AIR DEFENCE USELESS? AND HAS IT A PLACE IN THE ARTILLERY?

#1
So now that fas is laying waste to air defence regiments do they have a future? And where are all the spare bods gonna go? STA regts seem to be picking up alot of the manpower.
 
#2
Old topic chappie,

Try having a look at the:

:arrow: 105 Regt
:arrow: Spurious Rumour
:arrow: TA Cloud Punching and FAS

threads amonsgt others especially for the TA slant on things.
 
#4
Not really mate,

Speaking for myself I'm really looking forward to getting guns.

Should help with recruiting and make exercises a bit more lively.
 
#5
LOL theres nowt wrong with staring at the sky for hours on end cos the ADAD wasnt working i guess i wont be able to read as many copies of FHM or read anymore books soon!
 
#7
i was in an air defence regt and it was the titz i enjoyed every minute of it and i wish we hadn't got disbanded we should not get rid of air defence at least keep 2 regt of it in service
 
#9
Usual score. It'll get run down then the poo will hit the fan and it'll get needed again.

now if the powers that be had enough between their ears to develop systems that had a multi-role capability then there'd be no dramas.


Should take a leaf out of the boxheads book. Their 88 during the war being a good case in point. Our 3.7" AA gun was just as good....if only it had been issued AP rounds as standard and we'd had leaders who didn't have the "we can't do that old boy, we're AA, sorry" attitude.
 
#10
Ah, cdo_gnr, I heard one of the CSG AD Tp bods in Stonehouse talking about using HVM as a bunker buster a couple of weeks ago. Sounds like an interesting idea - I bet it would smart at the other end....
 
#11
@Theboss, quite good at putting large holes in 432 so I heard....ermm might not be too difficult really. :) There a good .mpeg of it somewhere.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#12
cdo_gunner said:
Usual score. It'll get run down then the poo will hit the fan and it'll get needed again.

now if the powers that be had enough between their ears to develop systems that had a multi-role capability then there'd be no dramas.


Should take a leaf out of the boxheads book. Their 88 during the war being a good case in point. Our 3.7" AA gun was just as good....if only it had been issued AP rounds as standard and we'd had leaders who didn't have the "we can't do that old boy, we're AA, sorry" attitude.
Took the words out of my mouth Cdo Gnr, flexibility was an excellent trait.
Unfortunately it's been bastardized these days.
:evil:
 
#14
Ah, cdo_gnr, I heard one of the CSG AD Tp bods in Stonehouse talking about using HVM as a bunker buster a couple of weeks ago. Sounds like an interesting idea - I bet it would smart at the other end....

hmmm. worth testing. Dunno how the current round\missile would perform. Well they could send ADT out to Iraq for some..er....live firing practice :twisted:

Would it be too difficult to develop different types of missile for the same HVM platform? Replace the 3 small darts with a single warhead, HE, HEAT or somesuch?


The spams and Russkis have a couple of systems that i always thought were pretty good ideas. The yanks have a stinger system mounted on a humvee which includes a .50, pretty useful i would have thought. The russkies of course have that monster AA tank thingy with the two guns and missiles.


So how about something like a modular system for SP HVM whereby you could replace 2 x 4 HVM 'pods' with 2 pods with 2 HVM launchers and a .50 each? Add different HVM rounds for ground targets and you've got quite a serious piece of kit to beef up the firepower of any BG. AD troops are thus gainfully employed until we get to fight another country which actually has an air force.


As for Royal. I don't know what changes have happened in the last 7 years but those lads are essentially infantry, i think their trade classification is heavy weapons or the like. Why not give them .50 or GPMG mounts on their BVs? if GPMGs then throw in an SF kit for each. they're 3 man dets so it fits just right and the brigade commander then has an extra 8 SF dets to call on if needs be.
 
#16
Quite a depressing view of procurement, but not wrong. I remember first being shown SP HVM when it was being trialed at Larkhill and asking a SMIG why no GPMG mount was provided for self defence or TI sight. Money being the answer given.


Your point illustrates the lack of imagination and flexibility i'm getting at. Being able to fire a weapon system at something in the air or something on the ground shouldn't stretch our lads too far should it? Our LAA bofors equipped regiments managed to do it fine during the war.
 
#18
Duty rumour is theyre testing hvm in a ground role but do they really want all those dets poncing about spoiling those poor old cav chaps fun by wasting the enemy left right and centre and after that wont the cav boyos just nick the kit like they did with striker? :twisted:
 
#19
I am the only one who can spot the obvious flaw with using an armed vehicle (well barely armed) that is three meters high for rocking around the battle field shooting at enemy armour and positions
 

Latest Threads

Top