Com-Central.net

Dontos · Posted: 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

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: 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

Joe_D · Posted: 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

Dontos · Posted: 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

JG300-Ascout · Posted: 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?

Dontos · Posted: 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

Dontos · Posted: 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

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: 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

Dontos · Posted: 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?

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

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: 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

bsmart · Posted: 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

is beyond me. It is almost like they want the system to be confusing so that individual vehicles can't be tracked.

Joe_D · Posted: 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

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: 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

bsmart · Posted: 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?

Joe_D · Posted: 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

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big