Home » Ground » TARDEC: Army must re-think doctrine to cut vehicle weights

TARDEC: Army must re-think doctrine to cut vehicle weights

by Mike Hoffman on February 22, 2013

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — If the Army is serious about wanting to reduce the weight of its vehicles, then it has to seriously re-evaluate how it operates and not depend so heavily on material science, said Paul Rogers, the director of U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC).

“If you really want to go after vehicle weight in a disruptive manner, material science is an aspect of it but we really need to start challenging our doctrine, our conops, and our reliance on other technological means,” Rogers said here Friday at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Winter Symposium.

Vehicle weights have significantly increased as commanders look to protect their troops from relatively basic threats such as improvised explosive devices that littered the roads in Iraq and Afghanistan. With those increased weights, Army leaders have complained about losing their speed on the battlefield.

Rogers explained that to lessen those weights, too much is expected from material science. Unless there is a major break through in material science, Rogers said the Army can expect to reduce tank weights by only about six tons over the next 30 years.

However, if the Army was willing to take some risks and re-think the way it operates, it could slash vehicle weights.

“If you really want to get down to a 20 ton platform, lets take the soldier completely out of it and lets leverage autonomy out of systems,” Rogers said.

With soldiers coming out of Afghanistan after 12 years at war, Rogers said it’s time the Army take some risk in vehicle weights. Rogers said he’s interested in working with U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command to reconsider how the Army operates in its armored vehicles.

It’s time for the Army to consider the vehicle as a member of the squad, Rogers said. Soldiers should be able to depend on their vehicle to collect real time data for them and provide analysis. Vehicles should be better connected to unmanned vehicles collecting information overhead.

Heidi Shyu, the Army acquisition chief, has focused the Army to better sync their Science & Technology efforts to deliver better equipment on the battlefield quicker. Rogers said she has forced TARDEC to look beyond five years. He said that has helped understand future technologies and will help them take educated risks.

“I think this is a time to take risk. I think this is a time to incentivize ourselves to take risk. The longer planning horizons allow us to do that,” Rogers said.

Share |

{ 150 comments… read them below or add one }

Lance February 22, 2013 at 1:44 pm

This negates GCV since they want lighter vehicles for Operations the M-1 is the current heavyweight and the Army want6s small and light. a GCV that's heavier conflicts with this new doctrine.


blight_ February 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm

If they want expendable vehicles and light weight, we can have teleoperated Humvees with TOW launchers be the first wave of the attack against Iran.

If you take the DU out of an Abrams, it will still weigh about 60 tons. Do you go with a lighter, more compact engine? Do you reduce fuel tank size? Do you reduce the size of the gun and rounds stowed? Thinner composite armor?


tmb2 February 22, 2013 at 7:20 pm

We can probably build a more fuel efficient engine for the M1, but cutting anything else you suggest would hinder its main mission: going head to head with enemy armor. We up-gunned the M1 in the 1980s to keep up with peer threats and it only carries 40 rounds.

I don't think TARDEC is necessarily advocating expendable robots, but rather for the army to be willing to lose a few vehicles to keep freedom of maneuver instead of trying to build an impenetrable IFV.


majr0d February 22, 2013 at 11:04 pm

Seems like TARDEC's director is promoting some solutions that might advance his organization's goals but isn't too up on why we operate the way we do. New ideas are great but it's wise to bounce them off of some folks that have seen the pink elephant.


d. kellogg February 26, 2013 at 8:33 am

"…We can probably build a more fuel efficient engine for the M1…"

We can.
We WERE going to go commonality with the Crusader's L100 series engine, a considerably refined and improved gas turbine compared to the Abrams' AGT1500.
We HAVE also trialed fuel efficient, high-torque, highly reliable diesel engines.
But the money just IS NOT THERE to re-engine the entire service fleet, even if long-term reliability and fuel economy predicts that fuel and maintenance savings would justify it.
Short term, we just can't afford long-term cost savings. That's a problem with a majority of programs we have: we have a few too many leaders who lack sufficient long-term vision. They desire too many near-term quick fixes and as on-the-cheap as possible.


Tri-ring February 24, 2013 at 8:29 am

Japan's type 10 MBTs are only 40 tonnes with the base configuration, and 48 tonnes when fully equipped.


blight_ February 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm


No DU, swap the crew for an autoloader for a smaller turret…

CVT sounds like for fuel economy in terms of efficient gearing; but I'm curious if they're any lighter than standard units.


majr0d February 25, 2013 at 12:28 am

Blight – FYI autoloaders tend to be slower than humans and often require the gun to return to a certain angle for reloading requiring the gunner to realign the gun on target. There's a time penalty.

Of coure there's one less man for maintenance and security.


blight_ February 25, 2013 at 10:25 am

I imagine the other problem is that autoloaders may not function reliably in all situations, and not all autoloaders would have provision for manual loading, or if they did, it would be slower than a pure manual-loading tank, especially without a human loader. Either the gunner or the TC would have to load.

Pat February 25, 2013 at 10:38 am

Of course the Russians employed auto loaders but supposedly they were not very reliable.

zak February 25, 2013 at 9:07 am

and how well do they perform in combat?


David March 1, 2013 at 12:37 am

good enough for the French, South Koreans, Russians, Chinese, and Ukrainians to design their tanks with them.


Tyler February 25, 2013 at 11:22 am

i don't think we should reduce the size of the gun because they have there purposes and i don't think we should make the armor thinner because its an armored vehicle that one of its many special qualities.


kiwiwni February 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm

One of Fred Saberhagen's visions is on the horizon…


ziv February 23, 2013 at 8:27 am

I was thinking more on the lines of Keith Laumer's Dinochrome Brigade. Even a Bolo design has to start somewhere. Can you imagine being a tank commander of an M1 platoon with an unmanned M1Bolo that you can send into any particularly tough spots using the imagery from a variety of UAV's and from all the vehicles in your platoon?
Then just have it follow behind the platoon when it is not needed. On the flip side can you imagine the complaining about which crew is going to be tasked with maintaining it? LOL!


Navbm7 February 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm

Both of you are correct. But consider this; if you have a remotely operated tank on the battlefield how can you keep the enemy from hacking the signal and turning your own weapon against you?
Nice in Sci-fi, not so practical today!


Phono March 1, 2013 at 10:46 am

the question is not if it is possible or not, but how often this would probably happen – wich is a question of decryption


blight_ March 1, 2013 at 2:34 pm

Encryption will add to the teleoperation latency. There's a reason why UAVs have operated unecrypted, because latency from the far side of the world already sucks, and compression makes it worse.

If we start teleoperating UAVs from motherships much closer, we can probably throw in encryption again…

blight_ February 23, 2013 at 5:19 pm

Every Bolo had a human operator and unmanned operation was not a preference. The [Edit: later mark] Bolos were sentinent machines, and generally not teleoperated. They were issued fragmentary orders in a human, natural language sense, and used their powerful sensor systems and advanced intelligence to decide on the best way to achieve these ends.

Bolos could synchronize with each other using the TSDS, which networked the Bolos into a Beowulf cluster to combine their computing power and to coordinate.

Early marks used personality separation and privileged access that required a in-vehicle human operator to activate their full potential; killing the operator required cutting through the machine in such a way that the Bolo itself was probably toast.

A vehicle that could synthesize sensor inputs to point out IEDs or enemy targets for humans to shoot at; even without direct control inputs would be immensely useful.


Will Leach February 22, 2013 at 3:36 pm
dee February 22, 2013 at 4:26 pm

"if the Army was willing to take some risks and re-think the way it operates….."

