Jump to content
Damian90

History of US Tanks.

Recommended Posts

They look great in OD, wish it would again be standard camo pattern for US vehicles, it's far more universal than desert tan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the OD green but I wish they would get rid of the big white aiming points on the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, obviously this is more a memorial camo pattern for STCE.

 

But OD yes, is very universal, if we consider that OD is a good backing color when vehicle is covered with dust, mud, tree branches and camouflage nets.

 

Israelis do the same, they do not have a camo pattern, tanks are colored in color similiar to the background, and rest of pattern is created by sand, dust, mud etc.

 

It's a cheap, simple and relatively effective solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

as a general question(s)

 

1) were there any Original M1's were Refurbished to M1IP standards?

 

2) or any  M1's  and  M1IP upgraded to M1A1 standards?

 

ONly asking becuase In turn a overwhelming Portion of M1A2 series of tanks are not Factory new But Old stocks of M1A1 and M1A1 HA sent back to General dynamics to go under a vast upgrade process to have the Protection and newer FCS ETC, that were brough upt brought up to M1A2, and subsequent  M1A2 SEP standards.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Kev2go said:

as a general question(s)

 

1) were there any Original M1's were Refurbished to M1IP standards?

 

2) or any  M1's  and  M1IP upgraded to M1A1 standards?

 

ONly asking becuase In turn a overwhelming Portion of M1A2 series of tanks are not Factory new But Old stocks of M1A1 and M1A1 HA sent back to General dynamics to go under a vast upgrade process to have the Protection and newer FCS ETC, that were brough upt brought up to M1A2, and subsequent  M1A2 SEP standards.

1. Yes if you count adding storage basket on the turret rear?

2. No.

M1A2's or M1A2SEP's were allmost all rebuilded M1's, M1IP's, or various subvariants of M1A1's.

 

However you need to understand one thing, in case of M1 and M1IP, rebuilding meant that a completely new turret was builded and hull was cut and welded again in certain places. Why?

Because there are 3 types of turrets for the M1 series, so you have:

Type 1 turret, also called "Short Turret", used in original M1, with thinner front armor.

Type 2 turret, also called "Interim Turret/Long Turret", similiar to Type 1 but with a thicker front armor.

 

Type 3 turret, also called "Long Turret", with thicker front armor and other significant structural changes.

 

Due to these significant structural changes, it's immposible to rebuild Type 1 and Type 2 turret in to Type 3 turret, so a completely new turret must be build.

As for hull, we can also describe 3 types, altough structural changes are smaller so rebuilding is possible.

So a Type 1 hull for M1 and M1IP, can be recognized by lack of newer type integrated NBC protection system.

Type 2 hull used with various modifications for all M1A1 and M1A2, recognized by having integrated NBC protection system.

 

Type 3 hull for M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4, it's said that compared to Type 2, there are some structural modifications for it, and other upgrades, altough older hulls can be modified to this standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

k6Dx85Q.jpg

 

First photo of the M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA (Extended Range Cannon Artillery) for M109A7/M109A8. XM907 depending on source uses L52, L55 or L58 barrel, will have max range of 70 km and with new ammunition possibly extended to 100+ km, an autoloader + a second variant for towed M777 is developed.

hWvUAIn.jpg

eHvIJLf.jpg

 

It seems 3 different autoloader designs are considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UES5q22.jpg

 

It seems that final design of the new M109A8 was choosen, including it's autoloader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As a curious question Does anyone know hoe many vanilla M60A1 and M60A1 AOS remained by the 1980s ( if any)?  that werent yet upgraded to M60A1 RISE or RISE passive or M60A3 in US service,  based on numbers i found on varying sources I tried to do the math, although i dont have documentation from the amount of M60 converted or produced to M60A1 RISE standard from 1975- 1977 

 

Source : max produced M60/M60A1 series by year 1980 ( hunnicut)  :  7948

 

Based on this document shows how many M60A1 RISE & RISE passives were coverted or produced from 1978-1980 and as a Bonus for me where they were Deployed.  

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a141935.pdf

 

A book i had read on the M60 MBT history by Richard Lathrop  wrote that  that aprox 5,400 M60A3's were produced total only 1,700 were brand new factory fresh with the rest being upgraded  from M60A1's. SO with that information know this is my Mathemetical work how i attempted to determine how many M60A1 and m60A1 may have been in service. ( to restate i dont know how many were converted/produced from 1975-77 to RISE standard so the number is certainly going to be smaller than the one i come up with)

 

 

in 1978-1980 there are 1,523 RISE & RISE passives. ( we do not have 1975-1977 numbers unavailablefor but missing)

 

 

 

 

There are 5,400 M60A3's produced , only of which 1,700 are factory fresh. 3,700 M60A3's are Upgraded from PRe M60A1 RISE series. WE also know that 874 Patton went to Foreign military sales, and 578 of various iterations were sold off to the USMC ( Which also included the RISE and RISE PAssive)

 

 

 

 

According to Hunnicut a total of  7,948  a total of M60 series of tanks were produced by 1980 ( which finally ceases with the Last RISE passive)

 

 

7948 - 874 ( FMS) - 578 (USMC) = 1,452

 

 

 

1,523 ( M60A1 RISE/RISE passive)  + 3,700 (  Pre RISE M60's upgraded to M60A3) = 5,223

 

 

Now lets subtract total production of M60A1 built with the total of M60A1s Upgraded TO RISE/RISE passive and M60A3's.

 

 

7948 - 5223 = 2725

 

 

Now last but not least to SUbtract  that number further with the ammount of M60A3's that were produced in factory. which would have replaced obsolete M60  Tanks ( pre RISE) not upgraded. in Europe.

 

 

2725- 1700 =  1025.

 

 

 

NOw to add upgraded M60a3s ( formerly built M60A3's) with new produced M60A3's, combined with known number of Upgraded M60A1 RISE/RISE passive ( 1977-1980)

 

 

 

5223 ( combined number of modernized M60A1 and M60A3)

 

 

 

+ 1,700 ( new produced M60A3)

 

 

 

= 6,923

 

 

 

To check work subtract  MAx production of Various M60 patton family by subtracting it number left from non upgraded pattons

 

 

 

7948 -  1025 =  6923.

 

 

 

TO Reitarate again. This only with what information i had available, I know i am lacking information on how many M60A1s were converted to RISE between 1975-1977. IF there are any further incorrect wih my reasoning i am glad to be corrected. Thats ultimately why i ask the question as well hoping anyone could fill in the blanks with regards to 1975-77 production/ upgrades.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 12:03 PM, Damian90 said:

 

Israelis do the same, they do not have a camo pattern, tanks are colored in color similiar to the background, and rest of pattern is created by sand, dust, mud etc.

 

It's a cheap, simple and relatively effective solution.

 

for modellers there is a paint color called 'sinai gray' - not an easy color to duplicate and get the effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ssnake@dejawolf@cobrabase@Assassin 7

 

During doing some research I discovered something interesting, it seems that my theory I discarded in the past was in the end correct! M1's upper front hull plate (glacis) indeed have variable thickness, around drivers hatch it's 50mm thick, however rest of the plate is ~70-80mm thick. How do I know, well I found photos of an old basic M1, modified as a test bed for hydropneumatic suspension system with variable height control. I noticed that front fuel tanks were removed replaced by hydropneumatic oil reservoirs with pipes coming through holes cut in upper glacis, and what I noticed is that glacis plate on most of it's surface is thicker than over driver hatch area.

 

PlHsWZ7.jpg
OF2QJra.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

 M1's upper front hull plate (glacis) indeed have variable thickness, around drivers hatch it's 50mm thick, however rest of the plate is ~70-80mm thick.

 

Nope :) Its measured(yeah, it was  really measured on actual vehicle) all the same uniform less than 2-inch thickness across entire surface, consistent with  values on well-known sketch of CATTB hull . What you see on photos above are  welded-in support rims, which as always are giving impression of thick plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Nope :) Its measured(yeah, it was  really measured on actual vehicle) all the same uniform less than 2-inch thickness across entire surface, consistent with  values on well-known sketch of CATTB hull . What you see on photos above are  welded-in support rims, which as always are giving impression of thick plate.

The plates above the fuel cell are thicker than it is around the drivers hole. If you ever replaced a front fuel cell you would know this. Also the fuel cell can shrink and expand to a certain limit. They also have a unique shape. The right front holds 149.8 gallons and the left holds 106.6 gallons.

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

The plates above the fuel cell are thicker than it is around the drivers hole. If you ever replaced a front fuel cell you would know this. Also the fuel cell can shrink and expand to a certain limit. They also have a unique shape. The right front holds 149.8 gallons and the left holds 106.6 gallons.

Hmm, point taken... Probably  inner plates are spaced  few millimeters a part from upper glacis, so ultrasonic thickness gauge(most of inexpensive models) will very likely screw-up and not measure 'em. 

Edited by Jartsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most ultrasonic gauges make critical errors. We tried this in Poland with few vehicles, it's complete bollocks. And I meassured glacis around drivers hatch with meassuring tape, it's 50mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 10:45 AM, Damian90 said:

@Ssnake@dejawolf@cobrabase@Assassin 7

 

During doing some research I discovered something interesting, it seems that my theory I discarded in the past was in the end correct! M1's upper front hull plate (glacis) indeed have variable thickness, around drivers hatch it's 50mm thick, however rest of the plate is ~70-80mm thick. How do I know, well I found photos of an old basic M1, modified as a test bed for hydropneumatic suspension system with variable height control. I noticed that front fuel tanks were removed replaced by hydropneumatic oil reservoirs with pipes coming through holes cut in upper glacis, and what I noticed is that glacis plate on most of it's surface is thicker than over driver hatch area.

 

PlHsWZ7.jpg
OF2QJra.jpg

 

Your research is some of the best on the planet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cobrabase said:

Your research is some of the best on the planet!

Thanks, need to dig more! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gC9sxYF.jpg

 

USMC starts purchasing Trophy HV for their M1A1FEP tanks, other upgrades will also include NGAP (Next Generation Armor Package) from M1A2SEPv3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QRgY0EC.jpg

 

https://www.gd.com/news/press-releases/2018/07/general-dynamics-receives-delivery-order-upgrade-100-abrams-main-battle

 

So GDLS got order to upgrade first 100 older M1A1's to M1A2SEPv3 standard, 2017 requirement say about initial need to upgrade at least 435 M1A1's to M1A2SEPv3 standard, it also means that US Army probably want a pure fleet of various M1A2SEP subvariants before moving to a pure M1A2SEPv3/M1A2SEPv4 fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×