M551A2 Sheridan

[Raellus]

To be contrarian ...
Also,I doubt I would up-armor the M551 to the point where is can't float, since that's one of it's few positive assets. You can't armor it well enough to survive direct hits from a TG or ATGM anyway, so you're doing a lot of work just to create another burning wreck.

Fair points. Taking away it's swimming ability limits its capabilities as an "armored reconaissance vehicle". In the CONUS, I don't think it's going to need a whole lot more armor. Unless it's going up against armor from another faction (CivGov vs. MilGov) or facing the Soviets in Alaska or Texas or going up against Mexican Armor (IRL, not much of a threat), it's not going to be facing the kind of weaponry that can take out armored vehicle with one or two hits.

[ChalkLine]

To be contrarian ...

I'd be tempted to keep the 152mm gun but drop the missile capability. Yes, I know you could only carry around 30 shells (converting missile space to shell space) and that the gun had heavy recoil for such a light chassis, but the edge the 152mm has in destructiveness over the 105mm seems worth it to me.

Also,I doubt I would up-armor the M551 to the point where is can't float, since that's one of it's few positive assets. You can't armor it well enough to survive direct hits from a TG or ATGM anyway, so you're doing a lot of work just to create another burning wreck.

A few points;

- It takes 20 seconds to cycle the gun. The breech is locked, purges, and slowly opens. It's all automated, so there's nothing you can do about it to hurry it up.
- The 152mm rounds destroy the barrel after 200 shots.
- The floatation system was removed in 1979, only the screen remains
- As it stands, it cannot survive strikes from a 30mm autocannon, the minimum required to be a useful recon vehicle.

[copeab]

- It takes 20 seconds to cycle the gun. The breech is locked, purges, and slowly opens. It's all automated, so there's nothing you can do about it to hurry it up.

That's not why I'd remove the missile system. To my understanding, the gun/launcher was severely flawed. Firing a missile badly fouled the barrel for the shells. Firing a shell often knocked the missile targeting system out of alignment, making it useless. Given a choice, I'd rather fire shells than missiles.

- The 152mm rounds destroy the barrel after 200 shots.

Didn't know this. However, I think it's worth asking how many M551's will last long enough to fire 200 shells, uparmored or not, on a T2K battlefield.

- The floatation system was removed in 1979, only the screen remains

This is something I'd want to put back on. More than added armor, more than a new gun.

- As it stands, it cannot survive strikes from a 30mm autocannon, the minimum required to be a useful recon vehicle.

I doubt if such a requirement would be observed in the desperate situation of the later years of the Twilight War, nor would the expense (materials, labor, time) likely be considered worth it by the Army, who would be desperate to field as many AFVs as quickly as possible.

[ChalkLine]

All good points.

But if we look at probably the only ever nation to endure T2K-like conditions, the tanks German put out in 1945 were five times more armoured than they manufactured in pre-war peacetime. They up-armoured light vehicles progressively during the war, as has every other combatant in armoured vehicle history. When something doesn't work, you just whip it out and put something in that does. A short 105mm howitzer has a commonality of munitions with the support weapons, the M119 Hamel howitzer. The canister round is impressive (as the Australian gunners at firebase Balmoral in Vietnam will attest to, when they fired their M110 howitzers over open sights at assaulting NVA and VC troops) and the vehicle is going to be simpler, faster firing and longer lived. You get easy access to reloads anywhere there's NATO supply, and when your local ammo runs out you don't have to discard a useful vehicle.

Honestly, I've always liked the M8E1 gun. It wasn't until I read the field manual for the gun that I realised how flawed it is. The caseless cartridges are highly flammable, and the slightest penetration resulted in catastrophic explosions. There's no extraction device on the gun, so if you get a misfire (and it's an electrically fired round, misfires were common) you couldn't get the round back out. If you have a missile or a shell loaded and need something else, under combat conditions you had to fire it off because you couldn't get it out of the gun. Worse still, if you open the breech of the launcher with a missile loaded and neglect to flip over the lock switch - only used when firing a missile - the breech screw rips the backside off the missile and scatters explosive propellant through the fight compartment. This stuff explodes if you stand on it! If you fire the MG while this stuff is in the tank, you'll probably blow the whole thing up.

[ChalkLine]

ok I worked up a quick TOE for a cav division using M-551's and M-115's


this is what I got :

I take the arm cav sq's/Battalions take away the tank company and use M-115 and not M-3 so with my cav division i have 6 armored cav battalions and 3 mech. mech battlions with 58 m-115's, armored cav = 4 ac companies each with 1 m-577, 9 m-551 12 M-115 and 2 m-106. + at battalion lvl add an HQ with around 60-80 trucks, 4 M-557's, 2 cev's and 4 AVLB's 8 m-109s and 8 m-548's (ammo)

so divisions totals is: 216 M-551's, 462 M-115's, 72 m-109's 8 MLRS ,9 cev's, 28 AVLB's, about 550 trucks and around 50 M-557's.

another way would be to dump the 3 mech battalions and add in 3 more arm cav.

Dog, I'm a bit confused. Are you using M115 howitzers when you say M-115

I agree that most of the vehicles should be M113 derivatives, as that gives you good commonality of parts.

[Dog 6]

no the M-115 from the game. it's a M-113 with a LAV- 25 turret.

[HorseSoldier]

I wish I'd gotten pictures -- while posted to Anniston Army Depot several years ago they had a track park that was nothing but Sheridans getting ready to become part of some deserving coral reef off the coast of Florida. It was probably all the surviving Sheridans in the inventory that weren't OPFOR vehicles or on static display (I think NTC and JRTC were still running the Vismod M551s at that point). I remember seeing a whole lot of vehicles with 3-73rd bumper numbers (and some more obscure ones).

I always pictured them getting dusted off and issued to a lot of ARNG armor units that stayed CONUS, freeing up their M1s or M60s to head towards Europe as replacement vehicles. Probably a really good vehicle for marauder suppression, anti-New America operations, etc -- one thing no one ever complained about (AFAIK) was the Sheridan in an infantry support role, even if it kind of flopped as a light tank/armored recon vehicle/etc.

[leonpoi]

Can anyone help me How does fire control differ between v2 and v2.2 I see values 0 to +4/+5 in v2 and 0,1,2 in v2.2. In 2.2 each level of FC can eliminate one non-range difficulty level when firing.

[pmulcahy11b]

Can anyone help me How does fire control differ between v2 and v2.2 I see values 0 to +4/+5 in v2 and 0,1,2 in v2.2. In 2.2 each level of FC can eliminate one non-range difficulty level when firing.

I still use +0 to +5, as a bonus to hit score. But hmmm...

[HorseSoldier]

Another possible idea for a Sheridan upgrade (possibly done later in the war, around the same time that the "Stingray Juniors" were being made) would be fitting a Stingray turret (which has been done) or an M8 AGS turret on the Sheridan chassis. If they used the M8 turret, at least in a hull down position you could slap on the Level 3 up armor kit to make it able to take 30mm hits.

[Olefin]

The Sheridan as is does make sense in some Twilight 2000 campaigns - for instance going up against New America (who dont have that many ATGM's or heavy guns), for security work within the US (it would do very well against militia or marauders armed with hunting rifles and M-16's) and for the campaigns in Africa and Iran.

In Africa they are fighting most guerrillas and it would be a good vehicle, as designed, for that kind of fight.

In Iran it would make a very good vehicle to issue to security units on anti-marauder patrols, since most marauders have no anti-tank weapons.

And considering the fact that no production is continuing of tanks of any kind having several hundred Sheridans available would be of huge benefit, especially in the US.

I could see Anniston Army Depot, Rock Island Army Depot and the United Defence Plants at both Santa Clara and York being used to get those vehicles back up and running quickly.

[Olefin]

I have a 1995/1996 Jane's that shows the Sheridan with the Stingray turret fitted -one prototype was made and tested and would be a very possible upgrade for the Sheridan in the game.

Actually the Stingray turret was proposed for several vehicles, including the Sheridan, the M48, the M60 and the LAV, among others. I could definitely see Sheridans equipped with those turrets being part of the forces defending Fort Irwin and possibly being what stopped them from advancing to Las Vegas from LA.

[James Langham]

See the write up I did on US light armour...

[pmulcahy11b]

I have a 1995/1996 Jane's that shows the Sheridan with the Stingray turret fitted -one prototype was made and tested and would be a very possible upgrade for the Sheridan in the game.

Actually the Stingray turret was proposed for several vehicles, including the Sheridan, the M48, the M60 and the LAV, among others. I could definitely see Sheridans equipped with those turrets being part of the forces defending Fort Irwin and possibly being what stopped them from advancing to Las Vegas from LA.

TR did up the Sheridan with the Stingray turret -- you can download a PDF of his former site at http://www.pmulcahy.com/PDFs/pdf_page.htm (His whole site was a treasure trove.)

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

I thought they had used the Israeli M51 super sherman with the 105mm gun.

My Favorite Tank...... its just so cool seeing an old warhorse like that.