No Sir, no M60 variant of any kind saw service in Vietnam. The M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle saw limited service, but these are highly modified vehicles with only the suggestion of the shape of an M60A1.
Rumble in the Jungle: American Tanks in Vietnam
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
Depended on it's role at that time. Many M48 tanks were left for the ARVN (it was passed it's shelf life for top tier main battle tank) but M551 Sheridans were all brought out even the destroyed ones because it was still an active system in Europe & we didn't want to leave examples around.
Many units had some large item on hand that were not critical, or were "surplus" or otherwise off the books. Quite a bit of stuff is at the bottom of the South China Sea or buried.
The military museums in VN are quite liberally adorned with U.S. equipment. This was the one in Hue in 2005.
Attachments
Cedric
Custom
Not only were the Sheridans brought out, but so were the original 152mm HE rounds. Someone decided to have us fire those instead of the standard HEAT rounds during a level two gunnery in the fall of 1977. After a couple of trips across the ocean and lord knows how long in storage it made for an interesting crew drill when the combustible cartridge case sometimes broke off the projo while loading it. Not one of my fondest memories.
The XM409 HEAT round had been an issue since the late '60's. They were reluctant to use them due to a history of premature detonations (both in-tube & just beyond muzzle) for a couple of reasons. This was completely independent of the combustible case issues. In fact, there had been four solicitations and three unsolicited "solutions" to that problem, from a full metal case (non-combustible) and one "frangible", basically wee bits of glass or something that disintegrated upon firing and blown out the tube.
25 metal case rounds were built, fired and proven workable, but would require two years of development time, with breech modifications, and that was two years the program just didn't have in 1969.
We blew all our unboxed rounds in a big pile in the field with other ordnance that couldn't be returned. It was spectacular.
Tumbleweed1954
Alpha
Were you at Ft Bliss? We were firing HE in the late 70's. I think they just wanted to get rid of it.
Tumbleweed1954
Alpha
We got rid of the M114's in Germany in 1973. It was called the "Three by Five" program. Three Sheridans in exchange for five M114's. We picked them up in Vilseck and trained on them while there.
The later M114's had the overhang on them removed after they realized their bad engineering. I don't see how they made it through evaluation. Photos of old style and new styles shown below (from eaglehorse.org )
Attachments
The other significant aspect of that pic is that the vehicle was unable to extricate itself. Insufficient power from the Chevy engine, so the thing is well and truly stuck until recovered.
Tumbleweed1954
Alpha
160HP! LOL!
Cedric
Custom
Germany; 2/2 ACR. We fired HE in the fall of 1976.
Cedric
Custom
Although I loved the 283 in my '57 Chev it didn't weigh seven tons like the M114. By the time I got to the Advanced Course in 1979 Ft. Knox was using the M114s as training aids for recovery training.
The M114 I like to say, is the only vehicle to ever make the small block Chevy look bad.
We had one lurking at the Armor Board and used it as a range mule for setting and retrieving targets at MFO where there were decades of ordnance laying about.
Tumbleweed1954
Alpha
I always have wondered how a Gamma Goat engine would have performed. Maybe turbocharge it.
..or wedge a 6V53T in there as was done on the M113A3 (an M551 engine in an M113). But then, the M113 was shown to do anything an M114 could do, but do it better.
This was all part of a plan to field two "Scout vehicles"...one Scout tank plus a Scout "car" (tracked or wheeled). What we got was the M114 & M551, two of the most reviled tracked vehicles ever to enter the inventory. And there was every intention of repeating this nonsense with the XM800 series of experiments that should have been restricted to "investigation" (the wheeled vs. tracked argument following even these developments).
rcurtner
Professional
Never saw one in action but they damn sure look bad a**.And let's not forget the lowly Ontos (my personal favorite from "back in the day.
View attachment 69241
LarryT
Elite
Saw my first one in action going 50+ mph across a rice paddy and then it less loose with all 6 rockets at the same time against an NVA component holed in on the other side of the paddy. Wasn't much left of anything. Seemed the only down side was you had to be outside of the cab to load the tubes.
A dear, late friend of mine was on the team that completely restored the M50 then at Ft. Knox, Patton Museum, completed in 2006. It resided there until the Armor Center got BRAC'ed to Ft. Benning/Moore. It is in the historical Cavalry and Armor Collection to this day. He left me a trove of information on the vehicle & lots of pics from it's restoration. RIP Don Moriarty.And let's not forget the lowly Ontos (my personal favorite from "back in the day
View attachment 69241
Two views of the USMC M50A1 restored by the Patton Museum crew, left = 2006 when first completed. Right = 2021 at the U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection, Ft. Moore. My photos.
Attachments
Cedric
Custom
What's sad is in WWII we had a family of vehicles that provided an all around capability for a cav reconnaissance squadron: M8 armored car, White scout vehicle, M20 Scout vehicle, M5 Stuarts, Scott 75mm SP Howitzers. We sure know how to muck things up when we go revolutionary instead of evolutionary.
FYI, the two most influential "reports" in the post-war history of American Armor was the ARCOVE report (1958) and the document it spawned, "Mobility, Firepower & Protection"1959 (hereafter "MFP"). ARCOVE was the final report of the Ad Hoc Commitee on Armament for Future Combat Vehicles. It was a work of near fantasy that declared ballistic weapons (guns) to be an evolutionary dead-end and anti-armor guided missiles the future. Due to imprecise language, the MFP was "pre-authorized to give definable form of those concepts for future tank and AFV development. It specifically advocated for leaving the evolutionary strategy behind and going for a revolutionary, "great leap forward" that would put us far ahead of Soviet Armor development. The language for this introductory document should be revealing.
This is how we got sidetracked onto the MGM-51 Shillelagh Missile and 152mm gun/launcher system, which I have more experience on than should be inflicted on anyone.
"revolutionary" in the last line was a typo, the author meant "evolutionary". The entire document is representative of the gambling expression, "betting on the come".
Declassified in 1982.
Attachments
Three of the five vehicles you mention are wheeled (and two of them essentially the same vehicle with different armament). Considerable effort was given to a conversion from wheels to tracks in the post-WWII environment due to mobility issues cross-country. Everything pretty much went to tracks and wheeled combat vehicles lost advocacy until the late '60's-early '70's with the introduction of several "scout" vehicles that were wheeled. XM800(W), XM808 Twister, XR311, V100 variants (Cadillac Gage) etc. Lockheed, in particular, pushed wheels. At the same time there were some publications comparing wheels vs. tracks with newer technology. Only the Stryker has found any real "traction".