question abbot vs 432

[flywheel]

i understand that the abbot and 432 are of the same series of vehicles so probably have many parts and designs in common but which is the wider, or are they about the same?

[sirhc]

They have the same chassis, therefore width over the tracks is the same.

[flywheel]

They have the same chassis, therefore width over the tracks is the same.

thanks for the info Chris i thought that would be the case

[antarmike]

Overall width varies conciderably:-

FV432 (Carl Gustav) width 2819mm

FV434 Carrier Maintenance width 2840

FV438 (Swingfire) width 2972

 

FV433 105mm Self Propelled gun (Abbot) width 2640mm

 

But as previously stated, all share same track Centres of 2180mm

Edited September 10, 2010 by antarmike

[flywheel]

Overall width varies conciderably:-

FV432 (Carl Gustav) width 2819mm

FV434 Carrier Maintenance width 2840

FV438 (Swingfire) width 2972

 

FV433 105mm Self Propelled gun (Abbot) width 2640mm

 

But as prefviously stated, all share same track Centres of 2180mm

thanks for the reply, this forum just gets better by the day with the info you need quicker than you can look it up in a book

[steveo578]

The differences in the width on FV432 are down to the ventilator on the right and in some cases the the exhaust pipe on the left and ancillery components such as tent racks on the Command carriers all of which extend beyond the trackguards.

 

The Abbot does not have anything protruding beyond the mesh screens above the trackguards.

[robin craig]

So, does it have the same length of track?

 

R

[antarmike]

So, does it have the same length of track?

 

R

They have the same chassis, therefore width over the tracks is the same.

 

432 and 433 do not have a chassis as such, but rather a hull and they are quite different.

length of hull quoted as

432 4.826m

433 5.709m (V/E shorter at at 5.333m)

 

Road wheel centres clearly different between 432, 434, 439 etc which have common centres and 433 which has road wheels relocated.

 

F432 noticeably has a wider gap between last pair of road wheels and the other road wheels ahead of them which are pretty equally spaced, but on FV 433 the larger spacing occurs between the front pair of road wheels and the following wheels which from thereon back are pretty evenly spaced.

433 does not even share share engine and suspension components (instead they are described as being closely related.)

432 uses K60 No4 Mk4F

433 uses K60 Mk4G

 

433 quoted as using Allison TX.200 6 Forward 1 reverse

432 quoted as Allison TX200-4A with 6 Forward 2 reverse

Since FV433 does not use same hull as FV432, I strongly suspect its tracks are longer.... experts will tell us I am sure...Experts will also let us know if the gearbox info I quote from books is correct...

 

 

Edit..Just found this data

433 length of track at ground 2.844m

432 length of track at ground 2.819m

 

So Robin, no to the question you asked. This data means Abbot must have longer roadwheel wheelbase than FV432 ,so may therefore also have longer tracks.

Edited September 12, 2010 by antarmike

[stal108]

There is size diff but as you will know a 432 does not have the hearlights mounted on the front like an abbott that may be the extra lenth. as far as wheel spacing it is probably the same as a t54 and t55 weight distribution denoted as i recall they all have 95 pads each side???? as i recall i could be wrong anyone???

432 mk1 has a massive nbc pack on the side i took mine off as it obscured the mirror vision. This was replaced just with the doors off the box so it didnt look bad. same goes for all the 432 varients most have things hanging off the side.

FV433 AS I BELIVE IS LOWER GEARED THAN A 432 BECAUSE OF WITGHT. lower max speed

[andym]

I believe that all FV430s have 90 links in a new track. Even with a different length of track on the road, an FV433 could still have the same length of track overall depending on the angles round the sprockets and idlers. I also think that the FV433 and FV434 share the same lower final drive ratio.

 

Andy

[steveo578]

Some sources say FV432 etc 91 links per track new, I haven't seen any figure for the Abbot but I would have thought as it has a longer track on the ground it should have more.

[andym]

From EMER E108 (Technical Handbook, Field Standard for FV432, FV433 and FV434):

 

Number of track links: 90 new, 86 all adjustment used up.

Maximum speed in 6th gear: 32mph (FV432) 29mph (FV433 and FV434).

There's no suggestion that the FV433 has a different gearbox, but its engine is a K60 Mk4G rather than the Mk4F of the FV432.

 

Andy

[antarmike]

From EMER E108 (Technical Handbook, Field Standard for FV432, FV433 and FV434):

 

Number of track links: 90 new, 86 all adjustment used up.

Maximum speed in 6th gear: 32mph (FV432) 29mph (FV433 and FV434).

There's no suggestion that the FV433 has a different gearbox, but its engine is a K60 Mk4G rather than the Mk4F of the FV432.

 

Andy

When you look at the actual figures the difference in wheelbase 432/433 is only small. so yes I accept probably one fits all....

[AlienFTM]

There is size diff but as you will know a 432 does not have the hearlights mounted on the front like an abbott that may be the extra lenth. as far as wheel spacing it is probably the same as a t54 and t55 weight distribution denoted as i recall they all have 95 pads each side???? as i recall i could be wrong anyone???

 

T54/55, in common with most rear-engined tanks, had the drive sprocket at the rear (and hence the idler at the front). I understand that the prominent gap between roadwheels 1 and 2 was so that in the event of a mine strike (usually by roadwheel 1, obviously), it would be possible to take the remaining track, route it around roadwheel 2, bypassing the remnants of roadwheel 1 and the idler and get out of the way of the advance in, if you like, emergency mode.

 

Never saw it done and obviously not seen as enough of a brilliant idea to be used on all tanks. Maybe T54/55 were the only tanks low tech enough to try it on.

[steveo578]

AlienFTM

T54/55, in common with most rear-engined tanks, had the drive sprocket at the rear (and hence the idler at the front). I understand that the prominent gap between roadwheels 1 and 2 was so that in the event of a mine strike (usually by roadwheel 1, obviously), it would be possible to take the remaining track, route it around roadwheel 2, bypassing the remnants of roadwheel 1 and the idler and get out of the way of the advance in, if you like, emergency mode. Never saw it done and obviously not seen as enough of a brilliant idea to be used on all tanks. Maybe T54/55 were the only tanks low tech enough to try it on.

 

It's called short tracking, seen that done on Chieftains and Cents it is also done on valentines - John Pearson short tracked his Valentine once when the idler failed, - it was very common in service on valentines esp. those operated by the Russians who were often a long way from service.

 

Ex Catterick driver training Chieftain with a short track around road wheel 3 having sheared the front idler.

 

 

Canadian Valentine in Russia knocked out after crew made good a sprocket failure in an attempt to tow it away- desparate days.

 

 

One of the reasons behind the various gaps in torsion bar suspension vehicles -notably on Soviet T54 but also apparent on T62 (althought the gap is between 3 and 4 - 5 and 6) is to clear internal components, in the T62 in particular bogie arm 4 trails and bogie arm 5 leads to allow the motor- power train to sit between the tranverse bars and in the T54 the drivers compartment clearance. In the T62 the drivers seat fits between station 1 and 2 and sometimes bogies have to be positioned with gaps to allow balance of load and C of G. similar to the T54, the U.S T95 series of tank -which had the floor bulged downward between stations 1 and 2 to allow for an even lower seated position for the driver.

 

Steve

Edited September 14, 2010 by steveo578
addition

[Stone]

You can do it on CVR(T) also - see the pic of a Samson doing it, near the bottom of page 1 of plainmilitary's excellent pictures thread.

 

Stone