Author Topic: M24 Chaffee (Read 29403 times)

Jeffry Fontaine · « **on:** January 23, 2012, 08:23:07 PM »

Now that there are three M24 Chaffee kits available with varying levels of accuracy and detail there might be a need to discuss ideas for this subject. The family of vehicles based on the M24 (T24) Chaffee family of vehicles includes several motorized gun carriages, cargo carriers, high-speed tractors and a tracked recovery vehicle.

(Click to view article at Wikipedia. Image source D. Miller/Wikipedia)

On track link there is a model of an M24 Chaffee converted to the Norwegian NM-130 Armored Recovery Vehicle built by Kwan Lam (Unable to hot-link image due to Mr. Owen's reluctance to share bandwidth)

Links:

Wikipedia - M24 Chaffee
Search results for M24 Chaffee from Google

tsrjoe · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2012, 09:09:23 PM »

T.24 trialled with German suspension unit

finsrin · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2012, 07:39:48 AM »

Beginning of Bridge at Remagen movie has great shots of M24s.

apophenia · « **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2012, 08:52:04 AM »

The French put Chaffee turrets on 150 AMX hulls for use in Algeria.

http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1255

jcf · « **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2012, 12:39:17 PM »

The M24 turret was also mounted on the hull of the M38(T28) Wolfhound six-wheeled armored car,
to test the stability of the chassis while firing a 75mm gun. Due to the difference in turret ring diameter
an adaptor ring was bolted to the M38, and the M24 turret was bolted to the adaptor ring. The turret
was fixed in position.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2012, 05:03:14 AM »

Maybe a couple of simple user changes:

Australia
New Zealand
USSR

For something more substantial, maybe one converted to use early anti-tank missiles?

Maverick · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2012, 09:51:33 AM »

There was also the experimental quad RCL armed variants (both 75mm & 105mm).

Regards,

John

ChernayaAkula · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2013, 02:01:53 AM »

Quote from: apophenia on January 24, 2012, 08:52:04 AM

The French put Chaffee turrets on 150 AMX hulls for use in Algeria.

http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1255

Okay, what to do with all the left-over AMX-13 turrets? Easy! Put them on the left-over Chaffee hulls!

Rickshaw · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2013, 10:31:51 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 26, 2012, 05:03:14 AM

Maybe a couple of simple user changes:

Australia
New Zealand
USSR

For something more substantial, maybe one converted to use early anti-tank missiles?

The Australian Army trialled an M24 at the end of WWII, along with an M4 Sherman. They found the M24 was too light for use in Jungle and the M4 while suitable, offered no real advantage over the M3 Grant/Lees they were already operating. Instead they opted for the Churchill, receiving 200 just post war.

I've always wondered where the 200 went. They seem to have been disposed off when the Centurions arrived, after having been placed almost immediately into storage when they arrived themselves. Scrapping them would have been a monster of a job, cutting up six-inch thick armour isn't something most scrap yards could do then.

raafif · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2013, 10:53:25 AM »

Quote from: Rickshaw on February 03, 2013, 10:31:51 AM

Instead they opted for the Churchill, receiving 200 just post war.

I've always wondered where the 200 went. They seem to have been disposed off when the Centurions arrived

At least one ended up in the Nthn Territory .... "a turretless, armourless Churchill was being used to tow a 9 yard scraper" -- someone on a military site found bits in a NT scrapyard along with parts of Grants & Stuarts.

I wonder where the ones used by Iraq came from ?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2013, 01:08:02 PM »

See here: http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/Churchill/Chill.htm

Volkodav · « **Reply #11 on:** February 03, 2013, 05:49:57 PM »

My understanding was that the post war structure of the RAAC was to have been 1 tank division of 3 tank brigades, each consisting of 5 tank regiments and a brigade support unit/regiment including mech/motorised infantry and self propelled artillery(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeramba). The first brigade was to have been regular army and equipped with Centurions and the remaining two brigades were to be reserve (Citizen Military Forces) and equipped with Comets. Needless to say it didn't happen and in fact came nowhere near.

Assuming it did go ahead I imagine there would have been a case to make one of the tank regiments in each brigade a reconnaissance unit that logically could have been equipped with either armoured cars and/or light tanks. It is very easy to imagine M-24s in this case.

Interestingly the RAAC also trialled single Sheridan in 1968.

apophenia · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2013, 07:24:31 AM »

Quote from: ChernayaAkula on February 03, 2013, 02:01:53 AM

Okay, what to do with all the left-over AMX-13 turrets? Easy! Put them on the left-over Chaffee hulls!

Nice! Kitting-bashing parts swaps don't get any simpler than that :)

father ennis · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2013, 03:23:21 PM »

I'm thinking that the turret on the LVT is looking mighty fine !!! Does anyone know anything about them ,at all ? I'm thinking I'm hearing one calling my name already !!!

Feldmarschall Zod · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2013, 06:44:16 AM »

Quote from: father ennis on February 04, 2013, 03:23:21 PM

I'm thinking that the turret on the LVT is looking mighty fine !!! Does anyone know anything about them ,at all ? I'm thinking I'm hearing one calling my name already !!!

From what I can remember reading about them,they had trouble swimming due to the weight. Best Value Models has a kit of it. They are out of France.

http://www.phpshopxml.com/azimut.shop/CID/b0134e5346545bbba335b24ea1adb958/function/itemSearchResultPageDisplay/shopSearchType/familySubFamilyCode/shopSearchData/BLI%7CBVM/shopItemSearchLimit/54

Gingie · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2013, 10:23:07 PM »

I think I saw a RVN M-113 with a Chaffee turret on it once.

Rickshaw · « **Reply #16 on:** February 17, 2013, 10:59:20 AM »

Quote from: Gingie on February 16, 2013, 10:23:07 PM

I think I saw a RVN M-113 with a Chaffee turret on it once.

The ROC did do this. However they found they were too top heavy to swim and so abandoned the idea.

And someone has even made a model of one:

Gingie · « **Reply #17 on:** February 17, 2013, 12:31:21 PM »

wonder why they had to raise the rear hull roofline?

Rickshaw · « **Reply #18 on:** February 17, 2013, 02:10:59 PM »

I think you'll find they lowered the hull top under the turret. The rear hull looks to be normal height, whereas the front looks lower - the hinge for the engine service hatch is closer to the hull top than normal. I think the model is incorrect. The engine exhaust in the rear hull top (the "heightened section"), which tends to indicate that is where the engine is.

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #19 on:** October 12, 2013, 03:14:55 PM »

How about an M24 armed with a 57mm/6 pounder instead of the 75mm? While it might not be practical for fighting tanks larger than the M24 it might make an excellent infantry fire support vehicle where larger caliber 75mm high explosive could pose a possible danger to the supported troops. Another benefit to the smaller caliber weapon would be an increase in ammunition carried on board the vehicle. The subtle change in gun tube size would certainly catch some folks off guard :)

finsrin · « **Reply #20 on:** October 12, 2013, 03:39:32 PM »

M24 armed with a 57mm. Nice :)
If kitbashing in 1/35. Like to fit 25mm Bushmaster. IR vision. Reactive armor? And? A sorta Bradley.

Volkodav · « **Reply #21 on:** October 12, 2013, 04:19:31 PM »

Quote from: Rickshaw on February 17, 2013, 02:10:59 PM

I think you'll find they lowered the hull top under the turret. The rear hull looks to be normal height, whereas the front looks lower - the hinge for the engine service hatch is closer to the hull top than normal. I think the model is incorrect. The engine exhaust in the rear hull top (the "heightened section"), which tends to indicate that is where the engine is.

Interesting I wonder how they managed that with all the cooling arrangements under the engine cover

Feldmarschall Zod · « **Reply #22 on:** October 13, 2013, 05:04:39 AM »

Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on October 12, 2013, 03:14:55 PM

How about an M24 armed with a 57mm/6 pounder instead of the 75mm? While it might not be practical for fighting tanks larger than the M24 it might make an excellent infantry fire support vehicle where larger caliber 75mm high explosive could pose a possible danger to the supported troops. Another benefit to the smaller caliber weapon would be an increase in ammunition carried on board the vehicle. The subtle change in gun tube size would certainly catch some folks off guard :)

That and from what I have read,the 6 pounder had better armor penetration than the U.S. 75 mm cannons.

Volkodav · « **Reply #23 on:** October 13, 2013, 07:48:49 AM »

How about a 57mm Molins gun armed Tank Destroyer?

Rickshaw · « **Reply #24 on:** October 13, 2013, 08:12:22 AM »

Quote from: Volkodav on October 12, 2013, 04:19:31 PM

Quote from: Rickshaw on February 17, 2013, 02:10:59 PM
I think you'll find they lowered the hull top under the turret. The rear hull looks to be normal height, whereas the front looks lower - the hinge for the engine service hatch is closer to the hull top than normal. I think the model is incorrect. The engine exhaust in the rear hull top (the "heightened section"), which tends to indicate that is where the engine is.

Interesting I wonder how they managed that with all the cooling arrangements under the engine cover

I'd say they were all relocated when the engine was moved. I suspect the engine was moved to improve weight distribution. The M24 turret would pay hell with it, if it wasn't moved.

Volkodav · « **Reply #25 on:** October 13, 2013, 09:21:18 AM »

Ouch missed that bit, rear engine huh.....make you wonder why they didn't just try and get some Sheridan hulls instead.

Feldmarschall Zod · « **Reply #26 on:** December 23, 2013, 12:42:02 AM »

While doing a search for M24's used by Chile,I came across these pictures.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?233389-WW2-tanks-in-post-war-service-images-videos/page6

It is post #77. This version has the 60 mm HVMS on it. It looks like they converted the Norwegian NM-116.

Rickshaw · « **Reply #27 on:** December 23, 2013, 11:27:53 AM »

Quote from: Feldmarschall Zod on December 23, 2013, 12:42:02 AM

While doing a search for M24's used by Chile,I came across these pictures.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?233389-WW2-tanks-in-post-war-service-images-videos/page6

It is post #77. This version has the 60 mm HVMS on it. It looks like they converted the Norwegian NM-116.

Doubtful. Using the 60mm however makes sense as it provides commonality with the Sherman M51s which they bought from Israel with the 60mm in them. I think they are just plain old M24s the Chileans have had for a long time.

dy031101 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 27, 2014, 04:12:49 AM »

Since the ROC did convert surplus M42 SPAAG into light tanks by replacing the stock turret with one from the M18 tank destroyer, can the same be done to the M19 SPAAG since both types use essentially the same stock turret?

Rickshaw · « **Reply #29 on:** March 27, 2014, 10:50:08 AM »

Quote from: dy031101 on March 27, 2014, 04:12:49 AM

Since the ROC did convert surplus M42 SPAAG into light tanks by replacing the stock turret with one from the M18 tank destroyer, can the same be done to the M19 SPAAG since both types use essentially the same stock turret?

Same turret ring so it should be possible with minimal modification. The M18 is a pretty light weight turret so weight distribution shouldn't be too big a problem. Give the M18's gun some improved ammunition and it would be quite handy as a tank destroyer in soft ground.

Volkodav · « **Reply #30 on:** February 09, 2016, 09:38:50 PM »

Just a thought, could a British 77mm HV gun, as used by the Comet, have been practically fitted to the M-24 turret?

My thinking was the 76mm in the M-10 was replaced with a 17pdr for the Achilles, the Wolverine also used the 76mm, so theoretically it could possibly take a 17pdr, earlier in this discussion fitting a Wolverine turret to an M-24 was considered doable. Following this logic an M-24 with a Wolverine turret could conceivably be fitted with a 17pdr, it the vehicle could handle that could its standard turret be modified to take a 77mm?

Why? Well the M-24 could have been retained / adopted as a light tank by Britain, Australia etc. post war and updated to use the same gun as another type in service, the Comet to not only upgrade combat power to give it a shot against T-34s encountered in Korea and also to streamline logistics.

Imagining upgraded RAAC regular and reserve M-24s serving with cavalry regiments along side M-113 in the 50s, 60s and 70s, including Vietnam.

Kerick · « **Reply #31 on:** February 10, 2016, 01:11:06 AM »

Check out the Norwegian NM-116 version of the M-24. New gun, engine and fire control.

Volkodav · « **Reply #32 on:** February 10, 2016, 05:58:16 AM »

Thanks, I imagine the 76mm or 17pdr would be too much for the standard turret but that the 77mmHV maybe do the job. Already planning to buy the Bronco turned aluminium barrel for my Trumpeter E-10 when I saw a pick of the Norwegian M-24 and started thinking of this mix and whether it would be workable or too much for the turret. I suspect it may be an issue as if I recall correctly the 75mm used in the base vehicle was actually a lighter version originally developed for the B-25G, suggesting that the standard 75mm was considered too big/heavy etc. If the Cromwell was too small / light for a 77mm the smaller lighter M-24 could well be too.

Logan Hartke · « **Reply #33 on:** February 10, 2016, 06:42:31 AM »

If the US 76mm would be too much for the Chaffee turret, then the 77mm gun from the Comet should be, as well. I believe the 77mm was the more powerful of the two, so the length of the round and the level recoil would likely be greater, as well.

The 25 pdr may work, and the 95mm howitzer almost certainly would, too. Now, if you modified the Chaffee turret Firefly-style, then the British 77mm may work, but I won't be volunteering to load. You may have to go down to a 2-man turret Valentine/AEC-style, but British recon units weren't unused to that compromise, so I don't see that being a deal-breaker.

The Chaffee's M6 75mm gun was indeed a variant of the lightweight gun developed for the B-25G/H. As I understand it, they used the same round as the M2/M3, so the recoil forces should be similar, but the actual weight and bulk of the gun was considerably less. Now, obviously, I'm sure you could substitute a 6 pdr for the 75mm if you had a couple of competent fitters and a lazy afternoon.

The most powerful gun (recoil-wise) that I recall having been mounted in a Chaffee turret was probably the Israeli 60mm HVMS on the Chilean Chaffees.

Cheers,

Logan

Volkodav · « **Reply #34 on:** February 10, 2016, 11:38:07 AM »

Its what I was sort of thinking, you could do it on an M-41 but why as the 76mm is comparable, just a stretch too far for the Chaffee.

Shame actually as it would have looked good and fitted my Antipodean Armour Fest ORBAT quite well. Cavalry regiments and squadrons using upgraded M-24s supporting the Centurion/Conqueror/Chieftain tank brigade and the Comet/Leopard reserve brigades, as well as equipping the Recce Troop/Platoon of the Armoured Infantry Btn support companies until replaced by a more modern vehicle in the 80s.

I suppose a "re" (as opposed to "up")-gunning exercise could be for purely logistical reasons and opt for the 76mm L5A1 from the Saladin or even the L23A1 from the Scorpion in the 60s or 70s.

Volkodav · « **Reply #35 on:** April 16, 2017, 07:01:58 PM »

Just came across something interesting:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/40mmgmcm19.html

M-19/24 APC anyone?
#
Looks like you'd only fit six troops in the rear section without an extension, maybe of it drops to a single engine or a pair of inline sixes more room could be found.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #36 on:** April 17, 2017, 01:44:15 AM »

You were saying:

Volkodav · « **Reply #37 on:** April 17, 2017, 10:57:56 PM »

Interesting, where and when?"

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #38 on:** April 18, 2017, 01:37:16 AM »

Quote from: Volkodav on April 17, 2017, 10:57:56 PM

Interesting, where and when?"

It is supposedly the "Orgeneral Tural Kariyeri" (Major General Tural [armored personnel] carrier) and was based on the converted chassis of M24 Chaffee light tank, which were transferred from US in numbers in early 1960's, after Turkey joined NATO. It was designed as a reconnaissance and light troop transport vehicle.

Technical specifications of the Tural APC are as follows:

Crew: 12
Weight: 18t
Weapons: 1 x 57mm gun, 2 x 7.62 machine guns
Range: 100 miles
Speed: 58 km/h

A small number of vehicles were converted in mid 1960's and all retired in 1971.

Volkodav · « **Reply #39 on:** April 18, 2017, 11:11:28 PM »

Cool, thanks.

tahsin · « **Reply #40 on:** April 19, 2017, 07:46:41 PM »

And the last picture is the "museum" of the Armoured Training Command in Ankara. Or was in case the exhibits have been moved. Hence the eclectic mix...

Logan Hartke · « **Reply #41 on:** October 20, 2018, 05:20:25 AM »

Here's a quick little something I threw together. An M24 Chaffee with 25mm Delco turret in Australian service circa 1980s.

Cheers,

Logan

ysi_maniac · « **Reply #42 on:** October 20, 2018, 11:06:02 AM »

Lovely!
Thanks for posting

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #43 on:** October 21, 2018, 03:55:51 AM »

Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on October 12, 2013, 03:14:55 PM

How about an M24 armed with a 57mm/6 pounder instead of the 75mm? While it might not be practical for fighting tanks larger than the M24 it might make an excellent infantry fire support vehicle where larger caliber 75mm high explosive could pose a possible danger to the supported troops. Another benefit to the smaller caliber weapon would be an increase in ammunition carried on board the vehicle. The subtle change in gun tube size would certainly catch some folks off guard :)

From what I understand, initially a 57mm weapon was considered.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #44 on:** October 21, 2018, 04:02:39 AM »

Quote from: Feldmarschall Zod on December 23, 2013, 12:42:02 AM

While doing a search for M24's used by Chile,I came across these pictures.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?233389-WW2-tanks-in-post-war-service-images-videos/page6

It is post #77. This version has the 60 mm HVMS on it. It looks like they converted the Norwegian NM-116.

Interestingly, both the NM116 (with 90mm low pressure gun using HEAT rounds) and the Chilean upgrade using the IMI-OTO 60 mm Hyper Velocity Medium Support (HVMS) gun with APFs-DS-DT rounds offer much the same penetration performance (in excess of double what the original 75mm gun provided).

dy031101 · « **Reply #45 on:** October 21, 2018, 04:51:59 AM »

Idea related to Logan Hartke's Geriatric Army topic- M24 upgraded with Cockerill Mk.3 gun. Sorta partially meant as a market successor to the DEFA F1 gun used on, amongst others, the NM116, the Cockerill Mk.3 not only has a wider variety of ammunitions but also will eventually have an ATGM designed for it.

Granted, in 2010 one would likely need a crystal ball to see that last one coming......

Volkodav · « **Reply #46 on:** October 21, 2018, 09:00:13 AM »

M-24 Chaffee based Tank destroyer with a 57mm Molins gun.

Logan Hartke · « **Reply #47 on:** October 22, 2018, 03:51:21 AM »

Quote from: dy031101 on October 21, 2018, 04:51:59 AM

Idea related to Logan Hartke's Geriatric Army topic- M24 upgraded with Cockerill Mk.3 gun. Sorta partially meant as a market successor to the DEFA F1 gun used on, amongst others, the NM116, the Cockerill Mk.3 not only has a wider variety of ammunitions but also will eventually have an ATGM designed for it.

Granted, in 2010 one would likely need a crystal ball to see that last one coming......

You know, under the rules proposed in the original post over 9(!) years ago...
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,26195.msg383094.html#msg383094
...a whole new group of equipment would become available on January 1st, 2020. Want to start a thread on this forum for the new options that would hit the market?

Cheers,

Logan

Story · « **Reply #48 on:** January 19, 2020, 11:48:26 PM »

How about the French reassembly shop at Dien Bien Phu??

In order to improve the offensive capabilities of the units stationed here, an escadron of M24 Chaffee tanks from the 1st Cavalry Regiment (1er Régiment de Chasseurs á Cheval) was transferred here as well. Transporting them to the base however proved to be quite an undertaking and a serious issue. Dien Bien Phu was located 350km from Hanoi and could be supplied only by air. The French Air Force was operating the C-47 Skytrain and C-119 Packet, piloted by American volunteers – both relatively small aircraft, capable of transporting trucks, 105mm howitzers and men, but the 18 ton Chaffee was too heavy for them to carry. That’s why it was necessery to actually dismantle the tanks and transport them in pieces.

The tanks, transferred to Dien Bien Phu, were dismantled at the Gia Lam base in Hanoi by the men of the 2nd Armor Repair Company of the Foreign Legion (2e Compagnie de Reparations d’Engines Blindés Legion Etrangére), who managed to separate them into 180 pieces. In order to transport the largest pieces, the French had to borrow Bristol 170 Freighter planes from Air Vietnam – these were the largest planes, capable of landing at Dien Bien Phu. In the end however, it turned out that even so, the hull of the Chaffee was 150kg heavier than what the Freighter could carry – in order to actually fly over the mountains in the Tonkin region, the plane was stripped of all the unnecessary parts. They made it, but just barely. The operation to transfer the tanks was called Rondelle II and begun on 16.12.1953. In order to get the tanks going as fast as possible, the men of the 2nd ARCFL (reinforced by specialists from 1er Battalion de Réparations du Materiél from Saigon) did set up their shop straight at the Dien Bien Phu air strip. Two days later, first two tanks landed – albeit disassembled – on the Dien Bien Phu strip and their assembly was initiated immediately. Transporting the tanks took until the end of December 1953, for each tank, 2 Freighter trips and 6 C-47 trips were needed.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/06/29/chaffees-at-dien-bien-phu-part-i/

Story · « **Reply #49 on:** December 09, 2021, 11:59:58 PM »

Greek Army stationary position abandoned on the island of Lesvos.
https://www.abandoned.dk/the-forgotten-tanks-of-lesvos/

Story · « **Reply #50 on:** September 19, 2022, 01:20:56 AM »

Notsomuch the tank but the character studies.

Korean soldiers retreating, 1951. Bernard Ullmann, AFP.

Kerick · « **Reply #51 on:** September 19, 2022, 02:07:00 AM »

I would imagine that there are people who would try to salvage that and get it up and running again.

Story · « **Reply #52 on:** September 19, 2022, 04:13:29 PM »

By the body language of the crew on top of the tank, I didn't interpret anything to be wrong with it.

Here's more inspiration.

https://mikesresearch.com/2020/10/25/m24-chaffee-in-combat/

Old Wombat · « **Reply #53 on:** September 19, 2022, 05:41:07 PM »

Certainly not a rout. They all look pretty cool, calm & collected.

The little guy in the centre, possibly an officer or NCO? (He's wearing a 1911/A1 & has binoculars slung around his neck.) looks just about ready to take on the entire NKA all on his lonesome!

Story · « **Reply #54 on:** September 19, 2022, 07:43:52 PM »

Dude on the left with the pile cap looks like he has an LT rank on it.

My guess is the guy with his back to the camera in front of this outfit is a Captain.

Agreed - they look ready to kick some serious ass.

Frank3k · « **Reply #55 on:** September 20, 2022, 12:07:00 AM »

The tank says PHILIPPINES on it, so they may be Filipino soldiers, not Korean.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #56 on:** September 20, 2022, 01:58:40 AM »

Philippine Expeditionary Forces to Korea

The Philippine Expeditionary Force to Korea (PEFTOK): 1950-1955

Story · « **Reply #57 on:** April 06, 2024, 04:08:29 AM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #58 on:** April 06, 2024, 05:57:10 AM »

What the?

Story · « **Reply #59 on:** April 06, 2024, 09:58:03 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on April 06, 2024, 05:57:10 AM

What the?

Some sort of portable test bed device, looks like it's mounted on the back end of some truck from (considering those duelies).

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #60 on:** April 06, 2024, 10:56:38 AM »

The turret on the trailer is not from an M24 Chaffee.

It is actually the turret from a Swedish light tank called the Stridsvagn 74.

Old Wombat · « **Reply #61 on:** April 06, 2024, 09:57:11 PM »

Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on April 06, 2024, 10:56:38 AM

It is actually the turret from a Swedish light tank called the Stridsvagn 74.

That is one of the weirdest tanks I've ever seen! $:-\$

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #62 on:** April 06, 2024, 11:32:58 PM »

Quote from: Old Wombat on April 06, 2024, 09:57:11 PM

Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on April 06, 2024, 10:56:38 AM
It is actually the turret from a Swedish light tank called the Stridsvagn 74.
That is one of the weirdest tanks I've ever seen! $:-\$

Under "Use" at the previously shared Wikipedia link it states:

Quote

Stridsvagn 74 was used in the Swedish Army armoured brigades as a replacement for the cancelled purchase of AMX-13 until it was replaced by strv 103. It was then used in independent corps tank companies, and even later relegated to the infantry support role in assault gun companies before being phased out of service in 1981 (strv 74 V) and 1984 (strv 74 H). The turrets were retained and later used as static gun pillboxes, which were phased out and demolished in the early 2000s.

It is also a very closely related to or is a direct descendant of the Czechoslovak Panzerkampfwagen 38(t), originally known as the ČKD LT vz. 38.

Mig Eater · « **Reply #63 on:** April 11, 2024, 12:08:49 AM »

T77 MGMC with 6 50cal machine guns.

Ding-Hao Hobby produce(d) a kit 1/35 of this spiky little tank, hard to find tho...

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #64 on:** April 11, 2024, 01:52:28 AM »

Got one in the stash...

finsrin · « **Reply #65 on:** April 11, 2024, 02:06:03 AM »

First I known of this - looking nifty.

Kerick · « **Reply #66 on:** April 11, 2024, 02:14:28 AM »

That looks like a whiff already.
With the T number I suppose it never went into production. If it had it probably would have been used in Korea and Vietnam.

Buzzbomb · « **Reply #67 on:** April 11, 2024, 06:07:17 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2024, 01:52:28 AM

Got one in the stash...

Man... your "he who dies with the most unmade kits" stash sale is going to contain some real esoteric subjects ;

Kerick · « **Reply #68 on:** April 11, 2024, 07:43:02 AM »

I wonder how that turret would look on a Sherman hull?

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #69 on:** April 11, 2024, 12:14:39 PM »

Quote from: Kerick on April 11, 2024, 07:43:02 AM

I wonder how that turret would look on a Sherman hull?

Look at the Canadian Skink.


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: M24 Chaffee (Read 29403 times)