MGM-51 Shillelagh - Was it a complete failure?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Starship, Sheridan, MBT-70. All 3 of these vehicles have been considered failures. All 3 of these vehicles were armed with the same MGM-51 Missile. But what happened? Were the Americans just getting ahead of themselves? Was the missile itself the issue?
Any feedback is greatly appreciated, I'm always trying to improve.
((Like and subscribe))
Credit to these excellent articles:
en.wikipedia.o...
www.designatio...
en.wikipedia.o...
Spot on video. I served as a platoon leader and company XO for A Co., 4/68 Armor Bn, 82nd Abn. 10/ 75 to 10/78.
At every annual tank gunnery, we never fired the missile. It took outside tech support to prep the system, was deemed to expensive to shoot, and the powers at be
wanted to keep the record at 100% hits. The weakest part of the tank was the transmission. The engine, Detroit Diesel 6v53t was too strong for the Allison xt250 transmission. The flex plate part of the torque converter would fail on 30% of the time. As has been said, when it was good, it was very good, but when it was bad, it was awful
These are always my favourite comments - thanks so much man!
I was a platoon leader and on BN staff 4/68 Arm-82nd ABN 11/73 to 11/76. Fired missiles every year with each Company in the BN. Only saw 2 failures. Conventional recoil was severe, but missile component failures were rare.
Having driven them at the NTC in '89 I can say it was always awful. Ofcourse they were completely clapped out by then.
What was even worse was old division where the 4/68th was located, did you say the tank weight was 50 ton, it was 17 ton, what was also bad is if ya didn’t check the seal was still in place
I served in 4th Battalion 68th Armored from '86-'88. Take care, brother. Thanks for your service.
Interesting to see it in action. One of my first jobs in the mid 1960's was a machinist at the Philco Ford L.A.M.P. in Los Angeles. I produced parts for the shroud and the guidance and control for the missile. We lost our contract in 1968. Now, I think, I know why.
I was an M1A1 gunner during Desert Storm in 4th Battalion 70th Armor. I served with two sergeants that had began as Airborne tankers before transitioning to 19K like I was. I was always envious of their beret and tab. If we had an airborne light tank today I'd sign up for it. With today's missile technology it could be lethal. Imagine firing a round that could arc up and attack the top like a Javelin does. That tank was ahead of it's time. Cheers.
Imagine launching the missile and first the gun is automatically and nearly instantly aimed at you - and then you see the missile break apart about 20 meters away from the tank.
US tanks are getting fitted with the Israeli 'Trophy' Active Protection System. A perfect record of stopping at ATGMs and antitank rockets in combat and when the US Army tested it using over 50 different types of antitank missiles and antitank rockets (under simulated combat conditions) it stopped every one of them. (Including the latest versions of Javelin, TOW, and Hellfire.)
I worked at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard in the 60's and 70's. We mounted a Shillelagh turret on a small hydrofoil gunboat. As a replacement, for it's normal 40 mm Bofors. Don't know what the results of the experiment were? But doubt if they were positive. This was during the Vietnam war, when they were experimenting, with all sorts of small armed boats for the brown water Navy.
The salt water environment, was terrible for fragile/precision electronic equipment. Doubt that the precision electronics required for Shillelagh, would have survived in use in Vietnam.
I kinda would love to see it, but i also question the usefulness of a 120mm gun on a Small boat. If you ask me, it was probably asking for trouble.
Probably flipped the boat upside down with each shot.
@@watdaduckfuk 152mm gun/launcher. The round was rather slow and the missile had even less recoil. And since he mentioned a 40mm gun the craft in question was likely the LCM(6) derived Monitor, a heavy landing craft.
@@mbr5742 It was carried aboard the Hydrofoil Gunboat USS Flagstaff (PGH-1).
At a tank gunnery in Germany in the 70's. Our Cav unit was allowed one missle to be fired. The tank fired from a raised berm, the missle went about 400 meters down range, hit the ground and spun around like a fireworks then launched into orbit.......was disappointing and exhilarating at the same time ! You can't buy a memory like that !
Buddy of mine said he drew the short straw and his crew had to fire one. He said it fired well and about 200 meters out, it started shaking, rear end dipped and "it was headed towards Saturn last time we saw it" 😂
7:09 I thought (and I could be wrong here) that it was the complexity and futuristic-ness of the M60A2 that earned it the nickname starship not just the looks
It would seem that this is sort of a made up story as I cannot find any reference to crew members calling it the Starship. This seems to be a name that it got in the 90s for the reasons you had listed. I knew a man who crewed the M60A2 who referred to it as "a piece of shit". He was very happy when he was transferred to an M60A3.
I was about to say that.. apparently people started calling after it was canceled.
But that crew NEVER called it that
We never called it the "Starship". To us, it was just the "Deuce"
4 years in the Cav (76-80, on Sheridans) and never saw a Shillelagh hit anything. Optics had to be recalibrated as the temperature changed. Aft caps made nice ashtrays, though.
152mm HEAT rounds had a combustible case, that swelled in high humidity, so they got a neoprene cover (referred to as a Rino Rubber), and an asbestos bag covering that. Still convinced firing the 152 loosened every bolt on the thing 1/4 turn.
over 3 years in 4/68th Armor. 90% hit rate.
A retired buddy said he just loved sitting in the driver's seat with everything around him was covered in leaked propellant powder.
The M60 Startrooper and the Sheridan only gave headache to the crews so unreliable they were but perhaps the real failure was the Sheridan that recoiled tremendously and the caseless 152mm main gun rounds suffered very much from humidity and when fired conventional rounds the tank recoiled like crazy and often putting out of order the instruments and had far too thin armour with the crew sitting outside because of the mines. A very controversial tank...
I was a platoon leader and on BN staff 4/68 Arm-82nd ABN 11/73 to 11/76. Fired missiles every year with each Company in the BN. Only saw 2 failures. Conventional recoil was severe, but missile component failures were rare. Conventional round breaking was also rare. The occasional events have been repeated so often, they are now assumed to be common. Not true.
While the Sheridan is nowhere near as good as the cancelled M8 that was supposed to replace it, it would have been interesting if the Army deemed the Shillelagh a lost cause earlier and replaced the gun with a Bushmaster or a low velocity 76mm or something. Not sure if that would have been doable but it would have been interesting.
@@cm275 this is very true if fitted with the the Bushmaster or something similar it would have been a better option but also cheaper.
@@cm275 The cancelled T92 prototype that preceded the Sheridan had a 76mm gun that could fire HVAP rounds.
I did three years C Trp, 3/12 Cav, 3AD. We fired Shillelagh every year. Saw one miss. Recoil on conventional round was to third roadwheel. If you fired to 1600 meters the track would rock like crazy and you would still the round hit. They replaced them with M60’s in ‘79. There was talk of replacing the gun/launcher with an 85mm and adding a dual TOW launcher. And I never rode on the outside. Maybe in Vietnam.
I actually don’t know why your channel hasn’t sky rocketed in subscribers! They are educational and entertaining (at least for me 😄)
Aw cheers man. I'm just happy making videos - 2200 subs is more than I ever thought I would get!
I served on M60A2’s and they were NEVER referred to as “starship” by the crew members who served on them or the Armor School at Ft Knox. That monicker came from a scale model company long after the M60A2’s were taken out of service.🤷♂️
I say again, NEVER called or referred to as Starship by crew members or the Armor School at Ft Knox Kentucky!
I served on M60A2’s at Ft Knox Kentucky and in 1-32 Armor ☠️BANDITS☠️ out of Ray Barracks in Friedberg West Germany 1977 to 1980.
Hate to tell you this but in B company 4/64 armor in aschaffenburg we had a large yellow sign we posted outside the orderly room that had starship in big letters written on it. This was 1977 thru 1981.
@@paulknuff1555 I don’t believe it. You have a photo of it??
I agree. Never heard that name until waaay after they left service.
I was a platoon leader in 1/3 ACR in 1975-77 and had three M551s in my platoon. I well recall one annual qualification where the entire squadron was allotted a single Shillelagh for training and my platoon was chosen to fire it. A team showed up prior to firing for "calibration". Once calibrated, we were not to fire another 152 conventional main gun round before launching. The missile worked well. Also, we did not have training/practice (TP) 152 rounds. We fired HEAT rounds for training, which played hell with the downrange targets.
So many times when I read the comments after I a video like this I hear “what a waste of $$$”. If we don’t have failures we’re not pushing the envelope hard enough. In my career I’ve worked so many aircraft weapons systems that didn’t go anywhere after evaluation. Yet there’s almost always some new information gained that leads to another system which eventually works.
I would have liked to see LOS armor thickness when discussing how thick armor was. Such as the T-34, it's front hull armor was 45mm sloped at 60 degrees which would give it an effective thickness of 90mm. I am aware that even when discussing plain steel armor, there are many factors relating to how effective armor is like alloy, hardness, etc, but I thought that would be a more accurate way of discussing how effective armor is while keeping it simple.
9:17
"Maybe missiles were a good idea after all." Red Wrench - December 2021
I think Ukrainians think so too.
i think the sheridan was so close to being an amazing platform, the military is currently going back to a light tank design. the tech just wasnt ready for such a tank, but a modern sheridan with a similar current gen system will probably make a debut in a few years.
If you are thinking about MPF then rather than light tank the place it has in doctrine is closer to the one Stug had when it was first adopted. Heavy firesupport for infantry for taking out bunkers, mg-nests, vehicles, buildings etc. while having enough armor to withstand autocannon fire. As such MPF could be considered modern day assault gun rather than light tank.
For historical context: Stug was originally under artillery branch and intended to take out enemy strongpoints as direct fire support for infantry. It was pressed into tank destroyer role and moved under armor branch when Germany didn´t have enough purpose built vehicles to contest Soviet tank hordes.
@@henrihamalainen300and if they want a atgm on something they just mount javelin or tow 2
And it would still possess all of the drawbacks of a light tank. (Armor protection, ammunition protection, crew survivability, unable to deal with enemy armor, Cannot be used in offensive operations, etc.)
And of course - we get all of this for slightly under the cost of a real tank. 70% of the cost of a tank is the fire control system/weapons, and 15% is the powerplant and drivetrain. Also note that the advanced 'Chobham' style of armor used on current main battle tanks cannot be fitted to light tanks.
In Vietnam the Sheridan's were (rightfully) considered to be deathtraps. In the Gulf War it's sole contribution was to take out two bunkers (it was carefully kept away from places it might encounter enemy tanks).
And to get around the bad reputation that light tanks have earned worldwide - the US Army is instead calling it a 'Mobile Gun System.'
The Israeli have developed gun launched missiles for the 105mm L7 and the Rheinmetall 120mm gun. The LAHAT is actually a bit more powerfull (800 vs 600mm) than the MGM-51 missile and works against some ERA. On a light, fast platform like M8 it can give airmobile units some serious Anti tank, anti bunker and (with HE or Beehive) AntiPersonal capabilities.
@@mbr5742 With added complexity, a completely different fire control system, changes to ammunition stowage and the total amount of main gun rounds carried. And all this on a platform that is already at its max design weight.
BTW - the M8 is the same weight as a Russian tank.
As a combat engineer at Fort Bragg in the 70s, I built a special range so our armor battalion could fire the shillelagh missile without it, circling back and destroying the Sheridan vehicle. This is what happens when you use old ordinance.
no
HEAT shells don't make a molten stream, instead the copper is formed into a plastic (state of material, not what it is made of) 'spear' of sorts, which kinetically pushes its way through the armor.
Semantics.
@@Chilly_Billy
I mean it really isn't.
HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) shaped charge: creates a high pressure jet of gas and debris on the order of millions of pounds per square inch; yield stress of most armor is on the order of hundreds of thousands of pounds per square inch. The damage mechanics are the high pressure jet literally punches a hole through the armor. Modern defenses include armor composites that disperse the jet; physical barriers that prematurely detonate the warhead; bars that the deform the shape of the charge cone (usually made of copper alloys); etc.
@@rmace8423
There is no 'gas' with a HEAT shell, it becomes nowhere near hot enough to convert the liner into gas.
It's a purely kinetic penetrator, just exceptionally fast.
@@ThatZenoGuy I agree with you; the only gases would be by-products of the explosive detonation. "At typical velocities, the penetration process generates such enormous pressures that it may be considered hydrodynamic; to a good approximation, the jet and armor may be treated as inviscid, compressible fluids ... with their material strengths ignored."
Our local AM-VET location has a M60A2 out front, thing really does look like a cyberpunk tank with the odd protrusions from all of the equipment
I'm using my wife's tablet. I'm going to quote Moriarty from Kelly's Hero's. "It's a piece of junk!". I did a tank gunnery in 75 as a loader on one. We were so short handed that they would use anyone they could get their hands on. We had an 11B driver, an 11E gunner, an 11D TC, and me, an 11C loader. We would fire a couple of HEAT rounds and it would knock the crap out of the missile guidance system. We would have to go back , reset the system and start all over again.
I knew some guys that crewed the M-60A2. The only thing that they liked about it was that the gunner finally had their own hatch.
Great Job!
SGM(R), USA
19Z
I was the corporate senior systems analyst at LAMP in 1966 . Many stories.
The Australian Army received two examples of the M-551 for testing in the 1960s. The vehicle wasn't adopted.
Makes you wonder if the Russians had/have similar problems with their tank gun launched missiles.
The Russians had similar issues, exactly what I don't remember, but also their missiles were very expensive. Fact is that also those systems didn't had a long carrier...
Oddly enough Chrushtew was pushing guided missiles, as the weapon of the future, at the same time. It just didnt work as well as expected. Rumor has it that this failure was one of the reasons the soviet army favored Beshnew.
@@comentedonakeyboard you really slaughtered their names as much as you could
The missile dropped below line of guidance for a considerable distance after firing, giving it a long minimum range. The low velocity HEAT round had an even lower maximum range. This left a broad gap in which the tank was unable to engage armor at all, and that gap coincided with the most common engagement range band of the time, meaning that unless you were at point blank or really far away you were as screwed as a Texas prom queen.
All ATGM at that time had the problem. That is why the west germans had a gun armed and a missile armed TD on the same 25to/500 horsepower chassis during that time, the 90mm armed Kanonenjagdpanzer and the SS-11 armed Raketenjagdpanzer
The missile was designed to give a long stand off range against heavy tanks and tank destroyers (T-62s). The Sheridan because it had no armor and the M60A2s were suppposed to be long range "snipers" supporting other units. The HEAT was just a backup round.
@@obsidianjane4413
There is a problem with designing long range snipers for combat that is expected to be primarily in a country with a lot of hills and forests.
When you spoke about shaped charges you mentioned that it cast out a jet of molten metal, this is not true as the temperatures needed to do this would far exceed the temperature of the explosion inside the heat shell, while it is jet esque it is simply a piece of some kind of metal that is quickly sped up by the explosions to several times the speed of sound
HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) shaped charge: creates a high pressure jet of gas and debris on the order of millions of pounds per square inch; yield stress of most armor is on the order of hundreds of thousands of pounds per square inch. The damage mechanics are the high pressure jet literally punches a hole through the armor. Modern defenses include armor composites that disperse the jet; physical barriers that prematurely detonate the warhead; bars that the deform the shape of the charge cone (usually made of copper alloys); etc.
looking forward to your future videos about the M1 Abrahams, F-15 Aigle and BB-63 USS Misery
The main reason for the gun launched guided missile wasn’t as much for being able to penetrate thick armor. The main reason for them to exist was for long range accuracy. Until the advent of quick and accurate range finder systems and ballistic computers tank gunnery was as much art as science. The gunner would have to calculate the elevation and lead based on estimates of range and target speed and then most often have to correct after the first shot, which would usually alert the target and their friends that it was being shot at. Guided missiles solved that problem as they are by definition self correcting. The advent of laser range finders and ballistic computers removed the need for them on western tanks, though Russian ones still have gun launched missiles as their long range gunnery still leaves much to be desired.
The Sheridan and the shelielrigh missile are so awesome I love these
Was that picture at 8:15 from the Doha Dash?
The missile itself reminds me of Ukraine's Stugna P. An infantry portable version would've been at very least a great export as an anti armor defensive or ambush weapon. I guess the sole limiter was bulkiness of computers and imterfaces at the time.
I appreciate this man knows he made a mistake pronouncing Shillelagh.
Just don't come to Wexford pronouncing it like that, you'd get "a right batterin' and a bollockin'" :D
Wouldn't dream of it!
good stuff bro keep it up
Appreciate it man!
If the Sheridan was fitted with the 76mm gun from the M41 Walker Bulldog instead of the 152mm gun launcher, maybe it would be better.
This song in the beginning of video is a banger
The old adage about the Space Pen springs to mind here - along with the caveat that the pencil ends up spreading conductive graphene dust around the capsule and causing short circuits.
The AT-8 SONGSTER and AT-11 SNIPER weapons show it is certainly possible to design gun-launched missiles - but at the cost of holding a sight picture for up to 18 seconds. Meanwhile, NATO nations have instead invested time and money into designing better KE penatrators, and as a consequence have a weapon that has arguably better performance than either Russian KE or ATGM rounds - and is also a weapon they can shoot-and-scoot with much more easily.
Israel has the LAHAT missile for the 105 and 120mm tank guns
I don't see how service in the role it was designed for a decade can be a failure. It was a stopgap upgrade for existing platforms (M60) until the next gen gun/tank would be ready. It had SIGNIFICANTLY longer range and better penetration than the old 105 could ever achieve -- it was needed asap and arrived a decade before the US was ready to spend the $$$ on a 120mm gun let alone the Abrams.
It was theoretically great - that's why they made 88,000. In practice it was not so great.
@@RedWrenchFilms completely agree. If push came to shove, their effective minimal range (due to described sighting issues) would have meant a very high miss rate. Coupled with the fact reload time was considerably slower (a point you didn't cover) than a conventional gun, this would most likely have resulted in many tanks being destroyed by returnn enemy fire after exposing their position when firing the missile.
@@brucelamberton8819 Good point! Another thing I thought was interesting is that the tank would have to remain still as the gunner guided the missile to target - not an issue for conventional gun tanks who can fire on the move or move directly after firing.
I think you should make a video about USSR Tank ATGMs.
I have heard that Soviets had separate ATGMs for separate tanks.
Good presentation.
It was way ahead of it's time, and that was the gun/launcher's downfall. The electronics of the day weren't up to the task
Nice work!
The Sheridan should have been repurposed as a Tow Missile carrier once the Tow Missile came into service.
The M901 Improved TOW Vehicle served in that role. And while the Sheridan might very well have made a decent platform for a TOW launcher, only 1700 of them were ever made, compared with the 80,000 M113’s that were the base vehicle for the ITV and a host of other combat vehicles.
Firing a missile through the gun sounds like an idea a scifi writer would come up with. Is it really worth all the extra work? I think some recoilless launcher like on the M50 Ontos and a seperate missile launcher would have made way more sense on the sheridans chassi.
Very long range and anti helicopter capabilities. Modern ones use laser guidance ie the LAHAT
The Soviets made it work very well with their 125mm gun missiles.
When playing WT, issues are....
-If it hits a branch or twig on the way to the target the round will explode.
- Its is a slow round, there are many videos of real life soldiers seeing and running from an atgm, and this atgm is slow.
- Can be jammed
- Short range
Because that's how shaped charges and missiles work
Used these at NTC , I was a krasnovian , a few years before I went to tanks
Me too! I spent more time repairing the damn things than driving them.
Keep in mind that the armaments of early WW2 tanks weren't autocannons. They were single-shot, breach-loading cannons and were all basically derived from the towed variants. Some of the designs were adapted into autocannons later on (e.g. the 2cm KwKK 30 on the Panzer II), but the gun mounted on the tank was most certainly not an autocannon.
No, some were indeed auto-cannons. The German KwK 30 and the Polish 38 FK both had high rates of fire (600 and 350 rpm respectively) and were magazine fed.
@@RedWrenchFilms The Pz 2 is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of tanks were not armed with autocannons. Including all Polish tanks. The 7TP's were all armed with either traditional cannons or just machine guns. Only some TKS tankette's had the autocannon.
@@Ragedaonenlonely I say this in the video. A mix of 20mm autocannon, .50 cal machine guns, or some larger guns up to around 40mm.
good work
2:05
its not molten metal, there isnt enough time for the metal to heat up at all. its just highly pressurized so its acts like a liquid
2:33 Did that guy just skip a bazooka round into his intended target?
I was on the M60 A2 tank that had the same weapon systems . It worked better than the TOW.
Assuming that they still have them mothballed somewhere- Remove the Sheridan's tank gun- slap a 30-35mm autocannon on it and the fire control upgrades needed and ship them to Ukraine as a light recon tank. The UA can bolt Stugna's or whatever externally on em as well.. Cheaper than the Army's new light Tank.
However it was a great idea. 155 mm shells have a huge destruction power..
The only problem was that you had to set the system up, make it zeroed and accurate, as soon as you fired a conventional round you were committed as the missle system would slip out of focus after firing even one conventional munition., we were on the east german border, in contact we were outnumbered 11 to 1, the name of the game was to wait for the russian tanks to break over the top of the ridge about 4500 meters away, we were then supposed to kill 12 of them with our missles, then retreat to fall back annd re-arm. without throwing conventional arms. The system was very carefully designed to do a very specific fire mission. It would have worked just fine but it was designed for countering an all out invading force. DinoChrome!
Is it true that the Sheridan had an aluminium hull (varient?) that was for Helicopter deployment?
All Sheridans were aluminium hulled, they were designed from the beginning to be dropped from planes!
I was in the Army in the 70's and it was amazing how many vehicles tested then ended up as failures ( Gamma Goat, Sheridan, etc...) Didn't help when Carter became president and cancelled most military spending and projects ( like the B-1 bomber)
I wouldn't say that gama goats were a failure. Noisy as all get-out, yes, and maintenance intensive, but they were good for crossing rough ground and mud. While they only made around 14,000 of them, goats were a fixture during my active duty time and stayed in service until both they and jeeps were replaced by humvees.
Carter canceled the B-1 because he knew stealth tech was coming to make it obsolete, but couldn’t say anything.
Still I would hate to be on the receiving end of one of those shells. wether in a tank or infantry man in a bunker. Despite all its problems the VC and N. Vietnamese grew to fear them.
Excellent Video. I love your content!!!!!!!!!
Glad you enjoy it!
First US ATGM was the Dart Failed in tests never issued. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-A-23_Dart Entac, SS-10 and SS-11 were also in use Followed by the TOW and Dragon.
wtf someone named a missile after a stick, and it failed omg
War gaming if your opponent has read up on these weapons he or she will whip out the eight sided die
why was the Shillelagh pushed so hard?
Witnessed a Shillelagh taking a turrent off a Sheridan from about 40 yards. It was a murder although the gunner claimed accident.
Sounds an interesting story - where/when was this?
A 152mm Gun/Launcher capable of firing a large diameter, crew directed, HEAT Missile would be perfect for an Engineer Demolition tank. Right through the vision slit of a pillbox, nothin' but net.
you forgot to mention TOW and Dragon Missles
I mention TOW at 9:09
Wow, again the "molten metal" myth on chaped charges
It never really dies, does it? My favorite one is "HEAT jet burning through armor".
What is it actually, then? Every source I've read describes it this way.
@@RJ-lg9hs Instead of melting the copper liner, it would deform the liner.
@@RJ-lg9hs You have a liner that turns inside out due to the explosives in the HEAT shell causing it to form the penetrator, but that is formed by imparting enough kinetic energy to the liner that it starts to behave like a liquid. Liquids can't be compressed so it moves through the path of least resistance, the armour of the tank until it looses its energy.
The explosion itself doesn't generate enough heat to melt anything really.
@@Thund3r0v But the change of state from solid to liquid is called "melting". Temperature isn't the only thing determining an object's state of matter. The extreme pressure in the shell causes the copper to melt. Every single source I've seen describes it this way. If you have a source that explicitly states the copper doesn't melt, please give it.
Video starts at 2:22
It seemsd like a good Idea at the time
Oh yeah cause the Panther is a "medium" tank 💀💀
Note: in 2023 the abrams still does not have any type of missile
Because it was never intended to fire fire missiles.
I know guys that pronounced it “Shilly Law”.
1:34 *Naval gun
Does he say "50ton",or "15 ton",as there's a world of difference!
The mgm-51 shillelagh wasn’t as bad a failure as the mgm-52 boomerang.
The Russkiis fire shilleloos from the barrels of their tankeroos, too. And not just from tanks, but also from lower-velocity "gun-mortars", & the main 100mm guns of the BMP-3s. The ongoing special military conflagration seems the ideal sandbox in which to assess the effectiveness of the barrel-launched systems vs. "trad" ATGMs. Wonder how it's going over there with those...
