The M1A3 Abrams Tank Thread (proposals for modernizing our aging fleet of M1 and M1A1 tanks)

Multiple Sources ^ | 8/20/2004 | Multiple

[Southack]

"Oh, and by the way, that tank with a GAU-8 on it was tried already. They called it the Sergeant York. If I recall, the reason why it was never adopted was because it would take a great many of them to provide adequate air defense for any sizable formation."

No! Not for air defense like the ill-fated Sgt. York, for urban combat.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

---

Over a period of three decades four successive generations of upgraded forward area air defense systems -- from Mauler to Roland to Sgt. York to ADATS -- were all canceled, at a total cost of more than $6.7 billion.

The M247 Sergeant York DIVAD (Division Air Defence gun) was born of the Army's need for a replacement for the ageing M163 20mm Vulcan A/A gun and M48 Chaparral missile systems. With the Soviet Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter being fitted with the longer range AT-6 SPIRAL Anti-tank missiles and twin barrelled 23mm cannon, and the Mi-28 Havoc nearing deployment, the M163 and M48 systems would be out-classed in a future conflict. In addition, the Soviet's ZSU-23/4 SHILKA Quad 23mm A/A gun combined a radar with a proven gun fitted to an existing chassis resulting in a highly successful and lethal design.

The new self-propelled anti-aircraft gun system was to be based on the M48A5 tank chassis, using as much off-the-shelf equipment as possible. Two designs were submitted, one from General Dynamics using twin 35mm Oerlikon cannon (as with the West German Leopard) and the other from Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation which utilised twin 40mm L/70 Bofors Guns. In May 1981 the Ford Aerospace entry was selected and designated M247 Sergeant York, featuring the twin 40mm guns mounted in a new box like armoured turret with both tracking and surveillance radar fitted atop, these could be folded down to reduce overall height. The gunner was provided with roof mounted sight incorporating a laser range-finder. the commander having a panoramic roof mounted periscope and fixed periscopes. The radar was a modified version of the Westinghouse APG-66 system used in the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

With the first production vehicles being delivered in late 1983 many problems remained, the most serious being the radar's inability to track low flying targets due to excessive ground clutter. The radar could not distinguish between a hovering helicopter and a clump of trees. And when tracking high flying targets, the radar return from the gun barrel tips confused the fire control system. Turret traverse was also too slow to track a fast crossing target. The ECM (electronic counter-measures) suite could be defeated by only minor jamming. And the use of the 30 year old M48 chassis design meant the vehicle had trouble keeping pace with the newer M1 Abrams and M2/3 Bradley's, the very vehicles it was designed to protect.

These problems proved insurmountable, and in December 1986 after about 50 vehicles had been produced the entire program was terminated.

[Wombat101]

My apologies. I did not realize the Sgt. York had twin-40's. However, the "gatling-on-a-tank-chasis" idea was tried, and it failed. If you want to resurrect it for urban combat, a GAU-8 is a bad choice. The need to haul around all that ammo alone disqualifies it.

What's needed for urban combat is not a new vehicle, nor an upgraded Abrams, which is an Main Battle Tank (i.e. it's supposed to take on other tanks, not buildings). What's needed are different TACTICS, and perhaps a little less sympathy for the enemy. I don't want to trade 3 or 4 men for every sniper, a tank and it's crew for every raghead with an RPG. I'd rather go back to old-fashioned devestation and let the other side worry about losing people.

Changing the tank into an "all in one vehicle" does not solve the problem. When you set out to do everything, you wind up capable of doing nothing at all.

[Southack]

"The M1 is good to go, as is. The only improvements that should be made should concern themselves with mobility and protection (other than cupolas and gun shields). Not firepower."

Yes and no. Yes to the extent that the M1 series is the reigning world heavyweight tank champion. It kills all other tanks dead.

But "no" in the sense that a lot of our War on Terror missions are no longer against other enemy *tanks*, but against enemy personnel in urban environments (think Najaf, Fallujah, Basra, Baghdad, etc.).

Moreover, we've got some 2,300 M1's that are mothballed, unavailble for our use because they are officially "obsolete" with their 105mm main battle cannon.

Please keep in mind that we have 3 prime variants of Abrams tank: the original M1, the M1A1, and the M1A2. Of these ~~ 7,000 U.S. tanks, around 2,000 of the older M1 original variants are off-limits and parked in the States.

I'd like to see those "obsolete" units upgraded into a vehicle that could support our current urban warfare operations (e.g. in Najaf).

For such roles, the upgrades in demand would be those options that enabled greater "staying power" (e.g. 4 half tracks instead of 2 treads) and better infantry support (e.g. with the A-10 ground attack fighter's great GAU-8 30mm gattling cannon).

Then I'd like to move them out of the States and into places like Iraq and afghanistan where they could make the Iranians nervous.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[fso301]

They called it the Sergeant York.

Sgt. York had twin 40mm Bofors.

[fso301]

[Wombat101]

Yes, and I was corrected. The Sgt. York was meant to replace the older gatling-on-a-chasis and failed. My bad.

