History and military technology: Interview with a former M60A1 and M1 Abrams tanker in the US Army

A few days ago a US Army veteran kindly accepted an interview for the blog. G. served first in the M60A1, moving to the M1 New Equipment Training Team (NETT), unit that trained the first units in the US Army equipped with the M1 Abrams. For this reason he can offer a very interesting perspective on the process and the new features the Abrams brought.

Hello G. Can you provide us a brief overview of your service in the US Army?

I served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1978-84, as an Armor Officer on M60A1 and M1 tanks. 3rd Armored Division in Germany (1979-82) and M1 New Equipment Training Team (NETT) at Fort Knox (1982-84). We trained the first units in the U.S. to be issued the new M1 tank.

I was an Army civilian employee deployed to Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan (1999-2009), field rep for the Army Tank-Automotive Command, supporting all Army tracked and wheeled vehicles.

You were amongst the first contingent to use the Abrams. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

Coming from the M60A1, the M1 was something like science fiction. The fire control system was all computerized, with electronic controls, thermal sights, laser range finder … none of these refinements were in the M60A1. The AGT-1500 turbine engine had computer controlled starting and fuel control as well. The accurate fire-on-the-move capabilities and overall vehicle speed were very impressive. The crew survivability measures were a big upgrade, although, of course, we had no chance to test them. Crews did sometimes inadvertently set off the halon fire extinguishers, and it was said that this was not a pleasant experience.

The major weak point was fuel consumption, which was much higher than the M60A1. That's an issue that has not been completely resolved today.

One of the major improvements in the Abrams compared to the M60A1 was the thermal sight. Can you comment on the impact it had on the tank firepower?

Since the M60A1 had no thermal sight, this was one of the major improvements to A1 crewmen. The Passive night sights in the M60A1 RISE-Passive depended on amplification of ambient light. They were great on a bright moonlit night – perhaps clearer than the M1's Thermal Imaging System – but the M1 thermal sight allowed vision in all types of lighting, dust, smoke, etc. It allowed targets to be seen and hit much easier.

Were there many teething issues with the tanks you got? If so, was there an improvement in the later batches you received?

The tanks we were fielding in 1982 (when I started) were made by Chrysler Defense. Minor issues were very common on these tanks – little glitches that had to be repaired by the fielding teams. It seemed like the Quality Control just wasn't there. After Chrysler Defense was sold to General Dynamics, quality of the tanks gradually increased. But in every new batch of tanks we got, there would be small manufacturing and functional differences from the previous tanks. None of these differences were covered in the technical manuals; we just had to learn to recognize them during training.

The original M1 Abrams kept the 105mm gun in a period when the Leopard 2 had moved to the 120mm. Was it underwhelming? Did you get any feedback from the Army/manufacturer stating that work was being done on a 120 mm variant?

It was not underwhelming to us, because we were used to the M68 105mm cannon on the M60A1. We were not familiar with the 120mm, although we knew it was coming. There may have been one prototype with a 120mm gun before I left the NET Team, but I never saw it.

How did the training changed when units transitioned from M60 to M1? Were there any issues or difficulties? Were you able to hit targets at higher speeds/extra distances? Perform exercises faster?

The transition training had been developed and perfected over a period of a couple years, to provide comprehensive training at the crew and company level. M1 New Equipment Training was divided into three courses: Individual, Collective, and Maintenance. Individual training took place in the motor pool, where each crew member was trained in his individual position of driver, loader, gunner, and tank commander. There was some cross training, especially for tank commanders. This part of the training plan took the longest, because it was a time-consuming process for each crew member to learn all the vastly new functions of the M1. Only the loader's station was actually similar to the M60A1, and even then, loading the M1 cannon took some different steps.

In Collective training, the individual tankers got together as crews and learned and practiced gunnery training. A lot of this training took place on the gunnery range, much of it at night.

The Maintenance training section trained the mechanics and maintainers. This training was also time consuming because of all the different and upgraded equipment on the M1.

The main difficulty that we encountered in Individual training, something that had not even been anticipated, was the inability of some trainees to read the operators manuals. The very first class in Individual training was a short course on how to use the manuals, with a written test at the end. We found that we had to adjust this class and the test to accommodate those who couldn't read the manuals.
As for hitting targets faster/farther, since the Individual team where I worked wasn't involved in range or gunnery training, I can't really comment on that. We were all trained in gunnery before we started NET Training, and we certainly were not any faster than a good M60A1 crew, but we were not practiced. As far as the units were concerned, they probably didn't see a difference in this until after the NET Team left their unit, as they trained more and more on their own.

