This is a composite input from Clarythedrill and myself. He was able to update some information. It has been a long time since I have ridden in tanks.

I was a former Army Tank Officer so I will discuss the attributes of M1A2 tanks. I think perhaps some of you might be interested.

Notice how relatively quiet these tanks are. The suspension is so good that we call it the Cadillac ride. That is the reasons that the tanks can travel so quickly on relatively smooth terrain that would be rough for other vehicles.

It has two types of rounds:
- HEAT rounds uses a shaped charge that creates a jet stream of liquid metal that is traveling at ~25k miles an hour.
- Sabot rounds are kinetic rounds. They are darts perhaps 1.5 feet long, 1.5 inches in diameter, weigh around 20 lbs. and travel at one mile per second.

It also has a canister round (think big ass shotgun shell for use against infantry), MPAT (multi purpose anti-tank, and STAFF, which is a fire and forget round. We currently do not use the STAFF round.

The tank can hit a moving target while the tank is moving because of a ballistic computer. The computer requires inputs like wind velocity and direction, barometric pressure, humidity, ammunition lot number.

It only takes a wind reading perpendicular to the tanks, and wind only affects the round for the first three feet out of the tube, after that there is no crosswind affect. It does not take any humidity reading at all, but does take a air temp and ammo temp reading which is manually entered. It also does not care about lot numbers, only the type of round you have indexed into the computer.

The engine is a 1500 HP turbine engine. It can travel 45 MPH and 60 MPH if the governors are removed.

It weighs around 70 tons.

The gunner has a 7.62 M240 machine gun that is linked to the ballistic computer. As the tank commander I had a 50-caliber machine gun.

Yep, the newest ones have a CROWS system mounted on top of the doghouse for the TC. There is no longer the flex mount up there.

We are starting to put Israeli made Trophy Systems on the tanks. The system detects incoming rounds and shoots a large shotgun blast at the round a few meters from the tank.

The effective range is 3000 meters, but I think the classified range is further.

The max effective range for the M1A2 is 5000 meters for the main gun, and 900 meters for the coax. The laser rangefinder will give a range out to 9990 meters, but will only give a ballistic solution to 5000 regardless of ammo type or weapon selected. The .50 is 1800 meters or tracer burnout.

Many of our tactics are similar to infantry tactics but with much more speed. That is a challenge.

A few more notes on upgrades found in the latest production version:
M-1A2 SEPv3
XM-1147

Ukraine says "Hold My Beer."

Anyone interested in this should read "King of the Killing Zone" by Orr Kelly.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2350602.King_of_the_Killing_Zone

The M1 is a great tank, even as old as it is, but anyone getting commissioned in the Army today and contemplating Armor as a branch may want to contemplate some more.

OldArmyCT said:

---

The M1 is a great tank, even as old as it is, but anyone getting commissioned in the Army today and contemplating Armor as a branch may want to contemplate some more.

---

Why do you say that?

When I went through the Advanced Course back 2000, what they told us was that the main limiting factor on the max range of the main gun was the ability to positively ID targets. The optics that they were just then fielding on the newest upgrades to the M1 and M2/M3 could see tank/vehicle sized targets out to 8000-10000 meters, but they couldn't get a good ID until about 5000 meters.

Except in really, really flat and open terrain, that's not much of an issue, as any potential target will be probably hidden by some kind of terrain - a rise or dip in the ground doesn't have to be that big to hide something that far away.

I don't think we've really seen how well designed, well maintained, properly employed active defense systems fair against Javelin-type missiles. It's kind of amazing the think that the Javelin is really a quarter century old weapon system (it was being fielded by the 82nd when I was IOBC in 1996), but Ukraine is really it's first battlefield test against the kinds of threats it was designed for.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

OldArmyCT said:

---

The M1 is a great tank, even as old as it is, but anyone getting commissioned in the Army today and contemplating Armor as a branch may want to contemplate some more.

---

Why do you say that?

---

I'd be curious as well.

My HS senior son has dreamed his whole life of commanding an M1 and is currently applying to Norwich, VMI and Citadel to make that happen.

He likely isn't career army (but you never know) but he wants to serve and fulfill a dream.

I've done a lot of reading since the Ukes started popping tops so easily and most of what I've read is that the M1 is orders of magnitude more survivable than the russian tanks.

Ol army 92 said:

---

Buck Turgidson said:

---

OldArmyCT said:

---

The M1 is a great tank, even as old as it is, but anyone getting commissioned in the Army today and contemplating Armor as a branch may want to contemplate some more.

---

Why do you say that?

---

I'd be curious as well.

My HS senior son has dreamed his whole life of commanding an M1 and is currently applying to Norwich, VMI and Citadel to make that happen.

He likely isn't career army (but you never know) but he wants to serve and fulfill a dream.

I've done a lot of reading since the Ukes started popping tops so easily and most of what I've read is that the M1 is orders of magnitude more survivable than the russian tanks.

---

People are watching the evening news and are seeing all the russian tanks missing their turrets, so they probably think that the tank is no longer a viable front line weapons platform due to the ease in which the russians are losing theirs.

The thing is, the russians do not practice the Combines Arms concept, and we do. We are smart enough to not send tanks into a city without infantry support. In fact, every one of our "Armored" battalions has a mech infantry company in it, and every mech "Infantry" battalion has one tank company in it. To compare the U.S. Army to the russian army, without taking into account our concepts and tactics, is pretty shortsighted and, well, stupid.

I said that simply BC the OPFOR has weapons today they didn't have when tanks roamed freely. Our tactics alone far exceed anything you see from the Russians today and we would in no way have the losses they are experiencing but a tank crew, while still a lethal battlefield threat, are vulnerable as heck. In the Iraq war Apaches picked off enemy tanks at will due to superior optics and longer range weapons. When the M1 was fielded (1977 or so) TOW's and Dragons were new, the weapons available to the infantry today to counter armor are prolific. And inside a buttoned up tank once you see a projectile headed your way, if you see it, you aren't doing much about it.

Don't know if he is still on here but we do have a member who was

" Platoon Commander for 3rd Platoon/C Company/4-66 Armor/3rd Brigade/3rd Infantry Division (attached as the 1st Brigade/1st Armored Division)--attacked as part of Operation Desert Storm into southeastern Iraq before destroying Iraqi military forces during the Battle of al-Busayah and then the Battle of Medina Ridge, the largest tank battle in U.S. Army history."

I am sure he can testify as to what it was like to shoot and be shot at at very close ranges in an M1.

I'll defer to anyone with more recent tanker time, which is just about anyone on this board. I was a tank platoon leader in 1973-4 at Ft Hood in M60-A1's, later had the mortar platoon and commanded the CSC, but at the time I was already an aviator with a tour in Vietnam as a gunship pilot so after AOAC I went back to aviating. My last Army tour before retiring was in the 24th Infantry Division as the Avn Bde S-3 and a battalion XO, I retired a month before Desert Storm so I missed that but I had 5 NTC rotations and in my opinion a tank doesn't stand a chance against an Apache and with the way anti-tank weapons are being developed and deployed today the equation hasn't changed much except to make tanks more vulnerable. But once again I have been out of the Army way longer than I was in so I'll defer to you younger and smarter guys,

OldArmyCT said:

---

I'll defer to anyone with more recent tanker time, which is just about anyone on this board. I was a tank platoon leader in 1973-4 at Ft Hood in M60-A1's, later had the mortar platoon and commanded the CSC, but at the time I was already an aviator with a tour in Vietnam as a gunship pilot so after AOAC I went back to aviating. My last Army tour before retiring was in the 24th Infantry Division as the Avn Bde S-3 and a battalion XO, I retired a month before Desert Storm so I missed that but I had 5 NTC rotations and in my opinion a tank doesn't stand a chance against an Apache and with the way anti-tank weapons are being developed and deployed today the equation hasn't changed much except to make tanks more vulnerable. But once again I have been out of the Army way longer than I was in so I'll defer to you younger and smarter guys,

---

"73-74 at Fort Hood in M60-A1's" - I used to sit out on West Range Road with my Grandfather and watch you shoot on the tank ranges. Ya'll would drive by and wave. It was the most coolest thing in the world for a 10 year kid. The ground shaking and the diesel fumes- just like it was yesterday. Saw the M-60 Starships too.

I found this open source breakdown of the Russian army's losses in Ukraine: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

I found it interesting that the bulk of the Russians' tank losses are T-72s of various marks. I don't know how many of those were destroyed by Javelins or other top attack missiles as opposed to tank guns, mines, artillery, and so on. But it is notable that even the most recent (obr 2016) mark of the T-72 lacks an active protection system. I believe the T-80UM-1 to be the oldest Russian tank fitted with their Arena system, and that was as an upgrade, not from the factory.

And, as pointed out, the Russians don't do what we in the West think of as combined arms tactics very well at all. Aside from a few top-line formations, Russian infantry is generally of poor quality. The Russians historically make up for this with artillery, and lots of it. (See Grozny, or what's left of it, for an example.)

So judging that the age of the tank is over, based on the war in Ukraine, seems premature to me.

I think the age of the tank is in fact over but that tanks won't leave the battle field for many more years. Certainly Desert Storm was the last time we will see divisions of armor maneuvering on the battle field together as we did in WW2. In many peoples minds I think that's what they think of when the age of the tank is discussed and thus the basis for my statement that the "age of the tank" is over.

All the talk of we use tanks differently than Russia and that's going to increase their survivability isn't looking at the reality of the situation. Our M1A2 Sep V3's are too expensive to lose in any large numbers. If we lost half the tanks that Russia has we would be almost out of tanks. We can't replace them. We simply don't have enough M1 hulls left to upgrade and don't have the ability to build more. That makes them too expensive to lose in large numbers and thus we can't risk using. The day's of an armor task force as the tip of the spear, breaking through and exploiting the rear area of an enemy force is long gone. Tanks will be used much more sparingly, to solidify a defensive position, secure a flank, or quickly maneuver to stop a break through, in my opinion.

Does combined arms integration, smarter use and a better platform increase survivability on the battle field, Yes it does. I don't think it would reduce losses by more than half of what the Russians have sustained. If you take over 500 tanks out of our force and we can't sustain our current armored units.

Add to that every anti tank arms manufacture in the world is having the best real world testing of their weapons and they are all present. Those manufactures are already upgrading and increasing the lethality of their weapons so the future battle field will be even more deadly to armor than what we are seeing in Ukraine.

Finally, ultimate death knell to the tank is it's long tail. The combination of ISR assets finding and targeting the supply depots and refueling points and long range precision munitions destroying them makes it almost impossible to sustain a tank force within a 100 miles of the front line. If tanks are fighting and driving they have to refuel at least every day. If they have to drive even 60 miles to do that, they are out of the fight for half a day just to refuel. Fight for a day, then drive back for more fuel. It makes sustaining them in the fight for any length of time, very difficult.

Speaking to the Russian losses, they never upgraded the majority of their force from the various T-72 upgrades. That's the bulk of their force and thus the largest number of destroyed tanks. They have deployed their point defense system on T-90's and apparently all have been killed and photo's of the wrecks are available on open source sites. The Russians only built a few of these and likely don't have the money to continue production.

CT'97 said:

---

I think the age of the tank is in fact over but that tanks won't leave the battle field for many more years. Certainly Desert Storm was the last time we will see divisions of armor maneuvering on the battle field together as we did in WW2. In many peoples minds I think that's what they think of when the age of the tank is discussed and thus the basis for my statement that the "age of the tank" is over.

