Jump to content


Photo

Interesting Personal Perspective On The Sgt. York Divad


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 591 posts

Posted 21 December 2017 - 1225 PM

M48 and M1 have the same turret ring diameter.  Is there any reason why the DIVAD turret couldn't have been placed on an Abrams chassis?


  • 0

#22 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,789 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 December 2017 - 1235 PM

Costs and fuel consumption would have skyrocketed.

 

You gotta keep in mind even Gepard did cost three times as much as the Leopard 1 tank. The Gepard SPAAG force did cost about 60% as much as the Leopard MBT force.

MBTs up to the mid-80's weren't so much electronics wizardry as steel. SPAAGs of the 60's and later were all first and foremost electronics wizardry.

 

So if you increase the expense for a SPAAG further to, say, times 3.5, you end up with either very few of those or a badly imbalanced AFV force.

 

The Brits were probably very right in their low cost approach with their Stormer/Starstreak SPAAG.


Edited by lastdingo, 21 December 2017 - 1235 PM.

  • 0

#23 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,586 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 21 December 2017 - 1254 PM

 

 

 

That "novel concept" was in service with the German and Dutch armies at the time.

 

The USArmy could have purchased either Gepard turret and Roland/Crotale/Rapier (Roland being the best self-propelled unit) instead of wasting development funds on York and being stuck with PIVADS, Chapparal and Stinger only. That trio was of less use against Mi-24 than the Gepards.

 

Agreed, but Roland (and Gepard, and ADATS) all suffered from "NIH".

I swear, the US Army must have a giant rubber stamp that reads "The platform is 'immature' and 'not suited to US Army needs at this time'." that they just keep handy.

 

 

They did, but the odd thing is that Im near certain the USAF purchased Roland for defending USAF airfields in West Germany. And they certainly DID procure Rapier to defend USAF airbases in the UK. Im not sure if the British supplied the personnel for them or what, but that the USAF did lay the funds down for them to defend their airfields, that I do remember. They were still being used well into the 1990s.

 

So if the USAF could do it, why couldnt the Army?
 

 

 

God only knows.

 

Hell, I'm still amazed the Abrams got procured.  I can only assume the general for whom it was named had photos and knew where bodies were buried, as it were.  I mean, British armor, and later a German main gun?!  (And one might argue "...and Japanese electronics" but that's stretching it a bit).

 

Anyway, again, I think there were those who had fixed their sights on killing something, anything, that was being procured.  Based on what I've read, is there anything out of the realm of normal teething problems that the DIVAD had - speed issue due to the M48-ness of it aside - that couldn't have been worked out?

 

And to think Abrams said "We will procure a German tank over my dead body!".


  • 0

#24 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 21 December 2017 - 1320 PM

 

 

 

 

That "novel concept" was in service with the German and Dutch armies at the time.

 

The USArmy could have purchased either Gepard turret and Roland/Crotale/Rapier (Roland being the best self-propelled unit) instead of wasting development funds on York and being stuck with PIVADS, Chapparal and Stinger only. That trio was of less use against Mi-24 than the Gepards.

 

Agreed, but Roland (and Gepard, and ADATS) all suffered from "NIH".

I swear, the US Army must have a giant rubber stamp that reads "The platform is 'immature' and 'not suited to US Army needs at this time'." that they just keep handy.

 

 

They did, but the odd thing is that Im near certain the USAF purchased Roland for defending USAF airfields in West Germany. And they certainly DID procure Rapier to defend USAF airbases in the UK. Im not sure if the British supplied the personnel for them or what, but that the USAF did lay the funds down for them to defend their airfields, that I do remember. They were still being used well into the 1990s.

 

So if the USAF could do it, why couldnt the Army?
 

 

 

God only knows.

 

Hell, I'm still amazed the Abrams got procured.  I can only assume the general for whom it was named had photos and knew where bodies were buried, as it were.  I mean, British armor, and later a German main gun?!  (And one might argue "...and Japanese electronics" but that's stretching it a bit).

 

Anyway, again, I think there were those who had fixed their sights on killing something, anything, that was being procured.  Based on what I've read, is there anything out of the realm of normal teething problems that the DIVAD had - speed issue due to the M48-ness of it aside - that couldn't have been worked out?

 

And to think Abrams said "We will procure a German tank over my dead body!".

 

 

The M256 cannon is as german as the M9 pistol. Both shoot a german designed cartridge. That is it. The 40 mm is swedish. All 155 mm artillery is french...

 

list goes on and on.

 

 
 

 

Anyway, again, I think there were those who had fixed their sights on killing something, anything, that was being procured.  Based on what I've read, is there anything out of the realm of normal teething problems that the DIVAD had - speed issue due to the M48-ness of it aside - that couldn't have been worked out?

 

 

Should not have been be too difficult to put the turret on an M60 hull or later on an M1 hull.

Or a sutiably modified M88 A2 hull.

 

 

And it is debatable if the lower speed really was an issue. I have had one exercise together with a Gepard for a presentation for big wigs and the Gepard although "only"  on a Leo1 hull could keep up and in battle you are more like hopping from one postion to another and the SPAAG follows in a close distance and does not maneuver as much as the MBTs.

 

road march speed is the same for all of them anyway.


Edited by Panzermann, 21 December 2017 - 1323 PM.

  • 0

#25 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 21 December 2017 - 1432 PM

Kind of wonder how the Sgt York would have looked in this paint scheme. I think it looks really sharp. I know it's a commemorative scheme but it may have worked well in certain desert environments:

 

6yltXPUl.jpg


  • 0

#26 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,789 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 December 2017 - 1443 PM

The M256 cannon is as german as the M9 pistol. Both shoot a german designed cartridge. That is it.

 
It's built under license with a different recoil system. Chamber and barrel are the same. 
  • 0

#27 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 24 December 2017 - 1254 PM

Stormer Starstreak would never have been all weather but that wasn't so important. Had it been funded, autotracking would have made it much better to especially with the addition of the unitary warhead missile.


  • 0

#28 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,352 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 24 December 2017 - 1406 PM

In the end we will see those systems come back, with the need to knock out UAVs.


  • 0

#29 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 24 December 2017 - 1525 PM

In the end we will see those systems come back, with the need to knock out UAVs.


Hopefully with components designed for cheap mass production, as throwaway UAV swarms will be one strategy used by OPFOR at some point.
  • 0

#30 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,708 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 24 December 2017 - 1651 PM

M48 and M1 have the same turret ring diameter.  Is there any reason why the DIVAD turret couldn't have been placed on an Abrams chassis?

 

Probably lack of chassis at the time.  All the M1 being built were wanted as tanks.  They also had a lot of surplus M48 they wanted to use.up.


  • 0

#31 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 25 December 2017 - 1802 PM

In the end we will see those systems come back, with the need to knock out UAVs.

 

I think the cost exchange ratio of SAM, or even proximity/programmagle ammo to UAV will drive a move toward lasers for defence sooner rather than later. The pressure for this change will only get greater as swarming UAV systems are inevitably deployed.


  • 0

#32 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 25 December 2017 - 2209 PM

IIRC, one of the chief knocks against the M247 was that it's 40mm guns were outranged by threat helicopters and their ATGM's.


  • 0

#33 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 26 December 2017 - 0932 AM

 

In the end we will see those systems come back, with the need to knock out UAVs.


Hopefully with components designed for cheap mass production, as throwaway UAV swarms will be one strategy used by OPFOR at some point.

 

 

then build your own counter UAVs on a suicide mission. Banzai! ;)

 

 

 Lasers are being worked on to drive ammo cost down and reaction time down too.


  • 0

#34 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,085 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 27 December 2017 - 1840 PM

IIRC, one of the chief knocks against the M247 was that it's 40mm guns were outranged by threat helicopters and their ATGM's.

One reason the DIVAD went with 40mm was because it far outranged other contemporary ADA systems e.g., the Gepard.


  • 0

#35 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 27 December 2017 - 1954 PM

Reading some of the DTIC reports on the M247 testing brought of some of the issues (many of them minor) experienced:

 

"Since visibility was diminished, drivers drove slower than the normal rate of speed. When drivers were going up hills, they could only see the sky. Drivers could only see several feet ahead of the track when driving down hills. On one occasion, two crewmen received injuries when the fire unit ran into a ditch. Radars were damaged from hitting tree limbs, and two gun barrels were bent from hitting trees. Visibility from the crew compartment was inadequate. The periscope had a limited field of view, and the vision blocks had limited visibility.

 

"When drivers operated the fire unit with the hatch open, the rotating turret struck the back of their helmets. Drivers were hit on the head several times during operations. Prompted to drive with the hatch closed to protect their heads, visibility and maneuvering ability were degraded."

 

OK, but weren't these known issues with the M48 tank? 


  • 0

#36 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 28 December 2017 - 1832 PM

 

IIRC, one of the chief knocks against the M247 was that it's 40mm guns were outranged by threat helicopters and their ATGM's.

One reason the DIVAD went with 40mm was because it far outranged other contemporary ADA systems e.g., the Gepard.

 

 

Hi DK. At the time the reason was stated as the 40mm L/70 round having more development potential - ie. proximity fusing and the potential (even then) of guided rounds. There may have been a range advantage, but I would guess that was more a factor of proximity fusing than of the ballistics of the round itself. 


  • 0

#37 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,653 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 28 December 2017 - 1945 PM

"OK, but weren't these known issues with the M48 tank?"-- Dawes
M48s weren't having to chase other vehicles--everyone else was supporting THEM.:P

Edited by shep854, 28 December 2017 - 1946 PM.

  • 0

#38 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,085 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 05 January 2018 - 1130 AM

"OK, but weren't these known issues with the M48 tank?"-- Dawes
M48s weren't having to chase other vehicles--everyone else was supporting THEM. :P

Of course the M1 faces the exact same problems with visibility and in fact the driver of the M1* must be buttoned up when tactical else the turret can literally take a chunk out of his skull (I was part of an investigation team about just such an incident).  And yeah, all vehicle crews with external weapons have to mind the trees, be they crewing an M247 DIVAD or an M1A1 Abrams.  So that passage about problems with visibility and weapon vulnerability is just filler crap to get the requisite number of words in the report.

 

*The driver of an M1 has very poor visibility to hazards in front of the vehicle; due to the relatively flat slope of the hull he is unable to see the ground for 10 to 15 meters to his immediate front.


Edited by DKTanker, 05 January 2018 - 1133 AM.

  • 0

#39 BJE

BJE

    Member

  • TestGroup
  • PipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 05 January 2018 - 1142 AM

Might be that the issue of barrels and radar disc hitting trees is more of an issue when the system is on auto? That problem doesn't exist in tanks.


  • 0

#40 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,027 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 05 January 2018 - 1243 PM

I suspect that the gun/turret is NOT left in stabilized mode when navigating in close terrain. Else you get the gun striking things as you make turns in front of said close terrain. 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users