Gun Trucks

[Brother in Arms]

I have reading a lot about Vietnam Era gun tucks which where generally built from M35A1, 5 ton cargo trucks of the time period. Many of these vehicles had interesting names brightly painted on there sides. Names like "Eve of Destruction" "uncle Meat" "Canned Heat" "The Assassin !" to name a few.

Often times these trucks where equipped with scavenged heavy infantry weapons like the 7.62 M60 machine gun, .50 M2HB as well as the GE 7.62 Vulcan Mini gun. Most trucks only had a few machine guns a one known as "Nancy" was eqquiped with a Anti-aircraft M2 qaud mount.

These trucks where equipped with improvised armor plated that was welded to the bed to give the gunners protection from ambushes and roadside bombs. Some of the trucks had stripped M113 armored personnel carriers sitting in the back of the bed to provide a fighting platform with overhead protection as well as turrets for the machine gunners.

Or course these trucks where laden with ammunition, spare tires ect. Many of them where armed/armored Maintenance trucks for the repair as well as defense of other trucks in the convoy.

Has anyone used anything like this in there twilight gaming sessions? I had a group of Czech troops driving around a stolen Ural that had a ZPU-2 in the back.

[kato13]

This was from someone's (graebarde's??) 5th division reorganization document


275 Cavalry (provisional)
‘MAD MAX’

The ADA battalion was in a like situation, due to lack of viable air threat, and missiles to place on target. Matthews, at the urging of the Air Cavalry commander, authorized the formation of what was referred to as the ‘Mad Max’ Battalion. It consists of highly modified HMMWVs, 5-ton cargo trucks, all converted into gun platforms reminiscent of the Vietnam era gun trucks, and a few home-brewed FAVs. Theses are located in the 275 Cavalry, a provisional unit based on one of the division attack helicopter battalions. These vehicles are ‘farmed out’ for convoy escort, base security, and fire support for light battalions as needed, or available. The number and types of vehicles in the battalion continues to grow, based on salvaged weapons and platforms, with a current battery of 23 vehicles.

Headquarters 12
Maintenance and Log 18
Vehicle crews 105

Mod 1 5-ton 1x 7.62 minigun crew 4-6 3x
‘GRIM REAPER’ ‘SHOGUN’ ‘ACE OF SPADES’

Mod 2 5-ton 1x 30mm chaingun crew 5-6 1x
‘UNDERTAKER’

Mod 3 5-ton LWB 4x 2.75� rocket pods crew 4-6 1x
‘SWOOSHER’

Mod 4 5-ton 1x AGL, 2x GPMG crew 5-7 3x
‘REBEL ROUSER’ ‘BABY CAKES’ ‘SPIRIT OF AMERICA’

Mod 5 5-ton 1x HMG, 1x AGL, 2x GPMG crew 6-8 1x
‘ROAD WARRIOR’

Mod 6 AVENGER 4x HELLFIRE, 1x 25mm chaingun crew 2-3 2x
‘HELL’S ANGEL’ ‘PAUL’S REVENGE’

Mod 7 HMMWV 1x AGL crew 2-3 1x
‘SCORPION’

Mod 8 HMMWV 1x HMG, 1x GPMG crew 4-5 2x
‘THUNDER’ ‘BLITZKREIG’

Mod 9 HMMWV 3x GPMG crew 4-5 3x
‘SALLY ANN’ ‘TWISTER’ ‘BALLS TO THE WALL’

Mod 10 FAV 1x AGL crew 2-3 1x
‘LITTLE THUNDER’

Mod 11 FAV 1x HMG crew 2-3 2x
‘DAISY CHAIN’ ‘SLEEPY JOE’

Mod 12 10-ton HEMET 1x 23mm quad, 1x 82mm ‘pickle’ mortar, 2x 30mm AGL, 2x GPMG
‘THE BEAST’ crew 10-12 1x

Mod 13 5-ton 2x 7.62 minigun, 1x AGL crew 6-8 1x
‘VALKYRIE’

Mod 14 5-ton M165 Vulcan ADA APC chassis crew 4-8 1x ‘BUZZ SAW’

[Raellus]

Has anyone used anything like this in there twilight gaming sessions? I had a group of Czech troops driving around a stolen Ural that had a ZPU-2 in the back.

The PCs in my campaign just jacked a Polish KAMAZ 6x6 with a ZU-23-2 mounted in the bed. I'll try to post some pics sometime soon.

I think Targan's players had a HMET bristling with all kinds of weapons.

IRL, the Soviets employed various ad-hoc gun-trucks on convoy escort duty in Afghanistan.

BTW, B.I.A., I am a big fan of gun-trucks. Any particular books on the topic you could recommend for me?

[Brother in Arms]

Raellus

Technically I think both the Ural I mentioned and the KAMAZ these days would be called technicals (a sorry attempt at a pun) I think the difference between the two would be the ad hoc Armor that the gun trucks had.

I didn't know the soviets used them in Afghanistan....the US used gun trucks again in Iraq, For the same basic purpose as in RVN.

There are a ton of pages about gun trucks. In fact one group of fellows rebuilt a gun truck in new jersey and collegue of his wrote a book called

The Hard Ride
by James Lyles
Volume I
ISBN #971-93037-1-9

Its an exspensive but awesome book volume 2 should be out soon and it covers other gun vehicles. Like Jeeps 3/4 tons ect.

Check out the interweb though you wont be disappointed.

Brother in Arms

[Brother in Arms]

Oh I found this today though its more about technicals than gun trucks it shows some pretty crude armed vehicles in Somalia in the early 90's I think this is totally the sort of stuff that would show up in T2K

http://membres.lycos.fr/France40/techphot.html

[Matt Wiser]

There was a Challenge magazine article that dealt with gun trucks; they were M-113 chassis mounted on trucks mostly, but some were custom-built. Lots of machine guns and Mark-19 AGLs installed. One variant had an M-901 TOW vehicle mounted, so instant anti-armor vehicle.

One author called the Vietnam gun truckers "Mad Max" types, and one does wonder if the creators of that character had the gun truckers (the Aussies had them too in SVN) in mind. Incidentally, one of the gun truckers won a MOH, so be warned: those vehicles can be dangerous (along with their drivers).

Our group has one gun truck: a captured Ural 375 truck with a ZU-23 mounted in the back. The gun's on its second truck: it was previously mounted on another 375 before some marauders got lucky and RPG'd the truck's engine. That was their last bit of good luck, as they didn't survive the resulting fire-fight.

[O'Borg]

Probably some of the earliest Technicals were used by the LRDG :

http://www.lrdg.org/images/hist4.jpg

This is a posed photo, but note the passenger side MG has no trigger - that's because its a Vickers K model salvaged from an aircraft and the firing mechanism is worked by pushing the home-made shoulder stock forwards.
The LRDG & later SAS liked the Lewis MG because its high rate of fire worked well when firing on the move. Plus the pan magazines fitted nicely into an army issue biscuit tin for easy storage :)

Not that the LRDG were the first people to modify their vehicles...
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/images/Boadicea-chariot-Statue-Lon.gif
:D

[Graebarde]

Was in a game where we (Chalkie and I) built the original BEAST. It was based on a Russian TEL (launcher vehicle for mid sized missiles) though don't recall the name designation. It had (IRRC) quaq 23, 82 Valsik (what we called the Pickel, from Valasic pickles) some PKs and at least on AGL. Heck the crew was numbered at least ten, with additional ride-a-longs. Campaign died before the vehicle did.

I went on to construct the list of gun trucks for my defunct OpFred campaign, though they were not directly avail to the PCs.

Grae

[Raellus]

Technically I think both the Ural I mentioned and the KAMAZ these days would be called technicals (a sorry attempt at a pun) I think the difference between the two would be the ad hoc Armor that the gun trucks had.


So, armor is the difference between gun-truck and "technical"? My understanding is that a "technical" is just some sort of truck (civilian models, especially) where someone has plunked an HMG or light AA gun on the back. I think the term was coined in Somalia. If I remember correctly- and I probably don't- Somali militias came up with it (the name, not the concept).

It seems like a purely semantic distinction to me.

The KAMAZ I mentioned is purpose built as a SPAA gun. I'll post a pick or two this weekend some time.

Graebarde, I like your list. A "Flying Battalion" is a cool idea and one that I fully endorse.

May I suggest "Boudica" as a truck name, in honor of the photo O'Borg posted.

[Graebarde]

Graebarde, I like your list. A "Flying Battalion" is a cool idea and one that I fully endorse.

May I suggest "Boudica" as a truck name, in honor of the photo O'Borg posted.

I like that "Boudica". Armed to the gills, and crewed by women. Hummmm.. gives me ideas for some other names too, and female crew, or at least commanded by a female.

Thanks for jarring the rust.
Grae

[Mohoender]

Here is an MTVR currently used by US troops in Iraq. Up armored truck are coming out as soon as war starts.

[Raellus]

Here is an MTVR currently used by US troops in Iraq. Up armored truck are coming out as soon as war starts.

Nice pic, Mo. That thing is a beast.

I'm not sure you woud see many armored trucks until later in the war when...

a.) Dedicated AFVs became rare and replacements ceased to appear

b.) The front become more fluid and lines of supply became more exposed

Armored and "gun" trucks tend to appear when supply lines are threatened and supply convoys require armed escorts, hence the historical precendents of American involvement in Vietnam and Iraq and American and Soviet involvement in Afghanistan.

[Mohoender]

The main advantage that you get from armored truck is that they are often cheap and easy to make if not always that efficient. Nevertheless, when that is the best you have, you do with it, just look at the Haganah before and at the time of Israel's creation.

They were using sandwich armored truck that were made from two thin metal sheets with plywood in between. I'm not sure if that would still be efficient today but that might deserve some thought. Any idea?

Here is a picture of sandwich truck, the only one I found.

[Marc]

The main advantage that you get from armored truck is that they are often cheap and easy to make if not always that efficient. Nevertheless, when that is the best you have, you do with it, just look at the Haganah before and at the time of Israel's creation.

They were using sandwich armored truck that were made from two thin metal sheets with plywood in between. I'm not sure if that would still be efficient today but that might deserve some thought. Any idea?

Here is a picture of sandwich truck, the only one I found.


In my village, during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), an existing tractor factory, specialized in the production of tracked tractors, was converted to an armored vehicle factory by the Republican government under the name of "FÃÂ*brica Z" ( Z Factory). My great-grandfather, an appreciated blacksmith at that time, worked there. As usually in time of war, child must help to the war effort, and my grandmother (who had transmitted me the whole history) was not an exception, working at the side of her father until the very last moment, when they escaped to France through the Pyrenees (she was about 14 years old then). She explained me that in the most desperate moments of lack of supplies, a kind of sandwich armor was produced in the factory. In a recent documentation published by a local historian, I've found the confirmation (explained in more technical terms) about the sandwich armour described by my grandmother.

In this case, between the two metal plates, the workers of the FÃÂ*brica Z used compressed sheep wool extracted from mattresses (I hope it would be correct in English...). The bullet penetrated the outer plate and, hopefully, lost enough velocity in the wool to do not pierce the inner plate. Of course, always talking about small arms fire. I have no idea about the effectiveness of this type of armour, but I suppose that, in a very rudimentary way, uses the capacity to absorb kinetic energy of a dense and flexible material (compressed wool in this case) like a modern personal armour. This type of sandwich armour was used in light tanks.

And returning specifically to the thread, one of the main works in the FÃÂ*brica Z was to add armor plates to the Chevrolet trucks bought by the Republican government to the United States. Sadly, I have no photos of these trucks.

[Mohoender]

I would not have thought of wool, that opens plenty of possibilities. Great story Marc. I'll have to think of that in terms of gameplay.:)

[General Pain]

this might help...

http://groups.msn.com/VietNamGuntrucks/guntruckroster.msnw

[Targan]

I agree with Mo. Great story Marc, thanks for sharing it.

[Jason]

I have issue #55 of Challenge magazine, which has an article on guntrucks in T2K. Actually, it is not really an article, but three vehicle plates by Keith Potter

I. M35 2.5 Ton Gun Truck. An armored 2.5 ton truck with a NHT mounted to fire over the cab, and two NMT, one on each side. The cargo-bed must be half empty and gunners are exposed to return fire.

II. M54 5 Ton Gun Truck. In Vietnam it was found that the M113 hull would fit on the bed of an M54 truck. This is a stripped M113 and an ARV (or equivilent) is needed.

III.M54 5 Ton Gun Truck M901 Version. An armored M54 with a M901 in the bed. Used in an anti-tank role with 10 TOW missles. (Good luck with that:D)

Not much is given to indicate how common these trucks would be, but it is noted that each is usually one-of-a-kind. I see these to be pretty common as long as ammo and fuel stocks hold up.

I also notice that several units in the U.S. lost most or all of thier transport. I imagine these units would modify whatever civilian vehicles they could into 'technicals'. I think these units have at least some MG's, with ammo being the main limitation, but just because these units were forced to fall back and re-group does not mean they never re-supplied ammo. This leaves the GM open to allow whatever fits his campaign.

[Marc]

Bona nit!

Using the subject of this thread, I've introduced a gun truck in my current campaign. Not in the players side this time, but in the hands of the polish militia in the town of Chelmno, that stands in the advancing path of the 5th ID on the spring of 2000. The truck was a modified URAL 375, reinforced with sheet steel for a total armor value of 3. I've considered a basis of AV: 1 plus 16mm of sheet steel (AV:2), accordingly to v2.2 set of rules. The truck was armed with a 14.5mm KPV heavy machine gun. A fast thinking medic, a female major with only the basic training in grenade launcher skill, managed to destroy it with an RPG-16 quickly recovered from the body of a polish militiaman lying amid the rubble. Nice shot.

