Is the M-1 Abrams outclassed now?

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ferdinand was by most accounts a failure at Kursk. I'm not familiar enough with the SU-100 and its performance to speak intelligently on it. However, heavily armored TDs of the Wehrmacht were built under different doctrine then US TDs. US TDs were doctrinally supposed to engage enemy you tanks directly and use superior speed to their advantage, hence the 50+mph speed of the M18. Not sure what the different doctrines of Germany and USDR were that led to heavily armored casemate TDs unless it was the only way which technology at the time to make an invincible tank: one whose armor couldn't be penetrated and could destroy any other tank it confronted with high caliber/velocity guns. I'd wager that the designs were predicated on achieving a break through against fortified positions.

The larger German TDs like the Jagdtiger suffered from reliability and power issues. The heavy weight of the thick armor was more than the transmissions and engines could handle. More Jagdtigers were lost due to mechanical failure than combat losses.

Not sure of the issue with turbine engines in tanks as they've proven to be very reliable.

Not familiar with Wehrmacht TD doctrine, but Soviet TD concept has the ancestors within the realm of self-propelled howitzers, namely SU-122 (also T-34-based), which was designed to support tank units while they're storming noted fortified positions. Replacing short 122-mm howitzer with 85-mm high velocity cannon (just like in Germany with 8.8, it was rooted in AA gun of the same caliber, 85-mm - later T-34-85 was also armed with it), the Soviets possessed in the end of 1942 a vehicle able to kill Panzer-III from 1000 meters at the face plate - something that T-34-76, which was the main Soviet tank up to the eve of 1944, couldn't do. Closed gunhouse was selected due to unification efforts, as usually when it concerns T-34 and its derivatives. Initially, the new weapon, called SU-85, was placed in regular tank units as noted support measure, then the separate units of SUs were created - for flanking hammer-anvil games, while the frontal combat between tanks takes place; then, the raids of small groups of SUs were accepted: vehicles ambushed the German tanks marching on roads, so unlike the German TDs, the mobility highly mattered. Anyway, while armor of SU-85 wasn't impressive, in most cases it took yet antitank weapon (or tank/TD itself) to kill it. The next generation, SU-100, was harder as its front armor was thicker than of T-34 and yet vehicle was light enough to preserve the parent's mobility.
Hitting the targets other than German tanks was secondary role, mostly for 1945 when it took to knock the gunnery forts out.
What about turbines - it's our statistics. If for Abrams it looks much better - ok then, but it seems to me that at least half of this success stems from good maintenance system rather than from turbine's design, and any maintenance system heavily depends on many things, two of which - secured logistics of spare parts and proper quality of fuel - would be hardly quite perfect in long conflict against modern regular army somewhere overseas...

 

[Pags]

Not familiar with Wehrmacht TD doctrine, but Soviet TD concept has the ancestors within the realm of self-propelled howitzers, namely SU-122 (also T-34-based), which was designed to support tank units while they're storming noted fortified positions. Replacing short 122-mm howitzer with 85-mm high velocity cannon (just like in Germany with 8.8, it was rooted in AA gun of the same caliber, 85-mm - later T-34-85 was also armed with it), the Soviets possessed in the end of 1942 a vehicle able to kill Panzer-III from 1000 meters at the face plate - something that T-34-76, which was the main Soviet tank up to the eve of 1944, couldn't do. Closed gunhouse was selected due to unification efforts, as usually when it concerns T-34 and its derivatives. Initially, the new weapon, called SU-85, was placed in regular tank units as noted support measure, then the separate units of SUs were created - for flanking hammer-anvil games, while the frontal combat between tanks takes place; then, the raids of small groups of SUs were accepted: vehicles ambushed the German tanks marching on roads, so unlike the German TDs, the mobility highly mattered. Anyway, while armor of SU-85 wasn't impressive, in most cases it took yet antitank weapon (or tank/TD itself) to kill it. The next generation, SU-100, was harder as its front armor was thicker than of T-34 and yet vehicle was light enough to preserve the parent's mobility.
Hitting the targets other than German tanks was secondary role, mostly for 1945 when it took to knock the gunnery forts out.
What about turbines - it's our statistics. If for Abrams it looks much better - ok then, but it seems to me that at least half of this success stems from good maintenance system rather than from turbine's design, and any maintenance system heavily depends on many things, two of which - secured logistics of spare parts and proper quality of fuel - would be hardly quite perfect in long conflict against modern regular army somewhere overseas...

Availability=uptime/uptime+downtime
Downtime=logistics time+time conducting maintenance+time determining maintenance is required

Turbines, by design, are easy to maintain and highly reliable. If they don't break much and are easy to repair when they do repair, that counts for a lot. There's not a lot of moving parts in a turbine, and, if Abrams are maintained anything like airplanes, it's relatively easy to remove and replace the motor at the operational level. The broken motor can then be sent back to a workshop where repairs are conducted at the intermediate or depot levels while the new motor continues to move the tank around. As you pointed out, all of this depends a lot on a good logistic system. At some point your choice of motors will come down to your assumptions about parts and logistics.

My brief reading today on eastern front TDs leads me to believe that one of the drive assumptions in their design by the Germans and Russians was that the eastern terrain was open and flat and allowed for long range shots. Western Europe with hedgerows, forests, hills, and towns did not allow for as much open engagement between large armored forces.

 

[Austin-Powers]

Skipping a few years, but what about the M48 Patton? Good tank during Vietnam?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Turbines, by design, are easy to maintain and highly reliable.

Yes but all the airplanes do is to fly for a couple of hours, maybe a day at best. Tank turbines and industrial power generators have to run constantly for weeks if not months. With good circumstances (not only electrical powerplant but relatively wealthy condition of industry where the combat may take place - Fulda Gap, for example) this is possible and generally acceptable. But what you'll do in Norwegian mountains beyond the Polar Circle at winter? No roads, no fuel storages, no maintenance depots. Not only in theory but in practice too, the diesels of T-72s (undesirably big and heavy, though), once started, were able to run constantly, to be shut down only for half-of-hour refilling of motor oil and then run again for three to five weeks - there have been a Russian tankers' proverb that there's no need for ovens in Polar tank batallion as people could cook potato and fry eggs on the diesels 24/7. Really, given the exhaust temperature of turbine, several times higher than the diesel's upper plate, the turbine engine can be much more effective at kitchen, but what about 24/7?;-) "Fulda Gaps" will not always be in first-world country.

eastern terrain was open and flat and allowed for long range shots

For major tank battles (Stalingrad and Kursk) yes, it's steppes there. For Smolensk, or Moscow defence 1941, or for Belorussian/Poland landscape 1944 - no, there're forest-covered hills mostly. Of course there weren't the hedgerows on Eastern Front - this is mostly French terrain.

 

[Gatordev]

Yes but all the airplanes do is to fly for a couple of hours, maybe a day at best. Tank turbines and industrial power generators have to run constantly for weeks if not months. With good circumstances (not only electrical powerplant but relatively wealthy condition of industry where the combat may take place - Fulda Gap, for example) this is possible and generally acceptable. But what you'll do in Norwegian mountains beyond the Polar Circle at winter? No roads, no fuel storages, no maintenance depots.

I'm getting the impression you're not fully understanding how good our (US) turbines are. Our ships run on gas turbines and run 24/7. The most popular turbine engine in airplanes is the Pratt & Whitney PT6 engine, which is based off of an oil pipeline pump engine that would run for days (in the cold north, too).

As you both have mentioned, you still have to have the logistics train to support the system, but if you do, turbines have been proving themselves very reliable for the last 30+ years.

 

[Hair Warrior]

To the original poster's question, I don't think the M1A2SEPv2 is necessarily outclassed vs. symmetric threats. A guided anti-tank missile is designed to be asymmetric, particularly the newer missiles with a parabolic flight path and/or overhead detonation with a downward shaped charge designed to attack the tank's thinner roof armor from above. Most tanks (even the T14 Armata) don't place as much (or any) reactive armor or cage on the top of the tank.

The bigger question to me is when/whether militaries will move to an all-unmanned tank. The future operating model would seem to be a medium armored, heavily gunned, highly mobile unmanned tank for the tip of the spear, followed a hundred meters or so behind by a heavier armored, lighter gunned IFV-type vehicle comprising the control center, UGV operator, technician/engineer/loader for repairs & resupply, etc. So instead of 2 vehicles with 4 troopers/Marines each, you'd have 1 vehicle with no personnel and a follower vehicle with 6-8 personnel to operate both vehicles. Maybe it'd be a Stryker/Bradley/EFV/MRAP-type for the follower vehicle (or "all of the above"... plug n' play).

Obviously, it goes without saying that, in order to make this all work, you'd need 100% secure, unjammable, high-bandwidth, non-line-of-sight comms/data link from ground-to-ground over any terrain type... hopefully one that also integrates with the F-35's data link, AH-64E/AH-1Z targeting systems, and airborne C4ISR platforms' data link.

An unmanned drone tank would be particularly deadly on the battlefield because you'd only need to armor the vital components (engine, drive train, fuel, ammo, gun) and not waste any curbside weight on armoring crew compartments, equipping oxygen (e.g. M1 has a complex overpressure air filtration system intended to be CBRNE-resistant), etc. The tank would either be lighter/faster overall, or you'd shift that weight allowance to extra fuel/ammo for added endurance before resupply. Add an unmanned, autonomous refueler (like if a KC-46 and Uber had a baby) to the platoon with the same sort of park-assist technology that parallel parks your car for you, and then we're really cooking with gas.

 

[Flash]

...The bigger question to me is when/whether militaries will move to an all-unmanned tank. The operating model would seem to be a medium armored, heavily gunned, highly mobile unmanned tank for the tip of the spear, followed a hundred meters or so behind by a heavier armored, lighter gunned IFV-type vehicle comprising the control center, UGV operator...An unmanned drone tank would be particularly deadly on the battlefield because you'd only need to armor the vital components...The tank would either be lighter/faster overall, or you'd shift that weight allowance to extra fuel/ammo for added endurance before resupply.

I think it will be a very long time before unmanned combat vehicles become anything more than a supplemental tool vice a primary platform on the battlefield. Why? Because unmanned vehicles can be jammed, either intentionally or unintentionally, rendering them nothing more than really big paperweights. Even a more permissive environment like our UAV's operate in nowadays would be challenging due to simple line-of-sight issues in a ground-based environment (buildings, rocks, trees, wadis) that UAV's don't encounter flying in the big blue sky.

 

[Pags]

To the original poster's question, I don't think the M1A2SEPv2 is necessarily outclassed vs. symmetric threats. A guided anti-tank missile is designed to be asymmetric, particularly the newer missiles with a parabolic flight path and/or overhead detonation with a downward shaped charge designed to attack the tank's thinner roof armor from above. Most tanks (even the T14 Armata) don't place as much (or any) reactive armor or cage on the top of the tank.

The bigger question to me is when/whether militaries will move to an all-unmanned tank. The future operating model would seem to be a medium armored, heavily gunned, highly mobile unmanned tank for the tip of the spear, followed a hundred meters or so behind by a heavier armored, lighter gunned IFV-type vehicle comprising the control center, UGV operator, technician/engineer/loader for repairs & resupply, etc. So instead of 2 vehicles with 4 troopers/Marines each, you'd have 1 vehicle with no personnel and a follower vehicle with 6-8 personnel to operate both vehicles. Maybe it'd be a Stryker/Bradley/EFV/MRAP-type for the follower vehicle (or "all of the above"... plug n' play).

Obviously, it goes without saying that, in order to make this all work, you'd need 100% secure, unjammable, high-bandwidth, non-line-of-sight comms/data link from ground-to-ground over any terrain type... hopefully one that also integrates with the F-35's data link, AH-64E/AH-1Z targeting systems, and airborne C4ISR platforms' data link.

An unmanned drone tank would be particularly deadly on the battlefield because you'd only need to armor the vital components (engine, drive train, fuel, ammo, gun) and not waste any curbside weight on armoring crew compartments, equipping oxygen (e.g. M1 has a complex overpressure air filtration system intended to be CBRNE-resistant), etc. The tank would either be lighter/faster overall, or you'd shift that weight allowance to extra fuel/ammo for added endurance before resupply. Add an unmanned, autonomous refueler (like if a KC-46 and Uber had a baby) to the platoon with the same sort of park-assist technology that parallel parks your car for you, and then we're really cooking with gas.

that whole "securable, unjammable, non-LOS" piece is one heck of a bridge to cross.

 

[Hair Warrior]

that whole "securable, unjammable, non-LOS" piece is one heck of a bridge to cross.

Concur. https://www.airwarriors.com/communi...an-detains-10-u-s-navy-personnel.43674/page-4

 

[BigRed389]

To the original poster's question, I don't think the M1A2SEPv2 is necessarily outclassed vs. symmetric threats. A guided anti-tank missile is designed to be asymmetric, particularly the newer missiles with a parabolic flight path and/or overhead detonation with a downward shaped charge designed to attack the tank's thinner roof armor from above. Most tanks (even the T14 Armata) don't place as much (or any) reactive armor or cage on the top of the tank.

Is an ATGM shot from a multimillion dollar attack helicopter "asymmetric?" Typically asymmetric is used to refer to a threat that uses very different tactics. Russia doesn't quite seem to fit there.
Either way, if the T-14's APS is actually capable of even moderate success against the latest APFSDS rounds, that could be a serious problem.

The bigger question to me is when/whether militaries will move to an all-unmanned tank. The future operating model would seem to be a medium armored, heavily gunned, highly mobile unmanned tank for the tip of the spear, followed a hundred meters or so behind by a heavier armored, lighter gunned IFV-type vehicle comprising the control center, UGV operator, technician/engineer/loader for repairs & resupply, etc. So instead of 2 vehicles with 4 troopers/Marines each, you'd have 1 vehicle with no personnel and a follower vehicle with 6-8 personnel to operate both vehicles. Maybe it'd be a Stryker/Bradley/EFV/MRAP-type for the follower vehicle (or "all of the above"... plug n' play).

Unmanned, or optionally manned scouts or infantry support vehicles makes more sense in the forseeable future over unmanned tanks IMO. That goes for Unmanned systems in general IMO...they're better suited to be support/force multipliers than the primary.

Obviously, it goes without saying that, in order to make this all work, you'd need 100% secure, unjammable, high-bandwidth, non-line-of-sight comms/data link from ground-to-ground over any terrain type... hopefully one that also integrates with the F-35's data link, AH-64E/AH-1Z targeting systems, and airborne C4ISR platforms' data link.

As long as you're using the laws of known physics for comms, this is never going to happen.

You may be able to get much of that, but unjammable and "high-bandwidth non-LOS" without satellite support in combination with high-bandwidth is basically not happening.

Concur. https://www.airwarriors.com/communi...an-detains-10-u-s-navy-personnel.43674/page-4

The loss of comms was at worst a minor contributing factor to the incident. Those guys could've have been totally up on SATCOM and would probably have still fucked it away. Their planning and execution sucked. On a platform like that, loss of SATCOM is a contingency that should be considered and accounted for.

SATCOM isn't magic. If operators, techs, and officers can't understand the bare minimum physics of how comms works and how atmospherics impacts RF based comms, you're going to have problems.

 

[Griz882]

I've always wondered the same thing - a gas turbine allows more performance but I would guess the logistical train would be a pain.

Kinda curious what everyone thinks the best tank of WW2 was: I can't decide between the Panther and T-34/85.

Back to this...the T-34 was a piece of junk. It was difficult to maintain and was subject to breakdown. There were, however, a lot of them. Perhaps a better way to look at this is to evaluate gun stabilization and aiming systems. US tanks could maneuver and fire giving them a noteworthy advantage.

 

[Pags]

Back to this...the T-34 was a piece of junk. It was difficult to maintain and was subject to breakdown. There were, however, a lot of them. Perhaps a better way to look at this is to evaluate gun stabilization and aiming systems. US tanks could maneuver and fire giving them a noteworthy advantage.

When a guy like Guderian praises the T-34 then you know it's got something going for it. Or at least was did in 41 when the Germans were shocked to encounter T-34s and KV-1s during Barbarossa.

In the Korean War T-34s and M4s were found to be very evenly matched.

This guy has got some fantastic nerdery on the T-34 that doesn't paint a rosy picture of the much vaunted T-34:
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html?m=1

 

[Randy Daytona]

When a guy like Guderian praises the T-34 then you know it's got something going for it. Or at least was did in 41 when the Germans were shocked to encounter T-34s and KV-1s during Barbarossa.

In the Korean War T-34s and M4s were found to be very evenly matched.

This guy has got some fantastic nerdery on the T-34 that doesn't paint a rosy picture of the much vaunted T-34:
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html?m=1

Hope it was the Sherman Jumbo....

Interesting article I saw concerning production standards. German tanks had great workmanship and came down an assembly line with scaffolding like airplanes - and consequently only made a limited number of Tigers and Panthers. The Soviets determined the service life T-34's would have in combat - and production tolerances reflected this. Similarly, American tanks came down an endless production line.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Our ships run on gas turbines and run 24/7. The most popular turbine engine in airplanes is the Pratt & Whitney PT6 engine, which is based off of an oil pipeline pump engine that would run for days (in the cold north, too).

Yes I paid little attention to a maritime gas turbines, but it seems to me that things like LM2500 or RR Marine Trent are more complicated and in any case are running in much more friendly environment than those on airplanes let alone tanks. Ok, let me try to accept this fact - US gas turbines are much more reliable so the turbine engines for tanks are normal. But if US will soon become the only owner of the turbine-driven tanks, it will be strange at least.

the T-34 was a piece of junk

Both yes and no. Truely, T-34s as well as Il-2 attack planes, en masse were made by unqualified hands (often women and children worked on assembling lines in Siberia) and the quality of the tanks ready to delivering to a frontline units often was far from perfect. What was of big help - initial design that allowed some fluctuations in technology and the battle-hardened maintenance units, which were able to work the received tanks out to battle-ready shape. All in all, T-34 was very simple to maintain in the field environment by at least initially trained personnell. Yet again, the Soviet training pipelines for armor units were keen on the technics - all members of T-34 crew were practically interchangeable, and if some moderate tech troubles happened, all the crew have become a little repair unit and often it was enough to get the tank back in line.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Either way, if the T-14's APS is actually capable of even moderate success against the latest APFSDS rounds, that could be a serious problem.

Again, Russia WILL NOT fight NATO either way with weaponry. Period.
And I extremely doubt T-14 will be a subject of the international trading at least up to 2040.