Responses: 5
I very much preferred the A1 to the A2. The A2 had some unique advantages, like the commander could be choosing the next target while the gunner is addressing the current one, and then re-lay the gun for the gunner with the push of a button. But the .50 cal.... I assume it's a CROWS now, but in my day, the A2 had a flex, which was piss poor compared to the A1. The A1 had the gun in a cradle on a race ring with a hand crank for elevation and a solenoid to depress the butterflies and a periscope to aim with. Caveman technology, but deadly accurate, and you didn't have to be at nametape defilade to shoot it! On the A2, they had to rip all that out to make room for a computer screen.
(4)
(0)
Good article. One possibly confusing point in the article comes when the writer says "The tanks’ diesel engine modification simplifies logistics for Ukraine, as their armored fleet already uses diesel fuel."
The diesel engines might be easier for Ukraine to maintain and might use less fuel (especially at idle), which could both "simplify logistics" -- but many will take this as suggesting that the American Abrams tanks provided to Ukraine earlier required a different fuel (the US uses JP-8 jet fuel). Actually the Abrams with the turbine engine will run on basically any liquid fuel -- including diesel, kerosene, etc.
The diesel engines might be easier for Ukraine to maintain and might use less fuel (especially at idle), which could both "simplify logistics" -- but many will take this as suggesting that the American Abrams tanks provided to Ukraine earlier required a different fuel (the US uses JP-8 jet fuel). Actually the Abrams with the turbine engine will run on basically any liquid fuel -- including diesel, kerosene, etc.
(3)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
LTC Matthew Schlosser - I never served in 2AD but had to deal with them indirectly both at Helmstedt and Berlin.
While I was Master Gunner for the tank unit in Berlin, we used Bergen-Hohne for annual gunnery rather than Grafenwoehr. Bergen-Hohne was a "NATO" training area owned by the Germans but used by anyone who wanted to pay for a range. The Germans would rent out the whole complex to whatever country wanted it -- then that country would provide their own Range Control staff and use their own national regulations. The Germans had a few rules about things like which kinds of weapons could be fired on which ranges, but mostly the Germans were concerned about things like nighttime noise. Basically the Range Operations were left up to whichever country was running the complex at the time.
Whatever country had scheduled the complex could then rent out individual ranges to whoever wanted them. We always tried to go to Bergen-Hohne when the Brits or Germans were running the show, never when the US was in charge. The only US unit that would rent the whole complex was 2AD, which meant following US Regs and 2AD Policies. We were much more comfortable with the with the Brits in charge. Our ranges complied with AR 385-63 (at least our reading of 385-63) but having the Brits in charge left more room for realistic training. 2AD had detailed instructions for each range - which we ignored because our situation was totally different.
While I was Master Gunner for the tank unit in Berlin, we used Bergen-Hohne for annual gunnery rather than Grafenwoehr. Bergen-Hohne was a "NATO" training area owned by the Germans but used by anyone who wanted to pay for a range. The Germans would rent out the whole complex to whatever country wanted it -- then that country would provide their own Range Control staff and use their own national regulations. The Germans had a few rules about things like which kinds of weapons could be fired on which ranges, but mostly the Germans were concerned about things like nighttime noise. Basically the Range Operations were left up to whichever country was running the complex at the time.
Whatever country had scheduled the complex could then rent out individual ranges to whoever wanted them. We always tried to go to Bergen-Hohne when the Brits or Germans were running the show, never when the US was in charge. The only US unit that would rent the whole complex was 2AD, which meant following US Regs and 2AD Policies. We were much more comfortable with the with the Brits in charge. Our ranges complied with AR 385-63 (at least our reading of 385-63) but having the Brits in charge left more room for realistic training. 2AD had detailed instructions for each range - which we ignored because our situation was totally different.
(0)
(0)
LTC Matthew Schlosser
MSG Thomas Currie - Ah, you probably don't know "Hell on Wool," then. It's obviously supposed to be Hell on Wheels. Well, just weeks before they cased the colors in '96, one of their soldiers got caught in a German farm yard, molesting a sheep. It was a huge scandal at the time. Hence, Hell on Wool. Since they cased the colors right after that, they never had the time to live it down.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
The US has provided Ukraine with 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks, a number intended to equip one full Ukrainian tank battalion. This initial shipment was announced in January 2023 and began arriving in Ukraine in the fall of the same year.
Initial delivery: The United States pledged and delivered 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine to help with its counter-offensive.
Logistics: This shipment also included logistical support and training for Ukrainian soldiers to operate the tanks.
Battlefield performance: The tanks have faced challenges on the battlefield, particularly from Russian drones, leading to some being damaged or destroyed.
Initial delivery: The United States pledged and delivered 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine to help with its counter-offensive.
Logistics: This shipment also included logistical support and training for Ukrainian soldiers to operate the tanks.
Battlefield performance: The tanks have faced challenges on the battlefield, particularly from Russian drones, leading to some being damaged or destroyed.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next

Tank Commander
M1 Abrams Armor Crewman Course
Australia
Combat
Ukraine
