M48 Shillelagh prototype
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  :| |:
-> AFV News Discussion Board

#46: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype Author: bsmartLocation: Central Maryland PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:32 pm
    ----
- 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

#47: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype Author: armyjunk2 PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:34 pm
    ----
It seems like the "smart" thing to do

#48: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype Author: Doug_KibbeyLocation: The Great Satan PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:42 pm
    ----
- armyjunk2
It seems like the "smart" thing to do


Now that is a "quick learner"! Shocked

#49: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype Author: KenEstes PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:46 pm
    ----
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].

#50: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype Author: DontosLocation: Vine Grove, KY PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:47 am
    ----
- 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

#51: Re: M48 Shillelagh prototype Author: Doug_KibbeyLocation: The Great Satan PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:51 pm
    ----
- 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.



-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

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