M1A3 prototype?

[Damian90]

Thanks Jim, "Thumper" is so nice looking piece of metal.

BTW, "Thumpers" turret looks a bit different to that second prototype, and no I don't mean these welded steel plates over turret front armor.

[Magister]

Thanks for the info Jim! Thumper sure looks mean.

[Jim Warford]

Just to clarify things, the Abrams Block III is not the same design/variant that we see in these rail car pics. You guys are mixing apples and oranges...the Block III tank was intended to counter the expected Soviet "FST-3" tank and was fitted with a small low-profile turret.

Now, back to the Block III...the Block III concept/design was part of the 1990s' Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) program which was an effort to field 6,080 futuristic combat vehicles using two common chassis. The Block III tank was supposed to use the heavy chassis. Reportedly, ASM pre-production vehicles were being built in 1991. The Block III tank was intended to be the counter to the expected Future Soviet Tank 3 (FST-3)...which never materialized. Once it was determined that the FST-3 wasn't going to happen, the ASM program was modified to "indefinitely defer" production of the Block III tank. According to Army Secretary Michael Stone, near-term changes in the Soviet tank threat "demanded a restructuring of ASM." Here are two pics of the Block III tank concept/design:



Shot at 2011-01-18


Shot at 2011-01-18

[Kunal Biswas]

So, deigned share same Unmanned tech from its previous one?

[Damian90]

Thanks Jim, I saw this concept model on pics from AUSA, in 2009?

Kunal, no, the prototype on the photo is TTB - Tank Test Bed and it's not sharing the same turret system as the concept model of Block III tank.

Block III turret is more resasembling turret used on M1128 MGS Stryker.

[Kunal Biswas]

^^ Thnx...

[Nuclear_Warrior]

This was already discussed. In fact, there is an ongoing thread about it, look it up.

[He219]

Try a search first: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...highlight=M1A3

[Cipher]

Hey Damian, why does the US Army continue to use a gas turbine on the Abrams even after all these years? I believe there are a lot of very capable diesel engines out there that can match or out preform the gas turbine today. Also, is using a gas turbine more dangerous for the crew due to the jet fuel or gasoline that powers it? Was gasoline not a contributing factor that caused Sherman tanks to explode easily in WW2?

[ViceStan]

Hey Damian, why does the US Army continue to use a gas turbine on the Abrams even after all these years? I believe there are a lot of very capable diesel engines out there that can match or out preform the gas turbine today. Also, is using a gas turbine more dangerous for the crew due to the jet fuel or gasoline that powers it? Was gasoline not a contributing factor that caused Sherman tanks to explode easily in WW2?

Jet fuel is just a very high quality diesel ..........

[Kunal Biswas]

Jet fuel is just a very high quality diesel ..........

Pick-up speed..

..................

[Damian90]

Hey Damian, why does the US Army continue to use a gas turbine on the Abrams even after all these years? I believe there are a lot of very capable diesel engines out there that can match or out preform the gas turbine today. Also, is using a gas turbine more dangerous for the crew due to the jet fuel or gasoline that powers it? Was gasoline not a contributing factor that caused Sherman tanks to explode easily in WW2?

Gas Turbine have some advantages over Diesel. It is smaller, lighter, simpler, quieter, no visible exhaust gases, Gas Turbine engine have only three problems, temperature of work (~1500F), fuel compsumption, some elements are made from expensive materials that wear rather fast.

US.Army started in late 80's an AIPS program under which they developed two promising engines, one was very compact Diesel engine, the Cummins XAP-1000 used on CATTB prototype, second one was very compact Gas Turbine the LV100-5, unfortunetly both were not fielded.

And Gas Turbine is not more dangerous, also M4 tanks vurnability was not due to engines used on them, this is a myth, the real reason behind these problems was... ammunition stored in unprotected racks, after some not well made modifications they just thrown all ammo on the hull floor, firstly in armored containers and finally they added also wet containers. Thanks to these solutions M4 was one of the safest if not the safest tank of WWII.

However it is true that Gas Turbine demands a little more attention in case of flamabale fluids. This is why crews and maintnance personell need to focus greatly on so called PMCS procedures, I know from a former M1 tank crewmember that if fuel tanks etc. are not maintained properly, these can make some problems with engine fires, but the same is also true for Diesel.

Diesel have advantage over Gas Turbine that is cooler, more resistant to dust etc. and have better fuel economy, and is cheaper.

Still Gas Turbine will work on any fuel You pump in to fuel tanks, also on alcohol and alcohol based things.

Every solution have advantages and disadvantages. I think that we will see a replacement for AGT-1500C in nearest future, it can be one of engines designed under AIPS, an licence version of MB883 designated GD883, it can be something entirely new like MB890 Diesel engines.

The more compact engine will be used, then it is better, it will allow to store at least 10 additional rounds (I think that even more can be stored, so the M1 actually from 42 120mm rounds can carry something around 60 120mm rounds), place UAAPU in better position that it is currently installed on some M1A2SEP's, etc.

The other thing I would, and not only, be happy to see on the M1 is Cadillac Gage In-Arm suspension system, and some other things developed in late 80 and in 90.

Pitty that many of them were not integrated in to design.

[JoaMei]

Jet fuel is just a very high quality diesel ..........

Wasnt it the exactely opposite? Jet fuel is a very low quality diesel?