![]() |
![]() |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#182
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#183
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
"Let's roll." Todd Beamer, aboard United Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001. |
#184
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#186
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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). |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2 |
#188
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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
__________________
"Let's roll." Todd Beamer, aboard United Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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).
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#190
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 02-11-2018 at 01:27 AM. Reason: adding some thoughts |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
https://www.quora.com/How-effective-...wn-helicopters |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2 |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Any artists' concepts of those other entries?
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#194
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Does this help
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#195
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gepard on an M-1 chassis would've made perfect sense-but the NIH Syndrome would strike...
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2 |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#200
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
"Let's roll." Todd Beamer, aboard United Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001. |
#201
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#202
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That's a heck of a long technical path to take for a suppressed weapon...
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#203
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
Last edited by copeab; 03-11-2018 at 05:51 PM. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
But are any of us really surprised!? I'd hope not. Lol
|
#205
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2 |
#206
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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). |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Writer at The Vespers War - World War I equipment for v2.2 |
#208
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 03-11-2018 at 08:37 PM. Reason: clarity of last sentence |
#209
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Revolvers are almost impossible to effectively suppress due to the lack of an highly effective seal between cylinder and barrel. Last edited by copeab; 03-12-2018 at 08:21 AM. |
#210
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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? |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (0 members and 8 guests) | |
|
|