Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 16 M-1s to Afghanistan.
HeavyD    11/19/2010 4:37:03 PM
Reports are out that the US has come to the same conclusion as our Canadian and German allies. No, not that the Leopard 2 is the best MBT, but rather that 60+ton armored vehicles are about the only thing that the Taliban hasn't proven adept at blowing up. Time for me to dust off my soap box (not that I've been off it long enought to get dusty) and point out the ridiculousness of a hyper-velocity 120mm anti-tank gun against a dismounted enemy. Hell, our TCs have to expose themselves to man the .50! the 7.62mm coax is worthless against mud walls, and the 120mm is overkill by a factor of, oh, about 100mm. A M1.5 (M1 with a M2's weapons: 25mm chain gun and 2 bunker-buster TOWS) would be better suited to the mission. Hell, an RPG-proof WWII M3 Lee/Grant tank would kick ass (give the sponson-mounted 75mm a 3P fuse, cannister and thermobaric rounds and put a 25/30mm up top) in the COIN role. But at least our troops (when did we start usiing that word to refer to just one soldier anyway?!?) have some heavy, and I mean heavy metal now. "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for I am riding in a M1A2 Abrams, boo-ya!" with its sponson mounted 75mm and top-turret 37mm with a 7.62mm machine gun in a cupola would
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
YelliChink       11/19/2010 5:19:11 PM
Or you can always develop a fin-stabilized multi-purpose, medium pressure, medium velocity tank cannon shell by cutting down propellent from existing HEAT rounds.
 
Also I believe the ones sent to Afghan have TUSK upgrade which include remote 50cal turrets.
 
One of the reason that Abrams are deployed is probably becaues the USMC don't have Stryker assault gun.
 
And I don't think that tanks in Afghan are used mostly for MOUT. All past conflicts in Afghan have tanks used as direct-fire artillery. In that respect, Stryker MGS performs just as good. Running tanks the Rommel way in modern battlefields which are infested by RPG, AT mine, IED and other AT weapons, is suicidal. The added advantage of using tanks (and MGS) is that the thermal sights on those vehicles are really good. Putting one on the hill top and no one can come through and hit you by surprise, while you can shell them 5km away with impunity. There is no chance Taliban can fool thermal imaging devices.
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/20/2010 2:23:46 AM
Given the thick walls that surround most of the houses in Afghanistan the ability to fire of the M-908 Obstacle Reduction round may be a factor as well.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    HeavyD...   11/20/2010 5:24:52 PM
You're  killin' me, man.   http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emcrook.gif" alt="" />
 
A new M3 Lee/Grant look-alike?
 
Naw, a design that's too high and too slab-sided like that, would take an exceptional amount of applique armor, those stand-off bars/slats, or reactive tiles to make it survivable enough. A lot of weight to overtax a suspension system, and on a vehicle lacking any measure of V-bottom or sloped hull to deflect ventral detonations from mines, IEDs, or low RPG/HE grenade shots.
 
Add to that the fact that the WW2-era M3 Medium was a rapidly-developed, easy-to-ramp-up-production stopgap until a better design featuring the 75 in a full turret came along...
A serious shortcoming the M3 displayed was its sponson-mounted 75 too often required too much of the vehicle be exposed to engage (direct fire) targets with the 75.
 
Now, what's needed is a system that keeps the primary armament in a fully traversable turret.
 
Fast forward roughly a hal-century, and we have the proper designs at ouyr disposal: we just need the propewr motivation and investment to bring them, combined, to fruition.
 
The parts:
 
Remember the Scorpion CVR(T) ?
Between it, and the Australians' example of putting the Saladin 6x6's turret onto modified M113s, we see that a modern 3" class weapon does have useful battlefield utility (especially where HESH/HEP shells are involved).
 
Problem is, just being armed with a relatively low velocity gun, doesn't give you a lot of other useful options if/when the chance comes along where you face any level of adversary vehicles (that aren't stationary).
 
So, we need higher-velocity light/medium caliber autocannons for that.
 
The US likes its 25mm.
Recently, the British announced that their service "favorite" of the 30mm RARDEN was being replaced with the new 40mm CTAI weapon.
 
However, the 40mm class of weapons will still require multiple rounds to breach heavily walled structures and such.
 
So, along comes an interesting solution from the Russians: the BMP-3 with its multi-weapon turret featuring not only a high velocity 30mm autocannon,
but also a 100mm gun that fires a very useful HE type (or even a guided round for those pesky AFVs).
 
Those folks from Turkey at FNSS (on their ACV-S) have demonstrated the turret can be accomodated on modified M113-type platforms....
 
However, if you look back at that pdf on the 40mm CTA gun, pay attention to page 6: that rotating breech feed mechanism prevents any sort of coaxial turret mounting putting it in side-by-side proximity to a larger shell-firing gun.
In the US, development of the 30mm Bushmaster series has resulted in the standardization around the MK44 gun, which is upgradeable to the 40mm Super Shot
(OK, technically it is 39mm diameter now), but still has a KE and anti-personnel/airburst edge over anything in 30mm....
This gun family, unlike the 40CTA System, can be re-positioned (breech orientation) to accomodate coaxial mountings with other big-bore systems (although it technically has not be tried yet, the gun feed mechanism dynamics of the Chain Gun family can allow for it).
 
Now, speaking of shell-firing guns: where in non-Russian service is there a similar "Western friendly" larger-caliber shell-firing gun that doesn't require the large recoil-absorbing capabilities of an MBT-sized hull?
 
 
or better yet, MCB-81.
 
Why 81 and not 120mm?
Even in the NEM
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       11/22/2010 8:38:48 AM
I was not advocating the Lee/Grant's design, but just noting that its combined armament - 75mm and 37mm, with multiple 7.62 mm machine guns and larger crew (6 or 7) is superior to the mission in a threat armor-free environment than a M1's.
 
And as collateral damage continues to draw attention (the Israelis suffer from a problem of bad press every time a 120mm round takes out the bad guy they are shooting at plus 2-3 civvies), the need for that medium caliber will only increase.
 
The brandt 81mm mortar/gun is intriguing - high ROF (30 rpm) offsets the smaller splash.  Dropping in 4-6 airburst rounds MRSI will still be a nasty surprise for bad guys sneaking along behind a ridgeline or wall, and if it takes a short burst to create a breach, so be it.  Also as you note the ability to clear a room and not level the building is increasingly important.
 
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       11/22/2010 10:18:28 AM
HeavyD, you have a serious chip on your shoulder there. Plus I think that you are wrong.

The mud walls of Afghanistan are massive (they have to be - they are not an elegant engineered solution.) and are proof against anything up to and including 30mm automatic cannon. A 120mm high-velocity shell with a delay fuse would be ideal for hitting targets concealed behind them, a 120mm HESH shell would be ideal for knocking holes in them. Practice shells (Inert full-bore projectiles) would knock large holes in structures without flattening the surroundings. All are cheaper than TOW missiles, all have a shorter minimum range

In this specific environment, a 25mm cannon denies you effective air-bursting munitions and 2 TOWs are an expensive way to knock out buildings compared to cannon shells.
An M1 with a 40mm AGL on a RWS would be a very cost-effective way of adding another weapon system if those on an MBT were not considered sufficiently flexible. The GMG can be given airbursting ammunition to engage targets in defilade.

If an infantry support tank was decided to be the way forward, a westernised BMP3 turret might be the way forward. An autoloaded 90mm like the CMI group weapon (it's small enough to fit a Scorpion)  or a 120mm mortar plus a Mauser Mk30 or ATK MK44 and a 7.62mm all mounted coaxially would do it, but that's a whole new vehicle which wouldn't be cheap or necessarily any more use than an MBT.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       11/22/2010 12:14:39 PM

I was not advocating the Lee/Grant's design, but just noting that its combined armament - 75mm and 37mm, with multiple 7.62 mm machine guns and larger crew (6 or 7) is superior to the mission in a threat armor-free environment than a M1's.

 

And as collateral damage continues to draw attention (the Israelis suffer from a problem of bad press every time a 120mm round takes out the bad guy they are shooting at plus 2-3 civvies), the need for that medium caliber will only increase.

 

The brandt 81mm mortar/gun is intriguing - high ROF (30 rpm) offsets the smaller splash.  Dropping in 4-6 airburst rounds MRSI will still be a nasty surprise for bad guys sneaking along behind a ridgeline or wall, and if it takes a short burst to create a breach, so be it.  Also as you note the ability to clear a room and not level the building is increasingly important.

 



I give you that point that extra crew and/or dismounts are a plus: extra crew means less workload per person, more people for maintaining the vehicle and performing routine duties (guard, KP, etc),
and more dismounts is seen as a must for the new GCV (if it doesn't fall like the overly-ambitious FCS did).
 
And I've also seen similar issues mentioned like the Israelis: same went for some press in Iraq over the Abrams and even Stryker MGS when firing their main guns (120mm, 105mm) at some targets like structures (don't want to  risk collapsing a house onto children, women, and the elderly and disabled, do we?).
 
If the 81mm seems insufficient in some circles, or is adequate enough but we need more of it,
need I remind that the NEMO evolved out of the twin-tubed AMOS system: double barrels on a common mount/turret.
A double 81 certainly could bring to bear a high volume of MRSI/time on target...but at that point, you just might as well gone with fewer heavier rounds...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       11/22/2010 12:56:33 PM
.....

The mud walls of Afghanistan are massive (they have to be - they are not an elegant engineered solution.) and are proof against anything up to and including 30mm automatic cannon. A 120mm high-velocity shell with a delay fuse would be ideal for hitting targets concealed behind them, a 120mm HESH shell would be ideal for knocking holes in them. Practice shells (Inert full-bore projectiles) would knock large holes in structures without flattening the surroundings. All are cheaper than TOW missiles, all have a shorter minimum range




In this specific environment, a 25mm cannon denies you effective air-bursting munitions and 2 TOWs are an expensive way to knock out buildings compared to cannon shells.



An M1 with a 40mm AGL on a RWS would be a very cost-effective way of adding another weapon system if those on an MBT were not considered sufficiently flexible. The GMG can be given airbursting ammunition to engage targets in defilade.




If an infantry support tank was decided to be the way forward, a westernised BMP3 turret might be the way forward. An autoloaded 90mm like the CMI group weapon (it's small enough to fit a Scorpion)  or a 120mm mortar plus a Mauser Mk30 or ATK MK44 and a 7.62mm all mounted coaxially would do it, but that's a whole new vehicle which wouldn't be cheap or necessarily any more use than an MBT.



Problem with using practice ammo against low-grade-constructed homes, is that what happens when there's over-penetration if the structure is fired upon from close range ( within a few hundred meters, when the projectile still packs a high KE) ?
HESH/HEP is good, a it doesn't over-penetrate at all.
But smoothbore tubes don't get along well with HESH/HEP,...which negates its use from 120mm unless you're British (Challie 2), and pretty much nulls my thoughts of the 81mm tube,...unless we create and entirely new rifled system (low/medium velocity rifled...might as well just go with the CMI guns and give them a higher elevation
so they can be used for both longer ranges and against higher elevation targets.
 
 
On the 25mm and TOWs: the 25 is indeed becoming the Bradley's main drawback: a lot of ammo storage, yeah. But the lack of programmable airburst and projected KE definiciency are holding it back when compared to many others who are now going for 30mm and larger calibers, in addition to installing heavier armor packages designed to withstand even 30mm KE types.
Only in prototypes and in-house designs are there being mounted guns larger than 25mm: both the USMC EFV and the FCS & GCV contenders both display 30mm Bushmaster guns,...and in both instances, it's been the MK44 that can up-convernt to the 40mm Super Shot (though budgets more than likely will ever prevent that, despite however promising that ammo family evolves).
As to the TOWs: unfortunately, without addressing the 25mm's shortcomings, those Bradleys will become more dependent on TOWs (and other assets) to provide adequate fire support, and as the older TOW stocks are depleted, newer build models won't be really cheap, not when the manufacturer (Raytheon) is producing a newer generation of PGMs (like Javelin, also too expensive to plug away at every target of opportunity) and a lot of TOWs now are refurb'ed older models just as much as new-builds: as components age and suppliers dry up, a near-completely-new design will be needed to supplant and eventually replace TOW: NetFires tanked out, and JAGM so far has been lackluster at achieving sufficient results at reasonable production prices (plus, JAGM is almost Hellfire size, much bigger than TOW, therefore more expensive and harder to manhandle into an AFV launcher system...).
 
WRT 40mm grenade launchers: lobbing shells to farther-away targets has too many drawbacks: at range, the 40mm grenades aren't known for the greatest accuracies, so at what point does the economy of one or two single rounds of a larger caliber outweigh a burst of 40mm grenades?
Putting a Mk19 or similar into a CROWS or oher RWS on an MBT already packed with several weapons (main gun, multiple MGs of at least 2 calibers) only complicates ammo storage concerns, and adds another skillset with which the crew must  be very adept to make the most use
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       11/22/2010 3:22:31 PM
doggtag, good point about only needing new turret systems. This way you could mount on IFV chassis (thereby gaining room for maybe a couple of dismounts) or on an MBT chassis to get the maximum protection (if you have a modular electronic architecture, you could switch turrets around for whatever role you need)

I think that some of your other concerns are unfounded. Practice rounds are usually designed to break up on impact so as to reduce the safety trace needed for training - overpenetration is a concern when you don't have unlimited prairie, steppe or desert to fence off. Even if this is still a concern, more frangible designs can be developed and integrated fairly easily, since you can reduce KE supplied but it's a little more difficult to add KE over and above what a gun will produce if you want to use a high velocity impact to break up the projectile.

Plurality of weapons isn't really an issue, since we're talking about possibly adding three systems in a single mount and a 120 gun or mortar will already fire many different natures anyway. If it was really a problem then you could simply remove the .50cal. You wouldn't need to integrate the 40mm AGL into the fire control - the RWS usually has its own. modern electronic architecture means that anyone in the tank with a controller and a screen can control the RWS. In older tanks you can task the loader to be a secondary gunner or even, as a last resort, let the commander do it. It would be a lot cheaper than designing and integrating a new turret system.
 
Quote    Reply

Enchanter    MBT in URBAN COMBAT   11/13/2012 8:25:10 PM
COMBINED ARM TACTICS.   can include tanks. These tactics are not set in stone.
 
ADAPT, IMPROVISE, OVERCOME.     Be aware of strengths and weaknesses of all arms.
 
TEAMWORK. Look out for each other. Be flexible. 
 
ECONOMY. A 120mm tank round is cheaper than a Hellfire or JDAM.
                      Running an M1 can be cheaper than an F15E.
                      Tanks are expendable. Soldiers are not.
                      M1s were designed to keep the crew alive. 
 
Tanks stay on the ground next to the grunts. Less chances of hitting friendly fire
They can stay when choppers and jets fly back to base.
 
Urban warfare is not great for tanks or grunts. Who else is going to do it. 
 
Tanks in Iraq saved the lives of many grunts. 
 
Israelis know how to use armor in urban terrain.
 
Centurions in Vietnam saved the live of many diggers in urban combat and busting
bunkers hidden in jungle.
 
120mm rounds come in many flavors. Explosive, buckshot, flachettes etc.
 
M1s have urban kits.
 
Taliban like to use urban, semi urban terrain.
 
Thanks for reading this post. Trying to keep it simple. 
 
Quote    Reply

Enchanter    MBT in URBAN COMBAT   11/13/2012 9:45:30 PM
LEST WE FORGET.
 
The sacrifice and service of American and  British soldiers, 4th July, 1918.
 
The battle for HAMEL. France.
 
Troops of the 131st, 132nd  American Infantry Regiments fought together with
the 1st Australian Corps and 5th brigade, British Tank Corps. 
 
In a combined arms battle won in 93 minutes.
 
Thanks for the help.  
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics