As part of my stint in the USMC Reserves we had a two-week "summer camp" each year. In 1975 or 6 they sent me to Aberdeen Proving Grounds (an Army base) where they tested weapon's system's in those days, to learn the in's and out's of the Continental v-12, which powered the M60-A1 through A3, which was the US main battle tank. Well, they had a tank "race track", so to speak, which included every sort of mechanical barrier, and other condition's designed to make them fail, in general. The M60-A Serie's was capable of crossing a body of water with the whole of if it submerged by using a coaxial snorkel to get combusition air and get rid of exhaust. One of the pond's they had was so mucky from constant use that no tank could ever make it across, so they used it as part of their training for "tank retrieval" army soldier's. Well, the tank stuck in the muck isn't my point, it was the track-vehicle they called a "tank retriever". I don't know the designation of the vehicle, but it was gasoline powered. The exhaust on this beast was a steel grate, roughly covering fifteen square feet. When wound up to full power under high load, even in the daytime you could see flame for maybe fifteen feet extending rearward's and banked towards each side, so as not to heat the two inch cable and make it failr. The cable may have been bigger, but I'm sure a high quality two inch cable can withstand extremely high loads Never before or since in my life have I heard an engine scream with power like that thing did, and that includes a blown hemi running on alcohol (nitro-methane being an exception). Diesel engine's are incredible, but whatever that engine was in the tank retriever stand's alone in my mind. I have no idea of what that motor was and whether it was used in other applications, I doubt it was used in other application's. Just imagine the thought of a two inch cable hooked onto a 50-ton M60-A serie's, mired up to it's turret in goo-mud, completelly immersed in water and being hauled out with a gasoline engine. That's a task that call's for torque, not horsepower, but that wondrous gas tank retriever was in a world of it's own. I should have done a search to see if I could find out what that gas engine was before writing this. I'm not making some statement that gas somehow has an edge over diesel's (other than motor racing); the comparable diesel is the better, tougher engine. The blown Chrysler Hemi and that gas-powered tank retriever stand alone, as far as large block gas motor's go (putting the Cosworth and the like into a seperate category), in my experience. If there are any hydraulic engineer's on this site who can guesstimate the torque/hp, assume the tread-vehicle retriever hasve infinite traction; which it didn't, but I can only recall the tread width was enormous compared to the M60-A, needed to pull a 50 ton tank from muck up to the turret, with the whole body being submerged in water, I'd love to hear their comments. Actually, anyone's comments. Aberdeen also had three Soviet T-72's, their main battle tank there, captured by Israel in one of the many several day war's with Egypt. Some interesting stories to tell there, but I'm only 54 and feel a bit too young yet to move wholly into the "doddering old fool" portion of my life yet. Last thing: the sound of that gas tank retriever had the most unique, hear it with your skeleton and soft tissues, more than your ears "crack/roar". The crack was reminiscent of a 1950's gas John-Deere "A" two cylinder running straight out of the exhaust manfold, but magnified umpteen time's. For the "roar", only the blown alcohol426 Hemi (of the 60's) compared, haven't heard the new crate Hemi's, but I'm sure they're the same properly cammed up. I think the tank retriever was turbo-charged, unlike all the two-cycle Detroit Diesel military vehicles, like the track-vehicle howitzer. Laughingly, I am pretty certain the tank retriever didn't meet modern EPA mileage requirements (even the M60-A under average conditions with the Continental V-12 got from two to six gallons per mile).
If I haven't blabbed here too incessantly, or not suited for an MB diesel forum, I do apologize. However, the M60-A1/3 versus the Soviet T72 tank war philosophical differences is an amazing story. (Hint: the Soviet's used an unrifled barrel in the T-72, which yielded poor accuracy, but the round fired from this barrel with the explosive charge removed was capable, at 100 meters of knocking the turret (15 or 20 tons) off an M60-A Serie's. Note that only gravity holds the turret in place, but the turret is very bottom heavy with a wide footprint.

Now there is something I never would have guessed...which makes me wonder, on rough terrain, that turret must rattle around somewhat, if "rattle" is anywhere near the appropriate word here.
So if you roll a tank, the turret is off.
And you say they have an un-exploding round that can bash a turret off....all I can say is .
Thanks for sharing. I found it interesting.

__________________
1991 GMC Sonoma Ext Cab w/Isuzu diesel (converted March Mar 2003) - sold
1994 S10 Ext Cab w/Isuzu diesel (converted Mar 2008)
1998 Toyota Sienna XLE
B6100HST Kubota CUT DIESEL

1994 S10 with Isuzu diesel and 5spd
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...S15/SigPic.jpg

if the tank tower was powered by a v16 allison.

tom w

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Google is your friend, has to be a M88 tank recovery vehicle.
750HP turbo diesel.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/eng/M88.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m88a1e1.htm

Hunting for other notes confirm it would shoot flames out the exhaust 10+ feet in the air under load.

