Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 12:15 AM UTC
I cannot find a site with the pictures, but the Army announced that M-1 Abrams series tanks in Iraq will soon receive the TUSK (Tank Urban Survivability Kit). The reactive armor that now goes on the sides are the same type tiles used on the Bradley. They added a .50 caliber machine to the top of the main gun (the Telfare Device for students at the Armor School or the same system the Israelies' use on their vehicles), There is also belly armor (a lesson from Vietnam) that adds approximately 3000 pounds to the vehicle. Thermal sights for the loader, gun shields made from "armored glass and steel" for the loader, enhance driver vision enhancer (DVE), and a back -up camera mounted in the left rear tail light.. And dig this! A phone mounted on the right rear of the tank so the infantry can speak with the crew. I would advise anyone not to stand behind the turbine blast coming out of the vents....so, if you are modelling the M-1 in Iraq, you have a new challenge.
DJ
PS-- Having been accused earlier of compromising the Nation's secrets, I must add that this is not guarded information. It is available on the Army Times news site and it was on display at the Armor Conference.
Phone calls to the FBI will not result in an indictment. Sorry.
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 12:35 AM UTC
Here is what the full package looks like:
Last I had heard was that only parts of it were being implemented. Those included the T-I phone, Loader and TC shields, side ERA, and belly armour. The rear slat armour was found to be unnecessary and too heavy to be removed for routine maintenance. May be different now though. We will have to see what shows up on the streets.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 12:44 AM UTC
Gino-- thanks for posting the photos. I feel better now knowing that if the FBI contacts me, I can pull your name into the investigation. This will allow me to have a cell mate. Bring models and I can learn between trips to the rock pile.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 01:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This will allow me to have a cell mate. Bring models and I can learn between trips to the rock pile.
DJ
Sounds like a plan to me.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 05:07 AM UTC
I sat through the unclassified TUSK/BUSK briefing last week during the Armor Conference. I'll see if I can dig up the powerpoint presentation.
The neat thing about the loader's 240 is that the thermal sight is linked to an eyepiece from the Land Warrior project to the loader's CVC. He doesn't even need to have the head out of the hatch.
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 12, 2006
KitMaker: 325 posts
Armorama: 323 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 05:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Here is what the full package looks like:
Last I had heard was that only parts of it were being implemented. Those included the T-I phone, Loader and TC shields, side ERA, and belly armour. The rear slat armour was found to be unnecessary and too heavy to be removed for routine maintenance. May be different now though. We will have to see what shows up on the streets.
Gino,
What TC shields? Are they adding something like the ones for the loader? or do you mean a remote .50 cal?
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 05:38 AM UTC
Yes, last I heard, the TC was getting similar shields as the loader and the remote .50 cal was not being fielded. As DJ said though, the Telfare system is also being installed on top of the main gun barrel.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 12, 2006
KitMaker: 325 posts
Armorama: 323 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 07:03 AM UTC
Is Telfare the same as CSAAM by Gunmasters?
Any photos of the TC shields?
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 07:39 AM UTC
Would any of you know if the shields being implemented (loader and/or TC) are just metal armor panels or the ballistic glass-in-armor panels that are being seen in country now?
Jeff
Sua Sponte - Ranger Challenge 2006
A person does not grow old and wise but for surviving the dumb "stuff" when they were young.
Life is tough. It's tougher still if you're stupid.
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 07:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Is Telfare the same as CSAAM by Gunmasters?
Yup; same, same
In action:
Quoted Text
Any photos of the TC shields?
The shields I have seen had the glass-in-armor. Of course, I can't find any pics of them now.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 03:43 PM UTC
Cool another electric fired 50
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 04:11 PM UTC
Jeff-- that is correct. The .50 is an electric solenoid just like we had on several other vehicles. They also updated the power distribution box to accomodate the added electric requirements. Now, in my pea size brain, I am perplexed by the fact that the AGT 1500 engine has always been a problem. It is a complex system, it works, and it is expensive. The armor and belly plate add in excess of 3000 pounds to the vehicle. I trust that the Army has a stockpile of engines because they are going to need them. Why we did not follow the German lead and get a 1500 HP diesel engine is always troubling to me.
Happy modeling.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:48 AM UTC
Actually, the heavy ballistic skirts are removed and replaced with the tiles. This helps even out the weight gained.
North Carolina, United States
Joined: February 06, 2006
KitMaker: 1,544 posts
Armorama: 1,464 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 01:25 AM UTC
. I trust that the Army has a stockpile of engines because they are going to need them. Why we did not follow the German lead and get a 1500 HP diesel engine is always troubling to me.
Happy modeling.
DJ[/quote]
put bold text here Its my understanding that BOTH Hulls AND Engines are no longer avail. they just rebuild the ones in service now.
I too wonder why they didn't look at Diesel, even though the Abrams can burn anything thats combustible from Gas to Kerosene.
Chris
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 01:58 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Here is what the full package looks like:
Last I had heard was that only parts of it were being implemented. Those included the T-I phone, Loader and TC shields, side ERA, and belly armour. The rear slat armour was found to be unnecessary and too heavy to be removed for routine maintenance. May be different now though. We will have to see what shows up on the streets.
When do they actually plan on getting this to the field? They have been talking about for some time now and there seems to be no rush to get it out. Dan
Looking to meet other MN Armor modellers. I live in Buffalo.
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 05:49 AM UTC
Dan-- as I understand it, at a cost of some $400K per tank, they are doing the installation as we speak. I would spit ball that we probably have a 1000 tanks in the inventory. So, the priority would go to those guys in Iraq and Afghanistan then pyramid down to other units.
I am guessing here.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 06:07 AM UTC
DJ, to narrow your ballpark, as far as I can find, over 8,800 Abrams have been built. In ODS, 1800+ were deployed. Granted the M1A0 model is not in service anymore, but with M1A2s...I'd think there are still way more than 1,000.
But you are right, they probably will field from the deployed down.
Jeff
Sua Sponte - Ranger Challenge 2006
A person does not grow old and wise but for surviving the dumb "stuff" when they were young.
Life is tough. It's tougher still if you're stupid.
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:08 PM UTC
Quoted Text
DJ, to narrow your ballpark, as far as I can find, over 8,800 Abrams have been built. In ODS, 1800+ were deployed. Granted the M1A0 model is not in service anymore, but with M1A2s...I'd think there are still way more than 1,000.
But you are right, they probably will field from the deployed down.
Jeff
Jeff-- You are probably correct on your numbers. The fielding plan will be largely based on the Congress passing the supplemental. Something they are screwing around with to the detriment of the guy on the ground.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:47 PM UTC
The vast majority of XM1, M1 and M1IPs have second lives as M1A2SEP and M1A1AIM tanks. Besides the initial run of M1A2s, the rest of the series (A2SEP) were all rebuilds.
Because of this, total Abrams production numbers will be skewed depending on how they are counted. Is an Abrams that started life as an M1 and is totally rebuilt as an M1A2SEP counted as one tank or two?
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:52 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The vast majority of XM1, M1 and M1IPs have second lives as M1A2SEP and M1A1AIM tanks. Besides the initial run of M1A2s, the rest of the series (A2SEP) were all rebuilds.
Because of this, total Abrams production numbers will be skewed depending on how they are counted. Is an Abrams that started life as an M1 and is totally rebuilt as an M1A2SEP counted as one tank or two?
So, spit ball us a number of tanks in theater. Are there any in Afghanistan?
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:59 PM UTC
No idea of the number in Iraq, I would guess around 500+/- at any given time. There are none in Afghanistan. The only US armored vehicles that have been deployed to A'stan are USMC LAV-25s.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2007 - 04:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
No idea of the number in Iraq, I would guess around 500+/- at any given time. There are none in Afghanistan. The only US armored vehicles that have been deployed to A'stan are USMC LAV-25s.
Gino-- using the 500 figure at $400K per vehicle that would come out to about $30M. It ain't cheap!
thanks
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2007 - 05:11 PM UTC
I agree on the choice of Engines.
Why gas don't know.
But seems that Diesel would be the way to go.
And so as to not piss DJ off I still like the T-34
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2007 - 05:17 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I agree on the choice of Engines.
Why gas don't know.
But seems that Diesel would be the way to go.
And so as to not piss DJ off I still like the T-34
Jeff- I will try to lead you into greener pastures.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2007 - 05:43 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Gino-- using the 500 figure at $400K per vehicle that would come out to about $30M. It ain't cheap!
thanks
DJ
I agree that it isn't cheap, but for a major tank upgrade, these days $30M is not that bad.
Jeff
Sua Sponte - Ranger Challenge 2006
A person does not grow old and wise but for surviving the dumb "stuff" when they were young.
Life is tough. It's tougher still if you're stupid.
