Way of using old tanks

[evripide]

Dear All,

As a former M48 driver, I am curious whether this old vehicle can be useful in some ways. For example, South Korean army still has almost 1,000 M48s but these will, perhaps, be replaced by new models in the near future. But I think their M68 guns (105mm) are still available to destroy armoured vehicles.

Do you think additional armour or other modifications are effective? Or These old models should be scrapped?

Being used as a target is quite sad for an M48 lover.

 

[eckherl]

With the Current threat level presented by North Korea the M48A5s are still a very capable vehicle to counter any armored threat that crosses into ROK.

 

[BRUTUS32]

With the Current threat level presented by North Korea the M48A5s are still a very capable vehicle to counter any armored threat that crosses into ROK.

I agree with that in principle; unfortunately though you run into the maintenance and supply problem by keeping the older equipment in the TOE. This of course is offset by the cost of R@D of new equipment. The US doesn’t produce the spare parts needed to keep a 30 year old vehicle operational, and the South Koreans are on a big kick of creating their own defense equipment. If you could get the maintenance issued squared away, upgrade the night optics and fire control I think it could work.

 

[suddendeath]

hello there are several ways of using old tanks
to cover convoys for civilian protection for expoert or to upgrade them or to
augment armored formations.there is an excellent example of Pakistan
upgrading its old t59 series tank to alzarrar standards with 54 upgrades making it a reliable
less expensive tank with good amount of technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zarar_MBT

 

[eckherl]

I agree with that in principle; unfortunately though you run into the maintenance and supply problem by keeping the older equipment in the TOE. This of course is offset by the cost of R@D of new equipment. The US doesn’t produce the spare parts needed to keep a 30 year old vehicle operational, and the South Koreans are on a big kick of creating their own defense equipment. If you could get the maintenance issued squared away, upgrade the night optics and fire control I think it could work.

Agreed - they could run into component issues on parts that are not interchangable with M60 series tanks in the near future.

ROK M-48A5s have upgraded FCS already shoe horned into them, night sights and laser range finders are comparable to what is found on a M60A3 and a ROK K1 tank.

 

[eckherl]

hello there are several ways of using old tanks
to cover convoys for civilian protection for expoert or to upgrade them or to
augment armored formations.there is an excellent example of Pakistan
upgrading its old t59 series tank to alzarrar standards with 54 upgrades making it a reliable
less expensive tank with good amount of technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zarar_MBT

May I also suggest that you take a look at what Israel, Ukraine and Algeria have managed to do for upgrades, Iran isn`t too shabby either.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

Dear All,

As a former M48 driver, I am curious whether this old vehicle can be useful in some ways. For example, South Korean army still has almost 1,000 M48s but these will, perhaps, be replaced by new models in the near future. But I think their M68 guns (105mm) are still available to destroy armoured vehicles.

Do you think additional armour or other modifications are effective? Or These old models should be scrapped?

Being used as a target is quite sad for an M48 lover.

They also make useful platforms for combat engineering vehicles and other useful military assets.

It would be great if Australia's recently retired Leopard I tanks could be refurbised into providing armoured bridge layers, CEV's and other armoured combat engineering assets that we have as "on paper" capabilities, but in actual fact do NOT have and would expect an ally to provide for us in a time of conflict, but as Army have stated, "is not a priority just now"...

 

[lobbie111]

If I remember correctly, the Swiss used to emplace old tank turrets at vital chockpoints. Useful when considering the limited mountain passes that accesses the country.

The Korean peninsular is similarly mountainous. Do see a role for old tanks as static emplacements/artillery. Just a question of maintaining guns which is a lot cheaper than maintaining the whole tank.

I agree, but it will look really hostile if they are pointing at the border wouldn't you say?

A better way to me would be to emplace them on hollow concrete blocks and to have predug holes (good ammo storage as well). Then when a war starts get engineering vehicles and helicopters to just plop them in place.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree, but it will look really hostile if they are pointing at the border wouldn't you say?

A better way to me would be to emplace them on hollow concrete blocks and to have predug holes (good ammo storage as well). Then when a war starts get engineering vehicles and helicopters to just plop them in place.

A helicopter to "plop" a main battle tank in place?

That's some helicopter...

 

[lobbie111]

A helicopter to "plop" a main battle tank in place?

That's some helicopter...

Only the turret mated with a hollow concrete pipe to store ammo

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[lobbie111]

true, true... why not have fixed concrete pipes and just get chooks (can they carry that much) to move the turret you could lighten if if needed. It would be good because you could make a retreating formation then, if they break trough they can be lifted up and taken to the next line (assuming they have not been overrun...)

 

[Aussie Digger]

true, true... why not have fixed concrete pipes and just get chooks (can they carry that much) to move the turret you could lighten if if needed. It would be good because you could make a retreating formation then, if they break trough they can be lifted up and taken to the next line (assuming they have not been overrun...)

Why bother? That's what tanks themselves are for. If your fortifications are about to be overrun with no chance of resisting, disable whatever defences that can assist your enemy and then withdraw to your next defence.

We are talking about making some use of an obsolete capability. It is not worth retaining in-service, so it's not worth the effort of using chinooks to move old, obsolete tank turrets that are only intended to be used as a fixed fortification...

Lightening the turrets defeats the purpose of using them. Might as well have light artillery pieces employed in a direct fire role...

 

[swerve]

If I remember correctly, the Swiss used to emplace old tank turrets at vital chockpoints. Useful when considering the limited mountain passes that accesses the country.

The Korean peninsular is similarly mountainous. Do see a role for old tanks as static emplacements/artillery. Just a question of maintaining guns which is a lot cheaper than maintaining the whole tank.

The Austrians did the same thing with old Centurion turrets. The USSR did it with complete old tanks along the Chinese border, not bothering to remove the turrets. Put them hull-down into concrete pits. IIRC they just stopped maintaining anything not needed for the functioning of the turret, maybe removing useful parts once it had been driven into its final resting place.

In all these cases, I believe the intention was that they'd be crewed by local reservists, who could train on them regularly (weekends . . . ), & quickly man them in a crisis.

 

[eckherl]

With modern technology in relation to artillery fixed positions like this are a thing of the past, they would be knocked out during the 1st hour of a conflict.

 

[lobbie111]

With modern technology in relation to artillery fixed positions like this are a thing of the past, they would be knocked out during the 1st hour of a conflict.

Thats what I was saying only have preprepared bunkers and after the initial shots are fired that would normally be destined for them they are then winched into place or only when needed, if you have over 1000 of them, you loose a choke point...you then move to another with another few fixed turrets they are expendable really if they are obsolete.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thats what I was saying only have preprepared bunkers and after the initial shots are fired that would normally be destined for them they are then winched into place or only when needed, if you have over 1000 of them, you loose a choke point...you then move to another with another few fixed turrets they are expendable really if they are obsolete.

WOFTAM. Artillery spotting systems will kill them within seconds to minutes of detecting the shot.

 

[lobbie111]

WOFTAM. Artillery spotting systems will kill them within seconds to minutes of detecting the shot.

I was thinking more direct fire roles, allowing Koreas tanks to be free for main pushes. They will usually be fired to close for artillery to be able to fire, additionally C-RAM's or MTHEL's also in concrete bunkers could be used... heres a though modular bunkers...

 

[Aussie Digger]

WOFTAM. Artillery spotting systems will kill them within seconds to minutes of detecting the shot.

Depending on the terrain, camouflage and concealment techniques used and the nature of the conflict. Fortified positions are not totally obsolete just yet... Firing canister rounds or some such, they'd be nightmarish in COIN operations, if used in the manner of the fortifications in the Boer war, ie as a part of fortified positions from which highly mobile light / motorised infantry could operate...

These are strictly direct fire positions I'm considering.

The old M48 style 90mm guns couldn't be much chop at more than 2000 - 2500m's in any case...