I have the AFV Club M88 kit and the book with a walkaround of said vehicle. I noticed that the “Haulin’ Ass” that the book depicts have rubber on the outer sections of the track which I had assumed were not supposed to be covered with rubber. Is this an aberration or how the M88 was supposed to be? I had assumed that that area would not be covered by rubber.
The M88A1 that was part of Jacques Littlefield Collection. Those tracks are T97E2 tracks, standard on the M48 series of tanks, all the way to the early M60s, before being replaced with the T-142 tracks on the A1 and A3 variants of the M60.
The outer thread section of the tracks is rubber, along with the interior contact points for the road wheels, unless I am missing something.
The M88 used T107 tracks which have a slightly longer pitch, larger pin diameter, and subtly different chevron shape than T97E2s. That’s why they use a different sprocket.
KL
4 Likes
AH! Thanks for the correction. 
So; could you say that the M88 uses the same tracks as the old M103 heavy tank?
If that’s the case, then i have a trip to do; the recently opened TUcson Military Vehicle Museum has both an M103A2 and an M88A2 Hercules on display, time to start making measurements. 
4 Likes
Sort of. The T97E2 was intended for the M48 and T43 tanks, the T107 for the M51 HRV. The M103 and M103A1 used mainly T97E2s. The M103A2s used mainly T107s. The M88 used the T107, the M88A1 likely dd, but I don’t know what is on M88A2s. The tracks were interchangeable with a sprocket change, so that’s the first place to look to determine what’s mounted.
T97E2 sprocket
T107 sprocket
If you go, look for part numbers on the track blocks, center guides, and end connectors. Those will definitely tell you what you are looking at.
KL
5 Likes
Is the walkaround book you have the Squadron Signal book? If so, a BIG word of caution. Do NOT use the guide in the back for the correct application of the NATO three color scheme!!!
They have the color pattern shifted, i.e. what they show as Brown, should be Green, what they show as Green should be Black, and what they show as Black should be Brown.
I had the actual TB which showed the correct pattern with numbers in each area which is correct, but didn’t pay attention to the fact that the colors in the drawings didn’t correspond. Ruined a perfectly good model because it’s just not possible to re-mask and re-paint over all of the details I added.
It’s funny you should say that. A member from Poland contacted me the other day asking about the three color scheme for the M109A7, as he’s building it in 1/72. Neither that kit nor the Panda 1/35 kit have a color guide for the three color scheme. Apparently the photos I took at Ft Cervazas of the three toned vehicles are rare as hen’s teeth. Try finding them scheme online. I could not find the photos for him, but opined that the color guide for an A6 would suffice, considering the turret is the same, and the hulls aren’t all that different.
Once again, I had a epiphany at 12:30 am. I realized where the files were stashed. (in my old Paladin folder) I discovered that yes, the schemes are somewhat similar, except the on the A6 there’s an area that is black, green, brown, green, black; and on the A7 it’s black, green, black, green, black. It’s quite possible the painter screwed up on both the color sequence and the pattern.
The point being - I wouldn’t sweat the fact your scheme doesn’t correspond. The Army can’t even get it right. I’m sure yours looks good in any case.
2 Likes
Ouch. I’m actually planning a 1962 version in monochrome green for Europe. It is actually my alternative to the incorrect Dragon M60 kit and serves the purpose equally well.
I have this version of replacement track ready: R Model 35139C Metal Track and Metal Pin For T97 Track US M60 M48 M247 M88A1/A2 | eBay I hope it would be correct. I always ruin the plastic track when I try to get it off the sprues, so I ended up buying this instead.
Yes, it’s the Squadron book.
They are both T107s. On the T107 the “foot” at the outside of the chevron is half the width of the track block. On the T97E2 it’s a third of the width. See the individual track photos I posted above.
KL
1 Like
You can identify a correct scheme by looking at a long view of the side. The basic pattern has a prominent black V in the largest area. This applies to all individual schemes.
Also, you should see three times more green than brown and approximately the same amount of green and black.
KL
Wonder if some of the M88 units might have used the T97 at least as an expedient, especially an older one?
There is still an OG M88 at Ft. Sill, oddly enough.
It’s always amusing to see publications with phrases like “Must be in the correct place and must be the correct width.”
One thing we know is that people are fallible. From our own Robin Gronovius:
Neatness depended on the crewmen painting. There were often soldiers being punished for misconduct and they would finish up any tank that wasn’t completed after duty hours.
The next day the crew applied markings with stencils and any tank names that were chosen. Touch ups were done if needed.
Unlike the factory painted schemes, no two tanks looked exactly alike.
There’s the book answer, and there’s what really happens.
This is by the book:
And we can get a warm fuzzy if we want by copying it exactly:
But we all know, by accounts from some of very service members, it wasn’t always by the book. No reason to doubt them.
I suppose if no one was supervising you could end up with said Picasso:
But back to the scheme I alluded to earlier. Looking at all of my M109A7 photos, indeed the scheme was supposed to be the same as on the M109A6:
Clearly someone misinterpreted the drawing. In any case the pattern went off the rails. So much for correct ratios of brown.
They even tried to shoehorn the same pattern onto all manner of vehicles by stretching the pattern horizontally or vertically:
Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
Even our cousins coudn’t keep to a standard scheme, even though it was mandated in Berlin:
Yes, there is a difference.
1 Like
The T97E2 could be used by changing the sprocket. The two tracks have different pitches and different pin diameters so it could not be done simply by running off one and onto the other.
The AFV Club M88 kits all have T107 sprockets. The AFV Club T97E2 separate links have T107 track pads on them, if they actually true T107s.
KL
One notable difference with the three-color scheme is that the paints used were so hazardous that most vehicles were painted by robots at depots or factories, not people.
Of course all the veteran stories are true - to an extent - so it comes down to whether you want to model the usual or the oddball. If you don’t have a specific vehicle in mind it’s probably better off to model the norm because, absent any info to the contrary, why wouldn’t it be to the standard?
On the other hand, if you know of a specific vehicle you are trying to replicate you should of course model it as it was The existence of the oddball does not, however, mean that standards were never followed. I’ve seen a number of modelers who clearly have made mistakes or just didn’t care try to justify their creation by listing various veteran tales instead of just saying that they didn’t try to follow the pattern or that they goofed up. Witness also how often “cover it with mud” is suggested.
KL
1 Like
I think we just saw an example of that above. 
Fiddlesticks, nobody makes aftermarket T 107 tracks. Evidently not a big enough market.
Tom, I’d like to take a stab at it if it’s not too hard to convert my T97E2 track CAD to T107.
So based on the discussion above, the overall width, length, and height are the same between the two but the chevron shape is different? Kurt’s photo:
From the photo above from Rob, the inner rubber pads look different, too. Are there more photos I can reference to?
Here are the screen shots of my T97E2 CAD to give you an idea:
1 Like