Hi All.....
Do you know where I can found detailed image of M1 Abrams Tusk update?!or a company that produce this conversion?!
Another question.....is a M1 Tusk a prototype or is it really use?!

Thanks in advance and sorry for my poor English.

Ciao a tutti.

Ciro

As far as I know the army is still working on it and a complete tusk tank hasn't been deployed yet. A few features of tusk have been put into use, like the slat armor for the rear of the tank. There is an Eduards photo etch set for that you can find it on there website.

Jim is right that TUSK is still in development. Only the T/I phone has been adopted on newer M1A1AIMs coming out of depot though. The anti-RPG grill for the rear was tried in Iraq, but has now been abandoned. Here is the proposed TUSK package.

Gino, just curious as to why the anti RPG armor for the rear was abandoned.

thanks,

Sean

From what I have been told, the minimal advatage it gave was not worth the hassle to remove it for routine maintenance on the tank. It was also not really that effective against RPGs and the RPG threat has actually been reduced by better patrolling tactics and having more soldiers on the ground to protect the rear of the tank.

Another reason given was that the armor was originally created based on the report that damage done to that area of the tank was created by an RPG. This created a need for armor back there. Believe this happened on two tanks, reports coming from the movement into Iraq during OIF I. Subsequent study of the damage indicated it was not an RPG, and the armor was not effective versus the actual round that caused the damage.

Reinforcing what Gino has said, better tactics, training, and employment have shown that there is not a need for the cage in the rear.

Shortly, all tanks rolling off of the rebuild line will have the T/I phone, regardless of model.

Jed

Thanks for replies,
I've a question....I think that Exhaust cover work in the same mode of the bird cage of stryker right?!so they're realized for anti-rpg purpose...like ball&chains of Israeli Tank....so If it doesn't work on the rear of the M1 why are they on stryker if they give minimal advantage?!?!

Hi all....

Ciro

The bar armor (on the Stryker and the rear of the Abrams) significantly enhanced the defeat of RPG rounds.

Further study of damage done to the Abrams reporting RPG hits to the rear discovered they were not RPG hits. *shrug*

So slat armor is functional for the what it was designed for, just not a good fit for the Abrams.

Jed

Its funny how ideas go round and round. No phones on Shermans in WW2 so they are improvised and become standard on all tanks after WW2. Then they are left off the M1 as obsolete. Well guess what maybe they weren't and the wheel turns and they are added back on again.
Don't get me started on chicken shields and gun trucks either since we have all seen them before as well.

Why does the military have to learn the same lesson over and over.

rant finished.

Tom

Who needs an infantry phone when your racing along at 45 mph repelling the Soviet hords in the Fulda Gap.

Tom

That was the original idea when they were originally deployed. Urban combat was the last thing on theyre mind when they designed it. Thats what the bradly was supposed to be for.
Jim

From my understanding, they were most likely AT4 -AP rounds used on our M1's... Slat armor will not stop an AT4 let alone an AT4-AP! It's not that uncommon for our own weapons to end up in the enemy’s hands...

Consider also that in 1 ambush that resulted in the horrid deaths of several Marine Snipers.. there were also several M107's taken (.50 BMG Sniper Rifles).

-Chris M.


-Chris M.

QUOTE: Its funny how ideas go round and round. No phones on Shermans in WW2 so they are improvised and become standard on all tanks after WW2. Then they are left off the M1 as obsolete. Well guess what maybe they weren't and the wheel turns and they are added back on again.
Don't get me started on chicken shields and gun trucks either since we have all seen them before as well.

Why does the military have to learn the same lesson over and over.

rant finished.

I noticed that the Army also decided that they did not need a dozer blade for the Abrams... BUT the USMC is buying Pearson blades from the Brits.

thanks for the answers guys.

Sean

It's simple...it's the way the Army is structured. If you have too many Bureaucrats, things don't get done. Remember that childhood game of "A tells B who tells C who tells D who tells E who tells F?" When the message gets to G, do you think the mssg. will be the same? That's how the Army works to get things done. G will say he never got the message, which is why a lot of programs are delayed or way behind.

The problem is that the people doing this work don't wear uniforms...they're civilians. It's not as simple as the Air Force telling a contractor to make a plane and viola...plane made, pay for it. With the Army, there's the Department of Defense (DoD) civilian corp who do most of the developing and non-fighting work. More and more, the Govt. is contracting out military jobs to civilians and contractors (ironically, to save money). Let me just say that in the military, orders do the talking, but in the Real World of the civilians, $$$ does the talking.

Maybe many people don't know this, but if you work for Govt. as a civilian, you can't get fired unless you do something really outrageous like sexual harrassment or stealing. Be as lazy bum as you want, you can't get fired. Be as incompetent as you want, you can't get fired. Be as clumsy as you want, you can't get fired. Be as slow as you want, you can't get fired. You may get a chewing, but you won't get fired. The thing is, most smart cookies don't go into Govt. because they can earn more $$$ in the corporate sector, and they know how Govt. works. People who stood in the Dept. of Motor Vehicles or Post Office know how slow Govt. works...the Govt. is in no rush to help you.

This is why some Govt. hammers DO cost $4,000. It's because of the slowpoke who spent six months doing the hammer project compared to a guy at a hammer factory who did the hammer project in three hours for $50. Why? The guy in the hammer factory knows if he goes slow, it'll be his --BLEEP!-- The Govt. guy...tomorrow's another day, another pay !

So IF the military structure HAD more people in uniform doing the work, THEN perhaps the military will learn better and be better because those people in uniform care for the people in uniform. But if you stock it with DoD civilians who care more about their paychecks than GI Joe and his (What's a tank?) and know that they won't get fired, why bother? The DoD civilians are not going to tell the Generals what to do. The Generals have to tell the civilians what to do, and most times the message is totally unclear (What's a howitzer?).




The Marines may be more streamlined in that they have less of a civilian to uniform ratio. I've been reading the defense magazines for 15 years and find that the USMC has a tendency of fighting hard for what it wants. Also, the USMC has a way of winning over Congress that the Army lacks.

****
One plan was to have TUSK as a kit to be installed by Army folks at depots. It can be packaged as a whole kit or sent piecemeal as each part becomes available. But with the GWOT eating so much money, I doubt TUSK will see much light because better to get the M1s working than adding items on broken M1s.

Peter,
I believe you've not looked far enough.

Now this is all my opinion, but the issue ultimately boils down to money. Vietnam and early OIF, you saw non-standard modifications to combat vehicles. Using Vietnam as an example, if the Army at the time was able to get the items through the system and approved, they are still around today (M113 ACAV kits, for example). TUSK is probably going to be around a long time, because it is one of the solutions that are in the pipeline now. The challenge is cost. Regardless of war, maintaining a military over a period of time is expensive, and civilians (either the ones in the DoD, or the ones out complaining at the cost of the government) continuously believe that having an effective military and effective equipment should be an ever dwindling cost. If you want the military to be able to maintain the lessons learned in past conflicts, it's going to cost. 30 years down the road, when we are being told by the American people to cut our spending, you end up prioritizing, and 30 year old items that may not apply to the current fight end up going away (1990's priorities for spending).

Current processes for acquisition are much better than the days of the $4,000 dollar hammer, the system now might take time, but it does at least cut out a bunch of the fat. The one challenge you get when trying to get something done becomes Congress. What's submitted to them is not what gets approved.

The fix to the solution is not "get rid of the lazy civilians". It's ultimately to realize that an effective military isn't cheap, and to buy the right items. There might be corruption, but it's no longer like the 1980's. So call up a Congressman.

Now, on the plow blades, it was never purchased in the 1980's when it was tested, because it causes damage to the transmission on the tank. As used just to push stuff out of the way, it's fine, but digging a battleposition with it will never be something you can do without changing the transmission. I don't believe it's a matter of the Marine Corps winning over the hearts and minds of Congress so much as it is the idea that you can justify more when you have a smaller fleet. If you are only equipping 20 tanks with a plow blade versus 200 tanks with a plow blade, that's a significant number. You will probably eventually see a plow blade on Army tanks as well. *shrug*

You'll see TUSK coming as well. It's not a matter of fixing tanks vs. buying armor packages, because they are funded from different from each other. Will it be widespread? Only in OIF.

We're going to have this tank around for a LONG time. Even though it's getting close to 30 years old, I'll be well into retirement by the time my grandkids turn in this tank.

Jed Sargent

Funding is one thing and DOD civilians also act as a brake but its the loss of ideas that I was talking about. Once gun shields were purchased for 113s they never have to be bought again. The Army brain trust should have realized "Hey urban battle 113s using MGs go to warehouse repaint and ship gun shields". They cranked out the shields for the Humvees pretty quickly but was a design for it on file some where or did they have to crank it out in a hurry.

It should have been standard equipment when they put a 50cal on the roof from the beginning. All vehicles with an exposed MG need shields if you want to use it under fire. Is it lack of money or stupidity that had all these vehicles made without them. The M551 I crewed in Germany still had the shields but the 113s didn't, even though the scouts would have had to fought opened hatch. Just stupid.

Oh also I am a Federal employee and I do care. But it is nearly impossible to fire some one. Lawyers get involved and Frak(BSG) everything up. I was told that employees are also taxpayers and deserve every opportunity to be rehabilitated.

Tom

Tom,

Everything is about accountability. You've heard the saying, "Sorry, but I don't have the authority to do that." Or, "Let me tell my boss and then get back to you." And then never do.

Remember in the movie "Batman Begins" Lucius Fox said to Bruce Wayne about the "Nomex Survival Suit for Advanced Infantry?" Mr. Wayne asked why the military didn't want it and Mr. Fox said dryly, "Bean counters in Washington didn't think a soldier's life was worth 300 grand."

Mr. Fox didn't say that there was no money to buy the suit. Mr. Fox meant that no bean counter is BRAVE ENOUGH to say that a soldier's life is worth 300 grand. No DoD civilian is going to stick his or her neck out like that and then have to "Daah..daah..doo...doo" in front of Congress and try to explain him or herself why they just spent $2 billion on Nomex Survival Suits for just 10,000 troops.

So it's not so much a matter of funding, lazy DoD civilians, office politics, or Red Tape, it's really that the brave men and women are literally on the front lines whereas many DoD civilians supporting them are hiding under their desks.

And why is this?

Govt, Mr. X and Ms. Y have kids to feed and put through school. They're not stupid...best for them shut up, lay low, and take home the bacon. The civilians don't want to get blamed if something goes wrong. If GI Jane died because a DoD civilian said "Big Monkey" tires were fine on Humvees, but turned out not to be over time, GI Jane's parents can sue the skirt and underwear off Ms. Y. (Oh, dear, now we're getting below the belt talk here ). Wouldn't you? What if "Big Monkey" tires were indeed the best thing to happen to Humvees since eyeglasses got polycarbonate? Ms. Y may know this, but there's always that "fear factor" that something unexpected and wrong may happen with "Big Monkey" tires that is preventing Ms. Y from endorsing them. In her mind, best to stick with the tried and proven "Aggressor" tires---at least that won't kill GI Joe and GI Jane. This explains one reason why the military is so slow to adopt new things unless someone puts a boot to rear ends or they test the beejeesus out of it. This is one reason why Govt. hammers cost $40,000---that hammer went through the "committee wash."

Getting back on topic regarding gunshields, M1114s, TUSK, and so forth, perhaps some civilians did know, but no one wants to be held accountable unless the word comes from the Chief of Staff of the Army. If something goes wrong, blame the Big Man, not little poor ol' Bob or Mary over here. Example: General Shinshiki (sp) will always be connected to the Stryker idea. Why, just take a look at all the posts online. But what if the Stryker was really "Bob's idea?" Some people will want to lynch BOB for all the problems the Stryker is causing them because does BOB know what he's doing? Oh, General Shinshiki...he's a general so he must know what he's doing...but NOT BOB!

It's really quite sad...REALLY!

Pete, I think you are wrong. Coming from the side that the bullets are flying on, it isn't as simple as you put it. The Genarals, DoD civilians, and Contractors I know would be insulted by your insinuations. It isn't that they are lazy or don't care, they care very much. As Sarge 18 says, it is money. The only way we can get these pricey items is to pony up more money to buy them. That is the reason we don't have everything we need or want. Military spending is less than 3% of the total US budget. If taxes are raised or other programs are cut, then we will get the needed money. Until that happens, it will be status qou.

Yeah, Gino, you're right. It's the *system* that is to blame. It's the system that doesn't work sometimes. But who will lead the charge for more money? One side doesn't want to raise taxes, and the other side does. One side says it has enough (to show that it can stretch the dollar); the other side says it lacks a lot. As you know, 100% will not be happy.

With Abrams, it is easier because it's the "Top Dog" of the Army pecking order.

++++++
Anyway, I had a chance to read Jane's today and the Army awarded the TUSK contract for $45M USD on 29 August 2006 for 505 TUSK add-on kits. Work should be done by April 2009. In conjunction, the ERA tiles were also awarded a contract on 28 August. 155 M1A1 MBTs will go through the AIM process and 60 M1A2s will go through SEP. TUSK was initially shown February 2005.

---Jane's IDR October 2006.

Is the issue one of "lazy civillians" or "scared civillians" vs. the Military, or is it an issue of bad planning? In WW II members of the Military resisted mounting 90mm guns in the sherman because they believed that tanks should not fight other tanks - until experience on the battlefield showed that tanks HAD to be able to fight other tanks.

It seems to me that, by the time that the Abrams was fielded, it had evolved into the best tank killing weapon that the USA could afford, but the tank wasn't really equipped to do anything else. For example, at the start of OIF, the M1A2 SEP was the "Ultimate expression" of tank evolution in the USA right? It'smain gun had two types of ammo - A Sabot round for killing other tanks, and a HEAT round for killing other tanks with a secondary blast effect for killing other things like APC's and what not. The coax armament originally planned for the Abrams included a 25mm Bushmaster cannon, but this was deleted as unnesicary early on. Instead, the COAX was simply a 7.62 MG for killing enemy dismounts (from tanks and APCs killed by the main gun.) and the roof MG's were really intended for the same purpose. There was no Dozer blade, because when tested, the transmissions would overheat when used for heavy digginng - such as tank positions. However, since a pile of dirt is of limited use in stopping SABOT rounds from other tanks, and it is best to be mobile when fighting other tanks, we really don't need a dozer anyway, right?

I know that this is an over simplification of some of the facts, But I don't think that anyone was being "cheap" or "scared" when equiping the Abrams. I think that everybody (in the high places) forgot that, sometimes, infantry support and urban combat can be more important than tank vs. tank duels. Now that we are at war again, we have all of the TUSK upgrades, and the CCSAM co-ax .50MG. and dozer blades for clearing roadblocks, and a shotgun round for the main gun, etc...

There are too many sides and variables here that contribute to getting the GI what he or she needs, hence the "System."

We're talking about bases, civilians, military, office politics, and contractors. If you want to sum everything up, then yes, money is a huge factor, but not the only factor.

Some military folks who posted here are talking about getting stuff. I'm writing to explain how slow and hard it is to get them the stuff when in reality, it shouldn't be so hard. I'm talking all the fuss, work, battles, stress, backstabbing "behind the scenes, backstage with the curtain down (from Feb. 2005 to August 28, 2006)." I'm not talking about the actor on stage (505 TUSK kits) with the spotlight on. Not many people talk about how "Santa and his elves" delivered the gift. They just talk about the gift.

Due to military cuts, base closings, fewer contractors, mergers, fewer weapons, tax cuts, lower budgets, and so on and so forth, there's less people in less places to get the work done for the military. The Reagan-era civilian folks are close to retirement so many of them will be out after their 30+ years. I mean they're old...they can't work as "fast" as some youngsters. And with fewer bases, where to put the youngsters when there are still the old workers around? The Army officers who fought in the 1991 Gulf War have retired or are near retirement and when they're gone, so too is the knowledge and experience with them.

You mentioned this and that about the M1, but keep in mind someone had to test and research those things, someone who is often very close to retirement and even some who have bad health. Or it could be a youngster who is just getting started and has to learn really fast.

I'm not saying that everyone in the military support is a bad seed. I'm just saying that with fewer people in fewer places and a much older workforce, there's less to get more work done and things take longer than usual (or should). You can think of some military places as "having too many Chiefs and not enough Indians because the Indians have all got promoted to Chiefs." So each Indian around is being pounded by like five Chiefs.

Bear in mind that this occurs in any workplace, both corporate and Govt., and is not exclusive to the Govt.

IMO, some heroes are those that help hundreds of GIs as "An Army of One." Few people congratulate the folks who bought and built 500+ TUSK kits. And even fewer people know that some worker had to pull teeth to get some worker to sign off on those TUSK kits.

+++++++
So getting back to the question, "Why does the military have to keep relearning what it has learned?" Talking backstage, if the hairdresser or make-up artist or stage prop did that way for the past 30 years with no trouble, it's not easy to change his or her ways. Where's the proof? Where's the research to convince the "expert?" Who's going to provide it? Why can't so-and-so just retire in peace? And some elves quit or transferred to the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy's shop. And sometimes there's a new "Santa" every single Christmas. It's hard to keep people sometimes. The "gift" may be the same, but the knowledge and process in making it may be totally different because it's not the same elves in the same workshop anymore. It's all human nature...

OK, I said my part. Leaving the theater as a "backstage hand."

Chaps

Never could understand why the Yanks didn't just buy the Challenger series off-the-shelf; quite simply the best tank in the world!

Cheers

Karol