History and military technology: M1 Abrams

Showing posts with label M1 Abrams. Show all posts

Wednesday, 11 February 2026

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

28-3-2026: Interview expanded with new questions

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!"

New questions:

Did you also train crews in NBQ scenarios? Was the procedure very different to the one in M60?

No, we didn’t, because the procedures for the basic M1 (without the NBC system) were the same as for the M60A1.

One of the big advantages of the Abrams compared to other tanks was the ammunition stowage, which was much safer. Did you become immediately aware of this or it became more obvious after the Gulf War?

We were made aware of this as part of overall emphasis on the tank’s improved crew safety and survivability, and of course the loaders had to learn how to store and move main gun rounds, and how to operate the ammo doors. Also, we were shown a film from Chrysler where one of the Pilot Vehicles was fully uploaded then penetrated through the turret bustle, so that the stored main gun rounds exploded. The ammo doors and seals and the blow off panels kept all the resulting fire and explosions out of the crew compartment.

Later on Abrams were supplied to the US Marine Corps. Were you expecting this? Did you think there were going to be issues regarding the weight and fording capabilities? For the latter, is it something you also taught crews?

Yes, we knew the USMC would get the M1 tank, but we had no involvement in that fielding or training. I don’t even know who did the new equipment training for the USMC. We did cover the increased tank weight during introductory material in training, but we didn’t train on fording procedures, other than operation of the drain plugs.

Sunday, 14 August 2022

Interview with a former Abrams tanker

A former US Army Abrams tanker kindly accepted an interview for the blog. E. served 4 years in an M1A1 AIM, and was deployed in Iraq.

1. Hello E. Can you provide us a brief overview of your service in the US Army as a tank crewmember?

I was a Tank Crewmen from 2003-2007, I participated in one 13 month deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom

2. What was your first impression of the M1A1 tank? What do you think were the strong and weak points?

I thought it was a very sexy and powerful vehicle my first time going inside of one, I was still a pretty young and naïve kid at the time though. Haha

3. What was the typical speed and distance to the target when firing? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

As fast as the drivers accelerator will take you, so long as your Laser Range Finder is locked on to the target its really just operator error that will keep you from missing,the tanks computer will do all of the hard work for you as far as making all of the calculations needed with all of the basic variables taken into account. Its probably been about 15 years since I’ve participated in a tank gunnery but I remember engaging targets at night that were over 2000 meters away and moving.

4. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? Did it change noticeably when ready ammunition was used?

I cant remember a specific rate of fire that was very notable but after a good loader being able to load a round in 3-6 seconds loads a round its all about how long it will take the Gunner and Tank Commander to find and engage their target which I would say will take several seconds as well.

5. What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APFDS/HEAT/other) when training in Germany? And in Iraq?

In Germany we trained for every type of contingency so Id say about most of the types of ammunition that were available in theatre we used at one time or another. In Iraq we mostly just had Head Rounds and a lot of COAX 7.62 available, we were mostly dealing with COIN type operations so we didn’t really need to do much else besides take out a fortification of some type maybe.

6. The ammunition compartment is one of Abrams’ most notable features. Is the ammunition placed in a specific way?

I really cant remember, it has been about 15 years since I’ve been a part of a tank crew.

7. What is the maximum speed you reached? And reversing?

The Jet turbine engine does allow the Abrams to go fast especially when compared to its contemporary counterparts. I want to say maybe I can remember going over 30 mph easily?

8. How different is the typical range you get countryside and in a motorway?

The major drawback to the Abrams would definitely be its fuel consumption due to the Jet turbine engine. Honestly the tanks range is almost comparable to some World War 2 era tanks. Fortunately the U.S. Military has outstanding logistical capabilities so I cant ever think of a time where running out of fuel was an issue.

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

I want to say that I remember covering distances of around 100 kilometres a couple of times because that was a big deal.

