Lots of slide mold work showing here; open barrel ends, smoke launchers and bolt head detail showing in two directions on the same piece. NO apparent flash to clean up! Looks like great engineering work has been done on this model.
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
RFM Sheridan-- First Look
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 02:00 AM UTC
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 02:07 AM UTC
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 02:09 AM UTC
Russ, I see what looks like some link and length tracks here. Are these vehicle mounted spare links?
What format are the tracks offered in for this model?
What format are the tracks offered in for this model?
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 02:14 AM UTC
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 02:24 AM UTC
Kevlar06
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 05:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextOn the other hand, Modelers who just want a late Vietnam Sheridan can go with Tamiya’s kit.
Late? No, not really. Other than the optional birdcage armor, the Tamiya kit has features of an early M551.
Pavel,
Yes, it is an early version, but what I was referring to was the inclusion of the appliqué armor, which was added "later" in Vietnam, and the missing large bore evacuator that was present on the "early" M551 as produced in 1966, which is the "earliest" production model. The presence of the small tube and addition of the appliqué armor make the Tamiya Sheridan a "little later" version, but you're right-- it's still a Vietnam M551--just not a "very early" one.
VR, Russ
Kevlar06
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 06:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Russ, I see what looks like some link and length tracks here. Are these vehicle mounted spare links?
What format are the tracks offered in for this model?
Michael,
Thanks for posting the images! It was a bit beyond my capability. Yes-- they are link and length style tracks. One of the issues mentioned by another poster above is they have some ejector-pin marks on the backside, and RFM must have used an example of well worn track, as the pads are not well defined. I don't know yet if there are any "extras" for the kit yet, as I haven't built it (and haven't thought to count them yet!). There are some PE track hangers for the right side of the turret though. I'll need to do some research on "extras". Fruil and Model Kasten make AM track sets, but I think they're for the Academy kit, and since that kit has some dimensional problems, I don't know if they'll fit. Not sure if anyone's released AM for the Tamiya kit yet-- I'd think they'd fit the RFM kit, but don't hold me to it. I don't think the kit tracks are bad, and they'll look OK when built..
VR, Russ
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 07:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextOn the other hand, Modelers who just want a late Vietnam Sheridan can go with Tamiya’s kit.
Late? No, not really. Other than the optional birdcage armor, the Tamiya kit has features of an early M551.
I thought as well,but doubted my memory. I could care less about the brush guard Tamiya included. To be exact, it's probably not right for the armor kit. The initial shipments need in the junk pile till they finally figured them out.
By the way there was little need for an RPG screen on the front due to the shape. Nearly all CBL'd Sheridan's were hit directly to the side or ran over a mine. Many were lost to the autoloader/gun launcher failure. Allowing the neighbors to get close.
Gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 07:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextOn the other hand, Modelers who just want a late Vietnam Sheridan can go with Tamiya’s kit.
Late? No, not really. Other than the optional birdcage armor, the Tamiya kit has features of an early M551.
Pavel,
Yes, it is an early version, but what I was referring to was the inclusion of the appliqué armor, which was added "later" in Vietnam, and the missing large bore evacuator that was present on the "early" M551 as produced in 1966, which is the "earliest" production model. The presence of the small tube and addition of the appliqué armor make the Tamiya Sheridan a "little later" version, but you're right-- it's still a Vietnam M551--just not a "very early" one.
VR, Russ
By the spring of 69, kits were being shipped over from the states. I've see Sheridan's without the ACAV gun mount ontop operating with ones that did. With a gun launcher failure, they usually changed everything including the barrel. They never knew there was an issue with the gun launcher till April 1974!! (OEM manufacturer) Nobody in TACOM bothered to relay the information. There was also an issue with parts interchangeability with the gun launcher that was pretty much unknown at the time. That's why they changed everything!
Gary
Kevlar06
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 10:04 AM UTC
There were actually two problems "afoot" with the gun launcher system. The first was the failure of the Open Breech Scavenger System (OBSS) on the original production M551. This system allowed burning remnants of the "caseless" ammunition system to remain in the tube, and to even be drawn into the turret when the breech opened. Tracks with this system had a "large" bore evacuator and many made it to Vietnam. Later, they were retro-fitted with the Closed Breech Scavenging System, which was added to all vehicles. On "newer" CBSS vehicles coming off the production line, the older barrels were used which had a "ring" reinforcement for the older bore evacuator. But later, this barrel became a "smooth" barrel with no projections (the Tamiya kit has the "mid-production" barrel with the ring).
The breech problem Gary is referring to was discovered later, and involves cracks in the breech ring developing in older barrels, resulting from repeated firing of the heavy "caseless" ammo. This was a major issue, and beginning in 1974, as Gary mentions, many of these vehicles received new barrels. Post 1972, as they went back for rebuild, they also received the M55A1 upgrade. My track, Fox 36, in '77-78, was a Vietnam hull (still had holes from small arms fire patched on the sides), rebuilt with a new turret and barrel with a LRF, bringing it up to M551A1 standard (well, for a while, until I lost the LRF in a firing range "accident", so I guess my track reverted to an M551-sort of?). This was "par for the course" in the '70s. We traded in older M551s for newer A1 rebuilds all the time, usually two at a time, when they became overmilage (which included keeping track of the rounds downrange for barrel wear).
But, there were other problems with the gun tube beside cracks. Deformed obturator seals (it had an Artillery-like breech), jammed detent buttons (kept the missile or projectile from slipping backwards out of the tube), broken screw-drive motors were commonplace, and sometimes had serious repercussions, dead-lining the track. In all, the M551 was a complicated, finicky beast, demanding hours of care and maintenance. But it was also fun to ride on and operate--when everything was operating well.
VR, Russ
The breech problem Gary is referring to was discovered later, and involves cracks in the breech ring developing in older barrels, resulting from repeated firing of the heavy "caseless" ammo. This was a major issue, and beginning in 1974, as Gary mentions, many of these vehicles received new barrels. Post 1972, as they went back for rebuild, they also received the M55A1 upgrade. My track, Fox 36, in '77-78, was a Vietnam hull (still had holes from small arms fire patched on the sides), rebuilt with a new turret and barrel with a LRF, bringing it up to M551A1 standard (well, for a while, until I lost the LRF in a firing range "accident", so I guess my track reverted to an M551-sort of?). This was "par for the course" in the '70s. We traded in older M551s for newer A1 rebuilds all the time, usually two at a time, when they became overmilage (which included keeping track of the rounds downrange for barrel wear).
But, there were other problems with the gun tube beside cracks. Deformed obturator seals (it had an Artillery-like breech), jammed detent buttons (kept the missile or projectile from slipping backwards out of the tube), broken screw-drive motors were commonplace, and sometimes had serious repercussions, dead-lining the track. In all, the M551 was a complicated, finicky beast, demanding hours of care and maintenance. But it was also fun to ride on and operate--when everything was operating well.
VR, Russ
Kevlar06
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 - 05:16 PM UTC
In answer to Michael’s question regarding the tracks, the kit has 101 track links per side, with a total of 103 links per “C” sprue, which leaves 4 extra links for the turret track hangers, or wherever else you want to put them. I don’t really recall for sure, but I do believe the track on the real thing had 101 links in it. All I can remember of the tracks was those buggers were heavy when you needed to change them out, but not as heavy as an M60A1. They were also very difficult to throw, unlike an M113 or an M60A1. You almost had to be trying, or very unlucky. But if you did happen to throw one, they were a bugger to get back on. For a couple of years in the Cav, I had a tankers bar bent almost into a “U” shape from trying to get a track back on that I kept in the corner of my office to remind me not to do stupid stuff— but it didn’t always work!
VR, Russ
VR, Russ
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 - 03:44 PM UTC
Quoted Text
There were actually two problems "afoot" with the gun launcher system. The first was the failure of the Open Breech Scavenger System (OBSS) on the original production M551. This system allowed burning remnants of the "caseless" ammunition system to remain in the tube, and to even be drawn into the turret when the breech opened. Tracks with this system had a "large" bore evacuator and many made it to Vietnam. Later, they were retro-fitted with the Closed Breech Scavenging System, which was added to all vehicles. On "newer" CBSS vehicles coming off the production line, the older barrels were used which had a "ring" reinforcement for the older bore evacuator. But later, this barrel became a "smooth" barrel with no projections (the Tamiya kit has the "mid-production" barrel with the ring).
The breech problem Gary is referring to was discovered later, and involves cracks in the breech ring developing in older barrels, resulting from repeated firing of the heavy "caseless" ammo. This was a major issue, and beginning in 1974, as Gary mentions, many of these vehicles received new barrels. Post 1972, as they went back for rebuild, they also received the M55A1 upgrade. My track, Fox 36, in '77-78, was a Vietnam hull (still had holes from small arms fire patched on the sides), rebuilt with a new turret and barrel with a LRF, bringing it up to M551A1 standard (well, for a while, until I lost the LRF in a firing range "accident", so I guess my track reverted to an M551-sort of?). This was "par for the course" in the '70s. We traded in older M551s for newer A1 rebuilds all the time, usually two at a time, when they became overmilage (which included keeping track of the rounds downrange for barrel wear).
But, there were other problems with the gun tube beside cracks. Deformed obturator seals (it had an Artillery-like breech), jammed detent buttons (kept the missile or projectile from slipping backwards out of the tube), broken screw-drive motors were commonplace, and sometimes had serious repercussions, dead-lining the track. In all, the M551 was a complicated, finicky beast, demanding hours of care and maintenance. But it was also fun to ride on and operate--when everything was operating well.
VR, Russ
There was a major hydraulic problem with above and recoil system. The fix wasn't in till mid 74. A new tank worked OK, but even then had trouble after a few minutes. The pump was over worked, and literally fried itself trying to maintain pressure and volume at the sametime. Not sure just how it was fixed, but remember talk of adding two or three one gallon accumulators in the circuit to give a volume boost at high pressure. The other fix was a much bigger pump and oil tank. I used to have access to all the TACOM prints, but that's been a long time ago
Gary
SEDimmick
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 03, 2019 - 01:24 AM UTC
The MasterClub Tracks fit the RFM kit no issue, so I'm going to assume since they came out around the time the Tamiya Sheridan did, that the Fruli track will fit fine also (since they fit the newer Tamiya Sheridan)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/wgdZCYiGE21uv9Vk9
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOBqYvqDFBLyD89p997JD81v1V1nVM7ECQ3p8ww
https://photos.app.goo.gl/wgdZCYiGE21uv9Vk9
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOBqYvqDFBLyD89p997JD81v1V1nVM7ECQ3p8ww
Posted: Thursday, October 03, 2019 - 04:10 AM UTC
I'm not put off by link and length track. I always remember the Tamiya Hetzer that used L & L tracks and that was a very satisfying model, I thought, when finished.
TopSmith
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 03, 2019 - 06:35 AM UTC
By the way there was little need for an RPG screen on the front due to the shape. Nearly all CBL'd Sheridan's were hit directly to the side or ran over a mine. Many were lost to the autoloader/gun launcher failure. Allowing the neighbors to get close.
Gary
If my memory holds, I talked to those years ago that said the "RPG" fencing was used not for RPG's but to keep the snakes and other critters and stuff out of the drivers lap as they moved through the brush.
A good diorama would be having the crew using sticks to get a cobra unwound from the fencing with the tank sitting in the brush and a lot of leaves and stuff on the front slope. The gunner threatening to use the main gun on the cobra in the fencing if they don't get it off.
Gary
If my memory holds, I talked to those years ago that said the "RPG" fencing was used not for RPG's but to keep the snakes and other critters and stuff out of the drivers lap as they moved through the brush.
A good diorama would be having the crew using sticks to get a cobra unwound from the fencing with the tank sitting in the brush and a lot of leaves and stuff on the front slope. The gunner threatening to use the main gun on the cobra in the fencing if they don't get it off.
TopSmith
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 03, 2019 - 07:01 AM UTC
Could anyone post some photos of hull repairs from small arms damage? It could be a cool addition to building the kit.
Kevlar06
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 03, 2019 - 10:02 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Could anyone post some photos of hull repairs from small arms damage? It could be a cool addition to building the kit.
I wish I had some, but I really never had time to take photos when I was in the 11th CAV. But I can tell you "how" they were patched in the field, and this method was passed down to us by Vietnam crews. We took the circular lid of a #10 mess hall coffee can, or the sides of a can cut to shape, usually in a square or rectangle, applied rubber "wet seal caulk" (used for weatherproofing by the quartermaster folks) to seal them on the backside, and then used a standard drill and hand riveter to rivet the parts into place. After that was done, we'd use standard GI issue spray cans to repaint. The depot rebuilds did a similar thing with sheet aluminum, or just reskinned the entire damaged section if it was bad enough. The "coffee can" method was primarily a field expedient, but I saw lots of Sheridans with patches like these. The sides were so thin you could punch a hole in the side with a screwdriver and hammer if you wanted too. I had two coffee can patches on the left side of my track just from running downhill through a pine forest, we came out the other end with branches ticking out the side. An there was another on the right. The sheet aluminum was pretty thin.
VR, Russ
TopSmith
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 03, 2019 - 11:12 AM UTC
Was the turret any better?
Kevlar06
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 03, 2019 - 11:33 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Was the turret any better?
