Talk:M163 VADS

message: Does Albania use that weapon system? I really doubt about it...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.58.145 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used by Albania? 

message: I've reverted the undiscussed move, as "Vulcan" is the name of the gun, not the vehicle/system. Please propose the move formally, and show references that the whole vehicle/system is called "Vulcan". Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Acronyms as words in article titles it should be moved. The current title is really awful. Move to Vulcan air defence system then.--Pattont/c 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Undiscussed move reverted

message: Well this is interesting, after having read about how the M163 has an inferior weapon to the Shilka, along with a lack of radar in comparison to its Russian counterpart, this article classifies the M163 as being a superior weapon with a fairly biased statement, which could be misleading. "Even the contemporary Soviet ZSU-23-4, while otherwise primitive (?) in comparison to the VADS, did fire a twice heavier 23 mm round of better ballistic shape, and from 1970's to 1980's most nations were already moving to 30 mm, 35 mm and even heavier calibers in self-propelled AA gun armament."
So, the vehicle with the superior weapon and radar tracking is primitive compared to the VADS?74.161.22.160 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with the quality of the weapon system? This is about comparing to weapon platforms, not about comparing doctrine. Besides, as far as I'm aware there is no way to use the AWACS radar to target the Vulcan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmarle (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Similar to the above "discussion", we also have that very dubious statement in the article: " although the Russian ZSU fired a larger shell (23 mm rather than 20 mm) but had a lower rate of fire, the M163 had a higher muzzle velocity and higher rate of fire providing a flatter trajectory, shorter time of flight and thus better accuracy." Meanwhile, we look at Wikipedia, the ZSU-23-4 has a combined RoF of 3'400 to 4'000 RPM, the M168 on M163 has maximum of 3'000 RPM. Muzzle velocity is 980 vs 1020, the difference is almost non-existent. So one part of that statement is flat out wrong, the other one is dubious at best. Meanwhile the "only 3mm" higher calibre provides a twice as big explosive charge and twice as heavy projectile - quite a difference! So it fires a roughly twice as heavy shell with a higher rate of fire at almost the same muzzle velocity - terminal velocity may even be higher due to the heavier projectile. Therefore  I would remove that statement. Wurelbum (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  vs ZSU-23-4 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M163 VADS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828100827/http://www.gd-ots.com/webpdf/20mm%20M940.pdf to http://www.gd-ots.com/webpdf/20mm%20M940.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: US Army nomenclature 16ROMEO was designated for Vulcan Air Defense System Crew Member for 4 years. No such round as Sabot round
I was stationed in West Germany at Larson Barack’s MENACEofSOCIETY1970 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  VADS