JoeD's Frankenstein (M48A5/M60A2)

JimWeb

Doug_Kibbey wrote:

Yes, but the question was turret/hull relationship, not the significance of the ladder. The point here was illuminating this relationship, not making a point of sharpshooting CaptCav, since I have to spell it out for you. Wink

I thought I had answered it - but then again I'm still in shock from 'er indoors' leaning over my shoulder and saying 'Whys that M60 different from the others' and this from a person who normally calls everything in the the army a 'jeep'.

I may be more incoherent than usual for a couple of days until I get over the shock Confused

Doug_Kibbey

JimWeb wrote:

Doug_Kibbey wrote:

Yes, but the question was turret/hull relationship, not the significance of the ladder. The point here was illuminating this relationship, not making a point of sharpshooting CaptCav, since I have to spell it out for you. Wink

I thought I had answered it - but then again I'm still in shock from 'er indoors' leaning over my shoulder and saying 'Whys that M60 different from the others' and this from a person who normally calls everything in the the army a 'jeep'.

I may be more incoherent than usual for a couple of days until I get over the shock Confused

Apparently, in my misguided efforts toward subtlety and politeness, I have apparently failed, twice, to sufficiently register the salient point of my previous posts. If it is necessary to pursue this matter further (and I sincerely hope it isn't) I think it is in everyone's interests that we do so offline via PM's.

For the record, while I have a copy of Hunnicutt, when it becomes necessary for me to refer to it to distinguish between an M60A1E2 and an M60A2, I'll take it as a sign of my own impending dementia. While there are many vehicles on which I gladly defer to the knowledge of others, it is perhaps the one vehicle on which it is unwise to attempt to sharpshoot me on.

bsmart

Uh is that Assistant Commandant Signature who it appears to be?

Damn boy when you whup out credentials you bring impressive ones

Doug_Kibbey

bsmart wrote:

Uh is that Assistant Commandant Signature who it appears to be?

Damn boy when you whup out credentials you bring impressive ones

Yes, it is....but the Commandant is even more impressive if you know your Bastogne history....that's William Desobry, of "Team Desobry", and a genuine tough SOB. Wink

He was, BTW, succeeded that year by MG Donn Starry, a point that likely grated on the Asst. Commandant quite a bit, since Starry was both younger and followed the Asst. Commandant as Rgt. CO of the 11th Cav. in RVN. Wink

(He passed Patton on the way to a second star)

JimWeb

Doug sit on it and swivel!

The point here is you don't like being corrected and never have. Since I first materialised on here you have sniped at me if not on the forum then in PMs.

As for the certificates? I have the equivalent in Centurion, Saladin, Chieftain & CVR.. Damned if I would call myself an expert though as I'm still learning things about them. But I am an expert on recognising vehicles so grow up and reconcile yourself to the fact that I am far better at that than you will ever be.

But you can go to hell because I have had enough and I am finished with this forum.

ooIo

Doug_Kibbey

I guess PM's won't be necessary. Wink

An example of my intolerance to being corrected can be witnessed here where I gutted Freiherr_Kiefer for deigning to correct me on a matter of Pz.III v. Pz.IV identification. I throw myself before the court....

com-central.net/index....p;start=30

Freiherr_Kiefer wrote:

der panzer III is really a Panzer IV, I'm bad on wheeled vehicles but better on tanks

Doug_Kibbey wrote:

The wee gun threw me and I was in a hurry. Those WWII "tools of the Hun" I admit I don't follow so closely (unless they fly, in which case I have some "contacts" over in that rowdy JG300 bunch I can ask ). In fact, I'm pretty much a rank amateur on pre-cold war/Vietnam by comparison to you guys.

Thanks for the correction!

I'll let Freiherr_Kiefer decide if I should amend my profile to read "insufferably smug".

Freiherr_Kiefer

Doug
If you regard what you gave me as a rebuke or any sort of insult then you don't want to hang around with some of my friends. After all I had just been really obviously wrong on a simple Jeep vs truck ID myself and someone was kind enough not to call me the real bonehead I was on that when they brought it to my attention. I'm always glad to be corrected If I screw up. Last I heard, nobody's perfect, me certainly least of all, and If you can't admit to the occasional mistake or odd notion then you still need to develop a little more character

My 2 cents

Joe_D

My only comment is that the written word can be interpreted much differently from audio, and that even has it's limits compared to a face to face discussion. That is why many leaders fly half way across the world to discuss concerns instead of E-mail or Conference calls. Keeping this in mind I hope all can be resolved and we continue with what this forum is about, friendly and interesting conversation over a common thread we share, the interest in all things armor.

One of my rare non-armor posts.

Joe D

Doug_Kibbey

Freiherr_Kiefer wrote:

Doug
If you regard what you gave me as a rebuke or any sort of insult then you don't want to hang around with some of my friends. After all I had just been really obviously wrong on a simple Jeep vs truck ID myself and someone was kind enough not to call me the real bonehead I was on that when they brought it to my attention. I'm always glad to be corrected If I screw up. Last I heard, nobody's perfect, me certainly least of all, and If you can't admit to the occasional mistake or odd notion then you still need to develop a little more character

My 2 cents

So, was that a "yes" or a "no"? Laughing

FYI, I have reported this thread and my role in it to the Admins in the Moderators' Forum for review and action as they deem appropriate. I request there be no further discussion on this unfortunate exchange so we don't have to lock it. Let's return to the AFV discussion. Thank you.

bsmart

I sent this while Doug was writing his above this. If I had seen Dougs posting first i would not have posted it but am leaving it here unless requested to delete it

Boy I leave for a department going away lunch and a fight breaks out Shocked

I'm not going to get into an M60A1E2 or M60A2 id contest But I am interested in the more basic question about the fit of the Starship turret on the M48 hull. I think the question is about what appears to be an overhang where the outeredge of the turret is larger than the outside of the turret ring of theM48. The size of the turret ring isn't the main question since that is an inside diameter but the width of the ledge around the turret ring. Someone else in this discussion mentioned that the Starship turret was designed to sit deeper in the hull than the M48 turret was. This jogged my memory about something I noticed on the T95 in Weirton WV. that had what i belive was an M48 turret (I'm working from memory, I think it had a 90mm gun) on what appeared to be a turret ring built up several inches above the hull deck. I thought this was because of the raised engine deck of that particular test bed but now I'm wondering whether it was to allow the Starship turret to b emounted on that chassis. I think I saw in Hunnicutt that the Shillagh system was being considered for the T95 and I think I remember it being mentioned that some of the turrets were tested on the T95.

As far as certificates I find Dougs Impressive from a visual sense but I didn't need it to know he had experience on the M60A2. I take that on past experience with him. Jim I think everyone here knows you are veruy experienced in vehicle recognition. I don't think that was being questioned.

About ladders on tanks. The m60A2 we have at Aberdeen has residue that I believ is the mounting point for such a ladder. I've seen other pictures of test bed tanks with such devices. yes folks are lazy. Also Safety officers probably get more involved in test ops than in field ops. for a vehicle that is being operated in range situations and not banging through the woods it may make sense to put something in place to reduce the slipping hazard that field troops have to put up with. In a similar vein a guy I work with told me that when he was in the Marines they were not allowed to dig slit trenches or foxholes in teh training areas. They used Portajohns an either premade foxholes or 'simulated' ones to keep from hurting the environment Rolling Eyes

Jim I hope you stay around but we will survive if you don't

lets get back to talking tanks

Uhu_Fledermaus

Gentleman,

It is not my or Bushy's habit to interfere with any discussions going on in the AFV forums, I personally like to peek in, as I also have a interrest in armour, alltough that beeing limited to a small part of it, hence some interresting reads.

Now for the matter at hand, as I percieve it, it's a little bit of misinterpreting what someone said or not said, we all have past the age of the kindergarten and as far as I can see, this should be solved in a amicable way, I could say that the ones in the dispute should go in the yard, take of their shirts , give eachother a wack, and then go to the local Cantina and drink a beer together.

Both are valuable contributors to the AFV forum and it would be a shame if a "glitch" like this would ruin the thing.

Oh and before I get of my Soapbox, please don't come with he said or he started, we are beyond a age for that sort of retorics here me thinks.

To whoever fits this, swallow your "pride" and show that you are made of more than paper, be a man and not a streetcat looking for a fight.

Don't let us spoil valuable energy and resources in negativ things, let us all join forces to turn it into a positive venue.

We cannot all be friends, alas that is a reality of life, but may I ask of all of you just a little of respect towards eachother,

So let's bury the hatches and let's drink one for the future !

cheers !

fled
Administrator
Com-Central

Doug_Kibbey

That's very good advice, Fled, thanks for looking in!

I agree that there is not one member here that does not have a valuable contribution to make...and likewise not one member that is not deserving of respect in their exchanges with other members. This, and a spirit of helpfulness and sharing of information should be the guiding principle of this forum. If my behavior has, in any way not been consistant with those principles, I will offer my apology to any member who thinks himself to have been treated unfairly or in a manner inconsistant with those guidelines.

Bob and I are always available, privately, if necessary, to all members to express any concerns that you may have about discussions on this site. Now, as Fled suggests, lets have a virtual beverage of our respective choice and get about our business. Wink

Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Folks!

I was wonder if anyone has seen a list of M60A2 turret serial numbers?

Just guessing that the turret numbers started at 001 and when to 540, this turret, serial number 236, should be near the middle of the production run.

If that is any where in the ball park of production, then this turret should have started out mounted on a M60 hull.

That could mean we are looking at a turret that was removed from a M60 hull for conversion to an AVLB carrier.

I am thinking that maybe that box on the front of the hull has NOTHING to do with the A2 turret. (It's to bad no one can get inside to see what if anything is there.) That hull was used for some type of testing which required a hole be cut through the thickest part of the hull. Action that would make that hull un-serviceable for issue or upgrading afterwards. Possible as part of that testing, the standard turret was removed.

Some one had one left over turretless M48A1 hull.
Some one had one left over A2 turret from an ex-M60A2.

Said someone put two and two together to make a static display vehicle.
Said someone then painted M48A5 on the right rear fender! Clearly that someone knows less about M48s than I do.

I don't think it was a A2 turret test vehicle.
My 2 cents,
Sgt, Scouts Out!

P.S.
In that picture of the driver's hatch it looks like it isn't locked down. It would be interesting if it would slide open so some pictures could be taken of the inside to see if that turret had been modified to fit a M48 hull or just chopped off so it would set down on the turret ring.

P.S.S.
Something I learned from Joe_D folks. Check the escape hatch to see if it is there. If not, one can take some pictures of the inside of a tank hull.

Joe_D

Roy,

Yes, you can get some really good info on a tank that way. The M60 we looked at the ADA museum is a great case in point. No way I could tell for sure it was a later complete rebuild without looking into the driver's compartment. That old girl probably served over 30 years before being let go.

I've decided to check out this Franken-Tank in person. Hopefully in a week or two. I will then post my conclusions. Hopefully when I view Donto's and AJ2's pictures I can avoid this.

Joe D

bsmart

Yesterday there was an unfortunate incident in this discussion thread. It involved two long term members of our group. There has been some discussion about removing the postings involved. I have decided not to do that. Let me explain that first. The problem involved Doug Kibbey, one of the moderators of this group, and Jim Webster, a long time participant. As the issue escalated Doug opened a thread on the problem on the moderators forum. This is a forum that is provided where moderators can ask for help, advice, etc. He backed off from taking an active role and we decided that I would take the lead in deciding what we would do about the thread. I have in the past joked about being 'assistant moderator' Doug has always reminded folks that there is no difference in our responsibilities or powers as moderators. Either of us can address problems, resolve differences or in the most extreme case mete out punishment. Luckily this group has never required that we take extreme measures. In this case Doug and I both decided, almost from the start that I would make the decisions in this case. It should go without saying (but I will say it) No one gets special treatment here, everyone has to play by the same rules. Everyone should know that any concern can be raised with either of us at any time.

Now about the incident. Some people have said it is the worst problem we have ever had in the group. I can remember one or two back on the old board that may have come close but even if this is one of the three worst in the 6+ years I have been here that is bad enough. If you have any question about he incident you can still see it for yourself. All the postings are still there. It has been suggested that we should delete the posts at the core of the problem. I decided not to do that. I decided not to delete the posts because even in the middle of the problem there were some interesting points made that bore on our core topics. If I had left them and deleted others some wouldn't have made sense and there would have been comments about why I deleted some and not others. Also I am against editing posts except in the most extreme situations. I have edited one post because I thought it touched on operational details that shouldn't be readily available. In that case I PM'ed the person and explained why. While I am leaving the posts of September 5 in place I do not want anyone now or in the future to get the idea that posts like these are encouraged or considered proper discourse. Do not mistake tolerance for acceptance and approval. As far as I am concerned the incident is closed. I am not locking the thread. I find the topic of the Frankentank interesting on several levels including a few that we have barely touched. But I do not see any reason to further discuss the messages of September 5.

I hope Jim reconsiders and comes back. I have enjoyed most of his posts over time and found many thought provoking. He has a unique personality, as we all do. That in itself is one of the things I enjoy here I never know when I stop in whether I'm going to experience a spew alert, a serious thought provoking discussion about a technical detail that expands my knowledge, or someone's pictures from a visit to a site that I will never get to see in person. What I don't expect and will attempt to stop are personal attacks or vicious language.

If you have comments please send them as PM's or via email. My email address isn't a secret, I put it on every post

As I said yesterday afternoon, and the group has already begun to do, lets get back to talking tanks

Bob Smart