_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M163 Vulcan extra fuel tanks?
landshark2
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: March 25, 2004
KitMaker: 78 posts
Armorama: 45 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 12:56 PM UTC
Would the M163 Vulcan, circa 1979-1981 have the extra fuel tanks mounted on the rear? Or were these a later addition?

Thanks
KoSprueOne
Visit this Community
Myanmar
Joined: March 05, 2004
KitMaker: 4,011 posts
Armorama: 1,498 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 01:32 PM UTC
I don't think they ever did.
(1976 manual) http://news.webshots.com/album/267906399jwMeCZ

(2005 pictures) http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m163_vulcan.php

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m163-pics.htm

maybe the IDF versions, but I don't know.




ptruhe
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: March 05, 2003
KitMaker: 2,092 posts
Armorama: 1,607 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 04:23 PM UTC
Nope.



Paul
Fitz
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 439 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 11:00 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Would the M163 Vulcan, circa 1979-1981 have the extra fuel tanks mounted on the rear? Or were these a later addition?

Thanks


External fuel tanks were a feature of M113A2 models and variants which were only type classified in 1978 IIRC. M163's never got the A2 upgrades.
Fitz
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 439 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007 - 09:42 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

External fuel tanks were a feature of M113A2 models and variants


No, not in the U.S. Army. The M113A3 family of vehicles had them. Also the FIST-V.


The M113A3 did not exist during the timeframe expressed in the original question, thus is irrelevant.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007 - 10:34 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

External fuel tanks were a feature of M113A2 models and variants


No, not in the U.S. Army. The M113A3 family of vehicles had them. Also the FIST-V.


The M113A3 did not exist during the timeframe expressed in the original question, thus is irrelevant.


It is a relevant response since they were incorrectly identified as a feature of the M113A2, which they are not.
Fitz
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 439 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:05 AM UTC

Quoted Text



It is a relevant response since they were incorrectly identified as a feature of the M113A2, which they are not.


Sorry, you are quite wrong.

The external fuel tanks became an option with the introduction of the M113A2 production in 1979. That the U.S. did not have a requirement for these tanks until the introduction to production of the A3 model a decade later does not change that.

Sources:

Hunnicutt
Jane's Armour and Artillery
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:31 AM UTC
Yes, they were an option with the A2 version from the manufacturer, however, they were not used on US M113s till the A3 version. Therefore, they are not a feature to identify US M113A2s by.

Lots of things are optional and capable of being put on different vehicles but not installed for various reasons. Just like the RWS. It is capable of being put on the Abrams tank and has been tested, but is not an identifiable feature of it.
Fitz
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 439 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:43 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Yes, they were an option with the A2 version from the manufacturer, however, they were not used on US M113s till the A3 version. Therefore, they are not a feature to identify US M113A2s by.

Lots of things are optional and capable of being put on different vehicles but not installed for various reasons. Just like the RWS. It is capable of being put on the Abrams tank and has been tested, but is not an identifiable feature of it.


Yeah, again, so what? The original question was whether or not such tanks could have been found on a M163 during the late 1970's. While technically feasible, since the tanks had been introduced to production they were not in fact used on that variant. I was answering to the point, not semantics.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007 - 12:09 PM UTC
Relax. You will find these forums are open discussions that flow and grow. If you only want to answer the original question, then just do so. Don't worry about replying to any other answers or replies, however right or wrong they may be. Your further replies are therefore irrelevant as well if one follows your logic.
Fitz
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 439 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 12:07 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Relax. You will find these forums are open discussions that flow and grow. If you only want to answer the original question, then just do so. Don't worry about replying to any other answers or replies, however right or wrong they may be. Your further replies are therefore irrelevant as well if one follows your logic.


Then don't disagree with me when I answer the original question correctly, which I did. Your the one that started this nonsense, confusing what was a simple issue with incorrect information.
shapookey
Joined: November 25, 2006
KitMaker: 5 posts
Armorama: 2 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 12:27 AM UTC
i wasassigned to a chaparral/vulcan battalion ( 1978-1980 ) and i know the vulcans didn't have the fuel tanks ( then )
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 01:37 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Then don't disagree with me when I answer the original question correctly, which I did. Your the one that started this nonsense, confusing what was a simple issue with incorrect information.


Man, you have issues. I never said you answered the original question incorrectly. Just pointing out that you were not correct that the fuel tanks were an identifying feature on US A2 versions. You are the one who needs to chill out and get some thick skin.

Yes, I agree, M163s never had the external fuel tanks. There, are you happy now??
ptruhe
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: March 05, 2003
KitMaker: 2,092 posts
Armorama: 1,607 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 05:47 PM UTC
The M163 in the Verlinden Warmachine No 9 has the armored radiator cap and revised engine exhaust common to the A2 vehicles. Also seen on the M163 on display at the 2nd Cav museum at Ft. Hood.

I think the Israeli M113 with HVMS (prototype?) was the only M113 of that time period that may have implemented the external fuel tanks.

From what I've seen, only the Germans, Canadians and the Turkish have mated the external tanks to an A2 configured hull. Not so sure about the Swiss Schutzenpanzer 63/89. None of these until the late 80's though. Probably several prototypes before then but nothing fielded.

Paul
landshark2
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: March 25, 2004
KitMaker: 78 posts
Armorama: 45 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 08:30 AM UTC
Wow, didn't mean for my question to ignite that heated of a discussion. Sorry about that.

In the words of Mr. Tamiya who spoke out during the great Shep Paine vs. Verlinden riots, "Can't we all just get along?"
It was a dramatic reminder that despite our differences (who can ever forget the live television footage of the ESCI delivery driver being beaten to a pulp by a mob of Testors/Italeri fans) we are in the same hobby.
KoSprueOne
Visit this Community
Myanmar
Joined: March 05, 2004
KitMaker: 4,011 posts
Armorama: 1,498 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 08:58 AM UTC
well put.




MacsTrucks
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: December 25, 2006
KitMaker: 99 posts
Armorama: 97 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 02:45 PM UTC
Sorry, but this is too funny.

I just find a certain pleasure hearing guys who've "been there done that' and really know first hand argue with someone quoting reference material. Just one reason I never joined IPMS. Too many quasi experts. Issues I've encountered:

1. Correct "green" for a Vietnam era Huey. Mine was not judged because the green was all wrong (which it was not). Later discussions with veterans, both a pilot and crew chief provided details as well as photographs and explanations for the shading variations encountered. Darned FS595a paint chips!

2. Details of a tank (not mine) that simply could NOT have ever existed. The poor modeler did not have his photo reference with him (something I HIGHLY recommend if you dare venture to a contest). Turns out that field mods can play havoc on being completely accurate. Sure there are limits to being authenic (i.e. Desert Storm M1A2 SEP, yah right).

No offense to IPMS as a whole, as I've met a lot of really nice people. Just love to hear all the guys who read about it in a book and thus know every detail. Also, not implying that Fitz is only book smart since I don't know him. I do think that Gino's and Gary's comments ARE relevant since someone else not modelling the exact same period might infer too much. I do like to read their posts for information.
MacsTrucks
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: December 25, 2006
KitMaker: 99 posts
Armorama: 97 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 03:10 PM UTC
I just meant to say that some of the IPMS members I've encountered are wannabe experts. Granted there are some very helpful intellegent members, but just a disproportionate number of book quoters.

So I was curious and pulled out some books.. A VLS War Machines book I have basically says the A1 and A2 were pretty much externally the same with some power train and other internal details that were improved. Sorry not going into every detail, but it does not even mention external fuel tanks on an A2. The old Squadron book was published without inclusion of the A2 (1978 copyright).

Funniest part is the number of photo caption errors I've encountered over the years. Some of which are critical and become the gospel.
 _GOTOTOP