Jump to content
Damian90

History of US Tanks.

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

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 from the ammo rack fitted with 105mm shells.

 

120mm shells have more powerfull propellant and that the blast doors csnt handle the pressure and will blow open irregardless ov the blowout panels on top of the turret.

 

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?

I believe as the over pressure rises the panels fail at a point on a scale, a 120mm blast will climb the same scale, abit faster, but will hit the point where the panels will fail. The reload doors point of failure is above the blast doors on the scale.

The panels are called"blast", so, the flame thing is not part of thee design in a true theory. Blast is exactly that, they are designed so the "blast" panels will fail, before the ammo doors, thous sending the "blast", and if you want the flames upwards, and not inwards towards the crew. The amount of pressure caused by 105 is less than 120mm, therefore we can say the "blast" panels will work as required, and....keep the "blast" moving in the correct direction, that would be up, vs inwards. So a short answer is no need for any mods to said"blast" panels one would think, that's not to say there was not mods with 120mm rounds coming on line. As for the turret failing from rear penetration by various wpns not all of the turret is heavily protected, as in any design there are week spots, and the known luck shot.

I'm sure more ppl  will add to this, some even served on said tank....some not so much..:)

 

But this is my 2 cents,really 1.5 after our trade deal.....JK'ing:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having any knowledge, I'd pitch my .02.....Iraqi troops are likely trained to low levels, and subsequent low discipline, so old habits from previous tanks would likely carry on....Hotloading rounds, keeping the ammo door locked open between shots and other seemingly harmless practices will produce catastrophic kills with rear turret hits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, tankenator said:

Not having any knowledge, I'd pitch my .02.....Iraqi troops are likely trained to low levels, and subsequent low discipline, so old habits from previous tanks would likely carry on....Hotloading rounds, keeping the ammo door locked open between shots and other seemingly harmless practices will produce catastrophic kills with rear turret hits...

Well, they operated T type tanks for a while, so, ammo doors, loading issues would not come into play, T-55-62 of course yes, 72's no. Your other points are valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The points here are accurate, the bolts holding the blowout panels are a certain grade type bolt. They are supposed to be torqued at certain specs. If over tighten or replaced by another bolt, they will fail causing the panels not to work correctly. If the loader had the ready ammo door open during the hit the blowout panels also would not work correctly. The blast pressure would go towards the crew compartment while flames would go out the hatches.As12alpha explained if the ammunition compartment is hit the blast is directed upwards towards the blowout panels, the bolts stretch while the blast pressure blows the panels off and then the cook off. The Armor around the ammo compartment is not as strong as it is around the crew compartment. 

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, it's clearly visible that the three-panel configuration on the original M1 was redesigned to two panels on the M1A1 and later. It would strike me as "unnaturally incompetent" if they didn't adapt the bolts and panels to the new load configuration. Also, there's Gulf War footage where the panels worked as designed. All in all, I think it's a bogus claim.

Share this post


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

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?

As shown here:

ready ammo compartment is hit. Left blowout panel comes off from the blast pressure. Then the semi-ready is ignited going through the same process. Here the blowout panels worked as they were designed to.

Share this post


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

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?

This is pure BS from that moron Mike "Sparky" Sparks vel BlackTailDefence. There is no true in this, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/10/2018 at 1:02 PM, Damian90 said:

This is pure BS from that moron Mike "Sparky" Sparks vel BlackTailDefence. There is no true in this, period.

 

 

Nope it wasnt Blacktail defense (I know of him and Seriously hes still around making vidoes?)   If the person in question had actually quoted Blacktail as a source of getting his claim from   I wouldn't have bothered to ask the question here, believe me. 

 

I kinda suspected it was as much, i was merely asking here if it had any merit for those more knowledgeable, but i guess that settles it.

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/10/2018 at 12:29 PM, Assassin 7 said:

As shown here:

ready ammo compartment is hit. Left blowout panel comes off from the blast pressure. Then the semi-ready is ignited going through the same process. Here the blowout panels worked as they were designed to.

Not the video

 

actually this was the video in question, although its hard to tell given you cant see the interior ifs just another Cookoff or if the explsion spread into the crew compartment.

 

But in comparison the cookoff seemed much more violent in the one below.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

But in comparison the cookoff seemed much more violent in the one below.

It's hard to tell, but the missile attack occurs from the vehicle's 5 o'clock direction whereas the first example was coming from approximately 2 o'clock.

The first example seemed to be almost a near miss and hit the turret flank just to set off the ready ammo compartment in the rear left half of the turret bustle.

This new example may either have set off both the semi-ready and the ready ammo compartment, so we're seeing quasi two cook-offs simultaneously, and/or the warhead's HEAT jet may also have punctured the internal bulkheads, at which point most of the pressure would still vent outside, but maybe not enough to allow the crew to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Finally Nick Moran "The Chieftain" talks about M1A1, the tank he served in Iraq. This one is USMC M1A1HC named "Spawn", Nick served on US Army/ARNG M1A1HA/HC/AIM (dunno exactly which one) names "Barely Legal". Nick also says he will make one day full "Inside the Hatch" for this M1A1. Anyway, enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s3Nva4Q.png

 

This also confirms heavy armor package is in the hull at least starting with M1A1AIM (most likely added in late production HA's or starting with HC's).

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/09/2018 at 6:38 PM, Damian90 said:

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).

So, actually what are the M1 version used by US Army and ANG:

- M1A1 AIM SA

- M1A2 SEP v1 CEEP v2

- M1A2 SEP v2

 

or does all M1A2 SEPv1 / CEEP v2 been converted to M1A2 SEP v2 ?

 

and are you sure about M1A2, M1A2A and M1A2B, because I only found renaming for the SEP v3 and SEP v4, so M1A2C and M1A2D?

Edited by kgb613

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kgb613 said:

So, actually what are the M1 version used by US Army and ANG:

- M1A1 AIM SA

- M1A2 SEP v1 CEEP v2

- M1A2 SEP v2

 

or does all M1A2 SEPv1 / CEEP v2 been converted to M1A2 SEP v2 ?

 

and are you sure about M1A2, M1A2A and M1A2B, because I only found renaming for the SEP v3 and SEP v4, so M1A2C and M1A2D?

 

US Army/ARNG have:

M1A1SA

 

M1A2SEPv2 (it seems all M1A2SEPv1 tanks were converted to M1A2SEPv2 standard to this day)

 

M1A2SEPv3.

 

Yes I am certain, because I have this information from Assassin7 who is US Army tank crewmen and know this, not every information is avaiable for media or for general public yet.

 

M1A2 is M1A2.

 

M1A2SEPv1 was renamed M1A2A.

 

M1A2SEPv2 was renamed M1A2B.

 

M1A2SEPv3 was renamed M1A2C.

 

M1A2SEPv4 was renamed M1A2D.

 

Simple as that.

 

No renaming for A1 series so far.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is M1A2C an M1A2 SEPv2 with ECP1A and ECP1B or is it more than this ? And what about AMP? M1A2C has datalink to fire airburst shell, I thought it was for the AMP, but looks like AMP is not yet ready and should come with M1A2D. So actually datalink on M1A2C is only used by M829A4 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1A2C is ECP1A/SEPv3, M1A2D is ECP1B/SEPv4.

 

AMP is a separate program for M1147 HEMP round, and that data link can be used by variety of rounds, like M829A4, M1147 HEMP, I even heard about M242 HEMP which seems to be a US designation for DM11 that is used by USMC.

 

Oh and by the way, these is no such thing as SEP CEEP v2. It was always, only M1A2SEPv2, CEEP was a codename for electronics upgrade. But vehicle itself was only M1A2SEPv2.

 

SB Pro PE M1A2SEP is M1A2SEPv2 but early production variant without M153 CROWS-2 RWS and with few other differences. And as far as I know, SB Pro PE M1A2SEPv2 is not 100% accurate to the real thing, it lacks a lot of things considering FCS and other details. If it would be modeled as the real thing is in real world, then other vehicles would look even more primitive to it than they are now in SB.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because AMP is not yet ready, did US Army think to improve their M830A1 with datalink to be a link between AMP and standard M830A1 ?

 

ok for the M1A2 SEP, I thought that there was M1A2 SEP v1 upgraded with only SEPv2 flir and software, so know under the name of the program, M1A2 SEP CEEP v2. 

 

So SB should rename the M1A2 (SEP), in M1A2 (SEPv2) either in main menu or editor and training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kgb613 said:

Because AMP is not yet ready, did US Army think to improve their M830A1 with datalink to be a link between AMP and standard M830A1 ?

 

ok for the M1A2 SEP, I thought that there was M1A2 SEP v1 upgraded with only SEPv2 flir and software, so know under the name of the program, M1A2 SEP CEEP v2. 

 

So SB should rename the M1A2 (SEP), in M1A2 (SEPv2) either in main menu or editor and training.

The SEPV2(B) is the CEEP. The V2 had many upgraded components (IFCEU, ITMPU, IHMPU, CITV SEU, IGCDP, ICDU, IDID, POS/NAV, IHPDU, 2nd GEN FLIR BLOCK II system, EMU, DECU J5) installed and the Hawker batteries set. The SB M1A2 is the baseline V2 without any MWO’s added such as RVSS and CROWS. 

 

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because AMP is not yet ready, did US Army think to improve their M830A1 with datalink to be a link between AMP and standard M830A1 ?

 

No, why? When M1147 HEMP will be ready, it will replace M830 HEAT, M830A1 MPAT, M908 HEOR and M1028 Cannister. There is no reason to improve these rounds as they are meant to be replaced anyway. And AMP program is very close to successfull completion.

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...