The M1 Abrams: The Army Tank That Could Not Be Stopped

[gute]

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...e-stopped?lite

The above is a link to an article about the fight on Capital Hill regarding refurbishment of M1 Abrams tanks or possible lack there of. There are a couple of quotes in the article - one by a retired general and another by General Ordinero that I kind of bothered me.

Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general now with the nonprofit National Security Network, said in an interview:

The M1 is an extraordinary vehicle, the best tank on the planet..Since the primary purpose of tanks is to kill other tanks, however, their utility in modern counterinsurgency warfare is limited..

Everything I've read about the M1 in Iraq was positive. The bad guys feared the tanks and our guys loved having em around. Game changers.

Warfare has changed, Odierno explained while discussing the Army’s new strategy at the February hearing:

We don’t believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.

This kind of thinking bothers me. We never seem to guess the future right, but here we go trying again. I'd would much rather have and not use them than need them and "oh crap". To me it seems more sensible to not be involved in counterinsurgency warfare whenever possible. If one looks at history so many of the lands that we or our allies that have fought counterinsurgencies, where they really worth it? I don't know what is easier (probably not the right word), taking troops trained for full spectrum operations and shifting gears to a counterinsurgency or taking a force trained to fight insurgencies, but having to shift to conventional war - after we build more tanks and train the crews.

[gute]

You are killing me guys!

Thanks for the edit Davidbfpo.

[carl]

The article is unclear as to if Mr. Eaton actually said the primary purpose of tanks is to kill other tanks but if he did, I am surprised a former Army general would say that. That hasn't been what tanks have mostly been used for in the last 96 years. They have mostly been used for blasting people in buildings and trenches and bunkers and forests or in the open. Tank vs. tank has been the unusual occurrence. It may be the primary design driver for many tank designs because it is so critical but that is not what they have been mostly used for. But things change once you're inside the beltway and have ret. to go with your cv I guess.

The article also mentions idling the Lima tank plant for 3 years. i would be very concerned that after being idled, it would be much easier to close. From and industrial base standpoint, that would not be good. Modern tanks probably aren't so easy to manufacture in any event and without an active plant they may be impossible to make for years.

The article also states with certainty that M-1s ended up being used as pillboxes in Iraq, implying that is all they were good for and used for. I don't think that is accurate.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by carl

The article also states with certainty that M-1s ended up being used as pillboxes in Iraq, implying that is all they were good for and used for. I don't think that is accurate.

It does help out with logistics, though. The M-1 gets something like .6 mpg, right?

[Firn]

Originally Posted by carl

The article also mentions idling the Lima tank plant for 3 years. i would be very concerned that after being idled, it would be much easier to close. From and industrial base standpoint, that would not be good. Modern tanks probably aren't so easy to manufacture in any event and without an active plant they may be impossible to make for years.

It would surprise me quite a bit if the richest country on earth spending roughly as much as the rest of the world combined ( yes I know about PPP) on its military forces closes down its only plant able to produce a cornerstone of the combined arms concept. Not that many others seem to be still running in the Western world.

[Cavguy]

See thread here for a great discussion on the utility of Armor in COIN.

[Compost]

First four paras lifted from longer item at http://blogs.defensenews.com/ausa/.....gd-has-a-plan/

General Dynamics is kicking off a new strategy to sell the Army the infantry vehicles and tanks it (eventually) needs to ferry troops to the next fight, wherever that may be.

More specifically, the company is looking to tweak its existing Abrams tanks, Strykers, and Buffalo route-clearing MRAPs to offer better protection while guzzling less fuel, thereby giving Army formations greater range at less cost, according to a briefing delivered by a group of GD execs.

Mike Cannon, GD’s senior vp for Ground Combat Systems said that the company is “getting away from being platform specific” when it comes to this new strategy, instead focusing on the ground assets of the infantry brigade as a whole.

First up is the company’s plan to install a diesel engine on the Abrams tank, which would result in a 14 percent cost reduction per mile when compared to the turbine engine currently in the tank, while extending its range by 105 miles.

The news release from GD omits mention of two further benefits.

The current gas turbine runs at a high temperature and generates a large volume of hot exhaust gas. The exhaust can be hazardous to accompanying dismounted infantry and even when diverted it serves as a beacon for heat sensors and heat seekers. Also the engine deck is officially assessed as too hot for riders. So one, the lesser volume of exhaust from a diesel engine will substantially reduce the hazard and beacon affects, and also the engine deck temperature. Relative to the gas turbine that diesel is likely to be heavier, require more power to start, vibrate more and have a deeper engine note but generate less high pitched noise.

