Misplaced Pages

#956043

156-540: The M8 armored gun system ( AGS ), sometimes known as the Buford , is an American light tank that was intended to replace the M551 Sheridan and TOW missile -armed Humvees in the 82nd Airborne Division and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR) of the U.S. Army respectively. The M8 AGS began as a private venture of FMC Corporation , called the close combat vehicle light ( CCVL ), in 1983. The Army began

312-718: A 25 mm caliber gun. This led the Secretary of Defense to direct the Army to use the LAV-25 for this purpose. In 1981, the Army joined the Marine Corps 's (USMC) Mobile Protected Weapon System program, which then became known as the Mobile Protected Gun System (MPGS). However due to differing requirements, the Army and USMC went their separate ways the following year. The Army and Marine Corps were at

468-477: A jammer . As of 2019, BAE was working on adding medium-wave infrared sensors and a slew-to-cue system that points the turret in the direction of the incoming missile. The latter would allow the crew to more quickly identify and engage the perpetrators. Light tank The fast light tank was a major feature of the pre– World War II army buildup, where it was expected they would be used to exploit breakthroughs in enemy lines created by slower, heavier tanks, with

624-534: A "special plea" from the Pentagon. Eleven XM1 preproduction models were manufactured between February and July 1978 at Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant . Quality problems with the engine quickly became apparent in testing. The first preproduction units that arrived at Aberdeen Proving Ground in March 1978 had serious problems. The tank accumulated mud and dirt under the hull which led to thrown tracks. Chrysler installed

780-678: A 552 hp (412 kW) diesel engine and featuring more armor. In 1984, FMC validated the feasibility of pairing the 105 mm gun with a light chassis by test firing a 105 mm gun mounted on an M548 . The first prototype CCVL was completed in August 1985 and debuted at the meeting of the Association of the United States Army in October. The CCVL was demonstrated at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in 1987. FMC subsequently ended

936-628: A 75 mm gun. The Army's commitment to the program wavered somewhat, which caused Congress to withhold money for the LAV. The Army withdrew from the LAV program in December 1983. One solution favored by the Infantry School was to modernize the Sheridan. The chassis of the Sheridan was considered to be in good working order even if its problematic 152 mm caliber gun/launcher was not. Both

1092-456: A computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blowout compartment , and NBC protection for crew safety. Initial models of the M1 were armed with a 105 mm M68 gun, while later variants feature a license-produced Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 designated M256 . The M1 Abrams was developed from the failed joint American- West German MBT-70 project that intended to replace

1248-577: A digital enhancement package for the A1 (M1A1D), and a commonality program to standardize parts between the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps (M1A1HC). Improvements to survivability, lethality, and protection have been sought since 2014. Further combat was seen during 2003 when U.S. forces invaded Iraq and deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the Iraq War 's Operation Iraqi Freedom. One achievement of

1404-478: A direct result of enemy fire, none of which resulted in any fatalities. Three Abrams were left behind the enemy lines after a swift attack on Talil airfield , south of Nasiriyah , on February 27. One of them was hit by enemy fire, while the other two became embedded in mud. The tanks were destroyed by U.S. forces to prevent any trophy-claim by the Iraqi Army. A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during

1560-496: A full set of controls and displays linked by a digital data bus. These upgrades also provided the M1A2 with an improved fire control system. The M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) added digital maps, Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below ( FBCB2 ) Linux communications system capabilities for commanders, and an improved cooling system to compensate for heat generated by the additional computer systems. The M1A2 SEP also serves as

1716-477: A large vehicle to carry it. Gun weight is typically the product of caliber and muzzle velocity . Large caliber guns on light tanks often sacrifice muzzle velocity in interest of saving weight. These guns are effective against close-quarter targets but lack the power and/or accuracy to effectively engage heavier vehicles at a distance. Some light tanks such as the PT-76 are amphibious , typically being propelled in

SECTION 10

#1732781019957

1872-519: A letter urging Perry to continue the program. The letter touted the program's "tremendous success" in meeting the program's objectives, and noted that the vehicle was "well within budget and on schedule." The House appropriations national security subcommittee requested that the DoD pause the cancelation of the AGS pending a Congressional review. The subcommittee said that the AGS had met its milestones and "would be

2028-602: A light tank themselves but a developed version of the Carden Loyd tankette as the starting point for a series of British light tanks intended for use in imperial policing and expeditionary warfare. As the only tank fit for immediate manufacture, it was a key element in the expansion of the British Army in the period leading up to the outbreak of war. In general, French tanks of the 1930s were well-armored, innovative vehicles that owed little to foreign designs. However,

2184-737: A lighter, more transportable force. The Army began the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) program to implement Shinseki's concept. United Defense LP (UDLP) proposed the AGS, as well as a version of the Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light , for the Mobile Gun System variant of the IAV in 2000. United Defense provided three AGSs oufitted with levels I, II and III armor for a platform performance demonstration from December 1999 to January 2000. One of these systems

2340-473: A low of $ 92 million ($ 200 million in 2023) for Hägglunds. The procurement program was valued at $ 800 million. FMC began developing the CCVL as a private venture in 1983. The vehicle was designed from the outset to meet the Army's as-yet unfunded AGS requirement. FMC built two mock-ups. The first was a front-engine model utilizing a 330 hp (250 kW) diesel engine. The second was a rear-engine model with

2496-542: A maximum effective range of about 700 meters. However, this conflict would be instrumental in developing the famous T-34 medium tank. Germany's armored Panzer force was not especially impressive at the start of the war. In the invasions of Poland and France , the German forces were mostly made up of the Panzer I and Panzer II light tanks. The Panzer I was little more than a training vehicle armed only with machine guns;

2652-596: A missile, capable of defeating enemy armor. The lack of a production-ready assault gun was one of the key problems in the development of the division. Originally conceived to be a wheeled light armored vehicle armed with a hypervelocity missile as its major tank-killing system, the Assault Gun received little support from the Armor School , which was invested in the M1 Abrams tank procurement process, or from

2808-566: A more immediate solution for the AGS requirement. In 1985, the Army approved a U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) recommendation to field the TOW missile-armed Humvee in the interim. The TOW-armed Humvee proved to be an inadequate substitute for the AGS in the 9th Infantry Division as it could not fire on the move and was too lightly armored. By 1983 the Armor School had come to support an Assault Gun. Instead of wheeled, it would be

2964-516: A pure light tank. In World War I , industrial initiative also led to swift advances. The car industry, already used to vehicle mass production and having much more experience in vehicle layout, designed the first practical light tanks in 1916, a class largely neglected by the British. Renault 's small tank design, the FT , was the first tank to incorporate a top-mounted turret with a full rotation. The FT

3120-616: A requirement was written into FMC's contract. FMC made several weight-saving changes to the design, particularly the pallets, in order to meet the C-130's weight limit. In a December 1993 report, the Defense Department Inspector General (IG) cautioned that the AGS would be too heavy for low-velocity airdrop (LVAD). The IG recommended canceling 58 systems meant for the XVIII Airborne Corps if

3276-503: A review of the requirements. The Army updated its RfP later that year, with submissions due in December. The final RfP specified two configurations of the AGS: One intended for airborne forces, and another intended for other rapid deployment light forces. FMC Corporation submitted the CCVL to meet the AGS requirement. Three other teams submitted proposals: Three of the vehicles proposed had autoloaders, while Hägglunds did not. Although

SECTION 20

#1732781019957

3432-415: A scraper to prevent the build-up of dirt. This did not solve the issue entirely. It was determined months later that a gauge used to tension tracks was miscalibrated. This caused the tracks to be fitted too loosely. Another problem was the ingestion of debris by the engine. The problem was determined to be caused by poorly fitting air filters. At Fort Bliss , several tanks experienced transmission issues. It

3588-502: A somewhat vague memorandum of understanding in 1974 committing both parties toward commonality in tank parts. Germany had assumed that its tank would be evaluated against the GM and Chrysler's prototypes and that the best tank would be chosen for production. This misunderstanding arose from the fact that in public statements both countries had overrepresented the MOU as an agreement that Germany and

3744-524: A stop-work order to United Defense in February 1996. In May, the Army Vice Chief of Staff formally announced the cancelation of the AGS. The service estimated killing the program would save the Army $ 1 billion. The service sought to reallocate unspent FY1996 funds from the AGS program on military pay, construction and modernization programs. In order to help offset the loss of capability caused by

3900-626: A strong candidate for increased funding." The Army belatedly sought to win Congressional and DoD support for its decision to cancel the tank. Securing the blessings of the Office of the Secretary of Defense would ensure that the service would not have to forfeit unspent FY1996 funds from the AGS program. The DoD, at least at first, affirmed its support for the program and called it "premature" for any service branch to draw any conclusions about

4056-639: A tracked, lightweight, highly agile kinetic energy gun capable of killing enemy tanks and shielded by sufficient armor to protection the crew from artillery and small caliber weapons. The system had to be light enough to fly in a C-130 aircraft. After the Army and Marine Corps parted ways on MPGS, the project morphed into the Armored/Assault Gun System. In 1983, the Army established the AGS program, sometimes called XM4 . In 1985, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Maxwell R. Thurman approved an amended requirement operational capability (ROC) for

4212-564: A variety of main guns. In January 1978, the Secretary of the Army announced that the Rheinmetall 120 mm gun would be mounted on future production versions of the XM1. This decision established the requirement for a separate program for the M1E1 (with 120 mm gun) so that the XM1 program could continue unimpeded. About 5,000 M1A1 Abrams tanks were produced from 1986 to 1992 and featured

4368-529: Is a third-generation American main battle tank designed by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems ) and named for General Creighton Abrams . Conceived for modern armored ground warfare , it is one of the heaviest tanks in service at nearly 73.6 short tons (66.8 metric tons ). It introduced several modern technologies to the United States armored forces, including a multifuel turbine engine , sophisticated Chobham composite armor ,

4524-576: Is a specialized light tank –amphibious with sufficient firepower to engage other reconnaissance vehicles, but very lightly armored. The US fielded small numbers of the M41 Walker Bulldog with a high velocity 76mm gun, and better armor, but it suffered from range limits, and its weight was too heavy for most air transport of the day. The US M551 Sheridan had similar strengths and weaknesses, but could also be airdropped, either by parachute or LAPES . The French had their AMX-13 light tank, which

4680-554: The 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (2nd ACR). In November 1990, Congressional appropriators sought for the Army to utilize the Marine Corps's developmental LAV-105 for the AGS role or "show clear and convincing evidence that the LAV-105 is unable to fulfill the requirement". The Army agreed. In 1991, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees joined in directing the Army to integrate the turret and Watervliet Arsenal EX35 gun of

4836-641: The Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant (DATP) in Warren, Michigan from 1982 to 1991 (DATP also produced the 11 preproduction models in 1978. ). The U.S. Army Laboratory Command (LABCOM), under the supervision of the United States Army Research Laboratory (ARL), was also heavily involved with designing the tank with M1A1 armor resistant shells, M829A2 armor-penetrating rounds, and improved weapon range. The M1

M8 armored gun system - Misplaced Pages Continue

4992-677: The Iraq War , as well as by Iraq in the war against the Islamic State , Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni Civil War , and Ukraine during the Russian invasion of Ukraine . In 1963, the U.S. Army and the West German Bundeswehr began collaborating on a main battle tank (MBT) design that both nations would use, improving interoperability between the two NATO partners. The MBT-70 , or Kampfpanzer 70 as it

5148-642: The M10 Booker —in 2022. The U.S. Army recognized the poor performance of the M551 Sheridan light tank in the Vietnam War and began the process of retiring the vehicle in 1977. A small number were retained in active service by the 82nd Airborne Division and the National Guard . The Army designated the M3 Bradley armored reconnaissance vehicle to partially fill the Sheridan's role. In

5304-572: The M242 Bushmaster . The Army later deleted the latter from the design, seeing it as superfluous. In spring 1972, Desobry was briefed by the British on their own newly developed "Burlington" armor from the British Army 's labs. The armor performed exceptionally against shaped charges such as HEAT rounds. In September, Desobry convinced the Army to incorporate the new armor. To take full advantage of Burlington, also known as Chobham,

5460-543: The Missile Command , which was developing the Fiber Optic Guided Missile and resisted moving into the hypervelocity missile domain. In 1980, the U.S. Army Infantry School 's Mobile Protected Gun project analyzed anti-armor weapons systems, concluding that the Army should equip its new light infantry divisions with TOW -armed Humvees and an unspecified 6×6 lightly armored vehicle armed with

5616-488: The Project on Government Oversight ). PMP took issue with the tank's vulnerability, high price, reliance on flammable hydraulics, and high fuel consumption. American tank historian Steven J. Zaloga characterized American press criticism of the M1 during this time as "ill-founded". Zaloga wrote the issues uncovered by the tank trials were "not particularly serious". PMP's criticism failed to generate any serious opposition to

5772-503: The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) required that the Army procure the AGS off-the-shelf . In August, SASC directed the Army to halt work on Armored Systems Modernization until it could conduct a competition for an AGS. The AGS program had gained political favor by this point due in part to the back-to-back successful employment of the Sheridan in two overseas operations. In December 1989, Sheridans of

5928-466: The liberation of Kuwait . The U.S. Marine Corps deployed 353 tanks, of which 277 were M60s and 76 were M1A1 (60 M1A1HA and 16 M1A1 Common). The M1A1 Common variant included adaptations for deep wading and improvements to increase commonality with the Army's Abrams. The 2nd Tank Battalion was equipped with M1A1HA Abrams borrowed from the Army. The M1A1 was superior to Iraq's Soviet -era T-54/T-55 and T-62 tanks, as well as T-72 versions imported from

6084-554: The 105 mm M68 gun, the licensed L7, and the 20 mm Bushmaster. Chrysler chose a 1,500 hp Lycoming AGT1500 gas turbine engine. GM's model was powered by a 1,500 hp diesel engine similar to that used on the American MBT-70 and XM803. Prototypes were delivered in 1976 by Chrysler and GM armed with the M68E1 105 mm gun. They entered head-to-head testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground . The testing showed that

6240-438: The 1980s, the Army began looking for a more capable replacement for the Sheridan. During this time, a string of Army projects to update or replace the Sheridan were begun, but all ended without the Army committing to buy. Some of its efforts around this time could be described as hopelessly intermingled. In 1979, Army Chief of Staff General Edward C. Meyer initiated a transformation of the 9th Infantry Division that would see