Whenever we look at an organization, any organization, and we consider the fact that often when it takes additional risk(s) we must consider that often the goal post is moved for defining the risk and quantifying the severity of the risk and too much "acceptable risk" is on boarded. As a result this creates an opportunity for a foe to exploit it. Look at the battles of Fallujah we went in there the 1st time expecting to steamroll the insurgents. The 1st time they were prepared and pushed back hard. The 2nd time we deceived them into giving away strong points and to identify their routes through their defensive positions. They exploited our arrogance and we exploited their inability to see the bigger picture.


majr0d February 22, 2013 at 5:01 pm

You might want to relook the task organization and size of the second force. The size of the force was tripled and heavy armor made increased from 10 to 30%. Intel definitely helped but it was a smaller part of the anvil that came down on them.


Pat February 25, 2013 at 10:31 am

I think the 1st Fallujah batle was stopped because we didn't want to cause excessive civilian casualties (similar but not quite why we let the Republican Guards get away whne we stopped the war after 4 days which was partly due to the scenes from the road of death that actually cost relatively few lives) and not because of insurgent pushback.


SKYNET February 22, 2013 at 4:33 pm

I think autonomous tanks are a great idea


johnvarry February 22, 2013 at 7:42 pm

Behold the coming of BOLO


Chinese government February 22, 2013 at 4:35 pm

We think computer controlled tanks are great idea.
Also, we completely reject the latest accusations that the Chinese government is engaged in hacking your computers.


Rob February 28, 2013 at 1:29 am

I believe it was not the government. There are large hacking groups in China that have been on western internet through proxies for years savaging money. They have made enough to strengthen their groups and have learned ways around many things on the net.

They steal game accounts. They sell our kids virtual items for real money and get away with it. They get into everything. Email, forum accounts, banks. Even they try to get into my work's accounts.

I am American born and raised and have much respect for China and it's people but this cyberwar just emboldens iran and North Korea to push is all into war soon if keeps escalating like this. Doubt you are from China at all but if you are you need to stop these groups. Or atleast try.


Chris February 22, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Sounds like a difference of opinion within the Army…….


johnvarry February 25, 2013 at 1:05 pm

General MvNair was a artillery officer who's doctrine was tanks for infantry and tank destroyers for anti-tank. Tigers and Panthers had been encountered only in small numbers and could be defeated.

In 1942 the Sherman was one of the best tank on the battlefield. By 1943 the Sherman was still felt to be good enough. By late 1943 it was clear US needed to update Sherman or replace with a tank with better gun and armor. By late 1943 Gen McNair agreed on a 76mm gunned Sherman.

The Brits offered the US the 17lbr but the US refused and concentrated on developing their own gun.

Armored Forces Commander Gen Devers wanted a heavy tank with 90mm gun. Ordanance Dept wanted a heavy tank with 76mm gun. McNair was opposed to any heavy tanks. Devers went over McNair's head to Gen Marshall. Marshall is the one who authorized the Tiger Force T26E3's be sent to ETO.

Knowing the US would need a "Assault tank" to assault defended positions for Invasion of Europe the Tank Corp built the M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo". The Jumbo was intended to carry a 75mm gun.

Armored Command pulled a sleight of hand. The turret design used for the Jumbo was based on the T23 prototype. The turret's gun manlet and gun mounts were designed for 75mm or 76mm.

When Jumbo's arrived in Europe all the maintenance depot had to do was grind out gun manlet opening for larger barrel and 76mm bolted right in. Ammo boxes were converted to 76mm.

IMHO Tank Corp will not be able to drop the M1's weight enough. We will see either a new tank based on GCV or a new light tank. A CV90-120 would be interesting.


majr0d February 22, 2013 at 5:15 pm

Sadly more BS. If we want to cut vehicle weight we have to accept risk to troops. That isn’t going to happen.

Robotic vehicles and UAVs are cool (and appeal to the American affinity for high tech solutions) but we looked at this hard with FCS where almost every vehicle had its own drone and even the robots had robots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ICZYRoZkeA

We also know that vehicles without infantry don’t do well for long in any environment just check the Israeli experience in ’73. We also learned in FCS experimentation that the enemy kills robots and then you have people doing the dangerous stuff again or even worse with really expensive/capable robots there’s a tendency to use grunts (human lives) to protect or recon the situation before committing the robot!


tmb2 February 22, 2013 at 7:32 pm

When these discussions come up around family or the office, I love to share a few anecdotes from the Iraq surge. In 2007 the EFPs were shredding humvees and with more troops in country we had more casualties. We shut down the EFPs not with gizmos or hiding behind the newly arriving MRAPs, but rather finding the staging and assembly areas for the IED teams and the guys building them. We figured that out by taking some risks, going out on foot and looking for them and talking to people.


majr0d February 22, 2013 at 10:11 pm

tmb – WHAT!!! No new fangled tech that smells when people are thinking about IEDs and can be employed from a drone at 20,000 feet?



riceball February 26, 2013 at 12:59 pm

Speaking of smelling, the Army actually experimented with people sniffers during Vietnam. The idea was to use these "sniffers" to actually try to smell where the VC were hiding in the jungle and on the Ho Chi Minh trail.


blight_ February 28, 2013 at 11:58 am

Fido, find the VC. We will direct several cells of B-52s to you shortly.

Good boy…

tee February 22, 2013 at 6:38 pm

News Flash ( Pentagon Grounds JSF Fleet After Turbine Blade Cracks; 'Potential Exists For Catastrophic Failure').
. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/22/f-35-f


tee February 22, 2013 at 6:48 pm

" And I Quote "The damaged turbine module and associated hardware are being shipped to the manufacturer’s facility in Middletown, Conn., for investigation. This engine had 700 total hours of service, 400 of which were executed in flight, before the crack was found", only 400 hundred hours of flight time, WOW, this is going to be expensive!
. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/arti


dubweiser101 February 22, 2013 at 9:52 pm

I think we've reached the pinnacle of heavy armor… Time to consider less conventional, and traditional ways of projecting armor onto the battlefield. HOVER TANKS BABY!


we chan February 23, 2013 at 5:28 pm

i good driver only 3 cases 2 dismised one i buy dinner


Godzilla February 22, 2013 at 10:39 pm

It is probably possible to do a modern tank with only 2 crewmen with little reduction in overrall responsiveness. 1 pilot and 1 weapons operator. If you use an autoloader you do not need a loader. If you use sensor fusion between vehicles in the battlefield, and automated target detection, the load on the weapons operator will be reduced so much that the previously separate positions of tank commander and gunner will probably cease to be necessary. So you will need half the internal volume for people in the tank. If you reduce the interior volume of the tank, you reduce the amount of armor required to protect the tank crew as well reducing overall tank weight.

I would not be surprised if there were more material breakthroughs relevant for armor in the next decade given modern composite materials design techniques.

Today's "light" armored vehicles e.g. CV-90 would be in the 20-30 tons class just like the M-2 Bradley. Hence a lot heavier than a BMP-3. In WWII terms they would be the same weight as medium tanks there. The T-34, Panzer IV, Sherman were all in that weight class and constituted the bulk of the tank combat forces of those powers.
There were heavier tanks but those were used for breakthroughs or urban combat scenarios.


majr0d February 23, 2013 at 12:33 am

Sounds impressive but automated target detection is decades away. Identifying targets that don't want to be identified, differentiating them from friendly vehicles and prioritizing targets based on theat to the vehicle and mission accomplishment is a daunting challenge. If we were able to create software to do all the above identifying IEDs would be child's play not that we shouldn't stop trying.

Then there are other issues. Maintaining a 35T armored vehicle with a three man crew in combat is tough especially some of the more difficult tasks like getting unstuck or replacing a thrown track that weighs hunderds of pounds if not a ton. I can't see two men doing it. Finally add 24 hr continuous operations and a two man crew will become combat ineffective relatively quickly.

Just some other thoughts.


