Warbirds Thread

[Husky_Khan]

The funny thing about those is that they were kind of deadly for their operators, and they couldn't do much due to the tyranny of physics. Johnny Quest loved to use something similar, however.

I can't see how...they seem extremely stable.

Just imagine you were leading the armored fist of a forty kilometer long Soviet convoy of heavy armor and expecting no resistance as you pour through the Fulda Gap. Then suddenly you're ambushed by a platoon of elite US Army Hover Troopers firing M1 Carbines down at you while buzzing about uncontrollably in the skies above. The psychological effect alone would be paralyzing.

 

[paulobrito]

ZSU-23-4 say hello and goodbye. These things are incredibly fragile.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I can't see how...they seem extremely stable.

Just imagine you were leading the armored fist of a forty kilometer long Soviet convoy of heavy armor and expecting no resistance as you pour through the Fulda Gap. Then suddenly you're ambushed by a platoon of elite US Army Hover Troopers firing M1 Carbines down at you while buzzing about uncontrollably in the skies above. The psychological effect alone would be paralyzing.

Yeah, it wouldn't work out like that... it's rather telling that even Johnny Quest's rendition of the concept was basically flying platforms that didn't carry much in terms of personnel (smaller ones were limited to two while the larger ones were limited to a half-dozen at best) nor armament (literally small arms only). Then there are the...

ZSU-23-4 say hello and goodbye. These things are incredibly fragile.

... and I've been ninja'd. Shilkas are the hard counter to pretty much anything low and slow. Hell, anything AAG with radar guidance is a hard counter to 'low and slow'... especially when backed with MANPADs or SHORAD missiles.

 

[PsihoKekec]

I think manual aimed guns like ZSU-23-2 or Praga would also work well against such targets. The best use of such devices would be patrolling over difficult terrain, but I don't see such niche role being worthy of a hefty investment. However, you can't advance science without turning into blind alley every now and then.

 

[Zachowon]

It was made before that stuff became wildly available and iirc was for quick around the battlefield

 

[bintananth]

It was made before that stuff became wildly available and iirc was for quick around the battlefield

Um ...

Stuff like that isn't really useable in a tactical situation because it comes with a giant please shoot me sign which which makes the flamboiant and very obvious bullshit used way back when by commanders so their subordinates knew who was in charge look subtle and stealthy.

 

[Zachowon]

Um ...

Stuff like that isn't really useable in a tactical situation because it comes with a giant please shoot me sign which which makes the flamboiant and very obvious bullshit used way back when by commanders so their subordinates knew who was in charge look subtle and stealthy.

Quick inserten. Get in, get positions.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It was made before that stuff became wildly available and iirc was for quick around the battlefield

The Hiller Flying Platform was made in the 1950s, anti-aircraft guns capable of shredding it were invented in. . . honestly, medieval archery could do the job with ease. But let's be nice and say cartridge breechloaders in the 1870s.

Bang, you're dead. The Hiller moves so slowly (top speed 16 MPH) that an automatic weapon is completely unnecessary to make it completely suicidal.

And the Shilka was developed in '57, so no, the Hiller only barely predates that, and any theoretical production military Hiller would have had to face full-scale deployment of Shilkas.

 

[Zachowon]

And the completely unarmored platform gets shot to shit by machine gun or even assault rifle fire.

In the dead of night during the time before night vision? Not so much.
There is whole videos explaining what they were for

 

[bintananth]

In the dead of night during the time before night vision? Not so much.
There is whole videos explaining what they were for

Those videos were marketing propaganda.

I can hear a train whistle from about a mile away. They sometimes wake me up at night.

Those weren't nearly that quiet. Train whistles are also subject to noise regulations describing how loud they should be.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

In the dead of night during the time before night vision? Not so much.
There is whole videos explaining what they were for

The platform is not going to be flying anywhere at night without crashing horribly. There's a REASON the Army cancelled the entire project as being unspeakably stupid.

 

[Doomsought]

A backpack mounted turboprop style device would make more sense (pull don't push) but even then after acounting for fuel you won't have the spare weight for a full kit or even them much endurance. Possibly useful for urban and mountain enviroments, but they would have to abandon their most expensive piece of kit within an hour of getting cut off from the supply lines.

 

[bintananth]

The platform is not going to be flying anywhere at night without crashing horribly. There's a REASON the Army cancelled the entire project as being unspeakably stupid.

Even if it could a whole lot of Eardrum Mk.1 sets would pinpoint about where it is during the middle of the night with sets of Eyeball Mk.1 looking right at it within seconds.

 

[Aaron Fox]

You'll need literal anti-grav to make them anywhere near practical.

 

[BF110C4]

Even if it could a whole lot of Eardrum Mk.1 sets would pinpoint about where it is during the middle of the night with sets of Eyeball Mk.1 looking right at it within seconds.

And the opposite is also against the operator (I refuse to call that poor GI 'pilot'), the noise coming from below you while trying not to crash at night must have been disorienting as hell which is particularly concerning since the plataform was very dependant on the operator use of "kinesthetic" movements for directional control so even on flat terrain with enemy action on hold while the soviet troops laugh at you before shooting there is a fairly good chance of a crash.

 

[bintananth]

And the opposite is also against the operator (I refuse to call that poor GI 'pilot'), the noise coming from below you while trying not to crash at night must have been disorienting as hell which is particularly concerning since the plataform was very dependant on the operator use of "kinesthetic" movements for directional control so even on flat terrain with enemy action on hold while the soviet troops laugh at you before shooting there is a fairly good chance of a crash.

Anyone remember the Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar ...

We did make and test a Jetsons-esque a flying saucer. It needed three gas turbines to get 2 people a mere three feet off the ground. Top speed: 35mph.

That was just about the most useless "your tax dollars at play" thing to ever disgrace a Congressional Budget.

 

[Blasterbot]

Anyone remember the Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar ...

We did make and test a Jetsons-esque a flying saucer. It needed three gas turbines to get 2 people a mere three feet off the ground. Top speed: 35mph.

That was just about the most useless "your tax dollars at play" thing to ever disgrace a Congressional Budget.

that would be a fun thread. most useless multi million dollar government project. there is a lot of competition.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Most of those are basically 'concept feasibility studies' than genuine projects.

Basically, they ask the question 'is this [insert concept here] feasible?' and might grow from there.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I think manual aimed guns like ZSU-23-2 or Praga would also work well against such targets. The best use of such devices would be patrolling over difficult terrain, but I don't see such niche role being worthy of a hefty investment. However, you can't advance science without turning into blind alley every now and then.

ZSU-23-4 say hello and goodbye. These things are incredibly fragile.

Nah SPAAG's will be nearly useless against American Hover Troops. I don't have the time to get into it right now over just how impractical and burdensome using those dedicated vehicles against Hiller mounted Carbine Dragoons would be so you'll just have to concede and trust me on this.

Conversely... now just hear me out... Russia already had a far more cost effective counter. It's not as flashy and wasteful and expensive as an SPAAG though so of course it would never catch on, even in Soviet Russia.

Not sure if it counts as a Warbird. But clearly far more cost effective a counter than an expensive, bulky, vulnerable SPAAG.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

honestly I can see why the USAF wants to axe the A-10 given the fearsome losses seen in the SU-25 in the last couple wars said bird was involved in. that and the damm thing has been out of production for so long spares or any serious upgrades will be hard. also the fact that they very very much are not designed for use in the pacific and really against peer threats. great for wacking insurgents but we're not really doing that nearly as much anymore.

loath as I am to admit this though