MarineCorps
Explosion!
It was fully amphibious with screens raised on the side. Which makes me wonder why the Marines never adopted at least some of these.
M551 Sheridan Feb 12 2007
- Thread starter Wyrmshadow
- Start date
It was fully amphibious with screens raised on the side. Which makes me wonder why the Marines never adopted at least some of these.
Nice to see nobody reads my posts.
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
Ares de Borg
Norman Knight
Wyrmshadow
Deity
I think perfect is the right word. Looks like it came out of that old game Real War.
Ares de Borg
Norman Knight
Thanks bud. It's been a pleasure.
Have you guys considered going into business together?Best,
Oz
Keroro
Dororo: Ninja Frog
Yep, that does look perfect. Though Ares is just teasing us with his terrain again. 
Though Ares is just teasing us with his terrain again. 
Spacer One
Avatar subject to change
Thanks alot Ares...
MarineCorps
Explosion!
Great Job. Looks much better now.
Goldflash
Civ III Modder, Civ VII Player
I kinda wonder what wil happen first- Ares' Terrain or Gun'n'Roses Chinese Democracy
wallyskier
Chieftain
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.
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
wallyskier
Chieftain
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.