Guns a GoGo and the Twilight War

[Brian S]

Would armed Chinooks reappear in the Twilight War? Just Curious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cB-6BSHJws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WttpWwcSjy4
http://gunsagogo.org/
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history...unsagogo2.html

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Brian S

Would armed Chinooks reappear in the Twilight War? Just Curious

Until they ran out of aviation fuel.

[chico20854]

or ran into some modern air defense artillery/SAMs.

[pmulcahy11b]

Or if they needed some ready-made ground shelters -- just line the insides and outsides with sandbags, wood, and scrap metal...

[Brian S]

Originally Posted by chico20854

or ran into some modern air defense artillery/SAMs.

Isn't that true about any helicopter? So your saying MH-47s are a bad idea too?

[pmulcahy11b]

The first 6-8 months of the Twilight War, there would be (pardon the term) an orgasm of air power. Then it will begin to taper off as aircraft are destroyed, older aircraft are pressed back into service and eventually also destroyed, and eventually the virtual impossibility of getting oil anywhere without the tankers being sunk will paralyze air forces. The November Nuclear Strikes will just be the coup de grace for air power in T2K. There will be isolated places where some aircraft are functioning, but it's more likely that it will be a Cessna than a Raptor, more likely a Robinson than a Chinook.

[Brian S]

Originally Posted by copeab

Until they ran out of aviation fuel.

I was thinking of something along these lines appearing in the Middle East, Kenya or Alaska during the war in a trickle. I'm not so worried about game time (>2000) so to speak.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Brian S

Isn't that true about any helicopter? So your saying MH-47s are a bad idea too?

I think Chinooks would be particularly vulnerable. They are rather big targets and not quite as fast and/or manouverable as an Apache or a Hokum. Using a Chinook as a gunship against modestly-armed insurgents might work OK, but they would be easy pickings on a battlefield with modern ADW.

[Brian S]

Thats I was thinking was low intensity conflict or wolf in sheeps clothing escort like they did in Nam. Only a moron would use one against 1st and 2nd line gunships. Did anybody actually read what I put up there? Just curious.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Brian S

Thats I was thinking was low intensity conflict or wolf in sheeps clothing escort like they did in Nam. Only a moron would use one against 1st and 2nd line gunships. Did anybody actually read what I put up there? Just curious.

Hmmmmm.....

[kato13]

Given what I have seen recently (Apache shoot down rates in Iraq) I feel that all helicopters would have had atrocious casualty rates during all phases of the war. I honestly think that late in the war use for transport of key supplies would overshadow use for combat. Transport helicopters would be irreplaceable assets and as a commander I would not risk them in combat unless I felt they were relatively safe from ADA and would provide a significant combat advantage.

[Targan]

I agree with Kato. I think that from 1998 to 2000 in T2K remaining operations Chinooks (while certainly festooned with door guns) would be kept well away from combat situations by commanders.

[jester]

I'd say they would be used for more unique operations.

Remember, they are an asset, but also the materials they would need would also be a scarce asset, hydraulic fluid, fuel and consumable as well as common maintenance items would be well husbanded resources.

The insertion of a covert team into enemy controled territory would be a one. Or using the helos again to land a platoon or company of troops to secure an oil facility would be a good risk.

And even using such a craft as a SAR could be a good use. More like a rescue vessel from a RP.

Another, the transport of personel or material across say, the arctic would be a good use.

The key to it however is the materials needed to keep it running.

[Legbreaker]

The prime year 2000 helicopter example has to be Krakows.

It's in virtually mint condition, more weapons and ammo than it can carry, but never flies because it's just too valuable to risk ANYTHING happening to it.

The same could be said for virtually all aircraft, rotary or fixed wing.

Come to think about it, there's probably some ground and sea assets that fall into the same category...

[headquarters]

any thing and everything would be pressed into action -depending on the situation in the AO.