Godzilla February 23, 2013 at 7:53 am

Actually I think biggest crew reduction should happen in the heavy tanks where the largest amount of armor is necessary. Regarding threat indication there is evidence to suggest man-machine combinations are superior: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136446-darpa-c

Arguably the driver could also have more computer assistance for driving the vehicle itself. It may be that 2 crew is still not achievable and the maximum reduction possible is to 3 crew, which is done in several tanks already, but the fact that you need less armor for less crew still applies.

The CV-90, and other vehicles like that, is designed to carry the crew (commander, driver, gunner) and an infantry section (8 troops) so these sorts of modifications do not apply there as much. In such vehicles you are better off using modular armor so you can apply heavier armor in the necessary environments and things like Shtora i.e. an electro-optical jammer to prevent the use of missiles and other guided munitions against the vehicle or thermal stealth which is starting to become available.

Just like the USAF uses a hi-lo mix of F-15, F-16 and soon F-22, F-35 the US Army used to use a medium tank, heavy tank combination with the M26 Pershing and M4 Sherman tanks. This stopped being relevant once the opponent was the USSR. Both nations changed to an MBT doctrine during the cold war. Although there were scout tanks as well like the PT-76 or the M551 Sheridan, the US no longer has such vehicles in their stocks. While the Chinese do, because of Southeast Asia and Vietnam no doubt, namely the ZBD2000 which is a 20 ton 3+8 IFV with 105mm rifled gun (ZTD05) or 30mm autocannon.

So there is a definite lack of 20-30 tons armored vehicle in the US inventory compared to other nations including the Chinese.


majr0d February 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm

Godzilla – Tech is cool. It’s nowhere where it needs to be. Rule of thumb is DARPA is a decade or more away from an actual operational system. The tech described is in the PVS 20 that has a mode which will provide the user a computer generated outline that groups thermal images. It can be extremely distracting as you wear it and depend upon it for your life. What the story doesn’t share is how many times the software missed a target and what’s the outlook for picking up vehicles & aircraft.

Agree on three man crews are possible (still a bear on maintenance and continuous ops). It would lessen weight (Russian tanks tend to be smaller/lighter). Note the performance of 3 man crews against 4 man crews.

PT76s and the ZBD2000 can be penetrated by .50 cal fire from the flanks. 20-30 ton vehicles have some real issues.

The ZBD2000 has very light armor and is developed to conduct amphibious landings. It is an IFV. It will not do very well against a force well equipped w/ATGMs or even light AT weapons. Then again the Chinese have a lot of men.


riceball February 26, 2013 at 1:06 pm

For 3 man crew to be better than our 4 man crews we'd need an atuo-loader that can reload the gun no matter how it's elevated, do it faster than a human loader can (without wanting to rip your arms off if you get too close to it or look at it the wrong way), and be able to eject the spent shell in such a manner that it doesn't go rattling all around the inside of the turret.

David March 1, 2013 at 12:41 am

not a fan of autoloaders?


blight_ February 23, 2013 at 12:38 am

The take home is that the engineers are saying that the army cannot wish away the weight problem without trading survivability, and I'm not sure how long it will take before they get the memo.

At least they're being honest about it. Beats eliminating lightning resistance from your jet fighter just to meet a weight limit….


chockblock February 23, 2013 at 1:52 am

This is an insane fantasy. You can't have a vehicle with the protection the Army needs, the firepower it wants and the speed it has to have.

The A6M Zero and HMS Hood scarified armor for speed, Both blewup when faced with opponents that could reach out and touch them.

The M-1 is a mighty glacier but it works.

The dumbasses at TARDEC don't want to pay for the logistics, the tractor-trailers, aircraft and Support brigades needed to maintain the force.

They picture some sci-fi fantasy tank that somehow weights a third of an M-1 but is just as lethal and protected.

Put the numbers in and the computer will give you a sad face.

Scrap the program entirely, upgrade the M-1 and the M-2/M-3 and call it a day. Oh and fire Paul Rogers and others who think like him. They need to stop playing with powerpoint.


davidz February 23, 2013 at 3:35 am

Actually, A6M performed pretty well in its role.

Late German tanks were mighty glaciers, they somewhat worked, but I wouldn't call this a success.


Godzilla February 23, 2013 at 9:03 am

Agreed the A6M was superb when it was designed and entered use. The problem is many of the early WWII designs were utterly obsolete at the war's end. Once the A6M could no longer outrun the opposition the low protection levels became more important. This could have been solved later on with higher performance engines and self-sealing fuel tanks.

The same thing happened to the Panzer I, II, III. The designs did not have enough protection and firepower in the later stages of the war. The Panzer IV is arguably the most successful German tank of WWII because the turret ring was designed large enough to accomodate a larger weapon and it had good all round armor protection. The Panther and Tiger tanks had too many issues and low production rate to be called truly successful. The King Tiger had more downtime with transmission and engine issues than actual combat damage. Around that time the shortage of strategic materials meant German armor and projectiles were subpar anyway. Not very good.


zak February 25, 2013 at 9:23 am

Bah, garbage. The A6M did well against the trash it faced in China but it barely managed to have an edge against out outdated Wildcats. It's advantage in maneuverability was negated by the tactics the Wildcat pilots used. And the P-38 wrecked havoc among the A6M's by using smarter tactics also.

The Panthers and Tigers were vastly superior to the Sherman despite the fact that their slave labor production workers constantly sabotaged the tanks before they even left the manufacturing plant. How well would the Shermans look if they had been sabotaged in the factories? The problems the Germans had was the inability to produce them in quantity and then supplying them with fuel.


riceball February 26, 2013 at 2:25 pm

The Zero did very well until we eventually developed tactics that negated the Zeroes speed and maneuverability advantage and took advantage of our advantages in overall power and dive rate. But it wasn't until later in the war that you could actually dogfight a Zero and expect to come out alive and by then the Japanese had started to come out with newer planes that had the speed and maneuverability of the Zero but with armor and self sealing tanks.

As for the Panthers and Tigers it wasn't so much a matter of slave labor sabotaging things so much as the things were too bloody heavy for the engines and transmissions that they were mated to, this was especially true for the Tigers and doubly so for King and JagdTigers. Add to that the Germans had (and still do if you ask me) a predilection for over engineering things and their tanks, starting from the Panther on, were very complicated to maintain and operate. Then there was the fact that there was no standardization in any of their vehicles designs so that none of their tanks and armored cars had much, if any, commonality so there was no sharing of parts and a given factory could only make parts for one particular model of tank or other AFV.

As for their production rates, despite the around the clock bombing the Germans suffered their production rates never actually sagged. True, they may not have been producing with the same quality as before but their numbers did not sag and actually rose towards the end of the war. The reason why Tigers and Panthers were never produced in very large numbers was because they were very complex vehicles and not as well suited for mass production as, say, Shermans were. Then there's the sheer number of different tanks, half tracks, assault guns, jagdpanzers, and armored cars meant that their production capacity was spread out over a lot of different vehicles with few to no common parts. That, was the reason why German production of Panthers & Tigers could never keep up; if they had just stuck to producing Panthers & Tigers only or IVs & Panthers instead of adding Tigers, King Tigers, Elefants, JagdPanthers, &
JagdTigers then maybe their factories might have been actually able to keep up and produce Panthers and/or Tigers in more meaningful numbers.

tiger February 28, 2013 at 4:57 am

Beg to to differ.
Those Army P-38 drivers Were facing the 2nd & 3rd team pilots Of the IJN. The First team Guys were lost with the Battles of Coral Sea & Midway. The Quality of pilot Is as Important as the plane. Look at the success of ME-109 drivers well into late in the war. Soviets flyers did well with US made garbage as well.

