I’ve uploaded some more pics from my time in the desert.
For some unknown reason, I got sent a roll of B&W film from home, but used it anyway. Kinda prophetic, as the days that I took those pics were severely overcast and were a prelude to some serious rain. So the general atmosphere at the time was just as gray and drab as those pics.
Also included are some pics of the turbine engine’s air pre-cleaner and V-packs, which I spoke of upthread.
Unfortunately, no. At least not at that time. But we’d hardly let that stop us. Many of us picked up “camp stoves” of one sort or another, or improvised methods of heating water. Here, my Driver heats up a canteen cup of water by placing it directly in front of the exhaust of the crew compartment heater. It would bring a canteen cup of freezing cold water to boiling in about 3-4 minutes.
Our favorite beverage (and what my Driver was making in the photo) was what we called a “Mocha:” a packet of hot chocolate, a package of single serve instant coffee, a packet of powdered creamer, and a packet of sugar.
I no longer recall why my Loader was giving me the Stink Eye.
I’ve been told and have read that modern versions of some vehicles now have a water heater device for cooking MRE pouches. We had a water-activated heater for “cooking” (heating) MRE pouches, but we hardly ever used them; we could always slap an MRE on the tank’s exhaust grill and get our food plenty hot in no time.
I don’t know if the armed forces still use the water-activated heating pouch.
Heh, that’s excellent. 
What became of that T-72 that you guys had towed away? Think its in a museum somewhere, or was it just blown up?
What tanks do you think are the best in the world and what commanders have been the best tank commanders?
I’m pretty sure it went to the 1st Cavalry Division Museum at Ft. Hood, where I think it still resides.
Define “best.”
Tanks are typically graded on 3 criteria:
I add:
Let’s break those down:
1) Mobility: not just speed and maneuverability, but “ground pressure” under the treads that may or may not keep it from being bogged in soft ground.
2) Firepower: he who mounts the biggest gun is not always the winner. Fire-control and crew training also play key roles.
3) Protection: nowadays, is more than just thickness of armor, it’s the quality of the armor (and other types of armor protection, such as reactive armor) as well as crew protection in the form of compartmentalization, blow-out panels, spalling nets, and fire detection and supression systems.
4) Sustainability: can your nation build and field sufficient quantity and quality? Can it recruit and train armor crewmen? Trained mechanics? Can your tank survive extended field conditions in all expected environments without undue numbers of mechanical or electronic breakdowns? Can your logisitcal forces keep your armored forces supplied with sufficient parts, fuel, oil, and ammo to make them effective?
The Abrams passes with “High Marks” in the first 3 categories, and is viable in category 4 (in spite of the fact that it has a much larger, possibly largest, logistical footprint than any other tank in the world) due to the U.S. Armed forces outstanding logistical support system.
But the Abrams isn’t alone; in her “class” are the British Challengers, German Leos, French LeClerc and Russian T-90.
There’s an author by the name of Ralph Zumbro, who wrote a couple of books about that very subject. Check him out. Good stuff.
This one is probably out of your range of experiences, as the weapon was only ever used by the M551 and M60A2, but…do you happen to know if there was ever a nickname for the [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51_Shillelagh]MGM-51 “Shillelagh” missile, among tank crews?
The name “Shillelagh” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue (YMMV, of course), and seems a might tricky to spell. But, seeing as they were only ever fired about five times in combat, it doesn’t seem like they’d have had much chance to develop (or have needed) a terse nickname for the heat of battle.
But I like to be thorough—it is for a story, and I’m always up for studying obscure weapons systems. 
First off, thanks for serving. My dad was a DAT at the end of WWII and he told a few funny Army stories, but he didn’t talk much about his tank or anything.
Can you tell me what range you were engaging targets with during DS/DS? I’ve heard the stories after Desert Storm when I went to Bragg (I was in Turkey at the time of conflict) that we were hitting Iraqi tanks over a mile away. I think those may have been the Sheridans firing the Shillelaghs though.
What was it like for tankers at the end of the Cold War? Was there a point were you were thinking your primary mission was over and the Army is going to start moving away from heavy armor?
I thought I had another question but I can’t recall it. I’ll swing back if I do.
The CITV is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You’d love playing with it. Of course, my unit is on A1s, so I’ll be doing gunnery the old fashoined way.
Were you ever taped to the gun tube?
Fixed link.
I’d heard the “old timers” talking about it, and never in nice terms, but I don’t recall any nickname for it other than, “Biggest POS the Army ever paid good money for.”
I do recall a few horror stories about it, like it had a tendency to fly erratically, occasionally getting turned around and coming back “uprange.” Or simply falling out the end of the gun/missile tube, and then having the motor ignite to send it spinning around like a whirling dervish before taking off in some random direction.
Training in Germany/Europe, typical anticipated engagement ranges were in the 1200-1800 meter range.
The laser range finder will provide an accurate range out to 8,000m, and the fire control system will calculate a solution out to 4,000m, ~2.5 miles. The reticle is graduated, so applying a bit of Kentucky Windage is not all that difficult.
I do recall a Gunner in B Co. who hit a target ~5,000m when were went to an abbreviated gunnery in SA after transitioning to the M1A1.
And we knew that the role of heavy armor was going to be diminished back in '91, when 2nd Armored Division at Ft. Hood was deactivated (inactivated?). About 1/2 our unit that went to DS/DS was from 2nd AD.
No, the worst I had happen to me was my TC seriosuly threaten to make me ride on top of the turret.
Potatoes Au Gratin weren’t knows as “Potatoes Au Rotten” for nothing, and I loved them, but they didn’t love me.
Sheridans never fired Shilleaghs at tanks in Desert Storm. Approximately a half dozen were fired at Iraqi bunkers during Desert Storm. That’s it, ever, fired in combat. 88,000 produced and 6 fired in war. The missiles were never deployed to Vietnam and were not used in Panama.
We destroyed most of the deployed Shilleaghs in theater at the end of DS. I’ve got pictures of long rows of missles laid out in the sand with reflectors placed around them to keep the forklifts from driving over them at night. Heat exposure caused swelling and exudation of the main charge explosive; the missiles were too dangerous to ship back to the states.
As to the earlier question about practice round cost for the M1 120mm main gun: TP-T (target practice with tracer) rounds to mimic the 120mm HEAT round ranged from $497 to $1355 each depending on the contract and amount purchased. TPCSDS-T (target practice cone stabilized discarding sabot with tracer) rounds subbing for the depleted uranium penetrator rounds cost $490 to $1115 each depending on contract and exactly which model was purchased. The TPMP-T (target practice multi-purpose with tracer) round costs $2013; newer round and smaller purchase. Note that the TPCSDS-T rounds are made of high grade steel (to withstand the gun launch) and will go clean through a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and older Soviet design tanks. The DU rounds are never fired in practice.
Thanks ex-tank for your service and starting the thread.
Was your tank’s engine named Thomas?
I didn’t realize those things were crap. I just remember seeing one and thinking firing a missile from a tank gun is not a bad idea, especially if it’s a smaller tank that wouldn’t be able to go toe to toe with a MBT.
Herbert.
Thanks for contributing some good info! I honestly thought that those rounds were easily double the prices you gave. Still not cheap, but better than I’d thought.
I have an oddball question: during training, how much did you guys get to “play war”? Was training simply unloading on targets at a range and running around prepared tracks, or did also involve the fun stuff, running around terrain chasing tanks from the enemy team?
Also, thanks for this thread =) As a child I got to see firing demo of Merkava Mk3s, I’ve never forgotten how bloody huge those things were in real life.
The “maneuver” training had just a smuch (possibly more) emphasis than gunnery. We’d practice platoon and company level maneuvers in conjunction with other companies in our battalion, playing “war” against another unit designated as OPFOR (Opposing FORces).
We’d use the MILES system (an Army-tough laser tag system for personnel and vehicles) on just about all of our armored vehicles to play war with.
The maneuver training emphasised tactical movement, coordinated offensive and defensive tactics. The “Big Test” was our ARTEP (Army Training and Evaluation Program), which was an important graded test to determine if a unit was combat-ready and deployable. Failing an ARTEP was a career-ender for an officer.
The military’s training philosophy (when I was in, and I don’t see it having changed too much) was, “Crawl, Walk, Run.” Every soldier, regardless of their specific job, or MOS, had several “Common Tasks” that every soldier should know, and training on them was called CTT or Common Tasks Training.
Passing CTT, a unit would move on to job-specific training. Infantry has the EIB or Expert Infantry Badge. Tankers didn’t have an equivalent “Badge” they could be awarded, but we’d do lots of UCOFT, a large tank gunnery simulator for the TC and Gunner. I think that the Army now has a complete tank simulator for the whole crew.
But the UCOFT is what I had to deal with, and there was a matrix of increasingly difficult gunnery exercises. We’d train “all-up” with the fire control system fully operational, in daylight, night (Thermal) and low visibility (fog and low-light). We’d train to use the Gunner’s Auxillary Sight, an optics-only (there wa san illuminated reticle for night-fire) tank gun sight that many gunners claimed was more accurate than the computer-assisted fire control.
We’d train to shoot (from both stationary positions and “on-the-move”) stationary targets, moving targets, troops, and even helicopters, in daylight, low-light (dawn/dusk), fog/rain, and night time with mortar-fired illumination rounds.
Yes, we could shoot down aircraft with the main gun. I’m not saying it was easy; it wasn’t. But it was a gunnery scenario we at least trained for in the UCOFT simulator.
After UCOFT, it was out of the motorpool and into the field for maneuver training and gunnery, followed by the ARTEP. Tank Table XII was the platoon-level gunnery exercise, in which a tank platoon would maneuver and fire on a firing range against a simulated enemy. Since both Gunnery and ARTEPS were the final grade of a tank unit, both would often be held in very close conjunction with each other.
You’re welcome. Like I said upthread, MBTs have a presence mere pictures can’t convey, and a massiveness that isn’t truly appreciated until you feel one roll by.
