±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: Robski
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6641

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 108
Total: 108
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Home
03: CPGlang
04: Photo Gallery
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: CPGlang
08: Photo Gallery
09: Community Forums
10: News
11: Community Forums
12: Member Screenshots
13: Your Account
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: CPGlang
22: Statistics
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Photo Gallery
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Your Account
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Photo Gallery
38: Photo Gallery
39: Downloads
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Downloads
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Photo Gallery
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: CPGlang
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Photo Gallery
58: Community Forums
59: Photo Gallery
60: Home
61: Photo Gallery
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Downloads
66: Downloads
67: Photo Gallery
68: Community Forums
69: Home
70: Community Forums
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Home
76: CPGlang
77: Community Forums
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Photo Gallery
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Photo Gallery
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Home
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Photo Gallery
92: Photo Gallery
93: Photo Gallery
94: Community Forums
95: CPGlang
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: CPGlang
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Photo Gallery
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Downloads

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
T95 / T96 rehash
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:14 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Neil

Try this one, I just amended from 2 documents:



My head is beginning to hurt. Wink

ah, but I do so love a challange....

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3941
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:21 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

You might want to add columns for current location and serial number (since we have at least 2).

To make sure I have this straight, are you suggesting that chassis 4, 7, 8 & 9 were given new RNs after conversion?

FWIW, I'd avoiding double-listing individual vehicles... Perhaps include an "original RN" and "new RN" (where applicable) columns?

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2050
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:28 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Don,

I always believed the T95 can be traced as the root to the modern FCS in the M1 if your really dig deep. Even OPTAR, the pre-curser to the laser range finder is linked in with it. Truth be said, most of what the M1 is, was developed long before the GM Chrysler showdown ever happened with the MBT70, M60A2, and T95 series. The decision to go with who made the tank was mostly political, since the Army would tell who ever got the contract what they really wanted once congress gave approval.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:28 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

- Neil_Baumgardner
You might want to add columns for current location and serial number (since we have at least 2).

To make sure I have this straight, are you suggesting that chassis 4, 7, 8 & 9 were given new RNs after conversion?

FWIW, I'd avoiding double-listing individual vehicles... Perhaps include an "original RN" and "new RN" (where applicable) columns?

Neil


I'm working on some earlier dated material, which I'll add columns for each to keep the confusion to a minimum. All my notes, are from documents. Stuff seems to be bouncing around, but this will clear once I can organize it. (hopefully...!!)

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
JG300-Ascout
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 05, 2005
Posts: 6255
Location: Cyberspace
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:29 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

- Dontos
- JG300-Ascout

To say nothing of the hulls, apparent from the front glacis.

Why is the gun tube so short with bore evacuators placed proportionately? Was there to be a demo variant?


The turret has the XM81, 152mm gun system. I believe it is the development 'chain' to the M60A2 turret system.

T95 (test rig) in the LST is THAT configuration. Trying to dig up stuff on it.

Don


I thought as much, but didn't see it on the "chart". Thought I recognized it. Wink

Doesn't the one from the LST building have an M60A1E2/A2 turret on it, though? Just an extension of the program?

_________________
"All facts go to clearly prove that Shades is a thrice-cursed traitor & mentally deranged person steeped in inveterate enmity toward mankind"
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:37 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Here is another flow chart (if you can read the 'chicken scratch')



Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:02 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Neil

I'm looking at a Sept 1957 note of future chassis deliveries for the project. It includes additional 'NEW' chassis #s:

# 10 Nov 1957
# 11 Dec 1957
# 12 Jan 1958

its quoting 'Pre-Production Pilots of M48A2/T95' (gotta dig this one up & hope it'll be able to give some indepth info.)

Why do I do this to myself...?? (You could have warned me.... Wink

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3941
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:09 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Ummm... How many times have I mentioned before that the T95 series seems very hard to discern? Wink

Thanks though!

Again, keep an eye for any reference to serial numbers... I'm not convinced they're the same thing as chassis numbers...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:34 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

- Neil_Baumgardner
Ummm... How many times have I mentioned before that the T95 series seems very hard to discern? Wink

Thanks though!

Again, keep an eye for any reference to serial numbers... I'm not convinced they're the same thing as chassis numbers...

