I started this in response to a discussion about the "new" Tamiya M47 release. Part of the discussion revolves around the different hand rail styles - still no variation on three kits by two different makers. Well, make that three now that Tamiya is in the mix, even though it's mostly Italeri with some pretty unimpressive additions.
Still, hand rails are an easy fix.
What's not quite so easy if reshaping the turret. In looking over my M47 photos (a pretty extensive collection derived from my wanderings) I've pretty much narrowed it down to three distinctive styles. I don't think this is a result of different grinding techniques or slight variations in molds - they seem to appear quite different and I've seen several versions of the "sliced" versdion.
First off, this ring. Italeri, (and Hence Tamiya) do not have it. Takom has it but it is not done well. The welds should stand proud as you can see. Takom has the rings engraved into the turret.
You can also see the beginnings of the slice I allude to. Note how it looks as if extra armor has been applied over the casting seam like putty.
The ring appears here as well, but note the rounded sides of the turret.
Better view:
Then you have one that is quite a bit less rounded, more of a step:
And finally, the sliced version as I call it:
Interestingly, it's different on the opposite side -
and really appears to be the result of having added much thicker armor to the lower edge of the turret, and then slicing it off.
Indeed, the first time I attempted this be just cutting away material I ended up with a nice hole in the turret. I did have to add extra armor with A+B putty and then shave it off to achieve the same look.
Just some early hump day musings...
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
M47 Turret Differences
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 03:13 AM UTC
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 04:15 AM UTC
My conversion/deletions/additions to my Somalia M47 (Testors) turret. Most noticeable addition is rain gutters (which I think was an Italian mod mostly). Feel free to jump in to either confirm or deny. The 'cheek' weld had not been added yet.
In the photo below, I've added all the cheek welds and the tiny brackets to the loaders hatch for a padlock.
Click on pics to enlarge.
In the photo below, I've added all the cheek welds and the tiny brackets to the loaders hatch for a padlock.
Click on pics to enlarge.
ptruhe
Texas, United States
Joined: March 05, 2003
KitMaker: 2,092 posts
Armorama: 1,607 posts
Joined: March 05, 2003
KitMaker: 2,092 posts
Armorama: 1,607 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 04:30 AM UTC
There two different manufacturers of the M47 so that might be part of it. Other differences like the sledge hammer pointing to the rear or forward. BW M47s had the rain gutters too.
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 04:48 AM UTC
IIRC the Germans sold a load of M47s to Italy when they were retired from the BW, so they would have arrived with rain gutters.
The circular plugged holes are interesting, as they look to line up with the trunions for the main gun. But it seems odd they would need access for assembly, deliberately weakening the cast shell and then having to plug it up. Do they appear in original period photos? I could see them being a response to a repair or upgrade issue...
The circular plugged holes are interesting, as they look to line up with the trunions for the main gun. But it seems odd they would need access for assembly, deliberately weakening the cast shell and then having to plug it up. Do they appear in original period photos? I could see them being a response to a repair or upgrade issue...
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 06:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
IIRC the Germans sold a load of M47s to Italy when they were retired from the BW, so they would have arrived with rain gutters.
The circular plugged holes are interesting, as they look to line up with the trunions for the main gun. But it seems odd they would need access for assembly, deliberately weakening the cast shell and then having to plug it up. Do they appear in original period photos? I could see them being a response to a repair or upgrade issue...
As far as I know, behind those circular/oval shaped, welded patches (never two seemed alike), were the trunnion mount access for the main gun. They are featured in the M47 Technical Manual, page 492. On page 575 and 576, the 2 photos feature the main gun from the left and right side, show bare holes right behind the "shield and adapter" (mantlet), right where the trunnion pin would be used and facilitated, that would attach the gun to the turret...right where those pesky cheeky little weld marks that show up on the exterior.
Note: if this factory photo depicts remanufacturing of an original build, even then those shapes were present from the get go as the tech manual depicts.
And another feature that mostly goes un-noticed around the modeling world: foundry cast marking on the mantlet cover, albeit upside down. A resin aftermarket cover is available with those numbers on it.
Even better, look back at the second turret...how 'bout those hand rails from the right side view!!
For the next photo below, and from the left side view...there's those pesky different applied hand rails again!
And one other cute little feature that is usually missed: note the two little metal tabs welded to an angle, placed near the middle surround for the loaders escape hatch, for padlocking/security. I feature this on my M47's as well.
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 06:45 AM UTC
Nice pic. I think I may have solved the issue of why those plugs are there. In the manufacturing process the trunnion holes would b roughly cast into place, but would need to be machined from the outside before they could be fitted with bearing. Then to maintain structural integrity the plugs were welded in.
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 06:47 AM UTC
That second turret is interesting - note the blanking plate over the rangefinder aperture. Given these turrets already had a huge bolt-on "sun roof" over the gun mount, it beggars belief that they also needed holes in the side to access the trunions! But it sure does look like an original feature...
[Edit: my surprise is because I'd have thought the whole mount (trunions and all) would be a separate assembly dropped in through the roof and bolted in place. Clearly not the case!]
[Edit: my surprise is because I'd have thought the whole mount (trunions and all) would be a separate assembly dropped in through the roof and bolted in place. Clearly not the case!]
KurtLaughlin
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 07:29 AM UTC
As I recall there were five foundries that cast M47 turrets. They all had the same part number, 7537163, so they were all the same design. The variations in the casting at the turret ring correspond with the molding practices at the particular foundry. (This is evident in Sherman turrets as well.) General Steel Castings, for example, used a re-entrant mold that gave a smooth undercut to the underside. Scullin Steel was similar but with smoother contours at the front. Continental Foundry and Machine's Wheeling plant was one of those who more or less cast the turret straight down from the widest point and machined a cylindrical clearance undercut at the base and a rough, conical clearance above that. The position and style of the foundry markings also corresponds to the foundry.
The hand and combat pack rails were a time-of-production change, as far as can be told. The rain gutters are believed to be a feature of tanks overhauled by or in Italy.
EDIT: By the way, the transition at the base varied slightly on either side and under the bustle.
KL
The hand and combat pack rails were a time-of-production change, as far as can be told. The rain gutters are believed to be a feature of tanks overhauled by or in Italy.
EDIT: By the way, the transition at the base varied slightly on either side and under the bustle.
KL
KurtLaughlin
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 07:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Nice pic. I think I may have solved the issue of why those plugs are there. In the manufacturing process the trunnion holes would b roughly cast into place, but would need to be machined from the outside before they could be fitted with bearing. Then to maintain structural integrity the plugs were welded in.
They wouldn't be cast in place, that would be too difficult given the size and shape of the main shell and the need to accurately machine them in alignment. The turret was cast solid (probably) and the trunnion position was bored through the side once the centerline of the turret race was established. (It was normal US practice to use the race bearing seat diameter and seating face as the datums for dimensions on turrets.) Bars were installed to form the trunnions and cast caps or plugs (cast numbers are visible on some) were welded in place on the outside.
KL
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 07:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
As I recall there were five foundries that cast M47 turrets. They all had the same part number, 7537163, so they were all the same design. The variations in the casting at the turret ring correspond with the molding practices at the particular foundry. (This is evident in Sherman turrets as well.) General Steel Castings, for example, used a re-entrant mold that gave a smooth undercut to the underside. Scullin Steel was similar but with smoother contours at the front. Continental Foundry and Machine's Wheeling plant was one of those who more or less cast the turret straight down from the widest point and machined a cylindrical clearance undercut at the base and a rough, conical clearance above that. The position and style of the foundry markings also corresponds to the foundry.
The hand and combat pack rails were a time-of-production change, as far as can be told. The rain gutters are believed to be a feature of tanks overhauled by or in Italy.
KL
Foundry markings featured. All four of my turrets have foundry style markings of one sort or another. I took photographic freedom and copied 4 different set of markings for application. But the number 7537163, is common to everyone of them. The serial number changed of course...and sometimes the manufacture's mark was different, or never shown at all.
This turret marking example shown above was replicated from the photo image on page 2, using the same style depicted in the photo.
TopSmith
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 08:04 AM UTC
Of the M-47 kits, which one OOB is the most accurate? Someone said the Italeri (or I guess Tamiya now) was the most accurate of the kits out there. I honestly don't know. I have no M-47s in my stash and it is on the to get list. Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread.
panamadan
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 08:26 AM UTC
A interesting thread.
Dan
Dan
KurtLaughlin
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 10:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
...and sometimes the manufacture's mark was different, or never shown at all.
On the real tanks or on your models? Marks are always present on the real tanks. They may be partially removed to mount a tool holder or something, but they are there.
KL
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 11:18 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text...and sometimes the manufacture's mark was different, or never shown at all.
On the real tanks or on your models? Marks are always present on the real tanks. They may be partially removed to mount a tool holder or something, but they are there.
KL
All modifications to my models are based, and taken from, photos of the real vehicle(s), from all over the world, all conditions (wrecks or operational), as well as from as many conflicts they appear(ed) in, from all periods, any and all operators and/or countries, to include tribal, gang, rebel, terrorist, or dictatorial use, since inception. Whether the marks are there, or have been shaved off, or otherwise altered/removed for some reason or another, somehow covered by debris, or obliterated for a multiple of reasons, or simply cannot be seen, is based on photo evidence. In just my photo collection of M47's, accumulated over a period of 17 years, number over 900. If I can't see it, it will not appear on my models. Building tank models since my first build in 1964, at 10 years old, I'm careful with what I choose to do when building.
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 11:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Of the M-47 kits, which one OOB is the most accurate? Someone said the Italeri (or I guess Tamiya now) was the most accurate of the kits out there. I honestly don't know. I have no M-47s in my stash and it is on the to get list. Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread.
Takom? Building a M47E2 (with a Italeri turret), but I would like to see someone else manufacture a M47E2 variant. My 'go to' M47? Still Italeri.
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 12:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextNice pic. I think I may have solved the issue of why those plugs are there. In the manufacturing process the trunnion holes would b roughly cast into place, but would need to be machined from the outside before they could be fitted with bearing. Then to maintain structural integrity the plugs were welded in.
They wouldn't be cast in place, that would be too difficult given the size and shape of the main shell and the need to accurately machine them in alignment. The turret was cast solid (probably) and the trunnion position was bored through the side once the centerline of the turret race was established. (It was normal US practice to use the race bearing seat diameter and seating face as the datums for dimensions on turrets.) Bars were installed to form the trunnions and cast caps or plugs (cast numbers are visible on some) were welded in place on the outside.
KL
When I worked at Hamilton Standard, and Learjet, manufacturing, the use of "blanking" plates, or 'mule' or 'slave' or 'rejected' replicas, would be substituted for the original, operational part, to afford a bit of protection to the surround, or to maintain somewhat of a clean room environment during production and to some degree, structural integrity, as mentioned. The cheek welds simply finishes the process of installation. Can you imagine a datum line being mathed in to production with only a circular slide rule and calipers! That in itself was the standard until computers showed up. I went through Flight Engineer school on the slide rule.
KurtLaughlin
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 01:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Can you imagine a datum line being mathed in to production with only a circular slide rule and calipers! That in itself was the standard until computers showed up.
They didn't have to do that on the production floor. The drafters had already resolved things into X and Y components when they located things on drawings.
To place the critical features a machinist (or set-up man, as some shops had) would place the casting approximately level and on center and the casting would be nudged around, using an indicator on some key features to get the best, equalized, fit. It would be clamped down and the race seat would be machined. From then on the datum was set and it was a matter of moving the machine's spindle so-and-so from the center and such-and-such up from the base line. (For example, on the M4A3E2 the trunnion axis was 37.000 +/- .005 from the center and 14.687 +/- .010 from the base line. On the M60 the dimensions were 38.50 +/- .01 and 13.50 +/- .01 .)
KL
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 01:13 PM UTC
Hello fellas. A detail that I have found simple to add is the drain openings located on each side of the hull, just below the turret ring. I have not seen either of the Takom kits up close, perhaps they are a feature of these newer kits.
If you are able to get down to Fort Bliss, Texas, there is/was one that is accessible with open hatches.
Respectfully,
Allen
If you are able to get down to Fort Bliss, Texas, there is/was one that is accessible with open hatches.
Respectfully,
Allen
KurtLaughlin
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 01:15 PM UTC
While rooting around my drawing I stumbled onto something I had forgotten I had. This is an M60 turret:
KL
KL
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 01:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextCan you imagine a datum line being mathed in to production with only a circular slide rule and calipers! That in itself was the standard until computers showed up.
They didn't have to do that on the production floor. The drafters had already resolved things into X and Y components when they located things on drawings.
To place the critical features a machinist (or set-up man, as some shops had) would place the casting approximately level and on center and the casting would be nudged around, using an indicator on some key features to get the best, equalized, fit. It would be clamped down and the race seat would be machined. From then on the datum was set and it was a matter of moving the machine's spindle so-and-so from the center and such-and-such up from the base line. (For example, on the M4A3E2 the trunnion axis was 37.000 +/- .005 from the center and 14.687 +/- .010 from the base line. On the M60 the dimensions were 38.50 +/- .01 and 13.50 +/- .01 .)
KL
My statement about using circular slide rules/calipers was to illustrate and/or generalize their use then, compared to computers now...no matter what department did what...ancient vs modern if you may.
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 01:45 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Hello fellas. A detail that I have found simple to add is the drain openings located on each side of the hull, just below the turret ring. I have not seen either of the Takom kits up close, perhaps they are a feature of these newer kits.
If you are able to get down to Fort Bliss, Texas, there is/was one that is accessible with open hatches.
Respectfully,
Allen
If 18Bravo takes this thread to include the hull, I'm sure those holes will be featured at some point. I think they are bilge pump outlets (if memory serves me right).
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 02:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
If 18Bravo takes this thread to include the hull, I'm sure those holes will be featured at some point. I think they are bilge pump outlets (if memory serves me right).
A thread goes where it goes. I've been known to steer one off course a time or two. As long as it doesn't become a pissing contest, who cares?
I may not have quite as many photos as John, but when I do a walkaround, I try not ti miss too much.
vettejack
Florida, United States
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Joined: November 23, 2012
KitMaker: 1,277 posts
Armorama: 1,254 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 02:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
If 18Bravo takes this thread to include the hull, I'm sure those holes will be featured at some point. I think they are bilge pump outlets (if memory serves me right).
A thread goes where it goes. I've been known to steer one off course a time or two. As long as it doesn't become a pissing contest, who cares?
I may not have quite as many photos as John, but when I do a walkaround, I try not ti miss too much.
Outstanding work there 18Bravo...and steering off course is welcomed. Models: yes. M47's: yes. Pissing contest" NO!!!
panamadan
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 1,513 posts
Armorama: 1,449 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 02:39 PM UTC
I didn’t know the 47 had a bilge.
Dan
Dan
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 02:54 PM UTC
Sometimes one can be required in the most unexpected places.