Talk:M551 Sheridan

Clarification-Mission(s) of US Armored Cav units in the Vietnam War

US Cavalry were to deploy by helicopter anywhere, anytime to find/engage/and destroy enemy forces; and were in the physical application of that doctrine, basically "airmobile infantry" (which turned out to be practically any infantryman (grunt), even mechanized infantrymen (foot soldiers). Armored Cavalry units were reconnaissance and security forces for their parent units. Theater commanders (Westmoreland, later Abrams) were authorized a whole cavalry regiment which consisted of usually 3 squadrons of armored cav. A Regiment was commanded by a full Colonel and each of his squadrons were commanded by Light Colonels (Lieutenant Colonels). A cav squadron was equal to a battalion, which are (or were in Vietnam) commanded by LTCs (Lieutenant Colonels).

Therefore, General Abrams had at his disposal one Armored Cav regiment, the 11th ACR, commanded by full bird Col. George S. Patton in Vietnam. Patton's Cavalry Regiment was to provide reconnaissance, security, and any other mission deemed necessary by General Abrams anywhere and at anytime in the Republic of South Vietnam.

• Armored Cav Squadrons were assigned to Divisions, such as the 1st ID (1st Infantry Division, aka Big Red One), 25th ID (Tropical Lightning Division), 4th ID (Ivy Division), 5th (M) Inf. Div. (Mechanized Infantry), etc. etc.

• Armored Cav Troops were assigned to Brigades, such as the 1st Brigade of the 5th (M) Inf. Div. as only the 1/5 ID deployed to South Vietnam. The rest of the 5th ID remained at Fort Polk Louisiana. So, only one Bde was in RVN, it only rated one cav troop (which was the 4/12 Cav=Troop A, 4th Squadron 12th Cavalry (armored). A Troop was equal to a Company commanded by a Captain. Like the old TV comedy series from the 1960s called "F Troop."

• Armored Cav Platoons could be assigned or attached to battalions. However, most tank/mech infantry battalions had their own scout platoons (reconnaissance platoons), so issuing out cav plts to those battalions was seldom done.

Each level of those commands (Theater, Division, Brigade, etc.) require different missions and different methods. Some will see fighting (combat) frequently, some will not. Some will suffer horrible losses, some will not. Some will be assigned "hot AOs" (dangerous areas of operations) some will not. All of the armored cav outfits will have the same basic equipment: Helicopters, ACAVs, and Sheridans. With the exception of the full regiment (11th ACR), it (in Vietnam anyway) retained it's M48 Patton medium gun tank companies, in addition to its ACAVs, Sheridans, and Choppers.

A full regiment of armored cav could (and usually did) in Vietnam, engage the enemy in the same manner as a regular line brigade (infantry or armor). However, cav sqds and cav trps normally scouted (RIFs-Reconnaissance In Force) and or "fixed the enemy" and performed a "battle hand off" when the line units arrived. Said another way, the Cav unit held the enemy at bay until the tank or Mech unit arrived to take over the fight, then the cav would leave, having done it's job of finding the enemy for the line units to do battle with.

==================================================

The most ironic part of the M551 story is that it was created in order to give the US forces an amphibious tank, causing the existing T-92 design to be abandoned. However, for all the trouble, it appears that the swimming system of the M551 was never used in combat. - This isn't entirely honest. The M551 was designed to traverse the north south rivers of Europe. At the end of the Cold War, this need disappeared.

Reply: National Defense Funding for equipment during the Vietnam War was always for future war in Europe (stopping the Soviets in the Fulda Gap, etc.); jets, helicopters, tanks, Armored Personnel Carriers, etc. where ALL BUILT FOR EUROPEAN FIGHTING, but none of them ever saw combat against the USSR. Ironically, everyone of those machines saw combat in Vietnam. In 1965, everyone knew where the Sheridan was going (and it wasn't the Fulda gap!). South Vietnam was supposedly so soggy wet and covered with wet marshlands...which meant rivers and streams to cross, the M551 was considered almost a "jungle tank" when it went to Vietnam in 1969. Light weight (17 tons compared to the Patton's 52 tons) and with swimming capabilities...it crossed rivers in South Vietnam under combat conditions, while serving with 10 US Armored Cavalry Squadrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.32.38 (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The 'Toys' section. There have been toys and scale models made of countless military vehicles, ships, and aircraft. What's the importance of mentioning such replicas of this particular vehicle?

combustible cartridge casing; electrical breach operation

It's worth mentioning that at least in the early model, the main gun's conventional rounds incorporated a combustible cartridge casing, which eliminated the need to deal with a large, smoking hot, ejected casing inside the Sheridan's cramped turret. This feature necessitated a CO2 scavenging system inside the gun tube, to eliminate any burning fragments that might otherwise have ignited the next round as it was chambered. The ammunition had to be protected from exposure to moisture (which could interfere with combustion of the casing), and elastic waterporoof jackets were used for that purpose. These "elastic" waterproof jackets were designed to be disposable, they were made of black colored rubber, and came from the factory with it already installed on the round. Before inserting the round either into the breech, or into the Sheridan tank's stocked asbestos preformed shell holder (glove), the black rubber covering was peeled off, as it easily ripped during the process.

