|
Outside Dawg posted:You can't bring up the Sheridan without bringing up its MBT, Shillelagh firing, cousin the M60A1E1 (later known as the M60A2); M60A1E1 STARSHIP!
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
brakeless posted:CV90 supremacy. The idea originally of the BMP was that the men would pretty much stay inside the vehicle most of the time. It's why they put in firing ports. The Sheridan is kinda cool(though the gun on it and the missile it fired was not very well conceived) because it's probably what IFVs should have been. The need to carry troops is what makes the IFVs not a good idea, though there's a role they try to fill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Always found the Sheridan to be kinda adorable.  There is just something incredibly charming about it. Shame that it was so flawed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:Always found the Sheridan to be kinda adorable. Yeah it genuinely /looks/ like a fight-able tank. I remember reading an essay about the Sheridan that went through its development and myriad problems. One thing the author pointed out was that it's noteworthy how much of the drat thing actually did work, and that it was the design requirements that were totally unrealistic. They made an air-mobile vehicle that was 'mostly' proof against fragments and small-arms fire. They built a guided missile in the SIXTIES that could survive being fired out of a cannon without its electronics shattering into a million pieces. Ambition aside, I bet its crews are VERY happy it wasn't tested in a hot war en masse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Scut posted:Ambition aside, I bet its crews are VERY happy it wasn't tested in a hot war en masse. I'm pretty sure they did their fair share of complaining because they were used during Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Weren't they deployed during Desert Shield as a stopgap until the M1's arrived in numbers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
A wargame I've been working with the last few weeks features ultra-light armor pretty extensively. It has been REALLY funny listening to the old farts all offer unsolicited anecdotes about how much they hated the Sheridan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
So...why was the Sheridan hated so much?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
They weren't really survivable in a way you need even a light tank to be. So, when the cav was rolling around with them, they were of course the first thing the enemy wants to shoot at, and they were vulnerable to pretty much anything heavier than a machine gun, so the results were pretty predictable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
^^^^^^^ It had a tendency to explode. drat, beaten. It used caseless ammunition and it was made of aluminum. These two things together made an RPG or a mine hit pretty much guaranteed instant death for the crew. Scut posted:Ambition aside, I bet its crews are VERY happy it wasn't tested in a hot war en masse. The Sheridan saw action in Vietnam but the Shillelagh missile did not. They didn't expect to be fighting soviet tanks on wide open plains. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
One other thing about guided rockets vs artillery, ATK produces a GPS nose kit for 155 rounds and the costs of the M982 are getting lower and lower. They already have GPS kits for mortars as well, and the Israelis have an IR seeker head for hunting vehicles I guess, but I know very little about it. We're getting to the point that everything can be guided either by design or strapping a kit onto (most of) the old warheads. Which is preferable from that point on just comes down to cost and logistics as already discussed. The APKWS is another good example of how they worked out an add on kit that makes use of the existing dumbfire stocks. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
quote =/= edit
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
I knew France has radio guided 155mm howitzer shells.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
bewbies posted:A wargame I've been working with the last few weeks features ultra-light armor pretty extensively. It has been REALLY funny listening to the old farts all offer unsolicited anecdotes about how much they hated the Sheridan. My stepdad was on some of the first Sheridans deployed to Vietnam. Has some interesting stories. I think major complaints were using the caseless ammo, and the recoil damping system didn't work very well. There was a flechette round though that was apparently pretty bad rear end. He didn't hate it that much, but I think it's because the rest of the time he was commanding an M113 where the protection wasn't much better...
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Oh yeah firing the main gun lifted the front half of the tank off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Oh yeah firing the main gun lifted the front half of the tank off the ground. Apparently they upgraded the commander's cupola at some point so that he could be turned out while the gun fired and not receive broken ribs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Styles Bitchley posted:He didn't hate it that much, but I think it's because the rest of the time he was commanding an M113 where the protection wasn't much better... Obviously the whole 'Gavin' ordeal is a wide spread joke at this point, but goddamn anyone who's ever read about (much less actually had experience with) the M113 in Vietnam has realized what an unexceptional vehicle it was. 'So yeah we had to pile sandbags all over it so the guys riding on top might survive a mine hit. The driver though was totally hosed...'
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:Obviously the whole 'Gavin' ordeal is a wide spread joke at this point, but goddamn anyone who's ever read about (much less actually had experience with) the M113 in Vietnam has realized what an unexceptional vehicle it was. I recall seeing in a Vietnam war book the drivers would sometimes jury rig the control levers so they would stick up out of the hatch and just drive it while sitting on top of the drat thing. The caption saying something to the effect of "if they came under fire the driver hopped into the vehicle" but drat. Wasn't it an M113 that the IDF lost 7 soldiers in due to an IED/mine during the most recent Gaza escapade? I was surprised they still use em for something that potentially hot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I know they lost one or two in Lebanon circa 2006, up-armored ones at that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
The Sheridan also had a lot of problems associated with the transmission later in it's service life. If you were not extremely careful in shifting gears, your flywheel would wear out and wear out quickly. I've probably pulled pack on a Sheridan 50 times. If you took them to the the field, some of them were going to break. On the plus side the engine was a pretty conventional 6 cylinder Detroit Diesel with a turbocharger and a trained crew could pull the engine in no time. It had no problems with dust or desert conditions. Track blocks weighed almost nothing compared to Abrams track but if not lined up properly was a bitch to get the pin through. I never used one in combat but overall I'm pretty nostalgic for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Sgt. Zeno is that you?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
priznat posted:I recall seeing in a Vietnam war book the drivers would sometimes jury rig the control levers so they would stick up out of the hatch and just drive it while sitting on top of the drat thing. The caption saying something to the effect of "if they came under fire the driver hopped into the vehicle" but drat. We had the same predicament with the LVTP-7, speaking as a driver in regards to armor, our solution was to pile sandbags on the floor and use our flak vests for seat cushions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:We had the same predicament with the LVTP-7, speaking as a driver in regards to armor, our solution was to pile sandbags on the floor and use our flak vests for seat cushions. Did you use the long poles to drive it on the top too? That'd be impressive, those look a lot bigger than the m113. It'd be like riding a massive war elephant or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Outside Dawg posted:We had the same predicament with the LVTP-7, speaking as a driver in regards to armor, our solution was to pile sandbags on the floor and use our flak vests for seat cushions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rAFMC2O9dQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
This came up in a discussion with a co-worker but what's the relevant law involved if you poke a fighter plane out on exercise using some sort of radio transceiver that tricks it into thinking there's a missile launch going for it while lighting off some fireworks or something to add the visual effect? Say two situations, prove intent vs not being able to prove intent?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
I would think of you had something capable of radiating in the frequencies and power required to cause a jet to freak out the FCC or whatever local authority policing the EM spectrum are going to have something to say about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Sub launched cruise missiles hurrah!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
priznat posted:I would think of you had something capable of radiating in the frequencies and power required to cause a jet to freak out the FCC or whatever local authority policing the EM spectrum are going to have something to say about that. If you had something that could spoof the kind of stuff that fighter jets get worried about, DHS and / or the FBI would probably be interested as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:If you had something that could spoof the kind of stuff that fighter jets get worried about, DHS and / or the FBI would probably be interested as well. Yes, also that. And it wouldn't be some handheld jobbie like the cell phone jammers some morons use. It'd be pretty large and power intensive. There was an urban legend about cops using their speed radar on jets and how they were lucky the HARM missiles weren't on there because they would auto launch but it was utter bullcrap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Regardless of legality I'm pretty sure if you tried that your status would be "hosed."
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Proper hosed. It would be something that would take real effort to do so any bozos would be put off by the effort and skill required. It's not something one can order from Dealextreme, basically 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Sub launched cruise missiles hurrah! That image was on imgur and there were more then a couple 'MERICAs and also complaints about our defense budget and wasting missiles in the comments. That's a Brahmos. Mazz fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Mazz posted:That image was on imgur and there were more then a couple 'MERICAs and also complaints about our defense budget and wasting missiles in the comments. That's a Brahmos. I'm guessing it is supposed to turn itself sideways?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Zapdos posted:I'm guessing it is supposed to turn itself sideways? Ours just make a wimpy arch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwV-JucQktQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This came up in a discussion with a co-worker but what's the relevant law involved if you poke a fighter plane out on exercise using some sort of radio transceiver that tricks it into thinking there's a missile launch going for it while lighting off some fireworks or something to add the visual effect? Say two situations, prove intent vs not being able to prove intent? The signals for a missile launch come from the controlling radar, not the missile itself. Only a few missiles actually have their own radar, and they only use them for the last little bit of flight (because they run on batteries). There are also a lot of EM features that go into identifying a signal, so yeah you're going to get some serious loving attention if you manage to accurately spoof a Low Blow radar or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yes, also that. And it wouldn't be some handheld jobbie like the cell phone jammers some morons use. It'd be pretty large and power intensive. The way I heard it the ecm would fry the radar guns. Didn't stop me from pointing one at a Blackhawk once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So...why was the Sheridan hated so much? Aluminium-alloy hull that would catch fire and literally melt down from getting hit by HEAT munitions. Packed chock full with enough ammo virtually everywhere to make that a secondary concern because a hit by an RPG or similar had a good chance to leave nothing but a crater anyway. Atrocious recoil when using the gun for HE or HEAT shells, which also were rife with problems thanks to the caseless charges; it was very easy to damage the charge during rapid loading, in which case the charge had to be tossed immediately for safety concerns. The charges also frequently caused acrid smoke to get into the firing compartment upon opening the breach for reloading. And the Shillelagh missile was unreliable in the best of times and the firing computer for it had a habit of going completely haywire from recoil vibrations when firing HE/HEAT, often requiring depot-level repairs to get back into working order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Sub launched cruise missiles hurrah! ownage
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Zapdos posted:I'm guessing it is supposed to turn itself sideways? Yeah the little thrusts after it clears the water are normal, and awesome looking. The Tor (SA-15 I think?) does the same thing to get proper heading after a vertical launch. What I was getting at is that's an Indian/Russian missile though. Probably one of my favorite distinctions of Cold War ideas is the USSR emphasis on anti-ship missiles/platforms and the US on aircraft carriers. Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
It seems like another thing to break to me but yeah it does look pretty neat. A slow arc seems less risky that you won't just face plant the missile back in the water. But yeah, coolness. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:37
|
|