GAU-8 30mm 
Posted on 02/16/2014 11:52:44 AM PST by null and void
For the past decade, armor protection has dominated U.S. combat vehicle programs. Now, maneuver officials are breaking with that tradition, abandoning armor for highly transportable, all-terrain vehicles.
The Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga., recently reached out to the defense industry to see if it could build the new Ultra Light Combat Vehicle -- a new effort to equip infantry brigade combat teams with go-anywhere vehicles capable of carrying a nine-man squad.
Lawmakers recently cut most of the funding for the U.S. Army's Ground Combat Vehicle -- a move that has all but killed the high-profile acquisitions effort.
The ULCV instead would be designed to travel 75 percent of the time across country and on rough trails.
Army officials continue to work with the Marine Corps to deliver the Humvee replacement, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Leaders from both services were forced to pare down expectations for this truck as costs spiraled out of control as officials wanted to increase armor while lightening the overall weight.
Maneuver officials maintain that the ULCV is not competing against the JLTV. The ULCV is designed to fill a capability gap of being large enough to carry a nine-man squad but light enough -- at 4,500 pounds -- to be sling-loaded by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.
The only way to achieve this weight and meet the capability is to trade armor protection for speed and mobility, Parker said.
"A lot of the stuff we have seen is more ATV-looking rather than enclosed with a cab," Parker said. "Then again, if someone brings something with a cab, we are not telling them not to."
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
SPOT FREAKING ON!!!
The humvee was supposed to fulfill this, then it was uparmoured to protect against IED’s.
Sounds like they want a new “original” humvee.
While I don't discount the code-breaking of the Enigma, the Atlantic is s big ocean. Escort carriers provided air cover over the mid-Atlantic gap.. With advances in radar, U-boats took their life in hand when the surfaced or used their periscope. The secrets concerning Allied work on Enigma contributed greatly to the eventual success of the Allies.
Germany and Japanese hubris concerning their 'unbreakable' codes led to the the defeat of the Japs at Midway and the death of Yamamoto in the Pacific. Even with the code-breaking success, the war in many ways was determined as always by the grit and determination of the Allied fighting man. First by the Australian/American effort in New Guinea the Allied effort in North Africa, Sicily and Italy, followed by the relentless Allied effort in France and the combined Allied work against the Jap Empire.
However, the Hood suffered from one major flaw – she did not have the same amount of armour as the Bismarck. The fact that the Hood was faster than the Bismarck by 3 knots was as a result of her lack of sufficient armour for a naval battle fought in World War Two. What had been considered sufficient armour in 1918 when Hood was built, was to prove a fatal flaw in 1941.
So, how’s the Bismarck doing, nowadays?
Hammer’s Slammers!
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of the war.
GAU-8 30mm
The A-10 was designed by people who rejected the Pentagon’s way of gold-plating everything. Same people who designed the F-16 . . . you know, a small light maneuverable aircraft.
The mighty Mo. Too bad we can no longer afford such ships.
A friend of mine attached to ANGLICO, had the Missouri in a direct support role during the invasion of Kuwait. Didn't last long because the Corps passed the Arabs on the Arab left, but he did get pre-H hour pre-planned fires as well as a couple on-calls later.
A-10 “small light”? You are still as uninformed as ever. The A-10 is one of the most heavily armored aircraft ever built.
See their efforts in Korea and on the gunline in the Nam.
Obviously another topic.
He had a problem with keeping doors closed, The Pi Factor and thin skins.
Correct. There is no substitute or equivalent now a regards naval gunfire. Those 16” shells could go 24/7 nearly regardless of weather. The 8” shells from the cruisers were not that bad either.
We can afford it. I remember listening to a representative from the Navy talking about the cost of a refurbishment; it was less than the cost of a destroyer, faster than any other major warship and could be used as an oiler because of the fuel stores aboard. As regards survivability, as I recall the Navy rep said it was the heaviest armored ship in the fleet. I’ll let my peers in the Navy fill us in to see if Dick Danzig ever got around to mandating that the gals get their billets in the fleet.
Let me repeat:
The A-10 was designed by people who rejected the Pentagon’s way of gold-plating everything. Same people who designed the F-16 . . . you know, a small light maneuverable aircraft.
The first sentence is about the A-10, and the second sentence is about the F-16. Could I have been more clear? Sure, but I expect a minimum level of intelligence from readers. In your case, the bar was set too high.
vehicles: 4 stripped down 'jeeps'
no wind screens, just bare sheet metal
(no. 4 with MGs facing right barely visible)
weapons: 7 LMGs, 1 HMg, sidearms assumed and at least 1 Fairbairn-Sykes knife.
Fuel: the poor bastards loaded extra jerry cans on every surface they could find. That's really trading armor for speed and range.
Looks like a swift hit and run/recon team to me. Single mission, no add-ons.
A nd the Somali, Chad, Taliban, et al technicals with Toyota pickups follow that model to a tee. Light force, quick attack, no ROEs against larger heavier armed force.
Don't know much about the skeleton dune buggy types the SPEC OPs were using in the early days of Afghanistan but from what little I gathered they followed the SAS Desert Rat model.
Funny how field expedient solutions work until some underemployed surplus to needs brass decides they see career opportunities and swallow them whole. Whole lot of fat tails looking for a dog to which to attach themselves.
I was a real fan of the SAS as a kid and read several very good books about them.
To take your points in order. By the way I do agree with you.
“Let’s go back to the British SAS photo and take a closer look at just what is there and what’s not.
vehicles: 4 stripped down ‘jeeps’
no wind screens, just bare sheet metal”
The windscreens were removed because after the first raid it was found that their position was exposed by the sun reflecting off of the glass and the Germans spotted them that way.
“(no. 4 with MGs facing right barely visible)”
If I remember correctly those are Lewis guns that were equipped with light armor piercing and incendiary rounds. (Tracers), The Lewis guns were originally used in WW1 Aircraft and were found to be not required by the regular forces and were available, (scrounged), to the SAS blokes.
weapons: 7 LMGs, 1 HMg, sidearms assumed and at least 1 Fairbairn-Sykes knife.”
“Fuel: the poor bastards loaded extra jerry cans on every surface they could find. That’s really trading armor for speed and range.”
Actually it’s about fifty/fifty with fuel and water. There was very little potable water available in North Africa and the Bedouins would not share with anyone, (understandably so).
“Looks like a swift hit and run/recon team to me. Single mission, no add-ons.”
Yes and no on the single mission stuff, they would head deep into enemy territory by going south of the main east/west highway that most of the fighting took place along and set up temporary ‘base’ camps to do their hit and run raids from.
The SAS in north Africa is also credited for destroying more enemy aircraft than the RAF did in North Africa. Of course they did it while on the ground and in the Germans air bases. Unfortunately that chapped a few RAF Generals the wrong way and they refused to give them any ‘air’ medals for destroying enemy aircraft because it wasn’t done while they were in the air.
Lots and lots of good stories about them and the Special-boat teams from WW II.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.