US Army AAA in T2K
 

Does anyone have a better suggestion than the "never was" M691 Diana for US AAA units so designated by the folks at GDW?

While I can understand the need to have a AAA gun vehicle that can keep up with the Abrams, using an Abrams hull to make a AAA vehicle seems to be more than a bit of a waste.

If I had to pick one, I'd go with the M113 or LAV based PIVAD. Even the M757 Blazer based on the M-2 Bradley seems a better option. You have more mobility, more options with the Stingers, and more range with a 25mm over the 20mm Vulcan. Improve the sensors over the PIVAD and it seems like you've made all of the necessary improvements.

Any thoughts?

Dave

I agree that the "Diana" seems like a very weak weapons suite for an expensive Abrams chasis. The v1.0 U.S.A.V.G. was a stopgap vehicle so I doubt too many were produced. I'm sure combat testing proved that it lacked sufficient punch for the price. My vote is for something mounted on a Bradley chasis. I like to try to stick to the v1.0 U.S.A.V.G. as much as possible so the M757 Blazer or the M990 (plate G2) would be my picks.

I always liked the Diana, true it had its downsides, but I thought it made some sense to base it on the M1, after all, with the replacement of the M1 with the M1A1, its not unreasonable that the old M1's was diverted to produce it with a simple turret replacement, cheaper than buying a whole new vehicle.

However, I agree, its not the best option despite the fondness I have for it. Honestly, I think a gun/missile system based on the Brad would make a lot more sense for various reasons - hence the M6 Linebacker. One of the things that the procurement process got right for once. :)

Well for starters the LAV based system didn't have the cross country ability of the M2 or M1 chassis based system, and the M113 chassis based system couldn't keep up.

It was one of the many problems that the US Army faced in the 1980s. It was a time when the military was expanding, but at the same time they were trying to keep the number of items in the inventory down to bare bones as much as possible. It is part of the reason why the Army never adopted the LAV-25 with the M2/M3 and M1 family were just being fielded.

Looking at the Isreali Defense Forces using their Main Battle Tank as a base for their new APC, is one of few countries to go this way. So having Diana based on the M1 chassis isn't too far fetch.

Yep, the IDF has done a lot of things that makes a lot sense, and should be watched closely because of that. Before they developed the M109 mods that resulted in the Paladin, they seriously worked on making a SPG based on the Merk Hull as well called Slammer. Couple that with the ARV they developed (I don't know if they produced it number) they had a real good chance to have a whole stable of AFV's with immense parts commonality.

Yes they did, it one of the things that I think the US military in all branches has limited itself in lot of ways.

The IDF does stuff that makes sense for the IDF in its specific strategic and operational setting. Doesn't mean their stuff is a universal solution or a good idea for anyone else. Sometimes means their ideas aren't even a good idea for the IDF -- their refusal to maintain a balanced force structure with adequate infantry very, very nearly cost them the entire nation in the '73 war.

Heavy Assault Carriers are an idea the IDF has embraced that only make sense in you're a nation with profoundly internal lines, doing low-intensity conflict, with a surplus of tank hulls laying around, and incredibly casualty adverse (in their case due to small population base).

For conventional operations they bring less to the table than Infantry Fighting Vehicles -- and (western) IFVs have proven pretty survivable on the battlefield, making even the HAC's main claim to fame dubious.

For LIC, they don't do anything an MRAP doesn't do, except eat up massively larger amounts of logistics with higher maintenance demands, lower fuel mileage, and such.

So, not a bad idea for the IDF, but not a great idea. Various theories about Abrams based assault carriers have been pushed (engineer vehicle was one that made the pages of Armor back in the 90s) but no one has gone for it.

Don't remember if it was on the old board or not, but there was a proposal for an air-defense M-1 variant. Radar guidance, twin 35-mm guns, and a dozen ADATS missiles. Variant was provisionally called the M1AGDS, IIRC.

