Talk:M48 Patton

message: I changed some metric mesures to inch mesures,I did not change any figures except for the HP ratings of the diesel to 750 hp.Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.Safn1949 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that vein, shouldn't the English measurements come first, since it's a U.S. vehicle...?  Trekphiler (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

message: This article claims the M48 is both a completely new tank design and a development of the M47. It's one or the other, and I'm pretty sure it's the former. 86.45.4.210 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New tank or development of M47?

message: Army field manual FM 17-12, TANK GUNNERY, Nov 1964, states on page 102 "a. MAIN BATTLE TANK...b. TANKS NOT EQUIPPED WITH A SUPERELEVATOR (M41 and M48 Tanks)..."  This is stating that the M48 is not an MBT (Main Battle Tank).  There are photos of the M60 tank in the manual, they have only 3 support rollers, a straight edged front end (the bow) fender to fender, and a 105mm main gun with the bore evacuator mid barrel.
All Patton tanks (excepting the A5 model) mounted 90mm tank guns, which were catagorized as medium guns.  The 105mm M60 tank was a step away from the medium gun. US M103 heavy tanks had 120mm guns, which definately makes the 90mm a medium gun.  When the M1 Abrams first came out, it carried a 105mm main gun; which makes it (the GUN) the beginning of the MBT.
Army FM 17-79 dated 1955 actually specifies the M48 tank as a "medium tank" on p. 4.
So why is wikipedia contradicting the US Army?  I took the liberty of making some corrections to draw attention to this discussion page.
According to Hunnicutt, Abrams, History of the American Main Battle Tank, First Edition 1990 by Presidio Press: P. 96 states that an Armor and Bridging conference was held in Canada in October 1957 recommending that the light tank (M41 Walker Bulldog) be replaced by the AR/AAV Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle (which is misprinted in the book, using the word Airborne twice and leaving out the word Armored) which ultimately turned out to be the M551 Sheridan in 1967. The conference also stated that the heavy and medium tanks were to be combined into a single all purpose Main Battle Tank.
P.98 of Hunnicutt's book (Abrams) also states that Gen Maxwell Taylor, Army Chief of Staff in 1957 called for developments to replace both the M41 light tank's 76mm gun and the 90mm gun. Further stating that "unfortunately, the rapid progress in selecting a design for the AR/AAV did not extend to the program for the new main battle tank."   That the selection of the 105mm M68 gun (which ended up in the M60 tank) was an alternate gun to the preferred XM81 152 gun/launcher for the MBT.  Thus making the product improved M60 tank with it's 105mm gun the new Mid Range  (MR) army Main Battle Tank.  Until replaced by the M1 105mm gun Abrams MBT in 1980.Pages 101, 202.
The US Army officially didn't use the term main battle tank until after 1957.  The M46, M47, and M48 tanks were officially classified as medium tanks. The M103 was officially classified as a heavy tank, and the M41 Walker Bulldog was officially classified as a light tank.  According to those referenced pages in Hunnicutt's book (Abrams), the M60 tank was a MR (Mid Range) 105mm gun MBT, and it's replacement was the 105mm gun M1 Abrams MBT.  Both MBTs mounted 105mm main guns. This would explain why those two army manuals quoted in the above discussion called the M60 tank a Main Battle Tank and the M48 a medium tank.   Both army manuals were published prior to 1965, when the US military still had the M103 heavy tank on the books.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.222.130 (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The US Army says the M48 Patton is a medium tank

message: Two issues:
# the tank only has one coaxial machine gun. The .50 cal was never coaxially mounted. The tank commander can move it independently from the movement of the turret. Rklawton (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Coaxial machine gun

message: I think that this tank's name came from george s patton. can you please add it in and also add a citation if necessary? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namesake?