russians did is not necessary for us because the M2 and M1 working in concert do an awesome job as is. You'd be creating a redundant capability already available in either the M1 or M2. We fight as Battalion Task forces or Company Teams. Even a Platoon may be mixed with tanks and Brads. The capabilities are there already. The 25mm on the M2 has an incredible sting. HEIT is some nasty stuff and there are even special TOWs available for reducing bunkers and other objects besides tanks (Bunker TOW).
The real issue is collateral damage! How much are we willing to destroy to get to someone. There is NOTHING in Iraq that can stop a single Battalion task force from going anywhere. If we wanted to we could surely go right through Fallujah back and fourth until we get board. But are we willing to pay the cost in bad press? When they use human shields, hide in Mosques, shoot from hospitals and use cemeteries as battle grounds, you end up paying the political and Information Operations price for fighting in the area they picked. The advantage of the defense for the enemy is: The enemy can pick the time and place to fight usually. In Fallujah the US forces are either:
1. Wanting the Iraqis to do this themselves. Greater Iraqi participation.
2. Not willing to decimate a city going after an asymmetric enemy for other reasons.
With sheer brute force they can NOT stop us regardless of what they do. But it’s a big game that is ALL political and information based at this point. Is it a coincidence that Sadr stepped up his activities during the hand off between 1CD and 1AD right before the transition of power to the Iraqi government? Shear coincidence that Osama releases a tape right before the election showing that he’s still alive and Bush failed (That’s the intended perception it’s supposed to create)?. Fulludjah is no different. They dug in and use the civilians etc basically as human shields and play the media as much as they can. If Bush gets reelected their done. In my small mind, we are waiting until after the elections so this won’t turn into an election issue. I would not be surprised if Fallujah turns into dust on 3 NOV if Bush gets reelected.
Hello
Right. I don't want the M1A10 to be a troop carrier...I want it to be an RPG-proof machine-gun pillbox on the ground with our infantry in hotspots such as encountered during urban assaults.
I want it to be an A-10 ground air support fighter jet...but parked on the ground next to our troops rather than only briefly flying overhead.
I say we take and M48A5 or M60A1/A3 that fires canister or shot and use it as a urban tank. The M2 carries HE, HEI, and APHEI. Switch out th M73 with the M-240D and put a Mk19 on the loaders mount and tada, a UCT.
Oh yes the big GAU-8 on a chasiss everyones talking about is the T-249-B Vigilante it fired a 38mm round and was in service for a short time.
Someones been palying too much Halo.
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.
