Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M48 AVLB vs M60 AVLB
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - 10:10 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Nit-picking point, but I don't believe there were any M60 AVLB. All the chassis were either M60A1, A2, or M48 variants.



You are correct, but they were not called anything other than an M48 AVLB and an M60 AVLB. The different marks were not noted when refering to them.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - 10:29 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Nit-picking point, but I don't believe there were any M60 AVLB. All the chassis were either M60A1, A2, or M48 variants.



You are correct, but they were not called anything other than an M48 AVLB and an M60 AVLB. The different marks were not noted when refering to them.



If the hull had been built as a gun tank the original "A" model would be noted in the data plate in the driver's compartment.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - 10:42 PM UTC

Quoted Text

If the hull had been built as a gun tank the original "A" model would be noted in the data plate in the driver's compartment.



I would not say that was a given. As the photos here show, the dataplate for the AVLB using an M60A2 hull with CBSS is listed as an M60A1. The inside dataplates were likely changed to reflect the different dimensions, manual references, and performance of the AVLB.

There is a good chance, however, that the original vehicle numbering remains on the left hull rear, left front tow lug, and left front glacis.

KL
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - 11:14 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

If the hull had been built as a gun tank the original "A" model would be noted in the data plate in the driver's compartment.



I would not say that was a given. As the photos here show, the dataplate for the AVLB using an M60A2 hull with CBSS is listed as an M60A1. The inside dataplates were likely changed to reflect the different dimensions, manual references, and performance of the AVLB.

There is a good chance, however, that the original vehicle numbering remains on the left hull rear, left front tow lug, and left front glacis.

KL


That's the data plate on the bridge launching mechanism. I'm referring to the one in the driver's compartment just over his left shoulder. That one reflects the original build configuration and registration number. It is amended as a vehicle is rebuilt but never removed or replaced. I Remember one in a M35A2 truck, it listed being built by REO in 1952 then had two amendments for the A1 and A2 rebuilds.

I have seen ones in an M60A3 that indicated the hull was a slick M60 and then the conversion to A3 but the turret just had a M60A3 plate as it was all new. I hot seated a lot of tanks for drawing and turn in.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - 06:26 AM UTC

Quoted Text

That's the data plate on the bridge launching mechanism.



No, it's the launcher chassis, as it says, the hull, engine, suspension, etc., PLUS the hydraulics and the frames. Look at the picture to the right: It shows and gives data for thee chassis, not just the hydraulic cylinder. Also, look at the NSN on the data plate and the NSN on this manual. They are the same. Now look at what the manual covers: starting the engine, driving the vehicle, changing the tracks. More than just the lauching mechanism.


Quoted Text

I'm referring to the one in the driver's compartment just over his left shoulder. That one reflects the original build configuration and registration number. It is amended as a vehicle is rebuilt but never removed or replaced. I Remember one in a M35A2 truck, it listed being built by REO in 1952 then had two amendments for the A1 and A2 rebuilds.

I have seen ones in an M60A3 that indicated the hull was a slick M60 and then the conversion to A3 but the turret just had a M60A3 plate as it was all new. I hot seated a lot of tanks for drawing and turn in.



When vehicles are changed from tanks to something else the practice can change. That's why I said it wasn't a given. The stamped numbers, if they still remain, can provide equivalent data when you can't get inside.

KL
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - 06:49 AM UTC
A notable passage from the Operator's Technical Manual linked above. . .

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MODELS
There are several M60A1 AVLB equipment variations. This manual covers the following variations:
• Armored top-loading engine air cleaner or aluminum top-loading engine air cleaner
• Driver’s AN/VVS-2 night vision viewer or periscope, M24
• Smoke grenade launcher
• Vehicle Exhaust Dust Ejector System (VEDES) and Dust Detector System (DDS)
• Mechanical track adjusting link or grease actuated track adjusting link
• AVDS 1790-2D or AVDS 1790-2DA engine
• Upgraded hydraulic/electrical system (HEU)
• 650 amp generator (HEU)

There are several M48A5 AVLB equipment variations. Most M48A5 launchers have five support rollers. Some have three support rollers. This manual covers the following:
• Operator and commander cupolas
• AN/VVS-2 night vision viewer or periscope, M24
• Smoke grenade launcher
• Vehicle Exhaust Dust Ejector System (VEDES) and Dust Detector System (DDS)
• AVDS 1790-2D or AVDS 1790-2DA engine
• Upgraded hydraulic/electrical system (HEU)
• 650 amp generator (HEU)

The differences listed clearly show that various diesel M48 and M60 chassis were used for conversions, but all were labeled as M48A5 or M60A1 when complete.

KL
Kenaicop
#384
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - 08:00 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

That's the data plate on the bridge launching mechanism.



No, it's the launcher chassis, as it says, the hull, engine, suspension, etc., PLUS the hydraulics and the frames. Look at the picture to the right: It shows and gives data for thee chassis, not just the hydraulic cylinder. Also, look at the NSN on the data plate and the NSN on this manual. They are the same. Now look at what the manual covers: starting the engine, driving the vehicle, changing the tracks. More than just the lauching mechanism.



Quoted Text

I'm referring to the one in the driver's compartment just over his left shoulder. That one reflects the original build configuration and registration number. It is amended as a vehicle is rebuilt but never removed or replaced. I Remember one in a M35A2 truck, it listed being built by REO in 1952 then had two amendments for the A1 and A2 rebuilds.

I have seen ones in an M60A3 that indicated the hull was a slick M60 and then the conversion to A3 but the turret just had a M60A3 plate as it was all new. I hot seated a lot of tanks for drawing and turn in.



When vehicles are changed from tanks to something else the practice can change. That's why I said it wasn't a given. The stamped numbers, if they still remain, can provide equivalent data when you can't get inside.

KL



When we got our M1A1’s in the 3D ACR around 1986 or so, I distinctly remember the data plates in the turrets reading M1E1. Even way back then I thought it was weird.
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Monday, December 25, 2017 - 04:39 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Nit-picking point, but I don't believe there were any M60 AVLB. All the chassis were either M60A1, A2, or M48 variants.



You are correct, but they were not called anything other than an M48 AVLB and an M60 AVLB. The different marks were not noted when refering to them.



Gino
I plan to do the same as you move all the components over to a M60 hull now my question is what kit of the M60 I can use i was thinking of either Academy or Tamiya but i heard they have issues with height of the hulls due to suspension issues so would it be best to use a dragon M60A1 hull or can you recommend another option?
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, December 25, 2017 - 05:28 PM UTC
The Tamiya/Academy M60 hull is fine in height. It was their M48 hull that sat too high. I plan to use an AFV Club or Dragon M60 hull. They are both better than the Tamiya/Academy hulls which have shape issues, lack details, and lots of motorization holes to fill.
Bravo1102
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Monday, December 25, 2017 - 05:28 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Nit-picking point, but I don't believe there were any M60 AVLB. All the chassis were either M60A1, A2, or M48 variants.



You are correct, but they were not called anything other than an M48 AVLB and an M60 AVLB. The different marks were not noted when refering to them.



Gino
I plan to do the same as you move all the components over to a M60 hull now my question is what kit of the M60 I can use i was thinking of either Academy or Tamiya but i heard they have issues with height of the hulls due to suspension issues so would it be best to use a dragon M60A1 hull or can you recommend another option?


AFV club naturally, then Esci/Italeri which can often be found cheap on EBay in their AMT Blazer issue. Tamiya and Academy have more suspension issues than just a few millimeters in height. That can be squished by with adjustment to the suspension arms but you have to scratchbuild the shock mounts among other things. Dragon's M60A2 has more issues than just the suspension with the front hull and driver's area misshapen since Dragon converted an M48 mould as opposed to all new.
rfbaer
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: June 12, 2007
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,696 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 - 12:29 AM UTC
I'll just throw this out there while I'm perusing this: I see that Dragon has done the artwork and CAD drawings showing T-142 tracks. For those of you that buy this kit and don't like DS tracks, I would gleefully buy you un-used parts, or trade straight up for AFV Club indies. While I'm here, I would also be interested in any AFV Club T-142 tracks from their M60A3 kit.
Sorry for the hi-jack.
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 28, 2017 - 03:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I'll just throw this out there while I'm perusing this: I see that Dragon has done the artwork and CAD drawings showing T-142 tracks. For those of you that buy this kit and don't like DS tracks, I would gleefully buy you un-used parts, or trade straight up for AFV Club indies. While I'm here, I would also be interested in any AFV Club T-142 tracks from their M60A3 kit.
Sorry for the hi-jack.



I don't blame you for wanting the 1 piece ds tracks they are soo much easier than dealing with the multi piece indi links
HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 - 02:16 PM UTC
Am I correct that the Army fielded the M104 Wolverine HAB? Isn`t there a problem with the launcher? I find only little reference about the Wolverine.
BTW I discovered some pics of M48 A5 AVLB with 82nd Eng. at Warner Barracks back in 1993. So a goot reason to get the Dragon kit, IF it has a good quality.

I wonder if the Joint Assault Bridge will supersed M48 and M60 AVLB?
HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 - 02:50 PM UTC
One more reason to get a proper M60 AVLB.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/540990/avlb-driver-during-saber-guardian-17
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 - 03:50 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Am I correct that the Army fielded the M104 Wolverine HAB? Isn`t there a problem with the launcher? I find only little reference about the Wolverine
BTW I discovered some pics of M48 A5 AVLB with 82nd Eng. at Warner Barracks back in 1993. So a goot reason to get the Dragon kit, IF it has a good quality.

I wonder if the Joint Assault Bridge will supersed M48 and M60 AVLB?



from what I read the Joint Assault bridge will replace the M60 AVLB and the M104 Wolverine the M60 AVLB is too slow to keep up with the Bradleys and Abrams and the M104 has its faults too and thats the reason that the Joint assualt bridge is replacing them i think the M48 AVLB has allready ben retired ask Gino he may have more info on that
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 - 07:22 PM UTC
Yes, pretty much all the M48 AVLBs are gone. A few may still be left in Army National Guard units, but not many. There are still quite a few M60 AVLBs around, but many have been replaced in the active Army with the M104 Wolverine M1 AVLB. US Army bought 44 M104s. All M60 AVLB and M104s are slated to be replaced soon by the Joint Assualt Bridge, which is a more simple Abrams-based design which is more similar to the M48/M60 AVLB design with folding bridge sections, as opposed to the M104's sliding bridge section design.



HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 - 08:30 PM UTC
I guess the bridge has more load capacity?
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 - 08:55 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I guess the bridge has more load capacity?



85 ton capacity.
AKirchhoff
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: September 12, 2008
KitMaker: 307 posts
Armorama: 304 posts
Posted: Friday, January 05, 2018 - 02:03 PM UTC

Quoted Text

All M60 AVLB and M104s are slated to be replaced soon by the Joint Assualt Bridge, which is a more simple Abrams-based design which is more similar to the M48/M60 AVLB design with folding bridge sections, as opposed to the M104's sliding bridge section design.



Hi Gino,
do they really withdraw the Wolverine for a the really old and again strengthened scissors bridge of M48/M60 AVLBs now based on a M1 chassis? What is the reason for that? European and other armies (apart from UK and France) still relay on those Leguan bridges and this launching technic and for a long time. The launching mechanism of the vehicles shown on your picture looks a bit of a combination of British Titan AVLB with the Leguan launching arm? Are there any pictures of the launchers without bridge?

Just being curious about this development...
Thank you, Andreas
HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Friday, January 05, 2018 - 03:07 PM UTC
Computer-assisted bridge launching might be the reason for the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M104_Wolverine
HermannB
Visit this Community
Bayern, Germany
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Friday, January 05, 2018 - 03:10 PM UTC
Background informations on the M104 development.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wolverine.htm
HeavyArty
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, January 05, 2018 - 06:25 PM UTC
Yes, they will replace the M104 Wolverine w/the Joint Assault Bridge. Some reasons:

While the M104 was intended to replace the AVLB, it was found to be too expensive and complicated to maintain and operate. While the JAB's bridge is shorter, it has a faster deployment time of three minutes, compared to the Wolverine's 3-5 minute set-up time.
chnoone
Visit this Community
Armed Forces Europe, United States
Joined: January 01, 2009
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Armorama: 1,033 posts
Posted: Friday, January 05, 2018 - 11:51 PM UTC
I am not convinced that a "scissor" bridge system is really that desirable .... a minute or two faster can't be an argument when your opponent sees this thing standing up against the horizon identifying your intentions and giving away your position .
Besides all the other nations using the Leguan-System don't seem to have an issue operating their bridge-layers, even when operated and maintained by conscripts in some countries.
To harmonize all existing systems makes sense .... but with this "aging" technology ? It must have been the price then.

Cheers
Christopher
AKirchhoff
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: September 12, 2008
KitMaker: 307 posts
Armorama: 304 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 07, 2018 - 11:47 PM UTC
Hi!
At first, thank you Hermann and Gino for your input. I searched the net myself now and found nice pictures on the manufacturer´s homepage.

And yes, I doubt also launchig time is the reason. Maybe it is more or less the complexity of the system. And, well, cost is surely a factor.

Anyway, an interesting looking vehicle. Any plans to introduce a new scissors bridge on it, or will that old fashioned design be upgraded again and again?

Thank you again,
Andreas
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Monday, January 08, 2018 - 12:21 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I am not convinced that a "scissor" bridge system is really that desirable .... a minute or two faster can't be an argument when your opponent sees this thing standing up against the horizon identifying your intentions and giving away your position .
Besides all the other nations using the Leguan-System don't seem to have an issue operating their bridge-layers, even when operated and maintained by conscripts in some countries.
To harmonize all existing systems makes sense .... but with this "aging" technology ? It must have been the price then.

Cheers
Christopher



Well. Entering guessing mode: Could it be that modern surveillance and detection systems make it more or less unimportant if the bridge is raised 10 or even 15 meters above ground. There are other methods to detect and pin-point a bridge layer than seeing the bridge above the tree-tops.
Maybe the time factor becomes more critical if detection is assured.
When it becomes impossible to sneak across a river undetected it will be vital to suppress any weapons that could attack the river crossing operation.
Guessing ....
Cost can still be an important factor, when expensive doesn't buy any real benefits cost will be a factor to consider (or jobs in some place where a congressman needs to be reelected )

/ Robin