A Modest Proposal regarding Abrams tanks

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

http://armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/general_dynamics_land_systems_displays_m1a2_sepv3_most_advanced_digital_main_battle_tank_11210157.html

The M1A2 SEP v3 has been revealed (or rather, it's made an official public affairs sort of debut) at the AUSA annual exposition.  It looks pretty much spot-on for the current M1A2 SEP v2 in game minus ERA (which is actually a kit that can go on any M1 Abrams), LWS (again, another bolt-on kit) or the APS (which is a hypothetical bolt on kit).

I propose for a follow on module we split the current Abrams into six basic vehicles:

M1A2 SEP v3 APS/ERA
The current M1A2 SEP V2 from game+ERA+APS

M1A2 SEP V3 ERA
As above with APS omitted

M1A2 SEP V3 Base
As above without ERA

Above all should have different lower profile CROW too.  While modeling is not "simple" it doesn't present too drastic of a difference in performance.

Then:

M1A2 SEP V2 APS/ERA
As current minus AMP (so MPAT and CAN rounds instead), and LWS,  

M1A2 SEP V2 ERA
As above minus APS

M1A2 SEP V2 Base
As above minus ERA

And as a special bonus:

M1A1SA
M1A1SAs remain in the inventory of some National Guard units, and offers a narrower gap between blue and red forces.  It would require new model, and would likely at least need both ERA and non-ERA models.  

The M829A4 remains compatible with older model non-data link Abrams, and would likely be the theater standard Sabot.

Conceptually the M1A2 SEP v3/v2 would represent the US Army mid-refit.  The varying degrees of ERA and APS would also well model different levels of preparedness, a unit with lots of APS and ERA would represent a long build up to conflict, while the base models would reflect a shorter faster build up.  It would also allow for more granularity in QB selection, I could trade off AMPs and LWS to squeeze in another Abrams or two, or make the choice that ERA isn't so important as having V3s over V2s.  

Just a thought.  In terms of modeling, as mentioned earlier the real visual difference will be a shorter profile CROWs.
 

[Euri]

What is "LP CROWS" ?

Edited October 13, 2015 by Euri

[Luka]

What is "LP CROWS" ?

It stands for "Low Profile Common Remotely Operated Weapons System". As I understand it, its the planned shorter model intended to replace the 50. cal (Browning) CROWS.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Luka

[BTR]

While I can't support SEP v3 since I don't know how reasonable it is to assume it will be operational by 2017, I think having three variants of SEP v2 would be a great addition for first response scenarios (and slightly more balanced multiplayer perhaps).  

[akd]

Has there been confirmation of the final form of the LP CROWS?  Last images I saw were still rough prototypes.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

While I can't support SEP v3 since I don't know how reasonable it is to assume it will be operational by 2017, I think having three variants of SEP v2 would be a great addition for first response scenarios (and slightly more balanced multiplayer perhaps). 

It's not a M1A3 or something, if you skim what it's going to have in regards to new or updated equipment it pretty much is what the M1A2 already has in-game.  All I'm really arguing is that now that the model of M1A2 in game has a distinct designation rather than being some sort of semi-mythical M1A2 SEP v2+.  

As far as reaching service by 2017 it is a fair bit more likely than the T-90AM, most of the modern Ukrainian lineup.  The equipment to add is generally already fairly mature, and is component based vs structural (or enhanced Gunner's Primary optics can simply be dropped into an existing tank).  If we're already reaching with Russian and Ukrainian hardware, it is a very modest reach.

So given that it is simply changing a name, making it available without ERA, and then adding in a less capable model of Abrams.  

What is "LP CROWS" ?

Already answered, but the longer answer is the current CROWs was originally designed to be mounted on top of HMMWVs and other vehicles.  It gets in the way of the commander's LOS when unbuttoned and also is just makes the vehicle much taller in regards to going under low bridges.  The Low Profile model rearranges some of the bits to make it not quite as tall.  The preferred model last time I checked moved the optics to the side of the CROW instead of under the gun making the whole thing a bit shorter.
 

[c3k]

If the linked article shows the "Low Profile" CROWS, I'd tell the vendor to change the name to "Medium Profile".

I like the ideas...

[VladimirTarasov]

Seems like a good proposal, BTW since you were a Abrams tanker for a while I'd assume it would be good to ask you, How much M1A2s are in service in Europe? I kept trying to find numbers but it always varies.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

There's some number of preposition stocks that are a combination of in flux, not advertised widely or actually mobile (like the various preposition ships, they might be in Europe right now, or they might be hanging out near Kuwait).  The actual composition is also somewhat intentionally obscure (like the Norway prepo stock is mostly M1A1 FEP because it's designed to support Marines arriving in country, while the Germany training support stock is M1A2 SEP v2s, but the contents of most are operational security type issues). 

There are however no combat units with tanks assigned to Europe at this time, with 2 CR (which is a Brigade sized Stryker unit) and the 173rd Brigade (which is an Airborne infantry brigade) being the only remaining full-time combat units assigned to Europe.

Conceptually it looks like we're going to dusting off REFORGER in that the troops will remain in the US, but will be deployed and linked up with existing equipment on the ground in event of Russian aggression.  

Re: CROWS

At a glance it certainly looks like the current standard CROWS.  The LP one has not yet been selected, however the mount for the CROWS itself is fairly modular in that the integration with the tank is largely a software issue, so it's entirely possible that the LP CROWS might be delayed...but the first run of v3s might roll with CROWS drawn from the current stock, with an eye towards replacing them some time down the road.  

[VladimirTarasov]

Thanks for the info panzer, I have limited knowledge on US deployment over the world that's why I asked.

[Battlefront.com]

IIRC an additional batch of Abrams were moved into Europe sometime last year.  IIRC enough for a battalion.  But that's a hazy memory.

As was said above, it's deliberately unclear how many are prepositioned.  The US has a lot of transparency when it comes to military deployments, but it does keep some things from the public.  My guess is however many the public domain has heard of there's probably at least twice that number.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

The number I saw was 250, but I also read that was the total number of armored vehicles rather than the number of Abrams tanks.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[akd]

The prepositioned stock started as a reinforced Combined Arms Battalion set of equipment, but was expanded to a full Armored Brigade Combat Team set following Ukraine shennagins.  90x M1A2SEPv2s.

 

405th AFSB Issues First Full European Activity Set Equipment

 

(Source: US Army; issued Sept 22, 2015)

An M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank awaits final maintenance checks at the European Activity Set site on Coleman Worksite, which is preparing the first full draw of pre-positioned equipment for an incoming brigade. (US Army photo)

 

MANNHEIM, Germany --- A new era for U.S. forces began quietly and without fanfare in dreary rain on the non-descript flatlands near Mannheim last week when the 405th Army Field Support Brigade, a partner organization to the 21st Theater Sustainment Command, began its first full issue of European Activity Set, or EAS, equipment to rotational forces from U.S.-based units. 

 

With the removal of two combat brigades from the European theater in recent years, the U.S. Army is relying on rotational forces to fill the gap in both training and operations in theater -- and EAS equipping is a critical enabler of the concept. 

 

The EAS is comprised of a combat brigade worth of prepositioned equipment, including 250 tanks, fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers staged at EAS sites in Mannheim and Grafenwoehr. This equipment is drawn by rotational forces such as the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, which will then use it for training exercises with NATO and other partner nations. The forces will remain ready to respond to threats and aggressions against NATO partners and other allies. 

 

Keeping the equipment staged forward eliminates the considerable expense of shipping equipment each time a unit rotates into and out of Europe. It also reduces the amount of time rotating forces spend preparing for deployment, and allows Soldiers to focus more time and energy on mission and training. Finally, the EAS concept reduces the time needed to deploy forces into theater. 

 

Much like individual Soldiers draw their sleeping bag, helmet and other required field gear from a central issue facility, personnel from rotating brigades report to the EAS sites and draw approximately 1,200 major items of equipment, including about 250 tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers. 

 

There are plans to expand the program beyond the two current EAS sites and push EAS sites out into NATO and allied partner nations in Eastern Europe where they will be ready to respond to threats to the region, according to the 405th AFSB's pre-positioned stock manager, Robin Dothager. Dothager added that the equipment making up the EAS is not soft-edged training equipment, but the best and most modern warfighting equipment the Army has. 

 

"This equipment is either brand new or freshly refurbished," he said. "Most of us here (at the 405th AFSB) are old Soldiers ourselves, and we take pride in making sure that we're putting the absolute best equipment in the hands of these Soldiers." 

 

The current issue of equipment is expected to continue into mid-October. The 405th AFSB sets a goal of issuing equipment to an entire battalion in a single day; so in theory, an entire brigade could be appropriately "issued" in a matter of days. But in some cases, such as this first rotation, units do not draw equipment pieces one right after another, instead receiving items on a "staggered" schedule based on specific scheduled training events. 

 

Once their rotation is complete, the Soldiers will return the equipment to and the 405th will begin the process of performing maintenance and services to bring the equipment back into tip-top condition for the next rotational force. 

 

By enabling the rotational forces concept, the EAS is a critical part of USAREUR's ongoing effort to accomplish with limited resources the same mission that massive formations of troops accomplished in years past. 

 

"Years ago, the U.S. had 300,000 troops in Europe," Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the USAREUR commanding general, said during a recent visit to the Coleman EAS site. "Our mission was to deter aggression. Now we have 30,000. Our mission is still to deter aggression. Our task now is to take the 30,000 and make them act like we still have 300,000."

 

 

Edited October 14, 2015 by akd

[Stagler]

http://armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/general_dynamics_land_systems_displays_m1a2_sepv3_most_advanced_digital_main_battle_tank_11210157.html

The M1A2 SEP v3 has been revealed (or rather, it's made an official public affairs sort of debut) at the AUSA annual exposition.  It looks pretty much spot-on for the current M1A2 SEP v2 in game minus ERA (which is actually a kit that can go on any M1 Abrams), LWS (again, another bolt-on kit) or the APS (which is a hypothetical bolt on kit).

I propose for a follow on module we split the current Abrams into six basic vehicles:

M1A2 SEP v3 APS/ERA
The current M1A2 SEP V2 from game+ERA+APS

M1A2 SEP V3 ERA
As above with APS omitted

M1A2 SEP V3 Base
As above without ERA

Above all should have different lower profile CROW too.  While modeling is not "simple" it doesn't present too drastic of a difference in performance.

Then:

M1A2 SEP V2 APS/ERA
As current minus AMP (so MPAT and CAN rounds instead), and LWS,  

M1A2 SEP V2 ERA
As above minus APS

M1A2 SEP V2 Base
As above minus ERA

And as a special bonus:

M1A1SA
M1A1SAs remain in the inventory of some National Guard units, and offers a narrower gap between blue and red forces.  It would require new model, and would likely at least need both ERA and non-ERA models.  

The M829A4 remains compatible with older model non-data link Abrams, and would likely be the theater standard Sabot.

Conceptually the M1A2 SEP v3/v2 would represent the US Army mid-refit.  The varying degrees of ERA and APS would also well model different levels of preparedness, a unit with lots of APS and ERA would represent a long build up to conflict, while the base models would reflect a shorter faster build up.  It would also allow for more granularity in QB selection, I could trade off AMPs and LWS to squeeze in another Abrams or two, or make the choice that ERA isn't so important as having V3s over V2s.  

Just a thought.  In terms of modeling, as mentioned earlier the real visual difference will be a shorter profile CROWs.
 

Seems legit.