some M103A2 have strange “seam” around driver periscopes, was whole area re-welded over old hull casting for fit new hatch ?
@KurtLaughlin Hello, sorry for bothering, maybe you can help with this ?
p.s maybe somebody also have better photos of M103(or T43) gun mantlet canvas ? what was original color for it ? was it simple tarp or rubberized canvas ? why co-ax MG’s tubes is covered with some “long sleeve” ? and how exactly it was fixed over gun tube and co-ax tubes ?
The seam is a casting mark from when the hull front was made.
The color of the canvas is the same as the canvas cover for military vehicles like jeeps and 2/12 ton trucks. Later ones had a rubberized finish. See photo below.
The long tubes are extensions welded to the gun mantlet.
The canvas has 3 holes that allow it to fit over the gun tube, machine gun opening and the auxiliary gunsight.
Keep in mind that the mantlet covers sometimes faded and it wasn’t uncommon to find mantlet covers painted by the crew. They could be fully painted over, camouflaged or become the victim of overspray, when the rest of the tank was painted.
Edro
I agree that those artifacts are in the casting, not welds. They may be from how the pattern was constructed rather than from the casting process.
The way I have seen the dust cover attached to the blast and sight tubes is with stainless steel hose clamps.
KL
On A Related Note: Is there anyone who knows of an M-51 Heavy Recovery Vehicle conversion for the Takom Kit? There was A full resin kit of that subject once, but is now discontinued.
Plenty of good info on the M103 tanks to be found here
“The commander’s cupola M4 allowed the .50cal machine gun to be aimed and fired from under armor, although unlike later cupola designs the commander had to unbutton to reload the weapon. Four periscopes M17 were provided in the cupola. The turret ventilating blower is in the foreground, and the cupola is facing the rear of the turret.”
never seen any photos of cupola with all 4xM17
i’m very grateful to everyone for your answers, thank you.
tried to find any old photos with such details, but no luck
is that a zipper under the barrel?
early M48 had same ?
You can see the hose clamps in some of your photos, around the gun tube. Sometimes they were painted.
Here’s some M48A5 shots showing a 1984-vintage cover. The gun snout is held with a hose clamp, the cover around the tube has multiple layers of fabric to keep the fabric in place. On the original M48 covers you can see some where the canvas is drooped over the ends of the tubes.
I’m not sure how the sock-like things that went over them were held. They could be drawstrings.
KL
Wow, this tank is huge!
Did the USMC really use this tank? I am not too familiar with the USMC but I would not have thought that they use(d) such heavy tanks.
Yes they did and then they served with the Marine reserve.
It is huge and available in 1/35, which builds into a very impressive model - in my opinion(!)
Yes — the Marines really did use the M103, and they used more of them than the Army did.
Of the 300 T43/M103-series tanks built, the Army took about 80 and the Marine Corps took about 220. The Marines assigned a company of them to each of their tank battalions (active and reserve) and treated them as heavy infantry-support tanks rather than long-range tank killers sitting in overwatch. That fit their amphibious doctrine: if you can only get a handful of tanks ashore, you want the ones with the thickest armor and the biggest gun.
They were not happy with the original version, so they pushed the upgrades. Most of their fleet became M103A1s, then many were rebuilt as M103A2s with the Continental AVDS-1790 diesel from the M60. That change dramatically improved range (from ~80 miles to nearly 300) and made maintenance easier.
They never saw combat. The only operational overseas use was a rotating detachment of five tanks (plus a couple of flame tanks) at Guantanamo Bay from the early 1960s into the early 1970s, sitting in revetments covering the fence line in case Cuban or Soviet armor showed up. They were not sent to Vietnam — too heavy, wrong terrain, and no targets that justified them.
The Army dropped the type once the M60 arrived. The Marines hung onto theirs until they finally accepted the M60 in the early 1970s; the last ones left service around 1973–74.
Edro
Thanks a lot for all that really interesting information! I don’t know too much about US armor.
That M103 is such a big tank, that big turret looks really intimidating. I am a ex soldier and used to big tanks but that thing gives me chills 
And what you said about the USMC using that tank as a “mobile front bunker” makes sense but this tank wouldn’t be my first thought when someone asks me about USMC tanks
Appreciate it — yeah, the M103 is one of those tanks that looks even bigger in person than it does in photos. Completely understandable that it wouldn’t be the first USMC tank most people think of. Glad the background was useful.
Edro
I actually managed to sit in an M103 at a museum that has since gone out of business. It really is extra massive compared to the other tanks of the 60’s but it was roomy inside. I remember NOT getting into a Panzer IV because of how hard it would be getting back out again but the M103 had so much space inside.
Yes, but it had two loaders to occupy that space.
It is a beast; there’s one in Bovington Tank Museum which is a runner - very impressive when one sees it in the flesh as it were and on the move.
The Takom models are very good should anyone want to build one - and the only game in town as far as I know.
There was one at the museum on Ft Polk when I was stationed there. It was indeed a big beast to see up close in person. There were also several out on the live fire ranges as targets. I had the good fortune of firing two live warhead TOW missiles at those hulks over the course of one extended live fire range week that we did one year.
In addition to the nice new tool 1/35 M103 kits, there are also the older Dragon Black Label series M103 kits, which do not have a good reputation.
Hah! I’d forgotten the Dragon ones; almost fitting in a way - much reviled, and they could have done a much better job on them. I have the A1 version in the stash, but am unsure what to do with it. Perhaps a side-by-side comparison build with the Takom one? Anyway, almost worth it for the Ron Volstad box art.
