Author Topic: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles  (Read 49116 times)

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 #25 on: January 12, 2013, 11:24:23 AM »
AMT 1/72 M48A5 has 5 wheels on box art and 3 on kit.
Tamiya M48A3 has 5 wheels.
Monogram M48A3 has 3 wheels

Offline raafif

  • Is formally accused of doing nasty things to DC-3s...and officially our first whiffing zombie
  • Whiffing Insane
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2013, 11:43:16 AM »
I have a book from 1982 that shows 7 Road Wheels and 5 smaller wheels at the top in addition to the drive "sprocket" at the rear top on a M48A5 (1980).  An M48A2 (1968) and an A3  has the same configuration but only 3 wheels at the top.  Another photo shows an A3 with the same config as the A5 listed above (1970).  A photo on an A1 (1964) shows same config with 5 wheels at the top.  Seems like it was a model/year thing that constantly changed.

It seems to depend on production batch & reworking / upgrading of hulls during the type's lifetime.

Pardon my ignorance for the terminology I used.  I'm not very well versed in armor  :-[

They're called "roundy things"  ;D

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...
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #27 on: January 12, 2013, 11:49:20 AM »
Bill,

The M48 was manufactured with three and five return rollers.  There was a time when you could readily identify the version of the M48 by the return rollers and the type of engine deck.  Rest assured you can have five return rollers or three and it is still an M48 :)

Some further recommended reading on the subject at these links:

Wikipedia - M48 Patton Tank

Chris Connors page on the M48 Patton Tank

Patton Mania - M48 Patton Tank

Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide - M48 Patton Medium Tank

"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

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2013, 12:09:47 PM »
There is the Super Pershing, and there is the M51 Super Sherman......

Somewhere in the what-if verse, there is bound to be a tank that has the best of both......

« Last Edit: November 10, 2013, 12:14:55 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 tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2014, 12:07:53 PM »
Replace the long 90mm with a French 105 and you can even add some applique armour to the turret and hull front to get a pretty believable IDF Super-Duper Pershing.  :)

The M26 turret should take a Brit L7 if you want to go the Pershing-Kal sort of route. Add a later AVDS 1790 engine deck from an M60 and you've got a pretty good 6 day war/ '73 war tank.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2014, 09:37:42 AM »
Replace the long 90mm with a French 105 and you can even add some applique armour to the turret and hull front to get a pretty believable IDF Super-Duper Pershing.  :) 

That IS a French 105mm in the above mental note.  I used the same 105mm/L44 as on the M51 Sherman because the turret ring size being the same.

Unless the gun trunion relocation can be pulled off on this one, too.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 10:30:57 AM 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 tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2014, 10:31:13 AM »
That IS a French 105mm in the above mental note.  I used the same 105mm/L44 as on the M51 Sherman because the turret ring size being the same.

Unless the gun trunion relocation can be pull off on this one, too.
Oops, missed the French muzzle brake on your image! Silly me!  :)

A more considered development effort by the French and Israelis and the fact that the L44 was considerably shorter than the long 90mm on the Super Pershing, would have resulted in a much nicer packaging job for the new gun than the hurried effort on the Super Pershing. The trunnions may have had to be moved forward as in the M51, but the large external equilibrator and slab steel counterweights would have been eliminated and a better internal system developed. It may have required a slab counterweight welded to the aft end of the turret or a turret extension al la the M51 to balance the new gun.

Paul

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2014, 10:40:19 AM »
To consider a what-if M103, I wonder what an upgraded 103 might have looked like if the USMC had kept the 103s in service until the mid 80s and wanted to field the German 120mm gun in advance of the availability of the M1A1. Replace the 103 turret with an M60A3 turret rearmed with the German 120? The overall height would have been less, the frontal area would have been reduced, both resulting in increased survivability. Add the thermal imaging system from the M1A1 perhaps and you have a reasonable interim heavy hitter.

Of course, you could also leave the 103 turret in place and replace the American 120mm with the experimental 140mm gun being developed in the late 70s early 80s.

Paul

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 #33 on: January 06, 2014, 11:11:28 AM »
The actual 120mm M58 tank gun used by the M103 was kinetically more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm gun.  If you gave it advanced fire control and updated ammunition (such as sabot rounds), it could potentially be a better weapon than the Rheinmetall 120mm.  I do absolutely love the idea of an updated M103 with a 140mm gun and either a new turret or ERA.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2014, 12:21:20 PM »
Shorter tube length than the M58 120 and more a compact breech with a larger casing diameter to keep the round length to something an autoloader can stuff into the breech. The turret ends up a lot lower and, perhaps, streamlined resembling the M60A2's except not as severe and the commander doesn't get that wonky cupola/turret but a lower thermal sight similar to the M1.

Turret crew of 2 with a sizable bustle holding ammo. Made with ERA right out of the remanufacturing depots to enhance survivability without investing in Chobham for this interim vehicle.

Paul

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2014, 04:12:57 AM »
The actual 120mm M58 tank gun used by the M103 was kinetically more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm gun.  If you gave it advanced fire control and updated ammunition (such as sabot rounds), it could potentially be a better weapon than the Rheinmetall 120mm.

I'd take it that people wouldn't be too thrilled with a Russian-style autoloader for this one......

How could a 70s-era tank gun autoloader be done right though?
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
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2014, 05:35:55 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.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2014, 12:03:10 PM »
I'd take it that people wouldn't be too thrilled with a Russian-style autoloader for this one......
You mean the kind that stuffs your forearm into the breech? Yeah, no, not thrilled with that one. :)
Quote
How could a 70s-era tank gun autoloader be done right though?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the Russian system, the Ruskies just didn't put the right guards on it and stuffed it into too small a vehcle. The M103 was definitely not "too small a vehicle".

Autoloaders for large calibre weapons were just coming on line in the 60s in the world's navies. Of course those systems were rather large, even for a 103, but a bit of work over the 10 years until our imagined upgrade could easily see a system developed.

Paul

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 #38 on: January 08, 2014, 08:02:49 PM »
The actual 120mm M58 tank gun used by the M103 was kinetically more powerful than the Rheinmetall 120mm gun.  If you gave it advanced fire control and updated ammunition (such as sabot rounds), it could potentially be a better weapon than the Rheinmetall 120mm.

I'd take it that people wouldn't be too thrilled with a Russian-style autoloader for this one......

Nothing wrong with Russian-style autoloaders.  There are a great many myths about Russian autoloaders which were promulgated more to ridicule them than were actually based on facts.  The one about loading the loader's arm is a well-known but false one.  Carousal loaders have problems with safety in case of penetration but they can be fixed if careful attention is paid to isolating individual ammunition lockers and using a pressurised water jacket.

Quote
How could a 70s-era tank gun autoloader be done right though?

There were several attempts at autoloaders in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. In the West, the most successful was more than likely those in the AMX-13 oscillating turrets.  The M103 and the Conqueror heavy tanks had them but they weren't reliable.  Apart from that, there were quite a few experimental vehicles.  In the East, you have the T62, T64 and T72.

It wasn't until modern electronics come along that you see them becoming reliable enough.  The need for them has also increased with the increasing calibre of tank guns.  120mm is about the physical limit for most loaders.  The new proposed and developed but yet to be accepted into service 140mm guns are beyond what most human loaders can reliably load at a sustained rate in the tight confines of turrets.

The French again are leaders in this with their Leclerc MBT, in the West and the Japanese Type 90.   With adopting an autoloader significant advantages flow on in the design of the vehicle, with the armoured volume being decreased considerably (no standing human loader means a smaller turret and hull height).  It also brings disadvantages in the form of one less crew member for other duties, which increases the out-of-battle things the remaining crew have to do.


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 #39 on: January 08, 2014, 11:51:11 PM »
By the way, for anyone wanting to spend 40 min finding out more about the M103, there's a good overview of it with a former M103 tanker.  At about 10 min in on the second video, they talk at length about the loading procedure for the 120mm gun.  That may be of interest to people with this discussion.  The M103 and Conqueror weren't really autoloaders.  They were just assisted.  They do have a series of at least 4 videos on the Conqueror, too.

Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M103 Part 1


Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M103 Part 2


Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M103 Part 3


Cheers,

Logan

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 #40 on: April 25, 2014, 05:26:39 AM »
New Iranian Sabalan tank:






The Sabalan is a rebuilt M47 Patton Main Battle Tank, which Iran has almost 170 in service.

Upgrades includes:

1. 105 mm M68 rifled gun.
2. Add-on composite Armor.
3. A diesel engine.
4. Modern fire control system.
5. Modern communications equipment.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

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 #41 on: April 25, 2014, 05:50:32 AM »
I have to admit, that is an attractive upgrade.

Cheers,

Logan

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 #42 on: April 25, 2014, 10:20:09 AM »
And sensible too compared to a lot of their other super weapons.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2014, 10:24:17 AM »

1. 105 mm M68 rifled gun.
Note no thermal wrap!
Quote
2. Add-on composite Armor.
Sheets of drywall and plaster, perhaps?
Quote
4. Modern fire control system.
Let's say "better" fire control system. With no wrap and no muzzle reference system, it ain't modern. It may be the equivalent of the M60A1 systems in their other tanks.
Quote
5. Modern communications equipment.
Up from a No 11 set to a No 19 wireless?

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 #44 on: April 25, 2014, 10:25:51 AM »
Quote
5. Modern communications equipment.
Up from a No 11 set to a No 19 wireless?

Don't be insulting.  The TC just got an iPhone.

Cheers,

Logan

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!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

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.