I like the idea of MATT but I would go more simply with an M1 mounting a German Gepard turret with twin 35mm. More punch than the 25mm and a turret that is readily available and need no development. An other interesting vehicle would be to have the trial ADATS-Bradley going to production.

Sounds badass.

About the only problem with that is the NIH syndrome, which infects the Pentagon. If GDLS (General Dynamics Land Systems) had their own turret design, with radar and twin 35-mm, and offered that to the Army, in a competition with Gepard, guess which would likely be the winner? Unless Congress dictated an off-the-shelf purchase, in which case Gepard turrets on the M-1 chassis would be the likely solution.

Another problem with the Gepard turret is that it may not be as available as you think. How many have Germany got? How many are they producing? Has any other nation got them?
How many "spares" may there be in wartime?

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, I'm just not so sure it would be feasible due to supply issues.

In regards to the Gepard turret, the numbers in service in the 1980s-1990s were roughly the following: -
West Germany 377
Belgium 55
the Netherlands 95

There are also other off-the-shelf turrets that could have been purchased (like the Gepard turret, these systems were designed to be fitted to tank hulls).
Marconi Marksman link 1 link 2 link 3
OTO-Melara Otomatic link 1 (no pics but has links to images) link 2

Acording to the Jane's 1984-1985, the Gepard's turret is rated under "international" (NATO). It is also stated that it can be installed on most MBTs including M48 and M60. Nothing was said at the time about the M1 but the tank was just going in production.

Leg, I was not thinking of German produced turret (except may be for the first batch) but of licenced built turrets.

In addition to the turret systems already sited you have the Thompson-CSF Sabre twin 30mm.

Fair enough. The concept is certainly doable, the only real issue is which system would be used and would the purse strings be opened wide enough, early enough for it to be useful (bugs to work out, limited numbers on the battlefield, etc).

Once the war had been raging for a while and a few spare M1 bodies were laying about, I can see field mods springing up. Throw a towed 20mm PIVAD, captured ZU-23-2 or even a 40mm Bofors on where the turret used to be, strap it all down with chewing gum and fencing wire and you've got yourself an effective infantry destroyer. :p

Might even see some armour plating bolted on here and there to try and protect the gun crews a little.

Thats the problem back then there wasn't much off the shelf buying. LAV-25 was one of the few exceptions...

And you can rest assured that if the DoD held bidding for a new ADA system, that the US-based manufactuers will go all out to out-bid any foreign builder...

Anybody remember the fun and games that Smith & Wesson pulled when the M-9 contract was let out? For a while there I thought Beretta and S&W would hold gunfights out in the parking lot!

When Beretta won the trails, S&W had no problems with calling in their lobbyists and their in-house congressmen and throwing a monkey wrench into the approval process, they managed to delay the M-9 for almost two years...for a major contract like a new ADA system...you would think that the Cyberpunk game universe had come to life!

Granted by all means, some of the solutions will be to problems only they will face, but on the whole, they have been ahead of a lot of trends in modern warfare.

Back on point, does anyone know what the US is using for AD now that they benched the linebacker?

It looks like they're down to Stinger teams and Avenger HMMWVs. Gun systems seem to be completely dead... which, if true, bespeaks a high degree of (over?)confidence in our air superiority.

- C.

I agree with everything which is said but we are talking of a war situation and that changes a lot of things. Of course, no chance that the element would be built outside US but taking over a foreign design (especially when it is only a part of it) has never been a problem.

I just remind you that without UK and their Merlin engine, the P-51 Mustang would have remained an unremarkable aircraft despite having a fantastic airframe.

Concerning a US army ADA system in T2K, the situation would have been exactly that. The DIVAD had just failed lamentably and they were pressed by time. As a result, I could very well see foreign sytems being adopted with let say "Ford Aerospace" being tasked with building the turrets and "General Dynamics Land System" assembling the vehicle (plus a fiar number of sub-contractors).

Then, it will possibly be operating in teams with Bradley-ADATS. Just an opinion.

And have "unforeseen" cost overruns once manufacture started...

