US Army AAA in T2K

[schnickelfritz]

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

[Raellus]

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.

[Panther Al]

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

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.

[Panther Al]

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

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

[HorseSoldier]

Do you think that it is way off to think that they might be developing this new caliber/round so that should invasions (in either direction) happen any captured ammo or weapons would be of limited value?

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.

[Matt Wiser]

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.

[Mohoender]

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.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

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.

Sounds badass.

[Matt Wiser]

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

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.

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!