Agree on the tanks though.

bigdaddy February 23, 2013 at 5:15 am

I agree with some of the things he says and not with others. I can see this guy never rode in a M113 or fought from a M1. The way battle works is to have over lapping systems. You can't just have M1 tanks, you need many other vehicles for support. The infantry does the work the tank blows everything up in front of them, they protect each other. With the way combat is in populated areas the king of the battlefield was always heavy artillery, it's useless now. So a change in doctrine is necessary, right now the DOD has no clue were they are going to fight again, bet it's another war fought within the population of a country. Why do you need 70+ ton behemoths to do that? The reason is because we don't really fight to win, we play volley ball with guns.


Denny February 23, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Lightness is desirable for a multitude of reasons, but the gold standard when building a fighting system is still combat effectiveness. So until we achieve a breakthru in lighter but equally effective armor, propulsion and armament, heavy systems like the M-1 remain absolutely essential to deter or defeat peer or near-peer opponents. We can lose a hundred low-end fights with terrorists or irregulars and our national security will likely still be essentially intact, but if our Army is outright defeated in one major slugfest everything we value could be threatened.


Wings33 February 28, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Only reason for M1 is to fight hoards of MBT's. TAC air can quickly take out a hundred or so MBT's, which is about as many as most 3rd world opponents can muster. Alternately, improve AT missile with EFOGM's to extend range to 20 miles or so, combined with drones to easily eliminate threat tanks. If we use M1's in cities with no infantry support, they probably will still get killed.

Much lighter tanks are definitely practical. Tank destroyer version would have 105mm, other versions would have 40mm or 57mm long range cannon. No turret, autoloader. 2 man crew works fine on APC's, would be just fine for somewhat automated tank. Won't have frontal armor as good as M1, but we are taking 1000's of causulties from riding helos, gators, hummers, trucks, and walking, and almost none from well armored vehicles. No sense making more heavies, need to armor (or better yet, replace with locals) our infantry and loggies.

Need radio to get recovery vehicles and guys to recover/repair tanks, or in a pinch borrow some of the accompanying infantry, don't double crew and vehicle size to supply manual labor!


blight_ February 28, 2013 at 3:08 pm

The M1 is a pretty good shock vehicle. To my surprise, they did not suffer as much as I thought they would have in MOUT; both during the OIF phase and the counterinsurgency phase, which includes operations in cities like Baghdad, Najaf and Fallujah.

Making MBT's lighter doesn't change reality for the helo, gator, humvee or truck-mobile persons. From a strategic mobility standpoint, lighter tanks can be LAPES'd and an Abrams cannot. And in the case of the M8 and Russian airborne vehicles, they can be parachuted out of a vehicle at altitude, not just LAPES'd.

Then there's Chinook/helicopter mobile stuff like the Wiesel. And in principle we could simply buy more ASV's, which used to be exclusive to the military police. But that only benefits one vendor. An MRAP contract is juicy for any number of vendors…


we chan February 23, 2013 at 1:14 pm

I buy 4 for my boats new navy gun fire and forget I shot ever target down ace in sky always long live USA


riicky February 23, 2013 at 1:49 pm

Look at that beautiful tank.


John D February 23, 2013 at 2:22 pm

If weight is a factor then why is the army clamoring for th behemoth IFV bigger than an Abrams! Doesn't anyone talk to each other about ideas, future tactics and purchaces in th eDoD or is everything stovepiped!! Like buying 5 differenk kinds of low quarter shoes when one would suffice!! Or a dozen different camoflage like the territory changes with the service employed on it!


SJE February 23, 2013 at 3:00 pm

I agree that some rethinking is necessary, but they need to keep the option of heavy armor. The M1 is great, except for the parts about transporting it to theater, fueling it, driving across small bridges. Its also expensive to buy, and run. We can't escape the fact that budgets are going to get cut.

So, go for a basic tank design that is lighter, but easily retrofitted for more armor, bigger gun, and bigger engine, as needed. Match the flexibility and ease of fixing from the Sherman with the possibility of performance in a King Tiger. e.g. you might have a lighter armored, but bigger engine and gun for rapid advances across the desert. For urban warfare against irregulars, a lighter gun (e.g. 30mm autocannon), but heavy armor and engine to protect against IEDs. The same lighter design could also be retrofitted for semi-autonomous control from a main tank that is heavily armored.


zak February 25, 2013 at 9:32 am

It would probably be less expensive to just have 2 different designs – just look at what happens when you try to make 1 design that does everything – you end up with the skyrocketing JSF costs.


Dfens February 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm

I'd like to see the Army go to wing-in-ground-effect vehicles. They could fly a few feet above the ground at about 100 mph and would be relatively immune to attack by IEDs or mines. Plus they could cross bodies of water without a bridge and would be able to operate in a wide variety of traction conditions including over snow, ice, and mud. It's the kind of out-of-the-box thinking they sorely lack.


blight_ February 23, 2013 at 5:22 pm

If the Marines had a WIG amphibious transport instead of a hovercraft LCAC, they could moot the whole EFV is-it-a-boat-or-a-IFV design compromise argument.

That said, hovercraft for ground use would be cool, but they'd still be vulnerable to IEDs. That said, with enough explosive power you could damage a floating vehicle, or if you used EFPs the standoff would help shape the slug.


we chan February 23, 2013 at 5:26 pm



Dfens February 23, 2013 at 10:12 pm

Wing in ground effect vehicles are a lot faster than hovercraft. Sometimes you see a combination of the two in a single vehicle. The speed plus the fact they don't touch the ground make them hard to target with an IED. They won't activate a pressure switch and they move fast enough that the timing of a hand triggered device has to be perfect. They also don't announce their arrival minutes in advance, so unless someone is prepared to be on the switch of an IED 24 hours a day, they are likely to be late on the button. Hell, they don't even have to stick to roads, for that matter.


blight_ February 24, 2013 at 12:38 pm

Can they loiter?


Dfens February 24, 2013 at 2:20 pm

They can do better than that, they can park. At least, my concept for what these vehicles would be is that they'd have 4 wheels and be able to drive like conventional vehicles, but when traversing longer distances they'd revert to winged flight. You could have some vehicles with deployable wings and fixed wheels and others with retractable wheels and fixed wings depending on whether their focus was more on being a winged ground vehicle or a winged vehicle capable of ground operations. It is a realm of flight that has been largely ignored by our armed services, but could have some big benefits, especially for the Army. It fits the aerodynamic niche that the blimp people are targeting, but with vehicles that are much more resilient and use their speed and proximity to the ground as a moderate form of stealth.

majr0d February 25, 2013 at 3:46 pm

blight – they can loiter but they can't hover. Don't encourage him.

gogoody February 23, 2013 at 10:40 pm

I like thaat! how about using the proven Apache design, with pilot and gunner, on a hover craft like vehicle. Use technology from the f-35 hover engine concepts. If you have to touch the ground then use Stryker wheels. Make the thing thiner, like the apache. it can maneuver through narrow corridors, on the ground, or feet above it or even above the buildings 2-3 story, sit on roof tops, take in the view. It is a multi field player and the opposition doesn't know how to counter something that can be in several possible locations. Ground/Air/roof tops.., etc.. If the terrain is mined, or too steep for climbing, then fly there. What the Apache can do with 30-50 MM and hell-fires, the tank does. The Apache/Tank hybrid is the way to go.


Dfens February 24, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Typically ground effect lift only extends up to 1/4th of your wing chord (the distance from the tip to the tail of the wing) high, so to operate above a 3 story building it requires a very large vehicle with a 120 foot wing chord. That length of wing chord would probably require a wing span of around 300 feet or more. Without having a rotor, you could mount the guns on the top of the vehicle instead of the bottom like helicopters do.


majr0d February 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Ground effect vehicles are very inefficient when it comes to carrying armor/ammo/weapons/payload. Since most ground combat operations (e.g. patrolling) happen at low speeds these vehicles would be moving like conventional vehciles without the protection/firepower. While moving at low speeds they would also be vulnerable to all the threats vehicles are typically coping with to include getting stuck.


