Jump to content


Photo

Tank Crews


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#41 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,309 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 18 May 2018 - 1003 AM

Of course the armored boxes became a requirement based upon the Israeli experience in 1973, where arty frags knocked out the air induction system i think i'm correct on that?

Could be, quite likely even.


  • 0

#42 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 18 May 2018 - 1135 AM

Any knowledge of problems with NATO's opponent's tanks?


  • 0

#43 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,341 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 19 May 2018 - 0344 AM

Dave, you've reminded me of that flaw with the aluminum air cleaner boxes. I never experienced it because we used the plain M60A1 only a few years from 1974, receiving the RISE/Passive/AOS version off the tail end of the assembly lines in 1977. I was not in the units 73-77 so missed it, but several of my sergeants and mechanics told me about it later. The bad days for us faded after the USMC issue of the M1A1 Common tanks 1990-92, but I was again out of the units and only drove it as a retiree at Knox c.1998.

 

Odd, the video of Nick with the side loader shows that the side loader box was armored. That was on the M103A2, but is the same for the M48A3 and the M60. That's another slip-up from somewhere, [edit to add] that we gave up on the armored box for several years. Who got a promotion for that one?!!!


Edited by Ken Estes, 19 May 2018 - 0423 AM.

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users