±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: sercrets
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6646

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