Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:34:06 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Mark J. Steedman wrote:

> A10 has a slightly unfair advantage, which is why the darned things
> make such wonderful tank killers, that and the fact they have
> titanium armour under the pilot, nearly 'silent' engines (well by the
> time you can hear it there are 30mm slugs bouncing about your tank
> even if you had the engine off) and can fly even with about 1/3 of
> its wing area shot off.

Or with one engine shot off, or half the tail, or no hydrolics (they put
in a full manual wire and tie rod system in as a backup) or.... Did you
know they tried to make as much of the A-10 swappable between the right
and left side as possible. You can take the Left Tail off of a junked
aircraft and use it the replace the Right Tail on a damaged one with
minimal extra work. same thing with a heck of a lot of other parts.

Its slow, its cheep, its rugged, it works great. OF COURSE the the USAF
wants to get rid of it! :P to them, the f-16 will never be able to replace
the A-10 in CAS.

> >Right up there with the AC-130 Spector Gunship!
> Um :),........ now fields of fire has a sitable plane, and Rotary
> autocannon will double for boforous but the 75/90mm recoiless ......
> One way to wake up characters busy helping the Amazonian resistance
> :), someone in the Atzlan 3rd legion will think, well the USA tried
> em, if you cannot see the target circle and use more ammo! :)

Well lets see, what stats the USAF factsheets give for the
AC-130(www.af.mil/news/factsheets). Hmm no stats for the newer U model but
the AC-130H model had 2X 20mm autocannons(3,000 rounds), 1X 40mm bofors
cannon(256 rounds), and 1X 105mm howitzer (100 rounds). A wingspan of
40.4meters, a length of 29.8meters, a hight of 11.7 meters, a MTW of
69,750 kg, a range of 1,500 statute mils + in flight refuling, a speed of
300mph on its turboprop engines. A crew of 14 and a heck of a lot of
sensors that they won't list. Date Deployed 1972, unit cost 46.4 million
1992 dollars.

That should be enough for someone to start generating some stats for a
shadowrun equivilent. I wont be able to get home to my books for a few
hours.
Message no. 2
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:48:37 -0400
> > A10 has a slightly unfair advantage, which is why the darned things
> > make such wonderful tank killers, that and the fact they have
> > titanium armour under the pilot, nearly 'silent' engines (well by
> the
> > time you can hear it there are 30mm slugs bouncing about your tank
> > even if you had the engine off) and can fly even with about 1/3 of
> > its wing area shot off.
>
> Or with one engine shot off, or half the tail, or no hydrolics (they
> put
> in a full manual wire and tie rod system in as a backup) or.... Did
> you
> know they tried to make as much of the A-10 swappable between the
> right
> and left side as possible. You can take the Left Tail off of a junked
> aircraft and use it the replace the Right Tail on a damaged one with
> minimal extra work. same thing with a heck of a lot of other parts.
>
Hell yeah. It can fly with one wing and one engine
assuming they are on opposite sides.

> Its slow, its cheep, its rugged, it works great. OF COURSE the the
> USAF
> wants to get rid of it! :P to them, the f-16 will never be able to
> replace
> the A-10 in CAS.
>
Yeah it's not high tech enough. Putting repair crews out
of work :)

> > >Right up there with the AC-130 Spector Gunship!
> > Um :),........ now fields of fire has a sitable plane, and Rotary
> > autocannon will double for boforous but the 75/90mm recoiless ......
> > One way to wake up characters busy helping the Amazonian resistance
> > :), someone in the Atzlan 3rd legion will think, well the USA tried
> > em, if you cannot see the target circle and use more ammo! :)
>
> Well lets see, what stats the USAF factsheets give for the
> AC-130(www.af.mil/news/factsheets). Hmm no stats for the newer U model
> but
> the AC-130H model had 2X 20mm autocannons(3,000 rounds), 1X 40mm
> bofors
> cannon(256 rounds), and 1X 105mm howitzer (100 rounds). A wingspan of
> 40.4meters, a length of 29.8meters, a hight of 11.7 meters, a MTW of
> 69,750 kg, a range of 1,500 statute mils + in flight refuling, a speed
> of
> 300mph on its turboprop engines. A crew of 14 and a heck of a lot of
> sensors that they won't list. Date Deployed 1972, unit cost 46.4
> million
> 1992 dollars.
>
I don't have stats as detailed but I have seen a "Wings"
I believe with either the same model or a variant. If I recall it had
the 105mm in the back with 2x40mm bofors and 2x20mm on EACH SIDE. Thats
4 40mm guns, 4 20mm guns and a 105mm howitzer.
Message no. 3
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:25:02 -0500
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 bryan.covington@****.COM wrote:

<Snip A-10 Survivablility and ruggedness>
> Yeah it's not high tech enough. Putting repair crews out
> of work :)

LOL!

> I don't have stats as detailed but I have seen a "Wings"
> I believe with either the same model or a variant. If I recall it had
> the 105mm in the back with 2x40mm bofors and 2x20mm on EACH SIDE. Thats
> 4 40mm guns, 4 20mm guns and a 105mm howitzer.
>

Hmmm i think you might be mistaken unless it was a one shoot varient.
They way they normaly mount the weapons means they have to fire them while
in a pylon turn. Basicaly you go into a banked turn with the wingtip
pointing directly at the target area. All the guns are aimed parallel
with the wing. They use computer directed hydrolics to aim the guns at
specific targets inside the target area but they cant deviate by much.
Basicaly you end up with one or more Gunships circling a target like
vultures in a wheel of death. Now isnt that a nice image:)

I actualy got to get up close to one of these things at an airshow at the
military portion of O'hare Airport a few years ago(they since closed the
military base :( ) They even let you into *part* of the rear of the plane,
though not close to any of the classified sensors or EW devices they use
to aim stuff.
Message no. 4
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:04:32 -0400
> > I don't have stats as detailed but I have seen a
> "Wings"
> > I believe with either the same model or a variant. If I recall it
> had
> > the 105mm in the back with 2x40mm bofors and 2x20mm on EACH SIDE.
> Thats
> > 4 40mm guns, 4 20mm guns and a 105mm howitzer.
> >
>
> Hmmm i think you might be mistaken unless it was a one shoot varient.
> They way they normaly mount the weapons means they have to fire them
> while
> in a pylon turn. Basicaly you go into a banked turn with the wingtip
> pointing directly at the target area. All the guns are aimed parallel
> with the wing. They use computer directed hydrolics to aim the guns
> at
> specific targets inside the target area but they cant deviate by much.
> Basicaly you end up with one or more Gunships circling a target like
> vultures in a wheel of death. Now isnt that a nice image:)
>
It may have been an earlier one, I think these guns were
fired by hand (guys in the back with triggers to pull).
Message no. 5
From: "Droopy ." <mmanhardt@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:10:22 -0400
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)

> > Its slow, its cheep, its rugged, it works great. OF COURSE the the
> > USAF
> > wants to get rid of it! :P to them, the f-16 will never be able to
> > replace
> > the A-10 in CAS.
> >
> Yeah it's not high tech enough. Putting repair crews out
> of work :)

Actually, the truth is closer to the fact that the airforce doesn't
need a close support craft. The A-10 is in the wrong service due to
the laws created when the airforce was to protect it.

The army has its helicopters now, so they don't need the A-10 as
much and the AF has other craft they feel will fill the attack role.

The interesting side note to this is that the Navy was looking at
using the A-10 as a ship killer. The A-10 would excell in this role,
but the navy never picked it up. Basicly, the airframe is a dead
design.


--Droopy
Message no. 6
From: ArcLight <ArcLight@**************.COM>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:55:19 +0200
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
An: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Datum: Dienstag, 21. Juli 1998 21:35
Betreff: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)



< snip A -10 stats >

>That should be enough for someone to start generating some stats for a
>shadowrun equivilent. I wont be able to get home to my books for a few
>hours.

one day, we _joked_ about gunships in Sr...
imagine this :

A heavily armored and very stealthy C-260 Titan (FoF) with tiny windows,
about 15 to 20 on each side; and behind this (you got it already?)
*mages* with medical personnel right on their side (in order to "reload"
them in respect to the drain...). of course it would get Fab-shielding and
other
protection thingies...

ArcLight ICQ#14322211
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
just my 2 cents; I hope I don't get change...
Message no. 7
From: Iridios <iridios@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:37:43 -0400
The Bookworm wrote:
Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:25:02 -0500

<snip>

> Hmmm i think you might be mistaken unless it was a one shoot varient.
> They way they normaly mount the weapons means they have to fire them while
> in a pylon turn. Basicaly you go into a banked turn with the wingtip
> pointing directly at the target area. All the guns are aimed parallel
> with the wing. They use computer directed hydrolics to aim the guns at
> specific targets inside the target area but they cant deviate by much.
> Basicaly you end up with one or more Gunships circling a target like
> vultures in a wheel of death. Now isnt that a nice image:)

Yes, The AC-130s were used in Vietnam to clear brush and forest! (and
any hidden enemy) By firing all of it's weapons at once, it could
literally clear enough brush to cover a football field. As a curious
side effect, whenever the AC would fire all it's weapons it would
literally jump sideways! Similar effect with the A-10, when the pilot
fired the GAU, the plane had a tendacy to stop! (for less than a
second).



--"Any science, sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."
--Arthur C. Clarke

Iridios
iridios@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9489
http://members.theglobe.com/Iridios

-------Begin Geek Code Block------
GS d-(++) s+: a- C++ U?@>++ P L E?
W++ N o-- K- w(---) O? M-- V? PS+@
PE Y+ !PGP>++ t++@ 5+ X++@ R++@ tv
b+ DI++ !D G e+@>++++ h--- r+++ y+++
-------End Geek Code Block--------
Message no. 8
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:58:32 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, Iridios[SMTP:iridios@*********.COM] wrote:
> Yes, The AC-130s were used in Vietnam to clear brush and forest! (and
> any hidden enemy) By firing all of it's weapons at once, it could
> literally clear enough brush to cover a football field. As a curious
> side effect, whenever the AC would fire all it's weapons it would
> literally jump sideways! Similar effect with the A-10, when the pilot
> fired the GAU, the plane had a tendacy to stop! (for less than a
> second).

I think the forest clearing was a secondary factor, as the
cargo-plane based gunships were designed (I believe) to disrupt supply
convoys. Originally, they were used to shoot up the North Vietnamese
truck convoys driving through the jungles to resupply the forces in the
south.
The first ones were based on old DC-3 Dakotas (I know I am
mixing designations, but I can't remember the military designation for
it - I think it may have been the C-47). They had 3 rotary barrelled
cannons firing out the port side. Again, it's been a while since I read
about this stuff, so I can't remember whether they were 7.62mm miniguns
or 20mm rotary cannons. I think the former. I DO remember the early
models had a guy in the back with a shovel, getting rid of all the spent
bullet casings so they weren't rattling round the floor of the plane.
The old Dakota version was affectionately known as "Puff the Magic
Dragon".
There was another version of the AC-x gunship before they
started using the Hercules as an airframe. Can't remember what it was,
but I think it was one of the first to use a 40mm Bofors gun as its
heavy armament.
The latest versions of the AC-130 are still geared towards the
destruction of supply dumps and supply lines. Some of the sensor
equipment on the latest versions can pick up the ignition of a truck
engine UNDER a jungle canopy and can pinpoint its location for the
weapons systems.
I'll go home and drag out the old Warplane magazines I collected
about 10 years ago. I know they had a couple of good articles on this
sort of gunship and what they were used for. There are a few really good
photos of these things in action (including a great time lapse one with
a giant orange funnel hanging in the sky; can't see the plane, just the
tracers). They may also give a reasonable idea about what sort of things
they get up to these days (although the information is more than 10
years old now).
I might also drag out my copy of Rigger 2 and see what I can
come up with. Hmmm, a AC-260 with a Relampago equivalent anyone?

