Anyone care to indulge me on a small hypothetical question here?

What does everyone else on this forum think would be on the vehicle? The M1 is my favorite modern tank and was just brainstorming on what improvements the vehicle would have. Been cruising the net and reading about the lessons learned from the fighting in Iraq and how the M1 has been fareing in combat. It seems that the tank is somewhat lacking in the anti personell role and is one of the chief reasons why a good number of them are being disabled in combat. So far the good news is that no M1 crews have been killed due to the result of enemy fire, the protection offered by the vehicle is quite good so Ive heard. I guess what im driving at here is basically to say that I think im gonna try to convert one of my M1 kits to represent an M1A3...and im looking for ideas.
Maybe make a good subject for a contest in the hypothetical category.

Maybe improve the comanders station with an armored cupola and convert the weapons to Energy weapons. Maybe replace the 120mm with a Particle beam or a mass driver. And have a rudimentary shielding system on the vehicle.

Anyone want to help me fish for some ideas?

This unfortunately is no longer true... I don't remember details, but crew members of M1 tanks have been killed in Iraq as a result of both direct hit (but these were cases when crew member was hit while riding in open hatch, so without the protection of tank armor) and explosions of large IEDs. While the IED may not be exactly what you meant by "enemy fire", it still is an effect of enemy action.

Here is a picture showing some of upgrades currectly being proposed/implemented as a result of experience in OIF / OIF2: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/medium/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Pawel

Hi,
it sounds like a good theme for another campaign. Take a current vehicle as a base kit and add mods on pure speculations.
Could be fun.
I did it once with a T-62.

olivier

Much would depend on the way the M-1 would be employed.
To work in an urban setting,I would imagine a shorter gun tube might suffice.I would make a "what if" with a leftover 152 barrel from an M-60A2,and carry a combat load of cannister.That would be a perfect crowd control weapon...
(++) (++)

I'm apt to agree along the lines of what Carl says. The days of a main battle tank ruling the battlefield are numbered. Aircraft and missilery are making massed armor formations obsolete. The next battlefield (as seen in current operations) is the urban environment.

We should have taken a hint from the Russians who have been messing around in urban warfare. They developed several T-72 variants that are designed to fight within city streets. This vehicle would be dead against a real tank or a big IED, but is effective against partisans in buildings.

If the Abrams chassis is used, it would resembled something closer to the Panther II with several smaller weapons stations and perhaps a large calibre gun externally mounted.

Jon
I have an M1 on the drawing board as an A4 or A5. I'm adding reactive armor plates like the M-60. Upgrading the armor on the side skirts like the Challenger II. Adding some armor protection to the engine compartment as well as the engine grills. Replacing the commanders 50 with a mini-gun , moving the 50 to the loaders station. Then adding two 50's to the top of the main gun like the Israelis do.
Might even add a bulldozer blade to it. is something like that what you thinking of.
Jerry

I am almost not sure that there may be an "official" M1A3. A jump from an A# to an A#+1 (ie A1 to A2) is usually a big jump, at least where the Abrams is concerned. Instead I think steady improvements similar to the M1A1 to M1A1AIM or the M1A2 to M1A2 SEP will be what to look for. But, considering all the improvements that have happened to the Abrams over its life, I think an A3 could have the TUSKs system standard, with a remote loaders MG, maybe a different weapon system (like a short barrel), but most of the stuff would probably be internal: upgraded computers, guidance systems, maybe a new engine and the like. I think particle beams (though I have no idea what a mass driver is) are a little far off for an A3 model. That is just too far off in my mind. Maybe an A5 or A6, if the Abrams ever got that far.

That being said, and from my understanding (THOSE THAT ARE MORE INFORMED PLEASE CORRECT ANY ERRORS HERE), officially the Army is persuing its Future Combat System (FCS) vehicles. Without getting into a debate as to the need for such vehicles, until FCS goes into service (planned sometime in the next one to two decades?), the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) is being used as something like a interim force between the mechanized vehicles like the Abrams and Bradley and the planned wheeled vehicles of FCS.

I have currently heard no news about what will happen to the Abrams specifically when FCS vehicles become operational, but given how long it will have been in service, who knows what will happen.

In my opinion, I think that if the national budget concerns now are the same in 15-20 years, congress (if not killing the project all together, for money reasons) may end up authorizing a hybrid idea of what the Army wants and what will actually be available, with FCS vehicles and upgraded Abrams (or the like) existing together. While not a direct comparison, the best thing I can liken this to is the F/A-18 being upgraded to the E/F model to replace F-14s and old F/A-18A/D models until the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) becomes operational. Then the two will intermingel.

Jeff

Personally, with the current focus more on QRFs for wild-fire conflicts such as the SBCT, I think the next gen M1 may not be the big behemoth it is right now but more of a mass-air deployable vehicle system, much like the now-defunct M8 Buford project and the current Stryker family of vehicles. Not as heavily armored or armed, but able to be quickly deployed and able to provide a good amount of support to troops on the ground. One other thing I just thought of, the next gen military vehicle will probably be moving more towards hybrid fuel technology, much like what Oshkosh is doing to their vehicles. So to answer your question directly about a theoretical M1A3, I would say hybrid-drive engine, shorten it up with a lower caliber main gun, add a CROWS-like system for the commanders weapon, and remove the loaders position and replace him with an autoloader to reduce width.
Kyle

This is part of the argument that went on (to my knowledge) a few years ago regarding the replacement of the MBT to a wheeled, upgunned vehicle...correct?

At the time, it seems that the core of the argument revolved around the re-introduction of once obsolete ATWs back into the combat environment and used with effectivness.

I seem to recall that there WAS a real M1A3 in prototype form. This project was cancelled. There was in fact a picture of one posted on (I believe) AFV-News years ago.

This M1A3 had a 140mm gun and a more blocky turret face, similar to the JGSDF Type 90 or Chinese Type 98 MBT. It had a few more CITVs on top and thicker and higher side skirts. Of course this M1A3 must've weighed more than the M1A2 and being roughly the same size, carried less ammo than 40 rounds.

No one knows what happened to this M1A3, but I could've sworn I saw a photo of one. And no, this is not the low squat tank with the diamond gun tube (and the three-man crew sits in the hull) as seen on the Discovery Channel.

So in essence, the U.S. Army does have the next-generation MBTs already prototyped. It's just that the SBCT and FCS concepts for a 20-ton AFV derailed the whole 40-70-ton tank idea.

Hello Guys,
Personally I think that the M1A1 Sep and the A1 Aim are in it for the long haul until the FCS (Future Combat System) and the Army's Unit of Action come along. From what I've seen and heard the Abrams will be around until the late 30's or until the Army is satisfied that the FCS can deliver the networked fires, NLOS (Non line of sight) and BLOS (beyond line of sight engagements). I've seen some pretty cool slide shows and presentations showing how FCS will accomplish this goal.

Semper FI
Andy

While maybe not an A3 variant, I was thinking along the lines of what the Israelis have done with the Centurion over the years. Make a variant of the Abrams into a heavy APC like the Nagmashot, Nagmashon, Nagmashon-2, or the Puma. Heavy machine guns, and or mini guns. Low recoil 105's etc. I think for urban warfare, these would be the ticket. And to piggyback on something that was already mentioned, throw a 152mm and some "can" rounds in the mix. I know this is what were were packing when readying to go into Somalia in 93'. We were packing roughly 95% "can" rounds and the rest HE. DEVASTATING on a crowd of bad guys to say the least. We got stood down and we all know the results of what happened there later. Ok, I'm beginning to rant. Out here. "Q"

for that futuristic look

david drake's hammers slammers

and another book called bolo

about future tanks

reb

Well after looking around the net at some of the images and articles found there, I basically have a rough Idea what im gonna do to the tank.

I scratchbuilt a rectangular, short barelled energy weapon for the main gun and i think im going to convert the secondary armaments to energy weapons as well.

Ok maybe its unrealistic for a M1A3....Maybe Ill call it a M1A5, Its Hypothetical, so I dont think anyone can tell me its wrong..(Unless I meet one of "those" IPMS judges again.)

Seeing as I dont scratchbuilt too much...someone wish me some luck on this project. Ill get some pics up when i get more of it built up.


L8r