Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The M1A3 Abrams Tank Thread (proposals for modernizing our aging fleet of M1 and M1A1 tanks)
Multiple Sources ^ | 8/20/2004 | Multiple

Posted on 08/19/2004 8:47:02 PM PDT by Southack

 

The M1A3 Abrams Tank

     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.

Click to view full-size JPEG photoClick to view full-size JPEG photo

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

©2001 www.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 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.  

                           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.

      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.

                                                                               Phil West



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abrams; armor; battle; m1; m1a1; m1a3; main; proposals; tank
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last
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.

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.

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.


1 posted on 08/19/2004 8:47:05 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Cannoneer No. 4; blam; rdb3; Squantos; Lazamataz; dead; Dog; Shermy

We need a tanker ping, cannoneer No.4!

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

2 posted on 08/19/2004 8:48:25 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

My cousin a Staff Sgt. E-6 in the 1st Armored Div. he was in Bagdad and he likes the M1A2 because of the heavy armor!


3 posted on 08/19/2004 8:54:47 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt. Pile E-6; wretchard; Dog Gone; Rokke; rdb3; Allegra; section9; Nick Danger; Sabertooth

I'd like to see the Abram's current two treads replaced by four half tracks (two per side) such that losing a tread to manuevers, mines, IED's, or RPG fire wouldn't disable the vehicle.

I'd also like to see the older M1's get upgraded into urban assault vehicles by having their 105mm cannons replaced by the A-10 fighter's GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gattling cannon.

Having a vehicle that could shrug off RPG hits inside urban Najaf or Fallujah all day long, while returning fire at the rate of the A-10 fighter, would go a long way towards supporting our infantry grunts.

Surely that beats leaving the old M1's mothballed in Anniston, Alabama instead of making Iran nervous by deploying them forward to Iraq!

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

4 posted on 08/19/2004 9:00:27 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Southack

do you know how long the A-10 gattling gun is? You might be hard pressed to get it to fit into the M1A1 lol ! the A-10 was built around that gun ! It isnt small! lol


5 posted on 08/19/2004 9:05:54 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Southack

John Kerry will vote against this, but only after voting for it.


6 posted on 08/19/2004 9:07:32 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Sin Patria, pero sin amo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sgt. Pile E-6

The GAU-8 is about 20 feet long. The current M1 is about 32 feet long. It's easily doable. Extending the barrels past the current 32 feet mark is also no problem, if needed.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

7 posted on 08/19/2004 9:09:00 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Southack

the M1 is 32 feet long counting the barrel!


8 posted on 08/19/2004 9:10:12 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sgt. Pile E-6

Aye, and the GAU-8 is 20 feet long including the barrel!

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

9 posted on 08/19/2004 9:11:13 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Southack

counting the barrel its like 32.25 feet long... the gun sticks out like 6 feet. it would be hard to do


10 posted on 08/19/2004 9:12:39 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Personally I do not care what the DoD picks, just have lots of them backed up by a domestic production base to support them. In urban and nonconventional fighting, numbers do count. Cover more areas with more soldiers per square feet. Hard for guerilla forces to move about. Problem with post Gulf War pre 9/11 military thinking - they think one technology can replace several soldiers. Wrong! Issue the technology to the existing number of soldiers so they can fight like several soldiers. Victory belongs to the side that can generate a higher level of violence.


11 posted on 08/19/2004 9:13:22 PM PDT by Fee (Great powers never let minor allies dictate who, where and when they must fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Southack

how much weight (in ammo) do you think they could fit into a tank carrying such a weapon? also where would the crew sit?


12 posted on 08/19/2004 9:14:42 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Thanks for the post. All great thoughts on the subject. I don't see any brass or GM big wig wanting to upgrade an M-60! We could field an urban terrain (light tank) vehicle that wouldn't lessen the M1 tank killer role.

Any takers to what caliber that tungsten shot is?

