M1 series cancelled, M60A4 project instead

[Matt Wiser]

And the problem with that is this: Congress dictating that the Army and USMC will buy an American designed and produced tank. All it takes is a few Congrescritters in both houses to agree to that, an amendment to DOD's authorization or appropriations bills is put to both houses, it passes, and becomes law after signature by POTUS. Expecting the U.S. military to buy a foreign tank (even if license-built) is a wasted effort, IMHO. Remember the NIH syndrome. And remember that even if Carter wanted to cancel the M-1, Reagan would use it politically, just as he did with the B-1, and one of Reagan's first acts as POTUS is to restart the M-1 program in the FY 82 Defense Budget (his first).

Also, the main issue in the FY 81 Defense budget wasn't the M-1 program. It was CVN-71 (U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt). Carter vetoed the DOD budget twice because it included the carrier, and the second time, Congress overrode the veto.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

If they're already building the M60-2000, then they're building the M1 turret, the most challenging part of the tank. The hull is relatively simple, and would present little obstacle to replace the M60A4's hull with a better one later on. So you get the M1A2 in the eighties but it would be called M60A5.

 

[Tank Cdr]

As the tin says. In the budget battles of 1980, some obscure, never to see the light of day project looks a bit more promising and sucks up more black budget funding hidden in 400 dollars a hammer deal.

Unfortunately, it forces the axing of the M1 series. However, it is decided the turret design of the M1 will be incorporated into the next upgrade package of the M60 series resulting in the M60A4.

M60A4. Uprated Diesel Engine, Chobham Armor replaces the old armor but still same chassis, new NBC system, turret from the M1, 105mm rifled gun later replaced with 120mm rifled gun so it has a more versatile use than the overkill that was the M1 main gun that made it unsuited for Close Infantry Support due to its enormous muzzle blast. It also retains a phone for accompanying infantry to talk to the TC, and instrumentation to serve as indirect artillery in a pinch.

Okay discuss.

Commissar, you are not authorized to take my tank away from me!!!

 

[Matt Wiser]

It's still an M-60 style hull. You might just as well go ahead and build the original hull design, but maybe substitute a diesel for the gas turbine-which IIRC was the main cause of complaint back in those days. The main goal of the M-1 was a tank that would not only equal Soviet tanks, but dominate them. Not going to get that with a Merkava style tank..especially since the AirLand Battle doctrine is about to come out (it came in '82)

It was interesting back in '91: some of those who'd been critical of the M-1 back in the early '80s (Gary Hart was one of 'em) were harping about the tank's (alleged) shortcomings. Then the M-1A1 went into combat in DESERT STORM. Those critics shut their mouths, and were amazingly quiet after that.

 

[CalBear]

It's still an M-60 style hull. You might just as well go ahead and build the original hull design, but maybe substitute a diesel for the gas turbine-which IIRC was the main cause of complaint back in those days. The main goal of the M-1 was a tank that would not only equal Soviet tanks, but dominate them. Not going to get that with a Merkava style tank..especially since the AirLand Battle doctrine is about to come out (it came in '82)

It was interesting back in '91: some of those who'd been critical of the M-1 back in the early '80s (Gary Hart was one of 'em) were harping about the tank's (alleged) shortcomings. Then the M-1A1 went into combat in DESERT STORM. Those critics shut their mouths, and were amazingly quiet after that.

I remember hearing Hart on a Sunday Morning news show making the flat statement that the M-1 wasn't capable of operating in the desert because "you'd have to stop every 10 miles to shake out the air filters". Of course Hart was also a big fan of junking all the full sized carriers and replacing them with thru-deck cruisers. Thank God that idiot couldn't keep his pants zipped.

On a very different point... The Marines NEVER get their say in equipment procurement unless it is for an Amtrac or other LAV that has to be a swimmer (take a look at what happened in the early days of the F-14 procurement process sometime). Even then they get hind teat. The Corps get U.S. Army cast offs, always has, always will. Chances of the entire U.S. military getting a tank because the Marines like it is less than Zero.

