|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 20:41:00 GMT
Post by quincannon on Dec 6, 2016 20:41:00 GMT
And theirs is about as useless as one of those cheap plastic forks at a steak fry.
The 48 was a good tank. Still is a good tank.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 22:56:15 GMT
Post by dave on Dec 6, 2016 22:56:15 GMT
QC The Mississippi National Guard had the M48A5 tank at the various armories around the state in the 1960's and part of the 1970's but they trained on the M 60's. Camp Shelby, in Hattiesburg, MS was where the Guard mainly trained as well as when on maneuvers at various Army bases throughout the country.
Speaking off the model airplanes, I remember the semi monthly trips from Oxford to the commisary at the Millington Naval Air Station outside of Memphis. We did our grocery shopping, at lunch at the NCO club and then went downtown Memphis. One of the must stops was Woolworth's for a milkshake and purchase of a model kit primarily an airplane but occasionally a ship.
I lovingly assembled and painted each and every plane withe decals and camouflaged if called for. When I grew tired of the model I went to the backyard and blew them up with firecrackers and that was great entertainment. Sorta wished I had kept them today bit Oh Well that is the price of youth. Regards Dave Still wish they would bring back the Fletcher's as they were beautiful ships.
|
|
|
A-10
Dec 6, 2016 23:39:22 GMT
Post by quincannon on Dec 6, 2016 23:39:22 GMT
The MSARNG had M48A2's until the mid 1970's when they got the A5's First A5 came out about 75 as I recall. Having the A2's at home station and training on M60's during annual training was pretty standard, and that was another reason for the A5, which included many of the features of the M60.
Logistics old friend is what makes the world go around. It's never as simple as it seems it should be.
The 11th ACR went to Viet Nam with A2's and A3's, and later got all A3's in country. I still remember the field at A. P. Hill where Old Guard Campsite is now full of M48's of those two models, along with M113's converted with ACAV kits. I aggressed against them for about six weeks one summer while they were doing their field train up prior to deployment.
Of all the Fletchers I have built, and there have been fifty or more, my favorite was the Aurora Bennion, vintage 1957 or so. It was simple. Below the waterline was about as accurate as a Captain Pretend diatribe. Still it was my favorite and I would give a good deal to be able to build one again today. Turned out the Aurora Bennion was supposed to be issued as The Sullivan's and Revell beat them to it, so they renamed it and put it out. What they did not do though is check and see if Bennion had receive the Anti-Kamikaze modifications that The Sullivan's did, and it was totally wrong for Bennion. I did not give two hoots though, because at the time I did not know the difference.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
A-10
Dec 7, 2016 0:10:17 GMT
Post by dave on Dec 7, 2016 0:10:17 GMT
QC I had called 2 friends this afternoon to ask about the M 48 being used and they provided the information I shared on the post. One of them went on maneuvers in Idaho he thought but may have been mistaken. They were never sent to Nam and and had no information on what the Army did over there about transitioning from the 48 to the 60.
The Fletcher's were very successful designs for their time during the war but soon were outclassed. The Arleigh Burke class is an ugly ship. No getting round it they have a functional design but no outer beauty at all. Progress is not all it is cracked up to be! Regards Dave
|
|
|
A-10
Dec 7, 2016 6:14:49 GMT
Post by quincannon on Dec 7, 2016 6:14:49 GMT
That is correct, no M60's went to Viet Nam. There were only M48A2's and M48A3's. The difference between these two models is that the A3 had a diesel. The 48A5 did not enter service until 1976, and it was nearly completely different inside, more like an M60, but even had some updated features the 60 did not have
All the stuff up at Gowan Field Idaho were A2's and A3's until the remanufacturing runs of the A5 allowed the Guard to restock their equipment concentration sites like Indiantown Gap, Fort Drum, Fort Pickett, and Gowan. Most of the A2's and A3's to be remanufactured were drawn from those sites in the first place.
Dave you do not kill the enemy with cute or pretty. You kill them with all the things the Burkes have in abundance. I like the Fletchers. I liked the Forest Shermans. I love the Burkes. Best designed destroyers in our history. I did not say pretty. I said best designed, especially the Flight IIA's.
Best looking Fletchers as far as design went, was the DDE version two gun Fletch. Very smooth, with all the wartime clutter gone.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 7, 2016 16:07:18 GMT
Here is my document on the M48 which was written for my web site, but it didn't make the cut by three years. M48A1.docx (104.4 KB)
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 13:04:32 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 27, 2017 13:04:32 GMT
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 14:33:56 GMT
Post by quincannon on Feb 27, 2017 14:33:56 GMT
I concur here as well.
If you are selected as a contestant for Dancing With The Stars, you go out and buy a brand new pair of dancing shoes.
If your aim is to trek through the mud to grandma's house, to steal one of her blueberry pies you reach in your closet for that old pair of hunting boots you left in there ten years ago, and had not used since.
The selection of an aircraft that can best do the job you need doing in that particular theater and in that particular environment is what is important.
We have become all too fond of whiz bang.
Sidebar: I guess I missed Dave comment some time ago, wishing the Fletchers were still around. I would remind him that the first one, Fletcher herself, was placed in commission seven months before I was born.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 17:56:04 GMT
Post by dave on Feb 27, 2017 17:56:04 GMT
QC You have stated it is not sound for the Air Force to retain the A 10 yet you approve of the Marines bringing back the OV 10. Am I missing something?
That proves my point that the Fletcher's still have it! Regards Dave
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 18:40:42 GMT
Post by quincannon on Feb 27, 2017 18:40:42 GMT
That is not my view and I just lost a hell of a long post that fully explained how I feel about the matter.
These are the cliff notes.
There must be an aircraft between the F-35 and the Apache for close support work. The A-10 is getting old but the Air Force is not of a mind to develop a replacement/ They do not like mud work as an institution, and believe their own bull shit about the one size fits all capabilities of the F35. One size does not fit all and never will.
SO either take away the A10 from the Air Force and give it to the Army where it will both be put to good use and a replacement developed, of grab the Chief of Staff of the USAF by the balls and say to him, - you will, do you understand.
There was a roles and missions agreement signed between the two services seventy years ago. It is still in effect. It is obsolete, but hell will freeze over before it is amended, because of the Air Force, and not for the good of the country.
This type thing is in part what Eisenhower was talking about in his farewell address, where the military, industrial, scientific, congressional complex was shortened to having only two members, none of the original four giving at rat's ass for the needs and welfare of either soldier or country. Military policy is the purview of the executive branch under the Constitution, and over time it has devolved into a function dominated by the four aforementioned culprits. That is not a good thing.
PS: None of this is new. Back in my day, over thirty years ago I was privy to a design of an air cavalry division that contained a brigade (three squadrons) of A-10's flown by Army pilots. That design would be just the ticket for any theater, but particularly for the middle East and Europe.
Why do you think I am a constant and consistent admirer or the USMC. They are the only ones who get the combined arms concept anywhere near right. They live it, believe it, and when they talk about it, it is not lip service to what they think you want to hear.
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 19:43:07 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 27, 2017 19:43:07 GMT
Amen to combined arms, many of us have seen it work on a small scale. So what is the problem?
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 20:04:58 GMT
Post by yanmacca on Feb 27, 2017 20:04:58 GMT
I would expect that heavily armed drones will replace a lot of the jobs that aircraft do now, with reconnoitering and dropping smart bombs, heck I heard that a soldier based in Britain can control a drone and destroy a target somewhere in the middle east.
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 20:08:59 GMT
Post by yanmacca on Feb 27, 2017 20:08:59 GMT
I think that combined arms start with your basic platoon, if you have a weapons capable of indirect and direct fire and have the capabilities to knock out armour or bring down a low flying aircraft, if you have these weapons in your support squad and also have a couple of tri-pod mounted machine guns then you have the basis of combined arms.
Then you take it further when you get to company or battalion level, same principle but now you add armour and heavier weapons and even choppers.
But to be honest all you need is a tank battalion, a armoured reconnaissance battalion, a armoured infantry battalion and a armoured self-propelled artillery battalion and you cover all the bases, especially if each battalion has anti-aircraft weapons too.
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 20:18:24 GMT
Post by quincannon on Feb 27, 2017 20:18:24 GMT
Well in the case of the Air Force, you are not going to get the opportunity to "Live in Fame or Go Down in Flame" mucking about in the mud of ground combat. It is nasty work, which will not get you any little red stars painted under your cockpit canopy. Those guys envision themselves as the reincarnation of Rickenbacker fighting the Flying Circus. Another problem with achieving a true combined arms mindset, is the branches of the Army itself. Colt and I, from different branches, have over the years come to respect what each of us would bring to the table in combat. He understands that the mechanized part of my branch is nothing more than the dismounted dragoon function of yesteryear, while his tanks are the mounted portion. That is not true among the junior brethren of those branches on active duty who have their heads filled with Stuart and Audie Murphy, to the point they think their shit does not stink. Imagine a whole Army of Captain and below who think like Keogh, and continue to think that way until they matriculate from the career course. Are you frightened yet? So there is no one answer my good friend and I wish there were. The Marines have it closest to right, and I think the answer might be that when you are a Marine, you are first a Marine, and whatever else second. It is the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, and not my musket is better than your saber or your frigging cannon, (All this said with tongue fully out, and your thumbs stuck in your ears, fingers flapping wildly) followed by nana nana boo boo. Combined Arms is that the playground of the school children the basic courses produce.
|
|
|
A-10
Feb 27, 2017 20:18:47 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 27, 2017 20:18:47 GMT
Ian, initially when I joined my guard unit it was designated a Special Operations Group. We worked with Navy, Army, and Marines involving observation, infiltration, and exfiltration. Even this is not true combined arms. Imagine, if you will, each brigade has command of their own air support and fully integrated other support functions of combat.
Also most of our drone are operated, world wide, in Nevada and up the hill from Chuck.
|
|