The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 3 of 6)

[dudejo]

Imagine what might happen if you try to fire a canister shell over friendly troops...

[PILUPACKSXXX]

hahah ITS funny. Than if the tank was having a machinegun on top, why were you arguing about the mp-at having no effect on infantry??? you are just an american hater,, thats all my frien,, this is crap

[BlacktailDefense]

@PILUPACKSXXX You have to be amazingly ingnorant if you somehow completely missed the point of the presentation, and the detailed explanation of what the MPAT round's design is like.

[PvMikhail]

@PILUPACKSXXX = primitive comment

so everything, which show US in a bad context somehow, can be considered as "America-hating"... crystal clear logic!!! In America everything is perfect as it is... NOT!

[PILUPACKSXXX]

WTF dude it has been tested + the fring USMC did not have those rounds in 2003 you lie... stop making shit up man seriusly. where did you get that info by the way?? exacly nowhere because you made it up.

[BlacktailDefense]

@PILUPACKSXXX Are you stoned? The man who wrote the Armor Magazine article that the excerpt from SAID they did, and he's a USMC Gunnery Sergeant.

[PILUPACKSXXX]

@BlacktailDefense Name of the magazine please..!!!sorry for my stupid words

[BlacktailDefense]

@PILUPACKSXXX It's "Armor Magazine", and the title of the story is "M1A1 Tanks and Fragmentary Ammunition"; the author is USMC Gunnery Sergeant William J. Orr.

If you google the title of the article, you'll see copies of it displayed in several internet forums. I don't pull these arguments against the M1 Abrams out of a hat; these fatal flaws, however well-hidden, are very real.

[ColonelAli]

Good videos, I like this. I noticed that you had the menu theme from Unreal Tournament in the beginning of the clip. Nostalgia at its best.

[BlacktailDefense]

@ColonelAli Thanks!

The title theme for UT is perfect to start-off each of the episodes on the M1 series with, because it perfectly reflects the popular attitude toward this tank; a "god on tracks", as one blogger put it. However, the reality --- as you've no doubt seen in these videos --- is VERY different.

[ColonelAli]

@BlacktailDefense Did the blogger work for FOX? I have been checking your statements in the videos, and they all have been right so far. Pity this isn't put on Discovery Channel, it would definitely shut Clancy up for life - the same Tom Clancy who claimed that the crewmen for the T-72 had to be 5 foot 3 at maximum to fit in it... LOL! I can fit in a T-72 perfectly fine - and I'm 6 foot tall..

[DOAHunt3r]

The original M830 was designed to destroy APCs and IFVs. Seeing as how no common-place IFV in the world has passive armor capable of defeating something that penetrates more than 200mm RHAe, the M830A1 MPAT, with it's 300mm RHAe penetration is plenty. Tanks don't engage helicopters very often, and so the real reason for the frag ring is specifically to destroy unarmored emplacements, infantry, and things like trucks.

[BlacktailDefense]

@DOAHunt3r

The M830 HEAT was also built with destroying MBTs in mind, which is why it penetrates 800mm of RHA Steel (100mm more than an original AGM-114 Hellfire). HEAT is effective at ranges within one mile, where the best penetration possible with a Sabot round is NEVER higher than a HEAT round of the same bore and generation. These paradigms made the M830 the most powerful (though not the most usable) munition ever fielded for 120mm-armed M1s.

[DOAHunt3r]

@BlacktailDefense

Although the M830 may penetrate 800mm of RHAe, this changes drastically once you have different materials, no? You yourself have said that shape charges are less effective against certain materials, which drastically skew the APFSDS vs. HEAT penetration capability. Operationally, Abrams' fire APFSDS against tanks, and HEAT against APCs and other vehicles.

[EasyEs]

@BlacktailDefense The M830 i thought was good for about 600mm RHA and the first AGM-114 was good for 850-900mm. I think the main reason the M829/A1 were brought about were due to the increasing ability for the frontal armor packages of the T-72B T-80B and T-80U to withstand HEAT where as K5 was needed to protect against the newest american APFSDS. The main drawback being that the rod must strike at an optimal angle etc to get the best protection effects.

[BlacktailDefense]

@EasyEs Never underestimate how much damage a single Shaped Charge can cause --- the Israeli LAHAT ATGM, for example, has a 105mm warhead, but it's *also* rated for 800mm of RHA Steel penetration.

The bad news about HEAT, however, is that it's range is short (about a mile for the M830), and because they tend to fly slow and on a very high arc, they're tricky to aim.

[MarshallJukov]

@EasyEs

In fact T-72B with 4S22 (Kontakt-5) front armor - proven itself impenetrabe by M829, M829A1 and all NATO APFSDS of 1980s at any range during tests in early 1990s. Thats why M829A2 and M829A3 came into service in the first place

[EasyEs]

@MarshallJukov I don't know that to be true. Those German tests did not include the m829A1 as best as I can tell. The Russians thought that the T-80U was well protected against the M829A1 but not immune, given the angle of impact to the ERA tile and other factors the T-80U could indeed be knocked out from the front. Now it is certainly true that all the best rounds of the 1980s would fail more often then not. It would not have been an issue though with so few K5 tanks made by 1990.

[MarshallJukov]

@EasyEs

"So few" is more than entire fleet of M1 Abrams. And M829A1 was included into those tests. In fact even M829A2 was.

4S22 and 4S23 ERA also can be easily mounted on any tank that does no have it.

[BlacktailDefense]

@DOAHunt3r ATK and the US Army sold the MPAT on the promise of an anti-helicopter capability, as it's *primary* function. According to the subtitle of "The New MPAT Round", in the May-June 1994 issue of Armor Magazine; "The New 120-mm M830Al MPAT round, with a proximity fuze Gives US. tanks a new weapon ***against helicopters***".

(emphasis added)

But don't just take my word for it --- read it yourself;

knox(dot)army(dot)mil/center/o­coa/armormag/backissues/1990s/­1994/Mj94/3fogg94(dot)pdf

[DOAHunt3r]

@BlacktailDefense

The premise of the MPAT being anti-helicopter was the proximity fuse, not the frag ring. If all it took was just making an HEDP warhead to engage helicopters, an M203 would have "anti-helicopter" capability.

[Cokecanninja]

The canister round isn't pointless. You said it takes 30 seconds of machine gun fire to equal one canister round, that you also said could be fired every 4 seconds. That means that in 30 seconds you could fire 7 of them, equaling three and a half minutes of machine gun fire.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Cokecanninja

Also consider that the M1 could instead fire an APERS round.

An M546 105mm APERS contains 20lbs of TNT and 7000 flechettes, and an experienced crew can fire one every 4 seconds.

[M2fiftycal]

MPAT is only for air? Then why is the default setting ground mode? HEAT is not for "busting tanks" it's for light armor. You keep saying how useless these main gun rounds are against troops in the open? There is NO doctrine that states using any main gun rounds other than Can against troops in the open. This is a misleading and uninformed attempt at humor. Unfortunately, you have to know what you are talking about to use satire properly.

[BlacktailDefense]

@M2fiftycal

Quoting out of context like that is a pretty cheap trick.

The selling point of MPAT was it's fragmentation effect, designed for anti-helicopter capability. This was also implied in a sideways manner to make it more effective against dispersed personnel, but the US military's own literature openly declared this notion to be a mistake.

[BlacktailDefense]

@M2fiftycal

"There is NO doctrine that states using any main gun rounds other than Can against troops in the open."

This is irrelevant to my premise; that there is an undeniable NEED for more diverse tank ammo. Tank warfare doesn't happen in a bubble, while infantry, artillery, and other vehicles operating against tanks have weapons can kill them.

With their current ammo, M1s are nugatory against this threat.

I also never implied that "MPAT is only for air", as the video clearly shows.

[apocalypse1812]

Yes there is a doctrine, dipshit. its called the FM 3-20.12 the M830/830A1 service HEAT/MPAT Round is for use against tanks and tank like targets, bunkers, field fortifications, and massed troops. Im going to say that the video is wrong. I know Gunny Orr, and his words were taken out of context.

The Marine Corps is fielding a High Explosive Multi Purpose Round anyway. Keep on the look out for it.

[M2fiftycal]

@apocalypse1812 FM 3-20.12 has been replaced. It was superceded by FM 3-20.21 in SEPT 2009, so don't quote me some obsolete bullshit like you know what you are talking about. I'm aware that an MPAT round exploding near troops would injure or kill them, but even the manual states that that is only a secondary usage. I wondered what was wrong with the people commenting in this video, and now I know. Marines have never had a good grasp on tank warfare. Dipshit.

[apocalypse1812]

@M2fiftycal You Said there wasnt a docterine, I Gave you one, I havent read it myself in the HBCT manual, so I wasnt going to use it as a reference.

[M2fiftycal]

@apocalypse1812 ok but the part you supposedly quoted from the old manual doesn't mention the M830 as being used on troops like you said. "(CE) ammunition (such as 120-mm M830A1 [MPAT] or 105-mm M456A2) is the primary round used against lightly armored targets, field fortifications, and personnel." FM 3-20.12 Chapter 4, page 4-1. Mind you, this was written before the CAN round existed and the new manual no longer reads this way. I only operate on current ammunition and doctrine. I have to.

[BlacktailDefense]

@apocalypse1812

The complete projectile of an M830A1 MPAT weighs a puny 16lbs, less than 1/3 of which is it's warhead weight, and a Shaped Charge is a purely directional explosive, forcing over 75% of it's blast force straight forward --- it would be useless against thick armor otherwise.

You have to be pretty damned ignorant to the capabilities and limitations of High Explosives to *seriously* believe that only ~4lbs of it could possibly be effective against such a wide range of targets.

[BlacktailDefense]

@apocalypse1812

"I know Gunny Orr, and his words were taken out of context."

Which part? Do you mean;

"The blast concussion and the fragmentary effects of the MPAT were too negligible to produce his desired effect, which was target destruction."

...or perhaps;

"The high-explosive effect of chemical energy, shaped-charge projectiles will not always defeat every antiarmor capable target or troop mass. This is due to the physical characteristics of the shaped charge."

[BlacktailDefense]

@apocalypse1812

...or maybe you meant the part where Orr says;

"Though effective in penetrating armor, the concentrated blast area formed during the contact initiation of the HEAT and/ or MPAT projectile generally does not fragment antiarmor capable targets or troop masses located in or around the area of detonation. These characteristics would explain why the troops engaged were not destroyed."

Those are Orr's OWN WORDS, from his OWN ARTICLE --- YOU took his words out of context.

[apocalypse1812]

@BlacktailDefense I've had a few conversations with him about this subject in the past, and he never mentioned anything of the sort.

I was not aware he had written "an article"

[mac163]

@blacktaildefence let me pick your brain once again. what is your opinion on composite armour ¨chobham¨and the like. i understand its layered with diferent materials steel, ceramics etc. optimized for both hollowcharge and penetrating rod type munitions. is their any instances in which said armour has been defeated by either tank rounds or other anti tanks weapons?is it still the ¨state of the art¨in vehicle protection or is there something new in the works?thanks.

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 Chobham isn't a complete Composite Armor array, but rather a Ceramic Steel alloy used in SOME Composite Armor arrays.

The M1's armor, BTW, has none --- it's plain-jane Laminated RHA Steel, just like the armor on the old T-64 and T-72.

As for Chobham, it's tough stuff. It's very hard and strong for a metal of it's mass, offering good protection against KE and CE threats alike... but it's also very expensive.

[CodyRimes]

@BlacktailDefense When I type in Ceramic Steel, all I get is very sharp "razor blades" that can sharpen steel. Is this what your talking about?

[BlacktailDefense]

@CodyRimes I don;t think that's the same typwe of metal.

Try googling "Chobham Armor, Ceramic".

[CodyRimes]

@BlacktailDefense Him, thats weird. I'm still not getting any "Ceramic Steel". Could you send me a link possibly? I'm just getting Ceramic layers in Chobham Armor

[BlacktailDefense]

@CodyRimes Try this one;

en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/­Chobham_armour

"The name has since become the common generic term for ceramic vehicle armour."

[CodyRimes]

@BlacktailDefense Ok. Well still, what about that ceramic steel you've been talking about. What the heck is it anyways? Can you give me a link?

[BlacktailDefense]

@CodyRimes

Ceramic Steel is basically a Steel with Ceramic materials blended into it. It's VERY strong and has a high melting point, which gives it a lot of potential uses --- tank armor included.

This link should give you a bit more technical info on Ceramic Steels;

kmm-vin(dot)eu/Research/MetalC­eramicComposites/tabid/67/Defa­ult(dot)aspx

...and this one explains what Ceramics are;

matse1(dot)mse(dot)uiuc.edu/ce­ramics/ware(dot)html

[CodyRimes]

@BlacktailDefense The link you gave me for Ceramic Steels seems to be dead. I even tried an internet archive to no avail.

[BlacktailDefense]

@CodyRimes Hmm...

Try googling "What are Ceramics?".

That's how I found the page in question

[CodyRimes]

@BlacktailDefense I know what Ceramics are. I just want to know more about Ceramic Steels. The link you gave appears to be dead, I even put it in an Internet Archive to no success.

[mac163]

@Blacktaildefense. why then does the leopard , abrams etc use a smooth bore main gun? theoretically speaking wouldnt a smooth bore gun tend to keep the explosive charge in higher compresion than in a equivalent caliber vs. a rifled bore due to gases escaping past rifleing? what is your though. thanks.

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 The reasons the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams use Smoothbore guns are different, but are intertwined in history (and neither are grounded in present-day technical necessity).

In the days of the MBT70, before a practical tank gun Slip Ring could be developed, the US MBT70 team got around the rotation problem by building a 152mm gun that fired ATGMs and huge HEAT rounds. The West German KPz70 team opted for a Smoothbore 120mm gun instead, that could fire APFSDS and HEAT.

(continued below)

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 (continued from above)

Neither the MBT70 nor KPz70 team would compromise, but the project died anyway by 1970. This left the US with a Rifled 152mm gun that would eventually found a new home in the M60A2 (which was also a disaster). Germany persevered with it's Smoothbore 120mm, and ultimately used it in the Leopard 2 as the Rheinmettal L/44.

Now, you must be wondering, "how did the Leopard 2's gun end up on the M1?"

The short answer is; political gamesmanship.

(continued below)

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 (continued from above)

In 1974, a team of 4 NATO generals (2 US, 2 West Germans, and 1 UK) were assigned to a study on the feasibility of a single tank gun for all 3 countries' tanks. The resulting report, a stack of paper 1 foot thick, recommended the Rifled 105mm gun.

The Germans had the report dismissed --- thing is, it was soon revealed that the Germans had CHEATED, by *deliberately* manufacturing and using non-standard ammunition for the test!

(continued below)

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 (continued from above)

In 1976, a new round of tests were ordered, this time with the UK's Rifled 120mm gun. APFSDS rounds were used in this gun, allowed by adding Slip Rings, which made it a satisfactory tank-killer.

However, when Slip Rings were used on a Rifled 105mm APFSDS, the result was a smaller round that could kill all the tanks that were used to justify the bigger 120mm guns --- defeating the whole point of pursuing a bigger gun.

(continued below)

[CodyRimes]

@BlacktailDefense Well in response to this particular comment, wouldn't that mean the 120mm rifled gun with slip rings would be an even bigger threat, possibly overkill compared to the 105mm?

[BlacktailDefense]

@CodyRimes It's probably overkill, but that was the way of Cold War-era weapon hypertrophy ("I've got a bigger cannon than you!").

Case in point; the Tsar Bomb, whose insanely-powerful blast is too large to have any military utility (how many airbases are the size of Iowa?).

The Rifled 120s are damned powerful though, as the best-protected AFV ever felled by a tank gun was killed with one (a Challenger 2, accidentally hit with a HESH round from another Challenger 2).

[CodyRimes]

@BlacktailDefense  thanks

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 (continued from above)

In the event, the German gun won 1st place, the British gun 2nd, and the US gun 1st... but exactly WHY cannot be determined, because the official test results are still classified to this day.

However, the fact that the 105mm gun could kill any tank that the Soviets could possibly field prompted the US Army to stick with this smaller gun, and that's why the XM1s were prototyped (and the first M1 Abrams' were built) with them.

(continued below)

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 (continued from above)

West Germany STILL wanted to make the Smoothbore 120mm gun the standard NATO tank gun; as the only vendor of such a weapon that the time, they stood to make a fortune (and an illegal monopoly) off of it.

They began a colossal lobbying campaign to continue the push for this sell, buying-off several lobbying firms (notably DGA International), and public figures.

Ultimately, it was a waste of money; the leverage they needed was found elsewhere.

(continued below)

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 (continued from above)

Ultimately, West Germany's leverage came in the form of the AWACS program.

The US desperately needed Germany's support to sell AWACS, because the original mission (to detect and track missiles that were no longer in use, due to an arms treaty) no longer existed. It was re-labled a "flying command center", but nobody was taking the bait.

The Bundestag basically told Congress that if they don't buy the L/44, West Germany won't co-fund AWACS.

(continued below)

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 So there you have it. The M1 and Leopard 2 use Smoothbore 120mm guns only because of Politiccs --- NOT Practicality.

[mac163]

@BlacktailDefense thank you for your reply, it was very informative! you sir are walking encyclopedia!

[BlacktailDefense]

@mac163 No problem.

I take notes on every interesting piece if info I find, because I would never be able to remember it all --- all I had to do was fish this info out of those notes.

[gordonshart]

hey blacktail It seems you know whats up. in the early m1's they had a 105mm rifled bore barrel in the newer m1's they have a 120mm smooth bore. How does this gun work to put spin on the round to keep it stable without a rifled bore? thanks

[BlacktailDefense]

@gordonshart Smoothbore guns don't impart any rotation on their projectiles --- instead, they're Drag Stabilized, usually with fins.

The upside to Smoothbores is that no rotation means maximum penetration by HEAT and Sabot rounds, but the downside is that most other rounds are unusable without Spin Stabilization (e.g., HESH, APERS, WP, etc.).

The advent of Slip Rings in the mid-1970s made Smoothbore guns pointless --- and that was 10 years before the 120mm M256 came along.

[gordonshart]

@BlacktailDefence Thanks I had a feeling it was something like that. Is my assumetion correct that the gun has a futher effective range, due to less friction? thanks

[BlacktailDefense]

@gordonshart No problem.

Rifled guns have inherently-longer ranges, as well as accuracy, due to the angular momentum in spin-stabilized projectiles (which is the reason Muskets went out-of-fashion once Rifles were developed.

Also, full-bore projectiles have inherently longer ranges than sub-caliber ones. Case in point; Britain's 120mm L23 APFSDS round with a 3500m range, versus the 120mm L31 HESH that reaches all the way out to 8000m on a flat trajectory --- both are fired from the same gun.

[cas343]

Would be nice to have an airburst HE round. Would solve many problems, as the USAF discovered in Allied Force. A 500lb mk-82 hitting 1m outside a trench wouldn't damage a truck for example, but an MK-82 with an airburst round landing much further away would not only blast the target with pressure and shrapnel, but caused a much higher than normal amount of burn damage. These types of fuzes have been around since WW2... why doesn't the army use them?

[BlacktailDefense]

There are plenty of Airbursting artillery rounds in the US Inventory, but all are for INDIRECT-Fire weapons.

IMI in Israel manufactures APAM (Anti-Personnel, Anti-Material) and APERS (actually just an elaborate HE-FRAG, despite the name) rounds for Smoothbore 120mm guns, but the US military won't touch IMI's HE-FRAG, and the APAM has been in procurement limbo for years.

[cas343]

These rounds would be good for attacking enemy personnel in actual fighting positions. The rounds America is using are only suitable for a defense against theoretical infantry rush rather than concealed fighters. This is disturbing because after Yom Kippur and the Israeli invasion(s) of Lebanon the enemy has caused havoc with their concealed Anti Tank systems. And the US army seems to be ignoring this threat entirely...

[BlacktailDefense]

@cas43

It's like Winston Churchill said; "You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing... after they've tried everything else".

Seriously though, the US military is living in a bubble so insular, they actually BELIEVE their lies. It's like the French military in the 1920s and 30s, drunk on the "success" of their "victories" in their *scripted* war games.

In fact, OUR wargames are scripted, too --- just look at the revelations of Millennium Challenge 2002.

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense On the subject of indirect fire, the Russians still feild a anti-tank gun that fires all the same ammo as their tanks,what is interesting about their gun is it's both direct and indirect fire capible,and fireing the 3vbk/bk29 in indirect fire+ time on target, a swarm of these shells with any one of them landing on top of anybodys tank would equal certian destruction,

[BlacktailDefense]

@kamphwagon1 That's interesting --- I didn't think that Smoothbore guns were capable of accurate Indirect Fire.

Even so, you'd still need a direct hit by an individual HEAT round to make it work.

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense I would think they would be as accurate as mortar rounds at the least,as the Russian round, their HEAT and HE Frag are simular to a mortar round and are full bore less the driveing bands as far as accuracy figures all that Iv'e seen is for direct fire, I do know that their HEAT rnds are more accurate than sabots.

[gosciu555]

That music is from Deus Ex isn't it? Great game.

[BlacktailDefense]

Actually, I don't think it's from Dues EX --- I've never played it.

[VickersIndependent]

I'm more than sure you know about the STAFF round and another just like it.

Well as it turns out the Isreali LAHAT missile can also shoot over the horizon as well with much greater range and it also has a highly effective HEAT warhead.

[BlacktailDefense]

Another major point of difference is that the LAHAT took only a few years to go from proposal, to full-scale usage.

It's been available for export for at least 15 years, but the US military has largely ignored it the whole time. When all the work is done on a given defense project, the cash-cow is dry --- and when the cash-cow is dry, no (Br)asshats show up looking for future employment.

[VickersIndependent]

The Isrealis have actaully been mouting M2 .50 cal. machine guns on their tanks, at least since the late 70's. Some IDF tanks even mount dual M2s.

[BlacktailDefense]

Do you mean on the gun tube, or on the hatches?

[VickersIndependent]

Just above the main gun. Examples can be seen on all Magach 6s and some Magach 7s and Merkavas of all marks.

By the way the Magach series of tanks mount 60mm assualt mortars on their turret sides.

[BlacktailDefense]

That's some serious hardware.