Jump to content
tanknet.org

M-47/ M-48


Recommended Posts

Did any of the European countries that got M47s investigate the possibility of upgunning them to the 105mm L7?

 

Spain did an upgrade to a 105mm on some of theirs.

 

And it was not very successful, it being too cramped.

 

Were they L7s or its derivatives or the French 105s, as in the AMX-30?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I vaguely recall seeing a picture of a German-designed upgrade for the M47, including the mounting of a 105mm gun (possibly L7/M68, not sure) and the relocation of the driver to the centre of the hull, removal of 5th crewman & glacis MG position. Never heard anything about it being produced so I assume it was only a prototype?

 

With 8500+ of them produced, that's not bad for an interim vehicle really. Is there a total figure for all M48's built?

 

I tried to nail down M-48 production and came up with approx. 10,000 .

The only count that should matter is M-48, M-48A1 and M-48A2 everything else after the A2 was an upgrade. The M-48 production was only 200. I estimate the production run ( new hulls) was in the 85 month range .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any of the European countries that got M47s investigate the possibility of upgunning them to the 105mm L7?

 

Spain did an upgrade to a 105mm on some of theirs.

 

And it was not very successful, it being too cramped.

 

Were they L7s or its derivatives or the French 105s, as in the AMX-30?

The guns were German Rh-105, with the same ballistic properties as the L7/M68. The turret design was quite cramped, even when armed with the smaller 90mm gun. Both the M48 and AMX-30 had more internal volume and better ergonomics.

 

There were several upgunning proposals for the M47, the most curious one including a DEFA CN-105 gun as fitted to the AMX-30. Several companies proposed heaily upgraded M47s including GIAT, OTO-Melara, a German consortium and, of course, BMY, the designers of the M47M whose basic project was used by Iran and Spain,

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much consideration was given to crew ergonomics (if the term was even in use back then) in these turret designs?

 

The term was not invented yet. The concept behind it was well understood, however.

American tanks were considered superior to their foreign counterparts in this respect from the 1940 onwards. The most useful are the accounts of foreigners: The British left their own tanks behind and went on to win the war with American Sherman;, those Soviet tankers having the opportunity to choose between the T-34 or the M-4 generally called the Sherman the better machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much consideration was given to crew ergonomics (if the term was even in use back then) in these turret designs?

 

The term was not invented yet. The concept behind it was well understood, however.

American tanks were considered superior to their foreign counterparts in this respect from the 1940 onwards. The most useful are the accounts of foreigners: The British left their own tanks behind and went on to win the war with American Sherman;, those Soviet tankers having the opportunity to choose between the T-34 or the M-4 generally called the Sherman the better machine.

Wouldn't it be neat if the 'experts' on the History/Military channels read some of those memoirs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any of the European countries that got M47s investigate the possibility of upgunning them to the 105mm L7?

 

Spain did an upgrade to a 105mm on some of theirs.

 

And it was not very successful, it being too cramped.

 

Were they L7s or its derivatives or the French 105s, as in the AMX-30?

The guns were German Rh-105, with the same ballistic properties as the L7/M68. The turret design was quite cramped, even when armed with the smaller 90mm gun. Both the M48 and AMX-30 had more internal volume and better ergonomics.

 

There were several upgunning proposals for the M47, the most curious one including a DEFA CN-105 gun as fitted to the AMX-30. Several companies proposed heaily upgraded M47s including GIAT, OTO-Melara, a German consortium and, of course, BMY, the designers of the M47M whose basic project was used by Iran and Spain,

 

Thanks, I just wondered if it wasn't the French CN-105 like some of the French M47s had, as Spain operated AMX-30s with the same gun at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...those Soviet tankers having the opportunity to choose between the T-34 or the M-4 generally called the Sherman the better machine.

 

Some did, some did not. Really, both T-34/85 and Sherman are quite cramped and not really up the "modern ergonomic standards". Wartime production wise Sherman was slightly more comfortable but some of users did not like existance of turret basket. Compared to both T-55 feels like a house.

On the other hand they were better then Pz-III or IV - how the hell they managed to fit 5 men in Pz-IV or Pz-III?

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand they were better then Pz-III or IV - how the hell they managed to fit 5 men in Pz-IV or Pz-III?

I guess the same way the M24 managed to fit five, slather the crew with lard then stuff them in the hatches.

 

I guess the yoots of 1944 were quite a bit smaller than today's...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The British didn't exactly discard home developed equipment. Cromwell, Challenger, Comet, Churchill and a number of other types were operated alongside M4 units.

 

Centurion was one of the more successful British wartime designs, and was built in some numbers and saw some active use in the post war world ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any of the European countries that got M47s investigate the possibility of upgunning them to the 105mm L7?

 

Spain did an upgrade to a 105mm on some of theirs.

 

And it was not very successful, it being too cramped.

