Author Topic: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles  (Read 38353 times)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #45 on: April 25, 2014, 10:28:59 AM »
Carousel auto-loaders are generally a bad idea for tanks if you care about the crew at all.  The US was playing with a number of tank auto-loaders throughout that period and the West even got a few that worked.  See the Strv 103 for a good example of that.  I think the gun would have to return to the same position after each shot or you'd have to go with an oscillating turret.  The US played with oscillating turrets in the 50s and 60s and didn't like them, so I'd imagine they wouldn't go with one in the 1970s.  You could definitely do one, though, it's not that impractical.
Just a thought, use a fixed gun in the turret with elevation by differential suspension as on the Strv 103.

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2014, 10:41:46 AM »
M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103,,, my favorite tank family :-*
Can also include M41 and M42 on favorites list.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2014, 04:58:02 AM »
Follow up response to following comment by Old Wombat in Recent Acquisitions re new 1/35 Academy Magach B6 Gal Batash:



Nice - what are for plans for it?


Greg, I'm not 100% sure, I just like the look of it. 8)

May just keep it stock standard, or I may add a few very minor mod's & do it as a RAM tank. I already have a Merkava IV LIC for that purpose & it could fit into a theme of closer ties with Israel, or at least IMI (which is pretty much the same thing).

Possible basis is Australian industry develops something (Don't ask me, I haven't got that far, yet!) that the Israelis would like to use & suggest an information & equipment trade which sees Israel initially supply the RAM with upgrades for their M60's (did I mention that the RAM buys M60's instead of Leo's?) & then an Australian Marine version of the Merkava IV LIC.

Simples! ;)


Well, the M60 was looked at as an alternative to the Leopard 1 by Australia so it wouldn't be too great a stretch to say that the ARA did get M60s (maybe designated M60 (AS1)) instead.  You could then do the Magach B6 Gal Batash as an updated M60 (AS2) as a potentially lower cost alternate to the ARA M1A1s.  Possibly even replace the main gun with a 120mm one similar to the Sabra upgrade?



Paint overall thing in ARA colours and it would look great IMHO.  Hell, if you don't do this I just might! ;)
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 02:29:39 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2014, 06:03:15 AM »
Hmmm, 120mm smooth-bore? Hmmm! :-\

 ;)
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2014, 09:17:23 AM »
Well, the M60 was looked at as an alternative to the Leopard 1 by Australia so it wouldn't be too great a stretch to say that the ARA did get M60s (maybe designated M60 (AS1)) instead. 

The competition as between the Chieftain, the Leopard 1 and the M60.  The Chieftain was eliminated on cost.  The M60 'cause the US couldn't guarantee a single tranche of all 100 vehicles as the US Army had priority at the time as they were re-equipping with them.  It was also more expensive than the Leopard 1.   The Army decided that as it was likely they would end up with several different sub-types which would make training and maintenance more difficult if they bought several different tranches of vehicles, as well as the cost which would make it prohibitive for them to be able to purchase sufficient to equip 1 Armoured Regiment plus a training squadron (shades of the M1 Abrahms purchase), they would pass on it, in favour of the Leopard 1.  The Germans also offered a better deal on Australian industrial involvement - the four AVLB tanks were to have their bridges built in Australia.  The Germans however reneged on that and supplied the AVLBs, with bridges.

The M60 would have been more expensive to operate, it was like most US tanks, notoriously thirsty.  Spares though, would have been less expensive.   It was more heavily armoured than the Leopard 1 but less nimble .  In the original M60, its FCS was quite primitive compared the Leopard AS1.

There are pictures around of the M60 trials vehicle wearing 1 Armoured Regiment's tac signs on the hull glacis.   However, they would have been like the Leopards in plain green, in this case US Army Olive Green for the first decade before they started experimenting with camouflage on them.


Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2014, 08:55:17 PM »
I guess my thinking on the M60 acquisition by the RAM (not the ARA) is that they were willing to trade off on agility & fuel consumption for better protection during landing operations & cheaper spares. Also, during the period of their decision, their focus is on interoperability with US forces in Viet Nam - where they have found themselves short of armour & having to rely on "borrowed"/leased M41's - & perceived "small island" threats in the Asia-Pacific region.

The initial purchase would be of slightly modified M60A1's, called the M60AS. I may take Greg's idea of upgrading to a 120mm gun to plastic, if I buy another kit, or in story form, if I don't - with the upgrades being something along the lines of the M60AS Phase 1 (M60AS/1) & M60AS Phase 2 (M60AS/2).

:icon_music:

Edit PS: The 120mm M60AS/2 upgrade would be a stop-gap whilst the IMI-ADI (Australian Defence Industries) nut out the technicalities re: Israeli-Australian component manufacture for the Merkava IV-AS LIC (called the Monash in Australian service) & would not include full upgrade to the full Magash 7 standard.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2014, 10:09:45 PM by Old Wombat »
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2014, 09:57:55 PM »
Well, the M60 was looked at as an alternative to the Leopard 1 by Australia so it wouldn't be too great a stretch to say that the ARA did get M60s (maybe designated M60 (AS1)) instead. 

The competition as between the Chieftain, the Leopard 1 and the M60.  The Chieftain was eliminated on cost.  The M60 'cause the US couldn't guarantee a single tranche of all 100 vehicles as the US Army had priority at the time as they were re-equipping with them.  It was also more expensive than the Leopard 1.   The Army decided that as it was likely they would end up with several different sub-types which would make training and maintenance more difficult if they bought several different tranches of vehicles, as well as the cost which would make it prohibitive for them to be able to purchase sufficient to equip 1 Armoured Regiment plus a training squadron (shades of the M1 Abrahms purchase), they would pass on it, in favour of the Leopard 1.  The Germans also offered a better deal on Australian industrial involvement - the four AVLB tanks were to have their bridges built in Australia.  The Germans however reneged on that and supplied the AVLBs, with bridges.

The M60 would have been more expensive to operate, it was like most US tanks, notoriously thirsty.  Spares though, would have been less expensive.   It was more heavily armoured than the Leopard 1 but less nimble .  In the original M60, its FCS was quite primitive compared the Leopard AS1.

There are pictures around of the M60 trials vehicle wearing 1 Armoured Regiment's tac signs on the hull glacis.   However, they would have been like the Leopards in plain green, in this case US Army Olive Green for the first decade before they started experimenting with camouflage on them.

I have read a bit on the Leopard vs M-60 trials but only vaguely recall mention of the Chieftain.  I had assumed it had been ruled out due to mobility and reliability concerns due to a personal belief the type had a bad reputation for such.  Subsequent reading has changed that opinion and I am interested in your statement that it was eliminated on cost grounds and wonder if it was actually trialled at all and if it was how it performed.  I am curious as the performance of the Centurion with the RAAC would I imagine have given the Chieftain a leg up in the competition.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2014, 08:52:59 AM »
Early Chieftains had reliability problems and were rather underpowered.  However, by the time the Australian competition came around most of those problems had been eliminated.   It was still a bit underpowered though, even by the Mk.5 but mobility was a secondary consideration compared to protection and firepower in the design.  It was quite expensive and eliminated AIUI from the competition even before the trials stage on that basis.  IIRC two Leopard 1s and two M60s arrived in Australia for trials.  The M60 did quite well but cost and the problems with availability told against it. 

This is all gleaned from the fellow who wrote a historical report to analyse the M1 purchase.  He predicted that the ADF would be using the M1s for training with the idea being that 1 Armd Regt. would be taking over pre-positioned M1s provided by the US Army if it was to deploy overseas.  This all came about because of a very silly and intemperate statement that John Howard made on radio during an interview that the Army might deploy an "armoured brigade group" to Iraq for the invasion in 2003.   Everybody who knew anything all pricked their ears up and said, "What 'armoured brigade group'?"   We'd have been scrabbling to get an armoured battalion group there and if we did, it would have been very much outclassed by the Iraqis and more than likely a liability for the coalition.   After the war was over, Army held that over Howard's head and he gave them the M1s but they didn't purchase sufficient to equip 1 Armd. Regt. and a training squadron in total.  So, it all harked back to the problems with purchasing M60s for the replacement for the Centurions... 

