login   |    register

Scale Modeling Sponsors

See Your Ad Here!

Armor/AFV: Modern Armor
Modern armor in general.
Hosted by Darren Baker
New Abrams M1 IP from Panda!
Darkin
Visit this Community
Wojewodztwo Malopolskie, Poland
Joined: July 08, 2011
KitMaker: 35 posts
Armorama: 34 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2018 - 07:55 PM UTC
New Abrams M1 IP from Panda!
http://www.moxing.net/2018/0306/8776.html
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,729 posts
Armorama: 1,468 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2018 - 08:24 PM UTC
Wonder if they fixed any of the issues from the regular M1
retiredyank
#160
Visit this Community
Arkansas, United States
Joined: June 29, 2009
KitMaker: 11,257 posts
Armorama: 7,633 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2018 - 10:01 PM UTC
The two piece barrel is kind of a step backwards...
jwest21
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,213 posts
Armorama: 2,977 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2018 - 10:02 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The two piece barrel is kind of a step backwards...



The one in my M1 kit was oval in cross-section instead of round. Definitely needs improved or replaced.
tnker101
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: November 30, 2007
KitMaker: 82 posts
Armorama: 81 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2018 - 12:05 AM UTC
My tank!!!!! woohooo
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,171 posts
Armorama: 3,770 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2018 - 01:19 AM UTC
All the errors from the M1 kit, plus a few new ones... For example: why did they change the shape of the blow off panels to rectangular?!... They were correct shape in the M1 kit and should be exactly the same in M1IP.
Also the gunner's sight housing is wrong for most M1IPs - they had the uparmored ones installed, not the original ones from the M1, which were used only on earliest IPs.

And instructions show that side "walls" for the mantlet come from the M1 kit. This simply means that the whole new mantlet is wrong shape - correct M1IP mantlet is lower at the front than the M1 one, so side parts should not be interchangeable...

warlock109
Visit this Community
Utah, United States
Joined: February 05, 2004
KitMaker: 160 posts
Armorama: 157 posts
Posted: Monday, March 12, 2018 - 11:37 PM UTC
Pawel, you are wrong. M1IP blow off panels were not the same as the ones on the M1.
Tankrider
Visit this Community
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,198 posts
Armorama: 1,135 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 01:57 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Pawel, you are wrong. M1IP blow off panels were not the same as the ones on the M1.



Jerry,
Ok, I will ask the question: if the M1IP were not the same as the M1 panels, what were they like?
- Two square ones as found on the M1A1s?
- Different shapes than the trapezoidal ones found on the M1s?
- Something completely different??

Personally, I would not bet against Pawel. He is pretty good with his research on the M1 family.

JC
HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 3,172 posts
Armorama: 3,145 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 02:26 AM UTC
I wonder if the distance between the fumne extractor and the mantlet is shorter as it is on the real M1 IP?
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 11,128 posts
Armorama: 10,926 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 03:10 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Pawel, you are wrong. M1IP blow off panels were not the same as the ones on the M1.



Are you sure ?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47209/thread/1501016476/last-1501237461/View+Thread



Full size

H.P.
Jacques
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: March 04, 2003
KitMaker: 4,602 posts
Armorama: 4,470 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 04:06 AM UTC
Just to stir the pot on this specific topic, has anyone ever heard of this:

What I learned from the MATES section at camp Ripley, MN in the summer of 1996.

M1IP with a M256 120mm gun. The MNANG was transitioning from M60A3TTS to M1 series, and at this time were doing transition training on OLD M1's with M68 105mm gun. I am unsure how ling the transition period was going to take.

I was trained as a 63D (Tracked vehicle recovery specialist) in the Spring of 1996 at Camp Ripley. We had to learn to drive the M1 (for recovery purposes. We only had M88A1's and were training to recover M1A2's where their combat load was greater than the rating of the M88A1...hence the development of the M88A2 AND why we were learning to drive M1's...for recovery with a tank. Whatever, it was cool and we got to drive M1's). Anyhow, the training tank we used was an OLD vehicle (but an IP with the LONG turret, getting in the drivers hatch from the outside was interesting)but it had the M256 120mm on it (we kept getting lectured on it from the mechanics and the tankers on how great that gun was compared to the 105mm).

Just wondering if anyone had heard of this before or if it was a one off. I had some pictures of it, but have not re-located them yet. (1996 was still a year for film cameras.)
panamadan
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 881 posts
Armorama: 825 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 05:46 AM UTC
IPs had three blow out panels-slept on them many a time.
Dan
Abbie939
Visit this Community
Missouri, United States
Joined: February 10, 2007
KitMaker: 23 posts
Armorama: 21 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 06:08 AM UTC
Well I was all over a M1 IP in Topeka KS. And took a tape measure to the panels, and they were trapezoidal. I think I shared them with you John years ago.

Removed by original poster on 03/14/18 - 05:20:07 (GMT).
avenue
Visit this Community
Philippines
Joined: May 25, 2013
KitMaker: 484 posts
Armorama: 484 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 10:20 AM UTC
there are already to many M-1 kits,the only variant is missing is the original prototype.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,171 posts
Armorama: 3,770 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 10:22 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Well I was all over a M1 IP in Topeka KS. And took a tape measure to the panels, and they were trapezoidal. I think I shared them with you John years ago.



Unfortunately that tank was a small turret upgraded M1, not a true, long turret, M1IP, so those who believe that panels were different between the types, won't accept that as a proof.

The problem with large turret M1IPs is that as far as I know very few of them are available in museums or as gate guards. The Army kept most of them in storage for future use or conversions. So most tanks available for measurements are PVs, XM1s or small turret M1s (including those upgraded to "almost IP" configuration, like the one in Topeka).
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,171 posts
Armorama: 3,770 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 10:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Pawel, you are wrong. M1IP blow off panels were not the same as the ones on the M1.


They were the same shape. Maybe they differed in some details, but they were the same shape.
knewton
Visit this Community
New Zealand
Joined: June 19, 2013
KitMaker: 742 posts
Armorama: 680 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 01:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text

there are already to[o] many M-1 kits,the only variant is missing is the original prototype.



If you want kits of prototypes, how about the 140mm CATTB, please?! And, can there really be too many kits?
Removed by original poster on 03/14/18 - 14:00:06 (GMT).
Tankrider
Visit this Community
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,198 posts
Armorama: 1,135 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 07:03 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Well I was all over a M1 IP in Topeka KS. And took a tape measure to the panels, and they were trapezoidal. I think I shared them with you John years ago.



Unfortunately that tank was a small turret upgraded M1, not a true, long turret, M1IP, so those who believe that panels were different between the types, won't accept that as a proof.

The problem with large turret M1IPs is that as far as I know very few of them are available in museums or as gate guards. The Army kept most of them in storage for future use or conversions. So most tanks available for measurements are PVs, XM1s or small turret M1s (including those upgraded to "almost IP" configuration, like the one in Topeka).



Those almost 900 M1IPs became M1A2s/M1A2SEPs in the mid 90's - mid 2000's. If you look closely at pictures of the SEPs, you can see some key indicators that they are rebuilt/upgraded M1s.

John
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,171 posts
Armorama: 3,770 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 09:23 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Those almost 900 M1IPs became M1A2s/M1A2SEPs in the mid 90's - mid 2000's. If you look closely at pictures of the SEPs, you can see some key indicators that they are rebuilt/upgraded M1s.

John


Yep, I know that. As you know Dragon SEP kit comes with correct early M1 hull features, like straight headlight guards and front fenders without embossed stiffeners
aleluya
Visit this Community
England - North East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 25, 2010
KitMaker: 245 posts
Armorama: 245 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 09:41 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Pawel, you are wrong. M1IP blow off panels were not the same as the ones on the M1.


They were the same shape. Maybe they differed in some details, but they were the same shape.


any photo evidence?
system
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 230 posts
Armorama: 229 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - 12:49 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Pawel, you are wrong. M1IP blow off panels were not the same as the ones on the M1.



Are you sure ?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47209/thread/1501016476/last-1501237461/View+Thread



Full size

H.P.



Not sure I'd trust these drawings. Didn't the IPM1 also have a longer mantlet front-to-back than the M1 (similar to the M1A1/A2) to compensate for the extra turret armour? Hard to tell, but it looks like Panda moved the whole gun mount forward but kept the short mantlet just like Tamiya did on their original very inaccurate M1A1 kit.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,171 posts
Armorama: 3,770 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - 01:12 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Pawel, you are wrong. M1IP blow off panels were not the same as the ones on the M1.


They were the same shape. Maybe they differed in some details, but they were the same shape.


any photo evidence?


Any photo evidence to the contrary?


To be honest it is difficult to clearly prove it using photos. As I mentioned before it is hard to find any long turreted M1IP today to take photos and measurements. All clear "modern" photos and measurements were taken from small turreted M1s and they prove without any doubts that those tanks had trapezoid shape panels. But even though we can be certain of the shape of those panels, they still look rectangular in most photos... It is caused by the fact that the difference of length of both ends of panels was quite small and when photos were taken from various angles, the perspective makes that difference almost disappear.
So for long turret M1IPs we have to rely on far from perfect "period" photos. All I have in my collection were taken from various odd angles, or show just part of the panel... But by comparing those imperfect images of IP panels with good photos of original trapezoid M1 panels, I came to the conclusion - one that I'm fully convinced to - that IP panels were identical to original M1 ones.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,171 posts
Armorama: 3,770 posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - 01:15 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Not sure I'd trust these drawings.


Indeed those drawings from the Hunnicutt's "Abrams" book are not entirely reliable Unlike most drawings in other Hunnicutt's books, which were based on official drawings and blueprints, those for Abrams for obvious reasons could not have been based on such reliable references, as they were (and probably still are) considered confidential.