US Military Versus Commodity Goods

The M1, with its gas turbine engine, has proven to be one of the best weapons systems in the US has fielded and is easily the best MBT in US tank history. It outclasses other tanks of its generation. Another example would be better......

I worry more about the US military spending vast sums of money on its F-22, Osprey etc. programs while neglecting to spend money on upkeep for older more "backbone" programs that aren't quite as sexy.

One could also easily argue that US forces are both fleet in being AND real effective battlefield forces. Never in the history of mankind has a country fielded a military as effective/powerful as the current US military. More than a particular weapons system, its the US's command/control (AWACS, JSTARS etc) that allows it to wield unprecedented amounts of firepower.

....then again I think the US spends far too much on defense spending as it is. Our economic ties with China are strong enough to prevent us from getting into a conventional war.

Did you forget the screaming Dems in the Senate asking for the body armors that added more weight to all that our men and women wearing the uniform make them more difficult to move?
Now they don't even talk about and some deny the funding.

The Democratic takeover of Congress did not result in any effort to gut or irresponsibly slash military procurement programs. On the contrary, the interaction between Democratic notables such as Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Rep. Henry Waxman of California with Defense Secretary Robert Gates proved in general fruitful and constructive

.

I read it, spi and....the congress had to reverend Secretary Gates after the "amputation" of
Rumsfeld. No another alternative.

Same is happening with the AG Mukasey. Schumer wanted Alberto out and now they have to accept whatever.

Sorry but I don't speak the same language. I condensed the whole subject in few words.

I am anxious to listen the baloney of the candidates when they are asked what to do w/a high prized captured.

Mukasey doesn't let the High Priets in the JC to get him upse. The JC can't abuse like they did w/Alberto.

The Dems have to eat the cake that they bake it. The same w/Gates. No other choice.

Acceptable.

Send them (the prizes) back to their country of origin and change them under the program Prisoner for Oil.

Following the pattern of the UN.

The M1, .... outclasses other tanks of its generation.

Just if you listen to the US Army PR department, not when you listen to independet experts.

And its not the only system of the US that is not delivering according to what the military would like to see.

The Abrams put up a good showing for itself in the first gulf war against the T-72. In fact, in every tank vs. tank engagement, the Abrams came out the winner. I'd be interested in what your independent experts have to say if you've got a link?

http://doc.danfahey.com/Tanks-ArmorMag.pdf

Plus: The latest A6M version survived a full hit from an anti-tank mine in Afghanistan this summer with crew unharmed except for one broken hip. A first.

We are arguing over the "competitiveness" of MBT's....a little strange. There is no doubt that the Leapord 2 is an excellent tank. It shares the same features of the M1 series, mainly chobham armor, and aside from DU rounds, the same ammunition and for quite some time the same barrel.

How is the M1 not delivering what the US military wants? You can cite the engine, but it outpeforms diesel engines hands down. And luckily US military has a supply chain, that to date, has been able to keep M1's fueled and running in the field.

Plus: The latest A6M version survived a full hit from an anti-tank mine in Afghanistan this summer with crew unharmed except for one broken hip. A first.

What was a first? Yeah, it was a first for A A6M hitting a mine. Fantastic, but its not comparing it with the Ambrams or other MBT's. Just noting that it was the first real "mine test" of the A6M and its crew "survival package". Reading comprehension dude:)

I admire your patriotism, but tell me:

How many M1A2 ever survived an anti-tank mine without KIA's?

Dude, its not about patriotism, its about your reading comprehension. As I said in my first post "US spends far too much on defense"......I am a bleeding heart liberal and I know more about armored vehicles than you. :)

From FAS.ORG:

The Iraqi Army had a considerable array of tanks, mostly purchased from the former Soviet Union. Chief among these were about 500 T-72's. These modern Soviet tanks were armed with an excellent 125mm smoothbore weapon and had many of the same advanced features found on the Abrams. Despite it's advanced design, the T-72 proved to be inferior to the M1A1's deployed during the Gulf War, and compared more closely with the older M60A3 tanks used there by the US Marine Corps. In addition, Iraq had a number of earlier Soviet models: perhaps as many as 1,600 T-62 and about 700 T-54, both of which were developed in the 1960's. These tanks were widely regarded as clearly inferior to the Abrams, but were expected to be highly reliable mechanically. The Gulf War provided military tacticians with an opportunity to evaluate developments in tank design that had not been available since World War II.

In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).

As the Gulf War shifted pace from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm, and the preparatory bombardment lifted, U.S. Abrams tanks spearheaded the attack on Iraqi fortifications and engaged enemy tanks whenever and wherever possible. Just as they had done in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Army used it's tanks as fixed anti-tank and artillery pieces, digging them into the ground to reduce target signature. However, this also prevented their quick movement and Allied air power smashed nearly 50% of Iraq's tank threat before Allied armor had moved across the border. After that the Abrams tanks quickly destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile.

The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

May I recall your quote:

The M1, .... outclasses other tanks of its generation.

That's incorrect.

And your lengthy post about the M1A2 beating T-72's doesn't change a bit about that.

The lack of anti-mine potection is a weak-spot of the M1A2, as is its above peer size and weight in urban environment and neutralizes its power advantage. In difficult terrain, the M1A2 has shown to lag behind peers in mobility and its deep fording ability is dismal, especially compared to the LeoII. The turbine engine is intolerant towards fuels used in other military equipment which requires an own logistical tree in the field, just for its fuel. And supply lines are a specific weak spot of deep deployment as was again shown in Iraq.

The M1A2 lacks modularity, which increases the time for repair and especially makes several repair tasks under fire impossible - eg. changing engine. Its hunter-killer abilities lack behind, its autonomy in the field lacks behind, it lacks behind best peers in ergonomics. The thermal capabilities are not superior to the one of the most important peers and its aged design does not allow for significant upgrades anymore.

So far to the M1A2.

But as you keep twice mentioning my "supposed comprehension abilities", stating that the anti-tank mine survival suite referred to the LEO II only. Here is again my question about the "a first" reworded: How many tanks of any type and providence ever survived a hit by an anti-tank mine? The answer is none. Its "a first" because its a first that ANY anti-tank mine suit for ANY tank ever proved successful in protecting the life of a tank crew in the field and under life fire conditions. Period - end of transmission.

Finally you put down specifics.

Cite your source for the anti-tank mine.

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks

Jens

When I say end of transmission I mean end of transmisson. I've quoted source to counter your previous assessment, but I'm not your personal source slave.

Especially as you have a tendency to attack me personally, don't cite sources yourself nor acknowledge when your foot is in your mouth.

A recollection of tank crew fatalities in Iraq this time is a recollection of some of the system's weakspots: a) low rear armour, b) high weight, c) AT mine did the KIA's in Iraq since 2003. The logistics thing added to the losses along supply lines. The other weakspots I quoted, like fording and hunt & kill are irrelevant in Iraq. Please note also that "mines" and "anti-tank mines" are two different things. No M1A2 ran "on" an anti-tank mine in 1991, the mines in question were anti-personnel mines and offroute mines (ie. shaped charges).

Look it up yourself - and: end of transmission.

Maybe we should stop at Hit and run and cease with the "Win Hearts and Minds"

Not with volatile personalities and characters..

Worse is the Russian SHKVAL, because that one might actually end up in the hands of people who won't play nice with it.