Armor Technology (Part IV)

Armor Technology (Part IV) by Joseph E. Backofen, Jr. This is the eleventh in a series of articles on tanks and the technologies of annor penetration, annor, and survivability. When armor protection requirements lead to bulky arrays having high weights and volumes that reduce the crew space inside the vehicle and/or unfavorably impact upon the volumetric/weight restrictions for strategic transportability, then battlefield mobility and agility (hit avoidance) are usually suggested as alternatives or supplements to armor.15 To an extent, this shifts the dead bulk and weight of armor into consumables such as fuel which add greatly to the logistic burden6 Recently this has occurred with main battle tanks (MBT) and with light armored vehicles (LAV) mounting antitank weapons, designed for use by rapid deployment forces. Thus, on one hand, it has been somewhat responsible for the high power-bweight ratio designs of the Leopard 11 and MI Abrams, which are expected to increase the effectiveness of their heavy armor arrays by bounding about from one defilade position to another.? One the other hand, it has also led to the development of high mobility test rigs, such as HIMAG and HSTVL, and lightweight antiarmor weapons platforms, such as the Mobile Protected Gun System.’, 3, The original concepts of using agility and speed in order to outrun an enemy tank’s fire control system or a missile’s guidance system, as well as to take advantage of horizontal terrain masking of enemy &-e, generally were and still are worthy in themselves.1, However, they are somewhat shortsighted in that they neglect basic engineering fads, which implies that it is easier to overcome smaller systems, such as hydraulic motors for turret traverse, and guided missile fins or thrusters, than larger sydmns such as the tank itself.10 Furthermore, they also neglect the third dimension of engage ment (vertical) represented by mines, bomblets, and aircraft-delivered ordnance.11, 12 Spaced Armor Applications Has this happened before? Is this blindly happening in the field of land-based armored vehiclea? Unfortunately, the answers to both these questions appear to be-Yes. For example, in naval warfare, the torpedo boat was developed as “the warship of the future, which would render armored vessels superfluous.”13 This feeling was based upon the enormous offensive power of the torpedo which, however, needed to be delivered at close range requiring, in turn, that the attack be carried out by surprise and/or in relative safety (but at high risk to individual ships) by small-sized, unarmored, or very lightly-armored, high-speed ships in such great numbers that they could not all be effectively engaged. These small ships were meant to survive by means of their agility. The first solution to the torpedo boat threat was the torpedo boat destroyer (commonly called a “destroyer”) which was larger than the torpedo boat, somewhat better armored, and could travel at about the same speed so that it could either ram the smaller boats or engage them with guns.13 The destroyers also carried torpedoes themselves and could engage the large armored ships using the torpedo boat tactics. (Many of both types of ships were lost to mines.) The second solution was the development and deployment of rapid-firing guns (or quick-firing guns) from which modem tank cannons are deri~ed.l~-~O These secondary armament guns were placed on mechanized mounts enabling the larger vessels to successfully engage the small, high-speed threat by means of well-placed, high-volume firepower.13-16 Later, when aircraR became a smaller, higher-speed, highly-maneuverable threat, delivering aerial torpedoes, bombs, or even themselves in the form of Kamikazes, or radieguided precision weapons, the rapid-firing guns were modified to be automatically loaded and overdriven with optical and/or radar-directed stabilized fire control systems in order to successfully engage them.17-22 The engineering principles of these rapid-firing naval gun systems are not unlike those already used in modem tank and air defense gun systems.77 1% 22-24 Yet another example of the failure of agility occurred in the form of battle cruisers which were provided with the firepower of battleships but were not provided with as much armor so that they could attain higher speeds.2527 Unfortunately, this left these ships very vulnerable to all the weapons designed to destroy battleships and many lesser ones which could also successfully engage them. These led to disastrous results when they were committed to a slugging battle which, in theory, they were supposed to av0id.25-2~ Armor Selectivity The idea of hiding in defilade and then looking over to engage an enemy, which is implied both in the need for agile vehicles and for those using an elevated gun is not without historical precedent. Coastal fortifications used the “disap pearing gun” such as the American 12-inch coast guns once employed at Fort Monroe, Virginia, so that the gun would only present a silhouette when it was elevated and ready to fire.28 These types of guns have been successfully attacked by both high angle (artillery/mortar) fire, and by aircraft.29 A more unique example pertains to the ability of the MBT 70 and some other armored vehicles to raise and lower themselves by means of their hydropneumatic suspension systems. This effect was to be similarly achieved by flooding water ballast tanks on the Stevens Iron Battery which started construction in 1854 but was not completed for lack of funding.25 Nevertheless, as a supplement to armor, hiding under/& hind local material is still desirable when at all possible. It is also obviously highly desirable to be able to move out to another similar protective position as quickly and efficiently as possible before your present position is located and pulverized. However, predicating the survival of an armored vehicle on hiding its silhouette behind suitable terrain, or on its rapid movement, does not seem wise from the perspective of history. It would also seem unwise to use this as a “new” philosophy when it has long been used tactically in land warfare. For example, Soviet defensive operations call for their tanks to be dug in sufficiently so that the hull is protected.3*3* This has been observed not only in text books, but also in practice at Brody-Dubno, at Kursk, on the Golan Heights, and in Lebanon; a tactic covering a span of 40 years.33-35 It has also been remarked by Soviets that older tanks could be “statically” emplaced in defensive positions, when necessary, and fitted with improved turret armors and fire c0ntr0ls.36 937 (It may be true that the lower depresson limit on Soviet tank guns may be detrimental in using them from reverse slopes; but their design philosophy might be based more on digging their own emplacement which would set the slope of the vehicle and, as necessary on the plains, most suitable for armored ~ a r f a r e . ~ The protected defensive antitank *power from a hulldown BMP, or even the very lightly armored BMD, which can lower itself by means of its adjustable hydropneumatic suspension, is already quite impressive considering that they are relatively old vehicles weighing about 14 and 10 tons, respectively.% 3 ~ 4

From dug-in positions, they could turn an 38 using shaped-charge and terminal-guidance technologies.45, 46, 53 Hiding-An Old Tactic Fkom the previous articles of this series and ARMOR articles such as those by Brigadier R. Simpkin, it is obvious that armored vehicles are going to be subjected to heavy attack from all direction^.^^-^^ It is also obvious, that under attacks, they can neither run nor hide. Table 1 presents a ball park estimate of the present severity of the problem. Clearly, an MBT cannot be fully protected with armor to defeat all these threats. Since LAVs, such as infantry combat vehicles and rapid deployment force light tanks, will face the same weapons as MBTs, the case for their complete protection by means of bulk armor seems even more hopeless. When brute thickness and weight of armor cannot be used to counter the threats, then one must become more sophisticated in the use of armor and selective in what gets protected. When warship armor was clearly overmatched by torpedos and large caliber projectiles, spaced armor was employed.139 17, 2Sz7 In particular, the American navy was the first to use the “raft body armor” concept of spaced armor wherein only the critical parts of the ship were heavily armored.25 Furthermore, useful but battleunnecessary items such as food, water, and the like, were considered expendable and part of the armor array during battle. When one wonders if these techniques could be adapted to armored vehicles, the answer is that they have been in the past to a limited extent and appear to be an inaama 11 mcorporam spacea armor UI ira suspension aesign when it went into production in late 1939.39. 62-62 More recentr ly, skirt armor along the suspension has been used on most modem battle tanks such as Centurion, Vickers, Merkaua, Leopard 11 and A brams.30. 4% 63 Recently, it has been employed on Romanian-redesigned T55’s.% 65 Prior to the Soviet use of skirt armor on the T-72, there was always a vague suspicion that they used it on some vehicles. The suspicion was greatly confounded by information such as a training film showing an unidentified heavy skirted tank working with T-62 tanks, Stalin tanks and propeller-driven air~raft.~6 A simple form of spaced armor can be achieved by means of stowage boxes, equipment, and fuel cells carefully placed outside the main armor. The use of stowage boxes around the turret was most notable on the Centurion and Vijayanta (Vickers Battle Tank).%, 369 62, 63 However, an early example of the d e liberate incorporation of stowage boxes as hull armor over the suspension appeared in the late 1940’s with the Soviet JS-111 heavy tank and carried on to the T-10M heavy tank.% ‘67 For a time, the appearance of *wage boxes on the turrds of T-54/55 tanks was generally a way of distinguishing Polish and East German vehicles h m Soviet vehicles.34, 44, 68, 69 However, since the T-64, the T-72 and its variants have been shown to employ equipment stowage outside their turrets.31. 449 66 Soviet T-55% have also been modiiied with similar arrangements.701 71 The potential effectiveness of stowage boxes as a form of spaced armor can be implied with respect to pre sent hand-held, shapedcharge weapons of small caliber from previous battlefield experiences, such as: “Instances are References

N. R Murphy, Jr., “Armored Combat Vehicle Technology,” ARMOR, Vol, XCI, No. 6, November-December 1982, pp 20% * R D. M. Furlong, “The US. Army’s Armored Combat Vehicle Technology Program: blueprint for a lightweight main battle tank,” International Defense Reuiew, Special Seriesll, Armoured Vehicles, 1980, pp 112-113

R. M. Ogorkiewia, T h e US. Armoured Combat Vehicle Technology Program-a Closer Look,” ibid pp 115119 ‘ C. D. Bradley, “Future Close Combat Vehicles,” ARMOR, Vol, XC, No., 1, JanuaryFebruq 1981, pp 36-41

R. Simpkin, “Tank Warfare: An Analysis of Soviet and NATO tank Philosophy,” Crane Russak and Company, Inc., New York, 1979

J. F. Dunnigan, “How To Make War-A Comprehemiue Guide To Modern Warfare,” W. Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1982 International Defense Review, Special Series. Battle Tanks, 1976 8 W. Flume. “The US. ArmyIUSMC LAV Programme,” Military Techmbgy, Vol. VI, Issue 3, 1982, pp 42-49

M. Falco and G. Carpenter, ‘‘Survivability Analysis of Air and Land Vehicles To Misile Threats,” 4th Symposium on Vulnerability and Survivability, 1415 March 1979, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Sponsored by the American De. feme Preparedness Association. Washington. DC 10 R Germershausen, et al., “Waffen-technisches Taachenbuch,”Rheinmetall G mb H, Dusseldorf, 1977 1: Examined in previous article^ in ARMOR However, Sovietimining mentions tanks using their own “individual mine clearing attachment” when an enemy at-tempta to restrict mobility by remote mining in Yu. Parfilov “Under Conditions of Mass Employment of Obstacles,” Voyennyye Vestnik, No. 11,1980, pp 44-47 12 Letter on “Kursk Defenses” by D.K. Lehmann describing the effectiveness of antitank mines, ARMOR, Vol. XCI, No. 6, November-December 1982, p. 4 13 W. Hovgaard, ‘Modern History of Warships” 1920 reprinted by United States Naval Institute, 1971 1‘ I. Hogg and J. Batehelor, “Naval Gun,”BlandfordpreSg, Ltd., Poole, Dorset, Great Britain, 1978 15 “Naval Ordnance,” The United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, 1939 ‘6 V. Hythe. “The Naval Annual, 1913,”reprinted by AICO Publishing Corn-pany, Inc., New York 1’ k Preston. et d., “Battkhips 1856-1977,”CharhRell Books. Inc, Seeaucus, New Jersey, 1977 ‘@I.V. Hogg, “BritishBAmerican ArtiUeryof World War2,”HippoereneBooks, Inc., New York, 1978 l9 I. Hogg, “German Artillery of World War II,” Hippocrene Books, Inc, New York 1975

P. Chamberlain and T. Gander, “88 Flak & Pak,”Profle Publications, M, Windsor, Berkshire, England 1976 21 W. Eisner, “A Pictorial Arsenal of America’e Combat Weapons,” Sterling Publishing Co.. Inc. New York 1960 zz N. A. Rynin, “Interplanetary Flight And Communication. Volume 11, No. 6, Superaviation and Superartillery,” Leningrad. 1929 (Available from U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,

7050116. NASA ‘IT F-645, 1971)

n I. I. Zhukov, et al.. “Artilleriyskoye Vooruzheniye (Artillery Weapons),” Mashinastroyeniye, Moskva, 1975

M. M. Petrove and V. F. Sotnikov, “Metodika Izucheniya Oshov i Pmvil Sthel’ by iz Tanka (Tank Fire Instruction Guide),” Military Publishing office, Moscow, 1968 25 S. Breyer. “Battleship and Battle Chisera, 19051970,” Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York. 1978 26 “The Encyclopedia of Sea Warfare. From The First Ironclads to the Present may-june 1983 39

MBTs have incorporated fuel cells on their fenders and have provisions for carrying fuel drums at the r e a r . 4 4 ~ 4 8 The T-64 and T-72 have continued this 4% 73 A similar arrangement has been incorporated in the Leopard II.74 This use of fuel as armor has not been generally favored in the past by American designers as they considered the fuel to be too vulnerable in the exposed position. However, the recurrent theme of US vehicles being susceptible to catastrophic fuel and/or ammunition fires has persisted to the extent that the WWII German Army called the Sherman the ‘‘Ronson” because it “lit every time.” Israeli Centurion crews have similarly referred to the Patton in 1973.72, 75-77 This situation was not helped in the past by slow practice in converting from gasoline to diesel fuel (although the importance of doing this was emphasized by the American Major John K. Christmas as early as 1937). nor in the continued resistance to locating fuel cells outside the principal armored envelope in tanks and armored personnel carriers. Advanced armored vehicle designs for providing protection for the tank’s most important element, the crew, appear to place the fuel in the front and sides of the vehicle as part of the armor protection scheme.349 78, 79 The rationale for this includes the fact that cool diesel fuel provides a certain amount of protection from all the threats, including nuclear radiation, when the tanks are fulk and at the very least, the empty tanks form a simple spaced-armor system. Crew Protection Uppermost The deliberate incorporation of simple spaced-armor as the principal armor can be found in the relatively modern Swedish LAVs Pbv 302 and I ku 91.46, 80- 82The spaces are used for equipment and fuel stowage as well as for buoyancy to aid in swimming performance.8O, The more modem Israeli Merkava tank has fully incorporated the philosophy of spaced 86 This is clear from the construction of the tank’s hull, the incorporation of skirts, and the use of stowage boxes on the hull and turret. However, the philosophy of design went Add-on spaced armors7 Add-on laminate armor (steel/plastic)88. 89 Special spaced armor% 86,- The French AMX-30 has similarly progressed from homogeneous armor to spaced-armor and further into the special spacearmored AMX-32.4% 8% 95-97 A progression from homo geneous armor to laminated steel/plastic armor has also 00 curred with the Jagdpanzers, Rakette and Kanone46, Israeli Centurions729 85998 and modified US M113 APCs.77 The additions of laminated steel-plastic spaced armor were most notable, however, in the progression of the XM723 MICVtoward the M2 Bradley, where a basic aluminum armor hull was protected by add-on laminate armor ~anels.~O~ 4% 9p05 Here, the basic effect of the plastic is to hold the spaced steel plates apart and provide secure flotation for swimming operations. Uparmor appliques for older tanks, such as the Centurion and Patton, have recently come into favor as shown by news reels and photography of the Israeli action in Lebanon.lWlo8 Special Armor Configurations Although there is little information available on them at pre sent, the potential of applying similiar applique armors to the current tank fleets of the world will soon lead to controversy over their compositions and effectiveness. Special armor arrays have been used in the moat modem tanks such as Challenger, Valiant, Leopard 11, and Abrans.7.46~109.114 It has been obvious from photographs and discussions, that the arrays are some special form of spaced-armor containing various materials. Regardless of the speculation that has revolved around these armors, and the materials used in them to include titanium, ceramics, plastics, and active materials% 34, 4% 54-56, 59, 61, 86,116-117, one not really be sure of the exact configuration. Furthermore, they apparently can be changed and reconfigured within the same external form. Herein lies the real beauty of these armors, as aOy,””homaa Y. Croweu. Co., New York. 1975 n H. Lyon, “The Encyclojwdia of the World’s Warship: A Technical Directory of Major Fighting Ships From 1900 to the Present Day,” Crescent Books, New York, 1978 28 L V. Hogg, fortre re^^: A History of Military Defense,” St Martins h, New York, 1975 29 Destruction of Manila Defensive Fortifieations shown on ABC television pmgram concerning Bataan, 7 December 1982 30 A.m. Babadzhanyan, “Tanki i Tanbvye Voy~kn,” Voyenizdat, Moskva 1980 31 D. C. Isby, “Weapons and Tcreties of the Soviet Army,” Jane’s Publishing Inc. New York, 1981 33 S. J. Zaloga and J. Grandsen, The T34 Tank,”Osprey Publishing, London, 1980 3 P. Caiti and R A. Riccio, “Madern Annor A Comprehensive Guide, Squadmn/Signal Publications, Warren, Michigan, 1978 38 “Soviet ‘Maginot Line’ - type defenses in Far East,” International Defense Review, Vol. 13, No. 1. 1980, p 21 n J. Hackett. “The Third World War: The Untold Story,” Maemillian 7-72!,” ARMOR, Vol. XC, NO. 6, Nove~~ber-DeQmber 1981, p 30-33 Born in Battle Magazine, No. 30,1982, p 34 Publishing Co.,.Inc, New York, 1982

1978. pp 3031 m 5562 3 D. Eshel, “Soviet A.P.C.$,” War Data No. 1 2 Eshel Dramit ud. h e L 1981 39 “BMD at full throttle, ” Armies & Weapons, No. 45, July 15September 15, 10 W. Scheider, “New Details about the BMF’,” ibid, pp 3236 41 E. P., “BMP-1,” Annies & Weapons, No. 31, January 15Febroary 15,1977, 42 D. Ryazantsev, “Infantry EFghting Vehicle,” Soviet Military Review, No. 11, a Yu. Burtsev, “Desantna Bona Mashina,” Voelnna Meknuka, No. 12 1980, November 1979. pp 24-26 pp zcM1 44 S. J. Zaloga, “Madern Soviet Arnwr,”RenticeHaU, Inc, E n d d CWh, 6 R M. Ogorkiewicz, ‘Brandt Gun-Mortars,” International Defense Review, 16 C. F. Foss, “Jane’s Armour and Artillery 197980,”Jane’s USA, a division of New Jersey, 1979 Vol. 15, NO. 2, 1982, pp 201-204 Franklin Watta. Inc. New York 1979 -47 BUSS^ Jane% Diefense Review, VOL 3, NO. 4.19~2, p 365 Issue 8, 1982, pp 2527 Issue 5, 1982, p5 19R7 a G. J. Douglas, Jr., ”Mortar Possibilities,” letta, ARMOR, VoL XCI, No. 3, p 3 49 “IMI Introduces 60mm Weapon System,” Military Technology, VoL VI, 50 Advertisement by Israel Military Industries in Military Technology, VoL VI, 51 J. Batchelor and L Hogg, “Artillery,” Charles Scribnds Sons, New York, ____ 52 I. Hogg, “Grenades & Mortars,” Ballantine Books Inc, New Yo& 1974 53 “AUSA‘81 Part 2 Weapons and Sensors,” Internatwd Defense Review, Vol. 15. No. 2 1982. DD 205212 R-Simpk&, “The Ught Tank a viable Ropaeal?’’ Military Techmbgy, VoL R Simpkin, “Closing the Survivability Gap,’” ARMOR, Vol. XC, No. 6, Ne 55 R E. Simpkin, “Antitank: An Airmechanized Response to A m r e d Threats 57 0. Chamberlain and T. Gander, “Anti-tank Weapons,’’ W. W. 2 Fact Files. 58 F. Kosar, “Panzer Abwehr Kanonen. 1916-1977,” Motorbuch Verlug, Statt 59 C. F. Foss, “The Rlustmted Encyclopedia of the World’s Tanks and Fighting

B. Perrett, “Fighting Vehicles of the Red A r m y . ” h Publishing Company 61 R. Simpkin, “Multi-Lap Armow-A Quantum Jump?,” Noto’s Fifteen VI. Issue 8,1982, pp 92-108 vember-December 1981, pp 1924 in the W s , ” Pergamon Press Inc, Elmaford, New York, 1982 h Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1974 part, 1973 Vehicles,” Chartwell Books, Inc., New York, 1977 Inc., New York, 1969 40 munitions. From these and other considerations, such as NBC warfare, the trend seemed to point toward turreted fully encapsulated automated weapons stations such as used on naval vessels. This would, of course, necessitate the personnel to be fully removed from the gun, its ammunition, and its mechanical autoloader. However, this is already contained in the trend toward external mountslZ4 and is very much similar to the pod concept recently discussed by Brigadier Simpkin. 54, 55 Until now, armored vehicle design concepts have been driven by two assumed requirements that essentially prescribed how they would be finally configured: The crew was slaved to the weapon(s). The vehicle would be threatened to the greatest extent over a narrow frontal arc. Slaving the crew to the gun was necessary as long as the gunner needed to stare down the barrel at the target through an optical system. With modem electro-optic systems (and faith in their reliability and ability to withstand specialized weapon attack), the gunner and/or commander can now be placed anywhere in the vehicle so long as the lire control minally-homing, shaped-charge, antiarmor, controlled-fragmentation, proximity-fuzed, and earthhock-penetrating delay-fuzed projectiles. Twin-gun airdefense system capable of engaging aircraft, helicopters, remotely-piloted vehicles, and light armored vehicles. Vertical-launch (cold launch technique) dual-purpose an-titanklantiaircraft guided missile capable of at least engaging heavily-armored tanks by means of a plunging trajectory. 0 Single dual-purpose gun system such as the Bofors 57-mm gun on the Begleitspanzer’~ for engaging most ground targets, helicopters, aircraft, and remotely-piloted vehicles. Large-caliber gunlhowitzer firing separateloading ammunition capable of direct and indirect engagement of armored vehicles, fortifications, areas containing soft targets, and personnel. These have the ring of systems common today to some extent with a cry for their use on a common vehicle chassis. The real difference is the requirement for their complete automation and control by personnel physically separated from the working mechanical components and ammunition. Nations, Special Issue 1/1981, pp 2933

K. Macksey. “Tank Facts and Feats.” Guinneea Superlatives Ltd., Enfield, Middlesex, Great Britain, 1980 61 R M. Ogorkiewicz, “Vickers Battle Tank,”AFV/Weapom Profiles 45, edited by D. Crow. Profile Publications, Ltd. Culver City, California, September 1973 61 Photographs, International Defense Reuiew, Vol. 13, No. 1,1980, p 19 65 “Novelties From Rumania,” Ground Defense International, No. 61, February 1980, P 30 ffi J. Milsom, “Russian Tanks 1900-1970: The complete illustrated history of Souiet armored theory and design”Stackpo1e Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1971 67 I. G. Andronikow und W. D. Mostowenko, “Die Roten Pamer, Geschichte der Sowjetkchen Panrertruppen 19201960,” heraugegeben von h. F. M. von

G. Berchert, et al., “Kleine Panzerkunde, ein populares Buch Uber den Panzer,” Deutscher Militaruerlag, Berlin, 1967

M. Accasto, ‘The Polish Army,” Armies 7 Weapons, No. 51, February 1979, pp 47-54 70 Photograph, Tekhnika i Vooruzheniye, No. 4,1979

V. Marchotskii. “Obsluzhivaniye Tekhniki Posle Ushenii (Technical Operation Afkr Tmining),” Tekhnika i Vwrwheniye, No. 5, May 1981, pp 24-26 72 S. Dunstan, “The Centurian Tank in Battle,” Osprey Publishing Ltd., London, Great Britain, 1981 73 D. H. C. Jenkins, “T-34 to T-80, The Evolution of Soviet Battle Tanks Plus the IDR’s T-62 Test Report,’’ International Defense Reuiew. Vol. 14. No. 12. 1981, pp 1647-1654 ’I4 W. D. Numberger, “Das Fahrgestell dea Leopard 2,” Soldat und Tqhnik, No. 9. September 1980, pp 484491 75 I. V. hogg, “Armour in Conflict The Design and Tactics of Amured Fighting Vehicles,” Jane’s Publishing Inc., New York, 1980 m E’. Chamberlain and C. Ellis, “Bntish and American Tanks of World War II,.” Arc0 Publishing Company, Inc, New York, 1969 . Senger and Etterlin, J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, Munchen, 1963 77 ‘The Armour Conteat-Runners and Riders,” Defence, Vol. 12, No. 12, December 1981. pp 857.859 7n R. Meller, ‘NKPz, the Swiss Tank for the WE?” International Defense Reuiew, Vol. 12, No. 7.1979. pp 10791082 79 D. H. C. Jenkins, et al., “Battle Tank DesignSome Thoughta for the Future,” International Defense Reuiew. Vol. 15. No. 2 1982, pp 171-176 8o R. M. Ogorkiewicz, “Modern Swedish Light Armoured Vehicles,” AFEV Weapons Profiles 42, Profile Publications Ltd, Windsor. Berkshire, England, March 1973 R’ E. Po, “IKV-91,” Armies & Weapons 30, December I9%.January 1977. pp K-9 W U I

** E. Ekman, “Manual Welding of Toughened Armour Steel Plate in Seriea Ye. Viktanw, “New Main Battle Tanks,” Tekhnika i Vwrwheniye, No. 11,

P. R A. Frost, “Merkava-the Israeli Tank,” Defence, Vol. 11, No. 7, July 1980, ffi D. Eshel, “The Merkava Tank,” War Data No. 10. Eshel-Bam’t Ltd, Hod 96 P. W. Krapke, “State of the Art in Tank Development,” ARnoda Internation- n7 “Leopard 1Al m.Z” ARMOR, Vol. LXXXVIII, No. 6, November-December Production,” Suetsaren, English edition, Vol. 6 No. 1-2 1970, pp 2 7 November 1979, pp 35.36 pp 535537 Hashamn, Israel, 1981 al, Vol. 6, No. 2, March/April 1982, pp 638

1979. nn 27-29 ----. r r - - -- an “Clouth, Elastom-For Tanks,” advertisement, Military Technology, Vol. V, Issue 21, February 1981, p 9 m “The Gennan Ground Armament Industry,” section on “Ingenieurburo Dr. Ing. Gerhard Hopp ab H) of Munich,” Armies & Weapons, No. 30. December 1976January 1977, p 42 9o P. Marino, “A New Generation for the Germans,” Annie5 & Weupom, No. 41, 15 February - 15 April, 1978, pp 17-19 91 “Weapon System Monograph Leopard II,” Military Technology, Vol. III, Issue 11, 1979, pp 8395 may-june 1983 41

Penetration (mm) 300-700 400-800 300-550

500-1OOO

200-400 50-100 80-300 50-1 50 Undefined weapon Type Hand-held, shaped-charge launchers Shapedcharge projectiles from guns and recoilless rifles Gun-fired, kineticenergy penetrators Antitank guided missiles Guided top-attack munitions Aircraft cannon armor-piercing projectiles Shapedcharge bomblets Self-forging fragment submunitions Radiation (neutron and gamma) The obvious question arises as to how such a change in the weapon station can lead to better protected systems. The answer is that it doesn’t necessarily do so. The crew can be protected to the extent that it can survive the threats to the vehicle represented in Table 1. However, the vehicle/weapon systems will suffer in proportion to the severity of the attack and the employment of arrayed armor. For example, a common vehicle chassis could be configured with spaced armor, fuel, water, ammunition, or other materiel inserted according to the mission and the weapons suite camed. In other words, two vehicles could look the same and be configured with the automatic gun/mortar weapon; but one vehicle would have , - - I

- - __, -- --- - - - - ___ - The enemy would not be fully aware of whether he was engaging a heavily armored or lightly armored vehicle. He would only be sure of the weapons that threatened his own existence. The importance of both using all the armored vehicle’s structure and material as protection and moving away from configurations where the crew were slaved to the weapons they serviced has been recently recognized by some armored vehicle designers. They also have recognized that the present and future threat spectrum is such that only a limited number of components can be fully protected. Of these, the crew is the most important. The modem trend toward spaced special armors has shown how people can be kept guessing as to what an armor array actually contains. This was successfully done before when the British circumvented the wording and intent of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limiting battleship armor protection by means of weight restrictions by using a spaced waterfilled 259 27 Similar armor array techniques could be adapted in the design of the chassis of an armored vehicle class so that it can be configured and reconfigured by the designer, commander and/or user according to the mission. This can add the military principle of surprise to the deployment and use of each armored vehicle. (This article has continued the examination of vehicle a m r by reviewing the application of spaced armor arrays in the past andprojectwn of the need andpotential for their application in the future. Additional information and materials providing insight into the historical applications of armor arrays and materials have been gathered into a bibliography available from either the editors of ARMOR or the author at Battelle’s Columbus Laboratories, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43201.) ~~ sa rsapard 2 in series Produclion,” Armies & Weapons, No. 51, Febroary 1979, pZ+esentation of the series -uclion Leopard 2,” Annim & Weapons, NO. 52, March 1979. pp 2631 March 1981, pp 33-35 41 P. A. Chadwell, “West German Views on Defense he%’’ N&nallkfense, 95 Y. Robins, “Satory W: The k c h Armamenta Industry Displays Ita 98 C. F. Foss, “AMX-32-F~ench Export Armour for the 1980’s,”Defence, Vol. 9; G. &be, “E ~ ~ ~ - 3 r ’ ~ e f e n s e ~ntem-, NO. 40, september 1979, pp 35-42 98 Additional Armor for the Israeli Cen-ons,” A m s & Wwpons, NO. 56,

V. Kovalev, “Problems of Tank Protection,” Tekhnika i Vmnrzheniys N a 1,

D. M. 0. Miller, T h e Infanby Combat Vehicle: An Assessment," Mahry 101 D. G. Holmes, “The U.S. Army’s Infantry and Cavalry Fighting Vehicles,” 102 “Bradley Fighting Vehicles,” FMC brochure, FMC C o r n t i - San JW 103 “XM-2 and 3,” ARMOR, VoL 104 “Infantry Combat Vehicle KhM-723, Tekhnika i Voonrzheniys No. 6,1977 105 R M. Ogorldewicz, “FMC‘s Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle,” I n t e r n Letters to editor of ARMOR, VoL XCI, No. 5, September - oaober lS2, pp 24 107 Cover photograph and special report “Israel’s Blitz,” Newsweek, June 21, 108 Cover photograph and special report “Israel Strikes at the Pm,” Time, vol. Wares,” Military Technology, Vol. m, Issue 10, July/August 1979, pp 21-27 10 No. 9 September 1979 pp 667-672 July (August) 1979, p 30 1977, pp 1417 Technology, Vol. III, Issue 9. May/June 1979, pp 29-38 International Defense Review, Vol. 13, No. 7, pp 10751081 California No. 3. MayJune 1979. pp 3034 &nul Defense Review. Vol. 13. No. 9, 1980, pp 1391-1395 1982 119, Nos. % June 21,1982 weights,’’ International Defense Reuiew, Vol. 14, No. 12, 1981, pp 1657-1664 109 International Defense Review, Special Smieell, A n n o d Vehicles, 1980 110 D. H. C. Jenkins, “Abrams and Leopard 2 - a User‘s View of the Heavy- 111 D. H. C. Jenkins. “Testing the Vickm Valiant and AMX-32-Middleweights in the Ring,” ibid. pp 16681675 112 C. F. Foss. “Valiant-Vickers’ MBT for the 1980‘s.” Defense, Vol. 11, NO. 5, May-1980, pp 333340 Matenel, Vol. 5, No. 4, July/August 1980 pp 130133 PP 33-40 113 ‘‘British Anny Equipment Exhibition ~ Areview of Aldmhot ‘80,” Defense 114 Tickers Valiant,” Ground Defence International No. 69. November 1980, 11s “ F b t proddon SMTs handed over,” International Lkfense Review, Vol. 118 E. C. Ezell, “Japanese 1980 Defense Budget and Future F&D Proprams,” 11’ B. Wtz, “The AC 300 Jupi~-Luchaire”S New Anti-tank Weapon,” Interno; 118 R M. Ogorkiewin, “Teledyne’s Super M-60 Battle Tank,” Interrurtwnal 119 C. Bradley, “Weapons Versus Armor: A New ApPmmh,” ARMOR, VoL XCI, 121 “Bandvagn 206,” Armies & Weapons. No. 42, April 1978 pp 28-30 122 “UDES XX-20: a Revolutionary AFV Design,” Military Technology, Vol. VI, 123 “Begleitspanzer Support Tanks,” Ground Lkfense.International, No. 63 12‘ US. Tank Test Bed,“ Jane’s Defense Review, Vol. 3, No. 6, 1982, p 556 13, NO. 3, 1980. pp 317-318 ibid, pp 340344 hbnal Defense Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 1982, pp 7l-74 Defense Reuiew. Vol. 13, No. 8, 1980, pp 1237-1241 No. 4 July-August, pp 22-25 120 R Simpkin, “The Future of Swedish Armor,” ibid, pp 11-16 h u e 3, 1982, pp 3539

JOSEPH E. BACKOFEN, JR.

was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers upon graduation from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1966. While with the 62d Engineer Battalion, his service included Rome Plow Land Clearing Operations in Cambodia and Vietnam. Mr. Backofen is currently involved with the development of advanced weapons technology at Battelle Columbus Laboratories. 42

How to Conduct an Inventory You’re finally going to take over your own company-great! You grab the latest property listing and the outgoing commander and go forth in search of 14 accessory kits, 35 desks, 17 tanks and all that other stuff you’re going to be signed for. Wrong, wrong, wrong! You’ve got a lot of work to do before you start counting wrenches. Your changeof-command is an immense job. It requires, in staff officer lingo, “careful, detailed planning, and aggressive execution to assure mission accomplishment.” I’m not going to hand you a line like that. Instead, I will give you, the brand-new, incoming, company commander, a very detailed set of instructions on how to properly conduct an inventory that is 100 percent accurate. It worked for me-it will work for you. If you’ve followed the usual progression of jobs, you’ve been a platoon leader, an executive officer, and maybe a battalion staff officer. If you were lucky on your way up, your company commander made you sign for your platoon’s equip ment, and you became familiar with the common supply forms, such as the DA 2062. Hopefully, you’ve also had some experience with the various methods of property adjustment (e.g., Report of Survey, Statement of Charges, etc.) But, even if you have only a passing knowledge of supply procedures, take heart, it isn’t all that complicated, just detailed. There are two principles that prevail in the proper accountability of any set of property-every item has components and, every item, and component of that item, that is on your property book must be either on hand, or on requisition. For example, you surely would not take responsibility for a tool box (the item) without making sure all it’s wrenches and such (the components) were there, or were noted somewhere as being missing, and on requisition before you signed for that tool box. The same thing holds true for an entire company, except that there are many more items and components and it’s usually the components that cause the most problems. There are three phases to an inventory-preparation, exe cution, and followup. Most people do little, if any, preparation, are pretty good at execution, and get really bored with the whole thing halfway through the followup. All phases are important and deserve your complete attention. Preparation Take your most current Modification Table of Organization and Equipment/Division Logistics System (MT€)&E/DLOGS) printout and make sure you know how to read it. Then annotate it with any gains or losses of end items since the printout was published. You can get all this information from the company supply sergeant. Then take your listing and verify it with the Division Property Book Officer (DPBO). This is also your first check on your new supply room; if there are any discrepancies, you know there are problems. Next, you set up a working manual property book which will take you a few days. Label your notebook “MTO&E Pre perty.” This will be your friend throughout your tenure of command. The first page is the index-simply list the hand receipt annex numbers with the related sections or platoons. On the second and subsequent pages of your working property book list the line number, item description, nomenclature, and the authorized and on-hand quantities of each item which ap peared on the printout. List only two items per page-it gives you room for later notes. Next, you are going to do what very few people do well-make sure all the major item’s (line numbers listed in your working property book) are also listed on someone’s hand receipt annex. If this doesn’t “zero-out’’ the on-hand quantities in the property book there is some unaccounted-for property. Take the &st annex on your index and, item-by-item, note the quantity and annex number under the appropriate line number in your working property book. At this point, all you are interested in are major end items; for the time being, ignore all the component annexes you (hopefully) will come across. Be sure to include end items issued or turned in on temporary hand receipts that have not yet been posted to the regular hand receipts. Continue on in this manner through all the hand receipts. Total up the quantities you have found and check to see if they all match the total hand receipt quantities. If the total quantities are less than on the DLOGS’s printout there are some unaccounted-for end items. If a total is more than the DLOGS‘s quantity, two or more people are signed for the same piece of equipment. In either case, the problem must be resolved. Prepare a list in duplicate for those items whose quantities do not match. Keep one copy and give the other to the outgoing commander so he can have a chance to resolve the differences. Your next step is to make sure all the components of the end items are listed on the appropriate component annex. There are two places the components for a particular item might be listed-in a supply catalogue (SC) or in a technical manual (TM). Be adamant on this, and don’t let anyone try to railroad you into thinking a particular item has no components. There are several places where you can obtain current SCs and TMs. Unless otherwise stated, you’re responsible for all components of an end item that are supposed to accompany the end item prior to and including the date on which you sign the hand receipt at the DPBO. The unit supply room, battalion 5-4, DPBO, Inspector General and MOS Library are some places that will have manuals you can use. Go one step farther and check the SC or TM date and the number of changes against the DA-310 series pamphlets to ensure that it is current. Now comes a lot of slow, boring work-cross-checking the manuals with the component annexes. Check for two things. First, that all the Components that are listed in the SC or TM also are listed on the component annexes and, second, that the authorized quantities of those components listed also are correct. Sometimes, the authorized quantity for a component changes from the last time an inventory was conduded with that particular annex. You are responsible for the quantities authorized as of the date you assume command. You are not concerned at this point whether or not the cohponents are on-hand, so don’t let that distract you and slow you down. Should you do all this yourself, or is it permissible to have someone help you? As strongly as I believe that cross-checking is clerical work, it is best to do it all yourself this M time. 44 match, but the responsible person doesn’t have the item (he has a problem) 0 Recorded quantity and actual on-hand quantities match, but is less than the authorized quantity (the outgoing commander has a problem.) 0 None of the three quantities match (everyone has a prob lem). It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it. A word about substitute items, mainly components of end items. Use your common sense. A 7-inch screwdriver is pretty much the same as &inch screwdriver, but a ball-peen hammer is quite Merent from a claw hammer. The overriding question is: do you think that the commander that takes over fiom you will also accept it as a substitute? The execution phase is fmished, and it probably took as long to accomplish as the preparation phase. What you now have is a set of current hand receipts and annexes, and you have also had a good look at the unit and its equipment. Followup The last phase, the followup, is perhaps the most difficult, because you’re probably sick of all this supply stuff. But if you don’t spend at least as much attention to the followup as you Three months before you change command, go through the preparation phase again. This will give you enough time to resolve any of your supply difficulties before you begin your own inventory. It works. Most units have several property books that will include your office furniture, billets furniture, etc. You must go through all three phases for every property book in your organization. These other property books will probably not take as long to set up as your MTO&E property book because you will most likely not have the large number of end items and components in these listings. There it is. If you choose to do it differently, you might come out all right in the end, but if you do it my way you will be a winner. Keep in mind as you go through all the proceduma that not only are you conducting an inventory now, but you are also preparing for your own changeover. If you do a good job, everyone profits. You might even save a fewbucks in the end.

WILLTAM V. KISSELL, III

Captain, Armor 7th Support Group, VI1 Corps The Role of the US Tank One morning, I was leaning on the railing of an old bridge and heard the sound of boots on the wooden planks. I looked up and saw an officer approaching. He stopped a short distance from me and turned to lean on the railing nearby. hisaccent asRussian. ‘‘Good morning,” he said in a strong voice, and I identified may-june 1983 45