Dfens February 24, 2013 at 10:14 pm

If you actually knew what you were talking about instead of just being a paid apologist for the status quo you'd realize that WIGs are great for carrying cargo, which, to no one's surprise but yours, is why the Soviet Union used them as cargo transports, but why argue with an agenda?


majr0d February 25, 2013 at 2:45 pm

The Soviet Union's WIGs were HUGE, basically the size of ships and soley used for amphib warfare. Not a realistic.solution for anything but flat areas which cities aren't. Amphib warfare? Sure. Inland? Ridiculous.

Instead of making up that I'm being paid how about addressing how these vehicles are going to carry tons of armor so they have a chance of surviving when they are not in ground effect mode? How do you conduct a patrol of a city at 100mph? How do you attack a position at a 100mph when you stop and find that ground effect vehicle doesn't have the weapons and armor to survive?

You can't. Your "out of the box" thinking is "pie in the sky I've seen too many sci fi movies". I do have an agenda. Stop the stupidity.


Dfens February 25, 2013 at 3:35 pm

Yeah, vehicles that travel 100 mph need lots and lots of armor. Ever hear of Blitzkreig? Our tanks are barely mobile Maginot lines. Great tributes to your status quo thinking, because everyone knows what is is best!

zak February 25, 2013 at 9:38 am

You've watched too much Transformers. You're still going to have a lrge amount of weight with the main gun, engines and armor (assuming you're not crazy enough to forego armor altogether) so how will you get enough lift and thrust to make it fly?

This is pure Sci-fi.


Dfens February 25, 2013 at 1:23 pm

Isn't it funny how you never see articles stating that what we really need is some more conventional thinking. You never see anyone step up and say, "what we really need here is more inside the box thinking…" Have you ever wondered why that is?


jakck February 23, 2013 at 6:04 pm

How about putting a diesel in the M-1A2s or does that make too much sense?


greg February 24, 2013 at 7:59 pm

It makes perfect sense. That is what they will end up doing after wasting a few billion experimenting. Proving a use case though can be good.

I wonder when reality will hit and they discover that an upgraded Bradley can be on par with most IFVs.


blight_ February 24, 2013 at 8:39 pm

Changing out the engine won't save you weight, but has been suggested for greater fuel economy (which is also good).


greg February 25, 2013 at 10:39 pm

That is why I am suggesting it. The M1 tank's main problem in my opinion is fuel consumption. Weight is just fine.


Ronny February 23, 2013 at 9:46 pm

Google "helltank" for an interesting idea – one that fires hellfire missiles.


gogoody February 23, 2013 at 10:51 pm

not only would the tank/apache hybrid be airborne, with the turbine engine, but it can turn it to move forward/back/sideways. On the ground it just pushes, or the turbofans, gears to drive wheels. Hell they can build anything if they set their minds to it.


zak February 25, 2013 at 9:38 am

KEEP IT REAL and not a fantasy.


Muttling February 24, 2013 at 12:06 am

People love to talk increased risk until the risk turns into reality and then its a blame game before Congress. NASA went through this exact same routine and had some impressive failures like the Cassini Probe. Instead of saying "lets accept an increased risk" they should be real about it by saying "lets accept increased casualties in future wars."


majr0d February 24, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Yes but those that don’t want to address risk are the ones that encumbered our men with every piece of body armor to the point they looked like the Michelin man, couldn’t chase down the enemy and were suffering back injuries because of all the weight they were carrying.

Those that don’t realize risk will result in death are just as bad as those that believe we are in a push button high tech age where war can be fought with no casualties. That attitude saddles us with vehicles that prioritize survivability over every other criteria.


BobsYourUncle February 24, 2013 at 6:00 am

The fantasy: the whole army deployed anywhere in the world with 24hrs notice or less. The reality: only infantry can be deployed in such a way and only Airborne forces can do it without secure airfields already in place. No heavy equipment, no armor, no artillery, no chance against a reasonably equipped foe.

To carry out an operation of any significance and to have more than 24hrs of staying power you need armor, you need artillery, you need a heavy pile of supplies. If its heavy and you need more than one or two, it has to go by ship. So to have armor and to have artillery, you need enough time to go by sea.

Making it lighter means it won't be armored. Now you're back to no staying power. Using a computer to run throwaway bot tanks means they will be dumber than Paris Hilton. Despite what the egg heads say, machine stupidity is still (and will be for the foreseeable future,) a massive problem. An electronic analog to animal instinct and intuition has yet to be found. Would you really want to put the killing power of an M1 Abrams into the hands of a two year old retard with no common sense? That's what you'll be doing if you give it to a computer. (no offense to the mentally challenged intended, but offense to computers is.)

Asking for a lightweight, bullet proof army with overnight delivery to anywhere in the world guaranteed is like asking for a perpetual motion machine. If running an army were really that simple, anyone could be a general. But wait, that's what they really want. Something Paris Hilton could command using nothing more than a twitter account, that way political alignment can be made the only requisite for generalship.

PS the use of Paris Hilton as an example of incompetence is not motivated by sex or hair color. Its about her being a totally worthless airhead. Of which I am certain a great many male, brunette examples also exist.


zak February 25, 2013 at 9:40 am

You've introduced reality into their fantasy world, kudos!


PNS February 24, 2013 at 9:03 am

Oh. Sorry.
I thought that this was another article about Chris Christie.


yaniv February 24, 2013 at 1:49 pm

this is the beautiful tank.

מעצבת פנים משרדים


moe sizlack February 24, 2013 at 2:14 pm

Picture this…..the article mentioned taking the soldier out of the equation……why would the army want to take the soldier out of the equation? In the middle stages of the Iraq war, the army was mortified over the casualties that were being taken over lightly armored HMMMwvs. The DoD started the MRAP program in response. And history goeson from there.

The reason I bring this up is because the reason we have such massive weightsin combat vehicles is because commanders are unwilling to accept high numners of casualties…nor should they accept high number of casualties due to lightly armored vehicles. The main reason these vehicles are so heavy is the armor that provides the protection levels required for safely getting the crew and passengers to the battle front, and completeing the mission with the least amount of risk.

If we start with cutting armor protection to save weight, or relying on active protection systems that can fail for protection, how may soldiers will die trying to fight the wars we ask them to fight?


blight_ February 25, 2013 at 10:30 am

The other issue is that the present army cannot handle injury churn the same way that larger armies can. In WW2 they trained replacements en masse and pushed them to their divisions on the fly; and I'm not sure that the Army has enough slack in training units to push casualty replacements in real time. And in units that aren't fully manned, manpower losses that aren't replaced are more painful.


gogoody February 24, 2013 at 5:58 pm

not only would the tank/apache hybrid be airborne, with the turbine engine, but it can turn it to move forward/back/sideways. On the ground it just pushes, or the turbofans, gears to drive wheels. Hell they can build anything if they set their minds to it.


blight_ February 24, 2013 at 8:40 pm

Like an aircraft family with conventional takeoff, catapult capable and STOVL cousins?



FatTail February 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm

Fast and Light only makes sense for Offense and Recon. The US is great on Offense anyway, but you are going to be on Defense more than Offense. If you want to be safe then, armor weight is paramount. It is rally arguing over the same coin, but two sides.

I assume, a high/low, light/heavy mix is not possible in limited funds. I would prefer heavy then.


Rob C February 24, 2013 at 10:07 pm

Reducing the weight of the next generation of MBT isn't completely a bad idea. They want fuel efficiency, which makes perfect sense. New armor technology may make it possible while reducing the size perhaps half the size. Only problem i have is the automation, with any technology, specially computer related. There maintenance, this stuff breaks down. You'd have to have a pretty dedicated company out there, support them just provide support for this increase automation. Japan's medium tanks have auto loaders, which is fine. Have they actually used them consistently enough see how they'll run down in a non-peace time situation? Not like they're deploying their tanks globally.

Automation/tele-operationing tanks concerns me. Being on the ground is differient thank being remotely numerous miles away. Frankly going full on Bolo/AI controlled tank, would open the vehicle to being jacked by Hackers or worse a virus. I still think a low tech solution, specially with US Military still having to get grip on all those legecy equipment out there been obsoleted and expensive to replace within a 2 decades of service. M1 still not obsoleted. Just not fuel efficient.


zak February 25, 2013 at 9:43 am

Survivability trumps fuel efficiency every time.


Rob C February 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm

I agree with you completely, Unfortunately the way Pentagon is going, they want both. I'm not sure if they have the budget for that.


Shail February 25, 2013 at 9:53 am

"….If you really want to get down to a 20 ton platform…"

OK, what again exactly is the rationale of 20-ton combat vehicles?
Oh that's right: over-dependence on USAF C-130 fleet to move Army hardware at Army's dicretion.
Tried it with Stryker and it was proven impossible to move said Stryker Brigade Combat Team anywhere in the world in 96hours. Hell, we can't even do that with C-5s and C-17s.
Theoretically MAYBE, but there again, that assumes the USAF will just drop every other mission those aircraft have and ready them at the Army's timeframe requirements, and no number of USAF brass will ever OK that.

The chokepoint here then in this 20-ton fallacy is obviously the conceptualized C-130 dependency. So the solution moreso should be, slap some sense into the USAF for a new AMST type aircraft (query YC-14, YC-15), a 30-ton cargo capacity is way more leeway/legroom to play with than 20 tons, and gives us much better opportunity for a vehicle design.
Obviously no AFV weighing umpteen tons over an Abrams will fly, literally. Not in C-5s and C-17s for very far without expensive aerial refueling. Float them there,…put need new port facilities to offload their heavy outsized @sses.


SJE February 26, 2013 at 12:20 pm

If you need quick response, and don't want to maintain huge overseas bases, what do you suggest?


tiger February 28, 2013 at 10:56 am

I think we call them US Marines & MEU's.


blight_ February 28, 2013 at 11:52 am

Surprised the Marines haven't pushed for a medium tank more suited to the amphibious mission and simply use the off-the-shelf Abrams.

If GCV is really going to the high end of 84 tons, then transporting them by LCAC gets a little more complicated. Should still be doable though.


Kirk February 25, 2013 at 11:38 am

Well why not upgrade and revamp the Stingray tank ? Add DU, a more powerful powerplant, revamped turret with autoloader. Wider tracks(maybe M1) and M1 main gun. Alot of off the shelf schtuff could make for a decent 35-40 ton AFV.


Jeff February 25, 2013 at 12:02 pm

I think people are running on the idea and ignoring the reasoning behind it. This is about meating all the goals and demands that are being placed on the next generation of vehicles. As it is, those goals and demands are unattainable short of an eureka moment that revolutionizes science, which simply is like winning the lottery. So if the goals are unrealistic and contradict each other, obviously the Army has to rethink its goals or rethink how the vehicles are intended to operate.

The problem at hand is that vehicles are too heavy to be as mobile as they need to be. The problem is risk aversion thats turning every light vehicle into a mobile fortress and every tank into something very limited in where it can go. The proposition at hand I think has merits. By emphasizing autonomous and semi-autonomous capabilities in vehicles you mitigate the risk to life in a way armor can't. By strengthening the integration of traditionally heavier capabilities you have a more direct line of support to infantry. The other part of this suggestion is that it doesn't have to be in place of traditional capabilities. The Army would still have Bradley-like vehicles, without the growing waist line, but also these slightly more expendable autonomous vehicles as a buffer.


Terry February 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Strykers are not bad vehicles they are pretty quick and there are so many types almost any type of weapon systems can go on them
All they need is a v haul for an upgrade.


greg February 25, 2013 at 10:46 pm

Where have you been. That has been a program of record for years now. There are v-hull strykers in Afghanistan now.


William_C1 February 26, 2013 at 1:00 am

Do we really need to repeat the FCS MGV program debacle? The technology isn't there yet.

Aim for something more achievable. Like 40 tons in the most basic configuration. This should allow for two vehicles per C-17A as opposed to one.

The M1 Abrams still has a lot of life in it too. We should go ahead with an M1A3 upgrade and postpone any plans for a whole new MBT. New vehicle development should focus on replacements for the M2/M3 Bradley and M109A6 Paladin. Eventually you could use the same chassis and components for a vehicle to supplement or replace the Abrams.

Spare Bradley hulls could be re-purposed into replacing all of the M113 hulls we currently use as mortar carriers, ambulances, command posts, and so forth.

The Stryker is a useful asset, but we don't need any more Stryker brigades. Those units should refocused on being a fast to deploy, mechanized infantry force. They shouldn't be expected to compare heavier designs in terms of armor protection.

The idea of a dedicated vehicle like the cancelled M8 AGS to support airborne units is worth considering, but that would involve the Army having some extra money.


guest February 26, 2013 at 1:09 pm

I think you guys are missing he point. The issue can be broken down to 2 main points:

1. manned versus unmanned – canwe remove the solder from the equation or at least reduce the number of soldiers

2. active or passive armor: until now tanks have relied on more and better passive armor to protect the troops. thicker steel and more sophisticated armor – this weighs alot. The other option to is to go to more active armor like the Israeli Trophy system or other active protection systems, They are lighter but may be more complex and expensive


chrisgoike February 27, 2013 at 7:52 am

Does anyone else worry that by taking the people out of the hardware to limit casualties just invites greater desire to use it?
"Hey lets send those tanks in to secure things, what have we got to lose!"
Besides that the problem is more basic. Fight wars to win and not for a draw and constitute your force for just such a thing. Fight. Win. Impose. Leave.


majr0d February 27, 2013 at 5:45 pm

Interesting point. That's what happened with drones.


DocScience February 27, 2013 at 3:17 pm

Let's see, we are going into town surrounded by BG's with IED's, mines, and anti-tank missiles.

I can have one 100 ton supertank, 5 lightweight target practice tanks, or 200 half ton weapons.

How about taking the DARPA/Boston Dynamics "big dog" and mounting an autoloaded 105 recoil-less rifle on it for serious work. One with a MK19 launcher on it for less serious work and another one with an articulated arm mounted M134 with a respectable amount of ammo for just raising all heck. All with thermal/night sights. Maybe give them a pressurized hydraulic quiet mode that lets them walk 100 yards with the engine off.

And give these gun platforms to every platoon. And swarms of them to every armored brigade.

Am pretty sure that some serious whoop@ss would result.


USS ENTERPRISE February 27, 2013 at 9:51 pm

I don't see the argument here. Supposedly, tanks such as the Challenger and the Leopard II are similar, if not better than, the Abrams. So whats with the weight cut down? Keep the a low as possible with every piece of kit available, not just keep the weight low. If you are so desperate, military, do this: take the 120 off, and add a big laser. Problem solved. In place of all those rounds of ammo, put a relatively safer power generator. Then hook it up to the laser. And bam. Whats more, I don't remember a laser beam being vastly effected by wind. What is important is to keep the platform steady. There you have it.


Rob February 28, 2013 at 1:16 am

Keep the heaviest at home and front line defense bases only. Everything else should be designed for mobility. Unless we are planning large invasion, tanks have little use.

In today's battle field I wonder thou. Which is really easier to disable.. a tank, a MRAP, helicopter or a jet. Whichever has the most survivability should be mostly used.


Wings33 February 28, 2013 at 3:29 am

Elite US light divisions are routinely trashed in excercises against German units with 3 ton Wiesel tankettes. They and their Hummers also took heavy losses against 3rd world light infantry in the Middle East. In contrast, crappy MRAPs and Striker trucks do pretty well (withstanding mines, RPG's, small arms fire) against them, despite having poor reliability and mobility (in cities, cross country, and over poorly developed roads and bridges). We would do much better with well designed tracked armored vehicles. We should develop families (tanks, APC's, arty, cargo) of 4t, 8t, 16t, and 24t vehicles. Light units would deploy with the combo of vehicles they select for the mission. If you are fighting Hajis in Toyota pickups in mountains, an 8t tracked vehicle that climbs like a mountain goat and spews 40mm Bofors shells 10 miles and 40mm grenade 2 miles is a pretty nice gadget. If we had competent military leaders working with a dramatically improved state department, we would not need to deploy the entire army to small conflicts. We should be hiring and training locals to do most of the work. Learn from Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afg folks! Sending hundreds of thousands of invading troops on "presence patrols" doesn't work!


blight_ February 28, 2013 at 11:55 am

Doesn't a Humvee weigh around 4 tons?

The Wiesel is a neat little vehicle, and I imagine it would be easier to armor up than a Humvee.

To me, a Gator + Chenowith DPV + Humvee + Wiesel combo covers the light end of things pretty well. As for 16 and 24t those are on the heavy side for off-roading and rural bridges, but are certainly lighter than a Bradley or an MBT.

As for hiring the locals to do our dirty work…we did that at Tora Bora. There's a reason Mullah Omar and Osama aren't sitting in Gitmo right now.


Wings33 February 28, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Short term, modest numbers of very mobile and temporarily concentrated US forces fighting as combined arms. Long term, we are nation building – you can't do that without locals! 8t vehicles and less are Chinook transportable. Tora Bora should have had a few hundred US troops with small armored vehicles, 8t ones providing fire support and moving troops and choppers to help move the troops, full time drone coverage streaming to a command center there, and small fixed wing close air support.

Gators, hummers and trucks are useless. We (don't) learn over and over that unarmored or slightly armored vehicles don't have enough armor for combat ops. If you are driving around at depot, get a commercial off the shelf pickup and be done with it. Our convoys of trucks have been slaughtered because there are not classical front lines in these 3rd world ops. Plus our huge overweight vehicles have too much logistical tail. Even our loggies should have armored vehicles with guns. Terrs rarely have much stomach for fighting folks that are shooting back with long range automatic weapons, especially if they have tac air support.


blight_ February 28, 2013 at 3:10 pm

They aren't useless, they're just not survivable. If you have a manufacturing base behind you, you just build new ones and hope you aren't experiencing punishing attrition as a consequence.

I'm not sure how much of a diff armored vehicles would have made at Tora Bora. There's a time and a place for vehicles, and the Hindu Kush is not the first place I would think of when it comes to vehicles, even light helicopter-mobile ones. Ironically, strategic mobility via dirtbikes, Gators and pack animals would work: none of which impart any survival advantage when shot at.


Godzilla March 4, 2013 at 10:50 pm

The British also have the Scimitar class of lightweight tracked vehicles.

IMHO if the venerable C-130 is not good enough for the job perhaps it is time for an upgrade. Something like the Japanese C-2 dual turbofan military transport aircraft. That was heavier tracked vehicles with better armor could be airlifted around the globe.


Wes Cooler March 11, 2013 at 9:57 am

An important lesion I learned in Ranger School: there is security in speed. I think that bears examination when designing vehicle systems.


Kirk March 11, 2013 at 11:20 am

For some things maybe. But remember from history, the old BattleCruisers were built with the idea of that spped was armor. Really didnt help too much.


johnvarry February 22, 2013 at 7:46 pm

The problem was the higher ups felt the Sherman was good as is and it was never significantly upgraded. After the Normandy massacre 76mm Shermans were rushed in and by years end the "Easy Eight" Shermans entered service. While still not a match for a Panther the E8's went a long way to make the odds more even. Fore that matter if certain persons had supported and approved it the T26E1 aka the M26 Pershing could have landed at Normandie.


Godzilla February 23, 2013 at 8:47 am

The Sherman's issues were the high tank profile, making it an easier target, and worse of all the low powered gun which was innadequate in the later stages of WWII. Weapon upgrades made it a much more viable platform for tank-killing (e.g. Sherman Firefly).


zak February 25, 2013 at 9:14 am

It all sounds good when you know you aren't one of the guys in the first 10 tanks the enemy wipes out.


blight_ February 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm

Oh boy, a WW2 debate:

Bear in mind this gem was ready before the Pershing design was on the drawing board, just atoms of carbon in the stick of a draftsman's pencil (or ink in a pen).

Sure it's "just" a 76mm, but it probably would've done better than nothing if they had scaled up its production…before even invoking the Pershing!


That said, McNair supported the TD doctrine, but was he only able to stop Pershing, or the predecessors too?

The evil wikipedia suggests that 20 Pershings were shipped December of '44 and they went into combat in January of '45, but between January and VE day ~300 Pattons eventually made it to Europe but did not see combat usage. I'm trying to guess if that meant production was very, very very slow, perhaps going from 20 a month the first go to 50 a month, with those fifty in transit for a month while production increased to 100 a month and levelled off because of the war's impeding end…?


Rock n Roll February 23, 2013 at 8:20 am

It's 2013 now. I think we could better handle unmanned vehicles.


ziv February 23, 2013 at 9:10 am

The German tank crews were still calling Sherman tanks Ronsons near the end of the war, because they lit up the first time you hit them just like the Ronson lighter ad that was so popular before the war.
From what I have read the Easy 8 was a significant improvement but the T26 model that got into the duel in Koln would have been VERY useful if it had been deployed in November 1944 instead of March of 1945.


Pat February 25, 2013 at 10:47 am

It was an Army general whose name I have forgotten who squashed any tank upgrades becase he thought he Shermans were good enough plus their 30 ton weight was supposedly what the cargo cranes could handle at the time thatg had some factor in the decision. Fortunately the same general was killed at St. Lo after Normandy by errant US bombs. Yes, Pershings would have made a great difference.


majr0d February 23, 2013 at 2:02 pm

"I think we could better handle unmanned vehicles." That's just silly. IED's have been around since gunpowder was invented. Using your logic they shouldn't be a problem. Read up on Israeli armor in the '73 war and then come back and comment on how vulnerable armored vehicles are to man portable anti-tank systems.


Dfens February 24, 2013 at 2:28 pm

Oh, but more directly to your question, they get good gas mileage for an aircraft, so I'd imagine they could have good loiter time.


jhm February 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm

Problem was, the Brits only had the Fireflys, and in extremely low numbers… I don't know about you but lying to your tank crews that they have the best afvs ever and knowingly sending them against a Panzer V and up is a little…


Riceball February 26, 2013 at 12:51 pm

The Sherman's low velocity 75mm was pretty much inadequate from nearly the beginning of the US' involvement in WW II for pretty much the same reasons why early PzKfw IVs had a short barreled, low velocity 75mm gun, because they weren't initially designed as anti-tank platforms. The Germans envisioned the PzKfw III as the primary anti-tank tank and we adopted the tank destroyer doctrine and it took us a lot longer to realize that just because it's not supposed to take on other tanks doesn't mean that it won't have to.


blight_ February 24, 2013 at 8:44 pm

The conventional narrative regarding the saggers mentions the use of combined arms tank and M113 teams…but to engage sagger teams, the M113s would have to dismount and the the infantry would attack the Sagger team, am I right?

And years before in RVN, the ARVN learns at Ap Bac that M113's are extremely vulnerable to infantry when you can suppress the drivers. What'd the Israelis do differently?

