M1A3 Abrams Upgrade?

[Uxi]

Having been a USMC M1A1 crewman and tank commander, I would most like to see a few things in an M1A3:

1) UAAPU and reclaim the bustle rack space from the EAPU. If I had my pick, I'd really try to use the hull ammo storage. Only time we ever used ours in OIF was during the initial upload in OIF-1 and once when some false intel came that that a bunch of armor was coming our way

2) Have nothing but love for the M256 and XM360 is a great evolution that should be in M1A3

3) M134 rotary for the coax. Don't know how many times as a gunner that I saw M240 barrel glowing red. Changing in the middle of it was just not realistic and one time when the loader tried, his asbestos mittens steamed and let all kinds of nasty fumes out. Limiters enforcing the 4-5 tracer 'killing burst' might be worth consideration, but 1000 rpm is right there with the 650-950rpm of the M240. Mostly a gunner discipline issue, though. Improved feed mechanism is desirable in any case, and we can borrow alot
from our aviation friends.

4) As a TC, an improved cupola would top of my list to both protect the commander and provide visibility while not being as high profile "shoot me" as on the M60. I'm thinking at least partially sunk into the turret, though possibly retracting. Without getting completely crazy, I'd like to somewhat emulate the AAV weapons station and put a Mk19 and M2 side by side. While I 'd like to go all-out and wish for a GAU-19, it's probably just not needed in a combined arms environment. Talking gun situations necessitate something beefier than the coax. If possible, I'd like a stabilized platform, but when you get to it, such needs would be something for the gunner.

5) Combination of the ready and semi-ready ammo storage accessible by the loader from his position, maybe with some sort of carousel system or collapsing of the ready racks as used to make the semi-ready at least partially accessible with the guards and TC still in position.

6) Retain mechanic/electronics balance from the M1A1 and not go "too" electronic like the A2/SEP. Be able to fight the tank in degraded mode without the need for as much black box, 3rd echelon maintenance.


For a future/next-gen MBT, I would be really interested in revisiting the MBT-70 with modern technology, particularly on the weapon system. Rather than put the driver in the turret, I'd put the whole crew stationary in the hull, though. Barring STAFF coming back on the table, though, even XM360 is a bit too conventional IMO. That's another topic, though.

 

[Tankwit]

First post have mercy.

Wouldn't the ideal solution to the coax issue be duel coax?

50 cal and 7.62 both as coax from inside the hull would be the best of both worlds.

Appreciate that in a upgrade program this would be a huge cost, but In practice engaging lightly armoured targets at ranges out to 2k from under armour with .50 API/SLAP instead of main would produce tactical advantages i.e .50 vs MAIN bomb load, ammo conservation, reduced EFC'S on the main and a dollar advantage that would offset the production costs (mods), providing a saving for the bean counters.

Rest assured that the development of new or improved platforms maybe developed by war-fighters but the final word always goes to the bean counters.

PARATUS

 

[sgtgunn]

First post have mercy.

Wouldn't the ideal solution to the coax issue be duel coax?

50 cal and 7.62 both as coax from inside the hull would be the best of both worlds.
............

One of the original proposals for co-ax armament for the XM1 was twin .50cals - one on either side of the main gun. Many of the tankers involved in the development were Vietnam vets and wanted serious anti-personnel firepower. Another proposal was the 25mm Bushmaster and a machine gun co-ax combination. The idea was that the 25mm would be used for softer targets like APCs and main-gun would be saved for tanks.

Adrian

 

[IronsightSniper]

Wouldn't it be easier to just Remote-control the .50 instead of moving it around?

 

[wormhole]

It looks like the Abrams will be getting more lethal ammo soon. The
M829E4 120mm Advanced Kinetic Energy (AKE) tactical tank round is designed for greater effectiveness against ERA.

