M1 Abrams family of vehicles

[Maverick]

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

[GTX]

For an anti aircraft Abrams try

http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/backissu...a96/4agds96.pdf

and http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...wtopic=16845&hl

Regards,

Greg

[rabid stoat]

Got a few more pics of this if anyone cares.

[GTX]

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

[dy031101]

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.

[dy031101]

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).

[Jeffry Fontaine]

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)

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).  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. 

[overscan]

Some M1 SPAAG ideas from here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,696.0

[Jeffry Fontaine]

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.

[MAD]

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

[MAD]

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

[Maverick]

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

[Maverick]

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

[MAD]

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

[Maverick]

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