That said, I thought Yom Kippur was decided through Sharon's amphibious gambit through the South, and in the Sinai when they went on the defensive and plinked waves of Egyptian tanks until they stalemated. For the opening counterattack, Israeli armor charged and were picked apart like redcoats against riflemen at Saratoga. That said, I thought the other narrative was that Israeli tankers learned how to deal with Saggers, and this too contributed to increasing Israeli tank effectiveness, not just dragging M-113's full of infantry along.

Edit: Going to restart my research on Yom Kippur War. A fun tidbit I found from the Army…from 2004 of all years to hate on complacency of professional armies!


blight_ February 24, 2013 at 8:58 pm

"This overreliance on armor would prove to be devastating to the IDF
on a number of occasions, the most notorious of which was the attack on Tel Shams, a well-defended hill on the Golan Heights. In one attempt on 12 October, 28 tanks of the Israeli 7th Armored Brigade attempted to take the position, but were beaten back by Syrian infantry armed with Sagger anti-tank missiles. The assault failed terribly, resulting in heavy casualties and the loss of all but two of the tanks. The next day, the same position was taken by Israeli paratroopers with a loss of only four wounded. This effectively proved to the Israelis that armor should not be the weapon of choice for every mission, one of the most important lessons the IDF was to learn in the Yom Kippur War"

Though now that I think about it, I tend to focus on Egypt when the talk is Yom Kippur, not Syria. In the Golan, it would make perfect sense that Syrian infantry dug in would do better against Israeli tanks…


Pat February 25, 2013 at 10:35 am

However I heard that Israeli tanks were draped with guidance wires from the Saggers but his could be when they changed tactics and the Saggers became less effective.


majr0d February 24, 2013 at 11:44 pm

I’m sorry Blight Imixed up my Israeli wars. I should have said the Yom Kippur War where early on the Israelis employed tanks without Infantry and they were shredded by Sagger equipped Infantry. The Israelis then pressed their airborne infantrymen into M113s and halftracks to accompany the armor and keep the Egyptian Infantry at bay. Since then the Israelis have been sure to maintain mechanized infantry units. Talking with Israeli officers in the late 80’s they communicated a bit of over confidence after the early wars and the exceptional performance of pure Israeli armor units.


blight_ February 25, 2013 at 10:23 am

I notice that even you think of Egypt when it comes to the YKW. The non-primary sources I've found mentions Egypt thrashing the IDF with Saggers, but if the Sinai is desert it's hard to imagine them being able to do so unless the tanks are charging prepared positions head on. In such a case, it's hard for me to visualize how having M-113s charging in alongside tanks would change the matter: it would have to be a change of tactics in the first place (ie, not charging into Sagger traps head-on), not just the addition of infantry.


Pat February 25, 2013 at 10:42 am

That I think was actually the Brits. It was due to hits on the stored ammo and not the gasoline powered engines. Later Shermans had wet stowage.


ziv February 25, 2013 at 1:49 pm

Pat, you are right of course. I don't doubt that some Germans had heard the radio commercials for the Ronson lighters before the war, but it was a British lighter company and the ad was mainly in the UK, not on the continent.


ziv February 25, 2013 at 1:55 pm

I think the General that held up the T-26 was McNair. He did a lot of great things in his career, but that series of decisions regarding the Pershing would have haunted him if he hadn't died during the war. I recently saw a video of the results of a battle in which one Tiger tank (commanded by then Lieutenant Wittman) destroyed 14 tanks and 15 apc's in less than 30 minutes.


tmb2 February 25, 2013 at 11:42 pm

Leslie McNair. He was too close to the Operation Cobra saturation bombing and some of the airstrikes fell short.


majr0d February 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm

Everyone pops smoke. The M113s dismount the Infantry and everybody starts doing the Sagger Dance.

Soviet style defence emphasizes fire sacks or areas where enemy forces are channeled and then engaged from three directions. We simulated them at the CTCs. Very effective and dangerous. The lesson is don't go where all the burning vehciles are and prior reconaissance.


blight_ February 25, 2013 at 2:15 pm

I'm curious how that works in practice, depending on range. Dismount too far away and it exposes your dismounts to supressing fire. Dismount too close and the Sagger team has already fired a few missiles, and perhaps hit a few tanks.

As you note, reconnaissance is probably critical, and dealing with a Sagger trap you know and out of range is probably very different than the protocol for fighting your way out of one.


blight_ February 25, 2013 at 2:51 pm

Veyron has a flap that deploys to keep the car down at high speed. I'm sure other supercars employ similar ideas as well.


Dfens February 25, 2013 at 3:23 pm

That's a different kind of animal. That flap keeps the car on the ground going "pointy end first". NASCAR has a deployable roof flap that's supposed to keep the cars from lifting off the ground when they spin around at high speed. They are not all that effective because they neglect the ground effect lift generated by the air getting under the cars. By placing a flap on the back of the gas tank that is hinged so it can go from hanging straight down to block air from under the car to trailing straight aft as the car goes around the track the right way would keep them from getting airborne as that car did. For that matter, they might want to consider side flaps that actuate similarly (they'd swing from straight down to straight out to the side in that case). I think I've seen some of those tornado hunter cars that have ground effect flaps like I'm talking about, but I can't seem to find a good picture.


majr0d February 25, 2013 at 4:29 pm

You so don't understand blitzkrieg (facepalm). Just because it has lightning in the name ("blitzen=lightening in German") it doesn't literally mean it moved at the speed of lightening.

The 70T M1 can do more than 40 mph cross country. They have to put a governor on it to slow it down. "Barely mobile Maginot Lines"? Uh, yep genuis.

Obviously you don't know what's best.


majr0d February 25, 2013 at 9:46 pm

Yes, we're twice as fast (and seven times as heavy, twice the range and six times the cannon size). You're brilliant.

Someone is paying you to think? Dude! Give them their money back! They're getting cheated! That's fraud in some places.


Dfens February 25, 2013 at 8:17 pm

Oh, so blitzkrieg means 40 miles per hour. Suddenly it is all clear. Oh wait, German tanks would only do about 20 mph. Hell, we're two times faster 50 years later. It don't get any better than that. Boy, some days I wonder why they pay me to think.


crackedlenses February 26, 2013 at 2:20 am

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were addressing our current batch of elected nincom- I mean officials. Considering how many of them we have, you ought to be nicer to Dfens, ;).


majr0d February 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Rice – "without wanting to rip your arms off if you get too close" LOL, you heard of the T72 huh?


majr0d February 26, 2013 at 2:14 pm

Riceball – Very true. Tank destroyer doctrine slowed down US armor development in WWII. We also became complacent and ignored the appearance of small numbers of German long barrelled 75mm guns (higher velocity) and limited numbers of Panthers and Tigers. There was also hesitancy to deal with logistic problems a bigger and different tank would cause (transport, maintenance, parts). The M26 could have been introduced around D-Day if we had reognized the problem. The Battle of the Bulge clearly demonstrated the inferiority of the Sherman and it was a coincidence that 20 Pershings were fielded in January (the only 20 to fight in WWII).

The story of how we failed to recognize Sherman shortcomings and why we were slow to field a comparable tank is an important lesson we should never forget.


David March 1, 2013 at 12:36 am

the Leclerc's autoloader is supposedly quite good, and the Russians have deemed that they are good enough for ALL of thier tanks since the 1970s.

Also, lets say you have 12 men to man a tank platoon. In a Abrams, that means you get 3 tanks, no ifs ands or buts. In an autoloader tank, you get 4 tanks, as 3 men per tank = 12. That is a HUGE factor for nations like Japan and South Korea with declining populations and shrinking militaries. plus, a 120mm shell isn't exactly light, weight about 45 lbs, and any bigger, i.e. 140MM, and they start getting VERY unwieldy for a person.

Are their reliability issues? Sure, but every single autoloader tank out their has a manual loading backup.


blight_ March 1, 2013 at 2:35 pm

The proposed 140mm waybackwhen for the Abrams would've been interesting without an autoloader.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: