The M551 "Sheridan" Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Love content? Check out Simon's other UA-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
I was a Sheridan crewman in the 11th ACR in Germany. Simon, great video enjoyed seeing a vehicle I was on represented, but a few mistakes I have to reply to. First in the US Army it is an M five, five, one not Five fifty-one. The Sheridan was also deployed in conventional parachute drops not just low altitude ones. When swimming and I did swim one in training, the TC and driver used the regular intercom no need to shout. The 152mm Heat round was more then capable of destroying any tank of the era within it's engagement range. When fired the front 2 road wheels not the rear would come off the ground. It was quite a ride. Also the flechette rounds held 10,000 flechettes not several hundred. we had a love hate relationship with the tracks, we never called them tanks. They were getting long in the tooth by 1978 and broke down a lot. I was happy to see them replaced with M60A1 MBTs.
Every time Simon says M five fifty-one a puppy dies.
Man I bet that was a fun ride. Popping wheelies in an armored vehicle sounds like a bruised up mess to me lol
I did a parachute jump at Bragg in '97 and right below me there was a wrecked Sheridan on the DZ. I was told later that it had burned in a day or two prior. I thought, "great, I'm going to end up dropping right onto that thing." That must have been right at the end of their service.
Great additional details and corrections Thomas, thank you for that. I would not expect a reply though as I don't recall Simon ever replying to a comment on one of his channels.
I worked with them when I was with the 84th Engr. Co. 2nd ACR. I did a lot of border duty with them. Also many days at range 79 in Graf! The good old days! lol
In 1971 I was at Ft Knox, and I was driving to work one afternoon in my 1968 Mustang, following a Sheridan. Suddenly a hatch fell off of it, and because of on-coming traffic I had no where to go so I ran over it. No damage to my Mustang, but not so to the hatch. My boss, a Major, suggested I stencil a Sheridan under the driver's window. I didn't do it, but that was funny though. BTW, yeah, I still own and drive the '68. Slightly restored.
When a car is tougher then the "tank".
Not too late to stencil
That driver owes you a case of beer
The only instance of a car scoring the first ever and the only tank hatch kill ever heard
68 mustang…worth more than that POS
As a m551 tank driver/loader that jumped into Panama i can tell you that they were dropped from C141 transports not C5B galaxy. We had a platoon (5tanks) pre deployed and dropped 4 more in on dec 21 1989. Four m551 were dropped from a single C5B galaxy along with 74 paratroopers which set a word record for heaviest drop which I was on that jump. About a year later my entire battalion was deployed to Saudi Arabia for desert shield/storm. It was a good vehicle for its role but definitely HIGH maintenance.
Hey Russell good to see ya.
@@cap007a1, and who might this be?
@@russellyork47 Daniel Ortega?
I was in the OPFOR at NTC and 3-73AR BN (ABN) , the N551A1 was easy to Mai train, fast, with the TTS and Laer range finder a lot of combat power! Amphibious and parachute deployable. Shillelagh was pretty accurate also. Heat round made great doors for infantry in a mout environment.
I drove one of those for two years back in the early 90's at Fort Knox in a training brigade as OPFOR. They were quick, maneuverable, easy to maintain and fun to drive. However yea... I'd be terrified to go into combat in one.
As an 11B in 82nd Abn, I loved the M551, very sad day when we watched them drive down the Ardennes to rail to be shipped away forever. Great when expanding the airhead and in urban ops. Enjoyed riding around on them (fast transport) and during Desert Sheild they provided mobile fire power in the first few days.
As an 11B especially in the 82nd, your tears should be limited to being a division whose claim to fame is by taking on more than you can and waiting on armor. AIRBORNE 😂
@@Day-old-coffee1978 Huh?
Naming a very light tank after General Sheridan was something of an inside joke for Civil War historians. General Sheridan was five feet and five inches tall.
That’s perfectly average healthy height back then…? Back then average height for men was around 5’5-5’7
I'm 5'5" 😢
Those nutty Civil War Historians… they sure know how to laugh it up!!!
After Sheridan won a spectacular victory, President Lincoln said: "I always thought a good Calvary General should be at least 6 foot tall, but now I reckon 5 foot 5 will do nicely!"
So the US army actually had a sense of humour?
Served alongside these in the 1980s. Until the HMMV mounted TOWs got night and Thermal sights the 551s were the eyes and ears of 18th airborne corps infantry divisions.
Yeah sure! ....whatever that's supposed to mean.
Best mobile direct fire weapons system the 82nd had. Best in urban environments where TOWs and Dragons were ineffective at relatively short ranges. An M551A1 was the best anti sniper weapon the infantry had. With the phone on the back of the M551A1 an infantryman could talk the gunner onto the building or window the sniper was seen. One 152mm HEAT round and no more sniper or building. It still required a combined arms fight. Armor and infantry supported by artillery, aviation, engineer, and log support is what wins battles. Not Rambo tanks.
Now, this tank may be effective. Add on reactive armor and an APS installed, and you got yourself a potent weapon. Infantry support and seize duty is big. A better missle design is available, and a new targeting system will certainly be installed
The FV101 Scorpion was a very light armoured vehicle, weighing in at a mere 8 tonnes. This meant some compromises had to be made on protection. The vehicle had 12.7 mm of sloped aluminium armour, giving an average effective thickness of 25 mm. The FV101 had all-around protection from shell fragments and 7.62 mm rounds, and the heavily sloped frontal arc was designed to be resistant to 14.5 mm rounds fired from 200 m (660 ft). The initial manufacture of the aluminium armour resulted, after time and effects of the environment, in failure; "Stress Corrosion Cracking" (SCC) which seriously affected all early builds. wiki
I spent two and a half years as OpFor (Opposing Forces), Cobra to the rest of the army's GI Joe, at Fort irwin, Barstow, California, from 2002 to 2004. During which time they phased out the Sheridans, that, at that point, were prone to the road wheels randomly flying off, and the engines needed rebuilt after every monthly rotation of mock combat.
They were replaced by M113s with Bradley turrets with PVC cannons as part of the VizMods (Visual Modifications) to look like Soviet tanks.
I'm wondering if their engines were Aluminum Block. GM (Cast Iron Block) diesels are normally pretty reliable, but from what I've heard from guys who were on Minesweepers, the Aluminum Block ones (Aluminum being Non-Magnetic, reducing the odds of the Minesweeper from setting off a certain type of Influence Mine) were a "Witch" to work on! In fact general tactics were to tow the Minesweepers to where they were needed just to limit the run time of those Aluminum Block Engines!!!
@@timengineman2nd714 Why are you talking about minesweepers and why are you capitalizing odd words? Very Trump-like.
@@melangellatc1718 I'm speaking about why a certain type of metal was used to make a very troublesome engine!
The same size of engine which was on the M-551, which had a very troublesome engine.
Hence my wondering & therefore asking if the M-551 also had an aluminum block diesel!
The capitalizing "odd" words is to emphasis, certain words and to aid in comprehension if you're quickly reading the statement/comment
Welcome from Cortinia!
@@timengineman2nd714 I can't verify the engines, but I know they used the lowboys to transport them from one section of the battlefield to another, and sometimes an M88 Hercules would be towing up to three of them.
I love hearing what people who have never used a tank tell us what they are all about....I fought in Vietnam and the M551 worked great!!! Loved it and sad to see them go away...they have a purpose and not to be used as a heavy tank but a fast-moving scout.I was the TC in the 3/4 Cav 25th ID
Was at Fort Riley 1968 11 months OTJ Sheridan C 1/63 Armor before going to Vietnam there A 2/34 Armor 25th Infantry M48s 1969-70 .Always wanted to know how the Sheridan did in Vietnam
I had many fond memories of my track in Fulda Germany. My Sheridan was always kept up as best we could, and was never deadlined. With a well trained gunner this track was devastating to the enemy....and these rascals could move and scoot !
Didn't fare too well against Viet Cong RPG-7s!
Hi John. Hope you are well!
@@Scout0817 wow ! .....I'm fine and alive.....just a bit old and rusty around the edges.
John, I sent you a connect inaction on LinkedIn. 🤓
It was a rolling howitzer to support an Airborne assault. In that role, it worked to give heavy support to light infantry.
Agreed. It wasn't really a tank. More of a FSV that also carried ATGMs.
It was very good in that role.
In the 60s I was second in command in Friedishafen, lac Constance South Germany of a depot of stored vehicle including M60 or Paton tank, great fun to pilot it we had!
1:59 background
4:06 development
6:38 performance and mobility
9:08 armament
12:02 Sheridan's in Vietnam
13:52 post Vietnam service
I wish that I could pin this as the top comment.
Simon and crew killing it on all the channels. Great job as always. 😍
I was a crewmember on a Sheridan in the 70's. In a light Cavalry unit our mission was to make contact and run away fighting. The M551 suited that purpose.
My brother served in the 82nd Airborne and he was in a Sheridan unit, he was a Cav Scout.
I hope the limited armour didn't fail him?!
3/73 Armor battalion.
Me too. 1988 to 1993. 2plt Aco 3bn abn 73rd AR Reg.
One military hardware you can look in to is the swedish bandkanon a self propelled gun whit a fire rate of 15 rounds in 45 sec.
Was in service from 67-03 and was one of the world's heaviest and most powerful self-propelled artillery vehicles in use during its service.
“Cadillac, of later Cimarron fame”. Proper good burn there. 🔥
Sending a tank into a combat zone without ammo for the main gun, brilliant.
Nah, it had ammo, but it was designed to work in European climate, not the humid jungle.
99% of the time a tank uses its machine guns anyway. If you're supporting infantry against other infantry you don't _need_ your main gun.
I spent two years as a gunner and commander on a M551 in a Cavalry unit in the 70's. It was light and fast, and wasn't meant to go head on. My mission was to shoot and run away. At 1800 meters it was devastating to any enemy vehicle.
Par for the course, Simon videos on tanks starting with commonly held falsehoods - this time around: the M18 Hellcat had the best kill to loss ratio of any US armored vehicle in WW2. Generally right about the Tiger II, but it was faster than is often said. When they could find gas for them. Mind you, one did get knocked out by an M8 Armored Car, iirc (maybe a M5, either way, via 37mm pop gun) so don't overstate it's armor either.
I don't think he mentioned it's kill death ratio, just crew survivability if hit. And the story of the 37 mm king tiger kill is filled with misinformation and if true was from the rear where tanks have the least amount of armor
Is was from above and into the engine deck.
He mentioned survivability. Meaning, IF a Hellcat gets hit, THEN the vehicle/crew are unlikely to survive. That's not the same thing as KDR.
Ironically, what he said about the King Tiger is the falsehood. While the upper glacis was quite hard (but not impossible) to penetrate because of its immense effective thickness, it could be ammo racked because ammo was stored in the significantly less sloped turret sides, among other places.
So I'm afraid you have it backwards.
So exceptions to the rule invalidate the entire thing. Oh wow, ONE M8 got lucky and "knocked out" a Tiger II so its armor must have sucked. Really?
I'm so glad all of us can come here and bond over how shit Simon's research team is and that he should stay away from military equipment bc he gets shit wrong basically all the time, especially with tanks. It's not even obscure information. There are 20 minute videos that explain it perfectly but his team just reads War Thunder forums instead.
I crewed one of these with the 3/12 CAV in Germany 73-74, as stated, aluminum armor was a joke, and actually was one of the main reasons the vehicle was pulled from Viet Nam, vehicle was easily damaged or destroyed from .51 cal and up of enemy fire, rockets, and mines, after about 2 yr.s. This vehicle weighted 21 ton fully load fuel and ammo, 22 ton with a "steel chicken plate" bolted to bottom (1 1/2" steel plate, this was an "add on kit", not something cobbled together) ...which provide some protection from mines, but covered drivers escape hatch). High altitude air drops were possible, but once on the ground the mechanics would have to replace about every torsion bar on the track. The 152 mm main gun was slow and dangerous to load, took about 21 seconds between rounds (normal duration), and had a rainbow trajectory. The M60 tank's 105mm was 7 seconds between rounds and very flat shooting (you could hardly turn your head fast enough to follow the tracer element in the projectile). The Shillelagh missile it fired was good, but hard to load (approx. 39" long) in a small turret plus you had to stab a keyway, but accurate with a good gunner (they said if you can see it, you can kill it!) ...However, like most vehicles made in America, the automotive system was excellent! Turbo charged Detroit 6-cyl diesel, ran like a sweetheart! I personally had one up to 50 mph (on slight downhill grade). They were totally replaced in Europe theater in 77, with M60 A3's.
Was in the 82nd early ‘80s, we shared a motor pool with the M551s of 68th Armor(?). Never got to see them operate.
I remember the 551. Nice assault tank.
Cool vid! I was on the VisMod'ed Sheridans at "The Planet" aka Fort Irwin in the mid 1980's. They were gutted of most turret and hull storage and whatnot hardware, but I had fun beating on them and found out the the M113 fuel injectors fit the same Detroit/GM 671 V-6, but they give better "performance" than the M551's. Good times and memories. Tanker Tough!
my uncle said the 152 rds frequently damaged the equipment for the missle. He was in an M60A2 though not a Sheridan.
Ah the starship
Watching the entire video was very painful. I spent several years working with the M551. I was a 19D in 3/73 armour in the 82nd Airborne Division. Not only was the Sheridan an amazing vehicle at Fort Bragg we deployed to the desert in 1991 in our original forest green camo Sheridan's. They were later upgraded to desert brown. My unit was tasked with spearheading operations deep inside Iraq completing multiple missions sometimes with heavy engagements. We did not lose a single vehicle. We (my entire unit) were very proud to be in our light skinned Sheridan's. Not once did we feel "unsafe".
I would only ask that you interview actual service men who spent time on this vehicle and those who actually saw combat in this vehicle. Don't give my your opinion and call it fact.
The Sheridan was a great vehicle and perfect for the role it was given .
Thank you
Sven
Please cover BIG Lizzie. Big lizzie was a giant 19th century machine that currently resides in Redcliffs, Victoria and Australia. It made a long journey in the early days of Australian colonisation and is pretty interesting. To find it look up "Redcliffs Australia big lizzie"
The armor trifecta is Good,Fast, Cheap, (pick two). Fast is referring to production time.
