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

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
T95 / T96 rehash
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.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:14 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Neil

Try this one, I just amended from 2 documents:



My head is beginning to hurt. Wink

ah, but I do so love a challange....

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:21 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

You might want to add columns for current location and serial number (since we have at least 2).

To make sure I have this straight, are you suggesting that chassis 4, 7, 8 & 9 were given new RNs after conversion?

FWIW, I'd avoiding double-listing individual vehicles... Perhaps include an "original RN" and "new RN" (where applicable) columns?

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2062
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:28 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Don,

I always believed the T95 can be traced as the root to the modern FCS in the M1 if your really dig deep. Even OPTAR, the pre-curser to the laser range finder is linked in with it. Truth be said, most of what the M1 is, was developed long before the GM Chrysler showdown ever happened with the MBT70, M60A2, and T95 series. The decision to go with who made the tank was mostly political, since the Army would tell who ever got the contract what they really wanted once congress gave approval.

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:28 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

- Neil_Baumgardner
You might want to add columns for current location and serial number (since we have at least 2).

To make sure I have this straight, are you suggesting that chassis 4, 7, 8 & 9 were given new RNs after conversion?

FWIW, I'd avoiding double-listing individual vehicles... Perhaps include an "original RN" and "new RN" (where applicable) columns?

Neil


I'm working on some earlier dated material, which I'll add columns for each to keep the confusion to a minimum. All my notes, are from documents. Stuff seems to be bouncing around, but this will clear once I can organize it. (hopefully...!!)

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
JG300-Ascout
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 05, 2005
Posts: 6256
Location: Cyberspace
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:29 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

- Dontos
- JG300-Ascout

To say nothing of the hulls, apparent from the front glacis.

Why is the gun tube so short with bore evacuators placed proportionately? Was there to be a demo variant?


The turret has the XM81, 152mm gun system. I believe it is the development 'chain' to the M60A2 turret system.

T95 (test rig) in the LST is THAT configuration. Trying to dig up stuff on it.

Don


I thought as much, but didn't see it on the "chart". Thought I recognized it. Wink

Doesn't the one from the LST building have an M60A1E2/A2 turret on it, though? Just an extension of the program?

_________________
"All facts go to clearly prove that Shades is a thrice-cursed traitor & mentally deranged person steeped in inveterate enmity toward mankind"
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:37 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Here is another flow chart (if you can read the 'chicken scratch')



Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:02 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Neil

I'm looking at a Sept 1957 note of future chassis deliveries for the project. It includes additional 'NEW' chassis #s:

# 10 Nov 1957
# 11 Dec 1957
# 12 Jan 1958

its quoting 'Pre-Production Pilots of M48A2/T95' (gotta dig this one up & hope it'll be able to give some indepth info.)

Why do I do this to myself...?? (You could have warned me.... Wink

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:09 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Ummm... How many times have I mentioned before that the T95 series seems very hard to discern? Wink

Thanks though!

Again, keep an eye for any reference to serial numbers... I'm not convinced they're the same thing as chassis numbers...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:34 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

- Neil_Baumgardner
Ummm... How many times have I mentioned before that the T95 series seems very hard to discern? Wink

Thanks though!

Again, keep an eye for any reference to serial numbers... I'm not convinced they're the same thing as chassis numbers...

Neil


I think that Chassis # is the SN for these prototypes. BUT,....the confusion partially stems from annotations of turret #'s. I'm seeing such references, and initially mistook it for chassis #'s. The fact that the chassis #'s don't seem to match any sequential order for the RN's is confusing though. (luckily the chassis #'s are welded on the hull, not just stamped on the tow eyelets)

So far chassis #'s are matching up with RN's, even thru some of the upgrade rebuilds, but there are some serious 'gray' areas.

I'm on the uphill climb on a learning curve. (just wish it wouldn't 'zig-zag' sooo much...!!)

Time for bed,....I have a headache.

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:07 am
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Don,
Big problem with chassis #s vs serial #s. Take the Knox LST T95. From what I remember there's photo evidence (I'll need to recheck the JMO article) that its 9B1051 Chassis #6 - but it has SN 8 under the front hull.

We've already been down the chassis # vs serial # path on these before and decided there wasnt an obvious correlation... Unfortunately...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:50 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Actually from my pictures of the Weirton T95 it appears that the serial number is cast into the hull. Now whether we are calling that the Chassis number or the Serial number is open for discussion (and whether it is the vehicle serial number or the Hull casting serial number) but the number under the front of the hull is labeled SER NO

Maybe we need to step back and confirm what information we have on each known vehicle and the source for the information. I have a fear that some of the information that we believe has been cross checked is subject to circular references.

I've always found it annoying that the army has two different tracking numbers for each vehicle (RN and SN) and isn't consistent in how it marks and with how much permanancy that marking has. Why the RN isn't recorded permanently on each vehicle Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad is beyond me. It is almost like they want the system to be confusing so that individual vehicles can't be tracked.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2062
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:23 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Hey everyone,

Food for thought,

1, Those cast SER-NO does not mean serial number, but series number by the outfit who cast the steel. Case in point is the recently posted Ash Flat AR M47 and the use of it for the SN.

2, The Army assigns Registration Numbers only, and depending on what year the tank was made determines what system it used. A big old mess is what it is with M60's since they stayed in production so long.

3, Serial Numbers are assigned by the manufacturer. In my opinion the best way to track a tank. Since it transcends branches of the Military (Army and Marines) and Countries, and BTW, are hull generated, even though turrets data plates usually match the hull.

As far as the T95 goes, I went over the example at Fort McCoy when up there and could not find any stamping for a SN anywhere, if there was one it has long since been painted over or wore off where ever it is. The cast mark on the hull is SER-12, and the M48 turret is SER-29. Manufacturer is American Steel Foundries, East Chicago Indiana Works. If you could locate a -10 or -20 of the T95 maybe it shows the external SN or RN location in the Stowage and Sign Guide section. Most manuals back then did.

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 5:28 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Joe D,
Good points, many thanks. Because the T95s are SOO different, and it was the only "serial number" we could find, I thought that perhaps these cast numbers were indeed the actual SNs.

Don, do you have access to these -10 or -20s?

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:27 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Thanks Joe

but about the RNs I know on M60s we often find them stamped on the bow near the headlight but in general on most vehicles I think they are just painted/decaled on and disappear when the vehicle gets repainted

And some vehicles don't seem to have any permanent external marking. I can see that on a test vehicle like the T95 but on M114s or M48s.

I guess I'm used to aircraft where each one was known by a 'tail number' which was created when the aircraft was ordered and followed it in all records and marked in expected places on the airplane.

Would there be -10s or -20s on T series vehicles or would those only be produced when a vehicle was standardised as an M series?

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2062
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 7:34 pm
Post subject: Re: T95 / T96 rehash

Bob,

Another good example of not having an external SN stamping are the M42 "Dusters", unless you count the plates found welded on the rear.

The PV M1's are also not stamped with any external numbers IIRC. Leads to much confusion there too.

There should be some TM's for the T95 series and they should be written just like the standard ones for the Tanks of that period. Just like there were TM's for the M60A1E1/A1E2 and MBT-70/XM803, the former eventually being type classified M60A2. I would imagine some archive should have them, either Knox or Aberdeen. Manufacturers generally destroy/dump stuff like that if the system isn't purchased, and besides, since the development is usually taxpayer funded it tends to be turned over to the military and belongs to Uncle Sam.

Don, better get your "Indiana Jones" hat on and start researching the "Catacombs" of Fort Knox Wink .

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 2 of 3
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



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