Talk:M163 VADS

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)

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)

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)

I think I put that in waaayyyy back. http://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Vulcan Crewmember from 1984 to 1992 (Driver, gunner, and Squad Leader). The only ammunition used by the US army in the field was High Explosive Incendiary Tracer (HEI-T); and High Explosive Incendiary Tracer Self-Destruct (HEIT-SD). Dummy rounds were used for training and a precision machined inspection round (called the "Silver Billet") was used to check barrel chambers. The SABOT (PATEK) rounds were never procured by the US Army for use outside of extremely limited testing at Orogrande, and never fielded to FORSCOM.

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)

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)

Per Acronyms as words in article titles it should be moved. The current title is really awful. Move to Vulcan air defence system then.--Patton^t/c 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?74.161.22.160 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

: perhaps the author was not a fanboy looking at paper specs of "cool commie stuff" but knew that an optical fire-control system that works and is deadly accurate and esay to use is better than a radar one that takes ages to lock up and fire and still can't hit the broad side of a barn? And that 3mm wider shells arent going offset the other gun firing at a higher rate of fire and velocity. And there is no evidence of any fancy aerodynamic design of the ZU ammunition that would offset the slower initial velocity!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.24.9.146 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 

Yeah, that raised an eyebrow for me as well. The ZSU-23 is STILL an extremely effective weapon, while the VADS (as this article points out), wasn't really successful in its intended role. To the page author: can you qualify the whole "primitive" thing? Its possible that you actually meant something completely different from my reading, but I can't fix it if I don't know what you meant. Dpenn89 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. forces almost always have an AWACS in the sky during major combat ops, so their your radar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.169 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the quality of the weapon system? This is about comparing to weapon platforms, not about comparing doctrine. Besides, as far as I'm aware there is no way to use the AWACS radar to target the Vulcan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmarle (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Similar to the above "discussion", we also have that very dubious statement in the article: " although the Russian ZSU fired a larger shell (23 mm rather than 20 mm) but had a lower rate of fire, the M163 had a higher muzzle velocity and higher rate of fire providing a flatter trajectory, shorter time of flight and thus better accuracy." Meanwhile, we look at Wikipedia, the ZSU-23-4 has a combined RoF of 3'400 to 4'000 RPM, the M168 on M163 has maximum of 3'000 RPM. Muzzle velocity is 980 vs 1020, the difference is almost non-existent. So one part of that statement is flat out wrong, the other one is dubious at best. Meanwhile the "only 3mm" higher calibre provides a twice as big explosive charge and twice as heavy projectile - quite a difference! So it fires a roughly twice as heavy shell with a higher rate of fire at almost the same muzzle velocity - terminal velocity may even be higher due to the heavier projectile. Therefore I would remove that statement. Wurelbum (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M163 VADS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828100827/http://www.gd-ots.com/webpdf/20mm%20M940.pdf to http://www.gd-ots.com/webpdf/20mm%20M940.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

VADS

US Army nomenclature 16ROMEO was designated for Vulcan Air Defense System Crew Member for 4 years. No such round as Sabot round I was stationed in West Germany at Larson Barack’s MENACEofSOCIETY1970 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"AN/VPS-2" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect AN/VPS-2 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 23 § AN/VPS-2 until a consensus is reached. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 21:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was delete as an unopposed deletion nomination on September 3, 2024. To see the result, click here — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 09:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

South Korea?

The map shows South Korea as a "current operator" but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article or citations. Bridgecross (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but the map is presently unsourced. I'm not even sure it belongs on the article without some form of citation backing it up. What do you think? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 00:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)