Okay, so this is an armor idea, but you'll just have to deal with it. I am wondering why not build an M1 Abrams with one, or possibly two, GAU-8As instead of the 120mm smoothbore. You could possibly eliminate the loader from the tank crew, making more room for the second gun or more ammo. This would be a sort of fire-suppression vehicle for use in light/medium built-up areas. Like small scattered towns in the desert. . .
I'm thinking you could modify the current fire control computer so it would automatically deliver 100 round bursts on preprogrammed targets, much like the computer does for the 120mm gun. Another interesting idea would be a datalink to ground-based antiaircraft stations for coordinated antiaircraft defenses. A platoon of these tanks, spread out over a wide area would make a pretty evil AAA asset.
I am looking for a 1/35 GAU-8A, but another interesting possibility would be a 1/48 Tamiya M-1, which might make finding the gun easier. Another possibility would be to fudge it and use the 1/32 gun from the Trumpeter A-10 kit. Anyone know of a resin 1/48 GAU???
Noxioux,
Neat idea but I'm not so sure about the type of gun you want to mount on it. The GAU-8A's eat ammo something fierce. If you're looking to have a weapon system that has some endurance to it then you'd do better with a lower rate of fire canon system. It all depends though.
If this M-1 mod is designed as a dedicated anti-air platform then more endurance would be needed. If it's to be strictly anti-missile then having those 30mm firehoses might be just the thing - but make sure to have their reload vehicles close at hand though!
Madoc
How about big wings on the side of the turret to store ammo...kind of like the old chieftain had...?
FYI the M1A1 is available in 1/48th scale from Academy. The only problem is that it is motorized and has some toy-like features associated with the running gear. There is also a T72, and a Challenger available in the same scale with the same motorized features. This could be a good start for your project. It would be much more practical from a logistics standpoint to use just one gun since it already has seven barrels which should be sufficient for reducing prefabricated concrete structures to rubble in no time at all. The single gun also allows for a larger supply of ammunition which would require fewer reloading evolutions for the weapon.
My own personal idea for an anti-aircraft variant of the M1 was to take the SGT York M247 turret with the two 40mm bofors cannons and switch over to one single 75mm or 76mm auto-cannon similar in concept to the Oto-Melara design for the using the 76mm gun as an anti-aircraft weapon on a license built Leopard.
There is an anti-aircraft version of the M1 in concept at the moment, I don't think it has reached the hardware stage just yet. It looks like an M1 with a larger M1 shaped turret that carries a pair of 35mm cannons. I saw an image of it on line but cannot remember the link/location.
Another version I had thought of was to copy the Ram Tiger design for an armored vehicle that could ram into and break down buildings using an armored superstructure.
Good luck with the project in which ever scale you tackle this project in.
Thanks for the input! I hope we get to see Steve's critter when it's done.
I'm actually not thinking in terms of a dedicated air defense platform, that would be a very secondary role. It would primarily be used to provide direct fire support for infantry. It wouldn't have any radar itself, but could be linked to a remote radar, say if you had the tanks deployed in a defensive position around an airbase or something like that. Otherwise, it would be used in a similar role as a plain-jane M1.
As for ammo consumption, I'm thinking it might be wise to have the fire control computer limit bursts to 100 rounds, overridable by the tank commander. Or make the burst rate fully programmable by the TC. Maybe include some preset bursts and firing patterns. For example, if the TC wants to throw a 100 round burst in a short zig-zag on a target at 1000 meters, you could do a preset for that (since a humans reactions would be too slow for that kind of control of the GAU).
I think the M1 should have plenty of room for ammo. Especially if you eliminate the loader's position. I would be more concerned about replacing the helical drum with a different feed system and all the other serious turret modifications you'd need to adapt the GAU-8.
Also, the M1 sucks fuel like a mother, so yes, this would be a fuel/ammo sucking pig. Your ammo trucks would simply need to keep up with the fuel trucks. That is, unless they really do switch from the turbine to a 12 cylinder diesel.
But say your mechanized infantry battalion comes up against a column of 5 or six APC's or medium tanks. Up rolls the GAU M1, who lays a nice long burst of 500 or 600 rounds directed down the line of the opposing column. It would be handy as hell in a close support role. The 30mm wouldn't have the range or direct punch of the 120mm smoothbore, but it would be much faster in close.
And of course, it would be much to complicated and prone to breakage to be actually useful.
I guess the other thing I could go for would be a dual or quad setup with a 30mm version of the Bushmaster dual-feed gun, firing the same ammo as the GAU-8. Sort of a US ground-support ZSU. I just like the pure overkill of the GAU.
I'm liking this idea as a 1/35 scale, maybe even a diorama. I already have a bunch of 1/35 Dragon US Marines. But I'd have to scratchbuild the darn gun.
Well, instead of the GAU-8/A, how about using a pair GAU-9/A's (derivative of the Oerlikon KCA on the Viggen)? The ammo's the same and a pair of those, perhaps along the lines of the twin-gun FlakPanther proposal, should work nicely.
If you *really* want the rate of fire of a gatling-type gun, the perhaps the GAU-13/A would make more sense, it uses the same ammo as the GAU-8/A, but is only a four-barreled gun for use in a gun pod. I think the Hasegawa armament kits with gun pods have the GPU-5 pods that mount it (might be useful for fitting it to the new turret).
Edit: Corrected designation of Oerlikon guns.
Well I think its a great idea for a fire support weapon, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon :wub:
And a diorama of it in Kuwait in '91 would look awesome! :wub:
So I say go for it! And like someone said, may me easier to scratchbuild the gun using plastic rod and stuff.
Sounds good.....for an urban assault type, how about a new turret with a cannon facing fore and aft ? That way, your ammo drums could be on each sidde, and when you get into those tight downtown spots, you don't have to worry about some sneaky Haitian creeping up your backside !
You could get similar punch and rate of fire, with a much lower weight, by substituting the GAU-12/U, a five-barrel derivative of the Avenger in 25mm. It's carried in the air by the AV-8B and the AC-130U. I believe the Israelis developed an antiaircraft vehicle on the LAV platform using this weapon, along with a Stinger launcher.
When I first read this thread, it put me in mind of the Abrams variants that appear in John Ringo's Aldenata series. The first is a pretty straightforward mod. It takes the standard M1A2 tank and bolts a pod on to either side of the turret, containing four M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon. The later variant swaps out the original cannon armament for four pods of Metalstorm dispensers. These are considered ideal for massed fire against swarms of Posleen normals, though it's admitted in the text that they're not good for much else.
On that note, I'd eventually like to kitbash a 1/35 model of "Bun Bun the SheVa Gun". At that scale, I figure it'll be about the siize of an end table. 1/72 might be more practical/practicable, but I can dream, can't I?
QuoteYou could get similar punch and rate of fire, with a much lower weight, by substituting the GAU-12/U, a five-barrel derivative of the Avenger in 25mm. It's carried in the air by the AV-8B and the AC-130U. I believe the Israelis developed an antiaircraft vehicle on the LAV platform using this weapon, along with a Stinger launcher.
When I first read this thread, it put me in mind of the Abrams variants that appear in John Ringo's Aldenata series. The first is a pretty straightforward mod. It takes the standard M1A2 tank and bolts a pod on to either side of the turret, containing four M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon. The later variant swaps out the original cannon armament for four pods of Metalstorm dispensers. These are considered ideal for massed fire against swarms of Posleen normals, though it's admitted in the text that they're not good for much else.
On that note, I'd eventually like to kitbash a 1/35 model of "Bun Bun the SheVa Gun". At that scale, I figure it'll be about the siize of an end table. 1/72 might be more practical/practicable, but I can dream, can't I?
*laughs uproariously* I'd love to see that one. To give folks an idea of size, the "escape pod" on a SHEVA is derived from an M-1.
Bit of a snerk here, you really might want to consider a Tiger III, similar to a SHEVA, from the upcoming "Watch on Rhine" by Ringo and Krautman in that universe. Col. Tom (Tom Krautman is a reserve colonel in the US Army Reserves in the Judge Advocate Corp) has some real fun there.
ISTR there was a real-world vehicle with a Gatling gun for air defence. Based on an APC rather than a tank, but my memory is a bit foggy here.
And of course, the ultimate drive-by-shooting vehicle, the GMC van with GE Minigun from the movie 'Last Action Hero'.
YES! Re-jigged turret (ZSU-23 or Sergeant York donor maybe?), one BIIIIG cannon and plenty of ammo! Secondary AA role?
Okay it's probably as practical as a chocolate teapot or an inflatable dartboard, but it'd look damn cool B)
Quote from: salt6 on May 20, 2005, 07:23:14 PMThe rest could be in a turret. How many rounds does an A-10 carry? One or two cans in the hull and one in the bustle ammo area would probably work.
I recall reading several entries that stated the ammunition capacity for the ammunition drum on the A-10 was around 1350 rounds. I don't recall what the number of rounds expended for each burst but it was certainly sufficient for destroying whatever was getting shot up. I believe the pilot could also select the number of rounds fired for each target engaged which for most targets allowed for definite destruction of the target and anything next to it since it was a "shotgun effect" that worked very well...
While the real world may have focused on just one type of M1, I think the Army should have taken a second look at the "Tank Destroyer" and "Infantry Support" tanks since not all battles will be on vast stretches of open terrain with tank vs tank. As real life would have it, there will be battles fought in urban settings where the 120mm high velocity gun of the standard M1 is not really capable of providing support to the infantry in close quarters combat and house to house fighting where there is a real need for blowing holes in walls to gain access to the next objective. This is where high velocity weapons are of little to no use and what is needed is something that will provide immediate direct fire support against point targets such as buildings, bunkers, and obstacles.
This is where the Army should have taken a real hard look at arming a small percentage of the M1 fleet with the 152mm Gun Launcher System for the MGM-51 ''Shillelagh'' Surface Attack Guided Missile which would also include a variety of conventional ammunition types for blasting walls, bunkers, and massed infantry charges in addition to the Shillelagh guided missile for attacking tanks at long range.
The Infantry Support Tank should retain the standard M1 turret with the protected ammuniton stowage. The only real and obvious difference being the stubby barrel and fume extractor of the 152mm gun launcher. Additional modifications to the caseless ammunition would be required and I believe that a new semi-caseless ammuniton could be developed that would benefit from the 120mm cartridge design that when fired leaves behind a spent case that is about the size of a large ash tray.
The M1 Abrams Infantry Support Tank would also benefit from the shorter barrel of the main gun when it was negotiating narrow streets. The longer barrel of the 120mm gun would be blocked when attempting to traverse the turret to engage a target while the shorter barrel would not encounter that problem. While it is considered bad ju ju to put armor into urban settings, it is sometimes necessary in order to get the job done and the M1 Abrams Infantry Support Tank would be ideal for this mission. Additional features for this vehicle could include a flame thrower weapon for direct action against bunkers and a bulldozer blade to assist in clearing man made obstacles created or urban debris.
I gave your idea some more thought and came up with another alternative that might be suitable for supporting infantry in direct fire support using the 165mm main gun that was mounted on the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle and the Centurion AVRE which was based on the Centurion tank in UK service.
Both of these vehicles were a modification of the basic main battle tank and equipped with a 165mm main gun. This weapon was capable of reducing structures and obstacles to rubble with the HEP round (high explosive platter charge) and in UK service it was known as HESH (high explosive squash head). Either way it made a big hole in the wall or the ground (reminds me of a modern day Sturmtiger). The original M728 CEV was also equipped with a bulldozer blade as well as an "A" frame crane that could lift things out of the way if necessary. I would like to see a follow-on to the M728 CEV that would be based on the existing M1 hull and armed with the same 165mm demolition gun and bulldozer blade at the very least. I guess that is only a dream. I can however make my own...
Another version that came to mind was a direct support M1 for the infantry to allow short range direct and indirect fire support equipped with a 105mm howitzer. The mission would be similar to the German Wehrmacht SturmGeshutz design but instead equipped with a turret. The howizter would have a muzzle brake, bore evacuator and a short barrel like it should since it would be a howitzer and not a main battle tank. The howitzer M1 should also be equipped with a bulldozer blade to provide a self-emplacement capability to create a hull down position without engineer support or assist the infantry with making defensive positions, clearing away rubble, or filling in craters. It could also be equipped with a data link to the battery FDC to allow for massing fires on indirect targets in support of other operations but the direct fire support mission for the supported unit would still be the primary mission for this weapon which means you would need to get a telephone connection mounted on the back of the vehicle to allow the infantry to communicate with the crew to adjust fire on targets.
Nice idea, but I think flamethrowers are now banned under the Geneva convention - hence the use of White Phosphorous now (not that that's particularly pleasant either)
How about an AA model that could have one of a couple turret configurations.
1. ZSU-23-4-perfect for ex-Warsaw Pact countries.
2.2S6 Tunguska 30mm plus SA-19
3.Geopard 30mm
4. ADATS SAM system.
5. Blazer type turret,as on USMC LAV-AD models with Stinger SAMs and GAU-12 gun.Perfect conversion of USMC Abrams for heavy Air Defense.
I like Iranian's ideas on a Flak Abrams. Was gonna post something similar althought 'twas thinking of the Sgt York turret, given it's original mount of an M60 was quite boneheaded in initial concepts.
A RamAbrams would be an interesting concept tho, sorta like one of those IDF Cents on acid that they have tooling around urban areas.
As for flame weapons, whilst psychologically quite an effective tool, I'd debate their worth in a modern scenario. If you have infantry supporting your armour (who wouldn't), using a HE or beehive round seems a much better option than lighting up a target area, otherwise your accompanying grunts might get toasted trying to secure the area.
Regards,
Mav
For an anti aircraft Abrams try
http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/backissu...a96/4agds96.pdf (http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/backissu...a96/4agds96.pdf)
and http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...wtopic=16845&hl (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=16845&hl)
Regards,
Greg
Got a few more pics of this if anyone cares.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu94%2Frabid_stoat%2Ftank3.jpg&hash=2c378e0e3f91d6e347787ac5d25862a2b333b8e7)
Topic revival.
Given the Armour GB currently on, how about some more Abrams ideas? Here's two:
- An Abrams 155mm SP Howitzer - add a turret from something like a M-109 or PzH 2000 to a M1 Hull - say the US Army or someone else wanted a new SPG; or
- An Abrams Heavy APC - something similar to the Israeli Namer APC - not certain how you would modify the M1, but I'm sure its possible.
Regards,
Greg
Ever since I saw this thread a long time ago, I have tried to locate a picture that I had of an Abram AA tank proposal.
I found it now. Don't know what kind of missiles were to be used on this one though.
Upon reading the new info, I realized that the one depicted in the picture I posted is not the FAAGD system.
Still, I have next to no info about that one except that it's called (IIRC) Abram Liberty. And quite possibly both share certain components.
Both French AuF-1 and South African T-6 howitzer turrets can be mounted directly onto MBT hulls (tried on T-72).
Quote from: nev on September 26, 2007, 04:56:22 AMNice idea, but I think flamethrowers are now banned under the Geneva convention - hence the use of White Phosphorous now (not that that's particularly pleasant either)
Nev, Flame weapons are still alive and well in the military inventory. The US Army retired the flame thrower in favor of a four shot rocket launcher that fired 66mm rocket projecctiles that contained an incendiary mixture. This weapon is designated M202 Flame Assault Shoulder Weapon (Flash) (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/flame/M202.html). So returning to an actual flame thrower type weapon would not be against any current conventions on warfare as long as it was not being used directly against personnel. As long as you are burning down the structure or creating a flame barrier, the opposition has a choice, die in place or run. There are similar weapons in the arsenals of other countries and the current focus on thermobaric weapons actually creates a more lethal weapon against personal and certain types of structures. White Phosporous on the other hand is a multi-purpose weapon. In addition to marking targets, it can be used for creating a smoke screen or for attacking structures by the incendiary effect of the burning white phosphorous. Both weapons are horrible when you consider the effects of fire on the human body, but at least with a flame thrower, you can extinguish the fires, not so easy with WP.
Some M1 SPAAG ideas from here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,696.0
What about a RAM Abrams? After seeing a few images of the 1/35th scale model of the Raamtiger. What about a modern version of this vehicle based on the M1 Abrams hull? Or you could use the M48 or M60 hull as well, but I like the M1 hull since it is a bit lower to the ground and that makes it look more effective. Anyway, Get your dead M1 hull out, toss the turret and blank off the hole, no need for a vehicle commander, just a driver should suffice. Cobble together something that looks like RAM Tiger superstructure and fix it in place. Paint it desert tan of course as this would be used to supplement the current urban renewal program underway in Iraq and Afghanistan or anyplace else that needs some good old fashioned gross tonnage to take out the trash without too much bloodshed involved.
