Com-Central.net

bsmart · 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

armyjunk2 · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Sep 22, 2006 Posts: 1416

It seems like the "smart" thing to do

Doug_Kibbey · 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"! Shocked

KenEstes · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Feb 07, 2006 Posts: 10

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 · 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

Doug_Kibbey · 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.

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big