ONTOS NOTES \doc\web\98\06\ontos.txt 220 22515 article Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated From: schuleg@aol.com (Schuleg) Subject: Re: Ontos Tank Destroyer Message-ID: Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 16:37:38 GMT Approved: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com Lines: 20 Path: brokaw.wa.com!nwnews.wa.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!rpc1283.ncr.com!rpc1286!ranger!military Xref: brokaw.wa.com sci.military.moderated:22515 >What ever happened to this? I understand it was used briefly, then >never replaced. The Ontos was developed to provide fire support in a light and easily transportable vehicle. The USMC used it in Vietnam, and its 6 106-mm recoilless rifles were useful in a fire support role, but limitations in relaoding and to overall protection of the vehicle rendered it useless in a more direct role. They were retired in the early 1970s. As a personal aside, I understand the Ontos performed well, if its limitations were taken into account. The weapons had to be relaoded from outside the vehicle, exposing the crew to enemy fire. The vehicle was light skinned, but it performed well as a one punch FS weapon. Greg Schuler Smell what I am cooking . 220 22556 article Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated From: pdcsensha@aol.com (PDC Sensha) Subject: Re: Ontos Tank Destroyer Message-ID: Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 21:56:25 GMT Approved: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com Lines: 14 Path: brokaw.wa.com!nwnews.wa.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!la-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!rpc1283.ncr.com!rpc1286!ranger!military Xref: brokaw.wa.com sci.military.moderated:22556 Regarding the Ontos, the chassis was not as mobile as might be expected (low ground clearance is what I've seen cited as the problem). There were a number of attempts by the manufacturer to use the chassis for other purposes, but none were produced as operational vehicles. There's a pretty extensive writeup on the design in one of the Hunnicutt books on American armored vehicles (Stuart Light Tank, I think; this book (despite its title) was a catchall for all 'light tank' designs). Terry L. Stibal pdcsensha@aol.com . 220 22600 article Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated From: jdbeatty@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Ontos Tank Destroyer Message-ID: Sender: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com (Sci.military Login) Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion References: Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:43:52 GMT Approved: military@ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com Lines: 16 Path: brokaw.wa.com!nwnews.wa.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.71.1.51!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!rpc1283.ncr.com!rpc1286!ranger!military Xref: brokaw.wa.com sci.military.moderated:22600 In article , pdcsensha@aol.com (PDC Sensha) wrote: > > > Regarding the Ontos, the chassis was not as mobile as might be expected (low > ground clearance is what I've seen cited as the problem). There were a number > of attempts by the manufacturer to use the chassis for other purposes, but none > were produced as operational vehicles. I was once told that the chassis was used for the HAWK missile loader. JDB -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading . +OK 1652 octets Received: from smtp1.nwnexus.com (smtp1.nwnexus.com [198.137.231.16]) by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA06066 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ngeout01.news.aol.com (ngeout01.news.aol.com [152.163.176.244]) by smtp1.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA26870 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:13:47 -0700 Received: from ladder01.news.aol.com (ladder01.news-fddi.aol.com [172.16.30.168]) by ngeout01.news.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA24582 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 00:13:46 -0400 Message-Id: <1998072104134500.AAA26654@ladder01.news.aol.com> Date: 21 Jul 1998 04:13:45 GMT Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated To: arthurhu@halcyon.com From: tanker06@aol.com (Tanker 06) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: Subject: Re: Ontos Tank Destroyer Status: >As I recall, it came out of the 50s, it was a relatively light >pyranid shaped tracked vehicle that fullu enclosed the >crew unlike the army'd m56 scorpion, it ha 6 recoilless rifles >mountes 3 per side vs an exposed 76 mm on M56. Arthur, It didn't offer any protection for the crew at all, except for the driver, everybody else was exposed, which was one of it's problems. Also, the M56 was a 90mm, and it was too powerful for the chassis, which was just one of the reasons that it also failed. Jerry - For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste that the sheltered will never know. USA Vet, 1985-1993 Panama/Desert Storm ---- SVFD Engine Company 11/18 Truck Company 18 .