Hello friends
I build at the moment a special M48A3 model. I saw in the ARMOR magazine an article about the "Grim Reaper", the most heavily armed M48A3 of the war. It had a M2 machine gun mounted on the turret and engine deck and a minigun in front of the loaders hatch.
In the ARMOR article are a feew black and wihte photos of the "Grim Reaper". Does somebody have more photos? I would be grateful for any reference material.
Also i am on the search for former crew members of the tank.
Best thanks for any support and help.
Dave
Hosted by Darren Baker
M48A3 help needed
Amtrac1965
Sankt Gallen, Switzerland
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 12:25 AM UTC
Barthass
Poznaz, Poland
Joined: June 27, 2007
KitMaker: 85 posts
Armorama: 84 posts
Joined: June 27, 2007
KitMaker: 85 posts
Armorama: 84 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 01:13 AM UTC
Wow, I never heard about that modificated M48. It must looks great!
Really nice idea for great model. Unfortunately I don't have ARMOR Magazine and I never saw any images of this vehicle, but after Your description of this tank I really want to build this one
Really nice idea for great model. Unfortunately I don't have ARMOR Magazine and I never saw any images of this vehicle, but after Your description of this tank I really want to build this one
Amtrac1965
Sankt Gallen, Switzerland
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 02:10 AM UTC
Hello Bartek
The "Grim Reaper" looks fantastic!! As i saw the magazine article, it was clear, that i must build this tank.
The whole tank with the minigun and M2`s looks great and on the 90mm gun barrel are painted the words "Grim Reaper". Besides the heavy guns a M60 was kept in the bustle rack, along with M14, AK 47s, M16`s, submachine guns and an M79 grenade launcher.
I have the Tamiya kit as basic and i scratch builded the driver compartment and a part of the turret interior. In the next days i would like to place photos here.
The "Grim Reaper" was used in 1969 with the 3rd Platoon, B Company, 2/34 Armor.
If you are inerested i can send you copys of the ARMOR article. Give me your mail address, an i pack it in an envelope and send it to you
I am happy to see another "Grim Reaper" builder
Dave
The "Grim Reaper" looks fantastic!! As i saw the magazine article, it was clear, that i must build this tank.
The whole tank with the minigun and M2`s looks great and on the 90mm gun barrel are painted the words "Grim Reaper". Besides the heavy guns a M60 was kept in the bustle rack, along with M14, AK 47s, M16`s, submachine guns and an M79 grenade launcher.
I have the Tamiya kit as basic and i scratch builded the driver compartment and a part of the turret interior. In the next days i would like to place photos here.
The "Grim Reaper" was used in 1969 with the 3rd Platoon, B Company, 2/34 Armor.
If you are inerested i can send you copys of the ARMOR article. Give me your mail address, an i pack it in an envelope and send it to you
I am happy to see another "Grim Reaper" builder
Dave
Tankrider
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 04:25 AM UTC
Dave,
What issue (Month/year) was the article in??? Armor has a pretty complete set of back issues on line at their website. it might save you some postage... As for pictures of 2-34 Armor rides in VN, I can only remember the line of three tanks that were sporting externally mounted .50s on the cupola and ACAV shielded M60s in front of the loader's hatch - from Mesko's Armor in Vietnam book from Squadron. I believe that it was also in
Also, check to see if there are any veterans/unit websites out there. US armored crewmen from RVN timeframe seem to have numerous "alumni" websites, if you can find them. You have probably already done this...
John
What issue (Month/year) was the article in??? Armor has a pretty complete set of back issues on line at their website. it might save you some postage... As for pictures of 2-34 Armor rides in VN, I can only remember the line of three tanks that were sporting externally mounted .50s on the cupola and ACAV shielded M60s in front of the loader's hatch - from Mesko's Armor in Vietnam book from Squadron. I believe that it was also in
Also, check to see if there are any veterans/unit websites out there. US armored crewmen from RVN timeframe seem to have numerous "alumni" websites, if you can find them. You have probably already done this...
