T249 'Vigilante' Self Propelled Anti-Aircraft Vehicle | ROTARY CANNON FIREPOWER

The T249 Vigilante was a prototype 37 mm self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG) designed as a replacement for the Bofors 40 mm gun and M42 Duster in US Army service. The system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform.
In the early 1960s, the Army decided that gun-based systems were outdated, and canceled further development in favor of the MIM-46 Mauler missile system that also failed to enter service. The designer, the Sperry Utah Engineering Laboratory, later revived the Vigilante, rechambering it for NATO-standard 35x228mm rounds and mounting it on a M48 tank chassis for the DIVADs contest. However, it ultimately lost to Ford's M247 Sergeant York that also failed to enter service.
Very little information exists of the T249 Vigilante and its T250 cannon. The conceptual design for the T250 cannon was initiated in 1956. While the design of cannon of this caliber would ordinarily be handled by Watervliet Arsenal, it was decided that Springfield Armory would take responsibility due to their previous development experience with smaller caliber rotary cannon such the 20mm T171. The T250 was the largest Gatling gun ever assembled. Its 37x219mmSR round was based upon a shortened and necked-down 40x311mmR Bofors cartridge case. Hydraulically powered, the gun was able to vary between 120 rpm for (especially stationary) ground targets and 3,000 rpm for air targets.
Armored Warfare promotional codes! :
bit.ly/stay-safe-bundle
bit.ly/AW-how-to-start
The first link leads to a free bundle on MY.GAMES Store that anyone can pick up. The second link goes to a guide for setting up your account (you need an account to claim the first link’s bonuses).
Basically, you need to:
1. Create account
2. Log in on the website
3. Use the bonus link to claim the bonuses
Website: aw.my.games/en
Hope you enjoy!!
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.com/user?u=3081754
Matt’s DREAM: www.gofundme.com/f/matt039s-c...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/stores/matsimus...
📬Wanna send me something? My PO Box: Matthew James 210A - 12A Street N Suite
#135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J
📸 My instagram: Matt_matsimus
🎮 Twitch: / matsimus_9033
👋DISCORD: / discord
📘 Facebook: profile.php?...
🐦Twitter: / matsimusgaming
T249 'Vigilante' Self Propelled Anti-Aircraft Vehicle | ROTARY CANNON FIREPOWER

[@Lonewolfmike]

As the Chieftain would say, "It would cause the infantry a severe emotional event."

[@aslamnurfikri7640]

Oh my god, the tank is on fire

[@vale.44peru]

Aslamnur Fikri *Accidentally breaks a Panther which has been restored and worked on for a loong time*

[@remnant4484]

*Gattling Tank, Ready for Action!*

[@Joel-bj8om]

The irony. This tank will shoot commies, in CNCGZH, they come from commie warfactory

[@JoakimfromAnka]

Need a bullet barrage?

[@sweetballs4742]

Spin them up!

[@jvbutalid8316]

Keep the barrels oiled

[@pizhhhout]

I have many bullets to spare!

[@haydendill6288]

I remember there being a Chinese tank like this in C&C Gernerals, dunno why miniguns were a primary chinese weapon in that game though.

[@thatoneguy8355]

Mini gun for the mini people.

[@magisterrleth3129]

Lots of people, lots of barrels?

[@_OpFor]

"Gattling tank, ready for action" "Spin them up!" "Need a bullet barrage?" Man I loved C&C Generals

[@sebastiannikkolas8497]

@@_OpFor how about C&C Cold war crisis?

[@sweetballs4742]

@@sebastiannikkolas8497 its a mod, mate. We're talking about the original game here.

[@david_1630]

Someone poured red bull into the gas tank and the a10 warthog was born.

[@bigblue6917]

I think it was something a little stronger then Red Bull

[@AmericanIdiot7659]

@@bigblue6917 red oil

[@aslamnurfikri7640]

@@bigblue6917 definitely not Rich Energy

[@david_1630]

@@bigblue6917 red bull gives you wings

[@Boxghost102]

@@bigblue6917 They used the OG 4loko, the kind with the caffeine

[@kingofburgundy6323]

It makes me sad that every time the US tries to made a dedicated SPAAG system. It fails most often.

[@imrekalman9044]

Meanwhile in Russia... By the time the Sgt. York got cancelled the USSR was deploying the 2S6 Tunguska to replace the successful ZSU-23-4 Shilka.

[@setesh1294]

I mean, the M163 was pretty successful.

[@AtomicFire1972]

The M19, M42, and M163 VADS/PIVADS were considered successful, if less than perfect, systems. And they offered flexibility by be adaptable to ground support roles.

[@Barri2410]

@@rizalali7307 don't forget their aircrafts are also good (Flanker, Fulcrum, Foxhound, Felon)

[@imrekalman9044]

@@setesh1294 Funny enough, the main problem of the M163 was the same as the Shilka's: short range due to relatively small calibre.

[@TheTrueAdept]

It literally shook itself apart every time it fired the gun and a modified version of this gun was used in the DIVAD program... and failed to get the contract (the Sgt. York got the contract, but the press killed it).

[@RedXlV]

The Sgt. York seems like it was the worst of the DIVAD offerings, and it seems like there was a predetermined decision on the basis of lobbying that Ford's design would get chosen.

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@RedXlV nope, the US wanted the 40mm Bofors more than anything. You've got to remember that at the time Bofors had put out their new sensor-fused rounds, which was perfect for what the US army wanted. The real story is that the Sgt. York got killed by the press more than anything. During initial testing, helicopter pilots who were used as OPFOR for the program simply kept getting shot out of the air until they discovered the York's flaws, specifically in its hydraulic system. If you zip right above the York with the original hydraulics, you cause them to break down as it was designed to put the guns at 0-degree elevation, rotate at top speed, then go back to the original elevation. Essentially, the pilots exposed a problem that could be easily patched with better hydraulics (specifically a 5k psi model). Quote: www.quora.com/How-effective-would-an-M247-Sergeant-York-have-been-at-shooting-down-helicopters Specifically, one Tom Farrier who took part in the program. There was one instance where he, two A-10s, and a Kiowa were sent to test it out in a mock battle... and they were dead within fifteen seconds. It was expensive enough that bad PR killed it.

[@axeavier]

@@TheTrueAdept the press killed it? Not the 100000 vital problems it had? Or how Ford kept interfering and smudging numbers