 

[FirstSpear]

Well survivability seems to be the name of the game these days with the US Army. I'm curious given the huge number of capabilities the US wants in a new IFV (and with little regard for weight) why we don't go the route of the Israeli Namer and build a heavy IFV/APC based of the M1 chassis. The Namer has MBT level of protection, good mobility, carries 12 dismounts, and can be upgraded with a 30mm remote turret with Spike LR ATGMs. I don't see why something similar couldn't be produced around the M1 - admittedly the Merkava with it's front engine configuration makes things easier, but I'd imagine that it would still be easier than designing a whole new vehicle.

Adrian

Agree with your review of the Namer except it carries a crew of 3 and 9 dismounts; only the Zelda (M113) carried 12. If you think about this problem, NATO could standardize turrets with remote 30mm gun and two missile modules on either side (one could be SAM, the other ATGM, or two ATGM based on mission). Countries, which can afford them, could field MBT-grade armored IFV, like a Challenger class or M1 class hull with the remote turret. The other countries could field much lighter vehicles with Aspro or Iron Hand active protection systems. The benefits of fielding combined arms squadrons with 20 or so vehicles (half MBTs and half HIFV) would be significant. For states fielding the 'lighter', say a CV90 type vehicle, this could be achieved with the Armadillo (it does reach 32t!) in the CV90120T and CV9030 configurations. Wheeled Piranha type (or Stryker) could be used to protect light infantry or paratroopers in IED or high intensity environments. the standard turret could still be used on them!:lam

 

[FirstSpear]

I give you the mortar which is an interesting weapon for an MBT and seems to work fine for the Iarelis.

But the troop compartment is one of these half-myths that keeps looking like it would enable the Merkava to carry it's own mech infantry .

One may very well carry a couple of soldiers in certain situations but this significantly reduces the ammo carried by a Merk. Other situations were this is usefull are for example ammo replenishment in fighting positions without the need to expose the crew and evacuation of casualties under heavy fire.

Nevertheless the compartment and backdoor of the Merkavas adds to their versatility but is far from making them a jack of all trades as every different usage of this capability comes with important trade-offs.

enshuldigung (sp?) but it is a fact that for many operations, MkIIIs go into battle carrying troops from the elite infantry brigade in the division, either a sniper team, a few grenadiers (for a snatch) or a HMG team (to save them the fatigue and help them get to key positions along the line of advance. The MkIV does this even more often as the new structure being tested combines MkIV and Namer and allows the infantry in the joint armor/infantry sections to ride in the tanks during key phases of the operation.

This is very useful during heavy recon missions. Also, HMG and Sniper teams are often mounted as a way to help tank units suppress enemy dismounts.

Still, I would guess the most common use if for heavily protected snatch missions. When the full 800 Namer order is fielded (a little over a quarter built in Israel, the others will be built in the US) there will be enough HIFV capability to protect most elite infantry for the active divisions. Reserves will still place infantry in their MkIIIs to protect them during heavy column attacks.

Bottom line, dismounts facing Merkavas do have to wonder when the infantry is, it's almost always looking right at them.

In Europe, we need to develop such capability. A joint use of the CV90T and CV9030 would help. The Norwegians and Danes did very well with their CV90s (no CV90120Ts in service or planned with them) if Af-stan.

The M1A2 has great armor and moving the engine to the front would make it a spectacular HIFV to operate together with M1A2 in combined squadrons, say four platoons of 2 MBT and 2 HIFV/18. It's a very flexible notion. (the IDF will be testing this in the MkIV/Namer combo)

 

[FirstSpear]

Won't 12.7 mm SLAP just create another issue of overpenetration?

Can be very messy! Can create a real problem if used on hard target hiding among civilians...

 

[exported_kiwi]

Do you really think that we are going to see a 4th crewmember when there is an autoloader installed?

IMHO they are going to save the money and settle with a 3 men crew even when retaining the 4th man would have a lot of benefits.

Sorry for the 1 liner mods n guys (or it was) but; autoloader? Methinks you jest! Haven't y'all read Tom Clancy? Hehehehe! MK1, MOD zero eyeball, is best!
P.S; from what I heard, the M1A3 is going to have a new powerpack is all! Something like the LV100/1000.

 

[Cavalier1645]

Hi,


Here's what I'd like to see....

M1A3:



New Main Gun - 140mm or 120mm L/55, perhaps eventually an ET or EM gun. In addition to existing APFSDS-DU, HEAT-MP, canister and obsticle reducing rounds add a beyond LOS smart round and an airburtsing anti-personnel round (hi-tech version of old 105mm APERS).


I seriously doubt the US will adopt a 140mm or EM. The Germans experimented with a 140mm with their Leopard 2 KWS 3 project and found it slow and unnecessary. It unlikely any bigger gun will be introduce until the Chinese, Russian, any major nation etc, build something that requires a 140mm to penetrate it. And of course by then missile advocates will be justified on placing missiles on tanks (or making their gun missile capable).

Personally I am for a bigger gun. Missile despite their benefits will never replace a direct fire projectile. You cant jam essentially a huge bullet, and missile despite a wonderful improvements are never complete precise.

 

[eckherl]

Hi,


Here's what I'd like to see....

M1A3:



New Main Gun - 140mm or 120mm L/55, perhaps eventually an ET or EM gun. In addition to existing APFSDS-DU, HEAT-MP, canister and obsticle reducing rounds add a beyond LOS smart round and an airburtsing anti-personnel round (hi-tech version of old 105mm APERS).


I seriously doubt the US will adopt a 140mm or EM. The Germans experimented with a 140mm with their Leopard 2 KWS 3 project and found it slow and unnecessary. It unlikely any bigger gun will be introduce until the Chinese, Russian, any major nation etc, build something that requires a 140mm to penetrate it. And of course by then missile advocates will be justified on placing missiles on tanks (or making their gun missile capable).

Personally I am for a bigger gun. Missile despite their benefits will never replace a direct fire projectile. You cant jam essentially a huge bullet, and missile despite a wonderful improvements are never complete precise.

It is not justified to go to a bigger main gun, there is still plenty of life in the 120mm. ETC technology still has a few bugs that need to be worked out.

 

[Cavalier1645]

Because jets and big ships are sexy and generate more $ for congressional districts. Or maybe the USAF & USN just lobby better.

True

I also think it because some people in both DoD and the Administration has "bought" into the foolish notion that air power and naval power can exclusively win wars. In war you still have to hold ground, and ruling the sky and the sea is meaningless. The NVA and VC proved that to the US in Vietnam War and many low-tech insurgents are inflicting significant causalities on US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to this day. The DoD and administration need to learn from lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and improve the Us military overall, not in just one or two high profile branches.

 

[My2Cents]

In addition to existing APFSDS-DU, HEAT-MP, canister and obsticle reducing rounds add a beyond LOS smart round and an airburtsing anti-personnel round (hi-tech version of old 105mm APERS).

Better would be to combine the HEAT-MP and obstacle-reducing round into a single round with an added anti-air proximity fuse. The obstacle-reducing round was derived from the HEAT-MP. Then replace the canister and APERS into an AHEAD round. This reduces the number of different ammo types from 6 to 4, and makes it more likely you will have what you need on hand when you need it.

Not sure what you would want in a BLOS round – GPS guidance? Laser? Millimeter radar?
Probably the first step would be to increase the maximum elevation of the gun to increase the range and allow the shell to drop behind obstacles like a proper artillery piece.

New Main Gun - 140mm or 120mm L/55, perhaps eventually an ET or EM gun

I seriously doubt the US will adopt a 140mm or EM. The Germans experimented with a 140mm with their Leopard 2 KWS 3 project and found it slow and unnecessary. It unlikely any bigger gun will be introduce until the Chinese, Russian, any major nation etc, build something that requires a 140mm to penetrate it. And of course by then missile advocates will be justified on placing missiles on tanks (or making their gun missile capable).

Personally I am for a bigger gun. Missile despite their benefits will never replace a direct fire projectile. You cant jam essentially a huge bullet, and missile despite a wonderful improvements are never complete precise.

Bigger gun equals fewer rounds available.

• The M-1 w/105mm carried 55 rounds.
• The M-1A1 w/120mm carries 40 rounds
• Install a 140mm and you are probably looking at about 27 rounds. Not much room for those specialty rounds you want.

By EM gun I assume you mean a railgun. Superb anti-armor capabilities with some form of APDS. Poor performance for everything else. I personal doubt they will ever get a round with HE for it, explosives and high power electric arcs and magnetic pulse just do not mix well. I understand they are trying to design an purely mechanical fuse and detonator as the first step in attempting to solve some of the problem. But the big problem is the erosion of the rails in the gun by the electric arc limits the barrel life to a few rounds.

Pure ETC has come and gone, but its descendants remain. My favorite is CAP (Combustion Assisted Plasma) where you give a propellant charge a shot of plasma energy, but considerably less than pure ETC. One big advantage is that you can use different and extremely stable propellants, because you have replaced the equivalent of a match to start it with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch! The propellants should also produce a better mix of propellant gases, with more H2 and CO, and less H2O and CO2. Won’t be as fast as a railgun, but there will probably be a 15% to 40% performance improvement and you can still use all the conventional projectiles designs.

 

[sgtgunn]

Any update on the propects of an M1A3 or M2A4 any time in the near future? Or is all the money and effort going to the GCV for 2018?

Adrian

 

[ASSAIL]

Australian Army MBT's

This is a question to the Australian Army Defpros from a blue water type.
Does the OZ army hook into the US continuous thru life upgrades for our tanks or are they stuck in time?

 

[eckherl]

Any update on the propects of an M1A3 or M2A4 any time in the near future? Or is all the money and effort going to the GCV for 2018?

Adrian

They are still plugging away at all three vehicles but not knowing what they want to walk away with in regards to implementation.

Bob

 

[eckherl]

This is a question to the Australian Army Defpros from a blue water type.
Does the OZ army hook into the US continuous thru life upgrades for our tanks or are they stuck in time?

Part of the agreement with Australia was that any upgrades to keep the vehicle operational or improve with performance would be offered when needed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Part of the agreement with Australia was that any upgrades to keep the vehicle operational or improve with performance would be offered when needed.

Its also one of the main reasons LAND 907 chose the M1 tank: access to the US upgrade path. We have already acquired some of the TUSK upgrade elements (improved side armour, new seas, etc).

 

[ASSAIL]

Its also one of the main reasons LAND 907 chose the M1 tank: access to the US upgrade path. We have already acquired some of the TUSK upgrade elements (improved side armour, new seas, etc).

Thanks gents, I'm assuming we wont be going down the 140mm path.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks gents, I'm assuming we wont be going down the 140mm path.

The 140mm gun was developed in the 80s and then pretty much dropped after the Soviet tank threat was shipped back to Russia to rust. Later efforts have looked at using exotic forms of propellants to achieve higher velocity father than just upping the calibre.

The M1A3 rebuild will likely see the M256 120mm gun replaced by the XM360 120mm gun that was developed for the FCS program. The M360 has the same performance but is about a tonne lighter (weight loss needed to offset new goodies) and is fully integrated for firing digital smart round ammunition.

Another firepower aspect likely to be fitted is the compact autoloader which will replace the current 40 round magazine with a 34 round magazine and automatically reload the gun at any elevation. This will enable the fourth crewman to spend most of their time assisting the tank commander. Additional rounds can be stored in the hull to the rear (right side) of the turret ring to restore the unit of fire to 40 rounds. This location was used for ammunition in the 105mm gun M1 and a magazine design for 120mm rounds with full blow out protection was developed for the M1A1 but not fitted to save weight and volume.