An interesting feature of the gun itself is that the breach mechanism was electrically operated, rather than being recoil operated as conventional main guns were. Since there was no spent casing to eject, there was no need to harness the recoil energy that, in a conventional design, was used to eject the spent casing. Presumably the electrically operated breach was easier on the missile -- and also easier on the loader, who would otherwise have had to give the heavy conventional round a vigorous push in order to trip the closing mechanism of a conventional breach.

It makes no difference to the loader. Tripping the closing mechanism isn't difficult. The loader has to shove hard to get that big round all the way up the breech anyway, so the extra pound or two of force needed to trip the spring loaded breech release (as was done in the M68) isn't noticeable. On the other hand, a spring loaded breech has only a few moving parts and isn't difficult to repair or replace whereas an electrically operated breech is more complex. Rklawton (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The cited "41 failed shots" in Vietnam sounds low to me based on what I saw at Fort Riley. In 1977 I got loaned to 1/4 Cav for a few days to act as a Range Safety Officer when the Cav was undergoing its annual gunnery qualification at the Tank Gunnery range. It was actually pretty common to have a misfire at least once as a vehicle went thru the course. I estimate the misfire frequency was about 10%. I remember thinking I would hate to have to go into combat in a Sheridan. GMS1975 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

We all know what tanks are. they have tracks, a big gun, and has armor all around it. so what makes me talk about tanks? Well one in particular catches my eye. the M551 Sheridan. Battlefronttwo (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I'm not qualified to replace it, but the author of the intro paragraph expresses some irrelevant (not to mention highly subjective) sentiments about other Cold War technology.

Production History

I removed the horribly POV paragraph in Production History. The Little Internet Kitty 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I was with 4/63 Armor at Fort Riley, admittedly from 1977-1979. At that time only 1/4 Cav had M551's. 4/63 and the other two armor battalions at Riley had M113's in their Combat Support Company Scout Platoons. I'm wondering whether the vehicles were actually deployed first with the Cav Regiment, and not an armor battalion as stated in the article.GMS1975 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone asked why 88,000 missiles...

Several reasons.

First, the Sheridan wasn't the only planned user for the missile. The M60A2 and possibly the M60's replacement (Originally the MBT-70) were also intended to use the missile. All three designs were intended to be used in the European theater in case of Soviet attack and therefore stockpiles of missiles were laid in in case of that conflict ever occuring.

Second, US Crewmen are trained (on most systems) with a combination of simulated, subcaliber, and war-issued ammunition. So, missiles had to be avalible for both training and qualification on all of these systems.

Third, unless there is a need for massive numbers over a long period of time, it is easier and cheaper to contract out in bulk orders so the contractor can set up a manufacturing line, build the missiles as rapidly and efficiently as possible, and then close out the line. Then, if more missiles are needed later, it gives the oppurtunity for upgrades to be built into the follow on design, a new line set up and manufacture to begin again.

Deathbunny 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Only air deployable tank?

I disagree. During world war 2, the Russians have air-deployed the light T-60 tank once or twice. Nothing much, but saying that Sheridan had the monopoly for air-deployment is a bit exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.105.34 (talk) 19:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The M60s were air deployable as are the M1s, so I agree that "only" is exaggerated. On the other hand the M551 may be the only tank "routinely" deployed by air. Rklawton (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Operation Just Cause (Panama 1989)

Several weeks prior to the start of Operation Just Cause, 4 Sheridans from the 82nd were flown secretly into Panama, airlanded at Howard AFB, and attached to the 193rd Infatry Brigade (TF Bayonet). They were furter attached down to the 4th Bn, 6th Infantry (Mechanized) (TF Gator). They fought in support of the attack on the Commandancia and were in action several hours before the 8 mentioned in the main body of this article were dropped at Torrijos/Tocumen. After the fight at the Commandancia, they and other armored vehicles were formed into an ad hoc unit termed TF Panzer, which provided a mobile strike force for JSTOF forces as they raided high value targets for the next several days. The Sheridans provided much needed large caliber direct fire capability for support of assaults on reinforced concrete building - such as the Commandancia compound - however, their HEAT warheads severly limited their effectiveness, as no HEP rounds were in service for its gun/launcher.67.181.14.90 (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a follow-up. The 4 M551 Sheridans attached to TF Bayonet arrived in Panama in November 1989. See "Operation Just Cause in Panama City 1989" by Lawrence Yates. He discusses their employment in some detail. Note # 14 documents their secret arrival in country the month prior to Just Cause. The Commander of TF Gator has a different opinion of the Sheridan's main gun's performance in that conflict than I do, as you will see from reading it. Here's the link:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/Block/chp10_Block%20by%20Block.pdf 67.181.14.90 (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacement

What happened to sections or lead on follow-on, or lack thereof? Stingray, Stryker MGS, Bradley etc? Most of these don't swim or airdrop. M-2 acts as an M113 and Sheridan in one vehicle, though rarely mentioned as replacement. Article on Shillelegh missle does good job following up on what did work. Lead should summarize that gun/missle system was source of problems that contributed to limited success though it wasn't a total flop like the MBT-70 and lasted longer than Starship M60A2. Bachcell (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Although the Shillelegh system was designed to be a major player in the life of the "Armored Airborne Reconnaissance Assault Vehicle", it never was. Other than some stateside test shots and 6 missiles expended for orientation during Desert Shield/Storm, the Sheridan spent 3 years (1969-1971 Vietnam) firing conventional 152mm shells (mostly H-E).

Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker, etc. are not part of the "track" family; in the 20th century (might be different for the 21st century) they were (or would be) classified in the armored car category. The Bradley IFV/Cavalry vehicle would be a good replacement, but at the time of the Sheridan's design & construction, additional men inside a tank like vehicle was a no-no, it went against US Army doctrine (it another words, for the US Army, it was an idea before it's time). The M551 was to be a tank (as tank men like Abrams, etc. knew them to be), but since the Army had done away with light, medium, and heavy classifications in 1950 the M551 couldn't be classified as a light tank. Since it's 152mm gun was really a "missile" launcher, it couldn't be classed as a 152mm gun tank (it could be and it couldn't be); this too seemed to be a "tank before it's time." So the Sheridan ended up with a really long name, 5 different words.

The MBT-70, one of which was being used as a trash can by the way, was parked behind the Patton Museum (a wooden structure in 1969) under a tree at Ft. Knox, KY. The MBT-70 program was actually ended due to what men in the army used to say, as "in house fighting"; squabling (jealousies) between the American and German workers (designers, technicians, etc.). The M60 Starship and the XMBT-70 were both equal to the weight of the Patton's sent to Vietnam but didn't have the high rate of fire as the Pattons, therefore why send them? (Had they been available). But the Sheridan fit the bill. Light, fast, dependable, and to the eyes of the WWII generals fighting the Vietnam War, it looked and acted like a conventional tank; minus the aluminum hull and caseless shells, which to them, was probably "space age" enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.61.235 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Light fast and dependable? The M-551 was also known in the First Armor Division as the 48 hour wonder,if it ran for 48 hours it was a wonder.I might also add it was a death trap,the armor could easily be penetrated by .50 cal fire and it liked to brew up rather quickly because of the caseless powder charges stored inside with the crew.Run over a mine and that was the end,it came apart quite nicely.Oh and did I mention noisy?You could hear that pos a mile away.

Just so you know I was with C Co,1/35 Armor in an M60A1 for 2 years and watched the M-551 on maneuvers and at the firing range in Germany during that time.I would like to hear from anyone who rode this crate into combat.Safn1949 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply: M551 Sheridan crewmen had special indicator codes written after their MOS code when they graduated from armor school at Knox (AIT). But in Vietnam, the book was thrown out, and men were put where they were needed. Which is one reason, some Vietnam vets are the only tank crewmen MOS men that are entitled to wear the CIB (on orders), as many a tank man ended up being a grunt, when their unit re-deployed and they went to an infantry outfit.

The same thing occurred to M48 Patton crewmen; they didn't have M551 Sheridan training (no indicator code), but when their "armor battalion" re-deployed, clerks (from the recieving units) tried to put the newly transferred crewmen into a job that fit (the closest) to their MOS. With the M48 battalions gone, and only the mech and cav units remaining, many of the M48 men ended up on ACAVs and Sheridans (assigned to Cav and Mech Inf units). For former Patton crewmen, the Sheridan seemed faster, it whined alot compared to the low rumbling sounding diesel M48, it sounded like it went faster, with that "high pitched scream" it seemed to have. It seemed to pivet faster (neutral steer), and when going down a dirt road and up the other end (up and down a saddle/the "V" portion of the road), when there was mud waiting at the bottom, there was no sense of fear that the tank would become stuck down there, compared to a M48. Double center guide teeth appeared to give the M551 a more dependable ride; meaning the Sheridan would NOT throw a track as easily as an M48 would. Throwing a track was a tanker's nightmare in Vietnam; crewmen HAD to remain with the tank, even over-night in the middle of nowhere (yes security was assigned to the downed tank, but that didn't mean the men liked it!). Firing a broadside on the move was done, but not recommended, and if in the middle of nowhere (meaning they didn't want to break down and end up sleeping out there) then firing the machineguns (.50 & coax) was preferred over the main gun. Firing the 152mm main gun with a fan of L/R front fenders while moving was OK. While stopped; SOP. When striking a mine or taking a rocket, all men bailed out, ran for it, and let the Sheridan burn. For most young crewmen (18 to 20), the Sheridan was looked upon as "cool", like a new sports car. The more mature crewmen (23 or up) seemed to expect more, or seemingly knew more than the younger men, and sometimes seemed abit more critical of the M551. But the bottom line was this, new and exciting apart, an awful lot of Sheridans were blown up and burnt (melted) during the Vietnam War, but just about all of the Pattons were recovered (minus those captured by the NVA when they invaded in '75).

The Sheridan was NOT as much fun to shoot because it was so darn slow. But it was a bigger bang (like shooting a sawed off 10 gauge shotgun (imagining). The M48's during thunder runs, were alot faster shooting; like firing a bolt action 30-06 rifle as fast as you could while moving down the road. But crewmen didn't have to "grit their teeth" (waiting for that big explosion) when riding the M48, but they certainly did while going down the road in a Sheridan. Another words, driving a Patton tank in Vietnam was comfortable (not the seat itself, according to most crewmen, that was an extremely uncomfortable driver's seat), driving a Sheridan tank was tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.32.52 (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

General cleanup

I have done some general cleanup on grammar, and fixed some tone issues, but there are still some real issues in those areas. Particularly, a very conversational (rather than encyclopedic) tone and serious misuse of punctuation. Dpenn89 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Patton tanks

It came up that in an edit summary that all Patton tanks were 90mm. The M-60 series were also Pattons. The M-60, M-60A1, and M-60A3 were all 105mm. The M-60A2 had a 152mm gun. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the Source of your M60 "P" tank? The most noted authorities (US Army, Hunnicutt, Zalaga, to name few) do not agree with you. The M48A1 had no grill doors at its stern (rear end); the M48A2 had grill doors but was gasoline powered; the M48A3 was a diesel (used only the Viet War). The M48A5 was up-gunned (to a 105mm)to make a cheap man's version of an M60 MBT. The M46 Patton, M47 Patton, and the M48 Pattons 48 thru A3 were all 90mm gun tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.76.124 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gulf War

An IP keeps insisting we change the name of Gulf War. We're using the name in this article exactly as it appears in the Gulf War article. There is no reason to use a different name here than what we use for the article - other than that the IP doesn't like it. The IP also seems to object to calling it a war at all because the U.S. Congress never authorized a declaration of war. As a result, I'll revert these edits on sight unless others disagree. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The Iran/Iraq War 1980-1988 was often press released as the Gulf War. US personnel were killed in this conflict (e.g. USS Stark). 2. Operations Desert Storm & Iraqi Freedom are also located in the Persian Gulf, they also envolved Iraq, theres the confusion. 3. Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada 1983); Operation Just Cause (Panama 1989); Operation Restore Hope (Somalia 1992/93); Operation Desert Shield (Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Etc. 1990-a build up of coalition forces in Saudi Arabia); Operation Desert Storm (1991 the using of those built up coalition forces); Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) (Gulf War 1 or 2, or 3, or what?). Utilizing the official terms removes all doubt of "whats what."

And correct. The last war declared by the US Congress was WWII. The above listed operations were US military "Campaigns" (campaign=military operations to accomplish a military mission (goal). Example: Remove Iraqi military forces from Kuwait. Accomplished; Time performed: This than 2 months (Jan/Feb 1991). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.76.124 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

All you need to do is have the names of the related articles changed to reflect your own peculiar usage. Only then can you come here and use those names in this article. The basic principle is simple, we use the names of articles to refer to the events related by those articles. Rklawton (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)