it does for LT and MBTs but i dont think it does so much for SPAA/Gs
Unfortunately its only indirect.
Max elevation speed should likely be 42.2 degrees/sec or 750 mils/sec. But the gunner would only be able to manually input 25 degrees pr second. Same as an Abrams. I get these numbers from the AFAADS (Advanced Forward Area Air Defense System) concept that birthed GLAADS and later ARGADS then DIVAD. The requirement was to be able to engage planes passing by at 200m distance at 300m/s:
This is why the Sgt York can rotate 90 degrees/sec. Another way to look at it is that basically the system had to be able to point to point its guns in the complete opposite direction within 2 seconds to fulfill the requirement of starting the engagement within 6 seconds from threat detection.
But the only video we have of the M247 with significant length moving its guns shows the slower manual elevation speed. Which is my guess as to why Gaijin gave it 30 degrees/sec.
Unfortunately, it’s not a direct source so we can only pray that the snail gods discover this truth themselves.
6 Likes
WHAT ARE THOSE!?:
The XM246 has a peculiar design feature on the front, two smooth ports on the top of the gun mantlet, now why would you do that? Why would you waste time, energy, complexity and weight to add those for no reason? Well on a military vehicle you would not be adding some trim, that is something you generally avoid and they don’t fit particularly well with the overall design of the vehicle anyway. What is extra curious is that there is no apparent way to interact with them from the outside?
Could they be feed ports, they are wide enough to be able to insert a 35mm length wise so you could insert a belt that way, but the angle for feeding it in to the gun seems unlikely, additionally the ports are completely smooth so you can’t open them from the outside and we can see the big hinges for the hood just beneath them. So, what would be the point of having these ports if you are going to open the hood anyway? That would give you the ability to open the top cover of the guns and feed in the belts, something you can’t do from the front so they can’t be feed ports. Maybe some sort of ejection port then, but the Oerlikon guns eject downwards so if you mounted the guns upside down you would not be able to feed the belts into the gun, and anyway it’s quite clear from footage that the XM246 does not eject from the top of the gun shield rather from just below the sight on the left and the inside of track radome on the right.
Could it then be armor perhaps, maybe but why would you create all that wasted space? Looking at earlier concepts of the vehicle it’s clear that they were looking at an arrowhead configuration for the gun shield, which would be a lighter and more efficient design, saving the weight of the roof as it would be part of the slope:
Their full-size mockup had an arrowhead design also.
So why, why are they there dammit! And why did they airbrush the ports away in some early photos of the prototype???:
Well when you search long and hard enough you will find the answer, here is a job add from General Dynamics from 12 of January 1978, just a short time after they had been awarded the contract to build a DIVAD prototype, I think we see something we have not seen before, a bunch of boxed tubes on top of the guns, now what could that be?
Oh that’s right, General Dynamics was also the producer of the Stinger Missile and as it turns out the XM246 was equipped with a fully functional Stinger launcher. General Dynamics had tried to sneak it past Ford. So the purpose of those ports are to protect the stinger missiles inside, here is the story:
We can even see the end of the launchers in this top down photo
So the XM246 is missing 6 Stinger missiles, though of the original A version that had no flare protection. The Stinger POST which had flare protection would first enter production in the early 80ties and the XM246 is a 1980 vehicle.
I opened an issue, even if its not going to be added anytime soon:
XM246 Missing historical Stinger launcher // Gaijin.net // Issues
5 Likes
As expected, Gaijin declared the newspaper not a source and then claimed it was just a concept because they don’t recognize the newspaper, which states that it was implemented in the test vehicle. You win some you loose some.
7 Likes
Wow, very good sleuthing on your part! With the addition of Stingers I think it would make all the more sense to give the XM246 its proxy ammo, which would create a rather unique and powerful combo not seen on most other combination SPAA like the Gepard 1A2, 2S6, etc.
We really have the most powerful and coolest American AA at our fingertips yet both Gaijin and the community still think it’s better off as a Gepard analogue unfortunately.
3 Likes
Thanks, yeah it really is a shame because it would be quit a unit with all the bells: APDS, Proxy, SAP-HEI and Stingers, at least a 9.3 vehicle. But I am sure the last source has not been found yet, so there is still hope.
2 Likes
If it had stinger As, proxy, wannabeAPHE, APDS and stealthy optical tracking, easy 10.0 vehivle imo.
Although i still dislike how tracerless ammunition tends to sneak up onto you, even moreso when coupled with IRST rather than radar tracking.
I suppose i would support it being introduced in its peak form given that the same consistency can be applied everywhere.
1 Like
Well Stinger A’s has a 6 second warmup and no flare protection, the proxys are weaker than the M247’s ones. But then again it should gain engine smoke like all M48 chassis. With the M247’ being 9.0 and the Gepard A2 being 9.7, I think as an AA vehicle it’s going to be in the middle.
1 Like
fair point, but i rarely see people trying to flare Stingers anyway.
iirc, 7m proxy radius, even if they have less explosive, they are faster in velocity and denser in amount of shells fired.
thats interesting, i didnt know that was a feature of the chassis. i assume its been bug reported already?
imo thats a bit low for it. or maybe its a facet of air vs ground compression.
i say 10.0 because of the above reasons and mix in the fact that the belts dont have restrictions on them like the gepard. it also gets optical tracking which i assume would work similar to IR track but with some tracking difficulties when targets are near the ground.
i mean, if gepard can get its IRST upgrade in game, then yeah i kinda see and support it being 9.7 at max
1 Like
The proxy belt for the XM246 would not be 100% proxy, but would likely be a mix of SAP-HEI, a weaker 35mm version, of M811 or apds and Proxy. Thats the downside of having most of your ammo in 2 compartments.
The M247 had its engine smoke bug reported years ago, and here is a photo from inside the sgt york showing the button:
But nothing has been done because the vehicle sits at 9.0 and fights against early heli’s and jets it can’t have too many countermeasures, just like the XM246 is also missing its left smoke launcher. The hull for the DIVADs was designated M988, same hull same features, the rear end was just modified to accept an additional gas turbine for stationary power.
The belts should be like the Gepards with 2x20 rounds in the Gun shield, I have bug reported this, which is accepted, but again it’s a long way away. Gaijin wanted it to be a one for one Gepard in the US tech-tree despite it being a decade newer design. But they gracefully gave it its propper armor, and then made it more of a brawler.
1 Like
So it doesnt have DM13?
It could fire it, and I could imagine they might have proposed it for phase 2 which they lost, but for the 1980 test it didn’t, initially only SAP-HEI, APDS and the Proxy was proposed.
thats… highly inefficient lol… i thought it would be like the M247 belt. (iirc its fully proxy)
Sure but that is a limitation of placing 94% of your ammo in two chambers when you have to be able to engage both lightly armored vehicles and aircraft.
Got some new issue reports if you want to support:
XM246 Historically wrong magnification // Gaijin.net // Issues
XM246 Historically wrong magazines size // Gaijin.net // Issues
XM246 Missing Optical Tracking mode v4 // Gaijin.net // Issues
XM246 Radar Name historically wrong // Gaijin.net // Issues
XM246 Radar scan pattern historically inaccurate // Gaijin.net // Issues
I learned something new General Dynamics called the XM246 the MADS or 35mm Mobile Air Defense System.
Magnification should be 3x to 8x:
60 rounds of APDS should be in the gun shield:
The FCS should have an optical track mode similar to ADATS:
The Radar name should be fix and changed to the “Mobile Air Defense System Radar” or MADS Radar:
And the radar should scan up to 74 degrees:
6 Likes