[Webstral]

I have included fairly sophisticated gun trucks in the OOB of the Granite Brigade, which is the main body of the New Hampshire Military Reserve (NHMR) at the end of 2000. Below is an excerpt from my write-up on the NHMR:

"Fire Support Battery Yankee is in many ways the heart of the brigade. As of January 2001, FSB Yankee disposes eleven gun trucks: eight trucks with direct fire weapons and three using Mk19 grenade launchers. Most gun trucks in post-attack America are unarmored vehicles with a single machine gun on a pintle mount. Not so the gun trucks of FSB Yankee. The Manchester cantonment was extremely fortunate to acquire among its refugees a group of Vietnam veterans who recreated Vietnam-era and WW2 weapon systems for private collectors and museums across the country. The team used local machine shops and auto shops to combine a number of armored cars formerly used for moving cash and other valuables with a small stock of heavy weapons the State Headquarters had amassed by emptying the National Guard armories around the state. Although the combination of trucks and guns is unique for every system, all of them resemble in concept the gun-carrying halftracks of WW2. For each armored car, the roof of the cargo area and the upper half of the sidewalls were removed. The guns were installed in powered mounts designed by the re-creation team and manufactured under their supervision. Each gun truck thus has an armored cab that is proof against small arms fire and a powerful weapon in its cargo bed.

"The most powerful of the gun trucks is called “Cruiser�. Cruiser sports a 20mm rotary cannon mounted on a ten-wheeled armored truck. The cannon was salvaged from an inoperable ADA system. The M113 had been stripped for parts to support other vehicles, but for some reason the gun had been left. The NHMR acquired the cannon when Acting Governor Colby ordered the consolidation of all state assets at Manchester. The re-creation team came across it in a NHMR warehouse and couldn’t wait to make something of it. The result was Cruiser.

"FSB Yankee has three gun trucks it classifies as “destroyers�. Each destroyer has a quad .50 caliber mounted in its bed. Each destroyer has its own name: “Bull�, “Bronco�, and “Bear�. The destroyers are mounted in six-wheeled armored cars of the sort used so frequently to transport cash and valuables in pre-war times.

"The fire support battery also has three gun trucks it classifies as “frigates�. The frigates each have a quad mount of M60s. The frigates are named “Moe,� “Larry,� and “Curly�. The frigates are mounted in lighter four-wheeled armored vehicles used for courier duty during pre-war times.

"The eighth gun truck mounts a 5.56 minigun in its bed. This last truck is nicknamed “Junior�. Junior is actually an armored van that has had a reinforced suspension and add-on armor plates installed.

"In addition to the direct fire gun trucks, FSB Yankee has three trucks with Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launchers mounted on pintles. The grenade trucks are unarmored. They are held back from the main fighting and used to provide observed indirect fire support.

"FSB Yankee gets involved in almost every fight of the Granite Brigade. The crews are a tight-knit group with considerable élan. Under all conditions, the gun trucks find themselves called out to assist a patrol in contact. When the gun trucks arrive and apply their massive firepower, most marauders still in contact either break contact or quickly surrender. The crews are almost all Veteran NPCs, with about ten percent of their number being Elite NPCs and ten percent being Experienced NPCs."


Webstral

[Raellus]

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_1?ie=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-Operations-Patrol-Vehicles-Afghanistan/dp/1849081875/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

[Webstral]

Rae,

Thanks for reviving this one. Ironically, I was thinking yesterday and today that I really need to pare down the equipment of FSB Yankee (see above) and throw a couple of gun trucks into the lineup of the Green Jackets. Of course, I could minimize the effects of all of the gear owned by FSB Yankee by having half of them down for maintenance at any time and the rest forced to live off starvation fuel rations.

[Sanjuro]

Would individual divisions have their own organic long-range transport units or would such line haul convoys be the specialty of Corps HQs?
It would depend on how scarce the vehicles were; if suitable trucks are plentiful, individual divisions could have their own (although Corps HQ might allocate the fuel). The scarcer the vehicles, the more likely Corps is to maintain control, to make sure each division gets its fair share.

[ArmySGT.]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/k307668_1269218776046.jpg


http://news.webshots.com/album/124599660fVnKRb

http://spruebender.net/forum2/index.php?topic=585.0

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=869048

http://www.stenvalls.com/shop/?cat_id=203

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=54640&page=1

[Top-Break]

The term "Technical" actually has nothing to do with armor, or the lack thereof.

During the Somali famine, but before US intervention, relief groups and news crews were extorted/persuaded to hire local toughs for protection. Back in the 1990s it was not a good idea to have mercenaries and protection payments on ones balance sheet, so the mercs/militiamen were dubbed "technical staff". The name stuck.

[Raellus]

The term "Technical" actually has nothing to do with armor, or the lack thereof.

During the Somali famine, but before US intervention, relief groups and news crews were extorted/persuaded to hire local toughs for protection. Back in the 1990s it was not a good idea to have mercenaries and protection payments on ones balance sheet, so the mercs/militiamen were dubbed "technical staff". The name stuck.

Interesting tidbit. Thanks, Top.

[Webstral]

Top, thanks for posting that piece. I had no idea. It's interesting where names come from.

Army SGT, thanks for all those great images. Sigh. This is another one of those forehead slapping moments for me. Why haven't I given more thought to gun trucks in CONUS (everywhere, really) in 2000? They ought to be darned well ubiquitous. All one needs is a truck, some steel plating for armor, a means to attach the plating, and some weapons to mount on the truck. Duh. Even the light divisions ought to have a number of these, so long as fuel exists and the truck can be kept in repair.

I'm seriously thinking that I need to revisit all of my TO&E to account for gun trucks. The matter of gun trucks begs the question of priorities. If one has an M60, does it belong on a gun truck or with a platoon of dismounts? Heavier weapons, like the M2HB, almost certainly have to be mounted on a vehicle. Of course, machine guns aren't exactly as common as hunting rifles. Only so many are going to be confronted with this choice. Still, when I think about the Vermont State Guard and the Granite Brigade (NH), these are organizations with access to cargo trucks, homemade armor, and machine guns. Do the M60s and 60mm mortars go on trucks or with the dismounts?

[ArmySGT.]

Army SGT, thanks for all those great images.


I'm seriously thinking that I need to revisit all of my TO&E to account for gun trucks. The matter of gun trucks begs the question of priorities. If one has an M60, does it belong on a gun truck or with a platoon of dismounts? Heavier weapons, like the M2HB, almost certainly have to be mounted on a vehicle. Of course, machine guns aren't exactly as common as hunting rifles. Only so many are going to be confronted with this choice. Still, when I think about the Vermont State Guard and the Granite Brigade (NH), these are organizations with access to cargo trucks, homemade armor, and machine guns. Do the M60s and 60mm mortars go on trucks or with the dismounts?

Your welcome,

Gun trucks serve two purposes.

For Convoys they bring often overwhelming fire power to a convoy. Making a convoy to dangerous to attack. This fire power can travel with and at the same speed as the convoy.

Heavy Weapons platform. The accompany dismounts or support base defense. They use the longer range of the heavy weapons to keep away from enemy dismounts while bring direct fire and indirect fire in support of their own.

[ArmySGT.]

In Tw2k your likely to use captured enemy wagons for gun trucks. If you lose one......... meh. While desperately using your own that you do have parts for as haulers.

[Webstral]

It would be hard to overstate the value of armored fire support vehicles in CONUS in 2000/2001. Really, in any location in the world in which the local bandits and warlords don't have access to heavy weapons, a gun truck would play a key role in enabling government troops to assault marauder and warlord strongholds. By the same token, functional gun trucks would enable those who would be law unto themselves to overcome the defenses of lightly armed militias.

[Raellus]

If one has an M60, does it belong on a gun truck or with a platoon of dismounts? Heavier weapons, like the M2HB, almost certainly have to be mounted on a vehicle. Of course, machine guns aren't exactly as common as hunting rifles. Only so many are going to be confronted with this choice. Still, when I think about the Vermont State Guard and the Granite Brigade (NH), these are organizations with access to cargo trucks, homemade armor, and machine guns. Do the M60s and 60mm mortars go on trucks or with the dismounts?

A couple of the color plates in the Osprey book show M60Ds (helicoper door guns with spade grips and ring sights intead of a butt-stock and a pistol grip) mounted on gun trucks. It seems to me that, with very few aircraft still airworthy, this would be a natural use for old door guns.

It's almost ridiculous how many MGs some of those Vietnam-era gun trucks carried. We're talking 3-5 M2HBs and 2-4 M-60s per truck, in some instances. One even had two 7.62mm Miniguns! Most of them carried an M-79 too. I was surprised that none of the images in the book show AGLs as a gun truck weapon. I know that they were widely used on PBRs by the Brown Water Navy. I wonder why they never caught on as gun truck weapons.

[Legbreaker]

Coax machineguns from knocked out AFVs would be useful on trucks also. The added bulk of makeshift butts and trigger mechanisms wouldn't matter that much when mounted.
You might also see coax weapons on tripods and used as SFMG in the indirect role. It's possible they could even be used on trolleys - imagine a pram reworked to carry a machinegun instead of a baby....

[copeab]

Do the M60s and 60mm mortars go on trucks or with the dismounts?

A quick WWII reference: some US units used Willy's jeeps fitted with 60mm mortars in the bed. They could be fired from there are dismounted. If the light jeep could safely fire a 60mm from it's bed, I'd say just about any military four+ wheel vehicles (and some civilian ones) could as well.

(at most you might need a single layer of sandbags under the mortar to absorb the recoil and protect the body).

[Graebarde]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/k307668_1269218776046.jpg


http://news.webshots.com/album/124599660fVnKRb

http://spruebender.net/forum2/index.php?topic=585.0

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=869048

http://www.stenvalls.com/shop/?cat_id=203

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=54640&page=1

Nice set of links... the last one with the quad in the hummer.. I wonder where they managed to get the hummer from? hummmmmmmmmmmm

FB

[Adm.Lee]

Would individual divisions have their own organic long-range transport units or would such line haul convoys be the specialty of Corps HQs?

By the book, divisions have trucks to distribute supplies to their subordinate units, and to pick up supplies from Army dumps. Army HQs have units to bring supplies forward to dumps from the rear. Corps HQs aren't supposed to run supplies, they plan battles. At least, that's how I understand things in the US Army.

[dragoon500ly]

A couple of the color plates in the Osprey book show M60Ds (helicoper door guns with spade grips and ring sights intead of a butt-stock and a pistol grip) mounted on gun trucks. It seems to me that, with very few aircraft still airworthy, this would be a natural use for old door guns.

It's almost ridiculous how many MGs some of those Vietnam-era gun trucks carried. We're talking 3-5 M2HBs and 2-4 M-60s per truck, in some instances. One even had two 7.62mm Miniguns! Most of them carried an M-79 too. I was surprised that none of the images in the book show AGLs as a gun truck weapon. I know that they were widely used on PBRs by the Brown Water Navy. I wonder why they never caught on as gun truck weapons.

Speaking for the Vietnam-era AGLs, it was an experimental Honeywell design that was hand-cranked. The first real AGL is the XM-174 by Aerojet. Both designs used either a 12rd drum or a 50rd box and fired standard 40mm grenades (the barrel on the XM-174 is the same one fitted to a M-79).

GIs also took the time to strip any crashed gunships and stripped them of their M-75 40mm (Cobra) and the M-5 40mm (UH-1 gunships).

There is a photo in the national archieves that shows one gun truck fitted with no less than six 40mm AGLs!

There are also pics of twin M-60 mounts mounted on each corner of the truck bed.

Another favorite mounted on some gun trucks was the E8 35mm 16-tube CS gas grenade launcher, I've seen at least three pics that shows at least two of these units mounted.

If you have a chance to check out a copy of Shelby's Vietnam Order of Battle (pg 303), there is an great pic of a M-151 jeep, protected by sandbags and armed with a M-134 7.62mm minigun for the passenger and a Honeywell handcranked GL on a pedestal mount!

[95th Rifleman]

Re-purposing aviation weapons is the logical choice for things like gun trucks and static positions aswell. On Okinawa the japanese did the same with MG's taken from wrecked aircraft.

In a game I ran the group rigged up 27mm Tornado cannons to defend a German airfield from marauders.

[bobcat]

anti aircraft guns are also good for gun trucks. in iraq one of the local militias had a russian 37mm twin barrel AA gun mounted on the back of a bongo truck.

i wonder if one could mount a 25mm bushmaster from a bradley?

[WallShadow]

Anyone with armorer expertise want to weigh in on converting an ex-A-10's 30mm gatling into a crew served surface or vehicle mounted weapon?

[Raellus]

Anyone with armorer expertise want to weigh in on converting an ex-A-10's 30mm gatling into a crew served surface or vehicle mounted weapon?

I saw one unmounted at the Davis-Monthan air show year before last. On its own (with its ammo feed and giant drum mag), it's nearly as long as most trucks. The A-10 noticeably slows when firing it. I just don't see it being a viable ground vehicle-mounted weapon unless it's somehow mounted on an MBT chasis.

[Panther Al]

yeah - the GAU-8 is something that just isn't doable short of a very heavy tracked chassis. Even a Hemmit wouldn't be able to take the recoil forces generated by the cannon.

[ArmySGT.]

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Morrow%20Project/Gatlingcannon.jpg

Maybe hanging out the back of a dump truck?

[95th Rifleman]

I saw one unmounted at the Davis-Monthan air show year before last. On its own (with its ammo feed and giant drum mag), it's nearly as long as most trucks. The A-10 noticeably slows when firing it. I just don't see it being a viable ground vehicle-mounted weapon unless it's somehow mounted on an MBT chasis.

I have this image now of an Abrahms variant carrying one of those things.

[WallShadow]

I have this image now of an Abrahms variant carrying one of those things.

I now have an image of a VW Bug carrying one of those things:rolleyes:
That would be like Star Cruiser Yamato's Wave Motion Gun, or something from Wiley Coyote Laboratories, Inc.

Could one of the barrels be separated out and a breach mechanism machined to make it an anti-armor rifle, like an upscaled Barrett?

[Tegyrius]

I saw one unmounted at the Davis-Monthan air show year before last. On its own (with its ammo feed and giant drum mag), it's nearly as long as most trucks. The A-10 noticeably slows when firing it. I just don't see it being a viable ground vehicle-mounted weapon unless it's somehow mounted on an MBT chasis.

Huh. Well, there's a use for all those surplus Leopard hulls. Ground mounts for Goalkeeper platforms. But I think we already did that thread (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=2711&page=2). :)

Could one of the barrels be separated out and a breach mechanism machined to make it an anti-armor rifle, like an upscaled Barrett?

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

- C.

[Sanjuro]

Maybe hanging out the back of a dump truck?
I like that idea... anything you shoot at, you are simultaneously running away from very fast, using the recoil for propulsion!

[Panther Al]

anti aircraft guns are also good for gun trucks. in iraq one of the local militias had a russian 37mm twin barrel AA gun mounted on the back of a bongo truck.

i wonder if one could mount a 25mm bushmaster from a bradley?

This is actually quite doable- not easy mind, but I would be shocked if more than a few trucks from humvee's on up sporting such a mod in the twilight war.

[natehale1971]

During World War Two, didn't the German's put the 88 on truck beds? My grandfather told me how damn deadly the 88s were, and that they had been really, really hated by infantry and tankers alike.

[Raellus]

During World War Two, didn't the German's put the 88 on truck beds? My grandfather told me how damn deadly the 88s were, and that they had been really, really hated by infantry and tankers alike.

Heavy half-tracks, yes, but not trucks. The 88 produces one big jolt of recoil at a time, though, not like the GAU-8 which produces heavy sustained recoil depending on the burst length.

[copeab]

Heavy half-tracks, yes, but not trucks. The 88 produces one big jolt of recoil at a time, though, not like the GAU-8 that has sustained recoil depending on the burst length.

the US used a few hundred halftracks with 75mm guns (initially in the AT role, but later for infantry support) and 105mm howitzers.

The heaviest guns used in a 'portee' mount (non-permanently mounted in the truck's bed rather than towed) I think were 6-pdrs (57mm) AT guns.

A step beyond this was something like the Deacon, an armored truck with a permanent gun in the bed.

http://www.brindale.co.uk/ach/prv_site/site_images_htm/vehicles/deacon.htm

[Graebarde]

I love gun trucks!!! With that comment... I continue.

In Nam, the first group to implement gun trucks did so with salvage. The companies had only so many machineguns, either M2 or M60, and most of them were allocated to perimeter defense at the base camp... hence the group I'm familiar with (my NCOIC at Eustis was one of the gun truckers) hauled between An Khe and CRB IIRC. The salvage they hauled back to depot, weapons etc, were 'picked over' by the haulers and weapons rebuilt for them by their unit armorers.. totally off the books... The mini's show were slavaged off downed gunships along the highway on a return trip.. and possession was not questions tooooooooo much. LOTS of the firepower came from a/c salvage. BTW, MOST of the gun trucks were five tonners, as they found dueces were too light for the loads they carried when up-armored.

As Dragon said, the AGL were a rare item over all. Even with the PBRs they were a rare sight in '69 from my observation (and failing memory).

One thing that made the gun trucks real effective was when an ADA quad fifty battery was attached to them. The gunners were ADA, the rest of the truck crew from the owing company.

Note that the guns usually traveled in the middle of the convoy so they could respond better to the front or back of the convoy as needed. Just some ramblin memories on the subject.

I'm glad to see the higher ups FINALLY learned a lesson and have mission built gun trucks now.. though GI ingenuiety is still at work... when the highers allow it...

FB

[Graebarde]

a note on tha Hawgs.. That aircraft is probably the ONLY aircraft built around the gun system ever produced, unlike building the plane and then saying.. gee it needs guns..

Those are awesome birds, purpose built to do a specific job, and they do a J.O.B. on target too..

No way I can see a ground mobile mount for one happening... but then as I said elsewhere, never underestimate GI ingenuity.

FB

[atiff]

During World War Two, didn't the German's put the 88 on truck beds? My grandfather told me how damn deadly the 88s were, and that they had been really, really hated by infantry and tankers alike.

Not sure about the Germans, but in WWII (and WWI) the Italians put 75mm and 90mm AA guns on portee mounts, and use them in dual AT/AA roles.

Wiki link of matching info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Army_equipment_in_World_War_II#Anti_aircra ft_artillery

[95th Rifleman]

Germans preferred the 20mm for AA use, they built allot of mobile Flakpanzers and where quite effective, just they never had enough. The Wirbelwind was the best of breed.

[Adm.Lee]

a note on tha Hawgs.. That aircraft is probably the ONLY aircraft built around the gun system ever produced, unlike building the plane and then saying.. gee it needs guns..


Dunno, I think the Germans had something in WWI with a 77mm gun, but I can't track anything down just now.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I've skimmed through the thread; am I reading earlier posts right? is it possible to mount an M113 hull on a truck chassis?

[copeab]

I've skimmed through the thread; am I reading earlier posts right? is it possible to mount an M113 hull on a truck chassis?

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

[Raellus]

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

Correct. They'd strip the engine, transmission, track-related gear from the M113 and then strap it down to the bed of a 5-ton with steel cables. The comms system was usually left intact for the gun crew to use.

[copeab]

Correct. They'd strip the engine, transmission, track-related gear from the M113 and then strap it down to the bed of a 5-ton with steel cables. The comms system was usually left intact for the gun crew to use.

Although the idea of an M-113 with a "convertible" Christie suspension suddenly intrigues me ...

[Panther Al]

a note on tha Hawgs.. That aircraft is probably the ONLY aircraft built around the gun system ever produced, unlike building the plane and then saying.. gee it needs guns..

Those are awesome birds, purpose built to do a specific job, and they do a J.O.B. on target too..

No way I can see a ground mobile mount for one happening... but then as I said elsewhere, never underestimate GI ingenuity.

FB

You know, the A-10 is probably the only time the developmental process actually worked the way it is supposed to.

A. Find a need that can't be filled with an existing item.
Ground Attack with enough firepower to kill scores of heavy tanks, and armoured/rugged enough to take a beating while doing it.
B. Find the right balance between cheap and exactly what is needed to address the issue.
Missiles are perfect for tank busting: Accurate, and very very effective. But, and this is where the process hit it out of the park, they are expensive. There was no way the Air Force could justify the building of war stocks of sufficient number of missiles - too darn expensive. Also, they knew that in a WW3 scenario, there wouldn't be the time to ramp up production of high tech items in the quantities needed. But, existing cannon, while cheap on ammo, and easy on maintenance, wasn't quite powerful enough. So, they made a new one, using every lesson learned on gun design. The GAU-8 firing DU ammo. More than able to kill any tank out there from the air, and cheap cheap cheap to use.
C. Once A and B are done, *then* build the airplane around the solution for the first problem, while addressing the last one.
The A-10 hit this on the head: The plane was designed around both the gun and its ammo, as well as maximum protection for the pilot and control surfaces.

In the end, you have a plane that is so freaking good at its job, and relatively cheap to operate, the Air Force (and it has tried, and tried hard) can't kill the thing.

Germans preferred the 20mm for AA use, they built allot of mobile Flakpanzers and where quite effective, just they never had enough. The Wirbelwind was the best of breed.

While the *Army* loved the 20, both in its guise as the FlAK 38 and FlAK 38 (V) versions, it was more because it was a great DP weapon for dealing with infantry attacks. As an AA weapon, it left a bit to be desired. The Luftwaffe FlAK corps on the other hand, felt the FlAK 43 (37mm) was as small as they could go and still be effective. In fact, at the end of the war they was getting ready to start to introduce a 55mm Weapon, that to be quite honest, was about perfect for battlefield AA as well as Light(ish) GP AA units. As good as the gun was, and it was very very good, the mount was even better. Both the US and the Brits seriously thought about going with a similar weapon, and the soviets did with the 57mm, but the Jet age put paid to medium to heavy AA guns, and most everyone placed the 55 in the medium range unlike the Germans.

Dunno, I think the Germans had something in WWI with a 77mm gun, but I can't track anything down just now.

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.

[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/documents/30_40mm%20Mk44%20Bushmaster%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.

[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...

http://www.murdoconline.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/m54a2_m113_gun_truck.jpg

http://www.warwheels.net/images/m54APCguntruckLyles1.jpg

http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k268857_Cobra.jpg

http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/13870/1742Big_Kahuna.jpg

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 won’t repeat what’s been said about the A-10’s 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 doesn’t 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 won’t 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. It’s 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_1?ie=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-Operations-Patrol-Vehicles-Afghanistan/dp/1849081875/ref=pd_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_concrete_armoured_lorry).

[James Langham]

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 ;)

[Targan]

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

Don't get me wrong, I'd be all for having our own funky, down under version of the Papal Guard but... we have a LOT of shores. I don't think there are enough Swiss people for that.

[Panther Al]

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.


In all honestly, my admittedly scant, research and knowledge of the F35 program tells me its more boondoggle than not. Yes, it has the potential of being a very good multirole Aircraft. But its going to be probably one of the most expensive fighters ever. And the maintance costs are projected to be equally massive.

Ignoring the steathy bits of the F35 program, I honestly believe the various Airforces that are buying into it would be much better served with the latest flavours of current strike fighters: F/A18 E/F, Block 50/60 F16s, Gripens, and 15E's. Be massivly cheaper to boot.

[Legbreaker]

... we have a LOT of shores. I don't think there are enough Swiss people for that.

Our borders would be just like Swiss cheese. :D

[pmulcahy11b]

And for the really desperate, there are concrete armored crs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_concrete_armoured_lorry).

Oh christ, I just had to laugh at that one...

[Ronin]

In all honestly, my admittedly scant, research and knowledge of the F35 program tells me its more boondoggle than not. Yes, it has the potential of being a very good multirole Aircraft. But its going to be probably one of the most expensive fighters ever. And the maintance costs are projected to be equally massive.

Ignoring the steathy bits of the F35 program, I honestly believe the various Airforces that are buying into it would be much better served with the latest flavours of current strike fighters: F/A18 E/F, Block 50/60 F16s, Gripens, and 15E's. Be massivly cheaper to boot.

It would seem to me that the Sukhoi PAK FA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA) would be a better choice than the F-35 at the moment. If for no other reason its superior to the Super hornet (etc). While the F35 is potentially a better aircraft. Its a long, long way away. The Sukhoi is a year or two tops, away. NATO countries need to shake the stigma, that the Russians are the bad guys. We cant buy their stuff. Let face it, its a brave new world. Its kinda every country for itself. I mean we buy all kinds of stuff (Clothing, other assorted items) from China for our military here in the US. I think they portray a far greater threat in our future than the Russians. My ten cents anyway

[Webstral]

I think they portray a far greater threat in our future than the Russians. My ten cents anyway

Each of these nations will be as big a threat as their leadership feels they can afford to be.

The US should be buying all the latest Russian gear, if only to see what is going on with the competition. Pilots who thoroughly understand the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, as well as their own strengths and weaknesses, are the most likely to bring victory.

Concrete armored cars. I never would have thought of that. The threat of invasion really brings out the creativity in some folks.

Getting back the gun trucks, I want to put a question out to the community at large: when does a fire support vehicle become a light assault gun?

[Ronin]

Getting back the gun trucks, I want to put a question out to the community at large: when does a fire support vehicle become a light assault gun?

I would say when the vehicle in question is equipped with heavy frontal armor, and a gun of at least 50mm.

[Ronin]

Couple pics I came across
http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/500/medium/Mad_Max_1.jpg
http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/500/medium/Mad_Max_2.jpg
http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/500/medium/Mad_Max_3.jpg
http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/member_albums/41488/hemtt%20gun%20truck.jpg

[pmulcahy11b]

It would seem to me that the Sukhoi PAK FA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA) would be a better choice than the F-35 at the moment. If for no other reason its superior to the Super hornet (etc). While the F35 is potentially a better aircraft. Its a long, long way away. The Sukhoi is a year or two tops, away. NATO countries need to shake the stigma, that the Russians are the bad guys. We cant buy their stuff. Let face it, its a brave new world. Its kinda every country for itself. I mean we buy all kinds of stuff (Clothing, other assorted items) from China for our military here in the US. I think they portray a far greater threat in our future than the Russians. My ten cents anyway

And the Russians will sell the PAK FA a lot cheaper than we're selling the F-35 for, because they're strapped for cash. And the Russians aren't so worried about getting everything perfect or making every congressional district happy -- they just want to get on the market with something that, while it may not be what the F-35 may eventually come, is on the market now and is better than what is now available. A lot of countries will see the PAK FA as an opportunity to get stealth at a bargain, even if its systems are not as deluxe as those that the F-35 will eventually have or its stealth profile isn't as small as the F-35 will eventually have.

[Legbreaker]

And electronics and other systems can be upgraded over time....

[Sanjuro]

And for the really desperate, there are concrete armored cars.
How about an aircraft carrier made of Pykrete? It won't be fast, but you can make it big enough to carry conventional aircraft rather than dedicated carrier-based models...
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Icecrete/

[bobcat]

http://operatorchan.org/v/arch/src/v42452_The_Battleship1.jpg
http://www.panzerbaer.de/helper/pix/us_hmmwv_M1097_specops-001.jpg
http://www.proartmodels.be/gallery/gal_09/gal_0901.jpg
http://www.modellbau-universe.de/uploadfiles/original/af_35034.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/FMTV%20gun%20truck/Reforger_war_mal/new_site_i000041.jpg

[Graebarde]

Found what I was looking for in the WW2 aircraft with LCG in the nose.. Bell P-39 had a 37mm firing through the rotor hub. Don't ask me how.. just what it says... knew that I saw something on one somewhere... Not may built, and I know there were some in service in PAO.. met an old timer at church years back that flew them, then transfered to P-38 Lightning. He was on the Yamamoto raid flying top cover for them. Funny old guy too... said he was shot down three times... but got five of them.. "Oh your an ace." says I. "That's not how my wife pronounces it." says he.

FB



http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=140

[Graebarde]

How about an aircraft carrier made of Pykrete? It won't be fast, but you can make it big enough to carry conventional aircraft rather than dedicated carrier-based models...
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Icecrete/

Yeah that was an interesting program on History Channel about that some time ago. Wood pulp and ice... guess they were for northern service only.. but the concept was actually sound from tests done, as to construction, floating, and durability, other than the fact it melted!!

[boogiedowndonovan]

Hey Grae,

when you were in Vietnam, did you come across any gun trucks?

just curious
bdd

[copeab]

Found what I was looking for in the WW2 aircraft with LCG in the nose.. Bell P-39 had a 37mm firing through the rotor hub. Don't ask me how..

The engine was behind the pilot, placing a shaft under the pilot's legs up to the prop. Worth adding that some PT boats began fitting the 37mm cannon from wrecked P-39's (including the built-in 30 round magazine) as a deck gun.

The Me 109, with a front engine, had a short 20mm cannon that fired through the propeller hub.

just what it says... knew that I saw something on one somewhere... Not may built, and I know there were some in service in PAO.. met an old timer at church years back that flew them, then transfered to P-38 Lightning.


Either the P-38 prototype or first model had a 37mm rather than 20mm nose gun.

[Adm.Lee]

The engine was behind the pilot, placing a shaft under the pilot's legs up to the prop. Worth adding that some PT boats began fitting the 37mm cannon from wrecked P-39's (including the built-in 30 round magazine) as a deck gun.

Either the P-38 prototype or first model had a 37mm rather than 20mm nose gun.

The earliest P-38 (maybe only the XP-38) had a 37mm nose gun, I'm pretty sure all production models moved to the 20mm gun. It was designed as a high-altitude bomber-interceptor, the main reason it had turbosupercharger and the P-39 and P-40 did not.

The P-39 was designed and built with the 37mm gun, for ground support, but not necessarily tank-busting, in mind. It and the P-40 had heavy armament for attack missions.
One variant had a 20mm instead, for shipment to the British. Several of these were sidetracked to the South Pacific instead (39th Fighter Squadron, Guadalcanal, IIRC), where they couldn't really fly at high altitude (still had British oxygen equipment, and no turbosupercharger). This was the P-400 ("it's a P-40 with a Zero on its tail!"). The Marines liked them for ground support.

There were other P-39 squadrons in New Guinea, Alaska and other Pacific islands, and a few groups in the Mediterranean. Once the USAAF started getting P-47s in bulk, most of the P-39 production went to the French and Soviets. The Soviets loved them-- they had radios! Lots of folks have read that the Soviets used them for CAS, but in Soviet terminology, "close air support" meant stooging over the battlefield, looking for German ground-attack planes to shoot down.

There was a really cool book by a P-39 pilot, http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/991340.NANETTE_Her_Pilot_s_Love_Story. The vibrations of the gun firing through the drive shaft were one of his favorite sensations.

I'm still convinced there was a WW1 German cannon-armed plane, but I have not been able to track it down.

[Raellus]

It's amusing that this thread has become as much a place to discuss large caliber weapons mounted on aircraft (especially WWII aircraft) as it is to discuss gun trucks. :)

[Raellus]

I think a convoy escort unit (with gun trucks of course) would make for an interesting PC group. It would work great for the Escape from Kalisz module- it's on its way to resupply part of the 5th when the Soviet counterattack hits. You could do this for pretty much any unit you choose. A convoy following the wayward 8th ID would work well too.

It would provide a group of relatively low-powered (combat skill-wise, at least) PCs with a good amount of mobility and firepower.

Do they charge to the rescue with much-needed fuel and tank ammo?

Do they head for the hills in classic EFK fashion?

Do they try to set themselves up as a local power?

A force of gun trucks would also make for an interesting NPC encounter for a more conventional EFK group. "Sorry guys, we don't have any 5.56 or 7.62mm but we have a shit-ton of 120mm AP..."

A rogue gun truck unit could also make for a nasty group of marauders...

[95th Rifleman]

It's amusing that this thread has become as much a place to discuss large caliber weapons mounted on aircraft (especially WWII aircraft) as it is to discuss gun trucks. :)

Large calibre aircraft guns and gun trucks are such a great combination.

[copeab]

It's amusing that this thread has become as much a place to discuss large caliber weapons mounted on aircraft (especially WWII aircraft) as it is to discuss gun trucks. :)

The Germans did some work on 35cm and 54cm recoilless (countershot) weapons to be carried under aircraft.

[WallShadow]

The Germans did some work on 35cm and 54cm recoilless (countershot) weapons to be carried under aircraft.

Some WWI British aircraft were equipped with a Davis Gun, which was a counter-shot weapon (explosive shell goes forward, frangible counterweight of equal mass goes harmlessly <?> out the back).

One of the SPAD models had a 37mm cannon firing through the hollow propeller shaft.

In WW2:
The Me109 (some versions, too lazy to track down which) had a 30mm cannon "nestled between the cylinder heads" of the aircraft's engine, firing through the propeller boss.

Back to gun trucks:
I think the penultimate gun trucks were the SAS jeeps used in the "Jeep Raids" on German airstrips in North Africa. Like the eventual evolution of the PT boats from torpedo to gunboats, these Jeeps had more armament per pound of vehicle weight than just about any other weapons system in their class.

[dragoon500ly]

Found what I was looking for in the WW2 aircraft with LCG in the nose.. Bell P-39 had a 37mm firing through the rotor hub. Don't ask me how.. just what it says... knew that I saw something on one somewhere... Not may built, and I know there were some in service in PAO.. met an old timer at church years back that flew them, then transfered to P-38 Lightning. He was on the Yamamoto raid flying top cover for them. Funny old guy too... said he was shot down three times... but got five of them.. "Oh your an ace." says I. "That's not how my wife pronounces it." says he.

FB



http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=140

The engine on a P-39 is mounted behind the pilot and the propeller shaft is offset below the hub of the prop (runs the prop through a gear housing) the barrel of the cannon runs right through the center of the housing. Needless to say, it is a maintenance nightmare!

The early models of the P-38 were designed with a 37mm cannon, that was replaced with a 20mm somewhere around the D/E model. There was also a
B-17 variant that mounted one in the nose for anti-fighter duty, never official, but there are a couple of pics and a old war story of it being used in Europe.

My high school shop teacher was a Confederate Air Force Colonel and we got extra credit for "assisting" the regular mechanics on the old warbirds.

[95th Rifleman]

What about rocket pods?

I was looking at some of those crazy Libyan vehicles with soviet rocket pods bolted to them. I was thinking about some of the SNEB pods we used to use on the Jaguar and Harrier aircraft. Put them on some kind of moveable mount and you'll give an ambush a really bad day as you suddely lay down a dozen 68mm HE rockets on their position.

[Panther Al]

They have actually looked at that as a factory built system - I recall a Humvee being fitted with 6 FFAR/19 pods. It would lead to a very effective short range bombardment system...

[pmulcahy11b]

They have actually looked at that as a factory built system - I recall a Humvee being fitted with 6 FFAR/19 pods. It would lead to a very effective short range bombardment system...

The Italians use a similar type vehicle, but I don't remember offhand what the base chassis is.

[pmulcahy11b]

In WW2:
The Me109 (some versions, too lazy to track down which) had a 30mm cannon "nestled between the cylinder heads" of the aircraft's engine, firing through the propeller boss.

There was a version of the Hurricane with a 40mm cannon under each wing that they used for tank-busting in North Africa. Recoil was said to be brutal on the pilot, and that makes me think that maintenance on the wings and wing roots had to be constant and thorough.

[pmulcahy11b]

I want one of those HEMTT gun trucks. Traffic in San Antonio sucks -- it would be nice to clear some of the idiots out of the way...:D

[natehale1971]

I want one of those HEMTT gun trucks. Traffic in San Antonio sucks -- it would be nice to clear some of the idiots out of the way...:D

In our Year of the Zombie campaign we had a couple HEMTT 10-ton cargo trucks, and a fuel tanker as part of our convoy... one of them had been turned into a guntruck with .50cals, 7.62mm general purpose machineguns and two 40mm automatic grenade launchers. Oh.. and a light mortar. It had been designed not to destroy lot's of zombies, but to keep marauders and fleshmongers away from our convoy of civilian survivors... the convoy was divided into three sections with a Grayhound coach full of survivors as the centrepeice of each section and there was a heavily modified Grayhound coach that had been turned into a mobile medical clinic.

[Schone23666]

For what it's worth, since you were talking about weapons on vehicles stripped from aircraft, I remember seeing a pic of a WWII PT boat that had the 37mm autocannon from a P39 Airacobra rigged on a weapon mount on the deck, with traverse and elevation, fire controls, ammunition drum, the works. If they could do it on a boat, pretty sure they could have set up something similiar on a truck as well. Of course, I think you'd find 37mm ammunition to be fairly scarce these days.

Of course, not just guns. If you wanted to get fancier....they were for a while touting around the HUMRAAM, which was basically a Humvee modified to carry a turret rack that mounted (correct me if I'm wrong) 4 AMRAAM's and 2 Sidewinders modified for the SAM role.

Just goes to show I guess that with enough ingenuity, you can, within reason, pretty much mount ALMOST anything from an aircraft onto a vehicle, provided the vehicle is large enough and can handle the weight and recoil of the weapons. Of course, something like the 30mm Avenger autocannon mounted on the A-10 might be a bit problematic. :eek:

[Webstral]

Realistically, though, what weapons are one likely to find? Central Europe is littered with suitable heavy weapons by mid-2000. Parts of the USSR, Iran, Iraq, North China, Korea also will have a fair stock of weapons for gun trucks. Australia and New Zealand are probably less blessed than the areas where the armies of the world duked it out. CONUS, where my attention is fixed, won't have the same variety or numbers of suitable weapons as Central Europe. Places like Vermont and New Hampshire, which were stripped of troops, weapons, and supplies so that reinforcements could be sent to the Southwest and the Pacific Northwest, will be very short on weapons for gun trucks. Colorado, on the other hand, should have a fair number.

[natehale1971]

The Autocannon from an A-10 MIGHT be able to be put into an armored vehicle that has an offset or rear mounted engine and only be able to be fired directly forward or directly aft depending on how it was mounted on the vehcile, and i think that the vehicle would need some kind of stablization legs like field artillery to act as a counter balance to it it being fired in a burst shot... Unless of course you're talking about using it as single shot or the like. Then it might be able to be on a turret that could fire to the right or left.

Of course you could use that kind of weapon to make the Cobra ASP from the GI JOE action figures, cartoons and comics.

http://www.kristoferbrozio.com/wp-content/uploads/GIJOE-2/cobra/tn_cobra-assault-system-pod-ASP.JPG

[natehale1971]

Realistically, though, what weapons are one likely to find? Central Europe is littered with suitable heavy weapons by mid-2000. Parts of the USSR, Iran, Iraq, North China, Korea also will have a fair stock of weapons for gun trucks. Australia and New Zealand are probably less blessed than the areas where the armies of the world duked it out. CONUS, where my attention is fixed, won't have the same variety or numbers of suitable weapons as Central Europe. Places like Vermont and New Hampshire, which were stripped of troops, weapons, and supplies so that reinforcements could be sent to the Southwest and the Pacific Northwest, will be very short on weapons for gun trucks. Colorado, on the other hand, should have a fair number.

Web... there is also a few other sources that you might be able to get retired weapons systems. Tanks, helicopters and the like.. American Legion posts, Veterans of Foreign Wars Chapters, DIsabled American Veterans Chapters and other faternal groups of Veterans. It just hit me that there is a UH-1 Heuy Gunship, a towed howitzer and a Sherman tank sitting in front of the local VFW Chapter. There is a towed heavy AA machinegun infront of the masons Lodge a few blocks away. There are also some field cannons in the park as well.

Some communities might have these kinds of weapon systems that might be able to be refurbished and used.

[Schone23666]

Web... there is also a few other sources that you might be able to get retired weapons systems. Tanks, helicopters and the like.. American Legion posts, Veterans of Foreign Wars Chapters, DIsabled American Veterans Chapters and other faternal groups of Veterans. It just hit me that there is a UH-1 Heuy Gunship, a towed howitzer and a Sherman tank sitting in front of the local VFW Chapter. There is a towed heavy AA machinegun infront of the masons Lodge a few blocks away. There are also some field cannons in the park as well.

Some communities might have these kinds of weapon systems that might be able to be refurbished and used.

I think Dragooonly made a post about that some time ago....the amount of time and materials needed for refurbishment would depend on factors like how far it's been de-militarized, how long it's been sitting out exposed to the weather or if it's been sitting gathering dust in a museum, etc. Still raises some interesting possibilities, and with at least some not-quite-so-old vehicles and aircraft on display inside certain museums, you wonder if certain things were left intact on the inside just in case it needed to be rolled out again for any particular dire circumstance...

[Schone23666]

The Autocannon from an A-10 MIGHT be able to be put into an armored vehicle that has an offset or rear mounted engine and only be able to be fired directly forward or directly aft depending on how it was mounted on the vehcile, and i think that the vehicle would need some kind of stablization legs like field artillery to act as a counter balance to it it being fired in a burst shot... Unless of course you're talking about using it as single shot or the like. Then it might be able to be on a turret that could fire to the right or left.

