Thanks to Jim Carswell I found out about a new upgrade to the Abrams that has been announced.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6985

First reaction, they added the ERA but removed the composite armor side skirts. Good for RPG but bad for anti-tank. Not that anti-tank is a big threat right now. And the loaders gun shield actually turns it into something of a cupola. Notice the "rifle" in the loaders position?

Pretty interesting. Will be seen how effective it all is.

Hey, Rob, thanks for the credit, but I was just posting what I saw on another D.G., figuring that not everybody gets around to all the sites that are out there
Interesting to see that some of the things for the TUSK upgrade have been seen in one way or another, the grills/slats to protect the rear and the loader's gun shields. Wondered about that ERA too, if it would really be more effective. Now what will the weight penalty be on an A2 SEP, which is already less a fuel tank!?

Cheers,
Jim

Well your removing several tons of heavy panels to put in several tons of lighter explosives. It's probably an even trade off. However the main limiting factor in the Abrams speed is not its weight. It is the fact that the final drives have a tendancy to break if you try to push them too hard. Thats why the turbine is governed.

"the introduction of a tank - infantry phone...."
I would have thought they would retain that,you must have infantry near your armor,once you have overtaken an objective.Well,more dio ideas,a Marine barking orders into a telephone while under fire in a city setting...

Nothing new here - Marines use tank/infantry telephones on their M1A1HCs for many years now. So you were able to build such diorama before. Now you will be able to make similar diorama with Army infantrymen!

Pawel

Virtually all (later war) U.S. AFVS had this feature - you'll see it on the M4, the Chaffee and many others... (Telephones that is )...Jim

It was in Monday's (14 March) Army Times. Interesting story. For some reason, the Army Times is always dated a week early (i.e. 14 March issue comes out on 7 March).

The last sentence should shut up the folks that think the Styrker is replacing the Abrams.

Anyone know how long these upgrades have been in the works? I wonder how many of them were prompted directly by the lessons learned in the “thunder runs.” Improved weapon stations for the TC and loader, improved rear armor and the phone were all things I remember being recommended in some after action report.
If they are a result of the thunder runs it is really nice to see such a fast reaction to suggestions made by people in the field.

Shaun

How cool. Shame it only took two years for them to figure out we needed this type of protection. Glad to see it though. Better late than never. I like the infantry phone. I had one on my Sheridan. It is nice to have direct comms with the guys on the ground on something other than FM or hand and arm signals. I see some AM kits of this springing up soon. Lots of Dio possibilities. "Q"

Has anybody else been able to down load the pictures of this TUSK tank, for some reason my computer won't let me.

I can't figure it out, it says printer version so why not store it, it just comes up with a blank page saying an error occurred, cause my printer don't work.

Kerry

I guess the military have to learn it the hard way after fighting brutal urban guerilla warfare in Iraq for almost 2 years.

I can't get the phoo's
Why??

HELP the link doesn't work

Can anyone help?

Here is a resized picture. Link still works for me but the page may be cached on my machine...

Shaun

Just added phones....HUNH we sure as heck had them on our 60's as well as a way to hard wire our vehicles together for non- radio commo. Waiting for someone to get an AM kit out on this. It won't take long

Yeah, I remember hot looping the tracks together using the grunt box. I also remember that we disconnected them because water would short out a damaged telephone box and send a nasty feedback squeal into your intercom system.

I wonder how wise having ERA is when there's an infantry phone nearby. I realize passive blocks will probably make the M1A2 too wide for MOUT ops.

There are other issues too. One is that soldiers in Iraq complained about the gun shields and how they can't see through them. Hence the Army is/was considering using the ballistic glass shields found on the IDF Zelda so the soldiers can seek cover behind them and can also return fire. But of course one has to replace the glass if it gets hit since the glass will craze into white. Of course one has to consider glint off the glass, not so with metal painted CARC.

CROWS and mini-CROWS RWS would be better since that has a color camera and stabilization for the huge cost of $190,000 each. The article said the mount can accept CROWS.

I guess a color camera on the Stryker's ORWS for the M1A2 isn't needed since the gunner gets 50X magnification with the SEP. Still, CROWS solves this problem by having a color daylight camera.

Notice that the CITV is now blocked by the loader's shield and RWS. I wonder if the Army is going to raise the CITV or let the RWS be the main CITV. Gee...why need CITV if it can no longer see 360 and the RWS has daylight camera, rangefinder, and thermal, eh? I wonder if the Army realized that they just "replaced" the M1A2's CITV with the RWS which has almost the same sensors and is higher now than the CITV!!!

CROWS is better...one can even swap the sights for better sensors and magnifications. Perhaps the Army may add the USMC's anti-missile countermeasure device in place of the CITV if the CROWS/RWS will be the new CITV.

Any idea as to when this new update will begin to be started?

Jeff

Howdy fellas,

Just read thru this thread and I think Trisaw just touched on a concern of mine....
If this is indeed 'active' applique armour, isn't it a 'no-no' to utilize active armour when in close proximity to ground troops?
Now I'm not a tanker, but isn't the idea of (as explained to me by a very kind person) 'active' armour for it to literally explode outward in an effort to counteract the application of an RPG?.....or am I completely an idiot?
Hopefully not........

Tread.

Come on you Abrams monkeys.....help me out here.

Hello Guys,
I've actually seen this stuff tested and it's pretty effective against what they are shooting at us. NOW all of you Bradley buffs out there should recognize those box(Y) looking things on the side. :-) I was in the fight in Falluja and can tell you from personal experience as small as some of those roads where it wouldn't matter if the infantry guys were near a tank or not. This stuff has some residual blast but all in all not that bad. The grunt phone was a Marine Idea, as well as the idea of Hanging the Reactive stuff on the side. The Army laughed at us at first but the test results made us laugh at them. Anyway you will see the Tank Urban aSSault Kit on lots more tanks. I've got some unique photos that as soon as I get them screened that I will post. Shows some pretty interesting concepts for the loaders and commanders weapon station to include the mounting of MK19 kits (Been there done that), various gun shields and the like.

Semper FI
Andy

Looking forward to the Pics.....Hopefully the screeners will let them through!!!

Does the military have a site where you can give ideas to them to see if they help or not, something like a junk drawer, or something.

Then again maybe a lot of people would have good ideas that could save many lives, but does anybody know of such a place, civilian, or military.

Kerry

Can't wait! Sounds very cool!

Anyone got any ideas on how to scratchbuild the Reactive armor boxes...and the rest of the improvements for that matter?