AC-130 Gunship Targeting Terrorists Video

#3
Thats crazy, SPAMs have far to much money to spend on ordance and they seem to train their guys to play like its a video game :?
 

jash

War Hero
#4
no wonder the americans always go on about taxes 8O
 
#5
Jash,

Ooooooh!!!! Don't get me started on taxes! You'll never get me off my soap box!!! :evil:

Glad everyone has enjoyed this video!

:D
 
#6
Why do they keep saying 'Bang'?
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#9
The aiming is just apalling.

I saw another version of this in 2002 where the quality was better and all around you can see MG (.50 or 20mm) splashes as well.
 
#10
Speedy said:
Why do they keep saying 'Bang'?
I think they are reporting that the gun has fired. If they are all on intercom with noise cancelling due to the noisy environment and the gunner is watching the screen then he says bang when he presse the button and the loader says bang as he sees the recoil then everyone knows they have a round away and not a misfire or other failure.
 
#12
If I was one of the chaps waiting for the gunship to finish before I bimbled onto the objective I think I'd be quite glad they'd spent so much trouble making sure nothing was moving.

And as far as aiming an artillery piece from a manoeuvering aircraft goes, I don't think it's that bad at all.
 
#13
There are two factors at work when considering the amount of ordnance expended from the AC-130.

One, is you're firing a weapon at a right angle to the direction of travel. The most efficent method is in the same direction of travel. The aiming is going to be off a bit. I've been told that the heavy weapons (the 40mm and 105mm) have a tendency to skid the airplane in flight.

The second is shock value. Too bad we don't have any VN vets here to attest to it, but the older cousin (the AC-47) was used extensively in Vietnam and the shock value was tremendous. The rate of fire is such that it appears to be a continuous stream of fire. And then the effect on the ground is pretty horrific also.

I don't have first hand knowledge of this, but I'm only going on what I've been told by those who've been there.
 
#15
Can anyone find this AC-130 Gunship clip that HP talsk about, the web address no longer appears valid?

If anyone's got it, can they PM me with it or send me a hyperlink to where it can be downloaded from. Thanks.
 
#16
Area_51 said:
Can anyone find this AC-130 Gunship clip that HP talsk about, the web address no longer appears valid?

If anyone's got it, can they PM me with it or send me a hyperlink to where it can be downloaded from. Thanks.
I've just tried the link and it works fine. It is a bit of a large file (5.5MB) so try right clicking on the link and 'save target as'. It's a bit big to send as a PM :?
 
#17
Bub, you dickens:

In Vietnam, the USAF used 3 different gunships – AC-47, which was a Dakota with 7.62mm miniguns. Some may have had 20mm also. They tended to be “field–expedient” and much experimentation was done. There were also some AC-119’s. I never had any experience with them. In the end, I believe most of the AC-47’s were passed to the RVNAF. The USAF had AC-130’s, like the one in the video. The new ones probably have better targeting. Mr. Happy is correct in saying that this video is not very clear.

The only one I ever had fire for me in a defensive situation was a RVNAF AC-47. It was splendid and really got the other guys’ attention. Yes, it does look like a solid stream (or sheet really) of red and sounds like heavy canvas tearing, loudly.

I know a person who did eyeball surveillance on AC-130 target sites. He discovered that the zoomies believed that the 105mm did more damage than reality indicated. Most holes were caused by the smaller guns due to the fact that were simply more of their bullets flying around. Telling the boys in blue this and also that they missed frequently was not good. When a target site was pointed out that had no damaged vehicles (the main target of these missions), this person was called a liar by a multi-star USAF clown and sent out of the briefing. This young man’s CO (an excellent officer) offered to take a zoomie along on the ground to get proof. A high-ranking believable one, preferably.

Well, they sent a gobby, junior NCO photographer (w/infared film – most of the action taking place at night). It was fun. Making him jump up and down repeatedly to check for rattles prior to insertion was very amusing and helped him gain an appreciation of reality. Most team members wanted to make a little contact to see if he sh*t blue or what. The leader didn’t do things that way, though very tempted. The wingnut was not very pleased when, in the end, the team had to be extracted by ladders.

He did get pictures, though, of the bad guys tipping a truck onto its side so that the morning photo recon could snap it and be claimed as a kill. I have been told that they used to claim more kills every month than were trucks in Asia.

The ** clown eventually apologized. Ever heard a Yank ** do that? It was very indirect and the word apology appeared nowhere in the text.

This all looks gee-whiz but:
Who are those white spots running on the ground?
How do they know?
At first, the voice of the mission or a/c commander(?) says to not engage the mosque but then tells them to fire up the square building, which he had described as a the mosque earlier.
Is someone on the ground directing them? Who is “Wildfire” that the a/c asks talks to?
This looks like a perfect way to accidentally engage a wedding party in that part of the world – oh sh*t – already did that! Another intelligence (all senses of the word) failure.

My point here (I do have one) is that there will never be a substitute for the man on the ground, in direct contact. This looks so high-speed/low-drag but is so fraught w/peril. I wonder if this turned any previous friends against us. Blowing the bejaysus out of presumed baddies is not always the object of modern warfare. I don’t like the video game, detached way of war. It’s tempting but not the way to do things. This looked like a cordon and search situation. What? Not enough grunts? But sir, you said…

Also, again to the best of my knowledge, these tapes are usually classified and not for public distribution. Time to look into that too. War is very ugly and not easily understood by the unknowing seeing it out of context.

That said, I do tend to agree with One_of_the_strange.

All right, what’s the command to dismount the soapbox again? Oh…

PS - Area 51 – I just fired up the site also and it worked great.
 
#18
Thanks all repliers,

Tried the site from outside the spooky confines of Dreamland..works!

Its tighter than a gnats chuff...unless you own a former soviet weather satellite hoping for an overhead pass in broad daylight!

High Priestess - thanks for the PM. Got the file now.
Thanks.
8)[/quote][/url]
 
#19
CutLunchCommando said:
Speedy said:
Why do they keep saying 'Bang'?
I think they are reporting that the gun has fired. If they are all on intercom with noise cancelling due to the noisy environment and the gunner is watching the screen then he says bang when he presse the button and the loader says bang as he sees the recoil then everyone knows they have a round away and not a misfire or other failure.
I think they are reporting "Gun Ready", or thats what it sounds like to me :?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Le_addeur_noir US 6
Simon - Quest Magazine Jobs Offered 7
Trip_Wire Aviation 0

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top