That rule really applies to just about any manufactured thing.
Actually, for tanks it is Firepower, Mobility, Armor protection. Pick one and 1/2 of each of the other.
@@dmk0210 No; it's a bi-fecta. Hard factors on one side and soft factors on the other. Every time a designer chooses any hard factor over soft ones, the tank is shit.
@@CharliMorganMusic You have no idea what you are talking about
Two words that are mutually exclusive, or more likely diametrically opposed are "aluminum" and "armor".
One of my favorite armoured vehicle. Very sleek design.
Hmmm.... Turtleneck with the sleeves rolled up.
Beard and horn rimmed glasses.
*Barista mode activated.*
Light armored tanks seem like the perfect candidate for a drone/remote operation. Not having to make room for a crew would save thousands of lbs
I mean I know he's probably like a combination of Henry Ford, Walt Disney and Stalin behind the scenes but it's remarkable how normal Simon comes across. I'd almost have said the type of guy you could have a pint with if I didn't suspect he preferred drinking vintage port from a solid gold chalice.
He has a very Steve Jobs look going on also.
@@logangamble1890 good call mate I see what you're saying
Might I suggest a video on the Bradley IFV? One of the most infamous military programs ever.
And a great success
We had an equivalent family of vehicles in the UK from Alvis and from around the same period. The tank variants (CVRT) were Scorpion, Sabre and Scimitar, as well as numerous others for command post, missile launchers, APCs, etc, etc. Maybe this could form another megaprojects video?
The M551 is an excellent vehicle, when used in the roll it was designed for. Early models had problems with heavy recoil disrupting the electronics, but most of the problems were worked out. It is not a heavy main battle tank, and must not be compared to such.
Actually the holy triangle of tank development is: Armor-Mobility-Firepower
AKCHULLY
Except the Independent and T35: Turrets-Turrets-Turrets
you forgot the crew
Ah yes the only three things that matter, and nothing else, obviously Germany losing was an inside job because Shermans were so terrible?
There are so many other things to consider than those three.
@@Solnoric What are you talking about? These three factors are also valid for M4, T34 and so on?
Please google Three Factors of Effectiveness in Tank Design
Thank you and have a nice day.
Glad you did this one. Been wondering why the Airborne gave up their tank and now it seems quite reasonable.
With the return to Cold War projects and armor, I have to ask for a followup with the Bradley. Some wild stuff with its development and how it changed mechanized warfare
Note that the Sheridan wasn't actually scheduled for retirement from the Airborne mission until the Army had a viable replacement vehicle (M8 AGS).
However, *after* the Army had set the retirement plans in place, the M8 was cancelled as part of the "Peace Dividend", leaving no alternative for 3/73 Armor (Airborne). So the new plan was, instead of a full battalion of dozens of light tanks that could be parachuted with the initial assault, the entire available armor support for the 82nd Airborne was, "We'll borrow a tank platoon with 4 tabks and a couple of Bradley infantry platoons with 4 Bradleys each from the 3rd Indantry Division, which we can deploy *after* the 82nd Airborne has taken and *fully secured* a major airport *and* the USAF engineers have fixed any damage to it - because we have to land heavy cargo aircraft and offload the vehicles, 1 or 2 tracks per plane load."
In the Bill Maudlin (sp) Willy & Joe cartoons of WW2 fame, it was Willy that said once: "a moving foxhole attracts attention". LOL My parents had a book of his. I loved it.
A spookston AND megaprojects video on the same vehicle in the SAME week?? Awesome!
My brother dropped a Sheridan from a C-141 Starlifter in operation Just Cause (Panama).
My dad rolled around in one of those during Vietnam in the 11th Armored Calvary Regiment.
The Cadillac Cimarron! LOLOLOL. Your writers have a good sense of humor.
"The army was sure that Congress would never fund them after the first one turned into such a debacle." Clearly, they do not know Congress very well.
Don't forget, the first rule of combat is: "Everything is air-drop capable, at least once."
Too bad they completely forgot these lessons when it came to the Bradley...
The Bradley scenes in Pentagon Wars(?) is one of the funniest things I've ever watched.
@@DieNextInLINE hilarious scene... but about as accurate as Pirates of the Caribbean
If it's "air dropable once" it's a waste of money.
@@bobfg3130 The entire history of dropping bombs from aircraft would seem to dispute your statement.
@@bobfg3130 That's a joke, like. "Every ship can be a minesweeper... once."
The M551: A Scout Vehicle that looked like a tank and was thrust into situations it was not designed for and failed miserably. As far as weapon systems, it was comparable to the FV101 and FV107 used by the British as scouts. I don't think the British ever operated under the false assumption they were "tanks" and employed them as such.
