Does FCS mean the end of the M1

[rjmaz1]

- A tank do not just returns to the Airbase after an engagement like a fighter. Maintenance has to be done primarily by the crew. And two people are not much do do this.

My car can happily driven 10,000kms or 500hours without even touching it.

- It is good two have a small and quiet tank but what it is worth if the tank is sending signals all the time to provide its commander, which sits far away, with information. EMCON!
- I do not believe that you are ble to get the same level of situational awareness by just using cameras and sitting far away. There is a reason why tank commanders prefer to use their eyeballs mrk1 as often as possible.

Two soldiers in the tank could make the majority of tactical decisions themselves, just keeping track of friendly tanks can be done in a similar fashion to how the current tanks communicate.

You want to replace the 120mm smoothbore gun (Nobody who wants to kill a modern tank uses 105mm guns) with a 2,75 laser guided hydra?

I would have thought that the 2.75inch rocket would kill 99% of the targets excluding other tanks? Current tanks only have a big gun and a tiny gun, nothing in between. Rockets and a large cannon would provide the capability of targeting enemy soldiers all the way up to armoured vehicles. This is much more flexible even though you've reduce the ability to kill the heavy stuff, a second or third rocket could follow up to make the kill.

How do you want to place the 12x picture of the gun onto the same displays the driver uses?

At 12x zoom the angle of site would be rather small so you could have a small square that sits overlayed ontop of the normal view and that small square contains the 12x zoom. The square is controled by headmovement by the gunner. Digitally you could even alter the size of the square and amount of zoom depending on the situation.

The amount of crew needed all depends on the amount of automation. If the enemy, friendlies and the terrain can all be display well enough to reduce the workload then 2 people could easily perform the role of the current tank.

Also external APU's add more weight and complexity. Another possible point of failure.

Also 12inch of Gel inside a battery would offer considerable protection. Atleast it would reduce the amount of conventional armour needed.

 

[Waylander]

Your car is for sure not tracked, engaged in combat and used in the same terrain.
What kind of experience do you have with maintenance of armored vehicles in the field?

The two soldiers are defenitely not able to make most of the tactical decisions by themselfes. During combat situation the driver and the gunner are totally fixed onto their business with none of them being able to do more than their main task.

A Hydra might be able to kill most targets but one of the main targets of tanks are other tanks.

And the MGs together with the different ammo for the main gun provide enough flexibility for a tank. Remember that there are not just KE penetrators but also HEAT, HE, HESH, HE-FRAG, MPAT, Canister rounds, etc. available.
And this is not a like in a video game were you loose health points.
If the Hydra is not able to penetrate the enemy tank on the front with its first hit than it is also not able to do so with its second, third or fourth round.
And as I mentioned before a Hydra does not even comes close to the range, speed, penetration capability and protection against jamming of a 120mm.

And I cannot say it often enough that the driver and the gunner are not able to do anything else than concentrating on their main task.

 

[Totoro]

A tank crew of just two seems possible only if the gunner can somehow be completely computerized. So we have a driver who does his job, keeping the tank on the move at all times, using the surroundings in a smart way, protecting/hiding the tank while at the same time listening to the commander's input when it comes to offensive movements. Commander looks for targets be that with his eyes or the list of targets given by the computerized sensors. Now, if somehow, anyhow, commander could just mark a blip on the horizon with a flick of a finger and move on searching for other targets and doing other tasks - then i imagine the benefits of a two man crew would outweigh the possible flaws. All that providing that the computerized targeting system can follow that mark on a blip, calculate the needed shot and take care of the target with the first shot.

Alternatively, one could try keeping a human gunner and computerizing the driver role though from what i know about current state of AI research, that'd be an even harder role for a computer to pull of than targeting. One thing is for sure: if the crew was just two people, they would both have to have exactly the same terminals, both being capable to do the same roles, if needed.

Idea of missiles versus big main gun is not necesarrily bad but: it'd have to be a big missile, sure to achieve instant kill no matter what, munitions stored would cumulatively cost literally more than the tank itself, and the tank would lose the seldolmy used but still somewhat useful supressive artillery fire support ability.

 

[Waylander]

Not to talk of the few ammunition you could carry in a small chassis while using a big missile.

And I am sure that there exists no computer program today which is able to identify a target and fire at hit with such a high accuacy and speed like a human gunner. This is not the airspace or sea were Radar and IR works much better than in a normal ground theater.

And you are right of you say that using a computer for driving is also very complicated. If I look at these competitions for unmanned ground vehicles in the last time I am sure that it takes much more years until a computer is able to use the terrain as good as a human driver.

 

[Aussie Digger]

My car can happily driven 10,000kms or 500hours without even touching it.

Two soldiers in the tank could make the majority of tactical decisions themselves, just keeping track of friendly tanks can be done in a similar fashion to how the current tanks communicate.

I would have thought that the 2.75inch rocket would kill 99% of the targets excluding other tanks? Current tanks only have a big gun and a tiny gun, nothing in between. Rockets and a large cannon would provide the capability of targeting enemy soldiers all the way up to armoured vehicles. This is much more flexible even though you've reduce the ability to kill the heavy stuff, a second or third rocket could follow up to make the kill.

The amount of crew needed all depends on the amount of automation. If the enemy, friendlies and the terrain can all be display well enough to reduce the workload then 2 people could easily perform the role of the current tank.

Also external APU's add more weight and complexity. Another possible point of failure.

Also 12inch of Gel inside a battery would offer considerable protection. Atleast it would reduce the amount of conventional armour needed.

With all due respect, it's quite clear you don't know a real lot about armoured vehicles.

Does your car have tracks and weigh over 50 tons? If not, it's not much of a comparison between maintenance requirements is it? Would you have 1 or 2 people at most "bashing track" for EACH armoured vehicle? You'd barely even get out INTO the bush...

The reason why GOOD tanks have at least 3 if not 4 crew is to DELIBERATELY increase reliability. A soldier's right arm is more useful and reliable than any auto-loader, for instance it can do more than 1 thing. Auto-loaders also take up considerable room within a tank that is better used to carry a useful extra soldier (one who can fire an external machine gun, assist with SA, maintenance or taking on someone elses job in case the vehicle suffers some damage) or any other role as necessary. An auto-loader can only do 1 thing.

A gunner is needed to precisely target the enemy and to act as the 2IC for the crew commander. The range of targets for an MBT is enormous and the main ones are other tanks and heavy bunkers. What do you think a relatively lightweight rocket designed to take out personel, soft skin and light armoured vehicles is going to do to these? Irritate it at best.

In addition, it is unlikely an armoured vehicle could carry as many ready to fire rockets as it does, gun projectiles and the range, lethality etc is significantly less for rockets over a main gun projectile.

12 inches of gel? You think that's an adequate replacement for a decent layered composite armour???

 

[rjmaz1]

Everyone is bringing up maintenance when it wouldn't really be much for a 15 tonne 6 wheeled vehicle like a stryker. So far what i've seen is that the strykers require little to no maintenance in the field. A simplified hyrbrid vehicle with half of the moving parts will surely be very simple to maintain.

Most tanks designs date back to world war 2, look at the cars back then, they were lucky to drive 2,000kms before servicing, the engines required rebuilds and regular maintenance to keep running smooth. Now we have car and oil manufacturers claiming driving around Australia without any servicing.

In recent history tanks are best used for the initial thrust into enemy territory , then lighter armoured and more mobile vehicles take over. The M1 could have had no armour and would have still slaughtered Iraq tanks as the enemy could not even see the Abrams coming.

Targeting and tracking the enemy movement is the most important part of surviving on the ground. With the right equipment a Humvee could be just as good as a M1 tank in this department. Armour has been proven time and time again to be the least important part of the M1. It could have shed half of its armour and it would have performed just as good if not better, due to its increased mobility.

Its like stealth, u dont need speed or agilty when they enemy cant even see you.

12 inches of gel? You think that's an adequate replacement for a decent layered composite armour???

The Gel would infact be made part of the composite armour. Just like soft aluminium honeycomb is used between layers of carbon fibre to increase stiffness. The Gel of the batteries would be placed between layers of composite armour.

Its well known that its not good to have 3inchs of metal but to have three seperate 1inch thick pieces of metal with space in between, same weight better protection. Thats where the Gel batteries come in. They fill up the space between layers of armour and are reasonably dense and serve a secondary purpose as well.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Everyone is bringing up maintenance when it wouldn't really be much for a 15 tonne 6 wheeled vehicle like a stryker. So far what i've seen is that the strykers require little to no maintenance in the field. A simplified hyrbrid vehicle with half of the moving parts will surely be very simple to maintain.

Most tanks designs date back to world war 2, look at the cars back then, they were lucky to drive 2,000kms before servicing, the engines required rebuilds and regular maintenance to keep running smooth. Now we have car and oil manufacturers claiming driving around Australia without any servicing.

In recent history tanks are best used for the initial thrust into enemy territory , then lighter armoured and more mobile vehicles take over. The M1 could have had no armour and would have still slaughtered Iraq tanks as the enemy could not even see the Abrams coming.

Targeting and tracking the enemy movement is the most important part of surviving on the ground. With the right equipment a Humvee could be just as good as a M1 tank in this department. Armour has been proven time and time again to be the least important part of the M1. It could have shed half of its armour and it would have performed just as good if not better, due to its increased mobility.

Its like stealth, u dont need speed or agilty when they enemy cant even see you.


The Gel would infact be made part of the composite armour. Just like soft aluminium honeycomb is used between layers of carbon fibre to increase stiffness. The Gel of the batteries would be placed between layers of composite armour.

Its well known that its not good to have 3inchs of metal but to have three seperate 1inch thick pieces of metal with space in between, same weight better protection. Thats where the Gel batteries come in. They fill up the space between layers of armour and are reasonably dense and serve a secondary purpose as well.

Looking at the past is hardly a great way to plan for the future. Yes, the US and it's allies have enjoyed an advantage with night vision capability in recent conflicts (what I guess you are referring to by stating the enemy couldn't "see" the M1's coming), but there's NO guarantee that advantage will remain as it currently stands.

