Posted on 11/19/2019 6:49:44 AM PST by Lowell1775
The Army doesn’t retire old Abrams tanks. They reset them to the latest configuration. This has been going on since the M1A1 was produced from scratch.
Like aircraft carriers, they are very vulnerable these days.
Did you read the OP?
“The first M-1 entered service with the Army in 1980. The original M-1 packed a 105-millimeter gun. The Army bought 3,300 of them. In 1984 the Army added thicker armor to a batch of new M-1s and called these 900 tanks M-1IPs. The U.S. military no longer uses these early M-1s.”
Yeah, that’s what Poland thought when Germany hit them with a mechanized army. How’d that work out for them?
Didn’t the early version have problems with premature wear on the transaxle? I seem to recall a joke about the Army having their new tanks but wouldn’t drive them in parades because they didn’t want them wear them out.
Yeah, well, I was promised flying cars by the time I was an adult.
A Bolo would work...
Or an Ogre...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogre_(game)
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5206/ogre
Army tanker and cavalry ping.
The initial prototypes had several problems, one being the air cleaners/filters. All of those were solved before production began, but folks kept on saying that since the problems had existed the tanks should not have been produced.
I remember that we had vertical air filters on the M-60A2 versus horizontal ones on the M-60A1 and folks complained about that. It was something that the crews had to remember after transitioning from A1s to A2s.
I didnt see anything about dealing with the fuel hog turbine engines? Wasn’t. there a desire to go tova diesel?
You don’t need to attack the M1As. Just blow up the fuel trucks and wait half a day.
Actually I did read the article. Are you aware the Kornet EM has not as yet been tested vs. Trophy?
“If the Kornet EM and RPG 30 cannot overcome the Trophy, the next generation will.” From Israeli Firepower.com. That is what is was suggesting. Unless of course you know what exactly Russia has?
Of course I did. That's why I wrote:
"This has been going on since the M1A1 was produced from scratch."
The Army built a small number of M1A2 tanks from scratch. Most were upgrades from the M1A1, although the degree of changes made upgrading rather than building new dubious.
As the M1A1 was fielded to priority units, the M1s and M1IPs were sent rearward to continue replacing the M60 tanks. Those early Abrams are all gone from the Army.
That is what I was suggesting. Typo.
Does the M1 series tank have the means for the crew to manually transverse the turret and elevate and depress the gun? An EMP event could fry the electronic and electrical circuitry and controls for the engine and other power sources.
As long as they draw heavy fires away from dismounted infantry and sappers who do the hard work afoot, wearing Kevlar instead of 78 tons of steel ceramic and uranium....
Plus, those jet turbine engines really can dry out a grunt or a sapper in a few minutes after a heavy rain..
The M60s had cranks to manually elevate and traverse the turret and a plunger type generator to spark off the primer and fire the gun along with a bubble level and an optical gunners telescope along side the gun, the 105D I think.
The stereoscopic coincidence range finder worker manually too.
You had to compensate for cant and QE for ammo type with Kentucky windage, BOT, burst on target.
Course with no power the engagement would be a short one unless you got Ivan first...
Of course not.
However, if the designers don’t take into account the fact that the system may fail, by one means or another, then they will make the tanks and tank crews vulnerable.
The whole system should default to some basic mode that will allow some minimal function. It could be purely defensive such as being able to drive the tank to a safe place for repairs.
The M-1 Abrams was designed in the early 1970s. It is regarded as semi-obsolete. Several alternative systems have been created and discontinued since then.
However the problem remains that sooner or later the US will need a new class of MBT. Likely created with advanced materials, it could be much lighter, yet have far better defensive capabilities and carry more powerful weapons.
Except in the Abrams’ case, it is. The basic automotive components of the tank date to the 70s with some updates, whereas mechanically, the 2020 Vette doesn’t bear much resemblance at all to the 1953. Iron block I6 and stick axle vs all-aluminum V8 and IRS.
That said, the M1A2C’s integration of an actual APS is something that is grossly overdue.
This is more like it. Some basic “default.” Minimal capabilities to get you back to base safely if the systems are damaged.
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.