Just for S's and G's sake
 

In the timeline I use, the Twilight War kicks off in 2016, hence TW2020. This thinking and chat has inspired me, so I bring you the first draft of the M73 Eaton SPAAG.


M73 Eaton SPAAG

Developed in 2014 by the US Army, this vehicle was introduced for three main reasons: One, it was determined that a dedicated gun based air defense system was needed; Second, that any system adopted had to use off the shelf equipment as much as possible. The Eaton achieved that by using up surplus M1 hulls released by the drawdown in armored forces, and by using the gun system off of the recently retired Air Force A10 Thunderbolts. With the addition of the already developed Goalkeeper fire control system, and the incorporation of a four-cell slammer launch module, this was accomplished. The finished product served admirably, it was well liked by the crews who felt that not only was the missile system good at its job, the gun itself allowed them to project a no fly bubble in excess of its actual capabilities due to the legend of the GAU-8. When the Twilight War began, these expectations were met in spades, causing the US to start production of new systems, although few were actually built before the TDM. The reputed third reason, though never officially acknowledged by anyone, was that the adaptation and naming of the system after the then currently sitting President (A former Sergeant in the 3d ACR) was in order to shut him up and get his nose out of meddling with the way the Army was doing things – especially after his direct meddling with the make up of the reestablished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACR’s.



Stats:

Same as M1A2 except as following:

Armament 4 AIM120 Slammers, GAU-8 30mm Gatling, M240 ( C ).
Ammo: 4 AIM120, 1178rd 30mm, 800 7.62
Price: 550,000
Veh Wt: 52 Tonnes
Crew 3
MNT 14
Fuel Cons 520
TF 40, TS 20, TR 12.


Flame away! :)

Sounds good -- keep the capacious ammunition stowage for the 30mm rounds. However, I thought the AIM-120 was called the Rattler and not the Slammer. Although...SLAMRAAM -- Slammer -- makes sense for the ground-launched version.

I've no idea what the ground launched version of the AMRAAM is called, so Slammer it is. :) I decided on 1178 as the fluff says the system was ripped out of retired A10's, so for cost savings they just used the same drum. I personally would have more, but, fluff won out here.

They're called the SLAMRAAM (Surfaced-Launched AMRAAM), so Slammer for the SAM version sounds good. Can anybody on the boards draw good enough to make a sketch?

Would the Goalkeeper's radar be modified to be able to track land-based surface targets?

Dunno. I would say no though. But thats a easy fix, repurpose the existing FC system, and bobs your uncle, since its all software based these days.

As to art, Not I. I wish I could though as I think this vehicle is about to make its appearance in the game I've got sorta going. But will it be in the hands of the good guys or bad guys... muahahaha

*edit*

While you could drop in the Goalkeeper turret, its not as big as I thought it turns out, just tall, I am thinking more along the lines of a fairly boxy, but lower profile turret, more along the lines of Gun on Centre line, the round dish (I think its tracking) radar to the left, the Slammers to the right, and the search radar mounted on the back topside of the turret - perhaps on a mast?

While cruising the web for info on SPAAG systems, I've found some interesting bits & pieces that I'd like to post up here.

A conversation from worldaffairsboard.com that discusses some US SPAAGs (other contenders for the DIVAD project) link here
Scroll down about half the page, I think some people will be happy to see that the rotary cannon, i.e. Gatling Gun was well represented. I tend to disagree with many of the posters there about their definition of a white elephant though.

Phalanx systems on HEMTT platform (although I think we've seen this somewhere before, Antenna I think it was had some artwork of a HEMTT mounting two Phalanx systems. Link here.

Finally, I think if you want some artwork (mostly top-down stuff) for a gun system, the people at RPGMapShare might be able to help. They do a lot of artwork for gaming and have a modern section here.
Considering that some of their modern military vehicles are done as hull and turret seperate, you might be able to mix & match for some hybrid vehicles (although I have no idea what scale these guys work at but with 61 pages of 1940s to 2000s vehicles, this site could be a big help for making your own maps for the next RPG session.).

Although I love the work that the guys at gunpoint-3D.com do and would love to see them work their magic on a Gatling armed M1 SPAAG, I think they only do commission work and they'd be a bit beyond my price range. Their example of the M1 AGDS is here.

Something to remember about Phalanx/Goalkeeper, is that during the time period we are talking about, both systems were in very short supply with the Navies, for the USN they were actually RV with a home-bound ship, transferring the Phalanx to the out-going ship. SO as far as them being available for a US Army unit to "borrow"...I'd have to say that it would be a R roll!

There you had to go and throw a plausibility wrench in my writeup...

- C.

Ah, screw it. I had to write this to get the image out of my head; might as well post it.

- C.

------

XM2A61

Following the failure of the U.S. Army's DIVAD program, a number of experimental and interim AAA platforms arose. One such vehicle was the XM2A61, the result of a collaboration between the Armor School at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and the nearby Naval Ordnance Station Louisville. The latter facility was the engineering and overhaul center for the Navy's Phalanx CIWS system. Several General Dynamics employees on NOSL's engineering team had previously worked on the company's own entrant in the DIVAD competition, which used the existing Phalanx radar in conjunction with a pair of Oerlikon 35mm autocannon. Their experience had led them to believe that the DIVAD requirement for larger-caliber guns was misguided: the existing VADS system's range limitations were due to its target acquisition systems, not the ballistics of the 20x102mm Vulcan. In mid-1991, from this starting point, they began exploring the feasibility of converting the naval Phalanx system to an AFV mount.

With the aid of Armor School officers who were intrigued by the concept, the General Dynamics engineers examined a variety of AFV chassis in the inventories of both the Armor School and Fort Knox's Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor. They concluded that the current M2 Bradley could be adapted to carry a Phalanx mount, its secondary control console, and auxiliary power and cooling units. NOSL technicians fabricated a new Bradley turret basket to accommodate a CIWS, while the Armor School's maintenance shop tackled the job of fitting the other equipment. One wag commissioned "XM2A61 Development Group" patches from a local embroidery shop. Over the 1992 Christmas holiday, the ad hoc project team surreptitiously tested the components' mating on an engineless Bradley hull and proved that the hardware configuration was physically feasible.

Frustratingly for the participants, that successful trial marked the end of their experiment. Further progress, particularly with the critical reprogramming of the Phalanx control computer, would have brought official scrutiny and questions about misappropriation of resources. The CIWS unit and the engineering drawings returned to NOSL's inventory and the other parts were quietly hidden in the Patton Museum's restoration shop.

The Bradley/Phalanx pairing remained secret until mid-1996, when the Army's AAA deficiency was becoming painfully obvious. The Armor School's commandant was in the office of one of his subordinates, discussing an unrelated matter, when his attention fell on the officer's "I Love Me" wall. One framed patch bore what appeared to be R2-D2 brandishing paired revolvers and riding a Bradley hull. Perplexed, the commandant inquired; his subordinate confessed. The conversation ended with, "Major, get your band back together. I know people who'll want to see this thing."

With quasi-official sanctioning, the resurrected project quickly moved ahead. Many of the original General Dynamics conspirators remained at NOSL, and the Army arranged transfers back to Fort Knox for several of its own former participants. The 1992 efforts had solved the majority of the physical engineering challenges, though a substantial amount of polishing remained to convert a kludge to a usable weapon system. The greatest obstacle was adapting naval point defense control software to land-based anti-aircraft employment. Lacking the necessary in-house programming resources, General Dynamics hired a team of graduate students from the University of Louisville's J.B. Speed Scientific School, promising student loan repayment and employment opportunities if they could deliver the software on time.

The first prototype rolled onto Fort Knox's training fields on January 17, 1997. Its ground clutter filtering was marginal and the only manual control for the gun was a large red kill switch, but target acquisition was a qualified success. Live-fire tests the following month were sufficient proof of concept for the Army to authorize funding for five more vehicles, as well as two dozen refit kits intended for existing Bradley hulls with damaged turrets. Improvements in the final deliveries included fully debugged software (contrary to later claims, not adapted from a computer game), sound dampening for the gun, and a crude CCTV gunsight and manual aiming system (more for self-protection against enemy ground forces than any hope of crew-directed AAA engagement).

The Army's construction goals ran into a roadblock when the Navy protested the misappropriation of so many CIWS systems. Throughout the spring of 1997, NOSL and the Armor School continued building the remainder of the vehicles and refit kits while generals and admirals wrangled over gun procurement. A congressional hearing in May finally established that the Navy actually had a small surplus of Phalanx units, thanks in part to the loss of hulls that otherwise would have mounted them. The Navy reluctantly released enough CIWS to satisfy the initial order. The refit kits arrived in Europe in mid-July, with the five production vehicles following in August.

Throughout the remainder of the war, units that received the vehicles and refit kits regarded them as a mixed blessing. The auxiliary power unit, added to provide electricity for the Phalanx system without the use of the Bradley's engine, frequently vented exhaust inside the hull. Likewise, firing the gun a was a choking and deafening experience, thanks to propellant fumes and a 3,000 round/minute cyclic rate. The Army had no parts or technicians for the CIWS radar and computers, creating a dependency on the Navy that most units circumvented in a variety of creative manners. A two-man crew was hard-pressed to keep up with vehicle maintenance requirements, let alone the electronics' specialized needs. The Army lacked paint of a formula appropriate for the radar housing, leading to the oft-mocked (and tactically unsound) image of a woodland-camouflage Bradley sporting a towering, haze-gray sore thumb. Aviators loathed the system, as the only provision for IFF discrimination was a radio call to the crew prior to flying into the gun's engagement envelope. Fratricide was not an unknown occurrence; nor was overly-enthusiastic engagement of non-targets such as migratory birds and rain squalls. In one notorious incident filmed by a German news crew, an MLRS battery found its outbound rockets under fire from a nearby CIWS.

For all its faults, the Bradley/Phalanx was an effective AAA platform when employed as intended. In fully autonomous mode, the gun swiftly and reliably killed targets out to 4 km, even attack helicopters executing pop-up attacks. The vehicle was able to keep pace with Abrams and Bradley forces, as the original DIVAD program had intended. The CIWS' innate stabilization, designed to handle heavy seas, enabled the gun to engage targets even while the vehicle was bounding over rough terrain. In the latter months of the war, a dearth of air targets brought the surviving units into ground support use, where 20mm Vulcans proved messily lethal against infantry and soft-skinned vehicles. Though no records of such incidents exist, numerous apocryphal stories claimed that the system was capable of interdicting incoming ATGMs.

Due to the project's irregular nature, the XM2A61 designation was well-established by the time the Army procurement system tried to standardize the system. After a months-long battle to assign the Bradley/Phalanx the M2A4 number, Army officials conceded defeat and codified the mock designation. They did attempt to formalize a nickname of "Hoplite," playing on the "Phalanx" motif, but this appeared only in official documentation. To its designers and crews, the XM2A61 was the Louisville Slugger.

2.0 Traits

As per donor Bradley hull (either M2 or M2A2), except:

Price: $150,000 (R/-)
RF: None.
Stabilization: None.
Armament: Vulcan 20mm ADA autocannon
Ammo: 2,100x20mm (989 rounds ready in ammo drum, remainder stowed as cargo)
Crew: 2
Mnt: 11
Turret armor: TF 2, TS 2, TR 2

Activating or deactivating the CIWS system's autonomous air defense mode requires an action on the part of the vehicle commander. In this mode, which requires a working radar and targeting computer, the Vulcan's Range is doubled to 900 and it has good stabilization and a +4 rangefinder. No character attack actions are possible; the system functions as its own gunner with Initiative 6 and Heavy Weapons 6. The only action it may take is an attack, it may attack only airborne targets, and it must attack any such target within the Vulcan's maximum range. If presented with multiple valid targets, it will attack the closest. If two or more are at roughly equal range, it will first attack the one whose current flight path is most closely pointed at the vehicle.

I love it. :)

"nor was overly-enthusiastic engagement of non-targets such as migratory birds and rain squalls."

I can sooooo see that happening with a kludged up system like that.

But on a more serious note, Engaging ATGM's? I can buy that, the system was designed to shoot down missiles after all. I can easily see a commander placing one in and armoured assualt with a mission of intercepting incoming missiles, at least till the sovs learned that the slugger needs to be struck out asap.

Thanks! This was fun to write. Just barely plausible enough to work, I think.

The mental image of it interdicting outbound friendly MLRS rounds was what sold me on this.

*nod* I gave that some serious though, and I might yet update the writeup. I didn't want it to come across as too uber a system, though, particularly with its drastically shortened development cycle. On the other hand, I have to admit that one of these providing ATGM interdiction for a whole armor platoon on the move is the sort of thing that would look really good on film. I don't know how well it'd handle ground clutter that close, though - what's the usual flight altitude of an ATGM (prior to popping up for top attack)?

- C.

That is just AWESOME!!! :D

I can sooooo see it being a double edged sword though, potentially attacking even fast moving ground vehicles within it's line of sight. Perhaps the fix for this was a minimum firing angle of say 20 degrees above the horizontal in automatic?
That would prevent automatically firing on friendly forces, but also prevent attacks against most incoming missiles. :/
Manual control wouldn't have the depression restrictions, but would loose the high tech target aquisiton (and still prevent accurate firing at missiles - could get lucky though...).

Past history shows that once you lose air superiority (or never had it), your ground troops are in for a world of hurt. Mobile AAA systems won't stop your ground forces from being destroyed, only delay it.

Nice, real nice:cool:

Sadly almost everyone realizes this. As well as the other axiom that Air Superiority doesn't mean squat until you put boots on the ground.

Great work Tegyrius, and very entertaining to read. That kind of crazy firepower would have fit in so well with my last campaign.

Sorry, didn't mean to state the obvious ;)

With the lack of interest of have AAA units the US Army loses some of it abilities of using them against ground targets. It was one of the ideas that I always found fascinating the effect of them being turned on ground targets....

Always heard that the ADA people didn't want to train for thier guns being used in ground combat.

Yeah who could blame them, the ammo they use/waste trying to shoot down aircraft would pale in compared to what they could expend on ground combat....

This is a peacetime problem (HA HA we at peace why did'nt I get the memo) in theory a full out shooting war more equipment is release from stockpiles and production ramps up to meet production goals set by the production broads, in theory, but then agian in theory communism works too

Well, the whole reason behind the at-sea-swaps is that there were no stockpiles to draw from.

While the Regan-era Navy was rushing to field 300+ warships and build naval bases in every state that had a sea coast, there was a lack of support to build supply ships as well as the necessary weapon systems needed for the fleet. There were shortfalls in the Mk45 127mm gun, the Mk75 76mm gun and the Mk15 Phalanx not to mention in the Tomahawk and Harpoon launchers. Hell, there were Perry-class "figs" that went to sea with no gun armaments beyond a pair of .50-calibers!!!

A former Marine buddy of mine stationed at the Pentagon during this period swears that certain Marine Generals were ready to use rusty bayonets on certain Navy admirals unless funds were released for new amphibious ships.

And then you toss in having the Navy release one of their badly needed weapons systems to the Army....World War Three would have broken out in the E-Ring of the Pentagon!!!

With a looming war threat, I can see the NATO powers accelerating current production as much as possible, stuff already in the pipeline. But wasting resources, money and above all else, precious time to build, test and field new systems....I wouldn't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about that taking place. Even in the canon material, the US military was "seizing" equipment destined for allies in order to equip US formations.

This lack of basic weapon systems goes a long way towards explaining why the Soviet fleet(s) were able to so comprehensively destroy the Nato fleets.

True, to an extent...but please remember that as bad as it was for NATO, the Ren Banner Fleets had it even worse. Just think about some yokel that doesn't speak Russian, hasn't been to school since the sixth grade, drafted for three years, pulling maintenance on your ship.

For example, on May 13, 1984, the Soviet Northern Fleet's Stednaya ammunition depot at Severomorsk suffered a major explosion. The blast was so large that it triggered the US nuclear warning satellites. While no nukes were lost, the Soviets suffered the loss of over one third of their large antiship missiles, SS-N-3, SS-N-12, AS-4, AS-6 etc. as well as surface-to-air missiles,along with the facilities that maintained the missiles as well as several hundred skilled personnel. The fires burned for over five days.

While that state of very poor affairs was true IRL, T2K is a game based on "what if".
In the alternate reality that is T2K, the Soviets were competent, dangerous and not crippled by regular political purges of their best and brightest. Their military actually got paid on time, trained to a decent standard and their equipment was maintained according to the manufacturers recommendations.

It's this "what if" factor that seems to be missing in a lot of peoples posts. Reality is great, but it can only go so far in producing a world ripe for roleplaying as we know it.

But isn't a knowledgeable GM a boon to the game? Sure the Soviets tanks were crap when taken on an individual basis, but it wasn't going to be one-on-one engagements was it?

US battalion exercises of the period always started with the assumption that it would be taking on at least a Soviet Regiment. Troops in the Fulda and Hof Gaps could look over the Iron Curtin and see the division that was going to assault through the gap. NATO in the '70s and '80s was not in a good position, the US troops had the most supplies (30 days) and there were grave doubts about how heavy the usage for the supplies (above all ammo) would be. Some of the NATO partners had supplies for as little as 7 days. This was part of the reason that tactical nuclear weapons were always such a part of NATO pre-war planning.

BUT, it all boils down to two massive militaries going ball out for each other. And on the scale of the fighting...no matter how compentent or not the militaries were, it was going to be a blood-letting on a massive scale.

Boon? No. Vital? Absolutely!
BUT a GM has to be flexible enough to know that the Real World Situation isn't even close to the Game World Situation. Sure doctrine and tactics are basically the same, by in T2K Nato essentially got hammered by a much better Pact. Pact soldiers in T2K are on average a cut above what they were/are IRL.

The GM has to appreciate and apply this difference, otherwise the war would have been over and done with in the first few months, and there would be no world wide disruption and devastation so necessary to create a rich roleplaying environment.

Even if you believe that early war Pact soldiers were little more than unskilled cannon fodder, it has to be understood that by 2000 the vast majority have plenty of combat experience, and if their commanders have any sense at all, months of military training and retraining during quiet times.

A GM who applies Real World capabilities to either side is doing the game as a whole a major disservice by disrupting the delicate balance the writers strove to create.

I think I will end up either using the M757 Blazer as shown in the V1 US Vehicle Guide or just end up doing pretty much what the Army did in real life, keeping the PIVAD in the field. Most of the machines will be tracked PIVAD platforms, with the rest being truck borne, and a few LAV versions added for flavor.

The easiest thing to do probably would have been to update the sensors, add a box launcher for 4 Stingers and slap it on a modified Bradley hull, especially those with wiped out turrets.

LOL, if I only had the time to build a 1/35 model of the thing!

Thanks!
Dave

Correction, that was a Soviet/Russian holy mantra but the US picked it up for different reasons. In order to provide ballistic missile defense you need everybody's radars and satellites working as one big happy family. That requires the BIG BOARD (or at least a fair amount of computing power and powerpoint) and BIG BOARDS REQUIRE BIG TENTS. AND IN BIG TENTS THERE'S SHINY BRASS WHOSE JOBS ARE DEPENDENT ON SHIT WORKING :D.

Even during the Cold War the HAWK and Nike Hercules belts did require something pretty akin to a multinational air defense network and had to- especially when the Luftwaffe and RNLAF bought the Patriot to replace the Nike systems. And even back then they were eyeing something to replace the HAWKs (which never happened or maybe they just accept MEADS will replace both HAWK and Patriot).

While tactical air defense is supposed to different but since much of so called tactical air defense requires low altitude point/near point coverage of large static targets such as airfields/airbases, corps/army assembly areas, ports, rail depots, and theater HQ needs to be networked so BLUE AIR doesn't get turned into spare parts there was a reason why by the late 80s Chaparral battalions were paired w/ HAWK and Patriot units in Germoney and garrisoned in kasernes suspiciously close to places like Bitburg, Rhein Main, etc

IOW Tw2K- we could expect to see networked systems in the West w/ divisional ADA battalions tied into a larger sensor network (plug and pray) besides the batteries bringing their own MPQ-64s and/or aerostats along w/ setting GP tents or Hummvees and 5 tons w/ expandable shelters providing power and HVAC to a whole bunch of folding tables and chairs and laptops

Mad Mike c

That is some impressive thread resurrection.

Nine years! Is that a record?

IMO thread necro is ALWAYS better than having a dozen new ones all on the same topic.

So what I'm getting is that AA in western militaries would rely, or at least lean heavily on the internet and existing communications infrastructure to optimise performance?

Found this in my archives..........

In retrospect, ADATS was a less than ideal weapon. SALH has problems tracking high-speed targets, so many fixed-wing attack aircraft will be difficult to hit. The combined shaped-charge/frag warhead is similar to the M830A1 MPAT, which had trouble neutralizing infantry in the open, so its proximity-kill capability is questionable. There's also the question of over-tasking the vehicle crew, since they're now expected to be both anti-air defense and anti-ground combat, and need to both be trained for each type of engagement and prepared for either type. And making a missile capable of engaging both ground and air targets with a complex warhead meant each round was more expensive than comparable single-purpose missiles of either type.

In real life, the ADATS missile only entered service with Canada (mounted on M113 APCs) and Thailand (as a fixed emplacement). The US Army went with Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicles (Bradleys with Stinger dismounts) and later the M6 Linebacker (Bradleys with a 4-shot Stinger box launcher replacing the 2-shot TOW launcher, with 6 reloads in the vehicle). The Linebacker wasn't available until the late 90s, but the alternate timeline could have the Army realize ADATS was a bridge too far earlier and develop the Linebacker sooner.

Well seeing how the Internet was originally a DoD/ARPA creations to link various learning/research institutions to begin w/.

So even in Twilight we can expect Western ADA units to be reliant on modems and internet type protocols so you can get a reasonable early warning picture as well as their radars- being able to get a ballistic missile launch from a spacebird and then tracked by various stations until your unit can do something, anything is better than trying to scan your tiny piece of the sky and hope for the best. This goes double or triple for corps based ADA brigades which will often have stress anti-ballistic defense over dealing w/ conventional air breathing threats.

Tactical which is to say divisional and below they're gonna be concerned about attack helos, UAVs, and fast jets stupid enough to fly that low even if they wanna go fast. Maybe add the occasional prop COIN bird since they offer a lot of bang for the buck and employed w/ one's own forward line of troops (FLOT). Still expect a div ADA battalion's HHQ battalion to bring their own radar coverage and relay equipment along w/ ground work stations and everything that goes with that- big shiny mess trailers, gensets running 24-7-365, tents galore, air conditioning units, etc. The shooting batteries of anything from 8 launchers to often more have to set up their equivalent to FDCs w/ networked systems at higher food chains b/c if nothing else sharing is caring or more likely if nothing's happening; battalion TF org isn't that permanent when dealing with the exigencies of war

Mad Mikec

There is no such thing as a free lunch. In return it's really hard to jam that laser command link. And yes laser guidance doesn't do that well in bad weather but remember bad weather grounds a/c for a reason.

Against grunts- either out in the open or even dug in? Sure. No arguments killing grunts is hard and should be hard. And they try and do their honest best when returning the favor.

Against a/c I think the warhead and fuzing does a good enough job- although most likely on the overkill side since again more optimized to crack armor open.

This may have been the classic case for the maneuver branches in Big Army wanting a fast antitank missile but at the time priority spending would go to somebody else. Big Army needed something and something fairly good to deal with deficits of Vulcan and Chaparral. The ADATS is a Mach 3 missile IIRC and as the Brits would say that's rather fuck off fast. And the Cold War was still going on so anything that you can shoot at the hordes of tanks and BMPs crossing the Fulda is also a plus as well.

Hence the ADA mantra of high and low. and a mix of both guns and missiles especially WRT tactical ADA. Remember there is such an animal as virtual attrition. A jet that pickled off his ordnance b/c a gun wasted several dozen rounds at him isn't going to do much else expect burn fuel- and that time in the air must be made up for resources on the ground. Not connecting your shots with an attack helo and said Hind fucks off for greener pastures is samey same. Nothing bad happens to your side and the bad guys have to spend time trying to find something else, somebody else to shoot.

My ideal Tw2k div ADA battalion for Big Army would have been a HHC battery, 4 line batteries, and service company. Each line battery would have had 8 ADATS and 8 Brad Blazers w/ 2 quad Stinger pods and the 25mm gatling- IOW the LAV ADA turret on a Brad What the ADATS cannot engage he DAKKA will and the Stinger will most likely cover the dead ground between the ADATS and 25mm HEI. If folks are overly concerned about lack of individual sensor coverage of the Blazer type turret then Raytheon/Thales had a smallish TRS radar so the vic commander can stare at a monochromatic screen


Mad Mikec

While I enjoyed that article Armor it does miss several points. One Armor is the professional magazine of the Armor branch although over the years does cover the infuence/aspects of mech infantry (given that heavy brigades and battalion TFs are combined arms affairs).

Numero dos- the 35mm Bushmaster III was never designed for as AA weapon. For that there's the Oerlikon GD series. Chain guns are great for accuracy and reliability but they sacrifice rate of fire for that. To hunt ducks you want to put lead in the air and that's why you want Captain Insane-o cyclic rates of fire and proximity fuzed projectiles for a reason. IOW a high cyclic RoF will mean a denser cone of fire, a denser cone of fire will most likely equal a target being hit more than once. There's also intersecting cones of fire which is why 35mm AA guns on the Gepard were spaced far apart.

Also that many ADATS rounds on a pop up launcher will mean even a more complex hydraulic systems to lift the launch tubes out of the turret meaning sacrificing armor on what is a turret that will be marginally protected at best (but probably not much worse than standard since the turreted systems on ADA platforms are basically unarmored)

Finally given Tw2k verse- there would be no peace dividend so the US would likely keep tank production until the Big Turkey Day Nukeout. And as such using tank hulls would be at premium- either for AVLBs or combat engineering vehicles/assault breaching platforms possibly adopting a M1 based armored recovery platform as opposed the 88A2 (most likely due to using a boom crane to lift out a powerpack or concrete barriers/HESCOs is easier that pivot steering an entire vehicle to use an A frame crane).


Mad Mikec

Skimping on the Ack-Ack
 

It seems like, compared to the WTO, NATO didn't put much stock/resources into the development and fielding of significant numbers of AAA platforms.

Why? I don't know for sure, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the US and NATO believed that aircraft were the best anti-aircraft weapon sytem, and that Army heads were content to let the AFs take on the job so that they could spend their limited budgets on more AFVs and SPGs.

Also, why did the US Army move away from the VADS? Yeah, 20mm rounds had limited effective range, but AAA is mostly for point defense anyway, and SAMS cover anything beyond AAA range so...

Frankly, NATOs eschewing of AAA was a mistake. Good thing we didn't have to find that out the hard way.

By contrast, the WTO militaries were lousy with AAA, both guided systems like the ZU-23-4 Shilka and the 2-K22 Tunguska, and sundry unguided systems running the gamut from 57mm to 14.5mm guns.

Even if AAA is not effective in combating aerial targets (or too effective and the enemy runs low on CAS airframes), AAA can be used to provide direct fire support for infantry against ground targets*. The vast majority of SAMs can not.

*The Russians found the ZU-23-4 Shilka SPAAG to be one of the most effective weapons platforms for urban warfare during the Chechen Wars due to its high ROF and ability to elevate to hit upper floors of multistory buildings.

Also a US VAD destroyed a Panamanian gunboat during Operation Just Cause. Try that with a Patriot SAM.

Money/resources, in the end, are finite The reason the Heer dropped so much cash (remember a Gepard costs fifty percent more to twice as much as a Leo 1) was the generals and defense ministers remembered what it was like to be on receiving end of enemy air support. And they generally did not enjoy that experience :D.

The US OTOH made its holy mantra to establish air dominance from the beginning and never let it go. Both the Navy and the blue suited zoomies spent a fuckton of blood and treasure to develop SEAD systems and the doctrine to go w/ it whether it was nuking a corridor w/ SRAMs so bombers can launch cruise missiles or whether it was developing the B-2 to hunt mobile ICBM sites and their accompanying ADA network to cutting the Red Army's air defense troops in order to provide TACAIR.

Well- in the end, even if Big Army was or wasn't convinced... they were expected to provide air defense assets of air bases in England , FRG, Belgium, and the Netherlands or rely on host countries to do so.

That's the theory but as people keep on telling the masses theory and reality doesn't always correspond well.

Even if there's nothing worth blotting out the sun for... guns are fun. And AAA is dakka, period. Whether it's digging in platoons of M19 GMC and waiting for the Chinese to start assembling on contact to M42 Dusters laying discontent on anybody trying to take shots at a convoy on a Vietnamese highway and the US government had just paved, your forces are sure to establish fire superiority quickly and definitively against non armored/mechanized forces.

The ROK Army for example are in no real hurry to retire any of their SP Vulcans until recently- and retiring the 20mm K263A1 VADS in favor of twin 30s is more about streamlining logistics in favor of a more effective caliber albeit w/ a lesser RoF.

Mad Mikec

Not directly T2k, but related - the US Army is starting to fill the gap left by the retirement of the Bradley Linebacker:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...tem-in-decades

The addition of the Hellfire launch rails is interesting. It's reminiscent of the original plans for the LAV-AD's modular mount and arguably makes this Stryker variant more than just a dedicated ADA platform.

- C.