griffenj%db1_pdx@ncube.com (Jeff Griffen) (03/08/91)
From: griffenj%db1_pdx@ncube.com (Jeff Griffen) Now that the bandwidth has cooled somewhat, I have a question: If Buddha, Mohammed, and Jesus were all in today's US Armed Forces, which infantry rifle would they prefer, what fighter would they fly, which operating system would they like best, and would they vote Democrat or Republican, and why? Just Kidding. My real question involves the M551 Sheridan. I was suprised to see them being used by units operating in the Gulf War. I had thought that they had died a quick, quiet death after the Army had some operational experience with them. My understanding (subjective sources): 1) The armor wasn't particularly effective. 2) The main gun wasn't particularly effective (see any M60A2s in the Gulf?). 3) An encounter with a large mine (>30 pounds) tended to make the ammunition inside go off (which is not particularly desirable in a combat vehicle). Can anybody (authoritatively) enlighten me as to how the Marines are using these operationally? PS. A friend has a 3'x3' plate of armor from a Sheridan. He can't *do* anything with it, since its too hard to cut with a saw and disperses heat too quickly to cut with a torch. But he has it. Tanks, - Jeff griffenj@ncube.com Saddam's down, how about Gamora?
6600bwg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Barney W. Greinke) (03/14/91)
From: 6600bwg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Barney W. Greinke) Isn't the Sheridan the US's only air-dropable tank? I thought the Sheridan was used by airborne units such as the 82nd and 101st (both of whom were in the gulf).
v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (03/14/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1991Mar8.024137.11028@cbnews.att.com>, griffenj%db1_pdx@ncube.com (Jeff Griffen) writes... >Can anybody (authoritatively) enlighten me as to how the Marines are >using these operationally? I haven't heard anything about anyone other that the 82nd Airborne using them, but anyway... The 82nd uses it because it is the only tank that can be dropped from a trans- port plane. It's a great vehical as long as it doesn't get hit. Many of the problems it had during Vietnam have supposedly been fixed by now. Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/14/91)
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) >From: griffenj%db1_pdx@ncube.com (Jeff Griffen) > >My real question involves the M551 Sheridan. I was suprised to see >them being used by units operating in the Gulf War. I had thought >that they had died a quick, quiet death after the Army had some >operational experience with them. There isn't much armor around that can be usefully airdropped. The M551 weighs in around 16 tons...the M1A1 closer to 60. I understand that the M551 is only currently used by Airborne units. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) (03/15/91)
From: voder!nsc!berlioz.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) In article <1991Mar14.015744.20143@cbnews.att.com> 6600bwg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Barney W. Greinke) writes: > >I thought the Sheridan was used by airborne units >such as the 82nd and 101st (both of whom were in >the gulf). Just a nit: the 101st is not an Airborne unit; rather it's an Airmobile unit with Airborne components. Alan Hepburn ex Co C 1/504 ABN INF 82D ABN DIV RECONDO! -- Alan Hepburn "Those who expect to reap the blessings of liberty National Semiconductor must, like men, undergo the fatigue of Santa Clara, Ca supporting it." alan@berlioz.nsc.com Thomas Paine
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (03/18/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > >My real question involves the M551 Sheridan. I was suprised to see > >them being used by units operating in the Gulf War. I had thought > >that they had died a quick, quiet death after the Army had some > >operational experience with them. > > There isn't much armor around that can be usefully airdropped. > > The M551 weighs in around 16 tons...the M1A1 closer to 60. > > I understand that the M551 is only currently used by Airborne units. The M551 Sheridan remains as the armor force for the 82nd Airborne. It can be rigged for a heavy equipment drop - but more likely flown into a secured tactical airfield and driven off. I don't think there are any Sheridans left in the 101st - essentially and Air Assault force with helicoptors - and helo gunships providing "tank-like" fire support. The M551 Sheridan, along with the M114 Cav APC, were initially the vehicle organic to armored cavalry units (divisional cav squadrons, and armored cav regiments). Supposedly, they would be light, fast, with only enough firepower and armor to get them out of trouble (to keep from becoming "decisively engaged"). The M114 had a terrible maintenance record and was soon dropped from the army inventory (replaced initially by M113s and eventually by M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle - CFV). The M551 Sheridan just did not have the fire power nor armor protection, now to keep up with the M113s nor to provide all the missions required of the cavalry as a strong fighting force if needed. So - the M551 was replaced by the M60A1. The cav units were the last to upgrade to M60A3 - essentially receiving the M60A3s from units now equipped with the M1. Now - all active Cav units are equipped with the M1. Still - the tank is only there to get their scouts out of trouble (by doctrine). So, now, the 82d Abn has the M551 for their tank force - they were also used in Panama - and I understand - very effectively. The story is told that a 1st Armored Div tank commander, parked next to an 82nd M551, pointed to his M1 and said, "This is your tank." And pointed to the M551 said, "This is your tank on drugs." mike schmitt
dl3a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Christopher Ladd) (03/18/91)
From: Daniel Christopher Ladd <dl3a+@andrew.cmu.edu> The Sheridan is used operationally by only 1 battalion in the U.S. (or any) Army. The 3 Battalion, 73rd Armor, a unit of the 82nd Airborne Division, operates 54 Sheridans. Its maintainence unit also holds 3 or 4 spares as replacements. The Sheridan was dropped in combat for the first time in 1989 in the invasion of Panama, when 2 platoons (8 vehicles) of C company were dropped with the 82nd. It has not been revealed how this unit was recently used in Iraq. In addition, the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, California, operates VISMOD (Visually Modified) Sheridans in a training role. They have the gun barrels removed and fiberglass panels attached to make them resemble Soviet vehicles for use by the Opposing Forces. They have been modified to resemble the T-72, ZSU-23-4 and BMP-1, and are treated as such for the large scale wargames that occur at the NTC (and are partially responsible for US tactical sucesses in Iraq/Kuwait). These vehicles are not used as combat vehicles, just as training vehicles. Although the Army has large stocks of Soviet equipment, mostly from the Israelis, they do not have sufficient spare parts to operate those captured systems (although now things may change...) The Sheridan was originally issued to Airborne, Armoured Cavalry and scout units. They were susectable to heavy MG and mine attacks, and the 152mm Gun/Missile launcher has serious problems. The Shileghleigh(sp.) missile is hard to control, giving a minimum range of 1250m, while the maximum effective range of the gun was 1000m (with the original equipment). This left a 250m gap where enemy tanks would be relatively safe from Sheridan attack, and was the main reason for the removal of the M-60A2 from service. In addition, the recoil of the gun had a tendency to jar the missile guidance system out of alignment. However, now these problems have been solved, and the M551's of the 82nd mount the thermal sight and fire control equipment of the M60A3 tank. However, the fate of most Sheridans, of which over 1000 were built, is now to sit on the lawns of Army installations across the USA or else to be broken up and made into razor blades... Daniel Ladd US Army ROTC Carnegie Mellon University/ University of Pittsburgh