ציטוט:
במקור נכתב על ידי zragon13
Was the turret of the M60A0 the same internally as that of the M48A3 and did it operate in the same way? Did the crews have to be retrained?
|
the M48 turret is not the same as the one on the A0 models (nicknamed 'M60 Slick' by American tankers). the former had a dome shape while the later had a rectangular back end. it's a bit hard to see the difference in shape due to the stowage basket.
if I'm not mistaken the reshape was carried on to accomodate radio equipment.
I also belive the A0 featured the same FCS as the A1 which was an improvment over the M48's.
btw, M60A0 is a psuedonym. the tank's real designation is just M60 with the M60A1 being the common type patton variant.
ציטוט:
במקור נכתב על ידי zragon13
Did these units later upgrade from from M60A0 to M60A1 and if so, was the turret operation different? During my time (from 1985) , I beleve that in the sadir only Hativa500 operated the M60A0 models
|
I believe that untill the introduction of the ERA (Baltanim) most units had a mix of A1s and A0 (on the eve the Yom Kippur war some had both the M48s and M60s).
I guess the different blocks needed for each tank (A1/A3, the so called A0 and the M48s) eventually led to reforming the brigades around a single variant.
I also belive the M60s had a different transmission but I'll leave that to the veterans.
ציטוט:
במקור נכתב על ידי zragon13
When was the additional 0.3 MG added to the loader's station and was it found very useful operationally, say in 1982?
I ask this because I noted that the new Merkava4 deleted the loader's hatch completely and from recent pictures of other tanks in the Gaza, I see that it is sometimes removed
|
loader's MG added right after the Yom Kippur war. all tanks in service with the IDF including all the Merkava series tanks featured an 0.3 or MAG (with the Mk.4 being the exception). an additional MG for the loader was a field mod often carried by american tankers in Vietnam and the Abrams tank was designed from the ground up with a MG for the loader too.
the loader's MG is only removed during operations in gaza or the west bank because most operations there dictate operating buttoned up so it's done to minimize the risk of having the MG taken off by civilians (the TC's MG nowdays can be secured with a lock), you'll also notice there is no stowage on these tanks for the same reason.
regarding the Mk.4 - the designers belived vertical protection against modern ATGMs is more relevant than having port side defensive fire coverage from the loader's MG. to compensate for that the TC has a new MG mount that covers 270 degrees.
there are some Mk.4s with loader's hatch and MG mount. since the tank employs armour modules the roof armor above the loader station can be replaced with a module that has a hatch and MG mount for the additional MAG.
ציטוט:
במקור נכתב על ידי zragon13
Finally, for the senior-vetern tankers:
I noted that in the pre-67 photos the commander's station of M48, Centurion and Sherman tanks were equipped with 0.5 MG in tall AA mounts. In photos of most tanks after the Six Day war, these seem to have been replaced by an 0.3 MG in a shorter mount more suitable for ground targets. Can anyone recall the reasons behind the change decision?
|
on the Centurion and M4 Sherman the 0.5 was originally included for AA defence (like you mentioned yourself). the 0.5 was probably too bulky and slow firing for suppresing close by infantry threats.
the M48 with an external 0.5 mount were those who had the original cupola replaced with a late Sherman cupola (the one with the vision blocks) so a new mount had to be fashioned for the MG.
personally I havent seen any M48 with that modification sporting a cal .50.
the M4 cupolas on M48s didnt last more than a few years, they were quickly replace by the newer Urdan cupolas which were adopted on all Patton series tanks in the IDF and are still in use today on the remaining Pattons.
I'm sorry the reply is in english, I couldnt get the Hebrew to work right when the original message was also written in english.