±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 277
Total: 277
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Community Forums
03: Your Account
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Home
07: Home
08: Community Forums
09: Photo Gallery
10: Community Forums
11: News
12: Photo Gallery
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Home
16: Home
17: News
18: Community Forums
19: Member Screenshots
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Your Account
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Home
26: Downloads
27: Community Forums
28: Your Account
29: Home
30: Home
31: Home
32: Community Forums
33: Home
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Your Account
38: Home
39: Home
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Home
43: Photo Gallery
44: Photo Gallery
45: Home
46: News Archive
47: News
48: Home
49: Home
50: Photo Gallery
51: Home
52: Community Forums
53: Photo Gallery
54: Home
55: Community Forums
56: Downloads
57: Community Forums
58: Home
59: Community Forums
60: Home
61: Photo Gallery
62: Home
63: Community Forums
64: Home
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Home
70: Home
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Home
77: Photo Gallery
78: Home
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Home
82: Home
83: Home
84: Home
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Downloads
88: Home
89: Community Forums
90: News Archive
91: Community Forums
92: Home
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Community Forums
97: Home
98: Community Forums
99: Home
100: Home
101: Community Forums
102: News
103: News Archive
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: News Archive
108: Home
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Community Forums
113: Home
114: Community Forums
115: News Archive
116: Community Forums
117: Downloads
118: Community Forums
119: Downloads
120: Home
121: Home
122: Community Forums
123: Home
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Photo Gallery
127: Home
128: Photo Gallery
129: Photo Gallery
130: Community Forums
131: Community Forums
132: Community Forums
133: Member Screenshots
134: Home
135: Statistics
136: Statistics
137: News Archive
138: Photo Gallery
139: Search
140: Community Forums
141: Home
142: Community Forums
143: News Archive
144: Community Forums
145: Photo Gallery
146: Home
147: Community Forums
148: Member Screenshots
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Community Forums
152: Community Forums
153: Community Forums
154: Community Forums
155: News Archive
156: Member Screenshots
157: Home
158: Home
159: Home
160: Home
161: Home
162: Home
163: Home
164: Home
165: Home
166: Community Forums
167: Community Forums
168: News Archive
169: Photo Gallery
170: News Archive
171: Statistics
172: Community Forums
173: Home
174: Downloads
175: Home
176: Member Screenshots
177: Home
178: Community Forums
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Community Forums
182: Home
183: Member Screenshots
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Home
188: News Archive
189: Home
190: Photo Gallery
191: Community Forums
192: Downloads
193: Community Forums
194: Downloads
195: Community Forums
196: Community Forums
197: Community Forums
198: Community Forums
199: Community Forums
200: Photo Gallery
201: Community Forums
202: News
203: Photo Gallery
204: Photo Gallery
205: Contact
206: Community Forums
207: Your Account
208: Home
209: Community Forums
210: Home
211: Community Forums
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Home
215: Photo Gallery
216: Community Forums
217: Home
218: Your Account
219: Community Forums
220: Community Forums
221: Photo Gallery
222: Home
223: News Archive
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Community Forums
228: Your Account
229: Community Forums
230: Photo Gallery
231: Home
232: Downloads
233: Member Screenshots
234: Your Account
235: Home
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Community Forums
239: Community Forums
240: Community Forums
241: Community Forums
242: Community Forums
243: Home
244: Community Forums
245: Your Account
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Downloads
251: Home
252: Community Forums
253: News
254: Home
255: Community Forums
256: Member Screenshots
257: Community Forums
258: Community Forums
259: Community Forums
260: Home
261: News Archive
262: News Archive
263: Statistics
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Community Forums
268: Home
269: Community Forums
270: Community Forums
271: Home
272: Home
273: Member Screenshots
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Community Forums
277: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
XM 66 Tank Proposal
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.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:51 pm
Post subject: XM 66 Tank Proposal

This is a 'spin-off' Vehicle from the T95 Program.



Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:11 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

Interesting - You say it was a spinoff of teh T95 program. Where does this fit in the M60A2 genisis? The picture looks like an M6A1E1 or M60A2. Could it be that the Army decided that it would be easier to get the program survive by either giving it a new designator (XM66) or developing it as a member of the M60 family

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
tanker2010
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: 264
Location: Kansas City, Mo.
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:30 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

It does have a strange hull. While it has the shape and fenders of a M60, it has 5 return rollers.
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:37 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

The turret is similiar to the T95 test bed at the LST buiding.
(NOTE: The 20mm gun is removed, but mount location is obvious)





This is around the time of the M60A2 development.

Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2067
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:12 am
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

XM66 is the now known as M60A2 program.

That's a poor picture of M60 hull 9B4470 with the proposed "A" model turret. I think I posted a copy of it a while back.

In it's early stages the adaptation of the 152mm gun/launcher to the M60 was called the XM66. They reviewed 4 turret types, A, B, C, and D. "A" and "B" were similar compact types, with the "B" model being taller. The "C" model was very similar in appearance to an over grown M551 turret, and the "D" was a modified M60A1 turret with shorter rear. In early 1965 they changed the program name to M60A1E1. The "B" model ended up being selected and eventually became the M60A2.

_________________
Joe_D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Andrei
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 05, 2006
Posts: 81

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:19 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

Interesting if any alternative armament options were considered for XM 66 or M60A2 at the initial development (60s), later they considered 120 mm US and British guns, as well as M68.
Back to top
View user's profile
Harold_Biondo
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Sep 11, 2021
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:17 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

- Joe_D
XM66 is the now known as M60A2 program.

That's a poor picture of M60 hull 9B4470 with the proposed "A" model turret. I think I posted a copy of it a while back.

In it's early stages the adaptation of the 152mm gun/launcher to the M60 was called the XM66. They reviewed 4 turret types, A, B, C, and D. "A" and "B" were similar compact types, with the "B" model being taller. The "C" model was very similar in appearance to an over grown M551 turret, and the "D" was a modified M60A1 turret with shorter rear. In early 1965 they changed the program name to M60A1E1. The "B" model ended up being selected and eventually became the M60A2.


If this was referring to the tank that is in Armada Michigan, that is not in fact the XM66D (or A, in this case) turret, it is the T95S turret. S standing for Shillelagh. There was some cross-pollination going on between the M60A2 and T95 programs. The actual description of the XM66D does not match up with the T95 turret. The tank in Armada was built from the beginning on the M48 chassis, according to the original work order for it I found in the archives. The T95 and M60 hulls with T95S turrets were separate individuals entirely, since three T95S turrets were built, according to Hunnicut.
Back to top
View user's profile
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2067
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:08 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

Hi Harold and welcome.

The tank in Armada Michigan has the old Main Battle Tank - Medium Range (MBT-MR) turret installed. That’s why it has the driver in the turret position. This was the progenitor to the MBT70/XM803 program and envisioned as early as 1958. It was used as an ersatz "D" model turret demonstrator for what was to become the M60A2. The "D" model turret proposed in 1961 was supposed to be a basic M60A1 turret modified to accept the 152mm gun/launcher and associated equipment. None were produced. Instead, they realized a modified MBT-MR three-man turret without the driver could be made just as fast. At the same time, the Compact Turret designed by Clifford Bradley originally envisioned for the MBT-MR was considered for the M60/Shillelagh system. This unique type of turret is what the M60A2 eventually used, and the “A” and “B” models were alternate versions. The picture posted by Don "Dontos" Moriarty (RIP) is of M60 hull RN 9B4470 and has the “A” model Clifford Bradley designed turret, aka "Compact Turret". They eventually ended up on the T95 hulls that were used to test systems being developed for the MBT70/XM803. The T95 hulls being relegated to this duty when its program was cancelled in 1959. The three T95S turrets requested for the Shillelagh program were the T95/96 Turrets already produced for the T95 program and originally designed to have a fixed mount, no recoil, hypervelocity gun. They were modified to accept the M81 152mm Gun/Launcher and were installed on M48A1 gasser hulls to conduct test firing at White Sands Missile range by Aeronutronic Philco-Ford. Below are pictures of one conducting live fire tests. Once the M551 pilots were made these rigs were no longer needed.





About that M48 hull at Armada. I wrote a post years ago and ID'd it as having the "D" turret erroneously. The hull is one of the 6 M48A1’s converted to AVDS-1790 diesel and eventually became one of the two pilot M48A3’s. Here is a link to it: Pilot M48A3. The plaque installed in front of her is wrong. The only XM66 connection was the turret being used as a demonstrator for the D model turret. Here is a picture of 9B4470 with it:


_________________
Joe_D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:57 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

Hi Joe! Thanks for checking in. With regard to the test rig shown in Don's old post...do you know if MICOM was using that or a similar rig? Was any firing done at Redstone or if part of a MICOM operation, perfomed exclusively at White Sands? I've been trying to establish what platform was being used in the tests that were referred to by MICOM reps at a 1969 meeting at Ft. Knox. They assiduously avoided any use of or comment on Shillelagh launches involving an actual Sheridan. There are two tests in particular I'm interested in: First was a "shoot-off" between Shillelagh and M60A1. Second was a series of Missile Readiness firings they cited to anybody who would listen....503 missiles, 91% successful hit rate. It was a lie and 162 of those missiles were not even fired.
I'd love to know if this was the rig likely in use?
Best regards,
D.

- Joe_D
Hi Harold and welcome.

The tank in Armada Michigan has the old Main Battle Tank - Medium Range (MBT-MR) turret installed. That’s why it has the driver in the turret position. This was the progenitor to the MBT70/XM803 program and envisioned as early as 1958. It was used as an ersatz "D" model turret demonstrator for what was to become the M60A2. The "D" model turret proposed in 1961 was supposed to be a basic M60A1 turret modified to accept the 152mm gun/launcher and associated equipment. None were produced. Instead, they realized a modified MBT-MR three-man turret without the driver could be made just as fast. At the same time, the Compact Turret designed by Clifford Bradley originally envisioned for the MBT-MR was considered for the M60/Shillelagh system. This unique type of turret is what the M60A2 eventually used, and the “A” and “B” models were alternate versions. The picture posted by Don "Dontos" Moriarty (RIP) is of M60 hull RN 9B4470 and has the “A” model Clifford Bradley designed turret, aka "Compact Turret". They eventually ended up on the T95 hulls that were used to test systems being developed for the MBT70/XM803. The T95 hulls being relegated to this duty when its program was cancelled in 1959. The three T95S turrets requested for the Shillelagh program were the T95/96 Turrets already produced for the T95 program and originally designed to have a fixed mount, no recoil, hypervelocity gun. They were modified to accept the M81 152mm Gun/Launcher and were installed on M48A1 gasser hulls to conduct test firing at White Sands Missile range by Aeronutronic Philco-Ford. Below are pictures of one conducting live fire tests. Once the M551 pilots were made these rigs were no longer needed.





About that M48 hull at Armada. I wrote a post years ago and ID'd it as having the "D" turret erroneously. The hull is one of the 6 M48A1’s converted to AVDS-1790 diesel and eventually became one of the two pilot M48A3’s. Here is a link to it: Pilot M48A3. The plaque installed in front of her is wrong. The only XM66 connection was the turret being used as a demonstrator for the D model turret. Here is a picture of 9B4470 with it:

Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2067
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:01 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

Hi Doug,

I can say for certainty that the M48/T95 rig wasn't used for those tests. Anything else I'd have to unpack some boxes to find the info. Give me some time and eventually I'll be back on a normal routine. Right now I'm way to busy.

Nice to hear from you.

_________________
Joe_D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2067
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2023 10:34 pm
Post subject: Re: XM 66 Tank Proposal

Doug,

Sorry for the long overdue reply. Checked my library and came up with this conclusion. In 1969 there were a very limited amount of M60A1E2's available. 300 were in storage until a satisfactory scavenge system was approved and implemented along with a plethora of other issues. The few available (approximately 14) were distributed between Knox, Aberdeen, Detroit, and Redstone, being used to develop/fix issues with the stabilization system, recoil mechanism, CBSS, FCS, and laser. The M551 was plentiful and capable of conducting these firings. It is highly unlikely they would have diverted any M60A1E2's for a test the M551 could just as satisfactorily conduct. If I find anything else to nail this down, I'll post it.

_________________
Joe_D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



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