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@axeavier Oddly enough, most of the numbers weren't fudged. The US Army on the project kept getting their helicopters handed to them. It took a specific maneuver for the heli pilots to win against a York. If you have bothered to click the link I provided and read the person I quoted, you would find that York was actually phenomenal despite its failings. The helicopter pilots they used couldn't simply hide in the trees during the tests, they had to break LoS by hiding behind hills or mountains. To quote: "In 1982 I participated in both cooperative and non-cooperative tests at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, flying an Air Force CH-3E helicopter against a Sergeant York. I would have been dead many times over had it been shooting live rounds at us instead of just video. The Sergeant York was the front-runner in a program intended to provide the Army with a sorely needed “division air defense” (DIVAD) weapon system. It was based on a novel concept: re-purposing M48 Patton tank chassis’ with a new turret incorporating twin Swedish Bofors 40mm cannons and two radar systems - one for area surveillance (the rectangular antenna) and one for targeting (the conical antenna, an off-the-shelf application of the F-16′s radar). A firing control system integrated the two radars, with on-board software prioritizing targets based on the threat they were assessed to pose to the system itself. (For the late ’70s /early ’80s, this was cosmic.) If the operator elected to allow the system to engage targets hands-off, it would slew the turret around at a nauseatingly rapid rate, taking on each in turn automatically. On the next-to-last day of the test, my aircraft was joined by an Army AH-1 Cobra and OH-58 Kiowa and two Air Force A-10s. My H-3 was part of the test profile because its radar signature was essentially the same as that of an Mi-24 HIND assault helicopter of the day, which was heavily armed with both anti-tank missiles and rockets. We all converged on it simultaneously from about 6000 meters. My aircraft was the first to die, followed by the two A-10s, then the Cobra, and finally the Kiowa. It took less than 15 seconds to put plenty of hypothetical rounds into each of us. I spent a depressing amount of that week watching myself get tracked and killed on video. Trying to “mask” behind anything other than rising terrain simply didn’t work; the DIVAD radar got a nice Doppler return off my rotor system if any part of it was within its line of sight, and it burned right through trees just fine. I couldn’t outrun or out-maneuver it laterally; when I moved, it tracked me. I left feeling pretty convinced that it was the Next Big Thing, especially since I’d come into the test pretty cocky thanks to having had a lot of (successful) exercise experience against current Army air defense systems. So, what happened to the program itself? I think it was a combination of factors. First, the off-the-shelf concept was cool as far as it went, but the Patton design already was a quarter-century old; the DIVAD was awfully slow compared with the M1 Abrams tanks it was supposed to protect. It would have had a lot of trouble keeping up with the pack. Second, The Atlantic Monthly published a really nasty article (bordering on a hatchet job) purporting to show the program was a complete failure and a ruinous waste of money. One of its most impressive bits of propaganda was an anecdote about a test where the system - on full automatic - took aim at a nearby trailer full of monitoring equipment. Paraphrasing, “It tracked and killed an exhaust fan,” chortled the author. (See The Gun That Shoots Fans for a recounting of this.) Yeah, it did. It was designed to look for things that rotate (like helicopter main rotor systems) and prioritize them for prompt destruction. If any bad guys were on the battlefield in vehicles with unshrouded exhaust fans, they might have been blown away rather comprehensively. (My understanding at the time was that said fan was part of a rest room in one of the support vehicles and not a “latrine,” but why mess up a good narrative, right?) To my knowledge, neither ventilated latrines nor RVs full of recording devices are part of a typical Army unit’s table of allowance, so I really doubt there was much of a fratricide threat there. However, the bottom line was that this particular piece of partisan reporting beat the crap out of a program that I believe the Army needed, but already was facing a few developmental issues, and helped hasten its cancellation. (The New York Times opinion piece linked to above was equally laden with innuendo and assumptions. It made a fair point about possible anti-radiation attacks it might have invited… but there are radars on every battlefield, and there are means of controlling emissions. It compared a late-Fifties era Soviet system - the ZSU-23-4 - with one fully twenty years newer in design. It asserted that it couldn’t hit fixed-wing aircraft, which to my mind and personal observation was arrant nonsense. The only issue it raised that I agree with was possible NATO compatibility problems with the unique 40mm caliber shells the Sergeant York’s guns fired. Funny - the Times pontificated that it wouldn’t be cancelled, too. Oops.) Third, the hydraulics that were used in the prototype were a 3000 psi system that really couldn’t handle the weight of the turret in its Awesome Hosing Things mode. One of the only times I actually got a score on the system was when I cheated; I deliberately exploited that vulnerability. I flew straight toward the system (which would have blown us out of the sky about twenty times over had I tried to do so for real) until directly over it, then tried to defeat the system from above. If memory serves, the system specifications called for the guns to elevate to more than 85 degrees if something was coming up and over; it then would lower them quickly, slew the turret 180 degrees around, and raise the guns again to re-engage. It was supposed to be able to do that in perhaps ten seconds (but I’m here to tell you it did it a lot faster than that). So, I had my flight engineer tell me the moment the guns dropped, at which point I did a course reversal maneuver to try to catch it pointed the wrong way. What the video later showed was: Helicopter flies over. Traverse/re-acquire movement starts. Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself). Guns started to elevate to re-engage. Clunk. Guns fall helplessly down; DIVAD crew uses bad language. The hydraulics hadn’t been able to support the multiple close-on, consecutive demands of movement in multiple axes and failed. Like I said, I cheated. The Army and the contractors already knew about this problem and were going to fit out production models with a 5000 psi system. That might have had some survivability issues of its own, but the Army was perfectly happy that we’d done what we did - it proved the test wasn’t rigged and underscored the need for the production change. Finally, the Army itself honestly appraised the system based on its progress (and lack of progress) versus their requirements. Wikipedia provides a passage that encapsulates this end-game well: “The M247 OT&E Director, Jack Krings, stated the tests showed, ‘...the SGT YORK was not operationally effective in adequately protecting friendly forces during simulated combat, even though its inherent capabilities provided improvement over the current [General Electric] Vulcan gun system. The SGT YORK was not operationally suitable because of its low availability during the tests.’ ” I guess I’m forced to conclude that the Sergeant York was a really good concept with some definite developmental flaws - some recognized and being dealt with, perhaps one or two that would have made it less than fully effective in its intended role - that was expensive enough for bad PR to help bring it down before it fully matured. The Army was under a lot of political pressure to get it fielded, but to their credit they decided not to potentially throw good money after bad. On balance, a lot of the contemporaneous criticisms mounted against the M247 really don’t hold up very well over time. Short-range air defense currently is provided by the latest generation of the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel system. Radar emitting on the battlefield? Check. Target prioritization capabilities? Check. Towed (which equals “slow”) versus self-propelled? Check. I’m glad we never wound up in the position of needing it but not having it. My personal judgment was and is that it probably could have wound up a heck of a lot more capable and useful than its developmental history might suggest, but its cancellation probably was justified given other acquisition priorities at the time. Bottom line: I repeatedly flew a helicopter against it over the course of many hours of testing, including coming at it as unpredictably as I knew how, and it cleaned my clock pretty much every time."

