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 |
Okay, I see your point, only it doesn't work. The GAU-8 does the job on tanks and vehicles because it attacks SINGLE targets, one at a time. A GAU-8 will not take out a building full of guerillas. A GAU-8 will not cause secondary fires/explosions when it's round comes into contact with concrete. A GAU-8 does what it does to tanks because it's ammo is designed to penetrate their armor, not because of the number of rounds it punches out. If it was simply a question of number of bullets and penetrating power, then every AC-130 and A-10 in the world would be over Najaf right now.
It's not exactly an efficient way of doing business against the type of foe we face right now.
The weapons we have are just fine, when they are used in the way they were designed to be used. Tanks and gatling guns are not suitable weapons for urban combat. High explosives and a lack of remorse ARE suitable weapons. Let's use what we have, more intelligently and less sympathetically, before we go designing new combat systems.
If, in the end, the EXPERTS agree that what we have is not up to scratch, they'll make the changes. But stop gaps and wish lists do not win the kinds of fights we're in now. Vietnam proved that. It wasn't the weapons that failed there, but the WILL to use them that did. We have the same problem here.
I believe that an armored division has about 315 tanks, while one of our heavy Mech Infantry divisions (of which we have at least 4 - 1st, 3rd and 4th Inf, and 1st Cav) has about 250. Of course, we only have one "armored" division left, the 1st Armored.
Good idea, that dozer blade. I seem to recall an awful lot of Japanese being bulldozed inside their bunkers during WWII.
I would add that for urban fire support a new type of grenade launcher needs to be developed. I would envision one with a higher rate of fire than the MK19 that fires rounds similar in pressure to the MK19 rated pressures (as opposed to the M203 pressures). This would have been excellent for Mogadishu.
One of the problems in Mogadishu was that the locals were blocking roads with burning tires, cars and debris. A vehicle that can punch through this would be essential.
And that's 1,000+ tanks designated as "Mech Infantry" rather than in an "Amored Division". I know that mixing tanks and infantry is only smart tactics, since they complement each other, but since the tanks are operating in smaller units within the generic infantry division anyway, why not collect them under one banner and parcel them out as needed?
Or is it, again, a matter of having something that appears to do everything, i.e. having a total, combined-arms unit in one package that at least trains together all the time?
Do we have anyone who can answer this for me?
Sorry, I'm forgetful tonight. By 'distinct' I mean that you still want infantry with the MBTs but those Divisions should be specialized for killing other MBT Divisions. A separate division for urban warfare should be created using the fire support platform. IMHO.
Yes, they are complimentary. Armor keeps enemy aromor off the infantry and infantry keeps their counterparts off the armor. I know this. What we wind up with is armor that winds up performing infantry support in an urban enviornment which is not a good thing. A tank functions they way it does because it manuevers, not just because it has tremendous firepower. You cannot do this when you are in street fighting or tied to infantry.
Rather than a new platform, I'm thinking more along the lines of going back to an older (and seemingly discredited) way of waging war: total destruction, which was the hallmark of western military practice since ancient Greece. This "hearts and minds" b.s. does not work until the enemy has had the snot beat out of him and is in no position to continue resistance.
Again, we do not need a new platform for this. What we need is a return to an older mindset. We no longer have Pattons and Shermans in command of our armed forces. Instead, we have Dr. Phil or Oprah with four stars. A little less caring for the other guy and a lot more emphasis on WINNING and KILLING might actually be more beneficial than any new wonder weapon.
Yep, we covered that, and I was corrected earlier. But thanks anyway!
There, you have an APC with firepower! (AMOS)
It was canx in part because the York system used somehthing called an ADEWS, a SLC-32 on a stick - or a bullet magnet.
Using a high power jammer on the ground in todays modern warfare is - well, stupid. SO the whole York system was dumped. I got to play with the EW/ESM part of the ADEWS - kinda cool for training, but fatal in a real battle.
Chamber pressure. The MK-19 fires at a much higher chamber pressure (hence the much longer range of it's 40mm round) than the M203.
And almost totally useless in an age where missiles and artillery can take a target out well outside of gun range. The Sgt. York came into this conversation because I mixed up the York and the M163, which was a gatling on a chasis. The originator of this thread was thinking it would be a good idea to put a gatling into an urban combat zone, but I disagree.
However, them twin 40's would do a good job, I think.
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.
