Prior military service vs. reenacting style

[tompritchett]

The M48A5 was intended to be just a reserve system tank, not a first line tank. The exception to this was Korea were the M48A5 was a font line vehicle until the M1 production freed up stocks of M60 tanks.

When I was in AOB, we had a group of Marine officers training with us. If I remember correctly they were all going back to units equipped with M48A5's.
You are correct about the fire control control. The M48A5's that I saw had identical fire-control computers and range finders as the M60A1's that I had initially worked with.

[Trooper Graham]

This was a very interesting thread to read. I agree with many of the comments made, too numerous to respond to. The poll is closed but I would have voted Combat/Mainstream. Mainstream because of personal reasons but not because of lack of authenticity. Comraderie and the never die intererst of military history replaces many bad memories and recalls the better times. I think the poll should have included what I really wanted to know is how many members who reenact/relive history are military retired. Spending three years is time served honorably but few can stay the time to retire. Like one poster wrote about his dad saying why do this because you'll never really know how it really was. Those are the ones I like to see respond. Why after 20-30 years involving combat, deprived of food, sleep, low pay, putting up with assinine officers, invasion of privacy and living today with disabilities do you retirees still feel the want or need to still put on a uniform.

For me the body is retired but not the uniform. It still hangs in the closet and still fits as it did 21 years ago. I started reenacting some part of history soon after. Some may ask, why get out after 20 years? Assinine officers come to mind. I guess it's sort of like the old saying "you can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy"

[Rob Weaver]

I've shot and commanded the M60A1 and A3, and the M1. Missed the M48-series, but the fire-control is, as has been pointed out, the same as the A1. It was so satisfying to put steel on target with that tank! (The M60A1, that is)First you acquire the target, issue your fire command and pull the gun over so the gunner can acquire. Now drop down into the turret, mash your face against the coincidence range finder (mangling your glasses in the act) and spin the whiz-wheel until the images line up, or 4 turns from mechanical stop, which was 1200m. Either way, now you've left a good bit of skin off your knuckles on the turret ceiling. Hang on to something and yell "Fire" (when the Loader yells "Up!) Like a mini-aerobics class. Remember that "3 threat tanks direct front" gunnery engagement? That was my favorite! You had to open in something like 6 seconds and close in 27 to max the engagement. I also like the "firing from the short halt" engagement. There's something really cool about firing and then riding through the cloud of smoke and dust you created. Granted the A3 and the M1 are/were a lot more accurate and quicker to shoot, still the commander doesn't have all that old-fashionsed physicality.
I never shot the M60A2. It was gone before my time. As I understand it, that fire-direction system was just too smart for its own good. The commander had a target designator in the cupola which allowed him to lay on a second target from the gunner, and when the gunner completed the first engagement, with the push of a button, the turret would slew around to lay on that second target. Apparently if you pointed the gun at one fender, and the TC's cupola at an opposite rear fender, and hit the target designator, the turret would spin around in a circle, unable to acquire the second target, but also unable to stop itself from searching for it. I fired the M551 once and that was enough to convince me that there's such a thing as too much gun on too small a tank. But that's another story...

[tompritchett]

Personally, I liked using the battlesight settings with the M60A1 and M48A5. Have the gun loaded, the range pre-set for the round and then aim for the base of the target. As long as the tank is closer than the pre-set range, you will hit the target as the maximum elevation of the round in flight would be less than the height of the tank. Then for the second shot, you can get a more accurate range, if necessary. Although our tanks had longer effective ranges than the Soviet tank, terrain would often dictate closer engagements where speed was of the essence since you would almost always be outnumbered - worse than the Union army outnumbered the Confederates. However, the range advantage really showed its merits during both of the Gulf wars where our tanks were able to engage and destroy the Iraqi tanks well outside their effective ranges. For non-tankers, the difference in effective ranges was due to the fact that Soviet tanks up to the T-72 used smoothbore cannons to maximize muzzle velocities, and thereby penetrating ability of the sabot rounds, while NATO tanks used rifled cannons to maximize rank. Sounds familar doesn't it.

[Rob Weaver]

Remember when your gunner was trained to add "target forms" when firing? I used to love to shoot off the 105D sight, too.
The difference in range that American tanks can generate over the Soviet-era tanks isn't just the gun but the ammunition fired. Depleted uranium APDS is extremely hard, but also extremely light. For many years, the Soviets made sabot rounds out of cast steel. Not only inferior for penetration, but limited to about half the range of a DU round. They intended to make up for this deficiency by getting close quickly and overwhelming the enemy with volume of fire. Not all that different than engaging with an infantry brigade with smoothbore muskets.

[tompritchett]

When did we shift to depleted uranium for sabot rounds? I always remembered the round being a special tungsten-steel alloy but that was back in Winter 79.

They intended to make up for this deficiency by getting close quickly and overwhelming the enemy with volume of fire.

That tactic goes all the way back to WW II. That is how the Russians broke the Tiger and Panther formations during the Battle of Kurst.

[Forquer]

When did we shift to depleted uranium for sabot rounds? I always remembered the round being a special tungsten-steel alloy but that was back in Winter 79.

Tom -

I think the tank rounds with the depleted uranium cores came about after they were developed for the A-10 Warthog's 30mm chain gun. You can't argue with success.

[Bummer]

......... what I really wanted to know is how many members who reenact/relive history are military retired. Spending three years is time served honorably but few can stay the time to retire. Like one poster wrote about his dad saying why do this because you'll never really know how it really was. Those are the ones I like to see respond. Why after 20-30 years involving combat, deprived of food, sleep, low pay, putting up with assinine officers, invasion of privacy and living today with disabilities do you retirees still feel the want or need to still put on a uniform.

For me the body is retired but not the uniform. It still hangs in the closet and still fits as it did 21 years ago. I started reenacting some part of history soon after. Some may ask, why get out after 20 years? Assinine officers come to mind. I guess it's sort of like the old saying "you can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy"

I'm one of the retired guys. I also am one of the old guys who went up Rich Mt. I think you said it with that quote in the end...there's just something about soldiering. As an old Colonel of mine once said; "You know you're a soldier when you learn to love to hate it."
I was in Leg infantry most of my career--which is about the closest to CW soldiering. So when things like not getting your knapsack one night happens, it's 'oh well, suck it up & drive on, it's nothing that hasn't happened before'. I am a history nut first and foremost--I want to feel a little about what the original CW soldier felt--not just any soldier, but the Civil War Union soldier. There are a lot of common experiences most any combat arms soldier gets, but there are also many that are unique to the Civil War armies--those latter are what I am looking for.
Sometimes at a good 'hardcore' event I get a little taste of the classic sh*t without the sugar that all field soldiers have gotten--then that's a good event because I know it is approaching reality.
As I said on a thread on the A-C forum during the hoo-haw about Rich Mt., I'm not doing this for fun, but for satisfaction--to step a ways in the original boys shoes for a bit. And that's why I do the authentic hardcore thing--it is closer to what it was like...and that's what I'm looking for.

I also do mainstream events too as any CW event is neat for me. I also shoot in the N-SSA for the additional experiences that can only be found there too.

[Rob Weaver]

When did we shift to depleted uranium for sabot rounds? I always remembered the round being a special tungsten-steel alloy but that was back in Winter 79.



That tactic goes all the way back to WW II. That is how the Russians broke the Tiger and Panther formations during the Battle of Kurst.

Certainly by 84 when I went to OBC we were, although the ballistic data was still classified at that time. When we trained Soviet style tactics, everything was done according to drill, to keep it fast and minimize radio traffic (since only commanders could transmit!). In a 3-tank Soviet platoon, all three vehicles took their cues from the platoon leader. When he fired, they were expected to fire on the same target with 3 rounds immediately. They also intended to engage at approximately 25 mph, on the move, at less than 1700m. That's really a lot of fire coming down quickly in one place, remembering that the target area was bombarded by artillery both before and after each eschelon of maneuver troops.

[KarinTimour]

Popeye, good to see you back. You asked who were these people who consider themselves campaigners, but who never served in the military. I'm one. I never served in the miliary, but I want to experience and portray what the women of the 1860s did. My primary interest is the average working woman -- I want to DO things at events -- laundry, cooking, cleaning, gardening, etc.

When I started reenacting, I spent eight months on the internet fora, reading, asking questions and getting advice. I wasn't interested in doing an upper class impression -- none of my family were (or are) upper class. My grandparents and gggrandparents were all farmers, factory workers, people who had to earn or grow what went on their family's table. That's who I wanted to bring to life in reenacting.

My first event was Red River II, my second was Hammonassett (classic mainstream event). I wasn't a member of a group when I started, didn't have a husband or boyfriend in a military unit. The mainstream events that I attended, it seemed like I drove 6 hours to sit in a field under a fly for the weekend. I know there are mainstream events that have demonstration areas or lectures for civilians, but I wanted to actually experience more of what they did, saw, spent their time doing.

I consider myself more of a "campaigner" or a "hardcore" citizen. I've refugeed (Outpost 2000, Bentonville 2000), been pillaged by occupying troops (Red River II), been caught in the cold rain with nothing but a floorcloth (Saylor's Creek), had Union troops disrupt a Confederate Soldier's Aid meeting, searching the members as they left the church where we were meeting (McDowell 2003), been caught on a back road in the rain with one friend by a lone, nervous, suspicious and trigger happy Union cavalryman (Saylor's Creek), begged Union troops for food (Bentonville), had a Union cavalry straggler come down a lonely road after us, scaring us so badly we crawled under some serious brambles where his horse couldn't follow (Bentonville 2000), been hunted down and dragged out of the woods by force by Union soldiers (Saylor's Creek), helped recapture (which involved a bit of scrapping) a Union POW who hid in our outhouse when the Confederates marched the rest off to prison (Outpost 2000), been refused permission to cross Confederate lines to my home -- necessitating spending the night bedded down with my family in the open on the side of a road (Recon II), been a smuggler (Inn at Pike's Mill 2005), a Confederate postmistress (Red River II), a barmaid (McDowell 2001), a cook hired by Union officers (many living histories at Fort Delaware), a Union army laundress (Harrison's Landing, Winter of '64), a poor farmer's widow (nearly always).

Spence Waldron said it pretty well:
"I'm not doing this for fun, but for satisfaction--to step a ways in the original boys shoes for a bit. And that's why I do the authentic hardcore thing--it is closer to what it was like...and that's what I'm looking for."

Me too.

Sincerely,
Karin Timour
Period Knitting -- Socks, Sleeping Hats, Balaclavas
Atlantic Guard Soldier's Aid Society
Email: Ktimour@aol.com