Gun Trucks

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The dinky little F16 CAS project, the A16, was a joke. The 4-barrel variant of the A10's gun they decided to try and strap on was, even at a third of the weight and half the barrels enough to shake the aircraft so bad it threw off any chance of hitting the broad side of a barn. The '10 is a slow-and-low bird. Trying to use the F16 like that is like trying to arm a Ferrari with TOW missiles and calling it a tank.

Yes, the USAF has tried to retire the A10 time and again and time and again they've found that they've needed it.

You'll find there's more COIN built in to the A10 than not: remember the A-X program was started in part not because of "Hey lets build a bird that can fly into the teeth of the red hordes" but because of lessons learned with the A-1 in Vietnam. The Avenger can carry a mixed bag of HEAP and HE/I rounds. That's not just 'cause they make pretty colors when they hit, either.

There's nothing "embarrassing" about the money spent on the A10; there's been plenty of conflicts where its proven its dollar value by consistently hitting targets, and bringing its pilots back.

I have a book on A10 development by Mike Spick that goes in to design decisions and where they came from at length. I'll dig it up tomorrow and find some salient quotes.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Hey here we go guys...









They appear to be the same two vehicles just from multiple angles, but that's what they look like I reckon.

While cool, I sure as shit wouldn't wanna be in the cab...

"Hey, Ivan, we can't get those guys in the back, but one round through the cab and they're stuck!" brr

[Webstral]

I wont repeat whats been said about the A-10s wonderful attributes other than to echo everything that has been said about the beauty of a machine designed to fly low and slow, take plenty of punishment, loiter all day, and deliver a range of fires to service a variety of targets. The negative attitudes expressed about have been expressed many times since the end of the Cold War. The A-10 doesnt remain on duty because someone is embarrassed about creating an awesome and awesomely cost-effective fighting machine. The A-10 stays in the inventory because there is nothing else that can do its job the way the A-10 does it.

Combat aircraft should not be asked to perform multiple roles. In most cases, combat aircraft are obliged to take on multiple roles because air force budgets wont allow for the kind of specialization that makes for a truly dominant aircraft in one area. The Tornado, a truly splendid aircraft, is a good example of how budgetary considerations drive combat aircraft to perform multiple jobs. By all accounts, the Tornado does very well at its jobs"especially ultra-low penetration of hostile airspace. However, aircraft optimized for a given role have the edge over a jack-of-all-trades"even if that jack is about as good as one can expect jack to be. Its no coincidence that during the Cold War the air forces with the most money to spend produced the widest variety of designs.

[pmulcahy11b]

I can't agree with that, Web. I think the future of aircraft is for the most part multirole aircraft -- particularly with fighters. Look as the F-22 -- tactically, it's basically useless these days; they are one-trick ponies (built specifically to fight other aircraft), have extremely air-to-ground capability, despite what the USAF and some congressmen and senators tried to do to make it look like it had a viable air-to-ground capability, and stealth isn't really necessary against most current and projected possible enemy aircraft, by some estimations as much as 25 years in the future. The BVR capabilities of the F-22 can keep it out of almost any direct dogfight, but most of that suite can be retrofitted to existing aircraft. And stealth carries with it the need for a smooth planform, which severely limits munitions-carrying capability. And they're expensive. Give be more F-16Cs or new F-16Es, or Strike Eagles instead of a few F-35s, and just have a few F-35s around to crack those tough, electronics-heavy environments instead of replacing whole aircraft types with them. The F-117 and the B-2 proved stealth's potential in limited circumstances, but once the electronics-heavy targets are cracked, they are just strike aircraft with limited capabilities (or with the F-22, a fighter with virtually no other capability), and the non-stealth aircraft carry the battle.

I didn't cry a tear when they stopped F-22 production; aircraft of that type were necessary in a Cold War scenario, but not now, and their electronics suite seems like its in a perpetual beta stage. I agree with the experts who think that the F-35 needs more testing before its viable and will almost certainly miss its projected in-service date -- and a lot of Europe, South Korea, and reportedly Australia, potential customers of the F-35, agree. And even then, they should be produced only in limited number for a limited role. Further stealth production should await weapons which are smaller but have the same punch -- and the SDB depends on a combination of GPS and laser guidance to make its small warhead effective.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

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

I definitely agree with you here, although I would point out that Speer noted that war production of tanks in Germany was partially predicated on battle-environment need; fewer were produced and sent to Italy because the Germans assumed that Italy - and based on initial surveys with their own tanks, they were right - was poor tank country.

Then reports of lighter weight M4s traversing the terrain formerly considered "no-go" for tanks began to filter in...

Of course, we thought the same thing about Korea and Vietnam, and in both places once we committed our armor and used it properly it did very well. Or as well as could be expected.

[Webstral]

I think the future of aircraft is for the most part multirole aircraft -- particularly with fighters.

That's because no one can pay for specialized aircraft anymore. Your point about the reality of funding is well-taken. I don't want our national treasure going into a host of specialized aircraft. My point, though, is that a tool developed for a single purpose does that job better than a tool developed for multiple purposes. An auto technician may have a Leatherman, but he uses tools from his set of specialized tools for the overwhelming majority of his work.

Let's see what happens with unmanned combat aircraft before we write off the specialized combatant.

I didn't cry a tear when they stopped F-22 production; aircraft of that type were necessary in a Cold War scenario, but not now, and their electronics suite seems like its in a perpetual beta stage. I agree with the experts who think that the F-35 needs more testing before its viable and will almost certainly miss its projected in-service date -- and a lot of Europe, South Korea, and reportedly Australia, potential customers of the F-35, agree. And even then, they should be produced only in limited number for a limited role. Further stealth production should await weapons which are smaller but have the same punch -- and the SDB depends on a combination of GPS and laser guidance to make its small warhead effective.

Don't get me started on the F-35. The allies have been suckered and pressured into supporting a bad product. I'm very concerned that this one is going to bite us at a time we'd very much prefer not to be bitten.

[Webstral]

Then reports of lighter weight M4s traversing the terrain formerly considered "no-go" for tanks began to filter in...

Of course, we thought the same thing about Korea and Vietnam, and in both places once we committed our armor and used it properly it did very well. Or as well as could be expected.

We should have developed an MBT for WW2. We didn't because we adhered to the laws of mass production--which, I suppose, is simply sticking with one's strengths. Goodness knows the mobility of the M4 was a strength, too. What a shame the low survivability cost so many American tankers so dearly. I would have loved to see what the Pershing could have accomplished in Europe.

[Rockwolf66]

Just released in the U.S. (9/20). Got my copy in the mail today.

http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-Gun-Trucks-New-Vanguard/dp/184908355X/ref=sr_1_1ie=UTF8&qid=1316659770&sr=8-1

I've only had a chance to thumb through it and read most of the picture captions. Good stuff, so far.

I'm certain gun trucks would become a feature of the Twilight War, especially after the advent of the cantonment system. Cantonments, although in many ways self sufficient, would still need periodic replenishment of things like large caliber ammo and other valuable items that could not be manufactured locally. A cantonment's far-flung outposts (patrol bases, forward operating bases, fire bases, etc.) would also need resupply from the parent units main hub. Areas between cantonments and outposts would likely see predation by deserters, marauders, opportunistic civies, enemy raiders, etc. High-value convoys would need to be guarded against such threats and their simply wouldn't be the line or MP units to do the job. Motor transport units would have to guard themselves, and the venerable gun truck would see a renaissance.

Do any of you know much about motor transport units Motor vehicles are at a premium late in the Twilight War. Would individual divisions have their own organic long-range transport units or would such line haul convoys be the specialty of Corps HQs I'm trying to think of how gun truck units would be organized for a little project that I'm working on for the forum.

Also, what trucks was the U.S. military using up until 1997 or so


P.S. If you like guns and trucks and special forces, I also recommend this Osprey title:

http://www.amazon.com/Special-Operat...d_bxgy_b_img_b

My local B&N has the SpecOp vehicle book but not the one on guntrucks. I picked up the copy today and have been reading through it. Personaly as the Twilight war goes on you will be seeing alot more Non-Standard Tactical Vehicles and a number of "Warpig" style Motherships in the units that are still moble even if they are just running supplies between cantonments.

[copeab]

Personaly as the Twilight war goes on you will be seeing alot more Non-Standard Tactical Vehicles and a number of "Warpig" style Motherships in the units that are still moble even if they are just running supplies between cantonments.

And for the really desperate, there are concrete armored crs.

[James Langham]

Convoy Escort

One of your best options for a convoy escort is a HMMWV Avenger - it has an M3 HMG which is perfect for the role and it's not as if you have any aircrft to use them on...

[copeab]

One of your best options for a convoy escort is a HMMWV Avenger - it has an M3 HMG which is perfect for the role and it's not as if you have any aircrft to use them on...

Those Stinger pods are kinda dead weight. Although ... possibly one could have unguided rockets made locally to fire from the pods (direct fire), although it may not depress low enough for relatively close targets.

[95th Rifleman]

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.

The RAF has a similar issue, they are always taking flak from the Army for their tardiness in CAS roles. I think every air force has this problem. pilots want to be either taking down enemy aircraft or bombing strategic targets.

The USMC has the right idea with an air element desighned to support the infantrymen. USMC aviators feel a close bond to their ground pounding comrades and this is due to their training and indoctrination.

I do think Armies (assuming the funding is available) should handle their own CAS requirements. The British Army does to a certain extent as the Apaches are assighned to Army Air Corps.

[Targan]

Don't get me started on the F-35. The allies have been suckered and pressured into supporting a bad product. I'm very concerned that this one is going to bite us at a time we'd very much prefer not to be bitten.

Oh sh*t. Is that the general consensus I wonder 'Cause here in Australia we're kind of banking on the F-35. Our old-style FA/18s are getting a bit long in the tooth, we've retired all our F-111s and we've bought a few Super Hornets as a stopgap measure while we wait for the F-35. If that project falls in a heap we're going to have a pretty horrible capability gap.

Of course one could argue that with such an iddy biddy defence force, Australia is always going to suffer capability gaps. We may be a wealthy nation on a per capita basis but we just don't have the population base to support a truly capable armed forces.

[95th Rifleman]

Oh sh*t. Is that the general consensus I wonder 'Cause here in Australia we're kind of banking on the F-35. Our old-style FA/18s are getting a bit long in the tooth, we've retired all our F-111s and we've bought a few Super Hornets as a stopgap measure while we wait for the F-35. If that project falls in a heap we're going to have a pretty horrible capability gap.

Of course one could argue that with such an iddy biddy defence force, Australia is always going to suffer capability gaps. We may be a wealthy nation on a per capita basis but we just don't have the population base to support a truly capable armed forces.

UK is in the same pickle, we are banking on the F-35 to provide us with a carrier aircraft when we eventualy get our new Elisabeth.

[copeab]

Of course one could argue that with such an iddy biddy defence force, Australia is always going to suffer capability gaps. We may be a wealthy nation on a per capita basis but we just don't have the population base to support a truly capable armed forces.

Hire the Swiss. They'll stand at your shores, pikes in hand