Jump to content


M1 Abrams Track Throwing


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

collimatrix #61 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 15:08

    Major

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

Interesting.  Thanks Meplat.

 

How do you know so much about everything?

 

And thanks for sharing that blurb, Walter.

 

Does your engineer friend know anything about the variable compression ratio diesels that were tried here and there?



Blackhorse_Six_ #62 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 15:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 45011 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostXlucine, on Jul 16 2014 - 06:36, said:

Hang on, hunnicutt says the M1 vanilla had a governed max speed of 45mph - are you claiming it was possible to run the engine at more than twice the max rpm it was intended to do without small bits of engine covering the landscape? Even 70mph means running the engine 50% faster than it was intended to, and at that speed the centrifugal force experienced by the turbine blades would be 2.4 times what the governor limited it to

 

Back when they were trying to sell the Germans on the turbine, 1981 or so, the factory folks got an M1 hull up to 110 mph out on the test track ...

 

It's been many years since my uncle, then an engineer for Chrysler Defense / GDLSD, told me that, so I cannot verify it directly.



Walter_Sobchak #63 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 16:15

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Postcollimatrix, on Jul 17 2014 - 10:08, said:

Interesting.  Thanks Meplat.

 

How do you know so much about everything?

 

And thanks for sharing that blurb, Walter.

 

Does your engineer friend know anything about the variable compression ratio diesels that were tried here and there?

 

Oh yes.  Sitting on display in his house is probably the last remaining plastic display model of the Continental VCR piston. 

 

 

 



Meplat #64 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 16:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 6635 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postcollimatrix, on Jul 17 2014 - 07:08, said:

Interesting.  Thanks Meplat.

 

How do you know so much about everything?

 

Loads of reading, and loads of working on stuff nobody else likes.



CarnageINC #65 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 17:33

    Sergeant

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

View PostThunderlyon, on Jul 16 2014 - 04:34, said:

    I was an M60A3 tanker back in the 80s. Yes the M1 had a track throwing problem but that was only when the tank was going 70 mph plus on hard surfaces. Through terrain like deserts there was no problem with track throwing. And with the governors off the E6s and E7s I knew and talked to said the M1 could easily go over 100 mph. Course the 105mm that was initially on the M1s.
 
  That is what I was told back then. I was in M60s so I did not deal with the M1. And that was with the governor off. Heck the M60 could hit 40 MPH with the governor off and had a lot smaller diesel engine and not a turbine.  

 

Oh..."I was told that" statement.  This is a utter and complete statement of [edited]...totally and complete.  You were a M60 tanker and you thought a M1 of any series could do 70mph....let alone a 100mph!?!  Sir the tracks would explode apart with that much torque and force going through them, all it would take is one weak end cap and blammo!  Not all M1 engines/transmissions/V packs are created equal.  From what I have seen, It takes a unique combination of the 3 to get the M1 moving past 50mph.  During DS we had a some tanks on flat ground that were able to get up to 55 mph+.

 

The fastest I have ever seen a M1 of any series hitting was 60mph going down a very long and flat hill in Egypt (Bright Star 95).  At that time we had the governors off to impress our allies there (British and French) and my tank was by far one of the fastest in the battalion.  That data on speed was averaged off what the driver said and what my GPS was telling me.



Walter_Sobchak #66 Posted Jul 29 2014 - 03:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

Over in the Modern armor tank lore section, some guy is saying that "At low RPMs the ATG-1500 bleeds turboshaft oil because as a turbine it does not seal until reaching higher RPMs.  All tanks leak oil and even fuel on occasion but the ATG-1500 can require 10 gallons of turboshaft oil a day."

 

I haven't seen this mentioned in anything I have ever read.  Maybe someone with first hand experience has something to say in regards to this claim?

 

 



CarnageINC #67 Posted Jul 29 2014 - 17:26

    Sergeant

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

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jul 28 2014 - 21:33, said:

Over in the Modern armor tank lore section, some guy is saying that "At low RPMs the ATG-1500 bleeds turboshaft oil because as a turbine it does not seal until reaching higher RPMs.  All tanks leak oil and even fuel on occasion but the ATG-1500 can require 10 gallons of turboshaft oil a day."

 

I haven't seen this mentioned in anything I have ever read.  Maybe someone with first hand experience has something to say in regards to this claim?

 

 


WOW!  10 gallons a day!  WOW!  That is so beyond belief...I'm stunned that someone would post that!  Now does the turbine bleed oil, yes it does.  That usually depends on the pack your dealing with.  Most will go through a quart or 2 a day if used hard.  I remember when I was a driver having a really bad pack and having to had 2-3 quarts of oil to my engine 2 or 3 times a day.  Those are bad signs and maintenance usually replaces your pack soon afterwards.  You do oil samples quarterly to have it tested to see if any metal filings or other nasty stuff was going through your engine.

 

I had one driver who used to heat up his coffee water in a 7.62 or 50 cal can when the tank was doing the morning battery recharge and starting check in the field.  The crew would laugh at how he shrugged off the rainbow color gleam on the surface of his coffee caused by the turboshaft oil....goofy bugger...loved that guy dearly though best driver I ever had. 



The_Chieftain #68 Posted Jul 29 2014 - 19:26

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10145 battles
  • 9,594
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jul 29 2014 - 03:33, said:

Over in the Modern armor tank lore section, some guy is saying that "At low RPMs the ATG-1500 bleeds turboshaft oil because as a turbine it does not seal until reaching higher RPMs.  All tanks leak oil and even fuel on occasion but the ATG-1500 can require 10 gallons of turboshaft oil a day."

 

I haven't seen this mentioned in anything I have ever read.  Maybe someone with first hand experience has something to say in regards to this claim?

 

 

 

Yeah... no. Anything more than 2/3 quarts during a check would have raised an eyebrow.



Meplat #69 Posted Jul 29 2014 - 20:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 6635 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jul 28 2014 - 19:33, said:

Over in the Modern armor tank lore section, some guy is saying that "At low RPMs the ATG-1500 bleeds turboshaft oil because as a turbine it does not seal until reaching higher RPMs.  All tanks leak oil and even fuel on occasion but the ATG-1500 can require 10 gallons of turboshaft oil a day."

 

I haven't seen this mentioned in anything I have ever read.  Maybe someone with first hand experience has something to say in regards to this claim?

 

 

The only turboshaft I ever saw that would leak oil in that volume had bullet holes in it.



Walter_Sobchak #70 Posted Jul 29 2014 - 22:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
Thanks guys, I thought the the ten gallon claim sounded rather implausible but being a civilian, I like to get confirmation from those that have served with the vehicle.  The person who posted that claim made other claims that suggested he had taken some of the "blacktail defense" videos concerning the M1 at face value.  It's rather ironic that growing up, I thought of the AGT-1500 as the devil due to my father working for Continental Motors.  Continental lost a good deal of business when the army pick it over the Continental AVCR-1360 diesel.  However, I find some of the claims made about the Abrams and it's turbine engine so "out there" that I end up defending it more than I ever thought I would.  Funny thing is that I seldom hear any real complaints from the men that have actually served in the vehicle here on the forums. 

Slash78 #71 Posted Oct 02 2014 - 08:18

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12011 battles
  • 1,613
  • Member since:
    03-17-2013

 

 

 

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jul 29 2014 - 14:42, said:

Thanks guys, I thought the the ten gallon claim sounded rather implausible but being a civilian, I like to get confirmation from those that have served with the vehicle.  The person who posted that claim made other claims that suggested he had taken some of the "blacktail defense" videos concerning the M1 at face value.  It's rather ironic that growing up, I thought of the AGT-1500 as the devil due to my father working for Continental Motors.  Continental lost a good deal of business when the army pick it over the Continental AVCR-1360 diesel.  However, I find some of the claims made about the Abrams and it's turbine engine so "out there" that I end up defending it more than I ever thought I would.  Funny thing is that I seldom hear any real complaints from the men that have actually served in the vehicle here on the forums. 

 

10 gallons is plausible...though I don't know about oil from a M1's engine.  10 gallons of hydraulic fluid, coolant and urine in the hull of an AAVP7A1 on the other hand...

Edited by Slash78, Oct 02 2014 - 08:18.


Avatar14 #72 Posted Dec 12 2014 - 17:53

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 34224 battles
  • 110
  • [CABO] CABO
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

Oh the joys of myth busting.  I have been on just about every variant of the M1 family of tanks starting back in 1992.  Without getting extremely technical, at the beginning there were some issues with the track and suspension set up, but this largely enhanced by M60 tankers getting used to their new rides.  Maintenance in general was very different between the two tanks, and old habits die hard.  Track maintenance was one of those old habits, the M60 just didn't require the same attention that the M1 does.  The M60's, which had been around for a long time, and by comparison far less technologically complicated, you could fix most problems with "100mph tape and banding wire" is what I was told as a new tanker.  The M1 was not that at all, and there was a huge learning curve the crews had to undergo in the transition.  Training in a classroom is great, but nothing replaces actual maneuver (in turn maintenance) experience.

