User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 1:42:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 1:49:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Wow pretty amazing for WWII stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 1:50:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. As noted in this thread, ZSU's have the ability to use passive infrared tracking which a HARM would do no good against. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 1:55:39 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. As noted in this thread, ZSU's have the ability to use passive infrared tracking which a HARM would do no good against. Come at me!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 1:58:57 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lots of our guys used the M55 "Quad 50" against ground targets in Vietnam to devastating effect. In some instances, they were even used to dump withering fire on the reverse slopes of distant hills where the NVA were firing mortars from.  http://youtu.be/aczpm9r-K18Outside Bastonge during the battle of the bulge, a quad .50 on a half track racked up about 250 German KIA in just a few seconds. German infantry apparently thought the rig was theirs and walked up on it in the fog. My uncle fought his way through Bavaria in WWII. He used this exact set up on several German villages late in the war to deter/kill snipers, home guard "volk" volunteers & hold outs (some of whom probably would have been armed with that short-range "panzerfaust" disposible bazooka and who knows what else?). He ordered both the half-tracks to blow the front off every house along the main street while rolling slowly forward. His men loved it & he had the lowest casualty rate among similar-sized units. It was apparently an effective tactic. But, he recieved a reprimand for highest ammunition consumption rate of any similar sized unit.  He received several purple herats and battle-field promotions; he went on to serve in combat many years later in Korea as well.That's good leadership right there  Worth reprimand..and his men loved him I bet. Good on him. And thanks for sharing...people often forget how much of an insurgency there was after the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 2:04:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
The most expensive military machine ever made to take out a 20,000 dollar vehicle. The insanity of capitalism at its very best. Why hit a nail with a hammer when you can hit that bitch with a nuclear ballistic missle. AMERICA FUCK YEAHQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. As noted in this thread, ZSU's have the ability to use passive infrared tracking which a HARM would do no good against. Come at me! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/B-2_Spirit_original.jpg/300px-B-2_Spirit_original.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 2:11:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Lots of our guys used the M55 "Quad 50" against ground targets in Vietnam to devastating effect. In some instances, they were even used to dump withering fire on the reverse slopes of distant hills where the NVA were firing mortars from. http://youtu.be/aczpm9r-K18
Timings off on the .50 around 1 minute.
Cool how the -4 can fire 2 barrels or all 4 at once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 2:20:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. A former member of the local gun club commanded a ZSU-24-4 platoon when he was in the Polish army. One of his Russian acquaintances told him about the use of the Shilka during the Ussuri River incident. In short, the Russians chopped the Chinese into hamburger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 2:24:21 PM EDT
[#9]
I figure that an Abrams chassis with a twin Vulcan cannons would be a great thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 2:25:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of our guys used the M55 "Quad 50" against ground targets in Vietnam to devastating effect. In some instances, they were even used to dump withering fire on the reverse slopes of distant hills where the NVA were firing mortars from. http://youtu.be/aczpm9r-K18
Outside Bastonge during the battle of the bulge, a quad .50 on a half track racked up about 250 German KIA in just a few seconds. German infantry apparently thought the rig was theirs and walked up on it in the fog. My uncle fought his way through Bavaria in WWII. He used this exact set up on several German villages late in the war to deter/kill snipers, home guard "volk" volunteers & hold outs (some of whom probably would have been armed with that short-range "panzerfaust" disposible bazooka and who knows what else?). He ordered both the half-tracks to blow the front off every house along the main street while rolling slowly forward. His men loved it & he had the lowest casualty rate among similar-sized units. It was apparently an effective tactic. But, he recieved a reprimand for highest ammunition consumption rate of any similar sized unit. He received several purple herats and battle-field promotions; he went on to serve in combat many years later in Korea as well.That's good leadership right there Worth reprimand..and his men loved him I bet. Good on him. And thanks for sharing...people often forget how much of an insurgency there was after the war.
