_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Abrams question
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Monday, April 09, 2018 - 10:35 PM UTC
Just curious - what was the logic of naming the Abrams "M1", when chronologically it should be "M80", or somewhere around there? It's number suggests it predates the Sherman! Was this just to confuse the Russians?
Kenaicop
#384
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Monday, April 09, 2018 - 10:42 PM UTC
Brand new series of tank?
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Monday, April 09, 2018 - 10:43 PM UTC
Whatever the logic was it has been applied to a lot of systems/weapons.
M113 and then came the M2 and M3 Bradley
B52 and then XB70 and then the B1 bomber
F104 Starfighter and then there was F16 and F18

Maybe someone decided that the old small digit numbers could be reused again, there is no risk of confusing the M1 or a subsequent M2 with the M2 combat car from the thirties.

On the other hand there are four digit M-numbers for other vehicles but in those cases I could imagine that some kind of system-thinking has been involved. Stryker family has a range of numbers, HMMWV's have theirs ...

/ Robin
srmalloy
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: April 15, 2012
KitMaker: 336 posts
Armorama: 298 posts
Posted: Monday, April 09, 2018 - 10:56 PM UTC
It's because it was a completely new 'clean sheet' design. Previously, the Mxxx designation descended from the M1 Light and M2 Light tanks, then the M3 Medium and M3 Light, and so on. The M46 Patton, with the same hull but a new turret, was the M47 and still a 'Patton', and while the M48 was a new design, it still resembled the M47 visually, and was called a 'Patton', too. The M60 was never officially named after Patton, but it's an improved descendant of the M48 program, so it got lumped into the same group. The Abrams was started out of the breakup of the German/American partnership MBT-70 project, and because it was an entirely new concept and direction in armor design, someone up the chain of command decided to restart the numbering to represent the new start and called it the M1.
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Monday, April 09, 2018 - 11:17 PM UTC
Simple question with an almost simple answer-- it was the first of its kind within its funding and organizational grouping. The Army organizes its vehicles by "Group Numbers-- simply an organizational and funding tool which groups vehicles by a "G" series family number (for tanks and automotive items) based on similarities/parts interchangeability/maintenance type etc. "F" series numbers are used for fire control items. The "G" series, main battle tanks are organized by type, each with their own "G" numbers (I can't remember the number now for the M1) But it was the first in its own "G" series number based on its departure from previous vehicles in that it had a turbine engine, specialized armor and ammo, blow out panels, etc., making it the first tank of its type in the "G" series. Same goes for the M2 Bradley--first of its type in the "G" series.
VR, Russ
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - 06:50 PM UTC
Actually it was due to a rebuilding/rebranding of the US Military during the late 1970's. At this time, we moved to an all-volunteer force and were trying to change the brand as we came out of the dark days of post Vietnam with deep cuts and a declining military culture. To assist in this, many systems numbering were reset to low numbers to signify an all-new, professional military. The M2/3 Bradley was originally the XM723, the M1 Abrams was originally the XM815. Usually, when a vehicle is accepted, it simply drops the "X" experimental designation and keeps the rest of its "M" designation.

Additionally, the M numbering system had/has many items numbered the same over the years and still currently. Such as M1 Helmet, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, M1 Canteen, etc., etc... You have to use both the number and the nomenclature together to describe the proper item. As a former supply officer, it was stressed upon us that if you ordered an M1, you could accidentally order an M1 Tank when you meant to order an M1 Helmet; which has a vast difference in price.
vettejack
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - 06:56 PM UTC


Me likie things that go boom-boom...no matter what it's called!
srmalloy
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: April 15, 2012
KitMaker: 336 posts
Armorama: 298 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - 09:01 PM UTC

Quoted Text

You have to use both the number and the nomenclature together to describe the proper item. As a former supply officer, it was stressed upon us that if you ordered an M1, you could accidentally order an M1 Tank when you meant to order an M1 Helmet; which has a vast difference in price.


It's probably apocryphal, but I remember a story I ran across many years ago describing how someone in the Canadian Navy, as a demonstration of how little attention Supply paid to what was being ordered as long as all the paperwork was filled out correctly and to see how far it would go, submitted a requisition that had the item designation but not its description on the form, and it went up through three or four levels of rubber-stamped approval before someone bothered to look up the designation code and discovered that the requisition was for a guided missile frigate. Fully manned and provisioned.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 - 10:06 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

You have to use both the number and the nomenclature together to describe the proper item. As a former supply officer, it was stressed upon us that if you ordered an M1, you could accidentally order an M1 Tank when you meant to order an M1 Helmet; which has a vast difference in price.


It's probably apocryphal, but I remember a story I ran across many years ago describing how someone in the Canadian Navy, as a demonstration of how little attention Supply paid to what was being ordered as long as all the paperwork was filled out correctly and to see how far it would go, submitted a requisition that had the item designation but not its description on the form, and it went up through three or four levels of rubber-stamped approval before someone bothered to look up the designation code and discovered that the requisition was for a guided missile frigate. Fully manned and provisioned.


That story may not have been true, but I met a commanding officer who signed off on a requisition for a Nuclear submarine. His supply sergeant submitted the paperwork, he signed off on it and it went up the chain until he got the call from the Pentagon asking what possible need an Army Combat engineer unit could have for a Nuclear submarine.

The supply sergeant in my National Guard unit would pay attention to things declared "surplus" in the system and ask the First Sergeant if he could find a use for a pile of ALICE pack camouflage covers or sleeping bag covers and get a pile to issue to the unit. We also got piles of surplus manuals.
jstarn
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: July 19, 2014
KitMaker: 80 posts
Armorama: 74 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - 03:00 PM UTC
It was Robert McNamara who made it happen. The details are a bit fuzzy, but Mr. McNamara was Secretary of Defense On September 18, 1962, the Defense Department ordered that all Air Force, Army, and Navy aircraft be designated under a common, universal system. This was done because Secretary McNamara was interested in achieving greater commonality between the services. According to one story, he supposedly had gotten hopelessly confused when his aides told him that the Navy and the Air Force had completely different designation schemes, often for what was basically the same aircraft. At about that time, all new procurement numbers would start over. The Air Force's new F110 Specter and the Navy's F4H Phantom were both renamed/numbered F4, and the other services followed suit.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - 04:40 PM UTC

Quoted Text

It was Robert McNamara who made it happen. The details are a bit fuzzy, but Mr. McNamara was Secretary of Defense On September 18, 1962, the Defense Department ordered that all Air Force, Army, and Navy aircraft...


For aircraft, yes. That is why/when the Army HU-1A Iroquois (Huey) became the UH-1A.

Not so for ground vehicles. The M1 wasn't redesignated until 1976 and the M2 until 1977.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - 05:32 PM UTC

Quoted Text

...............

That story may not have been true, but I met a commanding officer who signed off on a requisition for a Nuclear submarine. His supply sergeant submitted the paperwork, he signed off on it and it went up the chain until he got the call from the Pentagon asking what possible need an Army Combat engineer unit could have for a Nuclear submarine.
.......


Priceless!
vettejack
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - 06:23 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

...............

That story may not have been true, but I met a commanding officer who signed off on a requisition for a Nuclear submarine. His supply sergeant submitted the paperwork, he signed off on it and it went up the chain until he got the call from the Pentagon asking what possible need an Army Combat engineer unit could have for a Nuclear submarine.
.......


Priceless!



Reminds me of a story that happened to my C-5 Galaxy maintenance crew. Back in the late 70's, one enterprising Airman on my crew, took the initiative and obtained the 'end item' part number off the data plate of one of our C-5's. He went to logistics to 'order' a new C-5. Months go by, and one fine spring day this Captain comes up to me and gives me a document stating that the aircraft was unavailable (production had ceased by then), but if I wanted to keep the aircraft 'on order', I would have to sign for it (minimum rank at that time took an NCO signature). Laughing so hard on the inside, and not letting the Captain see that I was in humorous 'pain', I signed the document to keep the order, for a new C-5, alive. I ended up giving my signed order for new C-5 aircraft to that Airman as a souvenir. In the end, that that Captain did not realize: we, as mechanics, simply cannot to around ordering new airplanes! It made me wonder how many people up the chain did not recognize this and cancel such a request, let alone scolding us my making one!

jstarn
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: July 19, 2014
KitMaker: 80 posts
Armorama: 74 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 - 11:24 PM UTC

"Not so for ground vehicles. The M1 wasn't redesignated until 1976 and the M2 until 1977."

But they were not really redesignated, were they? They were the first new vehicles designed and procured after McNamara's policy went into effect.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 12, 2018 - 03:47 AM UTC

Quoted Text


"Not so for ground vehicles. The M1 wasn't redesignated until 1976 and the M2 until 1977."

But they were not really redesignated, were they? They were the first new vehicles designed and procured after McNamara's policy went into effect.


No. McNamara's policy was only for the rationalization of aircraft designations between services, not army. I remember reading it in histories of US aircraft. There were even a couple of aircraft affected that were out of inventory already like the F-7 Sea dart.

The Bradley was originally the XM723. The M1 was an XM8XX before the 1970s. All those CUCV programs with the M880 and M1010 came after McNamara.

As said before they were redesignated in the 1970s with the all-volunteer Army.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 14, 2018 - 06:38 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


"Not so for ground vehicles. The M1 wasn't redesignated until 1976 and the M2 until 1977."

But they were not really redesignated, were they? They were the first new vehicles designed and procured after McNamara's policy went into effect.


No. McNamara's policy was only for the rationalization of aircraft designations between services, not army. I remember reading it in histories of US aircraft. There were even a couple of aircraft affected that were out of inventory already like the F-7 Sea dart.

The Bradley was originally the XM723. The M1 was an XM8XX before the 1970s. All those CUCV programs with the M880 and M1010 came after McNamara.

As said before they were redesignated in the 1970s with the all-volunteer Army.

McNamara's wunderkind were infatuated with numbers and to them it sounded sexier/cooler/more professional than names. Hence we got M60, MBT70, M113, M114, M728 instead of named vehicles.
 _GOTOTOP