Com-Central.net

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

The only thing you can really count on is the shape of the hull, for all the reasons listed by the 'Weed. At a glance, if it isn't the A5, the gun is the quick way...unless it's been upgunned, as was often done (Israelis, too).

I musta' been one of the last AIT classes to train on the M48 in 1971...I've always wondered when that switched over....

JeffStringer · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 637

Aaahhhh, thanks everyone!

I know a little here and there, but it's never too late to learn a few more things! Smile

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

Headlight shrouds...forgot the headlight shrouds (and these might be the same on the A5...gotta' check).

jcneel · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

Actually the turret for the early M60 (A-nuthin') is slightly different than the M48 turrets. The back end of the turret is more squared off than is the M48 turrets. Below is a picture of the AEF M60 early turret conversion as compared to the Academy M48A5 turret. The differences check out when looking in Hunnicut's Patton book (a great reference if you can get one).

Looks like the other main differences have been addressed by the others already...

hth

Chris Neel

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

Hi Folks!

One more item that helps, no matter which direction the point of view is from as long as it can be seen.

The TC's cupola!
All the 48 cupolas are much smaller and mounted a M2HB machine gun.
All the 60 cupolas are much bigger and mounted the M85 machine gun.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Folks!

All the 48 cupolas are much smaller and mounted a M2HB machine gun.
All the 60 cupolas are much bigger and mounted the M85 machine gun.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

...and both were next to useless.

Joe_D · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:57 am Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s was a really good question,
What really throws a wrench in the works is the ability to interchange the turret between the two. BDAR manuals at the time outlined the ability to do just that. The rings diameters were the same. There are 48Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s with 60 turrets and 60Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s with 48 turrets. They are mostly Non-US models. Taiwan has put modified 48 turrets (LRF/STAB/Thermal) on surplus 60 hulls they got from the US. I think they call them CM-11Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s. Get's very confusing. As far as US models here are the simple ways I tell the difference, all are 90mm except A4/A5.

M48, Open cupola, 5 support rollers, gas powered with exhaust center deck, small drivers hatch.
M48A1, M1 closed cupola with M2 TT .50cal, same deck/gas, 5 support rollers, large drivers hatch.
M48A2, Same cupola, new low IR deck with rear grills, gas powered, 3 support rollers.
M48A2C, Same as above but has newer Fire Control system. Longer bore evacuator.
M48A3, Rebuilt 48/48A1, has new IR deck, turret same as A2C, uses M60 components, Diesel engine, also has air cleaner boxes like the M60. 5 support rollers. Some have vision block ring installed between M1 cupola and turret. The prototype of this used an A2 model so it had 3 support rollers.
M48A4, Experiment, Used old straight 60/105mm turrets left over from A2 production. Has the same hull as A3. Cupola is the M19 with M85 .50 cal. Project cancelled.
M48A5, M48A3 up gunned with M68 105 cannon. All IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve ever seen had low profile cupolas (Israeli?).

They also took an M60 and mounted an M48A5 turret to it. I believe Fort Knox has it. Then you have the oddities created for hard targets. The idea is if it fits, put it together. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen M60A2 turrets on 48A1 hulls. None of these creations were operational, just an easy way to make targets.

DifferenceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s between 48 and straight 60 turret.

M60 has M19 cupola with M85 MG. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s much bigger.
M60 has rear stowage mount for M2 .50 cal.
M60 turret has a more squared right rear. (Like models shown)
M60 base for cupola is larger, sits higher and has a slot cut at the 3 and 6 oÃ¢â‚¬â„¢clock position.

Please chime if thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s anything to add or correct, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have my references. My rule of thumb is the hull determines the tank, boat shape front = M48, Flat M60. But that's me.

Hope this helps. Thanks for the vote of confidence Dontos and Doug, I still liked my M85, lot's of places to store pogey bait in the ammo box.

Joe D

JeffStringer · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 637

WOW! I guess there really aren't any stupid questions!

Thanks guys ... I can now consider myself well informed!

Dontos · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:08 am Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

Joe

I knew you'd be up to it. Two things:

M60 hull with M48 turret is in fact in the collection. Damn thing looks brand new. It is a prototype M60.

M48 chassis mounted with M60A2 turret is up on Zussman Range (MOUT site). I've seen it a number of times. The turret has some remote operability when the full system is used for a training unit. Its between the 'school' and the water tower.

Isn't there an tension adjusting arm w/roller between the last roadwheel and the sproket? (M48A?)

Lifelong 'Jedi-tanker' (Abrams tanker Cool

) I never played with the 'dinosaur M60' except here with the Museum. Razz

Don

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:12 am Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

- Joe_D

Hope this helps. Thanks for the vote of confidence Dontos and Doug, I still liked my M85, lot's of places to store pogey bait in the ammo box.

Joe D

Hi Joe...
I was thinking primarily of the cupolas....neither was very wieldy...which is why flex-mounts got stuck on them in real-world conflicts. M85 was a hoot, when it was working right.

Joe_D · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:29 am Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

Hey Dontos,
I figured you'd be trolling around tonight. The early 48's (pre-diesel) had the stupid little wheel between the sprocket and #6 road wheel, Just like the 47's. A lot got cut off later in their life on both of them. Usually you can see what's left of the arm still on the hull. It had it's own torsion bar from what I remember. The 47's we got back from France and Italy usually had them removed and plated over. The ROK Army 47's also had them removed. I can't say for sure but I believe it became useless when they started using a newer front idler system. That's why it's called the "Compensating Idler Wheel" because it moves forward as the track compresses the #1 arm up. I don't think 47's and early 48's had this system. Someone out there might know.
Dontos, If I ever find my way back to Knox, I'd like to see the 60 with 48 turret. Of coarse I'd bring my camera. The 48 hull I seen with the 60A2 turret was at the recovery school range across from Muldraugh. (GMD range??) there at Knox and I also saw one sitting in Richardson tank park in 97 I think.

Joe D

Russ_Buchan · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 26, 2006 Posts: 67

Hi, Doug!

Funny; if you were one of the last AIT classes to train on M48s, I might have been among the first classes to train on M48's AND slick M60s, at fort Knox, Summer, 1962. Night and day, brother, what a difference! Especially in the driver's compartment -- like going from Corvair to Oldsmobile. Exactly ten years' difference. The M48s must have seemed like Ford Model As or something to you guys by that time ("Hey, Cletus, looky-here, there's a dadburn horn on this'n! Beep-beep!"),

With that diesel pack shaping the after hull, the M60 always looked 'tall-in-the saddle' to me, compared with the much-squattier 'bathtub-shaped' after hull of the gasoline pack-equipped M48 versions.

The gasoline M48 also had, to some, a 'trumpet' tone out of those mufflerless exhaust headers at various loads and throttle applications, and if backing down suddenly was needed, as in an emergency stop, those headers belched raw gasoline flame like a Lockheed Constellation at takeoff.

As many of you guys have mentioned, the bore evacuator, or fume extractor, was at the very end of the M48 main armament, but only if it was fitted with the 90mm gun.

Early M48s had a little tensioning idler between the trailing roadwheel and the drive sprocket, but these, along with the horn, disappeared in the early sixties, at least in FRG.

That toad-shaped face of the M48 glacis is the surest giveaway of all.

Sincerely, sniff,
Russ

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:54 am Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

- Russ_Buchan

The M48s must have seemed like Ford Model As or something to you guys by that time ("Hey, Cletus, looky-here, there's a dadburn horn on this'n! Beep-beep!"),
Russ

The 48 had that stupid "steering wheel" that was much harder to steer with than the t-bar on the 60, IMO. AND, there was that reversed accelerator/brake pedal arrangement....I damn near ran over my AIT company commander on the first day because of that! (Capt. David Reich, if you're out there, I'm really sorry about that...)

But the gun was sweet.

bsmart · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

With all this it sounds like the M48/M60 took over where the Sherman left off as the basis for infinite mods and interchanges. So do we nowhave to say 'Never say Never with M48/M60s' like we do for Shermans?

JimLewis · Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: M48 vs M60

I love the M48 and M60 series - can't get enough of 'em! For Joe D - who's provided me excellent information and support in creating the detailed M60 conversion I've always wanted to do:

Joe - I'm still working through the weathering phase, and I intend to go ahead and put a cover over the Searchlight though I worked on filling up the interior, and have yet to go back and add the Filler/Drains on the Transmission Housings as I proceed. I'm just adding the small things in finishing up this model tank.

Jim

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