[Calvin Locke]

One of the advantages of using gatling guns in [fixed wing] aircraft is the "cooling airflow".

So, what's the effective rate of fire for a one in the desert in the the middle of summer? All 3600 rounds, continuously?

And still be able to be re-armed and ready for battle?

[Southack]

"My apologies. I did not realize the Sgt. York had twin-40's. However, the "gatling-on-a-tank-chasis" idea was tried, and it failed."

No problem, but keep in mind that the Sgt. York failed in a different mission. Who wants to perform air defense with cannons these days, after all?!

I want gattling cannons to be used for anti-personnel operations, a mission that this weapon already excels at on the battle-proven A-10 ground attack fighter.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[fso301]

[endthematrix]

"...little less sympathy for the enemy."

The best concept yet...

[Southack]

Used on the ground, the higher rate of fire isn't required. I'd see if dropping the firing rate from 1,800 per minute on the A-10 down to 900 per minute on the M1 would be adequate.

That rate of fire would permit 480 half-second bursts, or up to 4 solid minutes of non-stop 30mm cannon fire between reloads.

Keep in mind that the lower rate of fire dramatically reduces cooling needs, and belt-fed ammo can be re-supplied and re-loaded on the battlefield.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Wombat101]

Gee, and a 105 mm gun wouldn't be useful in a short-range knife fight like Najaf? They may be classified as "obsolete" for tank-on-tank combat, but they would probably do some good in urban combat. Again, the question is NOT whether a tank can be adapted to fight in that type of enviornment, because it certainly can, although many of the changes needed to make it "invulnerable" in such situations would make it incapable of carrying out it's primary objective: taking out other tanks. The question is "Is a technological development necessary to make such operations safer for our troops?". The answer to that is NOT a new tank or a new vehicle, or perhaps even new technology. The answer is in better (perhaps more brutal) tactics with EXISTING weapons systems.

I could give a rat's behind about how many dead we leave behind in street fighting in Najaf, so long as they weren't AMERICAN dead. To do that you flatten the place and return it to nature. You do not spend several billion dollars on new tanks. Money that would be spent on the upgrades/changes you suggest would be better spent on research on the next generation of MBT's or perhaps in better training/prtoection for our infantry (of which, we are critically short).

The current "War on Terror" missions you're talking about are not difficult because we lack a killer weapon, but because we lack boots and the stomach for dirty fighting. If you think differently, I remind you that there have been at least 3 cease-fires in Najaf and the other side has used the time to regroup before attacking again. New tanks do not solve that problem. Destruction of the enemy does.

It's a different mindset that's required.

[Southack]

"If you look at an A-10, you need to realize that the GAU-8 is so big it actually extends underneath and behind the cockpit. If you attempted to mount something like that on an armored vehicle the size of the M1 you would have to remove the turrent entirely..."

I'm not following you. The full-sized GAU-8 is about 20 feet long, including the whole barrel. The M1 is about 32 feet long including its barrel. The center of the M1 is the center of the M1's turrent, which is about 16 feet from the muzzle of the barrel.

The GAU-8 can be downsized to 18 feet on a ground unit simply because the ground platform is more stable and slower moving. So extending the GAU-8's barrel 1 foot past the 105mm's position would put the entire GAU-8 and ammo inside the first half of the M1 (plus 1 additional foot past the centerline of the turret).

That's precisely where you want it located so as to allow for elevation changes.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[endthematrix]

Actually not so bad!

Could be better served in Iraq on patrol than a Humvee!

[Wombat101]

What I'd really like to see is a return of the flamethrower and napalm. Those would be a far sight more effective (IMHO) than a new vehicle.

[Southack]

"Gee, and a 105 mm gun wouldn't be useful in a short-range knife fight like Najaf? They may be classified as "obsolete" for tank-on-tank combat, but they would probably do some good in urban combat."

Even if using anti-personnel beehive rounds, the problems with the 105mm cannon include not being able to fire off a round when friendly troops are nearby as well as the vastly slower reloading speed of the manual 105mm loader versus the automated 30mm gattling cannon.

This is why A-10 attack fighters use the GAU-8 gattling cannon for anti-personnel missions instead of being equipped with a 105mm cannon loaded with beehive rounds.

I want that same A-10 anti-personnel firepower on the ground. I want it in what are now our "obsolete" and mothballed M1 tanks, and I want those GAU-8 tanks where ever our troops are located.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[endthematrix]

Some GAU scale..damn! Don't point that thing in my direction! I's like to see that gun on a chassis! But from what I hear the thrust is a KICKER! Could you imagine the dust it would stir up?!

[Southack]

"be better spent on research on the next generation of MBT's or perhaps in better training/prtoection for our infantry (of which, we are critically short)."

What I'm proposing is *entirely* for infantry support.

Call it the M1A10, because it is the A-10 fighter parked on the ground right next to our troops, protected by M1 armor.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Kornev]

I was mostly commenting on old M60's for use.

[endthematrix]

To be honest, what about EF weapons? We are hearing nothing about the "pain-gun" most assuredly used in Najaf now. Zapping or using acoustic weapons are worthy of discussion in urban fighting vehicles. Fry the bastards!