Jump to content


M1 Abrams Track Throwing


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

stalkervision #81 Posted Jan 09 2015 - 20:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
angling is a total wot fantasy invention. The rule in real life is..first shot first kill. This is why you see some post ww2 French and german tanks with very very light armor. Mobility is much more important when present day armor becomes worthless due to high caliber tank guns. With the invention of  Chobham armour this changed.

Edited by stalkervision, Jan 09 2015 - 20:34.


stalkervision #82 Posted Jan 09 2015 - 20:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
One can see this in the shape of newer allied tanks being less sloped. Chobham armor gets no benefits from sloping whatsoever.

Blackhorse_Six_ #83 Posted Jan 10 2015 - 02:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 42831 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 09 2015 - 14:28, said:

With the invention of  Chobham armour this changed.

 

No, it didn't.

 

Chobham is not bullet-proof.

 

Mobility and first-round gunnery are more important.

 

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 09 2015 - 14:56, said:

One can see this in the shape of newer allied tanks being less sloped. Chobham armor gets no benefits from sloping whatsoever.

 

Maybe it's the language barrier, I don't know, but you're going to have to explain this one ...



george3mp #84 Posted Jan 10 2015 - 02:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10869 battles
  • 21
  • [ARS3] ARS3
  • Member since:
    10-27-2013

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jan 09 2015 - 04:22, said:

^^^ Good story!

 

Ever burn the paint off a SMLM's Zil?

 

(Maybe it was a GAZ ... small black car)

 

Used to block-them-in with a tank or two, lock them up, leave a guard, and walk away.

 

Not too long after M1s deployed to the FRG, enterprising German civilians began to fraud their auto insurance companies, claiming "maneuver damage" among others, by pulling up or parking directly behind an idling M1, the exhaust of which would blister the paint on the hood of the car.

 

Not that insurance fraud was anything new - they did that with American vehicles quite often - but M1 exhaust damage added a new twist.

 

 

 

 

 

Well. we called them SOXMIS (Soviet eXchange Mission = legally spying on us) at the time....watch out for the little black two-doors that looked like Trabi's! LOL before the Wall came down...then Trabi's were left on the sides of EVERY road :)

 

Yes I remember S1 following our convoys in a Hummvee and on exercises just to pay for the maneuver damage.....crushed soybeans or dead chickens....pay for the chicken, any eggs it could EVER lay...plus a chicken raised from each of the theoretical eggs! 

 

Best exercises were with the Dutch and our "sister" PanzerGrenadier BN from Bergen. Exercise Brave Unicorn we roamed all over Northern Germany with the Dutch, Brits, German Heer and got to see some Dutch Leo 1's, and German Leo 2's plus Gepard's and Marder's up close... mmm Belgian raspberry beer in their bustle racks on the Dutch Leo 1's lol. They traded for MRE's lol. And got to brew up some tea with the 7th RTR.


Edited by george3mp, Jan 10 2015 - 03:00.


george3mp #85 Posted Jan 10 2015 - 03:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10869 battles
  • 21
  • [ARS3] ARS3
  • Member since:
    10-27-2013

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 09 2015 - 20:56, said:

One can see this in the shape of newer allied tanks being less sloped. Chobham armor gets no benefits from sloping whatsoever.

 

I would dispute this too, look at Leopard 2A6 vs a Leo 2A4...the original Leo2's were vertical turret slabs. On the Abrams, the front slope was so angled on the lower turret / turret bottom angle it could (and has) decapitated drivers. 

I remember seeing in open-source that the M1 slope added "at least" 200-300mm more effective RHA depth. Much better to bounce a sabot anyway :)

 

oh, we called the armor "Peanut Butter" and if you ever saw the inside composition, you were in for some heavy debriefs. Even the welders had to have some Top Secret - Special Armor clearance to work on the hull track plates *that front track panel alone weighs at least several hundred pounds and just covered the first few drive wheels* and yes would take damage from poles, cars, etc...

 

One of the first jokes to pull on a new butter-bar LT was having him check for "armor soft spots" by banging on it with a hammer :) then hear the hollow "Clunk" when they found the front fuel cells hahaha...."I found one! Here is a weak spot!"

 

Or to go requisition a box of grid squares or a box of reticules. Enlisted soldiers were told to go "turn on the range fans"  


Edited by george3mp, Jan 10 2015 - 03:10.


zloykrolik #86 Posted Jan 10 2015 - 03:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29550 battles
  • 409
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

View Postgeorge3mp, on Jan 09 2015 - 17:54, said:

Well. we called them SOXMIS (Soviet eXchange Mission = legally spying on us) at the time....watch out for the little black two-doors that looked like Trabi's! LOL before the Wall came down...then Trabi's were left on the sides of EVERY road :)

 

 

During my time it was called SMLM "Smell em", Soviet Military Liaison Mission.

 

You had to keep your SMLM card on you at all times.

 



Blackhorse_Six_ #87 Posted Jan 10 2015 - 03:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 42831 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Postzloykrolik, on Jan 09 2015 - 21:30, said:

During my time it was called SMLM "Smell em", Soviet Military Liaison Mission.

 

IIRC, each of the national armies had a separate name and acronym for them, all used concurrently, but the wording on the license plate was the same in every zone (Soviet Military Liaison Mission), followed by the identifying acronym for the national army (USAREUR, BAOR, etc).

 

IIRC, the one which george describes here was the British and Canadian-region spy-descriptor.

 

http://www.redcap70.net/SOXMIS.htm ... Note how the SMLM cars in the photos are bumper-blocked front and rear ...

 

I suspect that the differences were deliberately designed to distinguish between regional-source reports and streamline the routing & collating of said reports to the various army HQ and NATO.



stalkervision #88 Posted Jan 10 2015 - 05:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 48263 battles
  • 7,547
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jan 09 2015 - 20:36, said:

 

No, it didn't.

 

Chobham is not bullet-proof.

 

Mobility and first-round gunnery are more important.

 

 

Maybe it's the language barrier, I don't know, but you're going to have to explain this one ...

 

This will explain it much better then I can pal..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour



george3mp #89 Posted Jan 10 2015 - 18:51

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10869 battles
  • 21
  • [ARS3] ARS3
  • Member since:
    10-27-2013

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jan 10 2015 - 03:37, said:

 

IIRC, each of the national armies had a separate name and acronym for them, all used concurrently, but the wording on the license plate was the same in every zone (Soviet Military Liaison Mission), followed by the identifying acronym for the national army (USAREUR, BAOR, etc).

 

IIRC, the one which george describes here was the British and Canadian-region spy-descriptor.

 

http://www.redcap70.net/SOXMIS.htm ... Note how the SMLM cars in the photos are bumper-blocked front and rear ...

 

I suspect that the differences were deliberately designed to distinguish between regional-source reports and streamline the routing & collating of said reports to the various army HQ and NATO.

This is true, in 2AD (FWD) we were in Northern Germany with more German / British / Dutch / Belgian / Canadian army units around than Americans, we were the only US Brigade that far north and were in III Corps FWD not 7th Corp like the units much further south. *we were the "trip-wire" in the more traditional tank country flatlands*

 

Note to BlackHorse_Six - At the time (88-90) in was in 2AD, one of my Army battle-buddies was also a tanker, in K Troop 11ACR in Bad Hersfeld at the Fulda Gap.

 

We only went to Hohenfels / Grafenwohr once a year and it was a train-load of our tanks taking 12 hours to get there. We never saw other US units any other time than the Graf gunnery rotations. We shot at Bergen-Belsen, trained in our LTA with our sister German and British counterparts more. 

The only "major" exercise we ever did with our own troops was Reforger 89. But we did Brave Lion, Brave Unicorn, and at Bergen we did the Canadian Army Trophy (CATShoot) 89 where our C. Co 3/66 AR took the overall win in M1A1 vs Leopard 1, Leopard 2, but there were no Chieftain and Challengers competing that year...

 

"The 2nd Armored Division (FWD) had a formal partnership with Panzergrenadierbrigade 32, a Federal Republic of Germany Bundeswehr mechanized infantry brigade headquartered in nearby Schwanewede. The division also had informal relationships with Dutch, Belgian, and British NORTHAG forces, often conducting joint training activities at Bergen Hohne.."

 

 

Personally I left the 3/66 AR unit just before Saddam invaded Kuwait and was discharged from Active Duty and inducted into the National Guard the same day the "Stop-Loss" for 19K MOS tank soldiers was put in place Army-wide. Since there were no M1's in my home state yet, and I didn't want to re-train for M60A3 in a unit too far from my home..I became an MP and stayed in the Guard from 1990-2008.

That included deploying to Desert Storm with 14th MP Brigade (where at the same time, 3/66 fought in the Battle of Norfolk and lost one of my friends who was the Commander's gunner, to friendly fire (M1A1 vs M1A1 sabots) and later deployed to Germany twice more, six months to Sinai Pennisula as part of the Multi-National Force of Observers (MFO) 2004, a year in New York City as part of Noble Eagle after 9/11, and then Iraq again 2006-2007. We are authorized to wear combat patches for 2nd ID (indianhead - 3/2 Stryker Bde), 89th MP BDE (Flaming Chicken), 25th ID (Tropic Lightning - 2nd SCBT and 4/25th) and 1st CAV (First Team - 4th BCT) as they were our higher HQ during the rotation.



Abramsgunner_19K20 #90 Posted Mar 23 2015 - 22:17

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18216 battles
  • 95
  • [-SK-] -SK-
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012

George,    

     Ahh...  the good old days.  You're bringing back the memories!  

 

  Serial number on my first XM-1 was'nt that low.. wanna say it was in the 80's, but that was a long time ago.  I know it had about 8 layers of paint on it  *grin.    I thought I was in heaven when we drew those M1A1's, fresh paint, accesories still in the crates...  120mm main gun  (no hot 105mm canisters bouncing around inside with you on the range.)

 

  I remember that Reforger 89...   best story:  We had a Dutch Gepard attached to our company (Delta 3/66).  They had this huge panel truck following them around and we figured they needed lots of spare parts or something.   About the time it got dark, the crew hopped off the Gepard and wandered over to the panel truck so we figured "lucky them, they get to sleep out of the weather".   A few seconds later, the door creeps open, and the 'night crew' leaves the truck and wanders over to the Gepard...  turns out the Dutch army was unionized and worked 12hr shifts, so they brought two crews....    LOL

 

   I ETS'd out in 1990 as well and was starting school when I got orders for Desert Storm.     I think they called back at least 1000 IRR tankers...  with orders to go to Ft. Polk for some reason.  We spent all of about 4 hours scratching our heads at Polk,  then they put us on a convoy of buses heading to Ft. Knox.     DejaVu set in as, once again, we arrived at the WWII era reception station at 2am just like 1986.   There was at least 8 of us from Delta Co. that got called back from IRR,, enough to put two crews together.     After a couple weeks we ended up overseas at Grafenwohr  shooting gunnery and training up for the fight... and of course there was a foot of snow on the ground.  They kept telling us we would stay in Germany to replace the units that left, and then handed us our Desert Fighting handbooks.   I remember our last morning of training, it was a first aid class...   we got word about 6am that they had called the cease fire and it was all over.   A few weeks later I was back on the block with a good story to tell.

 

  I didn't find out about Tony till years later when I stumbled across a document on DU effects and read the friendly fire accounts.

 

 

PS:   I only remember throwing track once when we slid off a tank trail sideways into a ditch (trying to get around a broke tank in the rain).    My platoon did have two M-1s shear off the outer rear sprocket about two weeks apart when we were at Ft. Hood.  Getting the rest of the sprocket off took a sledge hammer and ultimately a tow chain and an M-88.


Edited by Abramsgunner_19K20, Mar 23 2015 - 22:29.


Ole_Sleepy #91 Posted Apr 15 2015 - 22:09

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13266 battles
  • 41
  • Member since:
    11-12-2011

Ok..here we go

1. track adjustment, the problem was the manufacture put the wrong adjustment marking on the on the track tension adjuster , so no matter how you adjusted it it was the wrong tension!

2. there was a problem installing the engine, there was a lack of clearance between the engine and the air filter , so the top of the inlet housing was cut back. once this was done you had opening to draw unfilter air into the engine after the engine was installed. 
 



collimatrix #92 Posted Apr 17 2015 - 21:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,786
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 09 2015 - 20:28, said:

angling is a total wot fantasy invention. The rule in real life is..first shot first kill. This is why you see some post ww2 French and german tanks with very very light armor. Mobility is much more important when present day armor becomes worthless due to high caliber tank guns. With the invention of  Chobham armour this changed.

 

LOLWUT?  Angling armor is explicitly taught in the tigerfibel.

 

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 09 2015 - 20:56, said:

One can see this in the shape of newer allied tanks being less sloped. Chobham armor gets no benefits from sloping whatsoever.

 

LOLWUT?  If the speculation that Chobham armor is predominantly NERA is correct (and this is consistent with the pictures of damaged abramses that have leaked out), then it works best when inclined relative to the threat.

 

This is also consistent with the fact that the abrams and challenger 2 have, you know, sloped frontal turret armor.



ArcherII #93 Posted Apr 18 2015 - 00:24

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20326 battles
  • 1,458
  • [ARCHY] ARCHY
  • Member since:
    12-07-2013

 

 

SMLM!  I remember chasing those bastards down the Autobahn in a 1/4 ton just to piss them off.  One of my Platoon leaders actually blocked one in in a rest stop off A7 so he could get all their data and claim the "kill".   He's a Brigadier General now so you will not have his name.

 

Regarding fuels, the army went through a very aggressive effort to eliminate certain fuels (specifically MOGAS) in an effort to streamline the logistics process.  Anyone who has watched a trooper feed your 10KW MOGAS generator with Diesel can appreciate why.  Particularly when it's the generator powering the comms for the DTAC.  This effort was sort of semi-successful because try as they might MOGAS systems would keep cropping up.  So, fueling the M1a1/2 is not just a power plant discussion but also a logistics discussion.  Particularly important given one of the weak factors of that platform is the amount of fuel it consumes.  Maybe not a big deal in Europe where it was designed to fight, but a large problem in SWA where we have been using the beast.

 

My personal concern with fuel however was what my Yukon Stove would run, since it certainly wouldn't run Diesel.

 

 

 

 

 

 



TuskerDat #94 Posted Feb 03 2016 - 00:04

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 6026 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    09-15-2014

Can anyone join this party or what?

 

I was a 19k 1982-1986.

 

I drove my sled for a year at Ft. Hood in Bravo Co. 1/66 AR (Iron Knights!) and then another 1 1/2 years in Alpha & Delta 3/64 3rd I.D (We Pierce). I was the senior driver as a Spec. 4 in 3/64 for a time in '85. I was also in the second group to do BASIC/AIT OSUT at Knox on M1's, so I drove them early and often.

 

I never threw a track, which is partly luck but also partly training. Before you jump all over me,  let me clarify - I'm speaking to the training that the driver must give the TC. Nine times out of ten, when you start looking at the situation that caused the track to go (throw it outside.... please track god don't throw it inside) the driver will say, "I knew we couldn't/shouldn't do that". It's the drivers job to teach a TC, especially a new TC, what his machine can do and should not attempt to do.

 

Hello to all my 64th and 66th Brothers!


Edited by CatDat, Feb 03 2016 - 00:06.


LoganRCDmarksman #95 Posted Feb 22 2017 - 15:02

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 5829 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View Postcollimatrix, on Jun 11 2014 - 22:51, said:

I'm not clear on whether they're literally the same, interchangeable model of track, or whether nobody wants to go through the bother of designing tracks and just asks Diehel to make something that fits.

 

here have some cardbord

BlackFive #96 Posted Jun 27 2017 - 13:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 22559 battles
  • 2,284
  • [-W-W-] -W-W-
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

It's an interesting article.  I cannot help but agree, in part, with their statements that 

Block Quote

Their basic message was that the US armed forces were addicted to high technology and complex weapon systems. Such weapons were so costly that relatively few could be bought. Complexity made them hard to use and maintain, leading to readiness problems and reduced sortie rates. Even worse, the Reformers said, these complicated weapons were not as effective in combat as simpler, cheaper ones

 

 

When read contextually, however, they weren't so much Reformers as "roll-backers".  Their main criticism of high technology occurred before / just as the high tech revolution was starting in this country, and the last two decades of military experience shows our weapon systems, C&C and integration have outperformed everything the competition has been selling to its client states. 

 

But just as Napoleon cautioned*, our last two decades of success haven't gone unnoticed by the competition and they are just starting to get a handle on how to counter and disrupt us. Their purpose / best practice isn't to make higher tech or better performing machines (they can't) but instead bring us down to parity with them. 

 

*"Never fight too long against one enemy; you teach them all your art of war"






5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users