Inside the Sullivan Cup: Modern Tank Gunnery Drills and Evaluation

The Sullivan Cup brings together armored vehicle crews from the U.S. Army, National Guard units, and international allies to compete in a rigorous and multifaceted competition held biennially at Fort Benning. According to veteran armor officer Nicholas Moran, it is designed to identify the best armor crew through a series of challenges that test physical endurance, technical prowess, and teamwork. Originally a three-day event, the competition has expanded into eight or nine days of intense work. Participants this year included teams from Poland and the United Kingdom in the tank competition category, while Ireland participated in the Bradley category. This international participation underscores the event's role as both a competition and a learning experience for cross-national military collaboration.

Moran notes that some American teams, such as the 11th ACR, were absent this year due to operational commitments, with some crews reporting for the competition straight off deployment. In contrast, foreign teams either engaged in significant pre-event preparation or underwent weeks of onsite training to adapt to American standards. While Poland's team had limited experience operating M1 Abrams tanks, having only recently transitioned to the platform, the Irish competed on Bradleys since they lack experience with tracked vehicles and opted not to overextend their capabilities.

Fitness-Based Evaluations

Physical endurance plays a substantial role in the Sullivan Cup, as is typical in U.S. Army competitions. Moran describes the fitness test as an intensive start to the event, with activities spanning sprints, weight-carrying tasks, and additional physical challenges leading into another run. Although the physical fitness tests may seem overwhelming, they are structured to build and evaluate resilience and teamwork among crew members.

The differences in crew sizes between vehicles, four for tanks and three for Bradleys, are reflected in tailored physical requirements. For instance, the weight of the 120mm sabre round that armored crews must carry was adjusted for Bradley crews to account for their smaller size. Handing off weights among crew members, according to Moran, is not uncommon since the aim is to complete the task as a team, rather than placing the full load on one individual.

The British team, representing the Queen's Royal Hussars, benefited from a slight advantage as they recently received Challenger 3 tanks, which use NATO-standard 120mm ammunition similar to American tanks. Moran humorously observed some unconventional lifting techniques among participants, noting their commitment despite deviations from optimal handling methods. He also remarked on the grueling nature of these tests, noting that competitors often collapse at the end out of sheer physical exhaustion. While he acknowledges the importance of fitness in armored vehicle operations, Moran questions the emphasis on brute strength over more directly applicable skills, like navigation or advanced driving.

Moran points out that, despite performing under heavy physical strain, the participants maintained camaraderie and good spirits. One notable example of this was the Irish team's enthusiastic support for one another during these events, an attitude that perhaps contributed to their eventual victory in the Bradley category. Moran also acknowledges the advice he shared with the Irish team before the competition, emphasizing the importance of selecting fit and physically prepared crew members.

Tactical Exercises and Gunnery Drills

The tactical and gunnery challenges of the Sullivan Cup play a critical role in distinguishing top-performing armor crews, and they are notably distinct for their emphasis on adaptability. Moran elaborates that the tactical exercises feature scenarios with no predefined solutions. This ensures teams must rely on ingenuity and training to navigate complex problems. While he appreciates the emphasis on problem-solving, Moran highlights the difficulty in quantifying tactical exercises, as there are often no straightforward, “correct” answers.

A significant technical component of the event is the live-fire accuracy screening, which Moran describes as a process for zeroing the gun. Sergeant Major Bean explains that before competition shooting begins, crews conduct a boresighting process to align the tank’s sights with its cannon. This ensures their fire control systems are properly calibrated to hit projected targets. Boresighting aligns a tank's gun barrel with its aiming system, but live-fire accuracy confirmation, referred to as "L fasting," is crucial for fine-tuning the tank’s fire control settings, which incorporate complex factors like crosswind, barrel alignment, and air pressure.

Sergeant Major Bean provides an in-depth look at the L-fasting process for Abrams tanks, conducted at 1,500 meters during this event due to range constraints, although new standards call for testing at 1,600 meters. Using a target called an "ST5 panel" (a circle with crosshairs), the crew must demonstrate that one of their first rounds lands within the circle's bounds. If their shots fall outside tolerances, the proofing team verifies the crew's procedures while inspecting the tank for hardware or system errors. Specialized maintenance is conducted as needed, such as recalibrating the tank’s ballistic computer to account for platform-specific characteristics like wear or minor manufacturing differences.

