Kev2go Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 (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 June 17, 2018 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 18, 2018 Author Share Posted June 18, 2018 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 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. It seems 3 different autoloader designs are considered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 21, 2018 Author Share Posted June 21, 2018 It seems that final design of the new M109A8 was choosen, including it's autoloader. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 21, 2018 Author Share Posted June 21, 2018 M109A8 turret tested on M109A6 testbed chassis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share Posted June 26, 2018 A higher quality photograph. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 (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 July 2, 2018 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJ_Fubar Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 The man to ask would probably be Ken Estes over at Tanknet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 9, 2018 Author Share Posted July 9, 2018 @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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted July 9, 2018 Share Posted July 9, 2018 Already talked in discord. 😁👍 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assassin 7 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (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 July 10, 2018 by Assassin 7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (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 July 10, 2018 by Jartsev 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobrabase Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 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. Your research is some of the best on the planet! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 13 hours ago, cobrabase said: Your research is some of the best on the planet! Thanks, need to dig more! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 USMC starts purchasing Trophy HV for their M1A1FEP tanks, other upgrades will also include NGAP (Next Generation Armor Package) from M1A2SEPv3. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted July 26, 2018 Author Share Posted July 26, 2018 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 11, 2018 Author Share Posted August 11, 2018 More detailed NGCV IFV CAD model. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 NGCV MBT? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted September 12, 2018 Author Share Posted September 12, 2018 Thanks to @Assassin 7 I have a confirmation about changes in designation codes of M1 tanks, from now on M1 Block II variants are: M1A2 M1A2A (former M1A2SEPv1) M1A2B (former M1A2SEPv2) M1A2C (former M1A2SEPv3) M1A2D (former M1A2SEPv4) For now no known changes of M1 Block 0 (M1 and M1IP) as well as M1 Block 1 (M1A1 and it's subvariants). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted September 30, 2018 Author Share Posted September 30, 2018 Series production M1A2C tested at Yuma Proving Grounds. M109A6 chassis used as a testbed for M109A8 turret system. M109A8 turret system is a modified M109A7 turret system that adds an autoloader and M907 ERCA L58 gun howitzer. This will be mounted on a new M2A4 IFV and AMPV based chassis for M109A7. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted October 3, 2018 Share Posted October 3, 2018 (edited) Is the m1a1 + later variations less survivable than the m1 or m1ip? I have read someone claiming that the m1 blast panel doors were only strong enough to prevent flames and pressure buildup from the ammo rack fitted with 105mm shells. 120mm shells have more powerfull propellant and that the blast doors cant handle the pressure and will blow open irregardless of the the blowout panels on top of the turret which were there to direct energy upwards and prevent a pressure buildup strong enough to blow the blast doors open. The so called proof was using videos of iraqi crewed m1a1s blowing apart when hit in the rear turret. Is there any merit to this logic or are these very vague and inaccurate assumptions? Edited October 3, 2018 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.