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

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