±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 326
Total: 326
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Photo Gallery
04: Downloads
05: Photo Gallery
06: Member Screenshots
07: Photo Gallery
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Photo Gallery
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Downloads
15: Downloads
16: Downloads
17: Community Forums
18: Downloads
19: Photo Gallery
20: Home
21: Community Forums
22: Home
23: Home
24: Downloads
25: Community Forums
26: Downloads
27: Community Forums
28: Downloads
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Photo Gallery
32: Home
33: Photo Gallery
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: News Archive
39: Photo Gallery
40: Home
41: Downloads
42: Home
43: Member Screenshots
44: Community Forums
45: Downloads
46: Photo Gallery
47: Community Forums
48: Home
49: Home
50: Community Forums
51: Photo Gallery
52: Photo Gallery
53: Community Forums
54: Home
55: Community Forums
56: Photo Gallery
57: Home
58: Photo Gallery
59: Community Forums
60: Home
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Home
65: Photo Gallery
66: Home
67: Home
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Downloads
71: Member Screenshots
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Home
76: Community Forums
77: Member Screenshots
78: Home
79: CPGlang
80: Community Forums
81: Home
82: Community Forums
83: Photo Gallery
84: Home
85: News
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: News Archive
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Home
93: Community Forums
94: Home
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Home
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Photo Gallery
103: Home
104: Community Forums
105: Downloads
106: Home
107: Home
108: Photo Gallery
109: Community Forums
110: Photo Gallery
111: News Archive
112: Home
113: Community Forums
114: Photo Gallery
115: Downloads
116: Downloads
117: Home
118: Member Screenshots
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Photo Gallery
123: Community Forums
124: Home
125: Member Screenshots
126: Community Forums
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Downloads
131: Community Forums
132: Member Screenshots
133: Photo Gallery
134: Community Forums
135: Home
136: Home
137: Statistics
138: Community Forums
139: Community Forums
140: Community Forums
141: Downloads
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Downloads
145: Community Forums
146: Downloads
147: Member Screenshots
148: News Archive
149: Community Forums
150: Downloads
151: Community Forums
152: Member Screenshots
153: Home
154: Home
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Community Forums
158: Community Forums
159: Home
160: Home
161: Community Forums
162: Community Forums
163: Home
164: Home
165: Home
166: Community Forums
167: Home
168: CPGlang
169: Downloads
170: Photo Gallery
171: Community Forums
172: Community Forums
173: Member Screenshots
174: Community Forums
175: Downloads
176: LinkToUs
177: Community Forums
178: Home
179: Downloads
180: Home
181: Community Forums
182: Community Forums
183: Community Forums
184: Your Account
185: Home
186: Downloads
187: Community Forums
188: CPGlang
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Photo Gallery
192: Home
193: Community Forums
194: Community Forums
195: Home
196: Home
197: Community Forums
198: Community Forums
199: Community Forums
200: Home
201: Your Account
202: Your Account
203: Community Forums
204: Member Screenshots
205: Home
206: Home
207: Downloads
208: Photo Gallery
209: CPGlang
210: CPGlang
211: Community Forums
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Photo Gallery
215: Home
216: Community Forums
217: News Archive
218: Member Screenshots
219: Downloads
220: Downloads
221: Treasury
222: Community Forums
223: Community Forums
224: Photo Gallery
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Community Forums
228: Community Forums
229: Downloads
230: Photo Gallery
231: Community Forums
232: Treasury
233: Community Forums
234: Community Forums
235: Community Forums
236: Home
237: Home
238: Community Forums
239: Community Forums
240: Community Forums
241: Photo Gallery
242: Home
243: Downloads
244: Community Forums
245: Photo Gallery
246: Home
247: Community Forums
248: Home
249: Home
250: Home
251: Community Forums
252: News Archive
253: Member Screenshots
254: Community Forums
255: Member Screenshots
256: Community Forums
257: Photo Gallery
258: Downloads
259: Member Screenshots
260: Home
261: Photo Gallery
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Photo Gallery
266: Member Screenshots
267: News
268: Community Forums
269: Community Forums
270: Community Forums
271: News
272: News
273: Home
274: Photo Gallery
275: Community Forums
276: Home
277: Photo Gallery
278: Photo Gallery
279: Community Forums
280: Your Account
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Home
285: Member Screenshots
286: Member Screenshots
287: Home
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Home
292: Community Forums
293: Downloads
294: Photo Gallery
295: Home
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Photo Gallery
299: Community Forums
300: Photo Gallery
301: Community Forums
302: Home
303: Photo Gallery
304: Downloads
305: Photo Gallery
306: Community Forums
307: Home
308: Home
309: Community Forums
310: Home
311: Member Screenshots
312: News Archive
313: Community Forums
314: CPGlang
315: Member Screenshots
316: Community Forums
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Home
320: Home
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Home

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
"Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:57 pm
Post subject: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

Mainly for Oldtop, but Roy and some others may shed some light:

I'm trying to get a handle on what it was that made top-loading air filters less satisfactory than side loaders apart from convenience/access, if anything. That is, were they less efficient or just less likely to receive attention? I've crewed vehicles (M48A2, M60A1, M60A2) with both systems, but only at Ft. Knox which isn't as dusty as some other locations that come to mind.

Also, I notice that some of the top loaders on M60A1's have a smooth-sided armored box on the outward side while others have a single horizontal "ridge" there, like on this one:
image2.sina.com.cn/jc/...093650.jpg

...my pics of the M60A1 side-skirt test vehicle, "Hotpants", has this ridge too. I don't recall any function associated with it.

Thanks!
D.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:56 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

Hi Doug, all,

The top loading air cleaners were made of steel, rather than aluminum as the originals were. I recall that our maintenance guys didn't like the side loaders because the mechanisms were easily damaged, hard to repair, and the filter elements were often screwed up by crews trying to jam them back in. The doors were tricky and the seals often leaked, which is a problem when they are sucking air in that close to the tracks! The doors were a problem from the beginning, and the horizontal rib your pic shows is a reinforcment to stiffen the door and keep from flexing. (Yup, that's a side loader in your pic.)

I remember fighting with both, and hated the side loaders. The filter element was a very tight fit, and had to be held at just the right angle. However, you had to stand beside the tank and hold the heavy element at roughly shoulder-height to do this, which made it double hard. We usually used two folks to do it, one on the ground and one on the tank (leaning over the side) to guide it into the slots. The top loaders were a piece of cake, and the element just dropped into it's cradle.

Sometime after the A1s began to be produced, fairly early in the run, they changed to the top loading 'armored' type. I remember hearing that this was originally done by the Israelis, and adopted by us. But there are/were some A1s with the old-style side-loaders. The RISE modifications were supposed to replace these, when they were done.

This is all from deep memory, so I await corrections from better memories!

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:42 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

Thanks, Chuck...

Only now, I'm really confused! I based my phrasing on "Oldtops" comment in the other thread:

One indecater that this is an first production is "side loader " air filter housing which is the same as on the M48A3 upgrade, M60A1s picker up the "top loader" armored box type...and with which the vehicle was damned for its operation life.


...which I understood (perhaps incorrectly) to mean that the toploaders were the troublesome types.

As I didn't personally experience problems with either, I'm just trying to clarify in my mind which system was preferred, and why. Sounds like you're more a fan of the toploaders.

Cheers!
D.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:34 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

The first problem with top loaders was they stood out and everything fired at the tank hit them, 10 micorms (I could put that much dirt in your eye and you wouldn't notice it)of dust would kill the 1790 diesel engine.
The side loaders were postive sealing (when the cover was closed it was sealed) . The top loaders lid had two legs (one on each side) that engaed two studs on each side of air filter cage, when the lid close it was desiged for the leg to force the element (cage) seal into the front of the aircleaner housing so that no unfiltered air could be drawn into the engine intake..or all air had to go through the filter element first. The filter elements were a group of bag shaped cloth or paper envelopes held in a welded steel cage with a rubber gasget on the open end.
Problem #1 Each manufacter placed the metal studs a little bit off from what the specs called for, so when you closed the lid the leg may or may not engae the two studs and complete seal.
Problem#2 It was possible for the crewmen to put the element in backwards and by standing on the lid get the bolt holes to line up enough to get the bolts in...results were raw unfiltered air in the engine.
Problem #3 The soution was to weld shims to the lid legs to make sure they made contacted with the studs on the element cage. To do this the instuction for testing the seal was to coat the element seal with art white lead oil paint close and bolt down the lid then unbolt it and open the lid and check to see if there was a complet impression from the seal on the end of the housing...."However" because each manufacter place the studs differantly if you had welded shims the seal could end up too tight and the gasget seal was crushed and no airtight seal..raw unfiltered air (again).
My solution was to glue plastic shim or ring cut from PVC pipe on the studs, that way the ring would crush before the seal did and I knew we had a good seal no matter what...ya it worked fine!
As for the crewmen you simply put alining makes on the filter elements and the housing and hopefully the dummys would get it right..maybe.
...sub-problem err lets call it 3A problem, on thr front of each filter housing was a elbow that conducted the filtered air to the engine intake, the problem was the 3/8" capscrews holding it to the filter housing would work lose (even with lock washers) and you had (again) raw unfiltered air getting into the engine. the solution was to go to 1/2 capscrews and a spring washer...well it worked for me.
sub-problem 3B...the cloth elements were which designed to be cleaned and reinstalled, these elements developed holes in them and the only way to detected them was to build a "ligt box" over which you placed the elements (in a dark room), as you found each hole you placed a drop of "Elmer's glue on it. This problem alone killed over 50% of the dead lined engines, the solution was to use paper "one time" uses filter element which were in such a short supply that they'er production never caught up with the needs....so tank units clean and patched the paper elements and reused them...raw air problem again!!!
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:41 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

Hi Folks!

Thanks Top for explaining your post. I guess that one is a case of the repairer's point of veiw. Surprised

I was like Doug(SORRY DOUG). While I didn't work directly with the M60s very much, I never heard any of the tankers I was around saying the top loaders were a problem. For the most part, all of them loved the top loading design. But then maybe it was a major case of they didn't know their last engine failure was caused by raw air intake.

That's two things I have learned today!
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.


Last edited by Roy_A_Lingle on Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:46 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

- Roy_A_Lingle

I was like Dong. Smile


Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2067
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:19 am
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

Hi everyone,
My experience was with top loaders only, which came in armored and aluminum. Aluminum was on some of the A1's we had in 1-63 Fort Riley. The only side loaders I had any dealings with was when the Kansas National Gaurd had straight 60's and would be on the the range. The crews hated them. They wanted the simplicity of the top loader. Never had a problem getting filters either, got new ones every Q-service. I remember having to check the seals on ours too with that paint Ole Top talks about. They all sealed fine, this was in Germany, Riley and Irwin. The filters where made by Donaldson (?) from what I remember. If there was a sealing problem it would've been very evident at Irwin. I think the biggest improvement was the VDSS system, which IIRC stood for Vehicle Dust Scavenge System. It got rid of the blower motors and could self clean the filters. We had that system at Irwin. Even had a warning light in the drivers compartment. I absolutely loved that system. As far as placing a filter in wrong, yes, it could be done but you had to be a rock with lips to not notice it was when you closed the lid. To me the top loader was the way to go, and for what it's worth, blowing a pack was not a common thing, even with all the miles we drove in Germany. I guess my comparisons are also skewed by my very negative experiences with the M1 system and it's very high sensitivity to dust.
I am still trying to figure how the side loaders were less of a target than the top loaders on the 60, Both are loacated in the same place and took up the same amount of space. At least the later model top loader was armored and not aluminum.

