Re: Abrams
 

There are no enemies in real life with the capabilities that would require the USA to have such systems.

Other than a "freak" attack, who is going to have a fleet of gunships or ground attack planes attacking US positions? If it is a proper war, no country on Earth can muster the quality and numbers needed to go 1 on 1 against them. That's why I assume* there isn't much effort into close air defense.


*I assume as for some crazy reason the Americans do not ask for my ideas on what to do.

Re: Abrams
 

In the case of the USA air defence would be aimed more at missiles and drones what else is it likely to go up against?

Why worry about an air defence that would only be used against a near peer force the USA has bigger problems despite being a manufacturing giant, it cannot make enough bullets to meet current demand.
Imagine if we had a real war trying to build missiles etc to meet demand, huge economic crisis very quickly especially for the US way of waging war. Rocks could become the new tech.
Europe is in no better position not enough equipment and nowhere near enough ammo it would be gone in a week or less for a lot of armies against you know who.

Re: Abrams
 

We don't? What do you the the TUSK systems are? Abrams and Bradleys both have ERA added to their sides. Abrams doesn't need ERA in the front because the composite armour call Chobum armor it has on the entire front sections is designed to absorb HEAT rounds. HEAT rounds is what ERA is designed to counter.

Re: Abrams
 

Can you please list your source for the USMC have Trophy for years? I have not heard or read any US vehicle mounting trophy other than for testing until the soon coming US Army M1A2C. I know when the USMC received US Army M1A1 HAs, to replace their aging M60A1s, some had the AN/VLQ-6 missile counter measures system on them. It was developed for the Bradley, that were being tested on the Abrams. You can identify the AN/VLQ-6 on USMC Abrams pretty easily. It is the rectangular box mounted where the US Army mounts their CITV on the M1A2s. The AN/VLQ-6 never worked out for either vehicle though. Although you can still see the mounting frames on the USMC's Abrams today.

Re: Abrams
 

Being more inclined to "borrow" tech then the US Army during Gulf I the USMC got ERA kits for their M60's and armored bulldozers from Israel. Replacing the M60s with M1s, was always "in the plans" it just got accelerated due the Gulf I (at the time it was a mix of M1s and M1A1(HA)s, later all were exchanged/upgraded to HCs).

I may well be confusing the AN/VLQ with the Trophy system, both were "after my day" and I'm not a tanker. Much like the esoterics of various radar/jamming systems used by aircraft I sort of get glossy eyed when discussing them, I'm sure aircrew and pilots are "highly amused".

Re: Abrams
 

Again, can you list your source? Everything I have ever read about the USMC M60A1 RISEs with ERA were home grown US technology. The Israeli Blazer armor looked totally different and attached differently. I do not know about the Bulldozer armor kits. Also, I have found nothing stating the USMC ever had M1 Abrams at all. They were waiting for the Abrams to mature before investing. The USMC got two types of M1A1s in the beginning. The M1A1 and M1A1HA. You are correct eventually they upgraded their M1A1s to the M1A1HA standard. Which have been upgraded to a non official M1A1 FEP version.

Trying to keep up with all the upgrades and modifications of any equipment can be quite daunting. That's what makes these games so good. They some how managed to incorporate a sizable amount of them over 80 year period covered. Tip the hat to all those that were involved and contributed. Thanks for the efforts!!

Re: Abrams
 

I will need to reverify, however, I do believe the M1 for the USMC is correct and that I posted on the matter when I submitted the M1A1HC FEP along with all the other ABRAMS issues that "popped up" for the last patch. But I do know exactly where to go concerning the development of the ABRAMS to also get the answer. See Pg. 86 Post #857 for further info. The whole ABRAMS "MADNESS" started on Pg. 84/85 through 87/88.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

From Pg. 6 of below Ref., but, simply put the USMC started with the M1A1. I used the below Ref. in the M1A1HC FEP submission.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608067.pdf

"II. BACKGROUND
The M1 series Main Battle Tank (MBT) is a key piece of equipment for the United States military in conducting offensive and defensive operations. The Army M1 MBT program dates back to the early 1970s with the XM1 tank and evolved into the M1A1 in the late 1980s with upgraded armor and 120 mm gun tube. The USMC received its first units of M1A1 MBTs in 1989, and additional tanks were transferred to the USMC from the Army and Anniston Army Depot through 2008. The following sections of this background chapter describe the acquisition and development history of the M1A1 MBT, the role and force structure of the M1A1 MBT within the USMC, an overview of USMC ground equipment maintenance, the DOD maintenance policy, and the USMC M1A1 rebuild program."

To the name...In the CORPS (And Web.) and these are interchangeable and acceptable either M1A1HC FEP or M1A1 FEP. Everything lead to the FEP and was LONG planned for which is why I submitted and chose to use the M1A1HC FEP nomenclature to represent the whole process as discussed next.

The difference is simply the "HC" is used to denote the complete incremental upgrade process of the USMC M1A1 tanks. The FEP is no different then the USA having named their M1A2 tanks M1A2 SEP whatever version you wish to discuss until recently.

Difference between the two programs was that USMC FEP was limited to a major upgrade to it's FCS and supporting systems. The USA SEP was all that but also included CROWS, Armor, BFMS it etc. and is an ongoing Depot incremental improvement and will continue as such for many years there's already "chatter" about a "SEP 5" if you will. And no need to worry as we're still waiting on FOC of the "SEP 3", besides the game will be ended (2025.) before we see the next version after it.

Regards well, again,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Abrams
 

Thanks for checking in on the topic.

Pat, did you see the picture of the M1A2C in Romania?

Re: Abrams
 

Oragus,
I haven't seen it yet, is it something I missed in the forum somewhere? If so direct me to it or post if you will concerning your last. It wouldn't surprise me though, going through the ABRAMS issues I would find the USA didn't announce FOC for the M1A2 SEP 2 until every unit that was designated to receive that MBT got them.

That I know was posted in those pages on my last to include an Army Ref. discussing the ongoing OPEVAL status concerning the SEP 3. The Ref. was dated for last Dec. or Jan. I believe. I submitted a date change based on that and other articles for later this year I believe, I cannot say if Don changed it or not only because as he knows there's things happening at my end that has GREATLY limited my free time and my ability to check what got in or changed as I submitted, something I in the past would've had done about a month ago or more.

The USA ABRAMS program has really been a nonstop evolution of this tank. There have been problems with as with any other weapons platform, but, what I've seen to this point and after having followed both that and this next program, I feel the USA (And it kills me to say this. :D) has done a better job of overseeing the ABRAMS Program then what I'm seeing concerning the F-35. There are parallels between the two, the biggest being equip a unit and get them out there if you will from [b]USN jargon, "To project power and show the flag." and that's what we did and do now. Case in point the USMC using their F-35B jets in limited combat along side the USAF F-35A.

But my issue is as far as I can determine no one has died in the field using the ABRAMS prior to FOC. The F-35 has had several incidents from it's development and close calls in loss of life and serious injuries. And no one needs to point out what I posted on already, Japan did lose both a an F-35A and more importantly a pilot who had the courage to call off an exercise when he initially realized his jet was having problems potentially saving lives. We'll never know. It was found that his F-35A was built here. And I don't think they ever recovered his body.

The USAF and NAVAIR (USN/USMC) have still NOT DECLARED FOC for any F-35 variant. They are still in effect in OPEVAL/IOC status. The NAVAIR website has plenty of air assets in FOC but, you won't see it for the F-35B or F-35C.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/ProductCo...d=fixed%20wing

And so it goes. As Suhiir knows, us Submariners are very anal about the
the ones we lost that are on "Eternal Patrol", USS THRESHER would be a game changer for us and later for NASA as well. The next explains it better then I can right now.
https://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/04...-uss-thresher/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: Abrams
 

No you didn't miss anything on here. The photo showed up a couple days ago. Best of my knowledge we have only outfitted a single unit for testing purposes and it recently ended testing. If I had to guess the M1A2C in this picture was from that unit.