Talk:M551 Sheridan

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

message: 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)
thread_title: ==================================================

message: 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)
thread_title:  combustible cartridge casing; electrical breach operation 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Someone asked why 88,000 missiles... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Only air deployable tank? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Operation Just Cause (Panama 1989) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replacement 

message: 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)
thread_title: General cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title: Patton tanks

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Gulf War]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on M551 Sheridan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130507024758/http://www.history.army.mil:80/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/cav/004cv003sq.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/cav/004cv003sq.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M551 Sheridan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HlRPltjqfoEJ:stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai%3F%26verb%3DgetRecord%26metadataPrefix%3Dhtml%26identifier%3DADD702138+m551+sheridan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&client=firefox-a with https://web.archive.org/web/20110714215834/http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai on http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADD702138
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703041731/https://www.firstdivisionmuseum.org/museum/exhibits/tankpark/M551A1.aspx to http://www.firstdivisionmuseum.org/museum/exhibits/tankpark/M551A1.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M551 Sheridan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305122855/http://www.asomf.org/pages/main_exhibits.php to http://www.asomf.org/pages/main_exhibits.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130130033922/http://www.eaglehorse.org/4_ftx_gunnery/equipment/M551/sheridan_m551.htm to http://www.eaglehorse.org/4_ftx_gunnery/equipment/M551/sheridan_m551.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified