Reply With QuoteThat's pretty high speed! Talk about some firepower!
That should slow some VC down!
Australian Bushrangers?
I've been looking at pictures of these things and I was been pondering what made them [the Aussies] decide to mount an additional M156 with two miniguns on it forward of the main cabin and one in the standard position (usually with M158 rocket pods) rather than the XM21/M21 armament system which combines both on a single M156 universal mount.
vs.
I just find it interesting that they seperated the systems onto two mounts.
That's pretty high speed! Talk about some firepower!
That should slow some VC down!
Who know's what the RAAF were thinking.
The really sad thing is we have only just retired the bush rangers in the last year or so.
The only thing I can think of is mounting them further up on another M156 might have given a better field of fire, since the guns are trainable. On the XM21/M21, the guns have 10 degrees of elevation and 85 degrees of depression, and 12 degrees of outboard traverse and 70 degrees of inboard traverse.
I thought this thread was about The Bush Tucker Man.
Theres a 20 or 30mm on the new recce helo, should bring back a bit of the old days
I remembered reading about this a while ago at this site:
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/raaf/bushranger.htm
From that site:
The American Iroquois gunships had major problems with accuracy, weight and balance. The Australians fixed the accuracy problem by dispensing with all the hydraulics in the gun and rocket mounts. The US gunships employed a system where a gun sight, pivoted from the aircraft ceiling frame, would hydraulically drive the gun or rocket mount to 150 from centre in any direction. Imagine what a little hydraulic slack did for the cone of fire when a vibrating mini-gun was firing 70 to 100 rounds per second! So the 9 Squadron team simply welded all the weapon mounts to make them solid mounts. Then the gun sight was latched into a rigid mounting from the aircraft ceiling frame and a rigid weapons platform was formed. If the pilot wished to shift the point of aim, he simply pointed the aircraft, just as he would an old fighter aircraft. Then to remedy the weight and balance problem, the gun mounts were mounted on the forward hard point just behind the pilot's door: the rocket pod mounts were mounted on the aft hard point, just forward of the transmission well. On the US gunships, the aft hard point carried both the gun and rocket mounts.
I thought it was going to be about Ned Kelly.Originally Posted by Wheke C9
The Bushtucker Man would waste Ned Kelly.I thought it was going to be about Ned Kelly.
Crikey!The Bushtucker Man would waste Ned Kelly.I thought it was going to be about Ned Kelly.
look at that!
*clank*clank*clank*
BANG! BANG! BANG!
crikey!............*croak*...........
Pfft... I don't think so...The Bushtucker Man would waste Ned Kelly.I thought it was going to be about Ned Kelly.
Well, the Bush Tucker Man was a major in the Aussie army. There's an advantage right there. As previously stated () Neddy makes a fair bit of noise while moving. Also, his old shotty wouldn't be much match for TBTM's SLR.
Futher, TBTM can survive in the bush on nothing. Neddy was a yobbo who wouldn't know the bush if it bit him in the arse.
TBTM didn't get captured.
Hence, The Bush Tucker Man could waste Ned Kelly.
I thought it was about those silly IMV things.
Major Les Hiddens started out as a baggy arse forward scout in South Viet Nam in the great and glorius Royal Australian Regiment, I'd probably pick him over Ned Kelly.
Ah, it should have occured to me he had fought in VN. Do you know if he's still alive Dig?
Posting Permissions