[@bobgarr6246]

@@TheTrueAdept now this is the correct way to refute an indictment made against a position. Concise and very well thought and laid out. Your first hand experience with the 249/Sgt York should silence all the video game players and armchair military tacticians ( but it wont ) that think they understand the how's and why's of R&D and procurement and test and evaluation procedures of the U.S Military and the DOD. It is never what it seems to be and not as simple as it is thought to be. If given unlimited funds, time and resources, and were not hindered by political oversight or answerable to the media/press and could truly develop weapons systems based on the need to counter threats and strategy. I'm quite sure the end product would meet the needs as seen by the military. On the other hand it is quite evident from history that the U.S is always very prepared to fight the last war. For whatever reason, the powers that be never take much notice of the up and coming trends and strategies being used and developed by the rest of the world, especially potential adversaries. Nor do they usually listen to the advice of those in the know with current first hand experience of the matter at hand, in my experience one of the best resources comes from senior NCO's and Master Chiefs, not the Generals. This way of thinking starts us off at a disadvantage and puts us in a game of catch up. Thanks for a very informative non opinionated text on the true reality of the Sgt York weapons platform, and for your service. I'm sure you told all you could reveal without violating your security clearance. All the best. SEMPER FI

[@sweetballs4742]

This makes me remember of the Chinese Gatling Tank in C&C Generals.

[@seriousmaran9414]

Upgraded C&C available shortly.

[@Kserks96]

Fun fact: in Russia it called "Armata: Armored Warfare"

[@LaserTractor]

Ксеркс 96 it is Armored Warfare: Project Armata if to be correct. And it's half official name because official is still Armored Warfare

[@JeanLucCaptain]

Fun Fact, it was almost as bad as the Sgt York

[@TyMoore95503]

Considering the steel rain that the A-10 can deliver with it's 30mm GE Avenger gun system, I can only imagine what a rotary 37mm gun system firing would look like! In college when I was first learning how to use CAD (a long time ago! Back in 1990) I entertained myself with drawing up (well a sketch really) of what could only be described as a rotary 6 barreled version of a 40mm Bofars gun. It looked pretty rad on the screen...the instructor printed it out and stuck it on the wall in his office. Those were the days!

[@nou-jn6uz]

I love that thing so much! Glad you made a video on it.

[@razrtitanium5828]

Keep staying safe guys, I advise everyone stay inside! I actually just lost my grandfather the other day to this covid 19 crap, and also keep up the good work Matt! Love your vids

[@shayak3236]

I am sorry for your loss. Hope you're holding up fine.

[@_Matsimus_]

Sorry for your loss man.

[@benhawker1512]

Brrrtttt on the ground

[@thuggeegaming659]

Increase the caliber to 50mm, raise the gun to improve its depression and give it a higher vantage point, make the shells guided, give them a proximity fuse, maybe make the shells rockets or even scramjets, give it AA missiles, connect it to a Pantsir radar, fix all of the reloading problems, give it an active protection system, give it another smaller 7.62 remote machine gun turret and it would be good as a short ranged AA system in conjunction with an S-400 system or something similar. The improved depression would make it ideal to protect bigger AA systems from ground attack as well.

[@pakitxn]

Learning more from this channel than from school! Nice stuff !!

[@cocopud]

Probably the largest caliber Gatling guns. Glad to see you have a sponsor - you deserve to get some dosh for your videos 🙂

[@farzet3937]

5:06 I didn't know Bill Nye was into Weapon Research and Development

[@Limescale12]

I thought the same thing lol great minds...

[@carlospulido6224]

it's not him, that photo is from the 50's and by that time he was barely 5 years old, he was born in 1955.

[@ryanrichardson154]

Man your video are great I have been watching for a while but I got shot 3 times a few months ago and I have to be in bed a lot and I have just been watching your vids man keep it up!

[@potatopg3d371]

Oh that rlly sucks i hope u get better fast man

[@JaznyD]

Yes, Matsimus is finally sponsored by AW. Congrats :) Been wondering when they were going to sponsor you ever since you 1st used in game vehicle models.

[@popattara]

love it, looking forward for M18 recoilless rifle video

[@m2003h]

I just would like to see the GUA used like this on a Abrams platform.

[@deepchillzone]

THIS! No reloading time, just instant BRRRRRRRRT Why not try it out?

[@cameronboyce4695]

Well in Armored Warfare they have a GUA mounted on an M60 platform and an M1 Abrams with twin 30mm or 40mm guns.

