M1 tank, a One Trick Pony?

[IronCat60]

Ok I did a career in the military. Both Marine Corps and Army. The last part of my gig was a Plt Sgt in Bradley Mechanized Infantry. I am also Bradley Master Gunner Qualified. Just stating that so you know I am not just a village idiot. And yes I know opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and they all stink. But here is some facts to mull over with a cup of coffee and a good doughnut to provide a balanced breakfast.

 

I have hung out with the tank master gunners on several occasions and I always asked the same question, We support the tanks in close terrain environments but how come the tank has lost the interest, ability and mission capability of supporting the grunt. And how can the armor community continue to glorify a Cold War weapons system without realizing the world it operates in has changed and the tank needs to change to meet these new demands.

 

There is no HE round that can knock out a bunker or devastate a house like the M4 Sherman or the M60A3 tanks. Sure they have a canister round but that is no good for the aforementioned targets that are busy pinning the infantry down. A Sabot round and a Heat Round are lousy substitutes as they make neat holes in targets but lack the explosive power for a area kill radius. HEAT rounds will not go off unless they hit something hard. If fired at troops in the open it will usually skip off the ground and it just buries itself in wet ground. Machine Guns on the tank are not the answer. If they could solve the problem the infantry could extricate themselves.

 

Speaking of extricating themselves.The M1 has gotten heavier and heavier in armor tonnage to were the current bridging equipment and recovery vehicles can barely hold their own against them. It is well documented that M1's fell through bridges in the Middle East or crushed culverts causing the following vehicles to detour to another route. I have a friend who is a civilian technician for the Stryker computer systems. He spent a lot of time in the sandbox and he said it used just piss the Stryker troopers off something fierce when a M1 would bust up a approach route causing them or follow on forces to use a different route that caused delays and a security risk to the forces using the detour.

 

This is another lesson we need to remember is that a lumbering armored behemoth is not the answer in armored warfare. At 70 tons for the current M1 you think we would remember the German monsters of the same weight and fuel consumption needs and what befell them before they could even get into combat. Plus the weight of the M1 has placed more of a restriction on what types of terrain it can operate on thus restricting avenues of approach to a objective.

 

And let us not forget the 4 miles per gallon turbine engine that kicks out 1700 degrees of heat. Time to get rid of that logistical nightmare, After idling for just 8 hours a M1 will suck the fuel tanks dry. That is if the heat build up doesn't cause a engine fire. See funny thing about turbine engines is that they are aircraft engines and the more air flow around the engine the better it cools off. The Army stated they wanted the turbine engine because it could produce the 1500 horsepower needed to power the tank. Guess what ladies and gentlemen the newest iteration of the Leopard tank has a 1650 horsepower engine and OMG it is a diesel engine that sucks a hell of a lot less fuel. Also a diesel engine starts faster than the 40 seconds minimum to get a turbine engine running.

 

So what do you think? Has the military gone off on a tangent with the M1 as a glorious killer of tank hordes and has forgotten the linage of the tank. The British tried the tank vs only tank concept with the Cruiser tanks that had no HE to fight enemy infantry and look where that got them, The humble beginnings of the tank was to support infantry and then it evolved into a balanced machine capable of support and taking on enemy armor as that threat became more prolific on the battlefield.

 

Infantry takes and holds the ground, It defeats threats against it with combined arms supporting it's effort. Right now the tank is missing part of it's potential in contributing to the combined arms doctrine.

[MikeyD]

Isn't it closer to 4 gallons per mile? The Pentagon has been *trying* to put a diesel into an Abrams for about 25 years. I recall their first attempt was met by the insurmountable roadblock of the turbine engine plant being in Bob Dole's district - so that was a loooooong time ago.

 

Theoretically there's plans afoot for an *M1A3* big redesign with 10 tons knocked off the weight and a diesel engine. But I don't even think its reached mockup stage yet.

[Chirac75]

Does your question raise concern about the utility of the M1 in particular or the MBTs in general?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Firstly, you are an infantryman and thus your opinion is invalid.  

 

Kidding aside however:

 

 

 

There is no HE round that can knock out a bunker or devastate a house like the M4 Sherman or the M60A3 tanks. Sure they have a canister round but that is no good for the aforementioned targets that are busy pinning the infantry down. A Sabot round and a Heat Round are lousy substitutes as they make neat holes in targets but lack the explosive power for a area kill radius. HEAT rounds will not go off unless they hit something hard. If fired at troops in the open it will usually skip off the ground and it just buries itself in wet ground. Machine Guns on the tank are not the answer. If they could solve the problem the infantry could extricate themselves

 

The HEAT fusing has been adjusted to be more sensitive.  It will now go off when striking pretty much anything more solid than loose mud.  Same deal with the MPAT.  The next step is the AMP which will allow you to "dial" a target, with either HEAT-type fusing (for killing PCs), a short of shrapnel approach (replacing cannister), airburst, or anti-building sort of thing (basically PD with a slight delay so it bursts after going through the wall.

As far as Canister, it's actually pretty good against buildings, it'll knock a huge hole in a wall (the pellets are tungsten), cars, most all things you'd find inside a structure etc.  Firing against some dismounts inside a house it'll cheese the target area pretty good.  Against a dedicated bunker it won't do much obviously but that's why the OR round was made and is retained for missions that entail taking the Maginot line 2.0 (which is basically a HEAT round with a penetrator tip and short delay so it goes off inside a target building).    

 

Machine guns on a tank are actually vastly superior to infantry machine guns.  As yeah I want your M240B teams to advance in the face of intense small arms fire for 500 meters with enough ammo to be effective.  The M240 on the coaxial mount has something like 8,000-12,000 rounds "ready" depending on the model plus whatever 7.62 is stashed on the tank.  The newer CROW type system is also very effective considering the other options for bringing a .50 cal to the fight, and the effects of an accurate stabilized M2 (and having it on a platform that'll shrug off all small arms and most AT systems from the front).

 

So in that regards in terms of pulping infantry, tanks are still pretty good!  Also I don't know how your unit worked, but usually we'd have a Company Team concept, so we'd lose four tanks in exchange for an infantry platoon, which gave us the fun stuff a Bradley carried too (sort of the whole point of a company team, Tank heavy teams gain dismounts+some potent anti-infantry weapons, Infantry heavy teams gain a lot more AT capability and a much more resilient fire support system).  

 

 

 

Speaking of extricating themselves.The M1 has gotten heavier and heavier in armor tonnage to were the current bridging equipment and recovery vehicles can barely hold their own against them. It is well documented that M1's fell through bridges in the Middle East or crushed culverts causing the following vehicles to detour to another route. I have a friend who is a civilian technician for the Stryker computer systems. He spent a lot of time in the sandbox and he said it used just piss the Stryker troopers off something fierce when a M1 would bust up a approach route causing them or follow on forces to use a different route that caused delays and a security risk to the forces using the detour.

 

That was not my experience.  The proliferation of heavy cargo hauling trucks and the need for bridges to often support large amounts of traffic has meant most highway bridges, and nearly any that are paved can support a tank.  We took tanks through Baghdad with no significant mobility hazards and considering the state of those roads, that's an accomplishment.  Further my company in Korea rolled over Korean roads, bridges and all sorts of things and as a rule, anything but the smallest bridges could handle it a tank at a time.

The real comment to take away from this is how reliant the Stryker is on "good" terrain, and how much its mobility is threatened by even modest damage to roads (because if you want to talk about mobility problems, boy howdy let me get started on Strykers).  Further in terms of bridges and recovery assets, the M88A2 has been in service for some years and is capable of towing a broken M88A2 with an M1A2 attached.  Seriously.  Planned that way.  The new AVLB (M104?  Dunno the Wolverine) also is rated to handle M1s.

 

The weight creep has been a simple reality of armor design.  I'm sure Sherman supporter folks lose their collective minds when the first M26 rolled up.  However the payoff in increased armor protection and firepower was worth it.  Same deal with the Abrams, although weight reduction measures are part of the next "block" from my understanding (chiefly reducing the weight of the main gun, and replacing a lot of the wiring with fiber optics and reducing wiring harness redundancy, should save something like 7-10 tons based on whatever estimates you like).  

 

 

 

This is another lesson we need to remember is that a lumbering armored behemoth is not the answer in armored warfare. At 70 tons for the current M1 you think we would remember the German monsters of the same weight and fuel consumption needs and what befell them before they could even get into combat. Plus the weight of the M1 has placed more of a restriction on what types of terrain it can operate on thus restricting avenues of approach to a objective.

 

It goes more places than the Bradley.  True story.  The tank is heavier but has better power output by a long shot.  Also my limitations on approaches were:

1. Terrain unsuitable to any sort of armored vehicle (swamps)
2. Terrain the Army did not let me use (PROTECT THE WOODPECKER/WHATEVER IS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ON THIS POST!!!!111oneoneone)

3. Terrain that was inherently a bad idea (wide open, limited hull down positions, had deep gullies that would either force us to expose our flanks, or leave us exposed)

 

I've driven up and down icy roads, across small streams, I've kicked up 30 foot tall rooster tails of mud, crossing terrain that was eating HMMWVs (1025s mind you, not uparmors) like it was the blob.  These mobility issues, I know not of what you speak.

 

 

 

And let us not forget the 4 miles per gallon turbine engine that kicks out 1700 degrees of heat. Time to get rid of that logistical nightmare, After idling for just 8 hours a M1 will suck the fuel tanks dry. That is if the heat build up doesn't cause a engine fire. See funny thing about turbine engines is that they are aircraft engines and the more air flow around the engine the better it cools off. The Army stated they wanted the turbine engine because it could produce the 1500 horsepower needed to power the tank. Guess what ladies and gentlemen the newest iteration of the Leopard tank has a 1650 horsepower engine and OMG it is a diesel engine that sucks a hell of a lot less fuel. Also a diesel engine starts faster than the 40 seconds minimum to get a turbine engine running.

 

There's a lot wrong in this statement, so I'll address what's correct:

1. The engine produces a lot of heat.  Much of the problems that result from this (setting the Prairie on fire at Yakima Training Center) can be addressed using the heat shield (which is usually made from scrap-metal with some rebar handles, it's not high tech).  

2. Gas consumption is a problem, however in terms of operational range and refueling requirements, it has similar duration to the Bradley and other Army equipment.  So while it requires more fuel, the resupply frequency is on par with mechanized infantry units.  

 

The only engine fire I saw were a result of an electrical short.  It was extinguished with no great difficulty*.  I have seen tanks operate in the deserts of Eastern WA, NTC, Korea during the "hot as balls I want to die" part of the summer (between monsoons), Kuwait, Iraq and overheating and catching fire was not something I'd heard of. The newer diesel engines still take significantly longer to reach max capacity power output, and involve significantly more moving pieces (our tanks went down much less frequently than the Bradleys and M113s in terms of engine faults).  

 

I have no idea what you're talking about with the engine spool up.  I don't have the literal times beside me but the greater delay cold start was waiting for the optics to cool (so the thermal would "see") and the computers to run up.  If you're doing a "powered" start (like you already have turret/hull power on, just the engine is off it's pretty darn fast (I killed my engine and hid my tank while playing as opfor, the delay from "engine off" to "exploding from the treeline like an angry dinosaur** was negligible)

 

 

 

So what do you think? Has the military gone off on a tangent with the M1 as a glorious killer of tank hordes and has forgotten the linage of the tank. The British tried the tank vs only tank concept with the Cruiser tanks that had no HE to fight enemy infantry and look where that got them, The humble beginnings of the tank was to support infantry and then it evolved into a balanced machine capable of support and taking on enemy armor as that threat became more prolific on the battlefield.

 

I think she's doing fine.  The Abram's infantry murdering abilities are still very capable, and there's a lot of piles of rubble in Baghdad that attest to the ability of the main gun to ruin faces.  During the "Thunder Run" and Falluhjah the Abrams functioned very effectively against infantry and building type targets.  I sat on the DMZ in Korea more than reasonably confident that:

A. If I had to shoot people it was going to be dismounts mostly

B. My tanks (and tankers) were more than up to the task.

 

There's this persistent mythology that the optimal tank should be something like the old ARVE, or assault guns.  Something like that wouldn't be half bad as an auxiliary.  But tanks, and their ability to eat enemy armor for breakfast, and then smoke the crunchies all on the fly is an essential piece of combined arms warfare.  Trying to relegate armor to the infantry support role as a primary mission went out of style in the 1940s.  As much as you can bring up the fate of British Cruiser tanks, we can also point to how equally the infantry tanks failed***.  At the end of the day you resulted in the Main Battle Tank which MUST include both missions, and as I have, and will likely continue to illustrate, the Abrams can smoke armor and dismount alike.  

