M1A2 SEP Video [Archive] - STEELBEASTS.COM FORUM

AlphaSierra

11-04-2002, 09:32 PM

"Ssnake just summed up the M1A2. The SEP stands for Sight Enhancement Package (or Program, I forget) which adds 2nd generation FLIR to the gunners station. The extra screen is about 5" around that is mounted to the right and down of the GPS. The gunner does not have to stick his face into the sight it can be viewed at an arms distance. Both the GPS and TIS have increased magnification in the increments of 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x that allow for identifying and engaging targets well beyond 4000 meters. The ballistic computer was also upgraded to handle range returns up to 6000 meters (without the numbers flashing)."

*Hick*

Hope this one don't get on The_List would take out all the fun in HtH except for the team having them!!! :)

Werewolf

11-05-2002, 03:57 AM

[quote
Hope this one don't get on The_List would take out all the fun in HtH except for the team having them!!! :) [/quote]

:P Yessss! Maybe a slow, dumb sun of a bitch like me would have a chance in H2H - but only if you guys all use T-72's. :D

BigBelly

11-06-2002, 01:48 AM

that is a pretty good movie, but I'm still looking for the clip that has the MIA2 SEP catching air over a hump and firing the gun at the same time.

Any body have any ideas?

belly

Ssnake

11-06-2002, 02:08 AM

I have it. Only it's a Leopard 1A5. :P

Cobra

11-06-2002, 04:24 AM

Maybe it's this one....

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/ssgbentley/vwp?.dir=/My+Photos&.dnm=M1A1+jump+and+fire.jpg&.src=ph&.view=t&.hires=t

Wolfman

11-06-2002, 05:31 AM

I have it. Only it's a Leopard 1A5. :P

Uh, how about posting that one? :P

I have nothing against M1A2SEP being on The List, as long as Leo2A6 EX is also. :)

Keiler

11-06-2002, 11:14 AM

"EX" stands for "experimental" and is bacically a playground vehicle for technology and is not in production. The Leo2A6 is.

Cheers! ;)

Ssnake

11-06-2002, 10:11 PM

In this case the Leo 2A6Ex does exist, it's the EXport version with integrated air conditioner whereas the Bundeswehr version doesn't have the A/C (if I remember correctly).

Hell_Hound

11-07-2002, 12:26 AM

Ssnake, if and when the M1A2 and its IVIS system are implemented in SB...will you be downgrading the F5 view in any way? From what I understand, the F5 map has IVIS's most important capabilities already.

Ssnake

11-07-2002, 02:27 AM

That would be a consequence. Actually the SB map essentially is what FCBC2 promises but cannot deliver at this point. However, you can always print the map, and plot the situation on the paper copy. Combined with some trigger-heavy super-detailed battle plan you should be able to handle things without the map view ;)

I think we have a grognard trap ahead, though. It does not make SB more realistic if you would make the map less useful. You'd just limit the player to smaller missions, and make it more inconvenient. From the point of view of a game that is supposed to remain entertaining (even if it attempts to remain somewhat realistic), this would be a bad move. Given the "Realism of Result" as the prime ruler for an "Overall Realism score", eliminating the most useful tool to issue orders to remote units would actually be a step backwards. Therefore I will lean back and think harder about it only when we are actually forced to cross that bridge.
Hopefully we will implement a test bed for the US Army first.

panzerlindy

11-10-2002, 04:52 PM

Hopefully we will implement a test bed for the US Army first.

Any idea when that will be? ;)

Actually, SEP stands for System Enhancement Package (since it is an overall upgrade from the M1A2): Up to 50x on both the TIS and the CITV (native 3x and 13x, digitally enhanced 6x, 25x and 50x) ; ability to control vehicle systems and diagnose faults from both the driver and commander's position; and a sexy female voice to call out cautions and warnings. Plus the chaos that is FBCB2. All for one low price! However, to keep costs low, they had to leave off the Leo Luxury package features like the electric driver's hatch. Oh, and you can't fire the .50 cal from inside: you have to John Wayne it from the flex mount.

Ssnake

11-10-2002, 06:56 PM

C'mon, the cal .50 should've been disbanded anyway, a needless toy for the TC to screw around with when he's supposed to control the tank. Replace the loader's M240 with it, that would actually make some remote sense. Even better, make the cal .50 the coax weapon. As a secondary gun, especially on a stabilized mount with laser range finder, this would kick ass. As an obstruction to overall visibility and distractive element to overall situational awareness the cal .50 simply is an annoyance.

SB 2 will make this much mor obvious, the current point of view is like sitting on the hatch ring; if you were peeking from barely above hatch level that MG simply is a pain.

panzerlindy

11-11-2002, 04:50 AM

But John Wayne Tank Commander looks cool blasting away from his hatch!

Maybe for you cold, calculating Teutonic types, it makes no sense; however, from the American perspective, just think of it as an enormous six-shooter (Patton style)!

;)

Ssnake

11-11-2002, 01:41 PM

Get yourself a Desert Eagle, then.

Dewman

11-11-2002, 01:50 PM

Get yourself a Desert Eagle, then.

But the sound is just not the same :D

BANDIT7

11-11-2002, 09:49 PM

Very nice but what is the difference between a regular M1A1 and the M1A2Sep? Better armor, commander's independent thermal viewer (located in front of the loader's hatch), digitized interface for data exchange about own and known enemy positions, integrated GPS/navigation system, air conditioner in the bustle rack, hull integrated auxiliary power unit.

That's about it - I think.

thedifference between the M1A1 and the M1A2 sep is that it is stabilized tracking and the citv has 50x capability......im an actual M1A2 Sep Gunner

Trackpads

11-20-2002, 11:47 PM

Why do you not like the 50 cal? That is a great weapon and a compliment to the M1's weapons systems. We (TCs) are trained extensivley on the 50 and its employment, including simulation and real fire. 50 cal training is part of the qual tables for the tank crew.

Not every engagement is for the main gun, well maybe in a video game. But in real life you do not go around the battlefiled engaging trucks etc with the main gun. This includes light skinned APCs as well. You can fire them up with a heat round, but laying into one with the 50 does not expose the main gun or the entire turret from your BP.

The 50 can be engaged from a turret down position and used to engage targets well outside the range of the 240, plus having it high up on the Turret helps. The 240 is pretty ineffectual outside of engaging troops. And to use the coax (and the main sights) still requires you to expose the turret.

The loader is the least experinced on the track and is already occupied with the radio, loading, etc.. So "giving" him the 50 is not the best option since he is not trained for identification and engagment. Gunners are very, very experienced and rightly the ones charged with that.

Also, the 50 cal can be used for "recon by fire" from the turret down position as well, another good use especially with its range.

-Jason

Trackpads

11-21-2002, 12:09 AM

Also, note that the 50 cal can be controlled from within the tank and using the Tanks main sight. This is a routine drill on the simulator and is the only engagement method for the Tank Qualification Table using the 50 cal. The SEP has a free gun though but is still for the same purpose.

Again, replacing the COAX with it would require the tank to always expose itself to engage. Something you dont do when setting in the BP, unless you plan on firing the main gun.

Last note ;-) The Law of War forbids use of the 50 cal on troops, that is why the COAX will always be a 240 or a gun of similar caliber.

-Jason

Hell_Hound

11-21-2002, 12:36 AM

Last note ;-) The Law of War forbids use of the 50 cal on troops, that is why the COAX will always be a 240 or a gun of similar caliber.

Can you substantiate this? I've heard from several sources that the .50 cal prohibition is an urban myth, and in my (semi-attentive) reading through the Hague/Geneva conventions I only remember references to x-ray-transparent weapons and those that cause "unnecessary pain and suffering". That wouldn't necessarily rule out flame throwers and blister agents, never mind big bullets.

And I've heard stories of extensive .50 cal use in Korea against human wave attacks. Maybe this is a custom "more honored in the breach than in the observance".

Wolfman

11-21-2002, 12:42 AM

And I've heard stories of extensive .50 cal use in Korea against human wave attacks. Maybe this is a custom "more honored in the breach than in the observance".

[Edited on 20/11/2002 by Hell_Hound]

The last time I remember .50 cals being used on "troops" was in Somalia in 1993.

Hell_Hound

11-21-2002, 01:43 AM

Trackpads, I thought about the above on the way home and it started to bother me; it occurred to me I've never seen your name around here before.

I want to apologize; I wish I'd said "Welcome to the Forum" before I started getting pugilistic. Let me assure you most of the SB community has better manners than I. :D

Except Hackworth. The man's a Visigoth. ;)

(Running for cover...)

Trackpads

11-21-2002, 02:50 AM

Hey!

Np, I love discussion forums. I run a few websites of my own dedicated to them. I should have said hello myself first ;-)

I will look into something specific but when I refer to the law of war I mean the US codified version of it taught to me over the years and during commissioning. But if someone can find something different then I appreciate it. I looked at a few precommissioning tasks I posted on armyocs.com and it wasn't on there. I also remember the old saying about the 50 and troops and I am not sure about it. But here are my specific thoughts.

The US Army has been big (since My Lai really) about the doctrine of "Just War" and "economy of force". For example, you don’t Nuke Iraq to save the using of 250,000 grounds troops and you don’t engage troops with the main gun of a tank because it wastes a $3,000 tank round.

Can they use it? Not sure. Do they use it? probably. Should they use it? I would say it depends, but in a Tank vs. dismount fight.. Why?? The Somalia argument is a good point and the US Army endorses you to be creative and "pull out the stops" when in that situation, economy be darned. But when you design a tank you don’t have that luxury, you must apply the military principle of economy of force.

For example-

1. The amount of ammo that can be stored for a 50 is finite. 100 rounds of 50 cal is a very large box of ammo vs. 100 rounds of 240. An M1 can hold a ton of 240 ammo compared to possible storage for 50 cal. Under the principle of economy of force you don't need to use 50 cal for troop targets. Fun as it might be...

2. The 240 has a much higher rate of fire than the 50, making it excellent for use against troops. Also, time between barrel changes for a 240 is longer. I fire both several times a year and can tell you that. Also, changing the barrel of a 240 does not require you to adjust the spacing of the gun. Can you imagine headspace and timing a 50 cal in the space where that COAX is? No way.. Changing the barrel of a 240 is an easy task compared to a 50. cal. Overall a much easier, faster firing weapon that can store more ammo and does the job, fighting troops.

3. The 50 cal can be sighted with the TCs 50 cal sight without exposing the turret of the tank. Remember, if you expose your tank in real life then you start moving to your secondary position so a tank doesn’t get you when you pop back up. The 50 cal can also engage targets at a very far range in the current position on the tank. In sims (CTT) I have shot soft skinned BRDMS at well over 1.5k and destroyed them.

4. The idea of letting the loader have the 50 would mean that you would have to train the loader (your junior private) to handle a gun that is a skill level 2 task. The 240 is a "Machine Gun for Dummies" compared to the 50 cal. Plus the loader is needed to do other things, like handle the radios (Complicated if you are on the CO's tank or PLs), load the main gun and get the pogey bait out of the racks ;-))

I do think that people forget the use of the 50 cal against soft vehicles. Since you go into battle with a finite number of main gun rounds, using that 50 cal is a good tool and very effective.

Lastly, on the US Army tank range if you engage a troop target with something other than the 240 you are a no-go. For example "Gunner, Troops, SABOT" or just yelling "Caliber 50!" and shooting the troop targets will get you quick trip to the tower ;-)

-Jason

P.s. They really had fewer 50's in real life but it was a movie so who cares I liked that it shot through walls ;-))

Trackpads

11-21-2002, 02:59 AM

Hellhound,

Also, I think a 50 cal is actually MORE humane than a 240 or anything else. If you get hit by one you are not going to know it, or know it for long. I think being stitched with a 240 is a much more painfull.

Plus, I do agree that it might be a myth, an Apache has a 30mm that can snap troops. I think it is more likely the economy of force argument, using the least amount of force to do the job. Thus save resources.

-Jason

Wolfman

11-21-2002, 03:50 AM

Hey!

The 50 cal can be sighted with the TCs 50 cal sight without exposing the turret of the tank. Remember, if you expose your tank in real life then you start moving to your secondary position so a tank doesn’t get you when you pop back up. The 50 cal can also engage targets at a very far range in the current position on the tank. In sims (CTT) I have shot soft skinned BRDMS at well over 1.5k and destroyed them.

The idea of letting the loader have the 50 would mean that you would have to train the loader (your junior private) to handle a gun that is a skill level 2 task. The 240 is a "Machine Gun for Dummies" compared to the 50 cal. Plus the loader is needed to do other things, like handle the radios (Complicated if you are on the CO's tank or PLs), load the main gun and get the pogey bait out of the racks ;-))

I do think that people forget the use of the 50 cal against soft vehicles. Since you go into battle with a finite number of main gun rounds, using that 50 cal is a good tool and very effective.

Lastly, on the US Army tank range if you engage a troop target with something other than the 240 you are a no-go. For example "Gunner, Troops, SABOT" or just yelling "Caliber 50!" and shooting the troop targets will get you quick trip to the tower ;-)

-Jason

P.s. They really had fewer 50's in real life but it was a movie so who cares I liked that it shot through walls ;-))

If the .50 cal was coax, you would just lase the target and take advantage of the FCS and the stabilized gun. Then the gunner would be able to destroy soft skinned vehicles without using the main gun, while the tank is on the move. The LeClerc has a .50 cal coax, and it appears to be working quite well.

Also, as Ssnake pointed out before, the .50 cal obstructs the TC's view, i.e. Leo 2 has a much better view and is easier to command.

Which movie were you reffering to?

Trackpads

11-21-2002, 04:09 AM

"Blackhawk Down"

Obstructs the view? In the video game? In real life you can see just fine, plus it gives you something to hold on to when you are unbuttoned. With the addition of the CITV you dont look through the periscope anyway. And it is doctinre to not fight the tank unbuttoned, try firing the main gun of an M1 standing the hatch ;-) I like standing up but nowadays you just dont do it unless moving out of contact or an admin march.

The 50 cal is plenty accurate where it is and adding it as the COAX isnt going to happen because of the other reasons I mentioned. The 50 cal is not workable enough or economic to be used in place of the 240 (Reasons I listed), the 240 is the perfect role for troops.

Are you a former tanker?

-Jason

Trackpads

11-21-2002, 04:12 AM

Forgot-

On the move you would jsut pop the vehicle with the main gun anway depending ont eh terrain and the threat the vehicle presents. For example a BRDM AT would probably get a HEAT round from me but a BTR would just get shot up with the 50.

When moving you are exposed and using the a MG round is preferable than slowing your advance. In a BP though you would engage with the 50 to avoid exposing your position.

-Jason

Hell_Hound

11-21-2002, 06:58 PM

I've been checking with some Grizzly gunners, and they concur with your remarks...shooting troops with half-inch bullets is legal, but inefficient and wasteful.

What's it like being at "nametag defilade" when the 120mm fires? In movies I've noticed that grass 90 degrees off the axis of the gun gets smacked flat for a second...do you just feel a *thump* or is it more traumatic than that?

My unit's NCOs often say that firing the Carl Gustav can suck the snot right out of your nose - I've never fired real rounds from it so I don't know if they're exaggerating. If you're looking out of the hatch when a 76mm fires, it's about the same as standing in front of a nightclub speaker with the bass on, just a gentle pressure thump. Pretty loud, though.

Ssnake

11-21-2002, 07:00 PM

And it is doctinre to not fight the tank unbuttoned, try firing the main gun of an M1 standing the hatch ;-) I have been unbuttoned with plenty main gun rounds going downrange, that was no big deal. It may not be "doctrine" to fight the tank unbuttoned where you come from, other armies do it differently - Israel and Germany, for example. True, this comes at the expense of higher vehicle commander casualties, but the better situational awareness retains tactical superiority over a buttoned enemy, thus helps to win the war.

Trackpads

11-21-2002, 08:16 PM

You have to remember that if the gun is firing and if you are unbuttoned then how did you verify the gunners target? That is a major part of gunnery, the TC is responsible for verifiying the sight picture and vehicle the gunner is aimed at. Also, if you are not looking through the TCPS then you also cant judge the round (Short, Over Lost or even Target). It is the TCs responsibility to ensure the gunner is not about to commit fratricide and to call the shot.

There is a great article on Nametape defilade this month in Armor Magazine. And like I said while moving etc it is nice, but when fighting the tank if you are unbuttoned you lose a lot of the tools you are given, including the sights. Unbuttoned you only have a 5-10 power bino vs up to 50x in the sights. At Knox in the dense woods it is helpfull to ride up in the tank but in a more open invironment best to stay in the tank. But again you always engage inside the tank looking through the TCPS.

The CITV was to fix a lot of the problems with sit awareness. Where did that SEP Gunner go? What do you think about it?

As for firing a Tank unbuttoned I have never done it. If you try on an American tank range you would be pulled from the range for safety. But the main gun is very, very strong. When they fire if you are anywhere within a couple hundred feet you can physically feel it.

I am still converting a couple for my website but I have a few good videos of the Tank gunnery at Knox.

-Jason

Ssnake

11-23-2002, 01:42 PM

You have to remember that if the gun is firing and if you are unbuttoned then how did you verify the gunners target?Easy. You set the peri into slave mode, and have a quick look when the gunner announces a target. Then you give the fire command and observe the shot with the binoculars if the tank is stationary, or with the peri while on the move (if it is essential to observe the shot, that is).
To avoid getting blinded by the muzzle flash, you close the eyes on "Achtung!", and open after the bang.Also, if you are not looking through the TCPS then you also cant judge the round (Short, Over Lost or even Target).That's not true is you find the target in the binos. The question is, is it always necessary to fixate one's observation to the travel of the round, or might it be a better idea to observe other areas where enemy may appear, and be a big threat to your position. If in doubt, I would always favor the latter.And like I said while moving etc it is nice, but when fighting the tank if you are unbuttoned you lose a lot of the tools you are given, including the sights.The question is what you understand under the term of "fighting unbuttoned". To me, this does not mean that you keep yourself glued to above hatch level all the time, and restrict yourself from using other sensors than the binos and your eyes.
Of course - the way I trained it - this means that you will check what the gunner's doing in crucial moments, but you simply can't beat a field of view of 140° in a highly dynamic combat situation. The most important thing is to keep track of what is going on to make an educated decision of what is important, and what is not.
If there are just one or two targets, it's better to have the other tanks in the platoon observe your shot since they are not affected by the muzzle smoke and dust, preferrably your wingman.Unbuttoned you only have a 5-10 power bino vs up to 50x in the sights.Yes, but for one the human eye has a pretty good resolution if you don't need strong glasses, and even more important, you have the biggest possible field of view. This is more important for situational awareness than a 50x increase of a target that has already been detected.
Of course the 50x view is a great asset for the identification of extremely distant targets. But that requires for one a line of sight that exceeds three kilometers and therefore is theater dependent. Second, it requires a tactical situation of low intensity combat - like typical peace keeping missions.As for firing a Tank unbuttoned I have never done it. If you try on an American tank range you would be pulled from the range for safety. Sounds like nonsense to me. I have M1 photos shooting the main gun with TC and loader unbuttoned, and even if this was a violation of safety, I wonder why if the engagement range exceeds 500m and all firing tanks are more or less on the height while moving the range up and down.But the main gun is very, very strong. When they fire if you are anywhere within a couple hundred feet you can physically feel it.I never said it wasn't, but the blast is mostly directed to the front and sides. I always found the blast from my wingman's tank much more disturbing than my own. Believe me, it really is no big deal to be unbuttoned while the main gun is firing. One should avoid to observe the muzzle flash with the binos, though. That's pretty blinding for half a minute or more.

Trackpads

11-23-2002, 08:35 PM

Well have you been on an American Tank range? Trust me, I have, if you stick your head outside of the tank suring the engagements you are a safety no go.

Also, how did the tank fire if the loader and tc you saw were hanging out the hatch?, wouldnt that be hard for the loader to actually be doing his job? You may have seen someone doing it but let me tell you it wont happen in my company. If a loader where to get hurt doing that then the TC would be riding a desk from thet day forward. Also, how does the loader troubleshoot if the gunner announces "missfire'? It was probably a staged photo like at a expo or something.

Binos.. right. If your gunner engages the wrong target and you say "Well I verified it through the binos" then you are the one will be CM for incompetence. The only trainined method of target verification is the TCPS, period. TCs spend hundreds of hours in a simulator using only the TCPS and other tools,. While under 500m it may seem a no brainer anything over that and a TC must be looking through the sight.

And now with the SEP you have no reason to be outside the hatch at all in combat, your job is ONLY to search for targets with the CITV.

but you simply can't beat a field of view of 140° in a highly dynamic combat situation.

Your right, that is why we have now the CITV.

Yes, but for one the human eye has a pretty good resolution if you don't need strong glasses, and even more important, you have the biggest possible field of view

The human eye is nothing when it comes to a forested area, you have to rely on the thermals. Plus, you can completely miss a dismounted team in the woodline, even with binos. But the gunner or CITV can spot them with the thermal. That may make the difference between life or a missle up your exhauset.

Of course the 50x view is a great asset for the identification of extremely distant targets. But that requires for one a line of sight that exceeds three kilometers and therefore is theater dependent. Second, it requires a tactical situation of low intensity combat - like typical peace keeping missions.

We used it at Knox and you can get long range shots. Also, Desert storm was done at long range and was not LIC.

but the blast is mostly directed to the front and sides.

?? The gun doesnt know where the sides are man, it comes out the tube and the blast fan is 360 around the tip of the gun, expanding forwards and outwards in a sphere, washing over the tank.

Lastly, if you are unbuttoned then you increae your chances of NOT surviving a hit on the tank of any magnatude (debris and shrapnel) and it makes it really easy for you to get picked off by a dismount. Soldiers rinding above the hatch is also the reason for most deaths in rollovers (Sept-OCT Armor Magazine, USAAA).

-Jason

Ssnake

11-23-2002, 09:48 PM

?? The gun doesnt know where the sides are man, it comes out the tube and the blast fan is 360 around the tip of the gun, expanding forwards and outwards in a sphere, washing over the tank. Jason, I'm as much engineer and physicist as you are, and I know that my statement at first sight appears to be at odds with the laws of shockwave travel. But if you haven't tried it yourself - like you said - , why don't you just trust somebody who did it regularly?
The own blast definitely is much less violent than that of guns that are off to the side, period.

I don't say that all your other arguments are nonsense. But all artificial sensors - be them CITV, peri, or the gunner's thermal imager - inflict tunnel vision on the observer. While it is true that the naked eye has its weaknesses with well concealed threats, it still is the sensor of choice when it comes to detect movement. No other sensor will help you to observe such a large field of view at the same time, and once that you have detected some motion, it's time to drop back into the hatch and let the thermal viewers work their magic.

I don't have enough experience with the M1 to make a statement how fast you can jump in and out of the hatch, but in the Leo it's a matter of about half a second. And maybe you dismiss the idea to stick your head out of the hatch as odd simply because you are so used to the M1 and the cal .50 obstructing your field of view that the idea to do it differently just doesn't come to your mind.

Those who have commanded both the Leo and the M1 - Scott Cunnungham, for example - agree that the Leo is significantly different in its handling in this special aspect. Therefore I may not fully understand that the obstructions of the M1 commander's field of view may make it impractical to operate from the unbuttoned position.

Of course sticking out the head makes the TC vulnerable. This is inevitably so. The question is whether or not the TC is putting his tank at a greater risk by not doing so because he may miss a threat from a flanking direction that doesn't receive as much attention as it should. This can happen simply because of the technically inflicted tunnel vision.

Unlike the M1, the Leopard 2 has been designed from day 1 to be fought with all hatches sealed - maybe in anticipation of a radiated battlefield. Because of prohibitive costs, it was only equipped with an optical periscope. Yet this periscope makes this tank superior to the M1A1 and older versions when forced to fight a buttoned tank. Still it is as obvious that the periscope, as great as it may be, inflicts severe tunnel vision on the commander just like a CITV inevitably does.
Most players in SB prefer to command the tank from the unbuttoned position, and this for a reason. I think that this is one of the rare cases where it is justified to draw conclusions from thest runs in the simulation to reality, as much as I normally am opposed to this thought.

Werewolf

11-23-2002, 11:01 PM

Well have you been on an American Tank range? Trust me, I have, if you stick your head outside of the tank suring the engagements you are a safety no go.
-Jason

Jason,
I'm curious - not flaming or accusing or anything else - but how long ago did you graduate from AOCS or have you yet.

I ask because everything you say sounds like it comes straight out of a training manual.

FWIW - in my own experience much of what you learn in training will often never be used when you get to an active unit or will be just a foundation upon which to build processes, procedures, tactics etc used in active units. Of course my experiences are from the army of over 35 years ago but since almost the same thing (school training not translating to real life that is) happens regularly in civilian life I'm betting those experiences are still valid for the modern army. School is one thing - the active real life army is another.

For example M-48's in Vietnam didn't have a gunner. The TC gunned the tank. It wasn't because of a lack of gunners it was because in that close in jungle environment gunners almost always died when the tank got hit by an RPG-7 - period - so no gunner. Now that was in total contradiction to what was taught in Armor school but that's the way tanks were used in Vietnam.

I'd bet the Gulf War Vets can give examples of how what was taught in Armor School wasn't used there or was used but in a highly modified form.

Trackpads

11-23-2002, 11:40 PM

I graduated almost 3 years ago and will go to Hood to command a company next year, I have been at Wainwright as a Scout platoon leader for almost a year now and have been int he Army active for over 12 years (9 enlisted 3 commisisoned).

I agree alot of what was learned wasnt used in the gulf but the lessons from the gulf are what is taught now and what I am telling you that is what is used.

I am not saying you live under the hatch, you have to look around, but engaging the targets "John Wayne" style is not the method used. Was it used in the past? Heck if I know maybe, but not now. Do other countries do it differently? Possibly but that doesnt mean much to me. The majority of armor in the gulf was american and those folks that faught that war are the people in the BCs and higher jobs writing our doctrine. Every NCO at the Armor school was a GF vet and they are the ones who are teaching what I am telling you.

Last, about that "hopping" down the hatch. If you are 6 ft and 230 lbs and "hop" back down the hatch you tend to physically plant the face of your gunner into the GPS, not a lot of room there. When seated I am actually pressing my legs into his back already. If you want your gunner to remain happy you dont do that very often. We are taught "Nametape defilade" so that you just have to sit down. Plus, the TC isnt responsible to look forward of turret, the gunner has a much better view than you do. The TC is to look around the tank in other directions for air and other threats, but now with the CITV you can spot the thermal of a threat much farther out and quicker and without offering a headshot to a dismount.

ack forgot, to slave the gun on the new SEP it is done with the TCs control which you must be seated to be looking at the CITV display, on the A1 you could reach down and slave but it is still difficult. I have long arms so I am ok but some guys couldnt do it.

-Jason

P.s. Read the last issue of Armor magazine (if you dont get it let me know and I will scan the article on "Nametape defilade" and post it on trackpads for you.

Chaplain

11-24-2002, 06:33 PM

Greetings, Trackpads.

I have a question - what will you do in an extended conflict, when you have a good percentage of those wonderful CITV's that no longer work? Be it combat damage or maintenance failures, it will happen.

Just look at the GPS failure rate - many of the guys here say they are prone to damage during rough training operations. You will have trouble convincing me that the CITV will be any less prone to damage, especially in combat.

I agree that in a short war, the techniques you describe sound great. However, I think that you are asking for trouble if you do not also train for the long war, where all of the great high-tech stuff starts to break down.

Even though I was not an tank commander, I lead an ITV platoon for a year. That thing had a periscope for the TC. It worked fine if you were on a gunnery range, and it would probably work fine in the desert. In Germany, during maneuvers, it was one of the serious liabilities of the ITV. For all practical purposes it was useless. Therefore, the standard practice was for the TC to man the missile launcher and the gunner would simply be his backup. (It didn't work out that bad, since we rarely had enough manpower to put loaders in our ITV's.) As a result, we found it impossible for the TC's to maintain tactical awareness.

The new M1, at least, still has vision blocks for the TC even with the addition of the CITV. However, I still ask, what will you do when the CITV fails? Fight the tank using just the vision blocks? Not likely, especially in broken terrain. You will have to fight open hatch, and I hope that M1 TC's will still have the necessary skills to do so.

panzerlindy

11-24-2002, 08:07 PM

Just a couple of things

re: muzzle blast
I fired SEPs at Cedar Creek Range at Knox on Tuesday. The tanks we fired from were placed about 6 feet apart, due to Fort Knox Range (over)Control stupidity. One thing that we definitely noticed is the fact that the muzzle blast of the tanks next to us was MUCH louder than that of our own main gun. So, I'd have to back Ssnake up, and disagree with it being a homogeneous 360 sphere of dispersion.

re: CITV
An interesting device. However, it introduces another piece of FCS equipment to fail, another source to introduce error into the system, and another sensor to boresight. In both the CITV and the FLIR, 50x is just a digital enhancement of the actual 13x thermal optics, so there is no real increase in visible detail or resolution: just apparent size of the image.

re: the commander's station
The tank cannot be fought from nametape defilade as it is intended. Using the CITV, FBCB2 and commander's control handle with any effectiveness requires the TC to be seated. The vision blocks are much better than those of the M1A1, but looking through periscopes will always degrade visibility. Relying on the computer systems for situational awareness would be a risky proposition. Also, (back to the .50 cal issue) the flex .50 M2 is barely an area weapon from the SEP TC's station. There is no T&E mechanism, and even if there were, the play in the mount would negate any accuracy. AND, you must stand out of the hatch to fire (not nametape defilade). There is essentially no protection for the TC's upper torso when firing the weapon, so any target close enough to engage would have the advantage in the engagement.

The SEP would be a great land-battleship for fighting in the desert, until the air conditioner went out (BTW, the only ones painted green are the ones at Knox). However, for a more closed-in fight, you need some way to aim the gun from the hatch (a la the Bradley AA sight, or even a laser), a re-placement of the commander's handle, and some sort of protection for the TC.

Skip

11-24-2002, 10:14 PM

Well have you been on an American Tank range? Trust me, I have, if you stick your head outside of the tank suring the engagements you are a safety no go.
I have to admit that I'm a little out of date. My training was for Armored Cav in 1980 when they had 3 M113's, 2 ITV's and 4 M60A3's in each platoon. The M1 was undergoing field tests of its smoke systems at Knox at the time. However, one of the major doctrinal differences between the US and the old Soviet Union was that they fought their tank buttoned up while we fought unbuttoned. After starting your fire command, when the gunner announced "Identified", the TC was supposed to drop down and check the commanders sight extension to verify the target, then complete the fire command by announcing "Fire". I never heard of anyone having a problem about being unbuttoned on the range.

Like I said, though, I've been out for a while so maybe this has changed. It would be giving away a big advantage, though, to force the TC to only fight buttoned up.