Posted on 04/07/2005 12:55:35 PM PDT by quidnunc
Of the 1,100 American M-1 tanks that have served in Iraq, about seven percent have been badly damaged, at least enough to get shipped back to the factory for rebuilding. Only about 30 percent of the Iraqi based M-1s have not been in combat. As infantry have known since World War I, tanks draw fire. But they are well protected, and fewer than twenty of the 4,400 tank crewmen involved have been killed, two thirds of those while standing up in a turret hatch, with at least head and shoulders exposed. The main cause of lost tanks is, as it has been since World War II, is mines and bombs. A few tanks have rolled over particularly large bombs, which in some cases flipped the tank. But other times, mines blow off one of the tracks, immobilizing the tank and making it the center of a fierce fight. But the terrorists and anti-government forces have come to avoid American tanks. Yes, these 69 ton behemoths can be hurt, but only at great risk and cost to the attacker. In addition to the M-1s three machine-guns, the 120mm gun has special shells for urban warfare, shells that are particularly deadly against gunmen trying to hide in buildings.
The Abrams tank is growing a TUSK — that’s Tank Urban Survival Kit, a series of improvements, including some still in development.
TUSK will allow Soldiers in the field to improve the Abrams’ ability to survive in urban areas off the traditional battlefield for which it was designed.
Lt. Col. Michael Flanagan, product manager for TUSK, said the goal is to help improve the tank’s survivability.
“You have to remember, the tank was a Cold War design, aimed at a threat that was always to its front. It’s still the most survivable weapon in the arsenal from the front,” Flanagan said. “Today it’s a 360-degree fight, and these systems are designed to improve survivability in that urban environment.”
The TUSK includes additional protection at the loader’s gun station on the turret, the commander’s gun station, reactive armor to protect the tank’s side from attack by rocket-propelled grenades and slat armor to protect the tank’s rear from the same weapon, and the tank/infantry telephone to allow infantry and armor Soldiers to work together in combat.
Flanagan said all the proposed upgrades use “off the shelf” technology, and the goal is for the entire TUSK to be applied by units in the field, without requiring a return to a depot for modification.
“The reactive armor, for example, is a product similar to what’s on the Bradley (Armored Fighting Vehicle),” Flanagan said. “It’s explosive armor that protects the vehicle.”
Another example would be the slat armor designed to protect the tank’s rear from RPG attack. It is similar in design and concept to the slat armor used on the Stryker armored vehicles for the same purpose.
The first TUSK component to reach the field has been the Loader’s Armored Gun Shield, which provides protection to the loader when the Soldier is firing the 7.62mm machinegun on the Abrams’ turret. Flanagan said about 130 of the shields have already been purchased and sent to units in Iraq. Also incorporated into the loader’s firing position is a thermal sight, giving the position the ability to locate and fire on targets in the dark.
“This is the same unit that is used on machineguns carried by infantry troops, and we’ve incorporated it into the loader’s position,” Flanagan said. He said a system that attaches a pair of goggles to the sight, allowing the loader to fire the gun from inside the turret, while seeing the thermal sight’s image, is under development.
Also under development are improvements to the commander’s station outside the turret, although different systems are necessary for the M-1A2 Abrams and its older M1-A1 brethren.
“Because of things we added to the turret in the A2, the commander’s station had lost the ability to shoot the .50-caliber machinegun while under armor,” Flanagan said. “We’re developing a Remote Weapons Station, that will probably be similar to the one used on the Stryker, to allow that weapon to be fire from inside the turret.”
Flanagan said the design could also allow the use of the crewed weapon station used on Humvees, but a final determination hasn’t been made.
Ultimately, most of these add-ons will be incorporated into a kit — installed in the field and removed in the field as a pre-positioned component for the next Abrams unit to take duty in that location. Flanagan said some kits will begin to reach the field later this year.
At least some of the kits’ components may also be included in new Abrams’ production.
“The loader’s shield and the remote weapons station, and the tank/infantry telephone all may be included as regular production items in the tank,” Flanagan said. “It’s important to remember that the Abrams will continue to be the dominant weapons system for the Army until at least 2030.”
(Eric W. Cramer in the Army New Service, March 9, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
Be sure to open the article link immediately above to view a graphic showing the various TUSK components.
"two thirds of those while standing up in a turret hatch, with at least head and shoulders exposed."
This is one of the things that really ticks me off. This is the same as the HUMVEE and the Stryker (when changing ammo, and for troops using the rear hatches). Do they think the enemy will not be shooting back? Some moron needs to get reamed for this.
Notice the Marine version with an M2 and MK19. They came to fight.
http://www.technogap.com/AAVP7A1/images/fullres/action/960513-M-3983O-006.jpg
Tanks need to be able to withstand artillary rounds..
They make mincemeat out of tanks, even the M1A2..
Unless it's a SADARM, the M1A2 can take a 105mm shell to the top armor and not care. So, no, artillery doesn't generally matter (and it's not been a significant factor in tank disablement in Iraq).
Artillery has a very hard time taking out modern tanks unless they're very, very lucky or have something like SADARM - even a very near miss will only annoy the crew, not cause damage.
Doctrine says that unless actively engaged in combat, a tank commander should be heads-up out of the hatch to keep overall situational awareness. A tank that's cruising around buttoned up when not in active combat is a dumb and soon to be dead tank. Most of those casualties are due to sniper fire - unfortunate, but it's part of the tradeoff you make for the situational awareness benefit.
Even on the Marine LAVs, you will see the track commander with his head out of the hatch.
Again, same deal - the turret is nice, but the TC is still going to have his head out of the hatch. That's why they deleted it from the M1 - turret wasn't going to do any good in the environment that the M1 was designed for, and the TC was going to be head out of the hatch anyway.
I concur. The stunning thing about our troops is their willingness to go offensive, which means exposing yourself. It also means killing a lot of the enemy.
Yes, I agree.
That's also part of why Afghanistan hasn't been the bloodbath it was for the Soviet armored forces - Soviet doctrine has the crew all buttoned up and cruising around dumb. American doctrine trades that for the situational awareness that lets us kill them before they can kill us - and that appears to have made all the difference.
Have to correct myself, in completely reading the article, I see they are doing things to fix these issues.
Any armor shields on the M2HB would severely curtail vision and hurt situational awareness, unless the shields were transparent. And any clear materials that could be used for that tend to scratch easily, rendering them non-transparent. What they are going to do is change the M2 mount to incorporate a thermal/optical sight and allow operation of the M2 from *inside* the tank, which will allow the track commander to drop back into the safety of the tank once lead starts flying, as opposed to having to stay up to fire the M2. The new mount is rather large and should provide some additional protection for the TC.
The loader is the guy on the right of the photo, yes. And yes, he is exposed. However, he's usually IN the tank in a combat zone and not out of the tank. (Most of our casualties are track commanders.) However, in urban warfare, he's usually heads up out of the hatch, looking around for threats instead - and right now he's unarmored. That *is* a problem, and they are going to put a shield around his hatch and flanking his gun. (See http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg)
".....particularly deadly against gunmen trying to hide in buildings."
Blowing the building up works particularly well. Let's face it, a tank isn't going to fire a surgical strike round. There big cablooy works extremely well.
Forgot to mention that the loader doesn't have a crash bar to hit that will drop him back into the tank - he has to clamber back down into his position.
Such shield has several negative effects. First, it creates large blind spots for the gunner. Secondly, it raises the profile of the tank. The increased profile is not a big deal in an urban environment but becomes significant in open tank -vs- tank or tank -vs- anti-tank areas. Third, with the shield in place, what would have been a harmless near miss without the shield can become a hit with fatal consequences to the man behind the shield.
bump for am
The Army has learned from the Israelis and has developed two specialized tank rounds for urban warfare.
The first is a canister round containing about 1000 10mm tungsten-carbide balls.
The second is an adaptation of the proximity round intended to combat attack helicopters.
The proximity round is fitted with a tungsten-carbide or titanium penetrator cap so that it will penetrate the wall of a building and explode inside.
The *loader* needs to be retired.
| M1C1 Modular Combat Vehicle Science & Technology |
|
The M1C1 is a modified M1 (or M1A1 or M1A2) Abrams main battle tank platform. It contains nine unique improvements: The M1C1 is designed to be an A-10 infantry support fighter on the ground. |
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.
){kind=link}