shootER5 Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 ‹ I'm guessing the T23 turret is a later addition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 I'm guessing the T23 turret is a later addition?It appears so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkonnen Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 When non-skid painting was introduced on M1A1 Abrams tank? Mid 80-s or later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 I'm guessing the T23 turret is a later addition?It appears so. Thank you for that, thats really interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 When non-skid painting was introduced on M1A1 Abrams tank? Mid 80-s or later?As far as I remember they were issued with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkonnen Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 When non-skid painting was introduced on M1A1 Abrams tank? Mid 80-s or later?As far as I remember they were issued with it. No, definetly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Mine was, but that was in '89. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 When non-skid painting was introduced on M1A1 Abrams tank? Mid 80-s or later?As far as I remember they were issued with it. No, definetly not. Yes definitely. I don't recall about M1s, and Harold can correct me on this, but I seem to recall M1 IPs having non-skid paint. Maybe the M1A1s initially issued to 3ACR in 1986 didn't have it, but I know for sure that all M1A1s fielded in Europe, starting on 9 January 1987, had non-skid paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobu Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 How effective was the non-skid paint, and was it adopted due to accidents because it was not present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 The kind of accidents that anti-skid paint prevents tend to be at the low end of reportable incidents, unless they happen to result in a fall from height or perhaps if they occur when handling live munitions. From a UK legislative perspective (I know you're discussing US gear), it would be very difficult to argue against using this type of textured surface coating because it would not be possible to argue that it wasn't unconditionally better, and the marginal cost would be negligible. In other words, it won't cost enough extra over the original coating compared to the expected reduction in minor injuries, with some outliers up to and including death that could conceivably have been prevented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkonnen Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Why some M1s from early 80-s have welding line on the right rear hull plate and some not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 (edited) New MPF photos from GD. The chassis is taken from an ASCOD, I believe, but the hull is newly made to reduce the profile. https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1253561720003387392 Edited April 24, 2020 by Mighty_Zuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 (edited) What I have never got is how is that better than well modernized T-72 considering it is practically same weight class? Edited April 24, 2020 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 What I have never got is how is that better than well modernized T-72 considering it is practically same weight class?38 tons seems to be the maximum weight allowed for that thing. I don't think it weighs any more than 20-25 tons in the configuration shown above. With close to 20 tons in add-on armor, it should have far better overall protection than the T-72. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methos Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 (edited) It certainly will weigh more than 20 short tons in that configuration. It is physically larger than a CV90120-T, while at the same time being fitted with bolt-on armor. The CV90120-T starts at 26 metric tons without bolt-on armor and reaches more than 30 metric tons when fitted with applique armor. Note the steel tracks. At less than 30 metric tons it most likely would come with rubber-band tracks. Edited April 24, 2020 by methos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 I didn't use short tons, they don't even exist IMO. I always use metric tons. Second, I said 20-25 ton range. Third, it's not larger than the CV90120. The CV has 7 wheels and its hull is only slightly modified and does not have a low profile. The Griffin has 6 wheels and uses a new low profile hull on ASCOD chassis.Fourth, rubber tracks can be used on anything at around 40 tons, and soon even on around 50 tons, but there's no point in designing automotive components for a 20-25 ton vehicle when its upper limit is requested to be 38 tons. The M8 indeed looks smaller, and it doesn't even fully reach 20 tons in its basic configuration, but can get quite beefy with extra armor. I'm not sure though if the M8 can grow to 38 tons, and I'm also not sure it will remain physically as small if it were to accommodate new automotive components that will push its weight limit to 38. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 (edited) double tap. Edited April 24, 2020 by DKTanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methos Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 I didn't use short tons, they don't even exist IMO. I always use metric tons. Second, I said 20-25 ton range. Third, it's not larger than the CV90120. The CV has 7 wheels and its hull is only slightly modified and does not have a low profile. The Griffin has 6 wheels and uses a new low profile hull on ASCOD chassis.Fourth, rubber tracks can be used on anything at around 40 tons, and soon even on around 50 tons, but there's no point in designing automotive components for a 20-25 ton vehicle when its upper limit is requested to be 38 tons. The M8 indeed looks smaller, and it doesn't even fully reach 20 tons in its basic configuration, but can get quite beefy with extra armor. I'm not sure though if the M8 can grow to 38 tons, and I'm also not sure it will remain physically as small if it were to accommodate new automotive components that will push its weight limit to 38.The number of road wheel pairs is a misleading metric, as spacing and diameter are not constant factors. The original Puma IFV design had five pairs of road wheels, the series production model has six pairs - yet the length of the hull remained the same. The Lynx IFV - despite being significantly larger than a CV90 and a Puma IFV - has only six roadwheels. The Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle from General Dynamics is tall - very tall. It is taller than an Abrams main battle tank. The new low profile hull barely reduces the profile compared to an ASCOD hull and the tall turret leads to a greater overall height. Just compare the height of the men in front of the ASCOD and in front of the MPF vehicle offer from General Dynamics to the relative hull height. It is a reduction of maybe ~200 mm height at most - i.e. in the ballpark of the CV90120-T's hull height. The M8 AGS is smaller and reaches its lower weight by being made of aluminium alloy armour rather than being a steel construction. General Dynamics' MPF vehicle is meanwhile based on a modified steel hull from the Griffin III prototype, which weighs 38 short tons with armor to withstand medium caliber rounds only while having an unmanned turret. It is impossible for the MPF vehicle to have 20 tons of weight reserve for add-on armor and to reach the T-72's protection level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted June 4, 2020 Share Posted June 4, 2020 I received an email from a gentleman a few days ago regarding the Ford 3-ton special tractor M1918. In the ensuing conversation, he shared this article that claimed one example was used for crowd control during a riot in Winston-Salem, NC, in November 1918. I was skeptical and presumed the author had mixed up the M1918 with the M1917 or made some other type of error, as it seemed a turretless vehicle that had been rejected for service would be pretty unlikely to be selected for such a mission. Poking around on newspapers.com, however, I came upon the following passage in a 19 November 1918 Winston-Salem Journal article about the riot where the driveline of the M1918 is pretty much described exactly. Calm had returned before the troops arrived, so the tank didn't have much to do besides sit on the town square. Before the tank returned to Camp Polk, a demonstration was given of its capabilities, which spectators reportedly enjoyed.Anyway, this episode was news to me and I thought it was an interesting addition to my pretty scant knowledge about this machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 Early claustrophobia machine! I can also imagine the gasoline exhaust fumes inside. One could likely throw its track with a steel bar or someone else's rifle. Aberdeen Ordnance Museum had one, now in storage at Ft Lee. One more is at Ft Benning where the Patton Museum collection resides, also in storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted June 6, 2020 Share Posted June 6, 2020 That one looks like bastard child of FT-17... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted June 8, 2020 Share Posted June 8, 2020 Early claustrophobia machine! I can also imagine the gasoline exhaust fumes inside. One could likely throw its track with a steel bar or someone else's rifle. Aberdeen Ordnance Museum had one, now in storage at Ft Lee. One more is at Ft Benning where the Patton Museum collection resides, also in storage.Claustrophobia for sure! We know how small the M1917 is, and it dwarfs the M1918... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Peter Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 Sherman M4 Duplex DriveThe bevel wheel of a Sherman M4 DD swimming tank. The gear wheel transmitted power from the rear idler through this cog to a propeller. Seen in Normandy around 1999. Hi-res Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AETiglathPZ Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) Why some M1s from early 80-s have welding line on the right rear hull plate and some not?When I was in OSUT back in JAN to MAY1992 at Ft. Knox, The M1's had a generator box(APU) on the right rear. The boxes themselves were empty and used to store tow chains and such. Maybe that was the remains of the mounting bracket for that box? I am guessing? https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=ZOMoaRoX&id=E3EA8DBD3C224598F13E5669BD4449B7A284C948&thid=OIP.ZOMoaRoX4h3H2XBJ6SY5VQHaE9&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fblogfiles.naver.net%2f20151124_298%2ftech61_1448371187800lRmx7_JPEG%2f12246903_1168024646555859_5742068400650728147_n.jpg&exph=644&expw=960&q=m1+apu&simid=608044636055604577&ck=F855EBC7072234D4F40E2954EF0C0E63&selectedIndex=4&qpvt=m1+apu&ajaxhist=0 Edited July 16, 2020 by AETiglathPZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now