Hi-Res
Operation Panda Garden : http://newsblaze.com/story/20081221083650zmil.nb/topstory.html
Frenchy
Hosted by Darren Baker
Full Option M1A1
Frenchy
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Monday, December 29, 2008 - 07:06 PM UTC
This one belongs to Company B, 1st Battalion, 35th Armor Regiment, Task Force 4-27 "Thunder", 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division during Operation Panda Garden (South of Baghdad December 2008) :
Hi-Res
Operation Panda Garden : http://newsblaze.com/story/20081221083650zmil.nb/topstory.html
Frenchy
Hi-Res
Operation Panda Garden : http://newsblaze.com/story/20081221083650zmil.nb/topstory.html
Frenchy
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, December 29, 2008 - 10:49 PM UTC
Looks pretty cool. I haven't seen the ERA side armor on an M1A1 before. Looks like an ERA block on top of the tube at the mantlet as well. Interesting.
KPHeinrich
Joined: September 08, 2007
KitMaker: 98 posts
Armorama: 90 posts
Posted: Monday, December 29, 2008 - 11:18 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Looks pretty cool. I haven't seen the ERA side armor on an M1A1 before. Looks like an ERA block on top of the tube at the mantlet as well. Interesting.
I think the block on the manlet, is an ammunitionbox for the .50 mounted over the maingun.
blkhwkmech
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 90 posts
Armorama: 48 posts
Posted: Monday, December 29, 2008 - 11:25 PM UTC
it is the ammo can for the M2 as part of the TUSK Kit
tomapaul
Joined: September 17, 2007
KitMaker: 425 posts
Armorama: 304 posts
Posted: Monday, December 29, 2008 - 11:35 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Looks pretty cool. I haven't seen the ERA side armor on an M1A1 before. Looks like an ERA block on top of the tube at the mantlet as well. Interesting.
A lot of M1A1 have tusk kit.
modell-byggaren-122
Joined: November 23, 2008
KitMaker: 61 posts
Armorama: 58 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 12:06 AM UTC
Wow, nice! I wonder when the Americans realise that the Gas turbine was a bad idea?
I like the Merkava style M2 .50 on the gun mantlet.
/Josh
I like the Merkava style M2 .50 on the gun mantlet.
/Josh
tomapaul
Joined: September 17, 2007
KitMaker: 425 posts
Armorama: 304 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 12:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Wow, nice! I wonder when the Americans realise that the Gas turbine was a bad idea?
I like the Merkava style M2 .50 on the gun mantlet.
/Josh
Yes I like the tusk upgrade too.All the others MBT had ERA or other sort of armour upgrade, except the Abrams.Now I hope that the tusk will apear in 1:35 too.
Hi res photos
More in this magazine.http://www.tankograd.com/cms/website.php?id=/en/M1A1-M1A2-SEP-Abrams-TUSK.htm
Ric_Cody
Joined: May 22, 2005
KitMaker: 299 posts
Armorama: 294 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 12:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Looks pretty cool. I haven't seen the ERA side armor on an M1A1 before. Looks like an ERA block on top of the tube at the mantlet as well. Interesting.
actually what you are seeing up by the mantle is the cable cover for the CSAMM.
Ric
Ellevenbravo
Joined: April 08, 2007
KitMaker: 269 posts
Armorama: 261 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 02:29 AM UTC
Pretty cool pictures. I hope someone offers up a resin upgrade for all of these bits and pieces. It's also cool seeing that remote .50 cal CROWS unit finally being installed on M1's in the field.
On a side note, does anyone know if the Strykers are finally getting ERA to replace the slat armor? From what I have read online, it sounded like this was supposed to be underway by now.
John
On a side note, does anyone know if the Strykers are finally getting ERA to replace the slat armor? From what I have read online, it sounded like this was supposed to be underway by now.
John
pstansell
Joined: November 10, 2005
KitMaker: 167 posts
Armorama: 163 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 02:45 AM UTC
The reactive armor modules for the hull are available in resin from Voyager as set PE 35213. The set also includes a fret from their M1A2 set. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide any of the the other mods for the TUSK configuration. But hey, it's a start!
Pat
MMiR
Pat
MMiR
marsiascout
Joined: March 24, 2008
KitMaker: 1,247 posts
Armorama: 913 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 03:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The reactive armor modules for the hull are available in resin from Voyager as set PE 35213. The set also includes a fret from their M1A2 set. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide any of the the other mods for the TUSK configuration. But hey, it's a start!
Pat
MMiR
To fill that up. Nick (Angrydog) from Angrydog Productions was making them, I''ve also heard they gonna be sold to the public
Lars
tomapaul
Joined: September 17, 2007
KitMaker: 425 posts
Armorama: 304 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 04:07 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The reactive armor modules for the hull are available in resin from Voyager as set PE 35213. The set also includes a fret from their M1A2 set. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide any of the the other mods for the TUSK configuration. But hey, it's a start!
Pat
MMiR
The Voyager resin kit is inaccurate.It is based on the first prototype of the "TUSK I " upgrade kit. It was never mass-produced like the ones above.
AngryDog
Joined: March 27, 2004
KitMaker: 1,114 posts
Armorama: 900 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 04:41 AM UTC
Quoted Text
To fill that up. Nick (Angrydog) from Angrydog Productions was making them, I''ve also heard they gonna be sold to the public
Lars
Thanks Lars for mentioning that, and I surely have to come in here... Unless some other company producers an ACCURATE version/s---Yes the TUSK package/s will be done. But it'll probably be the "last" upgrade set to be released. (I've a working order of 3 release schedules with different upgrades and sets within each schedule)
Until then,we still got a ton of work to be done before the 1st set is released, you can see my post here: https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/75248&page=3
Yes it's taking a lot of time! Please note that I've been a full time commission model builder for around 2+ years and I'm working to make ADP an AM company since then.
Yes my kits will be available for purchase via my website, inorder to control pricing. Just keep look out for the "Dog" banner /advertisement on this site-that's when I'm offically in business.
marsiascout
Joined: March 24, 2008
KitMaker: 1,247 posts
Armorama: 913 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 04:57 AM UTC
Nick:
Glad to hear that. I shall look forwards to these sets. I want some of them too.
Lars
Glad to hear that. I shall look forwards to these sets. I want some of them too.
Lars
Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 07:02 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Wow, nice! I wonder when the Americans realise that the Gas turbine was a bad idea?
Josh,
How is a gas turbine a bad idea??? The AGT-1500 is a thirsty beast but the immediate power and the reduced noise that it produces in unrivaled by its MTU-1500 diesel counterpart.
Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of your post.
Gino,
If memory serves me, the 2, 3, & 4 BCTs of 3ID had TUSK components, to include ARAT1, installed on their M1A1s in 2007...
John
John
tomapaul
Joined: September 17, 2007
KitMaker: 425 posts
Armorama: 304 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 09:14 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextWow, nice! I wonder when the Americans realise that the Gas turbine was a bad idea?
Josh,
How is a gas turbine a bad idea??? The AGT-1500 is a thirsty beast but the immediate power and the reduced noise that it produces in unrivaled by its MTU-1500 diesel counterpart.
Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of your post.
Gino,
If memory serves me, the 2, 3, & 4 BCTs of 3ID had TUSK components, to include ARAT1, installed on their M1A1s in 2007...
John
John
Yup!This sure is true!Most powerful engine on a tank!
mikeo
Joined: April 12, 2006
KitMaker: 325 posts
Armorama: 323 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 10:12 AM UTC
The AGT-1500 is a thirsty beast but the immediate power and the reduced noise that it produces in unrivaled by its MTU-1500 diesel counterpart.
I'm pretty sure that the fuel usage was balaced against the immediate power/quiet factors in the design phase. The Army thought that the trade off was worthwhile. Just because other armies establish different priorities does not make the US wrong, just different.
I'm pretty sure that the fuel usage was balaced against the immediate power/quiet factors in the design phase. The Army thought that the trade off was worthwhile. Just because other armies establish different priorities does not make the US wrong, just different.
Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 01:32 PM UTC
Mike,
I know that the power ratio and the noise factor was factored in as was the weight of the turbine engine, ease of repair and the ability to use anything flammable as fuel... After 21 years around them, I am a believer in the gas turbine, from the operations as well as loggie point of view...
Now if we could get a 90s-00's generation terbine instead of the 70's technology of the AGT-1500, then we might be able to get the mileage/gallon up somewhere around the level of the civilian HUMMER
John
I know that the power ratio and the noise factor was factored in as was the weight of the turbine engine, ease of repair and the ability to use anything flammable as fuel... After 21 years around them, I am a believer in the gas turbine, from the operations as well as loggie point of view...
Now if we could get a 90s-00's generation terbine instead of the 70's technology of the AGT-1500, then we might be able to get the mileage/gallon up somewhere around the level of the civilian HUMMER
John
Blucop
Joined: January 03, 2005
KitMaker: 279 posts
Armorama: 262 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 01:51 AM UTC
Is there any chance it could be modified to current standards? I have not given much thought on building one of my Dragon kits with the conversion, but this thread has perked my interest.
mikeo
Joined: April 12, 2006
KitMaker: 325 posts
Armorama: 323 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 05:48 AM UTC
John,
You did pick up that I was agreeing with you, right? If not, sorry for the confusion. I do most of my typing in the car at work during slow periods. Often times, I get interrupted and have to rush what I'm saying. I wish I could train the bad guys to follow a set schedule.
You did pick up that I was agreeing with you, right? If not, sorry for the confusion. I do most of my typing in the car at work during slow periods. Often times, I get interrupted and have to rush what I'm saying. I wish I could train the bad guys to follow a set schedule.
Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 06:53 AM UTC
Mike,
I was indeed tracking on your intent. I didn't put down that the logistics tail of the US Army heavy units was indeed tailored for the M1 series tank. I wish that the Army would look at getting a new engine for the beast but when they keep throwing the money that they are throwing at FCS, someting has to give...
About those bad guys, they tend to operate on their own schedule. Keep safe out there and don't let us distract you from the job that you are doing. Happy New Year
John
I was indeed tracking on your intent. I didn't put down that the logistics tail of the US Army heavy units was indeed tailored for the M1 series tank. I wish that the Army would look at getting a new engine for the beast but when they keep throwing the money that they are throwing at FCS, someting has to give...
About those bad guys, they tend to operate on their own schedule. Keep safe out there and don't let us distract you from the job that you are doing. Happy New Year
John
mikeo
Joined: April 12, 2006
KitMaker: 325 posts
Armorama: 323 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 01, 2009 - 06:08 AM UTC
John,
Don't worry, I keep a close eye on the
Don't worry, I keep a close eye on the
chnoone
Joined: January 01, 2009
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Armorama: 1,033 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 12:51 AM UTC
Hi Guys !
Going back in time to the initial Abrams develpment, the US Military in the 70-80's had to deal with the fact that their personnel wasn't the "quality" they needed for the "all-volunteer force ".
The decition for a tubine engine was strongly influenced by the ability to maintain such equipment in the field. The gas turbin has more thant 50% less parts than a diesel engine to work on. Besides fuel consuption wasn't an issue back then.
The fuel consuption of a Leopard 2A5/6 is about 3 liters to the kilometer, so it seems that Tanks in general are heavy and they need lots of gas.
The most powerful Tank engine at the time being would be the MTU Euro-Pack with 1650 hp, which "on paper" out-preforms the Abrams tubine.
Cheers
Christopher
Going back in time to the initial Abrams develpment, the US Military in the 70-80's had to deal with the fact that their personnel wasn't the "quality" they needed for the "all-volunteer force ".
The decition for a tubine engine was strongly influenced by the ability to maintain such equipment in the field. The gas turbin has more thant 50% less parts than a diesel engine to work on. Besides fuel consuption wasn't an issue back then.
The fuel consuption of a Leopard 2A5/6 is about 3 liters to the kilometer, so it seems that Tanks in general are heavy and they need lots of gas.
The most powerful Tank engine at the time being would be the MTU Euro-Pack with 1650 hp, which "on paper" out-preforms the Abrams tubine.
Cheers
Christopher
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.