Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

[TSe419E]

According to this web page,

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47209/thread/1003172372/Abrams+Question:

 

     M68, M68E1 and M68A1 gun, 105mm    

 

     The M68 gun is a modified British L7 105mm gun with different rifling and bore evacuator.
     The M68E1 is an M68 modifed slightly to take a MRS on the end. The M68A1 is the standardized      gun M68E1 able to take the Muzzle reference system mirror.  The markings on the breech tell          the story as some M68A1's were initially manufactured as M68's and then rebarreled as M68A1's.      The breech blocks don't wear out,(and are identical) only the barrels, so the breech on a M1IP          could date back to 1960 and have been originally fitted to a M60.
 

 

From: http://what-when-how.com/military-weapons/vehicle-guns-military-weapons/

 

     VARIANTS •

 

     M68A1 was a low-recoil variant developed for the FMC Close
     Combat Vehicle-Light (CCV-L) and first
     shown in 1985; the Benet XM35 was later adopted for the production M8 ACS.

 

 

While I doubt the manufacturing methods change I am sure that there was a difference that made certain serial numbers not safe to use with the M900 rounds.

Edited July 13, 2016 by TSe419E

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, Jartsev said:

In real life M900 can be safely fired only from M68A1 gun  on M1 tank(not M60A3!) and  gun's breech serial number should be higher than 4804. There is very little point in implementation of such special round, especially since there is suitable stand-in called DM63 already in game.

 

yes I know, hence the sources i posted, However those M68 with specific seriial number werent nessarily limited to M1's, depending when it got the gun refit, or what year it was produced. keep in mind the the m60a3 was produced all the way until 1987. even if most past 1980 went to foreign export sales, but even so an American crewed M60 could have had gun barrel refitted with another newer one, as eventually barrels wear out and simply need replacement. 

 

 

 

either way related to the second part of th argument,  with the source i  included in my next post  it confirms that M900 were shipped off the Gulf theater, and used. since Less of them came back. 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Kev2go

[Jartsev]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

 

yes I know, hence the sources i posted, However those M68 with specific seriial number werent nessarily limited to M1's, depending when it got the gun refit, or what year it was produced. keep in mind the the m60a3 was produced all the way until 1987. even if most past 1980 went to foreign export sales, but even so an American crewed M60 could have had gun barrel refitted with another newer one, as eventually barrels wear out and simply need replacement. 

 

Gun mount used in M60 series of tanks not rated to handle recoil produced by firing of M900, disregarding of tank`s production or retrofit date, while, as TSe419E wrote, M1 or  M1IP can have incompatible breech assy. Just 2 very simple facts...

 

P.S. I strongly recommend to read  TB 9-2350-356-14 at least.

[Kev2go]

On 7/13/2016 at 2:11 AM, Jartsev said:

Gun mount used in M60 series of tanks not rated to handle recoil produced by firing of M900, disregarding of tank`s production or retrofit date, while, as TSe419E wrote, M1 or  M1IP can have incompatible breech assy. Just 2 very simple facts...

 

P.S. I strongly recommend to read  TB 9-2350-356-14 at least.

 

 

Yes  of course i read it. the document only talks procedure of operation,  about serial #. In summary that that older production  guns with a sertain serial # shouldn't fire M900s, because it would be dangerous.  It does not however deal with specific platform of use, so that still doesn't prove other 105mm platforms outside of the m1 can't fire it. 

But that isn't news to me. because the initial sources i posted also covered  serial # aspect.

 

So it seems to me if the Gun breech is changed than the M900 could be fired from M60s.

 

However not ignoring the more important Crux of the debate , was that M900 was  indeed used in the Gulf war, as per the sources i proved, which included a faxed document from a munitions officer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by Kev2go

[Jartsev]

On 7/13/2016 at 8:40 PM, Kev2go said:

 

 

Yes  of course i read it. the document only talks procedure of operation,  about serial #. In summary that that older production  guns with a sertain serial # shouldn't fire M900s, because it would be dangerous.  It does not however deal with specific platform of use, so that still doesn't prove other 105mm platforms outside of the m1 can't fire it. 

But that isn't news to me. because the initial sources i posted also covered  serial # aspect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kev2go]

10 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aurthoried doesnt mean it cant fire. its just regulation for US armed forces.

 

M60A3 still in service via export outside US Post 1991 to this very day. Different regulations for different armies. especially when minor  localised modifications are taken into account.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Kev2go

[Maj.Hans]

OK, so firing M900 in certain vehicles may cause the hydraulic recoil system to fail.  Now the question is, at what point does this failure happen?

 

First round?  First ten rounds?  Okay, let's maybe not shoot that...

 

After one or two hundred rounds?.......Wellllll.........Are we at war?

 

ETA: Still think it deserves some inclusion in ProPE.  If nothing else it provides an interesting "what if" ammo selection to see just how much you can squeeze out of the old L7/M68 against modern tanks.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Maj.Hans

[Kev2go]

1 hour ago, Maj.Hans said:

OK, so firing M900 in certain vehicles may cause the hydraulic recoil system to fail.  Now the question is, at what point does this failure happen?

 

First round?  First ten rounds?  Okay, let's maybe not shoot that...

 

After one or two hundred rounds?.......Wellllll.........Are we at war?

 

ETA: Still think it deserves some inclusion in ProPE.  If nothing else it provides an interesting "what if" ammo selection to see just how much you can squeeze out of the old L7/M68 against modern tanks.

 

ok i admit with what h has provided is compelling enough of a document, but  i  still wouldnt consider it 100% certainty. The argument you provided just now is what was going through my head? at one point does the gun fail. after how many rounds? maybe it wears out quicker, and subject ot more frequent maintenance and replacement of parts.

 

But that being said for the sake of discussioin M60A3 cant fire M900. OK but then why would they have produced the M900 all the way into the 90s if there wasnt a usable platform lol? M1 having been retired, and M60A3 being retired too? and not being able to safely fire? Makes not sense. especially when the Styker system didnt arrive until the 2000s.

 

But to address the issue at hand I agree that M900 nonetheless  deserves to be included since similarly i have provided sources that prove the M900 was shipped off and actually used in the gulf war. SO at the very least the M1 should have access to it. Since that would have been the only platform capable of firing it safely. That is assuming  based on jartsev sources M900 weren't issues to any american M60 tankers or sold off post gulf war to foreign users of the 105mm guns.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Kev2go

[Maj.Hans]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

OK but then why would they have produced the M900 all the way into the 90s if there wasnt a usable platform lol? M1 having been retired, and M60A3 being retired too? and not being able to safely fire? Makes not sense. especially when the Styker system didnt arrive until the 2000s.

 

But to address the issue at hand I agree that M900 nonetheless  deserves to be included since similarly i have provided sources that prove the M900 was shipped off and actually used in the gulf war. SO at the very least the M1 should have access to it. Since that would have been the only platform capable of firing it safely. That is assuming  based on jartsev sources M900 weren't issues to any american M60 tankers or sold off post gulf war to foreign users of the 105mm guns.

 

Well, a quick google search got some websites claiming that the last "basic" M1 was retired in 1996.

My best guess would be that by that time they were all in the reserves or national guard.

 

If that's true, then why keep the tanks in service if they can't be used as an effective tank?  So they need modern ammo.

Thus, M900 APFSDS.

 

It's also possible, yes, that foreign users had vehicles that could handle it.  The question is would anyone out there have been interested in 105mm ammunition that was DU?

[Jartsev]

17 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

Aurthoried doesnt mean it cant fire. its just regulation for US armed forces.

 

M60A3 still in service via export outside US Post 1991 to this very day. Different regulations for different armies. especially when minor  localised modifications are taken into account.

 

 

 

 

And now you are terribly wrong. This document explicitly  prohibits use of M900 in  tanks other than Abrams; "M1 only"  superseded by capital  bold "Warning!" have very straight  meaning "Never ever try!!!"(just because word "Warning!", if used in  manuals  always means  direct hazard to operator's life or health- this is international standard  for english-languaged  technical documentation).

 

As for foreign users.  First, M900 is hardly an exportable round because of DU penetrator. Second-  foreign users of M60A3 are  generally using translations of US manuals, or local compilations based on original american documentation. Third- if foreign user  desires to use non-standard ammo, this is possible only if evaluation(in fact a small research study involving engineering analysis  and damn lot of tests, which can take a lot of time) is successful, e.g. new ammo is safe to use, no compatibility issues, specifications claimed by  manufacturer are met and so on.  Ammo is not being fielded just because it looks  sexy in promo  flyer.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Jartsev

[Bond_Villian]

I wish this thread was a wishlist.

[Jartsev]

On 7/14/2016 at 4:04 PM, Bond_Villian said:

I wish this thread was a wishlist.

Ouch, sorry for  hijacking the thread

 

One of vehicles from my personal wishlist:

 

[Kev2go]

3 hours ago, Jartsev said:

And now you are terribly wrong. This document explicitly  prohibits use of M900 in  tanks other than Abrams; "M1 only"  superseded by capital  bold "Warning!" have very straight  meaning "Never ever try!!!"(just because word "Warning!", if used in  manuals  always means  direct hazard to operator's life or health- this is international standard  for english-languaged  technical documentation).

 

As for foreign users.  First, M900 is hardly an exportable round because of DU penetrator. Second-  foreign users of M60A3 are  generally using translations of US manuals, or local compilations based on original american documentation. Third- if foreign user  desires to use non-standard ammo, this is possible only if evaluation(in fact a small research study involving engineering analysis  and damn lot of tests, which can take a lot of time) is successful, e.g. new ammo is safe to use, no compatibility issues, specifications claimed by  manufacturer are met and so on.  Ammo is not being fielded just because it looks  sexy in promo  flyer.

 

 

 

some M60s users are European like in the cAse of Austria, Or part of Nato " Turkey" they could get access to DU. But fair enough beyond a reasonable doubt we can say the M60 cant fire the M900 for safety precautions.

 

in any case no ones proven me wrong on the fact that M900 were shipped off to the Gulf, and used in combat  so on that note i guess we can agree M1 could, and should be give M900, and is a valid wish for that vehicle.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Kev2go

[Gibsonm]

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

.... so on that note i guess we can agree M1 could, and should be give M900, and is a valid wish for that vehicle.

 

What, on the basis that there is an X% chance that the there will be a catastrophic explosion inside the turret when you try to use it due to a serial number mis-match?

 

Not sure it worth the modelled investment on that basis.

[Kev2go]

24 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

What, on the basis that there is an X% chance that the there will be a catastrophic explosion inside the turret when you try to use it due to a serial number mis-match?

 

Not sure it worth the modelled investment on that basis.

 

well go under the assumption that the M1 in game has the proper serial # and therfore can fire the M900. it can handle extraa recoil. theres nothing ingame  to indicate what serial # Gun the M1's  or M1(P) are fitted in game anyway so that point is moot.

 

IF it gets issues usable ammo then yes what we would have is an M1 with the right serial number. Now considering M900s were used in the gulf war as per sources i proved that means they were M1s with the gun with the appropriate serial #.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Kev2go

[Gibsonm]

I get its a wish list and all but I just think assuming away problems like every vehicle in a given unit has a gun from the "right" batch to use a certain ammunition type is probably a bit much.

 

Vehicles go off for maintenance are rotated around the "fleet" come from different production runs, ...

 

I had 50 odd vehicles in my regiment and almost none of them had all the same "mods" (refit work) done. Staying on top of that was a full time role for the technical staff.

 

So if you assume you somehow get a complete unit with all the right vehicles and if you assume they all get an allocation of this special ammunition then maybe they could use it.

 

But the idea that somehow you have say 4 vehicles (out of say 50 overall) in the one Platoon all with matching suitable numbers and the logistic system keeps your magic ammunition in a special corner of the ammunition truck and gives it to no one else at 0200 and ensures you get it is just not feasible.

 

The system would just ensure that everyone got the same stuff and if your tank suffered a what 5%? loss in gunnery performance well too bad.

 

I just think that the team has a bunch of other stuff to sort out / fix / whatever without investing the effort to replicate this one piece of ammunition's performance and then add the risk profile to reflect the chance of an accident to cover when someone does the wrong thing and makes this round the default for their scenario.

 

As I say a wish list, but maybe some wishes are more feasible / realistic than others.

[Ssnake]

To cut the argument short, I "activated" the M900 (it was lurking in the database already, reserved for the Stryker). It will be available for both 105mm gun equipped M1s and the M60. The latter case may be in dispute, but I think it's easy enough for mission designers to simply NOT select that round if they think that this is unlikely. OTOH, if the USMC's M60s were the recipient of the M900 during ODS, then maybe those M60s WERE capable of firing it. Or maybe the rounds went to M1s that weren't yet upgraded to M1A1.

 

In this case I would rather err on the side of greater tactical versatility.

[Grenny]

50 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

To cut the argument short, I "activated" the M900 (it was lurking in the database already, reserved for the Stryker). It will be available for both 105mm gun equipped M1s and the M60. The latter case may be in dispute, but I think it's easy enough for mission designers to simply NOT select that round if they think that this is unlikely. OTOH, if the USMC's M60s were the recipient of the M900 during ODS, then maybe those M60s WERE capable of firing it. Or maybe the rounds went to M1s that weren't yet upgraded to M1A1.

 

In this case I would rather err on the side of greater tactical versatility.

Now that the wormcan is open:

Can we have canister for the Sho't too :-D

[TSe419E]

I'd rather have APERS.

[Maj.Hans]

I can't wait to see what kind of performance it has, since like I said I expect it has to be squeezing every last drop you can squeeze out of the 105.

[Rotareneg]

STAFF rounds for the M1, there's already an ammo selector for anyway!

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Rotareneg

[Maj.Hans]

Some info on M900 and it's deployment:

Quote

 

Yes, the M900 Ammo had a restriction on it. M1 only due to the stronger Gun mounts and not to be fired below Breech serial numbers 4800

It had to do with how how the extra pressure the rd generated. Their is also usually an exception during wartime and if I recall, the Marines got authorization to use it due to them having to go up against Saddam's T-72's.with their M60A1's with the add on Blazer Armor.

 

I am a retired SFC (E-7) Master Gunner on the M60A3. D8 Is the ASI (Additional Skill Identifier) My MOS (Military occupational Specialty) was 19E40H D8 until we transition to the M1 and changed it to 19K.

I was Platoon Sgt most of my career in Tank Platoons.

 

 

So, yes, it was apparently fired out of M60s at one point.  I sent a message off to another guy who serviced on USMC M60A1s and if he gets back with more info I'll post it.  The other guy mentioned in a prior conversation that a small number (2,3,4?) of storage slots in the hull of the M60 could not fit anything other than APDS rounds, and that units in West Germany always took the time to stuff a few old APDS in there regardless of how outdated it was and despite not having a setting for it in the ballistic computer, thinking it was better than nothing.

[TSe419E]

I don't remember how many but the tubes of the ammo rack next to the turret side were not easy to get HEAT and HEP rounds out of if you were trying to be quick.  I doubt the APERS round would have been easy, either.  The tube on the bottom was definitely APDS only.

[Kev2go]

 

35 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

Some info on M900 and it's deployment:

 

So, yes, it was apparently fired out of M60s at one point.  I sent a message off to another guy who serviced on USMC M60A1s and if he gets back with more info I'll post it.  The other guy mentioned in a prior conversation that a small number (2,3,4?) of storage slots in the hull of the M60 could not fit anything other than APDS rounds, and that units in West Germany always took the time to stuff a few old APDS in there regardless of how outdated it was and despite not having a setting for it in the ballistic computer, thinking it was better than nothing.

 

hmm interesting to know. 

 

i guess the only real way is to to talk to these tankers. But if M60s did fire them, it would explain why of  those 2,134 M900s shipped off , 500 shells never made it back. ( seems like a lot for a handfull of M1's to use up)

Edited July 15, 2016 by Kev2go

[Maj.Hans]

6 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

hmm interesting to know. 

 

i guess the only real way is to to talk to these tankers. But if M60s did fire them, it would explain why those 500 M900s shipped off the gulf never made it back ( hard to image just the 105 armed m1s used up that many)

 

Best guess is that it wasn't a round they really wanted to fire unless they absolutely had to.  Like "+P" or "+P+" ammo in a pistol.

 

But still, perhaps to them taking the risk of the recoil system blowing apart was better than taking the risk of going into combat without effective ammo.