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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-186 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-186 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