Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
Some even went to a few less fortunate south American governments, basically making them even more less fortunate...
yes they did .. the particular ones pictured had left their batallion as M48A3's , were rebuilt , and came back as A5's with the M60A1 gun platform and the RISE standard.. At the time of these pics , this BN's A5's had been fitted with improved IR, stabilized M68 gun, and other updates which put them at equal gunnery footing with the M60A1 and they got increased armor protection via RISE updates.. In my experience in that BN, they were not a horrible tank and were much-better on fuel than any Abrams then and since. Although outdated and outclassed by todays armor, they were still an effective tank with a good crew, no different than the M60-series
why would you say less fortunate? The A5's certainly are better than anything older and their M60A1 gun system was a huge improvement over the M48A3.. The A5's in my pictures had IR sights/scopes and other updates which put them equal with the M60A1. Very late on, a few in the BN had LRF retrofit kits for training as they were to soon receive M60A3's.. Yes I am aware that not all A5's received all the good stuff, it depended on how critical a BN's mission was, and maybe that is why you perhaps have a poor opinion of the A5. In my experiences with that particular BN, although the A5's were outdated, they were not a horrible tank and both the A5's and M60's with the RISE engines and crossdrives have certain better mechanical attributes than any Abrams then and since. Although the A5 and M60 are obviously outclassed by the 120mm version of the abrams, the A5's are still an effective tank with a good crew. The follow statements are based on my memories of situations discussed during NCO meetings in the early-late 80's .. The A5's were a "Poor man's M60" , a budgetary and defensive decision to upgrade a large number of M48A3's to M60A1-RISE standards, becoming the M48A5, beginning late 1975-76 in response to the heightened Threat in europe at the time, instead of active units losing a chunk of their M60 inventory to the NG or having to "buy" new M60's during a time when the country was in deep recession and suffered severe military budget cuts. Not a lot was known about the improved soviet T72's, and soon after that came the "Scary T80," but of what was known, it was feared the latest Soviet versions made even the M60-series seem outclassed and obsolete. Development and testing of what would become the Abrams was still at an iffy state by the mid-1970's, of particular concern was that never-before-tried turbine engine. Most of you know the M1 was not fielded until 1980 and yet it still had problems. Thus, certain critical NG armor units slated for planned activation/deployment to West Germany trained hard with the A5's in the states with its M68 main gun platform, the idea being that crews could easily switch over to the M60A1 and vice-versa and be just as effective. The creation of the M48A5 is what standardized tank ammo and critical parts acquisition as well. During NCO meetings of which i was part in the early-late 80's there was quite a bit of pride that this particular (NG) BN's M48A5 tank crews (using drawn M60A1's in West Germany) were outgunning certain active tankers during exercises over there, and I had seen the trophies (plaques) and special uniform pocket tabs they received.. Of course as the M1 was improved, M60's were gradually released to the NG. Years later when this particular BN had to turn in their M60A3's for early-model M1's with the 105mm gun, I recall many crews expressing they liked their M60's better (some even said A5's) .. But the abrams had always been a work in progress from the beginning, and it clearly became one helluva tank .. By the way, Greece, Korea, and Turkey are still fielding the largest herds of A5's anywhere, last I knew. For anyone to "dis" the M48A5's that I worked several years with is to likewise dis the M60, M60A1, M60A3
I believe it ! I do recall seeing M48A3-based or perhaps A5-based AVLB's on occasion as late as the early-mid 1990s in the states , but no idea how long they lasted here. Long ago there was talk our Brigade had at least a BN-sized number of A5's sitting in WGermany kept in operational status in the early-mid 80's.
both M48A5 tank BN's in "our" Brigade had the stabilized M68 main gun, IR sights and periscopes, the IR-selective searchlight, M60A1-RISE powerpacks and crossdrive, the NBC system, and the RISE hull upgrade , to the least of my recollection ..No TTS , and obviously no ERA .. I recall crews training with a few A5's having LRF retrofit kits later on, but this was not widespread since the units received M60A3's shortly after .. The M48-series had served over 25 years in this particular BG before they got (very briefly) M60A3's, and lastly the Abrams.
But of course, the number of former tank vets who had stayed aboard was just a handful of senior NCO's and "Colonel-plusses" by the time the 2000's came around .. I had road-tested and licensed some of those "Colonel-plusses " when they were butterbars fresh out of OCS.. During the 2006 ceremony there was an awful lot of new blood, the line units present were 99% unrecognizable to me. How time passes
Yes. A friend of mine was a tank crew evaluator for that AT and got injured in that incident.
My friend was a TC / Platoon Leader with 172nd armor from VT, under the 86th BDE, a long-time combat arm of the 50th AD. Before that, the 86th was a combat arm of the 43rd ID in the Pacific theater '42-'45.. He was not part of the Ft Hood incident that night but was participating in a different part of the exercise when it happened.. Half of my Trans section was there with the tanks but I was working elsewhere.. In late '86 they were no longer under the 50AD. During the Ft Hood incident, Vermont armor was under new command of the 26th ID .. He did not say if it was a VT crew or TX crew that made the oops. I don't need to know. It was very unfortunate and shouldn't have happened ..
\
el-tee on a better-mood day at a tank range ammo point, 1983 .M151A2
). His fast M48a5 was named "Superman II" in honor of an uncle's M4 Sherman that survived North Africa and Italy
(early Mack-powered M52A1, downswept exhaust, M127A1C trailer
well, apparently we didn't have enough fun with the one we had !!!
1983
The pics below are not mine but are of my former BN ... Most of its tanks (@50 per BN) were stored at Ft Drum NY, others were supposedly stored combat-ready in W.Germany, and about 3 dozen were scattered around unit facilities and training areas in Vermont, per each Bn.. Wish I had gotten an inventory list back then, I know the two BN's together had an awful lot of tanks, we had to fuel them !!!! And haul/handle their ammo !! They sure kept us busy day/nite.. Overall, the field training was constant, year-round, aggressive, harder and more draining than my active duty combat engineer (horizontal) experience.. Look up 86th Brigade on wiki, they generalize it but you will get the jist. Tough crowd