 

[Matt Wiser]

ISTR from back in '84 that Mondale had shortlisted Hart to be his SECDEF had he won the '84 election. Glad neither event happened....

When it comes to armor, the Marines buy what the Army does, unless it's something specialized, like the LAV-25 or an Amtrac-type vehicle. If the Army buys an alternative tank (a diesel-powered M-1 variant, say) the Marines will do so as well. They won't go anywhere else. The USMC Tomcat program wasn't killed because of program problems: it was killed to use the money for what became the F/A-18 and AV-8B. Much to the disappointment of VMFA-122 and VMFA-531 who were TDY'd to NAS Miramar in '75 to begin the transition. Never thought I'd read of Marines cursing the Commandant of the Corps, but a bunch of po'd Jarhead pilots and NFOs were that day.

 

[Commissar]

Commissar, you are not authorized to take my tank away from me!!!

But the PBI, who have to deal with your muzzle blast and want to hitch a ride on your pimp mobile without getting burned by the engine, do have the Authorization.

And surely you won't begrudge an indirect fire capability and more ammo choices?

 

[Comablack]

Grunts dont ride MBT's not because of the engine heat, agreed its excessive, but because the primary role envisioned was Tank V Tank not infantry support. The M-1 was designed to a spec for a hvy tank killer the PBI support vehicle role was subsumed into the Bradley series which with the 25mm/TOW combo was more than up to the task. the cancellation of the Abrams/Bradley programs leave you with a doctrine and no way of implementation due to a lack of suitable vehicles. Also have you ever driven either of the MBT's in question or used the Guns M-60 was a tired old design and needed to go. You cant put makeup on a pig and get a supermodel you get a pretty pig. The best you can realistically hope for is a diesel equipped M-1 series all in all not a bad solution but noisy,BTW the AC engine in the M-1 is freaking quiet as hell. example during Reforger in 88 we could hear Leo's at 2-3k M-1's at less than 1k. The Merkava series is great for the IDF and there doctrine it doesnt fit USA doctrine in the slightest hence why we have a real tank for killing tanks and IFV for carriers/fire support of the dismounts. If you'll notice the IDF uses a whole different mind set when it comes to vehicles Hvy APC's /Inf Spt Tanks vs hvy tank killer /IFV US . In short the cancellation of the M-1 for M-60/2000 is a huge mistake we would pay for in lives later.

As for the LeClerc your kidding right buy a MBT from a country that in the past has screwed us multiple times forget the NIH syndrome lets talk parts availability when the French decide they dont like our actions and withhold them. Besides we would be way better off buying Challenger from the UK.
or even better just buy Merkava's for the Inf Spt role and give them to the non Mech Inf divs.

As mentioned above Ronnie was just going to reauthorize the program FY 82 and we still end up equipping every AD/MID with them per doctrine . you might want to fight a static defense, a fail strategy beyond epic, but the troops on the ground and policy makers dont.

 

[Commissar]

Grunts dont ride MBT's not because of the engine heat, agreed its excessive, but because the primary role envisioned was Tank V Tank not infantry support. The M-1 was designed to a spec for a hvy tank killer the PBI support vehicle role was subsumed into the Bradley series which with the 25mm/TOW combo was more than up to the task.

Except most areas don't allow for such massed Tank Fights and negate the advantages of long range punch due to lack of clear spaces.

So a Tank is going to be supporting Infantry the majority of the time with heavy direct fire support from the main gun and the PBI need to be able to stay close to it and ride it as well so they can suppress rooftop AT and Molotov Teams.

Weapons systems need to be tailored to the battles they will mostly fight, not battles it will rarely see.

What good is a heavy tank that while can kill anything five on one in a desert, but uses three times the fuel and can use very few bridges necessitating specialized bridge laying equipment? Answer, not much. Fatal in a guerrilla war as you need many more fuel tankers to keep the beast running, thus providing lots of targets for insurgents to hit.

 

[NothingNow]

Why not go for two or three types instead of just the M60A4?
EG:
M60A4(/2000, Magach 6/7, M60T): Standard MBT W/Royal Ordinance L7, or Rheinmetall 120 L/44, plus Composite Armor (and ERA?) In service with the Army.

Joint Unnamed Heavy IFV: Essentially a Merkava clone with a Short L7 or Rheinmetall 120, maybe only 22 Calibers. Composite/ERA armor, but thiner and lighter over all compared to M60A4, and should ideally weigh in under 64,000lbs, and be similarly mobile as M60A4. Latter upgraded with 105/120mm ATGM Round for Main gun. Army.

Marine Light Tank/AFV: Out and out replacement for the M551. Either a Wheeled Tank Destroyer like the Centauro and AMX-10 (Probably based off the MOWAG Piranha I, and sharing components with other USMC vehicles) or a light tank like the Stingray or M8 AGS. Either way, using an L7 tweaked for lower recoil. Army/USMC.

Either way, if the USMC doesn't want the M60A4/Whatever, there are American designed Light AFVs available that can fill the same role, pending the latter introduction of an *Abrams (possibly a licensee built derivative of the Leopard 2A5/2A6 or Challenger 2, fitted with the Rheinmetall 120 L/44 or L/55) some time in the nineties.

 

[Bearcat]

More likely by far to end up with multiple versions of the Abrams. That way you don't have three different supply chains.

As OTL M1A1 (120-mm gun) - for maneuver forces.

Diesel version, otherwise as OTL M1 (105-mm gun) - for the Marines. Lighter logistically, more rounds.

Heavyweight diesel version (105-mm gun) - uparmored, for infantry support, urban warfare.

 

[Commissar]

More likely by far to end up with multiple versions of the Abrams. That way you don't have three different supply chains.

As OTL M1A1 (120-mm gun) - for maneuver forces.

Diesel version, otherwise as OTL M1 (105-mm gun) - for the Marines. Lighter logistically, more rounds.

Heavyweight diesel version (105-mm gun) - uparmored, for infantry support, urban warfare.

Or how bout one M1A1 battalion per Corps as a spearhead unit designed to wade into the thickest fighting and take it on the chin so the follow on forces can plunge through the gap.

 

[NothingNow]

More likely by far to end up with multiple versions of the Abrams. That way you don't have three different supply chains.

True. But if they went with something like that, I could see components sharing being a huge deal, compared with today, maybe with a Howitzer derivative of the heavy IFV, *M270, along with an M113 replacement, while the new M60A4 shares that Power pack, and has most of it's components in common with an updated M88 and M60 AVLB. The Marine Light AFV would be some thing like the Stryker in a situation like that.
It'd probably be an improvement over OTL.

Basically, Joint Heavy IFV = M2/3Bradley, (but with less suck,) and the Marine Light AFV = Stryker/Centauro.

 

[Bearcat]

For a heavy IFV, I'd like to see something like what the Israelis have done for urban fighting. Basically tank armor on an IFV. Ideally, you want a V-bottom like an MRAP, and enough armor to withstand 30-mm autocannon and even a tank round or two from the front aspect. You would not be able to afford many thousands of them, as they'd be as expensive as a tank, but they'd be damned useful in built up areas.

For a maneuver IFV, you'd want something like the Bradley. Fast enough to keep up with the fast tanks, cheap enough to have lots of them. Maybe with Reactive Armor to give them a little better chance to survive in that environment. You'd also eventually want to put Javelin fire-and-forget tech into the TOW missiles on board. It will never be as survivable as a tank and nimble enough to keep up with it, but I think you can improve on OTL a little there.

The Stryker sounds just about right for the USMC, as successor to the LAV.

 

[ranoncles]

Hate to rain on the LeClerc parade, but there's a huge problem with that: NIH. Or, for those not familiar with DOD procurement, it's the Not Invented Here syndrome. It's also a condition in Congress, too. Only if there is no domestic alternative available will DOD buy a foreign-made weapons system, or any other major item, for that matter. There would be a M-1 revival later on in the mid '80s, with the Reagan buildup and all, so the issue would be moot.

Actually ran into something similar over on ACIG.org a few years back: someone suggested the USN buy Rafales as an F/A-18E substitute. That suggestion died a quick death.

As logical as this sounds, and I am not disputing the "not invented here" syndrome, your assertion falls far short of reality.

The US military have a proud history of using foreign designed weaponry...From French tankettes in WWI, via Mustangs with Rolls-Royce engines, to Harrier jump jets, Belgian squad automatic weapons, Swiss designed armoured vehicles for the Marine Corps and a German main tank gun in the M1 Abrams....

So vive LeClerc!

 

[Matt Wiser]

There are always exceptions to the rule: the B-57 being the AF's. But buying LeClerc? As they said on The Sopranos, fugadaboutitt. Why would we in the first place when it's not going to be available until 1991 at the earliest. Hell, Krauss-Maffai tried selling a 105-mm version of the Leo 2 to the U.S. Army in 1976-77, and was told "thanks, but no thanks." There was just too much already invested in the program to cancel-in Congress as well as the Army, so killing the M-1 is just a pipe dream. And even if Mr. Carter did cancel it, Reagan would just restart the program in the FY 82 DOD budget, and that's that.

Nothingnow: you're forgetting one thing: Congress getting involved and telling the Army and the USMC "You shall buy an American designed and built tank." No ifs, ands, or buts. All it takes is a few Congresscritters in districts affected by potential cancellation of the M-1 to do just that. Most amendments just sail through Congress, and that would be it.

 

[Matt Wiser]

The M-1 wasn't designed for a purely desert war: it was designed primarily to fight and win on the North German Plain, the Fulda and Hof Gaps, and the Central Front in general. The tactics, doctrine and equipment fielded in the '80s worked very well in 1991 against a different enemy, but one who used the same equipment the Army trained to fight against. Say it again: the battle the M-1 was designed for was what was expected in the 1970s-80s: facing Group of Soviet Forces Germany and Central Group of Forces (out of Czechoslovakia) on the Inner-German Border.

 

[Seraph]

Except most areas don't allow for such massed Tank Fights and negate the advantages of long range punch due to lack of clear spaces.

So a Tank is going to be supporting Infantry the majority of the time with heavy direct fire support from the main gun and the PBI need to be able to stay close to it and ride it as well so they can suppress rooftop AT and Molotov Teams.

Weapons systems need to be tailored to the battles they will mostly fight, not battles it will rarely see.

What good is a heavy tank that while can kill anything five on one in a desert, but uses three times the fuel and can use very few bridges necessitating specialized bridge laying equipment? Answer, not much. Fatal in a guerrilla war as you need many more fuel tankers to keep the beast running, thus providing lots of targets for insurgents to hit.

There is no major guerrilla war in the 1980's. Insisting that the US needs a tank for a guerrilla war in the 1980's is like insisting we need a 140mm gun MBT tomorrow.
You're replacing the demands of the 1980's with those of today's.

And how is a 120mm rifled gun better? Have the British use of rifled guns been really that much better? And HESH are much less effective for modern Soviet tanks of the 1980's.
And it isn't always a matter of long range, but also armor penetration as Fin stabilized sabots perform better with smoothbores.

 

[benjamin]

No, it remains the same. Most military advances never exceed 30 miles a day, any faster and you risk your spearheads getting lopped off.

Even when your opponent utterly panics and his front breaks apart, you're lucky to advance 60 miles a day.

Here is why:

As you advance, you are engaged in battle and have to leave the roads and maneuver around. The M60 has comparable speed to the M1 in such an environment.

If you're opponent breaks and runs, they are retreating along their supply line and using the gas up and destroying what they can't take, while you have to bring yours up and plan operational stops so you can tank up while retaining a reserve to counter a counter-attack.

When view in that light, the M1 series is a fucking disaster logistically against a competent foe as it uses up at least three times the fuel of the M60 series due to a stupid decision to put in an aircraft engine which in addition, is so hot Infantry cannot hitch a ride on it and provide top cover.

Also Tank-on-Tank battles are rare. Most of the time a tank is going to be supporting Infantry with Direct Fire. Viewed in that way, the decision to go for a Smoothbore Tank Killing Gun was another disaster for the M1 as that main gun is fucking powerful. You do not want to be within 100 yards of it when it goes off. This limits the aid it can give infantry and lessens the amount of HE it can carry in it HE rounds and also limits the types of rounds it can carry.

Finally the M60 is roughly 20 tons lighter and can use more bridges than the M1 can which is a big operational advantage.

That being said, the M1 is the best Heavy Tank in the World and can kill any Tank one-on-one, but Tanks ultimately have to support the Infantry with direct fire, which the M1 is poorly suited to, in addition to being a massive logistics burden to keep in the field and mobile.

In essence, the Army bought a Tiger, when they needed a Sherman.

No. The M60 was replaced by the M1 because the M60, even in upgraded form could not and did not meet the needs of the newly developed doctrine of Air-Land Battle. The M1 was a major advance in all three categories that define a tank's fighting ability: tactical mobility, firepower and armor. And while we could debate ad nausea the benefits of gas turbine vs. diesel engine, I have talked to many Abrams drivers (many of whom also drove M60s in the PA National Guard) and they to the man agreed that the M1 was far superior.

The US after Vietnam returned its attention back to the confrontation in Central Europe. Political forces were such that the West Germans were beginning to demand that NATO disavowed first use of nuclear weapons and develop a plan to defend West Germany as far forward as possible. To do this the US needed a tank that could fight a vicious defensive "first contact" battle while performing local tactical withdrawals to keep from being overwhelmed. As this was going on pre-positioned material manned by flown in REFORGER personnel would make its way to the front along with whatever reinforcements could be sent across the Atlantic in time to stop the Soviet advance.

Once NATO forces gathered enough forces in theater, a strategic reserve would be formed. With that reserve NATO would then launch a series of fast moving counter attacks intended to disrupt Warsaw Pact rear areas and throw off the pace of their attack. To do this a mobile hard hitting tank and matching IFV were needed. Neither the M60 or M113 could fulfill these new requirements.

To do the job they were now politically forced to accept the US Army needed the M1. If the enemy already has a butt load of Shermans and you know your government will only fund a certain number of tanks (regardless of the quality of the tank) than you need that new tank to be a Tiger. Britain, West Germany and the US all knew this, which is why the Challenger, Leopard II and Abrams are so similar.

Benjamin

 

[Matt Wiser]

Correct. The tank fit the doctrine. M-60/M-113 didn't. Could forward defense have worked? Probably, but be glad the chance to find out never happened.

Someone might try the "Why didn't NATO have a common tank?" angle. Might as well dispose of that idea right now. Domestic politics in the three major NATO members that build tanks (France was out of NATO's military command structure at this time) argue against it. The various tank manufacturers (GDLS for the M-1, Vickers for the Challenger, Kraus-Maffei for the Leo 2) had very powerful friends in their national capitals. Expecting the U.S. Army to buy a foreign tank, or the British to buy the M-1 or Leo 2, as an example, is a wasted effort. In D.C., the lobbyists who'd preach buying the Leo 2 or Challenger would be shown the door-probably being kicked through it. The British MPs who represent districts where Vickers builds tanks would do the same.