TUSK to update Abrams for urban battle (TREAD-HEAD ALERT)

ARNEWS ^ | 03/09/05 | Eric W. Cramer

[SandRat]

The M1A2 Abrams tank is shown with TUSK improvements that will adapt it for the urban battlefield.

TUSK to update Abrams for urban battle

By Eric W. Cramer
March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, March 9, 2005) -- The Abrams tank is growing a TUSK – that’s Tank Urban Survival Kit, a series of improvements, including some still in development.

TUSK will allow Soldiers in the field to improve the Abrams’ ability to survive in urban areas off the traditional battlefield for which it was designed.

Lt. Col. Michael Flanagan, product manager for TUSK, said the goal is to help improve the tank’s survivability.

“You have to remember, the tank was a Cold War design, aimed at a threat that was always to its front. It’s still the most survivable weapon in the arsenal from the front,” Flanagan said. “Today it’s a 360-degree fight, and these systems are designed to improve survivability in that urban environment.”

The TUSK includes additional protection at the loader’s gun station on the turret, the commander’s gun station, reactive armor to protect the tank’s side from attack by rocket-propelled grenades and slat armor to protect the tank’s rear from the same weapon, and the tank/infantry telephone to allow infantry and armor Soldiers to work together in combat.

Flanagan said all the proposed upgrades use “off the shelf” technology, and the goal is for the entire TUSK to be applied by units in the field, without requiring a return to a depot for modification.

“The reactive armor, for example, is a product similar to what’s on the Bradley (Armored Fighting Vehicle),” Flanagan said. “It’s explosive armor that protects the vehicle.”

Another example would be the slat armor designed to protect the tank’s rear from RPG attack. It is similar in design and concept to the slat armor used on the Stryker armored vehicles for the same purpose.

The first TUSK component to reach the field has been the Loader’s Armored Gun Shield, which provides protection to the loader when the Soldier is firing the 7.62mm machinegun on the Abrams’ turret. Flanagan said about 130 of the shields have already been purchased and sent to units in Iraq. Also incorporated into the loader’s firing position is a thermal sight, giving the position the ability to locate and fire on targets in the dark.

“This is the same unit that is used on machineguns carried by infantry troops, and we’ve incorporated it into the loader’s position,” Flanagan said. He said a system that attaches a pair of goggles to the sight, allowing the loader to fire the gun from inside the turret, while seeing the thermal sight’s image, is under development.

Also under development are improvements to the commander’s station outside the turret, although different systems are necessary for the M-1A2 Abrams and its older M1-A1 brethren.

“Because of things we added to the turret in the A2, the commander’s station had lost the ability to shoot the .50-caliber machinegun while under armor,” Flanagan said. “We’re developing a Remote Weapons Station, that will probably be similar to the one used on the Stryker, to allow that weapon to be fire from inside the turret.”

Flanagan said the design could also allow the use of the crewed weapon station used on Humvees, but a final determination hasn’t been made.

Ultimately, most of these add-ons will be incorporated into a kit – installed in the field and removed in the field as a pre-positioned component for the next Abrams unit to take duty in that location. Flanagan said some kits will begin to reach the field later this year.

At least some of the kits’ components may also be included in new Abrams’ production.

“The loader’s shield and the remote weapons station, and the tank/infantry telephone all may be included as regular production items in the tank,” Flanagan said. “It’s important to remember that the Abrams will continue to be the dominant weapons system for the Army until at least 2030.”

 

[SandRat]

For all you TREAD-HEADS out there.

[Lurker]

OK, I guess I'm really old. I never saw a tank that didn't have a telephone on the back.

Of course the ones I saw still could be fitted with Zippos. Most of them didn't work well, but we still had them.

L

[endthematrix]

Heck ya! That's some major upgrades! Making a great product better!

[SandRat]

oooooOOOOO a ZIPPO Track!!!!

Most of the field telephones for the infantry went out when the Abrams was first introduced as it was supposed to SPEED across the battlefield and infantry walking just wasn't in the picture (bean counters at work again).

[USNBandit]

Hey, where's the flame thrower?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Lurker]

Oh yea, that whole 'tanks don't need to be supported by infantry' thing. I forgot about that.

Some genius actually figured out that some guys with mud on their boots might like to talk to the guy in the big armored thingy over there, and that the aforemention guy with mud on his boots might not have a radio.

Whodathunkit.....

L

[Calpernia]

In your opinion...what is the point for urban abilities?

[SandRat]

That's on a classified variant called the John Wayne Zippo Lighter Track and it tows a 500 gal Zippo fuel trailer behind it by the towing pintle and connecting hoses. The valve controls are in the turret and the igniter is at the end of a special fuel hose mounted beneath the main gun.

Nah, just pulling your leg the Army doesn't have anymore flamethrowers anymore that I'm aware of. Something about the GHC protocols and making that stuff illegal.

[Professional Engineer]

ping

[Lurker]

I've been asking myself that very question a lot these days.

It seems that the US Military could use a few thousand good old fashioned flame throwers these days. Especially since we seem to be sooooo concerend that some bad guys might be hiding in caves.

Oh yea, like that's never happened to us before.

L

[SandRat]

The guy with mud caked on his boots.

[John Lenin]

Ready to do battle in the West Bank bump

[endthematrix]

Here's a Marine Corps critique of the MIA1 back from 1989. It also lamented the lack of an infantry phone. Also of note it said that advancing infantry would have difficulty using the Abrams as cover due to the heat of the gas turbine exhaust from the rear.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/GKJ.htm

[Spktyr]

Telephone's been gone since the mid-life M60. The idea was that infantry would communicate via individual headset radio, but DoD never got around to getting that system deployed (a mistake, IMHO).

[SandRat]

The same as it always has been for the tank on any battlefield --- to scare the living bejeezeus out of your enemy and when needed be the traveling infantry rolling organic direct fire artillery.

[Wiseghy]

“You have to remember, the tank was a Cold War design, aimed at a threat that was always to its front. It’s still the most survivable weapon in the arsenal from the front,”

Every weapon system ever was built for problems and environment presented in the last war. Hope they show a little more imagination next time they build a major system. Looking at the Russian experience in Cheneya or Israel's in the territories might have taught them more about what we might face in urban combat. Admittedly, however, it's very tough to assimilate these lessons until you have your own casualities and your own strategies are affected.

Armed Services committees might pay heed; it's not overengineering when the military asks for these capabilities and they get blown off by staffers and Representatives who just can't understand why they are needed---until the body bags show up.

[Spktyr]

Eh, it was supposed to be supported by mounted infantry in Bradleys. (shrug)
And, as I said, infantry was *supposed* to get short range personal commo sets, but that didn't work out.

[SandRat]

Yep Army Infantry said the same thing but the bean counters knew better.