Com-Central.net

Neil_Baumgardner

Can anyone identify the exact model?

www.waymarking.com/way...Antonio_TX

Neil

Joe_D

Neil,

M48, or as many say "M48A0" Smile

bsmart

Just to argue I believe it could possibly be an M48C the mild steel hull version of the M48. I know they existed and I beleive all were non cupola vehicles (Which would make them the visual equivilant of the A0)

I'm also not sure if they were acytually 'mistakes' as the 'Training Tank only' M60s were or if there was some reason that they were purposely produced with mild steel (Once someone told me that the production process was intentionally sped up by not having the Hulls 'hardened' in order to get vehicles out to training units sooner)

But in general I agree with it being an M48 aka M48A0

binder001 · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 363

I remember the stories that the M48C was based on tanks with problems in the hull castings. As far as getting vehicles into the training units, the M48 was rushed to production and then hundreds went from the factories right into storage as there were so many problems to iron out in these tanks. I don't remember if it made it into the book, but when I was researching M48 photos for the Squadron book that ended up as Mesko's "M48 In Action" ( I was a good gatherer but lousy at deadlines) I had a shot of about a hundred brand new M48s sitting outside the Ford plant.

Gary

MarkHolloway

The sign says "M48" so that backs up Joe D's ID.

Joe_D

Bob,

I don't believe She could be a "C" model because it appears the drivers hatch has been been equipped with the T41 (M24) IR sight opening. Only intermediate small and late model large hatch hulls had this feature, M48C's were early production.

The ballistic deficiency with the pilot tanks and the first 120 now called M48C's was actually centered on the drivers position around the periscopes, where the required thickness was not to specs. Since this was considered a critical area (frontal arc), all these castings were considered unfit for service and marked Non-Ballistic. The steel used was the same as with the standard castings. Protection every where else would be the same as a standard M48.

bsmart

- MarkHolloway

The sign says "M48" so that backs up Joe D's ID.

Although I agree with this (I wouldn't really argue with Joe on M48/M60 questions) How many times have we all seen signs on monuments be wrong. Mr. Green

Joe_D

Dissent and constructive criticism are good,

I welcome it because there is always more info out there. Sometimes I go through my notes from 4-5 years ago and cringe. But with research a lot has been either dis proven or confirmed. Most of the time it just creates a new unanswered question. On rare occasions I get a rude shock when I find out what was an accepted and well known fact published in numerous books turns out to be false.

Here's a good one.

What Models of the US M48 required the commanders weapon to be loaded from the outside?

Dontos

Joe

Does the M48A5E1 count??? Wink

Don

Joe_D

That's one, although "Only One" and not a group Laughing

I'm looking more along the lines of, "Which of these apply"

M48
M48A1
M48A2 and A2C
M48A3
M48A5

You can throw in the the two M48A4's and M48A5E1 if you like, although only the A5E1 survives to my knowledge.

bsmart

Assuming there is some 'trick' in this question Wink

I know the M48A1, A2, andA3 had a cupola mounted 50 cal. But could it be that there was not enough clearance to LOAD the weapon when buttoned up?

Dontos

After checking a few things,.....

My guess would be the M48(A0) & the M48A5. Both have external MG mounts for the 'flex' M2 .50cal.

Don

bsmart

- Dontos

After checking a few things,.....

My guess would be the M48(A0) & the M48A5. Both have external MG mounts for the 'flex' M2 .50cal.

Don

That is the obvious answer which makes me wonder what fact he has up his sleeve Mr. Green

Joe_D

Actually,

All except the later model M48A5's with the "Israeli" style cupola could be loaded while inside.

The M48 with the Chrysler M1 cupola could be Aimed, Fired, and loaded by the crew while inside the turret. All civilian books I've seen would state the commander would have to expose himself to reload. I believed this to be fact for a long time until I started researching early M48's. Got my hands on a TM from 1954 and was surprised.

First, the Loader would have to open his hatch. Then the TC would take a handle stowed inside the turret and disconnect the .50 cal cradle. Next he'd rotate the cupola until it aligned with a couple of arrows marked inside, positioning it over the Loaders hatch. Then using the same crank, he'd attach it to the cupola pivot crank shaft. Turning this would position the weapon correctly so the loader could reload while inside the turret. Once complete, you'd reverse the process to return the gun into firing status.

Kinda a "Rube Goldberg" invention to me, and I doubt very many crews used this feature in training, but......, the capability was there for a crew to reload the M2 with reasonable protection from small arms. Something the M1 still lacks.

"Now you know the rest of the story" Smile

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