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

Every now and then, industry promises some new and amazing product, which is advertised to dramatically change the way things are done. Whether it's flying cars, a space elevator, or a personal nuclear reactor for your own home, we've ALL seen promises of products that seem to slowly vanish over time, as though they were chance shapes of vapor.

Hence the industry term, "Vaporware". The quantity of Vaporware associated with a given product is also often a barometer of it's overall value. For example, do you remember the Nintendo Virtual Boy game system, and how few of the promises Nintendo made came true (e.g., it's library of only about 10 games)? I'm sure you don't, because most of those few who paid any attention to it have long-since repressed those memories --- and usually on purpose.


So, what does this have to do with the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, you ask? That should be obvious; lots and lots of M1-related Vaporware --- so much that this presentation had to be split into 4 parts.

Part 1 deals with the weapons that were once promised for use on the M1.


As with many other such presentations, much info was provided by VickersIndependent, and the script was edited for spelling and grammar by meaninter03.

UPDATE: Here are sources to some of my claims. I don't remember where I learned the rest, though;

Problems with, and cancellation of, the 120mm and 140mm XM291 --- and also a bit of background on the *imaginary* FST-1/2/3;
http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ar/t1514.htm

The XM36/360 was part of FCS...;
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006garm/tuesday/smith.pdf

...which was cancelled in 2009;
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/23/its-official-fcs-cancelled/

Note that the M151 is mentioned ONLY in context with the M1A2;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Secondary

Problems with the M151 "Protector" RWS;
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0302/jkelly031502.asp

GDLS and pals waited until 2010 to create the SCWS program...;
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

...to catch-up with the NSVT that has been fired by remote control on Soviet tanks since 1972;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64#Modernisations

A referrence to (then) Colonel Creighton Abrams using a 50 caliber coaxial gun in his own tank mentioned in the letters of an Armor Magazine back-issue from the early 1990s. I can't remember which one, so you'll have to read them all (which I highly reccomend doing anyway!);
http://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/ArmorMagazine/content/BackIssues.html

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• M1
• IMP1
• M1A1
• M1A2
• HA
• AIM
• SEP
• Abrams
• Main
• Battle
• Tank
• US
• Army
• USMC
• Armor
• Branch
• Development
• Vaporware
• Unused
• Lost
• Cancelled
• Rejected
• Foresaken
• Forgotten
• Failed
• Defective
• XM291
• ATACS
• Automatic
• Loader
• Autoloader
• XM36
• SCWS
• M151
• Protector
• RWS
• M2HB

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[babehunter1324]

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

[BitnikGr]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 ... 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..