How good would a M1 be without computerized targeting system?

[Mohoender]

We had several discussion over tanks but my question derives from the thread I just posted on aircrafts. We agree that an M1 Abrams is an impressive warbeast. However, maintaining its electronic working under T2K condition would be a real challenge (equally true for most tanks).

Then, How good would be the most modern tanks (M1, T-95, Challenger, Leopard II) with an unreliable taregetting system, or worse without it

[Adm.Lee]

Not so good for anti-tank work, but the co-ax and commander's machineguns should work just fine. By the time of summer 2000, tank on tank fights won't be as common as tank vs. infantry without major AT weapons.

[dragoon500ly]

US Tanks have two gunnery sights. The primary, often referred to as the "gunner's head assembly" is the square box positioned in front of the TC's hatch. This assembly has two armored doors, the one on the right protects the thermal sight and the one the left protects the day sight. Inside the turret, these share the same eyepiece which has a aiming point with lead lines and elevation lines. It is possible to use the sight without the ballistic computer, its just damned hard due to the fact that gunnery w/o the computer is not stressed. While I was familiar with the layout of the aiming point and lead lines, I never received training and practise in its use until I attended gunnery school at Fort Knox.

The second sighting system is known as the "Gunner's Auxiliary Sight" and is a telescope mounted co-ax with the cannon. It uses a sighting reticle similar to older sights (roughly 1960s). Training in my day had the gunner switch from the primary to the GAS as soon as there were any problems with the primary. Its harder to use, but any gunner with their salt could hit the target within 1-3 rounds.

The only other tank that you mentioned that I have any experience with is the Leo II. But like the M-1, there is an auxiliary sight in case of any electronics screwup. I have actually shot a gunnery in the Leo's gunner's seat and while I loved the ability of the TC to select and range to a second target while the gunner is engaging the first, I always thought that the Leo II was not as effective a gunnery system as the M-1. My two cents.

[95th Rifleman]

I think the M1 is over-estimated to a certain degree. Take her against outdated T72's and she'll violate the enemy in ways they can not imagine.

But the M1 has a few flaws. Back in the 90's the tank did not have any VIRSS defense, something the soviets (and British) where keen on. Sure most soviet missles would bounce off the M1 but they had a few designs that would take them down, including some first generation top-attack missles.

The main advantage of the M1 is the fact she can go flat out and blow the enemy to hell. Lose the fancy targeting electronics and you will find crews stopping to fire. 90's era chobham can only take so many 125mm tank rounds before the tank goes boom and a tank sat still is a tank that's going to get hit.

[Mohoender]

The second sighting system is known as the "Gunner's Auxiliary Sight" and is a telescope mounted co-ax with the cannon. It uses a sighting reticle similar to older sights (roughly 1960s). Training in my day had the gunner switch from the primary to the GAS as soon as there were any problems with the primary. Its harder to use, but any gunner with their salt could hit the target within 1-3 rounds.

Very interesting, thanks. It resolves an issue I had with the game for years. Then, I have one more question concerning the loading of the gun. I know that modern tanks rely on automated systems but what happens when this is failing

I had done my best to avoid tanks (and was successful doing so). Therefore, I have some knowledge on airplanes but very little on modern tank systems.

[Mohoender]

But the M1 has a few flaws.

All tanks have flaws and I picked the M1 only as an exemple. IMO what was explained by dragon could equally apply to Leclerc, Challenger...

What I would retain is that such tanks would remain an impressive warbeast but what wasn't obvious was the level of capability it would retain. Now, I know that it remains largely operational. I will, However, reduce some stats depending on what systems are off line or on line (and I have a better idea of which stats).

I recall, that when US troops entered Bagdad in 2003, the french TV had shown images of an Abrams which had been hit from the back and taken out of commission (not destroyed) by a S60 57mm Gun.

[Panther Al]

Well, to address the last two posts, two things to remember:

The Abrams is designed to go head to head and break your heart and your army. But, there has to be a trade off somewhere. In order to get the obscene level of protection of the frontal arc, something had to give, and since they had to leave a nice large exhaust for the turbine, that is where it gave. But, to be fair: *all* tanks, including the vaunted Merkava, is weak to the rear. Hit it with something largish (like the 57mm), it will punch. What happens next depends on the design.

I don't know what is up with the Autoloaders: But the Abrams and the Merkava both have actual crew-members loading the gun, so as long as you got food, you got a loader. The Merk has a something of a semi-auto revolver system going that gets followup shots off at a rate that has to be seen to believed, but, it still has a loader, so if it breaks beyond repair they can work around it or better yet yank it out and still be good to go.

[Panther Al]

US Tanks have two gunnery sights. The primary, often referred to as the "gunner's head assembly" is the square box positioned in front of the TC's hatch. This assembly has two armored doors, the one on the right protects the thermal sight and the one the left protects the day sight. Inside the turret, these share the same eyepiece which has a aiming point with lead lines and elevation lines. It is possible to use the sight without the ballistic computer, its just damned hard due to the fact that gunnery w/o the computer is not stressed. While I was familiar with the layout of the aiming point and lead lines, I never received training and practise in its use until I attended gunnery school at Fort Knox.

The second sighting system is known as the "Gunner's Auxiliary Sight" and is a telescope mounted co-ax with the cannon. It uses a sighting reticle similar to older sights (roughly 1960s). Training in my day had the gunner switch from the primary to the GAS as soon as there were any problems with the primary. Its harder to use, but any gunner with their salt could hit the target within 1-3 rounds.

The only other tank that you mentioned that I have any experience with is the Leo II. But like the M-1, there is an auxiliary sight in case of any electronics screwup. I have actually shot a gunnery in the Leo's gunner's seat and while I loved the ability of the TC to select and range to a second target while the gunner is engaging the first, I always thought that the Leo II was not as effective a gunnery system as the M-1. My two cents.

The gas sight isn't all that bad really: Our unit made a big deal about practising with it. Which was a good thing when we got in a tussle by Karbala and Bimp pulled a snoopy on our doghouse. But then even though it is good, its not the same. Don't even try to hit anything moving at range, though if you are close enough, shooting on the move is possible. What we discovered was that if you thought you could hit something at a certain range with the primaries, cut two thirds from that number for the gas sight.

(odd trivia: the troop I was in used the 'Half of' instead of 'Third Of' rule of thumb for range. We had a platoon sergeant that was a history buff, and he drilled into our heads the old WW2 German system of gunnery, which allowed us to really excel at the Table 8's gas engagement. Well enough that they accused us of cheating more than a few times)

[95th Rifleman]

In the end, the only piece of kit you can rely on is the Mk1 eyeball.

[dragoon500ly]

There are actually very few Main Battle Tanks with autoloaders, the Soviet T-64/T-72/T-80, the French AMX-13 and Leclerc, the Swedish S-Tank are the main ones that come to mind.

When the M-1 was being designed, an autoloader was debated about for some time. The decision was finally made not to include one for two main reasons; autoloaders are very complex items and they have a high failure rate and second tanks are so complex that they require a large crew in order to stay on top of the basic maintenance. There is even talk resurfacing every so often about running tanks with either a "ground crew" back in the assembly area who do nothing but maintenance or running tanks with a "Black" and a "Gold" crew, one maintains and one fights and they switch roles every other day or so.

When you talk about tanks being knocked out by rear-end shots or IEDs, many people forget about how tanks are designed...The three main functions of a tank is to deliver firepower, mobility and protection. There are very few tanks that manage to balance all three.

The problem with protection is that the tank cannot be equally protected on all faces, there has to be trade offs in order to save space for armament and engines. So most tanks carry their thickest armor covering the front 45 degree arc. The flanks and belly (mines have always been the #2 enemy of armor) have the next thickest armor, then the top (#3 on the list of enemies of armor is air strikes), the rear of the tank always has the thinnest armor.
Almost from day one, it is drummed into tankers to never expose the rear to enemy antitank fire. Because if you get hit there, then you die.

In the case referred to in a previous post, yes a 57mm gun managed to penetrate the rear armor and knock out the transmission of the tank, a mobility kill. Because the column was in a hostile area, the crew of the tank took weapons and sensitive items and abandoned the tank. A demolition charge was used to blow the onboard ammunition and knock out the fire control system. Then the column moved on. Standard operating procedure.

The remains of the tank were recovered the next day and it was shipped to Anniston Army depot for rebuilding and reissue.

No one in the crew were injured or killed and the mission was able to be completed and the "destroyed" tank is currently in service. There is no other tank that can do that!

[copeab]

No one in the crew were injured or killed and the mission was able to be completed and the "destroyed" tank is currently in service. There is no other tank that can do that!

Actually, even in WWII a "destroyed" tank could often eventually be returned to service, although you might need a scrub brush and bucket to get the crew out of it ...

[dragoon500ly]

Actually, even in WWII a "destroyed" tank could often eventually be returned to service, although you might need a scrub brush and bucket to get the crew out of it ...

Ahhh, but the crew survived in the M-1!

The problem with the Sherman was that it had weak armor, a poor gun and half-way decent mobility. It was already out-dated by the time of its combat debut at El Alemain.

The combination of thin armor, ammunition racks on both sides of the crew compartment and gasoline as fuel lead to the Sherman's more familiar nickname of the "Ronson" (lights the first time, every time was the jingle). Hate to say it, but a scrub brush wasn't enough to remove crew remains, according to after action reports, an entrenching tool had to be used to scrape up the remains. Its a sad statement that after seeing how bad US tank designs were, the same ole practice was kept up until the 1980s. The M-60A1 (my first tank) still had hull ammo racks on either side of the driver, a ammo rack in the turret bustle, and floor ammo racks on the left side and underneath the main gun.

[Mohoender]

Ahhh, but the crew survived in the M-1!

An important point indeed. Is there anything in the game about crew survivability depending on tank models I don't remember.

However, when it comes to tank refurbishing in T2K, the percentage of M1 might be well under that of T-55. Nothing to do with tank qualities (obviously) but with the lack of proper recovering tools and personnels. A T-55 will be fixed more easily while many barely damaged Abrams will be left to rust (IMO at least). Moreover, you'll need ww2 technology to fix a T-55 while you'll need more advanced tech for an M1.

[dragoon500ly]

No doubt that T-55s would be easier to maintain in the long run. The chief advantage of the M-1 is that it is damned hard to knock out. Still, after 4-5 years of a major war, I would really doubt that many Main Battle Tanks of any description would be in service. The older ones are too vulnerable to modern antitank weapons and the newer ones have too many hard to replace electronics.

[Legbreaker]

An important point indeed. Is there anything in the game about crew survivability depending on tank models

The blow out panels on the M1 ammo storage are specifically dealt with and I believe there's a handful of other tanks with similar systems to increase crew survivability.