 

To keep the track debate simple, look at the track of the older versions of the M1 and you well see what we called the "smiley face" track.  As you look at the tank from the front, the tread on the track seems to have a smile.  This is the original track (T-156 if memory serves, and weighed 50-70 lbs) and its construction was fairly flimsy, stretched easily, and did not wear well.  If you did have a noob driver who didn't chop his turns, mud would build up and begin to pull the track off the sprocket hub, the sprocket would dig into the cooling tubes and bend or warp the track blocks.  This obviously enhanced the tracks ability to come off, especially under stress.  You could still do some fun stuff tho....the mad rush back to park the tanks in Hohenfels, after they put in the concrete turn pads on the tank trails.  In the right conditions, you could power slide (drift sideways) through 90 degree turn and never bat an eye. 


 

As you look at pictures of the M1 tanks and note the ages of the pictures, you will see a transformation to the heavier track (T-159, 92 lbs per block) and the square pads.  This version of track as an upgrade, (I think it was about 65K exp points) came about only after the tank itself had been upgraded several times.  The point being, that the tank was upgraded and modified, and several variants existed which changed the engine power output, gun design, and overall weight of the vehicle, but no changes to the track had been made.  While at Ft. Benning, we had what was considered the "heavy" version of the tank, but still had the old style track which couldn't really keep up with the off road performance of the tank, thus.....problems with throwing and breaking track.  Once we started getting in the new track on the same tanks, the problems went away even though our war fighting methods had not changed. 


 

Having been beaten and bruised repeatedly by the tank, and some of you will get the joke of climbing out of the turret from the gunners seat with "Push to Turn" imbedded someplace on my face.  Mechanically the tank can do much more than the governed "45 mph" (not all tanks are created equally, some are faster than others), but I don't think the crew could handle it.  Especially if some form of malfunction happened, or you come across a tank ditch that nobody was aware of over by the Hofenoe (sp?) Church area.....


 

I sooo miss my ride.


 


 



The_Chieftain #73 Posted Dec 12 2014 - 18:18

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10145 battles
  • 9,594
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Quote

This version of track as an upgrade, (I think it was about 65K exp points)

 

:)



Wait_for_it___EPIC #74 Posted Dec 12 2014 - 21:59

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2181 battles
  • 189
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012

^

 

We all know that to mount the Rheinmetall 120 mm gun we have to upgrade the tacks first.



george3mp #75 Posted Jan 09 2015 - 04:06

    Corporal

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

I was in 2nd Armored Division from 1986-1990, 3rd BN 66th Armored Regiment at Fort Hood TX and later in Germany (Lucius Clay Kaserne near Bremen 1988-1990). The first M1 I drove was serial "XM1 007" which was a pre-production Chrysler M1 I believe...our BN tanks were probably one of the first to be converted in the early 80's. 

 

The worst track issues I saw in TX was one - a double-track throw into the middle of Cowhouse Creek *smack-dab in the deepest part!* and one where the driver did a full-speed hard left spin turn, which broke and threw the left rear sprocket entirely off the tank. Track kept going down "Motorpool Road" unspooled the whole way, unbroken....this was before the sprocket rings were even installed. And that back panel was always torn apart and bent up by shredded barbed wire spooling on the sprocket or by trees...

The M1 tank itself was so fast, you were supposed to drive with the driver's hatch closed in Texas...never knew when you would find a loose forgotten spool of barbed or concertina wire and decapitating the driver was frowned upon by the CSM.

 

The M1A1HA was quite a bit slower, not sluggish but you didn't have to stomp the brakes as hard. Of course, if you did, the gunner was going to kick you in the head anyway as you probably broke his nose on the TTS and the TC's ribs on the hatch...

 

In Germany we took over the 2/66 AR's older M1 IP's until the summer of 88 when we got the new M1A1HA version with the 120mm gun and the add-on armor blocks raising weight up to 68 tons. These came with no rear panel and yes had the sprocket ring. In two years the only track I saw busted was someone drove and speared a tank on top of a 4? foot tall Dragon's Tooth at Hohenfels left over in the Maneuver Box. So tank on top of a Tooth, left side of the tank 6 feet off the ground with left track dangling in the middle...that was an interesting recovery that took TWO M-88's. After smashing part of the tooth with a sledge hammer by the smallest guy we had that could crawl under....teeter-totter until the tank toppled down under tow and broke two torsion bars :)

 

Funny how the roadwheel hubs seemed to leak more oil than the engines did...you had to check and replace the clear hub cover every few field exercises. Not to mention liberal use of the grease gun and Big Joe adding on tension...

 

We did have to use JP8 once...and yes turning on the smoke generator while burning JP8 would cause a 10-foot flame shooting out the back grille....and melt the paint off of a furstmeister's car :) so we had to tape over that switch after that for the next 100 miles, and never used that fuel again while I was there lol. Wasn't me driving but "I was there"....

 

 



Blackhorse_Six_ #76 Posted Jan 09 2015 - 04:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 45011 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

^^^ 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.



stalkervision #77 Posted Jan 09 2015 - 08:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 51037 battles
  • 8,045
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
can I ask a question here? If one throws a track and the other one is still operative what can one do with the one tread to maneuver the tank for a better firing angle in a fire fight. Throwing a track or one track damage does not completely stop a tank from moving whatsoever does it chieftain ?   This is my one big gripe about this game.. The rest of the unrealistic stuff I can accept. Has anyone ever modeled tanks that still can maneuver and fight a bit after a track is damaged? TD's really suffer in a fire fight from getting one tread blown off.

Edited by stalkervision, Jan 09 2015 - 08:52.


Blackhorse_Six_ #78 Posted Jan 09 2015 - 16:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 45011 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 09 2015 - 02:49, said:

can I ask a question here? If one throws a track and the other one is still operative what can one do with the one tread to maneuver the tank for a better firing angle in a fire fight. Throwing a track or one track damage does not completely stop a tank from moving whatsoever does it chieftain ?   This is my one big gripe about this game.. The rest of the unrealistic stuff I can accept. Has anyone ever modeled tanks that still can maneuver and fight a bit after a track is damaged? TD's really suffer in a fire fight from getting one tread blown off.

 

If you throw a track or suffer track-breaking damage during a hot fight, you're screwed - there is no fixing it  - at that moment.

 

You either abandon the vehicle (Don't you dare!) or continue the fight from where you are until your fight is over or combat has passed.

 

That's why tanks in capable armies do not operate alone.

 

Most tank commanders will attempt a damage assessment when the bullets lighten-up a little.

 

Dependent upon ground conditions, you may be able to limp out of the line of fire just enough, but the majority of the time you will have no steering or motive force on the broken side once the broken track spools off the drive sprocket or runs-out from under the roadwheels. If the track is thrown to the inside but otherwise intact, you may be able to walk it back on, but without having sight of what's going on, you're likely to get into deeper trouble with it. Once your roadwheels are off the track, they will dig-in on soft terrain and bring the vehicle to a dead stop or limit your maneuvering to a very tight little circle.

 

And for all you kiddies out there, tanks in The Real World do not "angle" ... Every heavy-armor tanker in the world is trained by his tank school to face his front armor directly towards the major threat or expected avenue of approach.

Whatever "angling" comes out of that is incidental to the angle at which an enemy is shooting at you relative to his location and your exact facing. If the threat is sufficient enough, and you are not otherwise protected in your position, you turn your front armor to face him, period.

 



Xlucine #79 Posted Jan 09 2015 - 20:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jan 09 2015 - 15:09, said:

And for all you kiddies out there, tanks in The Real World do not "angle" ... Every heavy-armor tanker in the world is trained by his tank school to face his front armor directly towards the major threat or expected avenue of approach.

Whatever "angling" comes out of that is incidental to the angle at which an enemy is shooting at you relative to his location and your exact facing. If the threat is sufficient enough, and you are not otherwise protected in your position, you turn your front armor to face him, period.

 

 

It's explicitly mentioned in tigerfiebel, only post-WW2 the armour bias to the front made it no longer a good idea.

Blackhorse_Six_ #80 Posted Jan 09 2015 - 20:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 45011 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostXlucine, on Jan 09 2015 - 14:03, said:

It's explicitly mentioned in tigerfiebel, only post-WW2 the armour bias to the front made it no longer a good idea.

 

I'm telling you how the US Army trained me ...

 

I'll accept that the Tiger battalions may have been an exception.

 

However, just because it's in the Tiger Bible doesn't mean that it's a trained task - more likely that it was in the class of Tips & Tricks ...

 

We're also talking about a field-pub which pictured the US M6 heavy tank in it's AFVID section.

 

Everybody's armor school comes-up with crap that's never used in the field.

 

So tell me how many Tigers actually did that in combat - got any testimonials from any of those famous Tiger Aces?

 

Show me a unit training schedule or Panzer school curriculum which lists that task and specifies at least one hour of training on it in the field.

 

Angling might work when you're dueling with a known threat at close-to-medium range and you have your wits about you well enough to have your driver do that, but vs more distant and multiple widespread threats, it's fairly pointless.

 

Wiser to rely to upon your own mobility to avoid the hit in the first place.

 

Remember kiddies, when you're driving your cartoon tank, you alone are functioning for the entire crew on your cartoon tank, so everybody thinks alike and works in perfect unison, executing every order you give with perfect timing. But in The Real World, you would have to manage 3 to 5 other crewman who function according their own processes. Your common training is just a framework - not every tank has a Fury crew.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users