Improving the Tank Loader’s Station for the Contemporary Operating Environment

“Putting aside all the fancy words and academic doubletalk, the basic reason for having a military is to do two jobs — to kill people and to destroy the works of man.”1 — General Thomas S. Power Operations in Iraq highlight the need for the armor force to make deliberate improvements in the tank loader’s machine gun mount and M240 variant. While the tank platoon’stable of organization and equipment (TOE) equips each tank with a loader’s M240 machine gun and amount designed for area suppression of limited targetry, current operations reveal that loaders require equipment and training to ensure they are as effective as their 11B M240 gunner counterparts in combat. The tank urban survival kit (TUSK) and M1A2 continued electronic enhancement program (CEEP) include vast improvements in the design and capability of the loader’s station, to include an improved M240 mount. “Hope is not a method,” and you may not want to wait for the force modernization package to reach your unit before you deploy to Iraq.2 The equipment and training devices discussed in this article are non-doctrinal and not included in the current inventory of equipment signed for by armor company commanders and tank platoon leaders; they are, however, available in the Army materiel system. Understand that the requirements learned from combat and inevitable experimentation with doctrine and equipment drive the fielding and doctrine cycle.3 As long as you include risk analysis and mitigation with these initiatives, you are providing valuable information for the Army’s doctrinal evolution loop. Background Since the first “thunder run,” tankers have been inventing ways to increase the effectiveness of the loader’s M240 during actions on contact. As the ground war progressed, more armor leaders saw precision requirements for employing the M240 not being met with the current configuration.

• September 2004: The tank gunnery branch of Directorate of Training, Doctrine and Combat Development (DTDCD) directs the revision of the Abrams gunnery tables, to include loader’s M240 engagements during tank tables V-XII.

• 2004-2005: Armor units adopt dismount training, equipment, and employment tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) for the loader’s M240 in response to combat operations in Iraqi.

• May 2005: 1st Cavalry Division after-action reviews (AARs) highlight statistical data regarding the loader’s M240 employment requirements, to include the propensity for limited-visibility engagements.

• 2004-2005: 2d Battalion, 81st Armor, the 19K one-station unit training (OSUT) battalion, 1st Armor Training Brigade, Fort Knox, incorporates TTP into the conduct of tank live fire training to ensure that the loader’s M240 engagements integrate scenarios and equipment similar to those seen during operations in Iraq. Combat Operations “The officers and men who permit themselves to be surprised deserve to die, and the commanding general will spare no efforts to secure them their desserts.”4 — D. H. Hill, 1863 During deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the M240 machine gun, particularly the tank loader’s variant, proved invaluable during combat operations. This machine gun was used in mount ed, as well as dismounted, configurations. As tank platoons traded panzers for light wheeled vehicles, many leaders took the initiative and fabricated mounts atop high-mobility, multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) platforms. While conducting pre-deployment training at Fort Carson, Colorado, the soldiers of Eagle Troop, 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (2/3 ACR), strived for excellence in all weapons training and qualification, which enabled platoon sergeants and tank/Bradley commanders the ability to train younger, less experienced soldiers on proper weapons maintenance and employment techniques. The availability of M240B conversion kits and night sights greatly enhanced the effectiveness of this weapon, as well as soldier training. As with any new equipment, soldiers need to have hands-on training, as well as tough and realistic training conditions. Familiarization is not enough — tankers need to be trained to properly mount and zero night-vision devices, daylight optics, and machine gun mount systems. Eagle Troop, 2/3 ACR established a base camp in Ramadi, Iraq, in April 2003. By the end of the month, tankers, as well as scouts, were conducting dismounted operations. The M240, with dismount kit, became the standard configuration for the M240. The M1A2 tank would have the loader’s weapon configured for quick and easy adaptation to either dismounted or mounted operations. In June 2003, tank maintenance, fuel requirements, and the availability of repair parts played a factor in Eagle Troop tankers transitioning from M1A2 tanks to soft-top HMMWVs. The scouts trained the tankers on the cross-over; it was at this point, the M240 loader’s station mounts were “liberated” from the turrets of the tanks. Fabrication and a little ingenuity had these mounts atop HMMWVs. The tankers conducted gunnery training and learned a great deal about the strength and capabilities of the weapons. The availability of PVS-7 and PVS-14 night vision devices (NVDs) enhanced the unit’s warfighting ability, and the devices were put to immediate use during limited-visibility operations. The M240 also possesses the range required to address threats at the maximum standoff, short of employing the main gun or M2.50-caliber. When a tank was needed for a mission and the loader’s M240 mount was in use on a HMMWV, the M240B came to the rescue and was a suitable replacement. The loader always kept his M4 nearby for fast response. The combination of the two undoubtedly proved a deterrent to anti-coalition forces. Tankers on HMMWVs would have been a strange sight four years ago, but the Armor force is changing. The soldiers of Eagle Troop, 2/3 ACR adapted and maintained momentum throughout the entire deployment. The M240 and its variants proved invaluable to the success of the mission and should be incorporated into all applications. Equipment and Training To address the immediate threats facing soldiers and to equip the armor platoon for maximum capabilities, the following changes to the TOE represent a starting point for transformation: At the individual level, each soldier should have either a PVS-7 or PVS-14. A fifty-fifty mix for the tank platoon (eight PVS-7s and eight PVS-14s) gives platoon leaders and platoon sergeants the tools required for limited visibility op- “The M240 also possesses the range required to address threats at the maximum standoff, short of employing the main gun or M2.50-caliber. When a tank was needed for a mission and the loader’s M240 mount was in use on a HMMWV, the M240B came to the rescue and was a suitable replacement.” 42 — erations with the flexibility of tailoring NVDs for the mission and individual. At the crew level, the loader’s M240 should include an M240B feed tray cover (with Picatinny rail) in addition to the ground mount kit. The M240B feed tray cover will not interfere with the coax mount and allows various machine gun optics (MGOs), to include the M145 machine gun scope, PAS-13 thermal weapons sight (TWS), and PVS-4 passive weap ons sight, to be mounted. Each crew should have an M145, which allows for precision aiming and employment of the M240. Because the M240 lacks the iron sight on the end of the barrel, it does not have the initial aiming accuracy of the M240B. Using an M145 solves this problem. For limited visibility engagements, a fifty-fifty mix for the platoon of PEQ- 2A aiming lights and PAS-13 TWS (two PEQ-2As and two PAS-13s) would enable the platoon to employ both passive and active image intensifying devices. The AN/PAS-13 is a silent, lightweight, compact, and durable battery-powered infrared imaging sensor that operates with low-battery consumption. The thermal weapons sight is capable of target acquisition under conditions of limited visibility