>What's this thread about? Why, it's a tank thread, you silly stupid idiot! >No need to be a dick about it. What can I post here? Tanks, of course! But not just tanks; all AFVs are welcome. That means APCs, IFVs, Armored reconnaissance vehicles, bridgelayers, ram tanks. Hell, even big dumb self propelled artillery pieces can join in on the fun! >And what can't I post here? Stupid stuff, my friend; don't post stupid stuff. What's that mean? Simple, really; just try to keep it civil! We're all here to learn about tanks and AFVs, not which nations you harbor irrational amounts of rage and contempt towards.
Now then, onto this threads's topic! Today we'll be looking at an interesting excerpt from Steven Zaloga's 1985 edition of Osprey's "The M1 Abrams Battle Tank". Those of you who enjoy our frequent "X news article says Y new weapons is bad so it must be!" threads may want to sit up and take notice. >The development troubles soon attracted national Press attention. The American media, more influential as a government watchdog after the Watergate affair, took up the crusade to expose governmental malfeasance with considerable zeal. The XM1 was lambasted as a classic case of the Pentagon’s gold-plating of weapon systems; it was depicted as a death-trap and a million-dollar dud.
>The lynching of the XM1 in the newspapers and on TV was based upon ignorance of the central issue in the program. Lacking any engineering background or familiarity with the normal course of tank development programs, the Press failed to appreciate that the whole point of the trials was the uncover the technical shortcomings in the XM1 design before the tank entered production. Its designers never expected the XM1 to pass through the trials without displaying flaws; no prototype tank ever does. Moreover, the flaws uncovered in the XM1 trials were not particularly serious compared to other recent tank programs such as the Chieftain, MBT-70, or even its most immediate contemporary, the Leopard II.
>Some of the Press criticism was far less substantial than the concerns expressed over XM1 engine reliability, and some was frankly silly. One ABC-TV program, in all seriousness, questioned the XM1 program on the basis of a belief that the XM1 could be readily knocked out by an RPG-7 rocket. This ignored the whole rationale of the program, with its incorporation of Chobham armor and other passive protection systems.
>The Project on Military Procurement, a private lobby group which played a major role in whipping up Press criticism of the XM1, attacked the design over its allegedly irresponsible use of a hydraulic turret traverse system; and questioned whether so much attention should be paid to the tank gun system, since their reading of George Patton’s writings had led them to believe that the machine gun was the most useful weapon a tank possessed! The PMP criticisms also failed to appreciate the significantly reduced fire risk in the XM1 due to the armor, fire suppression system, compartmentalization of ammunition and other features. The silly season began in earnest when one widely circulated article suggested that the Army had hidden the real cost of the XM1 program because it had not informed Congress that it was going to be obliged to buy an M9 ACE armored engineer tractor for each M1, since the thank had no bulldozer blade to entrench itself! Another popular myth of the day, fostered even by otherwise sober newspapers like the New York Times, was that the XM1 cost three times as much as the M60. In fact, it cost 30 percent more than the M60A3, largely due to higher cost of the armor and the more potent engine.
>The Press controversy came close to scuttling the funding of the program in the US Congress in 1981 and 1982. Luckily, Congressional opposition began to wane when the Army paraded a number of tankers from the test program in front of congressional hearings to express their own feelings about the XM1’s merits and problems. The testimony of a bunch of the tank sergeants went a much longer way towards preserving the program than the droning reiteration of the ‘party line’ by the top brass. Most convincing of all was the improvement in test results that indicated that engine reliability was steadily rising to acceptable levels. The one problem that remained was that the tracks were not reaching their desired life expectancy of 2,000 miles, but were wearing out in half that time. The Army admitted that the requirement itself may have been unrealistic and outside the capabilities of current track technology. The US Army still relies on rubber block tank treads in peacetime, due to its lower wear on roads and its reduction of vibration and noise in the track itself. In wartime, less expensive steel tracks would be in use.
>The lynching of the XM1 in the newspapers and on TV was based upon ignorance of the central issue in the program. Lacking any engineering background or familiarity with the normal course of tank development programs, the Press failed to appreciate that the whole point of the trials was the uncover the technical shortcomings in the XM1 design before the tank entered production Sounds like the press coverage of literally every military procurement program ever.
John Turner
>The vulnerability of the tank programs like the XM1 to irresponsible Press which-hunts is peculiar to the United States. US security restrictions are far less stringent than European restrictions. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable that a European program would be put at risk in a similar fashion, as the test results are a closely guarded secret.
So there you have it, kiddies; if you're ever feeling down because of that latest article calling your favorite new wonder-weapon a piece of shit, remember that people were saying the same thing about the Abrams at some point as well. >inb4 the Abrams IS a piece of shit Return to the OP and suck a fat one; that's not what we're here for my friend.
Far from it. Remember that during the cold war, the US Army alone was throwing money at failed projects left and right without raising many (if any) eyebrows in the media. Look at the pile of failed medium tank programs that coexisted with the Patton's development, none of which got the attention that the post-Watergate press was eager to give any sign of overspending they could sniff out.
Carter Kelly
Renault FT guy here again, any Renault FT related things ya'll wanna see?
OP here (op from the last thread if it wasn't obvious) Just wanted to say thanks for the contributions last time; it's rare to see someone with such a thorough appreciation for such a specific topic; it's impressive, to say the least. I would be curious to know more about the FT-17 in the interwar years. I know they appeared in various (generally non-combat) roles throughout WWII, so clearly the French were doing something with them between the wars. French light tanks were always an interest of mine, since there seems to be a bit of a clusterfuck when it came to designing these vehicles and dividing them up between the cavalry and infantry support roles.
supposedly a german prisoner saw the inflatable tanks used as part of the deception to hide overlords true target he saw a bunch of troops lift up the whole thing by each corner like pic
when questioned about what he knew about americans, he could only say "they are very strong"
Thanks! Renault FTs continued to be built even after the WWI armistice in order for many of the factory workers to retain their jobs, production though was at a much slower pace. This lead to having about four thousand Renault FTs built in total at a time where the French military was being demobilized. Renault FTs would still be a common sight in the 1920s and though they were showing their age, they were still celebrated in France as their war winning tank. Not many people remember that between 1919 and 1923 Renault had changed their automobile badge to the Renault FT - it was that notable of a vehicle during this period.
About a thousand would still be in active service by 1931 with another thousand in reserve and the rest not commissioned by the army. French military modernization was taking place during this time, and this meant that while FTs began to be decommissioned, many had also undergone upgrades. The FT Modifié 31 upgrade featured new armament, replacing the 8 mm Hotchkiss mle 1914 with the 7.5 mm Reibel Compact Machine Gun. Char Canon armament would remain unchanged. Many of the Renault FTs in storage would have their armament removed and placed on more modern vehicles, these Renault FTs would be labeled 'FT Désarmé.' These unarmed tanks would be the vehicles used when experimental work was needed or a when a new unarmed Renault FT variant was approved.
Other noteworthy uses of Renault FTs in the interwar period were as bunkers on the Maginot line. They varied in design but were all placed in concrete with some form of entrance leading into the turret. Even Char Signal TSFs would be used as emplacements and they used their standard issue radio to coordinate attacks with the small lines of casemates but could not transmit or receive information from main operations in the forts.
The Abrams IS a piece of shit. If the army was just willing to accept that "yeah, people die in war" they'd replace all the MBTs with missile armed IFVs.
We've got waaaaay better missiles than we did in 1980.
Jaxson Gomez
>they'd replace all the MBTs with missile armed IFVs. missile armed AFVs cant take any roles that MBTs except for the tank vs tank role, which is only a single facet of the roles a tank should take
Michael Wood
The amount of experimental stuff done on Renault FT chassis in the interwar period is pretty surprising. A lot of crazy stuff - from bulldozers, bridge layers, mine plows, fascine carriers, cranes, to even crazier stuff like tank destroyers, remote controlled demolition vehicles, and concrete block carriers intended to drive in front of enemy machine gun emplacements and block their field of fire. Yeah.
> missile armed AFVs cant take any roles that MBTs except for the tank vs tank role
Bullshit.
MBTs only HAVE ONE role, and that IS tank vs tank.
We have missiles that are better at breaching fortifications than the 105mm, missiles that are better at cracking tank turrets than the 105mm, and can engage slow-ish air targets...
WIth the same goddamn payload.
(Yes, there HAS been a ground-air tow kill, and a couple air-air hellfire kills.)
We could have a mini tank sized VLS if we wanted one. We have the smart ordinance to make it workable.
Benjamin Gonzalez
They were right, engine should have been diesel and the turret control electric, and the real cost of abrams grows by 5 million dollars every time it gets refitted.
Just bring on the M1A3 already and bury this failure in some nevada warehouse...
>We could have a mini tank sized VLS if we wanted one. We have the smart ordinance to make it workable. You rang? youtube.com/watch?v=4Pvva1CTdic
Parker Powell
These guys get it.
What we need is a tank designed to carry a large quantity of various missiles vertically. Anti-tank, anti-air, high explosive, etc.
Lucas Clark
To elaborate on this concept, what I'm envisioning is basically a 21st century equivalent of Pike & Shot. Ancient pike and shot was a formation where the pikeman protected the arquebusiers from cavalry, while the arquebusiers inflicted harm on the enemy.
In this new realization, each platoon would have several rifleman squads (the "shot"), and a missile weapons section (the "pike").
The missile section has a multi-threat, vertical launch missile carrier capable of bringing down anything from tanks and static fortifications to helicopters and ground attack aircraft.
Direct fire engagements against armored targets SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN, if the formation encounters an enemy tank or fortification, the platoon pulls back and engages with its organic missiles or requests indirect fire support.
Nolan Taylor
>Direct fire engagements against armored targets SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN, if the formation encounters an enemy tank or fortification, the platoon pulls back and engages with its organic missiles or requests indirect fire support. needing to pull back and wait for indirect fire is very inflexible and even an intense artillery barrage will still need a combined arms assault to press the attack on the still dazed defenders
and the time gap between first encounter and bringing in an unrelated artillery unit can lead to vulnerability worst case scenario, all artillery is engaged already and you have to sit on your ass until a slot opens up
Jacob Kelly
Missiles cost an order of magnitude more than a tank shell. He'll we even still use old school artillery. Each tool has a use, user. Could missiles do it all? Yes. Would they do it as cost effectively? No. There you have it.
Chase Gonzalez
>between 1919 and 1923 Renault had changed their automobile badge to the Renault FT Show it!
Evan Watson
M48 is really underrated served very well in vietnam, and even managed to go head to head with the T-55
Army tested your theory in the Gulf by playing around with Bradleys. Bradleys ended up exploding to the otherwise incompetent Iraqis while the M1s and M60s were virtually invincible. You can't ignore armoring your vehicle.
Aiden Lee
>less armor >less ammunition >ammunition is slower, has lag issues >ammunition is significantly more expensive
Brody Nguyen
Former M1A2 Abrams crewman here Having been on the same tank for 3+ years I can't say we had any major issues other than regular track maintenance and fluid changes in the motor The Abrams is fine tank, shitty crewman lead to shitty tanks
Nicholas Brooks
>paid several times the amount of money to get to the M1 than Germany for the Leopard 2 >has a fucking 105mm gun
Alexander Carter
>We could have a mini tank sized VLS if we wanted one
It's called a mortar, and we already have them mounted on tracked vehicles.
Carson Garcia
M1 was always intended to carry a much larger gun from the get go, they just armed it with the 105mm initially because they were still looking for a larger gun at the time, which they eventually decided was the 120mm
Jaxson Young
what's up with the radioman machine gun? Why doesn't it go away? Was it secretly useful?
Henry Smith
>Russian hates the press
Oliver Harris
What radioman machine gun?
Austin Jones
>Direct fire engagements against armored targets SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN
Infantry scouts calling NLOS fires can't stand up to conventional armored attack. They can't maneuver without safety and their opponents can take those risks.
The Stryker brigades tried to prove your style (because it's an old meme, dating back to before the 1990s) at NTC and were blown out (so was FCS in later peer sims). Without perfect information, the picket force becomes fragile, without armor, they get pinned down; so they collapse at a geometrically increasing rate.
US tanks had a dedicated hull gunner. He was fucking useless, while the commander was supposed to handle the radio.
Easton Hall
radios were way bigger back in the day, to the point they needed a whole crewman to man the thing they also felt they needed a full machine gun for close defence, and it did prove useful at the time since most AT weapons were within stand off distance of .30s
smaller radios and the need for better armor eventually meant the radio job could be dispersed among the whole crew and fit in a smaller space and the benefit of stronger armor eventually surpassed an extra machine gun
the M48 was the first US tank to ditch the hull gunner and they never looked back it used to be a job that was important but was obsoleted by changing priorities
Robert Scott
>Direct fire engagements against armored targets SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN
>If driver How many times have you jerked off in your seat >If gunner/commander How many times has head/balls touched >If loader How are your dad?
Jackson Phillips
HAS THE HEAD TOUCHED THE BALLS???
Christopher Peterson
Currently a driver but have been a loader before. I've jerked off more than a few times in my seat - I just close the hatch and go to town. No one can possibly see you if you do that. It's pretty nice.
I've gunned before but that was in OSUT and I only fired about 20 rounds. The head and balls I can confirm do not touch. But if you do something stupid the TC WILL kick the fuck out of you
>OSUT How long was it? Like 15 weeks? Non-american here, Im assuming this was basically tank school after basic, or is it something else?
Carson Kelly
how is your TC?
James Johnson
Not yet, we're operating the SEPv2s, at least at my unit. If anyone had gotten the SEPv3s / M1A2 Cs already I haven't heard about it yet OSUT (One Station Unit Training) is when they roll basic training and your job school all into one. You still go through the initial 9 weeks of BCT, but afterwards instead of going to a different base and getting new DSs or whatever, you stay where you did basic. Meaning the same treatment, same bay, same DSs, same people. Nothing really changes much. 19Kilo OSUT is a total of 15 weeks and 3 days, 9 weeks of basic and about 6 weeks of AIT (tank school). Cool guy, no complaints.
Only six weeks of tank school, jesus... Are you considered usefull after that or will you need more training after that?
Grayson Cruz
They teach us the most basic of basic tasks on the tank. Namely how to do basic PMCS, how to start, drive, and park the tank, how to load the main gun and do misfire procedures, and how to disassemble/reassemble and load/fire M240 and caliber .50. And a bit of vehicle and ammo ID. Our instructors literally told us that we aren't learning much and all of your useful skills will be learned at your unit which is very true. >Only six weeks This is planned to be stretched to 13 weeks so that more training and hand on experience on the tanks can be given to the trainees, it's supposed to start in February.
Jayden Evans
Ahh, I assumed so. How long does it take for a crew to be considered deployable?
Justin Williams
To be considered deployable your unit needs to go to NTC for 30 days (national training center) at Ft. Irwin, CA and do all the exercises there satisfactorily (gunnery tables, mock battles with other units doing NTC, etc). You generally go once per year for 30 days, and 2 weeks of those 30 days you spend in the field doing your exercises.
Every guy we've gotten from basic training was useless as fuck for about 6 months but once they start to learn actual parts and tools on the tank they're not completely useless
I was a loader on the Abrams for about a year then I was a gunner for 2 years and a commander when the situation called for it Lotta fun but shot so much 120mm it got boring, the fcs on those things is like playing a vidya game it's so damn easy to hit shit Coax engagements are way harder than main gun engagements too, just hose the target down and hope the shit hits
Zachary Stewart
He was only a namefag from necessity. Merk gunner was a good perspective to have. I wish Jow Forums had more tan/k/ers.
Jayden Morales
Bump
Jason Butler
>MBTs only HAVE ONE role, and that IS tank vs tank. This is just blatantly wrong
Alexander Sanchez
>Direct fire engagements against armored targets SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN You're out of your element and should stfu forthwith
APX 47 AC - a tank destroyer mounting the Canon de 47 mm SA mle 1939 Anti-Tank gun. This variant only reached blueprint stage because other similar mounts were being designed on modern vehicles, so an FT chassis was not needed. These modern vehicles that received similar 47 mm mountings were the Laffly W15 TCC, Chasseur de Char Lorraine, Panhard 178 à tourelle Renault.
Thank you kindly; I do try, from time to time. Good stuff, as always. Personally, I've always been a fan of the self-propelled gun variants of the FT; it was interesting to see the French able to quickly adapt a single chassis to such a wide variety of roles, whereas other nations attempted to make the roles fit the tank, or simply make the tank do everything.
>MBTs only HAVE ONE role, and that IS tank vs tank. Is that why we field 105mm and 120mm HEDP, Canister, and HEP rounds? The modern MBT is designed to be a combination of an anti-tank, infantry support, reconnisance, and breakthrough asset all in one. Some do certain things better than others, but at the end of the day if it can't do all of those to some degree it isn't viable in the role. Even assuming you're right here, KEPs remain the most effective means for killing tanks. Missiles are slow, relatively easy to counter, and expensive. While developments have been made to counter LRPs, the technology remains far behind and heavily under exploited compared to those countermeasures developed for missiles. This is not to say that missiles are ineffective; but one must remember that the nature of modern conflicts simply increases the opportunities to deploy these missiles. And if all else fails, remember this much; you can't jam a bullet.
Glad we got the obligatory "blowout panels are a good idea" post out of the way relatively early.
I'm not sure how a tank brewing up helps prove this point; missiles explode too, so... You're proposing the same one-size-fits-all bullshit that literally every branch of the military has been trying, and failing, to produce for decades now. How effective do you think tankers will be if they have to be trained as tankers, anti-aircraft crews, and artillerymen? How effective do you think a weapons platform will be if it has to be able to strike targets of all varieties at all ranges with only, at the most, a minimum amount of effort to refit between roles? Oh, and now all of that has to be under armor.
Thank you, The FT's adaptability really is something, as it was arguably the first tank to be put through constant upgrades to lengthen its service life. None of the its WWI counterparts even come close to the number of upgrades and variants the FT has. Louis Renault was ahead of his time, General Estienne too.
