Gun Trucks

[raketenjagdpanzer]

It's more along the lines of "secure it to the flatbed cargo area" than an M113 with wheels.

AH thank you I was trying to picture how that would work.

[ArmySGT.]

One thing I have often wondered

Since the GAU-8 30mm cannon round is effective enough against armored targets; while aren't there more weapon systems using the 30mm round

Arguably it is effective though the A-10 is shooting at turret roof armor.

Why doesn't the Bradley and the LAV-25 have a single barrel auto cannon in the same 30mm round

Why not a towed 30mm with a 4 or 6 round magazine for Light and Airborne Infantry Something that would be like the 37mm or better yet the 2 pounder.

Commonality in ammunition across services should extend past small arms.

Imagine if the Navy and the Coast Guard was using 155 Artillery rounds with their own powder bags. Might surprise some pirates when DPICM goes off over their heads. Navy smaller vessels could have been using laser guided cannon rounds in the 90s disabling larger vessels and shore targets being lased by Naval warbirds.

Just food for thought.

[Raellus]

One thing I have often wondered

Since the GAU-8 30mm cannon round is effective enough against armored targets; while aren't there more weapon systems using the 30mm round

Arguably it is effective though the A-10 is shooting at turret roof armor.

Why doesn't the Bradley and the LAV-25 have a single barrel auto cannon in the same 30mm round

Why not a towed 30mm with a 4 or 6 round magazine for Light and Airborne Infantry Something that would be like the 37mm or better yet the 2 pounder.

Commonality in ammunition across services should extend past small arms.

Imagine if the Navy and the Coast Guard was using 155 Artillery rounds with their own powder bags. Might surprise some pirates when DPICM goes off over their heads. Navy smaller vessels could have been using laser guided cannon rounds in the 90s disabling larger vessels and shore targets being lased by Naval warbirds.

Just food for thought.

It may also have something to do with the depleted uranium AP round that the A-10 uses in the AT role. And, as you already mentioned, the fact that the GAU-8 is often employed against an AFV's thinner roof armor.

As for its use on helis and the LAV-25, the GAU-8 magazine is huge. Its ammo size/bulk would require much larger gun turrets and/or take up a lot more internal space. If the A-10 is built around the GAU-8, a heli or AFV would have to as well. The ability to carry more ammo is probably why the U.S. armed forces prefer 25mm to 30mm.

[ArmySGT.]

It may also have something to do with the depleted uranium AP round that the A-10 uses in the AT role. And, as you already mentioned, the fact that the GAU-8 is often employed against an AFV's thinner roof armor.

As for its use on helis and the LAV-25, the GAU-8 magazine is huge. Its ammo size/bulk would require much larger gun turrets and/or take up a lot more internal space. If the A-10 is built around the GAU-8, a heli or AFV would have to as well. The ability to carry more ammo is probably why the U.S. armed forces prefer 25mm to 30mm.

Please read again. I was speaking about the 30mm round being adapted to other equipment not the GAU-8

The Giant Ass Unit is as you say, too large. However the round used in a single barrel cannon like an enlarged M242 would up gun other platforms considerably.

[95th Rifleman]

The A-10 was a severe case of over-specialisation. It was desighned to kill Soviet tanks in WW3. Problem is, WW3 never happened.

While the old bird is still on the books, better and more effective alternatives exist. Experience has shown that the A-10 just isn't needed in her original role ad has been tasked in the Gulf and Afghanistan with operations better suited to COIN platforms.

I think half the reason the A-10 is still in service is because nobody is willing to accept that the West wasted so much money and resources in the cold war.

That being said, i doubt you'd find many spare GAUs in the twilight war. Mainly because this is the war the A-10 was built for and it would be one of the planes that gets first crack at repairs and resources to keep airworthy, especialy later in the war when air superiority birds are few and far between and SAMs become equaly rare.

[copeab]

It was WW2, and it was the Hs129B1 if I recall. Started life as a stock Hs129 (The A-10 of its day when mounted with a mix of 30mm cannon and MG's) and placed a magazine fed 7.5cm KwK40 gun from a Panzer IV where the cannons used to be. Insanely good at busting the heaviest tanks (as well as small warships), pilots loved it till the soviets twigged on, and started operating so that anything with a barrel that long and big in the air becomes the focus of all fighters in the area.

The same gun (or something similar) was tested in a version of the Ju 88 (there might have been a few built, but I don't remember).

And the US B-25 Mitchell had two versions with 75mm guns, but these were hand loaded and used against ships (some later models went with a lot of .50's in the nose instead, as it was more effective in strafing ships).

The Mosquito had a version built in smal numbers with a 57mm gun in a pod under the body, but again it was for use against shipping.

[Panther Al]

The same gun (or something similar) was tested in a version of the Ju 88 (there might have been a few built, but I don't remember).

And the US B-25 Mitchell had two versions with 75mm guns, but these were hand loaded and used against ships (some later models went with a lot of .50's in the nose instead, as it was more effective in strafing ships).

The Mosquite had a version built in smal numbers with a 57mm gun in a pod under the body, but again it was for use against shipping.

The ground attack version of the B25 is rather cool, I'll be the first to admit, but there is three things to take into consideration:
1. The B25 is a much larger aircraft, with a much larger crew compared to the one single pilot in the Hs129.
2. The 75mm was a pack howitzer, not a panzer main gun.
3. Though much larger, it wasn't all that much faster nor armoured to speak of. Granted, this isn't that big a deal since it was to be used in area's that wasn't lousy with AAA.


That said (and yes, a few Ju88's was test fitted with a KwK40), the strafe-bomber version of the B25 has to my favorite version of all. How can you not like 8 50's and a Pack75 in the nose of *any* airplane Dead sexy. I always loved the basic look of the Mitch, and the idea of a twin engine attack plane in my mind is just plain awesome. The Boston, the Invader, the one and only Mossy, you name it, the platform is just cool.


WW2 is something of a Passion of Mine. When I went to Uni, though I didn't go for a history degree, I spent more than a few semesters in courses on this period, as well as massive amounts of time on my own reading up on it.

[copeab]

I think half the reason the A-10 is still in service is because nobody is willing to accept that the West wasted so much money and resources in the cold war.

I disagree. The A-10 filled a role that the Il-2 of WWII showed was useful if not vital. What would you have used as an anti-tank/ground attack aircraft The Cobra The F-16

[ArmySGT.]

The A-10 was a severe case of over-specialisation. It was desighned to kill Soviet tanks in WW3. Problem is, WW3 never happened.

While the old bird is still on the books, better and more effective alternatives exist. Experience has shown that the A-10 just isn't needed in her original role ad has been tasked in the Gulf and Afghanistan with operations better suited to COIN platforms.

I think half the reason the A-10 is still in service is because nobody is willing to accept that the West wasted so much money and resources in the cold war.

That being said, i doubt you'd find many spare GAUs in the twilight war. Mainly because this is the war the A-10 was built for and it would be one of the planes that gets first crack at repairs and resources to keep airworthy, especialy later in the war when air superiority birds are few and far between and SAMs become equaly rare.

Why is it still around Because the Air Force holds, in their word "Air to Mud" missions in disdain. The Air Force is not very responsive to the wants and needs of the Army Brigade Commander. When the A-10 was announced as being retired from active Service; the Army began lobbying Congress to remove the prohibition against armed fixed wing aircraft. The AF reversed on their decision quickly not wanting to lose a large slice of the Defense budget.

The F-16D is a great strike craft. However it is not a Close Air Support aircraft and wouldn't survive long as such. The A-10 is great because it can come in low, slow, and have human eyes on the target.

The only thing the A-10 will be replaced with is another A-10 sparkling off the assembly line for many years to come.

[pmulcahy11b]

I disagree. The A-10 filled a role that the Il-2 of WWII showed was useful if not vital. What would you have used as an anti-tank/ground attack aircraft The Cobra The F-16

There was in fact a lot of talk, right up to the Gulf War, to make a version of the F-16 as a dedicated ground attack platform, supposedly to be designated the A-16.

One of the biggest problems with the A-10 has actually been the pilots; even to this day, many pilots do not want under any circumstances to be assigned to fly the A-10. It's mud-moving, it's not the kind of flying an Air Force pilot should have to do (I agree, I think the A-10s should be reassigned to the Army), the "not a pound for air-to-ground" attitude the old fighter mafia has (and now, these are the guys in charge of the Air Force in many circumstances) and damnit, the A-10's just not sexy.

[Raellus]

The A-10 was a severe case of over-specialisation. It was desighned to kill Soviet tanks in WW3. Problem is, WW3 never happened.

While the old bird is still on the books, better and more effective alternatives exist. Experience has shown that the A-10 just isn't needed in her original role ad has been tasked in the Gulf and Afghanistan with operations better suited to COIN platforms.

I think half the reason the A-10 is still in service is because nobody is willing to accept that the West wasted so much money and resources in the cold war.

I'm not disagreeing with you but, from what I've seen, heard, and read, the guys over in 'Stan seem to really appreciate the A-10. The sound of that GAU is a morale booster to those it is fired in support of. I can only imagine what the Taliban think about the A-10.

[Tegyrius]

Please read again. I was speaking about the 30mm round being adapted to other equipment not the GAU-8

Upthread:

I think they call that the Mk.44 Bushmaster II.

