Com-Central.net

I've got photos of that T95 from the LST building. I took them back in November.

Sorry about the picture size guys. This board doesnt allow HMTL code like the old one did

I guess I'll have to resize in photobucket in the future...

Neil

- Neil_Baumgardner

- SFC_Jeff_Button

What is the tan tank? It sure looks as if its sitting funny as well, whats with that? Thanks for the pictures. I was aware of the M48C's, there were 120 built if I'm not mistaken.

This particular one is most likely 9B2030 fitted with an M60E2 turret and a friction/hydropneumatic variable height suspension.
Neil

Neil,
The only bit I'd even deign to question is the M60A1E2 turret...my impression was that the M60A2 design was the only one that moved the fighting compartment ventilator to the turret rear, as this one appears to have. Now I gotta' do my research and see if some A1E2's had it back there as well.

There is no truth to the rumor that these were the genesis of the "lo rider".

- SFC_Jeff_Button

What is the tan tank? It sure looks as if its sitting funny as well, whats with that? Thanks for the pictures. I was aware of the M48C's, there were 120 built if I'm not mistaken.

Its a T95 tank prototype from the 1960s.

This particular one is most likely 9B2030 fitted with an M60E2 turret and a friction/hydropneumatic variable height suspension. It was first intended to be an AVLB (the first T118 AVLB pilots were based on the T95 chassis), then fitted with an M48 turret and the variable height suspension, and latter with an M60E2 turret...

A 1999 article in the Journal of Military Ordnance indicated that only one T95 (another one) was fitted with an M60E2 turret, but the five large roadwheels on a variable height suspension system clearly identifies it as 9B2030. The article has a 1965 photo of 9B2030 on display at Fort Knox, with an M48 turret. The roadwheels, suspension system, and forward hull all match exactly. Unless another chassis was fitted with this particular suspension, which isnt indicated by any source...

This type of suspension has five roadwheels individually sprung by hydraulic rotary actuators and & gas springs (accumulators). Shock absorbers controlled pitch and bounce.

There were two other types of variable height suspension system on the T95s. Chassis No. 2 (9B1050), Chassis No. 9 (9B1046), and one former T118 pilot (9B2027) were equipped with a variable height suspension system that is virtually indistinguishable from a normal T95 suspension system (with five roadwheels) - unless it is in a lowered position.

The final type has six roadwheels and three return rollers - Chassis No. 6 (9B1051) with the other M60E2 turret. Which appears to be the one in the Patton Museum collection, its in the LST Building:



Another pic.



And just to put this info on the new board:

From the article "An Idea Too Early for Its Time: The US Army T95 Medium/Heavy Tank Series" by David R. Haugh and Michael Duplessis in the November 1999 issue of the Journal of Military Ordnance and Hunnicutt's Abrams:

9B1043: First pilot T95, sent to APG, later converted to a T95E8 - chassis no. 4
9B1044: Second pilot T95, sent to Knox, later converted to a T95E8 - chassis no 7
9B1045: Third pilot T95, as four vanilla T95s were built - chassis no 8
9B1046: Fourth pilot T95, Retained at Detroit, later fitted with variable height suspension and Integrated Fighting Compartment turret - chassis no 9
9B1047: T95E1 pilot, sent to APG, later fitted with M48A2 turret - chassis no. 5. May be the one at Wierton, WV.
9B1048: First pilot T95E2 (M48 turret), sent to APG, later converted to a T95E5 - chassis no. 1
9B1049: Second pilot T95E2 (M48 turret), sent to Knox - chassis no. 3, Could be the one at Fort McCoy, WI.
9B1050: First pilot T95E3, sent to Yuma, later converted to a T95E8 and then fitted with a variable height suspension, now range target at Camp Grayling, MI? - aka chassis no. 2
9B1051: Second pilot T95E3, sent to Knox, later converted to a T95E8 and then fitted with a variable height suspension and M60E2 turret - chassis no. 6. Most likely the one at Fort Knox.
9B1052: T95E8, later fitted with an Integrated Fighting Compartment turret armed with a 120mm Delta gun
9B1053: T95E8
9B1054: T95E8
9B1055: T95E8
9B2027: T118 Combat Engineer Vehicle variant, later fitted with a variable height suspension and M48 turret.
9B2028: T118 CEV
9B2029: T118 CEV
9B2030: T95 built for, but not fitted with AVLB. Later fitted with a friction/hydropneumatic variable height suspension and M48 turret at APG. Apparently later fitted with M60E2 turret.

