Tanks/Vehicles M247 Sergeant York (SPAA)

[Thiky 2,162]

Hi members!

 

I saw the "Super Coelian" idea and born an idea to me to USA tech tree. This would be the M247 Sergeant York with a stronger, close case (M48) and longer, stronger 40mm barrel than the M42 Duster. The weapon system would be a little bit more accurate maybe, because the radar assist.

 

The category should be between the German Coelian and the Russian ZSU-57-2: Highest level with BR 7-7,7

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=644

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specification:

M247 Sergeant York

 

Weight:  54.4 ton

Length: 7.67 m (gun forward)

              6.42 m (hull only)

Width:  3.63 mm

Height:  3.42 mm

 

Crew:  3 man

 

Motor:  Continental AVDS-1790-2D diesel

            750hp (559kW)

Suspensiont:  torsion bar

Maximum speed:  48km/h (30mph)

Operational range:  500km (310mi)

 

Main armament:  2 × Bofors 40 mm L/70

                            580 rounds

Elevation:  -5° to +85°

Traverse:  360°

Rate of fire:  600 rpm

Maximum firing range:  12.5 km

 

I hope this is a good idea and you like and support!

I wait the remarks and ideas!

 

Regards,

Thiky

Edited November 6, 2016 by Thiky

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion. :salute:

 

The L70 40mms would be a nice upgrade from the M42. :good:

[mr905 1,342]

dat radar doe

[igeticsu 3,400]

I saw the "Super Coelian" idea and born an idea to me to USA tech tree. 

Well If the Super Coelian is added I would also like to see this :P Would be a nice counter to them both.

[Thiky 2,162]

 

Maneuverability:

Gradient: 60%

Side slope: 30%

Vertical step: 0.9 m

Trench: 2.6 m

Fording: 1.2 m

[Stuka_Hunter 3,408]

How many were made?

[Thiky 2,162]

How many were made?

50

[Stuka_Hunter 3,408]

50

 

Good enough. I support it.

[Thiky 2,162]

Good enough. I support it.

:salute:

[Delta_48 471]

I dunno if it should or not be in-game.... but I love the name, because it's named after a World War I veteran... Sgt. Alvin York

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

I dunno if it should or not be in-game.... but I love the name, because it's named after a World War I veteran... Sgt. Alvin York

 

It could be accepted. Planes, 1960's, Tanks, 1970's. 

 

18. How far are you planning to do the tech trees? So far, we have seen aircraft and vehicles from the 1950s and 1960s, so would it be likely to see aircraft like the Lightning and Vulcan as well? Or are you planning in going "backwards" in time?

 

Anton: "Generally, the answer is quite simple, although it can be a lengthy one. War Thunder is a very realistic game regarding physics and damage modelling, and we want to keep it that way. For aircraft, that means we are limited to vehicles not equipped with good enough Air-to-Air missiles, as that would change the gameplay completely - or rather, it would remove any gameplay altogether. You just lock on the target, release the missile, and that basically is the whole combat. There is no classic dogfighting with modern combat jets, as the individual pilot's skill is much less important here, compared to the WWII and Korean War eras. Early jets will thus most likely remain the end of the tech tree there, as later ones all come with Air-to-Air missiles.

For tanks the combat situation changed as well, but much later. Even vehicles from the 1970ies were not equipped with potent missiles that could be used without actually seeing or manually guiding for the enemy. So, with tanks, we'll probably go up to the 1970ies, while with aircraft we'll stop in the 1960ies - when missiles took over combat. And this decision is purely a gameplay one, as combat with missiles in a Realistic game is, well, boring."

 

 

So, I would have to say yes :3

 

 

 

But, I must hasten to add:

 

I think that the T249 needs to come after Duster, and that the M163 VADS needs to come before the M247. 

 

 

I also think that there were some towed applications (100+mm, iirc) that would be nice to combat bomber spam, although, in the kinds of battles we have now, we do not have to target large heavy-bombers at 30,000 feet.

Edited March 16, 2016 by BlitzkriegWulf

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

I like the look of it, so you can have my support

[PumpScout 166]

Done historically, the radar and fire control system should not make this more accurate. While the manuals may hype up how great this system was supposed to be, there's a reason it wasn't accepted for service. It couldn't track targets quickly enough. It was complex and unreliable. And most notoriously, the tracking system once locked onto a bathroom fan thinking it was an aircraft target.

 

It was in development long-term, up until 1985, when the project was finally put out of its misery. Air defense units continued to rely on the M-163 Vulcan until the Bradley-based Linebacker system came about, which didn't last long itself.

[kevQC 2,814]

Finally a suggestion that isn't a prototype! +1

[Thiky 2,162]

It could be accepted. Planes, 1960's, Tanks, 1970's. 

 

18. How far are you planning to do the tech trees? So far, we have seen aircraft and vehicles from the 1950s and 1960s, so would it be likely to see aircraft like the Lightning and Vulcan as well? Or are you planning in going "backwards" in time?

 

Anton: "Generally, the answer is quite simple, although it can be a lengthy one. War Thunder is a very realistic game regarding physics and damage modelling, and we want to keep it that way. For aircraft, that means we are limited to vehicles not equipped with good enough Air-to-Air missiles, as that would change the gameplay completely - or rather, it would remove any gameplay altogether. You just lock on the target, release the missile, and that basically is the whole combat. There is no classic dogfighting with modern combat jets, as the individual pilot's skill is much less important here, compared to the WWII and Korean War eras. Early jets will thus most likely remain the end of the tech tree there, as later ones all come with Air-to-Air missiles.

For tanks the combat situation changed as well, but much later. Even vehicles from the 1970ies were not equipped with potent missiles that could be used without actually seeing or manually guiding for the enemy. So, with tanks, we'll probably go up to the 1970ies, while with aircraft we'll stop in the 1960ies - when missiles took over combat. And this decision is purely a gameplay one, as combat with missiles in a Realistic game is, well, boring."

 

So, I would have to say yes :3

 

But, I must hasten to add:

 

I think that the T249 needs to come after Duster, and that the M163 VADS needs to come before the M247. 

 

I also think that there were some towed applications (100+mm, iirc) that would be nice to combat bomber spam, although, in the kinds of battles we have now, we do not have to target large heavy-bombers at 30,000 feet.

I know an anti-aircraft system from cold war, what hasn't AA missiles yet and I thought show to you like idea. That's all. This would be too young to its enemies maybe.

 

The T249 is a good idea too, but its built number 6 (would be good to premium) and the M163 are the our days vehicles yet.

 

 

Done historically, the radar and fire control system should not make this more accurate. While the manuals may hype up how great this system was supposed to be, there's a reason it wasn't accepted for service. It couldn't track targets quickly enough. It was complex and unreliable. And most notoriously, the tracking system once locked onto a bathroom fan thinking it was an aircraft target.

 

It was in development long-term, up until 1985, when the project was finally put out of its misery. Air defense units continued to rely on the M-163 Vulcan until the Bradley-based Linebacker system came about, which didn't last long itself.

That's right, but I don't saw support jets in the ground battles yet.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Thiky

[Thiky 2,162]

I think that the T249 needs to come after Duster, and that the M163 VADS needs to come before the M247. 

An other project with a M48 case and a 30mm GAU-8 (from A-10) Gatling gun.

 

 

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

I know an anti-aircraft system from cold war, what hasn't AA missiles yet and I thought show to you like idea. That's all. This would be too young to its enemies maybe.

 

The T249 is a good idea too, but its built number 6 (would be good to premium) and the M163 are the our days vehicles yet.

 

 

That's right, but I don't saw support jets in the ground battles yet.

 

 

Well..... Seemed that (After looking into it...?) That the M247 was a pretty epic fail. Basically using poorly-stored M48 hulls, with the same turret drives on an AA platform that were used on the M48, with old 40mm bofors barrels, with a bad feed system, and with a FCS that was on the F-16.... and designed for only air use.

 

 

So basically the trees showed up as aircraft/interferance, and when the barrels were elevated past a certain point, the exhaust from the propellant made the FCS go haywire. Also, the FCS apparently made lots and lots of heat, meaning that if we ever get into FLIR cameras... it's going to have a really nasty signature from quite a distance.

 

An other project with a M48 case and a 30mm GAU-8 (from A-10) Gatling gun.

 

mmmmh...... hopefully that takes more after the VADS. Seems a lot of people have needed their A-10 fix and that might help soothe them to be able to blow people away with a GAU-8.

 

Could be a good top tier.... what do they call it?

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,790]

We're near (1.59 Rumors) to have a Modified M61-A-1 "Vulcan" 20mm Guns for SPAA, so why do you want a new twice Bofors SPAA?

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

We're near (1.59 Rumors) to have a Modified M61-A-1 "Vulcan" 20mm Guns for SPAA, so why do you want a new twice Bofors SPAA?

 

Mmh..... But the difference is (supposedly....) that this SPAA has a FCS. 

 

So it should be effective against some things, hopefully.... but yeah, the slow rate of fire doesn't help it any.

[Retry 7,363]

Mmh..... But the difference is (supposedly....) that this SPAA has a FCS. 

 

So it should be effective against some things, hopefully.... but yeah, the slow rate of fire doesn't help it any.

Also the fact that they're L/70 instead of L/60 might have something to do with it.

 

                  Fire Rate /min              Muzzle Velocity  m/s            Traverse Rate   deg/s         

L/60               120                                   881                                     50             

L/70               330                                   1021                                   92

 

It's only a bofors firing nearly three times as much shells at a higher velocity.  But yeah, who needs Bofors eh?

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,790]

Mmh..... But the difference is (supposedly....) that this SPAA has a FCS. 

 

So it should be effective against some things, hopefully.... but yeah, the slow rate of fire doesn't help it any.

 

Which means FCS? men,put us the global meanning.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Cpt_Bel_V

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

An other project with a M48 case and a 30mm GAU-8 (from A-10) Gatling gun.

 

 

Can someone make a suggestion for this? I would totally support that.

Which means FCS? men,put us the global meanning.

I'm pretty sure FCS means Fire Control System

[Thiky 2,162]

mmmmh...... hopefully that takes more after the VADS. Seems a lot of people have needed their A-10 fix and that might help soothe them to be able to blow people away with a GAU-8.

 

Could be a good top tier.... what do they call it?

I found only one place, where wrote name to it.

/"Avenger" - DIVAD (Divisior Air Defence) system vehicle prototype propose by General Electric Company. This vehicle was armed in 30 mm GAU-8 seven barrel cannon and had effective kill range of 4000 meters. Developed in 1977./

The name got after the gun name according to me.

 

Also the fact that they're L/70 instead of L/60 might have something to do with it.

 

                  Fire Rate /min              Muzzle Velocity  m/s            Traverse Rate   deg/s         

L/60               120                                   881                                     50             

L/70               330                                   1021                                   92

 

It's only a bofors firing nearly three times as much shells at a higher velocity.  But yeah, who needs Bofors eh?

"...and longer, stronger 40mm barrel than the M42 Duster"

Edited March 17, 2016 by Thiky

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Also the fact that they're L/70 instead of L/60 might have something to do with it.

 

                  Fire Rate /min              Muzzle Velocity  m/s            Traverse Rate   deg/s         

L/60               120                                   881                                     50             

L/70               330                                   1021                                   92

 

It's only a bofors firing nearly three times as much shells at a higher velocity.  But yeah, who needs Bofors eh?

 

 

Well.... While I wasn't aware of the barrel length difference or the fire rate difference, I somehow doubt that the turret traverse on the M247 is 92 degrees per second... I thought I read somewhere that the turret traverse modules were the same as the M48's. 

 

And, while the fire rate of (combined) 660 is far superior to the 240 of the SPAA we currently have, it's a far cry short of the T249, M163 VADS, or the M48 with a Gau-8 turret. 

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Which means FCS? men,put us the global meanning.

 

"FCS" is "Fire Control System". 

 

Typically what these systems do is they scan for a target using radar, calculate lead and drop, and pre-aim the weapons system for you. The result is usually very accurate shot placement.