We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (USA)The M1 Abrams is the culmination of various US attempts to replace the series of tanks starting with the M26 Pershing tank and ending with the M60 Patton tank. Its most immediate ancestor is the MBT-70 programme jointly undertaken by the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This programme came just at a time when a number of advances in tank technology, such as thermal sights, new armour protection, advanced fire controls and turbine engines were starting to come to fruition. The MBT-70 project was designed to cram every last technological advancement into one tank and therefore had more than its fair share of unproven technology. Unfortunately because of this, the time delays inflicted on the programme by having to overcome each technological hurdle meant that the programme's costs had escalated to five times what was agreed upon and subsequently the Federal Republic withdrew from the programme. Congress urged the Army to terminate the programme as the costs of the Vietnam War were cutting into the defence budget. The Army agreed to develop a lower cost version of the MBT-70, the XM803, which dispensed with many of the 'gimmicks' but it too was cancelled. A task force was set up at Fort Knox to study the requirements for a new tank and both General Motors and Chrysler were invited to begin advanced design work. Consideration was given to what armament would be fitted to the new tank. The contenders were the existing M68 105mm rifled gun (developed from the British L7 105mm), a British 110mm design and the German 120mm smoothbore gun. It was decide to stay with the 105mm to maintain standardisation within NATO as the British 110mm offered few advantages over the 105mm and the German 120mm was not expected to be ready in time. The task force also looked at the question of whether to mount the Bushmaster 25mm cannon as secondary armament and to increase the survivability in respect of enemy fire. Two events in 1973 were to have an impact. The first was the discovery at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RADRE) in the UK of a new form of armour incorporating ceramic layers on top of steel called Chobham after the nearest town. The second was the Yom Kippur War, which involved the latest US tank, the M60A1 in the hands of the Israelis fighting the latest Soviet export tank, the T-62. By the end of 1973, the project had been redesignated XM1 (from XM815) to symbolise that it was a radical new start to American tank design. However, the battlefield lessons of the October 1973 war proved crucial to the XM1 programme. The first lesson was the growing importance of infantry fired shaped-charge warheads (such as the RPG-7 and AT-3 'Sagger') and the impact Chobham armour might have on their effectiveness. The second was that tanks would be likely to engage lightly armoured targets with their main gun as many of them were starting to be equipped with anti-tank missiles, and so the 25mm Bushmaster cannon was deleted. The two prime contractors revised their designs with these in mind. The prototypes were delivered in early 1976 and tests were conducted through until April. The issue was clouded by the Department of Defense requiring testing of the German Leopard 2 to compare it with the contractor designs. It was judged that it would be too expensive to build the Leopard 2 in the United States but the two Governments agreed that they would try and standardise on individual components. In November 1976 the Chrysler prototype was selected to enter Full Scale Engineering Development with Chrylser being awarded a three year US$196.2 million contract to build 11 XM1 pilot vehicles, the first of which was completed in February 1978. The operational tests were conducted by the Operational Test and Evaluation Agency at Fort Bliss, TX. These tests showed that the M1 met or exceeded the operational requirements set in most areas. A number of recommendations were set out though, including new filters to tackle sand ingestion and a simple mudscraper and track tensioner ring to stop mud fowling. Initial low rate production was authorised, and the first 110 tanks were used for extreme weather tests at Yuma, Arizona and the Cold Region Test Centre at Elgin Air Force Base, Alaska. The XM1 was accepted for full production in February 1981 and named after Creighton Abrams, a battalion commander in the 4th Armoured Division during World War 2, head of the US Army in Vietnam during the later stages and a key supporter of the XM1 programme. The M1 Abrams was produced at both the Lima, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan tank plants. The designers had allowed for quite an extensive amount of evolutionary upgrading with the tank, which has been shown by the evolutionary steps from the M1 (in production from February 1981 until February 1985), to the Improved M1 (in production until May 1986), M1A1 (in production from August 1985 until early 1993) and M1A2. The M1A2 upgrade was initially approved in February 1993, with the conversion of 210 vehicles by General Dynamics Land Systems at the Lima Tank Plant. A second phase was authorised in mid-1996 to run from October 1996 until July 2001 with the conversion of a further 580 M1s. Export customers for the M1 Abrams have included Egypt (655), Saudi Arabia (315) and Kuwait (218). The M1A1 has also been bought by the US Marine Corps (221) and a number of US Army vehicles (132) have been transferred as well. The M1A1 proved itself in combat during the Gulf War with four tanks disabled and another four damaged out of 1,955 tanks in the theatre. The hull and turret of the M1 Abrams is made of advanced composite armour, known as Chobham in the UK. The driver sits in the front in a reclining position and steers by rotating a motorcycle type T-bar, which actuates the steering lever on the transmission to produce the steering speed bias of the track. The driver also has three day periscopes, the centre of which can be replaced by an image intensification periscope for night work. The commander and gunner are seated on the right of the turret and the loader on the left. The commander has six periscopes that cover 360 degrees, a day sight (x3 magnification) for the 0.5in M2 machine gun and an optical extension of the gunner's sight. The gunner has a primary sight with duel day optics with magnifications of x10 (narrow view), x3 (wide angle view) and x1 (close-in surveillance) and thermal imaging optics with x10 and x3 magnification. The gunner also has an auxiliary day sight (Kollmorgan Model 939) with a magnification of x8. The fire control system includes a laser range finder, full-solution solid-state computer and stabilised day/thermal night sight (developed by Raytheon). The turret was designed to accept either the 105mm M68E1 rifled gun or the German 120mm smoothbore cannon, designated M256 in US service. The crew is protected from the fuel tanks by an armoured bulkhead, and from the main gun ammunition by sliding doors and armour-protected boxes. The M1 is powered by a Lycoming Textron AGT gas turbine (1,500hp) which delivers more horsepower to the drive sprocket than a diesel due to its lower cooling requirement. The M1 was followed by the Improved M1 (which had improved armour protection), both of which were armed with the 105mm rifled gun and then the M1A1. The M1A1 had the 120mm M256 smoothbore and an integrated NBC system, improved suspension, redesigned road wheels and final drive, redesigned loader's seat, redesigned stowage and new tank commander's panel. A version of the M1A1 with depleted uranium armour was developed to improve survivability well into the 1990s and beyond. The M1A2 has many improvements, including an Improved Commander's Weapon Station (ICWS), Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV), Inter-Vehicular Information System (IVIS), Position / Navigation System (POS/NAV) and a number of survivability initiatives. There is an additional programme, which seeks to introduce the M1A2 System Enhancement Package into the M1A2 upgrade programme and includes new tactical displays, communications equipment, improved reliability and power distribution. A version of the M1A2 has been developed for the export market and is equipped with a German EuroPowerPack (MTU 883 V-12 diesel engine developing 1,500hp with a Renk HSWL 295 TM automatic transmission). There are a number of specialised vehicles, including the M1 AVLB, Grizzly armoured vehicle and Abrams Recovery Vehicle (marketed by General Dynamics Land Systems for export).
(M1A1) Hull length: 7.92m. Hull width: 3.66m. Height: 2.89m. Crew: 4. Ground Clearance: 0.48m. Weight: 57,150kg (combat). Ground pressure: 0.96kg/sq.cm. Max speed: 67km/h. Max range (internal fuel): up to 465km on road. Armament: 120mm smoothbore main gun, 1 x 7.62mm MG coaxial, 1 x 0.5in MG on commander's cupola, 1 x 7.62mm machine gun for loader.
Authored By: Staff Writer | Last Edited: 05/10/2021 | Content ©www.MilitaryFactory.com | The following text is exclusive to this site.
The M1 Abrams was designed by Chrysler Defense and produced under the General Dynamics brand. The tank was introduced in 1979, entered service in 1980 and is still undergoing production. The system has been featured in the 1991 Gulf War and Bosnia along with the US invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Along with the United States, operators of the Abrams include Australia, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. As of this writing, roughly 8,800 Abrams have been produced in all its varied forms. In US military operations, the Abrams currently serves with both the US Army and the US Marine Corps.
The origins of the M1 Abrams can be traced back to a failed partnership between the United States and West Germany in producing a new generation main battle tank system with the latest capabilities to combat whatever the Soviets were brewing (this turned out to be the T-72). The US Army was then fielding the M60 Patton series (its own origins lay in the World War 2-era M26 Pershing heavy tank) as their main battle tank and it was largely believed that the T-72 would outclass the Patton as soon as it arrived - likewise for the West Germans and their post-war Leopard 1 main battle tanks. The joint design became known as the MBT-70.
The MBT-70 offered a low profile with a powerful main gun (152mm coupled to an XM-150 autoloader for the American model and an auto-loading 120mm Rheinmetall gun for the German model). The turret was sloped on all sides and set in the middle of the design and housed the entire crew (the remarkably low silhouette - at just over 6 feet tall - necessitated that the driver be placed in the turret with the tank commander and gunner). With the autoloader, operation of the MBT-70 required the use of only three personnel similar to Russian auto-loading MBTs. The hull was sloped towards the front, flat-faced at the rear engine compartment and showcased barely any surface exposure along the sides above the tracks. A 20mm cannon could be used in the air defense role, this springing up from behind the driver's cupola. A 7.62mm co-axial machine gun mount was standard on the MBT-70, and on any tank since World War 2 for that matter. The profile of the MBT-70 was characterized by its medium-sized road wheels with six fitted to a side. The American version of the MBT-70 would have fired a barrel-launched Shillelagh anti-tank missile at long ranges. Suspension was of an advanced hydropneumatic type that was fully adjustable on-the-fly by the driver. Despite it being a heavy 50+ ton tank design, the MBT-70 was reportedly able to reach an unheard of maximum speed of 52 miles-per-hour.
