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.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j2...lingcannon.jpg

Maybe hanging out the back of a dump truck?

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?

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. :)

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

- C.

I like that idea... anything you shoot at, you are simultaneously running away from very fast, using the recoil for propulsion!

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.

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.

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_si...les/deacon.htm

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

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

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...raft_artillery

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.

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Upthread:

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

- C.

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.

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.

*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.

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.

Hey here we go guys...

http://www.murdoconline.net/wp-conte..._gun_truck.jpg

http://www.warwheels.net/images/m54A...ruckLyles1.jpg

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

http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/1387...Big_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

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.

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.

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.