M-60A2 Short Barrel version
Texas, United States
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 02:25 AM UTC
Okay Guy's heres a question for you: If I bought a Tamiya Kit M-60A2( Short Barreled version) But wanted to replace the shorty with a regular 120mm type. Is that a possibiltiy??
I saw one at a hobby store last night and am tempted to buy and build one. What do you guy's think??
DAGGER-1 " When Science Fails, Brute Force Win's"
TEAM BRAVO: Superior Weapons & Firepower, Training & Leadership, Victory First
The World Next !!
Member Since: December 18, 2001
entire network: 12,596 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,557 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 02:34 AM UTC
That would be an interesting conversion...I belive that the current 120mm main gun ammo is much longer than the 152mm ammo/missile. I don't know if it would have worked in real life, but as a "what if" project, give it a try. I plan on doing the same with some 1/48 scale MBT 70s that are armed with 152mm guns, but I plan on "up-gunning" (or would that be "down-gunning"?) them to 120mm.
Texas, United States
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 03:10 AM UTC
Thanks Rob: Can I get the new gun from a local hobby shop; i.e. a dedicated model shop or wii I have to send out for one??
DAGGER-1 " When Science Fails,Brute Force WIns"
TEAM BRAVO: Superior Weapons & Firepower, Training & Leadership, Victory First
The World Next !!
California, United States
Member Since: April 01, 2002
entire network: 4,287 Posts
KitMaker Network: 824 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 03:19 AM UTC
Dagger,
You can pick up turned aluminum barrel of a 120mm from Eduard. Rob is right about the ammo size. the 152mm was extremely short and the 120mm is rather long. It would be a very interesting conversion to say the least. The rest of the conversion should be based on common sense. How would you want this vehicle to be equipped if you had to fight it? Its a hypothetical vehicle so have fun with it. HTH "Q"
"Don't fear the night, fear what hunts at night"
Member Since: December 18, 2001
entire network: 12,596 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,557 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 06:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks Rob: Can I get the new gun from a local hobby shop; i.e. a dedicated model shop or wii I have to send out for one??
Barrel Depot does one (35007), but you may want to put out a net call for anyone who replaced their kit barrel with an aluminum one. That way you can bum a kit barrel off of someone.
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 08:10 AM UTC
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Member Since: December 18, 2001
entire network: 12,596 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,557 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 08:59 AM UTC
The M60A2 hulls became AVLBs, replacing the M48-hulled AVLBs. Turrets went down range to be targets. At least in the M60A2, everyone had a hatch to get out when the slew went haywire.
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 07:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The M60A2 hulls became AVLBs, replacing the M48-hulled AVLBs. Turrets went down range to be targets. At least in the M60A2, everyone had a hatch to get out when the slew went haywire.
Rob--that tanks was such a terrible and tragic waste of resources that someone should still be Leavenworth for bringing it into the inventory. When that 152 fired the round looked like a softball going down range. I must admit when it hit it destroyed (like "where did it go") anythin it hit. The TC cupola was certainly ahead of its time. Terrible problems with the coax and M-85. It certainly looked impressive in the motor pool.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Texas, United States
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 - 09:11 PM UTC
Hey Rob:
I've Been following this converstion on the M-60, So my question is. Was the M-60 a lousey piece of armor or was it just certain upgrades. I know that it was in the U.S. Inventory for quiet a few years. Until being replaced by the Abrams. I am thinking of buying either the A2 version or most likely the one with enhanced armor plating. i.e. Reactive Armor. I really don't like the short barreled version. SO will probably go with the other. Still thinking of adding a 120mm gun. Maybe. How much work will that require??
DAGGER-1: When Science Fails, Brute Force Win's
TEAM BRAVO: Superior Weapons & Firepower, Training & Leadership, Victory First
The World Next !!
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 01:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hey Rob:
I've Been following this converstion on the M-60, So my question is. Was the M-60 a lousey piece of armor or was it just certain upgrades. I know that it was in the U.S. Inventory for quiet a few years. Until being replaced by the Abrams. I am thinking of buying either the A2 version or most likely the one with enhanced armor plating. i.e. Reactive Armor. I really don't like the short barreled version. SO will probably go with the other. Still thinking of adding a 120mm gun. Maybe. How much work will that require??
DAGGER-1: When Science Fails, Brute Force Win's
Amigo--for what it is worth, I have personally tanked every M-60 series vehicle along with each of the M-1 series. (Benefits of being the Chief of Tank Gunnery at Fort Knox). They were beloved vehicles with the exception, in my humble opinion, of the M60A2. It was a maintenance disaster. The missile/gun combination was always out of whack. The black boxes for the missile guidance system were not rugged enough to be bounced around on a tank. The gun was enormous. Loading the round was awkward and damn near killed the loader. The M60A3 was a top of the line fighter. She moved and shot superbly. I can not envision putting reactive armor or a 120mm on an M60A2. Try the A3. Good hunting.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Arizona, United States
Member Since: February 13, 2002
entire network: 382 Posts
KitMaker Network: 101 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 02:38 AM UTC
I also tanked the M60, the A1 and the A3. Each was better than the last. I never tanked the A2, but I was at Ft. Hood when they were there. My dad (an A1 battalion XO) had nothing good to say about it. Word was that it leaked like a sieve, and even a small rainstorm could take it out (water + electronics = sparks, smoke, and poor performance). The missiles apparently had a habit of ignoring the guidance commands, and would wander downrange until it hit something solid. It was not popular.
The original M60s (turtles) were cramped inside, but adequate shooters with lots of horsepower. The A1s were much more roomy, and were an improvement all around. They were easier to load, drive, shoot and command. The A3 was a tremendous tank for it's generation. The gunnery system was very accurate, and the TTS was incredible (some say better that all but the latest M1 thermal sights). The LRF was good for it's time, and the RISE powerpack made it fun to drive. I loved the A3.
I recall some discussion about upgunning the M60A1/A3s to 120mm during the late 70s, before the M1 appeared. As I recall, the gun was just too big to fit well, and left a very tight area for the loader to work in. Also, the ammunition (pre-combustible case) was larger, allowing only a small number of rounds to be carried. Overall it was considered 'too hard' to upgun the vehicle, and the proposal faded away. The M1 was just getting really going at the time, and it was found that the 120 would fit into it rather neatly.
Just my opinions, but there they are...
Georgia, United States
Member Since: March 08, 2002
entire network: 778 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 10:20 AM UTC
I may be biased (note my callsign), but the A3s were a very good to excellent gun/sight/fire control system mounted on an automotively sound hull system. It was a very good tank for it's time, but I sure would hope we would have mounted applique armor if we ever had to face Ivan and his Saggers. Another benefit was that the maintenance personnel had this vehicle in the system for years, and thus were accustomed to it. Plus, real tankers eat diesel smoke!
That being said, I'd have traded it for ANY M1 anyday!
"It is the Americans who are absorbant and yellow and porous!" -BaghdadBob SquarePants
Bob Morales
Former 12C3C
2/102 Armor
"On The Way!"
Georgia, United States
Member Since: March 08, 2002
entire network: 778 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 10:24 AM UTC
Sorry for helping turn this into an A3 thread. I had an uncle who served in an A2 unit. When he saw the one I built as a teenager, I heard him mutter some pretty filthy words. All along I thought it was the way I built it...but he explained it after I got back from AOB...
"It is the Americans who are absorbant and yellow and porous!" -BaghdadBob SquarePants
Bob Morales
Former 12C3C
2/102 Armor
"On The Way!"
Tennessee, United States
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 10:36 AM UTC
The M60A1 and A3 were excellent vehicles. I had an M60A1(AOS) tank platoon and an M60A3 (TTS) tank company. Anyone could be trained to fire the A3 and to hit the target, something that was not true for earlier versions. The only problem I had with the A3 was that you could fire the laser range fire to often, too quickly and burn out the prism. Other than that the fire control was outstanding. The RISE powerpack was also a gem, with proper preventive maintenance andservices my company went nine months without a vehicle deadlined. Luckily, my only exposure to the M60A2 was in my Armor Basic Course.
Texas, United States
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 10:11 PM UTC
M-60 or M1, Both the same," SUPERIOR FIREPOWER" As the folks in Iraq got to find out the HARD WAY. Besides any input from you guys that know them inside out, benifits people like myself who might read this thread. Besides that I appreciate your sharing your knowledge. As I told some one yesterday. I love the Abrams, Always have and was only vaugely familiar with the M-60 as a young Man. But the important thing is that they were....AMERICAN MADE, AMERICAN DRIVEN, and AMERICAN TESTED.
DAGGER-1 "When Science Fails, Brute Force Wins!!
TEAM BRAVO: Superior Weapons & Firepower, Training & Leadership, Victory First
The World Next !!
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 10:36 PM UTC
Well, for my buck, the A3 was a superb system. I loved it. We transitioned to the M-1. We turned in the beloved A3s which I might add was like giving birth to barbed wire. The M1 did not have the same quality thermals as the A3. However, my time on the A2 and then the A2 SEP demonstrated how far we came in developing a world class tank. If we can continue to maintain crew proficiency we'll be fine. The day of armor and the tank are far, far from over.
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Hauts-de-Seine, France
Member Since: April 11, 2002
entire network: 1,757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 10:47 PM UTC
These are both beautiful tanks...
I like the abrams very much.
But well, if you want it to be only american built, you're gonna loose quite a few parts :
- that great 120mm gun is german
- the chobham armor is a joint venture (isn't it ? I'm not completely sure)
It's the same with the next generation attack heli : french gun, some israel electronics...
It's too expensive to do everything by yourself, and it's so much more fun to work together
(just as on this site).
So I hugh you all, my pals for every part of the world !
penpen
Big Bad Wolf N° 3, huffing and puffing...
life is but a dream...
from Paris, France, Europe
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 17, 2002 - 06:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
These are both beautiful tanks...
I like the abrams very much.
But well, if you want it to be only american built, you're gonna loose quite a few parts :
- that great 120mm gun is german
- the chobham armor is a joint venture (isn't it ? I'm not completely sure)
It's the same with the next generation attack heli : french gun, some israel electronics...
It's too expensive to do everything by yourself, and it's so much more fun to work together
(just as on this site).
So I hugh you all, my pals for every part of the world !
During the Carter years, we bought the German 120mm as a part of the NATO standardization effort. We now designate that as the M256A1 gun. It is true that the Merkava has an electric turret and not the standar fluid hydralics? If so, does anyone know their reasoning?
thanks
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Texas, United States
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 17, 2002 - 10:07 PM UTC
Well PenPen, I stand corrected. I did not remember that the armor was European Desighn. Either way it has proven itself in forieghn fields and under fire, It stands side by side with another of my fav's The British Challenger which also utilizes the 120mm gun and alot of other neat stuff. 210Cav. I can't say that i know the precise answer to your question regarding the Merk's electrical Turrent. BUT to me I would only say that it probably makes since, considering the enviroment and terrain that the MERK operates in. If it breaks down as most all weapons systems do, Having an electrical system would prevent problems that sand and dust cause. PLU does it not work faster and more Effectively using the Electrical system vs Hydro's, which would probably tend to corrode and or break down alot more often than the electrical system which is better protected. Or at least that is my best quess. Like I said I'm no armor expert. SO it's just a educated quess.
DAGGER-1 "When Science Fails, Brute Force Wins"
TEAM BRAVO: Superior Weapons & Firepower, Training & Leadership, Victory First
The World Next !!
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 12:10 AM UTC
Dagger--yeah, like I said the Merkava is an interesting piece of armor. It has the same M-68 main gun as the M-60 series 105's. It also has the same AVDS 1790 engine. I'd be interested in finding about the electric turret.
thanks
DJ
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Texas, United States
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 12:31 AM UTC
Anthony: Have you tried any of the Merkava info sites on the net for that info?? It's something that I will go take a look at and see what I can find.
DAGGER-1 " When Science Fails, Brute Force Wins"
TEAM BRAVO: Superior Weapons & Firepower, Training & Leadership, Victory First
The World Next !!
Texas, United States
Member Since: March 20, 2002
entire network: 525 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 12:36 AM UTC
Well it looks like I will have to try from my home computer. Am having some problems here at work trying to get to the Merk-III site. Keep me posted on what you find out. And I will let you know if I come up with anything on that subject as well.
DAGGER-1
TEAM BRAVO: Superior Weapons & Firepower, Training & Leadership, Victory First
The World Next !!
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 18, 2002 - 10:34 AM UTC
DJ Judge
COL (R), USA
"Tanker Boots do not a Tanker Make."
Oklahoma, United States
Member Since: February 17, 2002
entire network: 796 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 08:54 AM UTC
Guys,
The gun ammo was compact but how big do you think the missle was?
You might want to go with a 105 main gun as I believe that was a cosideration.
You could also stick the 152 gun in the A1 turret as this was one of the first proposal for the system, althought the turret was modified somewhat.
Get the Hunnicutt book on the Patton for alot of details on the A2.
"Don't get stuck thinking inside the box."
Member Since: December 18, 2001
entire network: 12,596 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,557 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 19, 2002 - 09:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The gun ammo was compact but how big do you think the missle was?
45.40" for the MGM 51B and 43.70" fir the MGM 51A.
