Posted on Oct 17, 2022
What comes after Abrams tanks? The Army is working on possibilities.
680
73
14
20
20
0
Tanks
Future
Edited 2 y ago
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 6
9
9
0
8
8
0
When I was in basic at Knox in '79, they were still testing the XM-1 I remember seeing it when it dusted us while we were marching on the tank trails on our way to different ranges. We were able to hear the M-60 from a long way off and move to the side, but more than once we got covered in dust when the XM-1 came past us. I hate to say it but the M-1 series is getting long in the tooth and I can understand why it needs to be replaced, not just another upgrade. I guess I'm old school in that with all the things that I have seen on the replacement, I'm wondering if they haven't gone to far with all the software (AI) and the hybrid engine, yes it would be nice for my tanker brothers to be able to sit in a ambush position and run different systems w/o having to run the main pack, but with them saying that they want to make it lighter, how much will it be to have tow different power packs. I have seen in different articles that they want to get rid of the loader and go to a auto loading system, again how much more will it weigh. That will be one less person to help pull maintenance, two less eyes to have in a ambush. I have heard many times that the auto loader on Soviet tanks have had a tendency to try and load the gunners arm into the main gun, plus it would be something else to have to work on. What ever happen to simplicity. They can make the most advance tank that they want, but will it be soldier proof ?
(8)
(0)
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
All good points. I've never heard anything good said about the Russian auto-loading systems. My second troop XO participated in the M1 trials at Knox before joining us in D/10th Cav in the 194th Armd. Bde. (Sep.). He loved it.
Me, as an officer I've been with the oldest technology in the inventory. In D/10 in late '79 and all of '80 we were in the old H-series MTOE for my first four months as a PL. Then we changed to the J-series MTOE. We lost our three M551s, our M106 mortar track and our rifle squad. We then had two scout squads in M113s, the PL in a 113, and a tank section with four M60A1s.
In Korea in '82 we had M48A5s with 105mm guns and the IDF cupola.
When I got to Ft. Carson after AOAC in '83, we had M60A1s and we finally got M60A3s with thermal sights just as I was turning over HHC command after having commanded a tank company before that.
Me, as an officer I've been with the oldest technology in the inventory. In D/10 in late '79 and all of '80 we were in the old H-series MTOE for my first four months as a PL. Then we changed to the J-series MTOE. We lost our three M551s, our M106 mortar track and our rifle squad. We then had two scout squads in M113s, the PL in a 113, and a tank section with four M60A1s.
In Korea in '82 we had M48A5s with 105mm guns and the IDF cupola.
When I got to Ft. Carson after AOAC in '83, we had M60A1s and we finally got M60A3s with thermal sights just as I was turning over HHC command after having commanded a tank company before that.
(3)
(0)
SPC Bill Bailey
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. - All of them were good tanks, esp. the M60A3 with the TTS. With a new engine, new and better eternal armor package (inc. Trophy) and the latest anti tank ammo for the 105mm main gun it would still be a good 2nd line tank in certain situations (in concealment on high ground for one). From talking to others who have used the TTS it's an awesome sighting system and wasn't bettered until the M1A1 came along.
(0)
(0)
SPC Gary C.
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. - I was at Knox Oct-Dec 79, I was in D-19-4.
The whole time I was at Irwin we used VISMODED 551's, before that I was always in 113's. I kinda liked the extra elbow room you had in the 551's. I thought it was easier to pull the pack in a 551.
The whole time I was at Irwin we used VISMODED 551's, before that I was always in 113's. I kinda liked the extra elbow room you had in the 551's. I thought it was easier to pull the pack in a 551.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Technology advances so rapidly it's imperative to keep not only up but ahead. Desert storm proved despite numbers that technology did determine the outcome with massive loss by the enemy of tanks and armed vehicle with almost none of the US side and less than 3 dozen on other coalition forces vs over two thousand of the enemy armor and tanks
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google