Com-Central.net

M60A0







2S3







M110



T-34/85







Neil

This T-34/85 is a typical example of vehicle built in former Czechoslovakia under Soviet license... See the Notek light on the front left hull...

I would say the spare track links are not original ones - these are T-54/55 I guess.

Niiice pictures (in all posts, certainly), THANKS for them!

LOL... The volunteer I talked to started into this discussion of whether there really were any new-build Czechoslovak T-34s or whether they were all just rebuilds... I of course had no idea...

Neil

Hope I am not mistaken, location of "usual" light and horn, "envelope bulge" on the left side of turret, front part of fenders with hinges, above mentioned Notek light and "infantry horn" (poor Infantry Telephone equivalent) on left rear of side armour plate are typical features of Czechoslovak built T-34/85s... We could read more from interior...
I had a chance of T-34 driving - I can not forget...

Palic, the discussion was whether there were ANY new build T-34s, or whether they were all just rebuilds of Soviet built T-34s... <shrug>

Neil

Yep, I can understand. I will have to dig some numbers - we were producing and exporting them to ... (will have to dig the list of recipients).

License agreement signed in 1949, first vehicles were completed in 1951 – only some of these were built from imported parts…
First really „Czech(oslovak) made“ T-34/85 were completed in 1952. Tanks were produced in ?KD Sokolovo factory (Prague) and later in J.V.Stalin factory (Martin)…
Between 1951 – 1958 3185 T-34/85 (gun) tanks were completed from parts made in Czechoslovak factories…
126 MT-34 (bridgelayer), 641 SU-100 (SPG), 285 VT-34 (recovery) and 150 JT-34 (crane tank) were produced too…
Czechoslovak T-34/85 were exported to: Egypt (820 vehicles), Syria (120 vehicles), Romania (310 vehicles), Bulgaria (120 vehicles)… Certain number of surplus Czechoslovak-built T-34/85 were exported to India, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Cuba and (probably) to Mali.

The dummies are quite ugly.. sorry to say that..
But this museum has very nice vehicles.

Thanks Neil for the pictures

P-O

Neil,

you sure have been busy, thanks heaps for sharing.

You know, I still cringe when I see that M60A0 bit, Uncle Sam gave us such a nice system to work with and if it was good enough for him... Remember? M60, M60A1, M60A2, M60A3- instead of inventing the A0, people should have stuck to using the real designations and not just calling them "M60s".

But I digress... While we are "Aing", make that M110 an M110A2, Uncle Sam has provided a fine system in this case as well.



Jens O.

Hi Jens! Hi Folks!

- Jens_O_Mehner

You know, I still cringe when I see that M60A0 bit, Uncle Sam gave us such a nice system to work with and if it was good enough for him...
Remember? M60, M60A1, M60A2, M60A3- instead of inventing the A0, people should have stuck to using the real designations and not just calling them "M60s".

Sorry Jens! Use of the M60A0 term is mostly my fault. I have always had problems with the lack of a designation for the orignial version of a family of vehicles. Many times is very hard to understand if someone is talking about the orignial version of the family. The M4(A0) Sherman being my number one problem over the years. Many times over the years, I have not be able to understand if a writer was talking about the radial engine version of the Sherman or the family.

During it's service, after the M60A1s and M60A2s were fielded, the tankers started using terms like "Slick 60" and "Turtle" so others would know they were talking about the M60A0 version and not the family. Clearly M60 wasn't good enough for the folks who had to operate them along side the M60A1s and M60A2s.

As for Uncle Sam, even he has started to understand that there was a problem and the use of the designater "A0" was picked up and is now used to I.D. the original M2/M3 Bradley vehicles that are being reused for other fuctions. I didn't invent the term, I got the idea of using "A0" from Uncle Sam because it fixed my problem with which version of a family of vehicles we are talking about.

The term "A0" is an extendtion of and in line with the orginal desination system. Without it, sometime in the future, we would possible see something like a model company or even a museum calling the M60A0 the "M60 Slick 60" or "M60 Turtle". You say a museum would never do such a thing? Don't forgot that famous "M36 Slugger" that sat on the mile of tanks at APGs for many years.

Sorry for causing you to cringe Jens but I think it a case of US CIA members starting something that is more in line with the real system rather that wait for someone else to do something that is total out of place. For example the G..... vehicle which is slowing making headway acrossed the history spectrum.

My 2 cents,
Sgt, Scouts out!

P.S.
I would bet that if Neil had not labeled that tank as an "A0". Someone who doesn't know and is trying to learn would have asked which M60 is that.

Hi Jens, Roy,

M60 is the official name, but to most folks, including tankers, unless you said A1, A2, or A3 they would assume any one of them. I guess A0 is the easiest way to type out the description, although M60 should say it all. I too prefer M60 over M60A0 and in all my records do it that way. I think part of the problem is that the M60 series never really had a name so "M60 or Sixty" was what most used when refering to them (sorry, but never heard one called Patton/Super Patton when serving on them). Much like "Sherman" is used. Kinda forced some of us to use an unofficial designator to help explain the model. It's much less of a sin to me than the infamous "G" designator for the M113 which was created only for self promotion of an deluded individual.


Joe D

- Joe_D

.....It's much less of a sin to me than the infamous "G" designator for the M113 which was created only for self promotion of an deluded individual.

Joe D

For the past few weeks, I've been locked in an intellectual battle with none other than the 'Spark-meister".

I can share with the DG if there is interest....

Don

Please enlighten us Don... For amusement value at least... Is this battle online somewhere?

Neil

Hi Don! Hi Folks!

- Dontos

For the past few weeks, I've been locked in an intellectual battle with none other than the 'Spark-meister".

I can share with the DG if there is interest....

I would be interested!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

- Neil_Baumgardner

Please enlighten us Don... For amusement value at least... Is this battle online somewhere?

Neil

Yes, please Don, since "online" battle is the only kind with which your opponent is personnally familiar we cannot wait to benefit from his insights based on the armored vehicles on which he has also not served. The views of failed Marine aspirant who wants now to disparage the usefulness of the Marine Corps should also make for facinating reading as would any equally strenuous theories he may have evolved regarding the M50 ONTOS about which you stand to be educated, coming as it does, from so august a source on this vehicle (in the absence of any actual experience).

Clearly we stand to learn a lot, I hope you have been keeping copious notes....