Walter_Sobchak

Two more Human Factors and Safety Assessment: M1A1 Abrams 120 mm Gun Tank, Follow on Evaluation http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a202911.pdf Alternative Armament combinations for the M551 Vehicle http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/814948.pdf

Here are a couple I found today while searching for something else. Development of 105mm HEAT round T-384 (US) TRIALS TO ASSESS THE LETHALITY OF A 76 MM HESH SHELL AGAINST ARMOURED PERSONNEL CARRIERS (UK)

If you can remember where you read that the Merkava 4 had a high rate of engine failures in lebanon, I would be very curious to know. I know that General Dynamics had quite a few issues with the first batch of MT883 engines they put together for Israel in the late 90's (the engine parts were made by MTU then shipped to the US for assembly.)

The M1 has the fuel tanks in the rear sponsons as well. Actually, from this diagram it looks like the right side sponson. This picture is nice because it shows all the crap that has to go into the engine compartment in order for the "small" turbine engine to operate.

*Warning, Walter engine sperg ahead* The engine in the Merkava 4 is actually the most compact engine in the market, the MTU 883. All the other Merkava models use a version of the AVDS-1790 engine, which is quite a bit bigger. This is why there is that characteristic bulge on the front of the Merkava 1,2, and 3 hull. That said, the complete powerpack for the earlier Merks are not all that much heavier or bigger than Merkava 4, but the smaller size of the MTU engine allows the the powerpack to be arrainged more efficiently so that the front hull does not have that bulge. Now, you might be asking how is it that the Merk 4 powerpack is as heavy as the powerpack for the Merk 1-3 when I just said that the MT883 is a much smaller engine than AVDS-1790? It has to do with cooling. AVDS-1790 is aircooled. All the cooling it requires are provided by the two big fans mounted on the top of the engine. These fans are included in published size dimensions for the engine, which also include all the other engine accessories like the alternator etc. That means that the powerpack for a Merk 1-3 is literally an AVDS-1790 and a transmission. There is nothing else required. The powerpack for the Merk 4 includes the MT-883, the transmission AND the liquid cooling system for the engine and the engine accessories. Cooling systems add quite a bit of extra bulk to a powerpack. The advantage the MT-883 has is that these components can be arranged in different configurations for different vehicles for a better fit. With the AVDS-1790, it's just an engine and a transmission and their is not much you can do to change the dimensions to suit a particular vehicle. For example, here is the "europack", which is the MT-883 in a transverse mounting for rear engine tanks. (I love how it's labeled "compact cooling system" and its as big as the engine) Of course, this powerpack is unsuitable for the Merkava 4 since it would leave no room for the driver. Therefore, they go with a different layout which looks like this: As you can see, the engine is mounted North-South in this configuration and the entire powerpack slopes down so it can fit within the armor profile of the Merkava 4. Here is a picture of an AVDS-1790 powerpack (this is from an M88 Hercules, I can't find a good image of a Merk 1-3 powerpack.) As you can see, no bulky cooling system, just an engine and transmission. Also, there is really only one option on how to configure and mount this engine. Here is a picture of an AVDS-1790 sitting all nice and pretty in a shipping container. You can see the big cooling fans on the top of the engine. In a rear mount situation, that MT-883 europack system is going to fit in a much shorter engine compartment than an AVDS-1790. That's the advantage of a transverse mounted engine versus a more traditional north-south arraignment. The only problem is that with a transverse mounting like the Europack, it takes up the entire width of the engine compartment, while a north south mounted engine usually leaves a bit of space along each side. What typically goes into that space along the sides? Fuel tanks. That's why Soviet vehicles with transverse mounted engines have such limited fuel storage and rely on external fuel tanks. Of course, it allows the vehicle to be shorter and lighter so they see it as a good trade off.

This is a database rather than a document, but still rather handy. Lets you look up arms transfers by category, year and country. http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

Well, this is kinda weird.

Enemy gunners, aim for the left side of the hull.

I did a post on some old articles about the AMX-30. Technically, these articles are still under copyright, but I doubt anyone much cares considering that they are 40 years old. http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/04/06/amx-30-articles/

How about a song written "for the troops" by Billy Joel? That's gotta automatically be considered in the upper echelons of terribleness just based on the concept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZnaQk8R5-0

Yep, always a good idea to make sure you have a proper supply of strategic materials before going to war.

In fairness to the Hanomag, it kind of had to include the ability to skid steer the tracks due to the fact that they extended over 2/3 of the length of the vehicle. The US half tracks had a far shorter track contact area with the ground, making them easier to steer using only the front wheels. This gave the Hanomag a somewhat better offroad performance, although it was mitigated somewhat by the fact that the front wheels were not powered, as they were on the US half tracks. Essentially, the US vehicles were an armored 4x4 truck with the rear wheels replaced by a set of simple rubber tracks. The German Hanomags were essentially a tracked vehicle with a couple wheels stuck out on the front. The US vehicle is much simpler from a production standpoint, and the differences in performance between the two vehicles is fairly inconsequential.

If anyone wants to spend their day looking at different US designs for tracks from the 1930s and 1940s, click here.

I have discovered how Sparky drinks his morning cup of coffee. http://www.zazzle.com/m113_acav_apc_silhouette_mug-168535380871106637

Hell, US halftracks didn't even have track links. It was just a rubber belt with metal track guide plates.

the rate of fire by that Centurion in the video seems impressive.

Trying to blow up the forum Donward? I'll do you one better and say that Chris Kyle is quickly becoming the closest thing the US has to Karl Korner.

From 1979. Before it was cool to be tacticool.

US testing of MTU MT883 Diesel engine for possible use in M1 Abrams

http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/29/debunking-deathtraps-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-247

Actually, he said M2A2 guns, which is the US designation for the french 75mm field piece, which makes his claim even weirder.

All hopped up on sweet tea? Good God man, what are you doing to yourself? Life in the fast lane is surely going to burn you out.

Hmm, seems the video was yanked. Well, at least we know that the Saxon truly is not a good APC.

But I don't actually know much about tank coax guns.