“It must be that way,” he replied. “We do not wish a long “Meaning tanks,” I said. “Among other things, yes,” he replied. “Tanks and all that support them to gain ground quickly. My father was a tank leader in the Great Patiotic War. We could not outgun the Germans, so we had to overwhelm them with numbers. We won, and we are prepared to do it again.” “That’s interesting,” I said. “My father was also a tank leader in World War 11. After several battles where one or two Panthers took on a dozen US. tanks and destroyed half of them, he and others decided to employ other available combat power such as artillery, rockets, and air against Panther and Tiger formations and employ U.S. tank task forces at weak points. It was very effective. We also won, as you know.” He looked at me for a moment and replied, “We endorse this technique. You are making it very difficult for us, however. Our tanks are becoming very expensive. They have to become tougher and tougher and more sophisticated. You and your friends are fielding land battleships designed for decisive battle when there are many other aspects to ground combat in winning the day. The characteristics of your new M1 series tanks is sobering to us. You mentioned Panther and Tiger tanks before. What is the MI but a heavy tank? We must tie down this threat, especially where it is massed. We are preparing for tank-versus-tank so we can employ other armor formations at weak points. We have additional numbers of tanks to employ, you know, after we numerically tie yours dawn.” Obviously, he was a professional tank officer. I told him that for many years, “U.S. armor people have had a problem with theroleofthetankinarmorformations.”Isaid,“theMl series is a combination of the theory that a tank must be able to come onto the field in the open, if necessary, and fight to the death like a bull. Some believe we are being forced into a mobile bunker, a fast mobile bunker, but nevertheless, a big, heavy conflict. We must strike with superior combat power.” much of a threat to be let loose.” “I understand,” I said. “I personally feel, as do others, that your massed armor formations must be engaged and broken up by other than tank formations. Tank-verswtank engage menta are very costly. If we can effectively engage your massed armor with other systems, then our so-called land battleships can exploit your weak points, get into your rear and cut logistical and communication tails. You would always have to be prepared to defend as you attack” “We can hope,” he said, “your role for the tank will remain as that of a primary tank killer, and you will not change that. We plan to engage your tank threat and keep it committed by whatever means we may have available. We cannot afford to be concerned about penetration into our rear areas.” “Hopefully,” I replied, “our tanks will not be turned into expensive tank destroyers, but will bereleased for theirintend-ed role of penetration and exploitation. In fact, I would like to see U.S. tank formations kept out of major engagements until the odds are closer to a oneon-one basis. The attition of the attacker should be left to other powerful systems. It will take a change of thinking in our armor philosophy.” “I must go,” he said curtly. “For me, I hope there is never a confrontation to prove who is right or wrong, but I guess that’s not a field soldier’s decision.” “I agree,” I said, “war is an untenable situation. There don’t seem to be any winners anymore. However, if you must come, we will give you a 4th of July welcome.” He turned, looked at me, and smiled and said, “I believe that.” He turned slowly, walked off the bridge and I awoke to hear the briefing officer conclude that by careful study and war gaming, the primary role of the U.S. tank remains to destroy other tanks.

BURTON S. BOUDINOT

Lieutenant Colonel, Armor (Retired) Radcliff, KY A Computer for Every Orderly Room I remember when the first sergeant carried all critical wrib ten documentation in his fatigue shirt pocket. Information such as the Morning Report; who was on leave, sick, or AWOL; the KP roster, theater schedule and mess hall menu-dl those things crucial and necessary for the smooth, operation of our awesome military organization were literally at his fingertips. Then it happened! Printers, paper manufacturers, and bureaucrats united to set into motion the most complex maze of forms and “required” documentation that the genius of man has yet to devise. It ran the gamut from privacy statements to flypaper reporta. This proliferation of publications and forms caused massive internal hemorrhaging within our army, and society as a whole. It soon became apparent that if on any given day all paper were to disappear from the face of the earth, the Army-and civilization as we know it, would grind to an abrupt halt. On the premise that all the aforementioned data is actually needed, the question is not whether we are going to deal with it (we are), but how we are to deal with it. Is there a more comfortable, efficient way to enter, tabulate, store, and retrieve this glorious poop? Enter the desktop computer. These clever little devices are small, relatively inexpensive, and surprisingly versatile. I own one because I absolutely abhor the stubby pencil routine in both my work and personal life. From the first moment you sit down in front of the screen, you just know something stupendous is going to happen. The basic computer language as well as the “rules” by which you and your microprocessor can coexist are fairly simple and can be mastered rather quickly. Most of these small systems are designed for just plain folks, and no degree in computer science is required. Perhaps this is why so many business executives are smuggling their own personal com- 46 service scheduling and dollar expenditures to maintain the fleet. The food service NCO can plan menus, inventory utensils, and keep track of meal cards, and cash collections. The S3 can plan training and forecast available resources, such as range space and ammunition requirements. Realtime bat-iysGms rather than on one of the-Soviet’s.

CHARLES F. HANSELMANN

Major, Quartermaster Corps Fort Devens, MA The Army must be prepared to perform it’s primary combat missions on short notice; therefore, critical combat skills must be maintained at a high level all year. The key to maintaining these skills is a solid, comprehensive annual training program that incorporates sustainment training. Although tank gunnery is the main topic here, the principles discussed hold true for any skill. It is impossible to teach an individual a skill and train him to a high level of proficiency and then expect him to perform that same skill, at the original high level of proficiency a year later, unless he has been allowed to practice it in the meantime. He will forget steps, step sequences or, in a manual task, he will lose the dexerity achieved during the initial training. All skills are perishable. The more complex the skill, the more susceptable it is to deterioration. When gunnery training is conducted before and during annual qualification, and what we currently call sustainment gunnery, gunnery skills will steadily increase and peak on Tables VI11 and IX because crew members are practicing their skills in accordance with set procedures and standards. There are valleys between the peaks of qualification and sustainment gunnery that represent low points in gunnery skills proficiency. These valleys are unavoidable because it is impossible to fire Table Sustainment Gunnery Training VI11 frequently enough to maintain the peak achieved during qualification. What a commander must do is develop and implement a year-round training program designed to retain, reinforce, and maintain those skills obtained when his unit peaked. This effort is known as sustainment training. The ideal way to maintain a skill is to practice that skill using equipment under conditions that duplicate those that will prevail on a frequent and regular basis. This, however, is not possible for tank gunnery due to lack of facilities and Cuts in annual allocations of rounds per crew have reduced ammunition availability to where it is only possible to fire two or three gunnery periods annually. A close second problem for some units, and a primary p m blem for USAREUR units, is the availability of training facilities. There are four major training areas (MTA) available to US units on a regular basis in Europe. All US armor units must use as well as share these with our NATO allies. These MTAs are small, restricted, heavily used and often far from the training unit’s home station. Also, tight scheduling and rail movement costs prohibit their casual and frequent use. The third problem is other mission training or tasks that resources.

may-june 1983 47 annual training program is being deueloped. This ensures that service firing and the means of maintaining it’s training effect are planned together, and that gunnery is taught as a complete package. Furthermore, the trainers who implement the plan will be able to schedule the required training assets or resources in advance. Crises management, or poor training because subcaliber ammunition was not forecast and therefore not available, can be avoided. Livefire exercises, using service ammunition, are undoubtedly the best method for attaining crew proficiency in tank gunnery. Unfortunately, sustainment gunnery training with main gun ammunition is not possible in garrison. Therefore, subcaliber firing with a variety of devices becomes the best alternative. Of all the subcaliber devices available, the M179 Telefare is the best because it develops crew interaction and permits fiing runs on full-scale ranges. Its one shortcoming is that the loader does not receive full training, even though he can be required to load a dummy main gun round after the first .50 caliber round is fired from the Telefare. The other crewmembers, however, perform almost all the duties related to firing service ammunition during gunnery qualification. gunnery training in crew duties. Most units establish a run course with target arrays and engagement stand based upon the Table VI11 qualification run the unit During dry firing, a crew examiner, or assistant instn rides on the tank while the course is being run and criti ’ crew duties and performance as they simulate enga targets. This offers the crew an opportunity to practice duties and receive on-thespot constructive observations criticism. Other devices exist or are being produced to assist in t ing. The M55 laser, when used in conjunction with the : board, is effective in training TC-gunner interaction. Detras device, now used by V Corps, is also excellen- ___ TC-gunner training. The important point, however, is not wha methods are used, but that they are used in conj each other to cover gaps in training in a manna tains skills acquired during service firing. rain-stout The i t fnr L ary-ards, ictor, iques LgiW crew 5 and uses. H CaI Fort 1 It’s Time for Master Scouts The time to implement a Master Scout Program is long overdue. We cannot, however, turn back time; what we can do is explain the need for such a program and how a master scout is used in the 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry. From the squadron commander’s view, the absence of a Master Scout Program is a serious problem, one that &e& his unit’s training and combat readiness status. The Armor School’s excellent Master Gunner’s Course (now known as the Advanced Gunnery Course) provides highlyqualified professionals who are readily available to help the tank unit commander in planning and conducting the unit’s gunnery training program. Yet, no such course or program exists to render equally-essential scout training for the cavalry. Training for an armored cavalry squadron’s major fighting systems is reviewed quarterly and immediately after the master gunner’s briefing the next question invariably asked is, “Now, what about the scouts?’ Unfortunately, there is no master scout to respond, and the need for a Master Scout Program becomes glaringly obvious. There are three compelling reasons for a Master Scout training program: Scouting is vital to battlefield success. In order to win in war, the commander must “see the battlefield”. Knowledge able scouts are essential for reporting accurab battlefield information. Scouting is a complex business. The moder intimately know a variety of weapons and veh able to accomplish a great variety of tasks. C absolute basics include seven weapons (Dragor machinegun, M2 .50 caliber machinegun, M72 LAW, mortars, M16) and five vehicles (M151,

M113, M901, M106,

and M551 /M48/M60) and a staggering number of tasks, i.e., land navigation, NBC, reconnaissance, mine warfare, demolitions, communications, and the maintenance of sophisticated weapon systems. In the future, the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle and its sophisticated fire control systems will add to the complexity of the 19D MOS. 0 The Master Gunner’s Program has been highly successful in improving the performance of 19E. While empirical scientific data does not exist to d e out other factors, the Master Gunner Program is an intuitively obvious reason to explain the improvement. Some data would be easy to collect by simply polling tank battalion commanders and asking them if they would give up their master gunners. Better yet, ask tank crews the same question during preliminary training for record-fire ranges. The answer would be a resounding “No!” 48 mission. Vehicles were parked on line and their crews formed in front. Thorough preventive maintenance checks and services were performed o n each vehicle. Each trooper was inspected for uniform, cleanliness of individual weapon, and knowledge o f MOS skills and the mission. All assigned equipment was checked for operability and proper loading. Crews were tested o n use of maps, communication and electronic operating instructions, orders, and NBC reporting formats. In short, all scout sections had to present themselves fully prepared t o “move out” for extended combat operations. Maneuver. Each section was given a demanding tactical situation, required to conduct a tactical road march and move ment to combat, and was evaluated on specific Army Training Evaluation Program tasks. These tasks included II ---- --- cavalry organizations with their tremendous mix o f weapons, vehicles, and tasks. Without the master scout, there is simply n o one else to provide the essential services needed to sustain trained crews. For any organization that must be prepared to fight and win at any time, the time for master scouts i s now!

KIM H. OLMSTEAD

Lieutenant Colonel, Armor Commander, 1-1 Cavalry

TERRY L. COLLINS

Sergeant First Class Master Scout, 1-1 Cavalry Recognition Quiz Answers

1. M48 (Medium). More than 11,000 of the M48 were built inanumberof variants. It hasa4-mancrewanda90-mm main gun. The M48 is in service in some 13 countries and the U.S. Reserve forces.

2. M4 Series (Medium). The Sherman was designed in 1941 and first used in combat at El Alamein, North Africa in October 1942. Shermans have been armed with 75-

4. M24 Chaffee (Light). In March 1943 authorization wasgiven todevelopanew lighttanktoreplacetheM3and M5 tanks. First production was completed in April 1944 (T24) and the vehicle was type-classified in mid-1944 as the M24. Chaffee tanks mounted a 75-mm gun, served until the early 1950s when they were replaced by the M41 Walker Bulldog. The M24 currently Serves in eight countries. mm, 76-mm and 57-mm guns; 105-mm howitzer, 155-mm gun-howitzer, 160-mm mortar and 17-pounder and 25-pounder guns. Other weapons, engines, and armor modifications have been made. The M4 series Sherman is currently in use in 12 countries.

3. M47 Patton (Medium). One of three Patton-named tanks, the M47 was developed from the T42 medium tank program that began in 1949. It was replaced by the M48. It had a90-mm main gun and five-man crew.The M47 hasundergone several prototype variations, most of which have not gone beyond the prototype stage. The M47 is in service in 15 countries today.

5. M41 Walker Bulldog (Light). The M41 light tank with a 76-mm gun went into production in 1951. It was known as the Little Bulldog, but was renamed WalkerBulldog in honor of General W.W. Walker, killed in action in Korea in 1951. A limited number of powerpack and main gun modifications have been made and the M41 is in service in 17 countries.

6. M3 Stuart (Light). The M3, nicknamed “Honey”, carried a four-man crew and mounted a 37-mm gun. The M5 light tank and the M8 howitzer motor carriage are derivatives of the M3. M3 and M4 tanks were replaced by the M24 Chaffee. M3s still serve in 10 countries. I may-june 1983 49

This is the first of a series of articles written especially for Armor officers who are commanding, or who are about to command, battalions and brigaaks, and for senior officers in superuisory positions. The purpose is to provide up-to-date information concerning professional assignments, professional development, and efficiency reports-all of which affect a r m r officers careers. Officer Assignments The most frequently asked question received at Armor Branch is, “When will I be reassigned?” Branch programs officers for reassignment based upon their date of availability (DTAV). The DTAV appears in Section IX of an officer’s official record brief (ORB). That is the date on which an officer will normally report to his next assignment, and it is an important consideration when figuring projected strength. Branch receives a number of requests from commanders to extend or curtail officers. In general, these requests may be approved for compelling, substantive reasons, when circumstances and Army requirements permit. A compelling reason for extending or curtailing an assignment might be whether a move, at a particular time, would aggravate a family member’s medical problem; a noncompelling reason might be that the officer does not want to sell his house. Commanders occasionally ask to keep an officer beyond his DTAV, or after orders have been issued, in order to complete one more training event (REFORGER, ARTEP, NTC, etc.). Whether or not Branch can do this depends upon the strength of officers, by grade and speciality, at thepost level, and how that current and projected strength compares with the number of officers the post is supposed to have under the m c e r Distribution Plan (ODP). This must be considered in light of other factors before the outcome of the request can be decided. These include: whether the officer is being considered .for, has been alerted for, or is on orders to another assignment; how the action will affect the officer’s career interests; the impact on the unit, and whether there is a more compelling need for the officer at another location. Troop assignment opportunities are limited. The situation Branch is usually faced with is whether the extension will preclude an advanced course graduate from going to a troop command. Commanders are alerted through the post personnel action channels before an officer is placed on orders so the commander can notify and counsel the officer on the assignment. Then Branch waits at least 72 hours before orders are issued. This affords the commander and the officer an opportunity to surface matters that may have an effect on the reassignment. If commanders are not receiving alert notifications, .they should check on the failure through their chain of command; Branch wants commanders involved in permanent change of station counseling. Next, Branch sends a request for orders via AUTODIN to the command, where orders are printed by the military personnel office. (See ARMOR, January-February 1981, p. 64, for more information.) Newly Commissioned Officers The Branch’s goal is to have newly commissioned lieutenants report to their units within 5 to 8 months of commissioning. This permits approximately 9 weeks of schooling beyond completion of the Armor Officer Basic Course (OBC). Newly commissioned lieutenants may volunteer to attend Airborne and Ranger Schools. Those assigned to cavalry units may attend the Infantry Mortar Platoon Officer Course instead of Ranger School. However, new lieutenants will not attend the Junior Officer Maintenance Course, unless the gaining commander requests it by contacting Branch. Officers are commissioned in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) or Regular Army (RA). The USAR officer enters 8ervice as an obligated volunteer (OBV) with a specific length of obligated service(e.g., 3 years). Unless he requests Competitive Voluntary Indefinite (CVI) status, he will be separated on his OBV date. He can apply for CVI upon completion of 2 years of active federal commissioned service (AFCS) and if accepted by a board for CVI, he incurs an additional 1-year obligation beyond his initial obligation. An officer’s performance is the most important factor in determining whether he will be selected for CVI. During the 8th month of the 1-year probationary CVI period, he is boarded for Final Voluntary Indefinite (FVI) status. Standards are high for CVI and FVI. Not all who apply are selected for CVI, and of those selected for CVI, not all are selected for FVI. In some cases, officers have been selected for promotion to captain, but not selected for FVI. These actions are determined by separate boards, and the selection rate for promotion to captain is higher than the rate for FVI. Commanders are encouraged to take an active part in the CVI/FVI process by endorsing the officer’s request with meaningful comments and providing timely, useful information. (See ARMOR, September-October 1982, p. 50, for a list of terms, and the May-June 1982 issue, p. 50, for more discussion of CVI/FVI. (To be continued New Annor Branch Personnel LTC Thomas P. Barren.. ................ Branch Chief Assignments LTC James E. Quinlan ............ Lieutenant Colonel Ms. Gloria Johnson MAJ AI Bergstrom ............................. Major Ms. Janice Boyce CPT William T. McAlpin ...................... Captain CPT George Edwards ........................ Captain Ms. Vicky Arnold Ms. Frances Ware CPT Mark E. Williams ..................... Lieutenant Accessions Mrs. Diana Lueker ........................ Lieutenant 50

Such request should be mailed to: U.S. Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center, Attention: AGUZ-PSE-VS, 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri, 63132. Battlefield “Fix-it” Manuals Are On The Way A new series of technical manuals that show how to repair battle-damaged combat vehicles on the spot so that they can be returned to action in the same battle, or at least used in the next battle, are being produced by the U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity. The manuals are based on the philosophy that, “A degraded or impaired performance is better than no performance at all.” Therefore, some repairs will be improvised and may be considered unorthodox; but on the other hand, few of the battlefield fixes are expected to be permanent. Draft pilot manuals are expected to be available by late 1983. 710 Tank Battalion The 710th Tank Battalion will hold its 33d reunion and also observe its 40th anniversary from September 23 to the 11 th Armored Division The 1 l t h Armored Division (Thunderbolt) will hold its annual reunion from 11-13 August 1983 at the Broadview Hotel, Wichita, Kansas. Contact Alfred Pfeiffer, 2328 Admiral Street, Aliquippa, PA 15001 for details. Home phone (412) 375-6295. 16th Armored Division The 40th anniversary of the 16th Armored Division and the 32nd annual reunion of that unit will be held at the Frontier Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada on August 11, 12, 13,

1983. For further information contact: Jack C. Ladd, P.O. Box 306, Lake Hughes, CA 93532. 104th Infantry Division The “Timberwolves” will hold ttieir 38th annual reunion at the Sheraton Twin Towers, Orlando, Florida, from August 31 through September 5,1983. For further details contact: Franis R. Calamita, 841 Wesport Drive, Rock-ledge, FL 32955. USAARMS History Instructor Seeks Interviews The Military History Instructor, US. Army Armor School is trying to locate armor and cavalry officers and troopers who served in WW II, Korea, and Vietnam and would be willing to share their experiences with today’s armor and cavalrymen and with serious military historians. An oral history program has been established at the Armor School with the objective of obtaining such experiences and preserving them for future use. Interviews will be conducted either at the home of the interviewee, or arrangements can be made for travel to Fort Knox, KY. Copies of the interviews will be held at the Armor School library and at the U.S. Army War College. Persons interested in taking part in this program should write or call: Anniston Hot Line Available For Problems The Anniston, Alabama, Army Depot has a telephone Hot Line available to answer operational and equipment problems. The Alabama depot will help sort out problems on the M-60 and the M48-series tanks, small arms, and missile guidance and control systems, including land combat support services (LCSS), ground TOW, TOW Cobra, Dragon, Lance, and Shillelagh systems. The AUTOVON number is: 894-6582. A 24-hour answering service is available. Callers should provide their name, AUTOVON number, unit identification, unit location and a complete description of the maintenance or operational problem. Captain James R. Carlen Military History Instructor Command, Staff, and Doctrine Department U.S. Army Armor School Fort Knox, KY 40121 Historic Flag in Cavalry Museum An American flag that had been hidden by Filipino resistance fighters during WW II and that was the first U.S. flag to fly over General MacArthufs headquarters in Tokyo after the Japanese surrender, has been placed in the Cavalry Museum at Fort Riley, Kansas. The flag was presented on the occasion of the first annual meeting of the U.S. Horse Cavalry Association held at Fort Riley by Lieutenant Colonel Urcel Bell U.S.A. (Retired).

AUTOVON 464-3420/5450

Commercial: (502) 624-3420/5450

may-june 1983 51

I nis .IS a ~ i a a r i y wriiiari we11 oryariireu account of America’s premier fighting force. It is not only a story about men in battle and the espirt of their Corps, but of their code of comradeship which made them special and drove them to success. It is also a story of America and its rise to power. The author’s central thesis is that US foreign policy has always required a marine force to protect its overseas interests. He maintains that today, with USfor-eign interest more diverse than ever, the nation still needs a Marine Corps. Twenty years of research have gone into this book and although the author was never a Marine, he paints a clear picture of the Corps, its intense pride and fierce love of country. He traces the Corps’ history from its beginning to the 198Os, and his explicit battle accounts place the reader intotheconflict. In looking intothe future, the author believes that the Corps “will serve as a corps of expert, volunteer fighters, trained and enspirited to give their lives to take their objective . . .” This book is good reading for any military buff, but for a Marine, it has a special value.

GEORGE FINNERTY

Captain, USMC Fort Knox. KY THE LORDS OF DISCIPLINE by Pat Conroy. Bantam Books, New York. NY. $3.50. 512 pages. This is the story of Cadet Will McLean’s struggle against a secret society at the mythical Carolina Military Institute in Charleston, South Carolina. McLean’s aid is solicited by the commandant of cadets, one Lieutenant Colonel Berrineau, to ensure that the first black cadet is given a fair opportunity to compete during his freshman year. Berrineau and McLean are principally concerned about a secret cadet organization called “The Ten” and how that group plans to persuade the black cadet to resign. This potentially explosive situation is not the author‘s main concern. He has patterned the military school after The Citadel from which he graduated in 1967. His descriptions include even the red checkered quadrangles in each of the cadet barracks. The principal characters in the book are drawn from real personalities at The Citadel during the author’s tenure there. Conroy who also wrote The Great San-lying, cheating, and stealing, all of which he strongly opposes as a spokesman of the Honor System.

GEORGE A. CRANE

Captain, Armor Phoenix, AZ

GEPARD: THE HISTORY OF

GERMAN ANTI-AIRCRAFT

TANKS by Walter J. Speilberger. Bernard 8 Graefe Verlag, Munich, Germany, 1982. 222 pages. $39.95. The German Army was one of the first to appreciate the need for defense against aircraft and Gepard is a summary book on the provision of frontline air defense for the German Army. The first half is a brief description of German air defense weapons from 1870 to 1945 and the second half extends from 1955 to 1982, but is mostly about the Gepard, the 35-rnm air defense gun system used by the West German, Belgian, and the modified system used by the Dutch Army. Also included is some information on the 30-mm Wildcat air defense system mounted on the hull of the six-wheeled armored transport “Fuchs” or TPZ-1 chassis, and other recent West German designs for mobile air defense systems. The part devoted to the Gepard is very detailed, has excellent photographs, detailed drawings and clear text. There are a few translation difficulties, but the book is a must for the armor enthusiast.

GERALD A. HALBERT

Captain, USA (Ret) Earlysville, VA

JANE’S MILITARY VEHICLES

AND G R O U N D SUPPORT

EQUIPMENT,edited by Christopher F. Foss, Jane‘s Publishing Company, Ltd. London, England. $140 The more than 700 pages in this third edition describe all of the ground equipment in use by military forces, except armor and artillery, which are covered in another Jane’s volume. This is a fact book and gives the specifications, variants, production figures (where available) and thousands of illustrations. Obsolete equipment is included if it is still in service, such as the US-built M4 and M5 high-speed tractors which are used by Japan’s Self Defense Forces. Types of equipment included are: armored engineer, recovery, wrecker, for the serious student of military equipment, but the price tag may deter its purchase.

FRED

MZ

OBSERVER’S DIRE(

MILITARY AIRCRAF

Green and Gordon Swan1 Publishing, Inc.. New Yc pages. $46.95.

1 W. CRISMAN

Ijor, Ordnance Fort Knox, KY

CTORY OF

T by William borough. Arc0 )rk. 1982. 256 It is one of the most up-ti references to military airc with countries throughoi This fact-filled volume . concisely written review on the entire spectrum of n The data includes generi scriptions, performance d, development, productic development schedules. k graphs and three-view si’ contribute significantly to tion. A super reference for libraries of military aircre interested in military aviati

INSTRU

USAF Fighter WE r d a t e general raft in service Jt the world. . . provides a 3f information iilitary aircraft. SI aircraft de-ata, history of )n rates and lultiple photo-lhouettes . . . the presenta-the personal ws and those on.

CTOR STAFF

!apons School Jellis AFB, NV

CT:- AR M SI

THE WARSAW PA(

DOCTRINE AND STRATEGY by William J. Lewis. McGraw-Hill Publications, New York. 1982. 471 pages. $29.95. This is a current and comprehensive survey of Warsaw Pact forces. It should be required reading for U.S. military professionals. The author provides a detailed, well-written, and informative book. The book provides background information on the Warsaw Pact Treaty Organization and discusses each of the armed forces of the countries in the Warsaw Pact, including weapons and equipment and tactical doctrine. Numerous photographs and a host of graphics are included such as; organizational charts, comparative tables, maps and weapon system characteristics. A colorful display of SovieWarsaw Pact forces uniforms and rank and insignia badges is in the appendices.

JAMES B. MOTLEY

Colonel. USA Atlantic Council of the US 52