M551 Sheridan Issues

[murphypendleton]

I've been having alot of fun playing the new Lannes update, and am quite excited to continue seeing this game's development. I've noticed a few issues with the new M551 Sheridan that has been added. The first issue is that both the 152mm HEAT and Shillelagh munitions feel incredibly underpowered for their large caliber. Older tanks these munitions were designed to counter such as the PT-76 and the T-55, T-62 series in game can survive quite a few hits from them, In addition, the rate of fire is far faster than it ever was in reality. The Sheridan is noted for having quite a slow rate of fire of about 2-4 rounds per minute (depending on the source) A good compromise would be to markedly increase the HEAT and Shillelagh killing power, but substantially decrease its rate of fire to about 15 seconds to reload for the HEAT and 20-30 seconds for the Shillelagh.

One other issue is that the glass for the searchlight is missing on the model in game.
This observation was derived from reading books by David Doyle, Richard Hunnicutt and Steven Zaloga

[busboy999]

I haven't tried it in game yet, but I would agree that the HEAT performance of the conventional and ATGM rounds should be high but with low rate of fire.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

The whole platform was a failure as well if I recall. Aluminium armour and a missile that did not work that well? They lost a lot of these in Vietnam iirc

[busboy999]

Counterinsurgency and counter-guerrilla support in the jungle isn't what it was designed for, so the M551's Vietnam performance isn't a good indicator. The missile wasn't a success, and the M60A2 was also superseded with the A3 with the return to the 105mm gun.

It needs to be considered in the context of its purpose: fire and AT support for airborne forces. Its a light tank with some unique capabilities and limitations.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Vexillatio ⳩:

The whole platform was a failure as well if I recall.

The Sheridans served well enough as AAVs/ARVs in Panama and Iraq (in 1991). As busboy999 mentioned, they were shoehorned into a situation that was counter to their role while deployed in Vietnam.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

To call something a tank when it has aluminium armour like an m113 is a stretch.
I also seem to recall that they were airportable but failed their parachute droppable requirement. Dropping them STOL was the best that it could do?

I will have to read up on panama and especially Iraq (I had no idea they were in Iraq).

[busboy999]

Light tanks are still tanks.

Tanks are armored fighting vehicles, fully tracked to cross broken terrain and crush wire obstacles. Their armor is fully enclosed, and is able to resist, at a minimum, small arms fire and artillery shrapnel. Most tanks have one rotating turret with a main gun and a machine gun.

The M551 is a light tank. It was air dropped in Panama. Air dropping a tank is problematic of course; you don't have great control over where it lands on the drop zone, and the shock of landing threatens your boresight, but the ability to provide 'mobile, protected firepower' to light infantry has its benefits even if it isn't a main battle tank.

[Radioshow]

the Sheridan, while not the best "tank" is seriously UNDER-modeled . 2Av front armour while BMP's get 4-5. It was not heavily armoured but 2AV is shameful. The Gun should have high HE and be decent. IRL does not really matter as you couldnt use the gun and missile(gun knockout the missile sights/electronics essentially) but the missile itself wasnt horribad

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Originally posted by Radioshow:

the Sheridan, while not the best "tank" is seriously UNDER-modeled . 2Av front armour while BMP's get 4-5. It was not heavily armoured but 2AV is shameful. The Gun should have high HE and be decent. IRL does not really matter as you couldnt use the gun and missile(gun knockout the missile sights/electronics essentially) but the missile itself wasnt horribad

I believe the BMP actually has some steel hull armour unlike the Sheridan "tank"

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Originally posted by busboy999:

Light tanks are still tanks.

Tanks are armored fighting vehicles, fully tracked to cross broken terrain and crush wire obstacles. Their armor is fully enclosed, and is able to resist, at a minimum, small arms fire and artillery shrapnel. Most tanks have one rotating turret with a main gun and a machine gun.

The M551 is a light tank. It was air dropped in Panama. Air dropping a tank is problematic of course; you don't have great control over where it lands on the drop zone, and the shock of landing threatens your boresight, but the ability to provide 'mobile, protected firepower' to light infantry has its benefits even if it isn't a main battle tank.

It reminds me of the Tetrach light tank of steel division 2. Really more of an armoured car or APC with a turret (like the Australian M113 APCs that were picked instead of the sheridan in trials) than a tank. Not much chop for offensive action. Just good at fire support.

[busboy999]

At this point it isn't really subjective any more; pretty much every military that employs tanks has a common definition. Light tanks are still tanks. Armored cars are cars; ie. not tracked. APCs (armored personnel carriers) carry personnel,. APCs with a turret are "infantry fighting vehicles" that can fight mounted, but they don't exist specifically to fight mounted like a tank. Sufficient armor to resist small arms and shrapnel is the minimum. This basic standard emerged in 1917 with the Ft-17, though it would take WW2 to do away with 'exotic' tanks with multiple turrets, turret and hull gun combinations, etc.

The PT-76 is also a light tank. The ASU-85 is a light self propelled gun; isn't a light tank because it lacks a turret. Etc.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

I am more than well aware of all of the above.
However all I am trying to illustrate is that their are tanks that are almost IFVs or lesser in their performance and usage, except they cannot carry men. It's my opinion about the Sheridan's combat capabilities and use in it's role rather than it's exact designation.

I was never arguing that it was not designated a tank in technical terms, just that it's a stretch when you consider the capabilities it has especially against most other tanks.

Light tanks have always been the subject of debate about their combat value. They have niches but could not fill the role of what most tanks do as MBTs. I would call the Sheridan closer to an assault gun than a tank or even a tank killer hybrid assault gun. Tanks can generally take on other tanks while assaulting or being mobile. The Sheridan is an ambush weapon against other tanks and not by choice. It's other "howitzer style gun (unless it has some miraculous HEAT round I don't know about) would only be good for targets other than other tanks. Now I know that tanks "technically once again" are not exactly meant for taking on other tanks but that is what most tanks are designed to be at least capable of doing while being mobile and not usually primarily with missiles but their main gun.

This podcast about the Sheridan was entertaining although not by experts;
EPISODE #51 - THE AMERICAN M551 SHERIDAN AR/AAV AND WORLD WAR II'S "OPERATION SPRING AWAKENING!
https://www.twotankersandcat.com/

[busboy999]

Your idea seems to be that "tanks that don't fight other tanks well are barely tanks." However, the tank arose to solve the problem of crossing broken terrain, barbed wire, and trenches while being able to destroy machine gun nests with direct fire.

Main battle tanks, combining the armor and firepower of heavy tanks with the mobility of medium tanks, emerged after WW2 and weren't even quite feasible until the invention of composite armor.

Your point that military equipment must be employed in accordance with its capabilities and limitations and within its tactical situation is absolutely correct. I'm just pointing out that in military doctrine, we don't view light tanks as "more like" something other than a tank. We just delineate between light, medium/MBT, and heavy tanks in planning, map symbols, etc.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

I concede your point. I also mentioned above that tanks were not intended to fight other tanks BUT that they pretty much fell into having to be able to do so in order to full fill their role in ww2 before the cold war. Light tanks in part for this reason have always been considered less capable tanks more suited to sniping and scouting than actual tank assaults and breakthrough.

But when I tell you to send me some tanks in WARNO, don't expect me not to be surprised when Sheridans turn up .... :P

[busboy999]

Haha. And roger.

FWIW, I find the fact that militaries are still trying to find the balance of mounted fighting capabilities now, much in the same way that mixes of heavy shock cavalry (ex. cuirassiers), dragoons, and light scouting/pursuit cavalry (ex. hussars) were part of force design until the industrial age forced the horse off most battlefields.

The Sheridan existed to fill a niche role that needed a tank, but a much different tank than the M-60. Interestingly, today, the US Army is divesting itself of the Stryker Mobile Gun System and now examining the adoption of a 105mm gunned light tank to fill the gap created when the M551 went away without replacement.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Originally posted by busboy999:

Haha. And roger.

FWIW, I find the fact that militaries are still trying to find the balance of mounted fighting capabilities now, much in the same way that mixes of heavy shock cavalry (ex. cuirassiers), dragoons, and light scouting/pursuit cavalry (ex. hussars) were part of force design until the industrial age forced the horse off most battlefields.

The Sheridan existed to fill a niche role that needed a tank, but a much different tank than the M-60. Interestingly, today, the US Army is divesting itself of the Stryker Mobile Gun System and now examining the adoption of a 105mm gunned light tank to fill the gap created when the M551 went away without replacement.

I hear you. In fact I suggested on the SD2 forums that Eugen use this engine for a napoleonic wargame. Preferably like Scourge of War Waterloo with literal letter based couriers. Madmat would love to do it but don't think it would happen.

As for Tanks matching all the roles of the old cavalry classes (infantry tank, cavalry tank etc) I think maybe with drones being controlled by tanks etc we may actually approach that. Because the cost should come down per unit and they should be more disposable.