such as darkness, smoke, fog, dust, and haze. Iraqi veterans often report being forced to borrow this equipment to complete combat patrols, cordon and search missions, and security operations. While this shows good initiative and teamwork, it also highlights the need to equip the armor platoon for success. The AN/PVS-4 individual weapons night sight provides passive night vision for machine gun operators. It uses natural starlight or moonlight. It provides magnification of x3.6 and can be used to detect targets out to 500 meters. A 2.7-volt mercury battery powers the unit for about a 24-hour continuous use period. An automatic brightness control caters for sudden flashes of light, such as a rifle muzzle flash. The M145, manufactured by Elcan, differs from the standard 3.4x sight, in that ballistic compensation is in the reticle, rather than in the mount. Reticle illumination is by a battery-powered LED with 11 intensity settings. There are several references available that provide the framework for employing the M240 effectively in the tank platoon, which include U. S. Army Field Manual (FM) 3-22.68, Crew Served Machine Guns; FM 3-20.12, Tank Gunnery (Abrams); “The Future of Tank Gunnery,” ARMOR, September-October 2004; “Task Force 1-77 Armor — Back in the Saddle,” ARMOR, November-December 2004; and “Advanced Infantry Optics and Their Future in Armor,” ARMOR, January-February 2005.5 Combat operations in Iraq have simultaneously reinforced the firepower and effectiveness of the loader’s M240 while highlighting shortcomings in the present configuration. The resourcefulness, ingenuity, and teamwork of soldiers in theater have yielded TTP and field expedient materiel fixes for improved employment of the M240. While it is true that “you go to war with the equipment you have,” there is a requirement for incorporating feedback into fielding and doctrine evolution. The recommended training and equipment solutions mentioned in this article are critical to ensure the Abrams loader remains an effective, vital component to the tank crew in the contemporary operating environment. Notes 1Thomas S. Power, Design for Survival, American Securities Council Press, 1968. 2Gordon R. Sullivan, Hope Is Not a Method, Broadway Publishing, 2 September 1997. 3Lieutenant Colonel John A. Nagl, Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam: Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, Praeger Publishers, 2002. In Chapter 2 of his book, LTC Nagl explains the cyclical nature of doctrinal evolution, with feedback from the force, feeding the loop and driving transformational changes in equipment, training, and doctrine. 4D. H. Hill, 1863, as quoted in U. S. Army Field Manual 3-90, Tactics, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 4 July 2001, Chapter 12. 5U. S. Army Field Manual 3-22.68, Crew Served Machine Guns, 5.56-mm and 7.62-mm; M249, 5.56-mm Machine Gun; M60, 7.62-mm Machine Gun; M240B, 7.62-mm Machine Gun, U. S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D. C., 31 January 2003; FM 3-20.12, Tank Gunnery (Abrams), GPO, Washington, D. C., 15 August 2005; Major Herbert Skinner and Sergeant First Class Michael Dunfee, “The Future of Tank Gunnery,” ARMOR, September-October 2004, pp. 20-25; Staff Sergeant James L. Gibson, “Task Force 1-77 Armor — Back in the Saddle,” ARMOR, November-December 2004, pp. 23-25; and Captain Francis J. H. Park, “Advanced Infantry Optics and Their Future in Armor,” ARMOR, January-February 2005, pp. 18-21. Sergeant First Class Vernon P. Prohaska is currently assigned as NCOIC, Stryker Training R4, Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 2d Battalion, 81st (2-81) Armor, 1st Armor Training Brigade (ATB), Fort Knox, KY. His military education includes Advanced Noncommissioned Officers School, Basic Noncommissioned Officers School, Primary Leadership Development Course, M1A2 SEP Tank Commander Certification Course, Stryker Reconnaissance Vehicle Course, and Recruiting School. He has served in various armor and cavalry positions, to include platoon sergeant, tank commander, instructor, and writer, HHC, 2-81 Armor, 1st ATB, Fort Knox, KY; tank platoon sergeant, E Troop, 2d Squadron, 3d Armor Cavalry Regiment, Iraq and Fort Carson, CO; tank commander, C troop, 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry, Korea; and tank commander, B Company, 1st Battalion, 13th Armor, Fort Riley, KS. Captain Joshua M. Keena is currently pursuing a Ph. D. as a uniformed Army scientist and engineer in the Army Acquisition Corps. He received a B. S. from the United States Military Academy. His military education includes Armor Officer Basic Course, Armor Captains Career Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and the Acquisition Corps Basic Course. He has served in various command and staff positions, to include commander, HHC, 2-81 Armor, Fort Knox, KY; commander, Company F, 2-81 Armor, Fort Knox; support platoon leader, Aviation Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (ID), Schofield Barracks, HI; XO, HHC, Aviation Brigade, 25th ID, Schofield Barracks; and scout platoon leader, 3d Squadron, 4th Cavalry, Schofield Barracks. “Combat operations in Iraq have simultaneously reinforced the firepower and effectiveness of the loader’s M240 while highlighting shortcomings in the present configuration. The resourcefulness, ingenuity, and teamwork of soldiers in theater have yielded TTP and field expedient materiel fixes for improved employment of the M240.” — 43