6396-523: The 3/73 Armor, 82d Airborne Division, were airdropped into Panama as part of Operation Just Cause . This was the first successful employment of light armor in combat. In August 1990, Sheridans were airdropped into Saudi Arabia as the spearhead of the buildup of Operation Desert Shield. In October 1990, HASC deferred the Block III main battle tank and directed the Army to make the AGS its top priority modernization program. After having earlier tried to kill

M8 armored gun system - Misplaced Pages Continue

6552-559: The 82nd Airborne. In May 1995, the Army National Guard expressed interest in procuring the AGS for the 38th Infantry Division , 35th Infantry Division and 34th Infantry Division to help bridge the looming capability gap should the 2nd ACR be eliminated. This proposal was rejected by the service. Army Chief of Staff Gordon R. Sullivan , the AGS's most influential advocate at the Pentagon, retired in June 1995. In October 1995,

6708-530: The 82nd's 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry, which was in need of greater firepower for an upcoming deployment to the recent war in Iraq . However, in June 2004, this plan was put on hold while the Army determined whether the Mobile Gun System (MGS) could meet the 82nd's requirements. An air-drop test of a Stryker weighted to simulate the load of the MGS was conducted in August. Around the same time, the Army identified issues with

6864-568: The 82nd. A Milestone I/II review was completed in May 1992. The engineering and manufacturing development contract was awarded to FMC in June 1992 for a ballistic structure, six test vehicles, and technical data. A critical design review was completed in September 1993. Six pre-production prototypes underwent technical testing in FY94–95. Early User Test and Experimentation was completed in June 1995 and

7020-611: The AGS as the Mobile Gun System (MGS) variant of the Interim Armored Vehicle program in 2000, but lost out to the General Motors –General Dynamics' LAV III , which was type classified as the Stryker M1128 mobile gun system . BAE Systems offered the AGS system for the Army's XM1302 Mobile Protected Firepower requirement, but lost to the General Dynamics Griffin II —later type classified as

7176-529: The AGS in January 1996. In an email explaining the cancelation to officers, Reimer said the AGS was a "well run program" and that the Army had "no major complaints with the way that program was being administered." Reimer said that despite this, the Army had a funding shortfall in both the near and long term. Canceling the AGS would allow the service to alleviate a deficit in the military personnel account. It would also free up funds for other modernization efforts in

7332-648: The AGS program was dropped as the $ 800 million ($ 2.15 billion in 2023) plan was considered unaffordable. Around the same time, the Army Chief of Staff Carl E. Vuono issued a "promissory note" to replace the Sheridan by FY1995. In September 1989, the Armored Gun System Project Manager office was reestablished at the United States Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command and a marketing survey

7488-744: The AGS program was re-organized under the Armored Family of Vehicles Task Force (AFVTV). During one concept study for a proposed All Purpose Fire Support Platoon, the task force shortlisted four candidate vehicles for an Armored Support Platform. These were the FMC Corporation CCVL, the Cadillac Gage Stingray , the General Motors LAV-105, and the Teledyne AGS . The task force recommended

7644-404: The AGS to Turkey, which had a requirement for 200 systems. This bid was said to be a longshot as Turkey's requirement was for a main battle tank in the 50–60 short tons (45–54 t) range. In 2015, the U.S. Army articulated a requirement for a Mobile Protected Firepower system to replace the Mobile Gun System. In 2017, the Army formalized its requirements with a request for proposals. The MPF

7800-426: The AGS. The CCVL had two 16-barrel Tracor MBA Advanced Smoke Launcher System smoke grenade launchers mounted on either side of the turret. This fired L8 visual or M76 infrared obscurants. The AGS had two 8-barrel smoke grenade launchers which could fire a variety of obscurants. The MPF variant has two 8-barrel M257 model firing M19 smoke grenades . The CCVL was protected from 30 mm kinetic-energy rounds over

7956-430: The AGS. Thurman's recommendation that the Army purchase 500 AGS systems went to Army Chief of Staff John A. Wickham Jr. . The Abrams competed with the AGS for funding. Wickham and Thurman, backed by TRADOC, chose the Abrams, and did not advocate for the program in Congress. Senate appropriators declined the Army's request for AGS funds for FY 1986. The program office was disestablished, and the ROC retracted. In May 1986,

SECTION 50

#1732781019957

8112-410: The Abrams and many other U.S. combat vehicles used in the conflict were fitted with Combat Identification Panels to reduce friendly fire incidents. Several Abrams tanks that were irrecoverable due to loss of mobility or other circumstances were destroyed by friendly forces, usually by other Abrams tanks, to prevent their capture. Some Abrams tanks were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes during

8268-476: The Army type classified the XM8 as the M8 armored gun system. It approved an initial production run of 26 vehicles, with an option for 42 more scheduled to begin in FY1997. A full production decision was scheduled for March 1997. Fielding to the 3/73 Armor would begin in 1999. All three squadrons of the 2nd ACR were to be fielded subsequently. The end of the Cold War had precipitated a fall-off in U.S. military spending. The President's FY1996 budget request allotted

8424-427: The Army could not demonstrate LVAD from a C-130. The Pentagon concurred that no production could begin until the Army met this requirement. The IG's concerns were put to rest in October 1994, when the service successfully airdropped an AGS from a C-130 at an altitude of 1,300 ft (400 m). Citing cuts in the service's procurement budget, in 1993, the Army reduced its planned AGS order from 300 to 233. By November

8580-417: The Army did not require that proposals be tracked or wheeled, all four proposals were tracked. In June 1992, the Army selected the FMC proposal. FMC Ground Systems Division was awarded a $ 27.7 million ($ 60.1 million in 2023) contract to begin phase 1 work, including the production of six test units. The bids for this phase ranged from a high of $ 189 million ($ 410 million in 2023) for GDLS–Teledyne and

8736-421: The Army disregarded its own timeline requirements and that the requirements were unfairly biased for wheeled vehicles. The General Accounting Office denied UDLP's protest in April 2001. In March 2004, at the 82nd Airborne Division's request, the Army approved the transfer of four production vehicles from United Defense's facility in Pennsylvania to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The vehicles were intended to bolster

8892-483: The Army had successfully overhauled the program. By reclassifying the preproduction prototypes as production models, the Army was able to cut two years off the time until full-scale production. The Army had by then settled on an acquisition target of 237 vehicles. Of these, 123 would go to the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, 58 to the 82nd Airborne Division, and 56 to reserves and training bases. The last 169 AGS systems, to be produced from 1998 to 2002, were to be built without

9048-458: The Army selected the Griffin as the winner of the MPF competition. The GDLS Griffin was later type classified as the M10 Booker . The AGS operational requirements were identified early in the process. In order, they were: deployability, lethality, survivability, and sustainability. The basic hull of the AGS is made of welded 5083 aluminum alloy , with a modular armor system that allows the vehicle to be equipped according to requirements. Aluminum

9204-399: The Army's requirement, this is accomplished with ventilated face pieces. NBC-sealing of the turret is not possible in any event as the vehicle is exposed to outside air when spent shell cases are ejected and when the main gun is fired in maximum depression. NBC protection is provided by filtered air through tubing to M25/ M42 masks . The Army omitted a requirement for radiation hardening from