 

Were they L7s or its derivatives or the French 105s, as in the AMX-30?

 

L7s, here's one at Latrun:

 

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:M47E2-Patton-latrun-1.jpg

Edited by RETAC21
Link to post
Share on other sites

L7s, here's one at Latrun:

 

http://nl.wikipedia....on-latrun-1.jpg

 

That's one of the few 105mm-armed M47 pictures that I've seen in colour, the German upgrade proposal was a poorer quality black & white image taken from the front of the vehicle.

 

Are any details known about this particular vehicle at LaTrun?

 

Best regards

 

Gavin

Link to post
Share on other sites

and as for the 152mm, I gather they looked at it at least, though Ive not idea what exactly they thought of it other than they didnt seem to have any concept designs with it.

 

Wait, do you mean there was a planned 152mm british tank gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many things I've read describe the M48 (and thus the later M60) as descendants of the M46 Patton, but it had a new hull, new turret, and new gun. Where is this relationship?

 

Did any of the European countries that got M47s investigate the possibility of upgunning them to the 105mm L7?

The M60 is to the M26 as you are to your great-great-grandfather. Much DNA moves through the generations but there is the DNA from the mother which has to be accounted.

First we have the M26, the roadwheels, track, and suspension smoothly tracks all the way to the M60A3 with minimal evolutionary changes. Roadwheels, support rollers, wheel hubs, and bearings remain essentially unchanged for forty years.

 

The M46 is essentially the M26 with a modified hull and introduces the AVDS-1790 engine, CD850 transmission, and final drives which (except for converting the 1790 from gasoline to diesel) also track smoothly from the M46 through the M60A3.

 

The M47 introduces a new better ballistically shaped turret and a fire control system incorporating a stereoscopic rangefinder.

 

The M48 brings the power package, suspension, gun, and essentially the same FCS from the M47. The biggest changes are dropping the 5th crewmember and changing the shape of the hull and turret.

 

M60 is esessentially the M48A3 with a 105mm gun....then the twenty year evolution of the M60 to become the M60A3.

 

Same goes for the M4 vs the M4A3E8. Really very little of the orginal Sherman remains.

Link to post
Share on other sites

L7s, here's one at Latrun:

 

http://nl.wikipedia....on-latrun-1.jpg

 

That's one of the few 105mm-armed M47 pictures that I've seen in colour, the German upgrade proposal was a poorer quality black & white image taken from the front of the vehicle.

 

Are any details known about this particular vehicle at LaTrun?

 

Best regards

 

Gavin

 

Googling a bit, I just found it's goof, the Latrun M47 is an Israeli proposal named M47 RKM, built in 1980 by Urdan and IMI, and, though marked as an E2, it isn't. The first 2 photos below show the real M47E2, the third is a pakistani M47M equivalent to the M47E1, and the final one is the M47 RKM.

 

http://circulotrubia.blogspot.com.es/2007/10/los-primos-del-m47e.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a dust up on here over turret shapes but I always wondred why the M-60 went straight edge front bow from the M-48s Duck Bill ?

 

The M60 has a welded hull. Straight lines are easier to weld. The M48 hull is cast. round shapes are easier to cast and a better better ballistic shape was intended. I do not know if the latter was successful.

Edited by Panzermann
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M60 has a welded hull. Straight lines are easier to weld. The M48 hull is cast. round shapes are easier to cast and a better better ballistic shape was intended. I do not know if the latter was successful.

Really? Could you point to the weld lines, specifically those weld lines that form the front hull? Somehow over the course of climbing around M60s for ten years I missed them.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a dust up on here over turret shapes but I always wondred why the M-60 went straight edge front bow from the M-48s Duck Bill ?

 

The M60 has a welded hull. Straight lines are easier to weld. The M48 hull is cast. round shapes are easier to cast and a better better ballistic shape was intended. I do not know if the latter was successful.

The M60 has a welded hull. Straight lines are easier to weld. The M48 hull is cast. round shapes are easier to cast and a better better ballistic shape was intended. I do not know if the latter was successful.

Really? Could you point to the weld lines, specifically those weld lines that form the front hull? Somehow over the course of climbing around M60s for ten years I missed them.

 

Uhhh....no. the M48 TURRET is a single casting, as I noted earlier. M48 hulls are entirely too large and complex to cast by many facilities. The M48 hull was considered a considerable advance in elliptical hull shaping, but it was not generally cast in order to faciltate more rapid production..

 

The front glacis from the M48 was redesigned to form a straight edge so that it might better incorporate silaceous cored armor as originally envisaged for the M60.

 

 

Hulls for the M60 were designed so that they could be cast or welded, but in practice, they were welded. The weld lines can be plainly seen longitudinally and horizontally in the picture below of an M60A1 hull under construction. All pictures and text from Hunnicutt "Patton".

 

Edited by Doug Kibbey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...