How Bad Was The M551 Sheridan?

[@wasteof0xygen]

My grandfather had worked on the m551 152mm gun and he told me that you could calibrate it to fir missles all day long but as soon as you fired a conventional round you would have to recalibrate the gun because the recoil would life it off the ground a bit and slam it down ruing the guns calibration

[@bigblue6917]

So basically if they had kept it as a missile it would have been fine. And one of they things that wanted to use against all those Soviet tanks was missiles. So what they needed to fire conventional rounds was something like a tank. Need I say more.

[@flanker1659]

Yeah of course

[@Echelon030]

@@sawyerlogon7666 Maybe he meant the T-55's turret. Though I don't know offhand if T-55s had that problem or if it was only the later Soviet tank designs.

[@DIVeltro]

The recoil of conventional ammo would knock the missile tracker out of alignment. I never fired one, but I crewed one in the 90's. The breech would operate alot faster then the video shows when electrically opened or closed. They addressed the issue of the combustible case residue via the CBSS. I'd really like to see the A1 version in game soon, or the ability to research it.

[@sawyerlogon7666]

@@Echelon030 I read in a book called the worlds most power full tanks about ammo and fuel were stored in close proximity to each other on the T-55/54

[@richardnixon7550]

"In early January 1969, the first Sheridans and their new equipment training teams arrived in Vietnam. The reception by the 11th Armored Cavalry was cool. Then, on January 29, two Sheridans were on picket duty along the Long Binh highway. At about 0230, the crewmen were alerted of movement to their front. The Sheridan searchlights were turned on, and enemy troops were sighted crossing a dirt road. Two 152mm rounds were fired, each sending hundreds of small, arrow-like flechettes down range. At daylight, 125 bodies were found, along with dozens of blood trails."

[@Aahmpower]

Flechette 152mm shell Jeez that's an overkill

[@worldoftancraft]

@@Aahmpower B Brutal

[@smoldoggy1005]

Are there any pics of the incident?

[@Saxony]

XM617 Beehive Anti-Personnel Round / M625 Canister Round.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@Aahmpower _37: There is no "overkill." There is only "open fire" and "reload."_

[@thomaswilloughby9901]

I was a Sheridan crewman in the 11th ACR in Germany. They were a mixed bag. In the late 1970s they were getting worn out and since they were on the way out parts were hard to come by. The recoil was extreme but the gun was quite accurate with HEAT rounds. The closed breech scavenging system when it worked prevented cook offs. We fired a gunnery table without it and I am still here. They were quick and very agile and could go places we couldn't once they were replaced with M60A1s. Strangely most M551 crewmen I know look back fondly on them. In Nam the crews that replaced M113s with them were quite happy. Those that gave up M48s were not.

[@grovehoLP]

How old are you

[@GregInEastTennessee]

That was a good description of them, Thomas. I agree. I think they were good scout vehicles. When we got the M-60s, I felt like I was running knee-deep in mud. The Sheridan's speed was a definite advantage. 😀 The Russians would have definitely known we were there!

[@NoOnesHome2025]

Yeah the one guy I know who served around them in the 82nd he loved the damned thing. But I think as service members we have odd love for pointless things like whatever we had is best at times. The nostalgia is tinted trauma and other factors.

[@EvilTwinn]

Honestly, I think that so long as people compare it to bigger tanks it's always going to be found lacking. But place it within its proper context: The M551 was really only in Airborne and Cavalry/Scout units. In those roles, its actual competition was the PT-76, BMDs, and even the ASU-85. And while the gun was liable to throw things off if you used conventional ammunition, the Shillelagh, while less reliable than you'd like, could be fired indefinitely with adequate effect on target before some of the heavier armored Soviet tanks in the 80s with ERA show up. Within that context, I think it's pretty darn good. There's only so much you can do with a vehicle within its constraints and while it doesn't work perfectly, if it was forced into combat beyond Panama it would have most likely served its crews adequately in a Cold War gone hot. It's more than capable of engaging in the counter-reconaissance fight against the Soviet equipment it would have faced and was just about the only thing you could give to the airborne units to give them armor of their own. Perhaps another vehicle might have served better, but I don't think that means the Sheridan couldn't have proven itself adequate in such a time.

[@Crembaw]

It blew up in the barrel dude. What context makes that reasonable?

[@tanklover385]

Patton's son made use of these tanks

[@EvilTwinn]

​@@Crembaw It could do that and did to some vehicles. However, I don't think that would have prevented the M551 fleet from performing adequately in a Cold War gone hot scenario. It was a problem, yeah, but the actual prevalence of that problem and the effect of others is overblown as compared to its efficacy in operations both real and projected.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@EvilTwinn However, spontaneous immolation is the kind of teething issue that should have seen the Sheridan pulled from the fight and not returned until it can fire all day long, in Vietnam's heat, NOT explode for any other reason than you were shot by the red team. Then you field the M551A1, death trap problems fixed.