I work on a FV101 Scorpion and both the scorpion and scimitar are regarded as tracked reconnaissance vehicles and aren't really supposed to shoot at something unless they absolutely need to. They both pack a punch against infantry and light vehicles but the onboard radio is their mostly effective weapon against other tanks.
@@TheTh903 the M551 was supposed to do that too. Scout and help w/ infantry on soft targets. It did it with a big whopping gun.
I think the higher ups in the military are obsessed with having a weapon tailor fit for every conceivable scenario, even if it means spending billions of dollars and it will only be used a couple of times.
Maybe the “failure” of the M551 was the reason the recon role was dumped on top of the Bradley during its development.
American commanders seem to have a bad habit of doing exactly this.
@simon i had the pleasure of rebuilding the 3rd one mad back in the 90s :)
I appreciate your reference to the caddy Cimarron lol
M1A1 can easily be dropped from a transport plane, even with the use of a parachute!!!
(the challenge, though, is using it afterwards ;-) )
2:05 - Chapter 1 - Background
4:10 - Chapter 2 - Development
6:40 - Chapter 3 - Performance & mobility
9:10 - Chapter 4 - Armament
12:05 - Chapter 5 - Sheridans in vietnam
13:55 - Chapter 6 - Post vietnam service
We had em in the 82nd. 3/73rd Armor. We even dropped em on Noriega in 89. Us Grunts loved em. That was "our tank". We had Hummvees with TOW's for anti tank, so the 551 carried canister rounds. A sad day when Uncle Sucker took em from us. Too old and too expensive. The replaced them with nothing. To us any tank was better than no tank.
The reason for not using Shillelagh missiles in Vietnam was that there were not worthwhile targets for them. They were designed for long range tank killing and the Viet Cong had no tanks. The North Vietnamese only sent their tanks into Vietnam one time before the 1972 Easter offensive, by which time the Sheridans had been withdrawn. There was also the security aspect. The missiles used revolutionary, top secret technology, and the US did not want it being captured and turned over to the Soviets and Chinese.
The conventional HEAT round was designed to be used on targets out to 1,600 meters. It was the largest and most effective HEAT around used until the deployment of the Hellfire missile, with a HEAT warhead, in the mid-1980s. For targets under 1,600 meters the HEAT round was used. For longer range targets you had the Missile, that was accurate out to over 3,000 meters. It was much more accurate at long range than the 90mm and 105mm guns on the M48 and M60.
KABLAM! Who would have known my vehicle mode had such an interesting backstory.
We had Sheridan in 7th Cav 1st Cav Div even though they were light they were never meant to go against heavy armor. In Reconnaissance roles they were Ok and Cav Scouts on the ground appreciated them. They were fast and I remember them being fitted with under belly armor to help against mines. M113’s were destroyed by mines as well. Personally I was very fond of them. Better firepower than the skimpy rounds you had with an M16
Please double check your stats on the M18 Hellcat survival rate. The Hellcat had one of the best kill/loss ratios in war for any side.
He was talking crew survivability not kill/loss ratio
@@AbyssWatcher745 he didn't mention any ratios. He also brought up the M-18 in a discussion about tanks. TANKS.
@@CharliMorganMusic You're welcome
Simon, one other thing to consider is the Army Calendar year is different than the standard. The Army Calendar actually starts in October; so it’s a lot easier for funding to be granted in October.
Curious why the year starts in October? Here we have 2 years, the calender year, and the financial year, 1 Jan and 1 April respectively. All govt spending annually, budget etc is done to the financial year, same with all companies.
American Fiscal year.
@@techfixr2012 that explains it then. Wonder the reasoning for a late fiscal year. Sounds like a job for Simon. Get on it Fact Boi.
@@StefanMedici the Army Fiscal calendar is what I was referring to. I apologize.
It wasn’t always that way. It moved sometime post WWII
What gets me about the Sheridan is that after they realized that firing the 152mm HESH shell would knock loose the internal components of the Missile's Guidance System, WHY didn't they switch to an Unguided Spin and/or Fin Stabilized Rocket!!!
Because those types of rockets don't have the accuracy necessary for long range antitank shots.
@@geodkyt I was talking about Bunker Busting Rockets! They have (had) and Guided Anti-Tank Missile for enemy tanks!!
The idea was to replace the HESH shell they would use on everything else.
The Two Prime issues were that it was (an early) case-less and, just like the USSR/Russian case-less bits and pieces of the propellent charge would break off from the bottom of the charge to create on huge fire safety issue!! (NATO "case-less" ammo is actually semi-case with about the last 1 or 2 inches actually having a very short metal case around them to prevent this.
The other problem, like I mentioned is that when firing the 6 inch (152mm) HESH shell, the recoil would basically cause all of the internals in both the fire control system and the missile guidance system to shake loose and cause them to be unusable!!!
