M1 Abrams Tank

[Thor]

I think we need a new light tank like a modern Sheridan, fast with band tracks, possibly a hybrid drive, amphibious, and a 30mm main gun. It could fire HE rounds to support troops, or the same DU rounds as the A-10 at armored vehicles.

Making the T-34 relevant again...battlefield dominance doesn't mean just good enough.

The Abrams was a game changer because it made everything else obsolete and allowed us to change how the game was played; we were no longer planning to just stop the Soviets from pushing to the sea...we were going to Moscow and they couldn't stop us. The 30 on the A-10 works because it doesn't fire one round at a time.

 

[johntheplinker]

Not in the 80's through post 9/11. They didn't use tanks anymore for infantry support like they used to in the past. For a long time tanks were limited to tank on tank warfare. (thanks to the Soviet threat) Once they developed the fin stabilized rounds, they went away from the rifled main guns. It stayed that way til long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

If they ever come back to a rifled main gun, it will be because of the asymmetrical warfare we're embroiled in nowadays with insurgents as the main enemy, and troops once again using armor in the support role. We may once again see tanks using HE and other type rounds. I'd love to see the beehive brought back. I don't see that happening, however, as we still have other platforms to offer supporting fires, and Russia, China, and other nations have armor we may need to deal with.

I think we need a new light tank like a modern Sheridan, fast with band tracks, possibly a hybrid drive, amphibious, and a 30mm main gun. It could fire HE rounds to support troops, or the same DU rounds as the A-10 at armored vehicles.

If we're going to go that route better put a gun on it big enough to give it a chance. They've stuck a M68 on Strykers, so that would be the way I'd go. An actual useful HE, plus against anything other than the latest MBTs still lethal anti-armor capability.
One other point, the A-10 would be launching those 30s at the top of the tank and not the front slope. IIRC the 30mm might penetrate the side armor on a T54/55, never mind a T-72.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

If they ever come back to a rifled main gun, it will be because of the asymmetrical warfare we're embroiled in nowadays with insurgents as the main enemy, and troops once again using armor in the support role. We may once again see tanks using HE and other type rounds. I'd love to see the beehive brought back. I don't see that happening, however, as we still have other platforms to offer supporting fires, and Russia, China, and other nations have armor we may need to deal with.

We may not have a beehive (flechette) round in inventory, but we do have a cannister cartridge - the M1028. It is very impressive and fires 1,100 10mm tungsten round balls (10 kilos or 22.8 pounds) at over 4,600 fps!

https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/large-caliber-ammunition/120mm-m1028/

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/02/29/shot-gunning-from-a-tank-m1028/

 

[Brad69]

March 2003 Al KUT, Iraq

Recon 1 “Tank 1,000 meters”

Recon 7 (me) “what is it”

Recon 1 “I don’t know”

Recon 7 “so you can’t see it”

Recon 1 “ I see it I don’t know what it is”

Recon 7 “ moving up on your north side about 100 meters”

Recon 7 “that’s a T34 looks knocked out”

True story!

We use the bore evacuator among other things to ID different tank varieties.
Recon 1 was a young guy and the T34 was no longer in his flash cards.

Brad’s rules of combat
Rule #17 Tanks are dangerous they can kill you in many ways, stay away from them and stay out of sight of them and run from them if exposed.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

If we're going to go that route better put a gun on it big enough to give it a chance. They've stuck a M68 on Strykers, so that would be the way I'd go. An actual useful HE, plus against anything other than the latest MBTs still lethal anti-armor capability.
One other point, the A-10 would be launching those 30s at the top of the tank and not the front slope. IIRC the 30mm might penetrate the side armor on a T54/55, never mind a T-72.

It would be an automatic gun along the lines of the Bushmaster in the Bradley, so it wouldn't be firing single rounds. Also, it's still a light tank. Different role, so it wouldn't be expected to go up against a T-80 on a regular basis. Think back to a time when we had more than one class of tank. It's role would be more recon and fire support in nature. Any armored vehicles it would stand up to would be more like APCs, and AFVs, though it could give a tank a hard time by immobilizing it with shots from an accurate fire control system. It would rely on speed, and stealth to avoid the heavies wherever possible. Might even be a drone...

