Why does US scrap old tanks?

[RandomPoster]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

 

[Bleipriester]

Sure it would. But hardly in the scenarios your leaders come up with. In many cases it doesn´t really matter what tank you have. All withstand light arms, have good firepower and serve as cover for the infantry.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Probably not. Because most of those tanks were medium to light armored tanks and were current back in the 50's. Those tanks would fare pretty badly against a modern day battle tank because they don't have the armor to stand up to newer tanks.

Incidentally, the Sherman was replaced by the Pershing.

If you did decide to put them into service, you would have to retrofit them with a whole bunch of equipment to even make them viable, and that would be more expensive I think.

 

[westwall]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

 

[Bleipriester]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

 

[alang1216]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Ask the Iraqis if having large numbers of old tanks is effective against a small force of modern tanks. Also, if we had 20,000 more tanks we'd need 20,000 more tank crews. Not to mention finding spare parts for old equipment.

If the Russians keep old tanks it is likely for export sales.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Actually, I think it would be more of a one shot one kill if a Sherman tank ran into an Abrams. The Sherman would be killed immediately.

And.......................with the new variants that the Army is coming up with, well..............all the tanks listed in the OP would be nothing more than targets.

America's Once And Future Tank: The U.S. New M1A2 SEP v.4 "Super" Abrams

The Army is now engineering a far-superior M1A2 SEP v4 Abrams tank variant for the 2020s and beyond --designed to be more lethal, faster, lighter weight, better protected, equipped with new sensors and armed with upgraded, more effective weapons, service officials said.


Advanced networking technology with next-generation sights, sensors, targeting systems and digital networking technology -- are all key elements of an ongoing upgrade to position the platform to successfully engage in combat against rapidly emerging threats, such as the prospect of confronting a Russian T-14 Armata or Chinese 3rd generation Type 99 tank.


The SEP v4 variant, slated to being testing in 2021, will include new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round, Maj. Gen. David Bassett, Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, told Scout Warrior in an interview.


While Army officials explain that many of the details of the next-gen systems for the future tanks are not available for security reasons, Basset did explain that the lethality upgrade, referred to as an Engineering Change Proposal, or ECP, is centered around the integration of a higher-tech 3rd generation FLIR – Forward Looking Infrared imaging sensor.


The advanced FLIR uses higher resolution and digital imaging along with an increased ability to detect enemy signatures at farther ranges through various obscurants such as rain, dust or fog, Bassett said.

 

[westwall]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

They wouldn't survive long enough to get to the battle field. Russia kept all of the old tanks for use as barter for their proxy country's they used to be allied with, additionally, they had a tactic of trading armies for a short while, the theory being they wipe out your army while losing theirs, they then trot out their second army equipped with old stuff, but because you have nothing, they win.

The problem with that tactic is they ran in to the real world and our tanks are MUCH better than those they field, and their first, second, and even third armies would be toast. So now, they are trying to build one good army that can survive a battle with ours.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

How are you going to allocate old tanks to fight old tanks? For that matter, what do you consider a "soft target"?

There is a reason that the military updates their hardware on a regular basis. It's because other countries keep developing better and better weapons, so we have to also.

Fighting with outdated equipment is suicidal and stupid.

 

[westwall]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Actually, I think it would be more of a one shot one kill if a Sherman tank ran into an Abrams. The Sherman would be killed immediately.

And.......................with the new variants that the Army is coming up with, well..............all the tanks listed in the OP would be nothing more than targets.

America's Once And Future Tank: The U.S. New M1A2 SEP v.4 "Super" Abrams

The Army is now engineering a far-superior M1A2 SEP v4 Abrams tank variant for the 2020s and beyond --designed to be more lethal, faster, lighter weight, better protected, equipped with new sensors and armed with upgraded, more effective weapons, service officials said.


Advanced networking technology with next-generation sights, sensors, targeting systems and digital networking technology -- are all key elements of an ongoing upgrade to position the platform to successfully engage in combat against rapidly emerging threats, such as the prospect of confronting a Russian T-14 Armata or Chinese 3rd generation Type 99 tank.


The SEP v4 variant, slated to being testing in 2021, will include new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round, Maj. Gen. David Bassett, Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, told Scout Warrior in an interview.


While Army officials explain that many of the details of the next-gen systems for the future tanks are not available for security reasons, Basset did explain that the lethality upgrade, referred to as an Engineering Change Proposal, or ECP, is centered around the integration of a higher-tech 3rd generation FLIR – Forward Looking Infrared imaging sensor.


The advanced FLIR uses higher resolution and digital imaging along with an increased ability to detect enemy signatures at farther ranges through various obscurants such as rain, dust or fog, Bassett said.

Heck, if the target tanks were in line behind each other the 120mm APFSDS would punch two, if not three of them. And that at a range of a kilometer or more. The destructive power of the modern anti tank main gun is truly astonishing. The energy they carry is amazing. If the penetrater hits, and for some miraculous reason bounces off, it will travel another 40 kilometers before it hits the ground again.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think the OP is someone who has never been in the military, because if they were, they would understand the need for upgrading equipment.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Even an 88mm round from a WW2 Tiger isn't going to bother most modern tanks. But the modern 120mm round is going to turn the Tiger into flaming crap. You get a B-52 loaded with anti-tank bomblets and it can devastate a wide area of these old tanks. Not to mention the TOE and other missiles that can be deployed from Humvees and shoulder fired, as well as the rounds from an A-10 or other attack aircraft. Better to melt them down and use the metal for nifty key-rings.

 

[Bleipriester]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

They wouldn't survive long enough to get to the battle field. Russia kept all of the old tanks for use as barter for their proxy country's they used to be allied with, additionally, they had a tactic of trading armies for a short while, the theory being they wipe out your army while losing theirs, they then trot out their second army equipped with old stuff, but because you have nothing, they win.

The problem with that tactic is they ran in to the real world and our tanks are MUCH better than those they field, and their first, second, and even third armies would be toast. So now, they are trying to build one good army that can survive a battle with ours.

M1 is not that great and it is decades old, too. A T-72 can destroy it within 1000 meters (Iraqis had problems because they used their own ammo). While the M1 has a good targeting system, its armor proved to be vulnerabel to old soviet rpgs and explosives. While the M1 can be recovered when not destroyed, the process is slow and no new tanks are produced in the US.

 

[Bleipriester]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

How are you going to allocate old tanks to fight old tanks? For that matter, what do you consider a "soft target"?

There is a reason that the military updates their hardware on a regular basis. It's because other countries keep developing better and better weapons, so we have to also.

Fighting with outdated equipment is suicidal and stupid.

You ignore that Russia does not only maintain old tanks but also the most modern. How could 20.000 additional tanks be a disadvantage?
When a vehicle does emit unusual much heat, it is a M1 tank. An old T-55 then would try to avoid it and leave it to T-90, Armata or CAS.
Soft targets are soldiers or light armor like Humvees.

 

[westwall]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

They wouldn't survive long enough to get to the battle field. Russia kept all of the old tanks for use as barter for their proxy country's they used to be allied with, additionally, they had a tactic of trading armies for a short while, the theory being they wipe out your army while losing theirs, they then trot out their second army equipped with old stuff, but because you have nothing, they win.

The problem with that tactic is they ran in to the real world and our tanks are MUCH better than those they field, and their first, second, and even third armies would be toast. So now, they are trying to build one good army that can survive a battle with ours.

M1 is not that great and it is decades old, too. A T-72 can destroy it within 1000 meters (Iraqis had problems because they used their own ammo). While the M1 has a good targeting system, its armor proved to be vulnerabel to old soviet rpgs and explosives. While the M1 can be recovered when not destroyed, the process is slow and no new tanks are produced in the US.

That is a laughable assertion. There are MULTIPLE accounts of T-72's hitting Abrams tanks at ranges of 100m and less, and having the 120mm RAPIRA rounds lodge in the armor. One Abrams crew thought they had hit a mine until they got hit a second time. They slewed the turret, found the offender and blew him to bits with a single round. The Iraqi Army Abrams tanks are not equipped with the DU armor Suite that American tanks are so they are more vulnerable than our tanks, that's the only reason I can fathom for you making such a ridiculous claim.

 

[westwall]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

How are you going to allocate old tanks to fight old tanks? For that matter, what do you consider a "soft target"?

There is a reason that the military updates their hardware on a regular basis. It's because other countries keep developing better and better weapons, so we have to also.

Fighting with outdated equipment is suicidal and stupid.

You ignore that Russia does not only maintain old tanks but also the most modern. How could 20.000 additional tanks be a disadvantage?
When a vehicle does emit unusual much heat, it is a M1 tank. An old T-55 then would try to avoid it and leave it to T-90, Armata or CAS.
Soft targets are soldiers or light armor like Humvees.

How do you avoid a tank that can see you at three times the range that you can see, in the dark even, and can kill you at four times the range you can even shoot?

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

How are you going to allocate old tanks to fight old tanks? For that matter, what do you consider a "soft target"?

There is a reason that the military updates their hardware on a regular basis. It's because other countries keep developing better and better weapons, so we have to also.

Fighting with outdated equipment is suicidal and stupid.

You ignore that Russia does not only maintain old tanks but also the most modern. How could 20.000 additional tanks be a disadvantage?
When a vehicle does emit unusual much heat, it is a M1 tank. An old T-55 then would try to avoid it and leave it to T-90, Armata or CAS.
Soft targets are soldiers or light armor like Humvees.

Well, first off, there is the logistics of trying to keep old tanks fighting against old tanks. But the problem there is that no sensible army is going to send in just their old stuff, they will send in modern equipment as well.

And, if we put those old tanks out and the enemy started sending in modern ones (and they would when they saw we had the old stuff) they are going to lose. And the second you put a tank crew in an old tank against a modern one, that tank crew is toast and will die.

Like I said, fighting with outdated equipment is stupid and suicidal. Remember when Jr initially sent our troops to Afghanistan without proper armor for their Humvees? Lots of people died and those that didn't were seeking out scrap yards to find something to use as armor to weld on their vehicles.

No. Fighting with outdated equipment will only result in higher losses of personnel. If you hate the military that protects this country, then yeah, bring back the old stuff and let 'em try to win.

 

[fncceo]

"Why does US scrap old tanks?"

Because scrapping the new ones would be a waste.

 

[ABikerSailor]

"Why does US scrap old tanks?"

Because scrapping the new ones would be a waste.

I gotta hand it to you dude.................that was ******* HILARIOUS!!!!!

 

[Bleipriester]

I have been reading that Russia has, in addition to their main tank force, 18,000 tanks kept in reserve that range from models such as T34, T54, T55 and T72s. The US doesn't seem to do this. Would an additional 20,000 tanks ranging from Shermans, M24 Chaffees, M26 Pershings, M41 Walker Bulldogs etc. give considerable strength to our army?

Not really. Modern tanks can eat an old tank for lunch, and truly not worry about return fire from them in the slightest. Their only concern would be running out of ammo to kill them.

Old tanks would fight old tanks or soft targets then.

They wouldn't survive long enough to get to the battle field. Russia kept all of the old tanks for use as barter for their proxy country's they used to be allied with, additionally, they had a tactic of trading armies for a short while, the theory being they wipe out your army while losing theirs, they then trot out their second army equipped with old stuff, but because you have nothing, they win.

The problem with that tactic is they ran in to the real world and our tanks are MUCH better than those they field, and their first, second, and even third armies would be toast. So now, they are trying to build one good army that can survive a battle with ours.

M1 is not that great and it is decades old, too. A T-72 can destroy it within 1000 meters (Iraqis had problems because they used their own ammo). While the M1 has a good targeting system, its armor proved to be vulnerabel to old soviet rpgs and explosives. While the M1 can be recovered when not destroyed, the process is slow and no new tanks are produced in the US.

That is a laughable assertion. There are MULTIPLE accounts of T-72's hitting Abrams tanks at ranges of 100m and less, and having the 120mm RAPIRA rounds lodge in the armor. One Abrams crew thought they had hit a mine until they got hit a second time. They slewed the turret, found the offender and blew him to bits with a single round. The Iraqi Army Abrams tanks are not equipped with the DU armor Suite that American tanks are so they are more vulnerable than our tanks, that's the only reason I can fathom for you making such a ridiculous claim.

You have learned little to nothing about non-american arms. The Soviets were the first to mount smooth bore cannons. The 2A46 cannon can fire a multitude of ammunition types including both shells and missiles and is stabilized to some extend.

"The T-72 employs the same armament, ammunition, and integrated fire control as the T-64. The low, rounded turret mounts a 125mm smooth bore gun with a carousel automatic loader mounted on the floor and rear wall of the turret. The 125mm gun common to all the T-72 models is capable of penetrating the M1 Abrams armour at a range of up to 1,000 meters. The more recent BK-27 HEAT round offers a triple-shaped charge warhead and increased penetration against conventional armors and ERA. The BK-29 round, with a hard penetrator in the nose is designed for use against reactive armor, and as an MP round has fragmentation effects. If the BK-29 HEAT-MP is used, it may substitute for Frag-HE (as with NATO countries) or complement Frag-HE. With three round natures (APFSDS-T, HEAT-MP, ATGMs) in the autoloader vs four, more antitank rounds would available for the higher rate of fire.

The infra-red searchlight on the T-72 is mounted on the right side of the main armament, versus on the left on the earlier T-64. The 1K13-49 sight is both night sight and ATGM launch sight. However, it cannot be used for both functions simultaneously. A variety of thermal sights is available. They include the Russian Agava-2, French SAGEM-produced ALIS and Namut sight from Peleng. Thermal gunner night sights are available which permit night launch of ATGMs."

T72 Tank Characteristics