Hence my wondering why they didn't switch to a reasonably accurate but unguided rocket, since most of the time you don't see a bunker, etc. at long range due to camouflage .......
@@timengineman2nd714 most of the main gun rounds they fired in combat were not HESH anyway (in fact, their primary main gun round for AT work at ranges too close for the missile wasn't HESH, either - it was HEAT... the US really hasn't used HESH much, aside from tbe dedicated M728 Combat Engineering Vehicle with a 165mm "demolition gun" specifically for destroying obstacles and bunkers). The primary main gun round they actually used by the Sheridan in combat was *cannister* (actually flechette), because most of their combat service was in Vietnam.
By the way, the same gun/missile system was used on the M60A2 and an improved and longer barreled version was intended for the joint US-West German MBT-70 program (which is why they even bothered developing a APFSDSDU round) as well. When fired from an actual MBT, the 152mm gun wasn't that big a deal, because of the extra mass. The reason the system went out of favor was the rapid improvements in hugh velocity main gun ammunition and fire control systems, rendering the need for a missile for long range shots (beyond the capability of purely optical sights designed in the late 1950s and early 1960s) irrelevant.
@@geodkyt The US Army video I watched called it a HESH round, although (according to Wikipedia) there was also a Low Velocity HEAT round also made.
I know that the Shillelagh missile (like any reasonable size AT Missile) had a HEAT round! (3rd Gen ATMs use a 2 charge system against Reactive Armor, but the main charge that fires a split second after the first is still normally a HEAT charge, although some are now (supposedly) using a Self Forging Penetrator, which although differently shaped (a U .vs. a V) and has a much thicker liner uses a lot of the same dynamic factors as a HEAT round!
@@DeeEight A (M-60) tanker friend always described the 105mm HE round as basically a HESH round.
HESH is where the thin wall nose is hollow and deforms on impact, allowing the flat headed HE charge to get into full contact with the target.
HEP is also a thin wall nose but it is basically filled with something like C-4 (but I assume a bit more stabile!) which flattens out like throwing a lump of dough onto a countertop.... this also works very well in having a massive spalling effect on the other side of the impacted surface!
*Note: Thin Wall is a relative term!
Fun fact: The U.S Army is actually bringing back the Light Tank. Testing is in its final stages now. And it won't be able to be parachuted in however it's gonna have a 105mm gun and a shrunken down Abrams Turrent and a 3 man crew. The final selection will happen in about 6 months from now
just when I give up on what the tube has to off and I want to go to bed. I get this. :) thank you
Aussie Armoured Corps retired soldier here. In the late 1980s, my sergeant who had enlisted in early 1960s told me that in late sixties, they were told Aussie Army was getting the M five five one Sheridans for recon. Never happened. He told me, 'we were told so convincingly - we were all fooled by that one'. I learned very quickly as a trooper in the early 1980s - In Army you don't believe half of what you are told, and be very suspicious about the rest! I suspect this is the same in the Army of other nations.
The M551 also had plastic layers in the hull along with the swim barrier in the upper hull. Some tests were run with the Shillelagh after Gulf War one 95 percent good launches with hits on wrecked Iraqi tanks. Hand off range was around 900 meters Gun in closer Missile out past 900 meters. With 30 Rack positions 20 to 30 regular rounds and max of 10 Missiles will fit in the racks. Guidance electronics did not like the regular rounds recoil so best use the Missiles first. Most of the 152mm Ammo used in Nam was Beehive it had very little recoil and deadly vs. Infantry in close. Night lagers used chain link fence sections on pickets to block most incoming RPG rounds. The Caseless cartridge was easy to damage and susceptible to water damage so was in an artificial rubber pull off covering and a 9 ply Kevlar fragment protective cover. Regular rounds stored Nose down in ready racks Missiles nose up. Ammo also on both sides of the driver. Breech was electric drive with interrupted thread design like larger than 8" naval guns. A hand crank was the emergency option.
!Side Projects!
Gun Trucks of Vietnam, truck convoys of supplies became sitting ducks and were targeted by the Vietnamese, eventually these trucks were improvised, almost land battle ships
One of my favorites thank tbh. The looks, can fire atgms and shells, fast mmm
Simon giving off some serious Bond Gillian vibes
I was thought the Sheridan was a cool little “tank“. their main gun was the biggest drawback, especially with the shillelagh round. Albeit, their light armor was too. If I remember correctly, the conventional round that it used was similar to the round that the combat engineer vehicle (CEV) used.
As far as the ones used in Fort Irwin, California at the national training center (NTC) it is used as a vismod vehicle used by the opposing force (opfor )Typically used to visually model as a Soviet T-72/T-80 tank, a Shilka antiaircraft Gun, or a 2S1 self-propelled gun
Gut Gemacht Simon!!
Real TC, C-33 3rd Bn 63rd Armor 1ID forward
Interesting and informative video. The Hellcat wasn't a tank, it was a tank destroyer, hence the big gun, high speed and light armour. Their role was to hunt tanks not to face them directly in combat. Though tank destroyers did not endure their role has arguably been taken over by attack helicopters.
Well, no. Nowadays, both attack helicopters and tanks have become highly vulnerable to MANPADS and man portable anti-tank missiles like the Javelin and NLAW, and those weapons are the real successors to the lightly armored tank destroyers of old.
@@gandalfgreyhame3425 That might be the experience of Russia in Ukraine but try and tell that to any infantry unit or armour that goes up against an Apache which can see and target you when you have no line of sight
@@Gorbyrev You're still living in the era of the GWOT fight against the poorly armed and trained Iraqi Army and Taliban terrorists with nothing more sophisticated than an RPG-7. In a near-peer conflict, the Apaches would almost certainly be up against an array of mobile short and medium range anti-air systems that could easily outrange its Hellfire missiles or whatever offensive weapons it was carrying. The survivability of the Apache would depend heavily on the terrain, since it would need a hilly terrain to come in low and hide from radar and IRST guided missile systems. In a flat terrain, attack helicopters would be toast against these modern anti-air systems. The Ukrainians don't even have all the best stuff yet (like the US SHORAD, Norwegian NASAMS, or German IRS-T-SL) and the Russians have done a poor job of implementing what they have. Helicopters are just highly vulnerable against infantry traveling with the best modern short and medium range anti-air systems. And, if the infantry is widely dispersed and carrying MANPADs throughout the territory that the Apaches have to travel through to get to its target, the Apaches would just never see one of these random infantry guys shooting at it with a MANPAD. That's how a lot of the Russian helicopter losses seem to have happened. Flares don't work against the newer and better MANPADS either.
@@gandalfgreyhame3425 Your points are well made however in a combined arms offensive the SAM capability would have been denued by Wild Weasels and other anti-radar assets. No NATO Apache would be forward deployed without this preparation of the battlefield and once deployed with it would serve in a similar role to a Hellcat on the Western Front.
@@Gorbyrev The M-SHORAD has a combination of radar, IR (Stinger missiles), and laser guided (Longbow Hellfire) anti-air weapons. The German IRS-T-SL anti-air missiles are longer ranged than the Hellfires and are IR guided. So neither system would be affected by EW or anti-radar systems. The classic US SEAD/DEAD strategy of getting air superiority and wiping out its enemy's radar systems won't fully succeed in protecting all of its air assets in a future near-peer conflict because of this. IRST systems aren't as long range as radar, but they can still be longer ranged than what the Apache carries. Modern anti-air systems have just really progressed. So, again, in a near peer conflict, I think attack helicopters will be pretty much useless until one side has had most of its anti-air systems depleted or wiped out and is close to losing. Helicopters just aren't going to be at the tip of the spear anymore, for sure. For the same reason, I think tanks won't be at the tip of the spear either in a near peer conflict. Helicopters and tanks are going to be useful mainly in the mop up and occupational operations mostly.
I think we've found the new Milk Tray man!
4:10 General Motors Cadillac division, of later Cimarron fame... 🤣 And Simon's delivery showing no hint that he understood the reference. 🤓
Germany (1976-1979) My Maintenance Co supported the Second Armored Cav as it patrolled the IRON CURTAIN along the Czech border.
@Major Rick Corbin... 2/2 out of Bamberg, thanks Buddy.
Where the background light Fact Boi?
Great video mate.
It's probably worth looking at the idea again with new technology: 1/ Unmanned turret 2/ Three man crew in 'safe compartment' in the hull 3/ APS Active Protection System (IE Armour that can shoot down missiles and RPG with a shot gun blast) 4/ Modern nano-ceramic Armour 5/ ERA Explosive Reactive Armour. Modern missiles like Javelin, NLAW, MMP can easily be fired and cannon shells can now be guided. This kind of tank should never be used like a main battle tank. It is not an "Abrams" or a breakthrough tank like a Tiger.
It would have purposes such as getting to the front line (but not beyond it) and attacking enemy Armour from behind cover or terrain. It's speed in moving across terrain (and abillity to be airlifted) would always allow it to intercept heavy tanks but after destroying enemy tanks it must retreat if threatened.
