jstar Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 11 hours ago, DKTanker said: Depends on the model of M4. M4s with the HVSS suspension (example M4A3 (76)E8 shared the same track (23" wide 6" pitch) as the M26, M46, and M47. The M48s and M60s share the same track (28" wide x 6" pitch), and the M1s have their own track. So the answer is no, the connecting fixtures, while similar, are not interchangeable except within their respective groupings. Maybe he means the 'track jacks', which haven't changed much at all between the M4 and M1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkonnen Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 42 minutes ago, jstar said: Maybe he means the 'track jacks', which haven't changed much at all between the M4 and M1? Thanks. I mean this device on the photo above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstar Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 42 minutes ago, Harkonnen said: Thanks. I mean this device on the photo above. Thought so. Here's a proposal for a hydraulic track jack from 2012..don't think it went into service, but is shown being used on an M1...some things just don't change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted September 25, 2020 Share Posted September 25, 2020 41 minutes ago, Harkonnen said: Thanks. I mean this device on the photo above. Well, they have changed over time. Track jacks for the M48/M60s aren't left handed and right handed nor do they have the built in end connector puller. I don't know that the track jacks for the earlier M4s would physically work on the larger track of later tanks. They might. For the M4s with 23" track through the M1, I think it quite possible that the same pair of track jacks could be used to connect all of their tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Peter Posted September 29, 2020 Share Posted September 29, 2020 Some close-ups for modelers of the first AFV developed in Minecraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Tan Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 LED lighting! Does it have underbody? Cute remote barrel change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 (edited) Why the fuck integrated headlights that weaken armor protection? Other than "current trend"... Edited September 30, 2020 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 I suppose that since they're LEDs, the actual intrusion is so minimal that it doesn't actually create a ballistic hole. At the same time the integration might help reduce the radar signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Tan Posted September 30, 2020 Share Posted September 30, 2020 Needs lots of foliage....or Barracuda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BansheeOne Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Niehorster Posted October 4, 2020 Share Posted October 4, 2020 On 10/3/2020 at 9:55 AM, BansheeOne said: Any WOT player. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Peter Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Really old fashioned drawn history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 On 9/30/2020 at 1:05 PM, bojan said: Why the fuck integrated headlights that weaken armor protection? Other than "current trend"... They look as if they're directly in front of the tracks, on what is in most other tracked vehicles just a bent piece of sheet metal. It's difficult to see how this compromises the base armour scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, DB said: They look as if they're directly in front of the tracks, on what is in most other tracked vehicles just a bent piece of sheet metal. It's difficult to see how this compromises the base armour scheme. Looking at side projection, looks like it is pretty thick piece that has a hole for a headlights. Ofc, it is possible that whole thing is sheet metal... Prototype was as you described it, clearly outside armor protection: Edited October 7, 2020 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 On the Way-Back...M60 rolls out: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 I've got an open question: did the U.S use concrete hill tracks to rate a tank's slope climbing ability, or did they use a dirt hill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 5 hours ago, Interlinked said: I've got an open question: did the U.S use concrete hill tracks to rate a tank's slope climbing ability, or did they use a dirt hill? Concrete. You want a test that is repeatable, comparable, and verifiable with as few variables as possible Dirt? What kind of dirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 Good things are happening down at Fort Benning, GA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 On 10/8/2020 at 12:29 PM, DKTanker said: Concrete. You want a test that is repeatable, comparable, and verifiable with as few variables as possible Dirt? What kind of dirt? Like sand. The original parkerized USGI Beretta M9 magazines easily passed sand tests in the States, but the unique 'moon dust' of Iraq quickly caused them to fail. I'm sure the tankers could go for hours about the infinite varieties of mud... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Good point about the repeatability thing. That said, however, controlling the consistency of dirt is hardly a big difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methos Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 On 10/7/2020 at 1:03 PM, bojan said: Prototype was as you described it, clearly outside armor protection: Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but the KF31 Lynx is not the prototype of the KF41 Lynx, but a different vehicle offered at a lower gross vehicle weight & price point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I am not fully on track with all prototypes and demonstrators shown around. Anyway, point was how headlights were mounted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Something local, second demonstrator of the M-84 upgrade: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interlinked Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Honestly I'd be more concerned about mud regularly obscuring the headlights than whatever they do to the armour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 If you want to determine whether a tank can make it up a particular gradient, you will want that gradient to stay the same angle for repeatability, especially if you're comparing competing prototypes. Even though I'm sure you could rebuild a dirt slope every time you ran a tank up it, it's not exactly practical. 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