After seeing a few images of the 1/35th scale model of the RAM Tiger I started thinking about a modern version of this vehicle based on the M1 Abrams hull. You could use the M48 or M60 hull as well. I prefer the M1 hull since it is a bit lower to the ground. I took some time today to create a quick image of what an M1 Abrams urban combat vehicle could look like. I used an image of the Raamtiger and cut away the bottom portion and placed that on an image of the M1 Abrams that had been modified by removing the turret and a portion of the hull to get the correct appearance.
The first attached image is a drawing of a RammTiger VK45.01(P) based on Porsche Tiger tank chassis.
The second attached image is my own interpretation of a Raam Abrams based on an M1 Abrams tank chassis.
Quote from: Iranian F-14A on September 26, 2007, 10:47:34 AM
How about an AA model that could have one of a couple turret configurations.
1. ZSU-23-4-perfect for ex-Warsaw Pact countries.
2.2S6 Tunguska 30mm plus SA-19
3.Geopard 30mm
4. ADATS SAM system.
5. Blazer type turret,as on USMC LAV-AD models with Stinger SAMs and GAU-12 gun.Perfect conversion of USMC Abrams for heavy Air Defense.
One thing that I have both liked and appreciated with Soviet designed Self-Propelled AA and SAM systems, has been their ability too utilize 'medium sized/weight chassis for the basis of their successful systems, for example (with the exception of the ZSU-57-2 SPAAG) they have used modified chassis based on the likes of the cargo carriers, APC / IFV's etc.
These systems have proven to be mobile enough to keep up with armoured / tank units – otherwise in Soviet doctrine, they would not have been developed, let alone deployed!
And yet in the West we continue to push for heavy and expensive MBT – based chassis designs, that can only be purchased in small numbers.
M.A.D
Quote from: dy031101 on February 02, 2008, 01:52:31 PM
Ever since I saw this thread a long time ago, I have tried to locate a picture that I had of an Abram AA tank proposal.
I found it now. Don't know what kind of missiles were to be used on this one though.
It was the French Crotal NG missile
To be honest, the West has lighter AD systems in service, the Chapparal (M548-based), the Linebacker (M2-based) and the LAV-AD (LAV-based - obviously). There's also the FlakRakete Wiesel from Germany and I believe a number of other Euro nations offer SPAD systems, particularly wheeled variants.
The main reason, I believe for the major Western powers attempting to sort SPAD out of MBT chassis is purely money. They're bigger, more expensive & gain the producing company big dollars compared to a lighter, more economical system. It's the same reason why the US will field the Raptor in detriment to any of their other smaller projects.
Regards,
Mav
Just looking at the final M1 ADV pic, the "Paladin/Roland/25mm"....
Is that one of those cheesy deliberately dodgy looking DoD type cartoons, like their 'concepts' on what the MiG-29 & Mi-28 were going to look like back in the 80s or is someone just Photoshopping and not doing a very good job of it?
If you take a close look at it, the "25mm" barrel looks a bit closer to 50+mm and the whole thing looks just 'odd'.
Regards,
Mav
Quote from: Maverick on July 19, 2008, 12:08:34 AM
To be honest, the West has lighter AD systems in service, the Chapparal (M548-based), the Linebacker (M2-based) and the LAV-AD (LAV-based - obviously). There's also the FlakRakete Wiesel from Germany and I believe a number of other Euro nations offer SPAD systems, particularly wheeled variants.
The main reason, I believe for the major Western powers attempting to sort SPAD out of MBT chassis is purely money. They're bigger, more expensive & gain the producing company big dollars compared to a lighter, more economical system. It's the same reason why the US will field the Raptor in detriment to any of their other smaller projects.
Regards,
Mav
I hear you Mav!
And I agree!
But I see the likes of the Linebacker (M2-based) and the LAV-AD (LAV-based - obviously) systems are improvisations and not purpose designed and built.
