Any US army tankers here? I'm curious about a few things mostly relating to optics.

Any US army tankers here? I'm curious about a few things mostly relating to optics. Forgive me if my terminology is wrong, I'm assuming the commanders sight is called the CITV and the remote .50 is the CROWS.

>Does all the stuff added to turrets in recent years overcrowd it? Seems like the loaders machinegun is pretty much useless, and the CITV seems to have a few blind spots as well.

>Has the optics on the CROWS largely replaced the CITV for general situational awareness? And can the CROWS interface with the main guns fire control like I've heard the CITV can?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not a tanker but someone who has read up on it
    the loader's MG really only serves to protect the immediate front and left side of the tank and wouldn't be used in a real combat situation due to the need to load the gun and the loader's vulnerability
    the CITV can be used to scan without pointing your weapon at things which was a criticism of the M1A1s that had the original remote controlled MGs
    the abrams always had a GPS extension, even before CITV, but the CROWS does not. The CITV just means the commander can scan manually now with thermals and acquire targets for the gunner in hunter/killer mode

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That answered most of it, thanks

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        anything else?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Still curious about whether commanders prefer the CROWS for general observation due to its better field of view

          Wondering if the M2 was really the best choice on a remote weapon, they seem pretty jam happy in every video and putting one even further out of reach of the commander seems like a bad idea.

          Do you think the US should have an integrated RWS with it commanders sight instead of seperate? I see the T90M does so and it seems like one of the few good things about it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The problem with the original M2 mount was twofold
            > can't scan without aiming at something (which can be bad)
            > gun only had a manual elevation mechanism. You had to CRANK to elevate/depress the gun
            Which is massively inferior to the CROWS in all respects
            Ultimately, the M2 is a huge improvement to the M240 for a commander's weapon. You can now reliably kill BTRs, BMDs and infantry in cover, and not have to waste rounds from the main gun.
            So really, the CROWS is useful but requires you to swing the gun to aim at things - not ideal. And while you could put a CROWS on an M1A1, you still don't have a way to scan targets for the gunner then "designate" them.
            The National Guard still uses M1A1SA with the original CWS system, and no CITV, btw. The CITV and CROWS adds a lot of cost.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I should mention here that the M1A2 SEPv1 was the only model of abrams that ever had a manually controlled "flex mount" m2
              The SEPv2, v3 and v4 will all use CROWS, the M1A1SA will use an updated CWS with thermals until the Guard finally switches to the M1A2

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no problem. Have a model. This one costs $300 and it's the most accurate one I've found for the current model (M1A2 SEPv3 with full TUSK II kit)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Currently building one actually (Rayfield Model M1A2 SEPv2), that's what got me thinking about the optics.

                I'm a fucking leaf but I've been an Abrams fanboy since I first started being interested in tanks as a little kid.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                is the curved TUSK the new or old variant? Is it ERA as well, or something different?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                also, on newest M1s there are things that look like a stack of 3 or 4 plates decreasing in size in place of these IFF stickers on turret cheeks, what do those do?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The old variant was TUSK 1, flat armor. Seen here. The spanish roof tiles are TUSK 2, both are ERA, but the second generation ARAT tiles are considered to be more effective. Notice how they overlap.
                Don't quote me on this but some speculate that the second gen ERA is considered more of a "heavy" ERA and should reduce penetration of AP rounds before it hits the main side armor.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Neat, it's unusual to see curved ERA blocks.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's indeed unusual. I can only speculate as to why.

                also, on newest M1s there are things that look like a stack of 3 or 4 plates decreasing in size in place of these IFF stickers on turret cheeks, what do those do?

                Those plates are weight simulators. When a new Abrams variant is tested (or really any testing) they use weight simulators to artificially increase the weight instead of loading the tank up with ammo and fuel.
                Here is a picture of an M1E1 (prototype M1A1) from 1983

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the tiles are probably curved to better-resist projectiles at multiple angles or something, or maybe an APFSDS round hitting ERA with several odd angles fucks it up more than hitting ERA at a consistent angle

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ERA works better when it's angled so that it induces more stress on the APFSDS or deflects the shaped charge more. On russian tanks the boxes are usually angled, while old TUSK and other ERA often have the actual explosive plates angled within the boxes themselves. That's why TUSK boxes are so beefy.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                what's the difference between CROWS and updated CWS with thermals? aren't they basically the same?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                oooooo QUADS
                and no. The CWS still has the flaws of the old CWS it just has a thermal sight. It doesn't have the nice digital display or the zoom, it has the ancient sight system with a fixed zoom and hacked on thermal system

                Currently building one actually (Rayfield Model M1A2 SEPv2), that's what got me thinking about the optics.

                I'm a fucking leaf but I've been an Abrams fanboy since I first started being interested in tanks as a little kid.

                thanks anon, I'll have to look that one up
                https://www.ebay.com/itm/154849127471?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3D4f983043d8e54d24a50486578486ac77%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D232918150302%26itm%3D154849127471%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2380057%26brand%3DAcademy&_trksid=p2380057.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A409e0c9d-3139-11ed-9f40-4a80dac92765%7Cparentrq%3A28bbee7f1830a60c036dc7d2fffdcc8c%7Ciid%3A1

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Does old CWS even have its own laser range finder? Modern CROWS even have things like laser target designator for stuff like laser guided bombs, hellfires and shells.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You just reminded me of another problem. No, the CWS never had a rangefinder, you had to use BoT (Burst on Target) technique to get the range right

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why do they insist on calling all variants M1A2xxx instead of normally going to M1A3 like normal human beings?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because those are upgrades, not new variants.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      M1A3 is dead and has been for 30 years

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        at least this one's turret seems armored, compared to T-14's sheet metal cover

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m a TC on a SEPv3, your terminology and most of the other comments are generally correct but here’s the specific answers.

    >Does all the stuff added to turrets in recent years overcrowd it? Seems like the loaders machinegun is pretty much useless, and the CITV seems to have a few blind spots as well.

    Not really, CITV has little to no blind spots across the entire frontal arc and is fine unless you’re trying to look backwards. The turret is a bit crowded but it’s mostly manageable. Biggest annoyance is the CROWS blocking your field of view while out of the hatch, pain in the ass if you’re a shorter guy/gal.

    >Has the optics on the CROWS largely replaced the CITV for general situational awareness? And can the CROWS interface with the main guns fire control like I've heard the CITV can?

    No, it’s mostly the other way around. I lay the CROWS on the same target as the main gun then use the CITV to designate myself onto my CROWS targets because it’s optics suck. The CITV and CROWS are separate systems that only share the CDU for display, controlled by separate joysticks too.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >use the CITV to designate myself onto my CROWS targets
      you can do that? i thought that it's for the main gun only

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In a sort of janky way if you just aim the CROWS at the same point as the main gun the azimuth will be identical when you slew the turret over then you just have to get on the actual target, scanning with the CROWS feels unnatural and like I said optics are “meh”.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      does your SEPv3 have CROWS or CROWS LP?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        LP but so did my SEPv2, they’re mostly standard across most active ABCTs from what I’ve seen and all SEPv3s have the LP.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how much did the change to LP fix the visibility problem?
          When it was announced the army was considering switching to the old flex mounts a few years ago, did that happen to any degree or was it immediately realized that was stupid?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don’t have much experience with the old CROWS as a TC but I don’t think it’s a big change, you can’t really see over top of the LP even as a taller guy and it’s still about as wide.

            Even with all its issues CROWS is still better than the flex. Like another dude said it changes it from an area weapon to an effective killing tool for light armor like BMPs and BTRs at up to probably 1200m with SLAP/SLAP-T

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They don't issue SLAP with the commander's weapon, do they? I was under the impression they only did that for the CSAMM mount (TUSK) the commander's MG had a mix of ammo depending on the scenario but often times it was M2 AP-T?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Dunno. Never had to try to kill anything besides plywood with my tank but I don’t see why you couldn’t or wouldn’t use SLAP with the CROWS although AP-T/API-T would also probably do fine against most APCs from everything but the front at extreme range.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that's a fair point, thanks a bunch. I just figured SLAP was too expensive to shoot in a role where M33 would suffice.
                take care man

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You too bro

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody tells you this but the tank’s data plates are free.
                I have a dozen tank data plates in my home.
                Every time I drive a new tank I rip its plate off with my pocket knife and put it in my pocket.
                Same with spent coax brass.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    CITV - Commanders Independent Thermal Viewer
    CROWS - Crew Remotely Operated Weapons System.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know, I just wasn’t sure actual tankers called it that.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>Has the optics on the CROWS largely replaced the CITV for general situational awareness
    That's what keeping your head out of the hatch and looking around is for, dumbo.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    fuck off chang haven’t solved the problem yet

Your email address will not be published.