Aircraft/Armor Surplus Storage

[Olefin]

With the expansion of the Army during the war I am betting that much of the stored equipment would have been used to help equip the 12 Light Infantry Divisions the Army created out of the training units.

That alone probably took care of most if not all the remaining older M113s' in storage. They would need armor too and that is where it makes sense to bring the Sheridan's out of the bone yard - but probably at the rate of getting one or two good ones for every 10-15 in storage after cannibalizing everything that still works.

And with the continuing tensions the Army might have kept them in service a lot longer and thus spares and ammo might have been a lot more plentiful -

And they made 88,000 Shillelagh missiles - so if the Sheridan stayed operational right up to the war start - which given the tensions is a good bet - then there might be a significant amount of them available

And remember a full ammo load for them is only 19 cannon rounds and ten missiles - so if you get, say 150 operational Sheridans out of what you have stored you very well could get enough ammo for at least one full ammo load per vehicle, possibly two

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Olefin

With the expansion of the Army during the war I am betting that much of the stored equipment would have been used to help equip the 12 Light Infantry Divisions the Army created out of the training units.

That alone probably took care of most if not all the remaining older M113s' in storage. They would need armor too and that is where it makes sense to bring the Sheridan's out of the bone yard - but probably at the rate of getting one or two good ones for every 10-15 in storage after cannibalizing everything that still works.

And with the continuing tensions the Army might have kept them in service a lot longer and thus spares and ammo might have been a lot more plentiful -

And they made 88,000 Shillelagh missiles - so if the Sheridan stayed operational right up to the war start - which given the tensions is a good bet - then there might be a significant amount of them available

And remember a full ammo load for them is only 19 cannon rounds and ten missiles - so if you get, say 150 operational Sheridans out of what you have stored you very well could get enough ammo for at least one full ammo load per vehicle, possibly two

Well, say that you.manage to get 150 operational...from a tanker standpoint, the Sheridan was not a great tank. It's hull could protect against up to 12.7mms AP, but was very vulnerable to RPGs and mines. The rate of fire of the main gun was horrible, the standard 105mms M68 can fire roughly 12 to 15 aimed rounds per minute, the 152mms has a max rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute. The breech design prevented a faster loading cycle. Then we have the Shillelagh missile...it's an IR beam rider design that requires the gunner to maintain lock.on the target...it did have a punch equal to the TOW missile and had an effective range of 2000m...it's minimum range was a horrible 800m giving it a very short engagement envelope. These are the major reasons why it was pulled from service. The running joke when I was still in service was that even the
Marines would not take them!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Well, say that you.manage to get 150 operational...from a tanker standpoint, the Sheridan was not a great tank. It's hull could protect against up to 12.7mms AP, but was very vulnerable to RPGs and mines. The rate of fire of the main gun was horrible, the standard 105mms M68 can fire roughly 12 to 15 aimed rounds per minute, the 152mms has a max rate of fire of 2 rounds per minute. The breech design prevented a faster loading cycle. Then we have the Shillelagh missile...it's an IR beam rider design that requires the gunner to maintain lock.on the target...it did have a punch equal to the TOW missile and had an effective range of 2000m...it's minimum range was a horrible 800m giving it a very short engagement envelope. These are the major reasons why it was pulled from service. The running joke when I was still in service was that even the
Marines would not take them!

Turret rings are universal sizes. Could one accommodate an A-0 Bradley turret? A LAV-25 turret? a PIVAD turret?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

With the expansion of the Army during the war I am betting that much of the stored equipment would have been used to help equip the 12 Light Infantry Divisions the Army created out of the training units.

That alone probably took care of most if not all the remaining older M113s' in storage. They would need armor too and that is where it makes sense to bring the Sheridan's out of the bone yard - but probably at the rate of getting one or two good ones for every 10-15 in storage after cannibalizing everything that still works.

11B Light Infantry is foot infantry. They don't have M113s. The Hq unit has 2-3 HMMWVs, 1-2 2 1/2ton trucks, and 1 HMMWV ambulance. A full unit motor movement for light infantry is conducted by a transportation company, or pooling the entire battalions trucks and moving one company at a time to a staging area.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...my/toe/lid.htm

11M is Mechanized Infantry and organic to Armored Divisions they ride in M113s up to the 90s and transition completely to M2 Bradleys.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/toe/mech.htm

[Olefin]

Like I said a Sheridan is better than nothing - and against marauders armed with civilian and military rifles and even 12.7mm MG its an effective vehicle - and I even with a low rate of fire I would hate to be against it if all I had was a armored bank truck with a couple of machine guns on it.

Now if you run into Soviet Division Cuba you have some real issues

And the light divisions I am talking about are the ones formed from the training units in the game not regular or even National Guard formations - I mean the ad-hoc divisions added in haste in 1998

I.e. the 70th, 76th, 78th, 80th, 84th, 85th, 91st, 95th, 98th, 100th, 104th and 108th Infantry Divisions that MilGov and CivGov formed in 1998 after the TDM

If you look at their makeup they only had foot infantry battalions and towed 105's - so any armor of any kind would be very welcome to them

and you can tell they got some armor or inherited it - several of them had tanks or M728's - if they had those you can see them grabbing anything else they could get their hands on too especially after the Mexican invasion

and there was the AGS-Sheridan which was a standard M551 Sheridan hull with the turret of the Stingray light tank. It lost out to the M8 Armored Gun System from FMC/BAE

[jester]

For storage, a lot of names were off the list.

I would suggest checking out, "Purple Depot." Which are storage depots in the US.

M113s, I see them all the time in the desert on ops. Some units have few, others have ALOT. Most are support vehicles of course, ambulances, com, command etc.

As was said, its better than just being foot mobile.

As for armor, one must consider where it is employed. In open ground yeah, in urban, woodland or mountains as an infantryman I'd feel confident against armor with the right tools of course.

Other areas, beachheads, swamps or even soft sand areas. Again the use of terrain to limit your enemies movement similar minefields.

And of course, taking older vehicles and giving quick simply mods or even deploying them with upgrade kits like the did with the Humvees in Iraq and the Shermans in the hedgerow country to be added in the field.

I have no experience with the Sheridan, but, with its limits could they not be used more as an infantry support weapon rather than a traditional tank role? Providing a mobile heavy gun platform and machinegun support as well as the armor to shield infantrymen and even to drive over infantry positions or even small buildings or portions. Drive up to that pesky RPK firing through the loophole in that concrete building, and blast a beehive round through the window and let the grunts mop up.

[dragoon500ly]

The problem with tanks is that sooner or later they are going to go up against the other guys tanks. In order to beat the other guys, you have to able to shoot first, hit first and kill or disable with that shot. The atgm had a narrow engagement window at best, you might get one or maybe two missiles off before you had to switch to conventional rounds, then your maximum possible rate of fire was two rounds per minute. Shoot and scoot is your mantra.

The drawbacks of the Sheridan restricted it the role of infantry support vehicle, in a single battalion, in a single division. It was kept in that role because it was the only tank that could be air dropped. Even that division depended on regimental antitank companies equipped with TOW for its primary antitank defense.

The only combat test of Sheridan in a traditional tank role was in Vietnam. It was easy to knock out with RPGs. It's armor protection was so bad, that if the crew was not killed immediately, they had to bail out before the ammo fire finished the job.

In Desert Storm, the Sheridan was used as a bunker buster and was never used against Iraqi armor.

When it was first introduced, it was a gee-whiz tech solution and it didn't work. It is to the eternal credit of its crews that they were able to perform their missions in spite of its drawbacks, but there are good and sound reasons why the decision was made to remove it from service. I find it hard to come up with any reason why scarce resources would have been wasted in trying to bring the Sheridan back into operational service.

[ArmySGT.]

Just to challenge convention....... Wouldn't the more modern M1s and M60s be sent overseas and older M48s kept at home? The better to fight them there, than fight them at home. Any M60s or newer still on U.S. soil would be Guard units or Federal units waiting to ship, or training units churning out replacements for losses overseas.


Further, wouldn't the States individually be getting any armor no matter how old operational? While it doesn't make sense for the Army on a large scale to throw effort into a getting a M4A2 Sherman or a M3 Stuart operational a State can fund them as one offs... Swapping the radial for a cummins diesel. Having machine shops make AP or Canister shot for a 75mm or 37mm. Turning over gun shops looking for 1919s. Lots of towns have WW2 relics and plenty of WW2 generation vets that know how to get these things running.

Even in WW2 there was appeals for any hobbyist with the right skills to turn out war materials. Wooden crates for example. Firing pins, etc.

[schnickelfritz]

t is possible and somewhat common for M3/M5 Stuart owners to convert their 2-engine power plants for 350 or 454 Chevy V-8s. This would be advantageous for an owner who has bought one without engines or whose engines are not practical to rebuild.

I am not sure if a M24 Chaffee can benefit from this, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Dave

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Just to challenge convention....... Wouldn't the more modern M1s and M60s be sent overseas and older M48s kept at home? The better to fight them there, than fight them at home. Any M60s or newer still on U.S. soil would be Guard units or Federal units waiting to ship, or training units churning out replacements for losses overseas.


Further, wouldn't the States individually be getting any armor no matter how old operational? While it doesn't make sense for the Army on a large scale to throw effort into a getting a M4A2 Sherman or a M3 Stuart operational a State can fund them as one offs... Swapping the radial for a cummins diesel. Having machine shops make AP or Canister shot for a 75mm or 37mm. Turning over gun shops looking for 1919s. Lots of towns have WW2 relics and plenty of WW2 generation vets that know how to get these things running.

