Talk:M247 Sergeant York

Historically funny

For a famous failure this version of the article reads like is was written by a still deluded project manager. I have begun a rewrite.

Hee hee, that is funny. If it has been in service with the Army since 1983, why did we only have M163_VADS in 1989? L0b0t 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting about MIM-72/M48 Chaparral. Vulcan was short range, Chaparral was long range. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chap is still considered short range by the army. Chap along with Stinger, Vulcan, Linebacker, and Avenger PMS, comprise SHORAD (short range air-defence). For long range ADA you're looking at Hawk, Patriot and Improved Patriot.K1ng l0v3 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

<thunk>I forgot Patriot. Chaparral and Vulcan are no longer in service- I think even the Guard no longer has them. Through the mid-80s, Nike was the real long range, Chaparral was medium, Vulcan short and Redeye manpack. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I forgot all about Nike. When I was in in the late 80s early 90s we got to shoot off many, many Redeyes for Stinger training as the Stinger was too expensive to live-fire. During AIT at Ft. Bliss all the Vulcan, Stinger, Chap, MOS's went to one part of post and the Patriot, Hawk folks went to another. SHORAD was considered Combat Arms while the long-range stuff was Divisional Support so women were allowed to serve with Hawk/Patriot. I miss the Vulcan sooo much. Mine is in the ADA museum at Bliss now, because we sank a PT boat with it during Just Cause. K1ng l0v3 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was staff at the Pershing school at Redstone Arsenal in the mid-80s. The Nike school was beside us. I watched them pack up Nike, bring in Roland, pack that up and bring in Sergeant York. Forgot about Hawk- I guess that was the long range mobile. I ended up in charge of all the land combat maintenance shops for a time, including the Vulcan and Chaparral but I really didn't know much about them. Air defense used such a mix of stuff that it is confusing. Air Defense Artillery could really provide a good overview on this, but it is just a stub right now. Pershing was Field Artillery and I was Ordnance, so I'm not real up on ADA organization. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

--

Hey, I remember this anti-aircraft beast when I was at Ft Bliss for training back in '82 and '83. It was known as a debacle even to us privates. The article doesn't mention it but I think the program guys were caught fudging shootdowns, saying that they would have been shot down anyway so why destroy a perfectly good drone (! LOL). I think that's when Casper Weinberger finally decided to pull the plug ..

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.253.49.6 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I worked at the Lake Forest production facility at Ford Aerospace as a test mechanic and also at the field test center off Ortega Hwy. in San Juan Capistrano Ca. from 1983 to 1985. The army contract was to use off the shelf parts and to intergrate these systems to a WWII chassis. This chassis could not maintain speed with the main battle tanks the ABRAMS. The best system on the vehicle was the feed system for the 40mm rounds with a fire rate of 12 rounds per seconed. The ability to select amo from 4 different mags. The vehicle could also fire on the move which was also a requirement of the Army contract. We really got poor quality parts from the from the vendors. The hydraulic leaks were never and issue after we completed a zero leak after a full turret stress from the pruduction facility at Lake Forest. The problems were useing off of the shelf syetems which were not specifically designed for such a system. The real reason for cancilation of the system was it could not meet the threat. And at the time that was the soviet Hind E helicoper was the threat. We actually built 86 vehicles the 50th. tank was the completion of the first option of the contract. There was known at the pentagon at the time a missle mafia who were generals who wanted to go to missle systems. Regan also needed money for the MX missle. It was a fun project.

Programs

Let's see- MIM-46A Mauler was canceled and replaced "short term" by Chaparral. Chaparral was supposed to be replaced by Roland which was canceled and replaced by Sergeant York, canceled and replaced by ADATS, canceled and finally replaced by Bradley Linebacker. Think this should be mentioned? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

File:M247 DIVAD.JPEG Nominated for speedy Deletion

File:Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:M247 DIVAD.JPEG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 29 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:DIVAD AADG.jpg Nominated for Deletion

File:Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:DIVAD AADG.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture contradicts text

I'm just a visitor who'd wanted to know about the device I'd read the name in a book; at the first lines I am struck with a discrepancy: two rapid firing 40mm guns in the text, one only on the picture beside.

Greetings to all, and thank you anyways for the information

90.24.227.75 (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the following image, there are two barrels, they're just side-on to the camera. 87.115.189.96 (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:M247 2.jpg

Template:Quote This material was added in one big chunk here by Template:Ping. If it any of it can be sourced then it'd be great to include in the article. But it seems like it's taken from personal knowledge. Felsic2 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)