He did mention problems with Hitler youth after the war; he knew that they had all been ordered to stop wearing the uniform, the war was over, hitler's dead, etc. - but some of these kids were so brain-washed that they still kept believing in the "cause." Anyway, my uncle said that his men would sometimes see a kid wearing the forbidden HY uniform while riding a bike; they would drive past the kid in a jeep, and a G.I. in the back seat would whallop the kid with a truck tire inertube & knock him right off the bike. This tended to stop the uniform wearing crap & word quickly got around about my uncle's approach to the problem. He also mentioned specifically one incident where a HY got ahold of a belt-fed & dug in on top of a hill; the kid (they did not know it was a kid at the time) held off a whole lot of G.I.s for a while & they finally had to call in an artillery strike right on the hilltop. I think they felt kinda bad once they discovered it was just a brain-washed kid alone on a hill, but that's war & they did what they had to do. I do not know if that happened after the surrender or just before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 2:58:26 PM EDT
[#11]
That's a modernized Polish zeuse. Not only does it have 4 23mm water cooled cannons, but 4 ready Grom SAMs. ZSU-23-4MP to be exact. The Poles and Ukranians have done some awesome upgrades to lots of old Soviet era equipment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 3:00:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of our guys used the M55 "Quad 50" against ground targets in Vietnam to devastating effect. In some instances, they were even used to dump withering fire on the reverse slopes of distant hills where the NVA were firing mortars from. http://youtu.be/aczpm9r-K18
Outside Bastonge during the battle of the bulge, a quad .50 on a half track racked up about 250 German KIA in just a few seconds. German infantry apparently thought the rig was theirs and walked up on it in the fog. My uncle fought his way through Bavaria in WWII. He used this exact set up on several German villages late in the war to deter/kill snipers, home guard "volk" volunteers & hold outs (some of whom probably would have been armed with that short-range "panzerfaust" disposible bazooka and who knows what else?). He ordered both the half-tracks to blow the front off every house along the main street while rolling slowly forward. His men loved it & he had the lowest casualty rate among similar-sized units. It was apparently an effective tactic. But, he recieved a reprimand for highest ammunition consumption rate of any similar sized unit. He received several purple herats and battle-field promotions; he went on to serve in combat many years later in Korea as well.That's good leadership right there Worth reprimand..and his men loved him I bet. Good on him. And thanks for sharing...people often forget how much of an insurgency there was after the war.
got any suggested reading for this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 3:14:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: The most expensive military machine ever made to take out a 20,000 dollar vehicle. The insanity of capitalism at its very best. Why hit a nail with a hammer when you can hit that bitch with a nuclear ballistic missle. AMERICA FUCK YEAHCome at me! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/B-2_Spirit_original.jpg/300px-B-2_Spirit_original.jpg Pshaw! We're not even that insane. One B-2 could clear the field of dozens of threats. Dispensing righteous justice from outside the range of most AA threats and undetectable by others. Plus other SEAD guys would probably already have taken out the trash |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 3:27:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Phhht
'Merica!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 3:29:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. A former member of the local gun club commanded a ZSU-24-4 platoon when he was in the Polish army. One of his Russian acquaintances told him about the use of the Shilka during the Ussuri River incident. In short, the Russians chopped the Chinese into hamburger. Was this the '69 river incident? I would have assumed that they would have been using ZSU-57-2s rather than ZSU-23-4s in the late 60s like that, however it's still quite possible. The official Chinese casualties are only 59 dead and 94 wounded. I'm a bit suspicious of that because when China seems to ever do anything, they throw quite a few men into the fray. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 4:15:03 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. As noted in this thread, ZSU's have the ability to use passive infrared tracking which a HARM would do no good against. I'm tracking, but once they cut loose once I guarantee their life span is short. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 4:17:32 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 4:26:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. Quad .50s in Korea against human waves My dad has told me stories of this.Hearing the bugles start to blare in the darkness,the sound of them screaming and stampeding, mortars firing illumination,watching the hills just crawling with Chinese and then seeing 2 Quad 50's cross their fire and chew em like crazy while keeping his M1919 cranking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 4:29:34 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. As noted in this thread, ZSU's have the ability to use passive infrared tracking which a HARM would do no good against. Once systems like this go passive, they loose most of the effectiveness because of lack of targeting data. Also, depending on the tactics used by the aircraft, may not be able to acquire, track and engage prior to loosing a firing window. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 4:46:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. A former member of the local gun club commanded a ZSU-24-4 platoon when he was in the Polish army. One of his Russian acquaintances told him about the use of the Shilka during the Ussuri River incident. In short, the Russians chopped the Chinese into hamburger. Was this the '69 river incident? I would have assumed that they would have been using ZSU-57-2s rather than ZSU-23-4s in the late 60s like that, however it's still quite possible. The official Chinese casualties are only 59 dead and 94 wounded. I'm a bit suspicious of that because when China seems to ever do anything, they throw quite a few men into the fray. Yes, that was the 1969 incident. My informant didn't mention numbers of casualties, but he certainly talked like it was a lot more than a couple of hundred. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 4:46:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: WTF are you talking about? I hope that is not a blanket statement for fire control.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. As noted in this thread, ZSU's have the ability to use passive infrared tracking which a HARM would do no good against. Once systems like this go passive, they loose most of the effectiveness because of lack of targeting data. Also, depending on the tactics used by the aircraft, may not be able to acquire, track and engage prior to loosing a firing window. Please tell me more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 4:54:33 PM EDT
[#22]
A simple point defense gun system like the ZSU if it optically sighted reduces it ability to track and engage a target significantly, against low to medium alt aircraft this may not be too big of a deal. But against an aircraft at low altitude, using the terrain it only give the gunners a very small window to acquire, track and engage. Also since this a gun, it requires range/heading to developed elevation and lead to hit its target, optical/IR sights don't give accurate data on either. Using a laser would change that, but since many ASE systems have laser detection, may allow the air craft to change its profile to avoid the fire.
These aren't exactly systems with LINK-16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 11:24:31 PM EDT
[#23]
"Pouring down hate and discontent like a motherfucker,"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2012 11:55:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. A former member of the local gun club commanded a ZSU-24-4 platoon when he was in the Polish army. One of his Russian acquaintances told him about the use of the Shilka during the Ussuri River incident. In short, the Russians chopped the Chinese into hamburger. Was this the '69 river incident? I would have assumed that they would have been using ZSU-57-2s rather than ZSU-23-4s in the late 60s like that, however it's still quite possible. The official Chinese casualties are only 59 dead and 94 wounded. I'm a bit suspicious of that because when China seems to ever do anything, they throw quite a few men into the fray. Yes, that was the 1969 incident. My informant didn't mention numbers of casualties, but he certainly talked like it was a lot more than a couple of hundred. I wouldn't ever believe the Chinese nor the Soviets in anything regarding statistics of any kind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 12:09:27 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: "Pouring down hate and discontent like a motherfucker," no shit... thats a LOT of boom boom |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 12:59:30 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: A simple point defense gun system like the ZSU if it optically sighted reduces it ability to track and engage a target significantly, against low to medium alt aircraft this may not be too big of a deal. But against an aircraft at low altitude, using the terrain it only give the gunners a very small window to acquire, track and engage. Also since this a gun, it requires range/heading to developed elevation and lead to hit its target, optical/IR sights don't give accurate data on either. Using a laser would change that, but since many ASE systems have laser detection, may allow the air craft to change its profile to avoid the fire. These aren't exactly systems with LINK-16. do US fast movers even go low any more? seems like since the Kosovo war most jets wont go below 15,000 ft for fear of MANPADS... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:24:57 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple point defense gun system like the ZSU if it optically sighted reduces it ability to track and engage a target significantly, against low to medium alt aircraft this may not be too big of a deal. But against an aircraft at low altitude, using the terrain it only give the gunners a very small window to acquire, track and engage. Also since this a gun, it requires range/heading to developed elevation and lead to hit its target, optical/IR sights don't give accurate data on either. Using a laser would change that, but since many ASE systems have laser detection, may allow the air craft to change its profile to avoid the fire. These aren't exactly systems with LINK-16. do US fast movers even go low any more? seems like since the Kosovo war most jets wont go below 15,000 ft for fear of MANPADS... No, they stay at an altitude that ZSU fire is not an issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:33:30 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A simple point defense gun system like the ZSU if it optically sighted reduces it ability to track and engage a target significantly, against low to medium alt aircraft this may not be too big of a deal. But against an aircraft at low altitude, using the terrain it only give the gunners a very small window to acquire, track and engage. Also since this a gun, it requires range/heading to developed elevation and lead to hit its target, optical/IR sights don't give accurate data on either. Using a laser would change that, but since many ASE systems have laser detection, may allow the air craft to change its profile to avoid the fire. These aren't exactly systems with LINK-16. do US fast movers even go low any more? seems like since the Kosovo war most jets wont go below 15,000 ft for fear of MANPADS... No, they stay at an altitude that ZSU fire is not an issue. what about the Tungusta and its SA-19s?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:37:17 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple point defense gun system like the ZSU if it optically sighted reduces it ability to track and engage a target significantly, against low to medium alt aircraft this may not be too big of a deal. But against an aircraft at low altitude, using the terrain it only give the gunners a very small window to acquire, track and engage. Also since this a gun, it requires range/heading to developed elevation and lead to hit its target, optical/IR sights don't give accurate data on either. Using a laser would change that, but since many ASE systems have laser detection, may allow the air craft to change its profile to avoid the fire. These aren't exactly systems with LINK-16. do US fast movers even go low any more? seems like since the Kosovo war most jets wont go below 15,000 ft for fear of MANPADS... No, they stay at an altitude that ZSU fire is not an issue. what about the Tungusta and its SA-19s? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/VDay_Parade_Rehearsal_Moscow03.jpg That's a whole lot of whoop-ass, I wonder why the fuck would Morocco need it though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:42:26 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. The Soviets figured out early on that a -0 degree capable AAA gun might be worthy as an anti-infantry piece as well. So now every Afghan's boogeyman story is that a ZSU is going to be placed on a truck and used (not likely) or put on a mountain top |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:38:45 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
That's a whole lot of whoop-ass, I wonder why the fuck would Morocco need it though. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:03:46 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. As noted in this thread, ZSU's have the ability to use passive infrared tracking which a HARM would do no good against. But their shape is unique and it makes them priority targets for AN/APG-78 equipped Longbows. At night the ZSU's don't stand a chance. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:22:37 AM EDT
[#33]
While our hardware is superior, I've always thought that the Russians built some cool things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:45:46 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought they were primarily AA guns but all the targets are in the ground role. Are these weapons mostly just ground weapons now. Not exactly useful against modern birds, pretty fucking useful against soft targets is my uneducated view. Same thing with the Duster. They are a helicopter's worst nightmare. Radar controlled AA are deadly to rotary wing aircraft, which is why we have things like the HARM missle. As noted in this thread, ZSU's have the ability to use passive infrared tracking which a HARM would do no good against. But their shape is unique and it makes them priority targets for AN/APG-78 equipped Longbows. At night the ZSU's don't stand a chance. Any unique equipment on the battlefield are priority targets. To include AA, NBC recon, bridging assets, mine clearing equipment etc..... Lifespans for the crew of those kinds of equipment is expected to be short. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:57:43 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Any unique equipment on the battlefield are priority targets. To include AA, NBC recon, bridging assets, mine clearing equipment etc..... Lifespans for the crew of those kinds of equipment is expected to be short. Army Aviators aren't concerend about bridging assets. Guess who get's put at the top of the list? 
Once AA is out of the way, the rest are sitting ducks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:07:16 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any unique equipment on the battlefield are priority targets. To include AA, NBC recon, bridging assets, mine clearing equipment etc..... Lifespans for the crew of those kinds of equipment is expected to be short. Army Aviators aren't concerend about bridging assets. Guess who get's put at the top of the list?
Once AA is out of the way, the rest are sitting ducks. The bridging assets might not be priority one, but I gurantee that its on the list of items to destroy and its not far from the top, right up their with AA, command tracks etc.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:17:53 AM EDT
[#37]
A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:26:08 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle. Add in a couple of ADATS and we'll call it good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:36:17 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle. Add in a couple of ADATS and we'll call it good. 
O hai guys 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:03:32 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle. Add in a couple of ADATS and we'll call it good. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/MMEV.jpg O hai guys i thought that was real for a second  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:13:13 AM EDT
[#41]
there armor runs the gambit so badly that im not sure if what I just saw is somethign I should be scared of or laugh at.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:52:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle. Add in a couple of ADATS and we'll call it good. You know we actually bought some ADAT's back in the 80's? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 1:56:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle. Add in a couple of ADATS and we'll call it good. You know we actually bought some ADAT's back in the 80's? I know we were looking at them, I didn't know that we bought any. They used to buy ads in the military magazines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 2:17:05 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
We tried. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CvR1l-_rrXs/T6k5DFjzR1I/AAAAAAAACb8/ANzNPvL76As/s1600/blog+sgt+york.jpg At least ours was armored. Theirs is just sheet metal. Bradley will own it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 2:41:48 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle. Add in a couple of ADATS and we'll call it good. You know we actually bought some ADAT's back in the 80's? I know we were looking at them, I didn't know that we bought any. They used to buy ads in the military magazines. Yup, we bought a handful of them mounted on trucks and they were given to the NM National Guard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 2:48:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle. Add in a couple of ADATS and we'll call it good. You know we actually bought some ADAT's back in the 80's? I know we were looking at them, I didn't know that we bought any. They used to buy ads in the military magazines. Yup, we bought a handful of them mounted on trucks and they were given to the NM National Guard. I believe you are referring to the Roland. Initially mounted on a M-109 chassis and later a 5 ton. ETA: The only US ADATS I have seen were prototypes on a Bradley Chassis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 2:52:54 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A Stryker variant with a GAU-12 and a 40mm Bofors would be the heat for built-up areas. Anti-helicopter protection, could take on all but heavily armored vehicles, and lower collateral damage fire support for the ground pounders, all in one vehicle. Add in a couple of ADATS and we'll call it good. You know we actually bought some ADAT's back in the 80's? I know we were looking at them, I didn't know that we bought any. They used to buy ads in the military magazines. Yup, we bought a handful of them mounted on trucks and they were given to the NM National Guard. I believe you are referring to the Roland. Initially mounted on a M-109 chassis and later a 5 ton. ETA: The only US ADATS I have seen were prototypes on a Bradley Chassis. You are right, I got the, mixed up, the Army wanted to buy ADATS but the cold war ended soon thereafter. Thanks for the fact check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 3:07:36 PM EDT
[#48]
found this interesting info on GAO reports slamming ADATS:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=6466375&sponsor= |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:00:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
found this interesting info on GAO reports slamming ADATS: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=6466375&sponsor= ADATS is already slated for removal from service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:06:37 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple point defense gun system like the ZSU if it optically sighted reduces it ability to track and engage a target significantly, against low to medium alt aircraft this may not be too big of a deal. But against an aircraft at low altitude, using the terrain it only give the gunners a very small window to acquire, track and engage. Also since this a gun, it requires range/heading to developed elevation and lead to hit its target, optical/IR sights don't give accurate data on either. Using a laser would change that, but since many ASE systems have laser detection, may allow the air craft to change its profile to avoid the fire. These aren't exactly systems with LINK-16. do US fast movers even go low any more? seems like since the Kosovo war most jets wont go below 15,000 ft for fear of MANPADS... No, they stay at an altitude that ZSU fire is not an issue. what about the Tungusta and its SA-19s? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/VDay_Parade_Rehearsal_Moscow03.jpg It is a much more formidable system and adds the missile to cover the gaps the gun is unable to cover. One has to remember the ZSU really won its spurs in the 1973 Yom Kippur war against the IDF. When they attempting fly beneath the envelope of the SAMS, it was also intro'd at time the electronic signature was not known, so it couldn't be jammed. Once you deny the system is radar, you basically turn it into a standard gun platform. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
