Originally Posted by shek
Well with it's new TUSK, it works great. Admitingly the M1 doesn't have great overhead protection, it's armor onn the roof is thinner than of the M60.
M60's pro in MOUT:
Enclosed commander's coupla
Spherical turret
Smaller profile
Blazer Reactive Armor
Exit hatch on turret floor
Smaller main gun
Xeon/IR Searchlight
Last edited by Weps; 16 Sep 05, at 21:59.
It doesn't have most of the TUSK upgrade done, yet. How do you see the smaller caliber main gun being an advantage? Are there protective skirts for the tracks/roadwheels? Is there room inside the M60A3 for all the C4ISR that allows your FBCB2/BFT to work? What vision do you have from the commanders' coupola?
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Gimme a platoon of Shermans.
-dale
"Agreed. Is it spherical protection (i.e. protected from above)?"
Yuppers.
The coupola on the M-60A3TTS has six vision blocks, so visibility is pretty good for a tank of that era.
Last edited by Bill; 16 Sep 05, at 23:23.
"Smaller profile"
The M-1 is a significantly lower tank. The M-60 has always been very tall by MBT standards.
Well see as that the 120mm was chosen for deafting heavy Soveit armor, and see as the M1A2 SEP carries only 40 rounds compared to the M60A3's carrying 63.
Also, why do you need a APFSDS in a MOUT? HEAT and Canister are good, maybe carry a couple Sabot incase of comfonting any enemy armor.
Yes there are skirts for the A3, but they never where used in combat They where apart of the M60X program.
Yes there is room, have been being inside the tank it is quite roomy.
Quite a bit of visiblity considering that the M1A1HC has the RCWS blocking two of the vision blocks.
Last edited by Weps; 17 Sep 05, at 01:20.
I actually think some of the TUSK package is stooooopid.
Ya, I agree.
Last edited by Weps; 17 Sep 05, at 05:19.
If i may, i should elaborate.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, ERA and Infantry....they don't mix well.
The phone seems to implicitly indicate supported ops. Well, if that's the case- the ERA is a big time no go.
Besides, it's way too effin' hot behind an Abrams to be hanging out behind that big effer chatting on a phone.
The loaders thermal sight- unless he's getting a remote weapon too(which he aint)- stooopid. If the loader aint loading he's manning his weapon, all that sensor does is give some redundant road march/movement to contact security in an NBC buttoned up environment, and i question spending that much money for a gadget that is not connected to a weapons system or the actual safe operation of the vehicle.
Sure it's cool, but IMO it's an unneeded extra piece of high tech gadgetry. They shoulda just gone the rest of the way and added a remote Loaders weapon station too. Lord knows THAT WOULD be useful.
At least they deleted the dumb APERS mine mounts.
As far as the M-60A3TTS, yeah, it was a good tank- but don't get carried away, the M-1 of all models is better in almost every measureable way.
I agree that the M1 is better, but I just wonder why the Army was stupid enough to get rid of the A3. I wonder why they are blowning billions out of thier butt on new crap that falls apart first thing in a combat zone, like that damn MGS Stryker.
Like leibstandarte10 said put a 175mm on the A3 and you've got an assault gun.
Last edited by Weps; 17 Sep 05, at 20:58.
Actually, the MGS can't fall apart in a combat zone since it hasn't even hit a combat zone yet. In any case, you're talking about vehicles in completely different weight classes with completely different missions.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
I just read an interview with a guy who's run a Styker unit for a year now, and he has nothing but glowing praise for it. One of Shek's threads.
I figured it would be junk too based on what I'd read, and the fact that it's not a tank and tanks are cool, but it looks lke I'm way wrong and it rocks hard.
-dale
So... I was pointing out how we are investing in crap that falls apart too easily.
Why do you think it's not fielded yet?
And I've read the U.S. Army's list of complaints.
(1) Seat belts don't fit fully gear soldiers
(2) Thermal Imgaging Screen fails to work
(3) Main armerment will not fire while vehicle is moving
(4) Add-on armor add's to much weight
(5) Tire pressure must be checked three times or more aday to ensure that they aren't dangerously low or high
(6) Roof armor penetrated by 7.62mm rounds
(7) Prone to fliping
Last edited by Weps; 17 Sep 05, at 23:20.
You've got the list of complaints wrong or without context.
(1) Seatbelts. Same seatbelts as other vehicles; however, the US Army has different soldier equipment that has changed the dynamics - IBA, SAPI, MOLLE, etc. This problem was already fixed by last October as the report was being written, which was about six months prior to the Washington Post article that was written by a hack who f'ed up the CALL report conclusions.
(2) RWS Screen. Works. However, as with all thermal images, when you have fog or other weather conditions where temperature differences between objects and the air are minimal to non-existent, it doesn't work.
(3) Main armament doesn't fire on the move. Wrong. Fires on the move as a suppressive area weapon. To get point accuracy, however, the vehicle must be stationary. Upgrade was already in the works and should be fielded within the next 6 months or so as the vehicles go through block upgrades.
(4) Add-on-armor adds too much weight. Wrong. Add-on-armor provides nearly 100% protection against RPG penetration in the Iraqi operating environment at some minimal costs (wider vehicle, more stress on the engine, ramp, and suspension). If it added too much weight, then you wouldn't have a 95% OR rate in combat conditions.
(5) Tire pressure must be checked. True. Simple task that is handled by the driver. What if you don't do this? Your tire wears faster, but other than that, there's no big deal about this.
(6) Roof penetrated by 7.62mm rounds. I haven't seen this report; if you can provide a link, I'll comment on the report. This would be a serious issue if it happened as the armor is designed to protect against this.
(7) Prone to flipping. Wrong. Are there Strykers that rollover? Yes. Why? I'd place the majority as driver error and some as the difficulty of the terrain at the different training areas and in Iraq. Also, it has been determined that the slat armor hasn't increased the propensity to rollover.
MGS - I'm not too read into the MGS program as I had ATGMs as the ILO variant. However, since you do have a ILO variant, there isn't a need to rush the vehicle into service, so the decision to flesh out everything with the vehicle prior to fielding is a good one. That isn't to say that there have been engineering problems with the vehicle, as there certainly has been and this opens up GDLS to fair criticism on their failure to deliver on time with the MGS. However, outside the vehicle that accounts for less than 10% of the entire Stryker program, the program has been a stryking (pun intended) success IMO.
I am not a "wheels over tracks" guy, nor a "Stryker can replace the Abrams." However, the Stryker has been the right vehicle for the Army to fill its capability gap between the light and heavy forces and has done a tremendous job in Iraq.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
I'm sorry that I can't provide the link, the forum I read it am archived the thread the link was in. The Stryker is prone to roll over, going at it's top speed it flips quite easily. I'm not trying to bash the Stryker I a big fan of it, the IFV and ATGM variants anyway. I had hopes for the MGS. I don't know of any other vehicle that has seatbelts.
I would like the Army to have done it this way,
Heavy Tank: M1A1/A2
Light Tank: M60A3 TTS
IFV/CFV: M2A3/M3A3 BFV
Medium APC: M11A3 ACAV
LAV: Stryker/LAV III
But I don't make the desisions, so.......
lets agree to disagree.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: