Any issues with Tamiya's M60A2?

i was in 3-33 armor when we transitioned from A1's to A2's in '75. when were you there? standing in line to get tickets for the arizona memorial on 08dec11, after attending the 70 the remembrance ceremony on the 7th, i started taking with a couple of guys from belgium. the younger spoke english and said the older guy recognized my 3AD veterans association hat. he owns a sherman with the designation C14/3-33AR which was my plt sgts tank. i showed him my 3-33AD challenge coin. also ran into a guy from WORLD OF TANKS at nats in omaha whoe was in 2-36INF in the mid 80s http://www.combatcamel.be/

GrenadierII is gone I think  but the rest of us are still around.

The original thread is just shy of 6 years old... yes your information is correct, but many of he posters are no longer active on here...

The M60 series have rolled homogeneous armor plate hulls, which are smooth and flat and are welded together, while the M48 series have cast single unit hulls with rough surfaces.  They are quite different. 

Mikeym_us wrote:

well dont forget about the independent track links for the M60 to replace the "rubber band" tracks.

Yup, another plus with the Esci kits.  They already come with correct, plastic, link-and-length tracks.  They look great too.

well dont forget about the independent track links for the M60 to replace the "rubber band" tracks.

grenadierII wrote:

Gino, nice build my friend! You armor guys never fail to impress.... BTW - is the Tamiya M60 with reactive armor any good?

 

Thanks for the compliments.  The Tamiya M60A1 RISE/Passive with ERA uses the same hull as the M60A2.  The Academy M60A1 RISE/Passive w/ERA is a slightly better kit.   It is a copy of Tamiya's with some improvements made to the turret and running gear.  To get the best M60A1 RISE/Passive w/ERA, I recommend using the Esci M60A1 and adding either the Tamiya or Academy ERA blocks to it.  For a good comparison of M60 kits, check here.  Bottom line, Esci's M60 kits are the best out there and I would use them as a base in any M60 project.  

Good luck.

If I remember wasn't the M60 lower hull basically a M48 hull with the upper hull being completely different. Because I have a M60A2 (or was it the A3)ODS with the ablative armour plates and I have a M48 patton and the hulls on both tanks were very close right down to the location of the track returns. And another thing that people never meantion is that the Tamiya M60A2 is the only kit I know of that has a detailed drivers compartment.

The M60 series of tanks was a further development of the M48 series.  The rear hull was basically the same.  The front hull was pointed and straight across, as opposed to the M48, which had a rounded, boat-shaped hull.  Track fenders are different as well.  The original M60 turret was basically a modified M48 turret.  In the M60A1, it got a totally redesigned turret.  Here's more info on the Patton series of tanks (M26, M46, M47, M48, & M60 tanks) at Patton-Mania.

By the way, the M60 ODS model you have with ERA blocks is the USMC M60A1 Rise/Passive w/ERA.  US Army M60A3s didn't have ERA on them and none were used in ODS.  Also, the Tamiya M60 driver's compartment is a start, but it isn't really that close to an actual one.

Gino, nice build my friend! You armor guys never fail to impress.

I don't think I will go as far as Gino, but I will pick up that Italeri kit for the corrected hull.

Thanks so much for all the info guys. If anybody follows up on this thread - I will be away from the computer for the next couple of weeks after 2/10. Rest assured I'm not ignoring the great advice.

Thanks again!

BTW - is the Tamiya M60 with reactive armor any good?

Ray

If I remember wasn't the M60 lower hull basically a M48 hull with the upper hull being completely different. Because I have a M60A2 (or was it the A3)ODS with the ablative armour plates and I have a M48 patton and the hulls on both tanks were very close right down to the location of the track returns. And another thing that people never meantion is that the Tamiya M60A2 is the only kit I know of that has a detailed drivers compartment.

In fact, there were many A2's in my unit 3/33rd Armor, that did have the bore evacuator. I don't have access to my pics right now, but I have posted them before in this and other forums. I agree with Gino, the Tamiya hull is a dog, and I have purchased the old Esci A1 kit for my A2 project. Gino did a bang up job on his, the CBSS bulge at the back of the hull will be the biggest challenge, if you are a stickler for correctness. When I get back home this weekend I will re-post my pics on this thread, they are another source of reference of A2's actually in service, most web photos show them in a boneyard somewhere. I also still have the -10 manual, so if you need anything from that resource (interior details, let me know.

 

Regards,

Steve

Other than the issues AJ brings up, the Tamiya hull is a dog.  Best bet is to replace the hull with a much more accurate old Esci hull from one of their M60 kits, now reissued bt Italeri and Revell. 

I just recently built one too.  You can check out my build here:  http://photobucket.com/albums/v231/HeavyArty/M60A2%20CBSS/

and here:  http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=829

 

You can read about what I did to correct the kit here as well: 

In-progress: http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/539719/ShowPost.aspx

Completed: http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/542746/ShowPost.aspx

 

Good luck.

Plenty. If you want a moderately accurate representation. A friend from another site rode on those and spent a great deal of time correcting the kit. OOB, it looks passably enough like an M60A2 for most folks, tough. Several things come quickly to mind. The production model did not have the bore evacuator (easy fix with some aluminum tubing). The searchlight is wrong (not sure how) and there should be a prominent bulge under the engine compartment. The bustle rack lacks mesh inserts (easy fix). And there was something about the smoke grenade tubes I had to fix on mine to make it look more to scale. Operationally, there should be a mantlet cover. There are a number of lesser errors, too. But at least it fits together well.