1952 DEMONSTRATION OF PROTOTYPE PATTON 48 TANK 77154
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ต.ค. 2015
- Support Our Channel : / periscopefilm
On July 1, 1952, the Chrysler Corporation unveiled its new M48 Patton battle tank, nicknamed the "Phantom 48". This film, "Land Battleship", shows the demonstration by the first Pattons at the Delaware Tank Plant in Newark, Delaware. The M-3, a WWII battle tank of the type that would be replaced by the '48, is also shown at the 6:45 mark. This was the first tank ever built by Chrysler.
The M48 Patton is a main battle tank (MBT) that was designed in the United States. It was the third tank to be officially named after General George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army during World War II and one of the earliest American advocates for the use of tanks in battle. It was a further development of the M47 Patton tank. The M48 Patton was in U.S. service until replaced by the M60 and served as the U.S. Army and Marine Corps's primary battle tank in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. It was widely used by U.S. Cold War allies, especially other NATO countries.
The M48 Patton tank was designed to replace the previous M47 Pattons and M4 Shermans. Although largely resembling the M47, the M48 was a completely new design. It was the last U.S. tank to mount the 90 mm tank gun, with the last model, the M48A5, being upgraded to carry the new standard weapon of the M60, the 105mm gun. Some M48A5 models served well into the 1980s with American forces, and many M48s remain in service in other countries. The Turkish Army has the largest number of modernized M48 MBTs, with more than 1,400 in its inventory. Of these, around 1,000 have been phased out or are in storage, or have been modified to ARVs.
On 27 February 1951, OTCM (Ordnance Technical Committee Minutes) #33791 initiated the design of the new tank, designated the 90mm Gun Tank T-48 (the prefix letter "T" would be replaced by the prefix "X" beginning with the M60 series tank). A deeper modernization than the M46 and the M47, the M48 featured a new hemispherical turret, a redesigned hull, and an improved suspension. The hull machine gunner position was removed, reducing the crew to 4. On 2 April 1953, OTCM order #34765 standardized the last of the Patton series tanks as the 90mm Gun Tank M48 Patton.
Nearly 12,000 M48s were built from 1952 to 1959. The early designs, up to the M48A2C's, were powered by a gasoline 12-cylinder engine and a 1-cylinder auxiliary generator (called the "Little Joe"). The gasoline engine versions gave the tank a shorter operating range and were more prone to catching fire when hit. Although considered less reliable than diesel powered versions, numerous examples saw combat use in various Arab-Israeli conflicts. The low flashpoint of MIL-PRF-6083 hydraulic fluid used in the recoil mechanisms and hydraulic systems for rotating weapons or aiming devices is less than 212 °F (100 °C) and could result in a fireball in the crew compartment when the lines were ruptured by incoming fire.[8] MIL-PRF-6083 fluid was not peculiar to the M-48 and is no longer used in combat armored vehicles, having been replaced by fire resistant hydraulic fluid. Beginning in 1959, most American M48s were upgraded to the M48A3 model which featured a more reliable and longer range diesel power plant. M48s with gasoline engines, however, were still in use in the US Army through 1968, and through 1975 by many West German Army units, including the 124th Panzer Battalion.
The Newark Assembly Plant opened in 1951 as a tank plant and was converted for the production of Plymouth and Dodge automobiles in 1957. A variety of Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth models were produced at this facility over the years, totaling nearly 7 million cars. On February 14, 2007, DaimlerChrysler announced that the plant would lose one working shift in 2007, and that it would be scheduled to be shut down completely in 2009. The University of Delaware now owns the campus.
Motion picture films don't last forever; many have already been lost or destroyed. We collect, scan and preserve 35mm, 16mm and 8mm movies -- including home movies, industrial films, and other non-fiction. If you have films you'd like to have scanned or donate to Periscope Film, we'd love to hear from you. Contact us via the link below.
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD and 2k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com
The 50s were such a nostalgic and great era.
Shame rail guns aren't ready..too big and too power hungry yet.
@Dan Iacobescu I agree but it was coming off a Huge win. We need to look to the next frontier, develop more space technology and infrasctructure.
Unless you were on the other side of Jim Crow.
It's a shame it was ruined by ending Jim Crowe and opening the floodgates that were holding back the third world
@@PalmettoNDN That's even better B)
I joined the Nevada National Guard in 1982. We have the M48A5 tanks. They had a 105 mm main gun. Later we got the M60A3 TTS. With thermal sights, laser rangefinder and a stabilized main gun.
What were the m48a5's like, if you don't mind me asking?
2/185th?
@@railwaywerewolfboy6641 The M48A5's handled pretty well. They were a bit more nimble and resistant to throwing track than the M60's, probably because they were lighter.
