The M551 Sheridan is a light tank and armoured reconnaissance vehicle, developed by the United States, and named after Civil War General Philip Sheridan. It could be air dropped, and was armed with the unique MGM-51 Shillelagh gun-lauched missle system. Now retired from service, it saw combat in Vietnam, Operation Just Cause in Panama, and Operation Desert Shield.

Operators
United States (in Reserve Storage after the 1990s)
Singapore (in Reserve Storage)

Thanks to 19Delta for the model.
Download (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=4144&act=down)
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h199/Wyrmshadow3/Civstuff/082773ec.jpg
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h199/Wyrmshadow3/Civstuff/Sheridan.gif
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h199/Wyrmshadow3/Civstuff/Other.gif

Glad you got it to work. Looks like you toned down the textures to make it happen... (note to self: remember this when running into rendering problems.)
Nice job on the paradrop and smokescreen anims, particularly.

Yeah, the smoke screen is great, I don't think that I've seen a unit that does that yet. I also particularly like the attack anim, the best I've seen for a tank IMO. :goodjob:

Yeah, the smoke screen is great, I don't think that I've seen a unit that does that yet. I also particularly like the attack anim, the best I've seen for a tank IMO. :goodjob:

Don't get out much do you? It's the exact same attack I use for all my tanks.

Don't get out much do you? It's the exact same attack I use for all my tanks.
Hmm, interesting. You're right that I don't get out much (in the modern era anyway, I see plenty of the ancient past :)). Maybe it's just that I haven't seen previews of your tanks in the past, only static images like those in your WWI tanks thread. Anyway, the important part of the message is that I really like the way the attack is put together. :goodjob:

Excellent in every respect, from the pallet in the drop to the tank's name. :thumbsup:

Best,

Oz

Thanks again (for probably the 8th time). I'm working on building a K-1 model, but I want to animate that one. You wouldn't care to give me some advice when I get to that stage would you?

Great job as always, I really like that palletized paradrop animation the breaking effect is very unique. This really is an interesting unit not only airdroppable but also amphibious: Max water speed 3.6mph.

Looks great, like most, I like the smokescreen and paradrop animation.

Sweet! Parachute equipped tanks! :D

Sweetness. This unit rocks! :goodjob:

It's a shame that the US is using a lot of these tanks to build coral reefs. I saw a picture somewhere. They just us a crane and toss them into the water like you would piece of trash. There is still a working model in the Patton museum though.

It's a shame that the US is using a lot of these tanks to build coral reefs. I saw a picture somewhere. They just us a crane and toss them into the water like you would piece of trash

That is wrong on so many levels.:(

That is wrong on so many levels.:(

Why? The tank dates from 1966, and there were always problems with the 152mm gun / Shillelagh missile system. That it wasn't replaced by another air-droppable tank is IMHO the real shame.

Best,

Oz

FYI: I also have a K1 tank model.

@BK: I didn't want to do the C-130 drop so I went with a Soviet style rocket braking system. I doubt the US has this type.

Very very nice and great unit!~ This unit... I say: cool!!~

Think I could get that K1 model?

this tank is great...excellent work Wyrm...I really like the airdrop animation...

I know Wyrm doesnt take kindly to requests, so would anyone else be willing to re-color this to standard OD green?...(in my MWNN there are specifically Desert tanks, and I want this to replace the Fast Modern tank instead)

Ares would be the one to do any recoloring. I did the pallete simple enough to be able to change the colors.

Why? The tank dates from 1966, and there were always problems with the 152mm gun / Shillelagh missile system. That it wasn't replaced by another air-droppable tank is IMHO the real shame.

Best,

Oz

So? THe B-52 has been around since 54. Granted it has been upgraded. Besides, I don't think we even have a replacement for the M551.

There were 2 developed, the Stingray tank and the Buford armored gun system. Both promising, both not adopted.

So? THe B-52 has been around since 54. Granted it has been upgraded. Besides, I don't think we even have a replacement for the M551.

Ever heard of the Stryker?