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #53 on: April 29, 2014, 09:05:22 AM »
I guess my thinking on the M60 acquisition by the RAM (not the ARA) is that they were willing to trade off on agility & fuel consumption for better protection during landing operations & cheaper spares. Also, during the period of their decision, their focus is on interoperability with US forces in Viet Nam - where they have found themselves short of armour & having to rely on "borrowed"/leased M41's - & perceived "small island" threats in the Asia-Pacific region.

I'd expect them to get M48a3s then, Guy, if it's during or just after Vietnam.  As already related, the M60s were in high demand for some time.  Only Israel had higher priority than the US Army.  The M48 was actually not a bad tank and did quite well in most of the conflicts it was involved in, when it was handled properly.  The main exception was the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 but that was primarily a problem with inferior Pakistani command, than necessarily the vehicle itself.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #54 on: April 29, 2014, 10:43:25 AM »
Early Chieftains had reliability problems and were rather underpowered.  However, by the time the Australian competition came around most of those problems had been eliminated.   It was still a bit underpowered though, even by the Mk.5 but mobility was a secondary consideration compared to protection and firepower in the design.  It was quite expensive and eliminated AIUI from the competition even before the trials stage on that basis.  IIRC two Leopard 1s and two M60s arrived in Australia for trials.  The M60 did quite well but cost and the problems with availability told against it. 

This is all gleaned from the fellow who wrote a historical report to analyse the M1 purchase.  He predicted that the ADF would be using the M1s for training with the idea being that 1 Armd Regt. would be taking over pre-positioned M1s provided by the US Army if it was to deploy overseas.  This all came about because of a very silly and intemperate statement that John Howard made on radio during an interview that the Army might deploy an "armoured brigade group" to Iraq for the invasion in 2003.   Everybody who knew anything all pricked their ears up and said, "What 'armoured brigade group'?"   We'd have been scrabbling to get an armoured battalion group there and if we did, it would have been very much outclassed by the Iraqis and more than likely a liability for the coalition.   After the war was over, Army held that over Howard's head and he gave them the M1s but they didn't purchase sufficient to equip 1 Armd. Regt. and a training squadron in total.  So, it all harked back to the problems with purchasing M60s for the replacement for the Centurions...

I remember that statement well and coming after the defence cuts and project cancellations of the late 90s was just icing on the cake. 

I have often found that those who believe Australia spends too much on defence honestly believe that we have a defence force approaching the size and capability of the US and that many of those, including politicians change their tune when they discover just how small the ADF is.  It is actually inconceivable to the average person that a nation with Australia's geography doesn't have hundreds of tanks, fighter jets and a couple of aircraft carriers.

An Australia Chieftain or even Challenger I buy would have been great for the 91 Gulf War, as would an M-60 buy to be honest, it would have permitted Australia to actually send a battle group to support allied forces.  Never understood why under our old structure that we didn't attempt to maintain an up to date armoured brigade, they don't really cost that much more than a LI bde while providing significantly more combat power.

To me a CAV (wheeled), able to deploy self supporting combined arms squadrons, formation is a no brainer, as is an actual tank brigade (two tank, one armoured infantry btns) and an air mobile LI brigade with everything else being to fill gaps and provide enabling capabilities, i.e. an APC regiment to lift the LI as required, possibly with a sqn of AAV-7s and another of Vikings / Broncos.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #55 on: April 29, 2014, 11:11:39 AM »
Carousel auto-loaders are generally a bad idea for tanks if you care about the crew at all.  The US was playing with a number of tank auto-loaders throughout that period and the West even got a few that worked.  See the Strv 103 for a good example of that.  I think the gun would have to return to the same position after each shot or you'd have to go with an oscillating turret.  The US played with oscillating turrets in the 50s and 60s and didn't like them, so I'd imagine they wouldn't go with one in the 1970s.  You could definitely do one, though, it's not that impractical.
Just a thought, use a fixed gun in the turret with elevation by differential suspension as on the Strv 103.

