The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 8: Vaporware (Part 1 of 4)

[babehunter1324]

This video was uploaded in my birthday!? keep it going blacktail!

[TheRomanDecimator]

Looks like the Sherman of today.

[BlacktailDefense]

@TheRomanDecimator I don't know about that --- Shermans were cheap, simple, reliable, adaptable, utilitarian, numerous, and used by an enormous number of nations. The same cannot be said of the M1.

[beltar2]

@BlacktailDefense

In USSR M4 has got a reputation of better tank for service on in peaceful time. Practically during WWII M4 was in hostage of it's weaponary. From 1 side standart 75 mm gun which was very weak agianst tank from other 76 mm which was good for tank-busting but had much weaker HE shells.

I don't understand why USA couldn't arm it with something with bigger bore like 85 mm guns on T-34-85 and 88 mm gun on "Tiger".

[BitnikGr]

@beltar2 Brits did. They 've put their 6-pounder on Sherman.

[beltar2]

@BitnikGr

You mean 17-pounder? May be even better as antitank gun than huge German KwK-43 but should have the same weak HE rounds as American 76 mm. In 1941 and then in 1943 Russians tried to arm T-34 with something like this too. 57 mm ZiS-4 could deal even with "Tiger" but this idea was abandoned.

BTW guns with very good ballistic like KwK-43, QF-17, ZiS-2 (ZiS-4 for tank version) are expensive.

[BitnikGr]

@beltar2 Ah, yes... 17-pounder of course.

[BitnikGr]

I would like to say that Russians deliberately abandoned the idea to put bigger gun on new tanks. Because this would quickly launch sequential response from NATO countries with their 140mm cannons. It is a very expensive solution and in 90s Russian industry would be able to built only couple of hundreds new tanks, while no matter what NATO countries could actually have 1500-2000 tanks with 140mm cannons. That's why Russians didn't do it.

They said "Ok, let them do it first and we have a ready...

[BitnikGr]

@BitnikGr ... answer already and it will be cheaper for us to build it later than now".

NATO countries didn't proceed with 140mm cannons for 2 reasons. The first one is a NATO standardization. 140mm cannons must become a standard for main tank-building countries at the same time and a lot of efforts has to be spent on building a stash of 140mm ammo. While new 120mm guns with new 120mm rounds can still effectively deal with 95% of probable threats. That's why NATO also leaved 140mm guns aside.

[beltar2]

@BitnikGr

At current state NATO's tank power degraded so much that the question is if it would build new tanks or not so I guess Russian military don't care about NATO's response. But introduction of the totally new gun demands to create munition production and etc. From other hand Russia has thousands of T-72 which can be upgraded with better effect than building of 60 new tanks per year. And AFAIK T-90AM has new autoloader suitable for longer shell.

[BitnikGr]

@beltar2 I just mentioned why Russians wouldn't produce new tank with large caliber in 90s. Time of pioneering EGO of two super-powers during Cold War Era have passed. In peace-time it is much easier and more comfort to stay second and buy ready technology off-the-shelves. Production of tank with 152mm gun would start a new spin of Arms Race, which Russia couldn't sustain in 90s.

Today. You are right. European countries reduce their tank fleets and Russia can upgrade 150 T72 per year.

[franknbeans4761]

@BitnikGr What is your opinion on upgrading the T-72's? It seems like a type of band aid solution for things in terms of finding an adequate tank replacement.

What does Russia plan to do to replace it's thousands of tanks? Or just have more of a moderate force. From what things look like, Russia isn't building enough T-90's and hasn't ordered or planned for the productions of enough T-90MS's to properly replace it's tank force.

Is it a problem or will it be one eventually?

[franknbeans4761]

@franknbeans4761 And in general, I mean for keeping such a large force. I understand Russia's own security needs but just for it's own aspirations in world standings.

[BitnikGr]

@franknbeans4761 I wouldn't say that this is a "band aid" solution. Modernization of a tank is justified when this modernization allows to this tank to solve problems on modern battlefield against probable enemy. When any modernization doesn't allow to do that, then new platform must be developed. That was the case of Western tanks of 2nd generation. No upgrade would made them so effective as Soviet tanks. And that is the case now with Russian tanks of 3rd generation.

...

