_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Vietnam
All things Vietnam
Hosted by Darren Baker
M48A3 Turret Question.
joegrafton
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2009
KitMaker: 1,209 posts
Armorama: 1,143 posts
Posted: Friday, September 24, 2010 - 09:47 AM UTC
Hi fellas,
Apparently, Tank Workshop do a 1/35th resin turret for the Tamiya M48A3. It is called M48A3 Turret B with M-1 Cupola.
My questions are: firstly, what is the turret B? And secondly was the turret B & M-1 cupola used in Vietnam?
I appreciate any help rendered here.
Thanks guys.
Joe.
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Friday, September 24, 2010 - 10:22 AM UTC
Hi Joe

I believe the "B" is in fact for M48A3 Mod B (a.k.a. Late Model). From http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m48patton.html : "Bowen-McLaughlin-York, Inc., converted 578 tanks to M48A3 (Mod B) standard starting in 1967. The Mod B tanks differed from the earlier M48A3s by having armor framing running along the tops of the engine exhaust louvres, armor boxes surrounding the taillights, and an adapter ring incorporating vision blocks which raised the commander's cupola by about 5" (13cm). This, combined with a redesign of the cupola door, provided more room for the tank commander. M48A3 (Mod B) tanks also received driver's controls and gauges from the M60A1 tank, the fuel lines were relocated, and the suspension was modified by the addition of knock-out holes for the torsion bars and the redesign of the track return roller mud shields. Detachable headlights were mounted, and the fender telephone intercom was mounted in a higher position. Infrared fire control equipment was installed in the upgraded tanks as well. The upgrades that BMY installed were eventually retrofitted to all M48A3s, and the Mod B designation was subsequently deleted."

But the TWS set doesn't include the turret cupola vision riser...

So I believe it's OK for a pre-1967 tank :


Frenchy
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, September 24, 2010 - 10:27 AM UTC
The TWS turret is a direct copy of the kit turret. The only difference between the regular cupola and their B cupola is the additional ring of vision blocks around the base, as in the kit. This is the type used more commonly in Vietnam. The TWS turret doesn't fix the squatness of the turret either. It is still about 1mm too squat and requires a shim of 0.040 between the two halves.

Bottom line, you gain nothing by getting the TWS turret. Its a waste of money.
joegrafton
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2009
KitMaker: 1,209 posts
Armorama: 1,143 posts
Posted: Friday, September 24, 2010 - 12:09 PM UTC
Thanks for the heads-up fellas.
Gino, thanks mate. You've saved me a good few dollars! It's a bit of a con to just do an exact copy of a plastic kit that is not even correct to start with & then charge over £30 for it, dont you think?
Nice picture, by the way, Frenchy.
Joe.
MCR
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 25, 2010 - 04:25 AM UTC
Interesting comment on the Tamiya turret being too "low"; I can't find the posts anymore but a couple of individuals who actually measured the real item came to the conclusion that the kit part is almost exactly the right height.
Anyone recall those posts and where to find them?

Mark
gatorbait
Visit this Community
Louisiana, United States
Joined: August 25, 2002
KitMaker: 252 posts
Armorama: 201 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 25, 2010 - 04:57 AM UTC
Nice to see the Steel Tigers on the hunt...
seanmcandrews
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: May 09, 2009
KitMaker: 561 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 - 10:53 AM UTC
Mark,
I posted turret height measurments but over on missing lynx, perhaps what you're thinking of ? Anyway , at this point I've measured 3 M48 series turrets and they all are 35" even . The kit turret measures 1" so it's pretty much spot on.

Sean
joegrafton
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2009
KitMaker: 1,209 posts
Armorama: 1,143 posts
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 - 11:00 AM UTC
This is all very interesting. One school of thought says the turret is to low & another says its spot on. Lets just say you're right for the moment, is there anything else wrong with the Tamiya kit? I understand that the suspension is wrong & makes the vehicle sit too high. Is that right? Anything else?
Joe.
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 - 12:08 PM UTC
I have measured the turret too, and I found it too squat, I guess depends just where and how you measure. Its up to you. To me, it looks better w/the shim.

Here is a list of tweaks and corrections to the Tamiya M48A3. None of these "have" to be done, but they will make it more accurate.

1. Turret height should be increased by approx 1.5mm, which can be done by adding an 0.040 sheet styrene shim between the turret halves, which can then be sanded to the turret's shape.

2. Fill the motorization slots and holes on the model.

3. Three oval holes should be added to the drive sprockets at the 12, 4 and 8 o'clock positions to allow mud to clear from the sprocket. These are not present on the model, but were there in real life. Check reference pics for shape and location.

4. It's worth considering replacing the fender stays with PE items or homemade efforts of very thin sheet styrene.

5. Rebuild the stowage basket from thin wire; it really improves the model.

6. Add casting numbers to the turret roof, rear hull, and engine access doors.

7. Glue mantlet in place and fill gap with milliput to represent the canvas cover.

8. Replace the cover, fixing clips with plastic strip and add bolt heads.

9. If shown opened, shave off loader's hatch internal handle and latch mechanism, and replace with brass or plastic strip, rod and tube.

10. Turret water jerry cans have incorrect style filling cap.

11. You could replace the molded on tie downs on the turret with brass items.

12. Use copper wire to add 3 lifting lugs to the commander's cupola, at the 12, 4, and 8 o'clock positions.

13. Shave off and replace the hull stowage bin handles with plastic/brass strip.

14. Fill up the main turret site periscope, as well as the driver's periscopes.

15. Add cast texture to the turret and hull.

16. Replace the awfully incorrect kit tracks with aftermarket ones. The AFV set is great, just make sure you get the correct one, they make two sets that they say can be used on the M48 and M60 tanks. One of them has octagonal shaped pads; the other has chevron shaped pads. The latter (chevron block) are the correct ones for a Vietnam era tank.

17. Suspension height correction. The Tamiya kit was based on a vehicle that did not have the engine installed, as such, it was lighter and rode high on its suspension. The kit is about 3mm too high. To fix it, shorten the suspension arm dampers by about 2.5mm by removing the thin rod on the shock part. This will allow the road arms to sit lower. You may also have to remove a couple track blocks on each side to take the slack out of the track.

18. Not so much a tweak, as it is a hint, do not add the barrel for the .50 cal to the commander's cupola. Do the other option the kit gives you and position the .50 cal outside and on top of the cupola as most tanks did this, because they felt the .50 cal took up too much space inside the cupola, restricting movement and vision for the commander. Fill the hole for the original position.

Good luck.
joegrafton
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2009
KitMaker: 1,209 posts
Armorama: 1,143 posts
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 - 12:31 PM UTC
Thanks Gino, for the comprehensive list of things to do on the M48. Everything we need to know is right there in one easy to read reply. Brilliant!
Joe.
junglejim
Visit this Community
Alberta, Canada
Joined: February 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,728 posts
Armorama: 1,629 posts
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 - 03:14 PM UTC
Another thing to consider, as built the nose of the hull is too blunt/rounded in the kit; it should be 'pointy' where the upper and lower hull meet. This is the best photo I've found that illustrates it, from Prime Portal.
http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/ulrich_wrede/m48/images/m48_04_of_30.jpg

Jim
lukiftian
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Joined: March 12, 2010
KitMaker: 791 posts
Armorama: 592 posts
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 - 06:39 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The TWS turret is a direct copy of the kit turret. The only difference between the regular cupola and their B cupola is the additional ring of vision blocks around the base, as in the kit. This is the type used more commonly in Vietnam. The TWS turret doesn't fix the squatness of the turret either. It is still about 1mm too squat and requires a shim of 0.040 between the two halves.

Bottom line, you gain nothing by getting the TWS turret. Its a waste of money.



Would that shim be required with the AFV Club M48H as well?
C_JACQUEMONT
Visit this Community
Loire-Atlantique, France
Joined: October 09, 2004
KitMaker: 2,433 posts
Armorama: 2,325 posts
Posted: Monday, September 27, 2010 - 10:28 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Interesting comment on the Tamiya turret being too "low"; I can't find the posts anymore but a couple of individuals who actually measured the real item came to the conclusion that the kit part is almost exactly the right height.
Anyone recall those posts and where to find them?

Mark



There were a couple of threads over on Missing Lynx modern, here's the most recent one :

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47209/thread/1274531725/M48+turret+height+take+two

Cheers,

Christophe
MCR
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: July 15, 2004
KitMaker: 464 posts
Armorama: 407 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - 04:27 AM UTC
Sean and Christophe,
Yes! That is one of the posts I was speaking of and I have to throw my hand in with the folks that are saying you have to be very careful about basing your measurements off of drawings, especially drawings that are copies of copies.

Now, Gino, who I have a lot of respect for when it comes to the subject of modern armor, says he's measured a turret as well and still comes up with the kit part being too low. I'd be interested in knowing what variation of the tank his turret was from and how both he and Sean acquired their data ( reference points, etc.).

As for me, when I compare the Tamiya turret to photos of California National Guard M48A5's that I have in my collection, if it is off it doesn't appear to me to be as much as is being suggested.
Maybe I'll have to see if I can locate an M48 somewhere near by in Phoenix, Arizona.

Mark
rfbaer
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - 08:05 AM UTC
There's one here in Dallas, at an old Guard armory. If someone could tell me exactly where to measure, I could probably do so.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - 08:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Mark,
I posted turret height measurments but over on missing lynx, perhaps what you're thinking of ? Anyway , at this point I've measured 3 M48 series turrets and they all are 35" even . The kit turret measures 1" so it's pretty much spot on.

Sean



I have no idea as which is right, but knowing that the turret is a sand cast item in raw form; I'd say they were probably working with a +/- .50" in raw form due to it's size and weight. If not closer to .75". Spin cast technology wasn't used all that much in those days, so the measured numbers could have been on the high side or the low side. Somewhere on the outside of the turret are at least three pads (probably four to six) that are what everthing is based off of during machining. The turret could vary six inches and it wouldn't matter to the folks cutting the metal. I don't have a 48 to look over near me, but do have several M60's, and I'd bet they used the same equipment to cut both turrets as they came from the same place. What would be critical would be the base ring the turret rotates on and the centerline of the barrel pivot. Does this make sense to you all?
gary
seanmcandrews
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: May 09, 2009
KitMaker: 561 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2010 - 10:46 AM UTC
Mark,
my measurments were taken by running a straightedge off of the turret roof in front of the loaders hatch and measuring from the botttom of that to the lower edge of the turret. I've measured a M48A1 , M67 flame tank, and I don't rercall what the 3rd one was .

Sean
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2010 - 01:37 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Mark,
my measurments were taken by running a straightedge off of the turret roof in front of the loaders hatch and measuring from the botttom of that to the lower edge of the turret. I've measured a M48A1 , M67 flame tank, and I don't rercall what the 3rd one was .

Sean



On a tank turret, I'd think the critical deminsion would be the centerline of the barrel pivot to the rotating ring at the bottom face of the turret. I would guess that the turret came with three to six premachined pads on the left or right hand side that they would set the turret on for the first machining operation, and even then it was probably a roughing operation. The tank plant used to have several large G&L boring mills that could easilly handle the turret laying on it's side. Then there would be another set of three pre qualified pads that would be used to square up the rough casting. Once that was done they would cut the rotating ring to within about .05". Now you have something solid to set the casting on, and then machine the gun mount. After that you'd go back and finish the bottom ring. Once you have this done everything can be squared up off the rotating ring and a huge (!!!) angle plate with a large cut out in the middle. The top of the turret machining would probably just be done for a 100% cleanup and still be parallel to the rotating ring. There's another way to do this, and that would be with a VTL, and they did have one over there that was plenty big enough for the job (you could set a complete tank hull on it!). But what I'm saying is that the critical stuff is done off the ring, and the rest is not all that critical. So it could vary a good deal. I've seen them cut the hull on the VTL before, but never saw exactly what or how they cut the turret, so I'm kinda guessing
gary
seanmcandrews
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: May 09, 2009
KitMaker: 561 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Friday, October 01, 2010 - 03:10 AM UTC
Gary,
you wouldn't happen to have any photos or know where i could find some of these machining operations you describe? I'm a machinist myself and have considered doing up a tank manufacturing diorama for some time but other than a few shots of M-48s and 60s in the old squadron /signal books I haven't had much luck. Last March my brother and law and I went over to the old chrysler plant in Newark for their auction, and having known they used to manufacture these vehicles there I was somehow hoping to see something related to it such as old fixtures or something . Other than a painting of an M-48 on the cafeteria wall there was nothing.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 01, 2010 - 05:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Gary,
you wouldn't happen to have any photos or know where i could find some of these machining operations you describe? I'm a machinist myself and have considered doing up a tank manufacturing diorama for some time but other than a few shots of M-48s and 60s in the old squadron /signal books I haven't had much luck. Last March my brother and law and I went over to the old chrysler plant in Newark for their auction, and having known they used to manufacture these vehicles there I was somehow hoping to see something related to it such as old fixtures or something . Other than a painting of an M-48 on the cafeteria wall there was nothing.



I've been in Lima a couple time (maybe three), and did get the tour once. The other times I was there on business, as they were seeking my help in getting machine parts rebuilt correctly at a decient price. I've also been in Warren Park and Cleveland (just once in Cleveland) a couple times for business purposes. Never was in the Chrysler plant, but I do know they all used similar machining practices just from their input. Lima has some of the biggest machinery I've ever seen!
The comments I made on the raw turret castings were really an educated guess as I came out of that business. In that time frame nobody really built any vertical spindle equipment big enough to do an M48 or M60 turret, but G&L and a couple others did build horizontal spindle equipment capable of handeling the procedure (size as well as being able to handle the weight of the fixture and casting itself). We did have some conversations with Chrysler on this back in the late 1970's, and bought a couple pieces with their advice. Machining in Cleveland was similar, but a little smaller in size (they were doing M109's and Sheridans). Suggest you do a search on G&L's website (they also took over K&T later). When you thinking of manufacturing a tank you have to remember the actual out put is in low numbers, and the physical size is huge. A lot of the equipment they buy is custom made by one of three manufacturers (G&L, K&T, or Cinncinatti). But in the end it all ends up being a machining complex of one form or another. Warren Park was pretty much an all assembly plant with not a large amount of metal cutting. I know this is confusing, but just about everybody back in those days worked in a similar pattern. There was no CNC equipment per say, and what automated equipment there was ran off of a tape. And the folks I mentioned were about the only ones doing this on a large basis (there was Sundstrand as well, but don't ever remember seeing anything that big out of them).
As for photos, that would be a no no! Still there are a few here and there floating around. The only thing I have in my pocession is from the Cleveland plant, and they are nothing more than the final hull assembly line (and also pretty old). Surprisingly the line in Cleveland looks similar to what the Germans used in WWII. Lima is vastly different.
Just a side note: Catapillar is about the only other company I can think of (other than aircraft companys) that owns machinery in that size range and type. They have a wharehouse in IL that sells used equipment, so you might be able to see what they have for sale to give you an idea. Boring mills have not change a whole lot over the last fifty years in looks. That's where I'd start and then use a little artistic license. Inside photos are closely guarded by each manufacturer. Still if I were to walk thru that plant and look at the floor alone, I could probably tell you at least how they laid the plant out.
gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 01, 2010 - 05:18 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Mark,
I posted turret height measurments but over on missing lynx, perhaps what you're thinking of ? Anyway , at this point I've measured 3 M48 series turrets and they all are 35" even . The kit turret measures 1" so it's pretty much spot on.

Sean



there is a set of prints posted over on M/L, and the number comes out at 35.5", +.5"/-.125". I have not studied the drawings supplied up close, but plan on doing this later today. The tolerance seemed odd to me, but the actual machining numbers were probably changed to something in the middle of the spread.
gary
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, October 01, 2010 - 06:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text


there is a set of prints posted over on M/L, and the number comes out at 35.5", +.5"/-.125". I have not studied the drawings supplied up close, but plan on doing this later today. The tolerance seemed odd to me, but the actual machining numbers were probably changed to something in the middle of the spread.
gary



That is my estimate of the tolerance based upon a drawing note for the internal casting contour. I have not studied the entire drawing yet (eight or nine sheets and one is missing) but the tolerance might be there. As a rule, American armor castings were of +X, -0 on thickness while contour tolerances varied. All-in-all, I would consider the 35-1/2 number to be the minimum you might see on a tank..

BTW, only a link to the drawings was posted on ML. I also gave a link in this thread on Armorama:

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/165147&page=1

KL
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 01, 2010 - 07:24 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


there is a set of prints posted over on M/L, and the number comes out at 35.5", +.5"/-.125". I have not studied the drawings supplied up close, but plan on doing this later today. The tolerance seemed odd to me, but the actual machining numbers were probably changed to something in the middle of the spread.
gary



That is my estimate of the tolerance based upon a drawing note for the internal casting contour. I have not studied the entire drawing yet (eight or nine sheets and one is missing) but the tolerance might be there. As a rule, American armor castings were of +X, -0 on thickness while contour tolerances varied. All-in-all, I would consider the 35-1/2 number to be the minimum you might see on a tank..

BTW, only a link to the drawings was posted on ML. I also gave a link in this thread on Armorama:

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/165147&page=1

KL



I missed the link, and can't get the drawings to blow up for a reprint. I'm going to try your link to see if it does anybetter. Another thing to remember is that when making a casting that big; the specs will be all over the place. I'd hate to think about building the cores let alone pouring the iron! Most large castings I've seen like that are +/-1/2" all the way around. In a spin cast mode they'd be able to hold it to about +/- 3/8th", but the overall size and shape make that very difficult to do.
gary
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, October 01, 2010 - 07:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text


I missed the link, and can't get the drawings to blow up for a reprint. I'm going to try your link to see if it does anybetter.



I'm pretty sure you have to download the PDF to view it.

KL
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 01, 2010 - 10:10 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


I missed the link, and can't get the drawings to blow up for a reprint. I'm going to try your link to see if it does anybetter.



I'm pretty sure you have to download the PDF to view it.

KL



my PC for some reason dosn't down load PDF files as it should. They will down load OK, but you'll never find them when you want them (Win 7). I used the other one on M/L, and it went there, but the PDF file is now where to be found after the down load. What I may do is to try and get the down load on my notebook as it uses Win XP. As for viewing it, I was able to see that in the two links supplied, but the image was very small. I even printed one out, and I suppose you could see it better under a good piece of glass. What makes me mad is that I at onetime had access to all those prints in TACOM's fish scale files (I even remember seeing them). But the ones I wish I'd printed off were the Sheridan and the Ontos files! There's thousands of them in many layers. How far back they go I don't know, but think you'd spend a few months in there just looking at them! And more than half are not even tanks, but gauging and fixtures. Just the Federal specs alone is probably a thousand pages! The viewing screen isn't all that big, and after a couple hours you start to get bug eyed
gary
 _GOTOTOP