Indeed. It seems that the U.S. military has forgotten the lessons that the Brits learned the hard way in the Falklands, '82.

I think GDW's existing material implicitly reflects this pressure. The Second Edition ACVH presents PIVAD, LAV-PIVAD (but somehow missing the actual LAV-AD), Chaparral, Diana, ADATS, Roland II, M990, Duster, and the M21/M22 and XM12 laser systems all as systems in at least limited U.S. service. My inference is that in the years immediately before the Twilight War, the Army was throwing multiple ADA platforms at the proverbial wall in the hope that one or more would stick.

- C.

Have the Brits remembered? I don't even know what AAA we're fielding these days.

Although it's a vehicle that never was, I always liked the M990. It's fast, light, but reasonably armored, and carries a decent ammo load and decent-caliber guns. I put my own writeup of it on my Best SP Antiaircraft Vehicles that Never Were page, and gave it the name of "Chamberlain," after one of my heroes, Joshua Chamberlain of the Civil War.

I'm totally behind you on that choice, of both fondness and the name for it. While I can't see anyway for it to exist in the real world, I felt that it was in game terms a very good example of how to put together an SPAAG: Base it off of a light vehicle for mobility, cost, and ease of production, and give it solid amounts of firepower, and armour it to the point where light cannon fire, from say a wild weasel, has to get lucky to put it out of action - but no more. As to the name, I spent more than a few years growing up in Maine, have relatives still living there, and the name you picked was pure win. Gotta love the civil war period for one thing: it was the last war where an amateur can leave college, having taught nothing even remotely close to anything military in nature, and still be able to lead troops not only well from a leadership point of view, but actually very successfully in end results in a battlefield environment.

I'm with you on this one too. Your assessment is spot-on. Good call.

The Linebacker was withdrawn from service. I believe that the current solution is the HMMWV based Avenger.

Some times I believe it would be useful to have the idiots at the Pentagon who make decisions like the total clusterXXXX that has been the post cold war US forward AAA situation listen to Iraqi and German verterans of Gulf War 1 and Normandy who can tell them how paralyzing it is to be under relentless air attack.

If you can find a surviving German vet of the Eurpoean campaign, ask him what it's like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TWQ-1_Avenger

-Dave

I'm personally mystified by the decision to withdraw the Linebacker. I'd love to hear the thinking at the top on that decision. It seems like the perfect vehicle for its mission, since it's almost entirely a Bradley except for its mission fit and fits in perfectly with a mechanized or armored division.

That may be part of the problem -- except for a little bit during the Korean War, the Western militaries of the world know little of what it's like to be on the receiving end of air power. Perhaps we need to talk to the Israelis, but they haven't seen much on the receiving end of air strikes since the 1973 War, either.

Indeed, they went with us (3d ACR) for the invasion/OIF1 and they made a very effective regimental fire brigade/reserve manpower pool that the regiment was able to flex where-ever and however when needed. True, not much need for the stingers, but the 25mm was still able to shoot stuff up just fine.

The Avenger on the other hand... What good can be said of it other than it exists so the Army can claim they have an AA platform. At 40k a missile, and assuming only 1 miss out of the 8, its a hell of lot more expensive than say, a 40mm cannon would be for the same level of effectiveness. Sure, it can be said that the stinger can reach out farther than a gun, but outside of the open desert, or down into mountain valleys from ridge line firing positions, not going to be much chance for that, for I think most shots will be hip shots at a threat that pops out of (relatively) nowhere. So, give a SPAAG platform a good gun system: 30mm, 40mm, 25Gat, 30Gat (Ohh... GAU8 anyone?) or whatever and tack on a brace of missiles for when you do have those money shots presented to you.

*edit*

More I think about it, the more I like the idea of mounting (if possible, I don't know for sure) a goalkeeper system on a tank chassis, add in a four cell stinger box, do a little tweaking to the programing for a logic circuit to decide if its a missile engagement or gun for effectiveness, and you get something that *I* don't want to get in the same zipcode with.

Seems the Pentagon ponies should ask some of the British veterans of the Falklands War.
Ask them how they learnt to operate Argentinian AA guns they'd captured so they could fire back at the aircraft strafing them.

Funny you should say that. :) As soon as this thread started up, I was thinking about other hypothetical stopgap AAA systems from the 1996-1998 period and immediately turned to a Phalanx bolted to a Bradley or Abrams chassis.

- C.

Interesting set up.

Yeah that is one of the down falls. I think for most part, US Troops haven't come under constant enemy aircraft since Korea. Yeah, ask the veterans who have been under fire and it doesn't take an genius to figure out after 6 weeks of constant bombing, why so many of the Iraqi Army just gave up in 1991.

I think part of the problem is that the USAF assures the Pentagon that it is more effective at getting the job done than putting troops on the ground is. They point to their success in Gulf War 1 & 2 conveniently forgetting that they didn't face a foe on the same level as Korea, Europe or the Pacific in the 1950s & 1940s respectively. They assume that they will always have air superiority.

They overlook the fact that the Russians have fielded the ZSU-23-4 for decades and partially replace/supplemented it with the 9K22 Tunguska and then gone further and supplemented/replaced the Tunguska with the Pantsir S1 because they (the Russians) aren't assuming they'll always have air superiority.

The Tunguska is in service with a handful of countries outside Russia (Belarus, the Ukraine, India and Morocco) but the Pantsir is in service with Syria who apparently sold approximately ten units to Iran.

And of course ten units don't make an air defence network...

No doubt that the thought would have hit: We are from what I read doing just that with the 20mm Phalanx mounted on a Himmit in Iraq for inbound artillery/mortar/rocket interception. That could use some fact checking, but if thats the case... I could *very* easily see it happening in the TW as ships become laid up due to parts/fuel.

The Goalkeeper is a similar setup using the GAU-8 gatling off of the A10. According to NAH, you are looking at a range of 450, with a ROF of 135 and a pen of 18/12/5. Not too shabby. With Ammo, just over 1800kg. So... I can see it happening. :)

Yup. I believe the system you're thinking of is Centurion C-RAM. It's what got me thinking about a Phalanx Bradley. I wasn't sure of that proposal's plausibility for AAA, though, because one of the ostensible goals behind DIVAD was to produce a gun with longer effective range than the 20mm. On the other hand, it has some story potential as a stopgap solution thrown together in my hometown...

I'm a long-time Warthog fan and, having looked at the GAU-8, I've always considered Goalkeeper mildly terrifying (you want to put a what on a ship?). The suggestion of putting it on an MBT chassis is awe-inspiring in a truly disturbing way, and that'd certainly solve the range problem. :)

- C.

Well, thats the thing:

NATO on the whole doesn't go for networked defense. Thats a Russian thing.

Russians (Or Soviets to be accurate) came up with the whole, for a lack of a better term, Zone Defense strategy using a broad spectrum of guns and missiles of various capabilities, each of which supported the other with the mission of making the air above the battlespace a no fly zone, even for themselves, as they clearly stated that it was impossible for air defense to do a adequate job of preventing friendly fire. As to how well it works, ask the Israeli's, there is a reason that they don't have very many aircraft that predate 1973. And that was a Arab manned Soviet Air Defense Net (Again, I'll grant that there was more than a few "advisors" present). One guy I know whose job was to simulate russian air defense nets in a opfor role for the airforce likened it to a arial no-mans land mentality from the first world war. He was somewhat known for the nastiness he could achieve with the lowly SA2 - everyone he said always looked out for the newer, better, stuff. Spent all the time countering it: By the time they did so, the telephone poles have snuck through is how he put it - Too stupid and primitive to be vulnerable to current ECM.

We never felt much need for the same: NATO Air Forces was assumed to have total domination of the air, at worst, the soviets might achieve local air neutrality. Because of this, the doctrine was for Point Air Defense, where a handful of vehicles, sent to the most vulnerable point.