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 |
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.
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.
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
Sgt. York had twin 40mm Bofors.
Yes, and I was corrected. The Sgt. York was meant to replace the older gatling-on-a-chasis and failed. My bad.
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?
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
The best concept yet...
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
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.
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
Actually not so bad!
Could be better served in Iraq on patrol than a Humvee!
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.
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
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?!
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
I was mostly commenting on old M60's for use.
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.