13 posted on 08/19/2004 9:16:06 PM PDT by endthematrix (Christians: Are you a day trader or are you investing for the long haul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt. Pile E-6
do you know how long the A-10 gattling gun is? You might be hard pressed to get it to fit into the M1A1 lol ! the A-10 was built around that gun ! It isnt small! lol

But would a ground based version need such a long barrel to achieve comparable accuracy? As an urban assault vehicle, the distances that could be seen would be much shorter. Why not build a shorter barreled version that could be put on a tank?

14 posted on 08/19/2004 9:16:58 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sgt. Pile E-6

The GAU-8 is auto-loaded, so your updated M1 crew would only need 3 men (bye, bye loader). That frees up a considerable amount of interior room.

A-10 fighters only fly with 1,100 rounds of 30mm. The 105mm and 120mm ammo storage areas in M1's could hold about 3,600 rounds of 30mm.

Each upgraded M1 would pack the firepower of 3 A-10 fighters, and could stay near our infantry for considerably longer under fire, too.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

15 posted on 08/19/2004 9:19:45 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"I'd also like to see the older M1's get upgraded into urban assault vehicles by having their 105mm cannons replaced by the A-10 fighter's GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gattling cannon. "

Now your talkin! A feared weapon indeed. Something smaller is what is needed on the streets in Iraq today. Quad .50's patrol/convoy trucks...don't fix what ain't broke!

16 posted on 08/19/2004 9:20:05 PM PDT by endthematrix (Christians: Are you a day trader or are you investing for the long haul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Southack

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.


17 posted on 08/19/2004 9:22:06 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Southack

I had a co worker that was an M-1 Tank Driver and he spilled the beans on the top speed of the M-1 in hard packed desert floor, it was not 45mph. If its NOT a top secret mention the real speed.


18 posted on 08/19/2004 9:22:22 PM PDT by agincourt1415 ("Unfit for Command"at your Local Bookstore Soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
its not so much that the barrel is long.. the whole damn thing is HUGE! im sure you could make it work... it would be difficult! but, I think it would be better if they just upgraded some NEW AC-130's with this weapon :) have it coming out of the bottom and the gunner looking thru a camera, with night-vision and thermal.
19 posted on 08/19/2004 9:23:40 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
"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?"

Yes. Unlike the above author, I don't want to scrap 3,000 M1's. I want to upgrade them into urban assault vehicles complete with the A-10's 30mm gattling cannon (and 4 half-tracks instead of 2 treads)!

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

20 posted on 08/19/2004 9:26:23 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: agincourt1415
they can go faster than what they said IF THEY HAVE TO! they can bypass the govenor
21 posted on 08/19/2004 9:27:19 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
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.

One problem with the turbine is that it is most efficient when going full speed. They burn up almost as much fuel while idling as the do going full speed. That's why the the movements of tanks during the second Gulf War were so fast. If the tanks had an axilliary power unit (APU), they could shut off their main engine while they are not moving but could still run their onboard electronic and environmental systems while conserving fuel.

22 posted on 08/19/2004 9:30:00 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

If it were a 12 Ga. I would say it was #9 shot.

However, counting about a dozen across, is that 120mm?, I'd say about 10mm.


23 posted on 08/19/2004 9:32:41 PM PDT by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Southack

We already have an urban assault vehicle: it's called the Fuel/Air explosive. Instead of fighting it out in crowded urban enviornments, why not just flatten them instead? We have already learned, countless times, in France, Stalingrad, Germany, Mogadishu, Vietnam, etc., that fighting man-to-man in a town or city is going to be costly in terms of casualties and of course, in the inevitable clean up when we rebuild. However, rather than expose our limited supply of infantry-persons (how's that for PC) to such murderous conditions, and spending a shitload of money for a new vehicle that will be little more than a Bradley with some Star Wars-type weaponry, why not go barbarian?

It sounds terrible, but hey, war is hell, ain't it?


24 posted on 08/19/2004 9:33:00 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Never thought of that. Thanks much!


25 posted on 08/19/2004 9:35:26 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The first thing I'd do is check the date of manufacture and where cable harnesses were done?

I worked at a place that bid for some of these jobs and I can tell you that some sloppy work was shipped.

I tried going to the line leads, then tried going to the owners and finally risked going to mil spec.

I'd check the harnesses for being watertight (all were supposed to be tested and only 1 out of 100 actually were), I check for proper materials such as braiding (either having it or having the proper size), I'd check for shill tape which wasn't put on certain legs of the harnesses and is supposed to help protect the wiring from being detected by radar.

Using some for spare parts was a pretty good idea. jmo

I used to wire and assemble cable harnesses for the M1 tank and I saw a lot of garbage get passed through.

26 posted on 08/19/2004 9:35:46 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny) (For our borders, there is no hope on the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack; B4Ranch

Ping on the M1A1 replcement - interesting.


27 posted on 08/19/2004 9:39:07 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (JOHN KERRY is as much like the WORKING MAN as WHOOPIE GOLDBERG is to GEORGE W. BUSH! - Vote BUSH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heart
You are exactly right! Found confirmation from another source. FR of course! (MOUT) Article http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b7bcc2a24aa.htm
28 posted on 08/19/2004 9:41:29 PM PDT by endthematrix (Christians: Are you a day trader or are you investing for the long haul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Southack

whoa. I mean, what an article!!


29 posted on 08/19/2004 9:42:32 PM PDT by GeronL (Viking Kitties have won the GOLD MEDAL in the 2,000 meter ZOTTING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Oh, and by the way, that tank with a GAU-8 on it was tried already. They called it the Sergeant York. If I recall, the reason why it was never adopted was because it would take a great many of them to provide adequate air defense for any sizable formation. They may not have had the range and firepower on their own to be very effective, if going by my experience with the Phalanx is any indication. Phalanx was a good weapon, but only when close-in. It could not "reach out and touch someone".


30 posted on 08/19/2004 9:43:17 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Southack

At a blog called the Green Side, a soldier in Falluja writes about what has been going on. Its not good. Hewitt read it on his show tonight.


31 posted on 08/19/2004 9:43:58 PM PDT by GeronL (Viking Kitties have won the GOLD MEDAL in the 2,000 meter ZOTTING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
lol. The only real complaint about the M1A2 is that it gets about a half mile to the gallon... other than that I dunno.

I'd love to see variations and different types of the same tank instead of making them all identical.

32 posted on 08/19/2004 9:49:21 PM PDT by GeronL (Viking Kitties have won the GOLD MEDAL in the 2,000 meter ZOTTING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

Throw in an updated Tow launcher, should help on that.


33 posted on 08/19/2004 9:49:34 PM PDT by Kornev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Why not have 3 different types of M1's?? Why do they have to be identical?


34 posted on 08/19/2004 9:50:47 PM PDT by GeronL (Viking Kitties have won the GOLD MEDAL in the 2,000 meter ZOTTING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Southack

I think you're mixing apples and GAUs...or something.

If you look at an A-10, you need to realize that the GAU-8 is so big it actually extends underneath and behind the cockpit. If you attempted to mount something like that on an armored vehicle the size of the M1 you would have to remove the turrent entirely, and box in the back end, simply to be able to enclose the ammunition feed mechanism...not only is that *not* a good idea in a tank (do a web search on a Swedish tank known as the 'S tank' which tried to do something similar) as you're stuck changing your point of aim by turning the entire vehicle; it would also throw your center of gravity off... to say nothing of covering up the exhaust grills of the engine compartment.

And while we're talking about the GAU-8 there are two more items to consider. First off, the reason the automatic loading mechanism on the GAU-8 works as well as it does is due to the fact that the gun itself is *fixed*. It doesn't elevate or depress and it certainly doesn't traverse (i.e. move left to right). A completely automatic loading system on a turreted armored vehicle is a *very* bad idea. We figured that out, the old Soviet Union never did...which is why there are a bunch of former soviet armor crewman walking around with only one arm. Secondly, you also need to remember that the A-10 can fly home to get a reload, when it runs out of ammo - something your average tank in combat cannot do. Thus the rapid rate of fire of the GAU-8 would be impossible to sustain in an armored vehicle, simply because the vehicle couldn't carry enough ammunition for the sort of sustained combat operations that are normal for tanks.

As far as the coupolas go - you need to do some reading on cobham type armor (the sort of armor on M1 tanks) and what it takes to mount non-cobham materials to it. Be careful, cobham is *not* reactive armor - that's something different but there are a number of internet sites which intentionally seem to confuse the two.

I suggest you might start by reading the relevant portions of Janes Weapons Systems and Janes Fighting Vehicles, and go from there. It's good that you're thinking about ways our armored vehicles could be made better, but you might want to do a bit more research into at least the basics of what makes up a modern tank, first.


35 posted on 08/19/2004 9:52:49 PM PDT by ahadams2 (http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com is the url for the Anglican Freeper Resource Page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Oh, and by the way, that tank with a GAU-8 on it was tried already. They called it the Sergeant York

He wasn't talking about using it for air defense. =o)

36 posted on 08/19/2004 9:54:42 PM PDT by GeronL (Viking Kitties have won the GOLD MEDAL in the 2,000 meter ZOTTING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Never thought of that. Thanks much!

It's not my idea. I read it in the linked article below a couple of years ago.

MORE CAPABLE WARFIGHTING THROUGH REDUCED FUEL BURDEN

37 posted on 08/19/2004 9:54:48 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2

er, turrent = turret... I hate spotting typos after I post something.


38 posted on 08/19/2004 9:56:18 PM PDT by ahadams2 (http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com is the url for the Anglican Freeper Resource Page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

True, but it never could sustain enough firepower to be effective. If you wanted to use it in ground combat, it would have to be a moving ammo can that would need to be very close to a target (and thus, exposed) to be of any use.

Again, he's talking about turning an Abrams into a "Swiss Army Knife" type of vehicle.

It works just fine the way it does.


39 posted on 08/19/2004 9:57:27 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kornev

Since the Abrams is ALREADY capable of defeating anyone else's tanks 1-on-1 (and even 1 on 3 or 4), why add another AT weapon? The 120 mm gun is good enough.

Again, the addition of a TOW launcher would entail major design changes, added weight, increased profile, not to mention that when you add something, something else has to go.

The M1 is good to go, as is. The only improvements that should be made should concern themselves with mobility and protection (other than cupolas and gun shields). Not firepower.


40 posted on 08/19/2004 10:02:22 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
"Oh, and by the way, that tank with a GAU-8 on it was tried already. They called it the Sergeant York. If I recall, the reason why it was never adopted was because it would take a great many of them to provide adequate air defense for any sizable formation."

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.



41 posted on 08/19/2004 10:07:34 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Southack

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.


42 posted on 08/19/2004 10:14:16 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
"The M1 is good to go, as is. The only improvements that should be made should concern themselves with mobility and protection (other than cupolas and gun shields). Not firepower."

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

43 posted on 08/19/2004 10:15:11 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
They called it the Sergeant York.

Sgt. York had twin 40mm Bofors.

44 posted on 08/19/2004 10:15:33 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Southack

45 posted on 08/19/2004 10:16:20 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Yes, and I was corrected. The Sgt. York was meant to replace the older gatling-on-a-chasis and failed. My bad.


46 posted on 08/19/2004 10:17:44 PM PDT by Wombat101 (Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Southack
One of the advantages of using gatling guns in [fixed wing] aircraft is the "cooling airflow".

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?

47 posted on 08/19/2004 10:18:55 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
"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."

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

48 posted on 08/19/2004 10:19:08 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Southack

49 posted on 08/19/2004 10:19:16 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
"...little less sympathy for the enemy."

The best concept yet...

50 posted on 08/19/2004 10:20:09 PM PDT by endthematrix (Christians: Are you a day trader or are you investing for the long haul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson