Tanks/Vehicles M247 Sergeant York (SPAA)

[Thiky 2,162]

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. 

That's right. This isn't a gattling.

BUT

"It had a 192-round drum magazine, which in the 3,000 rpm mode would have equated to approximately 5 seconds of fire." - Vigilante

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

That's right. This isn't a gattling.

BUT

"It had a 192-round drum magazine, which in the 3,000 rpm mode would have equated to approximately 5 seconds of fire." - Vigilante

 

Had fire selector switch between 120 and 3,000 though. 

 

So in theory, you could have about 95 seconds of fire, or 5 seconds of fire (And, anywhere in-between...)

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,789]

Radar will never add to the game ... it would be too simple 

 

And if it will come, I see the result after the radar: we will have the SAM-3/7 and AIM-9/7/54 (and Counterparts), Afterburners (too have a chance to Avoid SAM-3/7, and AIM9/7/54 and counterparts!)

[Thiky 2,162]

Had fire selector switch between 120 and 3,000 though. 

 

So in theory, you could have about 95 seconds of fire, or 5 seconds of fire (And, anywhere in-between...)

I don't know this, but an other thing to this now.

3000 rpm - high, but only 5sec

120 rpm - this is rate of fire of half M42

AND

between the M247 with 660 rpm  ;)s

Edited March 17, 2016 by Thiky

[mr905 1,342]

 

Radar will never add to the game ... it would be too simple

Yes. the radar will be too simple. too predictable.

[Thiky 2,162]

Yes. the radar will be too simple. too predictable.

I think don't need radar control/tracking, but would be the accurate a little bit better.

This would be an upgrade maybe like the rangefinder on some higher tank.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Thiky

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

 

Radar will never add to the game ... it would be too simple 

 

And if it will come, I see the result after the radar: we will have the SAM-3/7 and AIM-9/7/54 (and Counterparts), Afterburners (too have a chance to Avoid SAM-3/7, and AIM9/7/54 and counterparts!)

 

 

 

There's a difference between a radar controlled conventional system, and a missile that rides on a beam to a target.... 

 

 

Arcade is a good example. The little circle you get is like the FCS. You point the guns there and fire. Not all shots will hit, it can be avoided with due care, and the shells are conventional. 

 

On the other hand, SAM/AIM missiles are fired, then aquire targets and follow till nearest point or contact before exploding.

[USArmyLTC 289]

See those two radar disks on the top.....Radar equipment is a NO GO with Gaijin.  Then new tanks suggestions end the 1970s.  This being a 1977 is the far of the 1970.  So the time you add this to the NO RADAR on any type of WT equipment, MAKES THIS A HUGE NO.

[Sir Rebral Palsy 2,423]

I fully support. +1

[Thiky 2,162]

See those two radar disks on the top.....Radar equipment is a NO GO with Gaijin.  Then new tanks suggestions end the 1970s.  This being a 1977 is the far of the 1970.  So the time you add this to the NO RADAR on any type of WT equipment, MAKES THIS A HUGE NO.

The "Sergeant" is better weapon system without radar too than the best ingame US SPAA now.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,789]

the Late M42 could have a Radar too  :learn:

[Thiky 2,162]

the Late M42 could have a Radar too  :learn:

"Initially, the 40 mm guns were aimed with the assistance of a radar fire control system housed in a secondary vehicle of similar design but this idea was scrapped as development costs mounted."

 

T141 interim anti-aircraft vehicle

T141E1 ultimate anti-aircraft vehicle

T53 radar fire control vehicle

 

"The T141E1 and T53 vehicles are canceled May 9, 1952 due to excessive complexity, development time, and cost. The Light Antiaircraft Development Program, begun in 1952, includes a proposed "Raduster" improvement (a Duster with a range-only radar)."

[Retry 7,363]

See those two radar disks on the top.....Radar equipment is a NO GO with Gaijin.

Meanwhile, several night fighters that rely on radar currently exist in War Thunder (Do-217N being the most obvious example)...

 

You've said so many stupid things about so many suggestions that at this point I only quote you to make fun of you.

 

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. 

The combined fire rate is on par with the Kugelblitz which is currently the deadliest SPAAG in the game vs aircraft, and the York has a better muzzle velocity, ballistics, and more punch than the Mk.103 (although, being honest, dead is dead).  Although I do love me some Vulcan Gatling, the ballistics of the 20mm caliber are limited against long-range targets like pop-up helicopters and part of the reason why the M247 was slated to replace it in the first place.

 

I have absolutely no opposition to any of the SPAAs you've mentioned, but I'm certain that the York is going to become the face of T5 US SPAAs.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Retry

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

 

The combined fire rate is on par with the Kugelblitz which is currently the deadliest SPAAG in the game vs aircraft, and the York has a better muzzle velocity, ballistics, and more punch than the Mk.103 (although, being honest, dead is dead).  Although I do love me some Vulcan Gatling, the ballistics of the 20mm caliber are limited against long-range targets like pop-up helicopters and part of the reason why the M247 was slated to replace it in the first place.

 

I have absolutely no opposition to any of the SPAAs you've mentioned, but I'm certain that the York is going to become the face of T5 US SPAAs.

 

Kugel has a ROF of 900/min (450x2, according to stat card..), and this bofors would be 330x2, only 660 per minute. If I really wanted to split hairs here (I dont..), the rof would have to be closer to the Coelian, which I (personally) haven't seen too much of, because, as you said, the Kugel is the more effective of the two. 

 

 

 

As things stand, I personally would choose a weapons system with a high rate of fire over punch, for the reason that the maps are artificially small, and so if a pilot wants to make a pass, he's going to be low and the opportunity to fire is going to be slim. (Like, for example, ash river, or tunisia), and like with the T249, sooner shoot 4 seconds at 3,000 rds/min and hope that a 37mm does enough damage to force the plane down, than shoot two bofors and pray that the shots don't bracket the plane instead of hit. 

 

If I did the math:

 

Assuming 3,000 rds/minute @ 915 m/s: The gaps between rounds would be two hundredths of a second apart, or 18 meters from bullet to bullet.

 

Assuming simultaneous fire, 330 rds/minute @ 1,020m/s: The gaps between rounds would be ~a fifth of a second apart, or 185 meters from bullet to bullet. Even if there was a stagger between the guns to make it 660 rounds a minute, it's still a tenth of a second apart and 95 meters apart (Staggeringly more than the T249). 

 

And if we get to the VADS, 6,000 rds/minute @ 1,050m/s, The gaps between rounds would be a hundredth of a second apart, or 10.5 meters from bullet to bullet. At that point, you're pretty much guaranteed to hit whatever it is you're shooting at, I feel. 

 

Now, all that being said, yes, each weapons platform has its strengths and weaknesses, but, I guess I'm just not entirely convinced about the M247. Yeah, great tank, yeah, I want it, it was produced, the whole 9 yards, BUT.... should it really be the definitive end-game tier 5 SPAA? I'm leaning towards no, in favor of the GAU-8 M48 instead.

Edited March 19, 2016 by BlitzkriegWulf

[Retry 7,363]

The gap isn't quite as relevant as you think it is, I believe.  You still, after all, have to fire your shells into the flight vector, which was a historical shortcoming of the M163.  The rate of fire helps the gunner to adjust the fire into the flight path.

 

While a Vulcan is really cool, the M163 has the muzzle velocity but simply does not have the rate of fire or the ammunition to challenge the ZSU-23-4.  Vigilante has less muzzle velocity and an absurdly low ammo count, so it'll never really have a chance as anything other than a SPAAG oddity like the ZUT-37.  The Crusader AA Mk.I closely mirrors the Vigilante's capabilities at its 120 rpm setting due to its ballistics and ammo count.  Ammunition endurance does matter.

 

M163/M247 combo is probably going to be the answer to the ZSU-37-2/ZSU-23-4 combo.

 

The GAU-8 version doesn't seem to have much information on it, such as armor profile, traverse rates and ammunition supply.  It's a prototype and probably would be overpowering compared to the Shilka and M163 and everything else anyone can throw at it except perhaps the Gepard.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

 

 

 

Kugel has a ROF of 900/min (450x2, according to stat card..), and this bofors would be 330x2, only 660 per minute. If I really wanted to split hairs here (I dont..), the rof would have to be closer to the Coelian, which I (personally) haven't seen too much of, because, as you said, the Kugel is the more effective of the two. 

 

 

 

As things stand, I personally would choose a weapons system with a high rate of fire over punch, for the reason that the maps are artificially small, and so if a pilot wants to make a pass, he's going to be low and the opportunity to fire is going to be slim. (Like, for example, ash river, or tunisia), and like with the T249, sooner shoot 4 seconds at 3,000 rds/min and hope that a 37mm does enough damage to force the plane down, than shoot two bofors and pray that the shots don't bracket the plane instead of hit. 

 

If I did the math:

 

Assuming 3,000 rds/minute @ 915 m/s: The gaps between rounds would be two hundredths of a second apart, or 18 meters from bullet to bullet.

 

Assuming simultaneous fire, 330 rds/minute @ 1,020m/s: The gaps between rounds would be ~a fifth of a second apart, or 185 meters from bullet to bullet. Even if there was a stagger between the guns to make it 660 rounds a minute, it's still a tenth of a second apart and 95 meters apart (Staggeringly more than the T249). 

 

And if we get to the VADS, 6,000 rds/minute @ 1,050m/s, The gaps between rounds would be a hundredth of a second apart, or 10.5 meters from bullet to bullet. At that point, you're pretty much guaranteed to hit whatever it is you're shooting at, I feel. 

 

Now, all that being said, yes, each weapons platform has its strengths and weaknesses, but, I guess I'm just not entirely convinced about the M247. Yeah, great tank, yeah, I want it, it was produced, the whole 9 yards, BUT.... should it really be the definitive end-game tier 5 SPAA? I'm leaning towards no, in favor of the GAU-8 M48 instead.

 

I personally like the idea of giving players as many choices as possible, so I believe that we should add the M247 for those players who want what would basically be a better M42, and then add at least one of the Gatling Gun SPAAs for those who want incredibly fast fire rate.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Apparently we are supposed to get the T249 Vigilante and the VADS at some point, so I want this SPAA to go along with them.

[TheMadHighElf 416]

Awesome and good looking, +1

[Daddo2 328]

Development started in 1977 and was cancelled in 1985 (with the reason being cost overruns)... Yeah, why not, supporting Russians will get 2K22 Tunguska, which is in active service since 1982... ;)s

[Thiky 2,162]

Development started in 1977 and was cancelled in 1985 (with the reason being cost overruns)... Yeah, why not, supporting Russians will get 2K22 Tunguska, which is in active service since 1982... ;)s

You will get rather a ZSU-23-4 "Shilka".   ;)s

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,789]

If ZSU-23-4, i prefer the M163 VADS armed by a M168 "Modified Vulcan" Gun.

[Thiky 2,162]

If ZSU-23-4, i prefer the M163 VADS armed by a M168 "Modified Vulcan" Gun.

The fact is, that all two (ZSU-23-4, M163) in use today too like the 2K22.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Apparently the forum isn't saving/posting my earlier replies, and I'm too lazy to re-write them....

 

Development started in 1977 and was cancelled in 1985 (with the reason being cost overruns)... Yeah, why not, supporting Russians will get 2K22 Tunguska, which is in active service since 1982... ;)s

 

 

No, not really..... no. 

 

Anton says tanks up to and including 1970's, and 1982 is about three years off. As others have said, the soviet counterpart would likely be ZSU-37-2, and/or ZSU-23-4. 

[Thiky 2,162]

Apparently the forum isn't saving/posting my earlier replies, and I'm too lazy to re-write them....

 

 

 

No, not really..... no. 

 

Anton says tanks up to and including 1970's, and 1982 is about three years off. As others have said, the soviet counterpart would likely be ZSU-37-2, and/or ZSU-23-4. 

The "Yenisei" would be great opponent to the "Sergeant"!!

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Apparently the forum isn't saving/posting my earlier replies, and I'm too lazy to re-write them....

 

 

 

No, not really..... no. 

 

Anton says tanks up to and including 1970's, and 1982 is about three years off. As others have said, the soviet counterpart would likely be ZSU-37-2, and/or ZSU-23-4. 

We are already meant to get both soon, so I see why we wouldn't be able to get this.