M1A1, the indestructible Tank?

[swerve]

The Challenger was an evolution of the old Chieftan wasn't it? I vaguely remember the Iranians naming the Challenger "Shir" or something like that. What does the UK MBT park look like these days? I'd imagine it's been gutted, like the RAF and RN. Off topic sorry mods , this being a thread about the Abrams, a damn fine piece of kit. Is there any news of a potential replacement or will the US just continue to upgrade, does anybody know?

"Evolution" in the sense of three stages of upgrade, at the end of which there was nothing left of the original.

IIRC, it went something like this -

Iran bought Chieftains. It then ordered upgraded Chieftain variants - Shir 1 & Shir 2. The latter was a major upgrade, with new powerpack (requiring modified hull) & improved FCS. It was never delivered, because of the revolution, & the first batch was bought by Jordan, & (with minor modifications) became the Khalid.

Challenger 1 incorporated the Khalid improvements into a further modified hull, with upgraded armour & new suspension.

Challenger 2 changed the gun, turret & FCS.

I think the BV is probably the same as Chieftain.

 

[M1Brams]

If I'm notwrong prototypes for the m1a3 are currently in development and the army plans to field it by 2017 If I'm not wrong. I suppose we might see an increase to 140mm of which the leopard 3 was going to before it was cancelled. Armour wise I believe quick kill will be sorted and tested by then alongside with the next gen chobham. I can't say the same for the challi and Leo, do you guys surmise prototypes of the Leo 3 and challi 3 be undergoing dev in the future alongside the m1a3?

 

[StobieWan]

If I'm notwrong prototypes for the m1a3 are currently in development and the army plans to field it by 2017 If I'm not wrong. I suppose we might see an increase to 140mm of which the leopard 3 was going to before it was cancelled. Armour wise I believe quick kill will be sorted and tested by then alongside with the next gen chobham. I can't say the same for the challi and Leo, do you guys surmise prototypes of the Leo 3 and challi 3 be undergoing dev in the future alongside the m1a3?

I was thinking in terms of a completely new platform - not incremental updates when I said the M1 wouldn't be replaced. The A3 would be an update of the existing tank, not a radical departure.

I can't see a Challenger 3 - the cost of developing a new tank has passed beyond our means or any logical need of the UK - shame since we invented 'em but that's life. For a possible buy of 4-500, I can't believe we'd be able to justify an all new design - which leads us to a collaboration with some third party if we wanted to retain heavy armour when the Challengers cease to be viable.

Ian

 

[M1Brams]

I was thinking in terms of a completely new platform - not incremental updates when I said the M1 wouldn't be replaced. The A3 would be an update of the existing tank, not a radical departure.

I can't see a Challenger 3 - the cost of developing a new tank has passed beyond our means or any logical need of the UK - shame since we invented 'em but that's life. For a possible buy of 4-500, I can't believe we'd be able to justify an all new design - which leads us to a collaboration with some third party if we wanted to retain heavy armour when the Challengers cease to be viable.

Ian

It depends on the current military climate and tech research. Personally I think the m1a3 might be a wholly new tank, an incremental update might not be sufficient to deal with anti armour threats in 2017 , let alone future tanks that might be in dev.if you ask me, an incremental update is just merely a stopgap measure for now. But who knows what happens in the future.

 

[StobieWan]

It depends on the current military climate and tech research. Personally I think the m1a3 might be a wholly new tank, an incremental update might not be sufficient to deal with anti armour threats in 2017 , let alone future tanks that might be in dev.if you ask me, an incremental update is just merely a stopgap measure for now. But who knows what happens in the future.

There's a whole thread on the M1A3 on this very site, enjoy


http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/m1a3-abrams-upgrade-7278/

 

[M1Brams]

There's a whole thread on the M1A3 on this very site, enjoy

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/m1a3-abrams-upgrade-7278/

thanks. I believe the a3 would mean several upgrades to the a1 and a2 platforms regarding battlefield comms if I'm not wrong?