[BitnikGr]

@franknbeans4761 ... They can be considered as "enough" or equal to existing opponents, but for obtaining a clear edge they need new tank.

Not all NATO/EU countries reduced their tank forces. It depends on probable threats. US still has thousands of tanks. Greece can't reduce its tank fleet either. Central European countries has such luxury. Look at Egypt, S. Arabia, Israel... they all have significant tank forces.

Returning to subject of probable enemy. Despite that in modern..

[BitnikGr]

@franknbeans4761 ... Russian military doctrine enemy No1 is NATO, Russia still has more than enough tanks (both in quality and quantity) to deal with any problems near to its borders. There are no modern 3rd gen. MBTs in countries near Russian borders with exception of Japan and China and India. Latter is a 100% ally right now.

Right now Russia has 20.000 tanks. Most of them of 2nd generation. Plan is to reduce the number to 12-14.000 tanks of 3rd and 4th generation till 2020...

[BitnikGr]

@franknbeans4761 ...

Tanks like T-55, T-62 will be scrapped. T-64 and early T-72A will go to reserve. T-80 will be scrapped after they exhaust their resources. T-72AB and B will be upgraded to the latest standards. Maybe several hundreds new T-90A or AM will come to service and new Armata will be delivered since 2015... IF everything goes smoothly as planned.

That means that in best case scenario by 2020 only 3000 will be T-90A and Armatas. The rest still will be upgraded T-72.

[franknbeans4761]

@BitnikGr Thanks for the insight. It seems like for this next decade they will be completely fine, but it seems like in 2020 and in 2030 they would run into some problems.

What you said about Russia's neighbors is true though, their close viable threats lack a modern MBT.

Time will tell, it just seems tough for Russia to keep up it's large inventory of modern tanks, but what it has now and what it will have eventually is enough to deter any foe to say the least.

[MRWALKER500000]

When you went on about crew fatigue NATO tankers would fight up to 6 days. Her majesties govt thought it might be smart to fix up our soldiers with anphetamines!!!!! When my dad was in the army for extra pay he volenteered to go to the porton down bio lab in the uk. I knew he was up to something!

[VickersIndependent]

To clarify some things. The M1A1 AIM is just a rebuilt M1 with digital comms and better gunner's sights on some vehicles. It still has its remote controlled CWS, iconic of the M1 series. The elevation in the CWS is manual for the normal version. It's automatic for the SCWS. Furthermore some confusion might be had in the Marine Corp. upgrading their CWSs with thermal sights. Really, that external mount on the M1A2 is a downgrade, not the other way around.

[franknbeans4761]

Also, the Abrams using a 140mm gun only using 30 rounds is completely fine. The T-90MS only can carry 22 rounds.

This videos are just getting sad.

And by the way, the T-95 was suppose to have a larger cannon, and it was obviously being planned around the time of 3:12. And even then, are you going to honestly be mad at the Army for false intelligence?

Saying they were just "lying" is childish.

What will you say next..

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "Also, the Abrams using a 140mm gun only using 30 rounds is completely fine. The T-90MS only can carry 22 rounds."

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[BitnikGr]

Small correction. 22 rounds is not "wrong" since they are not the only rounds. All modern tanks have rounds separated to first and second row of use. Leopard, Challenger, Merkava, all T-tanks... Leopard for example has only 15rounds of first row. Abrams is the only tank which has ALL rounds in same place. So, with 30 rounds it still will have more rounds available for immediate use than any other tank, but also it will have the less ammo in total than other tanks.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "And by the way, the T-95 was suppose to have a larger cannon, and it was obviously being planned around the time of 3:12."

The FST-1/2/3 is a completely unrelated phenomenon --- it was a boogeyman, created for the purpose of keeping the cash flow going into dubious anti-tank weapons programs.

[MarshallJukov]

@franknbeans4761

T-90MS has 22 rounds armed into autoloader, AND additional 18 rounds. This is at least 40 rounds.

[franknbeans4761]

@MarshallJukov "T-90MS has 22 rounds armed into autoloader, AND additional 18 rounds. This is at least 40 rounds."

In the heat of battle, those rounds won't do much good other than be available to cook off. There's much higher levels of protection for those 22 rounds than for those 18 rounds, which is what modern tanks need. But those other 18 still leave it very vulnerable.