Moran emphasizes the practical value of these drills in ensuring accuracy and providing insights into mechanical reliability. This is a vital skill given the demands of real-world armored combat. He points to the varying levels of familiarity among international crews with American equipment and standards. For example, the Poles, though relatively new to the Abrams platform, performed impressively during the pistol-shooting component, demonstrating their adaptability under pressure.

As the competition progressed, Moran highlighted other segments like the stress shoot and casualty evacuation drills. However, he critiqued the more recent iterations of the Sullivan Cup for simplifying these tasks, noting the absence of medical treatment and assessment components that had been included in previous years. Nonetheless, these scenarios allowed for teams to demonstrate their ability to rapidly respond to and manage simulated battlefield conditions.

The day’s events ended with the Sprint-Drag-Carry exercise, which Moran refers to as a grueling "moment of personal reflection." After participants complete the leg of raw physical exertion, they move directly into hitting falling plates, small and challenging targets, while physically fatigued. Remarking on the relative silence of the event, Moran acknowledged the harsh realities of such competitions, where competitors may take the opportunity for physical suffering as a time for introspection.

International Collaboration and Training Adaptation

According to Lieutenant Carl Meade, a troop commander in the First Armored Cavalry Squadron, foreign teams participating in the Sullivan Cup faced the significant challenge of adapting to American gunnery and tactical standards. Meade explained that although the teams were not expected to arrive as experts in operating the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), they underwent thorough training to bridge the gap. This included maintenance and driving training, along with hands-on gunnery practice and simulator exercises. Importantly, these training steps ensured that teams passed competency gates before they moved on to live-fire exercises.

Meade highlighted that, while the BFV platform was new to his team, the transferability of certain maintenance and gunnery checks from their home systems provided an advantage. Despite the differences in the platforms and fire control systems, the foundational principles of armored operations remained consistent. He noted that their prior experience qualified them to quickly learn and adapt to the American systems. This readiness is crucial because, as Meade observed, the Sullivan Cup competition adheres strictly to American standards, which meant all participants had to meet a uniform level of proficiency using U.S. systems and protocols.

Meade admitted that adapting to U.S. military standards was initially a challenging process. For instance, transitioning from stationary targets to pop-up and moving targets proved difficult due to the contrast with their training regimens at home, where they typically engaged static Connex boxes and other fixed targets. However, he and his crew found the experience extremely beneficial. He shared that one key takeaway was absorbing new techniques for issuing fire control orders and understanding their directness and efficiency. Meade expressed a strong belief that applying these lessons upon returning to their native training programs could strengthen their operational capability, modernize their practices, and improve overall effectiveness.

Reflecting on the Bradley, Meade described it as a highly capable "beast of a machine" whose performance and design impressed his crew. He highlighted its reliability, noting that the BFV’s weapon system and turret were both durable and precise. These features underscored the importance of robust maintenance teams for ensuring operational readiness, which became a critical thread across the competition.

Meade further emphasized how participating in the Sullivan Cup served as an invaluable opportunity for international knowledge exchange. By observing and experiencing the U.S. Army’s procedures and equipment firsthand, teams such as his could identify best practices to incorporate into their own training regimes. Overall, he viewed the event as a vital step toward heightened interoperability and operational alignment with NATO-standardized equipment and methodology.

Maintenance Challenges and Problem Solving

The maintenance lanes were a critical component of the Sullivan Cup, emphasizing practical hands-on skills that mirror real battlefield scenarios. Nicholas Moran observed that these tasks were developed in part at Fort Bliss by the First Armored Division to verify the competency of tank crews in maintenance under time pressure. Crews were assessed on their ability to complete highly prescribed tasks based on technical manuals (TM), such as preparing a tank for towing or starting another vehicle using slave cables.

Moran explained that the tasks required rigorous adherence to the TM, even down to administrative preparation before entering the lanes. Participants reviewed the manual, organized their tools, and developed strategies to approach the tasks, which ranged from straightforward sequences to more physically and mentally demanding challenges. Examples included preparing an M1A2 Abrams tank for recovery with tow bars and tow cables, and getting a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) operational using a slave-start method.

One of the more intensive stations involved changing a damaged track pad. Crews had to follow precise steps to release tension, replace defective components, and reinstall parts correctly. The task included loosening bolts and end connectors, using a track support chain and hydraulic tools like an end connector puller, and re-tightening and securing the track once replaced. The exercise, limited to 45 minutes, demanded a balance of speed, coordination, and technical accuracy.

Moran noted that these maintenance exercises are not officially part of established doctrine but are expected to gain more formal recognition in the future. He highlighted how effective tools and thoughtful preparation could significantly streamline these tasks in the field. For instance, the impact wrench plugged into the tank's external power ports provides much-needed efficiency during track repairs.

Ultimately, the emphasis on solving real-world armor challenges, from exhaust deflector installation to handling heavy recovery operations, made the maintenance lanes one of the most demanding and educational phases of the Sullivan Cup. By closely following standardized manuals and working against the clock, participants not only strengthened their mechanical skills but also reinforced the crucial interplay of teamwork and precision under pressure.

As Moran sums up, these maintenance tasks require a solid grasp of procedures, mechanical aptitude, and the ability to work cohesively as a team under stringent time constraints. This mirrors the real pressures crews face in active combat zones.

Insights and Outcomes from the Sullivan Cup

Nicholas Moran provides a detailed explanation of the tank track replacement process, highlighting its physical demands and the precision required to complete the task within the allocated 45 minutes. He describes how crew members use tools such as hydraulic yokes and track jacks for removing and reattaching track components. The process involves loosening and breaking bolts, removing damaged track blocks, and using track jacks to align and secure the new segments. Moran emphasizes the collaboration and skill necessary to execute these steps under the stringent time constraints. He notes that some crews, particularly the Polish team, demonstrated extraordinary speed and coordination, completing the task well under the time limit.

During the competition, teams had the opportunity to showcase their efficiency in real-time, with onlookers often comparing the atmosphere to a high-speed pit crew competition in motor racing. Moran highlights how the teams’ ability to function cohesively and adapt their approach under pressure mirrors the real-world demands of battlefield maintenance.

Reflections from an International Perspective

During an interview with a member of the Irish tank team, the soldier highlighted the unique opportunity presented by participating in the Sullivan Cup. Traditionally operating the Challenger 2 tank, the Irish team trained on the M1A2 Abrams to compete in the U.S.-hosted event. The guest emphasized that this was part of a broader modernization initiative in their army, aiming to align their practices with NATO interoperability standards. He expressed enthusiasm about the learning experience, which allowed the team to observe and adopt new techniques and reinforce their proficiency in unfamiliar systems.

The Irish crew adopted an approach emphasizing representativeness, selecting standard squadron members for their team rather than conducting special selection events. They aimed to demonstrate the capability of a typical British Army tank crew, showcasing general readiness rather than solely highlighting individual excellence. The speaker shared that the crew began their training five weeks before the competition and focused intensely on learning American tank procedures, terminology, and crew coordination methods. This included rigorous studies of more than 200 vehicles and doctrinal questions, along with significant simulation training.

The Irish tank commander shared that among the highlights of the Abrams tank were its ease of use, independent commander’s thermal sight, and the CROWS (Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station) system, which offers commanders unprecedented control over support weapons while simultaneously engaging other targets. While there was a touch of humor about the absence of a kettle on board, a prized feature of their native Challenger 2 tanks, he expressed respect for the Abrams’ capabilities and emphasized the value of training with and adapting to NATO partners’ equipment.

The guest also discussed the challenges of adopting American protocols, particularly the detailed communications style used by U.S. forces. Adapting their approach to align with American standards required the Irish team to unlearn their usual tactical terminology and methods in favor of the more standardized American practices. While this was initially challenging, the detailed commands were beneficial for reducing errors for crews adjusting to a new platform and procedures. He concluded that the experience would likely help their battalion transition to the Challenger 3, which will feature updates to align it with NATO standards in the coming years.

Additionally, the crew member reflected on their experience during physical testing, acknowledging that the lack of specifics in the initial briefing made the exercises more challenging. Despite this, the team excelled, achieving second place in the physical endurance test and adapting well to the competition's other phases, such as the doctrinal examination, vehicle identification challenges, and gunnery drills. He shared that the weather initially played to their strengths before becoming a factor during the latter stages, showcasing the teams’ adaptability under diverse conditions.

Observing Tactical and Gunnery Adjustments

The physical and doctrinal aspects of the Sullivan Cup were contrasted with the gunnery drills, which the Irish participant described as the primary reason they joined the competition. The exercises incorporated American crew coordination standards, requiring non-U.S. teams to set aside their native techniques and commit to mastering American practices for the tests. The participant acknowledged the difficulty of unlearning years of ingrained procedures but praised the clarity of the American system, noting that the adjusted terminology and structured communication protocols fostered precision, especially for operations on unfamiliar platforms.

The British team member also highlighted how competition-focused training refined their gunnery techniques. He noted that their preparation and success at the "American equivalent of Table Six" underscored the compatibility of their existing skills with the new system, though additional competencies were needed to seamlessly integrate with foreign-manufactured main battle tanks (MBTs). The immersive training and competition environment improved their readiness for the upcoming deployment of the Challenger 3 in their home battalion.

Moran concludes the segment by applauding the mutual learning opportunities these multinational competitions afford. He emphasizes the value of joint training exercises, which prepare participating nations for seamlessly interoperating within NATO standards. Teams leave not just with enhanced mechanical and gunnery skills but also a deeper understanding of cross-cultural military frameworks, enabling more effective collaboration in future joint operations.

What was said, and when

The points this article makes, and the moment in the recording where each was said. Everything below was said by Nicholas Moran. Every time opens the recording at that moment.

• The Sullivan Cup is held biennially at Fort Benning. 01:20.
• The Sullivan Cup is designed to identify the best armor crew through challenges testing physical endurance, technical prowess, and teamwork. 01:51.
• The competition has expanded from a three-day event into eight or nine days. 02:40.
• The Sullivan Cup includes international participants, with teams from Poland and the United Kingdom competing in the tank category, and Ireland competing in the Bradley category. 01:51.
• Some American teams, like the 11th ACR, were absent this year due to operational commitments. 03:00.
• Teams from Poland had limited experience operating M1 Abrams tanks, having recently transitioned to the platform. 04:07.
• Ireland competed on Bradleys due to their lack of experience with tracked vehicles. 13:59.
• The fitness test in the Sullivan Cup involves sprints, weight-carrying tasks, and other challenges leading into a final run. 04:16.
• The fitness test's requirements are tailored to the differing crew sizes of tanks and Bradleys. 04:45.
• British crews had recently received Challenger 3 tanks which use NATO-standard 120mm ammunition similar to American tanks. 05:31.
• Handoffs of weights among crew members during the physical tests are common to complete the task as a team. 04:45.
• Nicholas Moran remarks that physical tasks often lead participants to moments of exhaustion and introspection. 26:19.
• Nicholas Moran shared advice with the Irish team on the importance of selecting fit and prepared crew members. 06:53.
• The tactical exercises as scenarios with no predefined solutions. 08:54.
• The live-fire accuracy screening and the boresighting process required before competition shooting. 32:34.
• Accuracy testing was conducted at 1,500 meters due to range constraints, though new standards call for testing at 1,600 meters. 33:18.
• The Poles demonstrated adaptability during the pistol-shooting component despite being new to the Abrams platform. 18:37.
• Nicholas Moran critiques recent Sullivan Cup iterations for simplifying casualty evacuation drills and removing medical treatment and assessment components present in earlier versions. 20:01.
• The Sprint-Drag-Carry exercise is described by Nicholas Moran as transitioning between physical exertion and hitting falling plates. 29:33.
• Participating foreign teams faced challenges adapting to American gunnery and tactical standards. 39:07.
• Competency gates ensured teams passed maintenance, driving, and gunnery training before moving to live-fire exercises. 39:07.
• Transitioning to hit pop-up and moving targets contrasted with foreign teams’ training typically involving static targets. 42:26.
• Lieutenant Carl Meade highlights the Bradley as a durable and precise machine showcasing the importance of robust maintenance teams. 41:44.
• The Sullivan Cup allowed international teams like Meade's crew to observe U.S. procedures, providing insights to strengthen training at home. 14:33.
• Maintenance lanes involved tasks like preparing a tank for towing or jumpstarting a Bradley using slave cables under time constraints. 47:53.
• The maintenance lanes were developed to verify tank crews' competency under time pressure. 47:29.
• Tasks included loosening bolts and connectors, using track support chains and hydraulic tools, and reinstalling parts correctly. 50:30.
• Nicholas Moran highlights that tools like an impact wrench could streamline track repairs. 59:16.
• The tank track replacement process as requiring precision and teamwork, limited to a 45-minute timeframe. 1:00:18.
• The Irish team trained on the M1A2 Abrams as part of modernizing their practices to align with NATO interoperability standards with plans for Challenger 3 deployment. 1:05:47.