M1 Abrams Underside

CDAT

Hey. I still get surprised by this photo popping up decades after the incident. The tank is an Abrams M1A2. It belonged to Bco, #66, 1-12 CAV, Ft Hood. This was during the turn-in of our tanks to 7 Cav. The tank gunner and driver were conducting a road test and did a pivot steer to turn around not realizing they were so close to the culvert drop off.

The gunner and driver had some bruises but no serious injuries. Since the turret was over the back deck, the both crawled out of the drivers compartment hatch. This was around 2001.

 

Someone posted it way back then just to show another modeler what the underside of an Abrams looked like.

I served in 1-12 Cav back in the 1990s. We had been 3-32 Armor and towards the end of 1993, we reflagged as 1-12 Cav and 1-32 AR reflagged to 2-12 Cav.

I PCS'd from the battalion in JAN 1996.

Hey. I still get surprised by this photo popping up decades after the incident. The tank is an Abrams M1A2. It belonged to Bco, #66, 1-12 CAV, Ft Hood. This was during the turn-in of our tanks to 7 Cav. The tank gunner and driver were conducting a road test and did a pivot steer to turn around not realizing they were so close to the culvert drop off.

The gunner and driver had some bruises but no serious injuries. Since the turret was over the back deck, the both crawled out of the drivers compartment hatch. This was around 2001.

mfsob

Not being a tread head, I have to ask - what was the actual purpose behind NOT having a hull hatch in the Abrams, as opposed to having one in previous tanks? Because I sure would want more than one way out ...

The Army also wanted to make the crew have to get out to pee. Kinder and gentler Army, you know.

  I have a nice mark on my chin from the drivers hatch on a 113 that was not latched open once upon a time in Holland... Clobbered me real good

Rob Gronovius

You also learn not to open the hatches with the system on; the air pressure slams them open and if the latch does not catch to keep it in the open position, it can bounce back and bop you on the head.

That'd leave a mark....

You also learn not to open the hatches with the system on; the air pressure slams them open and if the latch does not catch to keep it in the open position, it can bounce back and bop you on the head.

hmmm, thats interesting. i guess you learn something new every day.

It's not the hatch seals that keeps NBC out of the Abrams. It's the NBC overpressurization system that pumps filtered air throughout the tank, increasing internal air pressure thus keeping the contamination out. Filtered air literally leaks out of the tank through hatch seals and all sorts of nooks and crannies so conamination can't get in.

as others stated the escape hatch may have been considered a weak point. i thought also it may tamper with the NBC warfare survivability of the abrams, but if they can seal the other hatches well enough they could probably seal an escape hatch as well. at least on other american tanks the hatch was on the bottom, and not either on the side of the turret or between the road wheels like on ww2 tanks. even if the steel was the same thickness i would think that a hatch in an area that is exposed to the main gun fire from an enemy tank or A/T gun would be a weak point.

GreenThumb

stikpusher:

A 53E dreams about being able to lift an Abrams! The LAV is nothing weightwise by comparison.

 

Really? I thought a CH-53E could lift one? It is the largest military helo in our arsenal.

Sorry, had to chime in on this.  My job is to move stuff for the Army and I have spent a lot of time moving stuff by helicopter.  Operationally, the CH-53 and CH-47 can both lift about the same depending on the atmospheric conditions, but stickpusher is absolutely correct, they wouldnt have a prayer of lifting an Abrams. 

I also worked with some companies flying old russian Mi-26's.  I believe it is currently the largest operational helicopter in the world.  It tops out at 22-ish tons maximum so even it would fall far far short. 

M48 and M60s used hull width torsion bars and both had an escape hatch under the driver. It weighs a lot and just falls to the ground when the handles are pulled. It takes a couple of men or a floor jack if you're in the motor pool to reinstall the hatch. It is not hinged to the tank in any way.

The only one who could use it would be the driver unless the crew was able to rotate the turret to allow access to the driver's compartment from the turret. That requires the main gun to be positioned over the back deck on any tank.

The hatch was more of a PITA. It often fell out due to vibrations while traveling along roads. A tank behind would normally see it on the ground and throw it on their tank. Cost was a case of beer to get your hatch back. The driver wouldn't know the hatch fell unless he was getting splashed by mud or water. I kept mine strapped in place so it wouldn't fall free. I was cheap and wouldn't have wanted to pony up a case to get it back. The tie down strap was free.

With the advent of more powerful anti tank mines, it was decided that the tank was survivable enough on the outside to remove the weak spot an escape hatch creates. I've heard tales of M48s having the escape hatch blow through the hull when it rolls over anti tank mines. Not much left of the driver after that.

Main problem would be the torsion bar suspension which goes right across the bottom of the hull. No room at all to put a hatch in from what I remmember.

Phil

I would say someone somewhere discovered that it was a weak point.   When a tank reaches the crest of a hill the belly is exposed thus making that hatch a weak point.  There may be other reasons though.

Not being a tread head, I have to ask - what was the actual purpose behind NOT having a hull hatch in the Abrams, as opposed to having one in previous tanks? Because I sure would want more than one way out ...

Daaaaaaaaaaamn! 

That's what we call "Hull down."

I remember from my time with Armor a couple of real nasty accidents, the sort where they hold an Article 32 to figure out why people died.  The one bad thing about the Abrams, unlike our M60A3's we turned in, is that it didn't have a hull hatch. 

I remember taking my platoon down a hill in Ft. Knox, losing traction on the ice and realizing that I now had a 60 ton sled.  Very scary. 

Sometimes we lose crewmen when they go off bridges and into water, and no one gets out, especially if it sinks hull down.  But probably the nastiest "accident" I ever saw was a controller during an exercise who had a chair bolted to the turret just behind the TC.  At night, they crossed under a lower bridge and hit a bump.  The TC was smashed into his turret and survived.  The only thing we found worth burying from the Controller guy was his steel thermos, now 2-D.

I speak as someone who's actually sunk a tank in area 5 north.  The recovery crew arrived with two M88's and asked where it was.  I said "Do you see that soldier standing in the field?  It's under him."   It had sunk 10 feet down.

According to Wikipedia the CH-53E's maximum payload is 16.5 tons.  That probably wouldn't even lift the M1's turret! 

stikpusher

A 53E dreams about being able to lift an Abrams! The LAV is nothing weightwise by comparison.

Really? I thought a CH-53E could lift one? It is the largest military helo in our arsenal.

The outside they use a visually modified Chieftan, but the inside scene is a show manufactured set, not filmed inside the tank.

I was just racking my brains as I was sure I'd seen something where they had an escape hatch in an Abrams. Then I realised it was "Walking Dead" where in long shots it was an Abrams but for the close up and and inside work they used a Cheftain, at least I'm not going mad

Phil

A 53E dreams about being able to lift an Abrams! The LAV is nothing weightwise by comparison.

Rob Gronovius

 

At a minimum, it would take a couple of tanks to try to right the overturned vehicle. They would call for a recovery vehicle, but most likely would spring to action because in the 30, 40, 60 minutes it may take to get an M88 out there, the crew could already be dead.

Too bad they can't borrow a USMC CH-53E for that.

tigerman

Okay, in all seriousness, how could the crew get out of the tank that landed upside down in the water? 

Often times, one maybe two die in a flip like this. It may look "funny", but think of having a passenger with his upper torso sticking out of your sun roof when you flip your car. That's 2-3 tons crushing that person. Now think of 60+ tons doing that.

If it lands in water, there is the possibility that the crewmen who don't get crushed drown if the water is deep enough. Depending on the position of the turret and condition of the driver, he may be able to make it out the driver's hatch. No one else would be able to reach that hatch. The gunner is going to be stuck in a very small place upside down with water pouring in around his head.

Tanks manuevering cross country in darkness using night vision goggles for the commander and a thermal viewer for the driver trying to maintain a formation, manuever safely across uncertain terrain, navigate by map, scan for enemy targets and enemy emplaced obstacles isn't easy.

Sorry to be a killjoy, but stuff like this happens, people die, careers ended, families left without a bread winner.

At a minimum, it would take a couple of tanks to try to right the overturned vehicle. They would call for a recovery vehicle, but most likely would spring to action because in the 30, 40, 60 minutes it may take to get an M88 out there, the crew could already be dead.

Without really fast outside intervention...they don't. 

Okay, in all seriousness, how could the crew get out of the tank that landed upside down in the water? 

oops ment to say "But i searched..."

stikpusher

All the tracks I was driver of and had to go under had bare armor belly plates... But I suppose that has to do with the environment they operate in. We had lots of mud and sand and plants constantly scraping against the bottom...

Ya see thats what i thought. Nut i searched a bit and turns out they use some super durable type paint that is really hard to scratch off...

Ben323

Thats hallarious

Thanks guys, but I always thought that the underside of the Abrams would be more metallic and scratched up. Imao.

But anyway thanks for the response

And what did you these 60 ton kiddy-cars expect?
(M1 = 60 tons; M1A1 = 63 tons; M1A2 = 70 tons)

All the tracks I was driver of and had to go under had bare armor belly plates... But I suppose that has to do with the environment they operate in. We had lots of mud and sand and plants constantly scraping against the bottom...