The predominant use of armour in modern operations has been in urban terrain. In such close environments heavy armour is ESSENTIAL and will remain so until advances in active protection measure are FAR greater than present.

The much trumpeted TROPHY system for instance can DESTROY 1 threat (ie 1x single missile) per side of the vehicle it is mounted upon before requiring a re-load.

Given the massed volley attacks witnesses in Iraq and Afghanistan (and even Somalia) employing relatively crude RPG's will overwhelm any such system, unless it acquiries a magazine capacity MANY times greater than is currently the case. Likewise such systems will also need to display and advanced and sustainable anti-IED capability prior to being an adequate replacement for heavy passive armour on our primary fighting vehicles.

TROPHY and similar systems currently do NOTHING to protect a vehicle against IED or anti-tank mines. The problem is that these systems also have vulnerability against sniper system. Several hits from a 7.52mm sniper rifle on the radar panels, let alone the launch device and they are not going to work well, if at all.

The other problem is that such systems are not useful againt APFSDS (harden penetrator - Kinetic energy) rounds which do NOT rely on the detonation of a warhead to achieve armour penetration. These systems are yet to find a way to overcome the KE of these types of warheads. Only passive armour currently has any chance of doing so and HEAVY passive armour at that.

IN relation to wheeled vehicles, they do not require as much maintenance work as a tracked vehicle, but aby wheeled armoured vehicle requires significantly enhanced levels of maintenance over civilian vehicles because of the weight penalty typically involved. Even Stryker weighs 18t (heavier than a "medium truck") and they go through tyres and suspension components like "nobodies" business.

Particularly vulnerable parts of the suspension include "tie rods" which have been shown in Iraq to be extremely vulnerable as they are by necessity mounted outside the armour. If that is busted (and in Iraq they have failed to withstand small arms fire, let alone any significant explosive force) the wheeled vehicles vaunted "central tyre inflation system" (which wheeled proponents trumpet loudly) become irrelevant as the wheel can't turn or steer...

Add a few of things up and look at them from a reality POV, rather than a theoretical POV and the truth of the matter becomes quite different and people are FORCED to admit that things are like they are for VERY good reasons...

 

[Waylander]

I am sorry to say and I really don't want to soudn disrespectfull but you should start at least to read some books about modern warfare or ask some people who served in mechanized units.
I you look at how important the Abrams (With its useless heavy armor and big ugly gun) has been to the army forces during Iraqi Freedome not to talk of the heavy mechanized battles during the gulf war of '91.
And than look at how light forces in relatively armour friendly terrain perform against heavy mechanized forces in maneuvers held by the US and other NATO forces.
You should not think that every opponent in the future is going to operate with old tanks (T-55, T-72M, etc) without any recon, artillery, intelligence or air support worth to talk of and with not much cover in open desert like the Iraq.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I am sorry to say and I really don't want to soudn disrespectfull but you should start at least to read some books about modern warfare or ask some people who served in mechanized units.
I you look at how important the Abrams (With its useless heavy armor and big ugly gun) has been to the army forces during Iraqi Freedome not to talk of the heavy mechanized battles during the gulf war of '91.
And than look at how light forces in relatively armour friendly terrain perform against heavy mechanized forces in maneuvers held by the US and other NATO forces.
You should not think that every opponent in the future is going to operate with old tanks (T-55, T-72M, etc) without any recon, artillery, intelligence or air support worth to talk of and with not much cover in open desert like the Iraq.

What? Was that directed at me, or someone else? FYI, you are not the only former soldier here to have served in an Armoured Regiment as an Armoured crewman...

OR was that sarcastic? Surely you don't truely think the Abrams has useless armour and a "big ugly gun" whatever that may mean, or that a light formation would be able to operate on equal or greater terms than a heavy mechanised force, if terrain was not an issue?

That's the height of stupidity. Why has Germany produced so much fine heavy armour then?

 

[Waylander]

Ah my fault. I should have made it clearer for the readers.
My post was for sure not directed to you! I totally agree with your former posts in this thread.
And this "With its useless heavy armor and big ugly gun" is sarcastic. I wanted to show that the US forces think that they wouldn't have been able to conduct operations like in the wars of '91 and 2003 without their heavy armor formations.
The example of the gulf wars AND the example of the US/NATO maneuvers are both meant to show that just light forces are not the best option.

I try to write my posts more clear in the future.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ah my fault. I should have made it clearer for the readers.
My post was for sure not directed to you! I totally agree with your former posts in this thread.
And this "With its useless heavy armor and big ugly gun" is sarcastic. I wanted to show that the US forces think that they wouldn't have been able to conduct operations like in the wars of '91 and 2003 without their heavy armor formations.
The example of the gulf wars AND the example of the US/NATO maneuvers are both meant to show that just light forces are not the best option.

I try to write my posts more clear in the future.

Cheers. Sorry if I sounded too harsh, I was stunned for a second. You'll barely find a greater supporter of heavy mechanised forces than myself on this or a couple of other boards...

Roll on the Abrams I say!!!