US Army CATTB (M1 Abrams Block III)

[rabid stoat]

I've tried several times now to find more info on this Abrams CATTB (Component Advanced Technology TestBed), but Google and co lead me to VERY limited information. Text in the pic tell you all I know. Does Anyone know if Jane's International Defence Review is archived online anywhere? Ever seen any other pictures?

Direct link to pic is:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u94/rabid_stoat/tank3.jpg
(http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u94/rabid_stoat/tank3.jpg)
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u94/rabid_stoat/tank3.jpg

[PanzerBob]

welc.sub; Matey, I've heard of these, where do I get one!!solaf PanzerBob sal;

[rabid stoat]

Actually I'm thinking of trying to model one in 1/35th, but I don't like to do so with just one pic to go on. Still, I think its worth trying... if it works I can cast it in resin. uzi,

EDIT QUOTE : The Army adopted a more radical approach for the development of the M1 Block III version of the Abrams tank. Regarded as necessary to combat future Soviet armor, the Army planned to equip the Block III tank with an automatic gun loader; a new high-energy gun and electronic fire control system; advanced target acquisition capabilities; improved chassis, power pack, and suspension; advanced armor protection; and a vehicular information system that would be able to convey vehicle status reports and diagnostic information to the crew. Its automated command and control systems would include a position navigation system that would display unit locations, indicate direction and speed of movement, and locate distant targets for indirect fire. The Army planned to initially field the Block III tank in FY 1998, barring future funding shortfalls and assuming timely development of an advanced power system and the common chassis envisioned in the HFM Plan. Congress, however, was increasingly concerned about the development costs of both the Block II and Block III tanks. The Block III alone was estimated to be about $1 billion.

EDIT EDIT QUOTE WIKIPEDIA : The XM-291 is the best existing example of a working electrothermal-chemical gun. It was an alternate technology to the heavier caliber 140 mm gun by using the dual-caliber approach. It uses a breech that is large enough to accept 140 mm ammunition and be mounted with both a 120 mm barrel and a 135 mm or 140 mm barrel.

[Reloader]

One Question - Why worry about the 'radar reflectivity of the road wheels', when there are all those reflective surfaces above them? Or am I missing something? :confused:

[PanzerBob]

Hey Rabid Stoat,

I will keep and eye out for ya!! I run into all sorts of different stuff while Surfing the Net. I know some will say search yourself or "GOOGLE IT" :rolleyes: But that doesn't sniff out all there is to had. I know this to be a FACT!.

If there is this one pic then there ought to be others.

Cheers, Panzer Bob

[Bombardier]

Ive had a look but not found any, Ill keep looking during my travels around the Interweb (Y)

[rabid stoat]

One Question - Why worry about the 'radar reflectivity of the road wheels', when there are all those reflective surfaces above them? Or am I missing something? :confused:

I suspect if we got a look at the tank from a better angle we'd see mostly flat angled surfaces. Only the roadwheels reflect much. I think.

Remember its a circa 1990 mockup though. Very cold war. It seems to have had the turret top machine guns removed also, praobably to further reduce its radar cross section, which makes little sense in a post September 11 world.

I doubt an Abrams TUSK upgrade is very stealthy!solaf

EDIT: Oh, and remember the roadwheels are one of the hottest parts on infrared too...

[Bombardier]

Found this is a PDF document online somewhere.


in 1994 by the installation of the U.S. 140 mm XM291
gun in the Component Advanced Technology Test Bed (CATTB), which consisted of a two-man turret
with a bustle autoloader mounted on a modified M1A1 tank hull.
However, the prospect of installing 140 mm guns has not proved popular with tank users because of the
large size of the ammunition, and the consequent reduction in the number of rounds able to be stowed
(although a tank like the CATTB could carry up to 39 rounds—only one fewer than the M1A1 for its 120mm gun).



PS I have contacted General dynamics on your behalf, they will probably ignore me but I have asked them for some pics

[Bombardier]

Hi
I have recieved this reply form General dynamics and expect some pics very soon.

Had me a little stumped at first, but I believe the CATTB is what we called "back in the day" the TTB or Tank Test Bed. If I'm right this vehicle had the transfers mounted power pack, three man hull and a non-occupied turret with an auto-loader.
Please let me know if I'm correct and I'll scan the 17 overall shots of the completed vehicle and give them to Liz.

Best regards,
Thomas J Wheeler
Video/Photo Operations
General Dynamics Land Systems

[Bombardier]

Not sure thats the same tank when I think about it , so I have sent him the above picture to see if it helps them.

very helpful people though (Y)

[Bombardier]

Apparently (and this is from gen dynamics) TTB was in the mid 80's. CATTB was in the 90's, which is confirmed in the info above.

I cant get over how helpful these people are , fantastic (Y)

[Bombardier]

Hers the first image provided by General Dynamics.
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/thumbs/TTB001.jpg (http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/27159)
Unfortunately it is of the 1985 TTB or Tank Test Bed (more to follow hopefully.

Here is what GD say in their last email


Based on your photo and the comment from Bob that the CATTB was built in the mid 90's not 80's, the TTB vehicle is not the same as the CATTB. I have run the Video/Photographic dept for Chrysler Defence then General Dynamics since 1976 and I'm checking, but I think that this was a government project built by TACOM and not GDLS. I do not recall any photos of the vehicle you sent, but in any case here is one photo from a group of overalls of the TTB built in 1985, this vehicle has a transverse mounted powerpack, three man crew (all in the front hull) and a small turret with a 120 autoloader. Let me know if you are interested in this vehicle as a subject.
Regards,
Thomas J Wheeler
Video/Photo Operations
General Dynamics Land Systems

[rabid stoat]

I'm impressed. I didn't think they'd be so helpful. Even if its a different tank, I'm interested. Thanks!

[Bombardier]

They have not go back to me yet with more pics but when and if they do? ill post them for you (Y)

[Bombardier]

Here ya go fella, just what you asked for (Y)
Glad to have been assistance, I learnt something along the way too.
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/thumbs/CATTBpix4_Page_4.jpg (http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/27260) http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/thumbs/CATTBpix4_Page_3.jpg (http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/27259) http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/thumbs/CATTBpix4_Page_2.jpg (http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/27258) http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/thumbs/CATTBpix4_Page_1.jpg (http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/27257)

[rabid stoat]

To say I'm impressed would be something of an understatement, Thanks!

Now I think I'll try to model that in 1/35th. Shouldn't be to hard now. hehe

[PanzerBob]

Keep us posted on it's progress, that's one big mother gun, I wonder why the US never went with the autoloader concept? I for one don't agree with them, but I'm curious.

Nice Hunting, Bomber

Cheers, Bob sal;