Com-Central.net

[img][/img][img][/img][img][/img][img][/img][img][/img][img][/img][img][/img]
Here are the M53 Howitzer pics. The serial number is 197, which you can see in the data plates, (maybe). Ugly paint scheme, not sure what its suppossed to look like, (maybe Marine?) but ugly. I could find no stampings on the outside of the vehicle, and the paint did not appear thick to hide the numbers. Your other requests will be coming shortly. I hope this helps. BTW, I thought "M53" was wrong but thats the nomenclature given on the tour map.

Its an M53 155mm "gun" not howitzer, and she a later production, you tell this by the "steering yoke", first production had an god awful "wobble stick" that you could shift into revers by accident with when you hit a bump. This is a rare M53, it has the complete rammer, rammer head and chain, if you trip the rammer without a projo in the tray the head and drive chain will travel right out the gun barrel and drop out the muzzle..and it is "heavy".

I went off what the museum "map sheet" told me. Tell me more about this vehicle. I have the curators name and I'll inform him, (set him straight) as to what he has.

The driver was in the turret? Wonder how all the linkages connected to the power plant?

Cool!

I saw one of those in an episode of 'Combat' ... knew it was the wrong era for that vehicle!

Technicaly it was called a cab, although the cab didn't rotate 360 deg. there was a hydraulically/flexcable linked throttle, brakes, steering, and shifting. Get a hyd leak and you had no throttle you just sit there and idle.
Other than the main gun the only differance is there was a shell hoist that ran on a track on the cab roof. Both vehicles used the same power pack (engine-trans), they shared it with the M48 tanks, true the power pack sits reversed postion from the tanks, the M53 and 55 had a bull gear in the finale-driver that reversed the output direction.

- SFC_Jeff_Button

I went off what the museum "map sheet" told me. Tell me more about this vehicle. I have the curators name and I'll inform him, (set him straight) as to what he has.

Its a common error. Even I tend to fall back on thinking any modern-era self-propelled artillery piece must be a howitzer and not a gun. But the M53 was self-propelled gun.

Oldtop, help us understand, this doesnt mean the M53 was intended for direct fire right??? If not why wasnt it a howitzer?....

Jeff, you can find some info on the M53 here:
afvdb.50megs.com/usa/1...pgm53.html

Oh and yes, the Marine Corps did use M53s as mentioned in the above link.

Neil

BTW, here is the T97 prototype the M53 was based on (at APG of course).



I am told its registration number is 40228647.

Neil

'Oldtop, help us understand, this doesnt mean the M53 was intended for direct fire right??? If not why wasnt it a howitzer?.... '

Well I'm not oldtop but I can give this one a shot

In the aftermath of WWI the U.S. Army convened the Westervelt Board (also called the Caliber Board) to study the conglomeration of artillery weapons that were in the system and develop policy for the future. One of the major results was the development of theoretical families of artillery pieces each consisting of a high velocity gun and a howitzer that would share a common mount and recoil system. The mixture of guns and howitzers was to provide a mix of long range high velocity capability (guns) with a shorter range but heaver shell capability of hhowitzers.

in a previos post in the 240mm thread I listed the members of the various families that were actually developed the families were termed light (75mm gun/105mm howitzer), Medium (120mm gun/155mm howitzer), Heavy (155mm gun/8" howizer), and Very Heavy (8" gun/240mm howitzer). I think it would be a surmize to project a Superr Heavy (240mm gun/280mm howitzer) family into the mix but it may be that the board did include them

In most cases the boards findings were used to guide development through the low budget era of the 1920s & 30s but when the pre WWII buildup began there were several designs ready to be fully developed and put into production.

The Self propelled artillery guns were initially modifications of the standard towed guns (look inside an M-7 Priest and you can almost see a 105 complete with trails welded into place.) The M53/M55 were just a cold war progression from the M-40 SP 'Long Tom'. To be usable in a nuclear contaminated environment a fully enclosed 'gun house' was adopted and a recoil and mounting system more compatable with such a mount (instead of the two 'horns and large hydraulic cylinders of tehtowed 155/8") was developed

Neil - you've got pictures of the M55 on the new mile of tanks don't you?

The M53 was one of the loudest guns I ever heard, my plt (Ontos) lived right next door to one at Hue in Nam, the Marine hung on to them long after they did away with the M55 8" Howitzer which was replaced by the M110 8". because it was a "gun" it had range on the 8" Howitzer. The problem was that there was a shotage of parts and all the Corps tanks were diesel. By time Nam came there were only two heavy tracker vehicles that used the 1790 gaser engines in the Corps, the LVT P-5 family and the M53 SPs....Now the Marine corps has never been really big on supply support on any of it's tracked vehicles (when both the Army and the Corps went to Iraq there were only 87 engine replacements for all the M1s being used and none in reserve..anywhere! this is for both service.

- oldtop

....Now the Marine corps has never been really big on supply support on any of it's tracked vehicles (when both the Army and the Corps went to Iraq there were only 87 engine replacements for all the M1s being used and none in reserve..anywhere! this is for both service.

Spare parts are expensive, and they get old. Then they get used up and more need to be bought. All so troubling. Someone needs to be paid to count them and to do the inspections. If there is one line item in the budget that is vulnerable, it is the one to buy spare parts. It is just so much neater and tidier to look the other way, and order from the plant when you need one.

I was on a rifle range one day (and this is not about shooting either), with an Air Force suppy Corporal who was the "keeper" of a whole fleet of mothballed CF-5 jets. They had to keep so many in preservation, so many in inspection stages, and a few flyable. Whenever some 3rd World air force wanted to kick the tires, there was one to take for a spin. The Cpl had a 500-series Air Force maintainer Warrant Officer, who had a Captain, who had a Lieutenant Colonel, but the lowest guy seemed to like the job the most.

- bsmart

Neil - you've got pictures of the M55 on the new mile of tanks don't you?

Sure, here is "Tiny Tim.





Neil

Very nice looking M55...very nice

Spare parts are purchased on contracts, the type, ammount of said support parts, these are to be in place before the equippment is put in service, they have a manufactors shelf life warranty,. Usage data is used to determine the ammount and type to be placed on contracted, however if this is a new first time uses "end item" (end item are the planes, trucks, tanks, engines, trans..etc) then test data is used (test data is ALWAYS wrong) for the Marine Corps they always short change the end items, the M50 selfpropelled recoiless rifle "pig" or Ontos was put in-service with a short supply support list and the M50A1 with even a worse (worser) support , total parts support for a 5 vehicle Ontos plt with 22 months in-country operations was eight (8) used sparkplugs! The replacement time for engines for M60A1s in 1974 was one year or more, I had 3 M60A1s that didn't ever get engines till they were shipped out for rebuild (the only way we could get engines was to "code out" tanks and order new ones with engines) But the system caught on and closed that loophole on us also.. "remember the equippment you uses was built by the "lowest bidder"! I had M109s in my arty unit that we'er past their in service time and milage but I couldn't get replacements because the Corps couldn't make up its mind if they were going to keep them...But they still demanded I keep the guns (18 ) operational even if there were no resources in the system, I was begging from the Army and NG.