Talk:M48 Patton

I changed some metric mesures to inch mesures,I did not change any figures except for the HP ratings of the diesel to 750 hp.Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.Safn1949 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In that vein, shouldn't the English measurements come first, since it's a U.S. vehicle...? Trekphiler (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The photo of the Indian Army with captured tanks actually shows 2 M47's and 1 M48,is there any way to change the text for accuracy?Safn1949 (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New tank or development of M47?

This article claims the M48 is both a completely new tank design and a development of the M47. It's one or the other, and I'm pretty sure it's the former. 86.45.4.210 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The M-48 was a new design with a different hull and turret design from the M-47.Safn1949 (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The US Army says the M48 Patton is a medium tank

Army field manual FM 17-12, TANK GUNNERY, Nov 1964, states on page 102 "a. MAIN BATTLE TANK...b. TANKS NOT EQUIPPED WITH A SUPERELEVATOR (M41 and M48 Tanks)..." This is stating that the M48 is not an MBT (Main Battle Tank). There are photos of the M60 tank in the manual, they have only 3 support rollers, a straight edged front end (the bow) fender to fender, and a 105mm main gun with the bore evacuator mid barrel.

All Patton tanks (excepting the A5 model) mounted 90mm tank guns, which were catagorized as medium guns. The 105mm M60 tank was a step away from the medium gun. US M103 heavy tanks had 120mm guns, which definately makes the 90mm a medium gun. When the M1 Abrams first came out, it carried a 105mm main gun; which makes it (the GUN) the beginning of the MBT.

Army FM 17-79 dated 1955 actually specifies the M48 tank as a "medium tank" on p. 4. So why is wikipedia contradicting the US Army? I took the liberty of making some corrections to draw attention to this discussion page.

According to Hunnicutt, Abrams, History of the American Main Battle Tank, First Edition 1990 by Presidio Press: P. 96 states that an Armor and Bridging conference was held in Canada in October 1957 recommending that the light tank (M41 Walker Bulldog) be replaced by the AR/AAV Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle (which is misprinted in the book, using the word Airborne twice and leaving out the word Armored) which ultimately turned out to be the M551 Sheridan in 1967. The conference also stated that the heavy and medium tanks were to be combined into a single all purpose Main Battle Tank.

P.98 of Hunnicutt's book (Abrams) also states that Gen Maxwell Taylor, Army Chief of Staff in 1957 called for developments to replace both the M41 light tank's 76mm gun and the 90mm gun. Further stating that "unfortunately, the rapid progress in selecting a design for the AR/AAV did not extend to the program for the new main battle tank." That the selection of the 105mm M68 gun (which ended up in the M60 tank) was an alternate gun to the preferred XM81 152 gun/launcher for the MBT. Thus making the product improved M60 tank with it's 105mm gun the new Mid Range (MR) army Main Battle Tank. Until replaced by the M1 105mm gun Abrams MBT in 1980.Pages 101, 202.

The US Army officially didn't use the term main battle tank until after 1957. The M46, M47, and M48 tanks were officially classified as medium tanks. The M103 was officially classified as a heavy tank, and the M41 Walker Bulldog was officially classified as a light tank. According to those referenced pages in Hunnicutt's book (Abrams), the M60 tank was a MR (Mid Range) 105mm gun MBT, and it's replacement was the 105mm gun M1 Abrams MBT. Both MBTs mounted 105mm main guns. This would explain why those two army manuals quoted in the above discussion called the M60 tank a Main Battle Tank and the M48 a medium tank. Both army manuals were published prior to 1965, when the US military still had the M103 heavy tank on the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.222.130 (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Patton, A History of the American Main Battle tank by Hunnicutt (1984), states the following: P. 157, there was a proposal in April 1959 to "revise the nomenclature to the 105mm gun main battle tank M60." This was scrapped due to a conflict with the FEDERAL CATALOGING AGENCY. P. 292 M48, M47, and M46 are classed as medium tanks. P.298 says, "the M60 as the army's main battle tank." P. 408; the 105mm M48A5 was basically an original M60 and thus considered a main battle tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.90.215.65 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Coaxial machine gun

Two issues:

1. the tank only has one coaxial machine gun. The .50 cal was never coaxially mounted. The tank commander can move it independently from the movement of the turret. Rklawton (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
2. the smaller .30 cal (later 7.62mm) machine gun is coaxially mounted to the LEFT of the main gun. Direction is taken from the crew's perspective, not the target's - just as American cars have the steering wheel on the LEFT - from the driver's perspective. See video of an M48 firing its coax. Rklawton (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Errors in portion on history and development of the M-48A3 variant: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SASH155 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: the portion on the history of the M-48A3 variant has a number of egregious errors: The following passages and information are quoted from R.P. Hunnicutt’s “Patton” and the article on the history of the M-48 series in Weapons and Warfare.com: From Weapons and Warfare: “The effort (to dieselize the M-48) was rekindled in 1961 when approval was given to upgrade 600 M-48A1 tanks with the AVDS-1790-2 Diesel engine of the new M-60.” “Instead of getting an M-68 105mm main gun, the upgraded M-48A1 tanks were to retain their existing M-41 90mm main guns for two reasons: First, funding shortfalls made it impossible to supply enough 105mm main gun rounds for all the planned converted tanks. Second, there were still large stockpiles of 90mm main gun rounds on hand. This new version of the M-48 series tank received the designation 90mm gun full tracked combat tank M-48A3 and weighed in at 107,000lbs (48mt) combat loaded.”

This article’s author wrote (incorrectly): “By February 1957, the Army had around 600 converted M48A3 Patton tanks and the Marine Corps had received 419.” This is egregiously incorrect, as we will see below.

Weapons and Warfare continues: “The first M-48A3 tank was accepted by the U. S. Army in February 1963.” (not in 1957 as the author of this Wikipedia article maintains above, indeed there were no M-48A3s even on the horizon in 1957 as the M-48A2 was the then current production vehicle- these last are my own notes).

My own notes follow: Also, and this is just as important as a follow on to the above passage, M-48A3s were NOT used in Europe, and if there were any (there were not) they were certainly not there any earlier than late 1963 or early 1964. I say this due to the presence of the following statement made in the article by the author: “The M48A3 was withdrawn from Europe by October 1961” (sic.). This may simply be due to confusion on the author’s part caused by photos taken in the early 1960s of U.S. M-48A2C’s as used by some U.S. armored cavalry units- the 14th ACR was notable in their use of M-48A2Cs through about 1963-64. The M-48A2C is indeed superficially similar in appearance to the early M-48A3, but there are a number of giveaways that indicate a vehicle is an M-48A2, not an M-48A3, including the lack of the fender mounted box air cleaners, the three return rollers, and the identical dual lens modular headlamps similar to those as seen on the M-60 series under squarish reinforced brush guards, (this list is hardly exhaustive) - the foregoing are my own notes.

In any event, to make a long story short, there were NO M-48A3s in existence prior to early 1963. It is possible that the above withdrawal comment refers to the drawdown of M-48A1s from USAREUR armored units from late 1961 into 1963 as more new M-60s and then brand new M-60A1s were progressively brought online.

Weapons and Warfare continues: “The biggest improvement that this latest version of the M-48 series tank series brought to the table was its greatly improved operational range on roads that went up to 300 miles (483km). This came about due to larger fuel tanks and the greater thermal efficiency of diesel fuel.”

“The original stereoscopic rangefinder mounted in the M-48A1 tank was replaced on the M-48A3 tank with (the same) coincidence rangefinder (as used on the M-48A2C and the M-60 series). The M-48A3 tank also received the Nuclear/Biological/ Chemical (NBC) gas particulate unit from the M-60 series tanks.”

“Besides 600 M-48A3 tanks for the U. S. Army, another 419 M-48A1 tanks were converted to the M48A3 standard for the U. S. Marine Corps between 1963 and 1965. “A key external spotting feature of the M-48A3 tank were the five return rollers on either side of the tank’s hull in lieu of the three seen on the U. S. Army’s M48A2 and M48A2C tanks.” (This was a legacy of the fact that M-48A3s were heavily modified M-48A1s).

“Another external spotting feature of the M-48A3 tanks (not seen on any of its predecessors) were the large dry type (paper) air cleaner boxes mounted on either side of the vehicle’s hull over the rear portion of the vehicle’s horizontal fenders. These were the same dry type air cleaner boxes seen on the horizontal fenders of the M-60 series tanks. Prior to the addition of the external dry type air cleaners on the M48A3 tanks, all of its predecessor M48 series tanks (including the M-48A2 and M-48A2C) had interior oil bath air cleaners.”

“In 1967, another 578 M-48A1 tanks were converted into M-48A3 tanks. This second batch of upgraded tanks sported some new features not seen on the original M-48A3 tanks and were therefore referred to as M-48A3 (Mod B) configuration.” SASH155 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC) SASH155 SASH155 ([[User talk:SASH155 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)SASH155|talk]]) 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Namesake?

I think that this tank's name came from george s patton. can you please add it in and also add a citation if necessary? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)