The M1 Abrams unit training crews was based in Fort Knox. Can you describe the terrain/weather condition in this training ground. Did it pose any problem during the training?

The NET Team was headquartered at Fort Knox, where we trained ourselves, but the actual NET training took place at Fort Hood and Fort Bragg in 1982-84. The terrain in all three sites was somewhat similar, with some differences. Fort Knox was hillier, Fort Hood was flatter and dustier (and certainly hotter in the summer), and Fort Bragg was more wooded. The M1 tanks performed about the same in all of these environments.

The Abrams have a turbine with a higher fuel consumption (280% higher than M60 in the Gulf War). Were the logistics or maintenance an issue?

Yes, there was a considerable learning curve for both. We had crews run out of fuel during NET training at Fort Hood, as they learned how to best operate their tanks in the field. The early tanks had considerable issues with the Electro-Mechanical Fuel System (EMFS), that managed the fuel delivery (in place of a simple fuel pump), and also fed fuel to the systems that changed the way the turbine engine ran, based on different demands. This was a challenge for the maintainers, to diagnose and identify the fault, then fix it. It took time to have enough familiarity with these systems to be able to fix the problems in a timely manner.

When performing exercises, what was the maximum distance you covered in a day? Were there any issues with the maintenance of the Abrams?

Individual driver training took place on established driving ranges, and from the motor pool to there and back might be 10 miles. The training I did didn't involve more than that. It took some time for drivers to get used to managing the M1's great speed and increased stopping ability, so as not to damage the suspension parts. The fuel system governor did not work well on the earliest M1s … or I should say, it didn't work as designed … and the tanks could get up to 60 mph and faster. The hydraulic brakes were much better than the M60A1 brakes, and the M1 tended to stop much faster. With an inexperienced driver, this was known to bend the track adjuster cylinders when the brakes were applied too hard at speed.

Some veterans have pointed out in interviews that one advantage of the turbine is that it is more binary. It works or it does not. With M60s you could find units where diesel engines performed very differently. Would you agree with this?

I would say – the M1 engine either starts, or it does not. Of course, that's not 100% true. The turbine engine can run correctly, or it can run under degraded mode (when there is something wrong). Actually, I saw M1 engines run in different ways much like M60A1 engines (M1 engine running in degraded mode when the EMFS doesn't work right, compared to an M60A1 engine running with one or two cylinders not firing).

M60 had a reputation for being a sturdy and reliable, ideally suited to a conscripted Army. Do you think this was also the case with the Abrams?

For the early M1s, perhaps this would not be true. There were sometimes production and quality control issues that affected the M1s, and affected how the troops felt about their tanks. All it really took was a better manufacturing process (which did come), and time for the soldiers to get used to operating their M1s, much different from their M60A1s. The M1 (M1A1) proved its overall reliability during Desert Storm.

Back in the 80s some sources criticised the Abrams for being too expensive and complex (it stopped after the Gulf War). Did you come across any of this?

Only in the local press during training at Fort Hood … every time a crew ran out of fuel, the press would jump all over the story.

What were your feelings as the US Army geared for the war in Iraq? Were you confident the M1 Abrams would perform well?

I had no doubts about the M1A1 Abrams. The intensive training that the soldiers received in preparation, especially training at the National Training Center (NTC) in California, made them completely ready to meet the challenge in Iraq and Kuwait. I personally knew tank commanders who told me later that the Gulf War was easier for them than a training session at the NTC.

Is there any anecdote you would like to share before finishing the interview?

Funny things did happen occasionally during NET training. Sometimes an instructor would put out info quickly to make a point, then go back and explain. The M1 tank has a LOT of acronyms, far more than the M60A1, and it took awhile for the soldiers to learn these.

One time I saw an instructor with his trainees gathered outside the tank, and he asked them rapidly to point out the MRS … OK, the CWS … OK, the GAS … OK the TREE (pronounced Tee-Are-Double-E). The trainees looked confused, and the instructor said, "Tree, son, tree … there ain't no tree on your tank!"

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

History and military technology

Wednesday, 11 February 2026

Interview with a former M60A1 and M1 Abrams tanker in the US Army

No comments:

Post a Comment