Maintenance procedures were very much the same.
The fire control system was very primitive. The range finder was a coincidence rangefinder with a mechanical linkage to the analog fire control computer. The M2 50 cal was far more reliable than the M85 50 cal, which was a nightmare.
I came from the M60 on active duty to the M48 in the guard, and found that the only thing I missed about not having a commander's cupula was not having the light amplification sight.
when the first tank came out from the factory, the driver must have shit his pants with that photografer crossing in front of him... lol
No, if you've ever been around tanks or armored vehicles the rules are clear. YOU get out of the way not the other way around.
I trained on the M-48 in Fort Knox, Ky in 1962. I do remember little Joe.
The M48 is the most tanky-looking tank IMO
That’s based on tropes you’ve seen in television and the internet. To me the Tankiest looking tank would probably be the t-72 or t-55; tanks seen in Rambo movies and The Expendables.
@@topsecret1837 can't agree more on this. Indeed Tanky looking tank was T-54/55 that perfect look. Inverted fry pan shape turret and low silhouette.
Didn't you say that about the M-47?
The M-48 is great also.
My grandfather got to see some of these bad boys in action when he was in Vietnam. Said he saw some shoot their guns at targets in the mountains at night when they could see the enemy light their cigarettes.
All smokers should be shot by tanks.
Look at all those beautiful banners. When America was America.
I was driving in Essex, Ny and saw some great WW2 memorials
Which country in America?.
@PBJMan But what country?.
@PBJMan Can't find any country named America, only a continent.
@PBJMan Look at a map. Better, look at the fist use of America to name the continent, it was use for SOUTH America.
There is no country named America. Though there is one in North America that it's name is OF America, meaning OF, ON, PART OF, IN America. Not THE america.
still m48 s are in duty at turkish army...
Low silhouette my ass. that thing is over 10 feet tall one of the tallest tanks ever made only beaten by the M60 which is 11 feet tall, and the M60 was based off the M48
The Army must not have too impressed with the M48, since they began design on the M60 in 1957.
My impression is that the M48 is a further development of the M26. Their suspensions look alike, to me.
The M47 concluded the M26 evolution - the M48 was a completely new design.
The M48 remained in service with the US well into the 80s (A5, 105mm main gun variant), very impressive. The M60 was designed as a response to the abysmal performance of M103 heavy tank and was designed from the ground up as a universal MBT build around the most powerful main gun available at the time.
@@EgoAlters "completely new design" it was the same with enlarged hull and reshaped turret. Same production methods, same technology, same guns, same engines. It was an evolution with new shape.
But the hat is new.
It is interesting to see that M3 was still in service in 1952.
Which M3? Grease gun? Grant/Lee? 90mm gun?
6:48 Lee Tank, but it was probably just for show there. By the way, M3 Grease gun was still in service as far as I know, as late as Gulf war as a self defense weapon for tank crew.@@darnit1944
Great!
Awesome 👍
M60 Tank was also developed from M26 lineage.
2:05 Lmao guy almost got run over haha
Lmao no he didn’t 🙄
Looks like a BMG 1919A4 on top of turret in this video, not a Ma Duece
The 90mm was an amazing cannon at the time, but my god.. it looks so ridiculous on that tank. They really should have put a 105mm gun on it.
M48A5 had the gun upgraded to a 105mm and used many of the fire control parts from the M60A1
agreed, but the L7 was the NATO standard, which is why it was used just about all western tank designs. And even though it had lower velocity then the US counterpart it still was hard hitting and was used to great effect.
It can still be found today on the Stryker MGS.
Welcome to internal military politics. Unless the gun is deemed *significantly better* it will not be further developed. The tooling / infrastructure needs to be developed as well. This takes time / money / resources to do esp when working with not only one bureaucracy, but with the bureaucracies of every other division, department in the army not to mention other countries.
The whole point of NATO standards is that everyone uses the same ammo which makes logistics streamlined. As you can imagine changing out one factor causes enough red tape to fill a swimming pool.
It sucks and makes for a "good enough" mentality but that is how the system works.
Clearly to the powers at be it was not significant enough to justify the change over as the L7 was used instead.
The real reasons were all political. The US forced everyone to use the 7.62 round as well as 9mm, as well as other equipment / standards this led to the other countries feeling left out and bullied, so to appease the other allied countries they allowed the use of the L7 for NATO.
But again when you have a war you need logistics, If your 105mm rnds are out and the only rds you can resupply with are chambered for the L7, you have a problem, No matter how much better of a tank round it is. this is reason why there were NATO standards. The Soviets did the exact same thing, which is why all warsaw pact equipment were compatible with the Russains
The russians were / are no different. All militarizes are bureaucracies. There are several examples of the "Good enough" mindset that can be found on russian equipment. In fact it's one of their proverbs... "perfection is the enemy of good enough"
I agree about the use of the better gun fully, however I don't make up the decisions with these things. And you can't argue that the L7 was a poor gun design as it has been used in combat to great effect over the corse of 50 years. It's a proven system and I think it will be used for many more decades
As for Soviet good enough tech, The AK is a perfect staple of this mindset. Extremely simple. They could have added more features that would have made them more accurate however went instead with simplicity. And a rack grade AK is accurate enough for combat ranges, which is where it excels.
You have the AN-94, interesting and complex design, on paper has many benefits over the AK and was adopted for a little while... however the Russian military decided to stick with the AK instead and more improved AK platforms
you have the use of their reactors on the first gen Nuclear subs. They attempted to use a new technology of molten metal alloy to transfer heat and generate steam, but it was too problematic and was replaced with a traditional water transfer heat system,
For space the US spent millions designing a pen to work in no gravity... the Russians use Pencils.
Got to drive some M 48 A1's at Knox in 1966 maybe A2's they were gas engines we had M48 A3:s at Cu Chi in 1967 they were diesels did see a couple M 60 bridge launching vehicles while I was there. Good tank. Messed up one day heading into a red clay mud hole going too fast and then got out of the gas and slowed down big mistake the bow wave came right back at me from the opposite side that mud was too thick to drink and too thin to plow and of course the hatch was open the T C was pissed for sure
Fun fact: When the first Patton tank was first introduced in the late 40s, the Army apparently had a WAC secretary drive one during demonstrations for the press, to show how easy it was to handle and learn. The TH-cam channel British Pathe actually has footage of this. Must have been a pretty fun experience for her.
(tank devs) "hey I know how we can ruin the low profile and make a huge weakspot, lets add a massive commanders machine gun turret." lol
watching this made me realize most modern ground vehicle crews weren't even born when their vehicles were designed and produced
Plant architecture reminiscent of the old shopping malls
Classic Cold War big iron, and it was a Mopar...
lol i thought tog was the land battleship
It was a "land battleship" until it encountered the RPG-7 for the first time.
All U.S. Tanks are Bad Ass
The M-26 served America well battling Hitler’s Panthers & Tigers in World War 2 and North Korea’s T-34/85s in the Korean war
Great tank..Russian can opener. One shot pops the top
I suspect that Gaijin nerf the mobility of this tank in Warthunder.
@PBJMan In this video, M48 moves swiftly, however in Warthunder it moves like molesses.
@PBJMan There are others as well.
Who can guess why were they best medium tanks in the world?
Brit Centurion was better.
How?
"guess why were they best medium tanks in the world"
the IDF used both the US M48 and British Centurion, modifying and upgrading them into Magach and Sho't Kal respectively.
The Magach earned a negative reputation, even being nicknamed as the "Charred Body Carrier" because the hydraulic line of the American tank design catches fire easily when the tank is hit frontally. Sho't Kal however, fought Syrian tanks desppite being outnumbered 5 to 1. The tank instead prove its worth by "singlehandedly stopping the advance of Syrian armor" in Golan height, especially from one story of IDF tank Ace Zvika Greengold leading a platoon of 4 tanks against a division worth of T-55s and he lived to tell the tale :v
@@erikakurosaka3734 The problem with the hydraulic lines was the fluid itself it had a low flashpoint.
Chaffe on roids
Low siluette? Lmao, T-54/55, T-62 etc. have low siluette. M-48 is huge compared to Soviet tanks.
The M48 Patton had a lower silhouette than the tank it replaces. The M48 was nearly one foot shorter than the M47.
These tanks are toys to Godzilla!
speaking of trench in modern combat as modern as today do we still use trenches?
Used in Ukraine latest I know
We normally don't because it's as well as a safe space in some circumstances, it's a death trap where you can't walk out until it's safe outside. Today we have powerful enough bombs to blow them up so badly they wont be trenches anymore, it would basically be a waste of times and lives to do so... now we're usually hiding behind houses etc because of this
+JLH CREATIONS
What happens in an open field ?
Korea 1950-1953
Is this about a tank or about how many idiots can walk in front of a tank in one afternoon?
its a good tank but the Leopard 1 was better
For retreating and getting your homeland obliterated by nukes?
This was like 10 years before the Leopard though, so for the era the early Pattons were incredible.
@@thunderbird1921 13 years*
People forget the Leopard is 6 years later than even the M60. And 4 years later than the iconic needle turret M60. Even then, the M60 had the best systems [FCS] up until the 3rd generation MBT era. M48 was still taking equivalent upgrades into the 70's as well.
Leopard 1 is a bit of a fat cruiser tank, technically speaking. Chunky Pattons are better all arounders- general armor, much better fast racks, it doesn't have the same easy det forward hull rack problem as a Leopard, FCS [obviously], there is better chassis stability, better vis, you have noticeably better living conditions [which is a mild American theme vs others].
The other medium tanks of early 50's were pretty outclassed by the M48. You're top speed faster and smaller [your angled UFP is most of the enticing target sight picture] in a T54, but you have so many drawbacks. A Centurion 3 has the early two plane stab and APDS [basically one of a kind for the time] plus a couple MPH reverse pending, but that is about it at the price of being under armored on the hull front for that height, slower, and laughably short ranged. The Bat Chat in testing around that time was fast, but it was on the specialized light tank spectrum of cruiser medium tank.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 Okay, thanks for the clarification. Fun fact: when the US Army first introduced the Patton tank, they had a secretary drive it around in front of the press to prove how easy to handle it was (though my guess is she was probably a WAC with some mechanical knowledge also). The footage is here on TH-cam, that must have been mighty fun for her, driving at the time the most modern tank on earth!
That photographer probably needed to go home and change his drawers.
The M-47 was total junk,all of the other American tanks served with distinction,the M-47 was garbage.
on the 50s was T-54/55 better than M-48 90mm. 60/70s T-62 was better than M60A3 105mm, 80s T-72B was better than M1 Abrams with 105mm.This is not propaganda, this is a fact. American tanks was only better with bigger gun. Without Rheinmetall 120mm was Abrams shit and low armor on 1981-85.
nah m8 you got it wrong....... T-62 was pretty good T-54/55 was good for what it was.... but saying the L7 105mm rifled cannon wasn't adequate the reason the US adopted the 120mm gun is to standardize the Nato ammunition for tanks and also be able to shoot SABOT cartridges more effectively and reduce the cost of the gun itself and get rid of the need for special aiming/sighting apparatuses to check the bore / sight alignment... as if your tank gun is perfectly smooth and doesn't differ from any other gun the sighting cooling and heating of the gun as it fires will not change unlike rifled cannons.
M1A1s and Bradley Fighting Vehicles came up against Iraqi Republican Guard T-72s and BMPs and inflicted 37 T-72 losses on the Iraqi armored forces while losing a single Bradley to enemy fire.
the Iraqis used dug-in T-72 tanks to stop the advance of an American mechanized infantry company supported by two M1 tanks in southern Iraq during the Battle of Phase Line Bullet. The Iraqi T-72Ms used 3BM9 shells
with a penetration of 245 mm at a distance of up to 2500 meters
During the war in south Ossetia Russia lost two T-72B tanks
T72B only offers
New main gun, stabilizer, sights, and fire control, capable of firing 9M119 Svir guided missile, additional armour including 20 mm (0.8 in) of appliqué armor in the front of hull, improved 840 hp (630 kW) engine.
while we all know what tank is better than the shitty T72 export tank of russia..... the T64 much better autoloader.... was built to replace T72 even before T72 was put into production it had a electric autoloader unlike the unreliable Hydraulic one in the T72s
M1 Abrams is still a good tank........ more armor almost if not equally matched firepower with the 105mm cannon as the T72B with 125mm cannon
so saying the M1 armor is weak is wrong
In friendly fire incidents, the front armor and fore side turret armor survived direct armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) hits from other M1A1s. This was not the case for the side armor of the hull and the rear armor of the turret, as both areas were penetrated on at least two occasions by friendly depleted uranium ammunition during the Battle of Norfolk
as for M60 tank its a very capable combat machine... its got good protection thats equally good as T72URAL of its similar time period and great armament and superior crew compartment weapons handling and sighting
Please stop this stupid info USA propaganda from Iraq war.All USA soldiers are RAMBO in USA documentaryFact is low skilled Iraqi versions low skilled crew. no air support ,no GPS.Initial version of M1 Abrams was low skilled, it is fact. L7 is from England, Chobham is also from England.Rheinmettal 120mm is Germany.You can not do anything better!!
You can not build tanks! You steal everything under NATO help.
I saw a documentary about aviation after the WW2. The British technician hated the USA, everything about jets stole them.M1A3 is probably dead due to T-14 Armata.You play soldiers against weak armies.Play against Russia or China.They would pay you with hats.
pumelo1
The IDF wasted Syrian T62s with 105mm armed Magach and Sho't tanks and Syrian T72s with 105mm armed Merkava 1s, Sho'ts, Magachs and Tirans.
Russia stronk ! Derp, derp.