Ever heard of the Stryker?

What the hell does that have anything to do with ANYTHING? I actually had to punch myself in the head after I read that statement. WTF??

The arguement was about throwing away nostalgic pieces of military equipment. Ozy said the tank is from 1966 and it was being thrown away for being obsolete. MarineCorps added in that the B-52 will be flying until 2040 because of various upgrade programs...so why couldn't they do the same with the Sheridan.

You..... on the other hand.... or other foot after you pulled it out of your mouth... decided to mention the Stryker. WTF does that have to do with anything? Since its the 4th aniversary of me having a nervous breakdown... I'm feeling particularly cranky this morning.. and I'm going to take it out on you.

The Stryker has no place in this conversation. It is a MODERN 8 wheeled HEAVY APC. Infact, it's even larger/heavier than the Sheridan and it fills a completely different battlefield role. It's not an ancient tank, its not even air droppable, why even mention it when it is completely off topic? SHEEESH.

If you're feeling cranky, better not post at all rather than "take it out" on people for getting something wrong - warned.

From what I read on the internet there are 2 different possible replacements for the sheridan but neither has been adopted. Wyrm your right on the rocket braking, still looks good though.

@Wyrm


Sorry:sad: I'm quite sure though that the Stryker or atleast one of it's umpteen variants is an airdroppable tank type vehicle with 105mm gun and a similar mission to the Sheridan. I'll have to look it up again maybe I got it confused with something else... Anyway chill out would you?

Also if I remember correctly the Sheridan was fased out because it didn't do the job properly unlike the B-52 which worked/works very well the Sheridan wasn't an effective design.

There were 2 developed, the Stingray tank and the Buford armored gun system. Both promising, both not adopted.

I was thinking about the Buford system as I wrote. Had to do a search through my email but I managed to dig up this 3 year old article.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Buford,,00.html?ESRC=soldierte ch.nl


@Wyrm


Sorry:sad: I'm quite sure though that the Stryker or atleast one of it's umpteen variants is an airdroppable tank type vehicle with 105mm gun and a similar mission to the Sheridan. I'll have to look it up again maybe I got it confused with something else... Anyway chill out would you?

Also if I remember correctly the Sheridan was fased out because it didn't do the job properly unlike the B-52 which worked/works very well the Sheridan wasn't an effective design.

The Stryker is not Air drop able. It is transportable by air. Barely but it can be moved by a C130. It can not be dropped on the battle field and be ready for combat. The one with a 105MM gun is an Gun system a big one at that. They just took the gun off a M1 Tank and stuck it on the top of the Stryker. So not a Light Tank.

The Stryker is not Air drop able. It is transportable by air. Barely but it can be moved by a C130. It can not be dropped on the battle field and be ready for combat. The one with a 105MM gun is an Gun system a big one at that. They just took the gun off a M1 Tank and stuck it on the top of the Stryker. So not a Light Tank.

Yeah my bad, I was thinking of something called the "M8 Amored Gun System" or AGS.

Sorry

The Stryker defenitely needs to go back to the drawing board. Anybody remember that movie Pentagon Wars about the Bradley. Yeah the Bradley is a good vehicle now, but that movie showed how the people with shiny stuff on their collars actually thought about us when procurring that vehicle. The Army wanted an armored vehicle that could be transported by C-130 up to 600 miles with a full combat load. For those who don't know what combat load means, they wanted it to be able to roll off the plane with guns blazing if need be. The only problem is, the Stryker is only C-130 transportable without a full combat load, under ideal conditions maybe 450 miles. In higher altitudes (like the mountains of Afganistan or Korea) a C-130 can't even get off the ground. That's your tax dollars at work. Sorry if I'm ranting about the Stryker. I don't think that it's necessarily a bad vehicle, and I'm sure it can do the job that the Army wants it to do, but I'm tired of hearing about all of these politicians and businessmen being involved in warmaking. That should be left up to the people that will go out and have to fight the war.

On a lighter note, you wouldn't care to share that K-1 model would you Wyrm?

I already sent it.

Since you asked me to do that...

Work in Progress

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/51326/Sheridan.gif

Oh my that looks good. thanks for doing that recoloring.

Exactly the reason I set it up as simply as I could so that Ares could convert it. Plus I didn't want to sit through another 2 nights of rendering. IFFFF, it would even work with another texture. Although you could make it a little darker.

Got the model. I don't know about it though. I think I will keep working on mine and then I will post them both and see which is better. Thanks.

I guess I'll go for a more weathered look.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/51326/m551b.jpg

Fidget WIP preview

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/51326/m551Fidget.gif

Definately nicer. And it probably took you a lot less time that it did me.

The Stryker defenitely needs to go back to the drawing board. Anybody remember that movie Pentagon Wars about the Bradley. Yeah the Bradley is a good vehicle now, but that movie showed how the people with shiny stuff on their collars actually thought about us when procurring that vehicle. The Army wanted an armored vehicle that could be transported by C-130 up to 600 miles with a full combat load. For those who don't know what combat load means, they wanted it to be able to roll off the plane with guns blazing if need be. The only problem is, the Stryker is only C-130 transportable without a full combat load, under ideal conditions maybe 450 miles. In higher altitudes (like the mountains of Afganistan or Korea) a C-130 can't even get off the ground. That's your tax dollars at work. Sorry if I'm ranting about the Stryker. I don't think that it's necessarily a bad vehicle, and I'm sure it can do the job that the Army wants it to do, but I'm tired of hearing about all of these politicians and businessmen being involved in warmaking. That should be left up to the people that will go out and have to fight the war.

Another disadvantage the Stryker has, is that it is a wheeled vehicle. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that wheeled vehicles are very bad when it comes to attacks by IEDs and roadside bombs. Once you lose your tires, you are basically a sitting duck...

I have no idea why the Pentagon replaced the M113 series with something like the Stryker...

Plus the recoil on the MGS is jus too heavy for the Stryker platform. There was a photo circulating with the gun being fired 45' to its long axis..... but keen observers saw that some braces were put up on the opposite side to keep the whole vehicle from tipping over.

They wanted to put a 120 mm main gun on the MGS, but during testing the damn thing flipped over when fired to the sides. I think that's the reason they went to a 105 mm gun. The Buford XM8 had that problem with the 105 they put on it, but they put a recoil absortion system in it and that solved all of the problems. As far as mobility and speed, the Stryker has a lot of it. Wheeled vehicles can move faster than tracked vehicles, but it's pretty hard to change a tire the size of a full grown man assuming that there is still a spot to put the tire on, and what makes it even more difficult, is that fact that spares aren't usually carried. It's not that hard to change a damaged section of track. The Sheridan, with some upgrades to armor and fire control, could work very well in an urban environment. The gun and some of the ammo is big enough to make an impact, whether physical or psychological, it's short enough to traverse in most streets, and it is light enough to be moved around the battlefield quickly.

The Sheridan, with some upgrades to armor and fire control, could work very well in an urban environment. The gun and some of the ammo is big enough to make an impact, whether physical or psychological, it's short enough to traverse in most streets, and it is light enough to be moved around the battlefield quickly.

The problem with upgrading the armor was that it was made out of aluminum - it could be readily penetrated by RPGs and even small arms fire. "Upgrading" would have meant using MBT armor of some sort which would have greatly increased its weight. Ammo storage was/is also a problem - IIRC something like 20 conventional rounds and 12 missiles.

Granted, maybe better than nothing, and - like any other weapons system - there are no doubt combat situations in which its presence would be welcome. But the "wheeled AFV mafia" seems to have put an end to all that.

Interesting side note: IIRC the M551 was originally meant to be an amphibious, not air-dropped, tank.


C'est la guerre,

Oz

Interesting side note: IIRC the M551 was originally meant to be an amphibious, not air-dropped, tank.

Oz

It was fully amphibious with screens raised on the side. Which makes me wonder why the Marines never adopted at least some of these.