Neil


I think that Chassis # is the SN for these prototypes. BUT,....the confusion partially stems from annotations of turret #'s. I'm seeing such references, and initially mistook it for chassis #'s. The fact that the chassis #'s don't seem to match any sequential order for the RN's is confusing though. (luckily the chassis #'s are welded on the hull, not just stamped on the tow eyelets)

So far chassis #'s are matching up with RN's, even thru some of the upgrade rebuilds, but there are some serious 'gray' areas.

I'm on the uphill climb on a learning curve. (just wish it wouldn't 'zig-zag' sooo much...!!)

Time for bed,....I have a headache.

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3941
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:07 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Don,
Big problem with chassis #s vs serial #s. Take the Knox LST T95. From what I remember there's photo evidence (I'll need to recheck the JMO article) that its 9B1051 Chassis #6 - but it has SN 8 under the front hull.

We've already been down the chassis # vs serial # path on these before and decided there wasnt an obvious correlation... Unfortunately...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2522
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:50 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Actually from my pictures of the Weirton T95 it appears that the serial number is cast into the hull. Now whether we are calling that the Chassis number or the Serial number is open for discussion (and whether it is the vehicle serial number or the Hull casting serial number) but the number under the front of the hull is labeled SER NO

Maybe we need to step back and confirm what information we have on each known vehicle and the source for the information. I have a fear that some of the information that we believe has been cross checked is subject to circular references.

I've always found it annoying that the army has two different tracking numbers for each vehicle (RN and SN) and isn't consistent in how it marks and with how much permanancy that marking has. Why the RN isn't recorded permanently on each vehicle Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad is beyond me. It is almost like they want the system to be confusing so that individual vehicles can't be tracked.

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2050
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:23 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Hey everyone,

Food for thought,

1, Those cast SER-NO does not mean serial number, but series number by the outfit who cast the steel. Case in point is the recently posted Ash Flat AR M47 and the use of it for the SN.

2, The Army assigns Registration Numbers only, and depending on what year the tank was made determines what system it used. A big old mess is what it is with M60's since they stayed in production so long.

3, Serial Numbers are assigned by the manufacturer. In my opinion the best way to track a tank. Since it transcends branches of the Military (Army and Marines) and Countries, and BTW, are hull generated, even though turrets data plates usually match the hull.

As far as the T95 goes, I went over the example at Fort McCoy when up there and could not find any stamping for a SN anywhere, if there was one it has long since been painted over or wore off where ever it is. The cast mark on the hull is SER-12, and the M48 turret is SER-29. Manufacturer is American Steel Foundries, East Chicago Indiana Works. If you could locate a -10 or -20 of the T95 maybe it shows the external SN or RN location in the Stowage and Sign Guide section. Most manuals back then did.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3941
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:28 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Joe D,
Good points, many thanks. Because the T95s are SOO different, and it was the only "serial number" we could find, I thought that perhaps these cast numbers were indeed the actual SNs.

Don, do you have access to these -10 or -20s?

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2522
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:27 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Thanks Joe

but about the RNs I know on M60s we often find them stamped on the bow near the headlight but in general on most vehicles I think they are just painted/decaled on and disappear when the vehicle gets repainted

And some vehicles don't seem to have any permanent external marking. I can see that on a test vehicle like the T95 but on M114s or M48s.

I guess I'm used to aircraft where each one was known by a 'tail number' which was created when the aircraft was ordered and followed it in all records and marked in expected places on the airplane.

Would there be -10s or -20s on T series vehicles or would those only be produced when a vehicle was standardised as an M series?

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2050
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:34 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Bob,

Another good example of not having an external SN stamping are the M42 "Dusters", unless you count the plates found welded on the rear.

The PV M1's are also not stamped with any external numbers IIRC. Leads to much confusion there too.

There should be some TM's for the T95 series and they should be written just like the standard ones for the Tanks of that period. Just like there were TM's for the M60A1E1/A1E2 and MBT-70/XM803, the former eventually being type classified M60A2. I would imagine some archive should have them, either Knox or Aberdeen. Manufacturers generally destroy/dump stuff like that if the system isn't purchased, and besides, since the development is usually taxpayer funded it tends to be turned over to the military and belongs to Uncle Sam.

Don, better get your "Indiana Jones" hat on and start researching the "Catacombs" of Fort Knox Wink .

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 2 of 3
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum