Com-Central.net

Yet again, I'm surprised no one ever tested this with an Abrams...

Although I wonder if there might be some sort of difference fording with a turbine vice a diesel?

Neil

Interesting pics, AJ...slick 60 with 'dozer blade and M60A1, so totally different vehicles. Also interesting is that Bell 47 helicopter (forget Army nomenclature) and the lack of any Armor & Engineer Board markings on the M60A1. These pics are before my time at the Board, but lack of markings are mysterious (they had distinctive markings going back to well before WWII). No "test operation", no TEC-EBD. This is a curious series of pictures as there is no indication of what unit is conducting the operation.
I have a suspicion that it might be the Armor School, but even they should have markings....

- Neil_Baumgardner

Yet again, I'm surprised no one ever tested this with an Abrams...

Although I wonder if there might be some sort of difference fording with a turbine vice a diesel?

Neil

Intake/exhaust issues, maybe? Or no perceived need?

- Doug_Kibbey

- Neil_Baumgardner

Yet again, I'm surprised no one ever tested this with an Abrams...

Although I wonder if there might be some sort of difference fording with a turbine vice a diesel?

Neil

Intake/exhaust issues, maybe? Or no perceived need?

....ISSUES!!! Thats an understatement.
I may be incorrect, but I believe that the fording device was first assembled/used with the Marine Corps M1A1HC's. They had a definite need for beach assaults.

I'd had never seen of even heard of such a thing, until the early 90's when we drew M1A1HC's. Other than the 'turret pump seal', which only inflated to seal the turret ring.

As for 'deliberate fording experiences', the worst that comes to mind was in 1991. Try crossing the Imjim River (Korea) at a ford site, but being a night move the lead vehicle crossed at an unapproved (and untested) location. I was the 5th tank in the Company column, screaming on the FM, of the error.

Getting swamped in the midst of the Imjim river, at 0200 hrs in January, with the tank acting initially as an icebreaker and having 'cross current Ice flow' getting lodged in the side turret bustle rack, the turret ring, and on the hull, .....NOT MY IDEA OF A FUN TIME.

Luckily we all made it, but talk about serious pucker factor!!! (... my driver learned why he should ALWAYS torque the vision block locking nuts. Freezing water pouring into your lap, while you are literally submerged, is a bad thing!! )

Interesting subject for the R&D period. Guess I need to do some indepth reading.

Anyone else have any information?

Don

Deep Fording, what a concept,

Brought on by the old "The Soviets can deep ford/swim, so we have to" mentality. Killed the T-95 and also made an unrealistic requirement for the Bradley, which later was dropped.

AJ2, those pictures are quite interesting, but I can't help but wonder if the M60A1 is from a later time period/exercise. The M60 is either a PV or one of the initial batch made. It still has the "Crouse-Hinds" searchlight stowage mount and has not been upgraded to IR with the VSS-1 system.

BTW, after seeing Doug's pictures of fording at Knox a few months ago I did a little research. Those are actually called "Under Water Fording Kits" and were made specifically for the Army. The "Deep Ford Kit" that I was familiar with is basically the same the Marines used for shore landing. The only difference was the exhaust stack, which the Army did not use. Supposedly it took 8 hours to prep a tank for it's use (the underwater kit), but could be reduced to half and hour with some permanent changes to a tank, bilge pump installation being one.

The M60A1 in the picture (9B5553) was one of the initial batch of production M60A1's sent to Fort Knox for evaluation and testing. I've seen other pictures of her sporting the M9 Dozer kit and other interesting stuff. Across the front slope to the right she was marked with a yellow bridge classification marker and "TEST OPERATION" centered in what looks like 4" white block letters. No other markings other than some un-identifiable stuff on the front fender braces.

Joe D

Don,

Man, river crossing in Korea, what fun.

With the introduction of the M1 to Korea crossing rivers got to be a much greater challenge. My first tour and Don’s time there the road networks were pretty crude, so most of our main avenues of movement involved the river beds during the winter/dry season. The Imjin was another story. We had to have the engineers prep the river bed with gravel/spoil so we wouldn't swamp the intakes with water. SOP usually was to mark the left and right limits with engineer stakes and topped with a chem-lite, IR if possible or at least facing us inside the "U" to maintain light discipline. I remember during Team Spirit '91 gingerly entering rivers only to back up quickly when the water started to enter our intakes. Very frustrating. The DIV CAV at that time were still using M60A3's. They had no trouble crossing areas that would stop us cold. The TM's state the M1 and M60 series have about the same shallow ford capability, which technically is true, but in reality the M60 can ford much more easily beyond shallow ford restrictions because the crew can have the tank draw air for the engine through the turret. Just inflate the turret seal and turn off the air cleaner blowers and plug the elbows. In the case of the CAV they had the newer VEDES setup which eliminated the need for elbow plugs.

The turbine can be a much greater challenge to fording. The need for high volumes of air and the greater susceptibility to dirt are just a few. Unlike the M60 there are no provisions to draw air from the turret, so a special air intake had to be made. That’s why when you see M1's coming ashore they have two stacks instead of the single rear mount. Other unique considerations are the Pre-Cleaner scavenge pump and oil cooler fans, both of which have to be disabled when submerged. Any M1 tanker that has experienced water in the intake plenum knows of the familiar sonic boom sound the engine gives off when ingesting water, with the instant loss of power. It doesn’t take much either. Enough water and the engine self-destructs. Once the air filters get wet you loose a lot of power and they are pretty much ruined, needing replacement, since the dust turns into a concrete like substance when dry. All in all I’m very glad the Army did not have/ require their M1's deep ford.

Like Don said, until the USMC got the M1's, we never heard of such a thing. The M1/105 TM only addresses fording "Without Kit" up to 4 feet and "With Kit" a notation of "Kit not yet available".

Joe D

another swimmer

Gotta be a test swim,

Notice she's loaded with ammo boxes for weight doesn't even have the Gunner's periscope installed yet. In fact the gun mantel doesn't even look right.

Joe D

- Joe_D

Gotta be a test swim,

Notice she's loaded with ammo boxes for weight doesn't even have the Gunner's periscope installed yet. In fact the gun mantel doesn't even look right.

Joe D

No missile-guidance transmitter box.

Interesting photo. I was, among other things like being a crewman, a safety and salvage SCUBA diver for the Armor Board. We never, ever, conducted a swimex or fordex in test operations with more than two people on board the vehicle (driver and TC), as it would just complicate rescue efforts if worst happened (the prospect of entering the water with moving tracks is a daunting one, trust me). Is that not somebody in loader's hatch?

Also, if trying to simulate weight and balance, why is there no .50 mounted...not even a mockup? (We had 'em, for weight and visual simulation).

I'm going to puzzle over this photo for a while....

It's a prototype similar to the one at the Patton Museum. Note the cupola is offset from the turret? Production versions weren't like that.

- MarkHolloway

It's a prototype similar to the one at the Patton Museum. Note the cupola is offset from the turret? Production versions weren't like that.

Good point. I think it's a glorified "photo-op" to demonstrate "amphibiosity".