 

*The conversation still went "Sir one of the tanks caught fire" followed by me getting about 50% of the way to losing my mind until it was explained only the  short circuted component suffered any fire damage.

**It was one of the cooler things I've done in a tank, as the thicket just disintegrated around us and we MILEs a few tanks before anyone knew what was happening.  Took a while before we lose all the branches off the deck though. 

***The Churchill only really becoming successful because it eventually was outfitted with the same sort of weapons package other "cruiser" type tanks had at the time.  As much as the various CS model tanks, or things like the M4 105mm were useful, they remained as specialist tools for a reason.

[IronCat60]

Thank you for your in depth reply panzersaurkrautwerfer!

 

I found it very educational to hear it from the treadheads mouth. I guess that I recall the early M1's and the teething problems it had during my time at Ft Hood. As far as the friend who is a Stryker computer tech, he was a 19D so I will be talking to him about some of the "stories" he has reported. After all 19D's are the redheaded stepchild of the armor and infantry community.

 

And the tanker Master Gunners were never so forth coming with the amount of information on the rounds available to the main gun. Your wealth of information puts everything into a new perspective. We even shared the info about the then experimental sabot round for the Bradley (XM919??) and how in Ballistics Class we theorized and wrote a extra credit thesis on what angle and range that round could penetrate the lower side armor of the T-55 and T-62. The tanker Master Gunners were basically like "105mm, load big shell. Sabot, HEAT. Gun go boom. Load another shell. Machine guns carry lots of bullets. We have laser range finder, you have to guess, ha ha to bad. Turbine engine. Like old Mazda commercial your Bradley goes put-put-put ours goes zoom."  

 

Also I went into combat with the 1st Cav Division in Desert Storm and I should have tempered my tirade with the memories of how well the tanks performed in that arena. Yes we were a Task Force Brigade. 2 Companies of tanks and 2 Companies of Infantry. The scouts were out on the flanks and in line with my platoon which was the lead element for the entire division. We had tank Companies on the right and left of the diamond formation and a infantry Company bringing up the rear.

 

As there was no one else in front of us but the bad guys we called ourselves "The Flaming TRP's". That is because I envisioned the tankers talking on the net after initial contact and saying something to the effect "Ok, see that burning Bradley to the right? Don't go over there that's were the minefield starts. See the two burning Bradley's on the left? Careful, that is were the AT Gun is dug in."

 

Once again thank you for that most insightful and well stated rebuttal. I must go now, somewhere a village still needs a idiot.   

[sburke]

Just stating that so you know I am not just a village idiot.

 

You say that like it is a bad thing.

 

I am not ex military so I do qualify in this context as below a village idiot, however I have grabbed almost anything I can lay my hands on regarding Mout in Iraq.

 

Everything I have read backs up what panzeraurkrautwerfer has already said.  Between being able to spot sniper positions and eliminate them, provide protective cover for troopers who needed evac (both in firepower and physically screening), sealing off enemy avenues of movement by simply sitting at the end of an avenue etc, the M1s were indispensable in Fallujah.

 

During the Thunder Run they created absolute mayhem holding positions that would have cost the lives of many ground troops.

 

They are not absolutely invulnerable, but the amount of effort and exposure the enemy has to accept to take them on typically only increases their own vulnerability to it's weapons systems. I am not sure the Thunder Run would have succeeded with a lesser vehicle.

 

[Doug Williams]

Good thread, guys. Rep given. Thank you for your service.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

re: Mech Gato

 

I feel you on the lack of LRF.  When I was a brand new 2LT I had to do Bradley gunnery on a vintage M3A2, with sensing rounds and all.  

