Jump to content


Photo

The first Chrysler bail-out; the M-1 tank


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 demosthenes

demosthenes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 434 posts

Posted 27 December 2008 - 2101 PM

http://findarticles....ai_4696991/pg_1

The author's technical comments aside, did the GM entry actually win the XM-1 competition before political forces were invoked?

#2 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 December 2008 - 2133 PM

Another Sparky with a windmill to till. :rolleyes:

In hindsight the Chrysler XM-1 proved to be the much better choice.

#3 demosthenes

demosthenes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 434 posts

Posted 27 December 2008 - 2224 PM

Another Sparky with a windmill to till. :rolleyes:

In hindsight the Chrysler XM-1 proved to be the much better choice.


IF the GM tank had received the same amount of development as the Chrysler one, you'd say it was better in hindsight too...

I heard that during trials it was the GM tank that the armor community was really raving about, not the Chrysler one.

#4 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 December 2008 - 2249 PM

The GM tank couldn't be easily upgunned to the 120mm gun, was much more compact (and thus had less room for development), its armor was more complexly shaped which meant it would have been harder more costly to change armor packages, and it had less power.

The Armor board liked the GM tank because it was a conservative, evolutionary step from what they knew.

#5 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 28 December 2008 - 0004 AM

The GM tank couldn't be easily upgunned to the 120mm gun, was much more compact (and thus had less room for development), its armor was more complexly shaped which meant it would have been harder more costly to change armor packages, and it had less power.

The Armor board liked the GM tank because it was a conservative, evolutionary step from what they knew.

Your second point is correct however your first about the armor isn't. The Chrysler XM1 armor was completely redesigned in 1976 to incoporate the new stratified Chobam armor and was much more complex than the GM before Chobam was introduced.

This is the tank that won the competion.
Posted Image

And this is the GM model that lost.
Posted Image

Note that neither incorporates modern armor.

Edited by DKTanker, 28 December 2008 - 0006 AM.


#6 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,636 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 28 December 2008 - 0657 AM

Note that neither incorporates modern armor.

Erm... if by "modern armor" you mean "Chobham", then both vehicles on photos already got it. Those are prototypes modified to use British armour. In case of Chrysler XM1 with orginal, US special armor arrays, turret front was very inclined, with massive cast mantlet clearly seen. In modified design mantlet was already hiddened by bulky front arrays - as seen on photo above.
XM1 which finally won was modified too, with boxy turret and special armor mantlet, in M1 way.

#7 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 December 2008 - 1256 PM

Your second point is correct however your first about the armor isn't. The Chrysler XM1 armor was completely redesigned in 1976 to incoporate the new stratified Chobam armor and was much more complex than the GM before Chobam was introduced.


I read (in "King of the Killing Field" I think) that the GM tank had many more M-60ish cast and compound shapes to its armor, where the Chyrsler version, even in its early form, literally had slabs of plate and its armor packages simple rectangles. This made designing and fabricating the composite and later DU armor much simpler and cheaper.

#8 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 28 December 2008 - 1324 PM

I read (in "King of the Killing Field" I think) that the GM tank had many more M-60ish cast and compound shapes to its armor, where the Chyrsler version, even in its early form, literally had slabs of plate and its armor packages simple rectangles. This made designing and fabricating the composite and later DU armor much simpler and cheaper.

Now that might be true indeed about the GM model (in fact the picture I found probably has the chobam armor or more likely a stand in for Chobam). As you can see in the Chyrsler model, the turret, and the front hull, have been change significantly with the addition of Chobam.

Additional notes. No matter what one might think about Rumsfeld now, he was absolutely right about the M1 needing a larger gun and the proponents of the 105mm, especially the annointed one Don Starry, were wrong about how much future ability it had and about the accuracy deficiencies of the 120mm.
Note 2. Turbine power was all the rage, for various good reasons, in the 1970s so it shouldn't be suprising that the requirements were changed to include a turbine.

#9 DanielStarseer

DanielStarseer

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 716 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 1616 PM

Additional notes. No matter what one might think about Rumsfeld now, he was absolutely right about the M1 needing a larger gun and the proponents of the 105mm, especially the annointed one Don Starry, were wrong about how much future ability it had and about the accuracy deficiencies of the 120mm.


Knowing well and all that gun design didn't stop at 120mm, with several NATO nations developing 140's into the late 1980s with anticipation of those Soviet super tanks that never came,
would the losing design here have accepted such a massive gun and ammunition without excessive turret redesign, seeing as it was suggested it couldn't have upgunned to the 120 as easily as the winning design (Abrams as we know it now) ?

The GM tank couldn't be easily upgunned to the 120mm gun, was much more compact (and thus had less room for development), its armor was more complexly shaped which meant it would have been harder more costly to change armor packages, and it had less power.


(I'm of the notion that, had 140mm become the western norm in AT gunnery, would we have seen some sort of BLOS/indirect artillery version using the same tube and HE ammo, or even have seen, with today's fascination of hybrid capability designs, some dual-purpose tank/artillery system that allowed for higher elevations and longer ranges than typical MBTs can muster today (akin to that CMI Defence CT-CV 105 turret with the +55 elevation capability)...US currently anticipates ~12km with MRM's from the FCS "tank".
A 140mm artillery piece certainly has a lot more fire support potential than any 105-130mm tubes offer today. The BLOS PGM potential alone suggests a highly capable weapon.
Occupying the same barrel length as the 120/55 of the current Leo2A5-6, a 140/47 cal tube seems like it could get a considerable range in indirect mode...>30km?
Or would it still be best just to keep the concepts of MBT and indirect SP artillery as separate systems?)

Would an MBT turret so equipped need to be bulkier/higher to accomodate a higher-elevating main gun?
Could the current turret ring diameter support a larger recoiling mass into such a confined space?
Anything I've ever found in Jane's and other similar reference never speculates any further design into an artillery system (seems like a lot of wasted potential), only using the relatively low elevation and depression angles we're more familiar with now (+20, -10 or thereabouts).

#10 jmcmtank

jmcmtank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 499 posts

Posted 28 December 2008 - 1702 PM

I doubt recoil would be a problem with CE considering the forces involved in firing KE. Elevation could be increased, a bit, using the suspension. I think it's the Omani's who plan on using ramps for their tank/artillery concept? Forget conventional rounds and use a missile-no problem with elevation. There used to be a rudimentary indirect fire mode with Chieftain but modern networking technology could feed solutions into each gun of a squadron, say and provide basic arty.

#11 demosthenes

demosthenes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 434 posts

Posted 31 December 2008 - 0915 AM

The GM tank couldn't be easily upgunned to the 120mm gun, was much more compact (and thus had less room for development), its armor was more complexly shaped which meant it would have been harder more costly to change armor packages, and it had less power.

The Armor board liked the GM tank because it was a conservative, evolutionary step from what they knew.


Wouldn't you say that both were evolutionary though? Armor configuration aside, both tanks were highly similar with the exception of the powerplant choices. When comes to technological risk, it was the GM tank that had the advanced diesel with variable compression, while the AGT 1500 was based on proven technology from the 60's.

#12 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,946 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2009 - 1722 PM

When I arrived in my first tank battalion in 1979 (2-81 Ar in Germany), the current Bn XO had previously been heavily involved in the XM-1 competition. He made it very clear that the Army preferred (at the time), the GM design. This was very interesting to me since I had an opportunity to be introduced to Prototype #7 of the (Chrysler) XM-1 during my Armor Officer Basic Course session at Fort Knox. That said, there's no doubt that the Army has since become very happy with it's decision.

#13 Exel

Exel

    1.PsvK

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,093 posts

Posted 02 January 2009 - 1736 PM

There used to be a rudimentary indirect fire mode with Chieftain


There is a rudimentary indirect fire mode in T-72 and Leopard 2 as well. Of course actually using your MBT as a poor man's howitzer is at best a waste of ammo.

#14 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 02 January 2009 - 1812 PM

When I arrived in my first tank battalion in 1979 (2-81 Ar in Germany), the current Bn XO had previously been heavily involved in the XM-1 competition. He made it very clear that the Army preferred (at the time), the GM design. This was very interesting to me since I had an opportunity to be introduced to Prototype #7 of the (Chrysler) XM-1 during my Armor Officer Basic Course session at Fort Knox. That said, there's no doubt that the Army has since become very happy with it's decision.

Ahhh, so that's what happened to #0007. When I was with C 2/1 1st Tng Bde, 1991-1995, we had M1s 0001-0012 less 0007. We always wondered what happened to 0007, now we know...it was destroyed during an AOB course. :P OT, how did you like Erlangen?

#15 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,946 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 January 2009 - 1819 PM

Ahhh, so that's what happened to #0007. When I was with C 2/1 1st Tng Bde, 1991-1995, we had M1s 0001-0012 less 0007. We always wondered what happened to 0007, now we know...it was destroyed during an AOB course. :P OT, how did you like Erlangen?


Erlangen was great...and Nurnberg remains one of my favorite cities. I've got a pic of #7 around here somewhere...I'll see if I can find it.

#16 Mike Steele

Mike Steele

    Thank you Comrade Obama

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:For saving future generations from the American Way of Life

Posted 02 January 2009 - 2101 PM

Erlangen was great...and Nurnberg remains one of my favorite cities. I've got a pic of #7 around here somewhere...I'll see if I can find it.

Littlefield has a original XM1 on the back of his lot. Maybe #7?

#17 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 02 January 2009 - 2114 PM

Littlefield has a original XM1 on the back of his lot. Maybe #7?

Maybe, but I was pulling Jim's leg...sort of. We did have 11 of the 12 original tanks but I can't recall just which one we were missing. Sooo, Littlefield might have the missing tank but not necessarily SN 0007.

#18 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,791 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 03 January 2009 - 0412 AM

I thought Littlefield's XM-1 was in fact one of the GM prototypes.

#19 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 January 2009 - 1031 AM

I thought Littlefield's XM-1 was in fact one of the GM prototypes.


It is.

http://svsm.org/gallery/XM-1Prototype

#20 GregW

GregW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 January 2009 - 1154 AM

It is.

http://svsm.org/gallery/XM-1Prototype


From some angles that turret on the GM XM1 looks more like the final turret used on the production M1 than the Chrysler one pictured above. Does anyone have anymore pictures of the two prototypes?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users