Author Topic: Modernized M-41 for the USMC (Read 19552 times)

LemonJello · « **on:** April 09, 2014, 09:37:03 PM »

So, inspired by Old Wombat's M-41 in Australian Marines service, I picked up Tamiya's 1/35 kit (40% off @ Hobby Lobby) with the intention of making an upgraded/upgunned alternative to the M1 for use with the US Marine Corps MEUs (Marine Expeditionary Unit). At about half the weight and much smaller than the M1, I thought this would make it possible to 1) embark more tanks without a great increase in space used/weight taken up. So, instead of a single platoon of 4 tanks a MEU could take 2 platoons/8 tanks, 2) lighter vehicles can be brought to shore faster (2 per LCAC instead of the 1 M1) and 3) more tanks mean more taskings for fire support of the infantry companies.

To that end, I've upgraded the main gun from 76mm to 105mm - placing it in a completely new turret and deleting the coax MG in this instance. I'm moving the driver from the left side to center, the gas engine is theoretically replaced by a multi-fuel turbine and I'll add some armor side skirts as well.

With that, here are the early stages of work so far:

Starting point:

Size comparison to an M-60 on the bench:

Front hull modification:

New turret:

Main gun (scratched from brass tube):

**Edited to add** Here's a profile view of the turret:

Old Wombat · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2014, 09:51:11 PM »

OK, I'm watching!

Volkodav · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2014, 10:56:59 PM »

The side by side with the M-60 hull top really shows how much smaller the M-41 is, I had no idea the size difference was so dramatic.

Kerick · « **Reply #3 on:** April 10, 2014, 01:33:27 AM »

This is going to be fun to watch!
I've also been considering what to do with an M-41. Seems to be contagious around here. See what you started Old Wombat?!

elmayerle · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:30:02 AM »

Multi-fuel engine - diesel, gas turbine, or SCORE (Stratified Charge Omnivorous Rotary Engine)? The last would be a real whif since none has ever made production despite offering the smoothness of a turbine and better fuel consumption.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:43:51 AM »

Very interesting! What era are you thinking?

LemonJello · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2014, 03:18:43 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on April 10, 2014, 02:43:51 AM

Very interesting! What era are you thinking?

Probably early nineties up to the deployment for OIF - my spotty back story would have the MPS squadrons keep the M1s, and these M41s would be unique to the MEUs - the crews would be from the tank battalions but would use these "mobile gun systems" through work-ups and deployment. If the need for heavier armor arose, the MPS would deliver those into theater and the crews switch over to the heavies.

At first, I thought I had gone too big with the turret, but then I reasoned that if I keep the hull the same size, then the additional equipment for stabilized fire control and communication had to go somewhere.

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2014, 03:52:22 AM »

Looking good John. The larger and wider turret really does make up for some of the internal space issues. If you add an extended bustle rack to the turret it should look like it is ready to carry all the gear for the crew. Is this going to be a three man crew with driver, gunner, vehicle commander with an auto-loading system for the main gun? Or is it going to be the traditional four man crew with driver, gunner, loader, vehicle commander in keeping the numbers for the M1 Abrams four man crew requirements?

LemonJello · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2014, 04:15:26 AM »

Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on April 10, 2014, 03:52:22 AM

Looking good John. The larger and wider turret really does make up for some of the internal space issues. If you add an extended bustle rack to the turret it should look like it is ready to carry all the gear for the crew. Is this going to be a three man crew with driver, gunner, vehicle commander with an auto-loading system for the main gun? Or is it going to be the traditional four man crew with driver, gunner, loader, vehicle commander in keeping the numbers for the M1 Abrams four man crew requirements?

Jeff, good question regarding the crew. I've gone back and forth, which would take up less space? Probably the 4 man crew. Also lessens complexity and gives me another body for all the ancillary duties and tasks. Though an auto-loader would mean that 4 M1 crews could be configured to crew 5 of these, so maybe they operate in 5 vehicle platoons? Or 4 and a support vehicle of some sort?

The bustle rack is coming as is a rework of the rear deck.

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #9 on:** April 10, 2014, 05:02:53 AM »

Love that barrel. I think those kind of details really pay off!

Brian da Basher

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2014, 05:13:33 AM »

Hi John,

It would be nice if the rear deck from the M48 or M60 could be made to fit on the M41. The large vent and access doors at the rear would certainly be practical from a maintenance stand point and it would then give you more room over the tracks for additional storage boxes plus a location for the air-cleaner boxes that could be reduced in size or left as is to give the suggestion of a major performance upgrade to the engine and transmission.

LemonJello · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2014, 08:34:01 PM »

Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on April 10, 2014, 05:13:33 AM

Hi John,

It would be nice if the rear deck from the M48 or M60 could be made to fit on the M41. The large vent and access doors at the rear would certainly be practical from a maintenance stand point and it would then give you more room over the tracks for additional storage boxes plus a location for the air-cleaner boxes that could be reduced in size or left as is to give the suggestion of a major performance upgrade to the engine and transmission.

Jeff, the rear deck and rear lower hull have been modified (pics to follow later tonight) - I cut out the existing vents/grills from the rear deck and modified that part to become the new rear access panels/vents (taking inspiration from the M60 and M1). I am also looking to scribe in some access panels and air cleaner grills to the new rear deck. You hit the nail on the head when you said "give the suggestion of a major performance upgrade" as that is exactly what I was going for with this.

Fleshing out my history for this vehicle I see it as one of those "Marines getting more use from old equipment" ideas where dozens of M41s are found in long term storage out in Barstow, CA, a need for smaller, lighter armor with an equivalent punch to an M60 or early M1 is identified, and Marines come up with a way to rehabilitate the M41s economically and efficiently.

Designation ideas? M41M1 or M41UG?

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2014, 09:27:27 PM »

Quote from: LemonJello on April 10, 2014, 08:34:01 PM

Designation ideas? M41M1 or M41UG?

John,

Here are a couple of designations for you to consider:

M41NG ("Next Generation")
M41MGS (Mobile Gun System)
M41MFSS (Mobile Fire Support System)
M41IFSS (Interim Fire Support System)
M41TL ("Terminal Lance") [Corporal]. I am positive that Max Uriarte would appreciate this designation

Kerick · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2014, 01:58:26 AM »

Sounds like you have the situation well in hand. Just for future inspiration the Danish upgrade to their M-41s had a new engine and what appeared to be a whole new raised engine deck. Just a though, what if an engine compartment from a 1/48th M-60 were scale-o-ramaed into place? I'll have to look into that. Just throwing it out their as there seems to be M-41 fever breaking out!

LemonJello · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2014, 03:46:08 AM »

Progress photos from the factory floor.

Upper hull/driver's position and engine deck modifications:

Gunner and commander's sighting systems in place:

Side view of turret with cupola and sighting systems:

finsrin · « **Reply #15 on:** April 17, 2014, 05:08:21 AM »

Being a M-41 fan, must say this is looking good :)
Looks feasible to me.

Kerick · « **Reply #16 on:** April 17, 2014, 08:57:30 AM »

I'm keeping tabs on this project. Lots of great ideas here that could be applied to many other vehicles besides the M-41. Carry On!

Frank3k · « **Reply #17 on:** April 17, 2014, 09:13:50 AM »

This is looking really good. I want to ~~steal~~ borrow some of these ideas.

LemonJello · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2014, 05:03:41 AM »

Another update. The rear deck has been changed to better reflect the installation of a turbine engine. Also, the turret bustle has been added. The only major fabrication left is the side skirts.

Hull rear:

Turret bustle:

taiidantomcat · « **Reply #19 on:** April 22, 2014, 07:43:56 AM »

I have a feeling win you get the side skirts on this its going to look darn futuristic

Great work so far :)

apophenia · « **Reply #20 on:** April 23, 2014, 07:28:33 AM »

Great work on that turret! :)

Kerick · « **Reply #21 on:** April 23, 2014, 11:22:39 AM »

Love the turret! May I suggest storage racks on the sides of the turret? Just my $0.02 worth.
Why is it that American AFVs in particular always have so much baggage strapped to the outside of the vehicle? I know there is no room inside but some storage bins of some sort would seem to go a long way. Seems there would be duffle bags and ruck sacks scattered all over the battle field.

LemonJello · « **Reply #22 on:** April 23, 2014, 08:03:05 PM »

Construction is done and now it's waiting to go into the paint barn. Just a couple update photos:

Side skirt blu-tacked in place for mock-up purposes:

Secondary armament in place. Just to give the grunts a little extra support.

Volkodav · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2014, 09:20:09 PM »

Commanders AGL, I like that :)

Frank3k · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2014, 11:37:54 PM »

Quote from: Volkodav on April 23, 2014, 09:20:09 PM

Commanders AGL, I like that :)

Nothing says "I love you" like a barrage of 40mm grenades.

Very believable upgrade to the M41. What is the reddish brown material?

LemonJello · « **Reply #25 on:** April 24, 2014, 12:30:35 AM »

Quote from: Frank3k on April 23, 2014, 11:37:54 PM

Very believable upgrade to the M41. What is the reddish brown material?

Krylon Terracotta textured spray paint. I use it as the non-slip surface seen on some armor and aircraft.

Kerick · « **Reply #26 on:** April 24, 2014, 01:17:33 AM »

Quote from: LemonJello on April 24, 2014, 12:30:35 AM

Quote from: Frank3k on April 23, 2014, 11:37:54 PM
Very believable upgrade to the M41. What is the reddish brown material?

Krylon Terracotta textured spray paint. I use it as the non-slip surface seen on some armor and aircraft.

That's good stuff for armor vehicles.
The TUSK mod on the M-1 Abrams would look cool.

LemonJello · « **Reply #27 on:** April 25, 2014, 09:25:54 PM »

Quote from: kerick on April 23, 2014, 11:22:39 AM

Why is it that American AFVs in particular always have so much baggage strapped to the outside of the vehicle? I know there is no room inside but some storage bins of some sort would seem to go a long way. Seems there would be duffle bags and ruck sacks scattered all over the battle field.

That is a really good question, and one that, even after 20 years in uniform, I don't have an answer for. On the rare occasions that we rode in the Tuna Boats, we strapped everything except weapons/a-bags to the exterior - it made for a little more space for us inside, but also made for wet/dirty personal gear at the destination. As my old gunny would say, "Suck it up, buttercup."

Old Wombat · « **Reply #28 on:** April 26, 2014, 12:03:24 AM »

Any resident (ex-)tankies can confirm or deny this but I believe that, even with external bins/baskets, only so much stuff can be carried in them &, even then, that is usually reserved for essential equipment which needs to be kept protected from the elements. Personal gear, extra supplies (both issued & appropriated) & spare MG/AGL ammunition are carried externally to reduce the fire risk inside the vehicle by limiting the amount of combustible materials.

As to why the Americans tend to go for open baskets rather than enclosed bins; I have no idea, but it may be that US military thinking is that what is stored in the bins/baskets may need to be accessed quickly, possibly in combat, when accessing open topped baskets is easier than opening closed (& possibly latched) bins. Plus; closed-top bins limit the dimensions of what can be put into them, whereas open-topped baskets allow an increased range of dimensions for items to be stored. (PS: Bins with the lids removed/left open don't drain water as well as mesh baskets, so your gear ends up floating if you do that.)

Kerick · « **Reply #29 on:** April 26, 2014, 01:22:39 AM »

I can see where it would have something to do with fire in the vehicle. That would have to be one of the most dangerous situations I can imagine. Also, if materials stored on the outside start to burn it would tend to fall off if just strapped on. IIRC a Stryker was lost because troops stored their gear between the slat armor and the vehicle sides and when the gear caught fire it eventually burned up the whole vehicle.

Rickshaw · « **Reply #30 on:** April 26, 2014, 10:59:08 AM »

The British in the Western Desert found that the most combustible items inside tanks were personal gear. That was why they started putting stowage bins on the outside of the turrets. Problem has been that personal gear and official gear have started to overflow and thats why you now get baskets. Baskets also have the advantage that if anything explosive (usually small arms liners) are stored in them, then if they explode/cook off, they're automatically vented and the explosion is not contained.

Tanks have always looked like Gypsy caravans, now it's just worse and more noticeable. If you look at German tanks on the Eastern Front and Allied tanks in Africa or NW Europe, they tend to carry all sorts of stuff on the them because they're advancing and don't really have time to forage. When tanks are retreating, they're generally falling back on their supply lines and so less stuff is carried on them.

Logan Hartke · « **Reply #31 on:** April 26, 2014, 11:15:22 AM »

I once heard a joke that you can tell Soviet tanks from WWII because they have people on the outside, German tanks because they have extra armor bolted on, and American tanks because they've got everything else.

Cheers,

Logan

Kerick · « **Reply #32 on:** April 27, 2014, 11:56:31 AM »

Makes as much sense as anything else!
Looking forward to paint pics!

taiidantomcat · « **Reply #33 on:** April 27, 2014, 11:36:49 PM »

Quote from: LemonJello on April 24, 2014, 12:30:35 AM

Quote from: Frank3k on April 23, 2014, 11:37:54 PM
Very believable upgrade to the M41. What is the reddish brown material?

Krylon Terracotta textured spray paint. I use it as the non-slip surface seen on some armor and aircraft.

Thats a great touch, I love adding texture I think it really adds to the realism on armor.

Its looking great! Do you know how you are going to paint it scheme wise??

LemonJello · « **Reply #34 on:** April 28, 2014, 08:04:45 PM »

Quote from: taiidantomcat on April 27, 2014, 11:36:49 PM

Its looking great! Do you know how you are going to paint it scheme wise??

Not MARPAT. Right now, I'm leaning to a highly faded/weather beaten olive green, but maybe the old MERDC 4-color as appropriate for pre OIF/OEF equipment?

ysi_maniac · « **Reply #35 on:** June 16, 2014, 01:26:22 AM »

I love this model. :) :)
What is its current status?

LemonJello · « **Reply #36 on:** June 16, 2014, 08:56:00 PM »

Nice weather and a lot of outdoor projects around LemonJello Industries has delayed much progress, but I did manage to get the base coat on and the tracks and skirts installed. Here are the photos:

Side:

Front:

Back:

Top:

Comparison to M-60:

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #37 on:** June 17, 2014, 02:32:23 AM »

This looks somewhat akin to the M60-120S offered by GDLS:

Buzzbomb · « **Reply #38 on:** June 17, 2014, 06:41:22 AM »

That is a quite slick and plausible build

Nice job all around

apophenia · « **Reply #39 on:** June 17, 2014, 08:38:27 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on June 17, 2014, 02:32:23 AM

This looks somewhat akin to the M60-120S offered by GDLS

It does ... although I think I prefer the proportions of LemonJello's modernized M-41. Nice build :)

Kerick · « **Reply #40 on:** June 17, 2014, 11:44:20 AM »

This is a great project to see come together! Lots of good ideas here for when I build a whiff M-41. Can't wait to see it finished.

Old Wombat · « **Reply #41 on:** June 17, 2014, 09:49:35 PM »

Wow, M1A1-ing an M41!

Certain features of the build suggest that Mr LemonJello may well have been influenced by the M60-120S (curved cut-outs in the rear panels of the side-skirts).

sotoolslinger · « **Reply #42 on:** June 18, 2014, 08:40:18 AM »

Brilliant. Most excellent build.

Frank3k · « **Reply #43 on:** June 18, 2014, 11:02:16 AM »

Excellent build! I love the way the no slip is just a subtle hint under the paint. It looks very realistic.

Jacques Deguerre · « **Reply #44 on:** July 01, 2014, 11:34:41 PM »

Man, that has turned out really nice! I'm a big fan of the M41 and I've always felt it has so much untapped design potential. Moving the driver's hatch to the center has corrected one the worse design features of this tank.

I've got a few M41-based projects "in the queue" so it's always nice to see how other builders rework theirs'.

philp · « **Reply #45 on:** July 02, 2014, 01:32:38 PM »

Is looking very good.

I always wanted to do the Brazilian version.

LemonJello · « **Reply #46 on:** August 04, 2014, 08:39:11 PM »

Update time! Camo is done, all that's left is weathering.

I've actually filled the bustle with bags, rations and fuel cans for the well lived in look...

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #47 on:** August 05, 2014, 02:52:52 AM »

Looking good.

Kerick · « **Reply #48 on:** August 05, 2014, 06:24:20 AM »

If you take that to a show it will drive some people nuts!

Always fun to watch!

finsrin · « **Reply #49 on:** August 05, 2014, 08:12:37 AM »

Quote from: kerick on August 05, 2014, 06:24:20 AM

If you take that to a show it will drive some people nuts!

Always fun to watch!

Kerick has it right.
Creative super build :)

Old Wombat · « **Reply #50 on:** August 05, 2014, 10:09:19 AM »

Quote from: finsrin on August 05, 2014, 08:12:37 AM

Quote from: kerick on August 05, 2014, 06:24:20 AM
If you take that to a show it will drive some people nuts!

Always fun to watch!

Kerick has it right.
Creative super build :)

Without specific markings I could see hundreds of JMN's & Rivet Counters scouring the interwebnet trying to find which small nation did this to its M41's.

Frank3k · « **Reply #51 on:** August 05, 2014, 11:05:12 AM »

This looks awesome - I can see some Army General complaining that this tank is far too awesome for the USMC...

The 105mm is nice. Where did you get it?

In some ways, the tank looks like a "super deformed" M1.

LemonJello · « **Reply #52 on:** August 05, 2014, 09:18:14 PM »

Quote from: Frank3k on August 05, 2014, 11:05:12 AM

This looks awesome - I can see some Army General complaining that this tank is far too awesome for the USMC...

The 105mm is nice. Where did you get it?

In some ways, the tank looks like a "super deformed" M1.

Thank you all for the compliments, I think it turned out really well.

Frank3k - the main gun is scratch made from brass tubing and CA glue. I tried some soldering, but I still haven't gotten the hang of that just yet.

LemonJello · « **Reply #53 on:** August 11, 2014, 08:51:56 PM »

Final photos. Calling this one done:

Logan Hartke · « **Reply #54 on:** August 11, 2014, 11:38:28 PM »

Looks great! I feel like the turret side needs something, maybe like the black star sometimes found on tanks in the MERDC camo period.

Cheers,

Logan

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #55 on:** August 14, 2014, 03:09:28 AM »

Is that ever sweet! With paintwork like that, this baby is bound to turn lots of heads!

Brian da Basher


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: Modernized M-41 for the USMC (Read 19552 times)