I meant to add this pic as well:
4 Likes
In retrospect, I think the technology of the time wasn’t mature enough for it to work. Particularly the use of infrared guidance. Had it succeeded with the technology of the day, it wouldn’t had been long before the Soviets figured out how to defeat it.
The Shillelagh flew subsonically, so did the Soviet counterparts. This meant it took seconds for their respective missiles to reach their targets. Seconds in which the tanks which fired them were exposed. If ACRA also flew at subsonic speed, the French too would be vulnerable during engagement. At the time, fire and forget technology didn’t exist. There was no capability by either the U.S or Soviet crews to guide the missile on the move. (Caveat being that I think newer generations of Soviet missiles could be fired on the move)
It’s probable that with today’s technology, a modernized Shillelagh would be successful, however it would also be unnecessary as there are already very successful systems already in place, and modern tank guns can easily exceed the range of the original Shillelagh missile, with deadly accuracy
Edro
1 Like
Of course, tank guns seem to be approaching 140mm calibre as a standard to achieve accuracy at such long ranges, but that also means, as far as I understand it, a much longer barrel, and larger ammunition, therefore, one can deduce limited ammunition storage within the tank. Perversely in a way, this almost, almost makes the case for guided missile ammo!
Whilst I’m sure tank commanders of today’s or emerging MBTs will know what they’re doing, longer barrels need a fair bit of thought when manouvering around the battlefield, not least if that battlefield is urban.
Here’s a pic of a 140mm test-bed Leo 2 from I believe the late 80s:
I mean, that is a hell of a barrel.
Anyway, all this is neither here nor there regarding the concept of MBT-70 with differing weapon systems. For sheer modelling fun, I am swerving towards a French ACRA-equipped version, but with a reversion to the original calibre of 152mm. I’m sure (in What-If land) the French designers would have been delighted with an extra 10mm’s worth of freedom in their concept as they go back to the drawing board with a spring in their step(!)
1 Like
I would have fired the entire project team the moment they came back with a proposal called, “Shillelagh”.
2 Likes
Wasn’t there also the problem that when firing conventional rounds, the shock of firing de zeroed the sights & knocked out the electronics. Pretty sure I read that about Sheridan service in both VN & Europe. I think that also caused cracking which foreshortened the life of the M60A2?
Mal
1 Like
Yeah, the system was full of fun surprises! Given the money poured into it, and the cost of the missiles, it would have been cheaper to just bury enemy tanks in stacks of dollars until they could no longer move.
As for 140mm and bigger rounds, spare a thought for the poor loader, who would need to outclass Arnie in his musclebound heyday! And manouvering it inside the cramped space of a turret…
1 Like
Re the ammo sizes - so true! Even Conqueror’s 120mm (and the M103’s) round was a 2-parter. Conqueror’s Loader was given extra PT and rations (I suspect this is apocryphal but one never quite knows) whereas the US, slightly more pragmatic, added an extra Loader to the crew, which goes some way to explaining the massive turret on the M103 - coupled to size of the gun in any case.
Obviously, automatic loaders will have to be the way ahead as ammo gets larger, which means growing turret sizes I suppose. So tanks are just golng to get bigger?
I’ve undertaken a cursory glance at the models emerging showing the latest concept tanks - mainly Leo 2 based I think - though I’m pushed to keep up, and they all seem to be fairly chunky items, bedecked with sensors, drones/missiles, and Remote Weapons Systems. In 1/35 these days, I do feel we’re spoiled for choice.
All a long way from MBT-70, even with What-If versions, which was the idea behind the topic in a way, however, interesting comments garnered along the way that’s for sure!
Keep at it folks. Anyone else modelled one - pics always welcome for the greater good.
1 Like
M551s deployed to Vietnam went without the missile guidance systems, and therefore also without the missiles themselves.
1 Like
Exactly, and when you consider that the Shillelagh missile system at 152mm, was larger than 140mm meant that ammo load was going to be extremely limited anyway, especially in a tank such as the M551 Sheridan. The ammo load of the Sheridan was about 30 rounds, while contemporary tanks (M48 and M60) were carrying 60+ rounds.
Not necessarily. The T14 Aramata and next generation Abrams are relying on automated turrets, which means they don’t need to provide space or armor for the breathing meat bags needed to fight the vehicle. That means the turret size can be smaller
Edro
2 Likes
Yes, whenever the light weight Sheridan fired its massive 152mm conventional rounds the recoil was so severe that the missile’s fcs could be damaged. M60A2 had similar problems, although the heavier weight of the ‘60 was better able to absorb the recoil, the more advanced fire control system was quite fragile.
It was also reported that the barrel was prone to cracking along the keyway meant to keep the missile from spinning whenever it was fired.
Edro
2 Likes
That’s the problem with designing a gun to meet two very different specifications! What’s the saying? Jack of all trades, but master of none…
1 Like
The Sheridans were deployed to Vietnam in part to test them under actual battlefield conditions. And it was decided early on not to use the missiles. First, because there wasn’t a major armor threat. And second, the Vietnam terrain with it’s thick underbrush, jungle environments and limited long range visibility made it impossible to use as conceived. Finally, they probably feared the technology falling into Soviet hands should a Sheridan be captured. So yeah, they didn’t equip the Sheridans with the technology. They basically didn’t deploy the M60 for a similar reason. For combat in Vietnam, the M48 Patton was considered sufficient —-that is after the Army realized the Marines were correct to deploy theirs, as the Army wasn’t planning to send tanks at all.
Edro
2 Likes
Exactly. In a way, the failure of the Shillelagh missile system, forced the Army to develop it’s armor doctrine. While the Shillelagh was under development, a different part of the Army was developing an anti tank missile system that was light enough to be used by infantry and could also be mounted on light vehicles. That missile was TOW and it would become far more successful. With TOW available, the Army changed it’s position. Tanks would still provide direct fire punch with the ability to absorb punishment. While TOW mounted on jeeps, hummers, attack helicopters and Bradleys, would provide the long distance strikes. In a WW3/Fulda gap scenario, these vehicles and units would snipe at enemy Soviet armor with TOW missiles at long range, thinning the herd, so that when they were in range, there were far fewer for NATO tanks to engage.
Edro
1 Like
Whether or not this thread spawns some sort of campaign, it’s a good read and also has me thinking about future builds.
3 Likes
Good the hear Russel; whether one wishes to pursue accurate models of the prototypes or indulge in a bit of What-Iffery, I’m glad this topic appears to be hitting the mark.
I do think we could do with a few other offerings of modellers’ efforts ie pics of their work. Come on guys, post 'em!
Elsewhere on the site, Drami’s efforts and variants are also very interesting, and certainly appear to include a US version; we can but hope it will arrive soon. It’s perhaps noteworthy that their version of the Kpz-70 ie the German version price-wise ranges from (roughly) as little as £20 to £40-odd. Not to be sneezed at I feel, so stock up while you can(!)
4 Likes
Jakko offered up this pic in another topic; I’ve posted it here as it’s the largest image I’ve seen so far of the original and is therefore good for seeing what is what; as Jakko identifies, there appears to be work on producing a US version - the one at 5 o’clock with the turret facing inwards, or at least that’s what the rear deck would indicate. Others also appear to be US as they’re sporting the extra weights (to simulate a full battle load) on the turret as did, apparently, various prototypes. What we need of course is an indication of if, and when DraMi are going to do anything further.
6 Likes
Having had quite a close look at these, it appears that all the turrets (in blue) shown have the weights added, and the one I referred to earlier (with the rear deck visible) even appears to have - possibly - a cine camera on the RH side of the turret, plus something above the gun barrel. it may be that they’re replicating one of the prototypes on test, akin to this image:
Pure speculation I admit, and I may well have misinterpreted the DraMi pic.
In a way, I hope not; what we need, quite simply, is a plain vanilla US MBT-70! With half- a dozen odd prototypes I appreciate that the term “plain vanilla” is not entirely apt, but you will understand my drift I’m sure.
What I personally don’t want is a model cluttered up with experimental/prototypical add-ons; however, I am also well aware that I am in great danger of jumping the gun in all this, and may well have speculated far too much.
3 Likes
Ideally, they would supply the American bits as add-ons/replacements to the existing plastic turret. IIRC, the German antenna blisters are separate parts on the kit, so leaving them off for replacement with American antennas would be easy; same with the smoke launchers, and separate weights would be a nice extra for modelling a prototype during tests.
The real problem, production-wise, would be the American engine deck, as it would require moulding an entirely new upper hull. But then, one of those would be needed anyway, given that it would also have to have the stowage bins on the front corners, a different profile to the underside of the sponsons and removal of the plates on which the German headlights sit. Among other things.
1 Like
Yes, perhaps my fears are groundless re turret-dabbling; I think you’re right in that the turret would be left intact as it were, and any add-on, just that. So, that’s a good thing.
I agree re the upper hull; I note from the pic that there’s been no attempt to address the differences at the front end of the tank. However, early days I suppose, who knows how these manufacturers and designers think? We can but hope!
It’s still a good time to be a military modeller!
3 Likes
All this discussion about prototypes and canceled projest, engineering dead-ends and such motivated me to do some more on something I’ve had in a box of Abrams parts for a few weeks now. It started with a broken lower Tamiya hull and rather quickly became a working hypothesis. Keep in mind I buy started and partial kits whenever I run across them, so I’ve got lots of spare parts.
I think a turret from an older Academy kit may be appropriate. After all, does Meng have to be the only ones to have fun with ‘Toon Tanks’?
6 Likes