Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

This is interesting, since I wasn't aware that the USMC retained any of its UH-1Es in anything but a training capacity (TH-1Es) after the introduction of the UH-1N in 1971. The upgrading of the engines isn't mentioned in the official USMC helicopter history from 1962-1973 (which was published in 1978). The differences between long and short fuselage UH-1s I would think would be different enough to warrant using a term like "UH-1E+" or something. I dunno. Its good to know the reasoning though and it does make sense.

Okay, this more or less fits what I've heard. The GAU-19/A has been tested on just about every helicopter in US military inventory in the last 20 years, but there seems to be no rush to put it into active service.

I've not read anything about this. Do you have a source? I'd be interested to incorporate it into some projects I'm working on.

Again, do you have any sources on it actually being used in combat or available for such use? The official USMC helicopter history says that the conclusions drawn from the tests by HMX-1 were decidedly negative. I can see tests continuing on an ad-hoc basis, but the USMC seems to have been pretty set on the usage of fixed wing aircraft for CAS and helicopter escort right into the mid-1960s. They even pursued the YAT-28E as an alternative to an armed UH-1E.

Makes sense. The stock stats for the M60s used on helicopters should be different in the basic OOB. Like my comment on the first point, I would have personally left them named as M60s, but does make a lot of sense.

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

Never came across the "Official History" (wonder how I missed it).
Actually the idea of creating a UH-1E+ (with UH-IH speed for the engine upgrade) is a good idea! Then drop the UH-1H to avoid further confusion. It will also "fix" the long fuselage (larger carry capacity) problem.
*makes a note*


Afraid this is just one one of the many post-it notes in my "Helicopter" file.
"Bought 100ish GAU-19s in 2007, used in place of M134s"


Yet another post-it note I'm afraid.
"Korea, 1951ish, Observers in H-13 (HTL) very unhappy with lack of guns, mount 2x30cal on skids, Army later formalize as XM1".
Keep in mind they only had a dozen or so HTLs in the "observer" role in Korea. So while this may have been a "common" mod I doubt more then half of them had it. So I'd be VERY hesitant to field a fleet of "HTL Helo Gunships". It's more that sometimes a HTL Light Helo might be armed.

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

Its interesting that the .30 cal system is in the notes like that in my opinion. The Army didn't start doing testing on the systems that would lead to the XM1 until well after the Korean War.

Do you have any more on the HMX-1 armament tests?

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

Nope, just that one post-it on the subject.
I wasn't really looking into specific weapons as much as availability dates and capabilities - if a helo can carry rockets I didn't worry too much about the type of launch system or warheads :D

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

thatguy96,

As early as spring of 1949 the Corps had conceived of using helos firing rockets in an anti-tank role, and by 1951 HMX-1 had tested the mounting and firing of machine guns and 2.75 inch rockets from an HTL-4.

The instability and limited development of armed helicopters was not stopped, neither did it become a front burner project. It was to be a long and winding road from these early efforts to the Corps' first fully capable and deadly gunship.

Contrary to opinions which became popular among early gunship advocates, there were valid, practical reasons for this delay. Instability and limited lift capability were engineering problems more easily solved than other issues. The combination of budget limitations and force structure provided CMC with more difficult choices. The budget limited the number of squadrons and airframes. If you want two squadrons of gunships, give up two squadrons of attack aircraft. The Corps had to be prepared to respond to a variety of threats all over the world, and the inter-related issues of force structure and doctrine were based on this. It was not at all obvious that swapping attack aircraft for the gunships which could be developed at that time would be a smart action to take.

You might want to try to find a copy of "Whirlybirds, U.S. Marine Corps Helicopters in Korea" by LtCol Ronald J. Brown.

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

That's one of about a half dozen reports I want to get a hold of. Its available for download online from the USMC website. However, there seems to be an issue somewhere along the line. I try and download it and it gets to about 15-20% and then times out.

Could you go to the site and see if you have a different outcome? I want to know if its just me.

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

I had the same problem downloading the Whirlybirds pdf at first. Then I right clicked on the link and chose "Save target as." I was then able to save it to my desktop without any problem.

I'll look at the Whirlybirds book later. At the moment I don't believe that there were any rocket firing helos in service before or during the Korean War.

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

Hmm, I have the problem regardless of what method I choose. What browser are you using?

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

Here it is. :D

Re: Suhiir's Revised USMC OOB #13
 

Given the information from this discussion it seems I read too much into the armed helo experiments before and during Korea.
(Hey I was looking a the entire OOB not just helos :cold: )
So I'm going to drop unit #630 (HRS Gunship) from the OOB. What availability dates do you for the H-34 Stinger? Best I have is 1960.