Com-Central.net

Dontos · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: Sgt York (DIVAD Gun) Information

Found this data sheet while digging thru the Archives, some time ago. Just 'rediscovered' the entire data sheet.

(Let the debate begin.... Mr. Green

)

[img]

[/img]

Don

Doug_Kibbey

What's to debate?....By the time it could have been fielded, it couldn't keep up with the forces it was expected to defend and couldn't hit anything even if it had.

MarkHolloway

The glacis in the top photo is straight like an M60. Doesn't show the modified rear deck cover. I think Ford Aerospace had this contract. They disappeared after this failure. They would have done just as well, or better, to have upgraded the Duster.

Dontos

- Doug_Kibbey

What's to debate?....By the time it could have been fielded, it couldn't keep up with the forces it was expected to defend and couldn't hit anything even if it had.

Agreed, but when I first posted just the hull diagrams, there seemed to be doubts in the information and I wasn't able to produce the entire data page.

Amazing that the M48 Hull system is used, instead of an Abrams or lighter AGS or even sheridan hull system.

The Division level Air Defense asset (hence the title DIVAD Gun) should have been developed with the future speed element foremost in the concept process.

JMHO
Don

Joe_D

Don Said:

Amazing that the M48 Hull system is used, instead of an Abrams or lighter AGS or even sheridan hull system.

I think it was a matter of necessity, Remember at this time M1 production was just ramping up (1985) and Detroit had to be used until Lima could get fully on line. Priority one was fielding the M1 Tank and no hulls could be diverted for other special projects at the time. As far as using the AGS or M551 hulls, I think again it was a matter of physics and cost. Both systems are very light and would be way underpowered to move/ power the electricity sucking turret of the DIVAD system. Also at this time the M60A3's being replaced by M1's were replacing the M48A5's in the Guard, creating a surplus of M48 hulls that logistically were easy to support verses the M551 or AGS whose parts were very limited.

If, and I say big if, the system performed as required, the hull could have been easily up graded with a more powerful engine and better suspension to keep up with the M1's. Both had already been developed for the M60 series but not implemented due to the M1 fielding. Applying them to an M48 hull would be very simple.

That DD 672-1 looks like part of a request for the DoD to provide M48A5 hulls with the necessary equipment. That might explain why the drawing is not of the actual M247 hull.

Thanks for sharing Don

Joe D

bsmart

As I remember it (always dangerous) The Divad was a knee jerk reaction to the concerns with air defense in Europe based on observations in the Yom Kippur war ( The success of the zsu-23 and the smaller missles) and counting the number of aircraft the Soviets had to throw at the European front. I believe it was felt that they could save time (and money) by using an existing chassis. They didn't want to buy the Gepard but wanted a similar vehicle. It was thought that it was a low risk quick turnaround development effort. Then they started adding capabilities and it grew and stretched out in development time

I don't think an M551 chassis could have handled the recoil forces of twin automatic 35 or 40 mm weapons, especially when firing at low angle to the side

Jens_O_Mehner

- MarkHolloway

The glacis in the top photo is straight like an M60.

Nope,

it certainly is not, as evidenced by the round sections on the lower hull- those would not be there on a straight glacis, which would show up as a rectangle on this type of drawing. Cool

Jens O.

MarkHolloway

VIDEO www.youtube.com/watch?...re=related

GaryKato · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Feb 07, 2006 Posts: 39

I seem to recall it was supposed to be low risk: Known hull, known gun, known radar (from F-16 if I remember).

MarkHolloway

- GaryKato

I seem to recall it was supposed to be low risk: Known hull, known gun, known radar (from F-16 if I remember).

That's what I remember, too. Also the twin 40mm guns from the Duster. Should have been reliable. Should have....

Joe_D

Gary said;

I seem to recall it was supposed to be low risk: Known hull, known gun, known radar (from F-16 if I remember).

All systems were proven, but in regards to the Radar, I don't think it was for ground use Rolling Eyes

.

Therein lies the major problem. Something that is designed to work in the relatively clean environment of the sky does not automatically guarantee it'll work in a AFV. Not to mention the stress and shock it undergoes. Another problem from what I can remember was the inability to sort out all the clutter it experienced. IIRC the system was supposed to hone in on the tell tale signature of a helicopter rotor. Unfortunately it was easily confused and locked on such inordinate things like ventilator fans. It didn't help that during testing the targets were rigged to self destruct, a safety requirement, that ended up being a big controversy with the media when accusations were made that they were never effectively struck. The stink was that they supposedly faked the ability to hit by detonating the targets on cue.

Joe D

tommyarizona

Fella’s
I just happened across this.
I was the design engineer for the gunfights on divad.
Prior to this I spent a month working on the rear deck you are questioning.
The Mod on the chassis was brought about with the addition of a 135 Hp turbine engine as an auxiliary power unit. Also the addition of better air filtration for both main and aux engines.
The M248 chassis would have not been my first pick either.
But they were plentiful.
The Guns
40s were chosen over 30s for many reasons, these are the ones I know of,
At the time the 40mm round came in a number of flavors mainly a Proximity round the 30 did not.
Ford Aeronutronic had just bid another project using a 30mm cannon and lost the bid.
Also lets not forget that Ford Aeronutronic was the maker of ammunition 20, 30, 40mm.
I believe using the 40 was also a business decision $$$$.
Lastly
Ford actually scored less direct hits in the initial shoot off with GD who was using twin 30's.
But because Ford was using a prox round there near misses were counted as hits.
One other thing to point out.
GD (General Dynamics) went light with its turret, it was all aluminum better suited for the 30s

I don’t know ware you are going with this topic.
So let me say this.
Nothing you read about this system, (on the Net or in the public news agencies) is the truth.
The cancellation of this system was purely political and had nothing to do with its performance.
I have been the senior Designer Engineer on many systems for the military.
To this day I am bitter about the cancellation of Divad.
One can not say, that if it worked as advertised(and it did)
We don’t badly need this system today.
Not to mention the if it was in our arsenal today it would be a matured system with all the advances in technology we have made since.
Had it not been canceled Katusha's would have never hit the ground in Israel.

Remember
The claim was that the system could not reach the stand off distance of the Russian Hind helicopter.
But the question as to weather it could shoot down the missiles fired by the Hind was never brought up or tested.
A BIG MISTAKE.

In the end...
The Missile loopiest won.
and there associates got all the gold $$$$$

Please
Feel free to visit my website for Ref www.tmaengineering.net
Click Defense tab

Peace
Tom

Peace
Tom

Dontos

Tom

WOW!! WELCOME!

I have contributed to a number of discussions on the Sgt York, but mainly from the aspect of an AFV historical aspect.

I remember DIVAD mainly due to a family members involvement in ADA during those days, and a possible after-service career at a 'proposed' DIVAD production facility in El Paso Tx. Your assertions to the testing is along the same lines as my family members.

Our big 'deal' is attempting to properly ID a vehicle based off of vehicle features. Sometimes it can be quite a 'dog-eat-dog' discussion. The primary goal is to exchange ideas and information in the hopes of historical accuracy.

Thanks for the information.
Regards
Don

tommyarizona

Hello Don/All
Yep this one hits a nerve.
And good old Elpaso does too.
Fort Bliss
2 years 3rd Cav as an artillery surveyor.
Not complaining, I was young and dumb and wanted to go to Nam.
The God send was that the war ended wile I was in AIT, and I got stuck at Fort Bliss.
Didn’t seem fair at time, but I thank my lucky star’s today.
I grew a brain. Razz

If I can help with Divad let me know.
The only historical thing I can think of is that Divad was the first military system to go from concept to production in 5 years
(this included building the assembly ficility)
It was to be the model program for development of future military systems like it.
I use to have a top assy outline drawing but I have not seen it in a wile.I will look.
I have to mention,
When the government closes a program they make sure its gone for good.
I didn’t see them crush vheicales, but I saw them crush everything else.
All I can say is they make sure know one can change there mind.

Cheers
Tom

MarkHolloway

Tommy,

When were you at Bliss and what squadron? I was in 'B' Troop 72-73 and 'I' Troop 76-79.

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big