Great job as always, I really like that palletized paradrop animation the breaking effect is very unique. This really is an interesting unit not only airdroppable but also amphibious: Max water speed 3.6mph.

Nice to see nobody reads my posts.

Nice to see nobody reads my posts.

:confused: Quite the contrary. I personally consider your posts to be thoughtful and helpful. If you're referrring to the amphibious nature of the tank, I believe the posts following yours were elaborations, neither ignoring nor contradicting your statements.

All The Best,

Oz

Ok........sometimes I get frustrated.
Marine Corp it is intersting that the marines never adopted the vehicle, although it might be because its amphibious mode was slow and very limited.

Done.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/51326/nam_m551SM.jpg (http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/51326/nam_m551LG.jpg)

Click picture for larger version.


Click HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165385) for the unit.


Have fun, guys. And Wyrm: Great job!

PS: I've made a working ini with sounds, tell me if you like them.

I think perfect is the right word. Looks like it came out of that old game Real War.

Thanks bud. It's been a pleasure.

:goodjob: Have you guys considered going into business together?

Best,

Oz

Yep, that does look perfect. :goodjob: Though Ares is just teasing us with his terrain again. ;)

Thanks alot Ares...

Great job.............and yes he is teasing us with that terrain.

Great Job. Looks much better now.

I kinda wonder what wil happen first- Ares' Terrain or Gun'n'Roses Chinese Democracy

Well, there was a replacement for the M551- it was called the XM-8 Buford and was cancelled in 1996. It had a 105mm rifle mounted with an autoloader so the crew was three. I did hear that thanks to Iraq the 82nd is re-evaluating them for use, or at least looking at them, but that was from Wikipedia and also from 2004.
The Sheridan was a maintenance nightmare and even the NTC got rid of them. The whole gun/missile system was also tried on the M-60A2 tank, which also bit the dust due to issues. It had one huge honkin' cupola on it and a very bizarre turret shape that looked like a retangular box on a bagel.

There are a lot of failed US tanks out there. Do a search for the M-103 to see one very large tank.

Well, there was a replacement for the M551- it was called the XM-8 Buford and was cancelled in 1996. It had a 105mm rifle mounted with an autoloader so the crew was three. I did hear that thanks to Iraq the 82nd is re-evaluating them for use, or at least looking at them, but that was from Wikipedia and also from 2004.
The Sheridan was a maintenance nightmare and even the NTC got rid of them. The whole gun/missile system was also tried on the M-60A2 tank, which also bit the dust due to issues. It had one huge honkin' cupola on it and a very bizarre turret shape that looked like a retangular box on a bagel.

There are a lot of failed US tanks out there. Do a search for the M-103 to see one very large tank.

I think part of that entire era's (ca. late 1960s) problem was simply defining precisely which AFV was to be used in what capacity, with what fuel plant (recall the Abrams uses gasoline not diesel fuel) and, more importantly, precisely for what mission. I would suggest the best case in point was the Army's first design attempts to replace the M-60 MBT with the XMBT-70, which - on paper - was simply a set of M-60 design specs but bigger, faster, better - but with no clear doctrinal statements (e.g., ultimate integrating of the M1 and M2 series of AFVs). Recall that the Army was caught between fighting a hot war in Vietnam and a cold one in Europe (Cuban Missile Crisis aside, I would argue that the most dangerous height of the Cold War was ca. 1973).

Because of politics and competing agendas, what is so often lost even - especially - in AFV development and implementation is the engineer's dictum that Form Follows Function: figure out what you want to achieve first, then (as long as it's not a well-intentioned Frankenstein's monster like the Sheridan) design it accordingly. Hence the M1 and M2 family of vehicles.

Best,

Oz

This is getting off subject of discussing an excellent rendering of the M551, but doing a scenario of the Fulda Gap in 1973 would be an interesting fight to see: M-60A1's and M113's versus BMP-1's, T-62's, T-72's and PT-76's. The whole REFORGER concept would be a challenge to program for the budding scenario designer.