M1A1/A2 Abrams Panzerturm; Viable defensive tactic?

[SpiderMann]

During WWII, the German Army commonly used tank turrets mounted on a purpose-built underground base (i.e. bunker) of reinforced concrete, steel, or wood as prepared defensive positions at strategic locations, sometimes protected on its flanks by any number of self-propelled guns or artillery.

These static defenses are today commonly referred to using the blanket term "Panzerturm," though I have seen them called different things, including Pantherturm and Panzerstellung, depending on configuration.

Usually these Panzerturm were built using the turrets from captured enemy tanks, obsolete designs, or (especially late in the war) purpose-built turrets.

But occasionally, improvised fixed positions were made by using an entire tank (presumably disabled or otherwise immobile) that was dug in to the ground, in what is called today a 'hull-down' position, and then back-filled around the tank with soil or rubble.

During the Battle of Berlin, a number of these impromptu Panzerturm were placed on key street corners and covering approaches to important locations.

Do any of you modern tank crewmen think this may be a viable tactic to use, especially under circumstances where you are to be overrun and need a way to slow the enemy's advance? Any other thoughts?

 

[Todjaeger]

During WWII, the German Army commonly used tank turrets mounted on a purpose-built underground base (i.e. bunker) of reinforced concrete, steel, or wood as prepared defensive positions at strategic locations, sometimes protected on its flanks by any number of self-propelled guns or artillery.

These static defenses are today commonly referred to using the blanket term "Panzerturm," though I have seen them called different things, including Pantherturm and Panzerstellung, depending on configuration.

Usually these Panzerturm were built using the turrets from captured enemy tanks, obsolete designs, or (especially late in the war) purpose-built turrets.

But occasionally, improvised fixed positions were made by using an entire tank (presumably disabled or otherwise immobile) that was dug in to the ground, in what is called today a 'hull-down' position, and then back-filled around the tank with soil or rubble.

During the Battle of Berlin, a number of these impromptu Panzerturm were placed on key street corners and covering approaches to important locations.

Do any of you modern tank crewmen think this may be a viable tactic to use, especially under circumstances where you are to be overrun and need a way to slow the enemy's advance? Any other thoughts?

While not a tank/armoured/cav crew member, I suspect the answer today would be, "not really..."

From a historical perspective, in WWII most tank kills were accomplished by anti-tank guns (and not other tanks, anti-armour rockets, etc.)

In a modern battlefield though, there is a wide range of weaponry which can be accurately brought to bear on a tank, and able to destroy it. Especially if the tank is stationary.

These could be bombs, or cannon fire from aircraft, artillery (guided or unguided, specialty shells, etc.) fires, certain large mortar rounds, fire from other tanks, or a wide range of ATGM's ranging from infantry carried, to vehicle and/or aircraft mounted ATGM's.

If the overrunning force has CAS available, then any static position could be easily bombed into oblivion and no longer a threat. Maneuvering forces, even if retreating, would at least require attacking forces to be positioned to defend against counterattacks.

Now if the conflict were a comparatively low-tech conflict, such a tactic might be viable, since the fixed position might be able to be protected sufficiently so that low-tech weaponry would have difficulty in either hitting, or disabling/destroying the target.

 

[Ranger25]

While not a tank/armoured/cav crew member, I suspect the answer today would be, "not really..."

From a historical perspective, in WWII most tank kills were accomplished by anti-tank guns (and not other tanks, anti-armour rockets, etc.)

In a modern battlefield though, there is a wide range of weaponry which can be accurately brought to bear on a tank, and able to destroy it. Especially if the tank is stationary.

These could be bombs, or cannon fire from aircraft, artillery (guided or unguided, specialty shells, etc.) fires, certain large mortar rounds, fire from other tanks, or a wide range of ATGM's ranging from infantry carried, to vehicle and/or aircraft mounted ATGM's.

If the overrunning force has CAS available, then any static position could be easily bombed into oblivion and no longer a threat. Maneuvering forces, even if retreating, would at least require attacking forces to be positioned to defend against counterattacks.

Now if the conflict were a comparatively low-tech conflict, such a tactic might be viable, since the fixed position might be able to be protected sufficiently so that low-tech weaponry would have difficulty in either hitting, or disabling/destroying the target.

Agreed 100%.

Modern warfare is about combined arms networked maneuver, static positions are simply a target waiting to be hit

 

[Volkodav]

Agreed 100%.

Modern warfare is about combined arms networked maneuver, static positions are simply a target waiting to be hit

I recall seeing a photo of a Centurion turret used in a bunker somewhere in Europe, can't recall which country but they apparently used the turrets of superseded tanks in such a role.

 

[wild_Willie2]

The Swiss produced several Centurion bunkers

Google:

Hidden Bunker at the North of Switzerland (HUGE many pics)

W.

 

[SpiderMann]

So, yes and no, then... That clears it up.

Seriously though, I see both sides of it - sit still when the forces have the means to hit you from afar or above, and the fixed position is toast. But if the enemy is essentially weaker in relation to the tank, this type of defensive position can cause a lot of trouble.

How about a more specific example to dial-in the effectiveness of this tactic in modern warfare? How's this;

Let's use a space alien invasion as the set-up, as not to arouse any National sensitivities and remain in the realm of conjecture. Let's say the aliens are more 'Edge of Tomorrow' and less 'Independence Day,' meaning that the forces are more inclined to attempt overrunning their foe with ground forces rather than use small fighter aircraft to rain death from above.

Imagine the Ground combat element of a MAGTF being pushed back from the coastline into the center of a small seaside town. The Marines are holding the enemy back - for now, but they can see it will not last. Enter our hypothetical scenario of a disabled M1 Abrams.

Dig it in at a strategic location, call for volunteers, and regroup for a counter-offensive? I have had no military training at all, so I am unfamiliar with how modern forces operate, and can only speculate as to the validity of this particular tactic.

Also, as a technical question; will the Abrams' turret, guns, etc. still operate properly if the engine is non-operational (i.e. buried in dirt)?

 

[Todjaeger]

So, yes and no, then... That clears it up.

Seriously though, I see both sides of it - sit still when the forces have the means to hit you from afar or above, and the fixed position is toast. But if the enemy is essentially weaker in relation to the tank, this type of defensive position can cause a lot of trouble.

How about a more specific example to dial-in the effectiveness of this tactic in modern warfare? How's this;

Let's use a space alien invasion as the set-up, as not to arouse any National sensitivities and remain in the realm of conjecture. Let's say the aliens are more 'Edge of Tomorrow' and less 'Independence Day,' meaning that the forces are more inclined to attempt overrunning their foe with ground forces rather than use small fighter aircraft to rain death from above.

Imagine the Ground combat element of a MAGTF being pushed back from the coastline into the center of a small seaside town. The Marines are holding the enemy back - for now, but they can see it will not last. Enter our hypothetical scenario of a disabled M1 Abrams.

Dig it in at a strategic location, call for volunteers, and regroup for a counter-offensive? I have had no military training at all, so I am unfamiliar with how modern forces operate, and can only speculate as to the validity of this particular tactic.

Also, as a technical question; will the Abrams' turret, guns, etc. still operate properly if the engine is non-operational (i.e. buried in dirt)?

I believe the first part which you are confusing, is that you are building a defensive structure around a stationary tank.

Forget that you have a tank, the part which really matters is that you have a stationary defensive structure, i.e. a pillbox, with a turret.

While the standard small arms and light support weapons of infantry (pistols, rifles, LMG, 40mm grenade launchers, 60mm mortars, etc.) are ineffective against a pillbox, the same does not hold true for heavy weapons. A Javelin, Milan, various RPG models, and other similar sorts of weapons, will fairly easily penetrate the armour of a pillbox, even if the base if an Abrams tank. And those are just some of the weapons available to infantry teams. Once one starts looking at what can be mounted in a vehicle, then not only does the ability to penetrate armour increase, but so does the ability to engage at range.

Assuming a clear LOS, most tanks can effectively engage targets out to ~4km, but some of the ATGM's available can be used from as far away as ~8km. Of if one speaks of combined-arms operations, an infantrymen, scout, or SF operator could simply locate and laze the pillbox/tank, and another asset like a guided artillery or heavy mortar shell, or a LGB or ATGM like a Hellfire, could be launched from an indirect asset against the target.

All the above is also assuming that the attacker has to engage the defensive structure and cannot simply bypass it. As France found early in WWII, a pillbox, or even an integrated network of them, is only effective when the attacker has to engage into the direction of the defensive fires.

The situation for Switzerland was and still is to a degree a bit different, because the terrain places so many restrictions on movement and LOS that an emplacement could be located where one has to be almost atop it to target it. Or the emplacement's location could be in a known chokepoint, but apart from aircraft, standoff PGM's or artillery, direct LOS of the emplacement/chokepoint could be limited to one vehicle at a time, when within range of weapons in/on the emplacement.

However, given a 2-man crew's ability to defeat the armour of a target from ~2.5km using something like a Javelin ATGM which they can pack in with...

In short, if the opponents have access to modern AT weapons in quantity, and especially if they have superiority or control of the air, then armour is much better to be kept mobile. Having armour stationary is the difference between a tank and a target.

 

[bdique]

So, yes and no, then... That clears it up.

Seriously though, I see both sides of it - sit still when the forces have the means to hit you from afar or above, and the fixed position is toast. But if the enemy is essentially weaker in relation to the tank, this type of defensive position can cause a lot of trouble.