Ref: http://www.atk.com/Products/document...r%20Cannon.pdf

- C.

[copeab]

The ground attack version of the B25 is rather cool, I'll be the first to admit, but there is three things to take into consideration:

As to size, the B-25 was also able to carry an impressive bomb and rocket load compare to the Hs 129 as well.

2. The 75mm was a pack howitzer, not a panzer main gun.

No, it wasn't a howitzer, but it' wasn't a high velocity gun. A variant of it was used as the main gun of the M-24 Chaffee light tank.

3. Though much larger, it wasn't all that much faster nor armoured to speak of.

Well, it had basic armor to protect against aircraft MGs, IIRC

Granted, this isn't that big a deal since it was to be used in area's that wasn't lousy with AAA.

I think the Japanese AA gunners on the ships were better than that

That said (and yes, a few Ju88's was test fitted with a KwK40), the strafe-bomber version of the B25 has to my favorite version of all. How can you not like 8 50's and a Pack75 in the nose of *any* airplane

I believe the turret could be locked forward and it's guns fired by the pilot, so add two more .50's.

[Panther Al]

The A-10's death has been announced many a time, but over and over, events prove a low, slow aircraft, with two eyeballs in it, and enough armour to ignore ground fire is a need that will never go away. The are crying out saying FO's with lasers and a orbiting BUFF, or a armed drone, but time and again, the A-10 remains the very best CAS aircraft out there.

The Germans with the 129, and the soviets with the IL-2 proved the usefulness, almost necessity, of such aircraft during the massive armour battles of the eastern front, as well as general close support during the second world war from Afrika (The 129's debut) to Italy and Russia.

While I like the 16 - I like it a lot - the F16 can not take over the role of Close Air Support. It doesn't have the legs, doesn't carry enough, and can't take anything more than a hard sneeze before being rendered non-airworthy. As a strike aircraft Sure. Do it right proper - even if the 15E is even better.

Sure, the A10 is still around because they don't want the Army to get its paws on it to a large degree, but it still wouldn't be the case if the aircraft in general is so close to perfect for its role its amazing. And the A10 makes a superb COIN aircraft. Able to loiter for ever and a day, has enough hanging off the wings that it can react to damn near any request put to it...


and Paul


Speak for yourself. The A-10 is just dead sexy in its own way - not the glamour of a runway model, true.. but more along the lines of the hometown girl who just has it all together.

[Panther Al]

As to size, the B-25 was also able to carry an impressive bomb and rocket load compare to the Hs 129 as well.



No, it wasn't a howitzer, but it' wasn't a high velocity gun. A variant of it was used as the main gun of the M-24 Chaffee light tank.



Well, it had basic armor to protect against aircraft MGs, IIRC



I think the Japanese AA gunners on the ships were better than that



I believe the turret could be locked forward and it's guns fired by the pilot, so add two more .50's.

*looks*


Ah, yes... the original field built B/A-25's was made with Pack Hows (and not just any it turns out, seems the originals was fitted with the US built versions of the French 75 of legend)... but yes, later versions that was factory made did have a low to medium velocity 75 (The M5/T13E) . Still not in the same league as the KwK as the M2/M3/M5/M6 of Lee/Sherman/Chafee usages was quite frankly horrid in an Anti Armor Role. Every test performed by both the allies and the Axis agreed: The Low/Medium Velocity cannon was a non-starter when it came to tank killing. Which, to be fair, wasn't what the gun was designed to do.

US doctrine at the time had it that Tanks was under no circumstances, to look for a fight with another tank. They was supposed to support the Infantry with accurate HE fire. Hence, the large (for its time) calibre and the low velocity. This allowed for a much larger explosive load in the shells. For AT work, in 1940-1941 the US army was convinced the M3 37mm gun was more than adequate for AT work: Even though the Brits was coming to the conclusion that the 40mm 2 pounder wasn't going to cut it, and the Germans had already switched to the 50mm PaK38 and was already introducing the high velocity 75mm PaK40. Which is why as soon as we got involved in the war that the Tank Destroyer came into being. Based off of the M4 Hull, and equipped with medium/high(ish) velocity naval 3" gun. This, and not the M4, was what was supposed to engage tanks.

US Tank Doctrine as to use, arming, and training was damn near criminal during WW2.

Of course, reality being reality, it didn't work out that way. It wasn't till late 44 did the US finally get around to mounting the 76mm gun - equal to the performance of the german KwK40 first seeing use in '42. And the Brits came around even sooner with the 17 pounder upgrade in late 43 - offered to the US, but turned down because the brass of the time was convinced that the M3 gun was more than equal to the task. And lets not get into the 75mm KwK42/L70 which vastly outperformed any gun - including the 90mm - the allies put into service.