T249 'Vigilante' Self Propelled Anti-Aircraft Vehicle | ROTARY CANNON FIREPOWER 

Oh my god, the tank is on fire

Aslamnur Fikri *Accidentally breaks a Panther which has been restored and worked on for a loong time*

The irony. This tank will shoot commies, in CNCGZH, they come from commie warfactory

Need a bullet barrage?

Spin them up!

Keep the barrels oiled

I have many bullets to spare!

Mini gun for the mini people.

Lots of people, lots of barrels?

"Gattling tank, ready for action" "Spin them up!" "Need a bullet barrage?" Man I loved C&C Generals

@@_OpFor how about C&C Cold war crisis?

@@sebastiannikkolas8497 its a mod, mate. We're talking about the original game here.

I think it was something a little stronger then Red Bull

@@bigblue6917 red oil

@@bigblue6917 definitely not Rich Energy

@@bigblue6917 red bull gives you wings

@@bigblue6917 They used the OG 4loko, the kind with the caffeine

The Sgt. York seems like it was the worst of the DIVAD offerings, and it seems like there was a predetermined decision on the basis of lobbying that Ford's design would get chosen.

@@RedXlV nope, the US wanted the 40mm Bofors more than anything. You've got to remember that at the time Bofors had put out their new sensor-fused rounds, which was perfect for what the US army wanted. The real story is that the Sgt. York got killed by the press more than anything. During initial testing, helicopter pilots who were used as OPFOR for the program simply kept getting shot out of the air until they discovered the York's flaws, specifically in its hydraulic system. If you zip right above the York with the original hydraulics, you cause them to break down as it was designed to put the guns at 0-degree elevation, rotate at top speed, then go back to the original elevation. Essentially, the pilots exposed a problem that could be easily patched with better hydraulics (specifically a 5k psi model). Quote: www.quora.com/How-effective-would-an-M247-Sergeant-York-have-been-at-shooting-down-helicopters Specifically, one Tom Farrier who took part in the program. There was one instance where he, two A-10s, and a Kiowa were sent to test it out in a mock battle... and they were dead within fifteen seconds. It was expensive enough that bad PR killed it.

@@TheTrueAdept the press killed it? Not the 100000 vital problems it had? Or how Ford kept interfering and smudging numbers

@@axeavier Oddly enough, most of the numbers weren't fudged. The US Army on the project kept getting their helicopters handed to them. It took a specific maneuver for the heli pilots to win against a York. If you have bothered to click the link I provided and read the person I quoted, you would find that York was actually phenomenal despite its failings. The helicopter pilots they used couldn't simply hide in the trees during the tests, they had to break LoS by hiding behind hills or mountains. To quote: "In 1982 I participated in both cooperative and non-cooperative tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, flying an Air Force CH-3E helicopter against a Sergeant York. I would have been dead many times over had it been shooting live rounds at us instead of just video. The Sergeant York was the front-runner in a program intended to provide the Army with a sorely needed “division air defense” (DIVAD) weapon system. It was based on a novel concept: re-purposing M48 Patton tank chassis’ with a new turret incorporating twin Swedish Bofors 40mm cannons and two radar systems - one for area surveillance (the rectangular antenna) and one for targeting (the conical antenna, an off-the-shelf application of the F-16′s radar). A firing control system integrated the two radars, with on-board software prioritizing targets based on the threat they were assessed to pose to the system itself. (For the late ’70s /early ’80s, this was cosmic.) If the operator elected to allow the system to engage targets hands-off, it would slew the turret around at a nauseatingly rapid rate, taking on each in turn automatically. On the next-to-last day of the test, my aircraft was joined by an Army AH-1 Cobra and OH-58 Kiowa and two Air Force A-10s. My H-3 was part of the test profile because its radar signature was essentially the same as that of an Mi-24 HIND assault helicopter of the day, which was heavily armed with both anti-tank missiles and rockets. We all converged on it simultaneously from about 6000 meters. My aircraft was the first to die, followed by the two A-10s, then the Cobra, and finally the Kiowa. It took less than 15 seconds to put plenty of hypothetical rounds into each of us. I spent a depressing amount of that week watching myself get tracked and killed on video. Trying to “mask” behind anything other than rising terrain simply didn’t work; the DIVAD radar got a nice Doppler return off my rotor system if any part of it was within its line of sight, and it burned right through trees just fine. I couldn’t outrun or out-maneuver it laterally; when I moved, it tracked me. I left feeling pretty convinced that it was the Next Big Thing, especially since I’d come into the test pretty cocky thanks to having had a lot of (successful) exercise experience against current Army air defense systems. So, what happened to the program itself? I think it was a combination of factors. First, the off-the-shelf concept was cool as far as it went, but the Patton design already was a quarter-century old; the DIVAD was awfully slow compared with the M1 Abrams tanks it was supposed to protect. It would have had a lot of trouble keeping up with the pack. Second, The Atlantic Monthly published a really nasty article (bordering on a hatchet job) purporting to show the program was a complete failure and a ruinous waste of money. One of its most impressive bits of propaganda was an anecdote about a test where the system - on full automatic - took aim at a nearby trailer full of monitoring equipment. Paraphrasing, “It tracked and killed an exhaust fan,” chortled the author. (See The Gun That Shoots Fans for a recounting of this.) Yeah, it did. It was designed to look for things that rotate (like helicopter main rotor systems) and prioritize them for prompt destruction. If any bad guys were on the battlefield in vehicles with unshrouded exhaust fans, they might have been blown away rather comprehensively. (My understanding at the time was that said fan was part of a rest room in one of the support vehicles and not a “latrine,” but why mess up a good narrative, right?) To my knowledge, neither ventilated latrines nor RVs full of recording devices are part of a typical Army unit’s table of allowance, so I really doubt there was much of a fratricide threat there. However, the bottom line was that this particular piece of partisan reporting beat the crap out of a program that I believe the Army needed, but already was facing a few developmental issues, and helped hasten its cancellation. (The New York Times opinion piece linked to above was equally laden with innuendo and assumptions. It made a fair point about possible anti-radiation attacks it might have invited… but there are radars on every battlefield, and there are means of controlling emissions. It compared a late-Fifties era Soviet system - the ZSU-23-4 - with one fully twenty years newer in design. It asserted that it couldn’t hit fixed-wing aircraft, which to my mind and personal observation was arrant nonsense. The only issue it raised that I agree with was possible NATO compatibility problems with the unique 40mm caliber shells the Sergeant York’s guns fired. Funny - the Times pontificated that it wouldn’t be cancelled, too. Oops.) Third, the hydraulics that were used in the prototype were a 3000 psi system that really couldn’t handle the weight of the turret in its Awesome Hosing Things mode. One of the only times I actually got a score on the system was when I cheated; I deliberately exploited that vulnerability. I flew straight toward the system (which would have blown us out of the sky about twenty times over had I tried to do so for real) until directly over it, then tried to defeat the system from above. If memory serves, the system specifications called for the guns to elevate to more than 85 degrees if something was coming up and over; it then would lower them quickly, slew the turret 180 degrees around, and raise the guns again to re-engage. It was supposed to be able to do that in perhaps ten seconds (but I’m here to tell you it did it a lot faster than that). So, I had my flight engineer tell me the moment the guns dropped, at which point I did a course reversal maneuver to try to catch it pointed the wrong way. What the video later showed was: Helicopter flies over. Traverse/re-acquire movement starts. Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself). Guns started to elevate to re-engage. Clunk. Guns fall helplessly down; DIVAD crew uses bad language. The hydraulics hadn’t been able to support the multiple close-on, consecutive demands of movement in multiple axes and failed. Like I said, I cheated. The Army and the contractors already knew about this problem and were going to fit out production models with a 5000 psi system. That might have had some survivability issues of its own, but the Army was perfectly happy that we’d done what we did - it proved the test wasn’t rigged and underscored the need for the production change. Finally, the Army itself honestly appraised the system based on its progress (and lack of progress) versus their requirements. Wikipedia provides a passage that encapsulates this end-game well: “The M247 OT&E Director, Jack Krings, stated the tests showed, ‘...the SGT YORK was not operationally effective in adequately protecting friendly forces during simulated combat, even though its inherent capabilities provided improvement over the current [General Electric] Vulcan gun system. The SGT YORK was not operationally suitable because of its low availability during the tests.’ ” I guess I’m forced to conclude that the Sergeant York was a really good concept with some definite developmental flaws - some recognized and being dealt with, perhaps one or two that would have made it less than fully effective in its intended role - that was expensive enough for bad PR to help bring it down before it fully matured. The Army was under a lot of political pressure to get it fielded, but to their credit they decided not to potentially throw good money after bad. On balance, a lot of the contemporaneous criticisms mounted against the M247 really don’t hold up very well over time. Short-range air defense currently is provided by the latest generation of the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel system. Radar emitting on the battlefield? Check. Target prioritization capabilities? Check. Towed (which equals “slow”) versus self-propelled? Check. I’m glad we never wound up in the position of needing it but not having it. My personal judgment was and is that it probably could have wound up a heck of a lot more capable and useful than its developmental history might suggest, but its cancellation probably was justified given other acquisition priorities at the time. Bottom line: I repeatedly flew a helicopter against it over the course of many hours of testing, including coming at it as unpredictably as I knew how, and it cleaned my clock pretty much every time."

