Tanks/Vehicles M247 Sergeant York (SPAA)

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,789]

i think we can add M247 and M163.

 

1st is 2*40mm Bofors

 

2nd is 1*20mm modified "Vulcan"

 

But The Me163 can't defend himself from ennemy tanks (as all SPAA of T5 in the game,...)

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

i think we can add M247 and M163.

 

1st is 2*40mm Bofors

 

2nd is 1*20mm modified "Vulcan"

 

But The Me163 can't defend himself from ennemy tanks (as all SPAA of T5 in the game,...)

The Coelian also has some defense issues in that it can't really pen most of what it meets besides the rare light tank.

[Kocyra 5,742]

The M247 was a total failure. It couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside.

 

It also malfunctioned once and almost fired on the VIPs watching it.

 

But I guess why not 

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

The M247 was a total failure. It couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside.

 

It also malfunctioned once and almost fired on the VIPs watching it.

 

But I guess why not 

 

 

Since when did something being a total failure stop Gaijin from adding it to the game?

 

 

Part of the fun is just seeing what's out there, especially when 50 units were produced, and they spent millions just trying to get the thing to work. Sure, it was 50 bad apples, but I think it's worth a go.

 

 

 

Better than the one-off's that made it into the game, or the XP-38G....

[Retry 7,363]

Better than the one-off's that made it into the game, or the XP-38G....

There's never been such a thing as the XP-38G.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

There's never been such a thing as the XP-38G.

 

that was kinda the point...Total failures like the I-185's and then planes that flat out just never existed.

 

So in respect to the XP-38G, the M247 is miles ahead. but that doesn't really stop it from being a failure of a SPAA :\

Edited April 2, 2016 by BlitzkriegWulf

[DurexMorso 63]

I think Gaijin's adding a prototype or an early version of the Flakpanzer Gepard due to it's radar and I see this vehicle no different to it.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

I think Gaijin's adding a prototype or an early version of the Flakpanzer Gepard due to it's radar and I see this vehicle no different to it.

 

I wouldn't say "due to its radar", as no vehicles in game have a modeled radar system (where applicable). 

 

If anything, there was rumors of adding the Gepard, VADS, and Falcon to offest the ZSU-57, and I think they'd add the ZSU-23-4.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

I still think an improved M42 would be nice, so I would like this vehicle to be added.

[Silavite 1,218]

It would be nice to see something that had the L/70, seeing that it has a much more capable rate of fire than the L/60.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

It would be nice to see something that had the L/70, seeing that it has a much more capable rate of fire than the L/60.

 

It would be, I think... still not sure if I'd prefer these over the VADS though.

[Silavite 1,218]

It would be, I think... still not sure if I'd prefer these over the VADS though.

If I had to choose between the M247 and VADS for War Thunder, I'd choose the VADS in a heartbeat.

War Thunder has all SPAA vehicles in the game totally without any gun laying equipment (in RB or SB), which makes the primary advantage of larger caliber guns - range - all but useless. The fact that the aircraft being shot at are usually maneuvering while being shot at does nothing to help the probability of hitting at long range either.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

If I had to choose between the M247 and VADS for War Thunder, I'd choose the VADS in a heartbeat.

War Thunder has all SPAA vehicles in the game totally without any gun laying equipment (in RB or SB), which makes the primary advantage of larger caliber guns - range - all but useless. The fact that the aircraft being shot at are usually maneuvering while being shot at does nothing to help the probability of hitting at long range either.

I would choose the M247, mainly because spewing bullets everywhere just makes it more likely that you will be killed. In certain modes you will literally be marked for everyone on the map if you shoot for too lang, too fast. By having such a high rate of fire, you actually decrease your survival chance compared to if you use a more precise machine like the M247.

[Silavite 1,218]

I would choose the M247, mainly because spewing bullets everywhere just makes it more likely that you will be killed. In certain modes you will literally be marked for everyone on the map if you shoot for too lang, too fast. By having such a high rate of fire, you actually decrease your survival chance compared to if you use a more precise machine like the M247.

The lack of stealth for the VADS is a pittance in comparison to the boost in lethality that is the result of almost 20x the RoF of the Bofors.

[Iron_physik 3,485]

How long can the 247 fire until the ammo is out?

 

I think that is a good point, because you are able to engage more targets when you can shoot for longer times compared to the VADS that has a shorter ammo supply.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Iron_physik

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

If I had to choose between the M247 and VADS for War Thunder, I'd choose the VADS in a heartbeat.

War Thunder has all SPAA vehicles in the game totally without any gun laying equipment (in RB or SB), which makes the primary advantage of larger caliber guns - range - all but useless. The fact that the aircraft being shot at are usually maneuvering while being shot at does nothing to help the probability of hitting at long range either.

 

In the SPAA role, maybe. but at the same time, the M247 has more armor, and is better in a ground-vs-ground scenario. 

 

I would choose the M247, mainly because spewing bullets everywhere just makes it more likely that you will be killed. In certain modes you will literally be marked for everyone on the map if you shoot for too lang, too fast. By having such a high rate of fire, you actually decrease your survival chance compared to if you use a more precise machine like the M247.

 

Well.... so long as not every single bullet looks like a large grapefruit drawing a line directly at you when firing at 3,000 RPM, then it should be fine. 

 

How long can the 247 fire until the ammo is out?

 

I think that is a good point, because you are able to engage more targets when you can shoot for longer times compared to the VADS that has a shorter ammo supply.

 

Uh.... a bit under a minute i think.

 

Combined ROF was 600, and carried 580 rounds.

 

And, yeah, VADS has ROF of 1000 or 3000 (Selectable), with 1,100 rounds ammo. technically, the VADS could fire longer than the M247, even though it seems it should be the other way around.

[King_CSS_Salty 783]

Supported +1... Along with The VADS this would be one of my favorite SPAA. the US needs something similar to the Coelian/ZSU,

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Supported +1... Along with The VADS this would be one of my favorite SPAA. the US needs something similar to the Coelian/ZSU,

I agree, this plus the VADS would give the US high tiers impressive air defense.

[WulfPack 1,693]

I agree, this plus the VADS would give the US high tiers impressive air defense.

Don't forget the ARES Talon.  :)s

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

That is indeed another potential option

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Don't forget the ARES Talon.  :)s

 

 

Had never heard of that until now.... 

 

Looks sort of cool, but looks incredibly high profile, and I'd bet dollars to donuts it has no more armor than a PT-76.

 

 

So, in short... basically a Gepard with a weedy engine and less armor :)

[WulfPack 1,693]

Had never heard of that until now.... 

 

Looks sort of cool, but looks incredibly high profile, and I'd bet dollars to donuts it has no more armor than a PT-76.

 

 

So, in short... basically a Gepard with a weedy engine and less armor :)

Maybe it has more ammo capacity than the Gepard? That would make it stand out from the others.

This isn't exactly top tier but they could also get the XM166.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Maybe it has more ammo capacity than the Gepard? That would make it stand out from the others.

This isn't exactly top tier but they could also get the XM166.

 

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the M42 had greater maneuverability (Albeit, likely less torque) per weight, than the XM166. The XM also had a higher profile, being mounted atop an M548, whereas, the M42 was simply an M41 with twon bofors replacing the turret, and so there was hardly a gain in height at all.

 

 

Looking at pictures of the Talon.... Not convinced that it had large ammo stowage, and I haven't found any data on it, which makes it a challenging idea to add.

[WulfPack 1,693]

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the M42 had greater maneuverability (Albeit, likely less torque) per weight, than the XM166. The XM also had a higher profile, being mounted atop an M548, whereas, the M42 was simply an M41 with twon bofors replacing the turret, and so there was hardly a gain in height at all.

 

 

Looking at pictures of the Talon.... Not convinced that it had large ammo stowage, and I haven't found any data on it, which makes it a challenging idea to add.

Could the XM work at the same BR? Or would it need to be lower?

I wonder what Ares did with the prototype.

Edited May 7, 2016 by WulfPack

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

Could the XM work at the same BR? Or would it need to be lower?

I wonder what Ares did with the prototype.

 

You'd end up seeing both sides of the coin... 

 

Well... would take some number crunching for me to decide.. but it isn't my decision.

 

 

If we look at the obvious differences...: 

 

XM166:

Top speed*: 38 mph

Weight: 13.2 tons

Engine HP: Anywhere from 205-300 (Detroit Diesel 6v53T was used in a wide array... M548 says it was closer to 205 on Wikipedia, other sources say as much as 275... M551 used a 6v53T, rated at 300 HP)

Engine Tq: calculated out to be ~415 ft-lbs (560 nM), assuming 205 HP & 2600 redline, or, 560 ft lbs (750 nM) assuming 275 HP and the same redline. Peak torque @ 500-2600 RPM.

 

M42:

Top speed*: 45 mph

Weight: 22.6 tons

Engine HP: 500

Engine Tq: 935 Ft-lbs (1270 nM)

 

* Top speed is a very poor statistic to compare.... The far more important factor is torque.

 

 

So, if we further crunch the numbers, to have them per-weight, the XM166 has ~43nM per ton, and ~15.5 HP/ton (Estimated with 205 HP & 560nM. Increase to 56nM/ton & 20.8 HP/Ton with 275 HP engine.) . The M42 has ~56nM per ton, and 22 HP/ton. That being said, a small caveat is that  the detroit makes peak torque virtually right off of idle, from 500 RPM until it's screaming at 2,600 RPM.

 

So, mobility wise, I would say they're probably neck-and-neck, with the 205 HP detroit versus the 500 HP engine in M42.. Given the higher powered detroit? I'd say the XM166 would be marginally faster, until top end speed.

 

 

I would conclude that the XM would probably be a great premium rank IV SPAA.

Edited May 7, 2016 by BlitzkriegWulf