\doc\web\97\09\m163.txt Probably ADA guys can answer that more effectively but the clear weather M163/A1/A2 VADS/PIVADS systems ahs been withdrawn from active service leaving heavy division in a pinch when it comes to organic air defense. With Chaparrals being largely National Guard and Corps based assets (low level AD) and Patriots and HAWKS are now regarded as an anti-ballistic missile screen it seems the US Army has a hard time fielding a low level mobile (as in keeping up with tanks and tracks) anti-aircraft weapons platform with secondary ground-to-ground engagement ability. The failure of the DIVAD and axeing the ADATS (CAF has gotten a battalion or so launchers) has meant all low level air defense is in the hands of the Stinger. A very effective MANPADS type system but with only a six pound warhead one can see why people are worried. While aircraft losses to Vulcan tracks can only be credited to the IDF/A- the M163 series ADV has 1100 ready rounds and can chew up lightly armored targets by the long bursts of API and HEI rounds with consdierably effectiveness along with reducing trucks, jeeps, and the occasional BTR and BRDM into so much scrap. Obviously there's a reason why soldiers who do serve in ADA battalions and brigades like the idea of having a good gun/missile balance because if there's nothing in the air that's flying than by all means join the killing spree on the ground;). > Is this true? And if so, what has taken their place? I know > the Hummer mounted Avenger system is supposed to take > up some slack, but I didn't know it was supposed to replace > it entirely. The Hummvee Avenger has taken the place of the somewhat humble Vulcan track albeit with only a fifty cal machinegun (probably good for greasing the occasional enemy grunt and in close range hammmering bad guy choppers) but the improvements in surface-to-air capability (8 Stingers), communciations (SINGCARS type radio), and night vision (wide angle FLIR for the gunner) makes up (hopefully) lack of sustained firepower, crosscountry mobility, and armor. It's interesting to see how other armies view air defense The Red Army has air defense assets at the platoon level for their motorized infantry companies, plus SA-13s and ZSU-23-4s at battalion and regimental level the US can only field Stinger armed 4x4s and the occasional Brad carrying two Stinger gunners and A-gunners/loaders/ spottters at div level. Mad Mike -- "Gentlemen, in war you will find that the enemy has three options open to him. Of these he will invariably choose the fourth." Von Moltke the Elder. Home · Resource Directories Quick Search · Power Search · Search Filter · Interest Finder · Browse Groups FREE TRIAL LAUNCH CD ROM CLICK HERE Article 7 of exactly 12 Text Only Help Previous Article Next Article Current Results View Thread Post Message Subject: Re: M-163 Vulcan's withdrawn from service? From: CJ Richmond Date: 1997/10/17 Message-ID: Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated [More Headers] From CJ Richmond Mad Mike wrote: : It's interesting to see how other armies view air defense : The Red Army has air defense assets at the platoon level for their : motorized infantry companies, plus SA-13s and ZSU-23-4s at battalion : and regimental level the US can only field Stinger armed 4x4s and the : occasional Brad carrying two Stinger gunners and A-gunners/loaders/ : spottters at div level. That's because the Red Army - and pretty much every other army in the world - expects to occasionally fight under unfriendly skies, while the U.S. simply does not. The U.S. Army's primary air defense is the U.S. Air Force; I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where large numbers of U.S. troops would be engaged in combat without at least local air superiority. Any proposed deployment outside the U.S. would have to include provisions for massive air power; if for political reasons that was impossible, the deployment would undoubtedly be abandoned, since the U.S. military is extremely reluctant to move without overwhelming superiority of forces, especially in the air. Actually, it's kind of an interesting thought; can anybody propose a realistic scenario in which significant American forces might be used without overwhelming air power backing them up? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher J. Richmond cjthered@brokenarrow.us.itd.umich.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Think before you ask these questions, Mitch." - Chris Knight FREE TRIAL LAUNCH CD ROM CLICK HERE Previous | Next | Results | View Thread | Author Profile | Post Message | Post Reply | Send Email Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. > Is this true? And if so, what has taken their place? I know >the Hummer mounted Avenger system is supposed to take >up some slack, but I didn't know it was supposed to replace >it entirely. Yup, and you're wrong. It's all there is. You got the Patriot, the Avenger, and nothing in between. EXFOR is testing a Bradley Stinger vehicle called the Linebacker. It's been aproved for production and the first 85 will be fielded in late TY 98. John M. Atkinson The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife. --Theodore Roosevelt Apparently, the M-163 was just an average ADA system, having a just so-so radar and TAG gear. With its retirement and the dismal failure of the Sergeant York's DIVAD , the US Army is left without a mobile AA gun system like the Soviet ZSU types. Moreover, tough impressive and cool Vulcan guns are, they can't do nothing twin guns ( assorted Bofors, Oerlikon et al vehicle mounts ) cannot accomplish. So the US Army is left with shoulder launched Stingers at platoon-company level and bigger missiles (Patriots) on the upper level. My point is, so what ? the US Army can take air superiority for granted, so the threat from hostile aircraft to ground forces is low. Understandably, procuring a replacement for the M-163 is also a low budget priority. Being in the place of the Pentagon officials, I'd go for an already existing ( foreign ) vehicle rather than wasting time and money on developing a new design to do the same. Just my 2 cents. Dario Romani. Subject: Re: M-163 Vulcan's withdrawn from service? From: mstuckaSPAMBAN@abel.math.luc.edu (Mike Stucka) Date: 1997/10/23 Message-ID: Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated [More Headers] From mstuckaSPAMBAN@abel.math.luc.edu (Mike Stucka) Doc Holliday (abuse@cyberpromo.com) wrote: : The Israelis discovered in Lebanon that the Vulcan makes a very good : anti-sniper weapon. The troops start taking fire in a built up area, : a M163 pulls up and with one short (but satisfying) burst can : obliterate the floor or even the specific room the fire was coming : from without nessissarly leveling the whole structure. The Russians apparently used their ADA vehicles successfully in Chechnya as tank escorts in much the same manner. Seems the high rate of fire worked just fine to suppress ATGM crews hunting tanks in the cities. The old Chechen way was to create a distraction a ways down a street, and to have ATGM crews hidden well in front of the distraction. When the tank moved in, the ATGM crews would hit the tank from above and behind until it was dead. The ADA vehicles (presumably ZSU23-4 and 2S6s) started joining tank formations behind the tanks so they could hit the ATGM crews. It apparently worked quite well ... until the Chechens changed tactics. If the ADA vehicle trailed the tank by, say, 50 meters, the Chechens would put a pair of ATGM crews 50 meters in front of their anti-tank ATGM crews. The forward pair would hit the ADA vehicle first -- leaving the tank for prey for the ~four ATGM crews tasked to hit it. Ouch. Subject: Re: M-163 Vulcan's withdrawn from service? From: Mad Mike Date: 1997/10/23 Message-ID: Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated [More Headers] From Mad Mike Doc Holliday wrote: > The Israelis discovered in Lebanon that the Vulcan makes a very good > anti-sniper weapon. The troops start taking fire in a built up area, > a M163 pulls up and with one short (but satisfying) burst can > obliterate the floor or even the specific room the fire was coming > from without nessissarly leveling the whole structure. I don't know about snipers. Most snipers try and avoid popping off rounds at objects that can fill the grid square they're residing in with serious amounts of supersonic metal (which I've heard tends to be very hazardous to the human body;). Still prototype Vulcan tracks in Vietnam and later when the Israelis once again opted to butt heads awith anybody and everybody in Lebanon (read Syria and Hezbollah and Amal and this and that) the M163 was great in surpressing suspected infantry positions. Great convoy escort