9360-402: The British firm of Vickers-Armstrong started promoting another design by John Carden and Vivien Loyd as the " six-ton tank ". Although rejected by the British Army, it was bought by a large number of nations in small numbers. It formed the basis of the Soviet T-26 (around 10,000 built) and the Polish 7TP tank and influenced the Italian Fiat M11/39 . The British Army did not use the design as

9516-490: The Cold War era was the Swedish Ikv 91 (classified as an assault gun by Sweden). It had a low-pressure 90mm gun, strong armor against 20mm grenades, and it was fully amphibious. Light tanks, such as the PT-76 , continue to play a small role in tank warfare , although many are losing favor to cheaper, faster, and lighter armored cars . The light tank still fills an important niche in many armies, especially for nations with airborne divisions, Marine Infantry, or those without

SECTION 60

#1732781019957

9672-449: The Defense Department awarded the $ 4.9 billion development contract to Chrysler. The turbine engine and cost do not appear to be the only reason for the selection of Chrysler. Chrysler was the only company that appeared to be seriously interested in tank development; the M60 had been lucrative for the company. In contrast, GM made only about 1% of its income from military sales, compared to 5% for Chrysler, and only submitted their bid after

9828-445: The Department of Defense (DoD) the lowest procurement budget level since 1950. The AGS was one of several systems that did not fare well in an Army review of anti-armor weapons then under development. Responding to budget cuts anticipated in the period FY98–03, in 1996 the Army adopted a new policy: Instead of distributing small cuts throughout many projects, entire programs would be canceled. Army Chief of Staff Dennis Reimer canceled

9984-422: The GM design was generally superior to Chrysler's, offering better armor protection, and better fire control and turret stabilization systems. During testing, the power packs of both designs proved to have issues. The Chrysler gas turbine engine had extensive heat recovery systems in an attempt to improve its fuel efficiency to something similar to a traditional internal combustion engine . This proved not to be

10140-426: The Gulf War in 1991, during Operation Desert Storm. The first Abrams tanks to arrive in Saudi Arabia in August 1990 in the buildup to the war were M1 and IPM1 tanks with 105 mm guns. All but two battalions of 105 mm gun Abrams tanks were replaced by M1A1 tanks prior to the American invasion in January 1991. The U.S. Army deployed a total of 1,956 M1A1s (733 M1A1, 1,233 M1A1HA) to Saudi Arabia to participate in

10296-549: The Iraqi Army only had about 40 operational Abrams left. That month, the U.S. Department of State approved the sale of another 175 Abrams to Iraq. Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite Kata'ib Hezbollah (Hezbollah Brigades) were reported to operate M1 Abrams, and released publicity showing the tanks being transported by trucks to take part in the Battle of Mosul . It is not known whether the tanks were captured from ISIL, seized from Iraq's military, or handed over. One Iraqi-operated Abrams has been nicknamed " The Beast " after it became

10452-469: The Javelin missile. Funding for EFOGM was deleted in 1998. The Army also considered the MGM-166 LOSAT missile, now mounted on a Humvee rather than the originally planned AGS, as another platform offering similar capabilities for the 82nd Airborne. However, this program was canceled in FY2005. According to Reimer, the lack of a C-130-deliverable tank was made somewhat more acceptable by the introduction of an increasing number of larger C-17's. The 3/73rd Armor

10608-409: The LAV-105 with an AGS chassis. A joint program was balked at by both services, who believed the two platforms were mismatched. Subsequently, the Marine Corps demurred and requested no further funding for the LAV-105. In any event, the proposed chimera was nixed by the Senate Appropriations Committee later that year. The Army issued a draft request for proposals (RfP) in May 1991. The Army published

10764-506: The Leopard 2. As the Abrams entered service, they operated alongside M60A3 within the U.S. military and with other NATO tanks in various Cold War exercises which usually took place in Western Europe, especially West Germany . The exercises were aimed at countering Soviet forces. Adaptations before the Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm) gave the vehicle better firepower and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) protection. The Abrams remained untested in combat until

10920-440: The M1A1s was the destruction of seven T-72s in a point-blank skirmish (less than 50 yards (46 m)) near Mahmoudiyah, about 18 miles (29 km) south of Baghdad, with no U.S. losses. This was in the face of inadequately trained Iraqi tank crews, most of whom had not fired live ammunition in the previous year due to the sanctions then in operation and made no hits at point-blank range. Following lessons learned in Desert Storm,

11076-459: The M2 with better armor. The new medium tank just entering production in 1940 was the M2A1. This was a poor design with thin armor and a high silhouette. The M3 Stuart saw use in the North African Campaign but was relegated to reconnaissance as soon as US-built medium tanks became available. Further light tank development in the war led to the improved M5 Stuart and then included the M24 Chaffee . Light tanks were issued to tank battalions (one of

11232-494: The M256 120 mm smoothbore cannon, improved armor, consisting of depleted uranium and other classified materials, and a CBRN protection system. Production of M1 and M1A1 tanks totaled some 9,000 tanks at a cost of approximately $ 4.3 million per unit. In 1990, a Project On Government Oversight report criticized the M1's high costs and low fuel efficiency in comparison with other tanks of similar power and effectiveness such as

11388-551: The MBT-70 was armed with a 152 mm gun-launcher that, in addition to firing conventional ammunition, would also fire the Shillelagh missile . A hydropneumatic suspension provided improved cross-country ride quality and also allowed the entire tank to be raised or lowered by the driver. The United States team was led by General Motors while the German team consisted of a consortium of firms. The collaboration between

11544-533: The Marine Corps and Army explored re-gunning the Sheridan with a conventional gun. In 1983, the Navy Surface Weapons Center mounted a 105 mm cannon to a Sheridan. One Army plan also envisioned re-gunning 120 Sheridans with 105 mm or 120 mm cannons, but this project was canceled in 1985. In the end the Army determined upgrading the Sheridan to meet the AGS requirement was not worth pursuing. The U.S. Army determined that it needed

11700-459: The Marine Corps initially leaning towards the 75 mm gun. Plans solidified around the 25 mm Bushmaster when it was realized the services needed an interim solution. Like the Marine version, this was armed with the 25 mm gun, but included additional ammunition stowage in lieu of passengers. The Army planned to replace this LAV beginning in the late 1980s with the "far-term" MPGS armed with

11856-509: The Panzer II with a 20 mm cannon. The Panzer division also included some Czech designed light tanks—the Panzer 35(t) and the Panzer 38(t) . American light tank development started with the M2 light tank series. These light tanks were mechanically very reliable, with good mobility. However, they had a high silhouette, and only a few saw combat. The M3 Stuart series was an improvement of

12012-553: The RfP in August incorporating changes as a result of feedback from industry and Congress, the latter of which had directed the Army to require the EX35 gun. Army Acquisition Executive Stephen K. Conver became concerned that the AGS program was becoming laden with unnecessary requirements that would increase costs and development time, as well as limit the number of interested contractors. In view of this, in October 1991, Conver's office conducted

12168-590: The Soviet Union and Poland. Polish officials stated that no license-produced T-72 (nicknamed Lion of Babylon ) tanks were finished before destruction of the Iraqi Taji tank plant in 1991. Iraq's T-72s, like most Soviet export designs, lacked night-vision systems and then-modern rangefinders , though they did have some night-fighting tanks with older active infrared systems or floodlights . Very few M1 tanks were hit by enemy fire and none were destroyed as

12324-487: The U.S. for repairs. In May 2008, it was reported that a U.S. M1 tank had also been damaged in Iraq by insurgent fire of a Soviet-made RPG-29 "Vampir", which uses a tandem-charge HEAT warhead to penetrate explosive reactive armor (ERA) as well as composite armor behind it. The U.S. considered the RPG-29 a high threat to armor and refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi Army to buy it, fearing that it would fall into

12480-493: The U.S. would select a common MBT. In reality, the U.S. Army was unwilling to choose a foreign tank unless it was obviously superior in design and cost. In any case, in evaluations the Leopard 2AV was found to meet U.S. requirements but was thought to cost more. The U.S. Army announced in January 1977 that Germany had withdrawn the tank from consideration. Having narrowly averted losing the contract, Chrysler set about improving

12636-552: The airworthiness of the MGS, among the heavier of the Stryker family. Still more pervasive problems persisted with the autoloader. While this decision was on hold, Congressman Robin Hayes expressed frustration that the AGS had not been fielded, and called on the DoD to act swiftly to resolve the delay. In January 2005, the Army said it had ruled out fielding the AGS, saying the system lacked spare parts that would be required to maintain

12792-518: The armor in contemporary light tanks is modular, sometimes up to three configurations. The flat hull necessary for amphibious light tanks to plane across the surface of the water is not nearly as blast-resistant as the V-shaped hull. It has been suggested that underbelly armor appliqué could be applied after the light tanks come ashore and before they encounter explosive devices. A gun capable of defeating modern tanks at reasonable ranges requires

12948-611: The armored gun system program to develop a mobile gun platform that could be airdropped . By 1992, the AGS was one of the Army's top priority acquisition programs. The service selected FMC's CCVL over proposals from three other teams. The service sought to purchase 237 AGS systems to begin fielding in 1997. Key characteristics of the AGS are its light weight (17.8 short tons (16.1 t) in its low-velocity airdrop configuration), field-installable modular armor , M35 105 mm caliber soft recoil rifled gun, 21-round magazined autoloader , and slide-out powerpack. Though it had authorized

13104-424: The assumption that the 105 mm gun would probably be the eventual main armament." The tripartite British—American—German gun trials of 1975 produced a general agreement in the U.S. Defense Department that at some future point, a 120 mm gun of some design would be added to the XM1. Apparently anticipating this, Chrysler and GM had both made changes to their tanks during development to make them compatible with

13260-508: The basis for the M104 Wolverine heavy assault bridge. The M1A2 SEPv2 (version 2) added Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS or CROWS II) support, color displays, better interfaces, a new operating system, better front and side armor, and an upgraded transmission for better durability. Further upgrades included depleted uranium armor for all variants, a system overhaul that returns all A1s to like-new condition (M1A1 AIM),

13416-560: The beginning of 2003. Vulnerabilities exposed during urban combat in the Iraq War were addressed with the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) modifications, including armor upgrades and a gun shield, issued to some M1 Abrams tanks. It added protection in the rear and side of the tank and improved fighting ability and survival ability in urban environments. By December 2006 more than 530 Abrams tanks had been shipped back to

13572-491: The best possible design. This often resulted in programs being canceled due to cost overruns, leaving the forces with outdated systems, as was the case with the MBT-70. There was a strong movement within the Army to get a new design within budget to prevent the MBT-70 experience from repeating itself. For the new design, the Army set the design-to-unit cost at no more than $ 507,790 (equivalent to $ 3,699,000 in 2023). The Pentagon's approach to control of research and development

13728-558: The cancelation of the AGS, the Army increased its requested funding for M1A2 Abrams and M2A3 Bradley upgrades, and accelerated the development of the Javelin missile . The Army considered a variety of plans to "heavy up" the 2nd ACR. The service added heavy armor to the 2nd ACR and requested funding to purchase Apache helicopters . In the 82nd Airborne, the Army also planned to introduce the EFOGM missile and considered more widely fielding

13884-424: The case: the engine consumed much more fuel than expected, burning 3.8 US gallons per mile (890 L/100 km). The GM design used a new variable-compression diesel design. By spring 1976, the decision to choose the GM design was largely complete. In addition to offering better overall performance, there were concerns about Chrysler's engine both from a reliability and fuel consumption standpoint. The GM program

14040-594: The dated M60 tank . There are three main operational Abrams versions: the M1, M1A1 , and M1A2 , with each new iteration seeing improvements in armament, protection, and electronics. The Abrams was to be replaced in U.S. Army service by the XM1202 Mounted Combat System , but because that project was canceled, the Army has opted to continue maintaining and operating the M1 series for the foreseeable future by upgrading optics, armor, and firepower. The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980 and serves as

14196-471: The design. Expensive components were replaced with less expensive ones. Chrysler's team also negotiated lower costs from their subcontractors. The price of the redesigned tank's turret especially was decreased, but other improvements came from unexpected places, such as a $ 600 hydraulic oil reservoir replaced with a $ 25 one. Chrysler also submitted a version with a Teledyne AVCR-1360 diesel engine. Chrysler's new bid came to $ 196 million, down from $ 221 million in

14352-416: The development of the main battle tank —in which technological advancements have rendered all previous weight variants obsolete—and has seen use in a variety of roles including the support of light airborne or amphibious forces and reconnaissance. Modified IFVs are assuming these roles in many militaries due to their immediate availability, and as a cheaper versatile alternative to developing and fielding

14508-466: The effective range of the main gun in the Iraqi tanks was less than 6,600 feet (2,000 m). This meant Abrams tanks could hit Iraqi tanks before the enemy got in range—a decisive advantage in this kind of combat. In friendly fire incidents, the front armor and fore side turret armor survived direct APFSDS hits from other M1A1s. This was not the case for the side armor of the hull and the rear armor of

14664-539: The fact that light tank platoons were not expected to function as a reconnaissance unit, they could be used for reconnaissance purposes. In this role, they were expected to remain behind the main reconnaissance force as the support element and augment the firepower whenever enemy contact was made. The British withdrew their light tank designs from their armored divisions early in the war, but used some later designs for minor amphibious operations and airborne operations. In general they used armored cars for reconnaissance and

14820-460: The far term. Many officials felt blindsided by the Army's decision to kill the AGS. The Army's decision to cancel the AGS went without a formal announcement but was soon leaked to the press. This displeased some lawmakers including Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Strom Thurmond , who privately expressed irritation to Defense Secretary William J. Perry about having learned of the cancelation through media reports. Ten Representatives signed

14976-464: The few better examples, but the US Army acquired only three Christies and did not pursue the idea any further. Budget limitations and the low priority given to the army meant that there were few resources for building tanks. The US Army instead developed and tested tank components such as suspensions, tracks, and transmissions. This paid off when production had to be initiated on the outbreak of war. At

15132-778: The four companies was a light tank company), light tank battalions and cavalry reconnaissance squadrons. The original role of the light tank in these formations was similar to medium tanks and they were expected to engage enemy armor with AP rounds and enemy positions with HE rounds. As a result, tank gunnery training for light and medium tankers was common. US Army Field Manuals written before 1944 clearly show that light tanks were to be part of an armored assault on enemy positions, and examples of fire on enemy armor were in these manuals. When pursuing an enemy, Light Tank Battalions were expected to move parallel with enemy columns and, together with accompanying infantry and engineer units, seize "critical terrain that will block hostile retreat". Despite

15288-549: The frontal arc. The United Defense Mobile Gun System variant included 7.62 mm integral armor protection over most of the vehicle, and 14.5 mm AP protection over the frontal 60-degree arc. BAE equipped the Mobile Protected Firepower variant of the AGS with underbody blast protection from roadside bombs . The MPF variant integrated a BAE's Raven soft kill active protection system. This comprised wide-angle view long-wave infrared cameras, radar , and

15444-532: The future. And because the Army's other tanks, the M60 and the upgraded M48 , as well as the tanks of virtually every other NATO nation, used the 105 mm gun, mounting that gun on the XM1 promised to increase standardization within the alliance. Moreover, the continuing development of the new ammunition for the XM1 automatically upgraded every other gun in NATO. For all of these reasons, the XM1's development proceeded "on

15600-422: The goal of disrupting communications and supply lines. Numerous small tank designs and " tankettes " were developed during this period and known under a variety of names, including the " combat car ". Early light tank designs were generally better armed and armored than armored cars , but used tracks in order to provide better cross-country mobility. The light tank has been one of the few tank variants to survive

15756-419: The hatch. Some light tanks, such as the M551 Sheridan , ZTQ-15 and 2S25 Sprut-SD armored reconnaissance vehicle, could be rigged for low- velocity airdrops from transport aircraft . With this method the tank is pulled out of the aircraft by brake chutes and skids to a stop. The crew does not ride in the tank during extraction, but parachutes from another plane. Upon landing, they go to their tank, release

15912-589: The insurgents' hands. Between 2010 and 2012 the U.S. supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq. In mid-2014, they saw action when the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Islamic State) launched the June 2014 Northern Iraq offensive . During three months, about one-third of the Iraqi Army's M1 tanks had been damaged or destroyed by ISIL and some were captured by opposing forces. By December 2014,

16068-473: The invasion. Some troops employed short-range anti-tank rockets and fired at the tracks, rear and top. Other tanks were put out of action by engine fires when flammable fuel stored externally in turret racks was hit by small arms fire and spilled into the engine compartment. By March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks had been forced out of action by enemy attacks; 63 were shipped back to the U.S. for repairs, while 17 were damaged beyond repair with 3 of them at

16224-546: The last of the light tank designs, the light tank Mk VIII "Harry Hopkins", was produced only in small numbers. The Japanese made extensive use of light tanks that were much better suited to jungle warfare than larger designs, such as the Type 95 Ha-Go light tank. Light tanks continued to be built, but for very limited roles such as amphibious reconnaissance, support of airborne units , and in rapid-intervention forces that were not expected to face enemy tanks. The Soviet PT-76

16380-419: The latter. In August 1987, the Office of the Secretary of Defense approved the AGS program initiative for 600 vehicles—166 for the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized), 54 for the 82d Airborne Division, 217 for reserve component Tow Light Anti-tank Battalions (TLAT) and 163 for war reserves and floats. A joint Army–Marine Corps program was mooted. The ROC was approved for the second time in September. In December,

16536-470: The light infantry division assume many of the characteristics of the heavy division through an infusion of high or emerging technology. The so-called "High Technology Light Division" (HTLD) would require the procurement of a Mobile Protected Gun, later called the Assault Gun System (AGS), and a Fast Attack Vehicle . The notional Mobile Protected Gun was to be armed with a kinetic gun, or possibly

16692-524: The light tanks lacked firepower and almost all French tanks were handicapped by their one-man turrets, even the larger tanks such as the Char B1 , which overworked the commander who, besides directing the vehicle, or even a troop, had to load and aim the turret gun. The lack of radios with the light tanks was not seen as a major drawback, since French doctrine called for slow-paced, deliberate maneuvers in close conformance to plans. The role of small unit leaders

16848-546: The lines, and drive it away. Background: History of the tank , Tank classification , Tanks in World War I Background: History of the tank , Tank classification , interwar period Background: History of the tank , Tank classification , Tanks in the Cold War Background: History of the tank , Tank classification M1 Abrams The M1 Abrams ( / ˈ eɪ b r ə m z / )

17004-724: The lone working tank when taking back the town of Hit in April 2016, destroying enemy fighting positions and IED emplacements. In October 2017, Abrams were used by the Iraqi security forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces (also called Al-Hashd al-Shaabi) in assaults against the Kurdistan Regional Government Peshmerga in the town of Altun Kupri (also called Prde). It was claimed by Kurdish commanders that at least one Abrams

17160-646: The main battle tank of the United States Army and formerly of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) until the decommissioning of all USMC tank battalions in 2021. The export modification is used by the armed forces of Egypt , Kuwait , Saudi Arabia , Australia , Poland and Iraq . The Abrams was first used in combat by the U.S. in the Gulf War . It was later deployed by the U.S. in the War in Afghanistan and

17316-505: The marketing of the vehicle and disassembled the prototype. A prototype participated in an AGS "rodeo" with other prospective contractors held in July 1990 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. This was the only submitted vehicle that was considered complete. The Army required the AGS to be airdroppable from a tactical airlifter. C-130 airdrop was a desired capability, but not a required one. FMC claimed it could achieve C-130 airdroppability and so such

17472-412: The measurement system to be used in drafting. Germany became concerned with the excessive weight of the tank. In light of growing costs, delays and overall uncertainty as to the soundness of the tank design, the United States and Germany ended their MBT-70 partnership in 1970. The U.S. Army began work on an austere version of the MBT-70, named XM803 . Systems were simplified or eliminated altogether and

17628-467: The most advanced in the 1930s, extremely fast and mounting high velocity 45 mm cannons. Their only drawback were their petrol engines which caught fire often and easily during the Nomonhan fighting, which lasted from about May through September 1939. The Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go light tank was equipped with a diesel engine , and although mounting a 37 mm cannon, it was a low velocity gun with

17784-424: The new tank have a turbine. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld heard arguments from both parties in the afternoon. The Army team spent the night writing briefs and presented them to Rumsfeld the next morning, who then announced a four-month delay. Within days, GM was asked to present a new design with a turbine engine. According to Assistant Secretary for Research and Development Ed Miller, "It became increasingly clear that

17940-407: The new tank would have to have armor around two feet thick (for comparison, the armor on the M60 is around four inches thick). General Creighton Abrams set the weight of the new tank at 58 short tons (53 t). The original goal of keeping weight under 50 short tons (45 t) was abandoned. At the time, the Pentagon's procurement system was beset with problems being caused by the desire to have

18096-419: The only solution which would be acceptable to Clements and Currie was the turbine... It was a political decision that was reached, and for all intents and purposes that decision gave the award to Chrysler since they were the only contractor with a gas turbine." In the meantime, in September 1976 three West German Leopard 2 AV prototypes were belatedly sent to Aberdeen for comparison testing. Germany had signed

18252-476: The original proposal. GM's proposal replaced the diesel engine with an AGT1500 turbine and integrated a turret capable of mounting either the 105 mm or 120 mm gun. Cost growth pushed the tank bid to $ 232 million from $ 208 million. Although the GM team had successfully integrated the turbine, Baer was more impressed by the cost savings introduced by the Chrysler team's redesign. On 12 November 1976,

