Com-Central.net

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

Forum Index › AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bsmart
Power User

Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland

Posted: 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])

armyjunk2
Power User

Offline
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
Posts: 1416

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype
It seems like the "smart" thing to do

Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan

Posted: 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"!

KenEstes
Power User

Offline
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
Posts: 10

Posted: 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].

Dontos
Power User

Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY

Posted: 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..."

Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan

Posted: 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.

Forum Index › AFV News Discussion Board
Page 4 of 4

All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

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

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big