ArtistsRifles Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Just watched one of the National Geographic channels "Megafactory" programs - on the M1 Abrams. Showed how they took an Abrams in from the army and totally refurnished it - took about 10 months to give the army back a virtually new vehicle with armaments and control systems upgaded to latest levels. Apparently they haven't built a new hull, turet or power pack since 1994!! There are two massive factories, one in the south and one up north - tanks come from active service into the southern plant where they are totally stripped back to the individual components and the power packs rebuilt. Turbine blades are replaced rather than fit new to give an idea of the close detail they go down to. Most impressive thing there was the shot blasting unit - they hang the stipped hull up in the massive compartment then blast it for 90 minutes with minute stainless steel pellets. When cleaned the hull, turret carcass power packs and other refurbed components are shipped north by train during which time the hull and turet carcass gets a light coat of rust so at the northern plant they get another, lighter, blasting before being primed and painted. Then the serious work begins of modifying the hull and turret to take the upgraded systems. 10 months later the finished tank is pressure washed in a Freon solution before getting a final coat of chemical agent resistant paint. Of that 10 months 4 is spent in the southern and 6 in the northern plant. In peacetimes the max through-put of the plant is 15 units - this rises to 29 units during time of war!!! One of the neat and useful tools in the northern plant was what they called a "Track Jack" - once the tanks has been pulled onto the tracks the ends are about a foot apart. Thi device looks like a hand palleet ruck with a hooked jaw instead of the pallet tines - it's pushed in and the lower jaw hookes onto the lower track pins. The uppper jaw is then slowly closed, hooking the upper trak pins in the process and the the closing cotinues until the pins are close enough for the joining link to be hammered home. Makes changing racks look so easy!!! :-) :-) Truly an impressive facility - but if anyones ever considered running an Abrams, assuming you could ever get your hands on one, consider this - fuel consumption for the turbine engine is >2Km per US gallon...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Grosvenor Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 It was a good programme wasn't it. :-) I want one of them spinning shot blasting cabinets ;-) The fuel consumption is fantastic isn't it. Totally mind boggling. I've heard somewhere, don't know if it was on that programme, that they use 8 gallons just starting up!! :schocked: Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 They also did on on the AH-64 Apache and the Fezza 599 GTB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Still more fueleconomical than a Sherman... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 It was a good programme wasn't it. :-) I want one of them spinning shot blasting cabinets ;-) The fuel consumption is fantastic isn't it. Totally mind boggling. I've heard somewhere, don't know if it was on that programme, that they use 8 gallons just starting up!! :schocked: Richard Yeah - me too!!!! Bet they would make a tidy sum if one of those was available in the UK to MV restorers :-) :-) :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 How can something use 8 gallons by just starting :dunno: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Grosvenor Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 How can something use 8 gallons by just starting :dunno: :-D Crazy isn't it! I think it's because they have jet turbine engines and they take a while to "wind/fire up". Richard - I want something with a jet turbine engine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 There was someone at a show with a gas turbine driven water pump. He said they turn up on ebay, might be worth a look! Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Grosvenor Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 There was someone at a show with a gas turbine driven water pump. He said they turn up on ebay, might be worth a look! Chris Really? WOW. :-) Might have to keep a look out ;-) Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 There was someone at a show with a gas turbine driven water pump. It could well be an Austin gas turbine unit. There was one being shown a few years ago. they are small units built to drive either a Sigmund pump or Crompton Parkinson alternator. They produced 250 bhp, with the engine unit alone, weighing 1,200 lbs. Rotor speed was 29,000 rpm with the output shaft geared down to 1,500 rpm as standard fitting. This was produced in 1962. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowtracdave Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Also get Rover gas turbine engines come up from time to time . Mostly in the guise of portable fire pumps . They seem to go for around £1500 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmoores1941 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 The JSMC is really an impressive plant. They built Shermans there during the war. We filmed for overhaul there, spending 2 days at the facility. I think they may have their production figures wrong because there were about 20 or so tanks on the line when we were there this summer, and the line moves everyday. Theyre also producing tanks for the Australians so maybe thats where all the "extra" tanks are going. In the yard were quite a few destroyed tanks shipped back from Iraq. Haven't seen the show but I'll look out for it. Military Channel also has a show called GI Factory. Haven't seen that one either. jm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 Thats interesting John - I seem to recall some one on the "Megafactories" show saying something to the effect of no M1 had ever been lost to enemy action?? Anyone else recall the words used??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 They've lost loads in Iraq, I forget how many but I think it was quite a few. Chris http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/DM-SD-04-07075.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmoores1941 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 I think perhaps they mean no M1 has been lost to enemy *tank* fire. They've definitely lost a few to other causes. Interestingly, if you remember the M1 that was seen on fire and burnt out during the Thunder Run through Baghdad at the end of the war, that was claimed as a kill by the Iraqi forces...That tank actually had an engine fire and had to be abandoned. They came back the next day and recovered it. JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 Ah - yes!! That was it!!! Knew there was something nagging at the memory!! Thanks John!! Mind you - that does bring the interesting question to mind of "What if a Challenger-2 took a leaf out of the US book and sent a bit of bit of "Friendly Fire" in an Abrams direction???" :-) :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmoores1941 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Things would get ugly Incidentally; it may not be apparent by looking at a picture of an Abrams, but the turret armour is maybe 18-20inches thick. The turret is just made up of steel, maybe and inch thick, but there's a space of approx 20 inches between the outside of the turret and the inside of the turret. This inner section is filled with high tech armour they wouldn't tell us about. Having seen one sectioned you realise the large gap between the outer and inner surfaces. I had never noticed that before. Also, those turrets are huge, there's enough room to swing several cats in an Abrams, compared to the really cramped insides of a Leopard turret, or any WW2 tank that I can think of. Best JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I think they've lost some to IEDs blowing wheels off etc - but "lost" is a subjective term. Remember also the YouTube film we were directed to recently. They have had casualties with some foundering in deep water. Didn't some go swimming in the Euphrates with tragic consequences? Even in the underated "Courage Under Fire" the only Abrams destroyed was a blue on blue (I've been reading The Sun - I know my stuff). It is hard to imagine a situation when an Abrams would have to take on a Challenger for real. John's info about the armour is very interesting. Tony Hoare has snapped Abrams on SP - see his truly brilliant plainmilitary.com website - got any comments Tony?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 Thanks John - IIRC the program referred to the thickness of the armour but said that was as far as they could go - the actual composition of the armour itself was classsified (a not unnatural thing :-) ) The film of the main weapon being bore-sighted gave an indication as to the room inside the turret - thought my eyes were playing tricks so it's nice of you to confirm they weren't!! :-) Be nice one day ot get a look inside one - well I can but dream :-) That one on YouTube - that was the one with the IED that went off - yes?? Some friends from the old days are out there and reported that the crew had a week in hospital for precautionary checks then returned to duty whilst the tank was declared a write-off and returned to the USA. I wondered at the time why it was returned - now I know :-) :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I don't know if you've heard about the Challenger 2 which got damaged in Iraq, I have the full story at home. Basically the vision blocks were shot out, it reversed into a ditch and threw a track. The Iraqis launched something like 15 RPGs at it, aswell as a wire guided anti tank missile. The only injury was a broken wrist and it was back in service within days. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I don't know if you've heard about the Challenger 2 which got damaged in Iraq, I have the full story at home. Basically the vision blocks were shot out, it reversed into a ditch and threw a track. The Iraqis launched something like 15 RPGs at it, aswell as a wire guided anti tank missile. The only injury was a broken wrist and it was back in service within days. Chris Wow, so that's a GOOD sturdy tank! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmoores1941 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I don't think anyone survived that IED/Abrams YouTube video. A check of http://www.icasualties.org a few days after that video was posted showed 4, 1st Armored Cav guys KIA on the same day in Mosul I think. There's 4 guys in an Abrams, and for 4 guys from an armoured division to be killed in what would appear to be one incident, points to them being the guys in that tank. Also, the floor of an Abrams is plain old armour plate, maybe a centimeter or so thick. That's it. That's not going to stop a 155mm shell (or whatever it was) when it explodes under you. The side skirts are also steel, about 3 inches thick. The side hull plates are also steel about an inch thick. As far as I could tell, only the turret has "wonder armour". At the end of the day these things aren't invincible. When we were at Fort Bliss I heard rumours from the 1st Cav guys about RPGs that were taking out Abrams. I don't know much about RPGs, but apparently the bad guys have been getting their hands on double warhead HEAT rounds of some sort... Anyway, I highly doubt anyone survived that youtube IED attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmoores1941 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 From the US Dept of Defense; DoD Identifies Army Casualties The Department of Defense announced today the death of four soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations. The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Bliss, Texas. Killed were: 2nd Lt. Mark J. Daily, 23, of Irvine, Calif. Sgt. Ian C. Anderson, 22, of Prairie Village, Kan. Sgt. John E. Cooper, 29, of Ewing, Ky. Spc. Matthew T. Grimm, 21, of Wisconsin Rapids, Wis. For more information about these soldiers, contact the Fort Bliss Public Affairs Office at (915) 568-4505. They aren't about to say "They died when their tank blew up". jm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 Thats interesting John - this is what I was sent attached to the link to the YouTube video: An IED placed in a culvert on MSR Tampa just north of Baghdad. This tank was with D co. 1-66 AR who were stationed in Taji, Iraq. The hull was not penetrated but the tank was considered a battle loss. Crew suffered severe concussions but everyone was back on mission in about a week. Are we talking about the same one do you think??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmoores1941 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Hi Neil, No, I think we must be talking about different incidents. Having just done a youtube search there are about 10 different videos of Abrams and IEDs. JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.