I imagine. Hopefully the loss of the M163 in heavy divisions can be made up with Bradley Stinger vehicles although ideally the 25mm chain gun would have been replaced by a GAU12/U Gat- the gun to pound away a/c at less than 2.5 klicks and the Stingers out to five or six. Although this vehicle by any standards is still very shortrange air defense. > Eh, IMHO the best air defence weapon yet developed is a flight of your > Fighters overhead. But there's never enough of your own a/c and to move troops and weapon systems without any AA protection is a very expensive form of suicide. Attack choppers are fairly cheap and can pop up overhead and hammer away with rockets, guns and ATGMs in addition to that lone pilot flying a advanced trainer with a rising sun headband dropping 500 pounders and blasting away with 30mm DEFA. Mad Mike -- "Gentlemen, in war you will find that the enemy has three options open to him. Of these he will invariably choose the fourth." Von Moltke the Elder. Subject: Re: M163 'nam From: Dan Winfield Date: 1996/12/19 Message-ID: Newsgroups: rec.models.scale [More Headers] Re: M163 "Nam" According to "Armour in Vietnam" by Jim Mesko ..........Using a picture for reference, this particular M-163 had the extended wading device in the bow, spare tracks as added protection, on nose, a converted truck seat attached to the rear deck, personnal gear stored topside, had the wavy Olive drab, dark green and black paint scheme, and named "HAVE GUN WILL TRAVEL", with the outline of the knight in a chess set. belong to the 5th Battalion, C battery, 2nd Artillery, at Dong Tam. "Time stays long enough for anyone who will use it>" Leonardo Dan Subject: Re: Vulcan 20mm Anti-Aircraft gun From: Dan Winfield Date: 1996/08/29 Message-ID: Newsgroups: rec.models.scale [More Headers] RE: Vulcan 20mm triple A gun. The only kit that I know of is the Italeri M-163 A1, the APC included, (M-113) the kit no.# 269. Subject: Re: M-61A1 From: Solo Date: 1997/03/15 Message-ID: <332A9A13.4FA8@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military [More Headers] Hi I guess what you mean is the machine gun version installed on helicopters... I guess this would be the Genenral Electric M-135 - a smaller 7.62 cal. machine gun using the same concept. - The weight is much more logocal - 60 lb (30.4 Kg). The firing rate is 2000-4000 RPM while the M-61A1 would fire up to 6000 RPM of 20mm rounds (the ground version of the M-61A1 installed on the M-163 air defence batteries could fire up to 3000 RPM since it gets too hot). As I got the word - General Electric does not do them anymore and the plant was sold to Martin-Marietta (yes the same goes for the M-61A1) All the best Solo Subject: 1/72 sale list From: tomtrain@ix.netcom.com(Thomas V. Bryant ) Date: 1996/08/29 Message-ID: <502q2c$fvq@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> Newsgroups: rec.models.scale [More Headers] Tom's Trains of CT Shipping is 4.50/order Visa/Mastercard accepted, International orders accepted! --------------- Hope you like what you have seen, the rest are all kinds of kits in 1/72 Esci 50-75% off all items !! #9103 MK Hercules (C130) 9.95 #4081 Charlie B)105 2.90 #9040 F-18 Canada 2.90 #9090 A-4G Aussie 2.90 #9079 Harrier w/crew 3.90 #9089 Scooter 2.90 #9086 CRF5A 2.90 #9121 RF-4C Phantom 3.90 #9034 Laser Harrier 2.90 #9051 AV-8A USMC 2.90 #9080 Corsair II w/crew 3.90 #9116 Panavia Tornado 2.90 #9075 F-8E (FN) Crusader 2.90 #9074 F-8H Crusader 2.90 #9060 AV8B Harrier II 2.90 #9091 F-16 Electric Fighter 3.90 #9081 Mirage F-1 w/crew 3.90 #9065 GR-5 Harrier 2.90 #9076 Mi24 Hind w/Spetsnaz 3.90 #9069 Mi24 Hind-D 3.90 #9067 Hind-F 3.90 #9085 F-4 National Guard Bomber 3.90 #9050 F-15 Satellite Killer 3.90 #9093 EFA Eurofighter 3.90 #9072 EF111A Raven 3.90 #9048 Biplace F-15B 3.90 #9077 Tornado IDS w/crew 3.90 #9082 HV-22A Osprey 3.90 #9083 CV-22A 3.90 #9084 PV-22A Osprey 3.90 #9087 MV-22A w/USMC assault team 4.90 #9079 Harrier w/crew 3.90 #9059 AH-64A 3.90 #9081 Mirage F-1 w/crew #9095 Mig 29 Fulcrum w/crew 3.90 #9078 F-16 Fighting Falcon 3.90 #9094 EFA w/crew 3.90 Esci #8627 M113 W/Nato troops 3.90 #8620 MKIII tank w/Desert Rats 3.90 #8618 Leopard W/Nato troops 3.90 #8608 M-48A3 W/US modern troops 3.90 #873 Leopard 3.90 #8356 US Rescue M-3 3.90 #9062 Iwo Jima Landing USMC 3.90 #8358 US M-6 w/37mm gun 3.90 #8034 M-163 Vulcan 3.90 #8615 T-62 w/Spetsnaz 3.90