As the budget for the MBT-70 project rose widely out of control - both parties naturally developed different ideas as to the design direction of this new tank - the West Germans eventually dropped out of support for the program and instead poured their resources into producing a follow-up design to their successful Leopard 1 main battle tank, with the new design eventually becoming the equally potent Leopard 2. By 1971, the American Congress saw the ballooning MBT-70 project coming to naught and reinvested those funding dollars towards a program that would ultimately produce the M1 Abrams. The MBT-70 project, despite its revolutionary design implements, proved too ambitious and was effectively killed by the congressional decision.
The XM1 Abrams prototype was designed by Chrysler Defense. General Dynamics Land Systems Division subsequently purchased Chrysler Defense Division in 1979. The XM1 fitted the British Royal Ordnance L7 series rifled main gun of 105mm, a license-production copy built in the United States. The XM1 entered production as the M1 Abrams in 1979 and became operational the following year. The Abrams featured state-of-the-art armor protection for the crew complete with armored compartments for fuel and ammunition stores. Crew accommodations were for four personnel and consisted of the tank commander, gunner, loader and driver. The new tank weighed in at 67.5 short tons making it one of the heaviest such systems in the world.
After a short time in service, it was already becoming apparent that the 105mm rifled British armament would not stay up to the conventional tank standards being fielded in the East. As such, the Abrams was upgunned to incorporate the German-produced Rheinmetall AG 120mm smoothbore cannon known in the US inventory by the designation of M256. The Abrams was now produced under the M1A1 designation and appeared in 1986 with production running through 1992. Additional upgrades included improved armor allocation and the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) protection system.
The M1A1 was soon followed by the improved M1A2. The A2 featured a revised weapon station for the tank commander incorporating the latest in digital systems, a separate thermal viewer system and improved navigation equipment. The M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package) brought the Abrams up to an even higher technological standard, incorporating digital maps, additional processing computers to handle the digital workflow and an improved cooling system. Depleted uranium armor was also part of follow-on upgrades while other subsequent upgrade programs have produced the M1A1 AIM, M1A1D, M1A1HC and the M1A2 SEP. Reactive armor and slat armor became optional and were offered as part of the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) developed for urban fighting - where conventional ranged tank engagement rules effectively fly out of the window.
Seating in the Abrams in conventional by Western standards with the driver seated at the center front of the hull, just under the main gun base (that is if the turret is facing directly forward). The tank commander, loader and gunner take their stations in the fully 360-degree traversable turret with the gunner seated ahead of the tank commander and the loader to the tank commander's immediate left. The tank commander and the loader are each afforded their own hatch and defensive machine gun weaponry. Design of these hatches is such that the weapons can be fired from within the turret without exposing either crewmember to the enemy. The Abrams sports British-designed Chobham RHA steel-encased depleted uranium mesh plating for its crew and vital systems. Chobham makes use of various alloys made up of kevlar, ceramics, plastic composites and steel to achieve a near-perfect blend of anti-penetration surfaces. Power is derived from a Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine developing 1,500 horsepower mated to an Allison DDA X-1100-3B transmission. Specifications include a top road speed of 42 miles per hour and a top off-road speed of 30 miles per hour - in this respect, it was not uncommon to hear Abrams tank crews describe their mount as the "Cadillac of tanks". The power-to-weight ratio is listed at 24.5 hp/metric ton while suspension is accomplished through use of a torsion bar assembly. Range is reportedly limited to 289 miles.
Armament for the Abrams series began with the British M68 rifled cannon of 105mm but, as mentioned earlier, this was "upgunned" to the standard M256 smoothbore 120mm system thereafter, with this armament covering the M1A1, M1A2 and the M1A2SEP variants and applicable upgrades. Secondary armament came in the form of a Browning M2HB 12.7mm anti-aircraft heavy machine gun operated by the tank commander through his cupola. Armament was further enhanced by the addition of 2 x 7.62mm self-defense, anti-infantry M240 machine guns, one mounted co-axially in the turret alongside the main gun and another fitted on a pintle mounting at the loaders hatch. The co-axial mount is operated via the main gun controls. The loader's machine gun can be fitted with night vision equipment and extra shielding - the latter obviously for increased protection if the crewmember need to expose his upper body when firing the loader's M240.
As standard, the M1 can fire High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT), HEAT shaped charged, high explosive, shotgun-type anti-personnel and white phosphorous projectile munitions as needed. The XM1111 is a cannon-fired "guided" projectile currently in development and will most likely be used by the Abrams series.
Despite entering service in 1980, the Abrams did not received her combat baptism until the 1991 Gulf War. The Abrams stacked up extremely well against the Soviet-developed T-55, T-62 and the latest T-72 offerings. One of the biggest drawbacks of the Iraqi tanks was their poor or non-existent night vision equipment and equally poor-to-adequate training. Lack of an effective air support did little to help out the Iraqi cause as well. Only 23 Abrams were lost in the ensuing battles. One of the biggest benefits of the Abrams system lay in the range of its main guns which out-shot Iraqi tanks by at least 500 meters. In fact, it seemed that friendly fire incidents were a bigger threat to the Abrams than were the Iraqi main battle tank and anti-tank weapon systems.
The Abrams was not completely done in Iraq, however, for the invasion of 2003 invasion of Iraq - organized under Operation Iraqi Freedom - saw similar tank-versus-tank results in favor of the Abrams. Though 80 or so Abrams tank systems were knocked out of action on the part of Iraqis, the Abrams still enjoyed its superior technological edge coupled with better crew training and well-developed tactics (along with an overly effective air support element). Follow-up fighting saw several Abrams damaged via Soviet-designed RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade weapons fired at the tank tracks, the tank rear and along the turret top - the three most vulnerable ballistic points of any tank, especially in the realm of urban fighting where elevations now play an advantage to the defensive party.
As with any other expensive yet successful armor series, the chassis of the Abrams continues to make up the main component of other battle-worthy systems. These include the M1 Grizzly Combat Mobility Vehicle, the M1 Panther II Remote Controlled Mine Clearing Vehicle, the M104 Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge, the M1 Panther II Mine Clearing Blade/Roller System, the M1 Assault Breacher Vehicle and the M1 Armored Recovery Vehicle (single prototype). The Abrams tank itself can be converted to operate a mine plow and mine roller for mine-clearing services.
The Abrams is named after former Army Chief of Staff General Creighton Abrams whom served in the Vietnam War from 1968 to 1972 as Commander of US Military Forces. The M1 was designed to replace the venerable M60 Patton series, though the two ended up serving side by side for some 10 years. A single Abrams can carry a price tag of up to $4.35 million USD or more depending on the model and variant.
At any length, the Abrams should see continual frontline service for the United States and its allies for some time to come. Modernization programs obviously have kept the system relevant on today's battlefields. Power, survivability, lethality and technology have all gone a long way into creating the optimal legacy for the M1 Abrams.
It was first referred to the M60-2000 Program and design work began in late 1999 by General Dynamics Land Systems as a private venture for the export market and was never evaluated for US military service. Later the M60 designation was dropped because of the extensive changes and to highlight this as a new vehicle to potential customers thus changing the name to the 120S Project. The 120 represented the gun, and S according to company marketing stood for Speed and Survivability. Two of the major upgrades this would offer to the M60 series of the vehicle.  It is essentially a hybrid vehicle consisting of an M1A1 version of the Abrams MBT turret mated to a M60A1 hull. The M60-2000 was test-marketed during 2000 and a number of countries in NATO and the Middle East were briefed on the vehicle. Following customer feedback, detailed engineering work was carried out and in December GDLS decided to build a functional prototype.  In August 2001 the company rolled out the fully functional prototype of the 120S MBT at their Detroit, Michigan, facility. The prototype was shown at the IDEF Exhibition held in Turkey in October 2001.
During development an upgrade to the M60A3 turret was considered, but the M1A1 turret was used because of its higher level of armor protection and the fact that the 120 mm ammunition is separated in the turret bustle. For the 120S Project the M1A1 turret and M60A1 series chassis were leased from the US Army. The turret is mated to the existing M60 chassis using an adapter ring that allows the use of the M1A1 wire race ring with no turret modifications. It consisted of a functional M1A1 turret, M1 turret gear box, hydraulic pump and an M1A1 slip ring adapter.  Many of the subsystems were already well proven and in volume production.
The turret armor is of a composite material and lacks the protective depleted uranium (DU) meshing found in the M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) variant of the Abrams MBT. The hull armor is conventional hardened steel. It was planned that armor packages for the production vehicles would be customized for each customer. Available options included additional STANAG Level 6 armor plating for the hull frontal arc to the third road wheel, slat/cage armor skirting for the turret, steel or composite armored side skirts, spall liners and reactive armor packages. 
The M60A1 chassis was modified with the enhanced torsion bar system of the M1 series MBT to take account of the additional weight of the M1A1 turret as well as the additional armor that would have been fitted to production vehicles. An optional offering was to replace the torsion bar suspension with hydropneumatic units for improved cross-country ride. The prototype of the 120S retains the standard M60 series power pack consisting of a Continental V-12 750 hp (560 kW) air-cooled, AVDS-1790-2 diesel engine with a CD-850-6 cross drive transmission, with a range of 275 miles. It was envisioned that production vehicles would have the more powerful General Dynamics Land Systems AVDS-1790-9 diesel developing 1,200 hp and Allison X-1100-5 series automatic transmission extending operational range to over 300 miles (480 km) but other power pack combinations were also offered as well as road wheels and drive sprocket being replaced by M1A1 components and the Abrams T158 lightweight track if desired. The upper part of the suspension of the prototype is fitted with mock ballistic side skirts and new sponsions. It has a crew of 4, the commander, loader and gunner are positioned in the turret and the driver in the front of the hull.
The main weapon is a fully stabilized M256 120 mm smoothbore gun with a thermal sleeve as used on the M1A1 version of the Abrams MBT and carries 36 rounds in the turret bustle. The ammunition is stored in the turret bustle with blow-out panels for better survivability. Production versions planned to have additional round storage in safe boxes on the hull floor. Secondary armament consists of two M240C 7.62 mm machine guns. One of them is mounted coaxially on the right of the main gun, another is mounted over the loader's hatch. There is also a roof-mounted M2HB 12.7 mm machine gun, mounted over commander's hatch. The turret is fitted with two six-barreled, electronically fired M250 smoke grenade launchers, one on each side of the main gun. The smoke grenades contain a phosphor compound that masks thermal signature of the vehicle to the enemy. A Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke System (VEESS) can also be laid from the engine operated system to visually obscure the area around the vehicle. 
The electronics package used components designed by Hughes consisting of a 240X4 Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) day/FLIR stabilized sight with an eye-safe laser range-finder, a Thermal Imaging System (TIS), an onboard digital fire control computer and data bus providing a similar capability as the M1 Abrams Mark 1 Advanced Fire Control System. Production vehicles would also have a BITE (Built In Test Equipment) package. 
The 120S was initially aimed at the Turkish Land Forces Command (TLFC) M60 upgrade requirement but this competition was subsequently won by Israel Military Industries with their Sabra II upgrade. The Egyptian Army was considering this offer until it was finally rejected in favor of a licensed contract to build M1s in Egypt.  Only one prototype was made. As of early 2009 there were no sales of the 120S MBT and was no longer mentioned in General Dynamics marketing literature. The prototype was disassembled and the hull and turret returned to the US Army in 2003. 
The Army is going all-in on its souped-up new M1 Abrams tank
It’s been more than three years since the Army first took delivery of the first of its souped-up new version of the M1 Abrams main battle tank, and the service clearly likes what it sees.
The Defense Department announced on Friday that the Army has awarded a monster $4.62 billion contract to defense giant General Dynamics Land Systems to produce M1A2 SEPv3 tanks for the service over the next eight years.
The announcement did not specify exactly how many fresh Abrams tanks the service plans on procuring under the contract, although it does stipulate that work locations and funding “will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 17, 2028.”
Also known as the M1A2C, the new Abrams variant “rectifies many of the space, weight and power issues identified during Operation Iraqi Freedom and will be the foundational variant for all future incremental upgrades,” according to the Army.
Outfitted with fresh survivability enhancements and a new power system, the SEPv3 purportedly boasts improved main gun accuracy with “smart cannon” munitions programmable over data link and reinforced armor bolstered by a built-in jammer to counter radio-triggered improvised explosive devices.
As of February 2019, the SEPv3 upgrade also included the Israeli-developed Trophy HV hard-kill active protection systems that use radar to detect incoming missiles and rockets then fires tiny projectiles to intercept them.
According to the Army, the M1A2 SEPv3’s full improvements include the integration of the U.S. military’s Joint Tactical Radio System, highly improved power generation and distribution, a line replaceable modules design for improved maintenance, electronic warfare devices to counter remote-controlled IEDs, and auxiliary power unit, and significant ballistic armor upgrades.
“It is the most reliable Abrams tank ever produced, will decrease the Army’s logistic burden, and leads the Army in enterprise-level connectivity to maintenance and supply systems,” according to the service.
Soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division were the first to take possession of the SEPv3 back in May of this year.
The Army hopes to eventually field up to 2,101 SEPv3 tanks under its Abrams Upgrade Program, according to service budget documents published earlier this year.
Troopers assigned to Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team (3ABCT), 1st Cavalry Division, conduct preventative maintenance checks and services on their new M1A2C (SEP v.3) Abrams Tanks at Fort Hood, Texas, July 21, 2020. The modernization of the Greywolf brigade, with the addition of being the first unit in the Army to receive the new Abrams tanks, makes 3ABCT the most lethal and agile armored brigade in the Army. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Calab Franklin)
The service accepted the first of about a half-dozen initial production versions of the M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams back in October 2017.
The following year, GDLS secured an Army contract to upgrade 274 Abrams tanks — more than three brigades worth — into the new SEPv3 configuration.
According to Army budget documents, the service had previously shelled out more than $13.3 billion for upwards of 1,700 SEPv3 upgrade packages since the start of the program back in 2015.
“The Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 is the first in a series of new or significantly improved vehicles that we will be delivering to the Army’s ABCTs,” Maj. Gen. David Bassett, program executive officer for Ground Combat Systems, said when the first prototypes rolled off the assembly line back in 2017.
“It is a great step forward in reliability, sustainability, protection, and onboard power which positions the Abrams tank and our ABCTs for the future.”
The Army is already eyeing SEPv4 (or M1A2D) upgrades for testing, including “new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round,” as Bassett told Warrior Maven back in 2016.
“This program began early enough to on-board any technology the Army deems critical to the future battlefield to include artificial intelligence, autonomy, APS or advanced sensors,” according to the service.
Jared Kelleris the executive editor of Task & Purpose. His writing has appeared in Aeon, the Los Angeles Review of Books, the New Republic, Pacific Standard, Smithsonian, and The Washington Post, among other publications. Contact the author here.
ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
The almost 40-year-old Abrams tank has a significant role in the Army’s vision for 2028 because of a major facelift that upgrades the engine, sensors and sights, along with advanced armor and an active protection system aimed at fighting, surviving and winning.
But it is not quite the radical new tank the Army needs for the future.
While tanks have been declared obsolete many times since their first use in the Battle of the Somme in 1916, the latest high-tech upgrades to the legendary M1 Abrams make it more reliable, effective and lethal, allowing the Abrams to be a key asset in the land portion of the evolving multidomain battle. It can’t fly. It can’t swim. It doesn’t fight cyberbattles or knock out satellites, but it is an essential piece of the multidomain fighting force.
The improved Abrams, the M1A2C, moves toward the Army’s expectations for the next-generation combat vehicle by having improved crew protection and mobility, but it lacks the option of autonomous operation, alternative fuel and directed energy weaponry capabilities being studied by the cross-functional team trying to set a road map to the future.
The next tank may not even be a tank-looking and tank-acting vehicle.
Current tank modernization efforts focus on “an immediate future” and reflect study and close cooperation between the Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems, the Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team and supporting research efforts being conducted under the umbrella of “Team Warren,” a name based on the Michigan location of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command.
Attendees at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium and Exposition in March were told that any concept of a replacement system for the Abrams would be fed from two ongoing studies: one being conducted by the Army Science Board and the other by the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Ground Vehicle Systems Center.
“In the future, a decision will be made for Abrams replacement,” said Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, who heads the cross-functional team for the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle. “This is a decisive lethality that has to fight in really, really bad places. Is it a tank? I don’t know. But it will be decisively lethal, protect the crew against their main battle tanks, allow us to identify the enemy before they can identify us, and engage them at farther ranges.
“We are confident in the Abrams today. But at some point, the Abrams will have to be replaced. So, in 2023, we will have a decision point, with guidance from senior leaders on how to proceed.”
In addition to the two studies underway, he highlighted “a lot of exciting work in this space,” citing examples like “directed energy” and “other munitions that could be put in place.”
In a subsequent media roundtable at the AUSA event, Coffman smiled while repeating his previously quoted assertions that he “doesn’t care if [the Abrams replacement] hovers, is run by a flux capacitor or shoots lasers.”
In all seriousness, he continued, “Everything is on the table. It’s got to deliver decisive lethality in the worst places on earth. And it has to be survivable in the worst places on earth in cities and in cross-country terrain. So what that looks like, we’re open to.”
He said the two studies “are answering questions on what is out there as far as current technology and what we think to be immediate future technology to provide us options. That’s really the focus. No one, at least in my office, disagrees that we need something that has the capability to deliver decisive lethality with a survivability level that outpaces our peers. But I’ve been very purposeful in saying it may not be a tank, because I don’t want to limit what is available to our soldiers.”
Beyond Immediate Future
But what about a tank beyond the immediate future? Where is the focus beyond 2028?
When asked to talk about a more far-reaching future, representatives for the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, admitted to “a strong reluctance to get wild,” adding, “No one wants to talk sci-fi or get too futuristic.”
Likewise, industry planners tended to keep their focus on more of a 10-year technology window, with several company representatives declining to speculate even that far.
For example, as a possible reflection of Coffman’s comments about “other munitions that could be put in place,” Craig Aakhus, director of large-caliber ammunition for Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, was quick to highlight the 120 mm Advanced Multi-Purpose, XM1147 High Explosive Multi-Purpose—Traced round “and the capabilities that round will bring to Abrams.”
AMP will replace four currently inventoried tactical rounds—M830, M830A1, M908 and M1028—with a round that not only retains performance against the existing target set but adds new capabilities for antipersonnel airburst.
“We’re finishing up on design work right now and then going right into qualification,” Aakhus said. “That looks like it will be completed over the next several months, and we are looking to go into low-rate production in the next year.”
Another “future” tank projectile, which he dubbed “the next-generation kinetic energy round,” is the M829A4. Again, that’s in its second production year and hardly a “far future” concept.
When pushed further toward the future, Aakhus pointed to significant potential in technologies like the advancement of forward-looking infrared and acknowledged multiple “extended line of sight activities underway” to extend the range of the AMP type of capability and also include “hard-target armored defeat out at range.”
John Baylouny, executive vice president and chief operating officer for Leonardo DRS, was able to offer a look a few years further out, pointing to some of his company’s efforts in so-called quantum technologies.
Noting that “quantum can be broken up into a lot of different areas,” Baylouny said, “A lot of people are putting time and energy into quantum computing, because of the promise of breaking codes and things like that. We don’t. We’re putting our energy into quantum sensing and working to apply quantum sensing theory to the tough defensive security problems that we have today.”
He cited a number of university partners in the company’s efforts to apply the technology, focusing the combined expertise on a subset of quantum sensing known as weak measurement amplification.
“The idea is to detect a weak signal in a high background,” he said. “And that’s kind of a generic statement across all of detection theory, including radars, LIDAR and communication systems. They all try to find a signal in a heavy background. And weak measurement amplification allows you to get more signal-to-noise ratio than you thought was possible by using quantum techniques.”
The company has focused both internally funded and government-funded efforts on the problem, citing progress in validating, extending and then applying the theory, he said.
“We believe that this work will eventually inflect and disrupt a number of areas of signal detection: LIDAR, radar, communications and navigation systems. All these systems will be influenced by quantum-sensing techniques, probably in the next 10 years,” he said.
Soldiers’ Future Vision
The industry view of “future technologies” seems to fall in the same 10-year window as the Army’s 2028 Multi-Domain Operations vision.
At the risk of entering the “too futuristic” minefield, the Army solicits more futuristic ideas directly from soldiers through its Soldier Innovation Workshops, conducted at the CCDC Ground Vehicle Systems Center.
“The Soldier Innovation Workshops are events that we hold here two or three times a year,” said Dave Centeno, who leads the workshops. “They are our attempt to get ideas directly from soldiers, the users in the field, on what are some of the capabilities that they would like to see in the future, and by future we are talking five years to 20 years out.
“These ideas range from subsystem components to full system-level thoughts or ideas,” he continued. “What can the Army provide them to make their job easier and to make their mission execution more effective?”
Program planners coordinate with units across the active Army, as well as National Guard and Army Reserve units, to get participants to provide their perspective on a limited problem or a certain gap or objective. The soldiers are teamed with industrial designers and artists to obtain a graphical depiction of the ideas that emerge. Past workshops have produced ideas ranging from specialized wheels that fold away under a vehicle, to see-through armor systems that allow a fighting vehicle crew to see exactly what’s happening outside of their vehicle, Centeno said.
“Once we get those products out of that interaction, it gives us a better idea of what the soldiers were thinking, and it gives us a product you can now work with and start shaping and moving in a virtual environment,” he said.
Some of the products then move beyond paper into 3D models.
“The commander for Army Futures Command, Gen. [John M.] Murray, has alluded to the fact that he would like to see systems being fielded in the future based on some level of feedback from the users. And I think in that sense, the Soldier Innovation Workshops could help inform and shape some of the features on future systems or platforms,” Centeno said.
Significantly, Centeno said plans are underway to direct one of the workshops toward elements of a “future tank.”
Science Fiction Future?
If the Soldier Innovation Workshops double the future vision to 20 years, the most obvious step after that would be the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Proof that DARPA is not afraid to go “too futuristic” can be found in the agency’s June 2018 Tactical Technology Office Broad Agency Announcement: Disruptive Capabilities for Future Warfare.
Under “Ground Systems,” the Tactical Technology Office announcement seeks to “break the symmetry of ground combat through the application of numerous autonomous agents, as bulwarks for our service men and women exposed to high-casualty risks across the spectrum of conflict. Threats in this domain are often met with marginal technical evolution, meant to re-establish equilibrium. TTO is interested in generating a more permanent asymmetry to better safeguard personnel while increasing lethality, reach and situational awareness in combat operations.”
Among potential technical thrusts identified is: “Innovation in hypermobility and hyper lethality for small units, or even individual warfighters, to enable undeterrable presence, anywhere (i.e., Starship Troopers).”
There it is. DARPA said it. Starship Troopers. Published in 1959, the book introduced a far-futuristic “mobile infantry” deploying from space transport ships in “dropships,” more akin to armored personnel carriers (APCs) than tanks.
M1 Abrams: The Best U.S. Military Tank Ever Built?
Know this: With its current updates, even at 40 years old, the M1 Abrams is a battle-tested tank that is among the very best in the world.
Know this: With its current updates, even at 40 years old, the M1 Abrams is a battle-tested tank that is among the very best in the world.
A Quick History
The M1 Abrams was developed in the 1970s to close what at the time looked like a 'tank' gap with the Soviet Union. After the MBT-70 American-West German joint project to develop a new tank ended in failure, the U.S. Congress then directed the U.S. Army to go it alone.
Despite strict cost and time limits, the Army found just the tank it needed.
Named for the late General Creighton W. Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and commander of the 37th Armored Battalion, the M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) became the backbone of the armored forces of the United States military when it was introduced in 1980.
Coming From Behind
Even forty years after it was introduced, the M1 Abrams is considered among the best tanks in the world, but the U.S. military had actually lagged behind with its tank efforts throughout much of the Cold War.
The M60 MBT was introduced as an interim main battle tank, essentially a stop-gap measure until "something better" could be developed. Even as the M60 was able to hold its own against Soviet-supplied T54/55s and T62s during the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, where it was employed by the Israel Defense Forces, it was evident that the American-built tank would be no match for the latest Soviet tanks including the T-64.
The first course of action involved a partnership with West Germany, but the project ended after West Germany pulled out due to the rising costs as well as a difference in opinions on the key requirements. Instead, the U.S. Army begin to design new tanks – but under strict cost and time limitations.
Such parameters don't usually result in a superior platform, yet it resulted in a third-generation (post-World War II) MBT that was a major leap forward. Designed by Chrysler Defense, now General Dynamics Land Systems, the "XM-1" was developed to provide more mobile firepower for armored formations, but also to be able to confront and destroy any opposition that came at it. The tank was also able to ensure the protection of its crew in nearly any conceivable combat situation or environment.
It proved to be more than capable to engage the enemy in any weather condition, day or night – and while there were some learning curves and bumps in the road, the M1 Abrams has more than lived up to the expectations when it was finally employed in combat.
In fact, it is widely forgotten that the tank had been in service with the U.S. military for more than a decade, but it was essentially untested in combat.
That changed when the M1 Abrams charged into action against Soviet-era tanks employed by Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991. In total, 1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia to take part in the liberation of Kuwait.
There were initial concerns as to how the tank would handle the dusty desert conditions, especially as the tanks were deployed for months before the invasion began and had received little maintenance. However, the Abrams proved superior to the Soviet-era T-55, T-62 and even T-72 tanks. During the war, just eighteen Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage and only nine were permanent losses a tiny fraction of what Iraqi forces lost .
More importantly, not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict.
The Evolution of the M1 Abrams
As originally designed, the M1 Abrams were 32.04 feet in length and 12 feet wide and weighed 60 tons. The tank had a top speed of 45mph, speedier than previous American tanks.
When it first entered service, its main armament was a 105 mm L/52 M68A1 rifled gun. Upgraded in 1985 to the M1A1 version, which was slightly longer while the weight was increased to 67.6 tons, the tank was armed with a far more powerful 120 mm L/44 M256A1 smoothbore gun. Additional enhancements included an improved suspension, increased armor protection, and even a nuclear-chemical-biological protection system. This added weight did reduce the top speed to 41.5mph, but the tanks still proved superior to anything that rolled at it.
The Abrams tank was updated again in the 1990s as the M1A2, which included the addition of a commander's independent thermal viewer, improved weapon station and embedded diagnostics as well as improved fire control system.
While the Abrams is showing its age, in the past forty years it has remained the best American tank and it could be a truly hard act to follow.
Other minor changes incorporated at the same time as the others were a slight rearrangement of internal stowage, the addition of a dual air heater, a new hull electrical network box, and new electrical harnesses. Minor changes continued in the turret, with a rerouting of the electrical harnesses and alterations to the commander’s seat and a new knee guard for the gunner.
With a new and improved M1 underway for the Army (which would enter service as the M1A1), it was also a potential replacement tank for the United States Marine Corps (USMC), who were still using the venerable M60 series tanks. To meet the needs of the USMC, the M1A1 would have to be able to ford deep water, up to 2 metres deep. This meant that a deep water wading kit had to be designed, fitted, and trialed on the M1E1. These trails were carried out in October 1984.
Design for a deep water wading kit for a USMC version of the M1A1 which was evaluated on the M1E1. Note: after leaving the water the turret would be traversed and knock off the towers over the air inlet and exhaust. Source: Hunnicutt
Future Tank: Beyond The M1 Abrams
M1 tank at the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California.
WASHINGTON: What comes after the M1 Abrams, the Army’s massive Reagan-era main battle tank? “Everything is on the table at this point,” the service’s armor modernization director, Maj. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, says. He didn’t give many details so I asked experts to speculate.
To my surprise, everyone we talked to, from retired Army tankers and industry experts to drone-loving futurists, agreed that manned armored vehicles of some kind will still have a place in future wars. Why? Human soldiers will still need a way to move about the battlefield under armor protection, and they’ll need it even – or especially – when killer drones swarm the skies. After all, it’s far easier for the enemy to build a drone that can kill an exposed human than one that can penetrate an armored vehicle.
Textron M5 Ripsaw unmanned mini-tank
Beyond that baseline, there was little consensus. Some of our sources felt that further upgrades to the M1 Abrams would suffice for the foreseeable future, arguing there’s not – yet – been any radical change in tactics or fundamental improvement in armored vehicle design that would call for an all-new vehicle. Others saw potential for a new kind of tank. And some thought the M1’s replacement shouldn’t be a new tank at all, but a whole family of different vehicles, manned and unmanned, working together as a networked wolfpack.
That concept of “manned-unmanned teaming” is already being explored by the Army’s Robotic Combat Vehicle program. It’s also central to the Air Force’s Loyal Wingman drones and the Navy’s unmanned “Ghost Fleet,” designed to support manned fighters and warships respectively.
There’s revolutionary potential here to disaggregate traditional weapons platforms. Instead of having gun, sensors, and crew all on one vehicle, you could put, say, your long-range sensors on a drone, your decoys on another (expendable) drone, your main gun on a ground robot, and your human controller in a small, well-armored command vehicle hidden some distance away.
“I would expect to see the bundled capabilities of the M1 gradually broken apart – the requirements and functions of the M1 being spread over multiple systems,” said Dan Patt, a former DARPA official now with thinktank CSBA. “Crewed armored vehicles will be with us for quite some time, [but] the bigger military impact comes from the ability to split apart weapon system functions, take more risks, and experiment with different force combinations in adaptable ways. These changes are ready now.”
Of course, this revolution depends on the network technologies actually working to keep all those humans and robots connected – even in the face of enemy hacking and jamming.
Mock-up of the Israeli-made IAI Harop (Harpy) “suicide drone” used by Azerbaijani forces against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh
The Drones Of Nagorno-Karabakh
As for the individual armored vehicles, whatever they look like, their survival will increasingly depend on their defenses against enemy drones. That was the bloody lesson of both Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, in which scout drones pinpointed Ukrainian armored vehicles for devastating rocket barrages, and Azerbaijan’s 2020 offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, in which armed and kamikaze drones decimated Armenian armor.
How big a change does this portend? Based on the bloody lessons taught Ukraine and Armenia, “I think we’re likely to see technology radically transform the ground warfare environment over the next several decades in ways not seen since World War I,” said Paul Scharre, a former Army Ranger who’s now vice president of the thinktank CNAS. “The persistence and accessibility of drones renders the contemporary – and future – battlefield much more transparent to aerial surveillance and, consequently, attack.”
But there are promising countermeasures already available today, argued Samuel Bendett, an expert on the Russian military at CNA.
“Had the Armenians prepared their tanks for the new type of war that took place last October, their losses would have been far fewer,” he told me. “Much of what we saw in the Nagorno-Karabakh involved older Soviet tanks in the Armenian service that were not well defended against loitering munitions, [which] actually do not pack a big punch.”
By contrast, modern Russian tanks routinely carry reactive armor tiles, which preemptively detonate in the path of incoming warheads infrared dazzlers, which blind the sensors of anti-tank guided missiles and active-protection systems, which physically shoot down inbound munitions like a miniaturized missile defense. The US finally began installing an active protection system – the Israeli Trophy – on its Abrams tanks in 2018.
Even without new technology, better tactics can make a difference, argued Thomas Spoehr, a retired Army three-star now at Heritage.
“Right now, UAS with smart munitions and kamikaze drones do seem to command the upper hand. But nothing lasts forever,” Spoehr told me. “Regaining freedom of maneuver for tanks might come more from changes in tactics versus technology.”
A historical parallel is how new man-portable anti-tank missiles savaged Israeli armor in the 1973 war, only to have the Israelis learn to flush the missile teams out with infantry. Likewise, the seemingly unstoppable threat of drones could be countered by new tactics aimed at their weak points, for example intensive jamming of their control links and sensors.
Nothing will make the tank invulnerable to drones – but it’s crucial to remember that tanks have never been invulnerable on any battlefield, popular mythmaking aside. Even in the early days during World War I, German artillerymen quickly learned that the new Allied tanks could be destroyed by existing field guns.
In fact, tanks have never even been the toughest target on the battlefield. (There’s actually a Marine Corps saying, “hunting tanks is fun and easy.”) Historically the hardest thing to kill has been deeply dug-in infantry, from the entrenched defenders of the Western Front to the Viet Cong in their tunnels. But trenches and tunnels are stationary, and once infantry gets out of cover and tries to move, it’s horrifically vulnerable to machinegun and artillery fire.
An early British Mark IV tank knocked out near Gaza in 1917.
So the tank was invented in 1916 to restore mobility to the battlefield. Its armor protection allowed it to advance under fire. Its tracks allowed it to cross trenches and other obstacles. Its guns allowed it to destroy enemy weapons that threatened its advance. The primitive tanks of World War I failed to break the deadlock of the trenches, not due to any fault in their armor or weapons, but because their engines proved too unreliable to sustain prolonged advances.
Ever since the blitzkrieg of World War II, however, tanks have been essential tools of battlefield mobility. Even in urban and jungle combat, tanks’ ability to smash through walls and trees while surviving improvised mines allows them to clear paths for the infantry.
Will tanks still be essential and decisive in future wars? Or will they be mere adjuncts to some other, newer weapons system like the swarming drone?
M1 Abrams tanks of the 1st Cavalry Division fire during a NATO Atlantic Resolve exercise in Latvia.
Command Vehicles Or Combat Vehicles?
Even Scharre, the most futuristic-minded expert we spoke to for this story, doesn’t see armored vehicles disappearing entirely. He just doesn’t see them as being the decisive weapon anymore, but a supporting arm.
“I suspect that tanks will not go away completely,” he told me, “but they are likely to go the way of the infantry — as a mopping up force for close-in engagements, rather than the central role tanks have played in ground combat since World War II.”
That central role will shift to ground robots, drones, and long-range missiles, Scharre believes, with the decisive clash often occurring before the humans on opposing sides ever lay eyes on one another. But armored vehicles will still be valuable, especially when humans have to survive maneuvering through a war zone.
“Soldiers will be needed on the battlefield to command-and-control the fight and secure terrain, and they will need to be in armored vehicles to remain protected,” Scharre said. “But the role of armored vehicles is likely to shift, over time, to predominantly command-and-control platforms for a distributed network of air and ground sensors, drones, and robotic platforms.”
Patt, the ex-DARPA official, agreed. “The best replacement for the M1 is likely a customizable multi-domain force package,” he said, combining ground robots, aerial drones, and a manned vehicle “that can pull intel from space when needed, seamlessly call in backup fires, coordinate its own beyond-line-of-sight targeting, and rely on automation in targeting and navigation to multiply the effectiveness of the human crew.” Note that directly engaging targets with a 120mm cannon isn’t on that list.
The Army envisions drones and ground robots advancing ahead of humans in future wars. (Enemy forces are at the left of the chart, friendly forces are moving right to left).
Other experts saw the value both of robot swarms and of something resembling a traditional main battle tank, with a human crew, heavy armor, and big gun to engage the enemy’s toughest targets within line of sight.
“I see the need to diversify our holdings in [armor] to hedge against technology,” said Spoehr. “I think the replacement for the Abrams is not a single vehicle, but several platforms.”
“Some still look like tanks for direct force engagements, when the threat from UAVs is low or technology has found a better, more reliable counter-UAV solution,” he said. “Other, lightly armored manned platforms launch aerial drones and suicide missiles. Still others are fully autonomous platforms controlled by other manned, heavily protected platforms.”
Tactically, Spoehr said, such a force would operate in three waves: first the drones to take out enemy air defenses and command posts, then ground robots, then finally manned main battle tanks to take out the toughest targets.
But why put a human in your heavy tank? Because, bluntly, remote control remains awkward and autonomous robots remain stupid. Sometimes you need an experienced human in the vehicle, onboard. That way they can use all their senses to understand the situation – the smell of smoke, the sound of the guns, the vibration of the engine — instead of staring at a screen. That way, too, their input can’t be hacked, jammed, or otherwise disconnected.
Other functions can be automated in the near future, but not the ability to command a tank in combat, Bendett told me. “This is not something that can be replaced by a neural network or an advanced algorithm anytime soon, given that no one can truly replicate all the nuances of a tank commander’s experience that may span many years, and even decades.”