The turret was ballistic steel, so it was considerably better. The hull was aluminum, but what you see above the roadwheels is actually a thin "skin" riveted to a frame, which covers an inner core of extruded eurethane foam. This, along with the folding rubberized fabric shields, is what gave the Sheridan its amphibious capability. It also provided some "standoff" from the shaped charge of an RPG. The Sheridan was never intended to be a "tank" it was a lightweight reconnaissance vehicle. We never called it a "tank", although it had the ability to knock out any known tank of the day, with the missile (under the right conditions) and that massive artillery piece of a gun. But the gun played havoc with that lightweight hull, and the components inside.
VR, Russ
TankSGT
New Jersey, United States
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Joined: July 25, 2006
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 946 posts
Posted: Friday, October 04, 2019 - 05:02 AM UTC
The inner hull of the Sheridan was an extremely well sloped welded aluminum armor box. As Russ said the outer hull was a layer of foam with a sheet aluminum skin. The turret was welded steel. As a student in Sheridan school at Fort Knox I was dismayed to hear that a 50cal AP round could pierce our armor. Our instructed said I pity the guys who shoot at me with a 50cal since they are getting a 152mm HEAT round back. If you look inside the kits sponson boxes on the rear hull you can see the slope of the inner hull. The hatch in the right side sponson box is actually the hatch over the battery box.
Tom
Tom
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 04, 2019 - 01:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
By the way there was little need for an RPG screen on the front due to the shape. Nearly all CBL'd Sheridan's were hit directly to the side or ran over a mine. Many were lost to the autoloader/gun launcher failure. Allowing the neighbors to get close.
Gary
If my memory holds, I talked to those years ago that said the "RPG" fencing was used not for RPG's but to keep the snakes and other critters and stuff out of the drivers lap as they moved through the brush.
A good diorama would be having the crew using sticks to get a cobra unwound from the fencing with the tank sitting in the brush and a lot of leaves and stuff on the front slope. The gunner threatening to use the main gun on the ctobra in the fencing if they don't get it off.
That's what I figured. Yet I've many times it was an RPG screen.
Gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 04, 2019 - 01:35 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Could anyone post some photos of hull repairs from small arms damage? It could be a cool addition to building the kit.
I actually saw one with a couple 50 Cal cases driven into that sheet metal like nails! I even saw an ACAV have in the real gas tank!
Glt
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 04, 2019 - 01:42 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextWas the turret any better?
The turret was ballistic steel, so it was considerably better. The hull was aluminum, but what you see above the roadwheels is actually a thin "skin" riveted to a frame, which covers an inner core of extruded eurethane foam. This, along with the folding rubberized fabric shields, is what gave the Sheridan its amphibious capability. It also provided some "standoff" from the shaped charge of an RPG. The Sheridan was never intended to be a "tank" it was a lightweight reconnaissance vehicle. We never called it a "tank", although it had the ability to knock out any known tank of the day, with the missile (under the right conditions) and that massive artillery piece of a gun. But the gun played havoc with that lightweight hull, and the components inside.
VR, Russ
That might have changed the way they built them, but there was alot of styrofoam inside those panels. This cause the RPG war head to often blow on hitting the styrofoam. Then I've also seen the styrofoam catch fire, causing a terminal melt down.
Glt
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 04, 2019 - 01:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The inner hull of the Sheridan was an extremely well sloped welded aluminum armor box. As Russ said the outer hull was a layer of foam with a sheet aluminum skin. The turret was welded steel. As a student in Sheridan school at Fort Knox I was dismayed to hear that a 50cal AP round could pierce our armor. Our instructed said I pity the guys who shoot at me with a 50cal since they are getting a 152mm HEAT round back. If you look inside the kits sponson boxes on the rear hull you can see the slope of the inner hull. The hatch in the right side sponson box is actually the hatch over the battery box.
Tom
In the combat zone, the number one round in a Sheridan was a Can round! This was without second thought. He was was used for bunker activity, and stirring up tree lines.
A Can round was used o clearing booby traps that couldn't be undone. Most folks have no idea about the power of those darts! They'll penetrate the hull on an ACAV! If you happen to be ontop that ACAV, then you'll be part of the hull! Pinch bars have trouble getting you off the track.
Glt
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Friday, October 04, 2019 - 01:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The inner hull of the Sheridan was an extremely well sloped welded aluminum armor box. As Russ said the outer hull was a layer of foam with a sheet aluminum skin. The turret was welded steel. As a student in Sheridan school at Fort Knox I was dismayed to hear that a 50cal AP round could pierce our armor. Our instructed said I pity the guys who shoot at me with a 50cal since they are getting a 152mm HEAT round back. If you look inside the kits sponson boxes on the rear hull you can see the slope of the inner hull. The hatch in the right side sponson box is actually the hatch over the battery box.
Tom