 

[madandlucky]

Hi all, just joined and am intrigued on something that i came across.
Been reading up on chobham armor and the M1 Abrams and dont get it, the M1A1 uses a conventional space mix of alloy and ceramics yet can resist several close up T-72 hits during the Gulf war and one famous incident involving a stranded abrams stuck in the mud had to be abandoned and destroyed to prevent it from falling into enemy hands.The Abrams was fired on 4-5 times by another using the M829A1 Sabot round, and couldnt penetrate the tank, then the crew decided to cook off the ammo using thermite grenades .. still running.

Called in 2x AGM-114 hellfire strikes from an Apache.. the tank disabled but the tank frame was totally intact.


Is the M1A1 indestructible? i mean even a sabot round cannot penetrate the Armor despite being fired numerous times is just..:shudder

Every tank is destructible. Important is that you must know well how you attack a tank. Each tank has weak sides.
My favourite tank is Leopard 2NG upgraded by Turkish army..

 

[riksavage]

I was thinking in terms of a completely new platform - not incremental updates when I said the M1 wouldn't be replaced. The A3 would be an update of the existing tank, not a radical departure.

I can't see a Challenger 3 - the cost of developing a new tank has passed beyond our means or any logical need of the UK - shame since we invented 'em but that's life. For a possible buy of 4-500, I can't believe we'd be able to justify an all new design - which leads us to a collaboration with some third party if we wanted to retain heavy armour when the Challengers cease to be viable.

Ian

This months Land Warfare has a good overview of the 2020 UK armoured composition. Land Warfare Intl. | Shephard Group

Each of the five new deployable multi-role brigades (not including 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault) will have a 1 x upgraded Challenger II equipped armoured regiment, 1 x armoured recce FRES SV regiment, 1 x upgraded Warrior armoured infantry reg + AS90/light gun/MLRS mix and infantry/MRAP elements.

GD's work on FRES SV is apparently moving along pretty well and exceeding all expectations (for once). They will get the Warrior upgrade programme as well. With UK withdrawing from Germany and the need to remain flexible and mobile (MRB concept) I strongly believe Challenger II will be replaced by a much lighter gun/missile platform using a combination of the latest gen armour and soft-kill technology. I reckon GD will be a prime candidate to meet any new requirements leveraging off the FRES SV/Warrior upgrade project management team and ongoing UK production work. The UK may even consider a 120mm smooth bore ASCOD based direct fire platform with upgraded armour as being adequate to meet the UK's strategic raiding/intervention concept now BAOR is defunct moving a shrinking Challenger fleet to reserve forces only.

 

[Waylander]

Getting rid of their heavy armour would be a colossal mistake by the British Army.
First it wouldn't be very economical. The Challis are rather new and paid for. And operating a 60+ tons tank isn't that much more expensive than running a tracked 45+ tons gun platform. Especially while this gun platform needs to be developed first (meaning lots of money) and I am not overly confident the British ability to do this even halfway in time and in budget. Since the Challi 2 the British Army sunk billions into AFV procurements with never actually putting something into service.

Second, and even more important IMO, tanks are an important tool in the every armies toolcase. I just don't buy the lighter is better and we only will perform raids stuff which comes out of the MoD. Tanks maybe are a once in a decade have to but then they are essential. And it's not as if there aren't tons of other capabilities in the armed forces which aren't even used as often as tanks are.

Operation Telic has shown that heavy forces were essential in conquering Basra and surroundings. It was the 7th Armoured Brigade including the Black Watch, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Scots Dragoon Guards which fought the majority of fights in and around Basra and was the Brigade of the 1st Armoured Division which led the push into Basra with Challis in the lead. The other two Brigades of the Division were light.

While the 16 Air Assault Brigade met little resitance in securing some oilfields the 3 Commando Brigade had some severe problems in advancing after they landed on the Al Faw peninsula. They were stopped dead by a mixed armoured force of T-55s, BMPs and BRDMs. Not only couldn't they advance any further but had to urgently call for armoured support because they came under heavy pressure by the Iraqis. A squadron of Challis of the Scots DG battle group dealed with the Iraqis within less than an hour...

And even within the 3 Armoured Brigades battle groups it weren't the Warriors which led the assaults...

Such experiences show the limitations of light forces and all this while having overhelming air support by US and UK assets. The Challis were the asset which made the success in Basra (With the low British casualties) possible.

