RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

greengiant wrote:I seen other pics with civilian items as part of stowage and the most common are colorful insulated coolers. Nice to have a cold drink handy. When I was in Germany the most likely thing you'd in top of tank turrets were scraps of the bright tinfoil that hashish keys were wrapped in.
Where all the pics with the spotlight on tanks without the cip panels? That would indicate they are from the same unit and the mod was made by the units ordinance guys.

Last night's research was one of those fluke nights...a lot of pictures I never saw before...The extended CIP panel shot was the only one I found so where the pics with the armored fronts....it's interesting..because the night before there was a pic with an RPG hole in an M1 on that same panel...couldn't find that one last night ...but there were a bunch with those spot lights mounted...looked like different units because they were colored a little differently....some painted black..some same color as the tank...reason I brought them here right away lol....because there's a good chance if I searched again...they might not be there
Sounds like you all had better refreshments than what is in that bright yellow cooler lol...pretty surprising to see something like that..we would have instantly grabbed some shaker cans and paint it black

ALPHA

The same thing would have happened to anything not OD on the tanks I worked on.( In Germany in the 70's dope was very cheap except for MJ and I went into quite a few tanks on the firing lines where the whole crew was stoned) but they were so used to it that it didn't effect their vehicle operation, they were just happier then you would expect a crew to be after being stuck in the turret for sometimes over 8 hrs at a time. We had two groups, stoners and alkies and the stoners were always better tankers and easier to work around, they would almost seem to melt into the turret walls giving me lots of room to work in. when I was Okinawa there was no dope but the Marines used to get high using some kind of Japanese over the counter cold medicine. It was illegal for Us forces but the outside of the Marine barracks near Kadina airbase would be covered with these little bottles every morning before they had their police call.
I would guess that when that tank was on patrol the cooler was in the rear stowage rack covered with a piece of cloth like maybe a buttoned up camo shirt.(that would make an interesting stowage item to help fill a models stowage rack).
I think a lot of the rpg turret strike pictures on Abrams were photo shopped. I don't believe any Abrams was ever knocked out by an rpg strike to the turret that's why the tusk kits are made to protect the running gear and lower hull not the turret sides. I've been able to look and climb on old 50 and 60 era tanks that were used to test armor piercing rounds and they left a little mess of molten metal on the outside surface when they penetrated the old style hardened steel armor. My understanding is that the Abrams multilayer armor is designed to deflect, or if its outer layer is penetrated to dissipate the energy of the strike within the armor itself preventing penetration into the turret.

I have not known any penetration of the M1 turret by an RPG. I recall an RPG making a chance penetration of the M1's skirt and hull, but did not produce catastrophic results. I know of one M1 (Cojone Eh) that was penetrated by a sabot round fired from another M1, and a Maverick from a US aircraft, as part of the procedure of destroying it when it broke down at Baghdad and left by the unit during the Thunder Run in April 2013.

Perhaps the pix alpha saw were the above, or of various M1s where the "holes" were made on unarmoured stuff (e.g., the smoke grenade box on the turret sides), or non-penetrating damage that look like holes at a casual glance.

OK GUYS....Saw this post late this afternoon...did a search at that time and came up with nothing.....my eyes were tired from the search so I thought I'd rest ...work on my tank a little and come back
I'm starting to think that "time" plays a big part in searching with google ...because low and behold the image of the RPG hit came up

it isn't the same picture...but it's the same picture...does that make sense lol.....the other one I found didn't have the blown up insert...it just had and arrow with dialong RPG hit ..
it does look like a RPG hit judging by the explosion pattern...it isn't a clean hole like a AP round would make...doesn't look like any crew were injured...the penetration looks minor...think the crew is just inspecting the damage to see if it can be repaired and the tank can be put back into service
Also found this should anyone else be doing an Abrams...side mount turret armor




ALPHA

One needs to be careful using the word "penetration" with regard to armour.

That looks more like a superficial gouge than a pentration. Penetration would mean it - penetration the armour fully. That doesn't appear to have happened in that photo.

Anyhow, it looks like the hit wouldn't do any harm to the crew considering the location.

The second photo appears to show a cross section of the laminate armour on the M1. That is not add-on armour. ISTR seeing a discussion of that photo in another forum, I just can't recall wot the verdict was.

And then there's the Golden BB round....

You may want to follow this discussion

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.ph ... 950&page=1

I've seen the pic before but it was from a different angle and discussion of it where it was concluded that it just shows part of the turret laminated armor that surrounds the crew area of the turret with its layers exposed and spread slightly to be inspected where it ends ( the main gun ammo storage area is blown off the turret more or less but the crew compartment was not badly damaged when the main gun round compartment was penetrated somewhere on its top and the rounds blow up). They said that on a complete turret the layers are not visible and the turret side appears as one continuous flat surface. As well as I can remember it, they suggested that it was done on purpose to a Abrams that had already had its running gear damaged beyond repair from an engine fire and that it was trucked into an area where the test took place just to test how well this type of armor stayed fixed to the turret inner wall if such a penetration took place. Can't find it the webpage anymore as it was dated I think in the late 90's or early 2000's and may no longer be on the web or I'm just not using the exact right words when I tried to find it again.

atcttge wrote:One needs to be careful using the word "penetration" with regard to armour.

That looks more like a superficial gouge than a pentration. Penetration would mean it - penetration the armour fully. That doesn't appear to have happened in that photo.

Anyhow, it looks like the hit wouldn't do any harm to the crew considering the location.

The second photo appears to show a cross section of the laminate armour on the M1. That is not add-on armour. ISTR seeing a discussion of that photo in another forum, I just can't recall wot the verdict was.

Yeah...maybe I should have said "dink" ...the small header that usually accompanies the Photo said penetrate...I agree with you..doesn't look like it penetrated at all...more of a glancing hit that "dinked" the armor

atcttge wrote:And then there's the Golden BB round....

KINTAMA ACTION!

atcttge wrote:You may want to follow this discussion

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.ph ... 950&page=1

Took a quick overview....those guys get pretty intense ...What I want to know after reading the discussion...is not so much the armor...but why they get so intense about it

Thanks ATC

ALPHA

greengiant wrote:I've seen the pic before but it was from a different angle and discussion of it where it was concluded that it just shows part of the turret laminated armor that surrounds the crew area of the turret with its layers exposed and spread slightly to be inspected where it ends ( the main gun ammo storage area is blown off the turret more or less but the crew compartment was not badly damaged when the main gun round compartment was penetrated somewhere on its top and the rounds blow up). They said that on a complete turret the layers are not visible and the turret side appears as one continuous flat surface. As well as I can remember it, they suggested that it was done on purpose to a Abrams that had already had its running gear damaged beyond repair from an engine fire and that it was trucked into an area where the test took place just to test how well this type of armor stayed fixed to the turret inner wall if such a penetration took place. Can't find it the webpage anymore as it was dated I think in the late 90's or early 2000's and may no longer be on the web or I'm just not using the exact right words when I tried to find it again.

OH...So that's a photo of a "target tank"...to test how feasible it is to use that layered armor ...makes sense

ALPHA

PS. Can't tell how strange Google is for searching images...seems like time plays into how images progressively show up...that photo of the V3 has never come up again...not even the one on the flatcar ...and don't ask about the ones with the spotlights...that's initially what I went searching for when those other images showed up...the ones with the lights...even though there were many couldn't be found at all