@@TheTrueAdept now this is the correct way to refute an indictment made against a position. Concise and very well thought and laid out. Your first hand experience with the 249/Sgt York should silence all the video game players and armchair military tacticians ( but it wont ) that think they understand the how's and why's of R&D and procurement and test and evaluation procedures of the U.S Military and the DOD. It is never what it seems to be and not as simple as it is thought to be. If given unlimited funds, time and resources, and were not hindered by political oversight or answerable to the media/press and could truly develop weapons systems based on the need to counter threats and strategy. I'm quite sure the end product would meet the needs as seen by the military. On the other hand it is quite evident from history that the U.S is always very prepared to fight the last war. For whatever reason, the powers that be never take much notice of the up and coming trends and strategies being used and developed by the rest of the world, especially potential adversaries. Nor do they usually listen to the advice of those in the know with current first hand experience of the matter at hand, in my experience one of the best resources comes from senior NCO's and Master Chiefs, not the Generals. This way of thinking starts us off at a disadvantage and puts us in a game of catch up. Thanks for a very informative non opinionated text on the true reality of the Sgt York weapons platform, and for your service. I'm sure you told all you could reveal without violating your security clearance. All the best. SEMPER FI

Upgraded C&C available shortly.

Meanwhile in Russia... By the time the Sgt. York got cancelled the USSR was deploying the 2S6 Tunguska to replace the successful ZSU-23-4 Shilka.

I mean, the M163 was pretty successful.

The M19, M42, and M163 VADS/PIVADS were considered successful, if less than perfect, systems. And they offered flexibility by be adaptable to ground support roles.

@@rizalali7307 don't forget their aircrafts are also good (Flanker, Fulcrum, Foxhound, Felon)

@@setesh1294 Funny enough, the main problem of the M163 was the same as the Shilka's: short range due to relatively small calibre.

Ксеркс 96 it is Armored Warfare: Project Armata if to be correct. And it's half official name because official is still Armored Warfare

Fun Fact, it was almost as bad as the Sgt York

I am sorry for your loss. Hope you're holding up fine.

Sorry for your loss man.

I thought the same thing lol great minds...

it's not him, that photo is from the 50's and by that time he was barely 5 years old, he was born in 1955.

THIS! No reloading time, just instant BRRRRRRRRT Why not try it out?

Well in Armored Warfare they have a GUA mounted on an M60 platform and an M1 Abrams with twin 30mm or 40mm guns.

You'd think a gun like this would be a game changer on the ground but for whatever reason it's clearly not the way to go - no prominent military has a gatling tank

lmao

Wow I read that perfectly in sync with the video

@@ok88warrior same

Warning: the Vigilante is firing

Bruh, guy spoiled the future 😢

Oh that rlly sucks i hope u get better fast man

Yes, but no

@@annelisemeier283 Yes, but yes

is it worth playing compared to WOT or WT?

@@bitkarek grinds a lot easier and quicker, you can get through on a f2p account

the *only* con? Does it have bluetooth?

Poland can into aircraft.

It's interesting how every "failed" DIVAD competitor seems to have been superior to the winner. Almost as if the competition was rigged to give Ford the contract.

*Here here!*

wasn't that john mclean's plane? quite a coincidence that he sealed all the airmens pow records.....especially his!

On bogey wheels

low altitude micro flak. I want that job.

I miss that game👍

@@shaider1982 I'm currently making my own mod of it. :)

Testing performed in the Cold War revealed that the GAU-8 was only effective against older T-55 and T-62 MBTs (and even then, side and rear shots were pretty much necessary to score an actual kill). The GAU-8 was almost useless against T-64 and T-72 tanks. There's a reason the A-10 carries a lot of air to ground munitions other than its GAU-8.

The feature that makes the Phalanx/CIWS so effective isn't the gun, it's the radar (r2d2). The gun can be replaced with a number of different pew pews including r.a.missiles.

@@Limescale12 yes and no. Not by "any pew pew" by a long shot. There's a reason calibers below 30mm didn't last long in the role of SPAAG on neither side of the Cold War. They just lacked the firepower needed for the role even if volume of fire was great. 20-23mm didn't cut it(even if Phalanx and VADS have it). And they needed a direct hit too. Even nowadays they need. While it's easy to have programmable ammo at 30-35mm and even at 25mm nowadays. But Sergeant York(SY from here) lowered VT fuzes to 40mm caliber. It was a real breakthrough of the time. Sadly that system itself lacked volume of fire required. Meanwhile Vigilante has less widespread caliber and unique chassis working againt its introduction. Vigilante should have had reworked to 40mm as its technical design requirement and they should have used tank chassis as SY did. Rotary cannon volume of fire combined with 40mm VT fuzed ammunition... and ability to use all other "off the shelf" 40mm ammunition made by Bofors. Including APDS with high enough penetration to ruin the day of some tanks.

"IT'S TIME TO STOP..."

It’s the like the a 10 but scarier…

Compact round (40 needs to be fattened and shortened, it's ridiculously long), apparently hard to put proximity fuse in 37 in early 60s.

Filthy

@@Limescale12 Frank