All the talk of we use tanks differently than Russia and that's going to increase their survivability isn't looking at the reality of the situation. Our M1A2 Sep V3's are too expensive to lose in any large numbers. If we lost half the tanks that Russia has we would be almost out of tanks. We can't replace them. We simply don't have enough M1 hulls left to upgrade and don't have the ability to build more. That makes them too expensive to lose in large numbers and thus we can't risk using. The day's of an armor task force as the tip of the spear, breaking through and exploiting the rear area of an enemy force is long gone. Tanks will be used much more sparingly, to solidify a defensive position, secure a flank, or quickly maneuver to stop a break through, in my opinion.

Does combined arms integration, smarter use and a better platform increase survivability on the battle field, Yes it does. I don't think it would reduce losses by more than half of what the Russians have sustained. If you take over 500 tanks out of our force and we can't sustain our current armored units.

Add to that every anti tank arms manufacture in the world is having the best real world testing of their weapons and they are all present. Those manufactures are already upgrading and increasing the lethality of their weapons so the future battle field will be even more deadly to armor than what we are seeing in Ukraine.

Finally, ultimate death knell to the tank is it's long tail. The combination of ISR assets finding and targeting the supply depots and refueling points and long range precision munitions destroying them makes it almost impossible to sustain a tank force within a 100 miles of the front line. If tanks are fighting and driving they have to refuel at least every day. If they have to drive even 60 miles to do that, they are out of the fight for half a day just to refuel. Fight for a day, then drive back for more fuel. It makes sustaining them in the fight for any length of time, very difficult.

Speaking to the Russian losses, they never upgraded the majority of their force from the various T-72 upgrades. That's the bulk of their force and thus the largest number of destroyed tanks. They have deployed their point defense system on T-90's and apparently all have been killed and photo's of the wrecks are available on open source sites. The Russians only built a few of these and likely don't have the money to continue production.

---

Thats what they thought years ago when they took armored units out of Germany. Now you have three US ABCTs back there again. Plus, Russian tanks are not Abrams tanks. No comparison. Also, the Poles are buying 250 M1A2 v3s. They will lead the NATO fight in Europe and obviously don't agree with your assessment. Don't disagree with sustainment challenges but not anything near what you are describing. You must be infantry?

It's important not to immediately leap to broad conclusions from a brief conflict.

Armor will adapt and be of enduring utility on the battlefield.

MOVE-COUNTERMOVE

74OA said:

---

It's important not to immediately leap to broad conclusions from a brief conflict.

Armor will adapt and be of enduring utility on the battlefield.

MOVE-COUNTERMOVE

---

yes.... it's been that way for 4-5000 years

cavscout96 said:

---

74OA said:

---

It's important not to immediately leap to broad conclusions from a brief conflict.

Armor will adapt and be of enduring utility on the battlefield.

MOVE-COUNTERMOVE

---

yes.... it's been that way for 4-5000 years

---

Yep, here's a further discussion that's well worth watching. One of the host's tongue-in-cheek comments is that drones and ATMs are no closer to making tanks obsolete than the advent of bullets made infantry obsolete.

TANKS

Tank's aren't leaving the battlefield and I said as much. After WW1 we relegated the sniper because we thought without trench warfare there was no need for such a position in an infantry unit. Yet we still have snipers, who do a very different job than they did in WW1. A job where they spend the majority of their time in a hide site observing an NAI for days and relaying information or calling for fires from a different platform. Do they still take shots at priority targets as their forefathers did, yes, but it's far from their primary role on the modern battlefield.

Thus the tank will also adapt and that's probably more along the lines of what I meant when I said the age of the tank was gone. Tank units won't role across the planes of some foreign country in division formation or probably even in battalion formations for that matter. They will change in form and their uses will change as well.

Ol army 92 said:

---

Buck Turgidson said:

---

OldArmyCT said:

---

The M1 is a great tank, even as old as it is, but anyone getting commissioned in the Army today and contemplating Armor as a branch may want to contemplate some more.

---

Why do you say that?

---

I'd be curious as well.

My HS senior son has dreamed his whole life of commanding an M1 and is currently applying to Norwich, VMI and Citadel to make that happen.

