The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[Matt Wiser]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

M60-2000 Main Battle Tank or 120S made by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60-2000_Main_Battle_Tank

I see someone lifted that from the Red Dawn fiction page!

[rcaf_777]

While the Roland SAM is an actual weapon system used by the French and few others. It was a one time consider as US Army SAM system mounted on an M109 chassis (see below), while this system was not picked up, the system was modified by the USAF and used as a training tool for anti SAM training. Which is the second picture of the system mounted on a truck.

[WallShadow]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

While the Roland SAM is an actual weapon system used by the French and few others. It was a one time consider as US Army SAM system mounted on an M109 chassis (see below), while this system was not picked up, the system was modified by the USAF and used as a training tool for anti SAM training. Which is the second picture of the system mounted on a truck.

French system, eh? Would be tricky trying to get reloads from the French post-whoops without selling your soul.

[rcaf_777]

Franco-German actually, the US had plans to make the missile in the US like many other foreign weapons systems

If this system was used by the US that would mean that three NATO countries would have been using it

I don't France would say no to money during the conflict

[Draq]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Franco-German actually, the US had plans to make the missile in the US like many other foreign weapons systems

If this system was used by the US that would mean that three NATO countries would have been using it

I don't France would say no to money during the conflict

Considering France is in deep isolation, with a few concentrated force abroad, Im not sure money is really what they would want... But we don't know for sure because there's no damn french source book 😣😭

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The West German forces used the Roland on a Marder chassis as well as shelter versions mounted on MAN 6x6 & 8x8 trucks and while it was a joint French-German project, West Germany was the lead partner for the all weather version (France being the lead for the day/clear weather version.
The Germans had the system in service before 1980 (I think it was 1977 or 1978).

So there would be a potential supply line in Germany and as mentioned, the US was going to produce the missile domestically if the system had been taken into service. I think it would be easy enough to justify the system going into US service with the increasing tensions during the build-up to the Twilight War including producing the missiles in the US.

However... Spain also used the day/clear-weather version on the AMX-30 chassis (like the French). While I don't know of any missile production in Spain, it's a potential resupply for the fair-weather missile albeit in limited numbers.
And the other interesting bit of information, in relation to the US, is that Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela all acquired the system (but in tiny numbers although Brazil did get the Marder version while the other two got shelter versions). I don't recall when these countries purchased the Roland but I believe it was no later than the 1980s (considering that British forces captured one Argentine example during the Falklands War in 1982).

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The West German forces used the Roland on a Marder chassis as well as shelter versions mounted on MAN 6x6 & 8x8 trucks and while it was a joint French-German project, West Germany was the lead partner for the all weather version (France being the lead for the day/clear weather version.
The Germans had the system in service before 1980 (I think it was 1977 or 1978).

1978, with the Roland II (the Roland I was the French clear-weather-only version, which entered service in 1977).

So there would be a potential supply line in Germany and as mentioned, the US was going to produce the missile domestically if the system had been taken into service. I think it would be easy enough to justify the system going into US service with the increasing tensions during the build-up to the Twilight War including producing the missiles in the US.

However... Spain also used the day/clear-weather version on the AMX-30 chassis (like the French). While I don't know of any missile production in Spain, it's a potential resupply for the fair-weather missile albeit in limited numbers.
And the other interesting bit of information, in relation to the US, is that Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela all acquired the system (but in tiny numbers although Brazil did get the Marder version while the other two got shelter versions). I don't recall when these countries purchased the Roland but I believe it was no later than the 1980s (considering that British forces captured one Argentine example during the Falklands War in 1982).

Spain license-manufactured 18 AMX-30R, 9 each of the Roland 1 and Roland 2, and purchased 414 missiles. 8 of each system were deployed with 1 in reserve, forming 2 batteries each of 2 Roland 1 and 2 Roland 2. The procurement was announced in April 1984. They may have made missile spares, but I don't believe they built entire missiles.

Nigeria acquired 16 Roland 2/AMX-30R, and Qatar ordered 3 in 1986 that were delivered in 1989.

Argentina acquired the Roland "shortly before the outbreak of hostilities," according to Making and Marketing Arms, and they were still waiting for delivery of some missiles when the Falklands War began.

Brazil purchased 4 systems and 50 missiles. The order was placed in 1975, but I don't have a definite year for delivery.

Venezuela acquired 6 or 8 (reports vary) shelter units in 1985.

Iraq was a large user; they mounted 100 shelter units on MAN 8x8 trucks as mobile launchers, and also had 13 AMX-30R launchers, with deliveries early enough that some were in active service by 1982. Based on an analysis of Desert Shield/Desert Storm, it looks like the AMX-30R systems were Roland I and the shelter units were Roland II.

[WallShadow]

In the 70s through the 90s, several vehicle systems were produced overseas by NATO allies.
The M-60 was produced in Ialy by OTO Melara, as was, IIRC the M-47 and the M-113.
The Netherlands worked with the M-113 , reconfiguring it to be a m ore effective battle taxi.
West Germany produced the M-47 and the M-48 prior to adopting the home-grown Leopard.
India was licensed to manufacture a copy of the105mm-armed Vickers Mk.1 called Vijayanta

[Matt Wiser]

This one was a failed competitor in the DIVAD competition (which gave us that POS known as the SGT York). Entered by General Electric, it's an M-48 hull with new turret for radar and a GAU-8 30-mm cannon (same as in the A-10).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I get that they wanted to make use of available vehicle parts, off the shelf tech and so on but I still shake my head over the Sgt York.
I can't get over the idea that they thought it was a good idea to base the system on a vehicle (the M48) that had been phased out of service and a vehicle that couldn't keep up with the tanks it was meant to protect.

Edit: If they were so intent on using a twin 40mm set-up, they probably would have been better off upgrading the M42 Duster to the latest tech and all-weather performance. At least the M42 had the speed to keep up with the M1.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

This one was a failed competitor in the DIVAD competition (which gave us that POS known as the SGT York). Entered by General Electric, it's an M-48 hull with new turret for radar and a GAU-8 30-mm cannon (same as in the A-10).

Now I know that it never did make it into full production and all that but I am not sure that I would go so far as to cal the Sgt York a POS, here is a link to an article from a pilot involved in the testing of it and his thoughts on it.
https://www.quora.com/How-effective-...wn-helicopters

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Now I know that it never did make it into full production and all that but I am not sure that I would go so far as to cal the Sgt York a POS, here is a link to an article from a pilot involved in the testing of it and his thoughts on it.
https://www.quora.com/How-effective-...wn-helicopters

The criteria in its design were flawed. It was supposed to be able to engage a pop-up target within 8 seconds and have a 50% chance of striking a target at 3 kilometers with a 30 round burst. Soviet helicopter-mounted anti-tank missiles of the time had at least a 6 kilometer range, so they could stand off and destroy an armored column from outside the York's (marginally) effective range.

I'd also question the anecdote of its effectiveness, given that in its OT&E testing in 1984, the M247 wasn't able to hit drones until they were limited to hovering and were carrying four radar reflectors to increase their signature. Maybe it worked perfectly in every non-official test and failed miserably any time someone was looking, but I'll tend to lean towards the side of the recorded testing, because anecdote is not the singular of data.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Edit: If they were so intent on using a twin 40mm set-up, they probably would have been better off upgrading the M42 Duster to the latest tech and all-weather performance. At least the M42 had the speed to keep up with the M1.

It wouldn't have been able to keep up once the whiz-bang features from DIVAD were added - the additional mass on the Patton (17 tons) was almost equal to the total mass of a Duster (22 tons). Add in the short range of the Duster (100 miles), and you're looking at a slow, short-ranged SPAAG. With the DIVAD weight added, you'd be looking at a vehicle with perhaps 2/3 the power to weight ratio of an M1 or M2, and less than 1/3 of their range. They also weren't insistent on using a 40mm; no other DIVAD entry used that caliber (it's rumored Ford had some sort of side deal with Bofors, and also that they only won the competition because of back room shenanigans, since the XM246 consistently out-performed the XM247).

What could be interesting from the standpoint of the original topic would be to look at the other ARGADS/DIVAD entries:
Sperry-Rand: 35mm Vigilante with 1,464 rounds of ammo. Two radars and IFF.
General Electric: 30mm GAU-8. One radar (AN/MPQ-49).
Raytheon: 35mm turret from Gepard, with Hollandse radar and Oerlikon FCS.
General Dynamics: Side-by-side mounting of 35mm guns (same as Gepard), with Phalanx CIWS radar.

[Matt Wiser]

Any artists' concepts of those other entries?

[rcaf_777]

Does this help

[rcaf_777]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1K17_Szhatie

[Matt Wiser]

Gepard on an M-1 chassis would've made perfect sense-but the NIH Syndrome would strike...

[cawest]

yea I kind of like guns on trains. the m18 I saw going down the track back when I was running around the Kosovo areas

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by cawest

yea I kind of like guns on trains. the m18 I saw going down the track back when I was running around the Kosovo areas

That's one reason I wish FF&S had included trains. WW1 had a lot of armored trains (and a lot of temporary narrow-gauge rail built to supply trenches), which it would have been nice to have good rules for statting out. Wet navy ships at least got a treatment in Challenge for MegaTraveller that's theoretically convertible to the system used in 2.0/2.2.

[Draq]

https://youtu.be/kK88EsjZCrc
This... I know it doesn't exactly belong, but it kind of does. Very much a mysterious unicorn sporting shotgun, both in design and history.

[WallShadow]

I just ordered a copy of Jane's Afv Retrofit Systems1994-95 (JANE'S ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLE RETROFIT SYSTEMS) Hardcover – July 1, 1994
from Amazon, for the princely sum of $25 U$D. This will go nicely with copy of the same book for 1999-2000. Lots of interesting things that were available for AFV's at the turn of the millenium. Now I'll get to see "what might have been" available for AFV's at the opening of the conflict.
I'll share all the iffy goodness with my mates here as soon as my sweaty hands start turning the pages.

[rcaf_777]

Has anyone heard of this weapon?

Paul?

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Knight%27s...Revolver_Rifle
https://www.mythicarmory.com/kac-sil...ver-rifle.html
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread....Revolver-Rifle


https://www.rugertalk.com/articles/t...hawk-rifle.96/

Most sources say it was a one of one

[pmulcahy11b]

That's a heck of a long technical path to take for a suppressed weapon...

[copeab]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

That's a heck of a long technical path to take for a suppressed weapon...

And an essentially stupid weapon as well, an oversized semi-suppressed revolver. Probably more expensive than an original bolt-action design firing subsonic ammo, as well.

[Draq]

Originally Posted by copeab

And an essentially a stupid weapon as well, an oversized semi-suppressed revolver. Probably more expensive than an original bolt-action design firing subsonic ammo, as well.

But are any of us really surprised!? I'd hope not. Lol

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by copeab

And an essentially stupid weapon as well, an oversized semi-suppressed revolver. Probably more expensive than an original bolt-action design firing subsonic ammo, as well.

Sure, but part of the RFP (per the article) was the capability for rapid follow-up without ejecting cases. I can think of a couple other ways to do that, but all of them have varying disadvantages.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As The Dark mentioned, the RfP requires the ability to retain the cases (i.e. non-ejection of the cases) but having the ability for rapid follow-up shots. A revolver is the simplest way to achieve that and also without having to remove your trigger hand from the weapon (e.g. bolt-action).
So rather than thinking of the weapon as a strange or long, tech path, it's actually an easier tech path given the requirements (aside from the special ammo it used).

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

As The Dark mentioned, the RfP requires the ability to retain the cases (i.e. non-ejection of the cases) but having the ability for rapid follow-up shots. A revolver is the simplest way to achieve that and also without having to remove your trigger hand from the weapon (e.g. bolt-action).
So rather than thinking of the weapon as a strange or long, tech path, it's actually an easier tech path given the requirements (aside from the special ammo it used).

Even the special ammo doesn't sound that bizarre - it's basically the same as the Soviet SP-4 round that was used in the Stechkin and PSS or the 10mm QSPR round used in modified S&W Model 29 revolvers. Rare and specialized, certainly, but both the US and USSR had already played with that concept.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by The Dark

Even the special ammo doesn't sound that bizarre - it's basically the same as the Soviet SP-4 round that was used in the Stechkin and PSS or the 10mm QSPR round used in modified S&W Model 29 revolvers. Rare and specialized, certainly, but both the US and USSR had already played with that concept.

You're quite right, I've even read of some people who reload their own ammo playing with the concept of semi-telescoped rounds so it's not as if it requires a high-tech factory to produce. I added the part about the ammunition as an afterthought and probably should have put more thought into the statement!

[copeab]

Originally Posted by The Dark

Sure, but part of the RFP (per the article) was the capability for rapid follow-up without ejecting cases. I can think of a couple other ways to do that, but all of them have varying disadvantages.

Put a cage over the ejection port, as was tested for the M1911 in WWI to allow it to be used inside an aircraft without spitting hot brass casings into the interior.

Revolvers are almost impossible to effectively suppress due to the lack of an highly effective seal between cylinder and barrel.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The key word here is almost, most are too troublesome to bother with due to the lack of gas sealing but there are some designs that are more suited to the task.
The Nagant M1895 revolver used gas sealing as part of its normal operation. This allowed it to be suppressed at around the same noise level as any supressed semi-auto pistol.

The point being, that supressing a revolver can be done. And with the idea being to produce a rapid, single shot, supressed weapon that retains the cases, putting a metal cage over the ejection port of a semi-auto would likely cause a distinctive noise as the shell hit the cage. There's also the problem of just how big do you make the cage to allow it to effectively capture all the cases without filling up to the point of jamming the action and how unwieldy does that make the weapon?