±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: 294
Total: 294
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Home
03: Home
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Home
08: Home
09: Community Forums
10: Home
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Home
15: News
16: Home
17: Community Forums
18: News Archive
19: Home
20: Community Forums
21: Member Screenshots
22: Community Forums
23: Member Screenshots
24: Downloads
25: News Archive
26: Community Forums
27: Home
28: Home
29: Your Account
30: Photo Gallery
31: Photo Gallery
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Home
37: Home
38: Treasury
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Photo Gallery
43: Downloads
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Home
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Home
50: Your Account
51: Home
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Downloads
55: Member Screenshots
56: Home
57: Home
58: Home
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: Photo Gallery
67: Home
68: Photo Gallery
69: Community Forums
70: Community Forums
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Home
75: Photo Gallery
76: Home
77: Community Forums
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Member Screenshots
81: Community Forums
82: Photo Gallery
83: Home
84: Community Forums
85: Home
86: Community Forums
87: Home
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Home
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Home
96: Home
97: News Archive
98: Community Forums
99: Home
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Home
103: Home
104: Home
105: Home
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Home
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Member Screenshots
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Home
118: Photo Gallery
119: Community Forums
120: Home
121: Community Forums
122: News Archive
123: Community Forums
124: Home
125: Community Forums
126: Photo Gallery
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Community Forums
132: Community Forums
133: Community Forums
134: Home
135: Community Forums
136: Home
137: Community Forums
138: Community Forums
139: Home
140: Community Forums
141: Photo Gallery
142: News
143: Community Forums
144: Statistics
145: Home
146: Downloads
147: Community Forums
148: Photo Gallery
149: Community Forums
150: Home
151: Community Forums
152: Home
153: Community Forums
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Downloads
157: Photo Gallery
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Community Forums
161: Community Forums
162: Photo Gallery
163: Community Forums
164: Community Forums
165: Photo Gallery
166: Downloads
167: Photo Gallery
168: Community Forums
169: Community Forums
170: Photo Gallery
171: Community Forums
172: Photo Gallery
173: Home
174: Downloads
175: Community Forums
176: Community Forums
177: Photo Gallery
178: Community Forums
179: LinkToUs
180: Community Forums
181: Photo Gallery
182: Community Forums
183: Community Forums
184: Photo Gallery
185: Community Forums
186: Home
187: Home
188: Downloads
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: Community Forums
194: Home
195: Community Forums
196: Photo Gallery
197: Community Forums
198: Photo Gallery
199: Member Screenshots
200: Community Forums
201: Community Forums
202: News Archive
203: Photo Gallery
204: Community Forums
205: Downloads
206: Home
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Community Forums
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Downloads
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Home
217: Statistics
218: Community Forums
219: Photo Gallery
220: Community Forums
221: Downloads
222: Photo Gallery
223: Home
224: Community Forums
225: Home
226: Home
227: Community Forums
228: Community Forums
229: Statistics
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Community Forums
235: Community Forums
236: Community Forums
237: Home
238: News Archive
239: Home
240: Community Forums
241: Photo Gallery
242: Community Forums
243: Home
244: Community Forums
245: Community Forums
246: Home
247: Community Forums
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Downloads
251: Community Forums
252: Community Forums
253: Statistics
254: Community Forums
255: Home
256: Community Forums
257: Home
258: Home
259: Photo Gallery
260: Community Forums
261: Member Screenshots
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Downloads
268: Community Forums
269: News Archive
270: Community Forums
271: LinkToUs
272: Community Forums
273: Community Forums
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Community Forums
277: Your Account
278: Home
279: Community Forums
280: Home
281: Community Forums
282: Downloads
283: Home
284: Downloads
285: Community Forums
286: Photo Gallery
287: Community Forums
288: Photo Gallery
289: Photo Gallery
290: Downloads
291: Downloads
292: Community Forums
293: Downloads
294: 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 ([email protected])
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