[@EvilTwinn]

@@MostlyPennyCat Spontaneous immolation is a strong word. The barrels were already hot from firing. Measures were taken to avoid it in the future. You don't have to pull them off the lines to do that, especially when you kinda desperately need any kind of effective armor. I know it's not the answer you want, but sometimes accepting a less than perfect solution is fine because it's still an acceptable solution.

[@Fran-sr1sb]

Why doesnt it have a laser range finder in game?? That heat round is so hard to aim

[@Powerarmorgameing]

Try the starship is better in every way, and is under rated. Especially hull downed

[@potatofuryy]

The game version is an earlier version

[@Fran-sr1sb]

@@Powerarmorgameing i was told that other times, im still researching it. Does it come with laser rangefinder?

[@copycat5187]

Just use missles they are way better than heat

[@Fran-sr1sb]

@@copycat5187 yeah but you cant take a lot of em and heat is good for cqc

[@MrThebigch33se]

I remember meeting a commander of a Sheridan a few years back, had lots of stories about them. One time his unit was burning some jungle brush around a base and another Sheridan tried to push a burning tree over but some embers got into an open turret hatch and ignited some loose powder from a damaged shell. The crew bailed except the driver because his revolving crew hatch was locked and the TC had to rescue him by bashing the hatch open with a sledgehammer and pulling him free before the ammo cooked off. The day after the fire subsided they went to inspect the wreck and all that was left was the turret since the aluminum hull had melted from the heat. He loved the canister rounds due to how well they dealt with the thick jungle brush in Vietnam. He didn’t have any opinions on the Shillelagh since he only fired them in training. He also said the steel turrets had a tendency to crush the aluminum hulls when they were air dropped.

[@adrianradu2332]

MAN what a story... Imagine being that driver, unable to get out of a metal coffin, with a raging fire behind you. Truly scary.

[@JohnD201]

My grandfather was an engineer with several defense companies from the 50's through the 90's. At some point during that time his team was tasked with building the parachute system for the tank. It was the first time such that the military had ever tried to make an air droppable vehicle of that weight, so it became quite the project. After many months of work, his team got a working prototype. First, they ran tests with just blocks of metal that had the same basic weight distribution and density. After they got the system working consistently, they were asked to demonstrate it to a panel of military brass, who of course wanted to see system they just payed a lot of money for. For this test, they were going to drop a real Sheridan, followed by a crew to drive it. The idea was to show how the drop left the tank in a drivable condition. Day of the test comes, and the generals and colonels are sitting in bleachers set up in the desert as the transport aircraft lumbers overhead. My grandfather and several other engineers from the project where there as well. Rear cargo door of the plane opens up and the pallet with the Sheridan flies out the back. The tank gets safely away from the plane, and just keeps on falling and falling. Immediately the engineers knew that something was went way wrong when the main parachutes failed to deploy, and all hell was about to break loose in roughly 30 seconds when a brand new tank was about to impact the ground at terminal velocity. Of course the drop was a safe distance away from the observation bleachers, but you could still feel the ground vibrate as a million dollar tank got turned into the worlds most expensive pancake. Needless to say the tank crew that parachuted out afterwards was unable to drive the Sheridan off into the sunset.

[@Paramecium914]

I have an uncle who commanded these things in Vietnam. He said that the electronics were pretty unreliable, but thinks it would have been a pretty good vehicle going forward if they had managed to fix some of the bugs.

[@Fulcrum205]

1960s electronics weren't real reliable in general. It's like saying the F-86 was a bad design because the engine wasn't as reliable as a j79 or F100.

[@derrickstorm6976]

Next, "how bad will the M551 Sheridan be" 😂

[@swordsman1137]

Yeah.. I curious why he make 2 Sheridan videos that more or less have same content

[@GoldRaven-oe4by]

The t92 had almost zero problems and was universally agreed to be a pretty amazing tank and congress was like nah it can't swim

[@EmonWBKstudios]

How dare you bully this child, this little guy? He's just doing his best.

[@EmonWBKstudios]

And by "his best" I mean "at doing war crimes to the Vietnamese on behalf of capitalist imperialists"

[@themouthofsauron6926]

@@EmonWBKstudios communism is a crime against humanity

[@advanceit1377]

@@EmonWBKstudios Cope. McDonalds in Hanoi.

[@defenestrationismyfavoriteword]

@@EmonWBKstudios but its okay when the commies do it riiiiiiiight?

[@EmonWBKstudios]

@@advanceit1377 you can't afford the dollar menu, workers, rise up.

[@christopherwang4392]

During the 1980s, the Naval Surface Weapons Center experimented with installing the 105 mm Gun M68 in the turret of an M551 Sheridan and using the recoil system for the 152 mm gun-launcher. The cannon was trialed with and without a muzzle brake. Although the installation worked, it would have required significant development before it was satisfactory. The turret ring in particular couldn't quite handle the recoil force of the massive weapon and was damaged after some tests. However, it was deemed practical to mount a 105 mm gun on such a lightweight chassis. The experiment would influence the development behind the Armored Gun System (AGS).

