User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 4:41:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Here are some options.
AMX-13: Air portable at 13 tons to support paratroopers. Dual revolver like automatic loader, 75mm or 90mm cannon. 
Panhard AML 
90mm low pressure gun. 
Dual MGs and a 60mm mortar version Newest Panhard "CRAB" 
Sphinx Panhard EBRC 
or just bring back the XM800 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:00:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you talking using an Airborne Division against a Tank Division, or Airborne having assets to defend against a few tanks. I wouldn't want the jeep/tow hunter-killer teams to be going nose to nose against a tank company, but in an ambush of a tank platoon or against some BMPs? I think DIP was a common thought for us Cold War types.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Question for the Airborne types. Do we really need a 'light tank' or are you really looking for a highly portable heavy weapon (that can do AT/Anti-bunker/knock down walls)? http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/AAFTankMuseum/SelfPropelledGuns/Mule106mmRecoillessGun/images/Mule106mmRecoillessGun.jpg Mule with a 106, air-droppable - lots of bang; of course other weapons could be mounted. Like a TOW (or better yet why not a Hellfire?) http://www.transchool.lee.army.mil/museum/transportation%20museum/images/mule4.gif We went from M274s with 106s to M151s with TOWs. Neither is really survivalable in high-intensity / high-speed armor / anti-armor warfare (we had a divisional doctrine call the the "Airborne Anti-Armor Defense" - the joes called it the "DIP" - die in place or the "speed bump". We couldn't displace without getting hammered and the TOW / Dragon / LAW mix didn't put enough kills on tanks to slow them down (against US units, in exercises). A single M1 had more main gun rounds than our battalions had TOTAL ATGMs - and if you let them close to LAW range you were already overrun. We tried empasizing roving tank killer teams, but we soon found out how slow we moved compared to US or comperable mech units. We needed our own tanks and one battalion of (hypothetically) 54 M551 Sheridan not-tanks spread out over three brigades was too few. Against Arabs? Maybe. Are you talking using an Airborne Division against a Tank Division, or Airborne having assets to defend against a few tanks. I wouldn't want the jeep/tow hunter-killer teams to be going nose to nose against a tank company, but in an ambush of a tank platoon or against some BMPs? I think DIP was a common thought for us Cold War types. The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:04:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. Seriously? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:13:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1. This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole.  I'm not sure a Bradley can fit on a C-130. Brads can take on tanks with the 25mm but from certain angles only, they're better off using the TOW against a tank. To shoot that sucker you are a sitting duck for the time of flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:19:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's a parade. The M274 was not capable of havng a 107mm / 120mm mortar fired from it. Maybe a 60mm once or twice - but it would have been inoperable quick. Mortars settle their baseplates 2-3 inches in HAR packed dirt when fired. A mortar carrier has to be designed for that and the mortar is in a recoil dampening mount. Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) In my day in the 82nd (A/2-504), we had 2 each M-151 ¼ ton trucks (company HQ section), 6 each M274 "mechanical mules" (1 for the wire team and 4 for the 81mm mortar platoon) and 1 M561 Gamma Goat (company supply vehicle - usually used by the 1SG to run chow). All were air-dropable. And we used to do it. Dropping them cracked the tubs on the Gamma Goats so swimming them was 'problematic'. :-) Everybody walked. The signals mule carried the wire, field switchboard, etc. The mortar platoon mules carried the 81mm mortars, the FDC gear, camp nets and ammo. The M151s had the 'big radios' (AN/PRC -47s) for the battalion nets. Technically we were supposed to have 2 more M151s - with TOWs (formerly 106 mm recoilless rifles) - the AT section of the weapons (mortar) platoon, but Division consolidated them in the airborne infantry battalions' Combat Support Companies to create AT platoons. Only AT platoons and scouts rode. Everybody walked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:34:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seriously? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. Seriously? They actually did it for REFORGER 76. Had a kewl aerial shot in Soldier magazine with shithooks, Hueys and Cobras all lined up on the flight deck |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:41:54 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. Seriously? REFORGER 76 the 101st hitched a ride on an aircraft carrier across the Atlantic and flew off the deck into Europe. It wasn't an actual expected mode of transport, but more of a dog and pony deal. Their was alot of "game play" involved in that one to validate the Air Assault concept in a mid-intensity war. The politics that be wanted the 101st to fly into Europe and not unload in a port in the conventional fashion. Most of the helicopters deployed to Vietnam flew off the deck of something. The image they wanted to depict was that the USA could flood in with helicopters as a "game changer". Just because Army did, or can, doesn't mean that's the way you were really going to go. When we went on REFORGER 87, which was the first one to have AH-64's, there was serious consideration given to self-deploying one. Actually installing the AUX tanks, flying it across the Atlantic, rearming at the other end, and firing a Hellfire in Germany. Common sense prevailed, and we shrink wrapped them all and put them on a ship. Again, a theoretical capability doesn't always mean it's a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:47:40 PM EDT
[#8]
I bet after flying that Apache for 3000 miles solid over the Atlantic, the Pilot would have voluntarily flown right in front of a ZSU-24.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:54:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. I hope they had -60s, as I don't recall the UH-1s having a self deploy capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 5:57:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet after flying that Apache for 3000 miles solid over the Atlantic, the Pilot would have voluntarily flown right in front of a ZSU-24. It wouldn't have been solid, but they would have been long hops between land masses. Still not a pleasant flight - but at least not 3K in a cockpit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:01:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet after flying that Apache for 3000 miles solid over the Atlantic, the Pilot would have voluntarily flown right in front of a ZSU-24. You had to hop from Canada to Greenland, then to Iceland, then to England, and so on. That was wearing all the AUX tanks on the wings. Breakng down enroute, or worse yet, crashing in the ocean, would not have played well for political purposes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:13:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: REFORGER 76 the 101st hitched a ride on an aircraft carrier across the Atlantic and flew off the deck into Europe. It wasn't an actual expected mode of transport, but more of a dog and pony deal. Their was alot of "game play" involved in that one to validate the Air Assault concept in a mid-intensity war. The politics that be wanted the 101st to fly into Europe and not unload in a port in the conventional fashion. Most of the helicopters deployed to Vietnam flew off the deck of something. The image they wanted to depict was that the USA could flood in with helicopters as a "game changer". Just because Army did, or can, doesn't mean that's the way you were really going to go. When we went on REFORGER 87, which was the first one to have AH-64's, there was serious consideration given to self-deploying one. Actually installing the AUX tanks, flying it across the Atlantic, rearming at the other end, and firing a Hellfire in Germany. Common sense prevailed, and we shrink wrapped them all and put them on a ship. Again, a theoretical capability doesn't always mean it's a good idea. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. Seriously? REFORGER 76 the 101st hitched a ride on an aircraft carrier across the Atlantic and flew off the deck into Europe. It wasn't an actual expected mode of transport, but more of a dog and pony deal. Their was alot of "game play" involved in that one to validate the Air Assault concept in a mid-intensity war. The politics that be wanted the 101st to fly into Europe and not unload in a port in the conventional fashion. Most of the helicopters deployed to Vietnam flew off the deck of something. The image they wanted to depict was that the USA could flood in with helicopters as a "game changer". Just because Army did, or can, doesn't mean that's the way you were really going to go. When we went on REFORGER 87, which was the first one to have AH-64's, there was serious consideration given to self-deploying one. Actually installing the AUX tanks, flying it across the Atlantic, rearming at the other end, and firing a Hellfire in Germany. Common sense prevailed, and we shrink wrapped them all and put them on a ship. Again, a theoretical capability doesn't always mean it's a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:14:28 PM EDT
[#13]
I want pics of this REFORGER 76 thing!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:16:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can tell you for a fact that XVIII Airborne Corps / 101st planners were still under the impression that Wickham's REFORGER 76 stunt was legit as late as 1984 - and really thought that it would be the way they'd get to Europe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. Seriously? REFORGER 76 the 101st hitched a ride on an aircraft carrier across the Atlantic and flew off the deck into Europe. It wasn't an actual expected mode of transport, but more of a dog and pony deal. Their was alot of "game play" involved in that one to validate the Air Assault concept in a mid-intensity war. The politics that be wanted the 101st to fly into Europe and not unload in a port in the conventional fashion. Most of the helicopters deployed to Vietnam flew off the deck of something. The image they wanted to depict was that the USA could flood in with helicopters as a "game changer". Just because Army did, or can, doesn't mean that's the way you were really going to go. When we went on REFORGER 87, which was the first one to have AH-64's, there was serious consideration given to self-deploying one. Actually installing the AUX tanks, flying it across the Atlantic, rearming at the other end, and firing a Hellfire in Germany. Common sense prevailed, and we shrink wrapped them all and put them on a ship. Again, a theoretical capability doesn't always mean it's a good idea. proof that planning in a vacuum "sucks". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:17:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope they had -60s, as I don't recall the UH-1s having a self deploy capability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. I hope they had -60s, as I don't recall the UH-1s having a self deploy capability. Off a ship, you just have to get close enough for whatever aircraft is on it. In Vietnam, the 1st CAV went off the deck of a carrier when it arrived in country. Most of the helicopters were actually uncrated, assembled on the deck of a ship, and flown into Vietnam. You can pack a helluva lot of Hueys and Cobras on the deck of a carrier. IIRC the 82nd deployed off a carrier for Haiti. We had aux tanks for the Huey. They gave you another 300 gals of fuel, but with the power restrictions you weren't going to be carrying much else, other than fuel. "Self-deploy" is relative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:39:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want pics of this REFORGER 76 thing! http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1356066 This was part of the 82nd and the 160th for Haiti: |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:40:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Off a ship, you just have to get close enough for whatever aircraft is on it. In Vietnam, the 1st CAV went off the deck of a carrier when it arrived in country. Most of the helicopters were actually uncrated, assembled on the deck of a ship, and flown into Vietnam. You can pack a helluva lot of Hueys and Cobras on the deck of a carrier. IIRC the 82nd deployed off a carrier for Haiti. We had aux tanks for the Huey. They gave you another 300 gals of fuel, but with the power restrictions you weren't going to be carrying much else, other than fuel. "Self-deploy" is relative. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. I hope they had -60s, as I don't recall the UH-1s having a self deploy capability. Off a ship, you just have to get close enough for whatever aircraft is on it. In Vietnam, the 1st CAV went off the deck of a carrier when it arrived in country. Most of the helicopters were actually uncrated, assembled on the deck of a ship, and flown into Vietnam. You can pack a helluva lot of Hueys and Cobras on the deck of a carrier. IIRC the 82nd deployed off a carrier for Haiti. We had aux tanks for the Huey. They gave you another 300 gals of fuel, but with the power restrictions you weren't going to be carrying much else, other than fuel. "Self-deploy" is relative. Self deploy as in fly from North America to the European Theater. I never saw the 300gal tanks, but they might have made it possible. Not that I'd want to fly over the Ocean with only 1 engine... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:40:50 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1356066 This was part of the 82nd and the 160th for Haiti: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57463&d=1221931310 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I want pics of this REFORGER 76 thing! http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1356066 This was part of the 82nd and the 160th for Haiti: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57463&d=1221931310 Not REFORGER. Not 1976. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:43:07 PM EDT
[#19]
why are there no vehicle mounted Hellfires in use? they are faster than the TOW, have a pop-up/top attack mode, choice of HEAT or thermobaric warheads
iirc, there were tests with them on Bradleys and M113's in the 90's but nothing seems to have come of them |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:45:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1356066 This was part of the 82nd and the 160th for Haiti: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57463&d=1221931310 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I want pics of this REFORGER 76 thing! http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1356066 This was part of the 82nd and the 160th for Haiti: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57463&d=1221931310 Yeah, but that Haiti thing(AKA Operation Nevermind FU Jimmy Carter) was a special little creature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:51:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not REFORGER. Not 1976. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I want pics of this REFORGER 76 thing! http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1356066 This was part of the 82nd and the 160th for Haiti: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57463&d=1221931310 Not REFORGER. Not 1976. GOD. I know. But it probably looked similar, seeing as it was all from that era. Use your imagination. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:55:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
GOD. I know. But it probably looked similar, seeing as it was all from that era. Use your imagination. http://plcasset.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spongebob__Imagination_by_kssael.png Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I want pics of this REFORGER 76 thing! http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1356066 This was part of the 82nd and the 160th for Haiti: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57463&d=1221931310 Not REFORGER. Not 1976. GOD. I know. But it probably looked similar, seeing as it was all from that era. Use your imagination. http://plcasset.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spongebob__Imagination_by_kssael.png Almost 20 years later, the Army having fielded new helicopters, and the Navy using a different class of aircraft carrier is hardly "that era." Besides, I've seen that pic. As I'm sure most of us have. The purpose of seeing the picture from 1976 was to COMPARE the two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:10:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Almost 20 years later, the Army having fielded new helicopters, and the Navy using a different class of aircraft carrier is hardly "that era." Besides, I've seen that pic. As I'm sure most of us have. The purpose of seeing the picture from 1976 was to COMPARE the two. Well, I thought that it was 1984, not 94, and I'm a giant drunk asshole. So that's where we are now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:11:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I thought that it was 1984, not 94, and I'm a giant drunk asshole. So that's where we are now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Almost 20 years later, the Army having fielded new helicopters, and the Navy using a different class of aircraft carrier is hardly "that era." Besides, I've seen that pic. As I'm sure most of us have. The purpose of seeing the picture from 1976 was to COMPARE the two. Well, I thought that it was 1984, not 94, and I'm a giant drunk asshole. So that's where we are now. You're doing better than I. I'm and asshole sober too! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:22:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Self deploy as in fly from North America to the European Theater. I never saw the 300gal tanks, but they might have made it possible. Not that I'd want to fly over the Ocean with only 1 engine... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. I hope they had -60s, as I don't recall the UH-1s having a self deploy capability. Off a ship, you just have to get close enough for whatever aircraft is on it. In Vietnam, the 1st CAV went off the deck of a carrier when it arrived in country. Most of the helicopters were actually uncrated, assembled on the deck of a ship, and flown into Vietnam. You can pack a helluva lot of Hueys and Cobras on the deck of a carrier. IIRC the 82nd deployed off a carrier for Haiti. We had aux tanks for the Huey. They gave you another 300 gals of fuel, but with the power restrictions you weren't going to be carrying much else, other than fuel. "Self-deploy" is relative. Self deploy as in fly from North America to the European Theater. I never saw the 300gal tanks, but they might have made it possible. Not that I'd want to fly over the Ocean with only 1 engine... Gottcha. Even with the aux tanks, you weren't coming close to that. The tanks were two bladders that strapped to either side of the transmission bulkhead in the cabin, where the gunners usually sit. There's plumbing in the floor there with the connections. The tanks had their own boost pumps inside. You had to turn off the pumps when the tanks ran dry, or you'd burn out the pumps because they were cooled by the fuel. Then that whole single engine thing... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:25:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You had to hop from Canada to Greenland, then to Iceland, then to England, and so on. That was wearing all the AUX tanks on the wings. Breakng down enroute, or worse yet, crashing in the ocean, would not have played well for political purposes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I bet after flying that Apache for 3000 miles solid over the Atlantic, the Pilot would have voluntarily flown right in front of a ZSU-24. You had to hop from Canada to Greenland, then to Iceland, then to England, and so on. That was wearing all the AUX tanks on the wings. Breakng down enroute, or worse yet, crashing in the ocean, would not have played well for political purposes. ....and survival in the North Atlantic is an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:26:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Nah, just improve anti-tank and anti-air man portable weapons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:31:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why are there no vehicle mounted Hellfires in use? they are faster than the TOW, have a pop-up/top attack mode, choice of HEAT or thermobaric warheads iirc, there were tests with them on Bradleys and M113's in the 90's but nothing seems to have come of them They tested them in the 9th HTLID mounted in the back of an M880 (Dodge pickup) well before that. They just fabbed up a dual launcher using aircraft mounts and a pedestal. Seems like a cool idea, especially using the helcopter hardpoints. It wouldn't take anything to mount rocket pods on there inplace of missles the same as you do on a helicopter. Maybe it's hard to get LOS for that kinda range on the ground to make it worth it. Maybe it's the high cost of Hellfires compared to TOWs. Some countries use a ground launched Hellfire for shore defense against boats/ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:37:23 PM EDT
[#29]
I wonder if the problem with Helfires is you are screwed trying to engage anything closer than X distance?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:53:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Almost 20 years later, the Army having fielded new helicopters, and the Navy using a different class of aircraft carrier is hardly "that era." Besides, I've seen that pic. As I'm sure most of us have. The purpose of seeing the picture from 1976 was to COMPARE the two. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I want pics of this REFORGER 76 thing! http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1356066 This was part of the 82nd and the 160th for Haiti: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=57463&d=1221931310 Not REFORGER. Not 1976. GOD. I know. But it probably looked similar, seeing as it was all from that era. Use your imagination. http://plcasset.