hi guys the next project in the planning stage is an m26/m46 arv
but the only reference on one are these photo's i've found
it needs to be based on the m26 chassis at least(due to getting a spare one)
not sure if it's going to be modelled on an actual variant or if a bit of artistic licence might come in a bit
so if anyone out there might be able to help it would be greatly appreciated

You'll want to get your hands on the Osprey book and I think Schiffer book by Culver on the Pershing/Patton. Besides those, you're lucky to have the best source on those right here on this forum! No, not me! Pattoncommder!

cheers on the books swath, i was hoping bill might "inject" some of his knowledge[8D]

The M-46 on the lft looks like one of the Turkish Brigade's tanks during the Korean War. They are only ones I know that used those cages designed for anti grenades etc. I'lll have to do some looking in Dick Hunnnicuts book. The Engineer tank was only a prototype that never got into production. For a VTR we had the M-74 until the M-88 came out and an Engineer tank was never developed on the 46 or 47 chassis. I believe the gun used on that was the same as the M-45, a 105 Howitzer. Never saw one, so will research that also. If you're doing a M-46, the entire back deck has to be rebuilt. The 46-47 had a totally unique back deck based on the Continental V-12 engine and outside muffler system. I'm waiting for the conversion kits that are being designed now. Want to do a variation on the HL Pershing, do an m-45. Only 187 made and used only in korea.
Bill

thanks for the info bill as always you come up with the goods
i was looking for something which i could build a dozer blade on at the very least
as always the search will go on
your m45 does look good though and a nice conversion so may have to do that one if nothing else comes to light again many thanks for your help

we did have dozer blades on some M-46's, but don't know about the Pershings. The weight of the M-26 was really too much for the Ford GAA and don't think it was up to ading a snowplow.[&o]

looking at the info available i might go for the m45 with a dozer blade
do you have any photos of the back deck as reference or lead me to any as from what i can make out on the pics of your tanks all that changed was the main gun.
just wondering how much work is involved in knocking up an m46

Bill (or anyone else who knows)

What percentage of Pershings in WWII had their side skirts removed???

don't know that one yhr but my personal choice is off

Yes I kind of like the look too, but just want to find out if they existed like this in the second world war.

I'm far from an authority on this, but most if not all pics I've seen of Pershings in Germany in WW2, have been ones with side skirts still attached. Personally, I prefer with, than without on the Pershing, but prefer the other way round with the Sherman!

I don't think they intentionally took them off. They were usually torn off or damaged so much by enemy fire and obstacles that the crews then removed what was left of them. I like them off too.

Don't really know on WW II, but since they only entered combat in ETO in April 45, they only had 5 months to put up with them...they are a royal "extreme discomfort in the posterior", and they just get in the way, road trash gets caught up in them and they get snagged on heavy bushes or shot up. Just have to look at the many photos and decide what unit you want to do. In Korea, some units took them off immediately, some removed the front and rear sections, and the Marines showed us the trick on folding up the center pieces to stow more MG ammo. None of our M-46s had them.

On that idea of fitting a dozer to an M-45...none of them had a dozer. Only 187 made and used only in korea as infantry support. Stilll, a neat tank and not a tough conversion.

Here's a view of the back deck of an M-46 and a view of the sprocket showing elevated position and addition of compensating idler wheel. Big diff between ther 26 and 46. 47 was identical to the 46.

many thanks bill
think i will go for the m45 and use artistic licence and stick a dozer blade on the front
i now it's not correct but hey thats the point of having a scale model if you can't do what you want with it
a bit like the hobart funnies
even the m46 conversion doesn't look to daunting apart from the re-location of the sprocket wheel and idler
but if i went that far might as well do an m60

Which M-60? I tested that pile of scheisse back in 1959-60 at (then) Camp Irwin, CA. I reported that there were only two good things about the tank...the gun and the fire control system, both of which were British. The rest of the tank was crap. [:'(]Everyone hated the "new"dielsel and the fact that some idiot decided that shocks were not needed, caused us to get really beat up travelling through the desert terrain.[:@] The A2 was an attempt to improve it, but it was still too big and slow of a mass for the firepower. [&o]

If you want to do a '46, I can get you some detailed, close shots of one we have here at Ft Jackson, and a lot is still in my memory banks. But, it will take a LOT of work on the grill doors. May want to wait for the conversion kit...or get a 1;35 Trumpter model. put it on the copy machine and blow it up to scale .

My M-45 is pretty accurate and I could send you some photos. The mantlet has to be beefed up and closed in on the sides. The Coax is BELOW the 105, not in line as with the Pershing, [X(]a muffler has to be built on the rear and the gun travel lock is mounted on the blower motor housing and locks into a piece on the base of the mantlet. Swapping the 90 to 105 is no problem. [8D]

thanks for the offer bill would love to have you on side thinking on the m46
if you could help with the detail shots it would be very much appreciated
might just get away with the back deck as i see what you mean all those grills[&o][&o][][]
the exhaust doesn't look a big headache,Is it similar to the bulldog but with it starting in the centre and working out to the mufflers

I'll get some '46 back deck shots in the next couple days. Hre;'s some views of my M-45.

disregard photo #3 travel lock...it was wrong and I changed it and built a correct one that works by inserting a pin through it and an eye at the base of the mantlet. Pic shows the side of the beefed up mantlet. Here's a couple more showing the TC's cal 50 mount on the gunner's periscope shield. Same as m-46.

If you want an ARV, how about something different like this:

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-papa/p...t12-intro.html

And here's what the M45's barrel really looks like:

http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-papa/p...m45-intro.html

The Sherman 105 barrel is way too big for this vehicle.

HTH


Jeff

Mr. Bill,

I would like to add that there is one attribute of the M-60 which you seem to have overlooked. If you are dismounted and on the way to picnic with our little brothers in beautiful Southeast Asia, The M-60 was a REALLY nice thing to have between you and those other guys with the AKs.

Hi
Is it possible that the canvas cover is making the 105 barrel appear shorter than it really is? The barrel on the M45 photo in the Vanguard book looks a lot longer (and more like the one on the Sherman).
Geoff

It's not so much the length but more the guage of the barrel and also the pics I have seen (the 'drawing' I used is a bad example) the end of the barrel is slightly tapered. I've never been a big fan of the stock Tamiya 105mm barrel. It's just too thick.

Not a personal attack, just an opinion.


Jeff

Ah well, you have the advantage of me there. The only photograph I have access too has a cover on the muzzle, so I can't see the taper. I will bow to your greater knowledge.
Geoff

hey bill can i add that is one nice m45 conversion you've got there hope my 46 is half as good[8D][8D][8D]
earlier you mentioned a conversion kit for the 46 do you by chance have a link or some photos?

Rob

I'm waiting eagerly for the conversion kit to M-46. I'll do two models. No photos. I intend to take some I the next day or so. We have an m-46 here at Ft Jackson...only one outside of Bovington I have seen. As soon as I get some photos. I'll post them.

Hey 123spat, We didn't have any M-60s in Nam. Latest we had there were M-48A3s.[>:] In my opnion, having worked with them a number of years, the M-60s were just as awkward and clumsy as the M-48s. I had 48, 48A1, A1 with dozer and 48A2, and for a short while was saddled with a T-97 flame tank. After spending so much time with very nimble 41s, 46's and 47s, the 48's were just slow, wallowing pigs. [] Going from 48.6 to 52 tons and from 23 inch to 28 inch tracks with the same engine was a bit too much. Last M-60A3 I drove could max out at 18 mph.[:'(] Driving an M-41 sportster will spoil you on speed and maneuverability, but have to admit, the M-60 would make a nice backstop. Now the M-1A1 is a totally different animal and has everything...with the corresponding price tag. [X(]

On the M-45, I'm not sure many even had a convas mantlet cover. None that I recall in Korea had covers, other that the partial mantlet side canvas as they had all been converted from older M-26s. But I have a photo of a post war training area that shows M-45's with a full mantlet cover like the M-46. Th M-45 mantlet was thicker with an added inch or two of armor, so the canvas would have to be custom made for that tank. My 105 howitzer was made from a Vietnam era radio antenna and is the correct length with a slight taper, but just may possubly be a slight fraction too thick.

As soon as I get some M-46 photos, I'll post them

Bill