cheers
G
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:14:59 +0100
Geoff Skellams said on 9:58/22 Jul 98,...

> The first ones were based on old DC-3 Dakotas (I know I am
> mixing designations, but I can't remember the military designation for
> it - I think it may have been the C-47).

Yes. The armed version was known as the AC-47 Spooky.

> They had 3 rotary barrelled
> cannons firing out the port side. Again, it's been a while since I read
> about this stuff, so I can't remember whether they were 7.62mm miniguns
> or 20mm rotary cannons. I think the former.

Right again.

> There was another version of the AC-x gunship before they
> started using the Hercules as an airframe. Can't remember what it was,
> but I think it was one of the first to use a 40mm Bofors gun as its
> heavy armament.

The Fairchild C-119, becoming the AC-119 Shadow; I don't know
what these were armed with. Two types of small utility aircraft
(the U-23 and U-24) were also fitted with a minigun in the cabin
in Vietnam to become "mini-gunships."

> I might also drag out my copy of Rigger 2 and see what I can
> come up with. Hmmm, a AC-260 with a Relampago equivalent anyone?

Just adding a few rotary autocannons should be sufficient :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:14:59 +0100
bryan.covington@****.COM said on 15:48/21 Jul 98,...

> I don't have stats as detailed but I have seen a "Wings"
> I believe with either the same model or a variant. If I recall it had
> the 105mm in the back with 2x40mm bofors and 2x20mm on EACH SIDE. Thats
> 4 40mm guns, 4 20mm guns and a 105mm howitzer.

All the armament, and the majority of the sensors, in an AC-130
are on the left-hand side of the hull (looking forward). You're also
mixing up the specs for the AC-130A and the AC-130H; the A
model (used in Vietnam) had two M61A1 20 mm Gatling cannons
and two 40 mm Bofors guns; it could also carry up to four 7.62
mm GAU-2 miniguns.

The rear Bofors was later replaced by a 105 mm M102 howitzer
(as used by the US Army) in a special low-recoil mount, and the
miniguns are hardly ever carried anymore (if that's still possible,
even).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sarcasm -- it's a great way to deal.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 11
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 06:44:42 EDT
In a message dated 7/21/98 2:34:26 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU writes:

> Well lets see, what stats the USAF factsheets give for the
> AC-130(www.af.mil/news/factsheets). Hmm no stats for the newer U model but
> the AC-130H model had 2X 20mm autocannons(3,000 rounds), 1X 40mm bofors
> cannon(256 rounds), and 1X 105mm howitzer (100 rounds). A wingspan of
> 40.4meters, a length of 29.8meters, a hight of 11.7 meters, a MTW of
> 69,750 kg, a range of 1,500 statute mils + in flight refuling, a speed of
> 300mph on its turboprop engines. A crew of 14 and a heck of a lot of
> sensors that they won't list. Date Deployed 1972, unit cost 46.4 million
> 1992 dollars.
>
> That should be enough for someone to start generating some stats for a
> shadowrun equivilent. I wont be able to get home to my books for a few
> hours.

A guy who works at the post office flew on something called a Ghost during
Vietnam ... it was a C-130 Hercules that had a howitzer sticking out of the
back. Puff the Magic Dragon was the one with the HMGs sticking out of the
sides.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 12
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:59:17 -0500
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Geoff Skellams wrote:

> I think the forest clearing was a secondary factor, as the
> cargo-plane based gunships were designed (I believe) to disrupt supply
> convoys. Originally, they were used to shoot up the North Vietnamese
> truck convoys driving through the jungles to resupply the forces in the
> south.

They were also used as suport for fire bases that were getting overrun.
The multiple miniguns worked great at breaking up larger attack formations
of infantry. IIRC a one secound burst put atleast 1 bullet in every
square foot of an area the size of a foot ball feild (either american or
internation football :P ) the movie Green Berets with John Wayne has a
nice seen of a gunship suporting an over run camp.

> The first ones were based on old DC-3 Dakotas (I know I am
> mixing designations, but I can't remember the military designation for
> it - I think it may have been the C-47). They had 3 rotary barrelled
> cannons firing out the port side. Again, it's been a while since I read
> about this stuff, so I can't remember whether they were 7.62mm miniguns
> or 20mm rotary cannons. I think the former. I DO remember the early
> models had a guy in the back with a shovel, getting rid of all the spent
> bullet casings so they weren't rattling round the floor of the plane.
> The old Dakota version was affectionately known as "Puff the Magic
> Dragon".

They were the miniguns. They renamed the plane Spooky but the common call
sign for all the gunship missions was Puff. Seems the more supersticious
of the Viatnamese thought the solid bar of red light from the tracers and
the effects of the miniguns ment the US had Dragons fighting for them.
Sounds like it was just the next best thing.

Hmmm that reminds me. What did the big D, and the other great Dragons
think when they first heard Peter, Paul, and Mary's song Puff the Magic
Dragon? Did they manage to get it banned? Or did they just buy up the
rights so no one could make any more copies or play it in concert?

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 13
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:58:33 -0400
At 09:59 AM 7/22/98 -0500, you wrote:

>Hmmm that reminds me. What did the big D, and the other great Dragons
>think when they first heard Peter, Paul, and Mary's song Puff the Magic
>Dragon? Did they manage to get it banned? Or did they just buy up the
>rights so no one could make any more copies or play it in concert?

I think they may have sent assassins to kill anyone that ever plays the
song in public.

Oh wait, that's what I do... ;-)

Erik J.


"Oh my God, they killed Dunkelzahn! You bastards!!!"
Message no. 14
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:27:06 -0500
<snip>

You guys where talking about the A-10 a while back. For all its low tech
systems, if any modern day aircraft is still in use in 205X, it would be
the warthog. I doubt anyone could say the same thing for the F-15, F-16,
etc etc.

Heh. This post makes no sense. But thats okay, the A-10 is cool enough to
warrant a post. ;)

-Teeg
Message no. 15
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:48:22 +0000
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:10:22 -0400
> From: "Droopy ." <mmanhardt@*****.NET>
> Subject: Re: Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant)


> Actually, the truth is closer to the fact that the airforce doesn't
> need a close support craft. The A-10 is in the wrong service due to
> the laws created when the airforce was to protect it.
>
> The army has its helicopters now, so they don't need the A-10 as
> much and the AF has other craft they feel will fill the attack role.

The Army still needs fixwd wing close support. Helos are OK but they are too
slow in the operational sense. A fixed wing close support can get there
faster the first time and can go re-arm and return quickly. They also have a
higher battle field surviability on the conventional battlefield.

As to the Air Farce, with the force reductions that are hitting SAC, there is
no good reason that it should be retained at all. It would be much better if
in was returned to the Army. With limited anti-shipping assets to go to the
Navy. It would make command and control, logistics and communications easier
and more effective.

>
> The interesting side note to this is that the Navy was looking at
> using the A-10 as a ship killer. The A-10 would excell in this role,
> but the navy never picked it up. Basicly, the airframe is a dead
> design.
>
>
> --Droopy
>
>


David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
******************************************************
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve niether liberty or
safety.
Ben Franklin

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Close Air Suport (Was Re: Southerner's Rant), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.