:: Community Forums ›

#16: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Dontos, Location: Vine Grove, KY

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:28 pm
----

- Kurt_Laughlin

Do the turrets have the same P/N cast into them?

KL

Kurt

I did happen to photograph a cast # on the T29 turret roof.

Ser 7
HTNO 2285

Not sure about the T30, but I can check on that on next visit.

Regards
Don

#17: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: panamadan,

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:37 am
----
Was the XM6000T planned to be a scout vehicle?
Dan

#18: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Doug_Kibbey, Location: The Great Satan

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:55 am
----

- panamadan

Was the XM6000T planned to be a scout vehicle?
Dan

Yes, it was one of two proposals for a scout vehicle, the other being the XM800W wheeled version with which it was tested in parallel.

#19: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: panamadan,

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:07 am
----
Doug,
How/Why did this lose out to the Bradley/M3?
Dan

#20: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Doug_Kibbey, Location: The Great Satan

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:37 am
----

- panamadan

Doug,
How/Why did this lose out to the Bradley/M3?
Dan

Basically, it preceded that design and was deemed too dedicated a vehicle (limited role) to divert resources (funding) that could better be applied to a more flexible multi-role vehicle. In essence, a choice had to be made and the more important vehicle designed and produced.

There was considerable sensitivity at the time regarding appropriations for armored vehicles given the legacy of the MBT-70 and, to an extent, the M60A2. Armored vehicle proposals came under more critical scrutiny than had been the case prior to the '70's.

#21: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: TrevorLarkum, Location: Northampton, England

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:03 am
----
All photo's online and entries updated at PTC:

Unique ID 1276: Fort Knox T29

Unique ID 1274: Fort Knox T29E3

Unique ID 1277: Fort Knox T30

I have also added links to ArmorForTheAges to the T29 and T30 entries.

Finally I have added a new entry for the XM800 ARSV-T, with my old photo's and Don's new ones:

Unique ID 1282: Fort Knox XM800

Don, do you have dates (at least estimates) for the transfer of the XM800 and T29E3 (and ideally T34) to RMP?

#22: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Dontos, Location: Vine Grove, KY

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:29 pm
----
Trevor

Th XM800T, XM803 were moved from around Brooks Field to RMP on 4 Aug 2010.

The T29 & T30 were moved from in front of Marshall Hall to RMP on 4 Aug 2010.

The T29E3, XM1, M48A2C, M113A1, T26E3, M24, M31, M32, M41, and XM551 were moved from Keyes Park area (around the Museum) to RMP, the second week of July 2010.

The T34 Heavy Tank had been in RMP for several years. It was moved due to construction of the buildings around Serio Hall. As I recll it was in 2007 or 2008.

BTW: The photo of the T29E3 being moved was on 6 Aug when it was being relocated within RMP, as a reorganization effort of newly arrived vehicles.

Regards
Don

#23: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: panamadan,

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:52 pm
----

- Doug_Kibbey

- panamadan

Doug,
How/Why did this lose out to the Bradley/M3?
Dan

Basically, it preceded that design and was deemed too dedicated a vehicle (limited role) to divert resources (funding) that could better be applied to a more flexible multi-role vehicle. In essence, a choice had to be made and the more important vehicle designed and produced.

There was considerable sensitivity at the time regarding appropriations for armored vehicles given the legacy of the MBT-70 and, to an extent, the M60A2. Armored vehicle proposals came under more critical scrutiny than had been the case prior to the '70's.

Do you think that this has something to do also with the Cav not having a Branch like Armor or Inf? Dan

#24: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Dontos, Location: Vine Grove, KY

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:17 pm
----
Dan

I don't think it has to do with that. Remember, technically Cavalry was a branch, generations before tanks were invented.

The problem with the XM800T is its size and limited role in a budget restrictive time.

The Bradley was designed with muli-purpose roles as not only a 'battle taxi' (troop carrier) but also able to provide various mission support roles with onboard weapon systems.

The Scout / Cav side was a secondary benefit / secondary role. It became the best 'bang for the buck' eventhough there were some serious questions during development.

Regards
Don

#25: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: panamadan,

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:26 pm
----
Don,
I don't remeber itthat way-I thought Armor officers were assigned to a Cav unit and sewed on the Cav collar patch, but only received Armor training, not "Cavalry" training. Only being a enlisted man, I never paid that much attention about it in the end.
I always wondered how much "sneaking and peeking" one could do in a vehicle that was taller that a M1...
Dan

#26: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Neil_Baumgardner, Location: Arlington, VA

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:17 pm
----
Yeah, the Cavalry branch was around long before the Armor branch, but it ceased being a branch in its own right around 1950 or so...

Neil

#27: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: bsmart, Location: Central Maryland

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:24 pm
----
The Cavalry Branch lost any hope for it's future when the senior officers (including the Chief of Cavalry) insisted that the horse was the central focus of Cavalry and that motorization was NOT to be encouraged

#28: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Dontos, Location: Vine Grove, KY

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:24 pm
----

- Doug_Kibbey

- Dontos

The XM800 T:

Don

As there are separate driver's and fighting compartment hatches, I wonder what the primary purpose was in having the side access door...might it have been something intended as useful during test phase only and not to be included on production vehicles? Most other vehicles do their ammo loading through the top hatches, and this was just what, 20mm?

Doug

On the right side access door there is a stowage basket for BII. This door is welded closed with the locking handle removed. The photo is taken thru the turret.

I would say the side access doors were for alternate entrance / exit as well as for reloading / uploading ammo.

Needless to say, this vehicle is cramped. It truely is a 'Mini-Bradley', with little or no spare room to speak of.

Regards
Don

#29: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Dontos, Location: Vine Grove, KY

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:42 pm
----
Here are a few more views of stowage areas.

Regards
Don

#30: Re: Friday in Richardson MP Author: Doug_Kibbey, Location: The Great Satan

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:46 pm
----

- Dontos

Needless to say, this vehicle is cramped. It truely is a 'Mini-Bradley', with little or no spare room to speak of.

Regards
Don

Which is why I never thought it was worth the effort. Basically an M114 with the cross-country mobility kinks worked out.

-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next :| |: Page 2 of 5