Nit-picking point, but I don't believe there were any M60 AVLB. All the chassis were either M60A1, A2, or M48 variants.

Quoted Text

---

Nit-picking point, but I don't believe there were any M60 AVLB. All the chassis were either M60A1, A2, or M48 variants.

---

You are correct, but they were not called anything other than an M48 AVLB and an M60 AVLB. The different marks were not noted when refering to them.

If the hull had been built as a gun tank the original "A" model would be noted in the data plate in the driver's compartment.

Quoted Text

---

If the hull had been built as a gun tank the original "A" model would be noted in the data plate in the driver's compartment.

---

I would not say that was a given. As the photos here show, the dataplate for the AVLB using an M60A2 hull with CBSS is listed as an M60A1. The inside dataplates were likely changed to reflect the different dimensions, manual references, and performance of the AVLB.

There is a good chance, however, that the original vehicle numbering remains on the left hull rear, left front tow lug, and left front glacis.

KL

That's the data plate on the bridge launching mechanism.

I'm referring to the one in the driver's compartment just over his left shoulder. That one reflects the original build configuration and registration number. It is amended as a vehicle is rebuilt but never removed or replaced. I Remember one in a M35A2 truck, it listed being built by REO in 1952 then had two amendments for the A1 and A2 rebuilds.

I have seen ones in an M60A3 that indicated the hull was a slick M60 and then the conversion to A3 but the turret just had a M60A3 plate as it was all new. I hot seated a lot of tanks for drawing and turn in.

Quoted Text

---

That's the data plate on the bridge launching mechanism.

---

No, it's the launcher chassis, as it says, the hull, engine, suspension, etc., PLUS the hydraulics and the frames. Look at the picture to the right: It shows and gives data for thee chassis, not just the hydraulic cylinder. Also, look at the NSN on the data plate and the NSN on this manual. They are the same. Now look at what the manual covers: starting the engine, driving the vehicle, changing the tracks. More than just the lauching mechanism.

Quoted Text

---

I'm referring to the one in the driver's compartment just over his left shoulder. That one reflects the original build configuration and registration number. It is amended as a vehicle is rebuilt but never removed or replaced. I Remember one in a M35A2 truck, it listed being built by REO in 1952 then had two amendments for the A1 and A2 rebuilds.

I have seen ones in an M60A3 that indicated the hull was a slick M60 and then the conversion to A3 but the turret just had a M60A3 plate as it was all new. I hot seated a lot of tanks for drawing and turn in.

---

When vehicles are changed from tanks to something else the practice can change. That's why I said it wasn't a given. The stamped numbers, if they still remain, can provide equivalent data when you can't get inside.

KL

Quoted Text

---

Nit-picking point, but I don't believe there were any M60 AVLB. All the chassis were either M60A1, A2, or M48 variants.

---

You are correct, but they were not called anything other than an M48 AVLB and an M60 AVLB. The different marks were not noted when refering to them.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Nit-picking point, but I don't believe there were any M60 AVLB. All the chassis were either M60A1, A2, or M48 variants.

---

You are correct, but they were not called anything other than an M48 AVLB and an M60 AVLB. The different marks were not noted when refering to them.

---

Gino
I plan to do the same as you move all the components over to a M60 hull now my question is what kit of the M60 I can use i was thinking of either Academy or Tamiya but i heard they have issues with height of the hulls due to suspension issues so would it be best to use a dragon M60A1 hull or can you recommend another option?

I'll just throw this out there while I'm perusing this: I see that Dragon has done the artwork and CAD drawings showing T-142 tracks. For those of you that buy this kit and don't like DS tracks, I would gleefully buy you un-used parts, or trade straight up for AFV Club indies. While I'm here, I would also be interested in any AFV Club T-142 tracks from their M60A3 kit.
Sorry for the hi-jack.

Am I correct that the Army fielded the M104 Wolverine HAB? Isn`t there a problem with the launcher? I find only little reference about the Wolverine
BTW I discovered some pics of M48 A5 AVLB with 82nd Eng. at Warner Barracks back in 1993. So a goot reason to get the Dragon kit, IF it has a good quality.

I wonder if the Joint Assault Bridge will supersed M48 and M60 AVLB?

I guess the bridge has more load capacity?

All M60 AVLB and M104s are slated to be replaced soon by the Joint Assualt Bridge, which is a more simple Abrams-based design which is more similar to the M48/M60 AVLB design with folding bridge sections, as opposed to the M104's sliding bridge section design.

I am not convinced that a "scissor" bridge system is really that desirable .... a minute or two faster can't be an argument when your opponent sees this thing standing up against the horizon identifying your intentions and giving away your position .
Besides all the other nations using the Leguan-System don't seem to have an issue operating their bridge-layers, even when operated and maintained by conscripts in some countries.
To harmonize all existing systems makes sense .... but with this "aging" technology ? It must have been the price then.

Cheers
Christopher