@@grumpyshumpy It' not really the length of the barrel that concerns me, as it's actually quite short compared to most tank guns. It's the fact that the action is the size of a small car.
How an utter failure of a tracked armored vehicle is this anti air platform with hulls derived from an early cold war era main battle tank of the united states army named after general george smith patton II and were named after a ww1 medal of honor recepient that was most famous thanks to his bravery on a battlefield named sergeant alvin york of the 82nd infantry division
@@richie_23 To what degree of qualitative competency on the subject of defense of ground vehicular fighting vehicles from attacking air weapons is the one design for a ground operated anti-air defense for armored land vehicles which was bestowed its name by the military organization tasked with defense and waging war for the country known as the united states of America, the country and organization of which this particular vehicle was designed to be wielded by, which was not in its entirety a completely new design to this earth, but rather a modification of an existing armored land vehicle also designed and produced by the previously noted united states of America, having been deployed as that country in particulars main vehicular land weapon, referred in official circumstances as an MBT, according to the countries doctrine during the period it was constructed, commonly referred to as the "cold war" by many historians on the subject, and was named in honor of a general who had served during the second world war, who was named George Patton, who was honored with the use of his name to also be the name of this particular tank, being honored by the aforementioned society, which was no longer being used as the current land weapon at the time of this vehicle in question, the construction of this vehicle being decided by the various proposals of many outside organizations seeking payment in return for a proposal under the condition that the proposal be accepted, the vehicle in question being named in the honor of a veteran of the large conflict commonly referred to as the great war by witnesses to the war in person, but referred to as the first world war by all who came after, the veteran in question being honored was bestowed this honor in a token of thanks by the organization responsible for the protection and waging of war for the united states as acceptance for his loyalty to his country in his effort to defend the united states, who's title bestowed to him by the organization being, "Seargent Alvin York". I have tunnel vision
@@fludblud should I remind you that same contractors also created ADATS... which won a competition and still wasn't produced because it's a tradition by now?:D
"In 1985, the New York Times complained its proximity ammunition was useless against tanks." I beg your pardon? Where in its requirements did it say it needed to engage tanks?
"this anti-aircraft system loaded with anti-aircraft ammunitions can't kill tanks!" yeah who could have guessed... It's like saying "yeah your U-boat sucks because I can't use it in trench warfare!" Great video as always, keep it up man!
@@davidty2006 my best bet is two things : - To avoid all the logistic and financial headache - Because realistically the chance of this thing coming across an armored vehicle where it could be useful against in the 80s (so only BMPs and BTRs) and being the only countermeasure available were quite low, so they didn't bother
Actually, in my research into the Sgt. York, the process was riddled with problems from the get-go. The biggest of which is the FCS. One of the helicopter pilots that was assigned to help test out the York was, well, rather adamant that if it had more time and had some changes, it would have been a great SPAAG design. Like barrels that weren't the result of some penny pincher's BS (it was revealed that the barrels that the program used had a high percentage of worn-out and/or improperly stored 40mm L/60 barrels), using 5kPSI hydraulics instead of 3kPSI, and a lot of tinkering with the FCS system. To quote said pilot (Tom Farrier Retired USAF rescue helicopter pilot; current aviation safety contractor (UAS)): "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: 1. Helicopter flies over. 2. Traverse/re-acquire movement starts. 3. Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself). 4. Guns started to elevate to re-engage. 5. 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."
@@noctisumbra2749 thank you. The biggest problems against the York were multi-fold: 1) the USAF are assholes who don't want anyone else to have fun (tried to get the Navy and Army disbanded a few times) and had an inordinate amount of pull in Congress, 2) the press being a roll of the dice when it came to being good or bad PR, and 3) some stupid decisions in the design process (mostly the M48 chassis). The program was going quite well, despite everything. Problems were being logged and solved for the next batch of models, the radar was 'holy cow' levels of sensitivity (had to be, given the threat it was going up against), and the FCS needed tinkering but worked as intended.
@@TheTrueAdept Yeah the design phase and Congress/ Sec defense, seem to be the worst enemy's of a lot of projects that were needed but luckily never required. It's very similar to the XM-2001 Crusader program and the absolute bizarre reasons for it's cancelation.
@@noctisumbra2749 the thing is that Congress was starting to go back to its old self when it came to the military. To say that Congress was literally starving the military money is something of an understatement...
@@yowaddup5649 Tanks don't have all that much room in them. For example the M163 carries about 2200 rounds (20x102mm) for it's M61 Vulkan, the GAU-8 uses significantly larger rounds (30x173mm), they take up roughly 3 times the volume that the 20mm do. So a GAU-8 mounted on an M163 chasis would hold 1/3rd the ammunition, or about 600 rounds....
The M247 Sergeant York was frequently cited as an example of "expensive military boondoggles" back in the Eighties. Some pundits actually suggested that instead the Army should look for "cheap, off-the-shelf technology". The irony was that "cheap, off-the-shelf technology" was exactly what the M247 Sergeant York was.
Nice, never knew they tried to off-the-shelf the radar off an airplane, while technically capable of filtering out ground clutter, i can imagine a look down radar requires totally different processing than 'look up', which given the rushed nature of the project, they probably never got around to..
That was a crazy thing to do tbh...Phalanx CIWS radar would have been a better choice - I mean its used now in this very role and with a pair of 40mm L70s it would be devastating. (Hell slapping a full Phalanx on an M113 would have been even easier)
"The radar system gave it the most trouble by far, but its inability to keep up with the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley IFV was probably the final nail in the coffin." I was in Armor Officer Advanced Course 2-85 and we had an Air Defense Artillery officer brief us on the SGT York. When he told us that it was on an M48 chassis, weighed much more than an M48, but was supposed to keep up with the M1 and M2 fleet, we then asked him why the hell they chose the M48 chassis. He replied that we couldn't afford it otherwise. We laughed at his ass and walked out of the class.
