Com-Central.net

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

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

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

Doug_Kibbey

- 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

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.

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

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

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

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

- Doug_Kibbey

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".

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

- bsmart

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)

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

- JimWeb

- Doug_Kibbey

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.

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

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.

JimWeb

- Doug_Kibbey

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.

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

bsmart

- CaptCav

Nahhhh..... that's just a "Plain Jane" M-48A1 travel lock.

That is what I thought. Another point in the 'slap a turret on an existing hull' column

ArmyJunk2...... those were the mounting points for the Xenon searchlight. However, when I was a young tank platoon leader; my platoon sergeant was known to tell gullible FNGs (straight outta AIT) those were the tank's male reproductive organs.

Nooo A Professional NCO wouldn't take advantage of a young troop something like that would they Rolling Eyes

Now if it was a 2LT Twisted Evil

There was a night on the Langley Flightline that we convinced a new LT that we were Draining the F-15s radiators Mr. Green

Young troops were fair game for being sent for 2 yards of flightline or a gallon of propwash. Rolling Eyes

Of course there was the time a new guy came back in the shop with a 5 gallon can of Propeller Cleaner the C-130 outfit on the otherside of base gave him and told him they didn't have a smaller container and that it would start deteriorating if it was opened before use. He carried that can the whole 1.5 miles back to our shop in August weather like we had at Aberdeen last week Surprised

Someone wanted to tell him it was portside propwash and to go back and get the starboard propwash but the shop chief put a stop to it

JimWeb

- Joe_D

Right now I still believe this tank is just a cobbled up creation, not a purpose built special/rare tank. I believe this because it is on an M48/48A1 "Gasoline" powered hull. Probably the last thing you would use to sell/test this "XM48A4E1" vehicle Jim mentions.

You have to remember that the ROC had and still has a lot of M48/M48A1 though some have been upgraded engine-wise the majority still retain the original engines.

Another thing to consider is even if they mounted the A2 turret on a 48 hull, you would need to extend the rear hull for the Closed Breech Scavange System. I guess you could put an electric air compressor in the turret to avoid this like the Sheridens had but where would you put it? You'd also would have to cut the turret platform to fit the hull since the turret platform, although having the same ring diameter, hangs lower than the M48's. The A2 turret is completely different than the A1/A3 where you just can't lop off the bottom and raise it without seriously changing many of the internal components to fit. This raises the question, why? Especially since you already have M60 hulls purpose built for the A2 turret. There never was any complaints on the Hull, all the problems were turret related.

I suspect you answered your own question here and agin the ROC had a lot of (then) M48 with 90mm guns - it would have been a cheap way of upgrading their tanks.

I can understand the ROC using the A2 turret for shore defense, the range of the missle being very deadly against ships and landing craft. I'm with Doug, not saying it don't exist, stranger things have turned up, I'd just love to see a picture or documentation of this tank.

I suspect that they bought a load of M60A2 and got some US company to conduct a feasability study before abandoning the idea, rusing the hulls for CM11 and relegating the turrets to fortifications.

I may be able to help with an image in a couple of weeks.

Jim, I would not doubt some CM-11's have old M60A2 hulls. IIRC they puchased complete hulls from us and there would be no reason not to have some A2 hulls that were upgraded for AVLB's not used to be included in that lot. Look for the very obvious CBSS bulge, lower grill overhang and Square tailight gaurds.

I'll keep my eyes open - I'm hoping to receive a batch of CM11 images from ROC HQ sometime soon - promised but usually very slow delivering apparently as they have to be cleared & authorised by nearly everyone in Taiwan...

Cool

Doug_Kibbey

- JimWeb

- Doug_Kibbey

And the turret/hull relationship differs from the M60A2 on those in what way, Jim?

Jeez Doug even my wife spotted that one - the ladder on the front was only fitted to the M60A1E1 (based on M60 Hull) It was removed for the M60A1E1 APE and the M60A1E2 (based on M60A1 hull).

Information gleaned from Hunnicutt..

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

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