[@Jessica_Johnson1995]

Hey spookston I was wondering if you could do one of these on the centurion I really like the way you don't sugar coat a vehicles performance so it would be interesting to hear you talk about the centurion since over here it's considered the best tank the British army has ever had. I'd love to hear you talk about peoples perceptions of military procurement and how it does and doesn't affect western countries foreign policy decisions if you don't mind anyway love your videos and keep up the good work.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

It's often considered the best tank full stop. In service from 1945 and technically it's _still_ in operational use (South African Olyphant)

[@orion9026]

I honestly just feel bad for this thing. Its performance is just laughable and the problems make me wonder why tf congress got to tell the army to stop making a promising thing because the enemy thing could _f l o a t_

[@Вольфрамище]

cuz army can't afford BOAT

[@bubbasbigblast8563]

Every military is plagued by The Great Gimmicks of their era: in the ancient past, it was Elephants, and in modern times, it's the do-everything vehicle. The small fact that the "do everything" part always has either an asterisk under all the features, or a ridiculously massive price tag, has still somehow managed to deter absolutely nobody.

[@MineCraftMichael432]

And guess what? That amphibious ability they asked for was severely gimped compared to PT, needing a flotation screen with considerable preparation time to float in the first place, crews saying firsthand it was leaky and uncomfortable, slow as shit in the water, not being able to use your gun in the water, and I'm pretty sure after Vietnam nobody bothered to use this amphibious "ability" on Sheridan anymore anyways.

[@alessiodecarolis]

Also bcz PT76's "amphibious" capabilities where obtained on its armour's expense, I read that pratically it was totally protect ONLY against splinters and 7,62 rounds, a .50 could've litterally shredded it. The congressmen generally are some of the worst enemies of the army, the T92 perhaps would've worked, but sadly, expecially in the'50/'60s there was a sort of fixation about weapons/aircrafts/tanks that could do everything (remember the F111's program?)☹️

[@adrianradu2332]

To be fair thought, I think amphibious capabilities on a Light tank are absolutely busted. It opens so many useful possibilities in its role that it is worth building a design around the concept. Not that the Sheridan was any good at it though lol.

[@clonescope2433]

A family member built circuit boards for the military and the Sheraton is used as an example of what not to do when it comes to circuit boards. Because the Sheridan had an issue of shaking the circuit boards loose which wouldn't cause immediate failure but over time especially after a few more shots and could cause failure of critical components. So for the several companies he worked with they use to Sheridan as a benchmark of what not to do a circuit board and its mounting hardware had to be able extreme forces many times more than what was expected in the vehicle that is to be put in.

[@lucass5980]

The M551 will always be a good tank in my heart (:

[@Paul91415]

I find it a bit odd that the US failed with the concept of the combined Gunlauncher and the Shillelagh missile. It seems the Soviets had a better approach. Instead of creating a new gun with a missile to launch through it, they just designed a missile for the existing gun. With all the T-55, 62, 64, 72, 80 and BMP-3, they had/have missiles for their guns. No matter of caliber like 100mm, 115 or 125mm, naming Bastion, Svir, Kobra missiles (depending on the variant).

[@Crosshair84]

Yup. They built a good tank gun, then built a missile that could be fired from it.

[@jeffreyprezalar220]

Where do you think the soviets got the idea.

[@Frenchdefense9404]

​@@jeffreyprezalar220well T-55 predates the M551

[@MM22966]

You'll notice the Russians have not used the AT-8 or any other gun missile in combat, or not so you'd notice.

[@tatianadashkova2143]

What? There is plenty of footage showing them using gun launched ATGMs

[@owenkegg5608]

My grandfather (also) worked on the Sheridan's electronics in Desert Storm. He did optics repair on it, and he speaks rather fondly of it. He referred to it as the "Sheridan Shillelagh" quite often which I found odd but I won't argue. He worked on the optics for the missile guidance, he said. Edit: fixed typo

[@thedungeondelver]

They were the first armor response in Saudi Arabia after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, and they used their Shillelagh missiles against Iraqi targets once the ground war went hot. The Shillelagh was comparable in performance to the TOW-II (though not the -b or other variants) in terms of penetration and flight speed. The issue with paper fragments in the bore detonating rounds was resolved (IIRC) with a compressed cold air evacuator. Part of the issue with the combustible cases in Vietnam was that moisture caused the cardboard casings to swell, which would make them split, and propellant would collect in the turret basket and hull floor, which made fires in the vehicle even worse. I seem to recall hearing that the casing material was changed to correct this but I could be mistaken. Regardless, yeah, it was a pretty bad vehicle.

[@mostlysquare]

seeing how this gun was used on the XM tanks maybe the next vid can be about the XM-1 and the 2 variants of it?

[@__--_-_-.__---___.__---__-]

The XM-1s have a 105mm gun

[@L0OkBEh1ndU]

@@__--_-_-.__---___.__---__- he's talking about the XM-803 and MBT-70 which both use the 152mm gun launcher.

[@copycat5187]

So im not the only one that mixes XM1 and XM803 way too much than he should!