18408-421: The outyear funding environment. However, in February the DoD's Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) endorsed the Army's decision. Despite JROC's recommendation, Perry withheld his support for canceling the AGS until he could personally meet with key congressmen. Perry's office said it would review the Army's plans for the $ 1 billion originally earmarked for the AGS before making a decision. The Army issued

18564-836: The preferred choice for infantry support in Equatorial nations. Post–Cold War light tanks include the Stingray , ZTQ-15 , M8 Armored Gun System and Kaplan MT / Harimau . Light tanks based on infantry fighting vehicles chassis include the CV90 105T, 2S25 Sprut-SD , Tanque Argentino Mediano , ASCOD LT 105 , and Sabrah . The modern light tank supplements the main battle tank in expeditionary roles and situations where all major threats have been neutralized and excessive weight in armor and armament would only hinder mobility and cost more money to operate. They have also been used for reconnaissance and, in some cases, infantry support. Typically,

18720-575: The program, which maintained strong support from Congress and the Pentagon. Responding to some of the alleged issues with the tank in King of the Killing Zone (1989), journalist Orr Kelly wrote that "The truth is close to the opposite." Kelly said the program "ranks as one of the Army's best managed", producing a tank in "a remarkably short time" while avoiding " gold-plating " and utilizing effective competition. Low rate initial production (LRIP) of

18876-502: The prototype vehicles to the Army in December 2020, although the last of these were delivered behind schedule after testing had begun. The Army's evaluation of BAE and General Dynamics prototypes at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, continued through August. In February 2022, BAE was eliminated from the competition due to noncompliance issues, leaving the General Dynamics Griffin as the only remaining MPF entry. In June 2022,

19032-475: The resources and funding for main battle tanks . They have important advantages over heavier tanks in Southeast Asia and other nations in the Equatorial region. Their compact dimensions and short-to-nonexistent barrel overhang lets them maneuver through thick rain forests, and their weight reduces the risk of getting stuck in mud, and simplifies recovery of stuck or damaged tanks. This makes the light tank

19188-453: The roof and a bulkhead separating the ammunition from the crew. The ammunition compartments in the hull are also protected by blowout panels. Explosion/ fire suppression is provided by a Santa Barbara Dual Spectrum system. Halon fire-suppression protects the crew compartment while a powder system is installed in the engine compartment. Unlike the CCVL, the AGS crew is equipped with Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) overpressure system . Per

19344-497: The same time also involved in the joint LAV program. At the time, the Army planned to acquire 175 LAV-25s to fully equip the 9th Infantry Division. These interim MPGS's would be armed with a 25 mm cannon with seating for the passengers replaced with ammunition racks. The Army developed a version of the LAV to serve as the MPGS in the 9th Infantry Division in the interim. 75 mm, 90 mm and 105 mm guns were studied, with

19500-497: The selection of the vehicle by Taiwan. United Defense manufactured a demonstrator vehicle for Taiwan which it shipped to Taiwan c.  1996 . United Defense presented a version of the AGS without the autoloader. This was a cost-saving measure to allay Taiwan's concerns about the cost of the system. Many other countries expressed interest in the AGS. By 1998 these were: Canada, Germany (for 50 systems), Malaysia and Singapore . In 1996 FMC-Nurol and United Defense teamed to market

19656-405: The service and its contractors to favor the Army's standard M68 105 mm gun over Germany's 120 mm Rheinmetall Rh-120 smoothbore gun for the XM1. To begin with, the 105 mm gun was "the smallest, lightest, and least costly gun adequate for the job." Indeed, new kinetic energy ammunition for the weapon then under development by the Army promised to extend the gun's usefulness well into

19812-558: The start of World War II, the majority of all of the great powers' tank forces consisted of light designs. The most common were the British Light Tank Mk VI , French Renault R35 , German Panzer I , Italian L3/35 (classified as a light tank by the Royal Italian Army , a tankette by others), Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go light tank , Soviet T-26 , and American M2 light tank . The Soviet BT tanks were

19968-483: The start of production of the type classified M8 a year earlier, the Army canceled the AGS program in 1996 due to the service's budgetary constraints. The Sheridan was retired without a true successor. The AGS never saw service, though the 82nd Airborne sought to press the preproduction units into service in Iraq. The AGS was unsuccessfully marketed for export and was reincarnated for several subsequent U.S. Army assault gun /light tank programs. United Defense LP proposed

20124-524: The tank, appropriators grew to appreciate the program's relatively low price tag. In November 1990, the Defense Acquisition Board authorized the Army to proceed with the development of the AGS. The Army believed that replacing the Sheridan with an off-the-shelf AGS would be less expensive and provide more capabilities than an upgraded Sheridan. It was expected to replace the Sheridan in the 3/73rd Armor and TOW missile-armed Humvees in

20280-476: The technical support of Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). TACOM began examining specific goals. To this end, a new design basis emerged in February 1973. It had to defeat any hit from a Soviet gun within 800 m (2,600 ft) and 30 degrees to either side. The tank would be armed with the 105 mm M68 gun , a licensed version of the Royal Ordnance L7 , and a 20 mm version of

20436-722: The turret, as both areas were penetrated on at least two occasions by unintentional strikes by depleted uranium ammunition during the Battle of Norfolk . During the Waco siege in 1993, two M1A1 Abrams tanks were borrowed from the military and deployed by the FBI against the Branch Davidians . The M1A2 was a further improvement of the M1A1, with a commander's independent thermal viewer, weapon station, position navigation equipment, and

20592-524: The two teams was rocky from the start, with many cultural differences and disagreements about the design hampering progress. Germany favored a tank optimized for the terrain of central Europe while the U.S. attached importance to operating anywhere in the world. The Germans had reservations about the Shillelagh missile and developed a 120 mm high-velocity gun as an alternative. Perhaps the most contentious disagreement, never fully resolved, concerned

20748-630: The unreliable autoloader was improved. These changes were ultimately insufficient to allay concerns about the tank's cost. Congress canceled the XM803 in December 1971 but permitted the Army to reallocate remaining funds to develop a new main battle tank. The Army began the XM815 project in January 1972. The Main Battle Tank Task Force (MBTTF) was established under Major General William Desobry . The task force prepared design studies with

20904-430: The vehicle for any significant length of time. The Army also doubled down on its commitment to fielding the MGS, which it said it could begin fielding in summer 2006. was interested in acquiring as many as 700 of the system, which would be produced domestically. That year the U.S. State Department authorized the sale of just as many to Taiwan and United Defense agreed to co-production with Hwa Fong Industries conditional on

21060-453: The vehicle was approved in May 1979. In February 1982, General Dynamics Land Systems Division (GDLS) purchased Chrysler Defense, after Chrysler built over 1,000 M1s. A total of 3,273 M1 Abrams tanks were produced during 1979–1985 and first entered U.S. Army service in 1980. Production at the government-owned, GDLS-operated Lima Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio , was joined by vehicles built at

21216-402: The war, over 3,700 (mostly in 1918), and was more numerous than all British and German tanks combined. The Carden Loyd tankette and its derivatives were adopted by several nations as small tracked vehicles carrying a machine gun for armament. At a time of limited military budgets, tankettes were relatively cheap and functioned as reconnaissance vehicles and mobile machine gun posts. In 1928,

21372-531: The war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. No M1s were lost to enemy tank fire. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. The M1A1 could kill other tanks at ranges in excess of 8,200 feet (2,500 m). This range was crucial in combat against previous generation tanks of Soviet design in Desert Storm, as

