US Army AAA in T2K

[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 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.

-

[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