He likely isn't career army (but you never know) but he wants to serve and fulfill a dream.

I've done a lot of reading since the Ukes started popping tops so easily and most of what I've read is that the M1 is orders of magnitude more survivable than the russian tanks.

---

Howdy Classmate - whomever you are.

I'm glad to see your son is keeping his options open.
VMI turned out to be a great experience for my youngest daughter.

As far as your son going Armor, I think that Tanks have a future however, they are expensive to purchase and expensive to operate. For these reasons alone, they'll be unpopular with the bean counters.

Plus we have so many folks who believe in wonder weapons, drones, etc. that can do more for less.

We were focused on Central Europe for 80+ years but I think in the 21st Century, we're going to want weapons that can provide mobility, firepower and shock effect on the streets of Shanghai and Beijing.

all that said, i do think that swarmed drone/direct fire missles, etc., make the investment and use of signifiant armored assets very questionable.

i cant say obsolete, by any means, but i think things are clearly trending more into the robotics/AI/missile/drone/mobile infantry tech than a class manned big gun heavy armored vehicle.

The odds of a drone operator destroying a tank or 3 are way better than the odds of a tank destroying a drone operator.

Who all knew this was coming out?
https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0hodXy9E?pd=01pMdgpx&lang=en_US&s=i16

OldArmyCT said:

---

Who all knew this was coming out?
https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0hodXy9E?pd=01pMdgpx&lang=en_US&s=i16

---

The competition had been going on for several years. MPF

IMO I don't see the issue as whether or not tanks are still effective and viable or not - they are. The question is really:

1) Are they as effective per $ (and man) as other options.

and

2) Given their cost and complexity - what is their ability to be replenished in any sort of extended combat role.

I see the margins on #1 getting slimmer every day for certain combat roles. For others, the tank will still win out. Therefore I think I see a reduced usage in the future, but not a total elimination. A change in role as well perhaps (TBD).

#2 is the biggest problem for tanks (not unique to tanks but to all large/complicated hardware). For any given military action you will pretty much never have more tanks than you do than when you start. For extended action like we see in Ukraine this becomes a problem. Admittedly, this becomes a problem for both sides that rely on hardware that has similar replacement cycles. But what if your opponent has been counteracting your tanks with hardware that is quicker/cheaper to replace?

It's the old story of having all your eggs in one basket. Except in this case that basket might be 10 tanks. While your opponent says "hey I can't even afford to replace 1 of those 10, therefore I'll use manpads, drones, etc. to counteract them which I can quickly replace and field in the hundreds". They can counter your 10 tanks with solutions that are cheaper and faster to replace while you are stuck with your 10 tanks that cost more and take longer to replace.

This hasn't been a problem for us in a long time since we haven't fought anyone anywhere near our fighting capacity.

I doubt Ukraine would be begging for tanks like they are if they felt their army proved them obsolete.

AgLA06 said:

---

I doubt Ukraine would be begging for tanks like they are if they felt their army proved them obsolete.

---

Because you can't hold ground without them.

Rabid Cougar said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

I doubt Ukraine would be begging for tanks like they are if they felt their army proved them obsolete.

---

Because you can't hold ground without them.

---

Interesting. There's been conflicts largely fought without tanks. The only way you would need tanks to hold ground is if you would expect to be overrun by tanks. In that case, you proved the point that tanks aren't obsolete.

This conversation has happened before after the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
The Egyptian Army killed large numbers of Israeli M-48's, M-60's and Centurions with RPGs and Saggers during the Israeli counter attacks in the Sinai. The Israeli's figured it out and destroyed the Egyptian Army.

The U.S. flew 25 M-48's and M-60s into Israel on C-5s and delivered 200 M-48 and M-60's and 250 M113's by sea during and after the conflict to replace the losses under Operation Nickel Grass.

The U.S. Air Force in Europe stripped three fighter wings of 100 F-4's and sent them directly to the IAF. Same for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy and their A-4 squadrons.