Wyatt the Odd  | 06 Aug 2011 8:29 a.m. PST |
I've heard of this vehicle before, but I've only seen illustrations and indications that it was a rear-area test project that never got fielded – if even beyond the concept stage.
Judging by this photo, it was a bit more than a rear-area project, but no indication that it actually got used. From the few clues in the background, I'm guessing that it was mostly for base defense rather than for going out and finding Charlie. Wyatt |
 Inari7  | 06 Aug 2011 8:33 a.m. PST |
I do know they mounted "quad 50's" and a few things most notably half tracks during WWII. |
| Cold Steel | 06 Aug 2011 8:46 a.m. PST |
Probably more a local fabrication than an official project. I doubt this vehicle ever went into the bush; no recovery vehicle in the picture to tow the M548 around. |
| haywire | 06 Aug 2011 9:29 a.m. PST |
I can find references to the M548 CARGO CARRIER being used in Vietnam briefly because it can handle certain terrain types better than a wheeled vehicle, so my guess would be it was a conversion like most other gun trucks. |
| aecurtis | 06 Aug 2011 9:34 a.m. PST |
Yep, see the Olive Drab site: link But the experiment with the Maxson quad .50 was just that. Not used in the field. The Leprechaun (on an M113) would make an interesting model, though: link Allen |
| Monkey Hanger | 06 Aug 2011 12:19 p.m. PST |
There is a 1/35th scale model available… auction |
| Griefbringer | 06 Aug 2011 12:51 p.m. PST |
I wouldn't want to go anywhere near enemy while crewing one of those – the amount of protection afforded to the crew seems rather limited. Could be handy for providing some light mobile flak cover – not that there was much need for that with US forces in Vietnam, though. |
| thatguy96 | 06 Aug 2011 1:29 p.m. PST |
The general consensus in most of the books where this picture appears is that this was a one-off conversion. There were other one-off conversions involving the Quad .50 in Vietnam as well. |
| Tom Bryant | 07 Aug 2011 8:36 p.m. PST |
Looks like a one off conversion to me as well. Still, I'd hate to be on the receiving end of that. Griefbringer, take a look at the German opinion of the M-16 halftrack in WWII. It wasn't just the Luftwaffe that disliked it. They called it the "meat chopper" for a reason. Still I doubt the VC would hang around too close to one of those in a firefight. I know they mounted extra 50's on gun trucks, but did the US Army or USMC ever slap a Maxon mount on a deuce and a half in Nam? |
| Griefbringer | 08 Aug 2011 1:47 a.m. PST |
Certainly, it would not be a very comfortable feeling to be on the receiving end of one of those quad .50-cals. However, the protection afforded by the Maxson mount and attached armoured wings is only to one direction – from other angles the crew would be rather vulnerable. Getting engaged by enemy infantry from multiple directions would make life somewhat hazardous for the crew. |
| thatguy96 | 08 Aug 2011 5:27 a.m. PST |
I know they mounted extra 50's on gun trucks, but did the US Army or USMC ever slap a Maxon mount on a deuce and a half in Nam? The US Army's Artillery Battalions (Automatic Weapons, Self-Propelled) in Vietnam received their habitual attachments, which included, among other things, an Artillery Battery (.50 Caliber Machine Gun). Each M55 weapon had an assigned M35 2 and 1/2-ton prime mover. This is where those gun trucks came from in large part. As the assigned trucks were damaged and destroyed that's when you see the weapons being directly appropriated by transportation units directly. So in short, yes, to make the gun trucks in question. |
| Grand Duke Natokina | 08 Aug 2011 11:05 a.m. PST |
Gun trux were always a poor child. They took away a cargo truk that could be carrying more bullets and beans, but provided protection to the convoy. There was the 5 ton with the detracked dollar thirteen in the bed. |