[MarshallJukov]

@franknbeans4761

In fact as i`ve already told you once - autoloader can be replenished BEFORE it wil exhaust its 22 rounds. ANYtime. So litteraly reloading any of those additional rounds into autoloader takes ZERO of an additional time. AND loadining any of them directly into the breech isn`t takes great time either,

Oh and thank you for finaly admiting that rounds in M1, Leo 2 e t c are LESS protected than rounds in T-tank`s autoloaders.

[BitnikGr]

@MarshallJukov "AND loadining any of them directly into the breech isn`t takes great time either,"

Really? 20 seconds is a great time for reloading. 2-3 rounds per minute is not acceptable for modern battlefield.

[MarshallJukov]

@BitnikGr

Its just a bit less than CR2 has. AND it is only if crew dumb enough to not reload autoloader while there is still rounds in it. Which is unlikely.

So basicaly Russian tanks with autoloaders have all theor rounds avaiable with autoloader loading rate.

[BitnikGr]

@MarshallJukov Sure. Any crew would replenish autoloader at any possible chance they have. And this indeed don't take a lot of time to do. 10-15minutes.

But following this logic all tank crews have their set of first row rounds replenished from the second row stow as soon as they have chance to do it.

[MarshallJukov]

@BitnikGr

Difference is that human loader can not replenish first row ammo storage while loading gun in a same time. And 10-15 minutes is to reload all 22 autoloader cells not just one.

[BitnikGr]

@franknbeans4761 I wonder how Leopard 2 goes to survive in heat of battle with its only 15 rounds of first row. :)

Those 18 are not "very" vulnerable, since 10 of them are located in the back ammo storage box just like in Abrams. Other 8 might not be used or if they are their place behind in the hull is the 2nd less probable place to get hit after autoloader.But I agree that those 8 shouldn't be used at all. It's just a demand of MoD. 32 are enough for a modern MBT.

[beltar2]

@franknbeans4761

The same idea has Russian tank hystorian M. Baratyansky. Shell's in autoloader are well protected and hard to hit but additioanal shells really hard to use and they can be the main reason of detonation.

[BitnikGr]

@franknbeans4761 I think development of 140mm gun for Leopard and Abrams and later for Leclerc started much earlier than T-95 project. T-95 project indeed is planned for a bigger gun, but not 135mm, but 152mm. So, if someone reported that Soviets are planning to introduce DU armor and 135mm gun that indeed was a lie. But nevertheless abilities of 120-125mm cannons are not exhausted yet.

[MarshallJukov]

@BitnikGr

T-80 prototype with 152mm gun was ready in 1989

[BitnikGr]

@MarshallJukov Really? Which "object" was it then? Cause if you mean object 640 aka Black Eagle it was ready in 1999 and not in 1989.

I never heard about any other T-80 prototype with 152mm gun.

[MarshallJukov]

@BitnikGr

Object 292

[BitnikGr]

@MarshallJukov Wow. Very interesting indeed. Never heard about it before. And it was a real prototype, moving and firing. While I couldn't find any proves of fire trials of Black Eagle.

[MarshallJukov]

@BitnikGr

Black Eagle has 125mm gun not 152mm

[BitnikGr]

@MarshallJukov It's what it got initially. Many sources claim that it could be fitted with 125, 140, 152 and even 155mm guns. 140 and 155 are NATO standards. So, 125 and 152 are the most probable variants.

[MarshallJukov]

@BitnikGr

Above 125mm we only have 130mm and 152mm. No reason to develop whole new caliber nomenclature when we have enormous supply of different 130mm and 152mm rounds, just as AGTMs made in 152mm caliber which would also decreace efforts to create tube launched 152mm ATGM since many of its parts already in production.

[beltar2]

@franknbeans4761

22 rounds in autoloader. And ~40 in total. And BTW there's a reason to have ~20 rounds AFIK a tank usually shot ~20 rounds in fight.

[franknbeans4761]

5:17 So what? Many countries did not have that and still don't. The fact that it has it alone is good, and I hardly see it's relevance in vaporwarfare when considering it was made out of necessity for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And do not compare it to the older systems used by the USSR. Their effectiveness is much worse than the systems used on the Abrams.

[BitnikGr]

@franknbeans4761 Point is that RWS is not so expensive, but really useful. Western tanks got RWS only in versions intended for urban counter-insurgency operations. Like Leopard 2 PSO for example. Meanwhile I don't understand why it is called AA machine gun in all tanks. Many people claim that duel Abrams vs T-90 (or any other tank) is irrelevant, because "A-10 will come and blow shit off enemy tank". What they don't realize is that a tank with RWS has better chances for AA dfns.

[MarshallJukov]

@BitnikGr

A tank with guilded munition and smart HE-FRAG round has even better chances against aircrafts.

[superwout]

I am Belgian and I'm very sad to learn that we played such a negative part with a fine weapon lik the M240 ...

[BlacktailDefense]

@superwout I'm afraid it gets even worse than that. There were a lot of problems integrating the M240 into the M1, some of which were still uncorrected as late as 1990. You can read about them in the POGO article, "The Army's M1 Tank: Has It Lived Up To Expectations?".

I don't think it's a fault of the MAG 58 pattern though --- if something isn't broken, the US military's management system usually "fixes" it until it is.

[MajorButtons]

a few things with this: the M1A1 already had a powered cupola for the TC which allowed him to fire his M2 from inside the tank. the M1A1 AIM and SEP packages add a superp thermal capera to this, thereby making any RWS replacement a downgrade. second; the 240C is the right-hand feed version that is used in the M2/3 Bradley. the M1 uses the M240, which replaced the M219 coaxial machine gun in all applications.

[BlacktailDefense]

@MajorButtons "a few things with this: the M1A1 already had a powered cupola for the TC which allowed him to fire his M2 from inside the tank."

I've read a lot about the M1, but I've never come across that information before. Even so, it's still 12 years too late to keep pace with the T-64A/AK.

"the M1A1 AIM and SEP packages add a superp thermal capera to this, thereby making any RWS replacement a downgrade."

...and ONLY the AIM and SEP. No other M1s have them.

[MajorButtons]

@BlacktailDefense  that is true, although what is also true is all M1A1s in service were upgraded to the AIM or SEP package. the M1A1 had the powered cupola from the begining, and the feature was deleted in the A2. I'll be happy to get you pics of the M1A1 SEPs that we use in the 278th ACR.

[VickersIndependent]

@BlacktailDefense "ONLY the AIM and SEP. No other M1s have them," actually any M1 can have its CWS back-fitted with thermal sights. The Marines upgraded all of theirs with thermals, and the TUSK package offers thermal sights as well.

[EasyEs]

The biggest scare for Nato tank wise was Object-187. It would have been on par with the armor package that the M1A1HA (1988 batch) had. Making it better then the T-80U/UD and T-72BM. All of these tanks were immune (minus small areas) across the front from the M-829, and the M829A1 was by no means a sure thing vs a T-80U; so I can understand the concern. However once K5 was more or less figured out and we realized there was only 400 T-80Us built the need to replace the 120mm L44 evaporated.

[MarshallJukov]

@EasyEs

Case is that even T-72B has much more armor than all M1 Abrams versions

[EasyEs]

@MarshallJukov A T-72B with K5 will have turret protection probably then a M1 IPM1 M1A1 (1986) but that is where it ends. Making the claim as you appear to be that a tank with inserts designed in 1983 with a max! LOS thickness of 800mm and k5 reactive designed to break short sheathed APFSDS is better then the armor package designed in 2002 with a LOS thickness of 960mm is absurd and needs to be backed up becuase no one is going to buy it.

[MarshallJukov]

@EasyEs

Briefly - this is bullshit. Mass/volume index of T-72B is 3,9 tonnes per 1m^3

M1A2SEP has it just 3. And M1IP has pathetic 2,63. Thats why upper glacis of M1 is only ~50mm RHA sloped at 82 deg = LOS at 0 ~360mm, even initial T-72 Ural had it 550mm composite.

Sides of T-72 is 70-80mm, M1 has it 25-57mm. Not talking about ERA yet.

960mm LOS:

imageshack. us/photo/my-images/52/bishmaa4­9ww. gif

That is WITHOUT ERA

[EasyEs]

@MarshallJukov So? Msss/volume index is a very rough guide. When you get the numbers wrong (M1A1HA+ is 3.20 btw). Is the T-78B better armored then the Leo-2A6 with index of roughly 3?

The Glacis of the Abrams has been upgraded from 50mm-70mm and some suspect 85mm on areas not around the drivers hatch.

As for LOS you will have to re load that image.

[MarshallJukov]

Its raw physical variable that determines how much armor protects each 1m^3 of interior, which is 11,2m^3 in T-72 and T-90, as so as it is 21 in M1 Abrams.

M1A1HA mass = 61,3 metric tonnes - 61,3/21=2,91

I see barely 50mm in M1`s glacis and i don`t see any add-ons installed to fix that.

Yes T-72B in general protected better than 2A6, aspecialy with 4S23 ERA modules. Its just has physicaly more armor, and its armor more dense too.

img52. imageshack. us/img52/5964/bishmaa49ww. gif

[MarshallJukov]

@EasyEs

P.S. Another important indicator is square of the armor. As you may know, sphere is the optimal to cover given volume. Now look at M1 and russian tanks which seem more "round" to you?

[BitnikGr]

@EasyEs Mass/volume is an approximate estimation of all-around protection of an AFV. Of course one tank can have more armor at front than another at same size and weight, but that will lead to less protection from other sides.

Another problem of M/V is that noone knows exact weight of armor itself and that's why the whole tank's weight is considered.

So, yes, Mass/Volume can give some initial picture, but for thorough analysis it is better to compare armor at any given place separately.

[EasyEs]

@BitnikGr I am aware of this but you say it very well I must say. I have a tough time buying that the T-72B turret array is better then any modern western tank. IIRC with out ERA it was not able to withstand at-5b hits very well when deployed in chechnya.

[ORKSIZDABEST]

Do you have any failed operations episodes planned?

[Hairysteed]

I've always wondered why most tanks have their heavy machine guns mounted on the commander's cupola while the coax is of lighter caliber. It would make more sense to have the heavier weapon mounted coaxially so that it could benefit from the tank's fire control system.

[Psy500]

@Hairysteed

It would also make sense so the tank can remained tank buttoned up while using the heavier gun. Since logic dictates if the crew thinks there is a threat they should stay in the retaliative safety of the tank, since snipers tend to leave buttoned up tanks alone (at most being eyes on the enemy tank) yet a exposed tank commander would be a major target of opportunity for snipers.

[Hairysteed]

@Psy500 Actually, in M1A1 the M2HB can be operated while buttoned up.

[Psy500]

@Hairysteed

If it was upgraded for the M2HB to be aimed and fired remotely.

[BitnikGr]

@Hairysteed As far as I know, only one MBT in the world has coaxial 12.7mm caliber machine gun. And that's Leclerc. And it actually has M2HB machine gun as coaxial one.

[UprisingMilitia]

You know if the United States military leaders wouldn't be so ego-ish and close-minded,the M1 Abrams wouldn't be as bad as it seems.

[BlacktailDefense]

@UprisingMilitia It's not just ego that's to blame --- there's also political game-playing and greed involved.

Here's why we ended up with the Chysler (now GDLS) XM1...;

findarticles(dot)com/p/article­s/mi_m1316/is_v19/ai_4696991/

...and here's the tank we would have had instead;

imageshack(dot)us/photo/my-ima­ges/12/generalmotorsxm1prototy­wl5(dot)jpg/sr=1

media(dot)photobucket(dot)com/­image/General%20Motors%20XM1/A­equatio/AFVs/xm1(dot)png

[Leeroy002]

where is the evidence that back up your claims in research?

i.e. where can I go,what can I read, who can I ask to verify your facts ?

if you say that these things are 'true ' , what are your credentials to be able to make such statements as to their validation?

show me the evidence and PROVE what your saying is, indeed, true.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Leeroy002 You've got a good point, so I've added sources to the video description.

I couldn't find a source for everything though, because I can never remember where I learn all this stuff.

[UprisingMilitia]

Finally a new chapter



[BlacktailDefense]

@UprisingMilitia I had computer troubles for a couple of weeks, but I'm starting to get work done. :-)

[MercenaryBlackWaterz]

@BlacktailDefense Are gonna do one of your insightful analyses on the F-22 and F-35 sometime? Or you just concentrate on land systems?

Thanks for your awesome videos btw.

[BlacktailDefense]

@MercenaryBlackWaterz You're welcome!

As much as I'd like to cover the F-22 and F-35, I more than have my hands full with the Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker; I don't want to bite-off more than I can chew.