I saw this vehicle demonstrated in the early 80s at Aberdeen Proving Grounds' Armed Forces Day event. After the M-1 crushed the M-60 in a race, out comes this sci-fi looking vehicle with an ancient looking hull. It drives up to the firing line and after a few words from the announcer, opens fire with spent brass flying up and out. I have to say, watching it do its thing was pretty amazing. Afterward, my dad and I talked to the crew and heard some of the same stories. One of them remarked, "I'm glad they didn't bring the Apache in until we were done..."
There, on that day, AA York, entered the fray, turret astray, evil Latrine held at baaaaay! Into the fires of hell, R and D, a zero to be, Entered the corps, from a factory, Intervene, none too keen, it's a big battery, We already have our fee.
Do a "Everything wrong with the P-51 Mustang series" next! Like so Spooky boi can see. Edit 1: Wow, I might actually get 100 likes. I did not expect this comment to blow up. Edit 2: that's 175 likes that I'm looking at. I do have glasses though, so maybe the number is blurred so it looks like 175. Time to get a new prescription!!!
A very good and concise review of the Sgt.York's shortcomings and failures, and as noted most of the issues could have been resolved. A bit of background, I was at that time manager for all SHORAD systems at the US Air Defense Artillery School in Fort Bliss, TX analyzing system software and developing user requirements. From the time the program was conceived to development testing, the primary threat, which had been traversing aircraft, changed to that of the stand-off helicopter at ranges up to about 4 miles. Alas, the 40 mm Bofor's effective engagement range was only about 600 yards. It could not meet the requirements for engaging stand-off helicopters. This effectively dealt the death blow to the program. The Avenger, with it's 4 pod mounted Stinger missiles on a Humvee chassis became its replacement.
I still don't get the whole "we don't feel like SPAA is something important" position of US army with failed projects that lead nowhere and with improvised systems like Linebacker that take their niche.
To be fair to the US Army, they mostly rely on the world’s largest Air Force to sweep the skies of enemy aircraft, and only use the SPAA to catch the leakers. Spending lots of money on a vehicle for a role that is pretty situational is not high on the priority list. It’s kind of like a world-class gunslinger buying a knife for defense in case his gun runs out of ammo; it’s nice to have, but not very important.
@@Shaun_Jones to be fair on "largest airforce", they've relied on enemy having neither active airforce, nor echeloned air defense of their own too heavily for 3 decades now. US is once again completly unprepared to act if it ends up in the same scenario as in Vietnam - autocannons near the surface, SAMs covering the higher altitudes and the small safe corridor between the two being patrolled by enemy aircraft that is being led and supported by ground installations. Except this time You'd have missiles near the ground too and there will be no safe altitude "tunnel". All it needs is for China or Russia to decide to send equipment and specialists to help one of the next "targets". Reminder: Iran is an ally of Russia, Turkey and India.
@@TheArklyte You seem to be forgetting that cruise missiles are a thing. Satellite reconnaissance can designate targets for missile strikes, thus carving a strike zone free of anti-aircraft weaponry. Strike aircraft would then deploy with AGMs to neutralize mobile SAM equipment, thus widening the safe operating zone. Sweep and clear, then resume normal American air doctrine.
@@nercksrule you do realise that cruise missiles are one of the targets that systems like Tunguska and Pantsir are designed to shoot down, right? And that said cruise missiles are much more expensive then SAMs of either system? Lol, no worry, please continue throwing away expensive assets for no effect:D
The mental image of a brand new multi-million dollar gun platform whipping its turret around and absolutely eviscerating a porta john is way more amusing than it should be
I think you did a really good job here explaining the problems with the York. I suspect that what with the growing drone problem, it might be time to revisit the York.
Agreed and neither it nor the APG-68 can automatically interrogate IFF, at least not the F-16 versions. IFF Interrogation is usually handled by the Pilot, because you really tell someone that they are going to have a significant emotional event soon-ish when you do that. If anyone is interested in the basics the Falcon BMS 4.34 manual covers the basics of how the IFF works.
Why does it make no sense? The system would be looking up from the ground rather than down towards it for most conceivable use and so ground clutter wouldn't be an obvious issue.
Also radar system is bad in two ways. One is passive radar can pick them up making them susceptible to HARM missiles which can be hidden from the AA gun. The second problem is doctrine can give away size and movement. For instance if the doctrine says one AA gun per 6 tanks and there are 4 AA guns according to passive radar, there are probably 24 tanks in the area.
No, it functions perfectly, and is perfectly reliable. They just needed manual target aquisition like you have in WT. Have the gunner aim close, and press a button to lock onto the closest target to the reticle.
I am willing to say that prototype vehicles often give lessons learned for the future. Yes often a lot of experimental tanks and military hardware end up being complete and utter failures or get mothballed. But it just meant that something better than Sergeant York was to come eventually that would make it to production models and then further improved upon. As I think we often forget that Failure can be success in itself as means learn were you want wrong and what you did well for the project. Then take the promising aspects of the failed design into consideration for the next test vehicle and have a record of the areas its predecessor failed at to refer to and you can say well we know this doesn't work and for sure not this piece of equipment. Eventually a successful test vehicle will full fill the requirements for its intended role and hopefully move on to pre and early production models that would do any finalizing tests just tweak and polish the design as needed. Finally being approved for full mass production of the vehicle intended for its specific role. Whether it is a new apc, light tank, mbt, spg or spaag they all started from some failed prototype at some point that would to a successful successor design that would end up being mass produced and assigned to military forces.
yup, the M48 was chosen because the army decided to go cheap and use retired M48s rather than new built M1s... Thus guaranteeing that it could never keep up with the field units.
@@jwenting at the time M1s were just getting off the production line and the M60s were still frontline vehicles... so it was basically damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We almost could've had an SPAA that housed the god of BRRRTTT itself the GAU-8 and the American's DIDN'T select it? As an American I am ashamed that we didn't produce this quintessentially American and patriotic Doom Machine.
Two words: Fire Support. In Vietnam, the M42s were sending 40mm HE into the treeline for great effect. The US Army decided that it needed more of that capability when it didn't have helicopters or aircraft to shoot at.
A friend of mine that works for a military museum did some research on the York and he could only find one report actually saying how "bad" it was. Apparently all the articles about how bad it was only cite this one guy and no one else. He was also of the opinion that the reasons of the early problems and those not getting fixed was due to nepotism. Apparently Ford just happened to get a new board member who was a general who had just recently retired from Army procurement.
There was nothing in the York design that was beyond the capability of US industry. It is no accident several other countries produced working radar SPAAGs. The vehicle was doomed by poor program management.
The latrine story kinda makes sense if you consider a way to diferentiate target categories is via the doppler effect. Since any moving object (i.e a jet turbine, a helicopter´s prop or a latrine´s fan) that collides with any wave (sound, radio...) changes its frecuency, the poor radar must have gone: "hey im searching for a helicopter, that means big doppler shift... Oh look, big doppler shift!"
I worked as a civilian for the Navy right out of college. One of the groups I worked with had a "team picture" from the early 00's on top of an M247 that they bought for... $500. The US Military apparently has a liquidation program that sells to anyone who wants it in the DoD, first, then de-mils the things for outside sales. Apparently, they had a chance to buy another Sgt York for $300, but they couldn't justify having two.
The General Dynamics model should have been chosen, and supposedly the Ford model got picked at least in part because of backroom deals (but those are just rumours).
You missed one of the other problems with the York. During force-on-force trials at Fort Hunter Liggett, it was discovered that the ventilation system blew straight down into the dirt. In summer, the ground at Liggett is very dry, and when run over by heavy vehicles, turns into a fine powder. The ventilation system would result in a huge plume of this dirt being blown straight up into the sky, marking the location of the York (and the vehicles it was supposed to be protecting) from miles away. Hilarity ensued as (simulated) artillery would zero in on them, and red force tanks (portrayed by Armor Company, USACDEC) would swoop in to finish off the survivors.
I find that when getting shot at by the M247 in my German Huey, the shells completely lack any sound profile. They have no sound whatsoever. I thought that maybe stuff that is traveling supersonic might in fact have some kind of audible effect attached to that? Ridiculous.
given 2-3 more years it would have been suitable for service. the media frenzy was mostly about old issues. the chassis was probably the easiest part to fix imo, compared to the radar and gcs
Good summary. Your basic point about the vehicle's chassis and it's inability to keep up with the Abrams and Bradley platforms is the overarching reason for the failure. Personally I think many of the other issues could have been ironed out given time and proper oversight. However then there would have been the guns versus missiles debate. The comment on it's anti-tank capabilities from the NYT's is silly. Anti-Armour was never a requirement. That being said, we found out early that the 25mm chain gun on the Bradley was more than sufficient in dealing with Soviet type armor, something it wasn't designed to do either.
Problem even if the weapons and tracking systems had worked mounting them on a out of date tank chassis that could never keep up with the M-1's and M-2 series vehicles it was supposed to cover.
Would love to see the Sperry T249 Vigilante, General Dynamics XM246, the Raytheon M48-Gepard hybrid and the GE GAU-8 carrier vehicles that were the M247's competitors in the DIVADs contest. Probably would fit best as premiums since they were at most all prototypes, but could be interesting to see how they would play as high tier SPAA. Would also be interesting to see some of the Marksman SPAA system variants be scattered around as premiums. The Marconi Marksman system was an Anti aircraft turret system designed to be fit to many different chassis. It was deployed on T-55AM and Leopard 2 chassis by Finland and could also be fitted to a G6 Howitzer, T-54/55, Type-59, Centurion MBT, M48 Patton, Vickers MBT, Cheiftan MBT, Challeneger 1 and leopard 1, although none but the finish T-55AM and Leopard 2 mounted versions ever saw any service. Could be a good way to toss in some extra premium anti air vehicles with good guns into a lot of different trees for little effort.
The Sergeant York is what you get when one try's to "Kit-Bash" a bunch of unrelated systems together and expects some kind of wonder weapon from it. 1). The M48 series had long been out of use and supply, making it a very slow Battlefield orphan. 2). The F-16 fire-control and radar were never designed for ground level engagement, as you said it often time became confused. 3). While the L/70-40mm Bofors cannon has a Maximum range of 12.500 meters, the combat effective combat range is about 4,500 meter. The Porta-Potty and observer stand incident were at the same range, "Fort Hunter Liggett" test center in south-central California.
Pretty good review a fellow soldier I worked with in the reserves was on the test team he spent many hours chasing down hydraulic leaks due to poor design and poor quality control during assembly. Part of the feed problems may be due to trying to use hydraulics to force the feed system along to get the cyclic rate of fire up. I have watched video of folks loading the ammo another weak point a lot of hand work exposed to potential fire. The radar was the worst it should have been a custom build for AA work. General Electric was hamstrung by mounting and balance problems so the GAU-8 version was a shorter length barrel than the full one on the A-10. The systems should have been mounted on M1 chassis. Trying to do AA on the cheap always leads to a poor system. It is in the same realm as rocket science do it right or do not bother.
US Military: "Yo our AA's kinda suck" Logic: "Oh just take the existing model and just modernize it with new equipment!" US Military: NAH FUCK THAT, I WANT A NEW JAUNT
The execution Desert Storm was the reason it was never purchased, more or less. It showed perfectly the US doctrine to never to into ground combat without air supremacy, thus obviating the need for a SHORAD system... Which was also the reason development was done on a shoestring budget. I've a feeling the procurement office never intended to buy the system, but was forced to launch the competition anyway for political reasons so they didn't even want a successful winner.
What really killed the York were four events that happened. First was the expose by Geraldo Rivera on the Sgt York ADS, bad interview with the USAADS Commander about the Sgt York conducted by Geraldo Rivera, the failed demonstration and the poor evaluation of tactical operations. However, the size of the York (height), the radar signature and the tactical operations concept made it a bigger target but more so as to the estimated cost to correct the numerous short comings made it cheaper to cancel the program
I haven't had any problems with the Sgt. York once I began using it exclusively as an anti-air vehicle with proper AA tactics. (One gameplay shortcoming is the lack of players who realize it is in their own best interest to protect the teammate in the AA vehicle) It is trying to use it to *hunt* ground targets that gets people into trouble. Defend yourself against those that come after you but don't go out there trying to pick a fight. LOL
I know someone very well who worked on testing the Sergeant York. They told me it was fairly OK. They also said that it was politics that ended the gun.
![Shenseea - Dating Szn (Options) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eUePmZFIXUg/mqdefault.jpg)
I find it hilarious yet tragic that General Electric’s plan was basically just “A-10 Warthog but as a tank” and the US didn’t go for that
Bet they wish they gad it now though.
Knowing how fuckhuge that gun is, I have a hard time picturing the vehicle carrying it.
@@SoWhat1221 that’s the best part IMO. Maybe GE could get help from the Germans, they have a history of making unreasonably large armored vehicles.
It could just be a short barrel version with worse ballistics. More of a shotgun. I heard him say 35mm as well. I’m moist thinking about it.
@@grumpyshumpy It' not really the length of the barrel that concerns me, as it's actually quite short compared to most tank guns. It's the fact that the action is the size of a small car.
Alternative title: How bad was the pew pew patton?
How *pitiful* was the pew pew patton
How repugnant was this here derivative of the main battle tank named after George Smith Patton II?
How an utter failure of a tracked armored vehicle is this anti air platform with hulls derived from an early cold war era main battle tank of the united states army named after general george smith patton II and were named after a ww1 medal of honor recepient that was most famous thanks to his bravery on a battlefield named sergeant alvin york of the 82nd infantry division
@@richie_23 ...
@@richie_23 To what degree of qualitative competency on the subject of defense of ground vehicular fighting vehicles from attacking air weapons is the one design for a ground operated anti-air defense for armored land vehicles which was bestowed its name by the military organization tasked with defense and waging war for the country known as the united states of America, the country and organization of which this particular vehicle was designed to be wielded by, which was not in its entirety a completely new design to this earth, but rather a modification of an existing armored land vehicle also designed and produced by the previously noted united states of America, having been deployed as that country in particulars main vehicular land weapon, referred in official circumstances as an MBT, according to the countries doctrine during the period it was constructed, commonly referred to as the "cold war" by many historians on the subject, and was named in honor of a general who had served during the second world war, who was named George Patton, who was honored with the use of his name to also be the name of this particular tank, being honored by the aforementioned society, which was no longer being used as the current land weapon at the time of this vehicle in question, the construction of this vehicle being decided by the various proposals of many outside organizations seeking payment in return for a proposal under the condition that the proposal be accepted, the vehicle in question being named in the honor of a veteran of the large conflict commonly referred to as the great war by witnesses to the war in person, but referred to as the first world war by all who came after, the veteran in question being honored was bestowed this honor in a token of thanks by the organization responsible for the protection and waging of war for the united states as acceptance for his loyalty to his country in his effort to defend the united states, who's title bestowed to him by the organization being, "Seargent Alvin York".
I have tunnel vision
"Can't we just buy the Flakpanzer Gepard?"
Sad US Air defense man 1985
Davi Bugs bunny no
@@thecanadiankiwibirb4512 yes
But how will US defence contractors be able to milk the Pentagon out of billions in taxpayer's money then?
Or at the very least, the radar from one.
@@fludblud should I remind you that same contractors also created ADATS... which won a competition and still wasn't produced because it's a tradition by now?:D
I love how big the turret is compared to everything else
You should see the Veak 40.
Considering it's a prototype, they likely would have slimmed it down had it gone into production.
@@setesh1294 yaa that makes sense
Cries in shilka
Otomatic has bigger turret
How bad you say?
The vehicle? Ok.
The execution? *VERY BAD*
@JimbobMcgeee ;)
"In 1985, the New York Times complained its proximity ammunition was useless against tanks."
I beg your pardon? Where in its requirements did it say it needed to engage tanks?
If it has a track and a turret it's a tank.
- Every civilian ever
ur a civilian
@@Halorulez24 "If it has a track, it's a tank". Remember the recent incident with the stolen APC being labeled "tank" by everyone?
It is a tank, tanks fight tanks, and the dumbass at the defence department want to use a tank to fight planes. USE A PLANE
@@nicolasczyz1083 smh
"this anti-aircraft system loaded with anti-aircraft ammunitions can't kill tanks!" yeah who could have guessed...
It's like saying "yeah your U-boat sucks because I can't use it in trench warfare!"
Great video as always, keep it up man!
Suprised they didn't just make a AP or HVAP round to do the AT work then thats a issue sorted without changing out the guns or vehicle.
@@davidty2006 my best bet is two things :
- To avoid all the logistic and financial headache
- Because realistically the chance of this thing coming across an armored vehicle where it could be useful against in the 80s (so only BMPs and BTRs) and being the only countermeasure available were quite low, so they didn't bother
All submarines should be able to fight trench warfare smh my head head
@@davidty2006 There was an old WW2 era AP round, as well as a more modern APFSDS round, the PGU-31.
The gepard had emergency APDS belt
Fun fact: SHORAD is to NORAD what E-Coli is to iCarly
@William Hendrix same
Excellent analogy
So they are the same
They are the same picture
I misread the title as “How bad was Sergeant York”.
@Ryan Japan , i’m gonna climb a ladder up to heaven to ask god who asked
@@tireiron5546 I'm gonna climb a ladder up to heaven to ask god why he made you such a dickhead
War crimes?
*picture of old man holding up hands.
same, i was like i dont remember MOH winners being bad.
he a baddie
Actually, in my research into the Sgt. York, the process was riddled with problems from the get-go. The biggest of which is the FCS. One of the helicopter pilots that was assigned to help test out the York was, well, rather adamant that if it had more time and had some changes, it would have been a great SPAAG design.
Like barrels that weren't the result of some penny pincher's BS (it was revealed that the barrels that the program used had a high percentage of worn-out and/or improperly stored 40mm L/60 barrels), using 5kPSI hydraulics instead of 3kPSI, and a lot of tinkering with the FCS system.
To quote said pilot (Tom Farrier Retired USAF rescue helicopter pilot; current aviation safety contractor (UAS)):
"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:
1. Helicopter flies over.
2. Traverse/re-acquire movement starts.
3. Helicopter initiated hammerhead turn (gorgeous, if I say so myself).
4. Guns started to elevate to re-engage.
5. 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."
