"Battle Accounts of M551s in Kuwait?" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Sovereign of Sweets and her entourage take their turn in Showcase.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Mako11 | 28 Nov 2015 11:57 p.m. PST |
I ran across mention of 51 of these being deployed to Kuwait with the 82nd Airborne Division, during the 1st Gulf War, and there's mention on the Wiki site that some saw combat with perhaps six Shillelagh missiles being fired. So, I was wondering if there are any battle accounts of them serving in Kuwait? The article mentioned the missiles were most likely fired against Iraqi antitank guns and T-55s. |
Airborne Engineer | 29 Nov 2015 4:43 a.m. PST |
The 82nd was mostly in reserve during the ground war phase of Desert Storm, they are not exactly equipped for a blitzkrieg tank battle across the desert. One brigade entered action attached to the French Daguet Division built around the HQ of the 6th Light Armored Division. The 82nd had one battalion,3rd Battalion, 73rd Armor Regiment which was equipped with the M551s so it seems likely the only tracked unit they had would have been attached to that brigade. They did not go into Kuwait and served on the Western flank in Iraq. If they had any engagements it was against the Iraqi 45th Mechanized Infantry Division. They did have T-55 and some were destroyed but I don't know how many by helicopters, French tanks or by the Sheridans. Don't know any specifics on their engagements but that might help you find them. |
Tgunner | 29 Nov 2015 6:57 a.m. PST |
The Osprey book on Sheridans says that one Shillelagh was used against a T55/Type 59. That's on p. 43. |
Mako11 | 29 Nov 2015 1:28 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the responses. I did a bit of searching, but didn't turn up much, other than the following. Apparently they were involved in flank screening, and it appears that their troops were moved by National Guard trucking units, in 5 ton trucks. There was also mention of the Iraqis having T-72s as well, but no mention of the Sheridans engaging those. I thought they might make for an interesting, hypothetical battle in the desert, since I've got to do something with these 1/144th scale tan M551s I've acquired. So, either put them to use, and/or repaint them in olive drab, I suspect. They'd be useful in defending against some Iraqi armor probing actions, and/or on patrol as the allied coalition advances deeper into Iraq. |
Airborne Engineer | 29 Nov 2015 5:19 p.m. PST |
Had Saddam continued south in August through October, the M551s would have got a lot of work; there would not have been enough US armor available. Likely the paratroopers would have defended urban areas, with the M551s popping out and blasting armor that got through the Close Air Support and Attack Helos. From what I recall of the early plans for that, the Marines and Paratroops would have held onto the coast highways while allowing the Iraqis to successfully drive on the rural roads to the West. Lining up divisions of vehicles on desert roads for close air support to destroy away from collateral damage. Now from what I have read, the Shillelagh missile firing usually knocked the guidance system out of whack. So repeated firings would not have been very successful for a long drawn out fight. I could see them though standing out of RPG range and providing good fire support against infantry and APCs though. |
hocklermp5 | 29 Nov 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
Hundred of missiles were manufactured and only 6 fired in a war zone. What a sad waste. |
Airborne Engineer | 29 Nov 2015 6:13 p.m. PST |
It is better if a weapon serves its purpose without needing a lot of use. |
Lion in the Stars | 29 Nov 2015 6:21 p.m. PST |
|
Mako11 | 29 Nov 2015 6:37 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the additional info, AE. That is very helpful. From what I've read, it was firing the main gun's standard HEAT rounds that usually knocked out the fire control system for the missiles, due to the heavy recoil on such a light vehicle. Apparently, the first two to three roadwheels would totally lift off the ground when they did that. Rumors are, that if firing the gun to the side, on any sort of hill, or incline, it could flip the vehicle. I have also read that the missile systems were usually down about 33% – 50% of the time, as well, due to reliability concerns. Not sure if that was due to the firing of standard rounds, or just technical malfunctions and complexity. One of the workarounds for the above was to dedicate some vehicles solely to firing missiles, and others to guns. I suspect you could fire the missiles first too, if needed, but once you'd fired the main gun rounds it'd be difficult to depend upon the missile system again. Of course, by the time the Soviet, Warsaw Pact, or Iraqi armor got that close, it probably wouldn't matter anyway, since the lightly armed Sheridans would be toast if hit by pretty much most enemy fire. |
The Wargames Room | 29 Nov 2015 10:45 p.m. PST |
I'm almost tempted to purchase some Sheridans, in 6mm, for Europe. I smiled at the concept of them tipping over on hills… |
Cold Steel | 30 Nov 2015 10:29 a.m. PST |
The Sheridans in the 82 Abn were retained as much for internal Army political reasons as for combat. I don't know anyone who had any confidence in the gun/missile system. The 82d's real AT capability came from their couple hundred Humvee-mounted TOWs and the ability to quickly redeploy them via helicopter. |
|