I just found the Tamiya M1A1 with mine plow in my huge pile of kits that still haven´t been built and I have a question to all you Abrams-experts.

What changes do I have to do to this kit to make it an OIF-Abrams?

Torbjörn

At a minimum, leave off the rear hull mounted APU and replace the tracks with T-158 "Bigfoot" square-block tracks. To fully update it, you would need to change the GPS (Gunner's Primary Sight) doghouse to the newer version without an angled rear plate, add an EPLRS antenna mount, turret bustle rack mounted APU and its fittings, PLGR antenna forwadr of the TC's cupola, and the forward power connector box on the turret top near the front left smoke launcher.

Not to contradict Gino, but it depends on which time frame you have. There are Abrams that were (maybe still are) in Iraq with the older angled doghouse as late as March, 2005. As well, there were many M1A1's that were used that do not have the EPLRS antenna mount.

Although I don't have any proof the following statements are true, I'd have to say with the rest - all M1A1's have the forward power connector for the MCD, have at least the power conduit going back to the rear bustle for the EAPU, might have the EAPU if it wasn't removed, and replacement of the T-156 chevron track with the T-158 track. I think there's older discussion here or at Missing Lynx with a picture of a tank with the older track.

I concur with Jared. There are anomalies out there, but most M1A1s in current operations have been upgraded as we listed above. There were a few sets of the T-156 track used in Iraq in late '04 when the T-158 track was in short supply due to manufacturer backlog. A few sets of the T-156 was drug out of the depths of a Depot somewhere and used in the intrum.

P.S. Leave the tall, rectangular CLaMS (Clear Lane Marking System) box off the back middle as well. It was ineffective and is no longer used.

An additional side note, past the initial move up into Iraq, mineplows were not carried as a normal procedure. There's some out there, but not many.

Jed

Thanks for your help. I did build a Tamiya M1A2 for a friend a while ago. If I use this tank as reference, and add the missing things to my M1A1, that would work, wouldn´t it?

Yes...well, sort of. Tamiya's M1A1/A2 doesn't have all the latest pieces either. It is still missing the forward power connector, part of the power conduit for the bustle rack APU, and the EPLRS antenna mount. It would get you closer though. Just depends on how detailed and up to date you want to make it.

My idea was to try to make it as up to date as I can. Do you know any good sites on the internet where I can find pictures of the things that I must add?

Sure, here you go.

EPLRS antenna mount, minus antenna, capped post to the side of regular antenna. Also shows new, thinner steel antennas for radios too.


APU Power Junction box. New electrical conduit is angle-iron piece running along side of blow-out panel.


Power connection box next to man-hole cover. There are two screw caps to connect to located on the front of connector, toward front of tank.


PLGR antenna, to the right front of the TC's cupola.


Tank/Infantry Phone and rear Slave Cable Receptacle on right rear of hull on latest AIM tanks.


Deep fording kit exhaust flange on HCs and AIMs.


Check here at Tanx Haven for more pics (over 750+):
http://tanxheaven.com/m1a1/m1a1rob.htm
http://tanxheaven.com/m1a1aim/m1a1aim1.htm


Check out my M1 Variants Article as well for more info and pics.

Good luck with it.

Thank you all for your help. Very good pictures. Only one more question, the PLGR antenna, where is it placed on the turret?

Thanks again.


Torbjörn

PLGR antenna is mounted somewhere on the turret roof. Below it is in front of the crosswind sensor. I have also seen it to the front right of the TC's cupola as well. The location for it varies.

Since we are on the topic of M1s, I have a question. Well a couple really. What would be the correct version of an Abrams for a 2004-2005 timeframe stationed in Korea? Just an A2 or would they be somewhat updated to AIM standards? This one is for pure interest though, what exactly is the "bitch plate?" Im curious because I finished reading a novel for the second time and there is a part in it were one tank shuts down in the middle of a firefight and the driver got out to work on the "bitch plate."

Also, whens Dragons AIM coming out lol?

It would be a standard M1A1HC. It may be an AIM, but it depends on when 2ID was getting new or updated tanks. M1A1AIMs are repleaing older M1A1HCs as they are sent in for rebuild. It would not be an A2 though. Only 3 Corps units (1CAV, 4ID, and 3ACR) have fielded M1A2s. Also, an A2 is more advanced than an AIMS as well. It has the CITV and updated electronics and digital sytems. Many of these are incorporated into the AIM, but not the CITV. The A2 is just too expensive and not needed for current ops. It is more cost effective and makes more sense to rebuild older tanks into AIMs than to spend big bucks on more A2s.




Supposed to be hitting the states by the end of AUG to early SEP. Can't wait myself. It looks great, but it has none of the latest AIM upgrades, such as EPLRS antenna, T/I phone, rear slave cable adaptor, etc. You will still have to add these items.

Gino's hit on an interesting discussion, and I know I'm taking this thread off topic. It is a popular opinion that the A2 is not needed for the current environment of Iraq.

Our unit had both. It's the fond impression that the second sight provided by the CITV was critical to the successes we had in Sadr City. The unit attached to us, 1-41 AR, had A1's, and guys I've talked with in that unit wished they had the ability for that second sight.

Whether or not we continue to deploy them into theatre is to be determined. It's expensive to ship them, and expensive to maintain a stock of A2 components for a relatively small fleet.

I'm of the mind set that we should stop messing with rebuilding the A1 into AIMS, and just narrow the complete force into all A2's. Significant costs can be saved by going to one platform, and rather than have us slide backwords in technology, we might as well bring everyone up to the same standard. After all, this tank's going to be around until the 2050's.

If you compare capabilities, you end up with two main differences. The A2 has a second sight, and the A1 has a cupola that can be fired internally. Yes, there's other differences, but they will both have the same gunner's sights, they will both have FBCB2/BFT, both will have Far Target Locate, both use Gen 2 FLIR, both have the ballistic computer upgrades. In terms of straight survivability, the A2 is the way to go. You can always add a remote fired .50 cal, but you will have a harder time adding a second sight.

Initial cost savings won't show, but they will over time. You will save money on the training base, fleet maintenance, and logistics, which would eventually offset the cost difference between purchasing an AIM vs. an A2.

But, that's my opinion. I've been on the A1, A2, and A2 SEP, and I'm a fond fan of the SEP.

Jed

Here is a pic of where the "bitch plate" goes. Thanks to one of "bro abrams" photos (hope yo dont mind). The "Bitch Plate" is what covers the front of the engine. it is gets its name because it is such a pain to put back in place, if you dont get it right it will be caught up or fall into the engine compartment.

Ric

Morning Torbjörn,
Maybe helpful for your project...
I can recommend Academy´s M1A1 Iraq (actually a M1A1HC) to upgrade tamiya´s M1 with TWMP...
`cause the academy kit´s `J´ spure contains most of the important parts the M1 is lacking, to be an M1A1HC (mostly used in Iraq)...
I did so, and with some eduard PE parts added, it looks really nice...

(but mention, that you´ll have one new (inacurate!!!!) tank kit, for your pile :-) )

regards Max

P.S. also mention that the good ol´ Kit stack is the best inspiration a modeler has

Thanks Ric. I understood that it got its name that way but I didnt fully understand what it was. Would the plate falling into the compartment be the reason for engine shut down?

Zach,
No when the plate was installed properly it stays put. Now if its not it could fall into the engine comp. and cause some problems. I've never heard of it happening while I was on tanks. But I am sure that anything is possible. I am not sure which book you were reading, but if the driver went back to the lady plate to try and fix the problem, about the only thing he could fix there would be if the starter was sticking.

HTH

Ric

Yeah thats what it was. The starter was getting stuck or something like that. The book is the 3rd and final installment of the series called "Armored Corps." Its about a tank plt with First Tank in Korea during a new NK invasion. Really really good stuff.
Armored Corps

The "engine access plate" couldn't fall into the engine compartment. The opening is not big enough and there are enough components occupying space down there to keep it from entering the compartment.

The worst that could happen would be if it rattled loose and hung up on something along the underside of the turret. It could then foul the turret or it could get jammed with some force into the opening. Then it might damage some lines in there.

You are correct Rob, I used the wrong wording with my post, the plate cannot fall into the engine compartment, what I ment was that it can get wedged in the opening the wrong way, part of the front of that plate can slip down into the engine compartment and make it a "B**ch to get on. But falling down into the compartment, no that is not possible.






I read this book last summer, Zach. The book had some errors in it and I actually went back and read it a second time to highlight the errors. I did this with the intentions to send it off to the author to try and help him in some areas. But as usual other things happened and pushed the book farther right than originally hoped.

Ric