M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

THE GROWING MASS OF ABRAMS IS A NIGHTMARE FOR AMERICAN LOGISTICIANS


The latest report on the modernization programs implemented in 2020 by the US Department of Defense discloses the progress of the M1 Abrams upgrade to the M1A2 SEP v3 standard . The main problem addressed in this passage is (apart from the CROWS-LP problems) the mass of the newest Abrams. It is supposed to be too high for the capacity of the US Army's engineering and pontoon park. The report was prepared under the guidance of the former director of military equipment research and verification, Robert F. Behler.

The M1A2 SEP v3, already in its basic combat configuration (with an active vehicle defense system and reactive armor), is too heavy to carry out a technical evacuation by the M88A3 HERCULES technical support vehicles that are just being introduced into service , which, according to the assumptions, were to be compatible with these tanks. On the other hand, another engineering vehicle currently being deployed into service - the M1074 Joint Assault Bridge - is currently not suitable for crossing M1A2 SEP v3 tanks equipped with any additional equipment.

Moreover, at the moment there is no assumption that NATO-wide design is to design an accompanying or pontoon bridge that would be capable of transporting such a heavy tank (fully equipped) across European rivers.

Although the M1A2 SEP v3 weighs only 66 tons, which is comparable to the latest German Leopard 2A7Vs , this weight does not take into account the presence of the Trophy-HV active vehicle protection system implemented in American tanks. The manufacturer's declared weight of the system is 820 kilograms, but it was originally designed to be mounted on the Israeli Merkava siman 4 tanks . So the Mekrawas had already reserved space for him.

Abrams SEP v3 belonging to the 3rd Panzer Brigade Combat Group "Gray Wolf".
(US Army / Sgt. Calab Franklin)

In the case of the Abrams, however, this space was lacking, which means that the installation of additional shelves on the sides of the turret for the protection system increases its weight up to about 2,300 kilograms, causing a shift in the center of gravity of the turret itself. In the case of the M1A2 SEP v3, such an increase in weight is not expected to be a problem due to the changes made to the turret design - the Trophy tests on this tank will take place only this year - but the older M1A2 SEP v2 already requires adding additional armor weighing around 1600 kg to the front tower to balance the center of gravity.

The first effects of these complications were already present when the M1A2 SEP v2 tanks equipped with the Trophy-HV first arrived in Europe. These tanks were delivered to Poland using low-loader kits, and not via rail, as was the case with the standard M1A2 SEP v2 so far. Tanks with additional equipment were too heavy for the railways.

Attempting to send in their place tanks in the SEP v3 version may therefore end up with even greater complications for logisticians. As we already mentioned in the article Dream about the iron wolf. What can the new Polish Main Battle Tank look like? , the national infrastructure is adjusted or verified for vehicles not exceeding 60-63 tonnes.

M1A2 delivered to the German Grafenwöhr training ground.
(US Army / Markus Rauchenberger)

In the case of the M1A2 SEP v3, with the heaviest equipment configurations (ASOP + reactive armor + minesweep), it is up to 84 tons. This is beyond the design capacity of 16% of bridges built after 1985 and as much as 39% of bridges built before this year that would still be useful for the base M1A2 SEP v2. However, when using low-loader sets for transport over longer distances, the weight ranges from 109 to as much as 122 tons when transporting tanks in standard configurations (with additional reactive armor).

These problems put in a difficult situation the next planned modernization of M1 tanks - this time to the SEP v4 standard. There were rumors about replacing the existing, over twenty-ton towers in favor of a lighter structure with a reduced profile, but this option was rejected in this modernization.

At the moment, the only thing that is certain is the planned replacement of the existing thermal imaging devices for the third generation optoelectronics (which, incidentally, we have been implementing since the beginning of the last decade for our own combat vehicles as their standard equipment) and the adaptation of the fire control system - which in the meantime will be supplemented with meteorological devices - to using a new high-explosive shell equipped with a programmable fuse. The assumptions for this modernization itself are to be adopted in the next quarter.

https://www.konflikty.pl/aktualnosci/wiadomosci/rosnaca-masa-abrams-logistyka/

LMFS wrote:I hope those data are not real, do they plan to rent some Antonovs to airlift those things?

Just drivers with bad smoking habits.

And still with the bustle ammo stowage. Why would you even bother with the unmanned turret at this point?