John
Barthass
Poznaz, Poland
Joined: June 27, 2007
KitMaker: 85 posts
Armorama: 84 posts
Joined: June 27, 2007
KitMaker: 85 posts
Armorama: 84 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 09:02 AM UTC
Hi Dave!
I sent You a private message
I sent You a private message
Amtrac1965
Sankt Gallen, Switzerland
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 10:15 AM UTC
Thanks Gary
Thats the issue i mean. I visited the ARMOR website many times, but i was unable to get to the back issues. Always a message pops up, with the words "the account or server is not available". I dont know why. But of course, its the best way to get the article
Thanks go also out to John. I will check the available veterans pages.
Dave
Thats the issue i mean. I visited the ARMOR website many times, but i was unable to get to the back issues. Always a message pops up, with the words "the account or server is not available". I dont know why. But of course, its the best way to get the article
Thanks go also out to John. I will check the available veterans pages.
Dave
taylgr
Australia
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 10:27 AM UTC
Dave,
No photos - still trying to source a copy of this article in full - but have the following description which was abstracted from the original:
Greg
Clarification:
"This posting contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available to the members of this forum for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
I believe this is not an infringement of copyright and constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law."
No photos - still trying to source a copy of this article in full - but have the following description which was abstracted from the original:
Greg
Clarification:
"This posting contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available to the members of this forum for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
I believe this is not an infringement of copyright and constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law."
Amtrac1965
Sankt Gallen, Switzerland
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Saturday, November 08, 2008 - 10:20 PM UTC
Hello Greg
Amazing The article you share with us is great!! Thank you so much for your efforts.
Gary, thanks go also out to you. The link you posted works! It is unfortunate that only former soldiers and armor members can log in.
Dave
Amazing The article you share with us is great!! Thank you so much for your efforts.
Gary, thanks go also out to you. The link you posted works! It is unfortunate that only former soldiers and armor members can log in.
Dave
Tankrider
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 01:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI visited the ARMOR website many times, but i was unable to get to the back issues. Always a message pops up, with the words "the account or server is not available". I dont know why.
Well, this could be why:
"Reprint Policy"
Back issues from 2001 to the present require
AKO username and password for access.
If you're not Active duty, Reserve, or Retired U.S. Army, your not going to have an AKO account.
Edit: Well I just got in there without having to use my AKO stuff. Try this:
https://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/armormag/backissues/1990s/1998/mj98/3reaper.pdf
Well,
I guess that I don't have to send those messages for e-mail addresses to send the article that I saved out to the masses... Good thinking Gary.
John
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 12:27 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Dave,
No photos - still trying to source a copy of this article in full - but have the following description which was abstracted from the original:
Greg
Clarification:
"This posting contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available to the members of this forum for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
I believe this is not an infringement of copyright and constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law."
just a couple thoughts on this subject, and then you can take it where ever you want.
* nobody liked the "cupola" as it restricted the TC's vision. I have seen M48's with it removed altogether. So that mod was very common. I might also add that they most often used the largest ammo can they could lay their hands on.
* A fifty mounted on a tripod and then welded to the turret roof is cause for your own personal body bag. It puts you up in the air, and with the other fifty you have a very limited shooting arc. Sounds more like "show and tell."
* a fifty tripod welded to the grate over the engine deck!!! Can you imagine the heat generated off the motor a few inches below you? Do you know what happens when all those cases fell thru the grate? (think changing the power pack while being visited by the local neighbors). What do you do when you have to change the power pack? Torch the tripod off? Once again show and tell or a part of the head quarters dog & pony show. Then if you did add this fifty to the deck, you would become the center of attraction while standing there naked over a 150 degree engine grate. Life expectancey of maybe a minute and a half
* minigun? OK I guess you could find away to mount it, but what for when you got the greatest sweeper on the planet with a "Can Round." I ran this one by my brother inlaw as I thought maybe I was missing something. Where do you get the electrical power hook up? The searchlight? That could happen if the voltage is right I guess (but the cable's pretty short), and of course half the searchlights were shot up anyway. I'm gonna put that one in the dog & pony show as well.
** now here's what you often saw
The fifty mounted above the cupola with a big ammo can (real big), and a large can of transmission grease right beside it to help cool the barrel. Nothing else in the way except for smoke grenades and possibly a couple flares
An M60 with a bipod was often place in front of the loader's hatch, but never left there on a 24/7 basis. He often would have an M79 grenade launcher next to him to help spot loations for the fifty & vise versa. When breaking jungle an M16 was always up there as well.
Very little else would atop the turret except for beer, and that often came from the Merrimite can they stole a month ago. Reason the roof is kept clean is simple. If you gotta exit a tank in a hurry you don't want anything between you and the ground except God. Could you imagine being the poor driver and having all that hot brass rolling down your neck while trying to avoid a recoiless rifle aiming at you?
Suggest you look at the 3/4 CAV's website, or 1st of the 1st CAV's. Those two units were about as serious as it ever got.
not trying to be mean
gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 06:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text. Could you imagine being the poor driver and having all that hot brass rolling down your neck while trying to avoid a recoiless rifle aiming at you?
Well, the driver should be buttoned up in combat. So I guess you're saying Dave Decker's article and pictures from Armor Magazine are all B.S.?
what should be what really happens are most often two completely different items. When you thinking 120 degree heat and a high humidity you gotta get air. Then being in a track running a ridge route is a story in itself with eyes looking in every direction. So actually the driver isn't always buttoned up when this get busy. This is especially true when on a road march or breaking jungle. Anytime your not dead inline with the track in front of you, your eyeballs are as big as silver dollars. You have to make it a point to align your track up dead inline with the guy in front of you unless you like music from a buried 155mm round. Most actions took place from ambushes, and then moved into hot persuit. The NVA were not dumb. They'd often hit you from two or three directions at the sametime. Then sorta draw you into the line of site with a 75 or 90mm recoiless rifle. If the TC gets zapped what then does the driver do? (assuming he even knows this happened) Remember the TC and the driver communicate without actually seeing each other most of the time, but if something's amiss he's gotta be ontop of things just like the loader and the gunner. We're not talking a minute or two, but a span of about fifteen seconds. The TC looks to his right and sees perforated shell casing laying next to the bushes, and everybody that's not shooting off loads ASAP. The driver's looking out to the front while the TC is scanning the right. Loader looks left. The guy behind him is doing the same thing. The guys in the last track will have the turret facing the rear with everybody in the middle looking all around, but never get outta line. Remember the terminology "iron coffin," that's there for a reason.
gary
Amtrac1965
Sankt Gallen, Switzerland
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 10:12 PM UTC
Hello Gary
Thanks for your remarks. Its always good to hear the reality... I believe to mount a M2 on the engine deck and also a minigun on the turret, was a bad idea... But all in all, it looks pretty cool.
For me its only the look that matters. Many "tank modifications" are in reality B.S. But i believe many model builders search for such tanks and vehicles.
Hope to see in the future some "Grim Reaper" models
Thanks for your remarks. Its always good to hear the reality... I believe to mount a M2 on the engine deck and also a minigun on the turret, was a bad idea... But all in all, it looks pretty cool.
For me its only the look that matters. Many "tank modifications" are in reality B.S. But i believe many model builders search for such tanks and vehicles.
Hope to see in the future some "Grim Reaper" models
taylgr
Australia
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 10:43 PM UTC
With respect -
Think some of you guys are doin a considerable dis-service to the crew of this vehicle!!
Not every track spent it's entire tour crashin through the "J" - most of our Centurions spent a considerable ammount of time providing fire support from fixed positions on perimeters at night, when you could always expect to get probed - and I'm pretty sure that the extra fire support on this track was not there for when the sucker was movin, but rather when she was static - as for the power supply for the "gat" - I'm sure the crew rigged up something - just like the guntrucks that used xm134's rigged up something.
As for whether a track needs all the the extra oomph shown on this baby - the simple answer is "whatever makes you feel safe brother" - she is loaded for bear - and if that made the crew feel comfortable - then so be it.
One could probably ask the same question about all the pics we're seeing come out of Iraq - about the up-gunned dump trucks - these guys are just "pimpin" their vehicles the same as "Reapers" crew - you can classify it as "dog and pony" if you like - but YOU weren't crewing this track THEY were.
I for one saw some pretty serious ordinance being carted around on light aircraft being used for FAC duties in country - again it's down to the crew, and no-one else.
Greg
Think some of you guys are doin a considerable dis-service to the crew of this vehicle!!
Not every track spent it's entire tour crashin through the "J" - most of our Centurions spent a considerable ammount of time providing fire support from fixed positions on perimeters at night, when you could always expect to get probed - and I'm pretty sure that the extra fire support on this track was not there for when the sucker was movin, but rather when she was static - as for the power supply for the "gat" - I'm sure the crew rigged up something - just like the guntrucks that used xm134's rigged up something.
As for whether a track needs all the the extra oomph shown on this baby - the simple answer is "whatever makes you feel safe brother" - she is loaded for bear - and if that made the crew feel comfortable - then so be it.
One could probably ask the same question about all the pics we're seeing come out of Iraq - about the up-gunned dump trucks - these guys are just "pimpin" their vehicles the same as "Reapers" crew - you can classify it as "dog and pony" if you like - but YOU weren't crewing this track THEY were.
I for one saw some pretty serious ordinance being carted around on light aircraft being used for FAC duties in country - again it's down to the crew, and no-one else.
Greg
Amtrac1965
Sankt Gallen, Switzerland
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Joined: August 01, 2008
KitMaker: 36 posts
Armorama: 22 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 09, 2008 - 11:55 PM UTC
You say it right Greg... in the end, its de decisson of the crew to "pimp" there vehicle up with additional armament. If used or not, thats another question.
But i believe in a firefight, every soldier and crewmember is happy, when you have some additional weapons on hand like an M2 or a minigun...
Dave
But i believe in a firefight, every soldier and crewmember is happy, when you have some additional weapons on hand like an M2 or a minigun...
Dave
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, November 10, 2008 - 05:54 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Ok, you can save the stories for those who don't know how things work. I spent many years as an armor crewman. and get it. So I'll ask you again, do you think Dave Decker's article and pictures from Armor Magazine are all B.S.?
If it's the magazine I think it is (out of Europe?), it's OK. If you noticed I never really faulted the magazine itself, and I do know it's a hard job at times to run one (I couldn't do it on my grammer alone). That being said; I had issues with an M48 setup the way it was. Nothing more. And while on the subject I really do have a clue about when something went wrong in the bush. And with that same line in thought let me tell you I am not a so called rivit counter. Just don't care about something being exact anymore as life's too short. If somebody built an M48 with an M2 welded to the roof; then so be it. But if one wants replicate a track out of a unit like the 11th CAV or 1st / 1st I would want all of us to do a little in depth research. (I do know at times that's a pain, but you at least owe it to the guys that used it).
To take the above paragraph even deeper you'll probably remember in the past that I've told all of you to use your imagination when up arming an M113. Everybody had his own idea what would work best for him, and we've all seen them with everything from a slingshot to a cannon mounted on them. Were they correct? I think so, but do you?
Now for a third paragraph to this insane line of words. I have (in the past) felt at times that maybe my wording came out a little strong in the past. Then I often will send that person a P.M. to allude to him that I personally felt I came on to him on the heavy side, and it was never ment tobe that way. I don't always agree with every writer, but most of the big name guys I do 90% of the time. One writer that many of you refer to did a nice book based on things in the sixties and seventies. It was kinda chocked full of minor errors that in the end ment little to you or me (mostly locations and basic unit numbers). I sent him a letter with corrected locations and units for about a dozen and a half pages, and in some cases told him just who was in the photos. He said thanks and never did a correction to the best of my knowledge. Most of his stuff was from Army and Marine archives, and from this I can see that the Fed dosn't do all that good a job of record keeping. Dose it matter much? Not to me, but might to the guy on the track.
Back to the M48 quagmire a second. I'd like all of you to read Dwight Birdwell's book titled "Hundred Miles Of Bad Road." Now this kid was the real deal, and should have won the CMH!! Look at the pics closely. That's what an M48 looks like in the game of mortal combat (just for all of you to know the 3/4CAV was one hard nosed unit). I'll see if I can't round up a group of photos out of the 1/4 CAV and 1st / 1st CAV (depends on if my brother inlaw is in town.
gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, November 10, 2008 - 06:11 AM UTC
Quoted Text
With respect -
Think some of you guys are doin a considerable dis-service to the crew of this vehicle!!
Not every track spent it's entire tour crashin through the "J" - most of our Centurions spent a considerable ammount of time providing fire support from fixed positions on perimeters at night, when you could always expect to get probed - and I'm pretty sure that the extra fire support on this track was not there for when the sucker was movin, but rather when she was static - as for the power supply for the "gat" - I'm sure the crew rigged up something - just like the guntrucks that used xm134's rigged up something.
As for whether a track needs all the the extra oomph shown on this baby - the simple answer is "whatever makes you feel safe brother" - she is loaded for bear - and if that made the crew feel comfortable - then so be it.
One could probably ask the same question about all the pics we're seeing come out of Iraq - about the up-gunned dump trucks - these guys are just "pimpin" their vehicles the same as "Reapers" crew - you can classify it as "dog and pony" if you like - but YOU weren't crewing this track THEY were.
I for one saw some pretty serious ordinance being carted around on light aircraft being used for FAC duties in country - again it's down to the crew, and no-one else.
Greg
Our Autralian friend were located way south of me, and may saw one of their tracks from a distance once. But when you take into fact the terrane (ground was much softer to the south), and the fact that in this kinda soil the M113 was probably better suited. I was from Duc Pho to a few miles south of the DMZ. Here the soil was either a complete mud hole or very rocky, so tanks did work "a little" better. Still you did see a few revetments built for them, but once again they never stayed in one place much. I've often thought that maybe the Centureon might have worked a tiny bit better due to a lesser ground pressure (probably not enough to matter). A lot of this also depended on the time of the year too. When the monsoons came the whole out look seemed to change. You did a lot more walking.
As for "pimping" up your ride, yes it was done. But not to the point of restricting it's usability or endangering it's crews. Remember a piece of armor is a bullet magnet, and everybody wants to go home alive and in one piece in the end. That's why nobody ever slept inside one or even near one unless you were a newby.
gary
taylgr
Australia
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Posted: Monday, November 10, 2008 - 07:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
* A fifty mounted on a tripod and then welded to the turret roof is cause for your own personal body bag. It puts you up in the air, and with the other fifty you have a very limited shooting arc. Sounds more like "show and tell."
gary
Hey Gary,
Time for some more show and tell then
And as for it being softer ground further South - let me tell you buddy - when it got wet, it was just as crap as ANYWHERE ELSE - for tracks
And our tanks where involved in exactly the same job as yours - everything from cconvoy support
to direct and indirect fire support in defensive positions/fire bases
to active patrolling to deny charlie access to the AO
Greg
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, November 10, 2008 - 07:06 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
* A fifty mounted on a tripod and then welded to the turret roof is cause for your own personal body bag. It puts you up in the air, and with the other fifty you have a very limited shooting arc. Sounds more like "show and tell."
gary
Hey Gary,
Time for some more show and tell then
And as for it being softer ground further South - let me tell you buddy - when it got wet, it was just as crap as ANYWHERE ELSE - for tracks
And our tanks where involved in exactly the same job as yours - everything from cconvoy support
to direct and indirect fire support in defensive positions/fire bases
to active patrolling to deny charlie access to the AO
Greg
just one sentence. How long did it take them to dig it out (as deep as it is I doubt that one m88 would snatch it out)?
gary