Sure - a Chinook wouldnt be sacrificed needlessly against the adversaries purpose built attack planes etc .

But I adhere to the theory that if organization and command chain is kept ,adapting and improvising will recieve merit .Cessnas will be used for scouting and spotting ,and if nothing else is available - Cessnas will be used to try and shoot down the Cessnas etc .

There have been many an improvised airforce in history :
Cuban revolutionaries under Castro and Cienfuegos
Sri Lankan Rebels in Tamil areas
Israeli planes in 1947-1948
Bosniak planes in Bosnia in the early 1990s

and more that I cant recall of the top of my head .

The more sophisticated the system ,the poorer operational stability in terms of T2K.I.e gazillion dollar modern stuff quickly goes down - older tech with cruder parts survive longer .

In any case - lack of good aviation fuel along with any number of other materials and parts will end modern air power and usher in a new era of prop engined death crates with machineguns and smal GP bombs as main armament..

all imho -of course

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The prime year 2000 helicopter example has to be Krakows.

It's in virtually mint condition, more weapons and ammo than it can carry, but never flies because it's just too valuable to risk ANYTHING happening to it.

That sort of makes it like a nuclear weapon today -- simultaneously extremely valuable and profoundly worthless.

[Legbreaker]

Yep, ain't life in 2000 grand! You've got what everyone wants and fears but can't use it just in case your mechanic forgot to tighten that one critical nut properly.

:/

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yep, ain't life in 2000 grand! You've got what everyone wants and fears but can't use it just in case your mechanic forgot to tighten that one critical nut properly.

You almost inspired me to change my sig to "Always be sure that your critical nuts are tight".

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I think Chinooks would be particularly vulnerable. They are rather big targets and not quite as fast and/or manouverable as an Apache or a Hokum. Using a Chinook as a gunship against modestly-armed insurgents might work OK, but they would be easy pickings on a battlefield with modern ADW.

I don't think modern ADWs would be any more common than operational aircraft in 2000. Most would be guns, which have a secondary role against ground targets, but are inferior to SAMs against flying things.

(I'll note that I see the supply situation as being worse than canon generally suggests)

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

You almost inspired me to change my sig to "Always be sure that your critical nuts are tight".

I don't even know if my critical nuts are tight -- they haven't had any screwing in a while...

[kato13]

Originally Posted by copeab

I don't think modern ADWs would be any more common than operational aircraft in 2000. Most would be guns, which have a secondary role against ground targets, but are inferior to SAMs against flying things.

(I'll note that I see the supply situation as being worse than canon generally suggests)

SAMs (at least man portable ones) will require a lot less maintenance than any aircraft. The are also more numerable to start with. Add to that the fact that many Apaches brought down in Iraq were taken down by RPGs and I still feel ground fire will come out with a serious advantage.

[Marc]

Well, in my opinion, one point commonly forgotten in the T2K background is the availability of light civilian aircraft. I know that I'm going a little off thread here...but taking as example old and proven planes like the Cessna 152 or 172, series etc. we'll have less electronic devices and less mechanical complexity than in our present-day cars. Airports availability will be a minor problem for this type of planes (one only needs to see some of the air strips used in South America or Africa) and some of them, depending of their prewar role, could be equipped with floating devices or skies.


They would be worth its weight in gold and their owners would use them accordingly, keeping the risks at minimum. That's specially true if taking into account their extreme vulnerability to small arms fire at low altitude. These type of planes, for example, would be key pieces in large territories with low density of military units and isolated population areas. Of course, fuel would be still a problem. But they have a low fuel consumption and less maintenance requirements (and less electronics) than other heavier aircraft. And the basics of flying are easy to learn with these planes, being easier for a pilot to instruct an apprentice. Good reasons to try to keep them flying in the Twilight world.


Among their normal roles, and depending of their load capacity, we could find: the light transport of critical materials (spare parts, medicines...) or people (technicians, doctors, an injured or sick person...), air mail, observation (location of marauder bands or refugees, monitoring the direction of a dangerous forest fire). Although their vulnerability, other, more dangerous roles are possible. Forward observer, target signalling with rockets...the Cessna Skymaster is a good example of these types of mission (do you remember "BAT 21"?) .

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Marc

Well, in my opinion, one point commonly forgotten in the T2K background is the availability of light civilian aircraft.

Headquarters said the same thing in a post earlier in this thread.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kato13

SAMs (at least man portable ones) will require a lot less maintenance than any aircraft. The are also more numerable to start with.

The problem is that man-portable SAMs, unlike man-portable ATGMs, have no useful secondary role. I can't see soldiers carrying a Stinger when so few aircraft are flying when they could be carrying something far more useful.

Bases, which don't have to worry about having the things around, would be more likely to have SAMs, but they are still one-trick ponies waiting for an unlikely show, so I don't see them being that well maintained even by units that do have still have them.

[TiggerCCW UK]

I always thought the game was badly supported by GDW in terms of aircraft - why did we need stats for a Galaxy and a Starlifter in the Nautical Aviation book - surely players in both T2K and Merc are more likely to run into a cessna than them? I'd the same issue with the US vehicle guide in particular - surely they could have given stats for something more useful than a laser AA gun that there were only ever a handful of in the game world. Paul, I can't remember, have you civvy light aircraft stats on your site?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

I always thought the game was badly supported by GDW in terms of aircraft - why did we need stats for a Galaxy and a Starlifter in the Nautical Aviation book - surely players in both T2K and Merc are more likely to run into a cessna than them? I'd the same issue with the US vehicle guide in particular - surely they could have given stats for something more useful than a laser AA gun that there were only ever a handful of in the game world. Paul, I can't remember, have you civvy light aircraft stats on your site?

I used to have some civilian cars, but I've never had civilian aircraft. And the T2K rules for aircraft and seacraft both suck -- the versions in Challenge magazine (the Air Modules) were the best, but they were still not that good. T2K doesn't really lend itself to aircraft very well, unfortunately, and I don't know enough about seacraft to do any real justice to them.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Brian S

Isn't that true about any helicopter? So your saying MH-47s are a bad idea too?

Yes, unfortunately, it's true of any helicopter or low-flying aircraft. That's why you use them carefully -- special ops helicopters fly mostly at night, and if you have it, you fly helicopters and aircraft with plenty of SEAD and support on the ground to kill those shoulder-launched missiles and light AAA.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by copeab

The problem is that man-portable SAMs, unlike man-portable ATGMs, have no useful secondary role. I can't see soldiers carrying a Stinger when so few aircraft are flying when they could be carrying something far more useful.

In "Cardnal and the Kremlin" they were used against heated guard towers. I bet in real life that would be a possibility. The also would be somewhere, In a vehicle, back at base, somewhere. If they are functional I cannot see a commander abandoning them.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by kato13

In "Cardnal and the Kremlin" they were used against heated guard towers. I bet in real life that would be a possibility. The also would be somewhere, In a vehicle, back at base, somewhere. If they are functional I cannot see a commander abandoning them.

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, some Blowpipes (British-built shoulder-launched SAMs) were sent down the pipe to the Mujaheddin. The Mujaheddin found them to be poor SAMs -- but discovered that they were great against light armor and soft-skinned vehicles, and that's how most Blowpipes were used by the Mujaheddin. The Blowpipe uses a command-guidance system similar to SACLOS-guided AAMs and ATGMs -- a big reason they could be used against ground targets. A Stinger doesn't guide that well against ground targets.

[kato13]

You seem to be right Paul. I should have researched first. Clutter from ground heat seems to confuse the seeker. In "CotK" Clancy rectified that by having it be night and winter as well as having having the targets be heated and above ground. The scenarios where they would be useful would be few, but I still see commanders holding on to them.