Jump to content


Photo

What Do Tanknet's Tankers Think About This Tank Crew?

tank training greek m48a3

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,758 posts

Posted 06 December 2014 - 1658 PM

The cupola mounted .50 introduced in the M48A1 was a nightmare to operate. The M48A5 series opted for a hatch and flex 7.62mm /.50 cal. mount akin to Israeli mods to their M48/60 and I was envious of it. Of course the cupola was a response to the considerable casualties to tank commanders in the Korean War, but the handicaps of the 50 rd box and position of the gun in the cramped cupola could only be termed grotesque. Most of us can remember to this day the few times we were able to fire a 50 rd box, reload with another box and fire that one too, without stoppage or worse.

 

As for the gun shield for the .50, if you need it you probably should be using a different weapon!


Edited by Ken Estes, 06 December 2014 - 1659 PM.

  • 0

#22 John_Ford

John_Ford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 06 December 2014 - 1920 PM

48A5's in Korea had the Israeli (Urden) Cupola with the M2. M60's on the pintle mounts. I wondered why we didn't ditch the M60 Cupola and go with the Israeli cupola on the M60A3's? M2 certainly worked and wasn't so much a pain in the ass to rearm like the M85.
  • 0

#23 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,758 posts

Posted 06 December 2014 - 2006 PM

When we took delivery of our last fleet of M60A1 RISE-Passive-AOS in 1977, Detroit offered the USMC the Israeli hatch configuration, and we could have had it but for the neglect of the USMC liaison officer there, a major with the tank MOS.


  • 0

#24 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,456 posts

Posted 07 December 2014 - 0857 AM

When we took delivery of our last fleet of M60A1 RISE-Passive-AOS in 1977, Detroit offered the USMC the Israeli hatch configuration, and we could have had it but for the neglect of the USMC liaison officer there, a major with the tank MOS.


I presume the US Army Officer in charge of M60 A3 (TTS) program was just as lazy? Or did someone else decide that the cupola was good enough?
  • 0

#25 11E30

11E30

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 08 December 2014 - 1922 PM

Hey Ken, you weren't a major in 77 were you?


  • 0

#26 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,758 posts

Posted 09 December 2014 - 2346 PM

Nah, not until Feb80. My hands are clean...as far as procurement went.


  • 0

#27 John_Ford

John_Ford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 10 December 2014 - 1948 PM

When we took delivery of our last fleet of M60A1 RISE-Passive-AOS in 1977, Detroit offered the USMC the Israeli hatch configuration, and we could have had it but for the neglect of the USMC liaison officer there, a major with the tank MOS.


I presume the US Army Officer in charge of M60 A3 (TTS) program was just as lazy? Or did someone else decide that the cupola was good enough?



I made a comment about stripping the A5 Cupola off and transferring them to the 60A3. Didn't get very far. :(

Edited by John_Ford, 10 December 2014 - 1948 PM.

  • 0

#28 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,456 posts

Posted 10 December 2014 - 2115 PM

When we took delivery of our last fleet of M60A1 RISE-Passive-AOS in 1977, Detroit offered the USMC the Israeli hatch configuration, and we could have had it but for the neglect of the USMC liaison officer there, a major with the tank MOS.

I presume the US Army Officer in charge of M60 A3 (TTS) program was just as lazy? Or did someone else decide that the cupola was good enough?

I made a comment about stripping the A5 Cupola off and transferring them to the 60A3. Didn't get very far. :(

The turkish M60T still has the infamous cupola...


Makes me wonder how compatible the cupola interfaces are between M48 and M60? And what if any changes are needed to put the Urdan hatch there?
  • 0

#29 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,691 posts

Posted 10 December 2014 - 2156 PM

 

The turkish M60T still has the infamous cupola...

Makes me wonder how compatible the cupola interfaces are between M48 and M60? And what if any changes are needed to put the Urdan hatch there?

 

The cupola on the M48 was never satisfactory as it was quite cramped and offered quite limited visibility.  The visibility problem was alleviated by incorporating a riser ring with additional vision blocks, however this made the cupola much too tall.

I don't pretend to know why the M48A5 had it's cupola removed while no M60s did, but with almost 10 years on the M60, I never once felt slighted for having a cupola.  I rather enjoyed having another machine gun which could be fired from under armor with sights comparable to those of the gunner.  On the other hand I found the weapon station on the M1 an utter travesty to compromise.


Edited by DKTanker, 10 December 2014 - 2157 PM.

  • 0

#30 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,655 posts

Posted 11 December 2014 - 1149 AM

48A5's in Korea had the Israeli (Urden) Cupola with the M2. M60's on the pintle mounts. I wondered why we didn't ditch the M60 Cupola and go with the Israeli cupola on the M60A3's? M2 certainly worked and wasn't so much a pain in the ass to rearm like the M85.

 

CMIIW but the Israelis pulled the cupolas off M48s and M60s not due to their difficultiy in using them, but that they relearned the lessons from WWII. that cupolas that require the TC's head above the turret armor have a bad habit of resulting in headless TCs when said 'mini turret' is hit by a tank round.


  • 0

#31 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,393 posts

Posted 11 December 2014 - 1149 AM

A story I heard about the cupola was that the Israeli's didn't like it because a non-penetrating hit to the turret could cause the cupola to sheer off with nasty consequences to the TC.  No idea if this was true or just one of those urban tanker legends that floated around.


  • 0

#32 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,691 posts

Posted 11 December 2014 - 1324 PM

 

CMIIW but the Israelis pulled the cupolas off M48s and M60s not due to their difficultiy in using them, but that they relearned the lessons from WWII. that cupolas that require the TC's head above the turret armor have a bad habit of resulting in headless TCs when said 'mini turret' is hit by a tank round.

 

Though the odds of that happening turns out to have been miniscule.  Years after the 1973 war, the IDF still had M60A1s sporting cupolas.


  • 0

#33 Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo

Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,533 posts

Posted 03 January 2015 - 0733 AM

The interior condition shows these are orphan training tanks, no perm crews, hence minimal upkeep, automotive/ordnance. Note driver's hatch has no lube, must be a strain to operate.

 

I agree. Most Army vehicles (including tanks) I' ve seen are keep spotless. Much better than my own car.... :wacko: . And well greased.


  • 0

#34 rohala

rohala

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 504 posts

Posted 30 November 2017 - 2020 PM

3 years since I made this post there are further comments under this video on youtube. I am translating the negative ones:
 

Commentator #1 says: https://youtu.be/HXeHEUTWqkw?t=294
One picture [is worth] a thousand words [I’m actually not sure what he means]
 

Commentator #2 says: Blimey! Are you shooting with the sights in the down position?????
He adds: Don’t put that on You Tube
He adds: Since you are spending ammo, at least make it worth it

 

US tanks don't use a catcher bolted to the gun mount, instead they allow the spent cartridges to fall to the floor.  That said, this tank was missing the spent cartridge pad that hangs from the turret roof.  This pad absorbs a lot of the energy from the casing that is ejected from the gun and keeps the casing from bouncing around the turret.

Probably related to your comment above:
Commentator #3 says: the basket [the pad you mention?] behind the breach is missing? (…)
Original Video Poster says: There was never such basket in the M48A5. (...)


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: tank, training, greek, m48a3