My perspective

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:39 am
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

I am still trying to figure how the side loaders were less of a target than the top loaders on the 60, Both are loacated in the same place and took up the same amount of space. At least the later model top loader was armored and not aluminum.


I might be wrong about this, but I think Oldtop was not referring to "hostile fire" when referring to what "might be fired at them", but dirt, debris, dust and the like. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong 'bout 'dat.

Well, what's emerging here is at least a good explanation of why I was confused...it seems there are at least two bodies of opinion out there regarding air filters, and maybe some of that follows the perspective of crews vs. mechanics or something. For sure there's a basis of experience to support both views.

My own one was that there was no significant difference between the two types...each having it's own virtues and vices. But I've heard strong negative opinions expressed about the toploader before and didn't fully understand the reason for it. I'm not sure I do now, but at least there's something to go on.

I'd sure like to hear any other opinions from those with time on either or both types.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:29 am
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

Hi Doug, Roy, Oletop, everyone!

I'm guessing that which one you hated more depended on which one gave you the most problems.

I remember our maintenance guys being very firm about putting the air filters in right, so Oletop's comments probably cover the same concerns. I remember the effort that was required to get the lids closed on the top-loaders, and how careful we had to be to get them right.

One needed and welcome improvement on the M60A3s were restriction indicators on the intake elbows...as long as no one knocked them off. They were vacuum indicators, similar to those used on many commercial diesels, that told you it was time to change/clean your filters.

I do know that the maintenance guys didn't have much nice to say about the side loaders, especially the doors. Apparently, they were subject to warpage under some conditions, which broke the seals on the filters. Fixing the doors was quite challenging, and being aluminum they were virtually impossible to weld under field conditions. The latch handle was held shut by a steel bolt, tapped into the aluminum housing. Inevitably, some young, strapping, not-so-bright crewman would overtighten the bolt and strip the hole. At some point, there were no practical bolts available large enough to retap the hole again, and the entire housing had to be replaced (or the hole had to be welded up...cheaper and simpler, but not likely). Being in a Reserve unit in the early 80's,parts were slow coming, and a simple stupid repair like that could deadline a tank for months or more.

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:34 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

What was the compounded problem was due to dust ingestion (both filters and lose elbows) there was a shortage of engines (RISE mod) at the same time a batch of "bad" pistions got into the system so maint units were caught between a rock and a hard place as were rebuild centers, you would see engines with mixed parts (RISE and non-RISE mixed). Once the new air filtering system was in place on the production line most of the problems were ironed out.....but from 1975 to 80 maints was pure hell in the support units. As for this thing between the side loaders vs top loaders, just look at the hight deference, the Israeli IDF pointed out time after time the damage done to the housing in combat...why in the world would you desgne a vehicle with its air filtering system sitting out in the open on the fenders?????
Back to top
View user's profile
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:56 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

This story begins with the M48s. Like most med to heavy tanks they are limited by their range of operation, if one reads the manuals you'll the range of U.S. diesel powered tanks is around 300 miles. However this was not the story with the gasoline fueled models, M48s and A1s were lucky if they got 90 miles per fuel load. (the german Tiger 1 had a ture combat range of 70 to 80 plus miles) The Army tried fuel injected engines for a few more miles, I know there are pictures foating around of M48s with barrels of gas strapped to a rack on their ass to push for more range (made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck just to think about it)...So heres the rule of thumb I use in calulating the fuel needed to support a tracked vehicle in the field. For every hour of cross-country operation you lose 5% of your total road range on top of you normal fuel consumtion...or a addistional 50% of your total road range milage every 10 hours...or if you burn half your fuel in 10 hours cross contry move you'er out of the go go stuff. This was the wall every army in the world was up against..and still is. So what has this to do with airfilters you ask. Well when the U.S. went to the dieselized M60 they remove the "lil joe" (APU) and installed form -fitting fuel tanks in the engine compartment, one other thing had been removed, the aircleaners which has sat in the left and right front of the engine compartment (fuel injected M48s had been the first with airfilters moved in this manner ). Now we had a med tank with a 300 mile road range and better than 150 mile cross country range (the diesel powered M103 heavy tank could now get better than 100 miles per fuel load with twice the fuel tankage)...However we now had the airfilter housings sitting rightt out in the open for everybody to shoot at, it was like the designers had said "oh were should we put these things")
Back to top
View user's profile
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:06 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

"I do know that the maintenance guys didn't have much nice to say about the side loaders, especially the doors. Apparently, they were subject to warpage under some conditions, which broke the seals on the filters. Fixing the doors was quite challenging, and being aluminum they were virtually impossible to weld under field conditions. The latch handle was held shut by a steel bolt, tapped into the aluminum housing. Inevitably, some young, strapping, not-so-bright crewman would overtighten the bolt and strip the hole. At some point, there were no practical bolts available large enough to retap the hole again, and the entire housing had to be replaced (or the hole had to be welded up...cheaper and simpler, but not likely). Being in a Reserve unit in the early 80's,parts were slow coming, and a simple stupid repair like that could deadline a tank for months or more."
I was lucky enough to have a LM-62 welding unit with a "mig" system so I could rework the housings, once the word got out that I was repairing the housings I had Army reserve and NG units bring them to my shop for repair. With gobs of money for the Marine Reserves as well as pro welders I had a first class welding and machine shop, I mean my reserve troops built ships and powerplants for a living so they did great work.
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:14 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldt

Hi Folks!

I always though that putting the air filters out on the fender was a compromise for some reason. Never realized it was to make room for larger fuel tanks.

One thing I have learned from this, which surpised me, was the fact that the side loading boxes where made out of aluminum. Shocked

Now that is a weight compromise and I guess the IDF proved that it wasn't worth it. If I understand it right, they were the ones who came up with the armored version?

I think this is a major example of everything that goes into a tank is a compromise with something else. Only combat proves if each compromise is a good or bad idea.

Thanks Top!
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:51 pm
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

- oldtop
What was the compounded problem was due to dust ingestion (both filters and lose elbows) there was a shortage of engines (RISE mod) at the same time a batch of "bad" pistions got into the system so maint units were caught between a rock and a hard place as were rebuild centers, you would see engines with mixed parts (RISE and non-RISE mixed). Once the new air filtering system was in place on the production line most of the problems were ironed out.....but from 1975 to 80 maints was pure hell in the support units.


This at least partially explains my lack of familiarity with this problem in spite of the fact that I crewed side loader and top loader vehicles. All my experience was prior to 1974, so RISE parts availability was not an issue. Furthermore, I ETS'd about 60 days after the October (Yom Kippur) war, so any lessons learned by the Israelis during that one (apart from vulnerability to TOW missiles and the shortcomings of committing tanks without infantry support) were too late in coming to reach me. I'd moved on to other things.

I was also probably a bit spoiled by serving my last ~2 years at the Armor Board, one of the most support-rich units in all of tank-dom.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
oldtop
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Mar 17, 2006
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:22 am
Post subject: Re: "Patton" air filters: top loaders v. side loaders...Oldtop

The Israelis got a way with "cheating" for years (sending tanks in with out grunt support) till Yom Kippur..after all, the enemy had always ran away before! Any 2nd Lt in any other army knew you don't do that!!!
Know one ever want to fes up to how bad the M60 engine shortage was in the Marines, I had M60s sitting for over a year on my maint line/bone yard deadlined due to the lack of engines. And I couldn't get the parts to rebuild.
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum