Army equipment that should have seen service

[Cryhavoc101]

I mean, the Conqueror and the Belgrano...it's not like the RN didn't use their own 35 year old fish...

Oh yes totally but we are talking about a Navy that is constantly practising using torpedo's and is well trained and competent in their use and the other that is kit bashing a plane / weapon system from scratch using weapons that were found lying around in a warehouse!

 

[PMN1]

On the other side of the coin I was listening to a lecture given by a then RN Helicopter Pilot who spoke about having to relearn things from WW2 that were completely forgotten about during the Falklands

Smoke generators - they could have filled the bay with smoke - this was used on many occasions in WW2 - and would have made the low level attacking aircraft pilots jobs in identifying and attacking a ship even more difficult.

Barrage Balloons - there was about 80 Barrage balloons at an airbase in the UK that could have made low level attacks even more hazardous and add another layer of complexity into any attack - enough for every ship as well as multiple positions around the bay to have had one.

So I am going to add these 2 things to the list of 'weapons' that should have been used

Got to admit that is the first time I have seen these mentioned as possibly being useful but certainly an interesting idea.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Got to admit that is the first time I have seen these mentioned as possibly being useful but certainly an interesting idea.

Me too -I was a bit 'But wait I...umm....nope I got nothing'

 

[Father Maryland]

Still sounds some what desperate!

35 year old fish!

Oh my days!

I have heard it suggest that the Argentine would have been better served attacking the ships with rocket pods (and cannon)

While unlikely to sink a then modern DDG or FF those ships are very easy to 'mission kill' and rocket attacks are more accurate and dare I say it 'easier' to make relative to very low level iron bombing.

On the other side of the coin I was listening to a lecture given by a then RN Helicopter Pilot who spoke about having to relearn things from WW2 that were completely forgotten about during the Falklands

Smoke generators - they could have filled the bay with smoke - this was used on many occasions in WW2 - and would have made the low level attacking aircraft pilots jobs in identifying and attacking a ship even more difficult.

Barrage Balloons - there was about 80 Barrage balloons at an airbase in the UK that could have made low level attacks even more hazardous and add another layer of complexity into any attack - enough for every ship as well as multiple positions around the bay to have had one.

So I am going to add these 2 things to the list of 'weapons' that should have been used

I kind of wish the Brits had gotten the chance to use that Blowpipe MANPAD submarine mounting. Be the first country to down an enemy aircraft via submarine SAM.

 

[McPherson]

Not directly related but the Falklands war was the last time a nation seriously planned to use propeller driven aircraft dropping old straight running anti ship torpedo's against enemy naval vessels. The plan was to use WW2 Surplus USN MK13 straight running air dropped torpedo's deployed by Vietnam era turboprop Pucara attack/COIN planes against British shipping. The Argentines realized during the war that they were desperately short of modern Anti shipping weapons (other then dumb bombs) with only a handful of exocets. And because the airfields on the captured Falklands weren't long enough pretty much all of Argentina's modern fast jets (other then some Aeromacchi light trainers) had to be operated from the mainland. Argentina also had extremely limited air tanker capability so for most of the fast jets they only had about five minutes of theoretical operation time against the Brits over the Falklands before being forced to turn back. So besides helicopters the only combat aircraft the Argentines could operate from the island were slow Pucara COIN turbo props or lightly armed Aeromachi trainers.

So at some point some Argentine officers realized that they still had a number of MK 13 torpedos that had been forgotten about in a warehouse and that they thought that Pucara's could be modified to drop them. The idea was that by using Pucara's with MK 13s based out of Port Stanley would give the desperate Argentines an ace.

The planes and torpedo's got modified and I think the Argentines even trained with them (and found them pretty functional) but the war ended before they could be used. While theoretically operable I've gotta imagine that sending the Pucara's against modern SAM equipped warships would have been suicide.

Mk13 torpedo during the Falklands War

Argentina used a variety of WWII items during the 1982 Falklands War, ranging in complexity from a Brooklyn class cruiser to M1 helmets. The most surprising, and least known, was an effort to resur…

wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com

Kind of like the Argentine version of "Firefly's of Port Stanely".

Not as stupid as it sounds. really not a stupid idea.

But back to candidates for army equipment that should have seen service.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Not as stupid as it sounds. really not a stupid idea.

But back to candidates for army equipment that should have seen service.

View attachment 537188

RPGs with AR furniture?

 

[McPherson]

RPGs with AR furniture?

It was built and tested.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

It was built and tested.

by who?

 

[McPherson]

Here.

by who?

The United States Army.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Here.




The United States Army.

neat!

 

[Not James Stockdale]

RPGs are still pretty hot shit considering what can get through tye side of an MBT. The new Airtronics tubes are about half the weight of the original, so that starts to get into LAW territory.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The problem there is that now you have a weapon that was too heavy and unwieldy when spec'd for 20mm grenades now tasked with firing even bigger and heavier grenades. If you make the gun part 9mm... then that portion is pretty well useless as anything other than a PDW. The space blaster aesthetic, while it undeniably looks cool, also looks like an ergonomic nightmare.

That is why they split the weapon into the XM8 Rifle/Carbine system and the XM25 grenade launcher. The XM8 worked really well but the XM25 was a poor, the grenade was described as lethal in a phonebox and nowhere else. Marrying the fusing/ranging to a larger grenade in the 30-40mm range would have given a much more useful weapon.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Still sounds some what desperate!

35 year old fish!

Oh my days!

I have heard it suggest that the Argentine would have been better served attacking the ships with rocket pods (and cannon)

While unlikely to sink a then modern DDG or FF those ships are very easy to 'mission kill' and rocket attacks are more accurate and dare I say it 'easier' to make relative to very low level iron bombing.

On the other side of the coin I was listening to a lecture given by a then RN Helicopter Pilot who spoke about having to relearn things from WW2 that were completely forgotten about during the Falklands

Smoke generators - they could have filled the bay with smoke - this was used on many occasions in WW2 - and would have made the low level attacking aircraft pilots jobs in identifying and attacking a ship even more difficult.

Barrage Balloons - there was about 80 Barrage balloons at an airbase in the UK that could have made low level attacks even more hazardous and add another layer of complexity into any attack - enough for every ship as well as multiple positions around the bay to have had one.

So I am going to add these 2 things to the list of 'weapons' that should have been used

They airdropped Trench periscopes made in 1916 and used in Italy in 1944 and Korea in 52 after pulling them out of storage for use around Stanley.

 

[Rickshaw]

The XM25 proved far too much a solution looking for a problem to solve. It was big, it was heavy and it's utility was limited. A 40mm single shot weapon would basically be the M203 reinvented. Why many American soldiers are big, brawny fellows they aren't always available to tote such a weapon as the XM25 across the countryside long distances. The XM25 was too small a calibre to be tactically useful.

 

[Belisarius II]

The helicopter was fitted with a radar transponder which made it look like a BIG target, they would fire a chaff pattern to the left of the ship relative to the missile bearing as EXOCET would always start scanning from left to right and then move away from the chaff pattern to the right, the helo would remain between the ship and chaff pattern to further confuse the missile. The helo would then climb and confuse the missile further if it locked on to the helo, the risk of being killed by a EXOCET was very low for the helicopter crew.

The RN were fully aware of the shortcomings of EXOCET and various countermeasures. The Sheffield was lost as the ship was not running its radar as it interfered with the SATCOM so they got no warning of the incoming missile. The Atlantic Conveyor which was killed had no chaff or EW system, this is why it was hit.

Thanks for the clarification on the decoy tactics. That makes much more sense then what I understood their tactics to be. That the Sheffield wasn't operating it's radar, or being covered by some other platforms radar doesn't say much for the tactics, or capabilities of the RN at that time. That an important asset like the Atlantic Conveyor didn't have an escort to protect it seems more proof of the same. What actually sunk the Sheffield was poor damage control. The Exocet's warhead didn't even detonate, rocket fuel, and a galley grease fire destroyed the ship. By all accounts the RN fought the Falklands War on a shoestring. Without real aircraft carriers the RN was operating under some real disadvantages. Argentina started the war with 8 Exocet missiles, if they'd had 20, and properly fused bombs they would have won the war.

 

[Mike D]

What actually sunk the Sheffield was poor damage control.

No it wasn't. What killed her was the missile taking out much of the ship's electric system and the ship's water main. You can't do damage control with no water. British warship design changed after the war to make sure the water mains couldn't be completely taken out by a single hit again (I believe they started including cut off valves into the system so that even if a missile actually hit the main it would only remove a single section and not the entire circuit but I'm no expert on naval architecture).

It's also now believed that the Exocet did detonate.

Sheff wasn't covered by any other ship's radar because it was the southernmost radar picket, there was no other ship that could cover them. Sheffield's radar wasn't operating because they were sending a satcom message and you couldn't run radar and satcom simultaneously at the time.

 

[Belisarius II]

A short review of the BAR from a Korean Vet point of view.
i have heard his stories a lot as he is my father...
FYI he was drafted into the Army. Spent time in Japan and was sent to Korea as a replacement.
He was ultimately promoted to a Sergeant of some flavor. Spent time on the front in a couple locations and was scheduled to rotate home based on points when the fighting stopped and he was stuck a bit longer as they stopped rotating people home like they had been. In trains he shit well enough to be at the top on the range. Abd was offered a chance to go for Officer Training but turned it down. He was a machine gunner (30 cal) in Korea and somehow ended up with a water cooled 30 for a while as it was swapped out for an air cooled when it was left behind by someone rotating back. He was a mechanic by training and so was very good at keeping his machine gun running. His assistant gunner was hit in the neck by shrapnel from a motor round that hit outside there bunker. He is unsure what happens to him as no one would say but he never saw they guy again. But he was not killed instantly... still he probably didn’t make it.
So that is his background
the Pros.
It was a pretty accurate weapon used in single shot and braced.
Cons.
They were often getting a bit used as Korea was fought with mostly WW2 hand me downs. But he did not like even the good versions.
They were heavy as hell and the ammo was as well.
They did not have enough rounds to be practical in a clip for an automatic weapon.
But that is ok because they fired to slow for an automatic weapon.
They were to long to conveniently carry on patrol.
They were loud and when fired on Automatic they were very distinct and thus they shouted ‘American over here” which could result in the enemy responding . Often with a few motor rounds. They tended not to respond as much when other guns such as carbines were fired.

So in general they preferred Automatic Carbines (and they had a trick to basically get autom fire from most any carbine if they had the time).
Carbines were lighter. Had lighter ammo. Fired faster, were easier to tape two clips together and were small enough to run/maneuver with.
ANd being as as they almost NEVER aimed at anything with a single shot long range fire but usually just hoses down an area at short range the accuracy of the BAR was not useful on patrol.
Basicly if you are on patrol and round a corner and run into a Chinese/NK patrol you want a lot of ammo going down stream as fast as you can. And you want a weapon light enough to swing around fast to target the bad guys. A long heavy BAR was not the optimum for that.

So their you have it a cranky octogenarians view on the Bar.
keep in mind that Korea, especially at the end was a radically different war then WW2.
And it did not have the jungle of Vietnam. In fact my dad says he doubts he ever saw a tree still stand at the end as they had been shot to pieces. So at relatively short ranges out on patrol and more likely to stumble into a firefight then to see the enemy at a distance the Carbine was preferred. If you think about it an assault rifle like the M-16 would have been ideal. But the carbine was as close as they had.
And once back into position on the ridge or wherever they had other weapons to use. In my dads case either a water or air cooled 30cal depending on where/when we are talking about.
so for him it was 30cal machine gun when stationar,y, carbines on patrol and a 45 under his pillow at night.
Perhaps in a different setting the Bar would be more useful. But in this case the patrols would have just fallen back if they met something to tough. Not as much an option when walking accros Italy or France

Interesting insights. I had a friend who served in the army, during the Korea War. He liked to use the M-2 Carbine. During the retreat to Hungnam he singlehandedly captured 7 Chinese soldiers. He was awarded the Bronze Star for it. He was a funny guy, he was a short Hispanic guy, but he literally sounded like John Wayne. He said he came around the corner of a farmhouse, and "got the drop on them", and ordered them to surrender in Japanese. He thought the M-1 was too heavy, and the Grease Gun too incontrollable, but the M-2 was just right. He liked to use it on semi-auto, rather then full-auto. He was actually a telephone lineman, not an infantrymen, but he had his pick of personal weapons. I never asked him, but I would assume the BAR would have been out of the question.

To the point the BAR did the job it was designed to do, a squad automatic rifle. It wasn't a light machinegun, like the Bren Gun. In a WWII context American Troops had the distinction of being the only ones fully armed with semi, and fully automatic weapons. A squad with bolt action rifles was more dependent on a LMG for a base of fire. An American Squad had more distributed firepower, so the limitations of the BAR weren't so serious. In fact later in WWII the number of BAR's per rifle squad was usually increased to 2, and to 3 in the Marine Corps. Rifle Companies got has many BAR's as they could get their hands on. Until the advent of the M-60 the BAR was an indispensable support weapon. The limitations of the BAR are more apparent now because we can compare it to a weapon like the M-60, which replaced it, along with the 30 cal M-2 LMG. In WWII it would have been hard to replace.

 

[Rickshaw]

Interesting insights. I had a friend who served in the army, during the Korea War. He liked to use the M-2 Carbine. During the retreat to Hungnam he singlehandedly captured 7 Chinese soldiers. He was awarded the Bronze Star for it. He was a funny guy, he was a short Hispanic guy, but he literally sounded like John Wayne. He said he came around the corner of a farmhouse, and "got the drop on them", and ordered them to surrender in Japanese. He thought the M-1 was too heavy, and the Grease Gun too incontrollable, but the M-2 was just right. He liked to use it on semi-auto, rather then full-auto. He was actually a telephone lineman, not an infantrymen, but he had his pick of personal weapons. I never asked him, but I would assume the BAR would have been out of the question.

To the point the BAR did the job it was designed to do, a squad automatic rifle. It wasn't a light machinegun, like the Bren Gun. In a WWII context American Troops had the distinction of being the only ones fully armed with semi, and fully automatic weapons. A squad with bolt action rifles was more dependent on a LMG for a base of fire. An American Squad had more distributed firepower, so the limitations of the BAR weren't so serious. In fact later in WWII the number of BAR's per rifle squad was usually increased to 2, and to 3 in the Marine Corps. Rifle Companies got has many BAR's as they could get their hands on. Until the advent of the M-60 the BAR was an indispensable support weapon. The limitations of the BAR are more apparent now because we can compare it to a weapon like the M-60, which replaced it, along with the 30 cal M-2 LMG. In WWII it would have been hard to replace.

Interesting. You are of course basing your comment about bolt action rifles on US Army use of them as against Commonwealth use of them. At the Battle of the Marne the BEF was so rapid in their fire that they overwhelmed the opposing German infantry. They could sustain a rate of fire of 30 well aimed shots per minute, each on the SMLE .303in. When the L1a1 SLR was first introduced it's rate of fire was given as being "twenty aimed shots a minute". That was basically the same rate of fire for a .303in SMLE rifleman. The difference was of course, any digger could achieve 20 rounds a minute whereas a trained digger was required to reach that rate of fire on the .303in SMLE.

Basically the Bren was intended to be an LMG but it did not form the "base of fire" (what an interesting American term) for the entire section. It was part of the LMG Group - a seperate part of the infantry section. The M60 OTOH was a POS as far as I could ascertain from using it. The pistol grip/trigger group used to fall off. It was subject to "run away guns". There was no comparison between the M60 and the Bren. You need a asbestos mitten to change the barrel. You name it was useless.

 

[McPherson]

Interesting. You are of course basing your comment about bolt action rifles on US Army use of them as against Commonwealth use of them. At the Battle of the Marne the BEF was so rapid in their fire that they overwhelmed the opposing German infantry. They could sustain a rate of fire of 30 well aimed shots per minute, each on the SMLE .303in. When the L1a1 SLR was first introduced it's rate of fire was given as being "twenty aimed shots a minute". That was basically the same rate of fire for a .303in SMLE rifleman. The difference was of course, any digger could achieve 20 rounds a minute whereas a trained digger was required to reach that rate of fire on the .303in SMLE.

Basically the Bren was intended to be an LMG but it did not form the "base of fire" (what an interesting American term) for the entire section. It was part of the LMG Group - a seperate part of the infantry section. The M60 OTOH was a POS as far as I could ascertain from using it. The pistol grip/trigger group used to fall off. It was subject to "run away guns". There was no comparison between the M60 and the Bren. You need a asbestos mitten to change the barrel. You name it was useless.

A weapon system (in this case a machine gun) that can deny a wedge shaped piece of ground is said to provide cover fire that allows friendly infantry to move into the spaces where the bullets or area denial munitions do not intersect.

In military terminology, a base of fire is a supporting force that provides overwatch and covering fire to other advancing units while they are executing fire and movement tactics.

As to the crappy M60 original?

Better engineering = better machine gun. Especially that damn indexer finger in the top cover plate has been vastly improved.

 

[Belisarius II]

No it wasn't. What killed her was the missile taking out much of the ship's electric system and the ship's water main. You can't do damage control with no water. British warship design changed after the war to make sure the water mains couldn't be completely taken out by a single hit again (I believe they started including cut off valves into the system so that even if a missile actually hit the main it would only remove a single section and not the entire circuit but I'm no expert on naval architecture).

It's also now believed that the Exocet did detonate.

Sheff wasn't covered by any other ship's radar because it was the southernmost radar picket, there was no other ship that could cover them. Sheffield's radar wasn't operating because they were sending a satcom message and you couldn't run radar and satcom simultaneously at the time.

The design of the fire mains is part of the damage control system. The cruiser I served on was built in the early 60's, more then 10 years before the Sheffield. It had 6 fire pumps, and the system was sub divided into 3 sections, to prevent a single hit from disabling the whole thing. The electrical system was also decentralized, and we had 2 emergency generators, one forward, and one aft. The USN has placed a higher premium on DC then any other major navy. The USS Stark was hit with 2 Exocet's that did detonate, and the ship was saved. There's a reason the USN hasn't lost a major ship since WWII.

Not being able to receive satcom, while running radar is an operational limitation, but you can work around it. If the Sheffield was on radar picket duty she shouldn't have been that concerned with satcom, but on her job as eyes for the fleet. Messages. and data should have been feed to them from other ships via short range communications. The USN had Navy Tactical Data System NTDS in the 1960's, what other ships spotted on their radars would be plotted in your CIC. That the RN had no airborne radar was a serious deficiency, which is what I meant by them have no real carriers. Later the RN used helicopter mounted radar, and they now have the F-35B, which can act as a mini AWACS.