This works as long as you're only pointing the gun forwards.  Your ability to depress or elevate the gun to the side on uneven terrain becomes severely compromised when you have to rely on the suspension to do it for you.  It also means that you essentially can't fire on the move, since the suspension can't be relied upon to both propel the tank in one direction and depress or elevate the gun to any target off the centerline.  In that sort of case, why bother with the turret at all?  Then you end up right back at the S-tank.

Early Chieftains had reliability problems and were rather underpowered.  However, by the time the Australian competition came around most of those problems had been eliminated.   It was still a bit underpowered though, even by the Mk.5 but mobility was a secondary consideration compared to protection and firepower in the design.

This statement surprises me, if I'm honest.  I know the Chieftain's reliability and mobility improved considerably over its service life, but I've never read that it was "good".  Everything I've read says that was the vehicle's Achilles' heel right up to the end.  Again, it got much better, but it still wasn't as good as the Leo or M60 according to the accounts I've come across.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #56 on: April 29, 2014, 11:40:36 AM »
Early Chieftains had reliability problems and were rather underpowered.  However, by the time the Australian competition came around most of those problems had been eliminated.   It was still a bit underpowered though, even by the Mk.5 but mobility was a secondary consideration compared to protection and firepower in the design.

This statement surprises me, if I'm honest.  I know the Chieftain's reliability and mobility improved considerably over its service life, but I've never read that it was "good".  Everything I've read says that was the vehicle's Achilles' heel right up to the end.  Again, it got much better, but it still wasn't as good as the Leo or M60 according to the accounts I've come across.

Cheers,

Logan

It's all relative, Logan.  The British army came away from WWII with very different lessons compared to the US and German Armies.   They placed protection as the primary attribute for their tanks.  Firepower came second and mobility last, so the Chieftain suffered for most of it's life from being what appeared to be being underpowered compared to its US and German counterparts.   However, neither of them could really go head-to-head with the enemy in the same way as the Chieftain either.  Towards the end of it's service life, reliability was quite good, by all accounts but it was still a sluggard.  When the Jordanians took over a large slice of the UK Chieftain and Challenger I fleet they upgraded their engines and firecontrol systems.  They even did so to the Chieftains that the Iraqis had captured from the Iranians.   The Iraqi had over a hundred Chieftains in their fleet when Gulf War I rolled around.   A few were encountered by the Allied Coalition but didn't perform well because they were mishandled.

It's just a different approach to the compromises the designers faced.  It's rather like how most Soviet/Russian equipment is misjudged because many Westerners don't understand the reasons why it's designed the way it is.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #57 on: April 29, 2014, 09:37:44 PM »
I guess my thinking on the M60 acquisition by the RAM (not the ARA) is that they were willing to trade off on agility & fuel consumption for better protection during landing operations & cheaper spares. Also, during the period of their decision, their focus is on interoperability with US forces in Viet Nam - where they have found themselves short of armour & having to rely on "borrowed"/leased M41's - & perceived "small island" threats in the Asia-Pacific region.

I'd expect them to get M48a3s then, Guy, if it's during or just after Vietnam.  As already related, the M60s were in high demand for some time.  Only Israel had higher priority than the US Army.  The M48 was actually not a bad tank and did quite well in most of the conflicts it was involved in, when it was handled properly.  The main exception was the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 but that was primarily a problem with inferior Pakistani command, than necessarily the vehicle itself.

I'd suggest they were thinking longer-term for the major purchase of the M60's, possibly with a small number of M48's leased/lend-leased in-country in Viet Nam, later, to bolster the M41's. The overall RAM purchase wouldn't have been as large as an army one, either.

OK, so the RAN probably would have balked at the cost & the delay in receiving them may have been an issue ...

... but this is Whif World, after all, so a little bit of leeway shouldn't be too much to ask. ;)
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #58 on: April 29, 2014, 10:15:56 PM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #59 on: April 29, 2014, 10:51:17 PM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

Yes, I like the look of the M48, too (especially the A3), but, in comparison to the M60, the M48 was poorly armoured & under-gunned. :icon_crap:

Besides, the Israeli modifications are pretty cool! 8)
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."