Wish this would get more attention
@@noctisumbra2749 thank you. The biggest problems against the York were multi-fold: 1) the USAF are assholes who don't want anyone else to have fun (tried to get the Navy and Army disbanded a few times) and had an inordinate amount of pull in Congress, 2) the press being a roll of the dice when it came to being good or bad PR, and 3) some stupid decisions in the design process (mostly the M48 chassis).
The program was going quite well, despite everything. Problems were being logged and solved for the next batch of models, the radar was 'holy cow' levels of sensitivity (had to be, given the threat it was going up against), and the FCS needed tinkering but worked as intended.
@@TheTrueAdept Yeah the design phase and Congress/ Sec defense, seem to be the worst enemy's of a lot of projects that were needed but luckily never required.
It's very similar to the XM-2001 Crusader program and the absolute bizarre reasons for it's cancelation.
@@noctisumbra2749 the thing is that Congress was starting to go back to its old self when it came to the military. To say that Congress was literally starving the military money is something of an understatement...
@@TheTrueAdept Very much a historical pattern of starving the military any time we are not at war.
"In 1985, the New York Times complained its proximity ammunition was useless against tanks."
almost like its an aa gun
The most famous anti tank gun was an aa gun. And the Gepard had AP rounds.
Didn't the German flak gun has both anti air and anti tank round during war? Was it the 88mm flak gun that put on half armored chassis?
@@Mr-Ad-196 the 88 was put on a truck and it was a freakin 88 so ofc its gonna have anti tank rounds
@@Mr-Ad-196 the 88 was a heavy anti-aircraft gun, there was next to no excuse to not field armour-piercing
the sergeant york uses autocannons
Man, we almost got a GAU-8 mounted on a tank. That'd be so bad ass, I mean, it'd run out of ammo in 10 seconds, but man would it be badass.
10 seconds is actually a fair amount of firing time considering it’s close ranged AA
imagine a tank that’s literally just a CIWS on treads
Tanks can hold more ammo doe
@@yowaddup5649 Tanks don't have all that much room in them. For example the M163 carries about 2200 rounds (20x102mm) for it's M61 Vulkan, the GAU-8 uses significantly larger rounds (30x173mm), they take up roughly 3 times the volume that the 20mm do. So a GAU-8 mounted on an M163 chasis would hold 1/3rd the ammunition, or about 600 rounds....
It was a 37mm Gatling ... and a total of ~4 seconds of firing
WHAT SARGENT YORK ACHIEVED THAT DAY
ECHOED FROM FRANCE TO THE USA
It's 82nd all the way
DEATH FROM ABOVE, WHAT THEY NOW SAY
i had waited for this
But it is sabaton so: FAST AS WIND THE INVASION RAGES ON
The M247 Sergeant York was frequently cited as an example of "expensive military boondoggles" back in the Eighties. Some pundits actually suggested that instead the Army should look for "cheap, off-the-shelf technology". The irony was that "cheap, off-the-shelf technology" was exactly what the M247 Sergeant York was.
I know. If you were to ask the Army what they actually wanted it wouldn't be on a Patton hull and it wouldn't be using a COTS radar
"...named after Sargent York, who won a Medal of Honnor in WW1" is probably the biggest understatement in the history of understatements, maybe ever.
Key word almost
War thunder; it's almost fun.
I have *almost* 8 Kids in my Basement
@Leon Lopez obviously it’s his the second the kids enter the basement
@@leonardusrakapradayan2253 Yeah at that point it's *almost* acceptable, somewhere...
@Leon Lopez is it needed to be answered?
It's a damn shame the vehicle named in honor of Sergeant York turned out this way.
Nice, never knew they tried to off-the-shelf the radar off an airplane, while technically capable of filtering out ground clutter, i can imagine a look down radar requires totally different processing than 'look up', which given the rushed nature of the project, they probably never got around to..
That was a crazy thing to do tbh...Phalanx CIWS radar would have been a better choice - I mean its used now in this very role and with a pair of 40mm L70s it would be devastating. (Hell slapping a full Phalanx on an M113 would have been even easier)
"The radar system gave it the most trouble by far, but its inability to keep up with the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley IFV was probably the final nail in the coffin."
I was in Armor Officer Advanced Course 2-85 and we had an Air Defense Artillery officer brief us on the SGT York. When he told us that it was on an M48 chassis, weighed much more than an M48, but was supposed to keep up with the M1 and M2 fleet, we then asked him why the hell they chose the M48 chassis. He replied that we couldn't afford it otherwise. We laughed at his ass and walked out of the class.
Do you think they should have gone with the M60 Chassis, fitted with a much powerful engine?
I saw this vehicle demonstrated in the early 80s at Aberdeen Proving Grounds' Armed Forces Day event. After the M-1 crushed the M-60 in a race, out comes this sci-fi looking vehicle with an ancient looking hull. It drives up to the firing line and after a few words from the announcer, opens fire with spent brass flying up and out. I have to say, watching it do its thing was pretty amazing. Afterward, my dad and I talked to the crew and heard some of the same stories. One of them remarked, "I'm glad they didn't bring the Apache in until we were done..."
There, on that day, AA York, entered the fray, turret astray, evil Latrine held at baaaaay!
Into the fires of hell, R and D, a zero to be,
Entered the corps, from a factory,
Intervene, none too keen, it's a big battery,
We already have our fee.
Quality
Was waiting for 82nd all the way comment,there it is
Pls keep doing more of these. It’s always interesting to see someone go into the history of a battle vehicle
1:30 was that actually a frontal kill on an IS-4M lol.
Gotta love HE rounds, no matter the size
Do a "Everything wrong with the P-51 Mustang series" next!
Like so Spooky boi can see.
Edit 1: Wow, I might actually get 100 likes. I did not expect this comment to blow up.
Edit 2: that's 175 likes that I'm looking at. I do have glasses though, so maybe the number is blurred so it looks like 175. Time to get a new prescription!!!
*Historically accurate
Its pretty perfect though. It didn’t really have any design flaws except with the early variants with the allison i believe.
@@Nimori nope
@@legoranger4104 Oh man I actually forgot the name of the series. Thanks for the reminder!
I dont think he does historically accurate aircraft videos
Oh hey it's the Sergeant York, I'm sure the targeting system is perfect and won't lock onto civilians! :)
Or cooling fans
@@thegamingcat3202 or your
Good thing that the AA tank isn’t automatically shooting people
WHAT SEARGENT YORK ACHIEVED THAT DAY
Would echo from france through the usa
"How Bad Was The Sergeant York?"
War Thunder : *that's where you're wrong kiddo*
A very good and concise review of the Sgt.York's shortcomings and failures, and as noted most of the issues could have been resolved. A bit of background, I was at that time manager for all SHORAD systems at the US Air Defense Artillery School in Fort Bliss, TX analyzing system software and developing user requirements. From the time the program was conceived to development testing, the primary threat, which had been traversing aircraft, changed to that of the stand-off helicopter at ranges up to about 4 miles. Alas, the 40 mm Bofor's effective engagement range was only about 600 yards. It could not meet the requirements for engaging stand-off helicopters. This effectively dealt the death blow to the program. The Avenger, with it's 4 pod mounted Stinger missiles on a Humvee chassis became its replacement.
I still don't get the whole "we don't feel like SPAA is something important" position of US army with failed projects that lead nowhere and with improvised systems like Linebacker that take their niche.
To be fair to the US Army, they mostly rely on the world’s largest Air Force to sweep the skies of enemy aircraft, and only use the SPAA to catch the leakers. Spending lots of money on a vehicle for a role that is pretty situational is not high on the priority list. It’s kind of like a world-class gunslinger buying a knife for defense in case his gun runs out of ammo; it’s nice to have, but not very important.
@@Shaun_Jones to be fair on "largest airforce", they've relied on enemy having neither active airforce, nor echeloned air defense of their own too heavily for 3 decades now. US is once again completly unprepared to act if it ends up in the same scenario as in Vietnam - autocannons near the surface, SAMs covering the higher altitudes and the small safe corridor between the two being patrolled by enemy aircraft that is being led and supported by ground installations. Except this time You'd have missiles near the ground too and there will be no safe altitude "tunnel". All it needs is for China or Russia to decide to send equipment and specialists to help one of the next "targets". Reminder: Iran is an ally of Russia, Turkey and India.
@@TheArklyte
You seem to be forgetting that cruise missiles are a thing. Satellite reconnaissance can designate targets for missile strikes, thus carving a strike zone free of anti-aircraft weaponry. Strike aircraft would then deploy with AGMs to neutralize mobile SAM equipment, thus widening the safe operating zone.
Sweep and clear, then resume normal American air doctrine.
@@nercksrule you do realise that cruise missiles are one of the targets that systems like Tunguska and Pantsir are designed to shoot down, right? And that said cruise missiles are much more expensive then SAMs of either system? Lol, no worry, please continue throwing away expensive assets for no effect:D
@@TheArklyte lmao it's a shitposter from Europe (depending on how you spell realize) that knows nothing about the US military.
The mental image of a brand new multi-million dollar gun platform whipping its turret around and absolutely eviscerating a porta john is way more amusing than it should be
I love how these videos are so informative, I always learn something.
I had no idea this thing was so modern. With f16 radar, 40mm bofors and a patton chassis its like a mishmash of past and future.
It's always nice to learn new things, many of which I didn't knew. Keep up the great work Spook, love this series!
I think you did a really good job here explaining the problems with the York. I suspect that what with the growing drone problem, it might be time to revisit the York.
“The proximity fuse ammunition is useless against tank” wow. Good thing we’re not firing them out of a self propelled anti aircraft gun.
The APG-66 had problems with resolving targets in ground clutter. It makes no sense to take that radar and move it closer to the ground.
Agreed and neither it nor the APG-68 can automatically interrogate IFF, at least not the F-16 versions.
IFF Interrogation is usually handled by the Pilot, because you really tell someone that they are going to have a significant emotional event soon-ish when you do that.
If anyone is interested in the basics the Falcon BMS 4.34 manual covers the basics of how the IFF works.
Why does it make no sense? The system would be looking up from the ground rather than down towards it for most conceivable use and so ground clutter wouldn't be an obvious issue.
That's why COTS isn't always the best idea
Tell that to The ZSU-23 or The German Gepard!
Also radar system is bad in two ways. One is passive radar can pick them up making them susceptible to HARM missiles which can be hidden from the AA gun. The second problem is doctrine can give away size and movement. For instance if the doctrine says one AA gun per 6 tanks and there are 4 AA guns according to passive radar, there are probably 24 tanks in the area.
"How Bad Was The Sergeant York?"
So bad that you can say the German WW2 tank transmission works better and more reliable.
No, it functions perfectly, and is perfectly reliable. They just needed manual target aquisition like you have in WT. Have the gunner aim close, and press a button to lock onto the closest target to the reticle.
I am willing to say that prototype vehicles often give lessons learned for the future. Yes often a lot of experimental tanks and military hardware end up being complete and utter failures or get mothballed. But it just meant that something better than Sergeant York was to come eventually that would make it to production models and then further improved upon.
As I think we often forget that Failure can be success in itself as means learn were you want wrong and what you did well for the project. Then take the promising aspects of the failed design into consideration for the next test vehicle and have a record of the areas its predecessor failed at to refer to and you can say well we know this doesn't work and for sure not this piece of equipment. Eventually a successful test vehicle will full fill the requirements for its intended role and hopefully move on to pre and early production models that would do any finalizing tests just tweak and polish the design as needed. Finally being approved for full mass production of the vehicle intended for its specific role. Whether it is a new apc, light tank, mbt, spg or spaag they all started from some failed prototype at some point that would to a successful successor design that would end up being mass produced and assigned to military forces.
Imagine having your name being honourably used to name a bad tank
Sherman: 'First time?'
@@gabork5055 except the Sherman was exceptionally good
I read the title as “how bad was sergeant york” and I legit thought he was gonna be talking shit about my Man Alvin York for a second-
m247 Sergeant York System should have been on a M1 Abrams chassis instead of the M48
yup, the M48 was chosen because the army decided to go cheap and use retired M48s rather than new built M1s...
Thus guaranteeing that it could never keep up with the field units.
@@jwenting at the time M1s were just getting off the production line and the M60s were still frontline vehicles... so it was basically damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Laugh all you want, but this thing slaps MBT's with armored belts.
But.....but.....proximity fuze doesnt kill tanks!
@@builder396 Who says it was prox fuse?
@@ArcturusOTE The press that said the proximity fuze isnt effective against tanks, the bloody experts.
@@builder396 yeah the "experts" isn't the same guys who make all of the shitty narrative news
@@michaeloskarfriedrichparne4359 shitty?
m247: locks onto a portable bathroom
The dude taking a shit: I sense a disturbance in the force
AAAAAAAAAAAAA NONONO I'M DYING
Imagine if General Electric's proposal actually made it through . . . GROUND BRRRRT
The gau 30mil carrying tank sounds like a lot of fun xp
It's in AW as a top teir vehicle
We almost could've had an SPAA that housed the god of BRRRTTT itself the GAU-8 and the American's DIDN'T select it? As an American I am ashamed that we didn't produce this quintessentially American and patriotic Doom Machine.
Two words: Fire Support.
In Vietnam, the M42s were sending 40mm HE into the treeline for great effect. The US Army decided that it needed more of that capability when it didn't have helicopters or aircraft to shoot at.
A friend of mine that works for a military museum did some research on the York and he could only find one report actually saying how "bad" it was. Apparently all the articles about how bad it was only cite this one guy and no one else. He was also of the opinion that the reasons of the early problems and those not getting fixed was due to nepotism. Apparently Ford just happened to get a new board member who was a general who had just recently retired from Army procurement.
As a kid I climbed around inside of one outside Sergeant York’s museum in pall mall. Coolest thing ever at the time.
I thought you were talking about the real guy
There was nothing in the York design that was beyond the capability of US industry. It is no accident several other countries produced working radar SPAAGs. The vehicle was doomed by poor program management.
The latrine story kinda makes sense if you consider a way to diferentiate target categories is via the doppler effect. Since any moving object (i.e a jet turbine, a helicopter´s prop or a latrine´s fan) that collides with any wave (sound, radio...) changes its frecuency, the poor radar must have gone:
"hey im searching for a helicopter, that means big doppler shift... Oh look, big doppler shift!"
"turret turns violently around"
"adjusting elevation to target"
Gunner: Jeez ,thats only a toilet fan!
Commander: What the hell happened?
@@jangustl_wt2358 "You cant just shoot at the first thing that moves, you will kill all the civilerinos"
"Hehe boforbs go booom"
*82nd all the way starts playing*
I worked as a civilian for the Navy right out of college. One of the groups I worked with had a "team picture" from the early 00's on top of an M247 that they bought for... $500.
The US Military apparently has a liquidation program that sells to anyone who wants it in the DoD, first, then de-mils the things for outside sales.
Apparently, they had a chance to buy another Sgt York for $300, but they couldn't justify having two.
The General Dynamics model should have been chosen, and supposedly the Ford model got picked at least in part because of backroom deals (but those are just rumours).
After the program was canceled, the generals that worked on it allegedly went to work for Ford. This project was dirty day one
the proxy ammo was a big plus for the Ford design
You missed one of the other problems with the York. During force-on-force trials at Fort Hunter Liggett, it was discovered that the ventilation system blew straight down into the dirt. In summer, the ground at Liggett is very dry, and when run over by heavy vehicles, turns into a fine powder. The ventilation system would result in a huge plume of this dirt being blown straight up into the sky, marking the location of the York (and the vehicles it was supposed to be protecting) from miles away. Hilarity ensued as (simulated) artillery would zero in on them, and red force tanks (portrayed by Armor Company, USACDEC) would swoop in to finish off the survivors.
Everyone wishing there was a GAU-8 tank when there was already the T249 vigilante with its 3000rpm 37mm mini-gun
I find that when getting shot at by the M247 in my German Huey, the shells completely lack any sound profile. They have no sound whatsoever. I thought that maybe stuff that is traveling supersonic might in fact have some kind of audible effect attached to that? Ridiculous.
1:23
40mm killing IS-4 from the front
German 37mm AA players:
;-;
I'm fairly sure they J'd out
I once managed to kill a T-10M and IS-7 within ~20 seconds of each other in a Coelian
I was very hype
@@scout4996 It did pen the driver's hatch.
given 2-3 more years it would have been suitable for service. the media frenzy was mostly about old issues. the chassis was probably the easiest part to fix imo, compared to the radar and gcs
If I recall the program already having budget issues and delays, it was kinda doomed either way unless it had worked without a flaw.
@@dragconen solution to those issues in the 80s was throwing more money at the issue to get it to shut up.
"sending a crowd running around after the turrent swung around..." Sounds pretty funny.
Good summary. Your basic point about the vehicle's chassis and it's inability to keep up with the Abrams and Bradley platforms is the overarching reason for the failure. Personally I think many of the other issues could have been ironed out given time and proper oversight. However then there would have been the guns versus missiles debate. The comment on it's anti-tank capabilities from the NYT's is silly. Anti-Armour was never a requirement. That being said, we found out early that the 25mm chain gun on the Bradley was more than sufficient in dealing with Soviet type armor, something it wasn't designed to do either.
Well, with drone jihad now here, I sure wish we had a gun based SHORAD that was mobile.
It would be nice to bring the VADS out of retirement with an upgraded fire control system.
Theyre making a SHORAD Stryker equipped with a 30mm, Hellfires, and Sidewinders for air and drone defense.
@@LegoStarHawk98 Moist
Could you list references in the future so we can do more reading on the subject in case we wish to learn more?
ruclips.net/video/3mVLgiY5Tig/видео.html
@@ivanstepanovic1327 Thanks
Isn't this the vehicle Orange Star used as the base AA platform in Advance Wars?
Problem even if the weapons and tracking systems had worked mounting them on a out of date tank chassis that could never keep up with the M-1's and M-2 series vehicles it was supposed to cover.
Don’t go to the demonstration tomorrow general. You’re alright.
"outdated and too advanced"
like having an threadripper and Voodoo on a web surfing system.
i love the story that the automated turret pointed at the reviewing generals and proceeded to destroy a porta-potty
bad enough that it never once saw combat. but good enough that alot was learned.
Luckily war thunder doesn’t have mechanical break downs and maintenance issues because in War thunder the M247 is my favorite SPAAG
GE's design proposal was wild
Imagine just finishing a dump, getting out and seeing this CHONK of a tank staring right at you lol
Fear: *100*
Thank God you shit earlier, because you'd be wearing brown pants seeing that.
Would love to see the Sperry T249 Vigilante, General Dynamics XM246, the Raytheon M48-Gepard hybrid and the GE GAU-8 carrier vehicles that were the M247's competitors in the DIVADs contest. Probably would fit best as premiums since they were at most all prototypes, but could be interesting to see how they would play as high tier SPAA. Would also be interesting to see some of the Marksman SPAA system variants be scattered around as premiums. The Marconi Marksman system was an Anti aircraft turret system designed to be fit to many different chassis. It was deployed on T-55AM and Leopard 2 chassis by Finland and could also be fitted to a G6 Howitzer, T-54/55, Type-59, Centurion MBT, M48 Patton, Vickers MBT, Cheiftan MBT, Challeneger 1 and leopard 1, although none but the finish T-55AM and Leopard 2 mounted versions ever saw any service. Could be a good way to toss in some extra premium anti air vehicles with good guns into a lot of different trees for little effort.
The Sergeant York is what you get when one try's to "Kit-Bash" a bunch of unrelated systems together and expects some kind of wonder weapon from it.
1). The M48 series had long been out of use and supply, making it a very slow Battlefield orphan.
2). The F-16 fire-control and radar were never designed for ground level engagement, as you said it often time became confused.
3). While the L/70-40mm Bofors cannon has a Maximum range of 12.500 meters, the combat effective combat range is about 4,500 meter.
The Porta-Potty and observer stand incident were at the same range, "Fort Hunter Liggett" test center in south-central California.
Always wondered about that platform. Thanks!
Imagine having your name being used to name a latrine lock on device
Obviously a vehicle that barely worked is one of the best if not the best AA for it's tier at any rating.
The idea of an A10 30m cannon used as an as gun is just terrifying
Thanks for the informative approach
Can u do a video on the comet? It’s kind of underrated considering it was the most powerful British tank of ww2
Pretty good review a fellow soldier I worked with in the reserves was on the test team he spent many hours chasing down hydraulic leaks due to poor design and poor quality control during assembly. Part of the feed problems may be due to trying to use hydraulics to force the feed system along to get the cyclic rate of fire up. I have watched video of folks loading the ammo another weak point a lot of hand work exposed to potential fire. The radar was the worst it should have been a custom build for AA work. General Electric was hamstrung by mounting and balance problems so the GAU-8 version was a shorter length barrel than the full one on the A-10. The systems should have been mounted on M1 chassis. Trying to do AA on the cheap always leads to a poor system. It is in the same realm as rocket science do it right or do not bother.
the last thing I see firing on me when I get just a few meters too close to the enemy airfield:
US Military: "Yo our AA's kinda suck"
Logic: "Oh just take the existing model and just modernize it with new equipment!"
US Military: NAH FUCK THAT, I WANT A NEW JAUNT
There are few things worse than hearing boss music while taking a huge dump.
"Boy, it sure would have been nice to see what a properly implemented Sergeant York system could do in Operation Desert Storm!"
Said nobody ever.
The execution Desert Storm was the reason it was never purchased, more or less.
It showed perfectly the US doctrine to never to into ground combat without air supremacy, thus obviating the need for a SHORAD system...
Which was also the reason development was done on a shoestring budget. I've a feeling the procurement office never intended to buy the system, but was forced to launch the competition anyway for political reasons so they didn't even want a successful winner.
*Laughs in literal overwhelming Air power rendering the Iraqi AF completely useless.*
IS-4M driver at 1:22: sorry my stronk tonk, today i've headache. No bias love.
What really killed the York was that the range of Soviet anti-tank missiles fired from helicopters became longer than the range of the 40 mm guns
What really killed the York were four events that happened. First was the expose by Geraldo Rivera on the Sgt York ADS, bad interview with the USAADS Commander about the Sgt York conducted by Geraldo Rivera, the failed demonstration and the poor evaluation of tactical operations. However, the size of the York (height), the radar signature and the tactical operations concept made it a bigger target but more so as to the estimated cost to correct the numerous short comings made it cheaper to cancel the program
Just think in an alternate universe there’s a brrrrt tank, I don’t need anymore proof we are not the prime time line
I have ALWAYS been proud that the Weapon never worked. Because Sergeant York was a pacifist.
Never even knew the thing existed until it shot at me in WT. So yes, I learned something. Thank you.
it might of work if it was not a rush job and people who knew nothing about weapon control the money.
You're right on both counts. The radar, and the chassis.
As a reminder, there’s a Sgt. York at the AAF Museum in Danville Virginia
5:02 - How did that Sargent York kill an IS-4M from the front?
I haven't had any problems with the Sgt. York once I began using it exclusively as an anti-air vehicle with proper AA tactics. (One gameplay shortcoming is the lack of players who realize it is in their own best interest to protect the teammate in the AA vehicle)
It is trying to use it to *hunt* ground targets that gets people into trouble. Defend yourself against those that come after you but don't go out there trying to pick a fight. LOL
It did clear things up and I DID learn something! Thank you
I know someone very well who worked on testing the Sergeant York. They told me it was fairly OK. They also said that it was politics that ended the gun.
It needs to be remade. A new M247. We'd call it... New York.
That's all folks.
There, on that day, Sergeant York entered the fray, saving the day, 82nd all the way!
A shame that such an accomplished man got his name to such an underwhelming vehicle.