10. How do you find driving in the night using IR equipment? What is the range of the sight?

Practice makes perfection.I cant remember an exact distance but it was very adequate.

11. Abrams operates with other vehicles such as Bradley or Stryker. Do they struggle to keep up?

No, but these vehicles were all designed with being able to keep up with each other in mind.

12. The Abrams turbine has the advantage of being multifuel. Have you used different fuels in an exercise? If so, is there any precaution that needs to be taken (check filters for example)?

It is, no I don’t think we ever did. If memory serves me well that was a feature you didn’t want to use if you didn’t have to.

13. Another advantage is that in cold weather it will start much faster than diesels. Was this useful in any circumstances?

Yes very much so,The Jet turbine exhaust is great for heating meals,water,and yourself. Infantry guys are always very eager to come up to the tank and get warm when they can.

14. What is the component that requires more maintenance/attention?

The Engine

15. Did you get any specific/additional training before deploying in Iraq?

Of course, there was lots of training based mostly on anything our chain of command thought that we might remotely need to know

16. How did the local conditions affect the Abrams performance (turbine, thermal sight range, tracks)?

I don’t really remember the climate affecting the tank in any major way,we had to do a lot more maintenance on the track because we were driving on paved roads a lot.

17. Was there any equipment you would have liked while deployed in Iraq (RPG screens, more fuel, thermal sight for commander)?

I’m not trying to be funny but definitely Air Conditioning, it used to get so hot inside the turret during the summer in Iraq that you had to wear gloves so that you don’t burn your hands.

18. How was the cooperation with local Iraqi units? What was your impression of their training and equipment?

They were still in their infancy so I mean they weren’t doing much more then very basic platoon level operations under our direct supervision. They had a lot of problems with lack of discipline and corruption, that being said though I do understand that today that could be a whole different case.

19. Did you have the opportunity to train with other NATO Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

The German Bundeswehr mostly and a little bit with the British.The Budeswehr had outstanding equipment on the one hand some of which has even been adopted by the U.S. Military but their problem was that they never seemed to ever do much meaningful training.The British military along with most Commonwealth military’s I’ve always felt has pretty well been on a level very comparable to the U.S.

20. Is there any anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

In the summertime in the Al Anbar region of Iraq Temperatures of around 120 Degrees Fahrenheit were not uncommon. A cooler full of water bottles of solid ice would feel like bottles filled with warm piss by the end of the day. Lol.

The locals thought we were taking drugs that cooled our bodies because even they didn’t think that humans were capable of dealing with such temperatures while wearing all of your kit…:-P

Tuesday, 22 February 2022

Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker

A former M60/Abrams tanker has kindly accepted an interview for the blog. T served between 1983 and 1997 in both Patton and Abrams variants, and also in the National Training Centre in a M551.

1) Hello T., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the US Army?

I was a tanker from 1983 through 1997. I was a Platoon Sergeant/SFC. My first tank was an M48A5, M60A3 TTS, IPM1 and finally a M1A1. At NTC we had M60A3 as our "official" tanks and M551s as our T-72s.

2) Early in your career you served in a M48A5/M60A3TTS Patton tanks. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

My first tank and first command was an M48A5. I learned everything from it. It was just a real good basic tank. Very reliable, an accurate coincidence rangefinder, simple basic computer. Rarely did anything seriously break that you couldn't fix with an adjustable wrench, screw driver or a hammer. You sighted the gun through the breechblock and with a set of string at the end of the gun tube. It was designed to hit and stay in the fight. From that perspective it was exceptionally reliable in all categories.

On the negative of course was age. The night sights were designed for searchlights using IR. It was an art using them and took quite a while to get the hang of it for some gunners. We much rather preferred calling for mortar illumination. As a bonus calling for fire and making adjustments was a talent most adapted to. The armor was typically similar to what we faced in T-62 and T-55 and we knew the 105 was a far better gun. The coax, M219, was absolutely garbage. Literally two shots and jam. Both myself and the loader had an M60D. Good guns bit I would have preferred an M2 on my position.

3) When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

Typical distance was probably 20- 30 miles for company level training and a bit more for battalion force on force exercises. The M48 did not have a stab system so we fired from a short halt. The M60A3 did but probably only fired around 5-8 mph. That was usually the optimum speed where the stab and the suspension were controllable. The range from memory was around battlesight , 1800m. Longest distance ever fired on an M60A3TTS was @3200m which was a hit. An M48A5 was probably 2500 to 2800m.

4) How was the night firing conducted in the M48A5? Did you use flares for battlefield illumination? Or IR projectors? Which one did you find more useful? At what sort of distances you could open fire?

As I mentioned before, the M48A5 used IR / white searchlight and mortar Illum. Mortar Illum was preferred. For most engagements we just went with battlesight. If the target looked like it was in that range we just kept the rangefinder dialed into 1800m and fired. Of course if you had a clear shot ranging was just as fast.

5) M60A3TTS introduced a very advanced thermal sight. Hoqw did it change the night firing? Did you also use it during the day?

The thermal sight was a game changer. When we went through transitioning they billed it as exclusively a night sight, however we quickly discovered the advantages of using it exclusively. Being able to pick out vehicle or personnel not typically seen. It was at this point we began night training far more seriously to include tactical operations, night fighting using MILES systems. Prior to receiving M60A3 TTS I did several rotations as OPFOR 32nd Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment at NTC on M551/ T-72 VISMODS. They had a similar night fighting setup as the M48A5.

During my first rotation we we in a reserve position against a 1st Cav Brigade equipped with M1s. A night attacked was conducted by them and a code word "Bananas, Bananas" was broadcast telling us to deploy. My Motor Rifle Battalion was moving within 15 minutes around 0330. Knowing where the first battalion was located I assumed we might make contact in about 20-30 minutes. All the commanders had AN/PVS5 night goggles. About 10 minutes into the road march in the pitch black I was blinded by the flashes of the M1s. Easily 10 vehicles were knocked out in the first volley. Night sights were useless and a couple of us switched to white light to find them. Too little too late. I died on the second volley and a minute later watched as an M1 sped past me going 35+mph. A 1Cav pendant on the antenna. Thirty vehicles knocked out in literally five minutes to no losses.

6) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

On the M48/M60, not many things broke, except possibly torsion bars and other automotive components. Maintenance was beaten into our heads seriously. By the time we had gotten M1s many bugs were solved. I do remember computer systems having unresolved witches, in which case it was just pulled. Getting parts was generally not a problem, except for engines or transmissions. Being said during the run up to the First Gulf War much of that became a non issue as the war stocks were opened up.

7) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APFSDS/HEAT/WP/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?

The actual mix I honestly don't remember. With the M48A5 we carried everything. APDS, HEAT, HEP, Beehive and WP. I only ever carried the first three. Fired Beehive once and never saw WP.

M60A3 could carry all, but even HEP went as way by then. M1 was only APFSDS and HEAT. And I always remember somewhat heavier on APFSDS, but not by much. With any tank target APFSDS was always the go to. HEAT was for anything else.

8) What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

The terrain was very similar to Germany on all respects. Ironically especially while in the National Guard at Fort Drum. Distance during those days was about 20 miles a day

9) The M60 is one of the largest (and most comfortable) tanks. Do you think it was worth it (it was also a larger target)?

The M60A3 was the tallest, but given it's depression could be hidden rather well. I never really had a concern about it's size and I was known for my abilities in masking my movements with terrain. Not an issue in my opinion.

10) The M19 commander cupola in the M60 is one element which has not proved popular, and some operators removed it. What do you think?

Not a fan of the cupola. Nice in some ways, but the feed system for the M85 was in my opinion the reason for the weapons reputation, not the gun itself. The M85 was actually the weapon chosen first for the commanders mount. On a simple box feed it ran all day. Twist the ammo in the cupola and it was a nightmare.

11) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

I did have an opportunity to train with the Bundeswehr. They were excellent soldiers by and large. They were fighting in home position and I wouldn't want to go against them. I viewed their Leo II like our M1s by and large with the M1 coming away better on armor. I enjoyed the equipment diversity of the Territorial Army as nothing was thrown away. So the Soviets would would have found a missile jeep, recoiless rifle or tank destroyer of some kind around every bush and bend.

12) You trained in the National Training Center (NTC). Can you comment on how benefitial it was to the tank crews? Do you think it should be adapted to future threats like China?

I think the NTC was / is critical. It afforded the ability to conduct unrestricted large-scale joint forces training. Continuously throughout the year. Every 21 days was a new rotation of a brigade. Absolutely Yes it should be reconfigured to the PLA threat. Obviously I am out of that current loop, so I have no idea what the current syllabus entails. But large scale maneuver, drone, counter drone, cyber assault integration, PEER level air assets, air denial. Everything a Peer Level threat would bring to the table as opposed to an insurgent threat.

13) Did you struggle to switch to Soviet tactics?

No. Not really. They had an introduction academy and the first rotation as a Soviet you were pretty much a filler or observer in my case. They broke companies down into integrated combined arms "battalions" and March formations such as battalion, company, platoon column were fairly easy.

14) In the NTC you operated T-55/62 tanks. What was your impression? What were the features you liked/disliked?

We had exposure to T-62 and T-55 tanks. A couple were operational for familiarity, but not for training as Soviets. I was actually rather surprised at the size and lack of what I saw and regarded as normal. I wouldn't want to face someone like me in a T-55. They were certainly rather robust vehicles like an M48A5 but aside from charging enmasse I really didn't think highly of them. I respect the abilities as a tank and wouldn't underestimate anyone inside one, but I was confident that I was better.

15) During the Cold War the US Army would organise REFORGER exercises to deploy troops in Europe. Did you participate in one? How was your experience?

Yes however I was already in place for REFORGER 87 and 89. It was impressive to see the mechanism in place and in operation. Sadly looking back on it and looking at posts when they move a brigade around in Europe it is clear that it was perishable experience. Meaning that the Army largely forgot how to do large things without practice. Also being that we have effectively no prepositioned equipment in large numbers in Europe any longer that any sort of contingency is effectively a non-starter. I will say also I was rather impressed by the Bundeswehr's ability to mobilize their Territorial Army. The actual size of it impresses me even to this day, but also sadly that ability is a thing of the past.

16) By the 1980s Israel had used the M60 Patton in combat. Did you get any feedback on its performance or changes applied to variants?

Direct feedback no, not so much. Most of our curiosity of course was with the ERA Blazer armor. We knew of course that the design was a solid design and back in the 73 War the replacement of the hydraulic fluid to something non-flammable was the key upgrade. Most of my reading at the time was in the regard to funny against missile threat more than anything else. I knew that the fire control system of the 60 without range mostly anything that we would be facing, except missiles

17) What is your opinion on the Israel upgrades (Magach - also sold to Turkey as M60T)?

I do like the Sabra and the M60T. Definitely for what it is it is a an upgrade on defensive capabilities. But I do think that the m60-2000 with the M1 tire would probably be the best option for any sort of upgrade. That way it gets the ammo out of the hall and behind blast doors which generally is superior for crew survivability. If they fit the M60T with the trophy system that would go a long way as well but really the M1 turn option is the better way to go for the hull anyway. But of course the same can be said for the M48. The fire control sleeve is the same so you can mount thermal sights and fit a laser range finder. You could also fit a Sabra esque passive armor package, but as long as the ammo stays in the hull and exposing the turret your survivability is going to be less even with trophy.

18) M48/60 has a reputation for being an ideal tank for a conscript Army, being sturdy and reliable. Would you agree? How long do you think it takes to train a crew?

I think the M48/60 are solid designs for any sort of army. Of course now they're a bit long in the tooth. Maintenance of course has always beaten into our heads but that's not always the case across every Army. You can teach basic crew skills within a couple weeks, for gunnery it's best to have someone who has an idea of at least what they're doing and the same for commanding. I always said I could teach you everything you needed to know about a tank within two weeks, but that didn't mean that you wouldn't be dead soon as you rolled out of the motor park within 5 minutes. As an army you have to be willing to spend money. For ammunition for fuel, for maintenance across an entire spectrum. While I appreciate the different simulators that came on board in the mid to late 80s and such I am much more old school when it comes to actually mounting up and doing maneuvers. I attribute this to when I went in and it didn't exist but also to my days as OPFOR at NTC.

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.

- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Sunday, 21 May 2017

M1 Abrams tank destroyed in Iraq (Photos)

Islamic State has released these still shots showing the destruction of an Iraqi M1 Abrams tank. The cause was a bomb placed on a static car or a VBIED ("vehicle-borne improvised explosive device"). The procedure is well know, in cities it is relatively easy to get close to vehicles or place bombs in locations likely to be used.

References:

- http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/520746.html#comments

Sunday, 2 April 2017

Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams

A former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams had the courtesy of accepting an interview for the blog. D. is also a vetern of the Gulf War.

Hello D. Can you provide us a brief overview of your service in the US Army as a tank crewmember?

I spent 15 years in a tank company. Initially I was in assigned to a tank unit at Ft. Hood which had the M60A1 AOS. I subsequently transferred to a unit in Bamberg, Germany and worked with the M60A1 RISE Passive, M60A3 TTS, and the M1A1. I was a driver, gunner and tank commander on the M60A1s, a tank commander, Master Gunner, and Platoon Sergeant with the M60A3 and M1A1.

The first tank in which you served was a M60 Patton. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

I always liked that the M60s were relatively roomy and comfortable. I did not like that it was under powered compared to the tanks of our adversaries and some of our allies. Funny enough, I was just talking about the old M60s with some other veterans and we all said the brakes were the single weakest point of the tank. They just were not very good at all.

What were the capabilities of the M60A1/A3/RISE in terms of Fire Control System (FCS)? What sort of aimed fire did you practice (target, tank velocity…)?

As many know, the M60A1 had a coincidence rangefinder so the crews could theoretically shoot aimed fire as far as 4400 meters. The truth is, unless you were ready to expend enormous amounts of ammunition, the practical range was no greater than 2000 meters with 1500 meters being a comfortable long range shot. We were supposed to use precision gunnery for most of our engagements (using the M17 rangefinder and gunners M32 periscope) but most gunners relied on battlesight gunnery. Truth be told, most tank commanders weren't very good, or at least not fast enough, with the coincidence rangefinder, thus the reliance on really good gunners who knew how to use aim off to hit targets.

Things changed considerablely with the M60A3. Whereas we had been working with the idea that two rounds were needed to hit every target, with the M60A3 we found we were hitting well more than 80% of our targets with the first round. And not just the really good gunners were doing this, but all gunners could. Moving targets, once a hit or miss proposition, now were much easier to bring down with the automatic lead introduced with the M60A3.

I really liked the M60A3 with its thermal sight and fire control system. Not only did our 1st round hit percentage increase dramatically with the M60A3, we were shooting at much greater ranges. Now 2500 meters was a range quite manageable by all gunners and hitting targets with regularity at 3000+ meters was quite normal. Sitting still, the M60A3 was every bit as good in gunnery as the M1.

We didn't practice much gunnery while moving thought. In fact many tank crews would claim their stabilization system didn't work so they could fire from the short halt. As it was we only had one main gun engagement fired from the move, and one machine gun engagement that was also fired from the move. I never liked shooting the M60s main gun on the move, to me it was a wasted effort. That stab system just wasn't up to the task.

The M60 you used did not have a thermal sight. How was the night firing conducted?

To be clear, I actually spent more time on M60A3 TTS than I did on M60A1s. On the M60A1s our night engagements were pretty evenly split between white searchlight, IR searchlight, and mortar illumination (parachute flares). When we got the Passive sights we fired no white searchlight engagements, some no illumination engagements, and a few IR searchlight and mortar illumination. We also fired an engagement using our indirect fire control (Azimuth indicator and Quadrant elevation), and we did so blind. That is, without illumination and without our sights.

You spent several years deployed in Western Europe. What was you impression of the terrain when first deployed?

Quite hilly, a lot like some parts of the American Appalachia. People like to talk about how closed the terrain was in southern Germany, how you just couldn't see or shoot further than 800 meters. That wasn't my impression at all. Sure, there are forests, and the terrain does move up and down, but there are plenty of areas to utilize the long range gunnery abilities of the modern tank.
Not specifically terrain, but I was in love with the small towns and villages of southern Germany. There is nothing equivalent in the States.

Did you have the opportunity to train with other NATO Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

Worked with the Canadians once. I was utterly envious of their meal times, fresh food. Of course they had the Leopard 1, and yes the Leo 1 was a good tank, but I wouldn't have traded. Drank beer with both the Brits and Germans at Graf and Hohenfels but didn't ever have the opportunity to do more.

In the 80s the Warsaw Pact had deployed a very large number of tanks in Eastern Europe, including T-64/72/80. Did you have access to intelligence on these vehicles?

If you're asking whether or not we received classified briefings as part of our regular training. No. What we knew about those tanks was public domain. The exception to that were briefings we received during advanced training courses at the Ft. Knox armor school. But even with that, most of those briefings regarded how easily we could destroy T55s and T62s. As an aside, the first instance that most of us had that such a thing as the T55M existed was in 1990 when we went to Halle to examine what the East Germans had been using.

Was there any Soviet equipment that you found impressive/unimpressive?

Not really. Of course it's impressive that the Sovs were able to cram a huge cannon in such a small tank, but what they gave up doesn't seem worth it to me.

After serving in the M60 Patton you moved on to the much more modern M1 Abrams. What was your first impression? Were there any teething issues?

First impressions. Damn fast tank. Fast, and it stopped even faster. The M1s Thermal Imagery System (TIS) was good, the M60A3s TTS (Tank Thermal Sight) was better. No vibration. The M1 is tight and just doesn't rattle and shake while it's moving, and the stabilization system makes shooting on the move, at any speed, almost as good as sitting still.

Some sources stated that the Abrams was difficult to maintain and operate. Do you agree?

Compared to the M60A1/A3, no comparison. The M1 was a much easier tank to work on and maintain, and it was more reliable.

How did the firepower of M60 and Abrams compared? The M60 turret was very roomy in comparison to other tanks. How did the M60 and Abrams rate of fire compared?

Between the M60A3 and M1, about equal actually. Sure the M60 appeared to be more roomy, but if the floor rack had its full complement of 13 rounds, the amount of room the loader had was drastically reduced. The M1 wasn't quite as tall inside, but that didn't seem to bother many people. Of course the ammo doors would tend to slow the loader's ability to reload the gun, but it was my experience that the gunner rarely had to wait for the loader. And if he did, it wasn't because an ammo door had slowed the loader.

The Abrams and other modern Western tanks were equipped with thermal sights, a very important advantage. Can you comment on this?

Totally changed the world of land warfare. My first experience with the thermal was during transition training for the M60A3. I was the gunner watching another tank driving back and forth in front of us when my TC asked me if I could see the tank. Sure, I said, can't you? He said, come up here and take a look. So I climbed out of the tank to find we were completely enveloped in a cloud of smoke. I couldn't even see the end of our own gun much less the tank making the smoke screen. Night gunnery became day gunnery, and in fact we quickly realized the thermal was best used both day and night.

In 1991 you were deployed to Saudi Arabia as part of the international response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Did you receive any extra training or intelligence on Iraqi Armed Forces before you left?

NBC training was always a regular occurrence on our training schedules, but as soon as we were notified for deployment both NBC and 1st aid training increased. We did some additional gunnery and took our trip to Halle to inspect WarPac equipment. We also were briefed on the Iraqi's use of triangular defensive alignments. And we received very regular updates about their defensive alignment along the Kuwait/Saudi and Iraq/Saudi borders.

How did the terrain affected fighting conditions?

Obviously we could see and shoot further, but people might be surprised just how much the terrain goes up and down in the desert. Nothing necessarily extreme, but enough that a tank could be below your horizon less than 2000 meters away. Or not.

Did the Abrams cope well with the desert condition? Was the maintenance more intense? Did you install any extra equipment?

Dust was always the biggest challenge, we were cleaning our engine air filters everytime we stopped. Interestingly, that winter was one of the wettest on record for that part of the world. It rained, at least a little bit, almost every single day from the middle of January until the beginning of March. The day we went to zero our main guns with service ammunition, a rain storm had us wading around in knee deep water.

No extra equipment though. What we had in Germany is what we took to Saudi Arabia.

Many analysis pointed out that the Iraqi training was hopeless inadequate. What was your impression?

Probably, but I wasn't really in a position to make that assessment. When people are shooting back at you, how well or not they are trained isn't something that crosses one's mind.

The Republican Guard units were better equipped and trained, fielding T-72s. Did they give a better account of themselves than standard Iraqi units?

The Iraqi 26th Infantry Division surrendered right in front of our eyes. We shot up some of their equipment but they weren't shooting back, so busy were they trying to surrender. Later we ran across parts of two RG divisions and they did fight back. So there's that.

Apart from Soviet and Chinese tanks, the Iraqi Army also operated locally modified T-55 Enigma. Did you ever come across any? What was your impression?

None that I saw. Mind you, most of the Iraqi vehicles I saw were in one state of destruction or another.

Was there any equipment operated by the Iraqi Army that you found impressive/unimpressive?

Nothing that I saw.

After your experience with the Abrams during the Gulf War, were there any improvements that could be applied with the lessons learned?

Better heat dissipation for the electronics rack. This was always somewhat of a problem for the M1 as the turret electronics were prone to overheating with the TIS being the biggest victim. I understand that there were some changes made that made an enormous difference. I'm guessing better heat sinks and better ventilation, but I don't really know. Keep in mind that the M1A1s my unit had for Desert Storm were the oldest M1A1s in theater. Our unit was the first in Germany to receive them in 1987, and we took them to war in 1991.

During your career you used vehicles with diesel engines and turbines? What is your opinion on this debate?

I really liked the turbine for its ease of cold weather starting and reliability. I understand the concerns about the heat signature and fuel economy. To the first, it was nothing I remember exploiting during training exercises. For a number of years while we still had the M60A3 we would train against M1. We were in awe with how quickly they could move, but their heat signature was never something we pointed out. Fuel economy, yes we had to be aware of how much fuel we were burning, but so long as we got fuel we were good. That said, the introduction of an auxiliary power unit should be well received.

Tanks like Leclerc and South Korean K2 have incorporated autoloaders. What is your opinion on this item?

My opinion is that there hasn't been an automatic loader built that can man a listening post, pull KP, break track, or burn shit. However, I know advancement never stops and an automatic loader will be incorporated into US tanks sooner rather than later. Of course it is quite possible that the next US tank will have to have an automatic loader because the tank will be unmanned.

Sunday, 13 November 2016

Iraqi M1 Abrams under attack

On 12th November an Iraqi M1A1M Abrams was hit by an AT missile, probablt a Metis M. The attack took place near the village of Hammam al-Alil, south of Mosul. As it is possible to see, the missile hits the front armour, and does not seem to cause much damage.

References:

- Video found in twitter.