 

[riksavage]

Getting rid of their heavy armour would be a colossal mistake by the British Army.
First it wouldn't be very economical. The Challis are rather new and paid for. And operating a 60+ tons tank isn't that much more expensive than running a tracked 45+ tons gun platform. Especially while this gun platform needs to be developed first (meaning lots of money) and I am not overly confident the British ability to do this even halfway in time and in budget. Since the Challi 2 the British Army sunk billions into AFV procurements with never actually putting something into service.

Second, and even more important IMO, tanks are an important tool in the every armies toolcase. I just don't buy the lighter is better and we only will perform raids stuff which comes out of the MoD. Tanks maybe are a once in a decade have to but then they are essential. And it's not as if there aren't tons of other capabilities in the armed forces which aren't even used as often as tanks are.

Operation Telic has shown that heavy forces were essential in conquering Basra and surroundings. It was the 7th Armoured Brigade including the Black Watch, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Scots Dragoon Guards which fought the majority of fights in and around Basra and was the Brigade of the 1st Armoured Division which led the push into Basra with Challis in the lead. The other two Brigades of the Division were light.

While the 16 Air Assault Brigade met little resitance in securing some oilfields the 3 Commando Brigade had some severe problems in advancing after they landed on the Al Faw peninsula. They were stopped dead by a mixed armoured force of T-55s, BMPs and BRDMs. Not only couldn't they advance any further but had to urgently call for armoured support because they came under heavy pressure by the Iraqis. A squadron of Challis of the Scots DG battle group dealed with the Iraqis within less than an hour...

And even within the 3 Armoured Brigades battle groups it weren't the Warriors which led the assaults...

Such experiences show the limitations of light forces and all this while having overhelming air support by US and UK assets. The Challis were the asset which made the success in Basra (With the low British casualties) possible.

I agree the Challenger won't be disposed of, but with the planned growth of and resourcing of the reserves the Challie II could be transferred to units less likely to be deployed at short notice. The MRB equipped with the new FRES SV and improved Warrior (40mm CTA) plus a 120mm smooth gun platform providing close infantry/tank killer support is more likely to be used in the current Afghan / failed state / strategic raiding type mission. An added bonus being a 120mm fitted ASCOD derivative would reduce the logistics tail by using common chassis and by firing NATO stock ammo.

3 Commando already have plans (approved) to add an AT and mortar carrier version of Viking to add punch to the amphib tracked fleet. They would also deploy as a brigade with FRES SV (crewed by HHC) and possibly any future direct fire weapon.

 

[Waylander]

I see a role for fire support platforms based on IFVs but I also think that this role is much more limited than some may think.

As I said before there is not much difference between operating a rleative heavy IFV (or a direct fire platform based on one) and a MBT. So the common hull is the only thing one saves money from as it uses mostly the same spares as the IFV.

But one still has a hull and turret which is not armored enough to withstand even main gun hits from plain old T-55s. And every pickpot dictator has them these days. And advances in passive and active defense systems won't save you even from old high speed main gun rounds if your armor doesn't cut it.

There is also the real danger of loosing the expertise in how to conduct armoured warfare. Such a platform would most certainly be relegated to an infantry support role. And with all the respect I have for infantry forces they more often than not know jackshit about all the abilities a tank brings to the table and how to employ it properly apart from using it as a big armoured direct fire pillbox.

Another problem is strategic mobility. I have my doubts that an IFV hull with a 120mm turret is going to fit in an A400M. So you have to use a C-17 or similar plane anyway. The same with sealift. I doubt that you will get that many more of these direct fire platforms into a ship than normal MBTs.

They are also not much more tactical mobile except for some bridges.

So in the end I doubt that the advantages are really big enough to justify a large replacement of MBTs with lighter direct fire platforms.

 

[M1Brams]

This months Land Warfare has a good overview of the 2020 UK armoured composition. Land Warfare Intl. | Shephard Group

Each of the five new deployable multi-role brigades (not including 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault) will have a 1 x upgraded Challenger II equipped armoured regiment, 1 x armoured recce FRES SV regiment, 1 x upgraded Warrior armoured infantry reg + AS90/light gun/MLRS mix and infantry/MRAP elements.

GD's work on FRES SV is apparently moving along pretty well and exceeding all expectations (for once). They will get the Warrior upgrade programme as well. With UK withdrawing from Germany and the need to remain flexible and mobile (MRB concept) I strongly believe Challenger II will be replaced by a much lighter gun/missile platform using a combination of the latest gen armour and soft-kill technology. I reckon GD will be a prime candidate to meet any new requirements leveraging off the FRES SV/Warrior upgrade project management team and ongoing UK production work. The UK may even consider a 120mm smooth bore ASCOD based direct fire platform with upgraded armour as being adequate to meet the UK's strategic raiding/intervention concept now BAOR is defunct moving a shrinking Challenger fleet to reserve forces only.

im sure the challi will still be a part of the British army plans in the future.Having something like a MGS stryker would definately mean a whole host of problems likely to deal with armor issues and the stress of firing the main gun.

Such vehicles are more likely to succumb to heavy armor fire if fired upon and i see it the way they could be used is to support challi tanks as a fire support based weap like waylander said

 

[M1Brams]

I see a role for fire support platforms based on IFVs but I also think that this role is much more limited than some may think.

As I said before there is not much difference between operating a rleative heavy IFV (or a direct fire platform based on one) and a MBT. So the common hull is the only thing one saves money from as it uses mostly the same spares as the IFV.

But one still has a hull and turret which is not armored enough to withstand even main gun hits from plain old T-55s. And every pickpot dictator has them these days. And advances in passive and active defense systems won't save you even from old high speed main gun rounds if your armor doesn't cut it.

There is also the real danger of loosing the expertise in how to conduct armoured warfare. Such a platform would most certainly be relegated to an infantry support role. And with all the respect I have for infantry forces they more often than not know jackshit about all the abilities a tank brings to the table and how to employ it properly apart from using it as a big armoured direct fire pillbox.

Another problem is strategic mobility. I have my doubts that an IFV hull with a 120mm turret is going to fit in an A400M. So you have to use a C-17 or similar plane anyway. The same with sealift. I doubt that you will get that many more of these direct fire platforms into a ship than normal MBTs.

They are also not much more tactical mobile except for some bridges.

So in the end I doubt that the advantages are really big enough to justify a large replacement of MBTs with lighter direct fire platforms.

erm waylander do you honestly see a challanger or leopard 3 update by 2020 or if at all? surely there should be some plans to keep up at least match the m1a3.

 

[riksavage]

im sure the challi will still be a part of the British army plans in the future.Having something like a MGS stryker would definately mean a whole host of problems likely to deal with armor issues and the stress of firing the main gun.

Such vehicles are more likely to succumb to heavy armor fire if fired upon and i see it the way they could be used is to support challi tanks as a fire support based weap like waylander said

The dilemma the UK has to face is budget restrictions combined with the need to upgrade many legacy items. I doubt this will allow for both wheeled and tracked direct fire vehicles.

Fortunately UOR's have delivered a very large quantity of wheeled MRAP's of all shapes and sizes, some fitted for/with Javelin firing posts/GMG/.50 etc. This relatively new fleet can support light infantry peace keeping operations and low intensity conflict. Whilst they do not have the off-road /armoured abilities of the Striker family they can fulfill a useful role in environments where IED's and light weapons are in the majority.

The UK armoured corps over the last 20 odd years has supported heavy armour with tracked recce assets, hence the desire to move forward with FRES SV as a replacement for CVRT. Adding to that a wheeled Striker type variant will stretch the budget to breaking point, I can't see it happening under the current climate when the Warrior upgrade programme is also a priority.

The future plan is for 5 x formation recce regiments to be equipped with 2 x Sqn of FRES SV and 1 x Sqn of Jackal and 5 x Challenger II armoured regiments (227 tanks in total). The UK has kicked into the long grass the idea of medium level units equipped with a new generation of wheeled AFV's and fire support variants. Any spare cash can be used to stick a direct fire turret on an ASCOD chassis. A formation recce troop could then consist of 1 x direct fire and 2 x 40mm CTA equipped vehicels.

I even believe the A400 transport requirement has been ditched because of lessons learnt in Afghanistan and the C17 factor, the latter being able to lift all the current range of UK tracked vehicles.

Instead of Heavy, Medium and Light formations, the UK will end up with basically heavy (tracked) and light (wheeled) mixed together in five Brigades with one ready to deploy almost immediately to back-up 16AA and/or 3 Commando in an emergency.

IMHO when it comes to replacing the Challie II it will either be a US/UK partnership or Anglo-French partnership. The former for obvious reasons the latter as a result of the increasing closeness driven by the need to mirror both armies shared capabilties for future joint ops (Libya type or more ground unit intensive). 40mm CTA will become standard in both armies, so why not a standardised future MBT based on a 140mm CTA?

 

[Volkodav]

I find it quite interesting that the US looked at the Leopard 2, specifically the Leopard 2 AV (austere version), in 1976. But for the "not invented here" culture in US procurement there would not have been an M1 Abrams.

Yes I do know the official reason for selecting the XM-1 over the Leo 2 AV was that the XM-1 offered superior protection but hind sight seems to indicate the the Leo may have been the better option as it appears to have had many advantages in other areas including range, operating cost, fire control, reliability to name a few. At the end of the day the Leo could have easily been up armoured to match or exceed the performance of the XM-1 in this area.

It would make a very interesting what if to consider the prospect of the US selecting the Leo 2 instead of the Abrams in 1976. Imagine the Leo after 30 plus years of US investment and R&D!

 

[Waylander]

Maybe it was for the good of the German AFV industry.
Giving the US a license to build the Leo II would have been a big deal but the German companies would have faced a stiff competition for all the upgrades which were to come. Right now they make alot of steady money with spare parts und upgrades for all the customers abroad without too much competition from abroad.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

While very similar the differences between the M1 and Leopard 2 are pretty much at the DNA level so you aren’t going to be able to turn a Leopard 2 into a M1 and vice versa. The gas turbine engine enables the M1 to have a lot more weight in the centre of the vehicle and still be balanced. The Leopard 2 needs to be forward loaded to counter the weight of the heavier diesel engine.

This means two bad things for Leopard 2 protection: half of the ammo needs to be in the bow where it can’t be compartmentalised and is vulnerable to frontal penetration hits, and the turret can’t consume as much weight as a proportion of overall weight, so all things being equal it can’t be as heavily armoured. The IPM1, M1A1 and M1A2 have a lot more armour depth in the front of their armour than Leopard 2A1 to A4s. The A5 upgrade adds an additional turret thickness via a second package but this is less efficient than a single package approach. Also the M1 turret faces have the weight margin for high denisty packages like DU whereas the heaviest thing in the armour of a Leopard 2 is steel.

As to the gas turbine engine it does burn more fuel which is countered by the M1 carrying more fuel. While this does mean the M1 unit commander has to have more fuel on hand this is only a problem operationally and strategically. Tactically it is compensated by more fuelling assets which every M1 unit has. But on the flipside it makes for a much quieter tank, which is a tactical benefit.

The other significant difference between the two is the radios are located in the front left of the M1’s turret and in the right rear of the Leopard 2’s turret. This means the radios can only be adjusted by the Leopard 2 tank commander where on an M1 the loader-operator can operate the radios. The later is a much better division of labour and provides the M1 tank commander with more time for tactical awareness. This is a legacy of the Leopard 2 being designed for a conscript army where only the commander had more than a year’s training.

An M1 will always have these tactical benefits over a Leopard 2. The only downside is fuel which isn’t as big an issue today as one would think from reading about WWII. Back then the civil infrastructure for fuel production, distribution and supply was a fraction per capita of what it is today. There is much, much more fuel available these days around the civil world and also in the military. The additional fuel consumption of M1 tanks is a minor impost. It would have made a difference for the German Army in WWII but not anymore. Certainly from a US Army perspective the additional fuel demands of the M1 over a Leopard 2 alternative are nothing compared to establishing aviation brigades in every division.

 

[Waylander]

Well German conscripts were taught how to use the radio and were often enough responsible for making it ready during pre combat checks or while outfitting a tank with it's combat gear while the TC is away. Being able to do the job of your superior is not something which is solely taught in non-conscript armies...
And conscript time during the development of the Leo II was 15 month. Enough time to show a tanker how a radio works.

As for clever layout. Putting the coax onto the gunners side was IMO a wrong choice. It is much better placed at the loadeds side. He is the one who can work on stopgaps while the gunner continues scanning.

Lacking hunter/killer-capabilities until the M1A2 is another thing...

Mentioning only the design advantages of the M1 (of which there are alot) isn't good sport...

BTW, does the M1 features a fuel pump? I have just finished "Ambush Alley" and there Abrams are gravity refuelled because of a lack of fuel trucks. Does this mean that the Abrams is not able to pump or suck it's own fuel out of a depot or into another vehicle?

While we are at it. Ambush Alley is an excellent example of the impact tanks have on an enemy and on own troops and how little even in the stereotype of combined arms forces (the USMC) infantry cdrs know about how to employ tanks.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well German conscripts were taught how to use the radio and were often enough responsible for making it ready during pre combat checks or while outfitting a tank with it's combat gear while the TC is away. Being able to do the job of your superior is not something which is solely taught in non-conscript armies...
And conscript time during the development of the Leo II was 15 month. Enough time to show a tanker how a radio works.

OK so how are they going to utilise this training if they can’t access the radio. The training issue is neither here nor there, I was just offering the reason that is used in Australia to explain why the Leopard 1’s radios were not where we would want them.

Training or no training on a Leopard 2 tank the radios have to be operated by the commander because they are the only person with access to them. This detracts from the commander’s job of commanding and in a better designed tank – like the M1 or CR2 – the radios can be operated by the loader freeing the commander to command. This is especially relevant when the tank is operating as a troop or squadron control tank rather than just a gun tank.

As for clever layout. Putting the coax onto the gunners side was IMO a wrong choice. It is much better placed at the loadeds side. He is the one who can work on stopgaps while the gunner continues scanning.

The coax position does not mean major stoppages aren’t handled by the loader. Having the MG on the gunner’s side means the gunner can operate the charging handle for immediate actions to clear the more common type of jam. Giving the gunner this role is a quicker response because he is the person who has first hand knowledge of a jam and can just reach up and pull the handle and keep on firing. If he needs the loader to do the IA he has to call up the loader on the intercom and the loader has to stop doing whatever he was doing to IA the MG so it can keep on firing.

If there is a more serious jam and the IA isn’t enough then the loader has to pull the MG from the mount and open up the breech. The loader can do this just as easy on a right of the breech mounted coax as on the left. It just requires the loader to move to behind the breech to pull the MG out. A much smaller additional impost compared to the gunner having to communicate to the loader and the loader having to stop what they are doing just to pull a charge handle.

Of course you could just replace the gas (MAG) or recoil (MG3) operated coax with an externally powered Ex 51 type gun with an automatic IA function to clear any jam as on the CR2. That way the coax will never fire because it will always jam no matter what the crew do!

Lacking hunter/killer-capabilities until the M1A2 is another thing...

Mentioning only the design advantages of the M1 (of which there are alot) isn't good sport...

Well talking about design features then the M1 was designed with a CITV for hunter killer capability from the start and they can be easily refitted. The M1A1 even has the shroud base fitted as standard for the CITV. Early M1s didn’t have the CITV and didn’t even have a 120mm gun. Early Leopard 2s didn’t even have a thermal gunner’s sight! So should we judge the two tanks based on these early deficiencies.

Interesting to note that even without the CITV M1s and M1A1s consistently outscored or score matched Leopard 2s at the CAT competitions in the mid-late 1980s.

 

[moahunter]

I spoke to a former Canadian tank commander recently. He told me, that Canada once had the opportunity to purchase used M1's but decided against it (at least, that's the story in the Canadian military). Its something that he said has been regretted ever since, while the Leopards are good tanks, the Canadian soldiers who use them don't rate them as being in the same class as the US tanks.

Its all conjecture though, like anything, people have their favorites and there probably is no right or wrong answer. I don't think an M1 is indestructible though (I'm sure an A-10, and perhaps a Su-25, could easily take one out)