M551 Sheridan withdrawal from service

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:43 pm

According to Hunnicutt, "Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank, Vol II," Sheridans were withdrawn from service in 1978, except for those serving in the airborne battalion with 82nd and 11ACR aggressor unit at NTC. A few of us have been discussing this question in backchannels.

shawno · Post by **shawno** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:08 am

It will be interesting to see what results from the US Army Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:28 am

I keep hoping the light tank problem will be solved. It could work for the Marines, as well. They may need the space and weight saved by eliminating M1s, but a maneuverable direct fire gun system is extremely useful in a battlefield. The Stryker MGS is a no-go.
.

shawno · Post by **shawno** » Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:22 am

I agree.

If it were up to me, I'd still want to retain some "real" tanks for Marine units, but I could definitely see a use for a light tank for these distributed, island-hopping type missions they see themselves conducting.

Definitely something tracked, packing 120mm.

chrisswim · Post by **chrisswim** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:59 am

Turret with 40â€”75 mm gun. An idea with CV90-40 weapon.
Put it on light hull. Should ATGM be on the new system?

shawno · Post by **shawno** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:34 am

chrisswim wrote:Turret with 40â€”75 mm gun. An idea with CV90-40 weapon.
Put it on light hull. Should ATGM be on the new system?

So I'm actually in the process of building an airborne/airmobile unit of my own design right now.

I'm using the GHQ CV90105 as my light tank until something better comes along. Pretty sure the turret on the model is based off the Cockerill XC-8, and I believe that it is capable of firing a gun-launched ATGM. Weight of the CV90105 is around 25t IIRC.

Now, were I building my own light tank, it would be armed with 120mm at least as well as a gun-launched missile capable of top attack.

panzergator · Post by **panzergator** » Sat Mar 28, 2020 11:19 pm

Good concept, Shawno. But missiles means fewer rounds gun carried. I favor separate vehicles. One can carry more missiles, the other more bullets.

shawno · Post by **shawno** » Sun Mar 29, 2020 2:23 am

Of course there will always be a compromise. If space/weight considerations are not an issue, I would prefer separate vehicles as well. However, for airborne/airmobile or dispersed marine operations, you may have to choose between the two capabilities. With a common gun/launcher, you could potentially mitigate some of that risk...you'd just have to work out the right mix of ammunition into your planning.

Definitely not ideal, I agree. But perhaps better than nothing.