Jump to content
tanknet.org

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


Recommended Posts

 

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?

 

 

I made a comment about stripping the A5 Cupola off and transferring them to the 60A3. Didn't get very far. :(

Edited by John_Ford
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?

I made a comment about stripping the A5 Cupola off and transferring them to the 60A3. Didn't get very far. :(

The turkish M60T still has the infamous cupola...

 

 

Makes me wonder how compatible the cupola interfaces are between M48 and M60? And what if any changes are needed to put the Urdan hatch there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The turkish M60T still has the infamous cupola...

 

Makes me wonder how compatible the cupola interfaces are between M48 and M60? And what if any changes are needed to put the Urdan hatch there?

 

The cupola on the M48 was never satisfactory as it was quite cramped and offered quite limited visibility. The visibility problem was alleviated by incorporating a riser ring with additional vision blocks, however this made the cupola much too tall.

I don't pretend to know why the M48A5 had it's cupola removed while no M60s did, but with almost 10 years on the M60, I never once felt slighted for having a cupola. I rather enjoyed having another machine gun which could be fired from under armor with sights comparable to those of the gunner. On the other hand I found the weapon station on the M1 an utter travesty to compromise.

Edited by DKTanker
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.

 

CMIIW but the Israelis pulled the cupolas off M48s and M60s not due to their difficultiy in using them, but that they relearned the lessons from WWII. that cupolas that require the TC's head above the turret armor have a bad habit of resulting in headless TCs when said 'mini turret' is hit by a tank round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A story I heard about the cupola was that the Israeli's didn't like it because a non-penetrating hit to the turret could cause the cupola to sheer off with nasty consequences to the TC. No idea if this was true or just one of those urban tanker legends that floated around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CMIIW but the Israelis pulled the cupolas off M48s and M60s not due to their difficultiy in using them, but that they relearned the lessons from WWII. that cupolas that require the TC's head above the turret armor have a bad habit of resulting in headless TCs when said 'mini turret' is hit by a tank round.

 

Though the odds of that happening turns out to have been miniscule. Years after the 1973 war, the IDF still had M60A1s sporting cupolas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

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.

 

I agree. Most Army vehicles (including tanks) I' ve seen are keep spotless. Much better than my own car.... :wacko: . And well greased.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

3 years since I made this post there are further comments under this video on youtube. I am translating the negative ones:


Commentator #1 says: https://youtu.be/HXeHEUTWqkw?t=294
One picture [is worth] a thousand words [i’m actually not sure what he means]


Commentator #2 says: Blimey! Are you shooting with the sights in the down position?????
He adds: Don’t put that on You Tube
He adds: Since you are spending ammo, at least make it worth it

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.

Probably related to your comment above:
Commentator #3 says: the basket [the pad you mention?] behind the breach is missing? (…)
Original Video Poster says: There was never such basket in the M48A5. (...)

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...