[@mostlysquare]

@@L0OkBEh1ndU ah okay I assumed they were pretty similar. Thank you for the info!

[@jimmydesouza4375]

The 152 on the MBT-70 is actually an entirely different gun which is capable of firing high pressure/high velocity shells while also being capable of firing the shells of the M81. It also was far more durable and (supposedly) had none of the issues the 551 or starship had.

[@DFVaun]

The M551 just feels like it was designed way too early for what it was intended to be. If we went back and made the same thing now, it would probably be flawless, but with the tech of the time, serious teething issues were inevitable. Granted I'm biased because I just think they're neat.

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

That is pretty much the story of every weapons system developed in the 1960s. AiM-4 Falcon Missiles, early model AiM-7 sparrows, T-64 opposed piston engines, the list goes on. Frankly some hybrid of the m551 and the m50 ontos would have been pretty nice - I mean if the problem is recoil, then recoilless Rifes are the way to go - yes? Or turn it into an air-mobile MLRS, and leave AT to Man-portable LAWs for the airborne.

[@blackwoodsecurity531]

@@MrChainsawAardvark the problem is that recoilless rifles require the crew to be exposed to load or operate the system. I've no doubt a modern gun could be developed (maybe redirects gasses around the turret to the rear) but then you have to have infantry completely clear of the vehicle. 152mm HE is an objective as well. Troops working behind enemy lines need that level of firepower to deal with bunkers and other heavy fortifications that might be protecting their target. Just as well, an MBT may eat a HEAT shell or an ATGM (unlikely today, but you never know) 152mm HE is sort of an end-all-be-all. If it doesn't outright destroy the target, the shock alone disrupts external systems, exposed mechanics etc. Today, there isn't much need for paratroopers and other similar disruptive units to have such firepower, with the availability of air power in the warzone as the focus of an operation, but having the utility certainly wouldn't be shunned I imagine.

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

@@blackwoodsecurity531 I'm aware of the drawbacks of Recoilless artillery, but keeping in mind the date these things were developed - that is what would have been available. Arguably a separate TOW launcher like on the M2 Bradley and an autocannon would have fit the M551 better as well. We're looking to fill a similar niche as the BMD.

[@Predator20357]

The M41 when I used it in War Thunder, I was shocked with how it seemed way better than it was. The T-92 was also quite nice though it dealt with better tanks. The M551 Sheridan doesn’t seem fun to use in WT at all especially with the large recoil from the non missile round

[@chonkybird5189]

HE fun

[@Predator20357]

@@chonkybird5189 True but all Derp cannon HE is fun, it’s why I like the KV-2 despite sucking at being very tanky and having a crappy reload.

[@BlackHawkBallistic]

I absolutely love the Sheridan in WT but I hardly use the non-ATGM rounds, I top up when I run low on those. It has a huge punch and is very mobile. I love to flank and spank with it from far distance.

[@Tank50us]

The funny thing is, if we took the concept, and gave it a short barreled version of the M256/L44, we'd have a very capable tank for urban warfare

[@alperakyuz9702]

Add aps and remotely controlled machine guns for good measure. And a compeltely revamped armour utilizing recent advancements in metalurgy.

[@cnlbenmc]

It would still probably get knocked around by gun recoil and would need to use custom ammo or have even more ludicrous muzzle flash and muzzle blast pressure wave issues than the M256 already has.

[@alexey_chekhovich]

Basically you’ll end having a really shitty variation of Sprut-SD.

[@Echelon030]

Or an autocannon + ATGMs.

[@CruxG228]

You could go with a low-pressure 105mm gun like the CV90-105 or the Centauro, in fact

[@intuitivesean443]

I used to be a paratrooper in the 82nd 86-90 I saw one of those tanks burn 🔥 in on a heavy drop what a sight tank falling from the sky

[@Xeemix]

Whoa! I always wanted you to talk about the T-92, what a neat surprise in this video

[@hyperdimensionbliss]

"Instead of getting the best of both worlds, they ended up with a disaster." Perfect summary of everything that ever attempts to be a "jack of all trades."

[@lunatic_nebula9542]

"everything" ok bud keep going like this

[@advanceit1377]

No necessarily everything. Have a basis for things and you're fine. Chassis like the Sd. Kfz., Humvee, and M113 found many different roles.

[@savageshrimp4568]

soviet tanks are the jack of all trades imo

[@bro26mohw]

@@savageshrimp4568 definitely not. Their lack of gun depression and limited urban awareness makes them poor for both mountainous areas and urban areas. I’d go with the Leopard 2 series. Doesn’t use as much gas as the Abrams which means less logistics needed, it has good situational awareness, good gun depression, and high customization opportunities. I honestly think the russian tanks just have too many limiting factors in comparison to the nato designs, especially the leopard 2 series

[@felipeds3021]

@@savageshrimp4568 Yeah, The BMD's can be a Troop transport vehicle or a Mobile Grill

[@cepv_2305]

Funny enough we brazilians got a lot of the M41 units and we had to struggle with that tank in our army for more than a decade until we finally got the M60A3 TTS in the end of the cold war.

[@Paladin1873]

My youngest brother was the navigator aboard one of the C-141s that airdropped the ten Sheridans during Operation Just Cause. Most of them landed on the DZ, but one went splat when the chutes did not properly deploy and I believe another landed in a swamp. I still rib him about it, claiming it was his ship that dropped the one in the swamp due to poor navigation (never actually verified).

[@terryfowler6090]

I was an artillery forward observer with F-Troop 17th Cav Americal Div. We had Sheridans and the crews despised them.

[@DarkepyonX]

TEPAS guy here , I trained foreign allies in how to use old tanks we sold them in the 90s , we sold alot of ooold tanks including M60 and 551 . I actually enjoyed the Sheridan and it was fun to crew and the missile option was an interesting twist and last models had alot of missile issues fixed enough. Also it was ALWAYS interesting to see Tankers with jump wings 😂

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

That is pretty much the story of every weapons system developed in the 1960s. AiM-4 Falcon Missiles, early model AiM-7 sparrows, T-64 opposed piston engines, the list goes on. Frankly some hybrid of the m551 and the m50 ontos would have been pretty nice - I mean if the problem is recoil, then recoilless Rifes are the way to go - yes? Or turn it into an air-mobile MLRS, and leave AT to Man-portable LAWs for the airborne.

[@JimmySailor]

Was there ever any consideration given to developing a closed breach cannon capable of firing the 106mm projectiles from the M40 recoiless? Obviously a different propellant base would have to be used. Such a weapon could have given a light tank a highly effective AT weapon (~350mm of pen) out to 1500y and commonality of ammo development with all other 106 rounds. The performance of the 106 actually matches the 155 Heat round the 551 did actually get so the only downside is the lack of the missile for long range work. Not to mention to simplify range estimation the spotting rifle could be easily adapted as well. Something the Brits we’re doing contemporarily on their tanks. Basically, why wasn’t a low velocity 105 considered?

[@jimmydesouza4375]

Considering that closing the breech completely eliminates the entire point of recoilless ammunition, the idea of developing one seems strange. It'd have to be just as sturdy as a regular 105, because the ultimate amount of burning propellant per volume would be the same.

[@honkhonk8009]

yeah. its called the bradley

[@tim4570]

@@jimmydesouza4375 I think what this guy is saying is that redeveloping the 106mm to be a low recoil tank gun/launcher instead of the problematic 152mm, yknow just like with the bmp 1?

[@jimmydesouza4375]

@@tim4570 As far as I am aware, that's not what happened with the Grom. The Grom initially used the warheads from the SPG, but the entire rest of the case and of course gun is new development. And it only used the warheads from the SPG to development and logistics requirements (since the SPG was seen as good enough to destroy then current western tanks) and was always intended to get newer (IIRC non backwards compatible) warheads, which it did. Though I never looked it up in massive detail.

[@hschan5976]

@@jimmydesouza4375 Why not just mount a recoilless gun on the roof, and synchronise the elevation adjustments with the main gun via a connector, similar to how the Rocket pod is mounted on the Sherman Calliope?

[@MM22966]

That air drop during Just Cause in 1989...most of the tanks promptly got stuck in a swamp to one side of the airfield. The DZ had been covered by long grass, and they thought it was solid ground underneath. Only two were immediately recoverable out of (I think) seven. "Light" tank is a relative term!

[@ditzydoo4378]

I feel had the US armed the M-551 with the same M-54, 90mm high-velocity gun mounted on the M56 Scorpion of the same era. The Airborne force would have had a truly competent Airborne armored support vehicle they needed, instead of let's see what happens the Beta-test they got.

[@ZigaZagu]

Would be nice if it had a fucking laser range finder in game

[@CountSpartula]

I like the Sheridan a lot, though I've never been in one. It can do a lot of novel and useful things you don't appreciate until you need to do them. It sounds like the majority of problems with it could have been solved with a refit program to install a new gun. Something much lower caliber with more traditional munitions, maybe a chopped down version of one of the 105's paired with a rack of ATGMs on the exterior. Either way with any sort of overhaul and refit effort, these could have served with more distinction than they did. They also look damn good.

[@CMDRFandragon]

We want the T92 to be amphibious! AAI: We cant make that happen Congress: FINE! We'll just cancel you!!! Honestly, sounds about right... Sheridan: Its gun breaks the tank when it fires, its armor is trash, its recoil is crazy, its shells cause the tank to randomly explode, it kills crews Congress: WE'LL TAKE YOUR WHOLE BATCH!!!!! But....but its not even amphibious!!! Congress: Oh, umm, oh well....we will over look that minor detail. AAI: FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

[@victorrassnoff7351]

Gotta say my favorite light tank is the M18 by far

[@n8ivspat3n56]

I like the m18 for the speed but I like m36 I know that’s not a light tank but it is in the same line as the m18

[@lunatic_nebula9542]

@@n8ivspat3n56 super hellcat?

[@jacobdewey2053]

@@lunatic_nebula9542 M36 is the Jackson

[@lunatic_nebula9542]

@@jacobdewey2053 no i said that as in "super hellcat exsists"

[@jacobdewey2053]

@@lunatic_nebula9542 Gotcha, my bad

[@ncrranger.6634]

I`d like to see a video like this but on the m24 Chaffee or walker bulldog

[@spiritbear7781]

Really wish they'd add the damn upgraded version already. Thermal vision and laser rangefinder, would be so good for it's performance.

[@ABC21129]

I think it was more a victim of the era’s electronics rather than being a bad idea

[@MM22966]

David Drake (scifi author, Hammers Slammers) served in Nam with the 11th Blackhorse Cav, who had Sheridans. While he worked as an interrogator, not a tanker, his opinion formed from working/talking with Blackhorse tankers about the Sheridan was bad. It was apparently regarded as under-protected its the aluminum armor, and vulnerable to mines with its flat/thin hull.

[@657449]

When I was a tanker in 1968-71, the big feature that made it desirable was that it was air droppable .

[@Patches-vq8cd]

I hope one day, you do a vid on the churchill tank, or even a british tank

[@thelonious2213]

Could you do a "how bad is the Jagdtiger" video?

[@johnjewish766]

hi spookston, if you ever do more of your "everything wrong with" series, you should consider looking at foxholes tanks. They are alternate history tanks based on interwar/ww2 tank mixes.

[@jaxo2492]

yeah i guess it would be cool but im pretty sure he only does real tanks or things such as "tanks that could be added to warthunder".

[@johnjewish766]

@@jaxo2492 he did some reviews of warhammer 40k tanks, halo tanks, and fallout tanks a few years back.

[@jaxo2492]

@@johnjewish766 yeah ik watched all his videos. idk he may do something like that but for halo he kind of just looked at how realistic could that be and how effective would it be and same went for warhammer, so he may idk.

[@WildBillCox13]

M551: Task saturation, delicate ammo. Sitting in view, guiding a slow missile, while every enemy weapon in creation tries to kill you. Worst ever for recon, whose whole job is to remain unlocated. No mine protection-in country the TC and gunner rode with feet in the turret, bodies exposed, when in transit. Unloved by period tankees for good, solid, reasons. Glad it's gone. PT76 also an absolute stinker. Could not hit anything with the gun.

[@MrMarinus18]

3:33 That actually is an ancient concept called paper cartridges. Many guns of the mid 19th century used them. Maybe most famously the Prussian needle gun but also pretty much every single gun in the American civil war outside of a few muzzle loading relics. It wasn't until about the 20th century that metalurgy had improved enough to make reliable shell casings and manufacturing had developed to the point it could be made in large enough quantities.

[@Fulcrum205]

The early Sharp's rifles used a flammable, waxed paper cartridge. Brass cartridges came into use in the 1870s (notably in the Brit Martini-Henry of Zulu fame) but they were sheet brass wrapped around an iron case head. Drawn brass casingd weren't common until the 1890s

[@MrMarinus18]

@@Fulcrum205 The Martini-Henry was a bit of an outlier. Not only for it's use of metal cartridges but also for being the last service rifle that didn't have any repeating mechanism. Most countries went straight from paper to drawn brass. One of the first mass adoption of a drawn brass cartridge was the 1886 Label of France which also was the first one to use smokeless powder. Germany did the same thing. Going from the Needle gun to the 1888 Mauser (replaced quickly though with the much more famous 98 Mauser.)

[@MrMarinus18]

@@Fulcrum205 Though how practical those metal cartridges were is also questionable. Britain at the time was the most industrialized country in the world and also had a very small army because almost everything went into their navy. So I think Britain was the outlier here. A country like France with a massive army or the Ottoman empire with a primitive industry would have never adopted metal cartridges. Metal cartridges require a substantial industrial capacity and transport infrastructure. There actually were metal cartridges in the American civil war but they weren't adopted for mass use as they were deemed too expensive. Cause you make cartridges in such large quantities every cent of manufacturing cost adds up quickly.

[@Fulcrum205]

@MrMarinus18 I'm pretty sure the French had adopted wrapped brass by then. I know the Prussians had with the M1871 Werder rifle. The US was using the Springfield trapdoor by 1874. The US Army was not on the cutting edge of military technology at this point. Those old wrapped brass cartridges worked but they were definitely more delicate than drawn brass. It's why you see mostly single shot rifles as service arms. The sheet brass was too soft to work in a box magazine. As far as manufacturing, the industrial requirements are pretty low. Brass sheet was a cheap industrial product. The case head was usually cast iron, also a very common way to manufacture things. The primer was usually potassium perchlorate between a couple pieces of copper. As far as the actual manufacturing process was just crimping and soldering which was already common in the canning industry. Technology was moving extremely quickly in the decade from the 1860s to the 1890s. The real advances were in manufacturing. Leonardo Da Vinci or Archomedes could have built a breech loading repeater. It wasnt until the science of industry caught up that we could churn out thousands of identical copies and the millions of rounds of ammunition.

[@Fulcrum205]

@MrMarinus18 the Germans unified in 1871. Before then there were several different service rifles with the various principalities including the 1871 Mauser, the 1869 Werder, and couple others I can't remember. The French had a single shot bolt action, the Gras 1874, that replaced the needle system Chassepot that was their first breechloader. The Lebel was the first smokeless repeater. I don't know a damn thing about the Ottoman military of that period.

[@TheCDM930]

My grandpa did opfor games in the 80s and got to use some of these tanks in their modified configuration

[@Pepe_Le_Pew_Pew]

The Marine Corps is looking at acquiring a new light tank which in my mind is the natural evolution of the concept of the m551 as an AFV for lighter airborne/expidionary forces

[@thedungeondelver]

Oh so NOW they need tanks.

[@Pepe_Le_Pew_Pew]

They always needed some sort of direct fire armored capability however as the mission of the Marine Corps changes so does the equipment needs they are also looking at finally replacing the aav7 platform

[@RocketsQuintupled]

I hope we get the TTS variant in the future

[@tianhaoju4634]

folded under the M551 would be a great choice

[@williammcdorman6426]

After your video,I feel lucky to survive the vehicle.

[@leeionicatlas6461]

i honestly never knew the sheridan had a negative reputation at all, ive heard a lot of good things about it from former servicemen, oddly. just a cool looking design. also overpowered in WGALB

[@johnwitherell6662]

Having a 152mm HE gun on tracks to supplement mechanized infantry seems like a good thing compared to having only 30mm on bradleys and the 105mm Stryker MGS. The Sheridan is also C130 transportable unlike the bradley. I'd rather have a Sheridan with its gun than a stryker with the 105mm.

[@Edreinadar]

Could you do a video about how bad was the Churchill 7?

[@nolanchambers4408]

My friend was a mechanic on the M551 he said the engine tended to run away sometimes

[@MrRodgear4444]

I was a crewman on the M551 in the 4/12 Cav 5th infantry division, and i loved this track! Quick and very nimble, huge main gun and could traverse water, unless you have been in the belly of the M551 please don’t criticize a tank you have never served in

[@NSAspyvans]

just a thing during Just Cause some of the M551 Sheridan's dropped got destroyed on impact to the ground. tank encyclopedia has a big article on this

[@mtw56or]

Was on one in the 1974-76 time zone on the border a good track for its day

[@bushboi]

If the M551 had a laser range finder, why doesn't it have one in WT ? Yes it may be a earlier version in game but why not either give it the laser rangefinder so it can match the starship or just down tier it?

[@nikobellic5655]

Hey bro I have a question, what graphics settings do you play on because it always looks good but you get 150 fps, and I can’t imagine you have a super high spec computer.

[@NoOnesHome2025]

I think it was bad for the cav... but it was good for the airborne. Tankers would've hated it and probably preferred their M47/M48/M60 whichever they were familiar with at the time. Airborne Infantry, more accustomed to being completely surrounded would've been happy to have it. I used to work with a guy who was in the 82nd around the time of Operation Just Cause and it's kind of like his favorite toy. Last time I saw him he was still talking about it like it was one of his favorite children lol

[@christopherwang4392]

The M551 Sheridan was also experimentally fitted with a derivative of the 76 mm Gun M32A1 used by the M41 Walker Bulldog. It is interesting to note that Chile experimented with upgrading its M41 Walker Bulldogs with OTO Melara's 60 mm High-Velocity Medium Support (HVMS) Gun which is claimed to be capable of penetrating the side armor of the T-62 (15 to 79 mm thick) at 2,000 meters. Perhaps the 60 mm HVMS Gun could have been a viable upgrade option for the M551 Sheridan?

[@AllMightyKingBowser]

I think the experiments were made with the M24 Chaffee, not the M41... And the M-60 Sherman also exists, which has the same 60mm gun, and still is in service in Chile.

[@TheAngriestGamer.]

looking at this video makes me miss when missile guidance actually worked and wasnt shit... god i miss it so badly.

[@humanitysenterprise]

I just now realized he used one of the song from Subnautica as background music.

[@majorjimcossack179]

You videos are nice I watch your vids on my pc after my own "friend" sinking me on purpose in war thunder

[@fallrising5443]

I still have to research it though.

[@Falconguygaming]

Imo, it's better in game than the first Bradley

[@FakeNews123]

Just out of curiosity, why make a second video about this tank?

[@Crembaw]

I thought you already made this video

[@Falconguygaming]

I think that was mainly a troll to his friend

[@OhukaisMies_54]

@@Falconguygaming what do you mean?

[@Falconguygaming]

@@OhukaisMies_54 he talks about it in the first one

[@swordsman1137]

Okay okay.. Did you already make Sheridan video 2 weeks ago?

[@christopherwang4392]

It is possible that the M551 Sheridan could have been better employed as a tank destroyer / ATGM carrier in an armored battalion's anti-tank platoon supporting the main battle tanks.

[@diggman88]

I've heard it said that's what happened by the later cold war. The M551 was held on to and retasked for tank destroyer work. In theory to carry out ambush and retreat tactics against the advance forces of Soviet mechanized units. Their intended targets being the BMPs and older tanks in service.

[@MisterRz]

the fact that the M551 was used in the Gulf war is mind blowing enough, considering what type of a vehicle it is..

[@GMdieselman]

Kinda wish we had the ability to upgrade the M551 to the TTS variant in WT like the BMP-1’s can upgrade.

[@PASTLIF]

If war thunder added the XM551 Sheridan it would consider to be overpowered

[@terranghost2773]

I've loved the M551 Sheridan although it has a bad reputation the Sheridan was pretty good vehicle to drive around and be easily loaded onto a C-130 Hercules M551 Sheridan last conflict that took part was Operation Desert Shield most were used as reconnaissance however the Sheridan only engage Iraqi T55 tanks or Iraqi anti tank missiles An Interesting note the M551 Sheridan during Operation Desert Shield did not suffered from any mechanical breakdown during combat.

[@Sniper65615]

tbh Spookston can you try to check the tank history of Czechoslovakia tanks? like lights and mediums? idk if there were heavy tanks in blueprints but my guess that it would be most unlikely

[@whymeLIVE]

is this a re-upload? it seems like i saw this video a week ago

[@madcat3525]

didnt the M551 Sheridan tank was also used as a opfor tank?

[@dani98vc]

I have heard that it is made of aluminum. I would like to see that thing have a fire, surely there is no tank left. "for those who don't know, aluminum is flammable"

[@Callsign_Merkava]

Buying you pc at august looking on to it 👀

[@void4947]

Didn't spookston already make a video on the sheridan? Or am I missing something

[@lesthodson2802]

That tanker at 0:13 looks suspiciously like Nicholas Moran.

[@whither1098]

3:32 so like, “projectile disfunction”?

[@loganward3929]

Sheridan moment

[@TeraQuad]

Special place in my heart for this tank.

[@zakauf2658]

Its a shame that the T92 was never put into miltary service. Based on the design of the T92, it put much more emphasis on crew survivability compared to the M551. With it having a low profile, rear crew hatch, and traditionally cased ammo less tankers would have died.

[@s4dg]

i would like to see one of these videos about the M24 chaffee

[@chuckfinley6156]

yeah, the combat version of the Sheridan probably sucked. the main gun wouldn't stay bore sited and I'll bet 12.7 rattled the Hell out of it, but the M-551s we had at NTC were a total blast to drive and maintain. stripped down for the OPFOR, those things hauled ass. the only real problem we had were totaled torsion bar caps that rounded out the aluminum holes in the hull. way more fun than a M-60a3. Steel on Steel.

[@alexpearson3604]

Do a video on the challenger 2 myths

[@robgraham5697]

First I heard of the Sheridan was in a tabletop game by SPI called 'Firefight'. Never heard another peep about it until 'War Thunder'. That's about a 50 year gap. Not the mark of an excellent tank, in my opinion.

[@erik260196]

Battlefield Vietnam my man.

[@JonWeiss]

The M551A1 was not a "Tank" it was never designed or intended to be a "Tank" , It was in fact an AAARV (Airborne Assault Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle). The M24 and M41 were also mentioned and these too were not designed as MBTs. They were "light reconnaissance vehicles". At 25 Tons and made of aluminium, the M551 was no equal of the 50 ton M48 series or the 52 ton M60 series which were in fact Main Battle Tanks.

[@bmac7643]

Supposedly there was a proposal to mount the same gun as the bulldog in the Sheridan except it would be modified with an autoloader

[@jplabs456]

I just love Congress' logic. *Light tank that looks very promising is in development* Congress: 'What? tHe CoMmIeS have an amphibious light tank? We need to make our new light tank amphibious! MAKE IT FLOAT! We don't need two specialised vehicles, just make that one you're working on float!' AAI: 'Yeah there's no way this thing is going to be amphibious. We're too far in development.' Congress: 'THEN YOUR PROJECT IS CANCELLED!' And at the end of the day, not only did they not have a competent amphibious tank, they didn't have the T92 either.

[@CounterCraftYT]

1:27 Idk man but the T71 gives me real Panther vibes …

[@jangustl_wt2358]

more like a T95E1 but small.

[@LtCWest]

Eyo, I would like to know what your grapical settings are, Ive only recently started playing but holy shit are the shadows black as the night, legit cant see a tank right in front of me if its hiding in a shadow. Also, it creates a massive contrast with the surrounding light, which is really straining on the eyes.

[@HANGING_SILVER]

Id love to see some vids about swedish tanks, i think they have some very interesting vehicles.

[@Hiltuskaxd]

Aint this a reupload im sure i saw this 1-3 weeks ago

[@meesdoetregie]

2:15 imagine being cancelled because of the pt-76b

[@PotatoeJoe69]

Like it or not the Sheridan is the granddaddy of all modern IFV's.

[@robingrewal8103]

I would say bmp1

[@rokinz3270]

God that t71 looks like a panther but with a shrunken hull