Gun Trucks

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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_si...les/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

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by 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..

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?

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

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.

[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.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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.

[atiff]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.