Of course you could use that kind of weapon to make the Cobra ASP from the GI JOE action figures, cartoons and comics.

http://www.kristoferbrozio.com/wp-content/uploads/GIJOE-2/cobra/tn_cobra-assault-system-pod-ASP.JPG

Hmm, interesting idea. Still gonna need to be a decent sized vehicle to even mount the weapon, ditto when it comes to trying to handle the damn recoil. Have you seen one of those GAU-8 out of the aircraft? It's HUGE! The A-10 is practically built around it like the old P47 aircraft was built around the Pratt and Whitney engine. :eek:

Heh, I do like your idea though, assuming it could work. And I really do miss the old days of GI Joe....sure, it seemed silly, but dammit, it was cool as hell! The characters, the vehicles, everything. In fact, a few of those vehicles I thought had an interesting idea or two. Some of their vehicles were in fact loosely based around real-life vehicles that appeared in some form at some point in time.

And yes, I had a crush on Scarlett, Lady Jaye and Cover Girl, so sue me. :D

[natehale1971]

Heh, I do like your idea though, assuming it could work. And I really do miss the old days of GI Joe....sure, it seemed silly, but dammit, it was cool as hell! The characters, the vehicles, everything. In fact, a few of those vehicles I thought had an interesting idea or two. Some of their vehicles were in fact loosely based around real-life vehicles that appeared in some form at some point in time.

Me too. :) our gaming group actually used the comic book characters as a model for some of the NPCs in our games... their codenames were their callsigns, their real names of course were real names, they had what ever rank they had in the comics...

Some character concepts we used as a starting point for our own characters... my Morrow Project character for instence had served in Vietnman with Snakeeyes, Stormshadow and Stalker during their second tour. And he was actually recruited by the stormshadow ninja clan after the successes of Snakeyes... and when Hardmaster died, Softmaster made a phonecall and said to the person on the otherside of the line... 'we've had a problem... and it looks as if we will only be sending you ONE or our Clan."

:)

Heck, almost all of my American characters have the ficticonal ninja clan tatttoo in their inner left forearms. something that they had done with the rest of their basic combat training or bootcamp buddies did after a drunken night out after graduation!

And yes, I had a crush on Scarlett, Lady Jaye and Cover Girl, so sue me. :D

I guess then I shouldn't tell you that 'Cover Girl' NPC had actually kissed my character then? :D

[copeab]

For what it's worth, since you were talking about weapons on vehicles stripped from aircraft, I remember seeing a pic of a WWII PT boat that had the 37mm autocannon from a P39 Airacobra rigged on a weapon mount on the deck, with traverse and elevation, fire controls, ammunition drum, the works. If they could do it on a boat, pretty sure they could have set up something similiar on a truck as well. Of course, I think you'd find 37mm ammunition to be fairly scarce these days.


Late-war PT boats had a lot of weapons on them. The 80' Elco boats were best suited for such upgrades.

The two twin-.50-cal turrets were normally retained throughout the war. The 20mm Oerlikon was moved from the stern to the foredeck and replaced by a 40mm Bofors. The 37mm M-4 gun salvaged from P-39's was added in the field and later as a more standard piece of equipment (also on the foredeck). An 81mm mortar was often also added on the foredeck (primarily for firing illumination rounds for night fighting. but sometimes for shelling shore targets with HE). A few also had port and starboard racks for 5" rockets.

The foredeck of a late war PT boat could be a very crowded place ...

The four torpedo tubes were replaced with four roll-off torpedoes (which saved a lot of weight) and late in the war two (and sometimes all four) torpedo racks were left empty on patrols (the torpedoes ran too deep for shallow-draft Japanese barges, then the main target of PT boats). Sometimes the rear racks carried depth charges -- not to attack subs, but to break the backs of pursuing Japanese destroyers.

Finally, the smoke generator, carried at the far stern, was normally carried throughout the war.

[Webstral]

Web... there is also a few other sources that you might be able to get retired weapons systems. Tanks, helicopters and the like.. American Legion posts, Veterans of Foreign Wars Chapters, DIsabled American Veterans Chapters and other faternal groups of Veterans. It just hit me that there is a UH-1 Heuy Gunship, a towed howitzer and a Sherman tank sitting in front of the local VFW Chapter. There is a towed heavy AA machinegun infront of the masons Lodge a few blocks away. There are also some field cannons in the park as well.

With some exceptions, the AFV have gone forward to Europe, Korea, the Gulf, or they are in the hands of one of the combat formations still in CONUS. If you were to say that 40th ID in California (for example) should have some former AFV weapons on gun trucks, I'd readily agree. But folks trying to put together gun trucks without the benefit of access to one of the numbered divisions or brigades--or their equivalent in surviving USN or USAF formations--are going to have a much tougher time finding heavy weapons. Vehicles being used as monuments of some sort aren't typically left out with their weapons in a condition to be restored to service without substantial rebuilding. One might be able to salvage some parts from a howitzer in a park, but as a rule the system has been rendered inert to keep industrious ne'erdowells from gaining access to heavy firepower.

[simonmark6]

For areas where there isn't a readily available supply of scrap weapons, improvisations such as the ones used by the British HomeGuard inthe Second World War might appear. Two that could be used on a Guntruck could be:

Northover Projector: Basically a drainpipe launcher that fired standard grenades a longer range. The standard model was single shot but at least one unit hand built a five shot revolving launcher with a hand crank. Not great, but it could make all the difference against people without such weapons. Given some mechanics I assume it might be possible to do something similar firing 40mm grenades, but that's speculation.

Spigot Mortar: A launcher that used a large over-calibre grenade to make a very clumsy RPG. I'm pretty sure that they had HE and Incendiary bombs (apparently the Incendiary one was very dangerous to fire) and there might have been an AT one but I can't remember for sure.

As for other weapons, how hard would it be to make a simple Gatling gun out of rifle barrels and then power it by electricity? If it could be done, the barrels might still burn out quickly, but against lightly armed foes the shock and awe value might be a sufficient deterrent.

[dragoon500ly]

I think Dragooonly made a post about that some time ago....the amount of time and materials needed for refurbishment would depend on factors like how far it's been de-militarized, how long it's been sitting out exposed to the weather or if it's been sitting gathering dust in a museum, etc. Still raises some interesting possibilities, and with at least some not-quite-so-old vehicles and aircraft on display inside certain museums, you wonder if certain things were left intact on the inside just in case it needed to be rolled out again for any particular dire circumstance...

The Mississippi National Guard Armory just down the road from my home has an M-60A3 out front as a static display. Since I play darts with the armory's 1st Sergeant, I've had a chance to look over the ole beast. Here is what its missing:

Gunner day, night and auxiliary sights; fire control computer; laser rangefinder; TC day and night sights; engine and trannie; breechblock is welded in place; barrel has three holes drilled through the tube and rebar welded in place, physically blocking the barrel.

Needless to say, it will take quite a bit of work to restore this tank to fighting condition!

[Raellus]

I agree that to properly rig up a true gun truck, one is going to need access to lots of military hardware (i.e. surplus machineguns). This would be only possible in areas where large military units are operating.

The only exception would be one of those places in the U.S.A. where folks hold those big, multi-day shoot-offs with lots of full auto MGs and stuff and there wouldn't likely be such get togethers during WWIII.

SimonMark's improvised gun truck weaponry would also be an exception.

As we've discussed in other threads, getting a military static display vehicle running would require a lot of resources that most civilians just don't have access to, especially after the country has been nuked a couple dozen times. Dragoon500ly's example is a really good one.

[natehale1971]

For some... just the appearence of having a functining tank works. If you have what looks like a tank and can make it move around, raiders would see that and think twice about attacking that community. :)

[Webstral]

The Shogun in Nevada has some gun trucks, but these are armed with weapons that used to belong to the 99th Security Group based at Nellis AFV and 46th Infantry Division, the latter of which conducted a road march across northern Nevada en route to Sixth US Army in California in 1998. A couple of machine guns on trucks in the Gunryo (the Shogun’s light motorized army) used to belong to the New America cell in Boise, ID and were “liberated” during a raid in 2000.

The Gunryo has no heavy gun trucks like many of the ones pictured earlier in the thread. Fuel is a precious commodity in the shogunate [1]. The vehicles of the Gunryo have to be light. Large, heavily-armored trucks are out of the question. For this reason, almost all of the gun trucks are modified pickups with a pintle mount for a machine gun and welded-on armor for the truck body and bed. Mortar carriers are unarmored, as they are expected to provide fire support from beyond small arms range.

Webstral

1 Like so many organizations throughout the US, the Gunryo uses a blend of partially refined crude oil from surviving wells in areas under its control and biodiesel. A number of small wells operated in central Nevada at the time of the TDM. The Shogun went to great lengths to find survivors who could keep the wells producing and who could do some refining and processing of the crude. The amount produced is miniscule compared to the pre-Exchange demands of Nevada, but then the Shogun’s needs are miniscule compared to the pre-Exchange demands of Nevada. Diesel fuel from the Nevada wells is mixed with biodiesel from alfalfa grown wherever crops can be grown in the shogunate.

[Ronin]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/Mother1/000_0001-1.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y232/Mother1/000_0002.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/andy.adyns/Rw5c9RPA_0I/AAAAAAAAKiw/JLvWyZ1IEJo/s800/386442815ecmbcjfs5jc.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/andy.adyns/Rw5dCBPA_3I/AAAAAAAAKjM/hPRAJerc2lU/s912/DM-SD-05-10102.jpg

[Ronin]

Was just thinking of some improvised tanks that were used in WWII.
The NI Tank (Russian: Танк НИ Tank NI, abbr. На Испуг, Na Ispug, literally ‘Bluff into retreat’, pronounced /ˈniː/), also called the Odessa tank or Terror Tank, was an improvised Soviet armoured fighting vehicle, based on an STZ-5 agricultural tractor, manufactured in Odessa during the early days of the German-Soviet War. More than anything this tank was intended to frighten and demoralize enemy positions that believed it to be an actual heavy armored vehicle.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/NI_tank.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/%D0%A1%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%98-1.svg/541px-%D0%A1%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%98-1.svg.png
NI-1 Diagram: 1 — armored hull, 2 — side armor, 3 — engine compartment, 4 — turret, 5 — fenders, 6 — track armor, 7 — machine gun armor, 8 — DShK machine gun, 9 — hook, 10 — toolbox, 11 — exhaust pipe, 12 — chassis beams, 13 — chassis front, 14 — tow hitch, 15 — idler, 16 — support roller, 17 — driving wheel, 18 — roller, 19 — DT machine gun

The Bob Semple tank was a tank designed by New Zealand Minister of Works Bob Semple during World War II. Originating out of the need to build military hardware from available materials, the tank was built from corrugated iron on a tractor base. Designed and built without formal plans or blueprints, it had numerous design flaws and practical difficulties, and was never put into mass production or used in combat. Despite this, it has become something of an icon of the New Zealand 'do it yourself' mentality.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Sempl_2.jpg

The KhTZ-16 (Russian: ХТЗ-16) (after the Kharkov Tractor Factory; Russian: Kharkovskiy Traktorniy Zavod) was a Soviet improvised armoured vehicle of the Second World War, built on the chassis of an STZ-3 tractor[1]. The vehicles were built in Kharkiv until the factory was evacuated to the east, at which time production moved to Stalingrad. No less than 809 vehicles were planned, but no more than about 60 were actually built. Some vehicles were used in the fighting around Kharkov in October 1941, but were quickly lost.
The vehicle was operated by a crew of two, and armed with a 45mm anti-tank gun and a 7.62mm DT or Degtyarev light machine gun mounted in a fixed superstructure
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA_%28%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0% B2%29.jpg/250px-%D0%91%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA_%28%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0% B2%29.jpg

[Ronin]

And one last one, cause I cant resist.:)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Bedford_OYD_Armadillo_MK_III.jpg/800px-Bedford_OYD_Armadillo_MK_III.jpg
WWII Bedford truck with a WWI COW 37mm gun. (Automatic cannon fed from a 5 round clip)

[LBraden]

I think someone forgot to post one of the most sensible, realistic and ultra safe gun-trucks that the British have EVER made on their home soil....

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/leebraden/Odds%20and%20Ends/th_Bison.png (http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/leebraden/Odds%20and%20Ends/Bison.png)


and YES, that is concrete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_concrete_armoured_lorry

[Webstral]

Then, too, there are the gunboats of the US Navy Infantry Battalion 2, known in its area of operations, San Francisco Bay, as Blue Two. Unlike the Gunryo, which has a very limited number of machine guns and a few mortars for its improvised gun trucks, Blue Two has the advantage of operating with support from the Navy base at Alameda. The selection of weapons is much better, and the availability of materials and technical specialists means that the various gunboats of Blue Two are well-designed, well-built, and well-armed [1].

Although the gunboats of Blue Two vary considerably in dimensions, armament, and draft, all combine direct fire weapons with indirect fire weapons. Usually, the gunboats of Blue Two have a principle gun or guns, such as a 25mm autocannon or twin-mounted .50 caliber machine guns. The primary gun usually is mounted in a full turret built for that purpose or a high-walled firing position with a gun shield for the crew. Secondary guns typically are M60 or M240B machine guns fired from pintle mounts behind gun shields. The most common indirect fire weapon is a 60mm mortar, although several Mk19 AGL are in use as well.

The troop carriers also carry a machine gun, but their role is not to engage in combat. The troop carriers of Blue Two are intended to put the naval infantry ashore, then withdraw while the gunboats provide direct fire support.


1 None of the gunboats used by Blue Two are custom-built. All are pre-Exchange vessels that have been modified.

[Targan]

Was just thinking of some improvised tanks that were used in WWII.

<snip>

The Bob Semple tank was a tank designed by New Zealand Minister of Works Bob Semple during World War II. Originating out of the need to build military hardware from available materials, the tank was built from corrugated iron on a tractor base. Designed and built without formal plans or blueprints, it had numerous design flaws and practical difficulties, and was never put into mass production or used in combat. Despite this, it has become something of an icon of the New Zealand 'do it yourself' mentality.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Sempl_2.jpg

The Right Honourable Robert 'Bob' Semple was my father's father's father (my paternal great grandfather (he's where I got my middle name from)). He was originally a miner from Ballarat in Australia, at which time he was also a fairly well-known bare knuckle prize fighter. That's why his nickname in the New Zealand Labour Party was "Fightin' Bob Semple". He was personally involved in the design and construction of the Bob Semple Tank, as in he drove down to the rail works where he used to work before becoming a cabinet minister, told the workers there what he had in mind and personally oversaw the project.

Great grandad was a tall, imposing man, scary-looking in all the old photos on my dad's wall including one in which he stands in a pugilist's pose, stripped to the waist and with a big, handlebar moustache, photographed right before a fight. It's probably pretty obvious that I'm very proud that my paternal ancestor designed and built his own tank, even if it was a completely crap tank. :D

[dragoon500ly]

This thread has been a lot of fun! But one item that seems to be missing are the various bank armored cars. They are already armored to resist small arms fire, have the beefed up engine/trannie needed to move at a decent speed and are already fitted with firing ports that will accept rifles/shotguns/SAWs. They come in panel vans, dual rear axle and even in eighteen wheeler configs....and there are a lot of them available.

Just to name one company, Wells Fargo, they have over twenty ten wheel armored cars serving just the casinos in Gulfport and Biloxi, Mississippi. The major local bank, Hancock Bank, adds another dozen armored panel vans that service their various local branches. So some 32 armored cars, each capable of carrying a short squad, would give a militia the ability to move quite a few troops.

[bobcat]

and one cannot forget SWAT vans. many also have armored capability.(and built in weapons racks)

[rcaf_777]

The Autocannon from an A-10 MIGHT be able to be put into an armored vehicle that has an offset or rear mounted engine and only be able to be fired directly forward or directly aft depending on how it was mounted on the vehcile, and i think that the vehicle would need some kind of stablization legs like field artillery to act as a counter balance to it it being fired in a burst shot... Unless of course you're talking about using it as single shot or the like. Then it might be able to be on a turret that could fire to the right or left.

Of course you could use that kind of weapon to make the Cobra ASP from the GI JOE action figures, cartoons and comics.

http://www.kristoferbrozio.com/wp-content/uploads/GIJOE-2/cobra/tn_cobra-assault-system-pod-ASP.JPG

Just a little off topic but GI Joe made joined the Army I was dispointed when I arrived at basic and got no cool laser rifle, no cool code name, or a box hand grenades...on the pluse side the food live up to it rep...hmmm chip beef on toast

[Fusilier]

Just a little off topic but GI Joe made joined the Army I was dispointed when I arrived at basic and got no cool laser rifle, no cool code name, or a box hand grenades.

Knowing is half the battle... that doesn't leave much room for lasers and other cool stuff like what you wanted. See the diagram below for details.

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/2809/1259953623700.jpg

[Raellus]

I want that on a T-shirt!

[Ronin]

The Right Honourable Robert 'Bob' Semple was my father's father's father (my paternal great grandfather (he's where I got my middle name from)). He was originally a miner from Ballarat in Australia, at which time he was also a fairly well-known bare knuckle prize fighter. That's why his nickname in the New Zealand Labour Party was "Fightin' Bob Semple". He was personally involved in the design and construction of the Bob Semple Tank, as in he drove down to the rail works where he used to work before becoming a cabinet minister, told the workers there what he had in mind and personally oversaw the project.

Great grandad was a tall, imposing man, scary-looking in all the old photos on my dad's wall including one in which he stands in a pugilist's pose, stripped to the waist and with a big, handlebar moustache, photographed right before a fight. It's probably pretty obvious that I'm very proud that my paternal ancestor designed and built his own tank, even if it was a completely crap tank. :D

That's super cool. :) I just come from a long line of dirt farmers:p

[natehale1971]

My family goes back to the days the United States were just a bunch of seperate British colonies... Our anscetor Richard Dobbs Spaight SR was elected to represent North Carolina at the Constutional Convention, where he was one of the voices who pressured for the Bill of Rights before the Consitution went out of ratification. To make sure that the limits to the Federal Government wouldn't allow for a government to be able to take Rights away from the citizens. He also was the Governor of the State of North Carolina and served in the US Congress. A feat that his son Richard Dobbs Spaight JR accomplished as well. Our family also is amazed about the fact that Richard Dobbs Spaight SR. was killed in duel...

anther member of our bloodline was the Prime Minister of Beligum (the part of the family who spells the family name Spaak). Another had led a coup in Fiji... We had been told that part of the family living in the UK had a title and peerage... but we've not been able to confirm that.

Unfortunately (or fortuately) for us... our blood family isn't that large, and no matter how you spell the name, we're releated. and for some reason, people just can't seem to pronouce our name right!

[pmulcahy11b]

Unfortunately (or fortuately) for us... our blood family isn't that large, and no matter how you spell the name, we're releated. and for some reason, people just can't seem to pronouce our name right!

I get that all the time with my last name, Mulcahy. Seems like an easy name to pronounce to me, but almost no one does. I know I'm getting old because, used to get it stick in people's head's what the pronunciation is, I just say, "Like Father Mulcahy on MASH." Today, almost no one under 30 or so has seen MASH or know what MASH is!

[Targan]

Another member of our bloodline was the Prime Minister of Beligum (the part of the family who spells the family name Spaak). Another had led a coup in Fiji... We had been told that part of the family living in the UK had a title and peerage... but we've not been able to confirm that.

The clanhead of the Scottish clan my paternal bloodline belongs to (the Sempills) is a baron (the clan has held baronies and baronetcies for 3 or 4 centuries). My paternal bloodline has written records going back to the 1300s in Renfrewshire. The clanhold's primary seat, Castle Craigievar, is one of the finest and best preserved castles in Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Sempill

One of the Sempill Barons was the General in charge of the left flank at the Battle of Culloden, commanding the 25th Regiment, which went on to become the King's Own Scottish Borderers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Own_Scottish_Borderers ). My ancestors fought on the side of Robert the Bruce and subsequent Scottish kings including at the Battle of Sauchieburn, the Battle of Flodden Field and many battles in the Anglo-Scottish War during the 16th century as war band leaders and military commanders.

[Legbreaker]

*YAWN*
My great, great (add in a couple) grandfather was Count of Magdeburg up until about 200 years ago. Found himself supporting the loosing side in one of the many "squabbles" and met with a "hunting accident" while being "escorted" by two armed men he'd never met before.
My surname in old Germanic (from him) means "King".

[Targan]

My great, great (add in a couple) grandfather was Count of Magdeburg up until about 200 years ago.Cool!
Found himself supporting the loosing side in one of the many "squabbles" and met with a "hunting accident" while being "escorted" by two armed men he'd never met before.Not so cool:confused:. Is there more to that story? Sounds fascinating.

[Legbreaker]

There probably is but I don't really know it. Apparently his body was returned with an arrow to the back after he'd smuggled both his sons out of the country. One ended up in Australia and the other eventually made their way (via here) to America.
Another realitive was Queen Victorias' bridesmaid, but that's about all I know of them.
And my great great great (?) uncle was Sir Joseph Banks.
Plenty more in the mix there somewhere, and one day I'll ask my mother about them (she's been doing the family tree thing for the past 30 years give or take).

[Fusilier]

I have all of you beat.

I am related to Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra and Confucious.

Actually, from what we know of genetics, I'll wager that everyone on this board is too. Yes, I do know what that means... we're related to Legbreaker.

[Adm.Lee]

From gun trucks to gun-planes to genealogy... wherever shall we end up?

I have Scottish ancestors who have a castle! Well, three and a half walls, some windows and no roof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbie_Tower Seems we got evicted 400 years ago for feuding with the neighbors. They were at the same battles as Targan's people, too.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, I do know what that means... we're related to Legbreaker.

Obviously all inferior specimens of the genetic line.... :cool:

[Ronin]

http://rivrdog.typepad.com/rivrdog/images/2008/01/31/m_gator_1_146_206.jpg

[Webstral]

On the somewhat related subject of gunboats, there would be a real need for gunboats on the Mississippi and all the waterways the government hoped to control. Every warlord with two rifles to rub together would want to collect tolls from river traffic passing through his area. One might even see enterprising marauders trying to block river traffic to make off with the goods. Therefore, there would be a real need for protection on the river barges themselves and on separate gunboats.

There would be a need for gunboats on the Great Lakes, too. Communities all along the perimeter of the Great Lakes would have an advantage over landlocked communities because the Great Lakes would foster interdependence. Small and not-so-small gunboats would be needed to keep the lakes free of warlords and enterprising marauders.

[copeab]

On the somewhat related subject of gunboats, there would be a real need for gunboats on the Mississippi and all the waterways the government hoped to control.

Not to mention gunboats used to defend towns on the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from, well, actual pirates.

[Raellus]

Gunboats would become a fixture on most inland waterways and around coastal areas, especially in or near active combat zones.

[WallShadow]

SNIP
There would be a need for gunboats on the Great Lakes, too. Communities all along the perimeter of the Great Lakes would have an advantage over landlocked communities because the Great Lakes would foster interdependence. Small and not-so-small gunboats would be needed to keep the lakes free of warlords and enterprising marauders.

The USS Niagara replica set sail in 1990 after being constructed by the Pennsylvania Historical
and Museum Commission in Erie, PA. The Niagara is a full-size, fully functional brig from the period of the War of 1812.

One wonders if more like it could be bashed together to guard the lake frontiers. "Gateway to the St. Lawrence Seaway", anyone?

[Adm.Lee]

Brig Niagara is really tiny! I was on board at the Tall Ships a year or two ago. You could fit the average PC group in among the crew, but not many beyond them.

[copeab]

Brig Niagara is really tiny! I was on board at the Tall Ships a year or two ago. You could fit the average PC group in among the crew, but not many beyond them.

Yeah, sailing ships are a lot smaller than people think. In a book I have on pirate ships, one of the largest covert is only about as long as two WWII PT boats.

[Raellus]

I was researching regular U.S. Army cargo trucks and I came across this in a Wikipedia article on the M35 2 1/2 ton truck. Apparently, other nations have used gun trucks since Vietnam, and very recently as well.

"The concept lived on well after the Vietnam War. El Salvador converted a number of M35 type vehicles into armored trucks in the 1980s, after successful conversions of Magirus Deutz trucks. These vehicles were nicknamed "Mazingers" in reference to the Japanese cartoon Mazinger Z.[8][9]

The Philippine Marine Corps also began converting M35 type trucks to an armored configuration by 2004. The first vehicle, dubbed "Talisman," utilized armor fabricated from derelict LVTP5 amphibious personnel carriers. Later gun trucks were built using more standard components and bear some resemblance to U.S. military vehicles of the Vietnam era.[10] The Philippine Marine Corps had also begun the creation of an anti-aircraft element by 2006, utilizing M35 based vehicles. Two types of vehicles have been seen so far. One utilizes the Mk 56 Mod 0 mount from the Patrol Boat, River, with two M2 Browning machine guns, while the other features another former naval mount with a single Oerlikon 20 mm cannon.[11]

Colombia maintains a fleet of REO M35 "Meteoro" armored trucks. These locally fabricated armored vehicles are used to guard tourist bus caravans as well as mobile checkpoints. Early vehicles were not fabricated to any particular standard and typically hosted three weapon stations that could be fitted with a 7.62 mm (.308-cal) or .50-caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun. The weapon stations may or may not have had a gun shield on any particular vehicle. More recent examples follow a pattern with the cab and fuel tanks armored and the drop side cargo bed converted to an armored box, atop which is a "gun tower," a set of four heavily armored weapon stations, one facing each direction. .50-caliber machine guns are mounted front and back, with 7.62 mm machine guns mounted to the sides. and mounting a machine gun. Losses in the Meteoro fleet instigated the purchase of the BTR-80 Caribe.[12]"

[DCausey]

"Mazinger" huh? That's cool! Mazinger Z is a giant robot fighting machine. Cool article, I'd like to see photos of those Philippines gun trucks.

[Raellus]

"Mazinger" huh? That's cool! Mazinger Z is a giant robot fighting machine. Cool article, I'd like to see photos of those Philippines gun trucks.

The only one I can find so far:

http://www.warwheels.net/images/TalismanALLAS%20(2).jpg

Looks like a quad .30 mount of some kind? Interesting digi-cam as well.

Here's a link to a photo of the Colombian Army's "Meteoro" armored gun trucks, also based on the M35 series of 2.5 ton trucks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/isbi_armor_blindajes/3022374643/in/photostream

[Raellus]

I also found this article on "narco tanks" (i.e. armored gun trucks) that at least one Mexican narco-gang was making.

http://insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/1073-narco-tanks-mexicos-cartels-get-asymmetric-weapons

This seems to reinforce how common armored gun trucks would be the world over in the T2K-verse.

[Legbreaker]

Looks like a quad .30 mount of some kind?

Looks more like a single weapon to me with another on the other side of the vehicle.

[Raellus]

Looks more like a single weapon to me with another on the other side of the vehicle.

I think you're right.

[ArmySGT.]

Well look at that 1919A4s still Soldiering on .

[DCausey]

Rae, thanks for the photo. That truck looks pretty sweet. I can totally see building a model of something like that.

[Webstral]

Cantonments with the ability to move these vehicles from one location to another will have a significant advantage over an enemy without gun trucks. As long as fuel and ammunition hold out, a gun truck with one or more machine guns can seriously affect a confrontation. I suspect many cantonment defense forces will become obsessed with keeping their gun trucks operable at any cost--once they get an idea of what two M60s or heavier weapons can accomplish against bandits (or the law). Marauders will be equally interested in fielding gun trucks, but a small and/or mobile group will have trouble supporting gun trucks. Hm. This dynamic may lead to lots of marauders evolving analogously into Black Barons or the Shoguns in that they exercise semi-governmental control over a swath of territory.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I was researching regular U.S. Army cargo trucks and I came across this in a Wikipedia article on the M35 2 1/2 ton truck. Apparently, other nations have used gun trucks since Vietnam, and very recently as well...

Gun trucks have been in use for longer than most people realize and I think this lack of recognition is mostly due to the lack of images available. For example, the French forces were using CCKW and later GMC trucks to carry various ordnance since WW2 and carrying over into the conflict in IndoChina

Model pics and history of 40mm Bofors gun truck
http://www.warwheels.net/40mmBoforsFrenchGmcAdeleINDEX.html

French trucks in IndoChina
http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=78165&page=1

Other armoured trucks in IndoChina (nearly at the bottom of page, includes armoured Dodge WC62)
http://members.multimania.co.uk/Indochine/cefeo/afvs.html#top

[Webstral]

Model pics and history of 40mm Bofors gun truck
http://www.warwheels.net/40mmBoforsFrenchGmcAdeleINDEX.html


A lovely machine. It certainly would come in handy while digging enemy troops out of buildings and bunkers.

[HorseSoldier]

"The concept lived on well after the Vietnam War. El Salvador converted a number of M35 type vehicles into armored trucks in the 1980s, after successful conversions of Magirus Deutz trucks. These vehicles were nicknamed "Mazingers" in reference to the Japanese cartoon Mazinger Z.[8][9]


Colombia maintains a fleet of REO M35 "Meteoro" armored trucks. These locally fabricated armored vehicles are used to guard tourist bus caravans as well as mobile checkpoints.

I see fingerprints belonging to 7th SFG(A) all over this one.

They also helped export the idea of the Q Bus that the Selous Scouts used in Rhodesia to El Salvador during the war there.

[Webstral]

After re-writing the introduction for a piece on gun trucks, I realized that I'm going to have to rethink certain aspects of a lot of pieces. Some of the infantry brigades and divisions operating in CONUS are going to have to have some gun trucks added to their rosters. The tracked AFVs simply can't be sent running all over kingdom come. In Sixth US Army's AO, where some oil from Bakersfield is available, gun trucks probably will be relatively common as escorts. Colorado probably has a fair number of gun trucks running on oil out of Wyoming. I'll have to think about 104th ID, though. They have great distances to cover, but I'm iffy about the fuel.

[Webstral]

Last night, I started dusting off my work on gun trucks in northern New England. I did a lot of work before setting it aside. Now I'm having trouble decidig where the boundaries are. A simple write-up for the four organizations in northern New England using gun trucks seems too brief and too narrow. An in-depth history on northern New England through 4/01 seems too broad. Still thinking...

[Olefin]

Love this thread, full of all kinds of interesting information. The Kenya module I am working on will have several different versions of gun trucks, both on the enemy side (hello Somali Technicals) as well as on the good guys side (the British Lions unit will have several gun trucks that a WWII vet who was retired to Kenya came up with)

[Webstral]

The attached piece has been idling as I flesh out other stuff. I'm very much on the fence about whether this sort of thing is useful without a larger context. How much of a larger context is needed? Do players need to know about other armed bodies in northern New England for the organizations with gun trucks to be meaningful? Do refs need to know more about the organizations in question for the OOB to be useful? Is northern New England a meaningful subdivision, or should I be talking about all of New England?

[Targan]

I'm very much on the fence about whether this sort of thing is useful without a larger context. How much of a larger context is needed?

Well I don't know about "needed", Web, but I like reading the material you write so I'd like to place my vote for more context, please :D

[Ironside]

So would I, very much so.

[Tegyrius]

I summon this thread to arise from the grave!

Ahem.

(Further gun truck cross-discussion here (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3892) and here (http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=790).)

Courtesy of the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office, here's an interesting summary of improvised armored fighting vehicles (IAFVs) in use among the Mexican drug cartels. Relevance to our interests should be obvious...

- C.

[Askold]

a) Those cartels have some serious firepower. .50 sniper rifles and machine guns are bad enough but they actually have anti-tank weapons.

b) I would think that they would try to buy/steal real armoured vehicles by now. Maybe from the Mexican military or shipped from another country. I'm sure those would be better than putting some hill-billy armour on a SUV.

c) I wasn't sure if our team should build a gun-truck in Twilight but after reading this thread I think it should be our next objective.

[Brother in Arms]

I am exceptionally happy to see this thread revived.

I was thinking about gun truck Armaments today since that has been touched upon but more folks have talked about the actual trucks themselves and armor.

In Europe there would be several different weapons available. Clearly on the NATO side there would likely be M60, MAG-58/GPMG, MG-3, M249/Minimi
M2, Mark 19.

what else?

[boogiedowndonovan]

I am exceptionally happy to see this thread revived.

I was thinking about gun truck Armaments today since that has been touched upon but more folks have talked about the actual trucks themselves and armor.

In Europe there would be several different weapons available. Clearly on the NATO side there would likely be M60, MAG-58/GPMG, MG-3, M249/Minimi
M2, Mark 19.

what else?

probably been mentoned already but rocket launchers, recoilless rifles, AA guns, how about a disabled M113?

If you haven't checked out Graebarde's 5th Infantry Division Reorganization document, try this link

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1920

He has a provisional cavalry unit equipped with gun trucks, including a HEMET with captured quad 23mm gun and another with a M163 Vulcan ADA chassis.

Here's a pic of a Vietnam era guntruck with M113 chassis

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zippo132/6794824507/

a different Vietnam M113 guntruck

http://www.warwheels.net/images/m54APCguntruckLyles1.jpg

Here's a news article from the recent Libya conflict about the 'DIY' weapons, shows a rocket laucher mounted on a truck.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan-rebels/100086/

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Don't just limit it to Infantry weapons, there's other sources of armament that gets forgotten about - light AA guns and aircraft/helicopter weapons.
Both the Rhodesians and the South Africans mounted 20mm cannon taken from aircraft onto vehicles, a practice started as far back as WW2 when the Long Range Desert Group mounted Vickers K machine guns on their jeeps and Chevvies.

It can still be seen in the "technicals" in Africa and the Middle East with such installations as single and twin barrel ZSU-23 systems mounted on the back of trucks. The 20mm German cannon in the 2nd Ed. Heavy Weapons book would be a good choice.
Given what's been seen in Libya this year, helicopter rocket pods are not out of the question and maybe even the turret & basket from a BMP.

Edit: Hmm, I see BoogieDownDonovan posted similar ideas as I was typing my reply. And he has links! :)

[Raellus]

60mm mortars would be useful indirect fire weapons and take up relatively little space. The IDF used to mount 60mm mortars on their tank turret roofs. A direct fire 81mm mortar, like the one mounted under M2 HMGs on Vietnam-era USN riverine craft would be a devastating weapon system for a gun truck (but would require a fairly sturdy mount).

[rcaf_777]

Some Images from the Interweb

[Apache6]

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mexican-cartel-tactical-note-22-narco-tank-factory-discovered-in-nuevo-laredo

Also below are photos from US Army unit in Iraq.

[stormlion1]

I look at those pics and only think "When the Devil Drives, needs must"

[Webstral]

I love these images!

[Apache6]

Agree, odd that those OIF photos would not look too out of place in T2K

[Olefin]

I love these images!

I second what Webstral said - love these images and great ideas!!

[unkated]

I have always believed...

- That when true military vehicles cease to be available, civilian vehicles will be adapted - a pickup is better than walking; where a pickup is not available, two Ford Escorts (or compact car of your choice) will do (if they run). Beats walking and carrying all your stuff.

- Where armor is not available, soldiers will improvise as they always have. A wall of double-thick 2x4s is not as good as the armor of an M2 - but stops more bullets and shrapnel than air. Manhole covers are even better.

- As APCs die off, guntrucks and other vehicles will be improvised for use as APCs. MLRS launcher without missiles? Remove the launcher, weld on an armored box (although morelikely used for a transport.

- Military trucks are likely to last longer (as APCs) than civilian vehicles - though there are more civilian vehicles available (in Europe or the US).

And yeah, the pictures suit very well.

[SionEwig]

I ran across this image (a smaller version) today on a bicycling blog and thought this group might find it interesting.

[copeab]

I ran across this image (a smaller version) today on a bicycling blog and thought this group might find it interesting.

More appropriate for a Victorian Science Fiction wargame ;)

[Bullet Magnet]

I ran across this image (a smaller version) today on a bicycling blog and thought this group might find it interesting.

Anyone who has ridden a bike where there are motorists, fully understands this photo.

[jester]

The converted trucks used in A-Stan against the Soviets, Technicals in Somalia and other parts of Africa and now ISIS, many converted civilian trucks and even stripped cars with a heavy MG or even rocket launcher mounted and armor from various sources would be the norm even in Europe and N. America.

[Apache6]

More photos from Iraq plus some from Libyia including a M113 variant with what looks like a SALADIN turret with 76mm gun(?). 3259

3260

3261

3262

3263

[Apache6]

Including a Korean War era jeep.

[Webstral]

One really has to appreciate the creativity of some folks. That M113 with the add-on turret is a work of art. The pickups are perfectly serviceable weapons carriers, though I'd tighten up pretty severely if there were return fire.

[Raellus]

Found this big beaut while looking for pics for a supplement I'm hoping to post soon.

[Raellus]

Here's another, of what appears to be a separate vehicle. According to the online picture caption, "Ural4320 with a part of BRDM’s hull on a trunk, with UB-32-57 rocket launcher mounted on its turret." This particular vehicle was nicknamed "Broom" by its builder.

[Webstral]

Beauty! One has to wonder whether they didn't consider IF with that bad boy. It would be a shock to be on the receiving end of a concentrated barrage from the business end of that pretty girl.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Been a while since I looked at this thread but here's a couple of observations...

The Ural trucks with BRDM hull sections look like two different trucks or at the very least, if it is the same truck then at very different periods of time (irrespective of the unit markings etc. I'm looking at the damage on the bumper bar that isn't present in the other photo).

As for the M113, it looks to me like the turret from a Panhard AML90, it's certainly sporting the muzzle brake of the 90mm gun found on the AML90... M113 with 90mm, gonna have me some fun!

[Raellus]

If you haven't checked it out before, the site War is Boring contains a bevy of articles on all sorts of military history and tech, as well as current affairs, updated regularly. I spotted this article there today:

https://warisboring.com/in-1940-the-british-turned-civilian-trucks-into-fighting-vehicles-95ecf2861ebb#.ip3p5x4xu

This strikes me as something that both MilGov and CivGov would be doing soon after The Exchange, if not before.

[unkated]

Of a similar nature were some other emergency military vehicle designs in the same period, also designed to minimize the use of strategic materials:


Standard Beaverette - Named for Lord Beaver, British Minister of Aircraft Production in 1940, who requested it. Basically, a mid-size sedan with minimal armor (11mm) on the front and sides of the driving compartment, backed by 3-in of oak, armed with a Bren LMG.

Bison - a mobile pillbox made using a heavy truck chassis walled with concrete. It was not meant to be used while driving, but could be driven to (for example) an airfield suffering from an attack by German airborne troops, parked, and then used as a defensive strong point. The concrete would stop small arms fire, protecting MG crews inside firing out through open ports.

Bedford OXA - a lightly armored (9mm steel) 1.5t truck armed with a Bren LMG and a Boys ATR


All of these were built quickly for home defense following the Fall of France and the withdrawal from Dunkerque, where the British Army lost most of its heavy equipment and vehicles.

Certainly, something like the Beaverette or the Armadillo could be concocted in any automobile plant. Homemade versions similar to the Armadillo built up on the bed of a pickup truck should be easy enough.

Light armor vehicles with limited off-road capability and/or portection work fine - if your opponent has none.

Uncle Ted

[Apache6]

A single (mentally unstable) guy was able to design and build an armored bulldozer, equipped with video cameras and gun ports in his garage.

The number of places capable of doing this in the U.S. has to number in the thousands. I know of two local 'performance motorsports' buisnesses locally that I'm sure could design and produce the vehicles.

I think that it would be common to use commercial dump trucks (which already have heavily built chassis) and/or bulldozers as the basis of gun trucks and field expedient "tanks." This does not require a massive industrial basis, since the core component of the vehicles are already existing. If the designers are smart they will use VERY common vehicles (catapiller D-7 dozers and Oshkosh Dump trucks sinces there are lots of parts that can be scavenged).

[Targan]

Yup, my Great-Grandad had his "tank" whipped up at a railway workshop.

[Olefin]

Saw this video about Vietnam era gun trucks - enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkc_9JwczaM&feature=youtu.be

[Olefin]

Saw this article and had all kinds of ideas for players and GM's to turn Toyota trucks into very effective fighting machines including examples from Somalia, Chad and Libya.

Got to love the following paragraph from the story

"The Libyans weren’t the best soldiers, or the best tacticians, but they were the most innovative engineers. They attached armor plate-mated office chairs with ZPU AA guns, sawed off the roof to increase the arc of fire for the recoilless rifle in the bed. They produced hundreds of trucks armed with huge S-5 Soviet rocket pods, intended for aircraft. They even cut the turret off of a BMP-1 Soviet Armored Personnel Carrier and mounted it on the back of a Toyota."

https://warontherocks.com/2014/02/the-pickup-truck-era-of-warfare/

[Dackattack]

My philosophy on vehicles in T2k is this:if you can, put a gun on it

Sent from my Z839 using Tapatalk

[Legbreaker]

Just one? :o
Seriously though the better idea is to try and keep the opposition well away from the vehicles, or better yet totally unaware you even HAVE vehicles!
Until it's too late for them of course and you're already driving over the top of their splattered corpses. :tank:

[pmulcahy11b]

A single (mentally unstable) guy...

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D

[Legbreaker]

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D

Don't we all?

[swaghauler]

This is why we cannot have nice things in the US Army!

https://taskandpurpose.com/army-jltv-rollover-photo

[Dackattack]

This is why we cannot have nice things in the US Army!



https://taskandpurpose.com/army-jltv-rollover-photo"alright, I want to take this awesome new vehicle for a drive! "
"okay, roll for WVD"
"100"

Sent from my Z839 using Tapatalk

[Vespers War]

This is why we cannot have nice things in the US Army!

https://taskandpurpose.com/army-jltv-rollover-photo

It took them four days? That's three days more than usual!

[cawest]

this one was on face book from the Ukraine.

https://www.facebook.com/defensionemwarbible/photos/a.206045196572805/539729616537693/?type=3&theater

[Dackattack]

this one was on face book from the Ukraine.



https://www.facebook.com/defensionemwarbible/photos/a.206045196572805/539729616537693/?type=3&theater"I just want the machine gun mounted on the BMP"
*Roll: 1*
"miraculously you find the whole cannon fits into the bed"

Sent from my Z839 using Tapatalk

[pmulcahy11b]

this one was on face book from the Ukraine.

https://www.facebook.com/defensionemwarbible/photos/a.206045196572805/539729616537693/?type=3&theater

All I can say is...why? You can buy real BMP-2s from some countries in Africa or the FSU these days, cheap.

[ChalkLine]

Like the BMD-2 above in VietNam some gun trucks were simply M113s in the bed of a truck.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

There's a couple of reasons you would do something like that.
I believe one of the M113 guntrucks from Vietnam was made because they had a surplus 113 hull (or that the 113 had been damaged in some way but the hull was still intact). So in that situation, it's simply a case of making use of something that was not usable in its normal form.
Maybe the BMD has damaged running gear/engine or tracks etc. etc.

The second reason would be the portee concept. Using the truck to carry the BMD to save wear and tear on the BMD engine, tracks etc. etc. It also uses less fuel to cart the thing around on the back of a truck.

And there's one other idea, maybe it was a tactical choice - the autocannon of the BMD is much higher above ground level than it would normally be. In the back of that truck, it looks as though it's at a good height to fire over walls and gates like you see in the background.

[ChalkLine]

As I think has already been said the gun trucks of Viet Nam had a different mission to the Middle Eastern technicals and the Donbass 'thingys'.

In Viet Nam the firebases needed supplying (72% of the war effort was in the maintenance of the firebases) and the supply columns had a chance of being ambushed at extremely close range. The way the frankly courageous men manning the convoys responded was with overwhelming automatic fire to suppress the enemy, stop the enemy maneuvering and make the convoy the master of its surroundings.

The wandering nature of Twilight 2000 soldiers, they are either ensconced in a canton or on the road, means that the Viet Nam model really suits T2k. When surprised they can lay down massive automatic fire and dominate the ambush at the outset. It's hell on the ammo but who wants to die with a full ammo pouch anyway.

[Dackattack]

.

Maybe the BMD has damaged running gear/engine or tracks etc. etc.



The second reason would be the portee concept. Using the truck to carry the BMD to save wear and tear on the BMD engine, tracks etc. etc. It also uses less fuel to cart the thing around on the back of a truck.



And there's one other idea, maybe it was a tactical choice - the autocannon of the BMD is much higher above ground level than it would normally be. In the back of that truck, it looks as though it's at a good height to fire over walls and gates like you see in the background.

Well hell I'd never thought about that

Sent from my Z839 using Tapatalk

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Carrying the BMD around on the back of a truck not only reduces wear and tear on the motor, tracks, etc. etc., it also makes it still useful without needing to have a qualified driver. In terms of Twilight, I imagine this would be a reasonable option for keeping a heavy weapon available when the vehicle normally carrying the weapon is not mobile but still usable.

[Raellus]

Carrying the BMD around on the back of a truck not only reduces wear and tear on the motor, tracks, etc. etc., it also makes it still useful without needing to have a qualified driver. In terms of Twilight, I imagine this would be a reasonable option for keeping a heavy weapon available when the vehicle normally carrying the weapon is not mobile but still usable.

Good point, but keep in mind that lugging around an AFV hull is going to dramatically increase wear and tear on the truck's various components, so it's a bit of a trade-off.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Good point, but keep in mind that lugging around an AFV hull is going to dramatically increase wear and tear on the truck's various components, so it's a bit of a trade-off.
Absolutely and I think the way to alleviate some of the negative connotations of this is to make it a part of the gameplay - as in, the group discusses their options and decides which option is better for them, running the armoured vehicle as it was intended, or carrying it portee style on a truck (or evern abandoning one vehicle or the other!)
Depending on the model of truck, it's probably far easier to source spare parts for it than it is to get spares for the armoured vehicle. Trucks typically require less maintenance than armoured vehicles and you can sometimes get away with using non-standard components on the truck e.g. using wheels/tyres from a similar vehicle.

[ChalkLine]

It should be noted you'd probably have to use a crane to get the AFV onto the truck. It's about 12 tons+ for a BMD from memory

[Legbreaker]

A crane would be helpful and probably quicker, but not vital. Any combat engineer / assault pioneer can rig up the necessary apparatus using trees, logs, steel beams, rocks, ropes, chains and so on.
Just sitting here writing this post I can think of three ways to do it without using equipment heavier than a chainsaw.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

If you have the time (and you will want plenty of it) and some shovels, you can always use the old trick of digging a hole that's only as deep as the rear tray is high and reverse the truck in. Then it's a simple enough task to drive the BMD onto the truck bed.

[Legbreaker]

[QUOTE=StainlessSteelCynic;80699... old trick of digging a hole that's only as deep as the rear tray is high and reverse the truck in.[/QUOTE]

Explosives do the job too. Using time delay detonators properly you not only dig your hole, but toss the spoil out in a suitable direction too. Drop a few planks in for your wheels, and you're good to go!

[ChalkLine]

Our PCs were using an A-frame to put a ZSU-23-2 onto the back of a truck when we fumbled and the zoo landed on my character
:squish:

[Legbreaker]

Just a few of the available lifting options, all fairly easy to construct out of (usually) locally sourced materials.

4200

4201

4202

[Raellus]

Depending on the model of truck, it's probably far easier to source spare parts for it than it is to get spares for the armoured vehicle. Trucks typically require less maintenance than armoured vehicles and you can sometimes get away with using non-standard components on the truck e.g. using wheels/tyres from a similar vehicle.

Very true.

[rcaf_777]

[QUOTE=Legbreaker;80707]Just a few of the available lifting options, all fairly easy to construct out of (usually) locally sourced materials.

a Gin Pole is found on the M88 Recovery Vehicle/ M88A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lifting Extraction Systems

[Legbreaker]

A Gin Pole is found on the M88 Recovery Vehicle/ M88A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lifting Extraction Systems
Not surprising really given it's it the simplest of all the lifting methods, although does require a significant amount of rope or chain, and some strong anchor points (three will work, four is better).

[Raellus]

So, the Russians have a travelling [rail-] roadshow of war booty from Syria, including some pretty creative gun-trucks. Check them out here:

http://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26659/moscow-has-a-syria-fracture-propaganda-train-loaded-with-war-trophies-crisscrossing-russia

-

[Raellus]

And now, based on their combat experiences in Syria, the Russians are developing their own light gun truck forces.

https://southfront.org/russian-ground-forces-the-return-of-tachanka/?fbclid=IwAR3NKjT7WMUBTOFfNGPN28Vfx__fqgR0JZED2gu-puOYXTfabNbmc2ZMTM0

[StainlessSteelCynic]

There's an interesting point made in the discussion section of that page about the increased use of drones. I can understand the appeal of light & fast vehicles as some enemy forces make more use of drones for spotting and even anti-vehicle attacks.
Many drones are still rather noisy but not noisy enough to be heard inside a typical armoured vehicle. Arguably people in an open vehicle would have a better chance of detecting a drone and thus avoiding or destroying it.

The light vehicle would likely have enough spare room to accommodate some sort of anti-drone tech or comms jamming system. Even if you had it installed in say one in every three vehicles.
Just bouncing some thoughts around. I'm certainly not saying the gunned-up pickup is the ultimate answer, but I can see the appeal... plus they're plenty cheap not just in purchase cost but also in regards to sourcing spare parts.

[Raellus]

Proof that resourceful civilians- albeit criminally-minded ones- can also produce functional gun-trucks:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30494/cartel-narco-tanks-heavy-weapons-on-full-display-during-battle-over-el-chapos-son

[Legbreaker]

Proof that resourceful civilians- albeit criminally-minded ones- can also produce functional gun-trucks:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30494/cartel-narco-tanks-heavy-weapons-on-full-display-during-battle-over-el-chapos-son

Why do I immediately start thinking CIA?

[Vespers War]

The pickup captioned as a 2010 El Monstruo got some analysis after it was captured in 2011. Its armor was equivalent to B7 civilian armoring, which is roughly equivalent to 14.5mm of steel, or about AV 3 per FF&S; portions of it had 25mm of steel, or AV 5 (both AVs assume good steel; soft steel would be AV 2 or 4 respectively). Top speed was 40-50 km/h. The windshield was replaced by polycarbonate viewing ports, and the fixed turret at the top was for a sniper. It was estimated to carry 19-20 passengers in the rear, along with a caltrop dropper, oil slick sprayer, and smoke generator. It'd be good for protection against the sort of arms police and gangs are typically armed with, but a LAW or even an anti-materiel rifle or heavy machine gun would be bad news for the vehicle, let alone an actual tank.

[Raellus]

An illustrated article on Soviet gun trucks in the USSR's Afghanistan war.

https://www.safar-publishing.com/post/soviet-guntracks-vietnam-experince-20-years-later?fbclid=IwAR0zJHtKZufkg3-c44xGZmEX-ETK-lZyHCvBZq4HAMH3_3eUan58PhB-dyo

-

[Spartan-117]

Good stuff. I love dual ZSU-23-2 carriers of all types, cargo vehicles and MTLBs. I think the latter would be a great PC vehicle. The door kicker types can put themselves to the hazard by manning the gun. REMFs can shelter inside the armor, hoping for the best and absorbing spall if things go south.

[Ursus Maior]

An illustrated article on Soviet gun trucks in the USSR's Afghanistan war.

https://www.safar-publishing.com/post/soviet-guntracks-vietnam-experince-20-years-later?fbclid=IwAR0zJHtKZufkg3-c44xGZmEX-ETK-lZyHCvBZq4HAMH3_3eUan58PhB-dyo

-

I'm surprised - but should I really be? - to see the C-8 rocket launcher getting mounted on top of a BTR-turret on top of a truck. I first saw these launchers on technicals during the Libyan civil war. Always wondered, where they got the idea. Would be interesting to know, if there was some transfer of experience from former service members of the USSR armed forces.

[Raellus]

Behold, a UAF Kamaz six-by-six truck with a ex-navy over-under 25mm 22M-3 turret on its bed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/06/desperate-for-short-range-air-defenses-ukraine-is-fitting-70-year-old-naval-turrets-to-flatbed-trucks/?sh=4191de5747a2

Post-exchange, with many surviving naval vessels laid up in port for lack of fuel and/or spare parts, it stands to reason that useful weapon systems would be stripped and put to use by ground forces. We've already seen the same model gun turret mounted on an MTLB armored tractor by Russian forces (see the Franken-AFVs thread for pics and article links). I reckon something like this naval guns-on-an-army-truck ad hoc system wouldn't be particularly unusual in the T2kU. It would certainly make for an interesting encounter.

-

[Raellus]

Stumbled across this odd pairing. The caption on Reddit claims it is a Polish Army training vehicle (for SPAG crews). There's little additional [reliable] info about it in the thread. The truck is a STAR 266; the gun mount looks naval in origin to me.

-

[Raellus]

Stumbled across this ad hoc APC whilst looking for info on SPG-9 vehicle mounts (I wanted to learn if the SPG-9 can pivot on its mount at all; I still don't have a definitive answer). Anyways, ungainly AFV started out as a civilian bus. It's new owners, Iraqi Peshmerga (Kurdish militia), armored it, fitted four SPG-9 recoilless rifles in some sort of ad hoc quad mount, and installed an HMG of some sort in a cupola aft.

[Raellus]

Hybris found this interesting armored gun tub for a ZU-23-2 mounting. Protection for the crew is limited, but it's better than nothing. The design is simple, yet makes good use of angles and slopes to increase armor thickness and chances of deflecting projectiles. Since the barbette appears fixed, weapon traverse would be limited to the truck's rear arc.

-

[Raellus]

Someone posted these pics of a Russian gun truck, allegedly used in Chechnya, on the Facebook T2k fan group. I wonder how that ad hoc mount handled the recoil of two 14.5mm KPVs.

[Vespers War]

It would seem to me that the Sukhoi PAK FA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA) would be a better choice than the F-35 at the moment. If for no other reason its superior to the Super hornet (etc). While the F35 is potentially a better aircraft. Its a long, long way away. The Sukhoi is a year or two tops, away. NATO countries need to shake the stigma, that the Russians are the bad guys. We cant buy their stuff. Let face it, its a brave new world. Its kinda every country for itself. I mean we buy all kinds of stuff (Clothing, other assorted items) from China for our military here in the US. I think they portray a far greater threat in our future than the Russians. My ten cents anyway

I was reading back through the entire thread and this ended up particularly amusing me since the first Su-57 (the PAK FA's eventual designation) entered service in 2020, nine years after this comment was made, and as of the end of 2022 there were a total of 11 in service. Forecasting the future is always difficult, but this particular prediction aged peculiarly poorly.

Hewing closer to the original topic of the thread, I need to dig through my photo files at some point, because I took pictures of a surviving 1970s gun truck a few years back and I know I still have them but my archives from that far back are a mess.