![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Speed is listed as "64". 64 what? mph? km/h? something else?
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Speed is listed as "64". 64 what? mph? km/h? something else?
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
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)