Don't know if anyone caught the mistake, but it was C-130s that dropped the Sheridan and not C-5s. Hated to do this because I really enjoy your videos
It was capable of being dropped from C-130's, C-141's and C-5's, but there were a lot more C-130's so that's what you generally see in videos
Yet another "tank" called a bad tank because it couldn't do tank things and engage other tanks. The Sheridan absolutely had it's problems but it's biggest problem was the mentality of 'it looks like a tank so we should use it like a tank.' Should a Ford Focus be compared to a Chevy Suburban... no, they are both cars but are designed around different applications. The Sheridan would have been better served being called a mobile gun platform/system like the modern day Striker. As Simon said early on it was just supposed to be able to be dropped in and have a big gun on an extremely mobile platform to support infantry. It was meant to be with infantry and help those infantry break hardpoints such as buildings and bunkers. It wasn't supposed to go anywhere or attack on it's own. It was supposed to be rapidly move to where infantry ran into something they would struggle with and use it's big gun to help them defeat it. But like so many weapon systems the egg heads in charge pressed it into roles they weren't designed for and they suffered for it.
I was in VN in 1967 however I never saw a Sheridan. I served on a
M42 Duster, it was designated a self propelled
Anti- aircraft weapon with twin 40 MM cannons. We were deployed with armored cavalry, convoy escort, perimeter security at night and whatever need
that came along. In my opinion we were sitting ducks. There was very little armour, and there was a big load of ammunition due to firing 240 rounds per minute. The Sheridan
was much better as far as
crew saftey is concerned.
Did you want a gun or a missile launcher?
DOD: YES.
I worked on M60 and M113A2 and M1 and M2 Bradley fighting vehicle
I'd love to see a video on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the future
The history of the M-114 would also make for an interesting story.
@Roger Hill... the M114s were such CUTE things, sadly, all the ones I have seen were just targets for tank gunnery.
it's the ghost of Steve Jobs!.. no wait, it's just the boy with the blaze in a turtleneck.
... otherwise known as Simon Allthejobs Whistler
My unit "fought " against the Sheridan tanks in 1986 at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, CA..They would have slaughtered against the Soviet T72 but they better than nothing.
The trainers may have used Sheridan tanks because Soviet tanks had a small silhouette.
@@wpatrickw2012 Yes, that is true.
No, they would NOT have been slaughtered by T72 if used properly. Proper tactics and maneuver would have kept them in excess of 2km distance. Any vehicle is going to get ruined if used poorly. Neither a M60 or a T72 could tolerate a direct hit from the other if properly targeted.
You made my day
'Light tanks can't go toe to toe with MBTs" - right. They're not supposed to.
The redesignation is a great trick. It worked in the late 70s beautifully for the Navy... oh we can't get funding for a new class of Destroyer? Um... these are actually Cruisers with a new radar system
When I was in the service, the M551's were said to "explode upon impact." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Take the main gun off the chassis upgrade the protection for the crew and ammo and equip this with stingers or javelins which can be remotely fired... You may have a winner on your hands
I was a paratrooper, and think that having some kind of armor with us for airfield seizure missions might be pretty helpful.
They should have removed 152mm gun after testing by the prototype proved it was NOT a good idea. By the time it went into production it could have been re-armed with the dependable 90 mm high velocity rifle.
"General Motors' Cadillac division, of later Cimmeron fame.." I felt that.
Cadillac also developed the standard US light tank of WW2, the M5 and its replacement, the M24
"Of Cimarron fame." I see what you do there
Back in the late 80’s-early 90’s, when I was with 1/505 PIR, they bragged they could kill an M1A1 before they could be hit. It fired a missle from that big bore gun
GERONIMO! 509
Replace the main gun with a high pressure water cannon and you've got an awesome riot vehicle! Great for dealing with large crowds of lightly armed radicals.
Then it would work great on BLM. And put out the fires.
Replace the water with bear spray
@@weirdshibainu Just use the tracks. That's why we called infantry, "Crunchies"
Why go to all that trouble? Just use canister rounds.
Simon going all Steve Jobs on us.
I think you missed the Sheridan's greatest story and success. I have read that a Sheridan was used in the " The Raid on Entebbe" due to it's mobility?? It's possible that I have this mixed up with another hostage rescue but I definitely recall one being used in a airport hostage situation?
Um, the PT-76 cane out BEFORE the Walker Bulldog, and the both had 76mm guns, and the Walker Bulldog had ever so slightly better armor. The Walker Bulldog also carrier more rounds of ammunition.
Sorry, but that's some poor research to make it seem like the M-551 was a response to the PT-76 having more "punch"
The main advantage of the PT-76 is that it was amphibious. THAT was the feature that the Army wanted that the M41 lacked, as it was too heavy to truly be a "light" tank.
Is Simon wearing a black turtleneck a Whistlerverse easter egg that he's about to drop an espionage channel? Spyographics maybe?
“…later, of Cimarron fame…”
Hahahaha awesome
Cadillac division of Cimmaron fame is hilarious!
Any troopers ever take these into battle? I just remember the aftermath of an assault May 1971, the M551’s were smoldering lumps. When hit the ammunition would separate and ignite. Gen Abrams visited us and was upset by the casualties. They had taken away our tank company the month before and gave us more Sheridans. They would be good if the other side had no anti-tank weapons Allons Blackhorse