US Army AAA in T2K

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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!

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

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

But isn't a knowledgeable GM a boon to the game?

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.

[schnickelfritz]

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

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Well, thats the thing:

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

Russians (Or Soviets to be accurate)

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 .

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

[Targan]

That is some impressive thread resurrection.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Targan

That is some impressive thread resurrection.

Nine years! Is that a record?

[Legbreaker]

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?

[Louied]

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

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Louied

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.

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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?

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

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

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

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.

. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by Louied

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

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

[Raellus]

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.

[madmikechoi]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

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 .

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.

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...

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

[Tegyrius]

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.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by madmikechoi

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.

During the Falklands Islands War, the British found out the danger of overreliance on SAMS for ground-based air defense. Apparently, though, this lesson did not influence NATO ADA doctrine. It's somewhat mind-boggling.

The other thing that AAA has going for it, is that AAA can be used against ground targets. For example, M3-mounted quad .50s saved the day again and again in Korea and Vietnam. You can't engage ground targets with most SAM systems (the only ones that come to mind that can are the Bofors RBS 70 MANPADS and ADATS the latter which, AFAIK, was only adopted by the Canadian military).

I have a feeling that US Army AAA fell victim to the belief that newer, higher-tech = better.

-

[CDAT]

This stood out to me reading the article. “There’s really no comparison to anything I’ve operated in my career,” Army Sergeant Andrew Veres, a member of 5-4th Air Defense Artillery said in an official interview. "Everything in these systems is an improvement – the survivability, mobility, dependability, off road ability – it gives us the ability to stay in the fight longer."

This shows just how low the bar has been set over the years. The Striker's survivability sucks, in my time as EOD in Iraq I never saw or heard of one surviving any serious hit, the armor did not even need to be penetrated, they caught fire like they were made out of TP, now this is not saying that none of them ever did survive, but just that I have no knowledge of it happening if they were hit. The striker mobility is fine for a wheeled vehicle, but any tracked vehicle is going to be much better off road (where I think you would be spending most of your time in full out combat, not anti-insurgent warfare) so on road sure, off nope. Dependability, very likely is going to be much better than a track, they do need more maintenance. And then back to mobility, this time specificley off road, what is he comparing it to, saying it is an improvement?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

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.

I saw that on a YouTube channel (IIRC, Lockheed Martin's channel). The video showed the turret mounted on a variety of AFV platforms, such as the M113, M1117, Bradley, LAV-25, and a few others. The video also showed a variant turret armed with four Stingers and four Hellfires, along with the 30mm autocannon.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by CDAT

This shows just how low the bar has been set over the years. The Striker's survivability sucks, in my time as EOD in Iraq I never saw or heard of one surviving any serious hit, the armor did not even need to be penetrated, they caught fire like they were made out of TP, now this is not saying that none of them ever did survive, but just that I have no knowledge of it happening if they were hit. The striker mobility is fine for a wheeled vehicle, but any tracked vehicle is going to be much better off road (where I think you would be spending most of your time in full out combat, not anti-insurgent warfare) so on road sure, off nope. Dependability, very likely is going to be much better than a track, they do need more maintenance. And then back to mobility, this time specificley off road, what is he comparing it to, saying it is an improvement?

If he's an E-5, presumably his only prior experience was with the HMMWV Avenger. The last Bradley Linebackers were withdrawn in, what, 2006?

A Stryker may well be an improvement in terms of survivability compared to an M1097 chassis. The Stryker is likely to be newer than the donor HMMWV, too, so... yeah, in game terms, Wear 1 versus Wear 7 is going to be more dependable.

As far as maneuverability, I can't imagine that the ground pressure is any better, given the Stryker's vastly greater weight. Perhaps the center of gravity is lower than that of the Avenger? That thing always looks like it's going to roll over at the next speed bump or stiff breeze.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I saw that on a YouTube channel (IIRC, Lockheed Martin's channel). The video showed the turret mounted on a variety of AFV platforms, such as the M113, M1117, Bradley, LAV-25, and a few others. The video also showed a variant turret armed with four Stingers and four Hellfires, along with the 30mm autocannon.

Not gonna lie, now I want to see that on an M60 hull as a rough BMPT equivalent.

- C.

[unipus]

When were M163s pulled out of service? Who used them last? Where did they go?

It is interesting that many other nations have more than enough seen the value of SPAAG -- and on the original topic, MBT-hull based AAA. Finland operates a number of these now with twin Oerlikons on Leopard 2A4 hulls. I'm sure their reasons for doing so are largely terrain-based, but from that sense the US military (expected to operate on just about every terrain in the world) would also conceivably see the same benefits? Britain experimented with the same thing but AFAIK didn't put any into service.

AAA is just flat-out useful in any number of roles, even if aircraft aren't around -- and anyone from WW2 to Syria today could tell you that. SAMs (and even AAMs) can certainly in some cases be used against ground targets but... that's a rare occurrence and of pretty limited effect.

In a T2K sense, what happens to all the SAM launchers? The missiles are probably all but gone, the targets are certainly gone... do units just abandon or convert their Rapiers and their Avengers and Strelas? That's an interesting question.

On the other hand, the continued universal usefulness of a Shilka is more than obvious.

[Tegyrius]

Per Wikipedia, the last VADS were withdrawn from service by 1994 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_V...nd_replacement).

It's been a while since I did any deep reading on this, but I seem to recall that post-Desert Storm, the Army's assumption was that the USAF would so roughly handle any adversary that American forces would never lack air superiority again. Open to correction from better-informed correspondents.

With regards to the SAM launcher platforms, a vehicle is still a vehicle. High-Wear chassis were probably cannibalized for parts for vehicles of the same family. Low-Wear chassis would probably have the SAM hardware and electronics unbolted/torched off and be converted to battle taxi, gun truck, or general utility use, depending on suitability. Could make for an interesting encounter.

- C.

[unipus]

Would probably make prime candidates for conversion to rocket-pod artillery carriers.

[Raellus]

It seems that sometimes the US Army has a very short-term institutional memory. It often seems to focus on just the most recent experience, and use that almost exclusively to anticipate future needs/contingencies. Desert Storm may have proved instructive in many ways, but the Iraqis were not the Soviets, and the previous large-scale conflict, which necessitated next to no AAA requirement (being as enemy aircraft posed no realistic threat to US and Allied ground forces), still showed the use of AAA on the modern battlefield. There were numerous instances in the Vietnam War when US Army AAA still came in handy. For example, during the fighting for Hue in 1968, US Army M42 Duster 40mm SPAGs provided much needed direct fire support, and proved quite useful in MOUT.

I reckon that the US Army also probably doesn't look very hard at other nations' experiences when assessing its own current and near future needs. For example, it seems to have ignored the Russian's successful use of ZU-23-4 Shilkas in the ground-support role in Chechnya- again, a conflict where enemy aircraft posed no threat to the Russians- especially in MOUT.

Even if one doesn't expect enemy aircraft to be a major threat on future battlefields, it seems really myopic to eliminate a weapon system that can be used against that threat (just in case), and in a very useful secondary capacity (direct fire infantry support), from US Army TOEs.

-

[Southernap]

This has been an ongoing debate since the end of the major combat operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know the US Army bought some of the older CIWS systems that the USN was taking out of service and made the C-RAM which is a system that could be mounted on HMETT that can be used against rockets and mortar shells. Which it has effectively in the last few years.

After the ballistic missile attack against the base in Iraq, there have been questions about where the US Army ADA units are. The reality is there are only so many of them and the requirements are huge if you look at it. From Iraq and Afghanistan, to Korea, Japan, Guam and on over to places like Europe where there is a need. The US Army has chosen, like it has for a number of other important missions like EW, to divest itself of that mission because of costs to buy or maintain platforms that already exist. Let alone the RDT&E for things like advance helicopters, advances firearms, uniforms, or even meals. All of which has sucked up budget line and with the every decreasing military budgets from the heyday of the 1960s. There are decisions being made based less on what could happen historically and more on what hope and pray.

For historical context the last major offensive by Opposing force air units against the US Military was the Korean War when the Korean People's Air Force was able in the opening months of the war to get in some attacks on forward operating bases where the USAF was based. That was approximately 1950. Since then the US has enjoyed control of the air during all major offensives. The only thing that has stymied them was ballistic and cruise missiles, with near misses during the Gulf War in 1991 and a direct hit, then again in 2003 when the Iraqis tried to use some HY-2 Silkworms against bases in Kuwait. Where the engagement of those Silkworms happened to be real close. Short of those threats, the only other thing has been 122mm rockets and mortar shells from very mobile platoons of men that are hard to target with counter battery fire since they have typically set up to shoot using only basic local tools and then immediately leave once the round of fire is complete. If not already left as in some weather conditions have allowed them to use things like the snow to have a mortar tube or a rocket tube already to fire allowing the melting of the snow to light the fuze or even drop the round down the tube to be fired.

[Stackmouse]

Originally Posted by unipus

Finland operates a number of these now with twin Oerlikons on Leopard 2A4 hulls. I'm sure their reasons for doing so are largely terrain-based, but from that sense the US military (expected to operate on just about every terrain in the world) would also conceivably see the same benefits?

We have a handful of those Leopard Marksman SPAAGs in service to provide "short range anti-aircraft coverage" for the main armoured units. The only reason we have those in service is that we had the marksman turrets in storage and we had Leopards to spare for the modification. You know, "we already have the components, so why not"-type of situation.

The ability to use SPAAGs against ground targets is a "better than nothing" solution when you already have them in your TOE. Most of the "use scenarios" are based on "we had nothing else" or "those things had nothing else to do"-situations. I would recommend against using resources for getting new SPAAG-type systems for ground targets only.

The "modern threats" - UAVs, loitering munitions, etc - will most likely require new capabilities for armoured forces, in a form of mobile CIWS/C-RAM-type weapon system. I'm curious to see what kind of solutions for these challenges there will be in the future.

Bonus: link for a video of Leopard Marksman shooting
https://twitter.com/Maavoimat/status...918287360?s=20