Posted on 01/31/2004 10:23:42 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
Big Kahuna was the first, 1970.
They were ready to roll right off, to do battle with the horrifdied attackers- Achmed- the loads on those trucks, beneath the tarpauleans- they're moving!!!- while the convoy moves on out of the attackers kill zone, and after the worst of the fighting is concluded, the tanks [or other vehicles] can catch back up with the convoy and the transporters for the tanks can drop their ramps and again travel at convoy speeds. And oh, BTW: if a couple of the vehicles are down for maintenance, other loads can be covered with tarps and moved on the flatbeds, leaving the bad guys to guess whether it's an attack response vehicle under there or not.
During the 1960s, the US Army used a 5-tank platoon; for such tasks, it was found that six worked a little better, with two vehicles so carried up near the front of a 20-vehicle or so convoy, two in the middle, and two toward the rear. Since the three-tank headquarters company tank section sometimed drew the short straw for that job, one answer was to use three tanks backed up with three M42 twin-40mm antiaircraft *Dusters, which worked very nicely.*
Indeed, if *lo-boy* depressed center flatbeds or Volvo FH16 *dropbed* trailers are used, the tanks don't even have to roll off ramps to immediately respond- they can *neutral steer* off the side of the flatbed, and get after the task at hand immediately.
Also heard of using Ontos with canister rounds as ambush breakers in convoys. I climbed into one at Camp Lejeune, it was pretty small. Might could almost put two of them on a lowboy.
As far as the M 85s go, they seemed to have a lot of feed trouble. The M2s in the M48s seemed to be more reliable from what I recall. Also, the M85 sights in our turrets seemed to mess up a lot; maybe they weren't saltwater proofed enough.
Thing is, like the M85, the M2 can be fed from either side, but the gun mounts are built to carry an ammo can on the left side only. One quick-and-dirty answer would be to add on a mount for a Russian PK MG on the other side, since they use a righthand-side feed, unlike the US M240, M60 and M249 MGs. There are Navy/Coast Guard twin-.50 mounts that could be copied and fielded, but for use inside a turret, the M85, designed for that purpose, would be a better pick, since it also has a quick-change barrel and a lo/hi rate of fire [500 RPM/1000 RPM each gun- think about 4 of THOSE on a quad .50 mount....] I'm not sure which link the new M312 .50 MG is supposed to use. But supposedly, pasrt of the problem with the Stryker's Remote Weapons System is the ammunition coming partially unlinked in the feed tray as the vehicle moves down the road, from vibration. The M9 link of the M85, which has a tab that snaps into the cartridge case's extractor groove, like a 7,62mm M60 or M249s M13 link, might solve that problem too. And if it did, it'd not only be a quick fix for the Strykers .509 teething problem, but a cheap one...and one that'd add to the firepower [1000 RPM on fast rate] as well. Until the 105-round ammo can rubs out.
But that's still better than a jam in 45 rounds or less.
-archy-/-
The setup for the M85 MG in the commander's cupola of an M48A5 or M60 tank was pretty miserable; when we could, we'd sctrounge an M2 off a headquarters compant track or truck, and mount that externally to the *Chrysler gun mount* welded to the outside of the turret. Even an M60 with a 300-round belt was an improvement over the M2HB TTin the cupola, which had only 50 rounds in the spool provided for it, and the cable-operated charging handle of which frequently frayed until it broke through at the worst possible time. Neither could the M85 quick-change barrel be swapped out when cupola mounted, though an experimental setup to use an M85 as a coax was tested for the M48, and that could be changed inside under armor. The 3000-round amnmo belt for it was a considerable improvement as well.
One of my uncles crewed on a White halftrack with a quad-50 anti-aircraft mount during his European vacation from Normandy to the Rhein. He said they never had a crack at any Luftwaffe planes--none came close enough---but used their vehicle mostly as direct fire support for grunts. I gathered that it was a bit intimidating to be on the receiving end of four Ma Deuces at once.
Apparently their ride was pretty reliable. Seems like he said their biggest problem was torn up tires from having so damn much shell and bomb fragments to run over--that and almost freezing their 'nads off in the 44-45 winter. But it sure topped being a grunt :]
I am still around, though busy at times.
-archy-/-
The older M85 MG is not convertable to 25mm. At least not until I start tinkering with one. The 25mm ammunition wasn't available the last time I had some M85s that I could work on for that sort of project.
Coincidentally, of course, the builder for the Mark 47 is General Dynamics.
It may be that the Stryker's incompatability with the Mark 19 was designed in from the get-go.
-archy-/-
It works pretty well on an M113A3 though. And there's still room for a full crew inside, though the additional weight probably eliminates the M113's amphibious capability. Probably kinda hard on the driver;s ears unless he buttons up his hatch.
Limit of amount of ammunition that can be carried inside, especially with crew inside too. Also possibility of explosion inside should explosive ammunition ignite, reason for *blowout* panels in M1A1 tanks.
*Cavalry version* of Bradley M3 vehicle, mechanically same as M2 Infantry version, but with only 3 crew aboard, carry much more ammunition, plus TOW rockets for anti-tank work. More room for larger ammunition, since fewer people inside.
There have been Bradley version experiments with larger weapons, including 30mm gun of Comanche gunship- also fitted to some Humvee trucks for Special Operations missions.
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.