1
12alfa
Guest
Were the Kiowas in Germany ever armed in the recce role ?
1
12alfa
Guest
Tanks
The mini-tat was a defensive weapon only- the idea being that the observer would return fire while the pilot "ran away". In practice, it would never happen. The weapon was carried slung up under the body of the aircraft. Unlimbered, it hung about 6 feet below the aircraft, making nap of the earth flying kind of tough (we regularly flew at about three feet above the ground). Gun camp was a hoot, though, as the gun was fun to fire.
Not spoken of so much were the (iirc) 2.75" rockets we carried. They were mounted two to a side, with no aiming system other than a grease pencil mark on the windscreen. We carried smoke markers only- extremely effective in the forward air control role.
The Kiowa, and the tac hel observer it carried, was an extremely effective and efficient battlefield tool. The expertise we lost is, imho, a damn shame.
Cheers-Garry
Not spoken of so much were the (iirc) 2.75" rockets we carried. They were mounted two to a side, with no aiming system other than a grease pencil mark on the windscreen. We carried smoke markers only- extremely effective in the forward air control role.
The Kiowa, and the tac hel observer it carried, was an extremely effective and efficient battlefield tool. The expertise we lost is, imho, a damn shame.
Cheers-Garry
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 230
Very short-sighted of the Air Force. Or the Army, whoever decided to give up the tactical reconnaissance helicopter role.
You never mentioned how long the Kiowa could fly with the mini-tat and ammo, Garry. If memory serves, wasn't the fuel load cut to about 30 minutes worth? Or, if you were on board, 25 minutes worth? ;D
You never mentioned how long the Kiowa could fly with the mini-tat and ammo, Garry. If memory serves, wasn't the fuel load cut to about 30 minutes worth? Or, if you were on board, 25 minutes worth? ;D
1
12alfa
Guest
Tanks for the info. A time on station and total flight time would be helpfull as well. I'm working on a 1st Clash campain, and as you know the Kiowa was used in this time period. Did we use farps as well during our time in Germany?
On another note, what aa wpn systems other than the Blowpipe did we have in 1CMBG?
On another note, what aa wpn systems other than the Blowpipe did we have in 1CMBG?
- Reaction score
- 1,673
- Points
- 1,010
12Alfa said:
I believe it would only be 40mm Bofors in static installations at the airfields. Up until 88/90ish when Skyguard/35mm/ADATS would have been kicking around.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
That would have been 4 CMBG. 1 CMBG, SSF and 5 CMBG had no requirements for Bofors. ADATS and its Skyguard saw limited deployment in Canada at the School, until the closure of CFE.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 230
Yup. In the late 70's/early 80's when we deployed we borrowed AA forces from whoever we were working with. If we were working with 2 Ge Corps, we would get Gepards. If we were working with 7 US Corps, we got Vulcans.
I know that this is hijacking the thread just a bit, but I really think we should have bought Gepards when we bought the Leo.
I know that this is hijacking the thread just a bit, but I really think we should have bought Gepards when we bought the Leo.
1
12alfa
Guest
GW, right u are, 4CMBG. I should have known that, being there and all, heheheh, maybe the beer had something to with it.
We had the turrets of our ships at the end of the runway in Lahr that we ran around from time to time as well.
So outside of the blowpipes we had nothing else for air defence during the 70's?
We had the turrets of our ships at the end of the runway in Lahr that we ran around from time to time as well.
So outside of the blowpipes we had nothing else for air defence during the 70's?
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
12Alfa said:
I wouldn't really say that. There were still .50 Cal and other Small Arms Defensive procedures/practices in place, as there are today in Units who wish to so train.
