Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Walter_Sobchak

Forum Nobility
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,497

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    139

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Walter_Sobchak

  1. Walter_Sobchak
    At least until he realized he had gone into battle with a prototype tank that never went into full scale production.
  2. Walter_Sobchak
    No, the versions used for the M48 were the same as what was put in the M60. That said, there were several different versions used in the M48 and M60, although the differences are relatively minor. All version used in either vehicle were 750HP, therefore they were all AVDS-1790-2. The original version was AVDS-1790-2A. Later on, they created two new versions of the engine, the AVDS-1790-2C and the AVDS-1790-2D. These are what is known as the "RISE" engines. They were improved reliability versions basically. The -2C had a more powerful 650 amp alternator, which was required to run the fire control system of the M60A3. The -2D had the older 300 amp alternator and was intended as the replacement in older vehicles. A few years later around 1975, they started having issues with engines suffering from severe dust gutting. After much arguing with Chrysler and the Goverment, Continental got permission to redesign the air induction system. To quote my dad, "With Chrysler Defense opposing, our analysis was that they had a shitty air cleaner system." Continental got permission from the M60 Program manager to redesign the air induction system and rolled out the new "clean air" variants of the engine. These are designated with an additional "A." So, the final version of the 750hp engine are AVDS-1790-2CA and AVDS-1790-2DA. As I understand it, many of these "clean air" engines were not new manufacture but rather upgrades done with kits provided by Teledyne Continental. To the guys in the field, a RISE engine often meant 650 amp generator. This is not technically accurate as I understand it, but it was how the soldiers often understood it. Also, sometimes 650 amp engines got put into older vehicles, not just M60A3. The extra electrical power proved very popular regardless of the vehicle type.
  3. Walter_Sobchak
    I guess that means that if I ever do another scale model of a Merkava, I don't have to be too particular about the shade of the paint or if some dust settles on the paint job.
  4. Walter_Sobchak
    Hell, the thing has two loaders. Lets go with a 140mm gun upgrade.
  5. Walter_Sobchak
    As far as I know, pretty much all variants of the Oliphant use some version of the AVDS-1790 diesel engine. It comes in several different power levels, as it's been upgraded over the years. The original version, the AVDS-1790-2 series was 750HP. It came in a few different versions depending on the size of the alternator. The original version is called the AVDS-1790-2A. Those that were built specifically for use in the Centurion were called AVDS-1790-2AC. Later versions also had a "C" added to the end of the name if they were intended for use in a Centurion. Later on, Teledyne Continental Motors introduced the AVDS-1790-5 series. These engines are commonly listed at 900 HP engines, but in reality they are 908HP. These went into the Merkava I. Israel wanted more power so TCM was able to provide a slightly better model called the AVDS-1790-6 with 950 HP. After that came the AVDS-1790-8 series. This engine has 1050HP. I suspect this is the 1040hp engine mentioned in the sources you listed for the Oliphant. The AVDS-1790-8 is still in production to this day for the US Army M88A2 Hercules ARV. After that, the next version is the AVDS-1790-9. This engine produces 1200HP and is in the Merkava 3 and the Namer APC. The model used in the Merkava is specifically designated AVDS-1790-9AR. While an "R" in a AVDS-1790 designation usually stands for "recovery vehicle", in this instance it stands for "Renk", since the Merkava uses a Renk transmission. There is also a version that has been prototyped but not put into production called the AVDS-1790-1500. The 1500 stands for 1500 HP. So yes, and engine that started out as 750 HP is now capable of twice that amount, 1500hp. Unfortunately for the AVDS-1790, Israel decided to go with the MTU 883 1500HP diesel for the Merkava IV. I doubt the 1500HP AVDS 1790 will ever see production. From a marketing perspective, it's hard to convince customers that an engine that has its roots in the 1950's is as good as the shiny new designs coming from MTU. Also, the aircooled AVDS-1790 looks so much bigger and bulkier than the German watercooled jobs on paper. Of course, when you look at the total size of the powerpacks, cooling systems included, the difference is much less. Also, it's a fairly long engine, too long to be mounted transversely, as is the fashion for some of the newer tanks out there.
  6. Walter_Sobchak
    What is the length on the M103 gun. Is it longer than the L/55 120mm on the Leopard 2A6?
  7. Walter_Sobchak
    Imagine an M103 modernized in the same way some of the upgrade packages for the M60. That would be something to see. Although, I don't know what you upgun it to.
  8. Walter_Sobchak
    I'm pretty sure that HEAT was the primary anti-tank round for the 90mm. I don't think they ever made a sabot round for it, just HVAP and APCBC. From what I have read on the six day war, Israeli Pattons with 90mm guns were reasonably effective against everything except the small number of IS-3 tanks they encountered. To me the M48 has always looked like too much tank for too little gun.
  9. Walter_Sobchak
    I wonder if the BTR-60 can actually handle the recoil of that 90mm gun. If they are still using the original recoil system from a M47, I'm thinking I would not want to be in that thing when it fires. I'm thinking the best use of this vehicle is crowd control, when you want something that looks like a tank to the average person but is fairly cheap to operate and you don't actually expect to fire the main gun.
  10. Walter_Sobchak
    If that thing were a plastic model, I'd tell them they held the spray paint can too close when they painted it. That's how you get those shiny spots. When I was a kid my friend and I would take all the model kits we didnt care about and rebuild them into all sorts of weird vehicles. Then, we would take them into the woods and blow them up with bottle rockets. It was good fun. This Iranian thing reminds of me of the crap we used to create, although we typically did a little better with the paint job.
  11. Walter_Sobchak
    I'm pretty sure it's not an M47 turret. I suspect they took the spare 90mm gun left over from their Sabalan upgrade program and put it in some sort of turret. All those welding seams and the weird design of the cupola make me think this is perhaps something the Iranians made themselves.
  12. Walter_Sobchak
    This was posted on tanknet back in April, I can't believe I missed it. I'm pretty sure this constitutes a grave crime against AFV decency and good taste. And why the glossy green paint? BTR-60PB + M47M turret = "Aghareb" wheeled tank destroyer.
  13. Walter_Sobchak
    As far as Latin America goes, I'm not sure capitalism has exactly been a picnic for that area either.
  14. Walter_Sobchak
    At least the window on the gun shield is still there. It's funny how often the M56 is coming up today. Over at tanknet, Ken Estes says he is working on an Osprey book on the Scorpion and the Ontos called "Tank Destroyers of the Vietnam War."
  15. Walter_Sobchak
    Still, that sounds pretty fun. I have not been able to visit many museums, just vehicles out in front of veterans halls and armories. Recent events have put me and the wife on a more sound financial footing, so perhaps I can start making some travel plans. I really want to go see the super Pershing tank outside of Chicago area, that would only be a four hour drive for me. Is it weird that occasionally I drive out to the M4A3 (small hatch hull, 75mm turret) Sherman tank near my house and just hang out with it? The thing is, Sherman tank is a good listener. He also is quite understanding, he knows what it's like to be judged unfairly. Sherman tank is the closest thing I have to a therapist I guess.
  16. Walter_Sobchak
    Oops.
  17. Walter_Sobchak
    Over at Tank-net, Ken Estes posted about being able to crawl all over the Tiger II at the Saumur museum in France. He has this to say about the vehicle: It's surprisingly roomy inside, if you forget about the 70 rds of 88mm that were stowed in the hull sides forward of the engine compartment to the driver's compartment, plus up to 22 more in the turret bustle. Tiger I had no main gun ammo in the turret and apparently the crews did not like to store rounds in the Tiger II turret, but the whole thing was an ammo box, and only the turret ammo would have been handy for loading. Perhaps because there is not a turret basket, there is much room for everybody but the gunner. I could stand fully upright in the loader and commander positions. Gunner and driver controls were OK, and I don't know why the British found the manual traversing wheel awkward projecting into the gunner's lap. Interestingly, there is a second manual traverse located in front of the loader, so he could add his energy as well to the traversing load. They should have had this in other tanks as well, especially heavies. My eyes popped out when I saw the 8 speed transmission shifting lever, but it is apparently as easy to drive as the earlier Tiger. Many controls are redundant, for instance braking is via foot pedals and the usual levers; must help a lot for panic stops. So well engineered I'd say, at first impression, but of course it's hopelessly underpowered and overtaxed by terrain limitations for which the suspension could not handle. As with the M103, it likely represented the limits of automotive engineering of its day. I was accompanied only by one of the museum's volunteers, the co-author of Tanks in Hell, so our mutual USMC tank history connection quite simply led to this opportunity. I took about 160 pics in two hours, was almost exhausted by the effort required.
  18. Walter_Sobchak
    I messaged the Chieftain about it. I suspect he already knows, but I figured it was worth pointing out. Edit: I see that Rita posted it so I guess the cat is out of the bag.
  19. Walter_Sobchak
    I was going to post this in my site but I noticed that when I clicked on the "share" button, it is disabled with a notice saying "This video is unlisted. Be considerate and think twice before sharing." I guess I'll wait to post about it until he makes it live on his site.
  20. Walter_Sobchak
    There is a nice example of a scorpion not too far from where I live. I took a bunch of pictures of it a couple years ago.
  21. Walter_Sobchak
    Ask and you shall receive. I have created a fire support variant of the Bradley equipped with a 105mm howitzer. Behold!
  22. Walter_Sobchak
    Jeez, you guys are terrible at marketing. Don't look at the back blast as a drawback. Instead, consider it a feature Not only does the gun help destroy the enemy, it provides illumination at the same time!
  23. Walter_Sobchak
    "The Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot - Tracer (APFSDS-T) is able to penetrate more than 140 mm of RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armour) at 1500 m." Damn. You could chew up a lot of cold war era tanks with that.
  24. Walter_Sobchak
    Just think, this technology could usher in a revival of the M50 Ontos.
  25. Walter_Sobchak
    Hey Colli, if you really want to chew on some technical mumbo jumbo, be sure to check out Multifunctional Materials: Transparent Reactive Armor Utilizing Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Frameworks.
×
×
  • Create New...