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spongebob__Imagination_by_kssael.png Almost 20 years later, the Army having fielded new helicopters, and the Navy using a different class of aircraft carrier is hardly "that era." Besides, I've seen that pic. As I'm sure most of us have. The purpose of seeing the picture from 1976 was to COMPARE the two. The Division took over 300 aircraft to REFORGER. Most were shipped just like they do it today, on cargo ships from the SPOE and unloaded at the SPOD. The whole purpose was to start figuring out what it took to move a modern (at the time) Army Division by sea. So it wasn't like anyone involved in the actual logistics of it was ignorant of reality. It was the begining of the way the Army moves units today actually. Picture a much smaller contingent of aircraft that would be flying off anything. Prior to 76, REFORGERs were airbridge movements. Fly over to the POMCUS stuff. They specifically added the 101st, because they had to lug all their crapola with them. Think of it as two separate events going on at the same time. One was theater, the other was actual development of real logistics doctrine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:01:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Sicily incident didn't keep them from doing more LAPES missions. I worked a few in Germany a couple of years after the NC crash. For all you guys that spent time in Germany, Bunker DZ on Grafenwoehr Training Area. It's interesting to see a LAPES mission up close and personal at ground level. ETA: Hopefully my memory isn't too far off...it was in the 80s, I was young and stationed in Germany. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do they still do LAPES? I think they stopped after they drove a C130 into the trees at the end of Sicily's FLS. ETA:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4L50eMI8gYThe Sicily incident didn't keep them from doing more LAPES missions. I worked a few in Germany a couple of years after the NC crash. For all you guys that spent time in Germany, Bunker DZ on Grafenwoehr Training Area. It's interesting to see a LAPES mission up close and personal at ground level. ETA: Hopefully my memory isn't too far off...it was in the 80s, I was young and stationed in Germany. They found air-land was a safer option that LAPES. And since it has been so long since they last did it, there isn't a single C-130 aircrew that is still qualified on it, all those guys retired out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:26:08 PM EDT
[#32]
CV90105 or CV90120 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:31:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. Oh, c'mon, the next thing you'll do is tell us that the Germans killed the T-34 at a 4:1 ratio. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:39:05 PM EDT
[#34]
When you look at the threats that airborne units have faced, it's not the MBT class. In Grenada, they ran into some light armor, but something like what the Army is looking for could have taken care of a BTR fairly easily. They dropped some M551's in Panama, probably after learning the lesson in Grenada, and to provide fire support. Again, the threat level was within the capabilities of the beer can with a gun.
If you're giong to face T-72s, then you probably shouldn't be jumping in there. Sure, you might need to be a speed bump, ala Desert Shield, so you want some kind of punch to the thing, but fighting tanks isn't going to be the mission really. I think a 90mm gun would be about right. There is modern APFSDS rounds in production in several countries that are fairly respectable in anti-tank use if you need to. 90mm is more than enough for anything you need to blowup for Infantry. 90mm is lighter and smaller, so you can carry more. That's going to be important in an airborne situation. You could do limited inderect fire. There's plenty of off-the-shelf systems available that would be quick and cheap. I think instead the Army is going to start adding shit, like armor and electronics, etc. so eventually it's a zillion dollar boondoggle with requirements that can only be met by a specialized vehcile program that will run for years and not produce much of anything except pork. Still, I agree with the basic requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:23:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds.
It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! Speaking of the limitations of the 73mm gun, that gun fired both HE OG-9's and the HEAT PG-9 warheads. A similar low pressure gun capable of firing a similar HEAT round but with a tandem warhead would allow for a decent armor penetration out of a small gun meant for infantry support. Add a side mounted javelin and you are in business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:32:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds.
It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! It actually did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 9:55:15 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryThey're cool and all, but they start nudging on 35t for the gun models. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 12:36:29 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet after flying that Apache for 3000 miles solid over the Atlantic, the Pilot would have voluntarily flown right in front of a ZSU-24. Wow...talk about a bad flight. Anyone ever do this? How was it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 1:02:46 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't take much velocity for Infantry support. ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. The long-barreled 76mm was universally seen as an improvement over the short 75mm low velocity weapon. Once the 76mm became available in numbers Eisenhower requested that the Army only ship 76mm version to Europe. Ike had no further use for the 75mm's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 2:29:44 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The long-barreled 76mm was universally seen as an improvement over the short 75mm low velocity weapon. Once the 76mm became available in numbers Eisenhower requested that the Army only ship 76mm version to Europe. Ike had no further use for the 75mm's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds.