21528-417: The water by hydrojets or by their tracks. Most amphibious light tanks weigh little and often utilize aluminum armor. Some light tanks require no modifications for river crossings. Crews simply raise the easily accessible cloth sides around the hull, cover the hatches, turn on the bilge pump and shift the transmission to water operations. Often, a fold down trim vane is erected to stop water from flooding into

21684-707: The weight-saving modifications of those destined for the 82nd, which was the only unit that required an airdroppable AGS system. The AGS's budget was zeroed and the production schedule slipped by one year in Congress's FY1995 budget due to program cost growth. Six prototypes were built under the designation XM8. The first of these was rolled out at the United Defense (created by a merger of FMC and BMY ) facility in San Jose, California, in April 1994, and arrived at Fort Knox , Kentucky, in April 1995. The last of these

21840-406: Was all-welded aluminum with bolt-on steel composite armor . Appliqué armor could also be installed by the user. This may have been Modular Expandable Armor System from IBD Deisenroth Engineering . The AGS was designed with three modular armor levels: As of 2003 United Defense was evaluating combining level I and II armors. The crew is protected from ammunition explosion by blowout panels on

21996-685: Was also slightly cheaper overall at $ 208 million compared to $ 221 million for Chrysler. In July 1976, the Army prepared to inform Congress of the decision to move ahead with the GM design. All that was required was the final sign-off by the U.S Secretary of Defense , Donald Rumsfeld . On 20 July 1976, United States Secretary of the Army Martin Hoffmann and a group of generals visited Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Clements and Director of Defense Research and Engineering Malcolm Currie on their decision. They were surprised when Clements and Currie criticized their decision and demanded that

22152-475: Was armed with the license-built M68A1 version of the 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7 gun. The tank featured the first-of-its-kind Chobham armor . The M1 Abrams was the first to use this advanced armor. It consisted of an arrangement of metal and ceramic plates. An improved model called the IPM1 was produced briefly in 1984 and contained upgrades to armor and other small improvements. A number of considerations had led

22308-436: Was chosen instead of steel in order to reduce the weight of the vehicle. The weight limit for the vehicle was driven by the requirement that it be capable of LVAD. Subcontractors as of 1996 consisted of Chrysler Corporation (Pentastar), Computing Devices Canada , Detroit Diesel , General Electric Company , General Motors Corporation ( Hughes Electronics ), Textron Inc.: (Cadillac Gage) and Watervliet Arsenal. The CCVL hull

22464-534: Was defined as an air-transportable light tank to assist infantry brigades in forced entry operations. The Army sought to buy 504 MPF systems. Requirements called for a tracked vehicle armed with a 105 mm or 120 mm caliber cannon, which would not need to be air-droppable. BAE Systems (which bought United Defense in 2005) entered a modernized AGS into the MPF competition. In 2018, the Army selected bids from GDLS and BAE to build 12 prototypes each. BAE began delivering

22620-412: Was delivered in May. United Defense provided five XM8 AGS systems to the service's Operational Test Command , which put the vehicle through five months of testing at Fort Pickett , Virginia. Another prototype underwent survivability testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground , Maryland. In 1995, the Army explored inactivating the 2nd ACR, which would reduce the Army's buy to just the 80 AGS systems destined for

22776-527: Was designed for its capability to be quickly air-dropped for use with paratroopers and also able to support lightly armed infantry and perform force-reconnaissance effectively. The British FV101 Scorpion , the fire support variant of the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) series of vehicles that replaced armored cars in British service, has been described as a light tank and was sold to many smaller nations. Another light tank in

22932-648: Was destroyed by the Peshmerga. Canada and Denmark deployed Leopard 1 and 2 MBTs that were specially modified to operate in the relatively flat and arid conditions of southwestern Afghanistan. In late 2010, at the request of Regional Command Southwest , the U.S. Marine Corps deployed a small detachment of 14 M1A1 Abrams tanks from Delta Company, 1st Tank Battalion , 1st Marine Division (Forward), to southern Afghanistan in support of operations in Helmand and Kandahar provinces. Saudi Abrams tanks saw service in

23088-455: Was determined that the tankers at Fort Bliss had discovered that they could throw the vehicle directly from acceleration into reverse, a tactically advantageous maneuver called the "bow tie". Chrysler resolved this by installing a device that prevented this. The problems found during testing were easily surmounted. Critics of the M1 program emerged in the early 1980s, particularly the newly formed Project on Military Procurement (PMP) (later renamed

23244-531: Was distributed to industry. In March 1990, Vuono told the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that the Army was surveying options for acquiring about 70 tanks to replace the Sheridan. The Army formalized the AGS program in April 1990 with the validation of a new ROC. An AGS "rodeo" was held in July 1990 at Fort Bragg , North Carolina, with representative systems submitted from prospective contractors. In July 1990,

23400-466: Was equipped with improved forward-looking infrared . By then, the AGS had reached an advanced level of technological maturity, and thus UDLP said it could field its design almost two years earlier than the General Motors' LAV III proposal. The AGS lost out to the General Motors proposal, which was type classified as the Stryker M1128 mobile gun system . UDLP protested the award, alleging that

23556-690: Was highlighted by a successful LVAD of a prototype AGS. Live fire testing and initial operational test and evaluation were scheduled to be conducted in FY96. A full-rate production decision was scheduled for March 1997 (Milestone III). In 1998, the Senate Armed Services Committee proposed using the M8 AGS as a surrogate vehicle to evaluate "strike force experimentation activities" in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment . In October 1999, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki laid out his vision for

23712-424: Was in many respects the first truly modern tank having a layout that has been followed by almost all designs ever since: driver at the front; main armament in a fully rotating turret on top; engine at the rear. Previous models had been "box tanks", with a single crowded space combining the role of engine room, fighting compartment, ammunition stock and driver's cabin. The FT had the largest production run of any tank of

23868-434: Was inactivated over the following two years. The last Sheridans in service were vismod Sheridans used for opposing force training. These too were retired in 2004. Maintaining the Sheridan was not thought to be practical. In place of the Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne, the Army stood up an Immediate Ready Company of Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M1A1 Abrams tanks from the 3rd Infantry Division which were to be attached to

24024-615: Was known in Germany, incorporated many new unconventional technologies across the board. Conventional tanks of the time had a crew of four, with the driver located in the hull. In the MBT-70, the loader crewmember would be replaced by a mechanical autoloader and the driver would be located inside the NBC-protected turret with the other two crewmembers. Like the M60A2 MBT and M551 Sheridan light tank then under development,

24180-666: Was modified with the XM1. Previous acquisition strategy called for a significant amount of the design work to be done by the government. Under the new framework, contractors would competitively bid their own designs rather than compete solely for the right to manufacture the end product. In January 1973, the U.S. Army issued the XM1 (as the XM815 had been renamed in November 1972) request for proposals . In May 1973, Chrysler Defense and General Motors submitted proposals. Both were armed with

24336-457: Was to execute plans, not to take the initiative in combat. In 1939, a belated effort was made to improve flexibility and increase the number of radios. Throughout the interwar period the US produced only a few hundred tanks. From the end of World War I to 1935, only 15 tanks were produced. Most were derivatives or foreign designs or very poor quality private designs. The Christie designs were among

#956043