The time on station was, iirc, pretty much standard at about 120 minutes (+ reserve). While the mini-tat was heavy, it wasn't enough (again, iirc) to cause us to off load fuel to stay within weight limits. While weight certainly was a concern, torque and engine turbine outlet temps were much more likely to cause problems. These could be attributed to weight, but the pilot could "ease" into manouvers and so live with the weight. Certainly weight (combined with weather/heat) would affect our ability to hover: I've seen summer days in Wainwright where we had to kick some poor OJT guy out (in the middle of nowhere) to be able to do our job (yes, we went back and picked him up on the way home). Pretty bad when you can't hover in ground effect....however, there was an awful amount of armour/radios aded to that little aircraft, and we never did upgrade the motor/transmission.
FAARP's- yes. Normal Ops.
AAA- same answer- we always had support from other Armys. I particularly enjoyed the Vulcan.
(Hey George, remember when the Geppard crew were showing off for some girls and took the top two layers of cinder blocks off a passing truck...with their barrels?...LOL)
My head hurts- been along time since I had to remember Kiowa AOI's
Cheers-Garry
FAARP's- yes. Normal Ops.
AAA- same answer- we always had support from other Armys. I particularly enjoyed the Vulcan.
(Hey George, remember when the Geppard crew were showing off for some girls and took the top two layers of cinder blocks off a passing truck...with their barrels?...LOL)
My head hurts- been along time since I had to remember Kiowa AOI's
Cheers-Garry
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
That was quite the show. Those Gepards attached to the Sqn really impressed me. As Lance said, we should have bought them; and I still think we should today if we get the chance....however, having gone wheeled, I can see something like Roland on a MAN chassis a possibility.
The loss of the Kiowa, hurts the Army. I don't believe that UAVs or TUAVs will be able to completely and competently replace them. Like the MGS, I think UAVs do have a niche to fill, but I am doubtful of their abilities to replace a 'Chopper' and crew; as the MGS will not be able to replace tanks.
The loss of the Kiowa, hurts the Army. I don't believe that UAVs or TUAVs will be able to completely and competently replace them. Like the MGS, I think UAVs do have a niche to fill, but I am doubtful of their abilities to replace a 'Chopper' and crew; as the MGS will not be able to replace tanks.
1
12alfa
Guest
We have been doing testing (simiulation) on the ORBAt for 4CMBG and the 222th MMR , that was the basis in 1st Clash, and have found that we (canadains) would not have done well. The Mi-24 which certinaly been deployed against us, has devasting results when ever we move into the open. Without good AA we can't manover in the open for any amount of time without gettin wacked.
Personal wpns, Tank mounted systems and TOWs don't make much of if any impack on the results. I hope we would have been helped out by attached AA units forn either the Germans, Dutch, or our friends to the south.
There is much to be said for hiding in the woods till needed and when in a resupply mode, open or closed legures in the fiels are a death sentance, makes me wounder why we did so many over there.
Personal wpns, Tank mounted systems and TOWs don't make much of if any impack on the results. I hope we would have been helped out by attached AA units forn either the Germans, Dutch, or our friends to the south.
There is much to be said for hiding in the woods till needed and when in a resupply mode, open or closed legures in the fiels are a death sentance, makes me wounder why we did so many over there.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
4 CMBG was light on AA assets. Blowpipe was deployed with the Bde. As already mentioned, there were German and American AA assets that would have been attached as needed or if available. Even when we got ADATS, the actual benefits of it is questionable. The Americans had Vulcan's, the Germans Gepards and Roland, the Dutch Cheetahs, but Canada had Blowpipe.... ;D
I am not sure what the Brits had for AA, so you may have cause to draw a comparison to Commonwealth Bdes, and the impression that they are all lacking in Air Defence. Perhaps it an "English" thing? ;D
Would the MI 24 decimate a Cdn Bde? I always wanted to engage a Helio with Sabot. It would have made my day.
Now with Coyote and LAV III there is some AA, in that we can engage Helio tqts. Fast Air is another matter. It seems NDHQ is going to leave us in the lurch, now that they are retiring the remaining few ADATS.
I am not sure what the Brits had for AA, so you may have cause to draw a comparison to Commonwealth Bdes, and the impression that they are all lacking in Air Defence. Perhaps it an "English" thing? ;D
Would the MI 24 decimate a Cdn Bde? I always wanted to engage a Helio with Sabot. It would have made my day.
Now with Coyote and LAV III there is some AA, in that we can engage Helio tqts. Fast Air is another matter. It seems NDHQ is going to leave us in the lurch, now that they are retiring the remaining few ADATS.
1
12alfa
Guest
Standoff range of the ATGM on the Hinds were greater than the 105 APFSDS we had/have. And a Mi-24 moving at attack speed in really hard to hit head on, a flank shot is possible, but the others in the team would see you fire and home in on your muzzel blast with a ATGM/s
Brits had the Rapier in this time frame.
Did the leo's at first have thermal, and what was the effective range of such system if any?
Brits had the Rapier in this time frame.
Did the leo's at first have thermal, and what was the effective range of such system if any?
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
A "Head On" is easier to track.....
Leo 1 C1 had II. In the mid Eighties we got Thermal Pointers on one or two tanks per troop. It was only a 'Dot' on the Night Sights (Low Light TV). It wasn't until the Nineties that the C1s got Thermal.
Leo 1 C1 had II. In the mid Eighties we got Thermal Pointers on one or two tanks per troop. It was only a 'Dot' on the Night Sights (Low Light TV). It wasn't until the Nineties that the C1s got Thermal.
1
12alfa
Guest
Re: head-on, yes GW I know, I am a gunner qual you know, hehehehe
Got sim time on the Leo1A3, Leo2A4/A5, and the M1, A1, and simnet/ucoff time as well.
OH and 76 punkin launcher time.
But I know what you mean.
Tanks for the Ti info, its in the testing, but the hind still has us cold.
Got sim time on the Leo1A3, Leo2A4/A5, and the M1, A1, and simnet/ucoff time as well.
OH and 76 punkin launcher time.
But I know what you mean.
Tanks for the Ti info, its in the testing, but the hind still has us cold.
The HIND certainly was an effective weapon, but it sure as heck wasn't/isn't the all powerfull machine we make it out to be.
Any and all flying Ops are dependant on achieving air superiority. If not across the front, then at least in a sector.
IMHO, there is NO way that the Soviets could have achieved frontal air superiority. Also, while they may have been able to achieve local air superiority, it would have cost them tremendously, would have been short lived, and wouldn't have been repeated too often.
The disparity between Soviet and US equipment and training is obvious in our tanks-the superiority of US over Soviet air capability is glaringly obvious.
Might not have been a cake walk, but (again, imho) the skies over Europe would have belonged to Boing/McDonnel Douglas about day three of the war.
Trying to fly a HIND without a fighter screen is a death sentence.
Lastly, I have tracked all kinds of air, both fast and slow from the gunners seat of a Leopard: when I pressed the lead lock, the sight slewed....leads me to think that the the fire control system figured it could hit what I had it aimed at...and I believed it!!
(PS- Lance, I'll explain "lead lock", "slew", and "FCS" next time I see you .. )
Cheers-Garry
Any and all flying Ops are dependant on achieving air superiority. If not across the front, then at least in a sector.
IMHO, there is NO way that the Soviets could have achieved frontal air superiority. Also, while they may have been able to achieve local air superiority, it would have cost them tremendously, would have been short lived, and wouldn't have been repeated too often.
The disparity between Soviet and US equipment and training is obvious in our tanks-the superiority of US over Soviet air capability is glaringly obvious.
Might not have been a cake walk, but (again, imho) the skies over Europe would have belonged to Boing/McDonnel Douglas about day three of the war.
Trying to fly a HIND without a fighter screen is a death sentence.
Lastly, I have tracked all kinds of air, both fast and slow from the gunners seat of a Leopard: when I pressed the lead lock, the sight slewed....leads me to think that the the fire control system figured it could hit what I had it aimed at...and I believed it!!
(PS- Lance, I'll explain "lead lock", "slew", and "FCS" next time I see you ..
)Cheers-Garry
Similar threads