Current version is even more HP -> 1050

Air cooled baby!!!

Yes, just gravity, two machined surfaces with a small gear on the body driving the large ring gear on the turret. Yeah, no displacement of the turret and body machined surfaces through all the violent motions they go through. And, though I don't understand the dynamics of it, even with the violent motions these machines go through, the turret wasn't beating the machined surfaces to death, nor would they fall off unless overturned. The Soviet tank barrel has no lands and grooves to spin the projectile. Spinning a projectile is what it make's it stable; a non-spun round wobble's, so is not very accurate, but the high gain it makes in velocity by not having lands and grooves for the combustion gasses to leak around and ahead, slowing it. And, yes, only the kinetic energy from the Soviet round could knock the turret off of an M60. Though this is only an academic point, the Soviet round is ladened with explosive charge. As an aside, the American land&groove barrel, very accurate, but lacking kinetic energy versus the smooth-bore Soviet barrel, inaccurate with incredible kinetic energy, in my opinion, led the Soviet war planner's to wish for a close-in tank war where they had the advantage. Modern "active-armor", where underneath the first layer of high-strength steel of armor plate is a layer of fast-burn explosive. So, when a projectile, of whatever type, strikes it sets off the charge causing the incoming projectile to explode prematurely, alleviating much damage. Tank-killer airplanes, cruise missiles and the like make all this moot. Plus, the American's new Abrams which can move and shoot with incredible accuracy leave's no world counter-part to challenge it.

I always liked the sound of the Merlin

I feel especially dumb since the engine i was there to learn was the Continental V-12, though the Aberdeen people rated the engine at 1500 hp / continuous operation (the cont v-12 they used in the tank) and it had not near the scream of the tank retriever. To be argumentative, in military application's , they can apply whatever turbo-boost needed for a given situation in certain vehicle's. Doing so might drastically shorten engine life, but completing the task outweighed that factor. And, the military is a bit shy about releasing info on maximal capability of any of their equipment. If I'm not mistaken for many year's the Greyhoud Bus ran the Continental V-12, listed at 750 horsepower. But, at any rate, the 1500hp m60 tank cont v-12sounded a baby next to the tank retriever with it's google-searched 750hp cont v-12. So, respectfully, my basic's are accurate.
Now, if I can only get that thrust pin out to replace the tension rail on my 220d.

I found that very interesting, esp since I saw tank retrievers working in RVN, placing crippled tanks on my boat near Hue (we could carry 3 down the Hue river & back to Danang) --- I assume the tanks were M60s ---- and the retrievers looked like regular tanks, minus the main gun, plus the boom assy. It was quite something to see one pick up a tank & trundle it up the ramp and plop it on the deck. I never saw the other machine mentioned here.

It even has a "Proximity Regulator".

The exhaust smoke generating system provides a self-screening smoke capability. The smoke generating system allows diesel fuel from the vehicle fuel tanks to be sprayed into the exhaust system. The fuel vaporizes and blends with engine exhaust gases. The fuel vapor cools on contact with the ambient air and condenses to form a homogeneous smoke screen. The system is ineffective when JP-8 fuel is used.

Most if not all, modern MBT main guns are smoothbores. Abrams M1A2 sport smoothbore 120mm cannon; the M1A1 had a 105mm smoothbore. The T-72 uses a 125mm smoothbore that was developed in the late 1960s.

Smoothbore guns don't stabilize rounds as well as rifled guns, but they can fire rounds at higher velocities without suffering heavy damage to the gun tube. Some kenetic energy projectiles such as the M829A2 AP round achieve stabilizing spin by small fins on the round's sabot.

__________________
Never a dull moment at Berry Hill Farm.

As I understand it gun tubes wear out anyway. They have a life expectancy of only a few hundred rounds. Can't remember the exact amount.
That's one of the many reasons the Iraqi tanks were so ineffectual. There old Soviet T-72 barrels were worn out.

Danny

__________________
1984 300SD Turbo Diesel 150,000 miles

OBK member #23

(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination

That and the Imans make Pee poor trainers....

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Absolutely!

The T-72's 2A46 125mm smoothbores had a poor track record for gun tube longevity, with a barrel life of approximately 200 AP rounds, 500 HE rounds or 850 HEAT rounds.

Additionally, infamous Soviet manufacturing discipline resulted in unsatisfatory characteristics of original models due to manufacturing defects, substandard materials, and gun tube sag.

Gun tube life of the more modern 2A46M is unknown (Russian sources claim ~900 rds). The 'M' update included an internal chromium liner and provided for simplified tube replacement in the field.

__________________
Never a dull moment at Berry Hill Farm.