M247 Sergeant York: a Tester's View

[uk 75]

Western armies and those supplied with Western kit have never had to fight a war where they did not have air superiority.

The different approaches to defending ground forces of the US, UK, West Germany and France have never been put to the test.

Since neither the Russian nor the Chinese Air Force look like being able to achieve air superiority over Western and allied air power any time soon (they prefer missiles of various kinds), I dont see a Sgt York/Gepard being ordered for a while yet.

 

[Christopher Wang]

The most sensible, effective and cost efficient solution was the Gepard turret (including sensors and 35mm guns) on the M1 chassis - period.

Regards
Pioneer

Raytheon actually did propose using the Gepard turret mounted on the hull of the M48 Patton for the DIVAD contest. Unfortunately, Raytheon's proposal was rejected for unknown reasons in favor of the General Dynamics XM246 and Ford Aerospace XM247. There are no known actual photographs of Raytheon's DIVAD proposal to combine the M48 Patton hull with the Gepard turret.

Since the M48 Patton shares the same turret ring diameter of 85-inches / 215.9-centimeteres as the M60 MBT and M1 Abrams, perhaps it would be technically feasible to fit the Gepard turret onto an M60 or M1 hull.

 

[Pioneer]

The most sensible, effective and cost efficient solution was the Gepard turret (including sensors and 35mm guns) on the M1 chassis - period.

Regards
Pioneer

Raytheon actually did propose using the Gepard turret mounted on the hull of the M48 Patton for the DIVAD contest. Unfortunately, Raytheon's proposal was rejected for unknown reasons in favor of the General Dynamics XM246 and Ford Aerospace XM247. There are no known actual photographs of Raytheon's DIVAD proposal to combine the M48 Patton hull with the Gepard turret.

Since the M48 Patton shares the same turret ring diameter of 85-inches / 215.9-centimeteres as the M60 MBT and M1 Abrams, perhaps it would be technically feasible to fit the Gepard turret onto an M60 or M1 hull.

Thank you for your reply Christopher Wang.
One could probably surmise that the powers that be wanted the U.S.- centric R&D and content, verses a cost-effective system like the Gepard turret system which had already been developed. The notion and intent of utilising the M48 chassis was the least of the U.S. Army's problem. Like most U.S. Army air defence programs Post-WWII, being able to stay on requirement and delivering a functional and effective SPAAG system has proven to be a complete and utterly another thing.

Come to think of it, I wonder how an M1 Abrams as the basis of' Sergeant York' would have operationally fared, given the Abrams use of gas turbine and it's need to run longer, so as to generate power for the turret and associated sensors (I appreciate that the M1 Abrams eventually gained an APU for this very reason, but I don't think it existed at the time of the DIVAD program.

No IMO, the Gepard tarret was a big and detrimentally lost operational opertinity.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

Western armies and those supplied with Western kit have never had to fight a war where they did not have air superiority.

The different approaches to defending ground forces of the US, UK, West Germany and France have never been put to the test.

Since neither the Russian nor the Chinese Air Force look like being able to achieve air superiority over Western and allied air power any time soon (they prefer missiles of various kinds), I dont see a Sgt York/Gepard being ordered for a while yet.

Waiting until we lose air superiority in a hot war before starting a competition to solve the problem seems a bit. . .ah, too late for the party.

 

[sferrin]

Come to think of it, I wonder how an M1 Abrams as the basis of
'Sergeant York' would have operationally fared, given the Abrams use of gas turbine and it's need to run longer, so as to generate power for the turret and associated sensors (I appreciate that the M1 Abrams eventually gained an APU for this very reason, but I don't think it existed at the time of the DIVAD program.

No IMO, the Gepard tarret was a big and detrimentally lost operational opertinity.

Regards
Pioneer

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/liberty-air-defense-system.696/#post-26960

 

[MadRat]

If tank or artillery turrets could fire at a proper trajectory, does it matter if you use 120mm round versus 500 rounds of 35mm at a helicopter? If that 120mm round can use command guidance to make the kill with one shot then you simplify the number of platforms necessary in your force structure. And in a pinch maybe you can do the same with a 155mm gun or howitzer. Smart shells will have a huge \impact/ on what be done in the future. If one re-imagines air defense with guns in the field then you need to consolidate roles. The new generation of IFVs are pushing larger calibers. Tying all these systems together will be better than what could be done with M247. If DIVAD had been fielded surely 40mm would have become a common IFV round, and 25mm Bushmaster probably never gets used like it did. No doubt somethink like LINK16 between SPAAG could have kept them relevant until such larger smart shells I described become the standard.

 

[Pioneer]

Come to think of it, I wonder how an M1 Abrams as the basis of
'Sergeant York' would have operationally fared, given the Abrams use of gas turbine and it's need to run longer, so as to generate power for the turret and associated sensors (I appreciate that the M1 Abrams eventually gained an APU for this very reason, but I don't think it existed at the time of the DIVAD program.

No IMO, the Gepard tarret was a big and detrimentally lost operational opertinity.