[@Limescale12]

You'd think a gun like this would be a game changer on the ground but for whatever reason it's clearly not the way to go - no prominent military has a gatling tank

[@notoo7]

Whoa! Never heard of this one before, very cool! The one I wish the Army would have gone with was the General Dynamics version of the DIVADS.

[@CarlsoSpiceyWeiner69]

Officially placing a request for a video on the M42 Duster. My coworker crewed one in Vietnam and has some greatly interesting stories about it. He claims to had heard tales of them going toe to toe with Soviet armor (certainly crewed by Vietnamese). He also regaled me with the horror of doing a firing demonstration next to the 247 Sgt York and all the tomfoolery that befell it.

[@ryansmith5133]

Christ armored Warfare haven’t played that in a hot minute (had all the tanks related to the M1 series and main line M1s) quit playing when they messed up the economy in game....was fun as hell in PVE and even the Glops anyway great vid as always!

[@Limescale12]

4:58 bill nye the gatling gun guy

[@_Matsimus_]

lmao

[@ok88warrior]

Wow I read that perfectly in sync with the video

[@royalteluis623]

@@ok88warrior same

[@Getpojke]

Nice video Mateimus, One thing looking at it; looks like it has a raise-able screen 'round the hull, was this to allow the vehicle to swim or was it for camouflage? Hope you and yours are staying safe.

[@olesyagodlike1096]

I need one for self defence in case of demon invasion

[@fegenein862]

Warning: the Vigilante is firing

[@yukole6245]

Bruh, guy spoiled the future 😢

[@WompaOne1]

Early squad, salute!

[@donaldcarter429]

Don't know where you find the obsolete/prototype vehicles but they are neat. For the time being keep it up because God know when we will see any new stuff.

[@KiLDELTA]

Since you are now being sponsored by Armored Warfare, you can use a bit of their vehicle history materials online as a reference. They have a lot of obscure models of modern fighting vehicles that are good to be discussed and I love hearing your take on those vehicles

[@Interstellar-Nebula]

Very detailed video Matt! The T249 was a beast, what is the track/music you have in the background please? thanks.

[@jamesanakin]

Dark age of tech Leman russ punisher.

[@annelisemeier283]

Yes, but no

[@ahoosifoou4211]

@@annelisemeier283 Yes, but yes

[@Wesrl]

You should do a video on the T-92 since there are so few videos on this vehicle

[@raidhart9233]

Hi, hope you doing well. I have been wondering many times on how MBT crew members get to live in a tight space like the tank interior. In fact, I was think of how they get to use toilet in particular. Is there any equipment inside the take for that or they need to stop and doing it out of the tank? What about pilots in fighter gets? Or do these people follows a different diet that help them to stay longer without the need to use the toilet? It might be a silly question to ask but I am curious to know this. Hope you can make one episode to explain that. Keep the good work going man...... 💪💪💪

[@199diesel]

That is a very very very strong guy that it's shooting at in the video... Very strong.

[@sarki4816]

finally, he got sponsored by the video game he so often uses! XD

[@firefox5926]

3:32 37 is an interesting choice .. i would have thought they would have gone with 40 since you know its basically the nato standard ... and its only like 3 mm bigger so its not like thats the limit maybe they just had a bunch of old 37 at gun barrels lying around ?

[@haroldasraz]

That is the best looking anti aircraft vehicle ever.

[@gingergorilla695]

Dude, I remember reading about this; 37mm rotary cannon. Holy crap. If I had any ask, could you do a vid on the Vought F-8 Crusader, pls, pretty please :)

[@Limescale12]

*Here here!*

[@beerthug]

wasn't that john mclean's plane? quite a coincidence that he sealed all the airmens pow records.....especially his!

[@SuperDiablo101]

Matsimus i've never heard of this vehicle but have you heard of the Tank that used the GAU 8 avenger cannon as a primary weapon

[@likeaboss860]

That circle is a perfect target 🎯

[@paintnamer6403]

The M-19 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage was a twin 40mm Bofors AA gun. Those were used in the Korean Conflict and look similar to the M-42. I don't know if there was enough time left to deploy the M-42 Duster in Korea or how much action they saw by July 27 1953.

[@dylannix4289]

“When thinking of rotary cannons” Normal people: A-10 Warthog, Vulcan miniguns, Phalanx Dutch people: Goalkeeper CIWS🤤

[@kolinmartz]

Wonder if you can mount a Phalanx onto a tracker chassis and have that work in tandem with the new seaRAM also mounted on a mobile chassis.

[@metanoia6335]

"Chaingun upgrade is complete" intensifies.

[@cnlbenmc]

You should talk about some of the other DIVADs competition vehicles like the XM-246 or the General Dynamics one with the GAU-8 Avenger gatling gun.

[@RedXlV]

It's interesting how every "failed" DIVAD competitor seems to have been superior to the winner. Almost as if the competition was rigged to give Ford the contract.

[@gdonfreeman1]

I might have to go see this vehicle in person.

[@berserker6341]

Shilka has joined the chat. Oh!, hi your voice its quite familiar.. you fly DCS :D?

[@Archer89201]

This reminds me of the fictional ZSU-30 from Tom Clancy and Larry Bond's novel - Red Storm Rising...That book hooked me up to all things military related...besides the gatling tank from C&C Generals

[@jaikumar848]

Hi Mastimus! Is it possible for bullets(like GAU-8 Avenger) to penetrate modern tank armour ??

[@bluntcabbage6042]

Testing performed in the Cold War revealed that the GAU-8 was only effective against older T-55 and T-62 MBTs (and even then, side and rear shots were pretty much necessary to score an actual kill). The GAU-8 was almost useless against T-64 and T-72 tanks. There's a reason the A-10 carries a lot of air to ground munitions other than its GAU-8.

[@leotmh4135]

Good to heard having commercial here

[@TheoSloat]

There is a museum near the Halifax airport that have a Starfighter. Impresive plane in person

[@akatsukiwolf2735]

Enabling the Radar on the T249 increases your visibility to enemies in Armored Warfare. That's the only con to this otherwise excellent recon (SPG).

[@bitkarek]

is it worth playing compared to WOT or WT?

[@Kupperz59]

@@bitkarek grinds a lot easier and quicker, you can get through on a f2p account

[@Limescale12]

the *only* con? Does it have bluetooth?

[@hoponasu2471]

Did my service with zsu 23 and its still in service - Poland makes upgraded version with radar so now I can hit something.

[@skylark306]

Poland can into aircraft.

[@Maiiroshi]

I would like to see you make a video on the J7W1 Shinden

[@omnianti0]

the fubn have nearly more barel than ammo mention to the recoil of the 30mm is already 3tons able to stop the A10 diving to stall

[@SonsOfLorgar]

What I don't understand is why they chose the 40×311R round that was already too weak to reach the ground engagement altitude of early jets and then reduced it's volume for propellant further instead of going for the improved 40×364R round and just necking it down to 37mm, or whatever shell caliber they wanted.

[@arsenalxa4421]

As long as you're doing cancelled programs look into the Abrams AGDS. Its basically an Abrams with twin 35mm Anti-Aircraft guns supplemented with a pair of armored box missile launchers. Its a premium tank in Armored Warfare. On that note I've been playing Armored Warfare on PS4, so I doubt I'll run across you in game. That makes me very sad...

[@patrickg.8245]

I have questions: 1st, why 37mm? 2nd, time/proximity fuse anyone?

[@KrisKringle2]

Compact round (40 needs to be fattened and shortened, it's ridiculously long), apparently hard to put proximity fuse in 37 in early 60s.

[@chrisspencer6502]

In Chieftain's q&a the topic of mobile AA came up. What do you know about new platforms? Is it all high tech "lasers" or mobile ciwiz

[@paladin0654]

The Starfighter was not an "abomination". Over 2,500 were manufactured, it was operated by 15 countries (including Canada), it was the first A/C to simultaneous hold the absolute world records for speed, and altitude and set more world records than any other fighter. What WAS an "abomination" is the method that air forces trained the pilots of this aircraft. The platform was designed by Kelly Johnson to be an interceptor during the "cold war". Johnson minimized weight and drag creating a very fast airframe that got to altitude faster than any other fighter for decades. This design philosophy necessarily resulted is high stall and landing speeds that inexperienced pilots found dangerous.

[@p51cMustangFUYTGIVEMEBACK]

will you aver talk about the italian otomatic?

[@cameronboyce4695]

I like that Armored Warfare is adding in SPAA's I would like to see them add the M42 Duster and the Zsu-57-2

[@yumisuremaki2748]

the virgin 30mm gau-8 avenger or the chad 37mm t249 vigilante which do you vote for

[@karlp8484]

Is the Chaparral still in service? I saw a quick picture.

[@theamazingaviator1084]

what game is in the beginning where he shows off the model what

[@katey1dog]

Hell on wheels. That is literally, HELL ON WHEELS.

[@kansascityshuffle8526]

On bogey wheels

[@cyberfrank-bx2nv]

next time, if possible, let us hear the tank effects a few secs. I d sure would love to hear this thing fire.

[@TheArklyte]

Vigilante and Sergeant York combined seem to have had a potential to make a good denial weapon for close range AA role. Not to mention allow troops on march to have their own land based CIWS decades earlier.

[@Limescale12]

The feature that makes the Phalanx/CIWS so effective isn't the gun, it's the radar (r2d2). The gun can be replaced with a number of different pew pews including r.a.missiles.

[@TheArklyte]

@@Limescale12 yes and no. Not by "any pew pew" by a long shot. There's a reason calibers below 30mm didn't last long in the role of SPAAG on neither side of the Cold War. They just lacked the firepower needed for the role even if volume of fire was great. 20-23mm didn't cut it(even if Phalanx and VADS have it). And they needed a direct hit too. Even nowadays they need. While it's easy to have programmable ammo at 30-35mm and even at 25mm nowadays. But Sergeant York(SY from here) lowered VT fuzes to 40mm caliber. It was a real breakthrough of the time. Sadly that system itself lacked volume of fire required. Meanwhile Vigilante has less widespread caliber and unique chassis working againt its introduction. Vigilante should have had reworked to 40mm as its technical design requirement and they should have used tank chassis as SY did. Rotary cannon volume of fire combined with 40mm VT fuzed ammunition... and ability to use all other "off the shelf" 40mm ammunition made by Bofors. Including APDS with high enough penetration to ruin the day of some tanks.

[@pedmanga2]

hard work day and come home see nice video tanks !!!!

[@aaronseet2738]

Never heard of this vehicle; wasn't the M163 already in use?

[@smith5796]

37mm Rotary Canon. Sweet.

[@alanhelton]

Sergeant York really deserved a much better tank named in his homage

[@mikeb.5039]

Here is one for you "M" the U.S. Army's M975A3 Roland 2, it was a tracked mobile SAM system.

[@Marshal_Dunnik]

I suspect SPAAG systems will see a resurgence on future battlefields, filled as they will be with drone swarms and micro-missiles.

[@Limescale12]

low altitude micro flak. I want that job.

[@Juanito_Peligroso]

Marine Corp officer: where’s that AA tank, bring that fucken thing up!?

[@samargrewal929]

CAN YOU COVER THE MGM-166 LOSAT

[@saultube44]

This could be a complement for the Bradley Tank as a single canon, like the 25 mm it has, so you'd have 2 guns, that could open tanks like a can opener. A bigger tank for more armor and mor ammo would be needed

[@matthewserrano4048]

Gatling tank ready for action

[@shaider1982]

I miss that game👍

[@matthewserrano4048]

@@shaider1982 I'm currently making my own mod of it. :)

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

Again Matsimus turns a vehicle presentation into something more than meets the eye immeditately. Lets start with the 3000 shells/minute of the 35 mm. type gun. The idea in itself is not bad, but the execution was the usual american over the top: With 3000 shell/min through 6 barrels is 500 shells/min/barrel - well that WILL overheat any barrel - especially if you fire a relatively large shell as a 35 mm. Now that rate of fire is applicable to aircraft mounted guns against other aircraft. The reason is that with both attacking and defending aircraft having speed/maneuvrebility the target will remain in the sight for the shortest time - so there it is applicable to throw the largest possible amount of shells out of a tube for a brief time. Furthermore guns in an aircraft tend to get quite a lot of cooling but the larger shells do tend to give recoil problems as aircraft are basically flimsy structures that do not like to be shaken like a rag doll in the jaws of a dog. So in aircraft you tend to reduce the caliber. Example: The 20 mm Gatling gun on a Starfighter and later versions of the Phantom. The short engagement time also reduce total ammunition expenditure. The reduction in caliber is not serious, as there is the forward motion of the aircraft at times working in your favour. Todays vehicle mounted mashine canons tend to be in the 25-35 mm range, but with a single barrel firing half the previously mentioned rate. The idea (I suppose) is that multibarrel is a good idea, but is it not even better to distribute the barrel among vehicles, so that each will have some firepower. What is needed is not so much precision fire against the aircraft - be it a Warthog/Frogfoot or a helicopter - but to get a heads-up timely enough for the unit to disperse and prepare: What you fear is the aircraft coming after YOU, and then you KNOW where the bastard is coming. Depending on the training standard a heads-up of minutes might be worth its weight in gold. But that is only half the story, as the infantry fighting vehicle has other problems as well: 1) Tanks, which is where the vehicle mounted TOW (f.i) comes in. A tube launced guided missile has a minimum distance as it needs time to get up to speed and gather the target, so it will be a weapon for the distance beyound 800 meters, which are rarely seen, so a few vehicle mounted guided missiles should be enough - at closer range the dismounts have the problem- together with the tanks big and nasty guns and their protection. 2) Hostile infantry (dismounts) that need the attention of some serious firepower so their dirty little minds are (preferably) blown off BEFORE they can engage your dismounts to a serious degree. Here the caliber seriously get into the 25-35 mm. bracket. If they should be HE, Armour Piercing or shrapnel - well why not both? I think it is Oerlikon that has one in that market segment that has feed from alternating sides. It is an expensive gun (as all Swiss equipment), but given a force of regulars that has the time to train on the equipment it might be money well spend - not that I discount reserves, as some of them are knucklehead (being a knucklehead, myself) have skills on the top level - their repertoire is perhaps limited, but what they DO do is not worse than the regulars. 3) Artillery - that is mainly a protection issue - the M113 series has to little protection and weighs half of what a modern infantry fighting vehicle does - but a level 4 protection more or less need a direct hit from a 155 mm to seriously affect their mental equilibrium, which in turn needs an exceptional portion of skill and luck on the enemy's part.

[@Jart988]

A CIWS Phalanx could replace it, right?

[@alanjenkins1508]

Never forget the great difficulty of doing high tech in the 50s and 60s given that computers were slow, limited, hand built and enormously expensive.

[@demonprinces17]

Cool got a motorcycle ad

[@jameson1239]

If anyone is starting armoured warfare I recommend going for the XM1A3 the LEOPARD 2AX or the T-14 all of the tanks are really solid with decent speed mobility and armour if you want good mobility there’s the PL-01 and of you want to be an armoured behemoth the merkava 4M is for you just keep in mind the teir 6 M1 is terrible and you can test drive any vehicle even the ones you aren’t even close to owning in the test drive area

[@gansior4744]

Vid about dardo IFV?? Plss

[@randallpetroelje3913]

It looks sleek and badass. I wonder about functionality??

[@doctorchaotic3415]

Armoured Warfare:*strong mickey mouse* Armoured Warfare Assault:*dumb mickey mouse*

[@Limescale12]

"IT'S TIME TO STOP..."

[@David-yi3dr]

Perfect for drones, just a couple years to early. So cool looking so of course it had to be cancelled

[@netizenkuripangistanyolo3339]

Gatling tank?, i've always imagine it

[@Limescale12]

Filthy

[@netizenkuripangistanyolo3339]

@@Limescale12 Frank

[@annechavez2182]

Oh Man! Hoping that this anti-air vehicular platform would b revived or b both upgraded n mondified in d near future for d better.

[@KrisKringle2]

I wonder why they don't build rotary cannons in calibers up to say 60mm. That should be controllable in a full-size tank chassis. Make it an articulated vehicle with the lead section dedicated to the gun, radar, and ammo storage in a quick change drum down in the hull, and the trail section contains the engine.

[@oriffel]

whats wrong with the starfigher?

[@M0A0R0k00W0Y0L0D0E]

this lovely beast is being requested in the warthunder forums which i voted yes XD

[@rileyernst9086]

It is the KV2 of the SPAAG world!

[@t5ruxlee210]

Mounting a big Gatling style AAA system and its radar control system on the same mobile armored box back in the late 1950s, early 1960s, was definitely " a bridge too far".

[@benlaskowski357]

The A-10 doesn't carry this beast?! A 37mm that fires at 3,000rpm!? That's an awfully big caliber for a gatling-type weapon, to be honest.

[@user-jh6ik1qd7p]

It’s the like the a 10 but scarier…

[@BRAVO-du9ed]

Shit! The Vulcan made it on to an M113A1 platform back in the 70's. It was deployed in W. Germany with the US Cavalry. It was a mean SOB.

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

Was this the end of the 37mm caliber?

[@sgtmyers88]

lol Loving all the C&C fan comments here. Yes it does look like the China Gattling Tank from C&C Generals. Also while it was a failure, I also loved the Sgt. York's design as it looked like a baby version of the Mammoth Tank from the first two C&C games.

[@bigblue6917]

I did read that the problem with the USAF not having guns on their fighter jets was due to the Top Brass being ex WW2 bomber crewmen with no understanding about dogfighting. This was also why fighter pilots were allotted such little time for training in dogfighting. And why, despite having an F for fighter designation, the F-105 is nothing more then a glorified high speed bomber. I understand that the late General Robin Olds had a number of run-ins with the Top Brass because they thought the days of the dogfighter were over.

[@woableattack2990]

Unload! Don't stop 'till it's over!