The last heavy tank, that reached service.

[Bob Riebe]

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M103_Heavy_Tank.php

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/120mm-gun-tank-t43/

Ironglow:
As you served in Germany you may have seen some of the A1 versions first hand; the Marine A2 version was modified to it was the equivalent functions to the M60 of the time (It did not need the bi-pod for the gun.

That cannon was most impressive, accurate up to 3,500 meters, in the fifities and could pierce over a foot of armor with solid shot.
Too big and heavy, 60 calibers, but that gun would put fear into the heart of any tank commander today.

[ironglow]

  Initially a Tanker trained at Ft Knox and serving at Ft Hood..years later, I was deployed to Germany , I served as dispatcher with a signal battalion.  The tanks I trained and served with were M47 and M48 Patton tanks, both 50 tons, 810 hp V12 engines and 90 mm gun tube.
That heavy was especially placed in Europe, because we expected if the Soviets along with the eastern block,
  decided to cross the Rhine through the Fulda gap near Frankfurt. I suspect those heavy tanks could act almost as stationary guns, perhaps even being dug in, into a "hull defilade" if necessary..attempting as the plan went, to hold the Russians at the Rhine until reinforcements arrived from the US, Uk or wherever.

  The M103 was only accepted by the Marines, so there are  few left, except those used to 'decorate' military bases and museums.  So, why didn't the army buy any of those heavy tanks (65 tons) ?

  I assume because of different plans on usage..  The army had fought with thousands of tanks in Europe, just 20+ years previous, so they had a good handle on needs.

  Heavies are not always the best selection.. that M103 weighed 65 tons, but used the same tracks as the 50 ton M48A1..and used the same 810 hp continental engine.
     The gun tube was 120mm rather than the 90mm of the M48.  Notice that huge turret, especially extending toward the rear... that was to counter balance that huge gun tube.  If the tank is sitting perfectly flat, perhaps so much counter would not be needed, but the more off level t e tank is, that heavy gun tube may be difficult or impossible to traverse.
  Our 90mm gun weighed 2600 pounds, I wouldn't be surprised but that 120mm would go 4,000 pounds.

 Heavy tanks are not truly practical.. most bridges won't handle them and pounds per square inch on the tracks is a critical specification...floatation is needed on chewed up surfaces.

  Nicholas Moran, a tanker from the Desert Storm action walks us through the M103 here....
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmUQ4uiWoT8

  I was in Germany when JFK was assassinated...we went on full alert..  Below, map showing the Fulda gap..

  BTW; That 'bipod' you see on the rear of the M103 is the travel lock support system. When travelling long distances..to and from action, the turret is reversed and the gun tube locked in the ring provided.  That way the gun tube is not continually using it's gyro-stabilizer to keep the gun level while travelling.  It is normally kept in the travel lock position, except when using the gun.
   

[ironglow]

I don't know, not my area of expertise at all. But I've read the new Russian T-90 is better than anything we got right now.  True?

  I have to admit  bias... but I still think the T90 is far outclassed by the Abrams latest upgrade, and  Many experts agree.  The T90 is essentially an upgraded T72.

  The Russians can build a good tank, but I have a suspicion that corruption on some levels have corrupted their efforts.

  The tanks I served in wouldn't last but a few minutes on the field among todays tanks of any nation.  Among other reasons is the newer armor.  My tanks were homogenous armor plate..all steel.  Today's tanks have sophisticated armor, such as the US and UK Chobham armor.
  Then there is reactive armor..when struck with a projectile, explodes back at the projo, negating much of it's force.
    Note, the Abrams has its reactive armor plates just a few degrees off vertical.
   I have heard that the Russian tanks, especially the T90, has a poor grade of reactive armor.  look at the T90
  The reactive plates are triangular shaped.  They are like this because of the poor quality of the reactive armor.

  If the plates were vertical, the reaction would kill friendly troops who are accompanying the tanks..an  indication
    that the reactive armor is poorly controlled.  Perhaps it also needs the extra, sloping glacis surface.

  In the final analysis, the success of any tank depends upon the efficiency of it's crew, and I believe we have the edge there..at least for now..

  ..But as I said, I have an inbuilt bias...  Perhaps like a ball player who played for the Yankees 50 years ago, but still roots for "his team"..  

[Bob Riebe]

The new Russsia T-14 is the Russian tank that is the equivalent of Western and Eastern tanks .

The T-90 is the last incarnation of the T-62 from the sixties; it suffer the same short coming that all T-62 tanks have that other countries eliminated decades ago and has proven a major liability in The Ukrain.

If hit in a certain area, the turret blows off of the tank.
The M60 was used in Desert Storm, with reactive armor protection; the gun on the m103 weight a little over 5,000 pounds and was developed from the 120 mm anti-aircraft cannon the Air Force used in the fifties.

The Israeli wars were where old vs new exposed all sorts of design failures in a large variety of tanks used; I did not know until I did some reading yesterday, the Russian IS-3 heavy tank,  that the M103 was built to defeat was used in the Six Day war.

[ironglow]

Some serious doubts have been raised, concerning the T14 tank.  The Russians are well known for boasting way beyond facts concerning their newest weapons, probably a habit gained from Communist propaganda.

  Estimates are, they have built half dozen T14s..  They had a couple T14s in the in their last May Day parade,
   and ended up towing one away..   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJzuo2TsfM

    The UK  (Challenger II), Germany (Leopard II), France (Leclerc)..and South Korea (K2 Black Panther), all have very competitive tanks.

[Bob Riebe]

A rare picture of Ironglow in the Army!

[Lloyd Smale]

thats a big (censored word) tank!!!

[ironglow]

A rare picture of Ironglow in the Army!

  That is a T28 heavy..  It was developed during WW2 to break through the Siegfried line, Which was composed of pillbox emplacements as well as the storied "dragon's teeth".

  It never got to see action, since the dragon's teeth were rather easily defeated...by bulldozing an earth berm over top of them, and once behind the stationary gun emplacements..they could be ignored or "cooked out"..with flame thrower

  "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."   (Gen George S. Patton)

  BTW:   Among my old pics, I have a photo or two with my tank..and another of myself, standing among the dragon's teeth, but I don't have the expertise to post them..
 
   

[phalanx]

Interesting. How well did any of them hold up under air power?  We hauled a few M60 tanks to our troops in Germany. During the Cold War. Our sister squadron did also. We took this pic of them from a window before we split up.We were both Starlifters.

[ironglow]

  So you flew in those big birds, Phalanx.. that must be something to rattle around in when running empty..

  Is there any heat outside the crew compartment ?

[ironglow]

  Correct; the Abrams has been powered by a turbine engine since it's inception.  Whether this is a plus or minus, can be attested to by it's success or lack of success upon the battlefield.

   Here is an interesting analysis of the Abrams tank..which is continually being upgraded...much in the way a 1911 Colt can be upgraded, yet look the same on the exterior...which in both cases, there is no need to change.

  https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

  A couple quotes from that article;

  The Iraqi Army had a considerable array of tanks, mostly purchased from the former Soviet Union. Chief among these were about 500 T-72's. These modern Soviet tanks were armed with an excellent 125mm smoothbore weapon and had many of the same advanced features found on the Abrams. Despite it's advanced design, the T-72 proved to be inferior to the M1A1's deployed during the Gulf War, and compared more closely with the older M60A3 tanks used there by the US Marine Corps. In addition, Iraq had a number of earlier Soviet models: perhaps as many as 1,600 T-62 and about 700 T-54, both of which were developed in the 1960's. These tanks were widely regarded as clearly inferior to the Abrams, but were expected to be highly reliable mechanically. The Gulf War provided military tacticians with an opportunity to evaluate developments in tank design that had not been available since World War II.

In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).

   Then there is this...after destroying hundreds of Russian built tanks, including th eT72s..the base for the T90;

  During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks

     One thing the Iraqis did that was a ruinous mistake...  As I mentioned that the Marines may have planned on using the M103 heavy in a "hull defilade" position at the Fulda Gap, ...that would be a heroic, stop-gap measure.

   It is a US Army maxim.."move, shoot, communicate"..Mobility is a strong point of armored forces.  Placing their tanks in hull defilade position, was a grave mistake by the Iraqi forces.

   That makes them vulnerable to mobile armor...especially when that mobile armor out ranges them by 1,000 meters,
  not to mention how much easier it made the work for the A-10 warthogs and attack helicopters..

[Bob Riebe]

When looking at how a company, that deals with used , or new tank, sells them, the distance a tank crew can see is one of the most common up dates by any country done to older tanks, or looked at if they are looking at buying new or modified tanks.

Makes little difference how good  your gun, or even tank. is if they can see you and you cannot see them.
Being able to shoot while moving , from reading is another modification made often.

[phalanx]

  So you flew in those big birds, Phalanx.. that must be something to rattle around in when running empty..

  Is there any heat outside the crew compartment ?

The air in the cargo bay goes through a large forward radiator with a blower. But it never gets below 60 in there, not  that i ever saw. An adjustable heat dispersing ,collector system on the engines is what heats the incoming air through the radiator. Cargo bay needs this because of the nature of the cargo, no matter what it is. At our altitude we never needed an air conditioner. Just regulate amount of cold,warm, or hot air coming into the aircraft. There are air ducts running all through the aircraft. The crew compartment, and the cockpit ,the navigation station, had their own adjustment systems for comfort. One toilet for all though.

Aircraft Personnel aboard :Cargo Manifest. Yes she’s a big bird.
Pilot.
CO-Pilot.
WEPs , Avionics.
Navigator , Radar
Communications , Avionics Tech.
Cargo Aircrew 4 or up to 6 depending on needed.

[ironglow]

  So you flew in those big birds, Phalanx.. that must be something to rattle around in when running empty..

  Is there any heat outside the crew compartment ?

The air in the cargo bay goes through a large forward radiator with a blower. But it never gets below 60 in there, not  that i ever saw. An adjustable heat dispersing ,collector system on the engines is what heats the incoming air through the radiator. Cargo bay needs this because of the nature of the cargo, no matter what it is. At our altitude we never needed an air conditioner. Just regulate amount of cold,warm, or hot air coming into the aircraft. There are air ducts running all through the aircraft. The crew compartment, and the cockpit ,the navigation station, had their own adjustment systems for comfort. One toilet for all though.

Aircraft Personnel aboard :Cargo Manifest. Yes she’s a big bird.
Pilot.
CO-Pilot.
WEPs , Avionics.
Navigator , Radar
Communications , Avionics Tech.
Cargo Aircrew 4 or up to 6 depending on needed.

  Wow!  I am surprised but pleased to have learned something... that sure is a big box to heat !

[ironglow]

When looking at how a company, that deals with used , or new tank, sells them, the distance a tank crew can see is one of the most common up dates by any country done to older tanks, or looked at if they are looking at buying new or modified tanks.

Makes little difference how good  your gun, or even tank. is if they can see you and you cannot see them.
Being able to shoot while moving , from reading is another modification made often.

   One of the historical problems with tanks, is the lack of vision from a buttoned up tank.  I suppose tanks today are aided by onboards TV systems, but until recently, or "back in my day", it was a very different story.

  The driver had a periscope with a viewing slot, maybe 2.5" X 8", it could be turned..but not always convenient while driving.  The reserve crewman or BOG had a similar setup.
  The Gunner has a periscope, plus his gunsight viewer, while the Tank commander had 360 degree view slots, which weren't all that great..  The poor loader was blind to what was happening outside...too busy in action to look anyway, although he sometimes had a used brass toss out hole.

  This led to a general American practice of the tank commander (TC), usually running half exposed..primarily for the needed vision awareness, while Russian doctrine required the TC to be fully buttoned down.  American tankers would rather risk it. so they can see the potential dangers more quickly.
  just playing the odds...

   From what the old WW2 tankers told me...(yes I served with some of them)..a fully buttoned down tank, jeopardizes the whole crew with concussion danger, should they get hit with a penetrating round.  Not having been in a tank hit with an anti tank round, I'll take their word for it.
    Below see current viewer slots on newer tanks, ours were just small, egg shaped , glassed apertures.  These new ones look much better.  Likely the concussion danger has been moderated too.

[phalanx]

Starlifter Cargo Bay dimensions, 10.5 wide with bulkhead selves installed, 14.8 removed, 9.3 high, 104.7 long with ramp down, 92.8 up. I still have my issued crew handbook. As you can see, an M60 tank was a tight fit.  The Starlifter, C-141 was replaced by the C-17 Globemaster. I was already discharged when that happened.
Drop ramp for use of paratroopers out the back, a sight to see

The shelves were removed and replaced with benches when transporting  troops. It was as fit anything. Hauled off my ex wife and her stupid car lol. Sister squadrons over in Viet Nam had a lot of stories. They used escort fighters for protection. We were only escorted twice. but our Asian sisters were all the time.F4 phantoms i believe, called a heavy or a fat lady.

[phalanx]

C-17 Globemaster. Now this is a fat lady. I’ve never seen one.

[ironglow]

What kind of ramps do cargo and tanks ruin on...it seems like aluminum would not be adequate?

[ironglow]

When looking at how a company, that deals with used , or new tank, sells them, the distance a tank crew can see is one of the most common up dates by any country done to older tanks, or looked at if they are looking at buying new or modified tanks.

Makes little difference how good  your gun, or even tank. is if they can see you and you cannot see them.
Being able to shoot while moving , from reading is another modification made often.

  My son drove 18 wheelers for years, where he had a friend called "Sarge" who was a tanker in Desert Storm.  He reported that there were instances where the weather was overcast...and some Iraqi tanks were using it for cover...but with our infra-red sighting (1990s) picked them out through the darkness or haze..and picked them off.

  There were even some instances, where the enemy tanks tried to hide behind a sand dune, but their heat signature gave them away...and the Abrams shot right through the top of the dune, to nail the tank.

[phalanx]

What kind of ramps do cargo and tanks ruin on...it seems like aluminum would not be adequate?

Steel reinforced I beam ,with a 6 inch thick top track of aircraft aluminum.  Hydraulics would fold it up and down. Weight of the ramp, 15 tons. Length, 14 .5 feet.  Aircraft could squat if needed. Ramp would deploy level  with the cargo bay for paratroopers. I watched them all jump off that ramp. Cutes deploying as they jumped. I had a tether harness if i had to walk out there if there was a problem.  Had a couple of kids who were afraid out there to jump.
I had a spare retracting tether. Just hook ‘em up and bring them back in.

[phalanx]

And they say the Air Force doesn't do anything. And the crews were armed just in case.

[ironglow]

Thanks for the info Phalanx...I learned more today...

[phalanx]

Thanks for the info Phalanx...I learned more today...

I learned a lot from you about Tanks. I always wanted to be on a B-52 Crew. We used to meet up with each other at a favorite off base bar.  And tell stories about our experiences, when we were ever at any stateside training base.
Their girl was bigger than our girl ,so they thought they were the Elite. 

Were we able bomb? Yes we could but nothing like they had of course. Ours were large and square, just arm them, and roll em off the ramp. We were never involved in doing anything like that, but the guys in Vietnam were.

[ironglow]

Let's see now, I think that big guy that flies around with a 105mm cannon, has taught a few bad guys about the Air Force.

   Then there is one called the BFF...initals only please.

  I understand that if it had been a family tyradition..there are pilots of B52s today, who could be flying the same plane their grandpa once flew! 
   Now, that's a testimony to longevity !

[phalanx]

I looked over a B-52 at Langley AFB, but i didn't go aboard. They are pretty much hush hush about them. Even for us.

[ironglow]

I looked over a B-52 at Langley AFB, but i didn't go aboard. They are pretty hush hush about them. Even for us.

   Still quite classified concerning the B52, even though it was introduced in 1955?  Wow!  Guess it must be something it is armed with... or how it carries..

  I realize however, even though the plane is from 1955, they are constantly renewed, so most are made like new, within the last 3-4 years.

   I have a couple friends who are pilots, and they tell me that if somebody flies a 1941 Stearman biplane, that doesn't mean it is not like a nearly new plane.
   Annual inspections make sure everything is in ship shape...or rebuilt..

[ironglow]

We were issued a single M41 Walker Bulldog tank , as a recon vehicle for our battalion.  I don't know it's top speed, but it sure  put some of those original M38 Jeeps to the test on the road.
    The M41 was powered by an opposed, air cooled, Continental aircraft engine of 500 hp, and weighed 23.5 tons, so for reference, consider an empty 18 wheeler with a 500 hp engine.

  It carried a 76mm gun tube, and I thought it looked 'cute'...   I was doing our 1st echelon welding for our battallion at the time, and it was stored in half of my shop.

[phalanx]

We were issued a single M41 Walker Bulldog tank , as a recon vehicle for our battalion.  I don't know it's top speed, but it sure  put some of those original M38 Jeeps to the test on the road.
    The M41 was powered by an opposed, air cooled, Continental aircraft engine of 500 hp, and weighed 23.5 tons, so for reference, consider an empty 18 wheeler with a 500 hp engine.

  It carried a 76mm gun tube, and I thought it looked 'cute'...   I was doing our 1st echelon welding for our battallion at the time, and it was stored in half of my shop.

I would still like to see it, inside and out.  I’ve looked at tanks up close but ive never been in one. Transporting a tank, deck chief usually told us to not mess with it inside. That wasn't our area. The tracks had those removable hard rubber pads put on them. The Army or the Marines would put those on and take them off. 

[ironglow]

Nicholas Moran.. an Irishman who began his service in the British army, later enlisted in the US Army, and served as a tanker in Desert Storm.
   Now days he is a producer of online war games..I think "World of Tanks"..  In his research he travels the world, doing close up and personal videos of tanks...and explains them from experience and gained knowledge.

  His videos on Youtube are called "Inside the Cheiftan's Hatch"..here's couple on the M41..first outside, then inside

  Nicholas is an anomaly in himself, since he is so tall at 6'4" or better.  Obviously in keeping a tank's silhouette low, anything over 5'8" or 5'10" is uncomfortable.  But perhaps the Abrams allows more hedroom..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h9bJeiJiSQ

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMzNL63wPyY

[ironglow]

Here's inside the hatch of my old tank, the M47 Patton..    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCDYMou-LaU&t=761s