Jump to content
Damian90

History of US Tanks.

Recommended Posts

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

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
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
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

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

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vVoKeWh.jpg

Series production M1A2C tested at Yuma Proving Grounds.

CRdlEQ7.jpg

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.

7ixq74p.jpg
UES5q22.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...