XM163 CS - Supporting Fire Up Close

Would you like to see the XM163 CS in-game?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
What BR would you want to see it at?
  • 6.7
  • 7.0
  • 7.3
  • 7.7
  • Somewhere else
  • I don’t want to see it added
0 voters


XM163 CS
CS - Close Support; an XM163 without the radar, field engineered for fire support

An XM163 CS. Fielded during the Vietnam War.

Background
The XM163 CS, or XM163 Close Support, is a relatively unknown version of the M163 VADS that was fielded during the Vietnam War. When first being accepted into operational service, in 1968-1969, a small contingent of XM163s was deployed to Vietnam to gauge their effectiveness.

Under the 1st Vulcan Combat Team (Provisional), six XM163 VADS systems were deployed to Vietnam in October of 1968. They began evaluation in November of 1968, for a period of 180 days. However, due to tactical situations at the end of this period, their stay was extended 75 days. No enemy aircraft appeared overhead during that time, and so they were mostly used to test ground fire support capability. The fire rate of the Vulcan was determined to be unsurpassed by any ground weapon in the Vietnam Theater, with more fire than the M45 Quadmount and the M42 Duster - both also being used for fire support. Combat effectiveness and maneuverability was also deemed as superior to the Quad 50 and the Duster.

It is noted that while in the Vietnam, Vulcans commonly operated without the RoR (Range only Radar) equipped, which is the version that is being suggested here. The identifying feature of the XM163s, besides the noise they make while firing, was in fact the AN/VPS-2 radar. Most of the time, the systems operated without the radar, to reduce their ease of identification, and also to carry more ammo. The systems operated without the radar so commonly, and it was noted that if an enemy air threat appeared, the transition time to air defense mode would be variable based on the proximity of a particular XM163 system to the storage area for the radars and other air defense equipment.

Specifications
Length: 191.5in (4.86m)
Width: 112.4in (2.85m)
Height: 115in (2.9m)

Mass:
26,000lbs, 13t (US), 11.79t (metric)

Crew:
4 - Driver, Gunner, Loader, Commander

Armament:
XM168 20mm Vulcan Rotary Cannon

Engine:
GM 6V53 - 212hp at 2800rpm

Speed:
40mph (64kph)

Armor:
Rolled 5083/5086 H32 Aluminum
1.14-1.77in (29-45mm)

Conclusion
This SPAA would be a very simple addition, and could help to fill the American SPAA gap. It is just an M163 with no radar, with practically no changes from the “production” version. With no radar, it would allow a lower BR placement than the M163 already in game, potentially as low as 6.7. The lack of radar is the only significant difference. It was also projected that removing the RoR could result in weight savings sufficient to carry additional ammo for the system, but how much ammo I do not know.
Regarding the names, in the official document it is called “XM163,” but I think that XM163 CS or XM163 FM (Field Mod) are also valid names, as they accurately describe what the vehicle is. Additionally, XM163 refers to the entire system (including the radar and air defense equipment) whereas adding CS or FM to the end can differentiate to the radar-less field modification close support variant.


post-12142-0-17248500-1556243753
Patches used by 1st Vulcan Combat Team (Provisional).

Gallery



XM163 Duster Buster in Vietnam.



XM163 #2 showing the Vulcan patch of the 1st Vulcan Combat Team (Provisional). In this picture, the antenna of the radar can be seen opposite the turret.



An XM163 (possibly XM163 #3) opening fire.



The open door of XM163 #4 showing the interior.


image
Two XM163s, Duster Buster (left) and Duster Runner (right), performing floatation tests.

Sources

Final Report, XM163 Vulcan Air Defense System, 18 Jun 1969
tvd - M163 Vulcan Air Defense System
UsMilitariaForum - 1st Vulcan Combat Team Vietnam
GlobalSecurity - M163/M167 VADS
Wikipedia - M163 Vads
Wikipedia - M61 Vulcan

YouTube - Vulcan APC Weapons System Arrives in Vietnam + Fire Demonstration on M-163 (Nov. 1968)
YouTube - Vulcan APC Weapons System Arrives in Vietnam + Fire Demonstration on M-163 (Nov. 1968)

10 Likes

Looks good, could it receive the APDS rounds as well?
Big ol’ +1 either way, a more than welcome addition.

2 Likes

+1, though 6.7 looks far too low. The Vulcan may not be amazing, but lower than a Kugelblitz?

7 Likes

+1 as an intermediate addition while more unique options are being modeled/uncovered. This is a vehicle that can easily provide immediate aid in closing the US’s SPAA gap. After a more unique vehicle is added, the XM163 CS can put into a folder with it as an optional vehicle.

8 Likes

I don’t wanna take it away from filling a much needed SPAA spot in the tech tree but, with increased ammo and possibly a better AP round (APDS?) you could argue that it could be a Light Tank, especially with the close support role. Or we could split the difference and make it an SPAA with scouting.

No APDS. As far as I know, the APDS round for the 20mm was not in service at the time of these trials. I may have to look at it again, but at least in the document APDS wasn’t mentioned.

1 Like

+1, for 7.0

1 Like

Gunner can be 7.62’d

1 Like

It could fit a spot between 6.7 - 7.0.

No higher than 7.0. The M163 is already difficult to use, as the radar is terrible, and this would have to be lower. +1 however, as it would be an interesting vehicle to use.

2 Likes

+1 for ground-based BRRRT box.

Fond memories of this vehicle in Wargame ALB.

4 Likes

Tbf the Kugel should be moved back to 6.7 at this point. It got moved up because it had a 95mm pen HVAP but that has been nerfed and we got the same round at 6.0 now

4 Likes

One more autocannon tank against ww2 tanks? No, thanks.

That’s not saying much, it can be 7.62’d at 7.7 too. If the radar is as ineffective as M163 users claim, then removing it shouldn’t be grounds to move it down by a whole BR.

1 Like

But if the radar is terrible, removing it wouldn’t make a huge difference. Why should this fight props?

4 Likes

It should, but isn’t. 163 is still a far far better SPAA than this, the low rate of fire really screws over the Kugel.

1 Like

It may be a bad radar, but it is still a radar. I’d say 7.0 is where this one belongs.

6 Likes

An spaa for usa between 4.0 and 7.7? Serioaly, there might be any opinion other than “YES”?

1 Like

the radar on the m163 is already worthless, no point in this being a lower br.
but if the xm were to get apds it would be a very cool addition.

1 Like

-1 radar doesn’t impact its BR significantly so this wouldn’t really deserve a lower BR and wouldn’t fit anywhere. There are plenty of vehicles to fill lower US BRs but this ain’t it

1 Like