Posted on 11/19/2019 6:49:44 AM PST by Lowell1775
The U.S. Army’s newest tank in the summer of 2019 should enter service with the first large unit to use the type.
The Army in late 2017 accepted the very first M-1A2C Abrams tanks. Nearly two years later the service has enough of the new vehicles to equip an entire brigade.
“We’re in the throes of getting that together,” Hank Kennedy, a manager at General Dynamics’ tank plant in Lima Ohio, told Lima News.
The “first brigade is critical because we need to get [them] into the soldiers’ hands so they can get trained on it and everything else,” Kennedy said.
A U.S. Army armored brigade typically operates around 100 tanks. The Army has 16 armored brigades as part of a total force of 58 combat brigades.
The M-1A2C is the latest variant of Abrams to enter production. Congress in 2019 gave the Army $1.5 billion to buy 135 M-1s from General Dynamics, extending a program that began in the 1970s.
The Army’s budget proposal for 2020 asks for 174 new and upgraded tanks.
The new M-1A2C Abrams boasts new active and passive protection that could help to protect it from the latest enemy weaponry. The most obvious new features of the M-1A2C are the vehicle's Trophy active-protection systems and an additional slab of armor on the front of its turret.
Trophy uses a radar to detect incoming missiles and rockets then fires tiny projectiles to intercept the munitions. The Army also is back-fitting Trophy to some older M-1 models.
The first M-1 entered service with the Army in 1980. The original M-1 packed a 105-millimeter gun. The Army bought 3,300 of them. In 1984 the Army added thicker armor to a batch of new M-1s and called these 900 tanks M-1IPs. The U.S. military no longer uses these early M-1s.
A major upgrade in 1986 added a new 120-millimeter gun. This is the M-1A1. The Army and Marines bought 5,200 copies through 1992. Roughly a thousand M-1A1s still are in service with the Marines and Army National Guard. Another 3,000 or so are in storage.
There are a bewildering number of subvariants of the M-1A1, each boasting incremental improvements in drive-train, armor and electronics. The latest upgrade, the M-1A1SA, has a factory-fresh engine, digital electronics and a top-secret armor blend that includes a thin layer of uranium.
The Army plans to retire all M-1A1SAs by 2025.
The M-1A2 appeared in 1992. It’s pretty much a new tank, with better armor than the basic M-1A1 plus a new internal layout and fresh sensors that together allow the gunner and the commander independently to search for targets.
The Army has acquired around 1,500 M-1A2s and converted most of them to the System Enhancement Package Version 2 standard. The M-1A2SEPv2, which General Dynamics describes as a "digital tank," features high-end computers, a remotely-operated machine gun on the turret and a dozen batteries that allow the tank quietly to operate its sensors without turning on its engine.
The M-1A2C in essence is a better-protected M-1A2SEPv2 that's also easier to upgrade. In addition to Trophy and more armor, the new tank boasts more electrical power, better diagnostic systems and a data-link that's compatible with programmable ammunition types that are in development.
"The Abrams M-1A2C can host any mature technology the Army deems operationally relevant," the Army stated.
The latest version of the M-1 arguably is the best tank in the world. For now.
Russia and China both are developing new fighting vehicles. Russia's high-tech Armata tank has run into development problems. China successfully has fielded hundreds of new Type 99A tanks that roughly are similar to mid-generation, digital M-1s.
But China has struggled to adapt old-style doctrine to its new armor. In early 2019, the Chinese army's 81st Group Army, riding in Type 99As, lost a mock battle during a war game in Mongolia, Global Times reported, citing the state-run CCTV television news network.
"We rushed with the Type 99A too close to the frontline, which did not optimize the use of the tank's combat capability," CCTV quoted Xu Chengbiao, a battalion commander in the brigade, as saying.
"We only studied the capabilities of older tanks, but have not completely understood new ones," Zhao Jianxin, another battalion commander, reportedly told CCTV.
Anticipating the day when Russia resumes modernizing its tank corps and China figures out how to use its own new fighting vehicles, the U.S. Army already is planning a new M-1 variant to follow the M-1A2C.
The "cornerstone technology" of the M-1A2D is a new infrared sensor, according to the Army. The newest Abrams will also sport a new laser range-finder and will be compatible with artificial intelligence that could make the tank more autonomous, the Army stated.
The plant in Lima, the only factory in the United States that builds tanks, nearly is doubling its workforce in anticipation of large orders for new tanks.
Kennedy told Lima News the tank plant’s workforce has grown from around 500 to more than 600 since a hiring spree started in late 2018. He said he expects the workforce to expand to 700 by the end of 2019 and exceed 900 in 2020.
David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. This article first appeared earlier this year.
The Army doesn’t retire old Abrams tanks. They reset them to the latest configuration. This has been going on since the M1A1 was produced from scratch.
Like aircraft carriers, they are very vulnerable these days.
Did you read the OP?
“The first M-1 entered service with the Army in 1980. The original M-1 packed a 105-millimeter gun. The Army bought 3,300 of them. In 1984 the Army added thicker armor to a batch of new M-1s and called these 900 tanks M-1IPs. The U.S. military no longer uses these early M-1s.”
Yeah, that’s what Poland thought when Germany hit them with a mechanized army. How’d that work out for them?
Didn’t the early version have problems with premature wear on the transaxle? I seem to recall a joke about the Army having their new tanks but wouldn’t drive them in parades because they didn’t want them wear them out.
Yeah, well, I was promised flying cars by the time I was an adult.
A Bolo would work...
Or an Ogre...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogre_(game)
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5206/ogre
Army tanker and cavalry ping.
The initial prototypes had several problems, one being the air cleaners/filters. All of those were solved before production began, but folks kept on saying that since the problems had existed the tanks should not have been produced.
I remember that we had vertical air filters on the M-60A2 versus horizontal ones on the M-60A1 and folks complained about that. It was something that the crews had to remember after transitioning from A1s to A2s.
I didnt see anything about dealing with the fuel hog turbine engines? Wasn’t. there a desire to go tova diesel?
You don’t need to attack the M1As. Just blow up the fuel trucks and wait half a day.
Actually I did read the article. Are you aware the Kornet EM has not as yet been tested vs. Trophy?
“If the Kornet EM and RPG 30 cannot overcome the Trophy, the next generation will.” From Israeli Firepower.com. That is what is was suggesting. Unless of course you know what exactly Russia has?
Of course I did. That's why I wrote:
"This has been going on since the M1A1 was produced from scratch."
The Army built a small number of M1A2 tanks from scratch. Most were upgrades from the M1A1, although the degree of changes made upgrading rather than building new dubious.
As the M1A1 was fielded to priority units, the M1s and M1IPs were sent rearward to continue replacing the M60 tanks. Those early Abrams are all gone from the Army.
That is what I was suggesting. Typo.
Does the M1 series tank have the means for the crew to manually transverse the turret and elevate and depress the gun? An EMP event could fry the electronic and electrical circuitry and controls for the engine and other power sources.
As long as they draw heavy fires away from dismounted infantry and sappers who do the hard work afoot, wearing Kevlar instead of 78 tons of steel ceramic and uranium....
Plus, those jet turbine engines really can dry out a grunt or a sapper in a few minutes after a heavy rain..
The M60s had cranks to manually elevate and traverse the turret and a plunger type generator to spark off the primer and fire the gun along with a bubble level and an optical gunners telescope along side the gun, the 105D I think.
The stereoscopic coincidence range finder worker manually too.
You had to compensate for cant and QE for ammo type with Kentucky windage, BOT, burst on target.
Course with no power the engagement would be a short one unless you got Ivan first...
Of course not.
However, if the designers don’t take into account the fact that the system may fail, by one means or another, then they will make the tanks and tank crews vulnerable.
The whole system should default to some basic mode that will allow some minimal function. It could be purely defensive such as being able to drive the tank to a safe place for repairs.
The M-1 Abrams was designed in the early 1970s. It is regarded as semi-obsolete. Several alternative systems have been created and discontinued since then.
However the problem remains that sooner or later the US will need a new class of MBT. Likely created with advanced materials, it could be much lighter, yet have far better defensive capabilities and carry more powerful weapons.
Except in the Abrams’ case, it is. The basic automotive components of the tank date to the 70s with some updates, whereas mechanically, the 2020 Vette doesn’t bear much resemblance at all to the 1953. Iron block I6 and stick axle vs all-aluminum V8 and IRS.
That said, the M1A2C’s integration of an actual APS is something that is grossly overdue.
This is more like it. Some basic “default.” Minimal capabilities to get you back to base safely if the systems are damaged.
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.