Early U.S. Army armed helos

[redcoat2]

I do not believe the U.S. had any armed helos in service before or during the Korean War. There are two light attack helicopters in obat12 with availability start dates before the end of the Korean War: the OH-13+ Sioux (Unit 277) and the OH-23+ Raven (Unit 278). I doubt whether either of them were armed until the introduction of the XM-1 system. Moreover, both the OH-13 Sioux and OH-23 Raven were armed with the M2 gun system when they saw combat in Vietnam.

[Suhiir]

The US Army formally adopted an armed version of the OH-23 Raven (two 30's) after Korea.
Now, if it was actually fielded is another story! But it was officially adopted.
As came up in the discussion in my custom OOB thread there were ad-hoc field mods of the system for years before the "official" version was adopted.

[thatguy96]

The US Army was in the process of testing a wide array of weapons between 1956 and 1960. None of these were fielded in any operational capacity.

Some of the kits had been approved for a wide array of units in December 1960. The first approved armament kits for the OH-13 and the OH-23 began to be issued in 1962. The kit for the OH-13 and OH-23 was formally designated as the XM1 in January 1962. The basis of issue coincided with the reorganization of the US Army to the ROAD organization.

Development of the XM2 was parallel to the development of the formally designated XM1. The XM1 kit did not see service in Vietnam, but had been issued to Army units and could have been used had war flared up in Germany for instance. By the time OH-13 equipped units deployed to Vietnam, the M2 had become the standard armament kit.

[redcoat2]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

The US Army formally adopted an armed version of the OH-23 Raven (two 30's) after Korea.
Now, if it was actually fielded is another story! But it was officially adopted.
.

Yes. That’s what I meant. The U.S. Army formally adopted armed versions of the two helos with 2x30’s (which is what I meant by the XM-1 system) after the Korean War. Not 1946 or 1951.

Originally Posted by Suhiir

As came up in the discussion in my custom OOB thread there were ad-hoc field mods of the system for years before the "official" version was adopted.

I’m not sure whether these alleged field mods should be in the game. It seems to me that they must have been very rare. When, for example, I quickly flicked through Whirlybirds: U.S. Marine Helicopters in Korea I could not find any reference to armed helicopters at all. Improvised or otherwise. I could have missed them though. Please give me some page references if you have them. I certainly haven’t seen armed helos in any of the books about the Korean War that I have read. Not so much as a photo.

It boils down to this. When people are playing games set during the Korean War I don’t think armed helos should be on the menu. Helos were not used in a ‘gunship’ role at that time and if there were any improvised armed scouts I think they must have been relatively rare.

[thatguy96]

The US Army is known to have tested a modification to the H-13 involving an M20 Super Bazooka in Korea. How extensive these tests were is unclear.

On Page 54 in Whirlybirds, there is mention of spraying flammable liquid from helicopters (probably using a flame thrower, also mentioned on page 54) by the USMC and then igniting it with incendiary grenades. There is also mention of troops firing small arms from helicopters on the same page. This appears to have been the extent of USMC operational use of "armed" helicopters.

[redcoat2]

Originally Posted by thatguy96

The US Army is known to have tested a modification to the H-13 involving an M20 Super Bazooka in Korea. How extensive these tests were is unclear.

I think a H-13 was tested in the States soon after the outbreak of the Korean War.



The Americans didn't run with the idea - but the French experimented with bazooka armed helos soon afterwards.

[thatguy96]

This is probably more accurate. There seemed to be some debate over whether or not this had made it to Korea. It probably is a product of things getting conflated. The test was no doubt a product of the Korean experience, where the US Army found itself woefully unprepared to deal with enemy armor.

By the time things really got into high gear, the difference between the French and the United States services branches, was that the French had an active conflict going on. The US was testing a wide array of weapon systems around the exact same time as the French were actually putting it to use in Algeria. Who comes first is still a matter for debate.

Between the Bazooka test in 1951, the grenade dispenser test in 1953, and others dating back to the mid-1940s, the US Army was definitely interested in the concept. The US Marine Corps was too. The general consensus remained for some time, and in the USMC longer than in the Army, that the helicopters available until the introduction of the UH-1 were simply underpowered for any armed application.

Why the US Army begins in earnest in the mid-1950s has much to do with the formation of the USAF in 1948, and its utter reluctance to properly fulfill the close air support role, despite refusing to let the Army have it. When it becomes clear that the USAF will resist every move toward fixed wing attack aircraft, the US Army is more or less forced to pursue helicopters in a way that no other branch has had to.

[Suhiir]

I'll repost a comment from the other thread that I think might explain "why" armed helo development was so slow.
********************
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.
********************
Hope this helps.

[thatguy96]

The only point I was trying to make was that the USMC had the relative luxury of making such a decision, while the Army did not. They could debate the merits of fixed-wing attack aircraft, while the US Army was more or less compelled to develop armed helicopters because of a lack of any serious alternative.

[Suhiir]

Not sure I'd call it "luxury".
The USMC efforts at developing armed helicopters were hampered mostly by equipment (early helos had a pretty poor lift capacity and range) and budget.
From what I've gathered one of the main hindrances to the US Armys efforts was the US Air Force