±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 174
Total: 174
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Photo Gallery
02: Photo Gallery
03: Member Screenshots
04: Photo Gallery
05: Photo Gallery
06: Photo Gallery
07: Photo Gallery
08: Photo Gallery
09: Photo Gallery
10: Community Forums
11: Photo Gallery
12: Downloads
13: Photo Gallery
14: News Archive
15: News Archive
16: Community Forums
17: Member Screenshots
18: Photo Gallery
19: Photo Gallery
20: Photo Gallery
21: Home
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Home
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Home
29: Home
30: Photo Gallery
31: Photo Gallery
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Member Screenshots
35: Photo Gallery
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Photo Gallery
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Photo Gallery
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Your Account
45: Photo Gallery
46: Home
47: Member Screenshots
48: Home
49: Home
50: Photo Gallery
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Photo Gallery
55: Community Forums
56: Downloads
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Photo Gallery
62: Home
63: Home
64: Photo Gallery
65: Home
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Community Forums
71: Downloads
72: Community Forums
73: Photo Gallery
74: Community Forums
75: Photo Gallery
76: Community Forums
77: Photo Gallery
78: Photo Gallery
79: Photo Gallery
80: Photo Gallery
81: Community Forums
82: Photo Gallery
83: Photo Gallery
84: Member Screenshots
85: Community Forums
86: Photo Gallery
87: Statistics
88: Community Forums
89: Photo Gallery
90: Home
91: Photo Gallery
92: Community Forums
93: Member Screenshots
94: Photo Gallery
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Photo Gallery
102: Downloads
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Home
107: Community Forums
108: Photo Gallery
109: Photo Gallery
110: Community Forums
111: Photo Gallery
112: Home
113: Community Forums
114: Photo Gallery
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Photo Gallery
119: CPGlang
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Photo Gallery
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Photo Gallery
126: Community Forums
127: Member Screenshots
128: Photo Gallery
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Photo Gallery
132: Home
133: Photo Gallery
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Community Forums
137: Photo Gallery
138: Photo Gallery
139: Photo Gallery
140: Photo Gallery
141: Photo Gallery
142: Community Forums
143: Photo Gallery
144: Community Forums
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Community Forums
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Photo Gallery
151: Home
152: Community Forums
153: Photo Gallery
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Photo Gallery
157: Photo Gallery
158: Home
159: Community Forums
160: Photo Gallery
161: Photo Gallery
162: Community Forums
163: Photo Gallery
164: Photo Gallery
165: Photo Gallery
166: Photo Gallery
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Home
170: Photo Gallery
171: Community Forums
172: News Archive
173: Home
174: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
M48 Shillelagh prototype
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:32 pm
Post subject: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype

- armyjunk2
Dontos you like this kind of stuff 9th Marine expeditionary Brigade, Dnang 9Mar65



Hey we got a quick learner here!! He's already suckin up to the DONTOS

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
armyjunk2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
Posts: 1416

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:34 pm
Post subject: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype

It seems like the "smart" thing to do
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:42 pm
Post subject: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype

- armyjunk2
It seems like the "smart" thing to do


Now that is a "quick learner"! Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
KenEstes
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:46 pm
Post subject: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype

Smells to me like a late-60s project in support of the USMC. We studied all kinds of mixes in the 1968 project 30-67-09: Report on FMF Capabilities for Antitank Warfare (Mid-Range Period) 4 vols and otehr projects. I never read the entire thing, but since it recommends new Tk Bn of 36 tanks and 36 LACs [read M551], the 'tank' could have been almost anything, especially since the USMC was counting on MBT70 for its future, must have liked the idea of an interim 152 u/g to the M48A3 fleet. We also considered the M551 to be the desired replacement for the Ontos [sorry, Don].
Back to top
View user's profile
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:47 am
Post subject: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype

- KenEstes
Smells to me like a late-60s project in support of the USMC. We studied all kinds of mixes in the 1968 project 30-67-09: Report on FMF Capabilities for Antitank Warfare (Mid-Range Period) 4 vols and otehr projects. I never read the entire thing, but since it recommends new Tk Bn of 36 tanks and 36 LACs [read M551], the 'tank' could have been almost anything, especially since the USMC was counting on MBT70 for its future, must have liked the idea of an interim 152 u/g to the M48A3 fleet. We also considered the M551 to be the desired replacement for the Ontos [sorry, Don].


No Apologies needed.

I hold no serious notions that the Ontos could have lasted any longer than it did, operationally.

It amazed me that so many, truely knew so little, on the operational life of the vehicle. A story that I felt deserved to be told and it still intrigues me as I am fortunate enough to learn more.

Don

_________________
"Gonna hold my breath until Armor returns home..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:51 pm
Post subject: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype

- KenEstes
Tk Bn of 36 tanks and 36 LACs [read M551], the 'tank' could have been almost anything, especially since the USMC was counting on MBT70 for its future, must have liked the idea of an interim 152 u/g to the M48A3 fleet. We also considered the M551 to be the desired replacement for the Ontos [sorry, Don].


Yet another potential customer lost for what could have been a combat vehicle enduring to this day had it had more conventional armament (read: regular brass casings until CC cases were perfected), better armor, and the LRF that it later got. OK, it wouldn't swim (certainly not to USMC standards, anyway) but then, neither could the ONTOS.

I keep having fantasies about a light armored/recon force composed of such an M551 + "product improved" M113A1's (like Dutch YPR 765's) that could have entered service ~1970-72 and would still have a useful role today, at least in some markets. Instead, we over-reached (and wasted time) with stuff like the XM-800 series and several concepts like the rdf thingy when we could have had a real combination that would have been a lower-intensity compliment to the M2/3 Bradley and M1 Abrams family (for heavier work). NOt to mention that it would have had true interservice potential, from what little I know about Marine ops.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 4 of 4
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum