Com-Central.net

- Doug_Kibbey

]*C-C bonus's payable in CSA script or Parker Bros. Monopoly Money, except in any form where prohibited by state law, including Tennesseee, should designated recipient be residing permanently, temprarily, or just passing through.

NOW THATS SOME 'FINE PRINT!!!!

But I'd like to be paid in 'Confederate Script' .



Don

Stumped again

Joe D

]*C-C bonus's payable in CSA script or Parker Bros. Monopoly Money, except in any form where prohibited by state law, including Tennesseee, should designated recipient be residing permanently, temprarily, or just passing through.

- Dontos

- Doug_Kibbey

Excellent work Joe, that's why you'll get the big Com-Central/AFV Forum bonus this year!

NOT FAIR!!! FOUL!!!

Don't worry I'll put you in for the bonus also

- Doug_Kibbey

Excellent work Joe, that's why you'll get the big Com-Central/AFV Forum bonus this year!

NOT FAIR!!! FOUL!!!

And when can expect it?? Before Christmas I hope , whatever it may be.


Joe D

Excellent work Joe, that's why you'll get the big Com-Central/AFV Forum bonus this year!*

Hello everyone,

I got to check out this beast in person last week. It is a cobbled up thing using a production M60A2 turret with an upgraded M48A1 Hull, Serial Number 5934, stamped on the right front hull next to where the Headlights were.
Larger Image>ComCentral

This picture shows where someone had covered the turret opening with green tape all along the race ring leading me to believe this hull sat a while without a turret
Larger Image>ComCentral

This box welded to the front is the hydraulic manifold for the M8 Dozer kit installed on M48 tanks.
Larger Image>ComCentral

The lines ran along the top right of the tank hull, not underneath like the M9 kit for the M60. Here are the modified outrigger brackets allowing for the lines.
Larger Image>ComCentral

These are the mounting bosses for the armored cover and lines that ran to the manifold.
Larger Image>ComCentral

The turret on this tank is sorta a Red Herring, I am wondering if this hull was used for some engineer trails using the M8 hydraulics to test some thing else like an early roller system for Vietnam. The cut tow eyes were modified with newer holes blow torched further back, I doubt if the M8 dozer kit would require that.

Larger Image>ComCentral

Who Knows ???


Joe D

Neil,

I really don't know. I believe the A5's were all made at Anniston that's why the "A". I only have references on A5's because they basically are "Wanna-Be" M60's, sharing many features and parts.

Joe D

Joe D, do only A5s have A-numbers?

Neil

Hello everyone,

While I was home this weekend I went through my references to answer how to tell the difference between a former M48A5 hull and the rest. The information below might help a little.

M48A5's with the low profile cupola serial numbers ran from A1001 to A1999 and from A3375 to A3999

M48A5's with the .50 Cal M1 cupola serial numbers ran from A3001 to 3374

To the best of my knowledge the numbers were stamped in the same locations as the M60 series, Left front tow eye and left rear deck. Hopefully I will have some detailed pictures of an M48A5 in the next few days.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't re-stamp it with a different number if it was used for something else but based on how they retained the M60A2 Hull numbers when they rebuilt them to AVLB's you can't rule this out.

Joe D

Well Done

Jeff Lewis

Yesterday there was an unfortunate incident in this discussion thread. It involved two long term members of our group. There has been some discussion about removing the postings involved. I have decided not to do that. Let me explain that first. The problem involved Doug Kibbey, one of the moderators of this group, and Jim Webster, a long time participant. As the issue escalated Doug opened a thread on the problem on the moderators forum. This is a forum that is provided where moderators can ask for help, advice, etc. He backed off from taking an active role and we decided that I would take the lead in deciding what we would do about the thread. I have in the past joked about being 'assistant moderator' Doug has always reminded folks that there is no difference in our responsibilities or powers as moderators. Either of us can address problems, resolve differences or in the most extreme case mete out punishment. Luckily this group has never required that we take extreme measures. In this case Doug and I both decided, almost from the start that I would make the decisions in this case. It should go without saying (but I will say it) No one gets special treatment here, everyone has to play by the same rules. Everyone should know that any concern can be raised with either of us at any time.

Now about the incident. Some people have said it is the worst problem we have ever had in the group. I can remember one or two back on the old board that may have come close but even if this is one of the three worst in the 6+ years I have been here that is bad enough. If you have any question about he incident you can still see it for yourself. All the postings are still there. It has been suggested that we should delete the posts at the core of the problem. I decided not to do that. I decided not to delete the posts because even in the middle of the problem there were some interesting points made that bore on our core topics. If I had left them and deleted others some wouldn't have made sense and there would have been comments about why I deleted some and not others. Also I am against editing posts except in the most extreme situations. I have edited one post because I thought it touched on operational details that shouldn't be readily available. In that case I PM'ed the person and explained why. While I am leaving the posts of September 5 in place I do not want anyone now or in the future to get the idea that posts like these are encouraged or considered proper discourse. Do not mistake tolerance for acceptance and approval. As far as I am concerned the incident is closed. I am not locking the thread. I find the topic of the Frankentank interesting on several levels including a few that we have barely touched. But I do not see any reason to further discuss the messages of September 5.

I hope Jim reconsiders and comes back. I have enjoyed most of his posts over time and found many thought provoking. He has a unique personality, as we all do. That in itself is one of the things I enjoy here I never know when I stop in whether I'm going to experience a spew alert, a serious thought provoking discussion about a technical detail that expands my knowledge, or someone's pictures from a visit to a site that I will never get to see in person. What I don't expect and will attempt to stop are personal attacks or vicious language.

If you have comments please send them as PM's or via email. My email address isn't a secret, I put it on every post

As I said yesterday afternoon, and the group has already begun to do, lets get back to talking tanks

Bob Smart

Roy,

Yes, you can get some really good info on a tank that way. The M60 we looked at the ADA museum is a great case in point. No way I could tell for sure it was a later complete rebuild without looking into the driver's compartment. That old girl probably served over 30 years before being let go.

I've decided to check out this Franken-Tank in person. Hopefully in a week or two. I will then post my conclusions. Hopefully when I view Donto's and AJ2's pictures I can avoid this.

Joe D

Hi Folks!

I was wonder if anyone has seen a list of M60A2 turret serial numbers?

Just guessing that the turret numbers started at 001 and when to 540, this turret, serial number 236, should be near the middle of the production run.

If that is any where in the ball park of production, then this turret should have started out mounted on a M60 hull.

That could mean we are looking at a turret that was removed from a M60 hull for conversion to an AVLB carrier.

I am thinking that maybe that box on the front of the hull has NOTHING to do with the A2 turret. (It's to bad no one can get inside to see what if anything is there.) That hull was used for some type of testing which required a hole be cut through the thickest part of the hull. Action that would make that hull un-serviceable for issue or upgrading afterwards. Possible as part of that testing, the standard turret was removed.

Some one had one left over turretless M48A1 hull.
Some one had one left over A2 turret from an ex-M60A2.

Said someone put two and two together to make a static display vehicle.
Said someone then painted M48A5 on the right rear fender! Clearly that someone knows less about M48s than I do.

I don't think it was a A2 turret test vehicle.
My 2 cents,
Sgt, Scouts Out!

P.S.
In that picture of the driver's hatch it looks like it isn't locked down. It would be interesting if it would slide open so some pictures could be taken of the inside to see if that turret had been modified to fit a M48 hull or just chopped off so it would set down on the turret ring.

P.S.S.
Something I learned from Joe_D folks. Check the escape hatch to see if it is there. If not, one can take some pictures of the inside of a tank hull.