Jump to content
tanknet.org

What Do Tanknet's Tankers Think About This Tank Crew?


Recommended Posts

This video shows some Greek army tankers doing a piece of training in what I understand is the tank training center at Litochoro, with a M48A3 MOLF tank. I found the video interesting, although I know nothing about crewing a tank, besides some generic knowledge. What is also interesting are the comments under the video, which are quite negative. Apparently commentators believe the crew is doing things improperly. What is also intersting is that the people in the video are professional enlisted, rather than the conscripts who manned the tanks in the Greek army until the 1990's, yet people comment that they are "wasted money". I cannot judge the video by myself, but I am very interested to see the honest opinion of tanknet's veteran tankers.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's mostly Greek to me. The YouTube translator either didn't work for many comments, or there was too much vernacular for it to translate correctly. In either case it is hard to evaluate what they were doing. If it had been a US crew the main gun would probably be loaded before the engagement started, but that's a doctrine issue, not necessarily a crew issue. They did a lot of firing while driving which, if they were actually hitting their targets, is very commendable. US tank gunnery for M60A1 and A3 only tested the crews ability to shoot the main gun on the move during one engagement. The remainder of engagements were fired from the short halt or in a defensive position.

 

It was very interesting to see the M60A3 fire control in the M48A3. Some of the comments mentioned M48A5 MOLF. I can only presume that MOLF is the acronym for the upgraded fire control system, however the tank is still an M48A3 because of the 90mm gun.

 

Good to see some tank gunnery, just wish I was able to understand them. Ah, the days of evaluating tank gunnery from outside the loaders hatch. Clipboard and stopwatch in one hand, grease pencil in the other. Thankfully we didn't also have a camera.

 

BTW, female Tank Commander?

Edited by DKTanker
Link to post
Share on other sites

M48A5 MOLF (Modular Laser Fire Control System) uses the EMES-18 FCS . I think 400 were upgraded in the 90s. In addition they upgraded a few M48A3s so they could use the 90mm ammo for training purposes.

 

From wiki

 

 

  • M48A5 MOLF: The Hellenic Army has added the EMES-18 FCS to their M48A5, denumerating them as "MOLF" for Modular Laser Fire Control System. About 400 M48A5 were rebuilt at 304 Π.Ε.Β. (Hellenic Army Factory) and most of the electronics of the EMES-18 have been manufactured by ECON electronics in Greece. The MOLF system shares 80% of its parts with the EMES-18 used in Hellenic's Army 500+ Leopard 1A5GR.
Edited by Mistral
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see the brass cased rounds. Brings back memories. Dodging bouncing end caps is just not the same.

 

Interesting mount for the .50 cal. I notice she has to get out of the hatch entirely to charge it.

 

Also nover crewed a tank with a muzzle break, interesting blast effect.

 

Love the BMX handlebars for the OC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I could understand the HEAT engagements were at 1300m and the cameraman commended after the second round that the gunner was overshooting the target (with a couple of expletives of course :P )

Edited by Mistral
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's mostly Greek to me. The YouTube translator either didn't work for many comments, or there was too much vernacular for it to translate correctly.

Most of the comments are written in "greeklish", Greek with Latin characters. It is impossible for the automatic translators to understand them.

 

I'll try to translate the negative comments at the top:

 

commentator #1: (...)The commander of that particular tank has no clue of the 50-caliber. The way she was shooting she was only going to cause a jam.(...)

 

commentator #2: Shitty tankers, wasted money, all the cluseless should go home [=get fired]

commentator #3 responding to #2: It is a training session big guy

commentator #2 responding to #3: Yes, but they are professionals... not shitty conscripts!!! They don't even know firing commands, how long are they tankers??? 10 days, 15??? That's what I'm talking about. If you ask them they know only about coffee and soccer bets. What is the 6-32 [probably a manual] not a clue.

commentator #3 responding to #2: Well friend to be honest if they went like this in combat they wouldn't survive 15 minutes. Training is everything especially when you are numerically inferior.

 

commentator #4: You made the army into a brothel [=you destroyed the army]

 

commentator #5: The army was always a brothel [= a mess]. Now they made it like public service and worse [in reference to the professional enlisted]. Scattered bullets, shells on the floor. We are shit. How are we supposed to stop the Turks. We have a bullshit army. An embarassment for years now. Shameful "karavanades" [=a derogatory term for military professionals]. I bet that if there was a general alert not even in 24 hours would our units be combat ready.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Dave said.

 

First tank is ready to go, waiting return of #2 from its run, throws out expended brass, loads dirty 90mm HE-T rds.

The interior condition shows these are orphan training tanks, no perm crews, hence minimal upkeep, automotive/ordnance. Note driver's hatch has no lube, must be a strain to operate.

TC loads .50 for short engagement, 20 rds.

Interior safety cage, what appears to be loader safety, not used in US M48s [unless M48A5?]

HEAT-T at ready [not training round], engagement done with open breach, OK to test all crew duties in engagement. Coax engagement seems OK, Loader now has HE-T, but no lap-loading ensues, perhaps safety rule., no rush needed in training.

Can't see tgt effects, hulks are targets.

Nice video. Nothing wrong with .50 techniques; assume range safety regs prohibit loading before moment to engage, expending all rds in short belt. Firing 3-5 rd burst is normal SOP. Using open sights, have to walk tracers to tgt. No idea if tgt hit.

 

Good use of M48/90mm saving 105 ammo. The Greeks also had M47s in service into 1970s so must have a mountain of 90mm ammo.

 

BTW, no muzzle brake in M48s, just a blast deflector and it worked very well for 90mm. German, Greek M48s (105mm) may have had muzzle brakes, I have forgotten.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched again, noticed at 8:50 that the TC has her left elbow draped over the guard. Thankfully she's on an M48 with its relatively slow elevation response else she'd be asking for a broken arm.

 

Will the gun breach go all the way to the top ? I'm thinking it will push the arm to the back as it raises. Dangerous anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating video, especially for someone like me who hasn't been inside a tank, let alone one that is moving and firing too. I find it quite amazing that a turret crew would be able to function in all that noise, gas from the gun tube and the spent casings ejected from the breach, remarkable really. A true testiment to anyone who fought in them.

 

It does seem a little strange to me why the tank doesn't at least have some sort of gun shield for the .50? I know the US design called for it to be fitted in its own revolving cupola but at least some of the pictures I've seen of M48A3's show this to have been removed and a more simple pintle-design (like that in the video) being used instead. But no gun shield does seem a little odd.

 

Have any remaining M48's in the Greek Army ever received additional armour (applique or even ERA) protection?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll try to translate the negative comments at the top:

 

commentator #1: (...)The commander of that particular tank has no clue of the 50-caliber. The way she was shooting she was only going to cause a jam.(...)

 

commentator #2: Shitty tankers, wasted money, all the cluseless should go home [=get fired]

commentator #3 responding to #2: It is a training session big guy

commentator #2 responding to #3: Yes, but they are professionals... not shitty conscripts!!! They don't even know firing commands, how long are they tankers??? 10 days, 15??? That's what I'm talking about. If you ask them they know only about coffee and soccer bets. What is the 6-32 [probably a manual] not a clue.

commentator #3 responding to #2: Well friend to be honest if they went like this in combat they wouldn't survive 15 minutes. Training is everything especially when you are numerically inferior.

 

commentator #4: You made the army into a brothel [=you destroyed the army]

 

commentator #5: The army was always a brothel [= a mess]. Now they made it like public service and worse [in reference to the professional enlisted]. Scattered bullets, shells on the floor. We are shit. How are we supposed to stop the Turks. We have a bullshit army. An embarassment for years now. Shameful "karavanades" [=a derogatory term for military professionals]. I bet that if there was a general alert not even in 24 hours would our units be combat ready.

 

 

Ah, countries with former conscription, where every male over a certain age is an expert on how much better things were back then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just watched again, noticed at 8:50 that the TC has her left elbow draped over the guard. Thankfully she's on an M48 with its relatively slow elevation response else she'd be asking for a broken arm.

 

Will the gun breach go all the way to the top ? I'm thinking it will push the arm to the back as it raises. Dangerous anyway.

 

The breech will almost touch the turret roof. But actually I was speaking to the velocity of the gun going up and down, had it been a more modern tank the velocity of the guard hitting her arm would be enough to break it. The arm wouldn't have to be caught between the guard and the turret roof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating video, especially for someone like me who hasn't been inside a tank, let alone one that is moving and firing too. I find it quite amazing that a turret crew would be able to function in all that noise, gas from the gun tube and the spent casings ejected from the breach, remarkable really. A true testiment to anyone who fought in them.

 

With the headphones on it isn't that loud, and you don't really hear the main gun being fired. A bit of smoke but it looked like the ventilator fan was blowing it out quick enough. US tanks don't use a catcher bolted to the gun mount, instead they allow the spent cartridges to fall to the floor. That said, this tank was missing the spent cartridge pad that hangs from the turret roof. This pad absorbs a lot of the energy from the casing that is ejected from the gun and keeps the casing from bouncing around the turret.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, countries with former conscription, where every male over a certain age is an expert on how much better things were back then!

 

You are so right...this goes especially to countries that still has conscription...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cupola mounted .50 introduced in the M48A1 was a nightmare to operate. The M48A5 series opted for a hatch and flex 7.62mm /.50 cal. mount akin to Israeli mods to their M48/60 and I was envious of it. Of course the cupola was a response to the considerable casualties to tank commanders in the Korean War, but the handicaps of the 50 rd box and position of the gun in the cramped cupola could only be termed grotesque. Most of us can remember to this day the few times we were able to fire a 50 rd box, reload with another box and fire that one too, without stoppage or worse.

 

As for the gun shield for the .50, if you need it you probably should be using a different weapon!

Edited by Ken Estes
Link to post
Share on other sites

48A5's in Korea had the Israeli (Urden) Cupola with the M2. M60's on the pintle mounts. I wondered why we didn't ditch the M60 Cupola and go with the Israeli cupola on the M60A3's? M2 certainly worked and wasn't so much a pain in the ass to rearm like the M85.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When we took delivery of our last fleet of M60A1 RISE-Passive-AOS in 1977, Detroit offered the USMC the Israeli hatch configuration, and we could have had it but for the neglect of the USMC liaison officer there, a major with the tank MOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When we took delivery of our last fleet of M60A1 RISE-Passive-AOS in 1977, Detroit offered the USMC the Israeli hatch configuration, and we could have had it but for the neglect of the USMC liaison officer there, a major with the tank MOS.

I presume the US Army Officer in charge of M60 A3 (TTS) program was just as lazy? Or did someone else decide that the cupola was good enough?

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...