Author Topic: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles  (Read 41995 times)

Offline LemonJello

  • MARPAT Master
  • Member number 100...WooHoo!!!
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #60 on: April 29, 2014, 11:09:54 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)

I was just pondering an indigenous modernization program for the M-48s in RAM service.  Take the best of the lot as the US begins to transition to the -60 and bring them to Australia?  Sure, why not? I'd see a SLEP starting with bolt-on armor leading to new composite turrets with upgraded guns (105s, then 120s?).  Internally, engine/drive train modernization as well as communications/fire control/survivability updates that are tailored to the threats/situations the RAM would face can also be integrated.  This way, you'd get a unique, Australian MBT that looks almost nothing like the basic M48, nor any of its other derivatives in service anywhere else in the world.   

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 #61 on: April 30, 2014, 02:27:46 AM »
Something different…a ROC CM-11 (M48H) "Brave Tiger":



This comprises of a up-gunned M48A2 turret mated to an M60A3 hull. 



One can get Hobby Fan M48H Add-on Armor as shown above - see here for an example
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 02:33:54 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2014, 04:17:31 AM »
Couple of pics from a July 1968 AW&ST article on automotive gas turbines.





"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

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 #63 on: April 30, 2014, 04:31:43 AM »
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  ;)

On a purely aesthetic basis.  My favorites are M-47 and the M-48 with T shape muzzle.

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 #64 on: April 30, 2014, 07:16:56 AM »
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  ;)

On a purely aesthetic basis.  My favorites are M-47 and the M-48 with T shape muzzle.

Got a de-barrelled Israeli M-48 that I need to fix one day.  It is perhaps the best build I ever did which is why my psycho adopted brother took such pleasure in wrecking it and then bragging about what he did.  Need a new barrel but more to the point need to match the paint which is the killer.

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 #65 on: April 30, 2014, 08:21:30 AM »
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:

I think that depends very much on where you believe the RAM are going to be operating.  The M48 was more than adequate in Vietnam and quite capable of taking on T55s as was shown in the 1972 offensive.

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 #66 on: April 30, 2014, 08:23:36 AM »
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  ;)

On a purely aesthetic basis.  My favorites are M-47 and the M-48 with T shape muzzle.

Got a de-barrelled Israeli M-48 that I need to fix one day.  It is perhaps the best build I ever did which is why my psycho adopted brother took such pleasure in wrecking it and then bragging about what he did.  Need a new barrel but more to the point need to match the paint which is the killer.

Just say it's got a replacement tube and the paint is brand new and so doesn't match the rest of the vehicle.

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 #67 on: April 30, 2014, 10:09:59 AM »
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  ;)

On a purely aesthetic basis.  My favorites are M-47 and the M-48 with T shape muzzle.

I must admit I like the M47.  It was quite a well shaped turret and looks the part.  Perhaps from watching too many Hollywood Spanish WWII movies?  The T-shaped muzzle brake on the M48 is also a personal favourite.  Perhaps 'cause I watched too many Japanese monster movies as a kid and the Type 61s always had one?

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Most of these are on the first page but there's a few different ones

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7417.0.html
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
My attempt, now damaged Israeli M-48 with a scratch build cupola and now broken MG mount
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 02:17:18 PM by Volkodav »

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
My attempt, now damaged Israeli M-48 with a scratch build cupola and now broken MG mount
So now you have an opportunity to really tart up that M48. 

As for the cupola, keep it simple, if you have an M113 cupola in the spare parts box it will fit.  Other options to consider would be the gunner's turret from the LVTP-7, this is the turret with the single M85 .50" MG and not the UGWS with the M2 .50" BMG and Mk19 40mm GMG.  Other options that are retro would be to look at the early Sherman cupolas from the big hatch Sherman which had both types of cupola.  There was an image in an old Israeli publication showing an M4 Sherman all-around vew cupola mounted on an M48.  This was before the IDF went to the "Urdan" cupola as standard. 
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Online dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Better Ammo For US Medium Tank Grade 90mm Guns?
« Reply #71 on: June 12, 2014, 01:37:18 PM »
90mm GIAT F4, who's APFSDS round is claimed to be able to penetrate the glacis of a baseline T-72 at 2000m.  If that 8.5 tonne armoured car can carry it in it's 2-man turret, I see no reason why the 23.5 ton M-41 couldn't fit it in it's 3-man turret.

This comment, while not directly related to the Pershing and Patton tanks, did get me wondering about one thing:

I've been hearing people putting the US medium tank grade 90mm guns into the same category as the German 88mm L/56 whereas the Russian 100mm gun is seen as being on the same level as the more-powerful 88mm L/71...... and the 100mm gun remained in use all the way up to now despite bigger guns have been exported.  Did the 90mm gun actually have unrealized potential, and if so, would the ammunition technology of the 1980s have been able to keep the gun reasonably useful (the French 90mm F4 gun being the one measuring stick I can find) as an anti-tank weapon?

Or am I still better off going through the trouble of a full-on gun replacement?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 02:02:02 PM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
I've long put the British 17pdr, German 7.5cm L/70, German 8.8cm L/56, and US 90mm M3 guns in roughly the same category for penetration. Obviously, the British 20pdr, German 8.8cm L/71, and American long 90mm (T15-series, for example) would be superior to the shorter guns. So, where do the Soviet 100mm guns fit? Well, for me, somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards the latter group, especially in the postwar years.

Again, though, you have to realize a bunch of things. First of all, comparative tests from the period are terribly flawed, to say nothing of the raw data from the various nations. What counts as a "penetration", what was the Brinell rating of the target armor, etc. That means that most of this is guess work at some point. Also, ammunition quality matters quite a lot, generally US and USSR ammunition in WWII was pretty terrible but got better as the war went on. German and British AP ammunition tended to be of a consistently higher quality than US and Soviet ammunition during much of the war years. There are plenty of exceptions to these, though. For example, Oskar Schindler was famous for producing thousands of rounds for Germany that were of intentionally poor quality.



The Panther's 75mm and the British 17pdr and frighteningly similar guns when you compare them, much long the American M3 90mm and the Tiger I's 88mm gun are very similar to each other. The 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 and QF 17pdr are notable for being the lowest caliber guns in the group by quite a fair margin. They were higher velocity, incredibly accurate, and had amazing penetration. They were also smaller, lighter rounds, so you could reload them faster and carry more of them. The downside? The HE rounds were pathetic and their barrel life was quite short. This isn't just an interesting factoid from the testing grounds, these all translated to actual battlefield trade offs.

The American long 90mm guns were just experimental and never had all the bugs worked out. The postwar guns actually relied heavily on HEAT rounds, so the AP performance was not as important. From what I've read, M48 Pattons with 90mm guns could reliably knock out T-54/55s in combat, but struggled against IS-3s. The fantastic British 105mm L7 did not have that issue and was better in every conceivable way (comparable to the Soviet 115mm).



My personal rule of thumb is that, other than a few outliers like the 57mm ZiS-2, a Soviet gun is generally best compared to the Western gun of slightly lower caliber. That's usually do to a lower velocity and results in being able to carry fewer rounds, being slightly more inaccurate, and taking longer to load. It has the advantage of a shorter development cycle, extended barrel life, and greater HE content.

Everything's a trade-off.

Cheers,

Logan
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 10:42:17 PM by Logan Hartke »

Online dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
From what I've read, M48 Pattons with 90mm guns could reliably knock out T-54/55s in combat, but struggled against IS-3s.

It would seem to me that most M48 Pattons involved in combat beyond those operated by Israel are M48A3, which seems to have a different 90mm gun from those of all Pershing and previous Patton models.

Are they completely different guns using different ammunition or is M48A3's gun just a mere successor of the previous 90mm guns that can fire certain new kinds of rounds (that allows the M48A3 to better deal with T-55 than, say, M47 and M36 in Yugoslav Civil War could?) but are otherwise compatible in terms of ammunition?

As for the French F4 gun, what factors contributed to its suitability as a tank destroyer weapon in the '80s compared to the American 90mm guns?  Would those factors have been applicable to those American guns if there was the will within that time period?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 11:44:58 PM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Yes, I know the US postwar 90mm guns were different than the WWII models, I wasn't trying to imply any different. As to their effectiveness, I'm not sure, I'd have to look it up in my Hunnicutts. From what I remember, though, the WWII M3 90mm had difficulty with T-54/55s frontally, but I've not read of major issues from M48 Pattons in that regard. One other thing to note is that the T-54/55 was actually quite weak from the side and rear aspects. I've come across accounts of M18 Hellcats in the Yugoslavian Civil War knocking out numerous T-54/55s with medium-range shots to the side armor.

As for the postwar French guns, I don't know enough to say for certain, but I'd imagine it was a combination of higher velocity and better ammunition that allowed it to continue to remain effective decades later. I think they used APFSDS, something that the US 90mm guns didn't benefit from in the 40s and 50s.

Cheers,

Logan