The current APU with its fuel tank is installed in the Abrams turret basket. When that APU’s light armoured enclosure has in the past been defeated by small arms, heavier weapons or other cause the resultant leakage of fuel has often lead to a fire on the engine cover and subsequent damage to the gas turbine, and in the worst cases loss of the MBT itself. However two, the reduced volume of a diesel engine together with fuel tanks for greater range will still leave sufficient space for installation of an internal APU that has the same level of protection as the main diesel.

The suits and uniforms involved in the original selection of a gas turbine have all hopefully gone to some other place where they will be unable to influence decisions on any engine upgrade.

[Compost]

From: carniflex 31-Oct 15:47 to: autogun

The company is offering MTU's 883 engine and an Allison transmission – essentially the same powerplant proposed for General Dynamics' Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) submission – and Cannon said this could reduce the Abrams' cost per mile by 14% compared with its current turbine-powered engine.

Australia is the only country in the world to buy M1, were there was a choice of Leo2 and Abrams. I was at the School of Armour when Australia was thinking of getting M1. The gossip was we would not get the turbine but "europower packs".

Instead we bought the turbine with the promise that the new gas turbine would fix the issues (ie 8 liters/km vs 4 for euro). We also aquired M88 with MTB engines (WTF).

We use diesel not kerosene here for ground vehicles. We are destroying engines at a rapid rate (GE is suppose to fix this).

Also because of the extra fuel tanks needed, the APU cannot be fitted under armour (Iin the R rear sponson). It's attached to the turret rear. Our tanks still have no air-con, cooking the crew and electronics up North. My son's mate just finished his term up there and can't wait to leave.

What is amazing with M1, is the resistance to have other M1 support variants (unlike M60). Every time there is a new non-tank variant, they make a dozen and kill it. Wolverine, grizzly, ARV. With 1700 in store why not?

I saw this Jane's article at the same time as the tracked Stryker. It really annoyed me that the Army stuck with turbine, and have a tank that infantry cannot get near the rear of.

Rant over. (I'm sounding like MustangAus!)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ Thread: Tracked Stryker Post: 57 of 148

The above post highlights a third reason for re-engining Abrams MBTs - and especially mobility support variants - with a diesel. An ARV can be required to do a lot of work in a small area. The hot and high volume exhaust from a gas turbine main engine could make that area almost uninhabitable for dismounted mechanics and crews. Similar work conditions can apply to an AEV and dismounted engineering personnel. The lack of companion ARVs and AEVs (except for USMC’s Breacher) may largely result from powering the Abrams chassis with a gas turbine.

One suggested reason for procuring the M88-A2 has been to keep BMY in business as a second source of heavy armour. If that need still applies then GD might produce the diesels and re-engine Abrams MBTs and Wolverine AVLBs, and BAE/BMY could rework stored Abrams to produce ARVs and AEVs. And usefully the ARV could - even if fitted with a heavy-lift A-frame - have a jib-crane for precise manipulation of loads such as a turret or replacement engine.

[Compost]

Have been asked about an inconsistency in my views: “ why upgrade rear-engined Abrams with a diesel instead of expanding GCV project to include a front-engined gun-armed vehicle or MBT ? “

That's a good question and it will probably be asked again so here is an early answer. A ‘best’ path for US heavy armour development could seem to be a new front-engine chassis - incorporating some Abrams components and sub-systems - as a common basis for AEV, ARV, AVLB, BW and MBT variants. But an alternative ‘ one step at a time ’process reduces the risk of creating a Gordian knot such as doomed the FCS.

The monstrously heavy concept that seems to have been adopted for the GCV will result in lengthy delay before the project is revised to be something more objective and manageable. That will require at least two major changes. One, the proposed scale of issue will have to be reduced and directed to companys (rather than battalions) of assault infantry and combat engineers. Two, the large turret and armament will have to be supplanted by something smaller and less heavy that is still able to deliver intense prophylactic fire. Hence the definitive vehicle will be smaller and probably less weighty. Eventually the chassis of that smaller ‘GCV’ (in other words Battle Wagon) could become the basis for future mobility support variants and also a MBT successor. That process would approximate ‘ one step at a time ‘ and might be described as sequential or familial development.

But for an interim period - possibly into the 2030s – believe US force structure would be better served by upgrading what exists today. And that means the Abrams, almost certainly in its current rear-engined form.