Comments for Speaking of Chrysler products...

Speaking of Chrysler products...

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:01:18 -0600

...some with short life spans (see post below this one) and others with longer ones - like the M1 Tank. comes this bit from Jim Dunnigan over at Strategy Page, on the the search for a "30 ton M1" (vice the 70-tonner we have now). Remember, the M1 tank was one of the reasons given for saving Chrysler the last time we taxpayers bailed 'em out - which worked out okay, IIRC, the Treasury actually making a little money. Mind you, the bailout was devised and managed by a management consulting firm - not Congress...]

Comment from TrustButVerify on 2008-12-16

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:53:54 -0600

Speaking of the M-1 and Chrysler, I'd forgotten how unpopular the Abrams was with the media before Desert Storm.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_v19/ai_4696991/print?tag=artBody;col1

Comment from Josh on 2008-12-15

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:14:59 -0600

Wow, that's a hell of a strange design. Good find, Rod!

Interesting thing about nuclear rounds is that you actually can't really make them small enough to fit in tank barrels (at least not of traditional bore sizes).

Comment from Rod Thorsen on 2008-12-15

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:37:30 -0600

Found it, Chrysler TV-8

Scrol down.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,673.0/highlight,nuclear+tank.html

Comment from Casey on 2008-12-15

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:35:08 -0600

At a wild guess: a vehicle designed to test-fire nuclear-armed rounds.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-12-15

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:49:52 -0600

Whenever I hear liberal Democrats argue that we must bail-out unionized industries to maintain defense and national security, my B.S. meter starts pegging the red.

Comment from MAJ Arkay on 2008-12-15

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:00:49 -0600

That bail-out argument won't work this time. The Big 3 sold their tank making side to General Dynamics years ago.

Comment from RetRsvMike on 2008-12-15

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:47:45 -0600

sleeper cab (we needs our "crew rest")

Comment from Rod Thorsen on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:07:58 -0600

Meant to be nuclear powered, IIRC.

Comment from AW1 Tim on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:51:24 -0600

Crew survivability in an NBC environment. The whole crew is in the turret.

Comment from Josh on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:12:50 -0600

I don't know about range target, it seems strange that they would design such a goofy looking thing with so many complex curves...wouldn't it be easier just to build a box with a barrel, or if not, wouldn't they want to copy a T-34 or a T-72?

I was certainly wondering about how it elevates and traverses, too...the lack of sharpness and contrast obviously aren't making it very easy, but I think I can see what MIGHT be a part that allows the barrel to elevate. Look where the very sharp line forming the "crease" around the turret thing abruptly becomes soft, just to the left of where the barrel protrudes. It could be nothing, or it could be a sort of a hinge. As for the ability to traverse...I just can't see how that turret can move, I think the idea was that the whole vehicle should be rotated instead of just the turret...maybe, before the days of the M1's fancy fire control system, they decided that tankers shouldn't be shooting on the move?

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:38:38 -0600

They were trying to make the tank lighter by building it in such a way that they could fill it with helium.

Comment from DL Sly on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:34:45 -0600

"You are closer than you realize."

Now that's a scary thought....
0>;~}

Comment from Cannonshop on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:40:07 -0600

Huh. Looks more like a range target to me-notice that the prow of the turret melds nicely into the gun and leaves zero for movement, that the turret itself does not appear to be built to swivel?

Range target, or Decoy mockup are my bets.

Comment from Josh on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:18:37 -0600

Either that or it's supposed to avoid being torn apart by the shockwave when the commies drop a kiloton device in front of it.

Comment from Josh on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:14:41 -0600

It's Al Gore's streamlined tank for greater fuel efficiency!

Comment from John (not the armorer) on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:59:23 -0600

Proving ground accident when fired with a plug in the muzzle?

Comment from Justthisguy on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:54:22 -0600

Definitely no shot traps. Definitely. Definitely.

Comment from Argent on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:50:39 -0600

You cannot tell me that is supposed to survive a nuke.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:45:38 -0600

Sly -
1. "Auld Soldier" is a title around here. My Dad. Who *is* an auld artilleryman, though he seldom weighs in on whatziss'.
2. You assume I *don't* know what the design was intending.
3. You are closer than you realize.

Comment from DL Sly on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:20:51 -0600

That's easy. That there beastie was designed to withstand the blast of an Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
Geez, I figured an Auld Soldier (and an Arty guy at that) would know that.
0>;~}

Comment from fdcol63 on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:17:41 -0600

Looks air-tight ..... few seals ..... also few flat places to catch incoming projectiles ... perhaps deflection?

Comment from Barb on 2008-12-14

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:50:08 -0600

I dunno - make the opposing force fall over laughing?