I did see a interview of some captured ruskies who stated sourcing ammo was tuff for the 100mm.
Typically barrel fired missles tend to be a fair bit smaller than standard atgms, although the loss of about 200mm of pen or so isn't a huge deal and having the option to fire them in the first place is nice.
Yes It was
Many countries (USA, UK, USSR, etc) wasted so much time with missiles from the 50s onwards with many countries cutting money from aircraft research and standard tank armaments and they all mostly appear to have been expensive failures and many great aircraft designs were abandoned during this waste. I can only think of HIMARs have been a real success and they weren't developed until the 1980s. I guess missiles were too technically difficult before the computer chip age.
Both Swingfire and TOW are pre-80s designs that have had very long lives.
Shillelagh is one kickass name for an ATGM though.
Too bad the missile itself was kinda shit
Good idea, bad execution, I expect land drones to be very close to that vehicle
What did Ford do in the 60s? Made the mustang, GT and won the Le Mans. Also apparently made an ATGM lmao
balance audio better
9P157 Khrizantema-S Russian Self Anti-tank missile system
Your narration really clips a mic bad through these videos.
How are you Irish and you can’t pronounce shillelagh 😂 love your work keep it up 👍
I feel like missiles can be much more with newer technology. The APFDS can only do so much on 120mm, and bigger guns will be needed for a more destructive effect. While heat warheads are getting more destructive as years go by. Imagine a small autonomous vehicles that can shoot and track missiles to multiple targets using ai technology. Helicopters can do this but being a huge airborne vehicle comes with great risk.
The weakness with missiles is that they are slower when compared to KE projectiles, which allows APS to intercept them. It is still a relatively new field of technology, but US is looking to mount is already mounting Trophy systems on their vehicles. There are also physical limitations to how powerful a gun launched or man portable ATGM can be. It seems that for the foreseeable future KE projectiles will be the go-to option for AFVs.
The Israelis is more successful with their missile launching tanks. This type of project will restart again when the M1 can no longer be upgrade with a bigger gun.
I think it'll be missiles and railguns eventually.
I have to ask myself how a man with a decidedly Irish accent could possibly not know what a sheleighly is!! 😉
Well done. Too bad it was too far in to correct the pronunciation of Shillelagh, pretty annoying. Otherwise all good. 😁 PS in reference to pronunciation. I am a computer engineer, I work from home contracting in many aspects of support, fact checking, and running training for companies. All over North America and occasionally over seas. I found one thing in common people hate it when you mispronounce things, some polite, some not so much. If in doubt all you need to do is Google 'how to pronounce Shillelagh' and you can find pronunciations for pretty much anything. 👍
I was convinced there was a British and American way of pronouncing it and mine was just the British way - but I found out I was very wrong 😅
@@RedWrenchFilms We only know that which we have had the opportunity to learn! 👍
Phonetically, the spelling is as confusing as many "Irish" words and some proper names. Nobody could be blamed for mispronouncing "shillelagh", unless, of course, you're Irish.
@@peghead 😁👍
@@DIDYOUSEETHAT172 the narrator is from Northern Ireland as you can clearly hear from his accent
A typical ford product
If still made Ukrainians would have added them to their BTR & BMPS
Unspellable and unpronouncable lol
Why does this look just like the Sheridan from world of tanks lol.
I can’t tell if you’re kidding lol
@@RedWrenchFilms I’m kidding wanted to see if I. Could trigger any gamers lol
Bro literally made a detail and performance video about a subject he didn't know how to pronounce.
On RUclips, that’s a day ending in Y.
as always - taxpayers money burned
HEAT rounds DO NOT produce molten metal.
The copper cone is molten metal
@@dododostenfiftyseven4096 No it is not
@@xendk sorry
Have you done a vid on the mbt 70?
The M60A2 was NOT referred to as "Starships". ONE tank as nicknamed that. That was it. Stop propagating this myth. Down vote. Not subscribing.
This is the worst day of my life I’m just not sure what I will do without you
@@RedWrenchFilms Be even dumber?
@@obsidianjane4413 Excellent idea! Enjoy the rest of RUclips xo
Great vids!
...as for pronunciation? I'd say Pfft! it's called an accent!