_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Maching guns mounted on top of cupola in Viet
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2019 - 04:46 AM UTC
I am building a M67 in Vietnam. I have noticed 30cal. and 50 cal.s mounted on top of the cupola. How did they do it? I see post mounts and ground mounts without the legs. If they were welded one weld would be on the elevating portion of the cupola. I see that as a problem. Does anyone know specifically where and how this was done? I do not just want to glue it randomly on and have a focal piece be wrong.

Thanks.
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2019 - 05:46 AM UTC
I guess that elevation is no more necessary once a MG has been fitted on the top of the cupola...

Welded M113 mount :



Sawed-off tripods :







Welded post :



H.P.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2019 - 06:42 AM UTC
You weld the mount to the turret in whatever fashion suits you. Nobody really liked the OEM system, but the other was a death trap.
Gary
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2019 - 08:30 AM UTC
Welded, bolted, and all manner of combinations thereof. I have a copy of the book "Vietnam Tracks" which shows all kinds of combinations.
VR, Russ
TankSGT
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2019 - 08:01 PM UTC
The third picture from the top has an interesting item on the loaders hatch. They mounted the M79 coax in a cobbled together swinging mount for the loader. I wonder how that worked it had no handles and the trigger was a palm switch on the back plate.


Tom
TAFFY3
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: January 21, 2008
KitMaker: 2,531 posts
Armorama: 859 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 27, 2019 - 10:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The third picture from the top has an interesting item on the loaders hatch. They mounted the M79 coax in a cobbled together swinging mount for the loader. I wonder how that worked it had no handles and the trigger was a palm switch on the back plate.


Tom


Looks like there's a short cable with a hook-shaped handle on the end dangling down from that gun. Could be attached to the trigger mechanism. Loader could reach up out of the hatch and yank on the cable to fire the gun. Whaddaya think? Al
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 01:05 AM UTC
If it was like mine, nothing would happen. That sucker would jam at the thought of firing. At least it is mounted where it could be worked on.

These mountings fall under the category of "This is some crazy schit". Thanks for the photos they go a long way to explain the precise and delicate process the forward-deployed welders used.
panamadan
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 03:06 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The third picture from the top has an interesting item on the loaders hatch. They mounted the M79 coax in a cobbled together swinging mount for the loader. I wonder how that worked it had no handles and the trigger was a palm switch on the back plate.


Tom


Looks like there's a short cable with a hook-shaped handle on the end dangling down from that gun. Could be attached to the trigger mechanism. Loader could reach up out of the hatch and yank on the cable to fire the gun. Whaddaya think? Al

I’m pretty sure that handle is to charge the weapon not fire it.
The M85 had the same type of charging cable handle.
Dan
TAFFY3
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: January 21, 2008
KitMaker: 2,531 posts
Armorama: 859 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 04:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

The third picture from the top has an interesting item on the loaders hatch. They mounted the M79 coax in a cobbled together swinging mount for the loader. I wonder how that worked it had no handles and the trigger was a palm switch on the back plate.


Tom


Looks like there's a short cable with a hook-shaped handle on the end dangling down from that gun. Could be attached to the trigger mechanism. Loader could reach up out of the hatch and yank on the cable to fire the gun. Whaddaya think? Al

I’m pretty sure that handle is to charge the weapon not fire it.
The M85 had the same type of charging cable handle.
Dan


You're probably right about that, was just a guess on my part
. Not really familiar with the co-ax set-up. Al
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 04:49 AM UTC
[quote]
Quoted Text

I’m pretty sure that handle is to charge the weapon not fire it.


You're right :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6ugvU3aw5Y

H.P.
m75
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: July 20, 2002
KitMaker: 666 posts
Armorama: 661 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 04:51 AM UTC
In the one photo with the TC holding a pair of binoculars, it appears the plate holding the pintle for the MG is bolted to the top of the cupola. Maybe this was where the TC's periscope for aiming the standard in-the-cupola .50 cal was normally installed? That would allow a return to original configuration at a later time.
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 05:11 AM UTC
I went back to look at "Vietnam Tracks" last night and curiously, there are several photos of M67s, but none of them have these kinds of mounts-- they all show the standard cupola mounted M85.. I'm wondering if there is a reason for this. There are tons of photos of M48s with modified cupola .50s but none for flame thrower tanks-- maybe you should look for more photos.
VR, Russ
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 06:53 AM UTC
They also lack the search light. I figured they would be amazing at night. Shear panic at the look of the flame burning its way through the dark night. Maybe they did not operate at night. Might be they also lit up the friendlies also like a ground mounted flare. I also do not remember any pictures of any flamethrowers operating at night.
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 07:43 AM UTC
At least this one has a .30 Cal MG...



I guess it could be the very same tank...





H.P.
panamadan
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 07:44 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I went back to look at "Vietnam Tracks" last night and curiously, there are several photos of M67s, but none of them have these kinds of mounts-- they all show the standard cupola mounted M85.. I'm wondering if there is a reason for this. There are tons of photos of M48s with modified cupola .50s but none for flame thrower tanks-- maybe you should look for more photos.
VR, Russ

The ‘48 used a M2 not a M85.
Dan
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 08:51 AM UTC
Another one :



H.P.
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 10:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I went back to look at "Vietnam Tracks" last night and curiously, there are several photos of M67s, but none of them have these kinds of mounts-- they all show the standard cupola mounted M85.. I'm wondering if there is a reason for this. There are tons of photos of M48s with modified cupola .50s but none for flame thrower tanks-- maybe you should look for more photos.
VR, Russ

The ‘48 used a M2 not a M85.
Dan



Yep, you are right-- I was daydreaming about my M60 days. the 48's cupola was larger and taller to accommodate the M2. We (at least I did) always had trouble with the M85 loading and charging system simply because there was not enough room for my fat hands along the sides of the gun, and I really had to "wail back" the receiver with the charging handle. It was a pain in the..... I 'll bet if we ever had to take them into combat, we'd have done the same thing they did with the 48s in Vietnam, and mounted a .50 on top of the cupola.
VR, Russ
panamadan
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 11:15 AM UTC
Our 1SG told us to pour engine (or transmission, I don't remember which) oil over the M85s guts and that helped alot.
Dan
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Monday, January 28, 2019 - 04:21 PM UTC
Ugh. I still remember having to drop the m85 at night with the cupola hatch closed. The barrel was still attached. I repaired it and had to reinstall it with the barrel attached, then reload it. That was an upper body workout.
 _GOTOTOP