Jump to content

Talk:M163 VADS: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎vs ZSU-23-4: new section
Line 42: Line 42:
I've reverted the undiscussed move, as "Vulcan" is the name of the gun, not the vehicle/system. Please propose the move formally, and show references that the whole vehicle/system is called "Vulcan". Thanks. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the undiscussed move, as "Vulcan" is the name of the gun, not the vehicle/system. Please propose the move formally, and show references that the whole vehicle/system is called "Vulcan". Thanks. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:Per [[Acronyms as words in article titles]] it should be moved. The current title is really awful. Move to Vulcan air defence system then.--[[User:Patton123|<font color="green">Patton</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Patton123|<font color="green">t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Patton123|<font color="green">c</font>]]</sup> 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
:Per [[Acronyms as words in article titles]] it should be moved. The current title is really awful. Move to Vulcan air defence system then.--[[User:Patton123|<font color="green">Patton</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Patton123|<font color="green">t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Patton123|<font color="green">c</font>]]</sup> 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

== vs ZSU-23-4 ==

Well this is interesting, after having read about how the M163 has an inferior weapon to the Shilka, along with a lack of radar in comparison to its Russian counterpart, this article classifies the M163 as being a superior weapon with a fairly biased statement, which could be misleading. "Even the contemporary Soviet ZSU-23-4, while otherwise primitive (?) in comparison to the VADS, did fire a twice heavier 23 mm round of better ballistic shape, and from 1970's to 1980's most nations were already moving to 30 mm, 35 mm and even heavier calibers in self-propelled AA gun armament."

So, the vehicle with the superior weapon and radar tracking is primitive compared to the VADS?[[Special:Contributions/74.161.22.160|74.161.22.160]] ([[User talk:74.161.22.160|talk]]) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:05, 27 March 2010

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military land vehicles task force
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force

Sabot Rounds??

Does anyone have a source for this claim: "M163 PIVADS (1984)... and the ability to utilize armor-piercing discarding sabot ammunition." I crewed a Vulcan for 4 years and spent many more years at Ft. Bliss training Vulcan crews and have never heard of Vulcan using sabot rounds. We had TP (target practice, hardball), TPT (target practice tracer), HE (high explosive impact), HEP (high explosive proximity), and for armor piercing we used DP (depleted uranium), but no sabot rounds. Anyone???L0b0t 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all DU round are of APFSDS type. In fact most rounds with penetrators are. This is to assist in getting the penetrator up to the requisite speed. According to Global Security, the DU was changed to Tungsten in the round in 1988. I've removed the whole mess because I really don't see how these type of rounds couldn't be used in the system prior to the PIVAD improvements. It was just that they were developed at the same time. [1]

I think I still have allmy manuals and range cards and the like in a duffle bag in the attic. I'll do some looking for the card that lists all 20mm ammo types we used in late '80s early '90s. If I find it is that the sort of thing I can upload to commons? it is a U.S. Army training aid that is no longer used. L0b0t 15:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can scan it in, you can definitly upload it to the commons. Its a work of the government, and a training aid, so if its more or less approved for unlimited release (or isn't otherwise restricted or something), I don't see how there could be copyright issues. -- Thatguy96 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I put that in waaayyyy back. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M163_VADS&diff=20679803&oldid=18589965 based on either Jane's or a net source - scraping around I found http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6783&page=3 (scroll down a bit). The PIVADS system had the ability to fire APDS, however that doesn't mean that they actually deployed (or even purchased) any APDS ammo. The Phalanx uses tungsten core APDS [2] which is actually better than DU - but it's more expensive. Megapixie 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks Megapixie. Ya learn something new every day. We certainly never had any sabot rounds when I was in. We most often went for a mix of HEIT (High Explosive Incendiary Tracer) and HE rounds. We would also drop acid at Ft. Hunter Ligget and write our names in the sky during live-fires, but that's another tale for anther time. Anyway, thanks again for running down that source. L0b0t 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. It wouldn't make much sense to mix HE/HEI with APDS anyway, the trajectory would differ by too much. Secondary reason is that the crunchies a dozen kilometers downrange might not take too kindly to hundreds of tungsten slugs raining down on them. Megapixie 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We emplaced once behind a couple of infantry squads and their colonel came by to look at our range cards. He freaked out when he saw we did not use firing stakes to mask his troops positions from our fire. We showed him the radial pin safety system Vulcan used and he went away awestruck at the power and glory that is the Vulcan. Man, I miss that gun.L0b0t 10:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed is listed as "64". 64 what? mph? km/h? something else?


Used by Albania?

Does Albania use that weapon system? I really doubt about it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.58.145 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move reverted

I've reverted the undiscussed move, as "Vulcan" is the name of the gun, not the vehicle/system. Please propose the move formally, and show references that the whole vehicle/system is called "Vulcan". Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Acronyms as words in article titles it should be moved. The current title is really awful. Move to Vulcan air defence system then.--Pattont/c 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vs ZSU-23-4

Well this is interesting, after having read about how the M163 has an inferior weapon to the Shilka, along with a lack of radar in comparison to its Russian counterpart, this article classifies the M163 as being a superior weapon with a fairly biased statement, which could be misleading. "Even the contemporary Soviet ZSU-23-4, while otherwise primitive (?) in comparison to the VADS, did fire a twice heavier 23 mm round of better ballistic shape, and from 1970's to 1980's most nations were already moving to 30 mm, 35 mm and even heavier calibers in self-propelled AA gun armament."

So, the vehicle with the superior weapon and radar tracking is primitive compared to the VADS?74.161.22.160 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]