 

[Tombs]

Not in the 80's through post 9/11. They didn't use tanks anymore for infantry support like they used to in the past. For a long time tanks were limited to tank on tank warfare. (thanks to the Soviet threat) Once they developed the fin stabilized rounds, they went away from the rifled main guns. It stayed that way til long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

If they ever come back to a rifled main gun, it will be because of the asymmetrical warfare we're embroiled in nowadays with insurgents as the main enemy, and troops once again using armor in the support role. We may once again see tanks using HE and other type rounds. I'd love to see the beehive brought back. I don't see that happening, however, as we still have other platforms to offer supporting fires, and Russia, China, and other nations have armor we may need to deal with.

I think we need a new light tank like a modern Sheridan, fast with band tracks, possibly a hybrid drive, amphibious, and a 30mm main gun. It could fire HE rounds to support troops, or the same DU rounds as the A-10 at armored vehicles.

A gun that small would be about as effective as a BB gun against modern armor. Just because we're fighting an insurgency today doesn't mean we won't be fighting a global power tomorrow. Our arms development and procurement needs to reflect this mindset.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

A gun that small would be about as effective as a BB gun against modern armor. Just because we're fighting an insurgency today doesn't mean we won't be fighting a global power tomorrow. Our arms development and procurement needs to reflect this mindset.

First off, a 30mm DU round WILL punch through a tank like the M60 or T-72, I've seen it close up. It may not punch through the front slope of a M1 or a T-80, but the sides of the hull and turret will be vulnerable, as will be the running gear, and tracks, engine compartment...

Secondly, you obviously are not getting the point... I'm not advocating for doing away with our fleet of M1s. Adding (not replacing) a light tank into the mix would be in addition to our Abrams tanks... not in lieu of them. We would still be able to fend off main battle tanks in a war with a major player.

 

[Tombs]

You obviously are not getting the point... Adding (not replacing) a light tank into the mix would be IN ADDITION TO our Abrams tanks... not IN LIEU OF them. We would still be able to fend off main battle tanks in a war with a major player.

How is shooting a BB gun at another tank fending anything off? You can mount a ATGM to a scooter and have a more effective combat vehicle.

 

[Brad69]

I think DM must have witnessed the Sheridan in action?

They were fast and would “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee”!

 

[blue2golf]

You obviously are not getting the point... Adding (not replacing) a light tank into the mix would be IN ADDITION TO our Abrams tanks... not IN LIEU OF them. We would still be able to fend off main battle tanks in a war with a major player.

The light tank role is filled by the Bradley, and BMPs for that matter, able to take on main battle tanks and live. If we get into a war with a major player, like China, we are going to need everything we can put on the battlefield.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I think DM must have witnessed the Sheridan in action?

They were fast and would “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee”!

The Sheridan was in Vietnam and primarily aluminum IIRC. Depending on where you are operating that could work just fine. Against armor? No so much. Much like if you have air supremacy and the bad guys have small arms an A-1E Sky Raider can provide air support. If the baddies got Radar-guided 23MM? Not so much.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

How is shooting a BB gun at another tank fending anything off? You can mount a ATGM to a scooter and have a more effective combat vehicle.

You use the light tanks for what they were designed for... recon, or infantry support, then fend off their armor with OUR armor. (the M1s) The light tanks would operate WITH the punch element, or go on recons in a scouting role. You would NOT send a light tank up against a T-80. It isn't heavily armored enough. However, should a light tank find one while on recon... they may be ably to disable it with a DU round from a 30mm and escape.

The light tank role is filled by the Bradley, and BMPs for that matter, able to take on main battle tanks and live. If we get into a war with a major player, like China, we are going to need everything we can put on the battlefield.

No it is not. A Bradley is huge because it is also a troop carrier. It's an IFV, not a light tank. What I'm thinking of would be quite a bit smaller. Think M3 Stuart in size, but modernized. Better gun, better fire control system, better armor, amphibious, faster, 3 man crew...

No, a Bradley cannot take on a tank, and live. It can take out a tank, with the Tow, (different matter) but now way in hell it could ever "take on" (survive a hit from) a tank. Any tank in service today can easily destroy a Bradly. Aluminium is no match for the main gun of a main battle tank. The Bradley is no more heavily armored than a light tank would be, and a lot bigger of a target. A DShK can shoot through a Bradley.

 

[Tombs]

You use the light tanks for what they were designed for... recon, or infantry support, then fend off their armor with OUR armor. (the M1s) The light tanks would operate WITH the punch element, or go on recons in a scouting role. You would NOT send a light tank up against a T-80. It isn't heavily armored enough. However, should a light tank find one while on recon... they may be ably to disable it with a DU round from a 30mm and escape.

And guess what's more effective than a 30mm against modern armor? A smaller, lighter, easily mounted ATGM. There's a reason they tacked them onto the bradley.

These smaller bore guns just don't make much sense today, a much smaller and lighter 50cal would achieve similar results. Failing that, a mk19.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

And guess what's more effective than a 30mm against modern armor? A smaller, lighter, easily mounted ATGM. There's a reason they tacked them onto the bradley.

These smaller bore guns just don't make much sense today, a much smaller and lighter 50cal would achieve similar results. Failing that, a mk19.

Yes they are, but they are too limiting. That's why the Bradly also has a gun.

1. An ATGM is also much larger, so you can carry much less ammo.
2. They're much more expensive.
3. They're much less versatile. If all you have is a ATGM you don't want to shoot it at anything less than a tank. What do you do when you need to shoot at a lighter target?
4. If it's wire guided (like the TOW) you can't fire on the move. If it's fire, and forget, see #2 to the 8th power.

Keep in mind a light tank is a recon/fire support vehicle. It's primary role is not as an anti-armor system. That's what we have the Abrams for. You people are dense... I'm talking about ADDING a capability... not replacing one.

 

[Tombs]

Yes they are, but they are too limiting. That's why the Bradly also has a gun.

1. An ATGM is also much larger, so you can carry much less ammo.
2. They're much more expensive.
3. They're much less versatile. If all you have is a ATGM you don't want to shoot it at anything less than a tank. What do you do when you need to shoot at a lighter target?
4. If it's wire guided (like the TOW) you can't fire on the move. If it's fire, and forget, see #2 to the 8th power.

Keep in mind a light tank is a recon/fire support vehicle. It's primary role is not as an anti-armor system. That's what we have the Abrams for. You people are dense... I'm talking about ADDING a capability... not replacing one.

And all I'm saying is, a 30mm gun isn't adding capability to a scout, it's just adding a boatload more bulk, weight, and complexity for the sake of having a gun that at best could tickle modern IFVs.

Same line of logic lead to the bradley, the "we have to make it do everything!" instead of focusing on what the point of the vehicle actually was.

 

[blue2golf]

Interesting conversation here fellas, but I think we can agree that as members of the Brotherhood, we loved being tankers and earning our tanker boots.

 

[Brad69]

Tanker boots screw you and your straggly boots!

Where-are you F*/$)#ing spurs!

 

[johntheplinker]

I can see it being a drone. But I still say a 30mm is way too small if one of the main purposes is fire support. Give it a 76mm, that might work.
If a drone wouldn't be doable then stuff the crew in the hull and have a remotely operated turret. Could definitely cut down on size and silhouette, and put heavier armor on the crew compartment for survivability. Maybe if by going to the remote turret there'd be enough room for a single or double launcher for one of the newer fire and forget ATGMs if contact with a MBT was possible. Heck, we could even make the whole turret modular. Weapons could be customized for the job. They don't have any or only light armor? Put the 30 on it. Need to destroy bunkers or obstacles or need smoke? Low recoil 105mm.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I can see it being a drone. But I still say a 30mm is way too small if one of the main purposes is fire support. Give it a 76mm, that might work.
If a drone wouldn't be doable then stuff the crew in the hull and have a remotely operated turret. Could definitely cut down on size and silhouette, and put heavier armor on the crew compartment for survivability. Maybe if by going to the remote turret there'd be enough room for a single or double launcher for one of the newer fire and forget ATGMs if contact with a MBT was possible. Heck, we could even make the whole turret modular. Weapons could be customized for the job. They don't have any or only light armor? Put the 30 on it. Need to destroy bunkers or obstacles or need smoke? Low recoil 105mm.

If you're going to develop an all new system, I'd love it to be a 50mm, or 76mm or something similar. I'm sure they could develop some incredible new stuff. I was thinking that the 30mm ammo is in the inventory, and had been a proven round. Can't really say the 30 is too small for fire support when our guys have been using the 25mm on the Bradley with good results, and calling for support from A-10s with good results. Remember, we're not talking about an artillery piece, just a light recon/scout vehicle that can also destroy stuff to get away if it gets in a pickle.

 

[blue2golf]

Tanker boots screw you and your straggly boots!

Where-are you F*/$)#ing spurs!

Heh, no time for spurs and Stetsons when you're wearing tanker boots, CVCs and nomex.

(Besides, I preferred Resistol hats when hitting the honky-tonks in Texas)