Regards
Pioneer

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/liberty-air-defense-system.696/#post-26960

Thank you for your response and the link sferrin , but as you'd no doubtedly appriciate, the Liberty system was yet another mish mash and almost two decades later and ironically itself proved to be yet another U.S. Army failure torto it's failed Sgt York debarcle, which itself was supposed to be a replacement for the M167.......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

Come to think of it, I wonder how an M1 Abrams as the basis of
'Sergeant York' would have operationally fared, given the Abrams use of gas turbine and it's need to run longer, so as to generate power for the turret and associated sensors (I appreciate that the M1 Abrams eventually gained an APU for this very reason, but I don't think it existed at the time of the DIVAD program.

No IMO, the Gepard tarret was a big and detrimentally lost operational opertinity.

Regards
Pioneer

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/liberty-air-defense-system.696/#post-26960

Thank you for your response and the link sferrin , but as you'd no doubtedly appriciate, the Liberty system was yet another mish mash and almost two decades later and ironically itself proved to be yet another U.S. Army failuretfailure replace it's failed Sgt York debarcle, which itself was supposed to be a replacement for the M167.......

Regards
Pioneer

Yep.

 

[TsrJoe]

This one ?

 

[dan_inbox]

If tank or artillery turrets could fire at a proper trajectory, does it matter if you use 120mm round versus 500 rounds of 35mm at a helicopter?

Tsahal's experience during op shalag in '82 was that it was most effective for tanks to shoot HE shells airburst in the general direction of Syrian SA-342L Gazelle-HOT helos hiding behind terrain. The blast would slam the helo into the terrain, or at least wreck the rotor.
No need to hit it direct, not even to keep seeing the helo.

The tactic was used so often, against _any_ helo approaching, that IDF pilots complained of friendly fire. This led to the famous yellow V id marking.

(however in '82 the MBTs were firing mostly 105mm, not 120mm)

 

[Christopher Wang]

This one ?

So Oerlikon-Contraves really did propose fitting the Gepard turret onto other tank chassis such as the M48 and M60. Since the M48 and M60 share the same turret ring diameter of 85-in / 215.9-cm as the M1, it should be technically feasible to fit the Gepard turret onto the M1 Abrams.

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Where did you find this image?

 

[Pioneer]

This one ?

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Why so Christopher Wang?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Christopher Wang]

This one ?

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Why so Christopher Wang?

Regards
Pioneer

I know that the M109 chassis was proposed for the Roland SAM in the form of the XM975 American Roland, and that the Gepard turret has been marketed for the Leclerc and M48 Patton chassis.

This is the first time I heard of the M109 being proposed as a SPAAG platform with the Gepard turret.

 

[Pioneer]

This one ?

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Why so Christopher Wang?

Regards
Pioneer

I know that the M109 chassis was proposed for the Roland SAM in the form of the XM975 American Roland, and that the Gepard turret has been marketed for the Leclerc and M48 Patton chassis.

This is the first time I heard of the M109 being proposed as a SPAAG platform with the Gepard turret.

Sorry, Christopher Wang, I hope my question didn't come across the wrong way.
I'm of the personal opinion that the M109 chassis was a versatile design which could have/should have been utilised more for other applications, as it would be cheaper, lighter and one would think being designed for a SPH, offer much more space for systems/ammunition than that of a MBT chassis.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Christopher Wang]

A

This one ?

I’m surprised that the Gepard turret was also proposed to be fitted onto the M109.

Why so Christopher Wang?

Regards
Pioneer

I know that the M109 chassis was proposed for the Roland SAM in the form of the XM975 American Roland, and that the Gepard turret has been marketed for the Leclerc and M48 Patton chassis.

This is the first time I heard of the M109 being proposed as a SPAAG platform with the Gepard turret.

Sorry, Christopher Wang, I hope my question didn't come across the wrong way.
I'm of the personal opinion that the M109 chassis was a versatile design which could have/should have been utilised more for other applications, as it would be cheaper, lighter and one would think being designed for a SPH, offer much more space for systems/ammunition than that of a MBT chassis.

Regards
Pioneer

No offense taken.

According to the American Fighting Vehicle Database ( http://afvdb.50megs.com/ ), the M109 also has a turret ring diameter of 100-in / 254-cm. With the M109's large internal space and turret ring diameter, you're probably right about the M109's potential versatility. It would also be a bonus if the Roland and Gepard anti-aircraft systems could be fitted onto the newer six-wheel M109A7 chassis.

 

[Christopher Wang]

This one ?

Out of curiosity, where did you find this image?

 

[TsrJoe]

I had saved the image q a few years back, unfortunately can't recall original source tho ? (might have been Av. Week ad ?)

 

[grathian]

There is a rumor floating around they equipped a National Guard unit. Sometimes NM, sometimes NY. Any truth?

 

[Christopher Wang]

I was looking through some old photos I have saved in my e-mail and I found this Flickr image from Rick McOmber aka RickM2007 of a hypothetical DIVAD model combining the M247 Sergeant York's turret with the M1 Abrams' chassis:

https://flic.kr/p/5JZZAC

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rickm15/3112035044

It should be noted that the M48 Patton and M1 Abrams shared the same turret ring diameter of 85-inches / 215.9-centimeters.