I still think that the United States does not take its ground-based air defence seriously - Relying on its belief that it's Air Force can and will provide air protection.
Where as the German's (and Soviets/Russians) have never forgotten being on the end of air attacks and total reliance on its Luftwaffe, during and since WWII
M.A.D
MAD,
I think you're right about the improvisation factor. Even the Chapparal is just a quartet of AIM-9s on the back of a 548 tracked carrier. I also forgot the Hummer Avenger, but once again something tacked onto an existing design, although it and the LAV-AD are somewhat more polished than the Chap or the Lineback in my opinion.
I also agree that the US tends to look towards its AF for the air defence of its ground forces. The LAV-AD is a good example of the Marines opting for an air defence system beyond relying on the AA capabilities of their Harriers for instance.
I think the US position is one of an assumed air-superiority within any conflict environment. Great in theory, but if you don't have that air superiority it can come back and bite you rather hard. Once again, a case of history being ignored, in my opinion.
Regards,
Mav
Mav
I am a firm believer in history repeats itself!
I hate to harp on it, but I think the Soviet's lived by this analogy.
I must admit though, I am very very surprised the British Army has forgotten the hard learned lessons of it being on the receiving end of aerial firepower, when it for so many years faced the might and skill of the Luftwaffe. Regardless of that stupid political idea and decision that the missile would replace everything and anything in the military.
Even the British experience in the Falklands War which emphasized the importance and value of light/medium AAA (and to a lesser extent SAM's), for the British lost more of its aircraft in combat too AAA, than any other cause.
So impressed was the British with the performance of the Argentinean Swiss made 35mm AAA's, that they commandeered some of them for their own air defence after the war.
But where are these 35mm cannons now?
To my knowledge the British still have no dedicated and or purpose designed and build AAA in its inventory
It's a worry!!
But then again as an Australian, the ADF has zip/zero proper AD assets in any quantity
It's even a bigger worry!!!!!
Hay Mav
Maybe we should start a new 'thread/post' on how you would design a SPAAG/SPSAM or combination?
But then again I think this has been successfully done in the form of the Soviet/Russian Tunguska-M1 system!!
M.A.D
MAD,
The Brits did talk about Tracked Rapier, although I don't think it progressed beyond a mockup (but don't quote me on that one). I think you're quite right though. It boils down to the West's arrogance regarding air-superiority.
As for Tunguska, well methinks Uncle Ivan got that right in a rather big way and heaven help any pilot who has to go up against that thing.
The ADF's lack of credible anti-air assets goes back to, I believe, this idea of 'threat management'. They simply don't believe that our forces will ever be placed in a situation where we will face a credible threat from enemy airpower. No doubt the planners & strategists assume we will have US support wherever we go and that will lead it allied air superiority.
Here's hoping we don't find out the hard way.
Regards,
Mav
We DID develop tracked Rapier for Iran and then bought it ourselves when that fell thoruogh in '79. It was a dog: the missiles worked well enough, but the armoured chassis conversion of the M548 was badly thought out and made maintainance a nightmare. They're all gone now. Rapier Field Standard C (trailer version, much improved missile and guidance) is still in service and still winning orders.
What we have now is Stormer: 8 x Starstreaks on a Stormer (stretched Spartan) chassis, with passive IR early warning, the latter meaning that the vehicle has NO RF emissions for enemy SEAD to get a grip of.
Is it possible to get a model of a Rapier system?
Regards,
Greg
My idea for an Abrams whif is to follow the pattern of the US T-28 superheavy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Super_Heavy_Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Super_Heavy_Tank)
I read somewhere that the tracks of this tank were basically from an M4 - that is, several of them (ie lengthed and more numerous since the T28 is a dual tread system). So my idea was to take the M4 stats and the T28 stats and roughly translate them to Abrams vs my idea. For example, the 75mm gun of the M4 vs the 105mm of the T28 is a 30% increase, # bo bogeys, etc.
So, I got some drawings, and counted the number of bogeys and road wheels on the T29, and translated that into the Abrams, and figured it would take the tracks/wheels of 3 Abrams to make my new destroyer tank (dual tracks/side by side). For a cannon, I wanted something in the 150mm+ range. So I was thinking of the cannon from the Paladin, or maybe the M107 (is that right? I think thats a 175mm). I could get this all in 1/35 or 1/72 easily enough so I wouldn't have to scratch build the tracks/wheels/cannon. I still wanted to keep the low-slung no-turret design.
My history/reasoning for the design: In the first gulf war, the US army was worried about the invasion of Iraq and facing possibly many dug-in Soviet design tanks, plus bunkers, plus tank traps. So they wanted a new tank that could destroy all these targets. So, it had to have a big gun, and heavy front armor. Turret was not deemed necessary.
Unfortunately ideas do not translate into action, and I have 3 1/72 Abrams and a Paladin in fresh boxes still sitting on my table for the past 3 years.
Quote from: GTX on July 20, 2008, 08:15:37 AM
Is it possible to get a model of a Rapier system?
Regards,
Greg
A company called Firing Line are making a hideously expensive resin model of the original system: http://home.clara.net/djparkins/fline/fl_15vehicles.htm
I spent some time this morning doing up a rough draft of an M1 Abrams CEV WHIF by cutting and pasting the M728 features onto an M1 Abrams image. The end result is a bit crude but you get the idea.
Jeff
Great drawing I think it looks very doable :thumbsup:
How about an MLRS rocket system based on the M1?
I found a pair of 3D models today that allowed me to explore the M1 Abrams Combat Engineer Vehicle concept a little further. The bulldozer blade was from a 3D model of a Caterpillar D8 that was rather large but scaled down easily enough to fit the width of the 3D model of the Abrams.
I did not even consider trying to model the "A-Frame" crane that was mounted on the original M728 CEV and it certainly looks better without that feature.
The gun tube was shortened up to just forward of the bore evacuator and a new barrel was created inside of the thermal shroud of the original 120mm tube which worked out well. The muzzle is recessed inside of the outer tube to just ahead of the bore evacuator with a 10 cm extension of the tube forward of the muzzle. It is still long enough to not as great a noise hazard to the driver if fired. The original M728 CEV had a very short tube that was directly over the driver if the turret was positioned to the front. I am sure the muzzle blast was unpleasant even in such a low velocity weapon so any lengthening of the tube would be most welcome for anyone that is driving such a vehicle.
The bulldozer blade and the shortened gun tube were the only modifications I made to the original M1 Abrams model and I am certainly grateful to the original authors of these two files for sharing their work on the 3D Warehouse. After matching up of the bulldozer blade parts to the hull some additional details were added to make the attachment points look like they were supposed to be part of the hull. It all looks good now with a coat of paint to hide the imperfections.
So much win! (https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi107.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm309%2FChernayaAkula%2FEmoticons%2Fwoohoo.gif&hash=400cf581a8182e8e46f69e3ab1982db680fb6e2d)
Got to look for a 1/72 kit with a dozer blade. The Revell M60 with the newly-tooled M9 dozer blade comes to mind.
With regard to Rapier, it has always amazed me; given the success of "Towed" Rapier in its various forms that a properly package SP version was never produced.
Tracked Rapier was as Weaver said a lash up resembling the US Chaparral system, there was a slightly more elegant proposal from Germany, which involved the launcher popping up from the rear compartment of a Marder MICV, their was a proposal to fit the system to the chassis of the Warrior MCV, however this appeared to be no better than the earlier Tracked Rapier (possibly it may not have been as bad a maintenance headache due to more room available in the larger chassis).
In more recent time there was a proposal for the use of Rapier on the US Liberty AD System:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,696.0.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,696.0.html)
It is unfortunate that we never took the time and money to develop an SP all weather system that was a elegant as the Franco/German Roland 2 system or the Swiss/Italian/Canadian ADATS.
To go back toward the topic of the M1 family I started this thread on Secret Projects on the AGDS/M1 earlier this year:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7639.0.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7639.0.html)
Regards.
That Abrams w/165mm gun is a beast :o
That Superheavy Abrams concept is pretty damn beefy - You should be able to find a 1/35 gun barrel you can scale-o-rama down to 1/72 for a massive enough gun for breaching... Anything. Take a 1/35 Patton 105mm, then you've got a 1/72 210mm or so, which can fire saboted 8" gun rounds or what have you to cause all manner of heavy damage to... well.. Anything land based.