M-47/ M-48

[DKTanker]

Not as much as you'd think. The fenders themselves could be bent more or less back into shape but there was a steel stiffener that attached them to sponson boxes that was a bitch to match back up to the reformed fender. The multitude of small fine threaded nuts and bolts that held things together did not help with repairs since they tended to strip out or get rounded off when being removed. The fenders on the M1s were much easier to work on and not nearly as prone to damage.

Of course, as we well know, the biggest advantage for the M1 was that the very back fender was essentialy a mud flap of sheet aluminum and the front fenders were spring loaded.

 

Regarding the bold, I always thought, wouldn't it be nice if we had a 24vdc drill so we could drill new holes as needed. Of course the answer is, for no other reason, the turret floor would look like Swiss cheese as crews drilled out new holes for the banana boxes etc.

Edited October 22, 2012 by DKTanker

[Guest spinningmagnets]

I don't know anything about the M47/M48, but I recently started working at Ft Riley, Kansas. there are two tanks on display aside Normandy Blvd that are labeled "M-47", and one of them has a plaque in front of it. I'd like to post what it says, although I don't want to get shot, because I have no idea if it's accurate and useful, or ridiculously wrong. My apologies if this is already well-known, here goes:

 

CENTURION TANK

Production of the M-47 tank began in June of 1957 at the Detroit Arsenal. A total of 8,576 were produced. the Centurion Tank is a later model of the M-47 and is identified by the T-shaped blast deflector. The American Locomotive Company built the last 3,095 tanks, but production was soon halted in order to concentrate efforts on the M-48 model. The M-47 main battle tank saw limited combat in Korea supporting infantry.

 

M-47 armaments

90mm main gun

.50-cal M6HBM2

.30-cal M6M1919 A4E1

 

Crew 5 men

Weight combat loaded 101,800 lbs

Horsepower 810

Cruising range 80 miles

Top speed 30 MPH

[DKTanker]

Whoever wrote the narrative for that plaque has either played a huge practical joke, or is seriously incompetent.

[FALightFighter]

Whoever wrote the narrative for that plaque has either played a huge practical joke, or is seriously incompetent.

 

Is the unit nicknamed "Centurion"?

[Richard Lindquist]

Whoever wrote the narrative for that plaque has either played a huge practical joke, or is seriously incompetent.

 

Is the unit nicknamed "Centurion"?

 

Clever catch. If the unit was a tank in C Company of a Tank Battalion, it might well have the name "Centurion" painted on it particularly if the Plt Ldr was a history major.

[DKTanker]

Clever catch. If the unit was a tank in C Company of a Tank Battalion, it might well have the name "Centurion" painted on it particularly if the Plt Ldr was a history major.

Except this sentence says the M47 is a sub-model of the Centurion.

 

"the Centurion Tank is a later model of the M-47 and is identified by the T-shaped blast deflector."

 

There's that and contrary to what the placard says, the M47 never saw service in Korea during the Korean war.

[R011]

There's that and contrary to what the placard says, the M47 never saw service in Korea during the Korean war.

The placard also says it was first produced in 1957, four years after that war ended.

[Max H]

There's that and contrary to what the placard says, the M47 never saw service in Korea during the Korean war.

 

Although it doesn't specify that the infantry support occurred during a war

[Jim Warford]

...one of my favorite tank pics from the Vietnam War:

 

[shep854]

I just bet that TC was having choice words for the driver!

[R011]

Although it doesn't specify that the infantry support occurred during a war

 

I wouldn't look for too much subtlety here. It did say "saw limited combat". AFAIK, there wasn't any combat to speak of after the ceasefire so he almost certainly means during the Korean War itself.

 

I think it much more likely that the writer if this plaque simply didn't know his breach from his mussel and wrote down some misremembered, misread, or just wrong stuff he had come across.

[Gavin-Phillips]

I just bet that TC was having choice words for the driver!

 

From the looks of things, the driver wouldn't be able to hear any complaints anyway! That's certainly a well captured moment though. During documentaries, you hear about the difficulties of the terrain in Vietnam but a photograph is worth a thousand words... Did the tank manage to extract itself with its own power or was an ARV like the M51 needed to assist in recovery?

[Archie Pellagio]

"...but the OCOKA said it was passable terrain!"

[DougRichards]

Dave Decker , RIP , of The Grim Reaper fame was a TN member when I joined the old Brunk forum prior to the TN switch over.

 

His posts were valueable and great reads. He died from cancer probably caused by Agent Orange 10 or so years ago.

 

Two names to conjure with there.

[Harold Jones]

I just bet that TC was having choice words for the driver!

 

Odds are that just before the picture was taking those words were "kick it in the ass you can make it!"

[DKTanker]

Odds are that just before the picture was taking those words were "kick it in the ass you can make it!"

And as far as we know, they did make it. In fact I believe when all is said and done, and everyone dries out, the entire unit did make it.

 

BTW, that picture is depicting the XM48A3B1. Notice that the turret is set up backward with the TC on the left and the loader on the right. This was part of an experimental unit that fought in VN with another unit equiped with M47s.

[shep854]

Yikes! Good eyes, Dave! That photo is indeed reversed; so much for my ability to observe.

Supposing the tank was flooded with mud and water through the driver's hatch; how would that affect the tank's operability? I can imagine shorted out electrics at least.

[binder001]

Supposing the tank was flooded with mud and water through the driver's hatch; how would that affect the tank's operability? I can imagine shorted out electrics at least.

 

Several M48/M60 drivers that I have spoken to mentioned that the design of the bow on both tended to bring mater, mud, etc right up into the driver's hatch.

[DKTanker]

Supposing the tank was flooded with mud and water through the driver's hatch; how would that affect the tank's operability? I can imagine shorted out electrics at least.

No problemo, all of the connections that have to be are essentially waterproof. It wasn't unheard of for a crew to drop the escape hatch and take a spray hose inside the tank to wash out the mud. Did it plenty of times. Well I didn't, I had my driver who was foolish enough to listen to me wash out the drivers hole.

[DKTanker]

Several M48/M60 drivers that I have spoken to mentioned that the design of the bow on both tended to bring mater, mud, etc right up into the driver's hatch.

Depending on the depth, speed, and entry angle, all vehicles will experience something similar, it isn't M48/M60 specific. One thing many M60 crews did do to break up the bow wave was to put a piece of 2x4 lumber across the bow from one headlight assembly to the other. Obviously because of the M48s shape they couldn't do the same, but you do see something similar with the T-64 and T-72.

[Doug Kibbey]

I just bet that TC was having choice words for the driver!

 

Odds are that just before the picture was taking those words were "kick it in the ass you can make it!"

 

Exactly, It is highly unlikely that the driver attempted that maneuver without direct input from the TC (though I'm surprised he didn't close his hatch first). More than on ill-advised maneuver has been conducted on the instructions of a TC or inexperienced platoon leader over objections from crewmembers who have BTDT. I made one 2nd Lt. pay dearly for poor counsel on one occasion.

 

Ten bucks says that's the driver of this H Trp., 17th Cav Sheridan up there on the bank, collecting himself and considering what form payback might take.

 

[Colin]

oh that will be hard on the cases for the HE rounds.....

[Old Tanker]

Supposing the tank was flooded with mud and water through the driver's hatch; how would that affect the tank's operability? I can imagine shorted out electrics at least.

 

Several M48/M60 drivers that I have spoken to mentioned that the design of the bow on both tended to bring mater, mud, etc right up into the driver's hatch.

Not that I can recall and I did some stupid things like hitting a hole or water too fast. The most common wet weather result was a face full of mud.

 

I had a real , really close one with barbed wire stretching across the tracks and coming at my head , I just ducked in time as it glanced and snapped on the drivers hatch open rest fixture.

 

Another time a sappling broke off and came at my head up the bow . I ducked and it went under the open drivers hatch which swung at my head like a meat cleaver.

[Nikolas93TS]

I am interested in efforts to increase the ammunition stowage in M-47 by eliminating the assistant driver. It is interesting how different countries took different solutions and ammo quantity varied.

 

For example, West German prototype added as many as 34 additional rounds of 90mm, making the total of 105 rounds instead of 71.

 

Yugoslavs did 29. Italians added only 12 additional rounds. I know Belgians also eliminated co-driver in 1964 (no idea how many rounds they gained) but who else did such modifications as well?

[bojan]

Yugoslavia added 28. Load of the modified tanks was increased to 99 round from 71 originally.

Not all tanks were modified. Modified tanks did not have bow MG (mount was still there, but steel plug was added into ball mount).