Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)

[grimlock1]

In addition number of Abrams are sitting in storage facilities in a number of places. Purpose is to have Abrams already in vicinity of combat site and only crew needs to be transported.

Logistics seems to be a real pain though. I have read stuff about Abrams being replaced with Stryker and even Humvee for some units. Logistics and related costs are the likely reasons.

I can kind of understand how you could get enough of the benefits of an Abrams out of the Stryker, probably MGS version, but trying to replace tanks with Humvees?  I've heard it happens, but how does that make sense?  I know logistics can kill virtually any good idea but this is like saying, "we can't ship you M-16s and body armor so here are some water guns and motorcycle leathers.

[glitterboy2098]

presumably they replaced the tanks with TOW equipped Humvees. which would keep the antivehicle ability (in theory anyway) while making the units easier to airlift for deployment.

[Garrand]

ISTR some tank units were dismounted in Iraq after the invasion to do things like patrol the streets, etc. Using Abrams for general patrol is logistically inefficient & counter to the objectives of keeping peace. But a bunch of guys in Hummvees with rifles? A better choice...

Damon.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Yeah, they're not *replacing* Abrams with HMMWVs and trying to use them as tanks.  Even the crayoneaters aren't that stupid.  What they are doing is grabbing spare soldiers that aren't doing anything else - what with a general lack of tanks to shoot at - and putting them in as PBIs to do patrols, security, recon, whatever.

Remember, they didn't give them all M-16s for nothing.

[CDAT]

Yeah, they're not *replacing* Abrams with HMMWVs and trying to use them as tanks.  Even the crayoneaters aren't that stupid.  What they are doing is grabbing spare soldiers that aren't doing anything else - what with a general lack of tanks to shoot at - and putting them in as PBIs to do patrols, security, recon, whatever.

Remember, they didn't give them all M-16s for nothing.

This is what they did, my brothers unit was deployed this way. They took some "extra" infantry they had (not sure where they came from) added them to the tankers. found some extra rifles (just a FYI at least at the time that I was in tanks long before this we only had one M16A1 per tank) tried to train the tankers to think like infantry, and forget there tank tactics but use infantry ones, and called them armored riflemen. On a side note one thing that I was told that I found interesting the infantry in the unit were able to get the CIB, but as this was before the CAB the tankers got nothing.

[Fat Guy]

The latest member of the T-90 family: the T-90M



Still just a T-72 with a new set of clothes.   ::)

[PsihoKekec]

At least the welded turret has a bit more elbow room.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Anyone got those Haynes manuals for various armored vehicles?  Was thinking of snagging a couple but weren't sure how good the info was.  Is it just basic Wikipedia-grade stuff or is it really in-depth and good stuff?

[DoctorMonkey]

Anyone got those Haynes manuals for various armored vehicles?  Was thinking of snagging a couple but weren't sure how good the info was.  Is it just basic Wikipedia-grade stuff or is it really in-depth and good stuff?

I've got some


I would say they divide into historical and current vehicles


The current vehicles, for example Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams, have plenty of detail on the background and development and initial systems used but if nothing else are quickly dated as they are a few years old and so the latest array of upgrades are not included. Both of these then have examples of use in combat with pieces written by veterans. The same is true of the ship ones - for example the Type 45 Destroyers and Astute class submarines - they are a little vague on some details but allow you to imagine what might be involved with them... interestingly the Type 45 one predates the problems with the engines and heat exchangers!


The historical vehicles and ships are somewhat different, I have a number of them including WW1 British Heavy Tank, HMS Dreadnought, Bismark, HMS Warrior, HMS Victory, and Mary Rose. These will include background to the design(s) in plenty of depth, their use (in a lot of detail but quite short for the Bismark!) and then for most of the older ones a chapter about preservation (in Dreadnought's case about preserving and restoring the WW1 veteran HMS Caroline). The historical aviation books (Spitfire, Hurricane and Lancaster) will also have a chapter on running/flying the preserved aircraft from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.


In the UK the books are typically full price at about £20 but I normally get them when they are discounted to £5-7 and at that point consider them fine in terms of value.


I hope that helps!

[ANS Kamas P81]

It does, actually, I was interested in the Leopard 1 and AML books especially.  Might have to grab them at some point...now the only question is where do you find them at £5-7!

[DoctorMonkey]

It does, actually, I was interested in the Leopard 1 and AML books especially.  Might have to grab them at some point...now the only question is where do you find them at £5-7!

Sometimes from Amazon, sometimes from Haynes themselves, sometimes other shops like The Works or The Tank Museum


I have just bought myself the manual for the Churchill tank for under £4!

[ANS Kamas P81]

T-55 uparmoring package known as the "Enigma" when it was first seen.  It's actually a decently impressive composite armor system, and according to Bovington was proof against TOW missiles.

[DoctorMonkey]

But underneath it is still a T-55


If you have loads of T-55s sitting around and are not too likely to face high end threats then why bother upgrading them and if you are facing significant threats then surely you want something more capable than a T-55


You could add armour packages etc to anything if you wanted - even a WW1 era Mk IV Heavy - but it is a question of at what point you have a "ship of Theseus" or "my great grandfather's axe" or piling too much onto a limited frame

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

If you have loads of T-55s sitting around and are not too likely to face high end threats then why bother upgrading them and if you are facing significant threats then surely you want something more capable than a T-55

Presumably you're in the state where you're likely to face higher end threats but lack the resources to outright replace your T-55s.  An unenviable position, to be sure.

[grimlock1]

But underneath it is still a T-55


If you have loads of T-55s sitting around and are not too likely to face high end threats then why bother upgrading them and if you are facing significant threats then surely you want something more capable than a T-55


You could add armour packages etc to anything if you wanted - even a WW1 era Mk IV Heavy - but it is a question of at what point you have a "ship of Theseus" or "my great grandfather's axe" or piling too much onto a limited frame

Raytheon is hocking an upgrade program for M60 Pattons that claims to make it competitive T-90s.  Even with a saleswank correction factor, the new 120mm smoothbore and the modern sensor/fire control, it should make it nearly as lethal as any modern Abrams.  Not sure how much protection they are adding.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/raytheon-can-turn-old-american-made-m60a3-tanks-killing-16142

[kato]

Raytheon is hocking an upgrade program for M60 Pattons that claims to make it competitive T-90s.

The M60A3 SLEP was a prototype that began design around 2012 and reached marketing stage in early 2016. It's mostly a repackaging of the Jordanian 2004 M60A3 upgrade in which Raytheon had minor contributions.

Virtually the only possible customers for SLEP was Bahrain with its remaining 60 active M60A3 TTS tanks. Italian defence company Leonardo pitched a directly competing upgrade design in 2017. For various Rule 4 reasons involving license holders of subcomponents in the upgrade proposals neither of the two has ever been an active option.

[grimlock1]

The M60A3 SLEP was a prototype that began design around 2012 and reached marketing stage in early 2016. It's mostly a repackaging of the Jordanian 2004 M60A3 upgrade in which Raytheon had minor contributions.

Virtually the only possible customers for SLEP was Bahrain with its remaining 60 active M60A3 TTS tanks. Italian defence company Leonardo pitched a directly competing upgrade design in 2017. For various Rule 4 reasons involving license holders of subcomponents in the upgrade proposals neither of the two has ever been an active option.

I'm not saying its common.  Just offering another example of how older tanks can be refit so as to not be totally outclassed by modern vehicles. I'm not saying that the M60 A3 SLEP is equal to Challenger HAAIP or M1A2D.  Only that it's a much more capable vehicle that what rolled off the line in '59.

[Weirdo]

Even if they won't ever survive an encounter with a modern MBT, I could see a lot of uses these days for something that brings tank firepower to a fight, and can survive the kind of anti-tank weapons that can be carried by infantry or light vees.

[chanman]

T-55 uparmoring package known as the "Enigma" when it was first seen.  It's actually a decently impressive composite armor system, and according to Bovington was proof against TOW missiles.

Useful. TOWs are everywhere and even the non-top attack models can still do a number on unsuspecting modern MBTs

[grimlock1]

Useful. TOWs are everywhere and even the non-top attack models can still do a number on unsuspecting modern MBTs

And a lot of it is luck. Does the missile hit on a direct vision port or does it hit 8 inches to the left?  Is there a micro fracture in that sheet of armor?  Did the missile's fin clip a branch?

[glitterboy2098]

Presumably you're in the state where you're likely to face higher end threats but lack the resources to outright replace your T-55s.  An unenviable position, to be sure.

or at least unable to afford to replace enough T-55's. add-on armor and some improved optics and radios are a lot cheaper on a per-hull basis than buying a brand new tank. if you are budget strapped like a lot of the developing nations, being able to refit a company of T-55's for the cost of one up to date MBT is a much more cost effective choice. especially if you already have a massive force of old T-55's you inherited from the Soviets and/or a previous government.

and lets face it as well, many of these countries are not expecting to actually face a modern army at all, and instead expect to fight their neighbors, which usually are armed similarly to them, if not using the exact same hardware. so refitting gets them the most into play the fastest.. and once they've got a basic force built then they can start eying newer stuff. a lot of the more financially well off ones have been buying small numbers of modern hulls even while they continue to use refitted old stuff for the bulk of their army.

[PsihoKekec]

Even the basic Kontakt-1 was a huge lifesaver for Syrian army, given how idiotically they used their tanks in urban combat. Rhere was one interesting ANNA video, where an RPG hit a branch a few meters away from the tank, so the superheated jet that hit the ERA brick was not hot enough to detonate it, but still hot enough to ignite it.

[Empyrus]

but still hot enough to ignite it.

New armor upgrade against infantry: burning armor!

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

They can't make swarm attacks if the target is on fire.

[ANS Kamas P81]

They can't make swarm attacks if the target is on fire.

They can if the CO has a whip!

[Colt Ward]

While its not armored . . .

[worktroll]

That's from Operation Klondike, isn't it? ;)

[Luciora]

So is that the new postal delivery service?

[Colt Ward]

That's from Operation Klondike, isn't it? ;)

Could have been . . . I was thinking of the Flatbed Truck w/LRM launcher lol.

[beachhead1985]

While its not armored . . .

Reminds me of the South African Valkyrie, but again; unarmoured...