Hmm. What is your definition of weaker? A highly mobile yet lightly armed force that is able to identify gaps in coverage of this fixed position and subsequently exploit it, bypassing the defensive line and continuing on to their respective objectives will render such a defence system irrelevant. There are many ways to seek out such gaps in defensive lines (think ISR), and many ways to subsequently bypass these static defences.

How about a more specific example to dial-in the effectiveness of this tactic in modern warfare? How's this;

Let's use a space alien invasion as the set-up, as not to arouse any National sensitivities and remain in the realm of conjecture. Let's say the aliens are more 'Edge of Tomorrow' and less 'Independence Day,' meaning that the forces are more inclined to attempt overrunning their foe with ground forces rather than use small fighter aircraft to rain death from above.

Imagine the Ground combat element of a MAGTF being pushed back from the coastline into the center of a small seaside town. The Marines are holding the enemy back - for now, but they can see it will not last. Enter our hypothetical scenario of a disabled M1 Abrams.

Dig it in at a strategic location, call for volunteers, and regroup for a counter-offensive? I have had no military training at all, so I am unfamiliar with how modern forces operate, and can only speculate as to the validity of this particular tactic.

A vehicle suffering a mobility kill in a fight will probably be towed out for recovery...or destroyed to deny enemy access to sensitive material. It all depends on the situation on the ground and the call made by higher command. If recovery assets are available, the MBT is repairable and a task force can be pulled together for escort without compromising mission objectives, then I would think that an attempt at recovery would be made.

Also, as a technical question; will the Abrams' turret, guns, etc. still operate properly if the engine is non-operational (i.e. buried in dirt)?

Most turrets can operate on battery power alone, but that drains the battery rapidly.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hmm. What is your definition of weaker? A highly mobile yet lightly armed force that is able to identify gaps in coverage of this fixed position and subsequently exploit it, bypassing the defensive line and continuing on to their respective objectives will render such a defence system irrelevant. There are many ways to seek out such gaps in defensive lines (think ISR), and many ways to subsequently bypass these static defences.

true, but the historical problem for light highly mobile forces is that they have to be able to maintain momentum or hold that strategic point until more heavily armed forces can arrive to hold and exploit. - there can be a narrow window of time depending on what red are doing, what they have in theatre and numerous other options etc.... there are some cav people on here so they might add some opinion here....

A vehicle suffering a mobility kill in a fight will probably be towed out for recovery...or destroyed to deny enemy access to sensitive material. It all depends on the situation on the ground and the call made by higher command. If recovery assets are available, the MBT is repairable and a task force can be pulled together for escort without compromising mission objectives, then I would think that an attempt at recovery would be made.

which was US big army and USMC philosophy - extract, recover or destroy with thermobarics and/or air support etc....

 

[Todjaeger]

Most turrets can operate on battery power alone, but that drains the battery rapidly.

Especially if other electronics are also in operation. Comms, ballistic computers, rangefinders, NVS, etc. all require power. IIRC the US has been developing an APU which can operate to provide for systems operation while the main engine is off. Given the fuel consumption (38L per hour) while idling, having that, or a significantly more capable battery pack, could improve operations if there is going to be periods where a tank is stationary yet crewed for prolonged periods of time.

 

[Volkodav]

Especially if other electronics are also in operation. Comms, ballistic computers, rangefinders, NVS, etc. all require power. IIRC the US has been developing an APU which can operate to provide for systems operation while the main engine is off. Given the fuel consumption (38L per hour) while idling, having that, or a significantly more capable battery pack, could improve operations if there is going to be periods where a tank is stationary yet crewed for prolonged periods of time.

I'm surprised nothings been deployed yet as I believe they were trialling a rotary based generator (replacing a bank of batteries) back in the 90s, was it yet another casualty of Rumsfeld's time as secdef?

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm surprised nothings been deployed yet as I believe they were trialling a rotary based generator (replacing a bank of batteries) back in the 90s, was it yet another casualty of Rumsfeld's time as secdef?

Honestly I am not sure. I recall the issue being raised initially after the Gulf War, Part I... when US armoured units deployed to Saudi Arabia and faced off vs. Iraqi armour prior to Desert Storm.

I do know that a replacement powerpack was killed off, when the Paladin was cancelled. As part of the Paladin SPG programme, a new engine was being developed which would be used in the Paladin as well as the Abrams, and the powerpack itself was to have fewer parts, be more efficient, and IIRC also lighter.

Some of the developments were kept from the programme, with a little research being done to further develop a new powerpack for either the Abrams, or a follow-on design, but the APU which I remember reading about, I cannot confirm if that was ever fielded.

 

[gf0012-aust]

didn't the SEP upgrade deal with the APU?

 

[Todjaeger]

didn't the SEP upgrade deal with the APU?

I thought I remembered reading about it. Looking further into the M1A2SEP, there have been a couple of mentions of an APU, but nothing so far has told me what the APU is. Frustrating to say the least, since the info I keep coming across about the machinery specs all include the GT, or mention some of the diesel powerpacks available, but nothing about what the APU is or which specific variants have it/one. Apparently the M1A2SEPv1 moved the location of the APU to put it under armour, which implies that an APU was included in some M1 Abrams before that variant, but not much luck finding out when/where.

Eckherl would be great for something like this.

 

[bdique]

true, but the historical problem for light highly mobile forces is that they have to be able to maintain momentum or hold that strategic point until more heavily armed forces can arrive to hold and exploit. - there can be a narrow window of time depending on what red are doing, what they have in theatre and numerous other options etc.... there are some cav people on here so they might add some opinion here....

I get what you mean...kind of like an Operation Market Garden situation. I was thinking more along the lines of special forces penetrating deep behind enemy lines striking the centres of gravity. Given the non-conventional nature of special forces, cavalry may not be needed as long as there is a suitable means of egress.

Especially if other electronics are also in operation. Comms, ballistic computers, rangefinders, NVS, etc. all require power. IIRC the US has been developing an APU which can operate to provide for systems operation while the main engine is off. Given the fuel consumption (38L per hour) while idling, having that, or a significantly more capable battery pack, could improve operations if there is going to be periods where a tank is stationary yet crewed for prolonged periods of time.

Ah, the APU, I forgot about it, I guess this betrays my background in operating IFVs heh. I thought APUs are common in most Western MBTs, pretty obvious advantages if you can operate the turret with the engine off. Boy I miss those days, engine cut, relying on turret battery for the comms, sighting systems and electrical traverse (yes, I'm a lazy slob haha). However firing the main gun is pretty draining on the battery - we always did that with the engines on as much as possible.

 

[John Fedup]

I thought I remembered reading about it. Looking further into the M1A2SEP, there have been a couple of mentions of an APU, but nothing so far has told me what the APU is. Frustrating to say the least, since the info I keep coming across about the machinery specs all include the GT, or mention some of the diesel powerpacks available, but nothing about what the APU is or which specific variants have it/one. Apparently the M1A2SEPv1 moved the location of the APU to put it under armour, which implies that an APU was included in some M1 Abrams before that variant, but not much luck finding out when/where.

Eckherl would be great for something like this.

I recall seeing somewhere where the APU was described as a rotary Wankel engine (320 c.c.) burning diesel.

 

[Volkodav]

I recall something about a turret basket mounted APU as well, may have been one of the TUSK options but I am not sure.

 

[rossfrb_1]

I recall seeing somewhere where the APU was described as a rotary Wankel engine (320 c.c.) burning diesel.

a little more detail here M1A2 SEP under armour APU UAAPUs.
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.jf/1UAAPU02.pdf

Anyone know if ADF M1's have an APU?
Google suggests ADF purchased TUSK upgrade kit but no mention of any APU that I can find.

rb

 

[FormerDirtDart]

a little more detail here M1A2 SEP under armour APU UAAPUs.
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.jf/1UAAPU02.pdf

Anyone know if ADF M1's have an APU?
Google suggests ADF purchased TUSK upgrade kit but no mention of any APU that I can find.

rb

The url seems to suggest that image is from 2002. Apparently the selection on a standard UAAPU wasn't settled at that time. I found this video, from 2008, of another TRADEC program Wankel based UAAPU prototype. This system would seem to be lighter, generate higher power, and achieve higher fuel savings:
TARDEC Auxiliary Power Unit for Tanks
Brief synopsis provided with the video:

Using a high power density 330cc Wankel rotary engine modified to use diesel and military grade jet fuel, TARDEC developed an Auxiliary Power Unit designed to fit into an M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT). The engine is coupled to an air-cooled alternator producing 10kW of power for auxiliary loads such as electrical fans, scopes and communications components. At idle, the M1 Abrams consumes approximately 13-18 gallons per hour. TARDEC's APU can increase the range of the Abrams and save fuel costs significantly by reducing fuel consumption down to a gallon per hour.

 

[Joe Black]

a little more detail here M1A2 SEP under armour APU UAAPUs.
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.jf/1UAAPU02.pdf

Anyone know if ADF M1's have an APU?
Google suggests ADF purchased TUSK upgrade kit but no mention of any APU that I can find.

rb

ADF's M1A1 has the APU. See the photo here:
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/nscdc/images/a/ac/M1A1_AIM-SA_Reactive_Armor.jpg

and here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/kelly/gallery/20080409/20080408adf8243523_205.jpg

plus.... the barracuda camoflauge
http://www.benandcamera.com/wp-content/gallery/camouflage/camouflage-001.jpg

http://www.benandcamera.com/wp-content/gallery/camouflage/camouflage-003.jpg

http://www.benandcamera.com/wp-content/gallery/camouflage/camouflage-005.jpg