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

XM1028 120mm Canister Tank Cartridge

The 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.

NOTES
___________________________________________

"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.

     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.

      Maybe what is needed is not a retrofitted M1, but another type of tank all together. It is obvious that the M1 series was NOT designed to support infantry, but for the infantry to support the tank. I believe that if the US Army attempts to modify the Abrams to fit the urban combat mission, it will turn out like the Bradley and become pretty much worthless in any mission. What is needed is to upgrade the M60A3 tank (which incorporates already many of the upgrades your want) for use in urban conflict fighting. The US Army is working under McNamarians concepts of one vehicle, multiple missions instead of one vehicle, one mission. The Abrams is unparalleled in its current mission, that of tank killer. Why try to make it something it isn't? Add a Bradley A3 CIV to an M60A3, put in a .50 cal coax (there's more than enough room on the 60, unlike the M1) and a Mk19 in the commander's cupola, put on Blazer Armor, add an overpressurized NBC system, rear mounted camera and loader's hatch grenade launcher and you have the perfect tank for urban warfare. It carries 63 105mm rounds and the design for beehive, HE and HEP are already out there so they don't have to be developed, it has an escape hatch in the floor, a dismount phone without a turbine, heavy armor and ballistic fire computer, LRF and thermals. It is relatively slow and can still use it's turret with infantry mounted on top. It is unlikely it will get into a tank on tank engagement in the city, so it would only have to carry a few SABOT, so the rest can be used to make new dorrs into buildings. Why mess with a tank that is outstanding in its current mission when it isn't needed. Add FBCBC2 so you don't to use radios.

As for the other suggestions for the M1A3, the M1A2 SEP already incorporates the suggestions given. Internal GPS, upgraded armor package, POSNAV system, CITV, UAAPU (Under-Armor Auxillary Power Unit), FLIR2 (not TIS) and TMS (Thermal Management System). The GPS is mounted on the CITV shield and in hooked directly into the FBCB2 system. It gives GPS time for the radios and position for the FBCB2 map. The upgraded armor incorporates a DU layer along with an upgraded Cholbam Armor mix. The CITV (though nowhere near 10,000 dollars; nearer to 350,000) is mounted where the old turret blower assembly was on the M1A1 HC. The Under Armor Auxillary Power Unit is a small turbine mounted in the back deck. It is produced by Royles-Royce and uses 3-5 gallons per hour. It provides enough power to run the turret hydralics at full power so the auxillary pump does not have to be used (the tank can actually engage with just the APU) and it is much more quiet than the busselrack mounted APUs on the M1A1/M1A2s. The FLIR2 does not use heat but light and can positively ID targets at +5,000m. Actually, a completely cold target (such as unheated panels on a gunnery range) through the FLIR2 sticks out almost as much as a running tank. Heck, during our last TTVIII, the mover was completely cold and the tower couldn't see it through their TIS, though we could easily see it through the tank sights and shoot it. The Thermal Management System on the SEP keeps the turret at a cool 85-90 degrees, not to improve crew efficiency, but to keep the electronics cool. The temperature inside the SEP turret, with all computer components running, cn get up to 120 degrees on a 90 degree day (and imagine that in MOPP4!). The SEP was recently proven against the OPFOR at NTC during NTC 01-06 (DCX) where, in continuous ops, the BLUEFOR maintained an OR rating of 90% (couldn't LD with less that 90%) and went 6 for six in "battle". All missions were done at night with 5 out of 6 being offensive operations. During live fire, the SEP made continuous 4,000m+ kills with training ammunition that is far less accurate at range than service ammunition. It is a hell of a tank, but is relatively useless in city fighting. Why degrade its "tank killing" ability for a new mission when an older style tank could do the same mission more effectively and cost much less?

                                                                           ANDREW WILBRAHAM
                                                            1LT, AR Platoon Leader
                                                2/B/1-67 Armor "DEATH DEALERS!"

I found this 2001 article in "Armor" magazine which recommends many of your M1A3 ideas: Modifying the Abrams Tank For Fighting in Urban Areas.

The M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) is the namesake of the late General Creighton W. Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and commander of the 37th Armored Battalion. It is the backbone of the armored forces of the United States military, and several of US allies as well. The purpose of this vehicle is to provide mobile firepower for armored formations of sufficient capability to successfully close with and destroy any opposing armored fighting vehicle in the world, while providing protection for it's crew in any conceivable combat environment. It is capable of engaging the enemy in any weather, day or night on the multi-dimensional, non-linear battlefield using its firepower, manuever, and shock effect. The Abrams Tank System synchronizes its high tempo, distributed manuever via its digitized situational awareness and the fusion of onboard and remote battlefield sensors.

The Army made the decision for a new tank series in 1972 and awarded developmental contracts in 1973. The first prototypes of the M1, known as the XM1, reached the testing stage in 1976, and the tank began to arrive in battalions in February 1980. The M1 enjoyed a low silhouette and a very high speed, thanks to an unfortunately voracious gas turbine engine. Chobham spaced armor (ceramic blocks set in resin between layers of conventional armor) resolved the problem of protection versus mobility. A sophisticated fire control system provided main gun stabilization for shooting on the move and a precise laser range finder, thermal-imaging night sights, and a digital ballistic computer solved the gunnery problem, thus maximizing the utility of the 105-mm. main gun.

Assembly plants had manufactured more than 2,300 of the 62-ton M1 tank by January 1985, when the new version, the MlA1, was approved for full production. The MlA1 had improved armor and a 120mm. main gun that had increased range and kill probability. By the summer of 1990 several variations of the M1 had replaced the M60 in the active force and in a number of Army Reserve and National Guard battalions. Tankers had trained with the Abrams long enough to have confidence in it. In fact, many believed it was the first American tank since World War II that was qualitatively superior to Soviet models.

Production of M1A1 tanks for the US Army is complete. Over 8,800 M1 and M1A1 tanks have been produced for the US Army and Marine Corps, and the armies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Production of new M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks is in its final phase for Foreign Military Sales. Egypt has purchased 777 M1A1 tank kits. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia purchased and fielded 315 M1A2 Abrams tanks in the Royal Saudi Land Forces. The Government of Kuwait purchased and fielded 218 M1A2 Abrams tanks in the Kuwaiti Land Forces. All of these nations are considering additional orders or configuration upgrades.

Three versions of the Abrams tank are currently in service the original M1 model, dating from the early 1980s, and two newer versions, designated M1A1 and M1A2. The M1A1 series, produced from 1985 through 1993, replaced the M1’s 105mm main gun with a 120mm gun and incorporated numerous other enhancements, including an improved suspension, a new turret, increased armor protection, and a nuclear-chemical-biological protection system. The newer M1A2 series includes all of the M1A1 features plus a commander’s independent thermal viewer, an independent commander’s weapon station, position navigation equipment, and a digital data bus and radio interface unit providing a common picture among M1A2s on the battlefield.

In lieu of new production, the Army is upgrading approximately 1,000 older M1 tanks to the M1A2 configuration. The Army also initiated a modification program for the M1A2 to enhance its digital command and control capabilities and to add the second generation forward looking infrared (FLIR) sights to improve the tank's fightability and lethality during limited visibility. This system enhancement program will be fielded in the 2000 time frame concurrently with the M2A3 Bradley and other advanced digital systems. The initial M1A2 fielding to the First Calvary Division, Ft. Hood, TX, is underway. The Army will continue to field M1A2s to the CONUS contingency corps and other first to fight units.

	M1/IPM1	M1A1	M1A2
Length:	32.04 FT	32.25 FT	32.25 FT
Width:	12.0 FT	12.0 FT	12.0 FT
Height:	7.79 FT	8.0 FT	8.0 FT
Top Speed:	45.0 MPH	41.5 MPH	41.5 MPH
Weight:	60 TONS	67.6 TONS	68.7 TONS
Armament:	105 MM	120 MM	120 MM
Crew:	4	4	4

The M1 series tank is equipped with a 1500 horsepower Lycoming Textron gas turbine engine coupled to an Allison hydrokenetic transmission with four forward and two reverse gears. It's tactical crusing range is approximately 275 miles. Despite it's weight, the M1 can attain a top speed of nearly 45 miles per hour. The main armament is a 120mm smooth bore cannon, which replaced the 105mm gun on the initial M1 version. It has day/night fire on the move capability which is provided by a laser range finder, thermal imaging night sight, optical day sight, and a digital ballistic computer. Both the fuel and ammunition are compartmented to enhance survivability. The hull and turret are protected by advanced armor similar to the Chobam armor developed by the British Ministry of Defense. When required, the Abrams may be fitted with "reactive armor" to thwart armor-defeating munitions.

The M1 Abrams tank, weathered considerable criticism and, in fact, began from the failure of a preceding tank program. The standard tanks in the Army inventory had been various models of the M48 and M60, both surpassed in some respects by new Soviet equipment. The XM803 was the successor to an abortive joint American-German Main Battle Tank-70 project and was intended to modernize the armored force. Concerned about expense, Congress withdrew funding for the XM803 in December 1971, thereby canceling the program, but agreed to leave the remaining surplus of $20 million in Army hands to continue conceptual studies.

For a time, designers considered arming tanks with missiles for long-range engagements. This innovation worked only moderately well in the M60A2 main battle tank and the M551 Sheridan armored reconnaissance vehicle, both of which were armed with the MGM51 Shillelagh gun launcher system. In the late 1960s, however, tank guns were rejuvenated by new technical developments that included a fin-stabilized, very high velocity projectile that used long-rod kinetic energy penetrators. Attention centered on 105-mm. and 120-mm. guns as the main armament of any new tank.

Armored protection was also an issue of tank modernization. The proliferation of antitank missiles that could be launched by dismounted infantry and mounted on helicopters and on all classes of vehicles demonstrated the need for considerable improvement. At the same time, weight was an important consideration because the speed and agility of the tank would be important determinants of its tactical utility. No less important was crew survivability; even if the tank were damaged in battle, it was important that a trained tank crew have a reasonable chance of surviving to man a new vehicle.

Although fielded in 1980, the Abrams remained untested for over 10 years. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, there were concerns that the Abrams would fall victim to the sand and long months of continuous operation without the luxury of peacetime maintenance facilities. There were also doubts about the combat survivability of the extensive turret electronics. Immediately following President Bush's decision to commit US forces to the Gulf region in defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, American armored units began the difficult process of relocating to the threatened area. Due to the shear size and weight of the Abrams, the C-5 Galaxy, the largest cargo aircraft in the US Air Force inventory, was only able to handle one tank at a time. This meant that nearly all of the Abrams tanks deployed in the Gulf War were shipped by cargo ship. Although slow in coming, the arrival of the Abrams was much welcomed by Allied forces, as it is capable of defeating any tank in the Iraqi inventory.

The Iraqi Army had a considerable array of tanks, mostly purchased from the former Soviet Union. Chief among these were about 500 T-72's. These modern Soviet tanks were armed with an excellent 125mm smoothbore weapon and had many of the same advanced features found on the Abrams. Despite it's advanced design, the T-72 proved to be inferior to the M1A1's deployed during the Gulf War, and compared more closely with the older M60A3 tanks used there by the US Marine Corps. In addition, Iraq had a number of earlier Soviet models: perhaps as many as 1,600 T-62 and about 700 T-54, both of which were developed in the 1960's. These tanks were widely regarded as clearly inferior to the Abrams, but were expected to be highly reliable mechanically. The Gulf War provided military tacticians with an opportunity to evaluate developments in tank design that had not been available since World War II.

In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).

As the Gulf War shifted pace from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm, and the preparatory bombardment lifted, U.S. Abrams tanks spearheaded the attack on Iraqi fortifications and engaged enemy tanks whenever and wherever possible. Just as they had done in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Army used it's tanks as fixed anti-tank and artillery pieces, digging them into the ground to reduce target signature. However, this also prevented their quick movement and Allied air power smashed nearly 50% of Iraq's tank threat before Allied armor had moved across the border. After that the Abrams tanks quickly destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile.

The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

I've never been inside a tank, but I was a Naval Aviation Ordinanceman and still am a student of military history. Let me take a stab at some of this stuff.

The author would like to scrap 3,000 MBT and cut the number of tanks per division in half. I don't believe scrapping 3,000 tanks would be a good idea, but, instead of cutting the nunber of tanks/division, why not consolidate the existing tanks into pure armored divisions? Currently, there are more tanks in Mech Infantry divisions (I believe) then there are in pure armored divisions. I realize that mixing armor and infantry is just good tactics (as well as good sense), but since both typically operate in companies, battalions and regiments anyway, why not mix and match as necessary?

As for firing in close proximity to infantry, I was under the impression that tanks typically operate in front of infantry, which then follows and holds ground rolled over by the armor. Infantry typically only leapfrogs tanks if there is enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons to the front. I can see his point if we're talking about urban combat, where the enclosed spaces make any use of tank weapons dangerous to exposed infantry in confined spaces. Anyone with experience want to chime in on this?

The author also suggests replacing the commander's M2 with a Mk-19 GL. If I recall, the M2 is for use against low flying aircraft, especially helicopters, which a Mk-19 would have a hard time hitting. It was never intended to be an anti-personnel weapon. That's what the 7.62 co-ax and the loader's gun are for. Replacing either with an additional M2 would be something to look at, but I'm not sure how much that actually improves the tank.

Having large ammo boxes atop the turret changes the profile of the tank, making it higher and somewhat more vulnerable. In addition, thos ammo boxes would have to be armored as well, adding weight. They would also have to be "blast-proof" so that if hit, the resulting explosion does not find it's way into the crew compartment, not mention what would happen to an exposed crewman in a hatch when that ammo box went up. A bad idea.

The same could be said for gun shields. The gun shields would change the profile of the tank and add height, Maybe it's minimal height, but that extra 12" of so could be the difference between life and death. There is also the consideration of weight again. In order to be effective at protecting an exposed crewman, that gun shield would have to be pretty thick (I would imagine), or perhaps some composite material (again, need an expert opinion).

Diesel engines are dirty, nosiy, and smoky, which again, exposes a tank since it can be heard or it's smoke sighted long before it can. The advanage of the turbine engine is that it is relatively quiet, and gives the crew the advantage of "speed on demand" unlike a diesel engine which must work itself up (through gears)to high speed. In addition, having to transport/supply less diesel fuel is a good thing, since if I'm not mistaken, jet fuel weighs a hell of a lot less than diesel fuel.

Anyone out there disagree or have comments? Like I said, I know nothing first-hand about tanks and would like to be educated.

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.