How good would a M1 be without computerized targeting system?

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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

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

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

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

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

[95th Rifleman]

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

[dragoon500ly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[copeab]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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

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

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by copeab

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

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

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

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

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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

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

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

[dragoon500ly]

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

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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

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

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Which was a good thing when we got in a tussle by Karbala and Bimp pulled a snoopy on our doghouse.

Translation, please? Pretend you're speaking to an middle-aged officer, use medium-sized words.

[Panther Al]

Bimp = BMP, doghouse = the armored box that protects the external bits to the gunners sight. By pulling a snoopy the bump put a round over the top of it, trashing the sight but not low enough to do anything else other than give yours truly the fright of my life!

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Bimp = BMP, doghouse = the armored box that protects the external bits to the gunners sight. By pulling a snoopy the bump put a round over the top of it, trashing the sight but not low enough to do anything else other than give yours truly the fright of my life!

Thanks. I figured something happened to the turret, but the "Snoopy" threw me.