It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. It has much the same limitations as the 73mm on the BMP-1. Low Velocity guns? That worked well with the Sherman! ETA- That's before you get into the hard data that came from WW2 showing the Sherman actually being a battlefield rape machine. But, if you base everything off "fields of armor" on the old history channel and only think of Sherman's as roman candles then yes, it didn't work well. The long-barreled 76mm was universally seen as an improvement over the short 75mm low velocity weapon. Once the 76mm became available in numbers Eisenhower requested that the Army only ship 76mm version to Europe. Ike had no further use for the 75mm's. I got the exact opposite impression from the book "Faint Praise". The 76mm added only a bit more penetration (around 1" IIRC) and had a smaller HE content. HE consisted of a much much higher percentage of tank rounds fired. It also had a lot less muzzle flash and obscuration to aid in target sensing. I am going off my old failing memory of course so take this post for what its worth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 2:58:00 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can tell you for a fact that XVIII Airborne Corps / 101st planners were still under the impression that Wickham's REFORGER 76 stunt was legit as late as 1984 - and really thought that it would be the way they'd get to Europe. Military history is full of "great ideas" that turned into something else when the enemy cast their vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 3:15:30 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .Won't be hard at all if the guys writing the requirements do a good job and choose specific, measurable, and achievable KPPs. OTOH, what will probably come out is lighter than a jeep, more firepower than an M1, with 100,000 hour MTBF, powered by solar cell/wind hybrid, and capable of underwater operation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 3:26:51 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The same period saw amazing things like the 101st thinking the Navy would spare them a CVN to transport their helicopters to West Germany in the middle of the right to secure the North Atlantic sea lanes. Seriously? A concept fully realized during the Clinton administration's threatened intervention in Haiti. Not quite Battle of the Atlantic time though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 3:42:53 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When we went on REFORGER 87, which was the first one to have AH-64's, there was serious consideration given to self-deploying one. Actually installing the AUX tanks, flying it across the Atlantic, rearming at the other end, and firing a Hellfire in Germany. Common sense prevailed, and we shrink wrapped them all and put them on a ship. Again, a theoretical capability doesn't always mean it's a good idea. That makes me question what the word serious means.based on my experience as air boss on a ship in the Adriatic during Kosovo. The JTF commander was desperately trying to get Apaches into the fight. To make the flight across the Adriatic, Army planners insisted on a minimum of two ships to serve as emergency landing sites and SH-60B escort helicopters to provide navigation support for the relatively short hop across the Adriatic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 5:15:09 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That makes me question what the word serious means.based on my experience as air boss on a ship in the Adriatic during Kosovo. The JTF commander was desperately trying to get Apaches into the fight. To make the flight across the Adriatic, Army planners insisted on a minimum of two ships to serve as emergency landing sites and SH-60B escort helicopters to provide navigation support for the relatively short hop across the Adriatic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When we went on REFORGER 87, which was the first one to have AH-64's, there was serious consideration given to self-deploying one. Actually installing the AUX tanks, flying it across the Atlantic, rearming at the other end, and firing a Hellfire in Germany. Common sense prevailed, and we shrink wrapped them all and put them on a ship. Again, a theoretical capability doesn't always mean it's a good idea. That makes me question what the word serious means.based on my experience as air boss on a ship in the Adriatic during Kosovo. The JTF commander was desperately trying to get Apaches into the fight. To make the flight across the Adriatic, Army planners insisted on a minimum of two ships to serve as emergency landing sites and SH-60B escort helicopters to provide navigation support for the relatively short hop across the Adriatic. Plenty of folks that don't exerscie common sense to begin with are serious until someone with common sense comes along. The Kosovo thing was a combination of serious foot dragging (mostly) and the same risk adversion that prevents you from showing any flaws in your professed capabilites. If you don't want to do it, you make it so hard that you don't have to. The whole Kosovo operation seems like an undercurrent of the Pentagon's political bent these days. The air war was fine, as it showed the USA in a good light, had low risk, could be done easily, and would put NATO in it's place as a junior partner. When ground troops, AH-64 and MLRS, are introduced, then the war takes on a serious tone. I think the stars in the Pentagon felt they knew better about such things than the administration at the time and sabotaged the effort. Needing an improved base is absurd. We operated them out of beet fields, or football staidums, or parking lots, or all manner of whatever you could find. That's the whole point of a helicopter. Picking a jacked up site, then requiring improvments, then taking forever and a day to deploy, and the event you just related tracks with all of that. The Army, and likely the whole Pentagon, felt that Clinton was making a bad decision and threw as many monkey wrenches in it as possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 5:36:29 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They found air-land was a safer option that LAPES. And since it has been so long since they last did it, there isn't a single C-130 aircrew that is still qualified on it, all those guys retired out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do they still do LAPES? I think they stopped after they drove a C130 into the trees at the end of Sicily's FLS. ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4L50eMI8gYThe Sicily incident didn't keep them from doing more LAPES missions. I worked a few in Germany a couple of years after the NC crash. For all you guys that spent time in Germany, Bunker DZ on Grafenwoehr Training Area. It's interesting to see a LAPES mission up close and personal at ground level. ETA: Hopefully my memory isn't too far off...it was in the 80s, I was young and stationed in Germany. They found air-land was a safer option that LAPES. And since it has been so long since they last did it, there isn't a single C-130 aircrew that is still qualified on it, all those guys retired out. Airland has always been safer than LAPES missions for obvious reasons. It was used when the terrain didn't allow for the buildup of a fixed-wing LZ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 5:36:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Division took over 300 aircraft to REFORGER. Most were shipped just like they do it today, on cargo ships from the SPOE and unloaded at the SPOD. The whole purpose was to start figuring out what it took to move a modern (at the time) Army Division by sea. So it wasn't like anyone involved in the actual logistics of it was ignorant of reality. It was the begining of the way the Army moves units today actually. Picture a much smaller contingent of aircraft that would be flying off anything. Prior to 76, REFORGERs were airbridge movements. Fly over to the POMCUS stuff. They specifically added the 101st, because they had to lug all their crapola with them. Think of it as two separate events going on at the same time. One was theater, the other was actual development of real logistics doctrine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not REFORGER. Not 1976. GOD. I know. But it probably looked similar, seeing as it was all from that era. Use your imagination. http://plcasset.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Spongebob__Imagination_by_kssael.png Almost 20 years later, the Army having fielded new helicopters, and the Navy using a different class of aircraft carrier is hardly "that era." Besides, I've seen that pic. As I'm sure most of us have. The purpose of seeing the picture from 1976 was to COMPARE the two. The Division took over 300 aircraft to REFORGER. Most were shipped just like they do it today, on cargo ships from the SPOE and unloaded at the SPOD. The whole purpose was to start figuring out what it took to move a modern (at the time) Army Division by sea. So it wasn't like anyone involved in the actual logistics of it was ignorant of reality. It was the begining of the way the Army moves units today actually. Picture a much smaller contingent of aircraft that would be flying off anything. Prior to 76, REFORGERs were airbridge movements. Fly over to the POMCUS stuff. They specifically added the 101st, because they had to lug all their crapola with them. Think of it as two separate events going on at the same time. One was theater, the other was actual development of real logistics doctrine. Only reference I could find to deploying helicopters from the US in Reforger 76 is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104851872/Army-Aviation-Digest-Dec-1976 No mention of carriers, and no cool pictures.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 7:13:08 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't be hard at all if the guys writing the requirements do a good job and choose specific, measurable, and achievable KPPs. OTOH, what will probably come out is lighter than a jeep, more firepower than an M1, with 100,000 hour MTBF, powered by solar cell/wind hybrid, and capable of underwater operation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .Won't be hard at all if the guys writing the requirements do a good job and choose specific, measurable, and achievable KPPs. OTOH, what will probably come out is lighter than a jeep, more firepower than an M1, with 100,000 hour MTBF, powered by solar cell/wind hybrid, and capable of underwater operation. Needs to able to swim out of the back of an LSD or LCS with at least a squad of infantry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 7:16:07 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Needs to able to swim out of the back of an LSD or LCS with at least a squad of infantry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .Won't be hard at all if the guys writing the requirements do a good job and choose specific, measurable, and achievable KPPs. OTOH, what will probably come out is lighter than a jeep, more firepower than an M1, with 100,000 hour MTBF, powered by solar cell/wind hybrid, and capable of underwater operation. Needs to able to swim out of the back of an LSD or LCS with at least a squad of infantry. Air transportable by blackhawk... Modular, anti-satellite variant that has 87% parts commonality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2013 7:16:45 AM EDT
[#50]
3 words. With what money?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
