"Should US Stop Buying More Abrams Tanks?" Topic

Writing in Proceedings magazine, Jim Murphy complains about "acquisition programs that do not improve national defense."

He specifically cites "annual, multi-million dollar purchases of Abrams tanks the Army does not want or need…"

Do you agree?

Apparently, his intel is a bit dated, given this new issue:

link

What happens when one breaks and you need more?

Tim

That's a JGSDF Type 73 APC.

You do without, since someone decided they weren't needed, and that "armored warfare" is obsolete.

Kind of like guns on aircraft are/were obsolete, in the "missile age", back in the Vietnam War, until it was discovered the hard way that they really weren't.

The M1 improvement programs should continue but even the Pentagon says they don't need more tanks than are currently in the inventory – nothing more than corporate welfare – thanks lobbyists!

There is also the need to retain production capacity for future emergencies. The machinery can be placed in storage, but the master welders and other technicians can't be.

well, if you want your allies to pull their weight more you might want to consider building your war stocks a bit less. Saw an impressive doco on the refurbishment programs you guys run for them, got to say you know how to keep old hulls in top condition.

Build more Abrams to build up war stocks and cancel useless VTOL stealth fighters which will likely be hanger-queens. You may need the Abrams sooner than you think and at least we know they work! In a European conventional war you can never have enough tanks
Cheers.
Rod Robertson

In a European conventional war you can never have enough tanks

Actually, I think air superiority would be more important.

Why not build the MBT-70 with today's technology? The defense industry only exists to increase the miniatures industry, I mean really!! All those new wheeled apc vehicles which will last as long as tankettes did are everywhere, we need more tank variety-they're starting to all look the same!!

We also need more Girls and MBTease please!!

Air superiority is important to keep your opponent at bay and to allow your ground forces to do the job they are designed to do. An air package without a ground package gets you a debacle such as in the current middle east situation.

But if the Air package doesn't work reliably than why buy it? Refurbish A-10's and up-grade existing and proven aircraft until new aircraft can be demonstrated to be reliable under wartime conditions.

I would rather have too many than not enough.

The Abrams M1 tank series is only built in one place and we need to keep the line open so that in event of a major war we retain the workers skills and equipment in place. We don't have to buy many, just enough to keep a minimum number of skilled workers employed.

Every year we lose a few through attrition, wear, accident and other problem. Restarting a line in a major war could take a year or more to train all the people needed to build tanks.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I tend to agree with Bunkermeister.
In WW2 there was a lot of time to change over railroad manufacturers to tanks.
If (and I sincerely hope it doesn't) there is a large scale conventional fracas in Europe, (history repeating itself once again) the need for more M1's will be necessary.

Trained crews are another matter.

I think that one of the major failings of Western countries is the 'we don't need any more so lets close the expensive facilities' syndrome. We should keep facilities ticking over at the very least – even if it is expensive.

Out of interest, what would be the hardest thing to restart in a crash start situation? I can see a lot of things at the management level, but the actual muscle work would be based on transferable skills surely?

The hardest asset to find for a crash start is the skilled labor. One of the factors that make the M1 so survivable is the way the hull is put together. The welds require a great deal of skill, something that takes years to develop. America has fewer welders and other machinists every day, since far too many schools turned their vo-tech departments into computer labs.

The Army needs a new tank. I love the hog, but she's pushing 40. It's time to retire her and build a new design that can take advantage of newer technologies. Maybe something with lasers and railguns!

Out of interest, what would be the hardest thing to restart in a crash start situation? I can see a lot of things at the management level, but the actual muscle work would be based on transferable skills surely?

Not really. As far as I know, the welding is something that STILL can't be done by a machine, same problem with submarines. Takes special skills and a lot of practice to make a hull that has the full design strength.

If you shut down the plant entirely, all those highly skilled workers are unemployed and you lose all the corporate knowledge (just like non-defense companies with all the Baby Boomers retiring).

You're also assuming that the company will keep the tooling needed. It costs a company millions (if not Billions) to have a plant not producing anything, so I'd expect all the tooling to get moved into a warehouse and the plant make something else. And then the tooling just sits and rots and rusts, destroying the precision it used to have. And the company still has to pay for the warehouse space!

Do you know why there's no way to build more A10s? Because after the assembly line was shut down, the company held the tools for about a decade. They kept requesting a tax break so they would have to keep pouring millions of dollars into keeping tooling around that wasn't being used at all, and the tax break kept getting refused.

The company finally said that if they didn't get a tax break (aka, have the government pay them to keep the tools for the government's airplanes), they were going to destroy all the tooling. That next year, Uncle Sam refused to pay the company to keep the tooling in storage, so all the tooling was destroyed. If it wasn't for F15 and F16 export sales, there wouldn't be any parts for them left, either!

Personally, I think the US Army should work up something along the lines of the FCS. I know it's awfully light, but reactive armor and active defense systems seem to be dealing with ATGMs and maybe main-gun ammo. At any rate, if you're taking main-gun fire, you need to be leaving that location, NOW.

But build a 3-tier Army.
- First tier is the classic Heavy Brigade. Their job is full-scale war.
- Second tier is a rapid-deployment force (basically replacing the Infantry Brigade). Light tanks with Abrams firepower, light IFV with at least Bradley firepower. All C130 deployable (since the Herc J didn't gain any lifting capacity). Or small/light enough to stuff a whole freaking platoon of vehicles into a C17.
- Third tier is broadly comparable to the Stryker Brigade, and is intended for occupation and peacekeeping type operations, so they have all the MRAPs and equivalent, plus added EOD units and MPs.

I was pretty sure I had the top level reasons to keep it running, was more interested in learning the vocational knowledge and skills that would be missed (like the welding ones) so cheers for the responses. Am considering this as a subject for an essay I have to write for my masters.

The US Military still uses and needs MBTs … The M1 with it's newer upgrades, etc. is still a pretty good choice, IMO … At least for now or anytime in the near future … Plus we may have to replace the M1s the Iraqis abandoned to Daesh …

What modern tank is substantially better than the M1A2? There is none that I can think of. The only ones which give it a run for its money are the Challenger II and the Leopard II. Is there any Russian or Chinese tank of a comparable quality? Since it's unlikely that the US will find itself fighting Brits or Germans, does the US really need a new MBT? Just keep making them in smallish batches with progressive upgrades and refurbish existing ones to the most modern standards. This keeps strategic industry intact and allows for the modernisation and gradual expansion of the heavy armoured forces of the USA.

"… The Abrams M1 tank series is only built in one place and we need to keep the line open…"

This is how you spell Monopoly.

New design with free market competition, please. Good as it is we can do better (F-35 being the exception on how NOT to do things.)

Hint: PDF link

If we fight a large conflict with a major power (Russia over Poland for example) would we be willing to lose 100-200 planes to take out the enemies AFVs if the M1 was not available?

Since the USA is still giving M60A1s to allies such as Egypt, I would expect them to keep producing Abrams as well. Even after a new tank hit the proving ground, there would still be a market for the Abrams.

Where do you think the new tank is being built, Rudy? On the same assembly line that used to make the Abrams, most likely.

What modern tank is substantially better than the M1A2

South Korean K2 and Japanese Type 10 come to mind, though it's mostly in the improved lethality end of the spectrum. I'm pretty sure we've hit (and passed) the point of diminishing returns in terms of armor weight. Not even the Merkava is as heavy as the Abrams is, and the Israelis can't afford ANY casualties.

Well, Canada about to moth-ball its C2 MBT's, only to need tanks in Afghanistan. Actually upgraded to Leopard 2's. So there is a need for the MBT, even without actual conventional wars. So they should keep the M1 going.

Since the USA is still giving M60A1s to allies such as Egypt,

The US has supplied M1s to both Egypt and Iraq … IIRC, now some are in Iranian hands that the Iraqis abandoned to Daesh … And I guess the Iranians supporting the Iraqis picked up one or two they left behind …

An MBT isn't just used to take on enemy tanks. Australians learned in WWII and SVN that a single tank can make a big difference to an infantry battalion assaulting an enemy prepared position. In smaller, up to company level, engagements a tank brings an edge that nothing else does- including CAS.

It goes beyond just the firepower. Tanks usually carry more powerful, more capable radios that enhance C&C, they're a very visible point that subunits can use to maintain their alignment or use for target indication, and they also have a great intimidation factor.

The argument over the worth of tanks has been long running, here. It was "impossible to use them in the jungle"- until a few M3 Stuarts proved their worth at Buna-Gona. "Obsolete, too heavy for the jungle" Matildas helped the troops at Balikpapan and Tarakan reduce enemy bunkers and defended positions with much reduced infantry casualties. And Centurions in SVN, once again considered too heavy and vulnerable for use in close country, dominated the battlefield at Coral/Balmoral, Bihn Ba and in many other engagements.

So there's still a place for tanks, even in the asymmetrical warfare today. Yes, tanks are easy to kill- but only if you get into the right position to attack the weak spots. With well-trained infantry supporting the tank (most tanks are killed by RPG/ATGM when the infantry is either not there or ineffective) the enemy is unlikely to get a chance.

As for the M-1, I'm not an ex-tankie and don't really know. Like most western kit it seems horribly (excessively?) expensive. But from an infantry perspective it has a big gun, it shrugs of RPG's (unless they get above or behind it) and it scares the enemy spitless. What more do you want? And where will you get more once the ones you have now finally wear out?

Cheers.

Dal.

"One does just stop building M-1 Abrams tanks" says the most interesting man in the world…

A number of the Army Depots such as the Anniston Depot near me,, have been refitting old tanks and repairing damaged tanks for decades. Even when I was in college, several of my fellow cadets got jobs cleaning damaged tanks from Isreal during the Yom Kippur War. It was not unusual to find body parts in the ammo stowage racks.
Anyway, I worked with the depot as a consultant for Dhs/ema and saw a number of tanks in various states of repair being brought up to operating condition. So older Abrams have already been refitted there and may be in the future. Tank models often kept elements from earlier models for production. Such as the M60A1, M60A2 and the enhanced M60A3 all had the same chassis.

This is a moot question because we won't stop.

Military spending makes up a sizeable portion of our GDP.

Since military spending is the one form of government spending that realistically will not be cut, it remains a useful fiscal stimulus program to pour money into and keep the economy ticking along.

Our production of military gadgetry has very little relevance to actual military needs, because producing military hardware is not the primary function it serves.

In the end, we build what costs a lot of money to build, regardless of whether the army says they need it or not.

The Lima Army Tank Plant is owned by the US Gov't but run by civilian contractors. So the equipment won't be tossed out, but the perishable skills of the workers will be lost if you close it down.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

An MBT isn't just used to take on enemy tanks. Australians learned in WWII and SVN that a single tank can make a big difference to an infantry battalion assaulting an enemy prepared position. In smaller, up to company level, engagements a tank brings an edge that nothing else does- including CAS.

Exactly, MBTs still revert to their original role from WWI. That of Infantry support. In the majority battles in Iraq and A'stan, the enemy had no armor what so ever … And there have been a number of cases where the MBT's main gun and even MGs chewed up structures hiding the enemy. I also remember reading about one case in A'stan, IIRC. Where an M1 rotated its turret to the rear, and ran over a structure where the enemy was hold up. Saved the infantrymen's lives, etc., from having to try to clear that building. When I was a Mech Cdr, we were routinely attached to a Tank Bn. Infantry and tanks work well together. It's all part of the combined arms concept.

The original question was based on "since we already have more than the army says they need, should we make more".

Most people seem to be answering "should the US army use tanks" which is not the same question.

Wars use up tanks fast. War-stocks are essential for maintaining an effective fighting force in anything longer than a very short conflict. Slowly Building up war-stocks allows a nation to maintain a cadre of specialised and skilled workers. So, yes, buy more Abrams gradually.
Rod Robertson.

link

The M1A1/2 Abrams main battle tank is manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). The first M1 tank was produced in 1978, the M1A1 in 1985 and the M1A2 in 1986.

The first M1 Abrams battle tanks were delivered to the US Army in 1980. In all 3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army, 4,796 M1A1 tanks were built for the US Army, 221 for the US Marines and 880 co-produced with Egypt.

Approximately 77 M1A2 tanks were built for the US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia and 218 for Kuwait.

For the M1A2 upgrade programme, more than 600 M1 Abrams tanks were upgraded to M1A2 configuration at the Lima Army tank plant between 1996 and 2001. Deliveries began in 1998.
link
General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has secured a contract modification for procurement and development of additional M1A2S Abrams main battle tanks (MBTs) for the Royal Saudi Land Forces.

Is there anything better than the M1A2 in the world today?

That's hard to answer because in US deployment, tanks get full spectrum infantry, air and artillery support. They just don't roll out by themselves.

In terms of design, the Leopard II A7, Leclerc, Merkava Mk4, Korea's K2 and Japan's Type-10 include newer designs, better armor and improved canons/firing systems. Perhaps Russia's Armata T-14.

Then again, none of them could match US air power.

Is there anything better than the M1A2 in the world today?

That has been speculated for some time. I'd heard various opinions. However, the M1A2, is probably as good as you are going to get generally …

That's hard to answer because in US deployment, tanks get full spectrum infantry, air and artillery support. They just don't roll out by themselves.

About once a year, in Europe, they have a Tank "Olympics", so to speak … Each of the counties sends some of their best MBTs and crews. That would be one way to see how an MBT operates on it's own. Without the support mentioned by cwlinsj. But, IMO the X Factor is always the crew's expertise, training and experience … Crew Quality could make all the difference.

But the Tank Olympjcs are held in Russia and except for China, all competitors use T-72s.

That's more like a NASCAR rally!

The original question was based on "since we already have more than the army says they need, should we make more".

Must. keep. factory. open. and. perishable. skills. in. practice.

So we either need to sell more Abrams to other countries or buy more top-line M1A2s/A3s for the US Army and sell any/all M1s and M1A1s without the armor upgrades to foreign countries.

Is there anything better than the M1A2 in the world today?

The only two I'd be willing to put money on are the South Korean K2 Black Panther and the Japanese Type 10. Leopard 2A7 is probably only on par with the M1A2, as are the latest-model LeClercs.

Not sure where the Armata T14 sits, it's gotta be better than top-line T72/T90, but I don't have a clue whether it's the equal of the Abrams.

Tanks are like any other vehicle. They do wear out to the point that they need replacement. Many of the oldest M1s are approaching, if not passing, the 30 year mark and probably have 100s of hours of operation. They need replacing. Keeping the lines open ensures that replacement vehicles and parts are readily available and that the skills are there.
The M1production lines won't make or break the US budget.

Short answer … keep building upgraded versions of the M1 …

We could always build them for gunnery practice or scale down production to match the rate of exhaustion but keep it ticking along in hte background.

I'd be more curious if the tanks the army says they don't need are taking up money that could be spent on something they DO need more.

As I said upthread though, it's not a military concern at all. It's a financial concern.
Military spending is how people who insist they don't believe in Keynesian economics still get to be Keynesians