Even in WW2 there was appeals for any hobbyist with the right skills to turn out war materials. Wooden crates for example. Firing pins, etc.

In a nut shell...you would have had M1A1 and M1A2 assigned to Germany, REFORGER would pull the same vehicles from the POMCUS sets. The National Guard follow up divisions would have a mix of M48A5/M60A1/M60A3/IPM1.

The equipment sets left by the Regular Army units committed to REFORGER, they were intended to be shipped as battlefield replacements, this, filled out with new construction and battlefield repaired tanks was was what was supposed to keep the Army going.

So, arguments can be made that the NG divisions would be equipped with front-line gear, especially prior to shipment overseas, reasonable. Right up to the Mexican invasion, then it becomes a come as you are war.

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Just to challenge convention....... Wouldn't the more modern M1s and M60s be sent overseas and older M48s kept at home? The better to fight them there, than fight them at home. Any M60s or newer still on U.S. soil would be Guard units or Federal units waiting to ship, or training units churning out replacements for losses overseas.

If we go by Timeline 1.0- the US never stopped producing tanks so tanks like the IP M1s (894) get converted to A1 standards and baseline (2300 and some change) would go to Guard heavy divisions. Plus there are a lot of equipment that's going directly to POMCUS or prepositioned on ships (Diego Garcia; Guam/Saipan/Tinian) or similar USMC programs (Norway or Korea).
So going by the Endless Cold War, the goal for Big Army was always to make sure 7th Army got the latest and greatest first but even then the 2d Infantry Division's heavy brigades would still get 120mm gun tanks and BFVs before '95/96 let alone the November Nukeout


IMNSHO those old M48A5s would get flogged off to the ROK Army as spares- especially during wartime losses; Thailand, Taiwan, and/or Turkey. The M60 series- the ones that aren't earmarked for the Israelis- I can see being used to reequip the USAR "training" divisions but the doctrine and TO&E would probably closer to the old H series although I think were would be a serious shortfall on anti-tank missiles and naturally little to no organic aviation so would have to rely on corps aviation brigades .

Those same training division would pretty much have to stop loss every solider and marine that ever served in ground combat arms for at least the past two to three fiscal years... provided these same dudes' original battalions didn't get first dibs. Personally I'm somewhat skeptical if those USAR divisions would ever get activated since we're talking about a complete call up of the entire Guard not just roundout brigades plus CAPSTONE so we're already talking about a lot of facilities being overtasked such shipping, ports, and training posts such as Little Sandbox, Yakima, Fort Puke, etc

Mad Mike

[jester]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The problem with tanks is that sooner or later they are going to go up against the other guys tanks. In order to beat the other guys, you have to able to shoot first, hit first and kill or disable with that shot. The atgm had a narrow engagement window at best, you might get one or maybe two missiles off before you had to switch to conventional rounds, then your maximum possible rate of fire was two rounds per minute. Shoot and scoot is your mantra.

The drawbacks of the Sheridan restricted it the role of infantry support vehicle, in a single battalion, in a single division. It was kept in that role because it was the only tank that could be air dropped. Even that division depended on regimental antitank companies equipped with TOW for its primary antitank defense.

The only combat test of Sheridan in a traditional tank role was in Vietnam. It was easy to knock out with RPGs. It's armor protection was so bad, that if the crew was not killed immediately, they had to bail out before the ammo fire finished the job.

In Desert Storm, the Sheridan was used as a bunker buster and was never used against Iraqi armor.

When it was first introduced, it was a gee-whiz tech solution and it didn't work. It is to the eternal credit of its crews that they were able to perform their missions in spite of its drawbacks, but there are good and sound reasons why the decision was made to remove it from service. I find it hard to come up with any reason why scarce resources would have been wasted in trying to bring the Sheridan back into operational service.

I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by jester

I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.

Done

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by jester

I can think of one reason.

DESPERATION with little other options.

Then again, remove the gun from the turret and install a Bushmaster or a TOW system or something else that is common and fairly simple.

Sigh...I work as auditor for DOD, I get paid the big bucks to travel to these storage facilities just to count the gear AND what condition it is in. Trust me, the M551s in "storage" are in no condition to be locked, cocked and ready to go.

They will require very extensive rebuilds on the scale of what is done at Anniston Army Depot. You will then have to find serviceable missiles and cannon ammo and again, there is not that much out there, that has not been condemned.

As far as slapping 75mms guns, TOWs, etc., Canon has this output going to the LAVs and other front line equipment, just how much can be spared to bring back to life an out-dated hulk left to rot in the desert sun for the last quarter century?