Does an M155 tank exist..

[tamangel]

Hi guys, my husband got me a tank book for Christmas as I'm into armored track layers..(something in my childhood I guess...) . Anyway, have come across a question: Is there such a machine as a M155 Sheridan? When I search the web, I see it used interchangeably with M551 Sheridan, some searches mention m155 but when I get to the page, its an M551.. So my question is this actually just a regular typo and only the M551 exists or is there such a thing as a M155? If so, can anyone direct me to specs and differences so I can add them to my book..

Be gentle, I'm just learning this stuff

Adios,

CW

remember, dyslectics have more fnu..

 

[Heath_h49008]

I think the issue is the 152 mm gun that was on the Sheridan commonly being called 155mm... similar letter-number combinations.

No M-155 I know of. But if it exists these guys will know...

 

[Paladin6]

CW,
The Sheridan tank is definitely the M551. M155 referring to the Sheridan must be a typo. There was a M115 8" howitzer, but it was a towed artillery piece. Hope that helps.

 

[M813A1]

Durning WWII the Long Tom 155mm was a towed gun !!

 

[11Echo]

The T30 tank had the T7 155mm gun.

Pics of T30 and M551 Sheridan.

 

[Varyag]

Just check my book of nomenclature and no m155 exists.

numbering goes from M152 truck, panel utility 3/4 ton 4x4 to M157 truck amphibious, 8 ton 8x8.

edit- Is that t-30 similar to the m103 heavy tank?

 

[Monkeyboyarmy]

M551 Sheridan.[/QUOTE]


ECHO. You hidding that one in your building?

 

[L1A1]

edit- Is that t-30 similar to the m103 heavy tank?

No. The T-30 looks like it could pass for the M26 Perishing's big brother where as the M103 looks like an M48 on steroids. Not sure how many in a batch of the "T series" they order, but the M103 reached production. The M103 was armed with a 120mm main gun which at the time was very big (required two loaders).

There was a self propelled 155mm used by the US Army in WWII. It was built on a remanufactured M3 Lee lower hull (so that's what happened to all those Lees) . As to the OP's question, I think like others have posted and that it's a typo.

Matt

 

[tamangel]

thanks Gentlemen. Appreciate it much.

I think I may be concentrating on WW2 tanks. Although armored track layers are best no matter what the era. even though I am just starting out at this stuff but I picked the M155-M551 error thing right away.

CW

 

[southdave]

air dropable tank i belive check utube out... also aluminum hulled fire more of a rocket than shell.. I think they where in the inventory into the early to mid 90s but I could be wrong. just dumdass seabee, I avoided the army like the plague...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50cpPAVoxJQ

 

[tamangel]

Hey, nothing wrong with a seabee! Thanks for the info!

CW

 

[73m819]

tamangel, If ,you do not have already, you might want to get "U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles" by Fred W. Crismon, Great track book

 

[Paladin6]

The M551 Sheridan is a pretty interesting tank. Technically not a tank though, but an armored recon vehicle, or airborne assault vehicle. Used in Vietnam, Panama, and Desert Storm. Fantastic cross-country mobility - I could take them almost anywhere, (technically they could even swim - a great capability - although it did not work out in practice). Great operational mobility as well - could airdrop them into an operational area. Like anything lightly armored, it was vulnerable to AT fires and mines, to include RPGs. The M551 with it's 152mm main gun was a great support weapon - grunts like having it around! The dual gun/missile combo had some troubles and tank on tank would have been dicey with a Sheridan, although the M55A1 had a thermal sight and laser rangefinder to help.
Wish I could get my hands on one today!

 

[Paladin6]

Meant M551A1 not M55A1. My typo!

 

[3cavtanker]

My dad was on the Sheridans with the 82nd ABN in the 70's. 152mm cannon could fire conventional rounds or Shillelagh (possibly misspelled) missile. Missile was similar to TOW: optically tracked wire-guided. Only problem was that usually firing a conventional round fried the missile electronics, so fire missiles first. Also had a bad habit of overheating.

As for my own experience, I was on M1A2 Abrams, so i have a hard time considering anything under about 40 tons a "tank". The army officially lists the Sheridan as a Reconnaissance Vehicle. Either way, it was air drop capable, but we all know what happens when you drop something heavy out of an airplane- stuff breaks.

Anyway, I found the manuals for the Sheridan on .pdf if anyone is interested.

 

[Varyag]

We used to fight vismodded Sheridan at NTC in the early 2000s. I saw a field full of them in 2004 at ft irwin there but I am sure they were awaiting scrapping.

 

[hilber]

Agreed on the airborne delivedry. We used to make a mess out of some things. Ever seen a howitzer go in the ground barrell first? I have.

 

[Paladin6]

You guys are right, some would get banged up when heavy dropped in, problems with fire control and turrets. Fewer problems with LAPES delivery as I recall. But most would work ok, and to a grunt on a DZ it was very useful having those vehicles in support for certain missions - (same for 105s by the way!) - until heavier stuff could ultimately be flown in. In this role they were a great weapon system.

Those Irwin Sheridans were indeed on their way to ultimately be scrapped unfortunately. Last location to use them was JRTC at Polk and they are done with them as well.

Would be nice to save some before they get dumped in the ocean or cut up and melted, if any are left.

 

[Paladin6]

Forgot to add - Roger on a howitzer burning in (and Hummvs too) - quite a mess and fortunately dropped ahead of the pax!

 

[11Echo]

M551 Sheridan.

ECHO. You hidding that one in your building?[/QUOTE]

No, not me.
Have you been peeking?
Lol