This is something that i question daily and,since i can’t find tangible sources online,i’m asking these questions here hoping someone will answer them accordingly.
1) Why does the Abrams lack a LWS?
Many,if not all NATO MBTs nowadays have a LWS that massively helps them in every combat scenario,since they’ll alert you of a laser source illuminating you and they’ll even deploy smoke grenades if needed. Even non-NATO countries such as Russia is installing LWS onto their most recent MBTs. But why is the Abrams lacking this feature?
LWS are not expensive to buy (relative to the platform) nor are expensive to maintain or manufacture (meaning a possible monopoly is unlikely). The only valid answer i can give is that US Tank doctrine is to use tanks while maintaining complete air superiority (meaning that laser-guided air-dropped weapons are nowhere to be seen) but ground-based ATGMs are still a threat, especially in ground combat.
2) Why is the barrel still short?
This is more of a technicality,but why does the Abrams (from the M1A1 onwards) still have the regular “short” barrel? The M256 is a license-built version of the Rh-120 L/44 with minor modifications,and we all know that the Rh-120 nowadays has a longer barrel (fitted to any Leopard 2 variant from the 2A6 onwards).
We know that,in order to increase penetration potential for a kinetic shell without changing its calibre,you can do these 3 things:
A) longer barrel;
B) longer penetrator;
C) more efficient powder charge (hoping that the breech can sustain the added pressure).
As we all know,the US did only option B (the later M829 APFSDS are longer than the earlier versions) and Option C (both by adopting caseless ammo and by using more efficient powders) but the latter has the physical limitation of gunpowder-based firearms.
The fact that they never tried using a longer barrel (outside of the Thumper and CATTB programs,those uses a larger cannon) baffles me. Is it because by doing so the weight distribution is extended forward and can stress the suspensions? Or because a longer barrel is a much more annoying obstacle when fighting in CQC?
3) Why the lack of a Commander Sight before the M1A2?
We all know that the XM-1 was tested against the Leopard 2AV,with the former being the winner. But something that the Leopard 2 and basically any NATO tank at the time were adding was an independent commander sight so that the tank could have hunter-killer capabilities. Then,why did the Americans chose to ignore this technology until the early 90s where they mounted the CITV on the new M1A2 variant? We can even see on the turret roof of M1/IPM1/M1A1 a bolted circular hole that will eventually be filled 1:1 with the CITV later on with the M1A2. Did they think that the Gunner Primary Sight system was more than enough for a hunter-killer role or did they lacked the technology to do that?
The Abrams. is mentioned in relation to both the VVR-1,-2 &-3(probably introduced / considered with either the SEP, or -v2 configurations based on timelines presented)
ISR Systems’ AN/VVR-1 laser warning system has been tested and incorporated on vehicles such as M-1 Abrams tank and the M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. This was improved with the subsequent AN/VVR-2 version that incorporated a single, mast-mounted sensor, and again with AN/VVR-3 which added a beam-rider detection capability.
There are claims that state it mounts one, also there are videos of the AN/VVR-4 mounted on an M1 though likely as part of trials, and is not representative of a standard configuration.
Was trialed probably rejected due to sufficient performance of the L/44 + optimized ammo, not being worth the weight tradeoff of the longer gun tube + counter weight, and would probably be better spent on an increase to the caliber instead as there is greater growth potential to performance that way for the same mass budget as the improvement to performance due to an increase in barrel length is a diminishing return and otherwise fixed.
Also an increase in Impact Velocity past about 1600~1800m/s also begins to favor Tungsten in rod design, that that may also cause issues since the US tends to prefer the use of DU penetrators (as it is cheap, readily available, has pyrophoric (Incendiary) after-armor effects, and better Low Velocity (Long range; Equivalent striking velocity) performance).
Probably cost, weight or time constraints combined with Pre-Planned Product Improvement programs, the same way the M1E1 ran alongside the basic M1 to speed deployment since the M60A3 TTS / M60A4 was deemed to be nonviable and were being edged out in Europe by Later T series models & ATGMs, especially considering that the siliceous core armor of the XM60 was not pursued as a Growth objective and Design holdovers from the T-25 / M-26 had lasting impacts.
another reason is they use DU for the penetrators and these work better at lower speeds when u compare them to tungsten as the DU with to high MV can break on impact.
Thats on the top of my head though so take it with a grain of salt.
I mean it’s not in game as of yet but any Abrams equipped with Trophy APS should have a LWS considering it’s part of Trophy’s sensor suite.
But in my opinion it’s only now become a common piece of equipment in the last few years, so it’s not unusual that it doesn’t have one until recently. Off the top of my head the only tanks to have them standard in the late 1990s-early 2000s are the Merkava, Type 90, and T90A.
I always did want to ask, why is there what appears to be a LWS antenna modeled on the roof of some Abrams? Maybe it’s a different system, or perhaps it had one all along…
Anyone got any idea what it is?
1- Abrams lacks a LWS because US Generals don’t see the point when they usually have air superiority.
2- Weight and no notable increase in performance, and tanks have not become more armored to the point of needing a heavier gun. A heavier gun means less armor.
3- M1A1s with commander sights exist such as the M1A1 AIM:
The Americans though that such a sight would be useless, as the commander could just stick his head out the hatch and look around. Of course, they realised this was a terrible idea in, like, idk, combat situations and NBC environments so one got added a couple decades later.
In late 1990s militaries were on the stage of defund due to collapse of USSR.
On early 2000s they don’t have budget relax due to subprime mortgage crisis and Afghanistan/Iraqi war. It was not only US Army who has to postpone or cancel significant improvement on their tank fleet but also other western nations who deeply involve in middle east crisis.
Also during that time, what US Army was trying is to replace Abrams with newer platform, including Abrams Block III or Future Combat System. Due to this, extreme modification of Abrams was hesitated by Army because it makes their future tank program’s priority excluded. But in the end, all those programs are cancelled, and only Abrams left with no fancy upgrade like 2A4 from 2A7V.
US Army did marvelous upgrade under such bad conditions however, with M1A2 SEP v3. Although there are limit to the additional protection given by those upgrade, it would be still much better for US players in game if implemented. At least can stop 3BM60 from 2A46Ms. But well then, maybe new shell would come as USSR still left many things.
Also, M1A2 SEPv3’s weight become serious problem that US Army halt further weight gain caused by SEPv4 upgrade and start to research M1E3 with entire new turret system. But it’s little late than European counterparts who already come out with EMBT or KF51, so it would be still hard time for US mains in the future.
Oh I forgot about mentioning Abrams commander sight. During cold war, when Abrams were newly developed, there were criticism for Abrams that it is too expensive compared to existing M60s. And as US Army needs thousands of them, and thousands more because of difference between M1/IPM1 and M1A1, whole M1A1 needs to be built from scratch, not by upgrading M1/IPM1, which again cost lots of money. So US Army compromise with reality to not install Commander sight for commander, only left station for it.