The number of T95E8s is confusing & contradictory. The JMO article says four were "converted" from earlier models, and a "further four" were "remanufactured." Meanwhile, Hunnicutt says no more than eleven total T95 hulls of all types (not including T118s) were built...

That should leave:

1 vanilla T95 (9B1045)
2 T95s with M48 turrets (T95E1 9B1047 & T95E2 9B1049) - 9B1047 may be the one at Wierton, WV. 9B1049 could be the one at Fort McCoy, WI.
1 T95/former T118 with an M48 turret and variable height suspension (9B2027)
1 T95 with an Integrated Fighting Compartment turret and variable height suspension (9B1046)
1 T95E5 with an M48 turret and a 105mm gun (9B1048)
1 T95E8 with an Integrated Fighting Compartment turret and 120mm Delta gun (9B1052)
2-5 other T95E8s with "various turrets" (9B1043, 9B1044, 9B1053, 9B1054, 9B1055)
1 stripped down T95E8 with variable height suspension at Camp Grayling (9B1050)
1 T95'E13' with mockup M60E2 turret and variable height suspension (9B1051) at Fort Knox.
1 T95 with an M60E2 turret and friction/hydropneumatic variable height suspension (9B2030)
2 T118 CEVs (9B2028 & 9B2029)

Additionally, two T95E6 pilot hulls (chassis no. 10 & 11) were completed with siliceous-core armor. However the T95E6 project was cancelled before turrets were fitted.

Neil

- bsmart

Question for you M-60 experts out there.

In the picture I posted of the M-60 in Thurmont MD look at the front tow lugs. Is the dual 'eye' configuration standard?

That just caught my eye and I'm at work and don't have access to Hunnicutt to look at other pictures

Bob,
Dual "eyes" are standard, or came to be. All the M60A3's I took pics of in Brasil are just like that one. I believe one set of holes is for the tow-bar, the other for cables and other purposes. Our A1 "mules" at the Board had 'em too. I have pics of both.
Doug

Question for you M-60 experts out there.

In the picture I posted of the M-60 in Thurmont MD look at the front tow lugs. Is the dual 'eye' configuration standard?

That just caught my eye and I'm at work and don't have access to Hunnicutt to look at other pictures

I thought it looked like an M60A2 turret but that funky chassis really threw me so I wasn't sure. I thought maybe Ontos would know. I hope one of these guys will "enlighten" me.

- SFC_Jeff_Button

What is the tan tank? It sure looks as if its sitting funny as well, whats with that? Thanks for the pictures. I was aware of the M48C's, there were 120 built if I'm not mistaken.

M60A2 turret on some trick hydropneumatic suspensioned hull...purely experimental...I forget the designation exactly...bet 'Weed knows.

What is the tan tank? It sure looks as if its sitting funny as well, whats with that? Thanks for the pictures. I was aware of the M48C's, there were 120 built if I'm not mistaken.

For the M60s - I remember hearing about some of these with the welded "Training Only" or "Non-ballistic". I was also told once that these were ex-prototype vehicles, the mild steel was used as it was easier to work on than hardened armor.

Some early M48s had major problems with the quality of the hull castings. These were classed as M48C and were to be used for training only. Sort of re-cycling your mistakes.

Gary Binder

"You dont have a full shot of this tank do you?"



These were taken a few years ago. I need to run by there and see if anything has changed

That may have been me raising that question but it was about 2 months ago. I was researching an M48 here at Ft Irwin that I thought might be for training purposes only. It was not, and I was told of tanks like this one but this is the first one I've ever laid eyes on. You dont have a full shot of this tank do you?

A week or so ago (maybe longer) someone asked about markings on tanks indicating non ballistic armor.

This is a picture of the markings on a glacias plate on an M-60 in front of anAmVets post in Thurmont MD. When I first brought this up a few years ago someone here suggested that this tank may have had an internal fire which could have weakened the armor and these markings were meant to make sure it wasn't issued to an operational role. The faded out registration number on the hull side is 9B3096

(Now I'll see if I can link the picture from photobucket)