M551 Sheridan Feb 12 2007

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

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. WTH 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.

Moderator Action: If you're feeling cranky, better not post at all rather than "take it out" on people for getting something wrong - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
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=soldiertech.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

Sheridan.gif
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom