Another industry source is going to do some digging for me. Hopefully he'll have something next week.

Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures

I Double-Dog Dare you, John.

I think an Italeri (or possibly a Trumpeter) M1A1 kit could be used for the Abrams parts and combine it with an M60 like you said. If you took it to the Atlanta 2013 AMPS Show I might even get to judge it.

Jeff do you mean 2012 ????
Dave

No, no, Dave... Jeff meant 2013.

That's when he and I plan to finish our next models!

Have a great model-building kinda day!

I have heard rumor that it is a scrapped prototype on its way to de-mil.

Jeff
Thanks for sharing the images! I really don't care what it is or where it's going but I do know that it's an awesome looking beast & would make a great modeling project.
Mrosko AKA Chilhead

Isn't that kind of what I suggested?

wow, its been a while. My take is that it is a test bed vehicle for a foreign country. I agree with the guys who say we would not go backwards, rather forwards in our vehicle design. The M256 does look like it is plugged at the end versus covered. On the Copula the boxes around the outside suggest a larger ammo box that would allow for upwards of 400-500 rounds. The vehicle would not be equiped with a BFT just to transport it across country and it would not work all that well due to the turret bustle being over the front. The TMS (Thermal Management System) on the M1A2's is for the electronic components in the turret, not for the crew, but since it does cool the turret components, then the crew benefits from that. The AC's on the Bradleys are made for the crew due to the high temperatures experienced during the summer months in Iraq 150 degrees + that have caused numerous heat casualties. The BAR armor around the turret would made sense if you are trying to save weight, yet keep the combustable casing of the 120mm rounds safe from RPG fire.

Hell this turned into one damn good read of a forum lol ..all this from a couple of pics lol ..brilliant now to the subject of tank conversions ..oh this would be a beauty but one suggestion is dont touch the 5 in 1 Abrams kit from Trumpeter ,,now this might have just been mine but god this is the worst version of the Abrams i have ever seen ..heres just one problem i had ..the road wheels .they were molded so off center that once you sanded the square they ended up looking more like low profile tires on a Lamborghini ,,its not any better from there on guys ..its now a parts vehicle only .the gun was terrible .
Now to the tank itself ..i would have guessed it was a upgrade for some folks overseas ..it would make sense to me ,,the price of a Abrams rebuilt cant be cheap so it make sense to rebuld a much cheaper tank ..it will never go as well as a Abrams does but least it could have the same fire power as a Abrams ,armour is another issue ..price ..Chobham i have not idea on price but damn thats gotta cost a fortune to some not so well off country , there is one thing on that tank which i think i have a pretty good idea on ..on the side of the commanders cupola there's this box that curves with the cupola ..i would bet my sisters lawn mower that is a ammo box ..has the cut out in the front for something the size of 7.62 x 51 to feed out off and its got a top which cant be locked down ..looks very simlar to the one on a Challenger II's commanders cupola .thats my idea anyway

Phill

Just an update, since I just saw this thread again....this vehicle WASN'T at AUSA. Also when I was at AUSA, a couple of the manufactures asked for photos not be taken either of their stuff they had there (nothing new that I haven't seen before though)

I also haven't seen this running around APG either, but I haven't been looking for it either..and there are secured areas where I can't access either

It was interesting discussion here about M1, armors, tank losses etc.

So I will clarify some things here based on the lates tank lovers community research from across the world (yeah I know, a bit pathethic it sounds).

First, Chobham is not completely proper designation name, the proper codename of UK/US composite armor is Burlington, and it seems that there were two US and one UK version, the two US versions are called to simplify BRL-1 (M1) and BRL-2 (M1IP, M1A1), the UK version is popularly known as "Chobham", despite the fact that whole armor research program was designated "Burlington".

The US completely resigned from Burlington around 1986-1988 when M1A1HA was fielded with completely new armor with DU alloy elements, we know that there are most probably 3 generations of this armor, DU armor is not offered for foreing customers, so in armor protection, export M1A1's and M1A2's are probably reduced to the level of old M1IP and M1A1.

But the most interesting fact, currently we know that Burlington/Chobham and all NATO (and similiar to NATO) composite armors are not based mainly on ceramics (there are even doubts that Burlington even had ceramics as elements of armor, some are theoretizing after reading documents that BRL-1 did not have ceramics, BRL-2 could have recive some sort of addon ceramic package).

We also know that Leopard 2 (up to Leopard 2A4 version at least) also do not have ceramics in armor (nor perforated plates in main armor layers as it was popularly belived, only one type of non ballistic skirts are perforated to weight reduction).

Instead it seems that modern composite armors are actualy some type of dynamic protection closely connected to NERA (Non Energetic Reactive Armor), other types of dynamic protection are ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) and NxRA (Non Explosive Reactive Armor).

I have a photos of T-72B layers that seems to be very similiar but simpler design (lack of heavy metal alloy elements, and there is a some kind of rubber as reactive element instead of other types of polymers like polycarbonate for example).

On the photos of damaged/destroyed Merkava Mk4 and M1A1 tanks we could also seen layers of composite plates, the overall array seems to be very closely connected to NERA.

As for losses of tanks in Iraq, oh but there were lost Challenger 2 in Iraq, only British OPSEC is tighter than US, and informations were not widely spread.

1st destroyed Challenger 2, after F-F incident, HESH from another CR2 went through TC or loaders hatch, 2 crew members dead, vehicle completely destroyed after ammo cook off.

Important thing, actually west european tanks survivability level in case of ammo cook off is not very much higher than that of Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) tanks, and actually 99% of tanks with western design, have similiar ammunition storage to the west european tanks. The only MBT mass produced that have really safe ammunition storage is M1 Abrams, it could be a shock for some people but, well, this is reality.

2nd CR2 hit in a front hull "beak", it is lightly armored (RHA only) plate, then protected by ERA (ROMOR-A), attack was succesfull, insurgents used RPG-29, driver lost part of his foot but crew somehow survived, they have luck that no ammo container was hit by shaped charge jet, vehicle was good for repairs.

3rd CR2 hit in a belly with IED, heavy damage, driver injured, this tank probably never was repaired as the first one.

And there were many more damaged CR2's, due to cuts in spending, many of these never repaired, I heard from some guys close to RAC that they seen approx 30-50 CR2's allready cut in to pieces, RAC will stay in best with only 135 CR2's or in worst with only 35 CR2's, rest will be scrapped.

On the other hand US have approx 8,325-8,725 M1 tanks in inventory, with only approx 2,300-2,500 in active service, most of them are M1A2SEP's (approx 1,547) and the rest are M1A1SA (approx 790-800) + USMC M1A1HC/FEP's (approx 100-200).

Yeah ok, so this is short description, if someone want to see these photos os armor arrays, give me a hint and I will post them.

*All infos based on several sources, also official.

my guess would be hydropnumatic suspension system

M60 was retired back in late 90's

fron the look of it my guess that bin on the side of the commanders coupla is a bin for ammo and the looks of the front of the coupla is that looks like it will be armed with a mk19 and 50cal combo like the marines amtacks and the m1117

I am an old M60A1 cmdr spent some time on A3's it is a 60 turent and looks like an M68 105 to me.

Really, if so you would know it is a turret then, not a turent. It was also identified as a 120mm modified M60 about 3 pages back.

all M1 had chobbham armor even from day one the only mild steel on the sides were the very last skirt that covers the drive sprocket

i dont think ithas a autoloader the 120mm round can easily be loaded by a person

Fellow Armorama member Ray "M60-Tanker" sent me this link:

http://www.standartbio.com/pdf/M60_Tank_Modernization.pdf

The modified M60 I photographed appears to be a modernized M60 program by the company StandardBio, Ltd. in Turkey. This is their webpage:

http://www.standartbio.com/

From the brochure, some of our guesses appear to be spot-on, and it also has a remote operated 25MM weapon station, too! Also, the thing on the bow next to the driver's hatch is something else, probably a 180 degree camera array for the driver. Maybe.

Thank you, Ray!

Looking at the pictures in the PDF document, the comment about reducing the size of the modules for production had better be true; it doesn't look as if that tank can spin its turret from around 4:00 to 5:00 clockwise without either the turret or the gun hitting the [air conditioning module?] on the starboard rear deck. An interesting design concept, though, and one which would provide an opportunity for a range of 'what if?' upgrades.

Would the M60 Modified be any faster in road and crosscountry speed? That's one of the disadvantages of the M60 over the M1, amongst other things.

Well it's got a 1200HP new engine and improved suspension so I'd imagine so. Seems like they did an awful lot but they didn't improve it's weak frontal turret armor. Very interesting looking vehicle, wonder if it will get any traction for sales.

I just noticed this article: This Company is Turning these Old Tanks into Modern Killers.

Apparently, Raytheon is now marketing a M60A3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). The below video even indicates it as a "M60 A4S".

Raytheon M60 A4S Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)

What's really amazing is when I checked, it's been over 5 years ago since I first spotted one of these.

REALLY GUYS:
Crawl out from under your rock and do some research. this is the Raytheon M60A3 upgrade. raytheon has purchased almost all of the IDF's stock of left over M60's'. They have a hole line up, of wich they plan to reset/rebuild to zero hr, upgrade package status. To sell to 3rd rate countries that can't afford current level MBT's.
To hell with the "I think it's", we all are more intelligent than that, make some effort.

Well since you are 6 years late to this party, who's the one under the rock?

G