_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Best M60 for the 80s?
Ranger74
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: April 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,290 posts
Armorama: 658 posts
Posted: Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 10:44 PM UTC
The hull, including the back deck of the M60A1 & M60A3 are the same. The other items are correct, plus the left hand rangefinder blister is closed up and the right hand rangefinder has the safety cover for the laser rangefinder. Early M60A3s had the wiring for the smoke grenade launchers running up side of turret to top and then inside (this was how some of the M60A3 (Passive) in the 11th ACR had their launchers mounted), while remanufactured tanks had the "pig tail" that ran straight thru the armor underneath the launcher mounts. The M60A3 (TTS) also normally, did not have the searchlight mounts installed on the gun mantle. The mounts were still used for sub-caliber training devices, but were normally carried inside the vehicle. Almost forgot, on my M60A3s the armored cable outlet for the search light cable was welded shut. I believe some even had the entire "nub" removed and the hole in the front slope of the turret plugged flush.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 12:48 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The hull, including the back deck of the M60A1 & M60A3 are the same. The other items are correct, plus the left hand rangefinder blister is closed up and the right hand rangefinder has the safety cover for the laser rangefinder. Early M60A3s had the wiring for the smoke grenade launchers running up side of turret to top and then inside (this was how some of the M60A3 (Passive) in the 11th ACR had their launchers mounted), while remanufactured tanks had the "pig tail" that ran straight thru the armor underneath the launcher mounts. The M60A3 (TTS) also normally, did not have the searchlight mounts installed on the gun mantle. The mounts were still used for sub-caliber training devices, but were normally carried inside the vehicle. Almost forgot, on my M60A3s the armored cable outlet for the search light cable was welded shut. I believe some even had the entire "nub" removed and the hole in the front slope of the turret plugged flush.



Are you sure about the height of the back deck? I though when we went through the High RISE Passive tanks, the back decks were raised to accomodate the clean air systems...am I incorrect?
DJ
Ranger74
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: April 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,290 posts
Armorama: 658 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 01:00 AM UTC
When I was a company XO we received one of the first RISE M60A1s. The difference in the air intake system was the change to the armored top loading air cleaners from the unarmored air cleaners on our pre-RISE engined vehicles. The air hoses running to an from teh air cleaners were unchanged. Now that I think about it, the air cleaner boxes were taller with the armored versions, but the engine deck was unchanged.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 04:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

When I was a company XO we received one of the first RISE M60A1s. The difference in the air intake system was the change to the armored top loading air cleaners from the unarmored air cleaners on our pre-RISE engined vehicles. The air hoses running to an from teh air cleaners were unchanged. Now that I think about it, the air cleaner boxes were taller with the armored versions, but the engine deck was unchanged.



So, do you agree the Tamiya kit is a faithful replication of the A3?
DJ
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 08:47 AM UTC
I agree that straight OOB it is a good rendition. There are others who complain that the suspension makes the tank sit too high. Nothing that bothers me.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 08:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I agree that straight OOB it is a good rendition. There are others who complain that the suspension makes the tank sit too high. Nothing that bothers me.



Rob--what did you think of the Tamiya track? Should it be used oor should one seek better?
thanks
DJ
Ranger74
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: April 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,290 posts
Armorama: 658 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 09:02 AM UTC
I would have to agree that it is a faithful representation. The Tamiya M60A1 was also a good kit, maybe not the best. The only reason I have not purchased their M60A3 kit is that I started a conversion of their M60A1 kit. Still have to finish that
 _GOTOTOP