Jump to content


M1 Abrams Track Throwing


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

Kult0fKthUL00 #21 Posted Jun 15 2014 - 00:10

    Private

  • Players
  • 9009 battles
  • 2
  • [2DTKS] 2DTKS
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011
The only time tanks in my battalion would throw track was when drivers weren't chopping their turns on dirt, sand or mud. Mostly it would be the tc not paying attention or being a noob. It happens, sure, but not very often. Mostly to platoon commanders lolzzzzzzz.

Blackhorse_Six_ #22 Posted Jun 17 2014 - 13:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 44159 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostKult0fKthUL00, on Jun 14 2014 - 19:10, said:

The only time tanks in my battalion would throw track was when drivers weren't chopping their turns on dirt, sand or mud. Mostly it would be the tc not paying attention or being a noob. It happens, sure, but not very often. Mostly to platoon commanders lolzzzzzzz.

 

Translation for those who don't know ...

 

Chopping refers to inerrupting a steady turn with short "cuts" back to "straight ahead", long recognised in Western armies as a means to reduce stress on the track, most prevalent on the inside of the turn.

 

Drivers are trained from the outset not to grind or hold-steady their turns much beyond a 45-degree arc before cutting back to straight-ahead for a second or two before turning the next 45-degrees (terrain dependent).

 

Grinding a sharp turn without chopping can cause the track to break or roll-over the high idler on the inside of the turn, depending upon the terrain.

 

The issue is not as frequent on front-drive tracks as it is on rear-drive tracks, but shouldn't be ignored.

 

This method aslo works in the game, where a player can reduce loss of speed & momentum by chopping sharp turns while driving certain Mediums and Heavies...



Spector668 #23 Posted Jun 17 2014 - 14:46

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18852 battles
  • 103
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

 

Regarding what someone mentioned regarding fuels...

 

The AGT1500 turbine is designed to run on nearly any fuel..as my Drill in Basic put it, "This bassid will run on anything from diesel to cheap perfume".

The problem faced with the hotter burning fuels, such as alcohol for instance is that they WILL cause major problems with the engine smoke generation system. They work by injecting raw fuel into the exhaust stream, producing a partial burn yielding hot snoke. The more volatile/combustible the fuel is, the higher the chance of starting a fire in the engine bay.


Edited by Spector668, Jun 17 2014 - 14:47.


DorkOps #24 Posted Jun 17 2014 - 15:18

    Private

  • Players
  • 27078 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    05-29-2013
spent 4 years on a m1a2 and m1a1, as long i kept the track maintained i never had a problem.

Spector668 #25 Posted Jun 17 2014 - 15:54

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18852 battles
  • 103
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostDorkOps, on Jun 17 2014 - 09:18, said:

spent 4 years on a m1a2 and m1a1, as long i kept the track maintained i never had a problem.

 Precisely. The key to keeping those track belts on is to take care of them. After all it's only the lives of your crew and your life that depend on them in a &(*#-storm.. :izmena:



Anlushac11 #26 Posted Jun 20 2014 - 00:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 32936 battles
  • 2,092
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
On the AGT1500 I was told "If it burns and we can get it through the injectors we can run on it".

Colddawg #27 Posted Jun 20 2014 - 06:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 43193 battles
  • 3,743
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostSpector668, on Jun 17 2014 - 10:54, said:

 Precisely. The key to keeping those track belts on is to take care of them. After all it's only the lives of your crew and your life that depend on them in a &(*#-storm.. :izmena:

 

 

Say a track is thrown in battle, how would the rest of the platoon cover the disabled tank?  Push ahead to create a barrier or form up around the disabled tank and help it defend itself?  Is this answered based on the mission specs?



Blackhorse_Six_ #28 Posted Jun 20 2014 - 17:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 44159 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostColddawg, on Jun 20 2014 - 01:37, said:

Say a track is thrown in battle, how would the rest of the platoon cover the disabled tank?  Push ahead to create a barrier or form up around the disabled tank and help it defend itself?  Is this answered based on the mission specs?

 

The School Solution is that the rest of the platoon continues the mission, ie, move-on if in the Attack, remain in position if in the Defense, leave the BP as ordered, and/or abandon and burn if the situation is dire in either case.

 

In reality, unless engaged by heavy direct fire and/or artillery, there would be some effort made within the platoon to determine how extensive the mobility damage really is and to estimate time required to regain mobility before executing the school solution. Seconds count. Obviously, it would not bode well for the rest of the unit to remain unnecessarily exposed to enemy fires for the sake of one vehicle ...

 

If the immobilized vehicle is a commander's track, and the officer or senior NCO in-charge has functionally survived the immobilization, that leader is expected by doctrine to commandeer the next less-senior commander's track if he can. This expectation is dictated by the extra communication gear carried aboard "command" vehicles. So assuming that the TCs in question are fully functional but the vehicle is not, the platoon leader would strive to reach the platoon sergeant's track, bumping the PSG to another TC position within the platoon (usually the most junior TC, who would then take charge of the immobile vehicle).

 

If the TC of an immobile vehicle has been incapacitated, then his gunner would take immediate charge of the vehicle until such time that the original TC could be replaced by equal or senior rank, or the current gunner be deemed qualified for the job and thusly promoted to it. Exceptions can be made for exemplary leadership by junior ranks ...



Xlucine #29 Posted Jun 20 2014 - 17:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 7625 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jun 20 2014 - 17:05, said:

If the TC of an immobile vehicle has been incapacitated, then his gunner would take immediate charge of the vehicle until such time that the original TC could be replaced by equal or senior rank, or the current gunner be deemed qualified for the job and thusly promoted to it. Exceptions can be made for exemplary leadership by junior ranks ...

 

I gather the brit practice is for the operator/loader to take over command of the vehicle



Blackhorse_Six_ #30 Posted Jun 20 2014 - 17:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 44159 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostXlucine, on Jun 20 2014 - 12:25, said:

I gather the brit practice is for the operator/loader to take over command of the vehicle

 

As rank within a given arm reflects job experience, I'd be looking to the next most senior man within the platoon or vehicle.

 

In the pinch, however, the loader might be the only turret crewman available until the storm had passed ...

 

As a practical matter, I can understand putting the loader in-charge if his training & experience permitted it.

 

I sure as Hell wouldn't want to do a Chinese Fire Drill in the rain just because the driver was senior in rank ...

 

The_Chieftain might have the exact answer for Brit doctrine, but in the US Army the loader is usually the most junior man aboard.

 

(All US crewman are given some basic training on each station, and do cross-train in the field)

 

 

 



Walter_Sobchak #31 Posted Jun 21 2014 - 06:15

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
Ok, my next question concerns the M1 and fuel.  It has been stated several times that the M1 can run on a variety of fuels.  As far as anyone knows, has an M1 crew ever been forced to use a fuel other than diesel or JP-8 in their vehicle?

Blackhorse_Six_ #32 Posted Jun 21 2014 - 16:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 44159 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

Based upon what I've read, I cannot recall that any unit was forced to re-fuel with diesel, even as the second-choice ...



NutrientibusMeaGallus #33 Posted Jun 21 2014 - 21:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 16986 battles
  • 4,435
  • Member since:
    10-26-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jun 10 2014 - 12:45, said:

Thank you all for your replies, that is much more than I expected!  Reading through the stuff put out by the 80's/90's era "reformer' folks, it seems their primary tactic is to take information for a very mature system, such as the M60A3, and then cherry pick information and stats that compare favorably to whatever teething problems were being experienced by the newest system, the M1.  Any new system is going to have issues.  Heck, from what I have read, both the M47 and the M48 had all sorts of unexpected issues when first introduced.  The M60 was a bit less troublesome since it was essentially an upgrade of the M48, but even it had issues that took a while to resolve.  In particular, I seem to remember the air intake filters being a problem on the M60.  Oddly enough, I didn't see a single mention in the reformer complaints about the M1 concerning its air filter issues, although from what I understand, this was a legitimate issue in early models.  Funny how tricky something like air filters can be...

 

 

   That moment you're talking about air filters and realize you haven't changed the air filter on your car in over a year..... With air filters, aside from the initial mounting/design.. It's all about people simply forgetting about them. You use the vehicle off road and you compound the problems you might have.. Back when I had my old Bronco (carb not FI) and when wheeling with it... It started running poorly... I went to check the carb and I found 3 dead frogs, 1 dead sparrow, 1 mouse (or maybe a mole or vole, was pretty mangled) and a layer of mud that made the filter look like a ring of pottery... Replaced it... ran like new again... Also made me invest in a K&N filtercharger... Check it every time you go out... Never a problem again.



The_Chieftain #34 Posted Jun 22 2014 - 18:56

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10004 battles
  • 9,550
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Xlucine is correct. British (and Canadian) practice is that the second-ranking person in the tank is the loader. The theory is that (1) he is well placed to observe the running of the tank, and assist the commander in that function, and (2) being the other guy who can see out, he can also make good judgement calls on the tactical situation and aid the TC in that manner. New tankies in the British Army are trained either as drivers or gunners.

 

As an aside, when my tank went down in Iraq on a time-sensitive mission as part of a cordon on a cordon/search (Idler wheel fell off en-route), there was only a section of us. Instead of commandeering my wing tank, I simply told him to take over my spot on the cordon. (I briefed him well, so no difficulties there). I figured that there was little benefit to be gained by inserting myself into a well-working crew just for the sake of being present. I just chilled out with my crew until the -88 showed up.



Blackhorse_Six_ #35 Posted Jun 22 2014 - 19:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 44159 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 22 2014 - 13:56, said:

Xlucine is correct. British (and Canadian) practice is that the second-ranking person in the tank is the loader. The theory is that (1) he is well placed to observe the running of the tank, and assist the commander in that function, and (2) being the other guy who can see out, he can also make good judgement calls on the tactical situation and aid the TC in that manner. New tankies in the British Army are trained either as drivers or gunners.

 

This practice makes perfect sense to me, but it has to have driven some debate within our own community somewhere.

 

I have not yet seen it - if You have, point me to it, please ...

 

And, Walter's latest question in Post #31, sez vous plait ...



Xlucine #36 Posted Jun 22 2014 - 20:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 7625 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

Replacing TC with gunner makes sense to me because his main job is impeded least by taking the commanders seat - the operator cannot service the main armament while also keeping an eye on what is happening around the tank, and the driver's visibility is much too limited. Gunner OTOH can still aim the main armament while sat in the commanders seat - it's not ideal, but it's the least bad option.

 

Abrams does let the commander work the firing computer, right?



Blackhorse_Six_ #37 Posted Jun 22 2014 - 20:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 44159 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostXlucine, on Jun 22 2014 - 15:04, said:

Replacing TC with gunner makes sense to me because his main job is impeded least by taking the commanders seat - the operator cannot service the main armament while also keeping an eye on what is happening around the tank, and the driver's visibility is much too limited. Gunner OTOH can still aim the main armament while sat in the commanders seat - it's not ideal, but it's the least bad option.

 

Abrams does let the commander work the firing computer, right?

 

Chieftain's experience is more recent than mine, but the original configuration did not allow for that - the TC could over-ride the gunner's lay, range and trigger, but still required the gunner's station for ammo-selection and method of engagement (Battle-Sight vs Range / superelevation). He can reach down-forward to do those things, but doing so usually takes his eyes off the target. Not a big deal vs a static target, but it could suck vs one that's moving. The latest upgrade may have, or will, add(ed) those things to the CITV unit.

 

Degraded Gunnery, ie, the scenario where all that wonderful Star Wars crap is knocked-out, still requires occupation of the gunner's station in order to use the optical channel.

 

In your scenario, the Loader would probably remain in his station and simply direct the gunner onto the target. Otherwise, that's alot of monkey-climbing between stations and all that takes time when fractions count.



collimatrix #38 Posted Jun 22 2014 - 23:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,786
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011
I wonder if a turret configuration with the loader on one side, gunner on the other, and TC in the rear middle would make switching up roles in an emergency or whatever easier.

Just, not like the M103, because there's an additional loader, which probably makes it tough, and not like the M60A2, because the turret roof is so low it looks hard to move from station to station, and not like conqueror because I don't think anyone can move to the TC's position.

ColeDragonKnight1 #39 Posted Jun 23 2014 - 01:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6607 battles
  • 589
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

View Postren9999, on Jun 11 2014 - 13:43, said:

speaking of track wear on the Abrams... i seem to recall hearing that there were speed limiters installed on the abrams tank, significantly lowering the top speed, because going above the newly reduced top speed would wear out the tracks so fast it wasnt worth it. is this correct?

 

the other thing i once heard was that the abrams could run on any combustible liquid, alcohols like vodka were mentioned. probably not true, but... i cant be sure

It has a gas turbine so anything above 70 or so octain should be burnable J5 is of course the best seeing as it is a jet turbine. But 100 proof booze and better should run



CarnageINC #40 Posted Jun 23 2014 - 02:09

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5590 battles
  • 200
  • [-CHH-] -CHH-
  • Member since:
    05-21-2014

View Postcollimatrix, on Jun 22 2014 - 17:38, said:

I wonder if a turret configuration with the loader on one side, gunner on the other, and TC in the rear middle would make switching up roles in an emergency or whatever easier.

Just, not like the M103, because there's an additional loader, which probably makes it tough, and not like the M60A2, because the turret roof is so low it looks hard to move from station to station, and not like conqueror because I don't think anyone can move to the TC's position.

 

In today's configuration of turrets this is impossible.  Its just to crowded with equipment and ammo racks and there also would be no room for the recoil of the main gun. 

 

From what I've seen, the 'crew in hull' config looks like a decent concept to me.  That is where the driver, commander and gunner all sit tucked down in the hull were the driver is.  It would rely heavily on cameras, thermals and sensors in a 360 degree configuration along with a fool proof auto loader to be successful.  The main problem with the 'crew in hull' config is situational awareness would be in the toilet in my opinion.  Nothing like a couple pairs of good eyes looking around.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users