Jump to content


Photo

History Of Us Army Afvs

Cold War US Army upgrades history M60 M1 Abrams M113

  • Please log in to reply
826 replies to this topic

#761 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Cold war era tanks

Posted 14 January 2019 - 0056 AM


Very nice photos. It's rare to see tanks with their spotlights turned on for whatever reason.

 
They are mostly used when firing at night and normally any personnel in front of the tanks is then removed form the gunnery range for safety reasons.

I'm sure that great photos can be taken from behind as well :)
  • 0

#762 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 14 January 2019 - 1101 AM

On the Chieftain they had a high power mode where you could crank up the voltage for a short period, before it would trip out. There was some chance of burnout if you kept it on too long.


  • 0

#763 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 January 2019 - 1951 PM

On the Chieftain they had a high power mode where you could crank up the voltage for a short period, before it would trip out. There was some chance of burnout if you kept it on too long.

Same with those on the M60s, we called it "Overdrive" and we got about half again as much light.  Problem with going overdrive is as you said, the real possibility of burning out the light, and there was also potential for damaging the vehicle batteries. 


  • 0

#764 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,301 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 15 January 2019 - 1810 PM

Did anyone ever light one off in dense fog at night?  Silly idea, but I imagine it could have been rather disorienting.


  • 0

#765 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 January 2019 - 1844 PM

Did anyone ever light one off in dense fog at night?  Silly idea, but I imagine it could have been rather disorienting.

Yep, did it all the time during gunnery in the pre-thermal days.  When the fog would role in at night we go to "fog watch" waiting for the fog to lift (it rarely did) so we could shoot.  Part of the exercise was for the the searchlight tank(s) to turn on their searchlights every 15 minutes or so to determine if there was enough visibility to shoot (rarely ever).


  • 0

#766 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,301 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 15 January 2019 - 1939 PM

 

Did anyone ever light one off in dense fog at night?  Silly idea, but I imagine it could have been rather disorienting.

Yep, did it all the time during gunnery in the pre-thermal days.  When the fog would role in at night we go to "fog watch" waiting for the fog to lift (it rarely did) so we could shoot.  Part of the exercise was for the the searchlight tank(s) to turn on their searchlights every 15 minutes or so to determine if there was enough visibility to shoot (rarely ever).

 

Thanks.  I was thinking that brilliant white suddenly enveloping everyone would have been disorienting.


  • 0

#767 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 15 January 2019 - 2013 PM

 

 

Did anyone ever light one off in dense fog at night?  Silly idea, but I imagine it could have been rather disorienting.

Yep, did it all the time during gunnery in the pre-thermal days.  When the fog would role in at night we go to "fog watch" waiting for the fog to lift (it rarely did) so we could shoot.  Part of the exercise was for the the searchlight tank(s) to turn on their searchlights every 15 minutes or so to determine if there was enough visibility to shoot (rarely ever).

 

Thanks.  I was thinking that brilliant white suddenly enveloping everyone would have been disorienting.

 

Yes, I suppose it could be if the fog is dense enough.  I never gave it much thought except....Battle for Berlin, General Zhukov used hundreds of searchlights to initiate the battle as a means to dazzle and confuse the defending German forces.  The plan backfired because of ground fog, not only were Russian forces thus backlit, the searchlights proved to have a dazzling effect on their own troops.


  • 0

#768 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,301 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 15 January 2019 - 2104 PM

DKTanker, that's an interesting tidbit of history.  I remember once, during a low-light stage at a shooting competition, experiencing a bit of dazzle when a shooter accidentally set his weapon light on 'strobe', even though I was behind the shooting line.  It's scary how even a relatively low light level can mess with dark-adapted eyes.


  • 0

#769 DogDodger

DogDodger

    Cornre durg dealing ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WV, USA
  • Interests:tanks, driving, hockey

Posted 15 January 2019 - 2117 PM

Hence the canal defense light. :)
  • 0

#770 Mistral

Mistral

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cyprus
  • Interests:Military history, computer wargames.

Posted 15 January 2019 - 2259 PM

Hence the canal defense light. :)


Hush, thats top secret :)
  • 0

#771 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,237 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 January 2019 - 1607 PM

XM803 at Fort Knox...

 

XM%20803_FKKY_1.jpg

 

XM%20803_FKKY_2.jpg


  • 0

#772 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 23 January 2019 - 1937 PM

M1A2 'Dropped As A Baby':

 

DxofmRXUwAA9CKq.jpg


  • 0

#773 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 19 February 2019 - 1738 PM

The article in which Sydney Freedberg Jr pokes Sparky with a sharp stick:

 

 

BAE Gets $873M For AMPVs, Spelling The End of The ‘Aluminum Coffin’ M113

 

Screen-Shot-2015-03-31-at-4.37.20-PM.png

 

WASHINGTON: After six decades in service, the US Army is finally phasing out its M113 Armored Personnel Carrier, under-armored even in Vietnam, while trying to buy a new, sturdier workhorse for modern warfare: the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle.

 

The AMPV is basically the standard M2 Bradley, minus the gun turret removed, plus multiple automotive and protection upgrades. It’s thoroughly proven technology, not revolutionary, and there have been reports that the Army’s forthcoming 2020 budget will move some money out of AMPV to all-new Next Generation Combat Vehicles, some of which may be robotic.

 

On the current plan, sources tell us, BAE will begin building AMPVs next month under a $873 million contract for the first 297 machines. And that’s just part of what the Pentagon calls Low Rate Initial Production. The full LRIP phase, plus prototypes already built, could total about 460 vehicles for $1.2 billion. (That’s counting the ones in today’s announcement, which was for the exercise of two contract options totaling $575 million).

 

The Army wants Full Rate Production to replace almost 3,000 M113 variants in service with its armored brigades, which would bear the brunt of any future ground wars. Yes, the “aluminum coffin,” as some crews called it, was long ago replaced in frontline infantry companies and scout troops by the better armed and armored Bradley. But many M113 variants remain in service just behind the forward companies as mobile command posts, armored ambulances, weapons carriers, and general-purpose workhorses.

 

In Iraq, those M113 variants were deemed too vulnerable to roadside bombs and either confined to base or not deployed at all. (Even in Vietnam the main threat was not guns but mines, leading many soldiers to feel safer riding on top of the M113 rather than inside). That worked as long as the Army could use an extensive network of bases and supply routes to support relatively static counterinsurgency operations. But in a fast-moving mechanized war in Eastern Europe, the armored brigades would need support vehicles that can both keep up with M1 tanks and Bradleys over rough terrain – hence the Army’s insistence on tracks, not wheels – and stand a chance against Russian firepower.

 

The Army’s not just brigades, however. Further behind the line, there are over 1,900 more M113 variants in service with division and corps-level support units. All of those will to be replaced by something as they wear out.


Edited by Dark_Falcon, 19 February 2019 - 2042 PM.

  • 0

#774 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,117 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 19 February 2019 - 1829 PM

Then M113? Did Lee I Charters write that article?


  • 0

#775 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 19 February 2019 - 2003 PM

Anybody else catch the double negative in the 2nd paragraph?


  • 0

#776 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 19 February 2019 - 2043 PM

Anybody else catch the double negative in the 2nd paragraph?

 

No, what was it?


  • 0

#777 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,301 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 20 February 2019 - 0827 AM

Am I the only one who thought, "Oooh...BIGGER TARGET!"?


  • 0

#778 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 211 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Tanks, Steel Beasts, WW1 aviation, Epees

Posted 20 February 2019 - 0912 AM

Am I the only one who thought, "Oooh...BIGGER TARGET!"?

 

Nope.


  • 0

#779 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,233 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 20 February 2019 - 1325 PM

 

Anybody else catch the double negative in the 2nd paragraph?

 

No, what was it?

 

 

"minus the gun turret removed,"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I the only one who thought, "Oooh...BIGGER TARGET!"?

 

Nope.

 

 

But they gain more internal volume, better mobility, better armour.


Edited by Panzermann, 20 February 2019 - 1326 PM.

  • 0

#780 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 20 February 2019 - 1614 PM

 

 

Anybody else catch the double negative in the 2nd paragraph?

 

No, what was it?

 

 

"minus the gun turret removed,"

 

 

Thank you.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Cold War, US Army, upgrades, history, M60, M1 Abrams, M113

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users