 

Always take words from Stryker dudes with a grain of salt.  I mean, take what I say with a grain of salt too, but there's a certain amount of anti-armor feelings from that community.  I can distinctly remember hearing how "doomed" armored units were given what the Strykers brought to the fight, and yet, tanks and Brads remain.

 

Also ensure you check your wallet if you ever talk to him again.  19Ds after all (of course I was a scout too so watch out).

 

If it's any consolation, looking at the sort of folks we got back from Master Gunner's course these days, I'm not sure the folks you dealt with would have graduated though.  

[IronCat60]

O.k. it's public apology time for bashing the tankers.

 

Ran into a old friend at the VA hospital who I didn't remember was a tank master gunner! Haven't seen him in over a year as he was living back east for awhile to help with a family matter. We went to breakfast together and when I told him about my tirade posting he almost spit his coffee out.

 

He asked what had gotten into me? I told him about 3-4 bottles of Warsteiner beer. And then he wanted to know how I had mixed up that information as my own.

 

That a lot of the stuff I talked about was information from his friend who was part of the test program where they were putting the M1 through torture tests like seeing what it would require to get a actual engine fire and how the halon system handled it. What was the weakest bridge structure that would handle the tank. What kind of terrain it could operate on before difficulties occurred while driving with a operational tank and one with track and suspension faults. Plus tests to provide effective ammunition for the mounted 105mm and the then experimental 120mm fired from a test stand.

 

And my friend is correct when he said "remember the tanks the military had back when we first joined up? And how the M1 is such a evolutionary step up from those tanks. That for once we were as good if not better than the rest of the world"

 

So that cased me to remember back to Desert Storm and how drove the hell out of the Bradley's and the M1's with little to no maintenance faults. And so I have to say I'm eating crow and I like mine B.B.Q. style   

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

O.k. it's public apology time for bashing the tankers.

 

No worries man.  We are all (or were) on the same team, and honestly you're better off than those light infantry dudes.  The amount of "the tank is no longer relevant" they talk is only rivaled by the amount of armor they request when stuff gets real.

 

 

 

That a lot of the stuff I talked about was information from his friend who was part of the test program where they were putting the M1 through torture tests like seeing what it would require to get a actual engine fire and how the halon system handled it. What was the weakest bridge structure that would handle the tank. What kind of terrain it could operate on before difficulties occurred while driving with a operational tank and one with track and suspension faults. Plus tests to provide effective ammunition for the mounted 105mm and the then experimental 120mm fired from a test stand.

 

There's a certain element of "they don't build them like they used to."  The older generation Abrams (mostly the M1A1 family, the M1 and M1IP crewmen still in the Army are all Colonels/higher and CSMs now) get pretty rave reviews for reliability.  Like there was a lot that could break because simply put, it's an armored vehicle, but they had a reputation for running pretty well.  The newer M1A2 SEP V2s are a bit less reliable but it's in part due to a lot of the newer electronic widgets that have been added.  Most of those bugs have been worked through by now, but there was a period of teething issues.  We had one tank that was nearly returned to the contractor under the lemon clause we had in the contract, but after a few months and some of the second run parts, she came up online and was fully mission capable until I left command.

 

On the other hand, having gotten near Strykers and MRAPs, I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of money we've thrown at them for the quality of equipment received.  My second trip to Baghdad started with a shock when I rolled by a compound with a couple of totally carbonized MRAPs.  I was of the mind that stuff had gotten real, and it was going to be a rough go.

But no, it just wasn't designed with enough cooling for the radio stack, and the fire suppression array wasn't especially well suited to an electrical fire in that area of the vehicle, so some MRAPs would just self ignite in the radio area for no loss in life, but constructive vehicle loss at a few million a pop.  Strykers also used to suffer simply because the way their doctrine was written kept mechanics at the Brigade level and no lower, and until recently all work was performed by contractors, and we're just seeing the 91S MOS stand up over the last couple of years.  

So in that regard the Abrams and the Bradley always felt like a military vehicle designed to be worked on by a collection of 19 year olds led by a 24 year old.  The MRAP and Stryker feel sort of like British Leyland products if you get my drift.