“The future replacement for an M1 should be a family of vehicles, [including] a manned, well defended tank … which in turn commands a team of mid-sized, heavily defended UGVs [Unmanned Ground Vehicles] for ISR and combat roles, [plus] drones,” he added. “If the UGVs are unable to accomplish their task for some reason, it would be up to a manned tank with a commander who has extensive experience.”
US Army M1 Abrams tank with Trophy Active Protection Systems (APS) and improved protection for machinegun operator.
Upgrade The M1 Or Replace It?
If a manned main battle tank remains necessary, can the M1 Abrams continue to fill that role, or does the Army need a new MBT?
The M1 Abrams could be the centerpiece of the future manned-unmanned armored force, said Bendett. Much as it’s been upgraded in the past multiple times since its introduction in 1980, it just needs to be upgraded again, with counter-drone defenses, electronic warfare, and a command system for the robots.
Lt. Gen. (retired) Guy Swan, vice-president for education at AUSA.
But there are only so many upgrades the old M1 can take, argued Guy Swan, a retired armor officer now with the Association of the US Army.
“One thing is for sure, we cannot continue to hang more on the M1 Abrams frame,” Swan told me. “The tank, while I believe it’s still the best in the world, is far too heavy to navigate regions of the world where ground forces may have to operate.”
“The future tank can and will indeed be less than 60 tons – a threshold for many roads and bridges – without losing crew protection,” he said, thanks to new active and passive protections. That must include sophisticated “masking” both of its visual appearance and of its infrared and radio-frequency emissions, he said, because in a world of drones, “traditional camouflage is not enough.”
A clean-slate tank design would allow for a new engine, Swan added, preferably a hybrid-electric one that puts less strain on supply lines than the M1’s gas-guzzling turbine. It would also allow for an improved turret, although Swan felt the existing 120mm cannon has plenty of potential with upgraded targeting systems and ammunition.
Others felt more firepower was needed for future wars. “55 to 65 tons, [with] a bigger gun or laser, on-board loitering munitions, [an] unmanned turret, [and] hybrid engine,” wrote one retired officer.
CBO projections for future spending on M1 Abrams tanks. SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office
Other sources were more skeptical of new technology – and of the Army’s ability to exploit it. “They are totally unwilling to accept what is doable in anticipation of some magic solution that never seems to become reality,” said one retired industry expert.“[So] they lose momentum and support — and then move on to the next shiny object.”
If you don’t trust the Army to manage a major program, then an upgraded M1 Abrams is the best you can expect. A recent Congressional Budget Office study projected Army spending on armored vehicles through 2050 and predicted that Abrams upgrades would eat a lion’s share of it. “CBO projects that more than 40 percent of the total costs would be for upgrading and remanufacturing Abrams tanks,” the study said, an average of $2 billion a year.
V-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Military Aircraft
A V-22B Osprey of the U.S. Marine Corps takes off from RAF Fairford, United Kingdom.
Stocktrek Images/Getty Images
What it’s known for: Part helicopter, part plane, the Osprey is the world’s first production tiltrotor aircraft, a hybrid that can take off and land vertically (so it could get in and out of difficult situations). But once airborne, it transforms into a turboprop craft that flies faster, farther and at higher altitudes than any conventional helicopter. It serves as the escort fleet for Marine One, the helicopter that carries the American president.
By the numbers: The Osprey can carry up to 24 fully-equipped troops, reach speeds of 350 m.p.h., climb to heights of 25,000 feet (five miles).
Superpowers: It can be refueled in flight. Also, the Osprey’s wings can rotate and turn, making for compact storage aboard ships and planes—like tucking in a car’s side-view mirrors.
History of the M1 Abrams
Main battle tank M1 Abrams has been in service since 1980. Since then, he has already gone through dozens of upgrades and the basic version a few cars.
1. Development. (Развитие)
The first attempt to replace the aging M60 Patton was the MBT-70, developed in partnership with West Germany in the 1960-ies and reaching the stage of testing in 1968. MBT-70 was very ambitious, and innovative ideas that ultimately proved unsuccessful. The result of the inevitable failure of this project, the U.S. Army introduced the XM803. It succeeded only in producing an expensive system with capabilities similar to the M60.
Congress canceled the MBT-70 in November and XM803 December 1971. The army resumed the program the M60s successor major-General William Robertson Desobry leading to the formation of the requirements to the team in March 1972. The representative of the army announced that in April the congressmen that there was little that could be saved from past efforts, and that a new tank will take at least eight years to develop. Task force, the Pentagon has presented the requirements for the tank in January 1973. In April, the Pentagon approved the draft by Brigadier General Robert. Jay Baer as a production Manager. Desobry told the new York times, "we should be shot, if it doesnt work."
Pentagons requirements specified tank guns of 105 and 120-mm bushmaster gun with a caliber between 20 and 30 mm. the Plans called for a tank weighing about 54 tons. By 1973, the army stopped at 3.312 buying new tanks, with the start of production in 1980.
The program cost $3 billion pelted Congressman Les Aspin in July. The Pentagon projected costs per unit of output will be less than us 507.000 dollars in 1972 prices. Aspin argued that expenditure on research and development are accounted for in the tanks will cost more than $900.000 piece compared to $1.3 million for the canceled MBT-70. Noting that the M60 Patton only costs $500.000 each Aspin said: "Im sure the army a new tank instead of two, as well, that we have today."
In June, the Army awarded a low contract for three years - $ 68 million to Chrysler Corporation, $87 million for "General motors Corporation" - for the production of prototypes. In February 1976, two prototypes were tested at Aberdeen proving ground. Chose the Chrysler regenerative gas turbine engine of Avko Lycoming made while GM chose continental diesel engine Teledyne.
They were armed with the licensed version of the Royal ordnance L7 105 mm gun. The Pentagon in 1994, has allowed the West German Leopard 2 to be checked against the U.S. the winner in Aberdeen with the understanding that the better the tank will be accepted by both countries. However, the two countries are unable to reconcile their nationalist differences, so a compromise was made that would both tanks have a common part.
In July, the army recommended to select "General motors" proposal, but this recommendation was ignored by the Pentagon, which asked competitors to change their sentences to share details with the German tank. In November, the army selected Chryslers design. Chryslers offer can be attractive, as the company said can enable Rheinmetall M256 120 mm gun without increasing the cost, weight and production time.
In 1979, General dynamics control ground defense system acquired Chrysler.
3.273 M1 Abrams were produced 1979-85 and first entered Service in the US army in 1980. He was armed with a licensed version of the Royal ordnance L7 105 mm gun. Improved model called the M1IP was produced briefly in 1984 and contained small upgrades. M1IP models were used canadian army trophy NATO tank gunnery tournament in 1985 and 1987.
About 6.000 M1A1 Abrams were produced from 1986-92 and participate in the M256 120 mm smoothbore cannon developed by Rheinmetall AG of Germany for Leopard 2, improved armor, and protection from weapons of mass destruction.
2. War In The Persian Gulf. (Война В Персидском Заливе)
As the Abrams entered service in 1980-ies, they will work together with the M60A3 in the Armed forces of the United States and with other NATO tanks in numerous exercises of the cold war. These exercises are usually conducted in Western Europe, especially West Germany, but also in some other countries, such as South Korea. During such training, Abrams crews honed their skills for use against the people and technology of the Soviet Union. However, by 1991, the Soviet state collapsed and the Abrams would have its trial by fire in the middle East.
Abrams remained untested in combat until the Gulf war in 1991. Superior to the M1A1 for Iraq Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks, as well as Iraqi assembled Russian T-72S and domestically produced copies Asad Babil tank. T-72S like most Soviet export designs lacked night vision systems and then-modern rangefinders, though they did have some night fighting tanks with older active infrared systems or floodlights - just not the latest starlight scopes and passive infrared scopes as on the Abrams. Only 23 M1A1s were taken out of operation in the Persian Gulf. Some other minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. Very few M1 tanks were hit by enemy fire and was destroyed as a direct result of enemy fire, but deaths due to enemy fire.
The M1A1 was capable of killing at a distance of over 2.500 meters 8.200 feet. This range is crucial in the fight against tanks of Soviet design "desert Storm" as the effective range of the gun in the Soviet / Iraqi tanks was less than 2.000 meters 6.600 feet of the Iraqi tanks could not fire anti-tank missiles like their Russian counterparts. This meant Abrams tanks could hit Iraqi tanks before the enemy got in range - a decisive advantage in this kind of struggle. In friendly fire incidents, the front armor and fore side turret armor survived direct hits from other M1A1s. This was not the case for the side armor of the hull and the rear armor of the turret, as both areas were penetrated at least in two cases, friendly du ammunition during the battle of Norfolk.
On the night of 26 February 1991, four Abrams were disabled, possibly a result of friendly fire by Hellfire missiles fired from Ah-64 Apache attack helicopters, the result of some crew members were injured. The tanks were part of TF 1-37, attacking a large part of the Tawakalna division of the Republican guard, the number is B-23, C-12, D-24 and C-66. Abrams C-12 was definitively hit and penetrated a friendly du shot and there is some evidence that another Iraqi T-72 may have scored one hit on b-23, besides the alleged missile strike.
Tanks D-24 and C-66 took some casualties, but only b-23 became a permanent loss. All Dods in damage assessment to state that b-23 was the only M1 with signs of a Hellfire missile, nearby.
Also during the Gulf war, three Abrams of the US 24th infantry division were left behind enemy lines after a swift attack on Talil airfield, South of Nasiriyah, on February 27. One of them was shot down by enemy fire, the two other embedded in mud. Tanks were destroyed by US forces in order to prevent any trophy-a statement of the Iraqi army.
3. Update the interwar. (Обновление межвоенный)
After lessons in the Gulf war, Abrams and many other us combat vehicles used in the conflict were equipped with combat identification panels to reduce friendly fire. They were installed on the sides and rear of the turret, with flat panels equipped with a quadrangular box, the image on the side of the turret front that can be seen in the below image, similar flat panels also used on the British Challenger 2 tanks serving in the conflict.
In addition to the Abrams already heavy armament, some crews were also issued M136 AT4 shoulder anti-tank weapons under the pretext that they might have to engage heavy armor in tight urban areas where the guns could not be used. Some Abrams were also fitted with a secondary storage bin on the back of the existing bustle for clothes on the back of the tower called rack extensions the hustle and bustle, to allow the crew to carry more supplies and personal belongings.
The M1A2 is a further improvement of the M1A1 with commanders independent thermal imager and a war module, the installation of navigation equipment, digital data bus and radio interface unit. The expansion pack system M1A2 Sep added digital maps, FBCB2 command XXI brigade and below battle capabilities, and an improved cooling system to maintain the temperature of the crew compartment with the addition of several computer systems to the M1A2 tank.
Further upgrades include depleted uranium armor for all variants, a system overhaul that returns all A1s to like-new condition M1A1 aim, a digital enhancement package for the A1 M1A1D, and a commonality program to standardize parts between the U.S. army and the marine corps M1A1HC and electronic upgrade for the A2 M1A2 Sep.
During operations desert Shield and desert Storm and in Bosnia, some M1A1s were modified with armor upgrades. M1 can be equipped with a mine plow and attachments my video, if necessary. The M1 chassis also serves as the basis for the Grizzly combat engineering vehicle and the M104 Wolverine heavy assault bridge.
For 8.800 tanks M1 and M1A1 were issued at a price of US$2.35–$4.30 million per unit, depending on the variant.
4. The War In Iraq. (Война В Ираке)
Further combat was seen in 2003, when American troops invaded Iraq and overthrew Iraqi leader Saddam Husseins invasion, which lasted only 43 days March 20 to may 1. M1 tanks have proven effective in leading to a rapid attack against the Iraqi military, for example can serve the so-called thunder runs. In March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks shipped back to the United States for repair due to fire from enemy attacks. Abandoned Abrams were purposely destroyed by fire to prevent recovery of vehicle or technology. Damage 25 AP-du-mm anti-tank RPGs and 12.7 mm ammunition was discovered. There have been no confirmed cases of anti-tank guided weapons or anti-tank mines MBTS amaze us. However, there is speculation that the ATGM "Kornet" was used in the battle of Najaf to knock out two Abrams, but Russian officials denied selling weapons to Iraq. It is known that two Abrams was struck by an unknown weapon, and they fire ammunition depots. However, both crews escaped without serious injury. Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes using short-range missiles, anti-tank weapons such as RPG-7. Although the RPG-7 is unable to penetrate the front and sides, rear and top are vulnerable to this weapon. Often the rockets were fired at the tank tracks.
One Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a RPG warhead penetrated to the rear of the engine compartment. It was reported two cases of losses during the battle for Baghdad, with one Abrams can be knocked out after hitting many medium weapons, including 12.7-mm cartridges that rupture a fuel tank stored on an external rack. This started a fire which spread to the engine. April 4, two Abrams were destroyed by anti-aircraft guns, and the 5th of April, another was hit by recoilless rifle and was set on fire. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and.50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Then another M1 released heat round in order to ensure the destruction of the tank disabled. Abrams was completely disabled but still intact. Later, the air force bombed the tank to destroy it in place, and the Ministry of information of Iraq claimed responsibility for destroying it.
The most lopsided achievement of the M1A2s was the destruction of seven Lion of Babylon tanks in a point-blank skirmish less than 50 yards 46 m) near Najaf on April 3, with no losses for the American side. As usual, the Iraqi tanks were severely hampered by badly trained crews, slow and complicated tanks, and unregulated gun. At March 31, 2003 Abrams, belonging to the marine Corps of the United States went off the bridge at night, dropping the tank into the Euphrates river and drowning four of the crew.
June 6, 2006, two of the four soldiers in an Abrams crew were killed during fighting in Baghdad when an explosive device detonated near their M1A2.
2 Aug 2006 M1A1 commanded a U.S. marine Sergeant George M. Ulloa was hit by two improvised explosive devices in Anbar province, killing Sergeant Ulloa.
By December 2006, more than 530 Abrams tanks had been shipped back to USA for repair.
4.1. The War In Iraq. The Use Of Iraq. (Использование Ираке)
It was reported that 28 Iraqi army Abrams had been damaged in fighting with militants, five of them suffering full armour penetration when hit by ATGM in the period between 1 January and until the end of may 2014, some of them were destroyed or badly damaged by militants placing explosives on the vehicles, pointing to the lack of infantry support for the Iraqi soldiers. In mid-2014, Iraqi army Abrams tanks had seen when the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant launched in June Northern Iraq offensive 2014. Some M1A1M tanks the Iraqi army was destroyed in fighting against ISIL forces, while an unknown number were captured intact. At least one ISIL-controlled M1A1M Abrams messages were used in the capture of the Mosul dam in early August 2014. Abrams suffered its first heavy losses at the hands of ISIS militants against Iraqi sister using explosive devices, anti-tank missiles "cornet", as captured tanks later destroyed by American air strikes. The main reason for these losses was the poor training of the Iraqi tank operators and the lack of coordination of infantry. About one third of the 140 Abrams tanks delivered to the Iraqi army were captured or destroyed by ISIS. By December 2014, the Iraqi army had only about 40 operational Abrams left. In the same month, the U.S. State Department approved the sale of 175 Abrams in Iraq. Tanks can be equipped with additional protection functions to protect against ISIS mines, bombs, and other attacks, including belly armor, dynamic protection, 360 degree night vision sensors, sapper shovels, and rollers, and a wide focus equipped with a remotely controlled gun mount. If approved by Congress and funded by the government of Iraq, improvements can be made within 18 months. Until the end of 2015, some Iraqi Abrams tanks that have been removed for repairs of the premises were re-equipped with Russian heavy machine guns, firing Iranian-made munitions that may violate the contracts of sale, prohibiting the use of material of the Shiite militias and unauthorized uploads of foreign weapons.
From February to April 2016, Iraqi army troops returned to the city of Hit from ISIL. Participated in the work of the three drive Iraqi tanks M1A1 Abrams, but the two broke in the beginning. Working lone Abrams has performed exceptionally in combat, destruction of enemy IEDs, punching holes in the defense and maneuvering between multiple assignments. American forces monitoring Iraqi movements thought that a few tanks have been in use and was surprised to learn, was to work alone, crediting the success of U.S trained crew. Abrams was nicknamed "the Beast" and a few achieved the status of folklore among the Iraqi people.
In October of 2017, Iraqi tanks M1A1 "Abrams" was named the Kurdish sources as the key to Iraqs victory in the battle of Kirkuk as the Kurdish Peshmerga did not possess weapons, which could withstand tanks. However, at the end of the war in Alton-Kopri and Zumar, Kurdish Peshmerga destroyed two Iraqi Abrams tanks in two days of missile systems Milan.
5. Yemen civil war 2015–present. (Гражданского 2015–настоящее время войны в Йемене)
Starting in 2015, Saudi Arabia deployed its army M1 tanks in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. Although the exact number of casualties is not clear due to poor reporting from the conflict, it became clear that a number of Saudi tanks were lost to enemy forces with ATGM, RPG and mines. In the summer of 2016, the deal to sell more than 153 M1 tanks to Saudi Arabia was open, with 20 of them were tagged as the "battle replacements damage", implying that a similar number of tanks to Saudi M1 was lost to the enemy.
6. Afghanistan. (Афганистан)
Operating tanks in Afghanistan can be difficult due to terrain, although Canada and Denmark have deployed tanks in Afghanistan, which has been specifically upgraded to fight in the harsh Afghan conditions. The United States sent 16 tanks M1A1 Abrams Marines and 115 in southern Afghanistan in support of operations in Helmand and Kandahar in late 2010.
7. Future. (Будущее)
Monitored M8 armored gun was conceived as a possible Supplement for the Abrams in the US Arsenal for low-intensity conflict in the early 1990-ies. Prototypes were made, but the program was cancelled. 8-wheel system M1128 mobile gun was designed to Supplement the Abrams in the US Arsenal for low-intensity conflicts. He was commissioned and, although mobile, he was quite vulnerable.
The U.S. Armys future combat systems XM1202 mounted combat system was to replace the Abrams in the US Arsenal and in the later stages of development when funding for the program was cut from the budget all Dods.
In September 2009, the army times and marine corps published reports that researchers at the U.S. army began the process of developing a version of the Abrams, which will bear the label of the M1A3. According to reports, the army is committed to reducing vehicle weight of approximately 60 tonnes from the current operating weight of about 75 tons. In addition, the M1A3 may include a new generation of advanced networking capabilities and enhanced armour protection. Other improvements include a lighter 120 mm gun, added road wheels with improved suspension, more durable track, lighter armor, long-range precision armaments, and infrared camera and laser detectors. A new internal computer system is also planned, with the current cabling replaced by fiber-optic cables that can reduce weight by two tons. The army currently aims to build prototypes by 2014 and begin, however, the first efficient M1A3s by 2017 due to financial shortcomings and delays, there is another tank, produced in the knowledge society.
Developing ground combat vehicle sought to create a family of combat vehicles that would permanently replace the M1 as well as many other U.S. army vehicles. The army assumes that the Abrams may remain in service until 2050.
7.1. Future. Production. (Производство)
The military planned to close the M1 Abrams factory in Ohio from 2013 to 2016 to save over 1 billion dollars. In 2017, the station will be open for upgrading existing tanks. Minus three-year plant closing is the loss of qualified human capital required to build the M1. These types of skills must be learned on the job as the building is too unique to offer any type of educational program in a trade school.
By August 2013, Congress had allocated $181 million for the purchase of spare parts and upgrading Abrams systems to mitigate industrial base risks and ensuring sustainable development and production opportunities. Congress and General dynamics were criticized for redirecting money to keep production lines open and accused of "forcing the army to buy tanks it doesnt need".General dynamics argued that the four years of downtime will cost $1.1–1.6 billion to re-open the line, depending on the length of any outage, whether a technique will work, and whether components of the plant will be completely removed. They argued that the move was to upgrade army National guard units to deploy "clean the Park" and maintain production of identified "essential" components, the suspension can lead them manufacturers lose the ability to produce them and foreign tank sales are not guaranteed to keep production lines open. Even if the money is spent to protect the industrial base, some believe that these strategic decisions should not be taken by members of Congress, especially with objects in their area. There is still the risk of production gaps even with production extended through 2015, the funds allocated, if necessary, the recapitalization, the budget problems may push planned new upgrades for the Abrams from 2017 to 2019. In December 2014, Congress allocated another $120 million, against the wishes of the army, for the modernization of the Abrams, including improving gas mileage by integrating an auxiliary power unit to decrease idle time fuel consumption and upgrading tanks and sensors.
History of the M1 Abrams: m1a2sep v1, ттх абрамс'' и т - 90, новый танк сша, abrams battle tank, a1m1, танк абрамс система заряжания, танк абрамс дальность стрельбы, rheinmetall 130mm
Новый танк сша.
Fact Sheet: M1 Abrams Tank Center for Arms Control and Non. An M1 Abrams tank fires its main gun during a live fire exercise at Pabrade Training Area, Lithuania, Dec. 10, 2020. The Army has awarded a. Танк абрамс дальность стрельбы. The History of Tank Development in the United States Philologia. Intended as a guide for military vehicle modellers, this highly detailed look at the M1 Abrams tank is as much a history of the vehicle as a modellers aid. M1a2sep v1. Female armor officers prepare to lead Idaho Soldiers into combat. Combat proven and fielded in over 2000 US Army Abrams Main Battle Tanks to date, the DVE A offers the latest in long wave thermal imaging capabilities.
M1A1 2 Abrams third generation main battle tank from GDLS. The researchers will also retrofit the M1 Abrams tank pictured to make it We also have a history of working with the military, so this research. A1m1. M1 Abrams Tank National Museum of American History. History of the M1 Abrams. A destroyed USMC M1A1 Abrams rests in front of a Fedayeen camp just outside Jaman Al Juburi, Iraq in April 2003.
Танк абрамс система заряжания.
History of the M1 Abrams Tank, Tanks military, Military Pinterest. Опубликовано: 18 мар. 2018 г. Abrams Tank Upgrade USAASC. Продолжительность: 2:55. M1 Abrams Tank Procedure Guides Dtic. The M1 Abrams Tank System Maintainer is the primary tank mechanic for Abrams tanks and other armored vehicles. Begin your career as a.
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank Final Drive – Loc Performance.
The History of Tank Development in the United States Due to the nature of the cavalrys armored doctrine, the M1 Combat Car was never meant for these. History of the M1 Abrams pedia. January 21, 2020 Topic: History Region: Americas Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: Key point: The Army has used the M1 Abrams as its main battle tank for nearly. M1 Abrams pedia. 3.273 M1 Abrams were produced 1979 85 and first entered US Army service in 1980. About 6.000 M1A1 Abrams were produced from 1986–92 and featured the M256 120 mm smoothbore cannon developed by Rheinmetall AG of Germany for the Leopard 2, improved armor, and a CBRN protection system. The UK Invented The First Tanks. Now It May Retire Them For Good. M1 ABRAMS TANK MAINTAINER Perform maintenance on the suspension, steering, hydraulic, auxiliary power, fire extinguisher suppression and gas particulate. General Dynamics is awarded a $4.6 billion contract for upgraded. M1 Abrams Tank Michael Green 2015 10 30 This pictorial history of the legendary M1 Abrams Tank illustrates its versatility and advancement from the Cold War.
Sherman M4 vs. M1A1 Abrams HISTORY.
Nov 7, 2020 Explore Morgan Vons board M1 Abrams on Pinterest. See more I study German and German American history and onomastics. Vehemently. XM 1 and M1 Abrams: The Last Chrysler Tanks Allpar Forums. Investing in the legendary M1 Abrams tank is at the heart of the U.S. the most effective, reliable and lethal battle tank in the history of war. M1 Abrams At War City of Oberlin Forms. Продолжительность: 4:40.
Abrams Drivers Vision Enhancer DVE A Leonardo DRS.
The M1 Abrams tank is a third generation main battle tank said that the Army is on record saying we do not require any additional M1A2s. M1 Abrams Tractor & Construction Plant Fandom. Get this from a library! M1 Abrams main battle tank the combat and development history of the General Dynamics M1 and M1A1 tanks.
Sherman, Pershing, Patton, Abrams: A history of US Army tanks.
M1 Abrams Armored Vehicles M1A1 Abrams M1A2 Abrams M1A2 Abrams SEP M1 Abrams. Group: Main Battle Tanks. Status: Retired. Origin: Contractor s:. M1 Abrams: Americas Main Battle Tank $19.99 Schiffer Publishing. In 1990, Loc was the first small business to be awarded a multi year contract by TACOM for M1 Final Drives. Loc worked with TACOM engineering to resolve the. M1 Abrams main battle tank the combat and development history of. The Abrams fleet consists of two variants: the M1A1 SA Situational Awareness and the M1A2 SEP System Enhancement Program version 2. The M1A2.
General Dynamics to upgrade 786 Abrams main battle tanks and.
This pictorial history of the legendary M1 Abrams Tank illustrates its versatility and advancement from the Cold War Era to the present day. The M1 Abrams has. 200 M1 Abrams ideas in 2020 m1 abrams, military vehicles, battle. HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate. RELATED CONTENT.
Army investigating how M1 Abrams accidentally fired on another.
Was introduced in 1979, entered service in 1980 and is still undergoing production. The system has been featured in the 1991 Gulf War and Bosnia along with the US invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Life After Abrams: If it doesnt look or act like a tank, it still may be the. The first M1 Abrams battle tanks were delivered to the US Army in 1980. A total of 3.273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army, 4.796 M1A1 tanks were built for.
The Effect of Age on the M1 Tank: Implications for Readiness.
Center, marking the first time female armor officers qualified in the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank in the Idaho Army National Guards history. What Will the Armys M1 Abrams Tank Replacement Look Like?. An M1 Abrams main battle tank has reportedly fired on another tank in an accident during a tank qualification exercise at Fort Bliss on July 20. M1 Abrams Main battle tank YouTube. The M1 tank is a complex weapon system that incorporates many technolog GIS reticle circle sole switch in mlE reticle. 39. AZ AL values. Record. 40.
Why did this Iraqi army brigade swap its American Abrams tanks for.
Simple History. 3.12M subscribers. Join. Subscribe. Please consider supporting our videos on Patreon. M1 Abrams Tank Pen & Sword Books Pen & Sword Books. The M1 Abrams is a third generation American main battle tank designed History. Main article: History of the M1 Abrams.
6 things you didnt know about the M1 Abrams We Are The Mighty.
Minnesota Historical Society Visit. Overview Twitter Facebook Correct Print. Color image of M1 Abrams tanks arrive at Camp Ripley on flatcars, 2015. M1 Abrams Tank Mechanic. Today, the UK may make history again as an integrated review of slower but slightly better armored peers of the U.S. M1 Abrams tank. M1 Abrams Tank Replacement: Clues About the Armys Next Tank. Assaults to the past effectiveness of tanks and the M1 Abrams while operating 6 Robert Sunell, Camp Colt to Desert Storm: The History of US Armored Forces. M1 Abrams War Thunder. If you ally compulsion such a referred m1 abrams at war ebook that will find the money for you worth, get the completely History of the M1 Abrams pedia.
a1m1, танк абрамс система заряжания, танк абрамс дальность стрельбы, rheinmetall 130mm, 130mm, ттх абрамс и т - 90, m1a2sep, m1a2sep v1, History of the M1 Abrams