THINGS UNDER WINGS, WEAPONOLGY PART 1

THINGS UNDER WINGS, WEAPONOLOGY, PART 1

Previously we looked at the different types of launching racks the modeler will have to sort out depending on the version and/or time era of the chosen AD/A-1 subject; at least if technical and time frame accuracy is part of the planned equation.

Now it’s time to sort out, within reason, what bits and bobs we may select to adorn the sorted arming points.  In this post we’re going to concentrate only on things which go “bang!” or “swoosh-bang!” and delay fuel tanks and some of the other higher tech gadgetry for another day.

I stipulate the caveat “within reason” advisedly.  There are a number of reasons.

First, as we have already observed, the Skyraider is head and shoulders above every other combat aircraft in history for offensive load carrying capability in both tonnage of ordinance as well as variety of weapons employed.  Second, the airplane’s better than three decades long combat career occurred in the midst of a rapidly changing technological landscape spanning the evolution of weapon development from that of mid-WWII up through the Atomic Jet Age and Cold War.  Third, the Skyraider was utilized by a number of very disparate operators, many of whom employed differing weapons for various mission, and sometimes, as we shall see, differing weapons for the same mission.

Unfortunately, from what I have observed this can be an area where builders miss reality with embarrassing regularity.  All too often we are greeted with nothing more than a “looks kool” hodgepodge which makes no sense for any real life mission, purpose or even possibility: MERs, TERs or CBU dispensers on Korean War Era builds, USAF specific weapons on Navy airframes and vice/versa, weapons mismatched to the racks, carrier based Skyraiders loaded way too heavy to ever get off the deck, CBU-14/22/25’s mounted backward forsooth…etc…etc…etc…

As I have said, far be it from me to tell another modeler how to do his or her art, but since the byline to this site is “Accuracy in Miniature”, this is one of those things we need to examine in order to make it easier for builders who do want to take things to that level.

It does take a bit of niggling to figure out what might make sense and what doesn’t; the sheer scope of possibilities makes absolute definitive discussion almost impossible.   The good news, though, is unlike some of the launching systems, information and scale products of the weapons themselves are for the most part pretty much to hand, so we can achieve historic and technical accuracy with some thought and planning.

First a disclaimer: I make no assertion to being an indisputable authority in this matter. Past having qualified with an ancient selection of US infantry small arms circa 1969-72 I have no proficiency or hands-on technical experience with any military weaponry, and certainly not with anything pertinent to this discussion.  Actually, though, that’s kind of the point isn’t it?  While being no sort of maven on the subject I invariably manage realistic, technically and historically accurate baubles dangling from my Skyraiders.  If I can do it, you certainly can; it just takes a bit of observation and homework is all.  Let’s see if I can make some suggestions which may help.

Considerations

When we decide to produce any attack bomber in miniature the modeler should really give every bit as much thought and research to the proper ordinance load as they do to colors, markings, historical context etc.  Too often the airplane is the object and whatever is under the wings is more of an afterthought.  If the airplane is the Skyraider the sheer scope of possibilities requires even more attention to proper historical and technical correctness so as not to spoil the whole effect.   Here’s some suggestions to help plot out the trek.

Consider the time frame and service branch of your model:

Korea: The Spad was strictly a Naval Service aircraft; USN and USMC; that’s it.  The Navy primarily operated its attack AD’s from carriers and the Marines from land.  This will have an effect on configuring your ordinance because carrier based Skyraiders could not leave the boat with anywhere near the weapons load the Corps was lifting out of the mud with regularity.  The photo record for the Marines shows if there was a rack on the plane there was something lethal hanging there, period; VMA-121 weren’t called the “Heavy Haulers” for nothing.

All the weaponry was “dumb” and most of it of WWII origin; box fin bombs of various weights and applications, High Velocity Aerial Rockets (HVAR), Anti-Tank Aerial Rockets (ATAR) and napalm in P-51 style drop tanks.  The Navy’s VC-35 did sometimes employ Mighty Mouse rocket pods (either the forerunner of or just the old name for the LAU-60 19 shot rocket pod; I don’t know for sure) during night heckling missions but from what I can gather it seems they were the only unit to use that weapon in Korea.  Night hecklers and intruders of both the USN and later USMC also employed flares, and napalm was valued for its light as well as its destructive potential.  That’s about it according to the photographic record and anything I can find in print.

Between the Wars:  This one can be a “gotcha” because a lot of pretty exotic stuff shows up in the photo-record.  All kinds of orange, yellow and blue Flash Gordon type doohickeys were shipped on A-1’s assigned to places like NAS Point Mugu or NAS China Lake where the weapons and their launching systems were being tested. The good news is if you are building such a testbed airplane the weapons (and the paint schemes) can be pretty much your oyster because they were doing all kinds of crazy stuff at those places and it’s a good bet no two ever looked exactly alike on consecutive days.  The downside is make sure you’re not trying to represent anything you see there as an operational configuration because likely very little of it ever was, particularly in the appearance in which it was tested.

Vietnam: Woo-boy; now things get interesting.  First off by then the operators had changed a lot.  Ike was still POTUS when the Corps gave up their Skyraiders so they never had any in Vietnam. Bad move in this “end user’s” opinion.  Though they did a fine job, I believe Marine CAS of the grunts in Vietnam would have been significantly more effective with Skyraiders than it was with the A-4, A-6 and F-4. In fairness, no one knew that in 1959, but I’ve always wondered why, once the nature of Vietnam became apparent and with their penchant for palming what they considered clapped out useless stuff onto the Corps, the Navy didn’t just shovel their retired A-1’s over to Eighth & I and keep them in “the family.”  My suspicion is given the Marine penchant for converting Navy sow’s ears into killer silk purses the much braided Pentegon ring knockers didn’t fancy a repeat of their embarrassment with the Corsair and figured if the USAF and VNAF got the planes instead they couldn’t help but flop.  (Didn’t quite work out that way, did it Admiral?)

Navy carriers in the Tonkin Gulf had the first and only Skyraider squadrons in the early part of the war but the USAF got on board in a big way in 1962 up until 1972 and the VNAF made massive utilization of the airplane from 1960 until the fall of Saigon in 1975.

Let’s break the bang and whoosh-bang things down by service as much as we can.  Also, at this juncture I’m going to keep to US and VNAF service operators in this entry; getting into the various particulars of French, Thai and African use is not something I have researched all that well up to this point in time.

The idea here is, with a bit of detective work and common sense we can at least get to something which make things a lot more reasonable than just tossing pyrotechnic spaghetti against our latest creation just to see what sticks.  Do your due diligence and then let the penlight wielding know-it-all pizza weevil with no models to his credit in the last 10 lustra prove you’re wrong.

The Navy:  Rosario Rausa along with his co-author Richard Burgess on page 90, Appendix C (note: ALWAYS READ the appendices!) of US Navy A-1 Skyraider Units of the Vietnam War give us this insight:

“…During the Vietnam War US Navy A-1’s rarely boasted the wide range of exotic ordinance the USAF Skyraiders employed in combat in part because of shipboard storage and handling restrictions.  All A-1H/J’s were armed with four M3 20mm cannon…Flash hiders were often installed on gun barrels for night operations…For attack missions US Navy A-1’s typically carried general-purpose high explosive ‘dumb’ bombs…”

Then they go on to list a very useful range of possibilities for Vietnam era Navy A-1 weapons:

• Early on, WWII style high drag box fin bombs, mostly 250, 500, 1000 and 2000 lb versions.
• Later on, 750lb M117 low drag, replaced later by Mk 80’s
• 250lb Mk 81, 500lb Mk 82, 1000lb Mk 83 and 2000lb Mk84.  The Mk 81’s and 82’s could also be fitted with Snakeye fins.  Extended “Daisy Cutter” fuses were often employed as well.
• Occasionally, Mk 54 depth bombs were used in ground attack
• Rockets were widely used: WWII-Korean War single HVAR’s were phased out by 1964 replaced by 4 shot LAU-10 Aero-7B Zuni packs…two of these one on each stub wing were common for RESCAP patrols…19 shot LAU-60A pods w/2.75 “Mighty Mouse” rockets mounted to the Aero-14 wing racks were a common store as well.
• Mk 24 flares were used for night missions
• Less frequently but sometimes employed were Mk77 750 and 550 pounders and Mk79 1000lb napalm.
• One commode was also dropped…

Okay, Navy wise, there’s your pallet; sorry, that’s about it.  What hue you use will depend on what you’re trying to depict for the mission but you pretty much want to stick with that selection.

“But hey, what about kool stuff like all kinds of CBU dispensers, minigun pods, skeighty kinds of napalm, Willy-Peter bombs, cluster bombs, monster bombs and everything else?   Why can’t I use those?”

You can, but forget the Bumbly-beezoid or anything Brownshoe Navy; for all those toys you have to go play with the hyper indulged Richie Rich kids of the DOJ:

The US Air Force: Here it’s pretty much an open candy store; you just have to decide on the mission is all.  The Zoomies were terrifically well equipped but they didn’t go about things willy-nilly.  They were very good at matching their expansive inventory to specific jobs and because they had so many choices available were often able to tailor their ordinance to much finer and more effective loads for specific applications.

Applied example

As an example of what we have discovered let’s look at modeling one of the Skyraider’s most notable uses and one which both the Navy and the Air Force regarded as indispensable: search and rescue of downed airmen to the Navy “RESCAP” and the Air Force “Sandy”.

If you’re building that Bumbly MiG killer and you want to do it justice how do you load it up for the morning launch of 9 October 1966?

Well, a little research will tell us the four Bumbles were on RESCAP that day so they would have had a loadout specific to that mission. This narrows things down, but we’re not quite there yet.  What actually was the usual Navy load for the rescue mission?

We know from what Rausa and Burgess tell us 4 shot Zuni packs on each stub wing and an Aero-1 300 gal fuel tank on the centerline are a good bet.  We also learn from VA-176’s after action Zunis were fired at the MiGs, so they are definitely confirmed as being shipped that day.  What else?  Probably LAU-60 19 shot rocket packs, we don’t know for certain, but it’s a good bet for the RESCAP load.   As near as I can tell, that’s about it.  Actually, a Navy report from 1967 (Mutza, The A-1 Skyraider in Vietnam p42) indicates the Brownshoes regarded their Spad’s 4 20 mike-mikes as the single most effective weapon for the role.  Moreover, extensive study of the photo record pretty much underscores the configuration as outlined.

Now, how about the Air Force Sandy?  Again, no tossed rigatoni here, but the guys in blue did use a highly sophisticated loadout of a large selection of weapons each to a specific and highly effective purpose.  Rather than me going into detail here, take a look at Byron Hukee’s tour and explanation of a typical Sandy load over at skyraider.org and you’ll get the picture.

VNAF: This one is a little murky, and I will admit here at the start I may well be writing under correction.   If any reader has more specific information, I would be glad to have it and will update as necessary.

As of yet I have only the photo record contained in the books listed in the reviews section and conclusions drawn from comments in what history is written therein.  As of this writing I have not been able to locate any documentation specific to VNAF loadouts as is available for US service operations.

The photos are pretty sketchy; pictures of VNAF A-1’s with any kind of weapon load at all are rare.  As we study it some reasons for this come to light.  At one point after having his palace attacked by rogue pilots flying A-1’s President Diem ordered that no A-1’s based at Tan Son Nuht be armed with anything more than their 20mm ammunition.  Things changed significantly after Diem went into the forever box, and more A-1 squadrons came on line and were based further from the capitol.  Still Wayne Mutza records that, for a number of reasons he details in his text, later in the war VNAF Skyraiders everywhere often “…sat alert completely unarmed…” (ob cit p 142).

On the other hand we also know the VNAF was modeled after, supplied and trained by the USAF, and what weapons we see hanging from their Spads do seem to reflect the heritage; but the question is, to what extent?  It’s also a matter of record because of shifting political indecision, unlimited corruption in Saigon and sheer WH/DOJ/MACV stoopititty the commitment and pipeline was never as consistent as maybe it could have been.

VNAF Skyraiders flew a lot of combat; strike missions, SAR missions, covert ops you name it and they did it over a protracted period of the war.  For us modelers, though, there is little information as to what exactly they tended to hurl at the bad guys.

From the photo record we know napalm was a perennial favorite.  Indeed, it was this particular weapon which gave Uncle Ho’s committed apparatchiks over at the AP an excuse to bash Americans in Vietnam waving the photo of 9 year old Phan Thi Kim Phuc running naked down a road after being hit with the stuff as proof.  The reality that napalm came off Vietnamese aircraft in a strike ordered by a Vietnamese goombah on a target the only American on scene insisted at the time had no military value seems to have gotten conveniently lost in the narrative.

But, I digress…

Anyway, “dumb” slick bombs often with fuse extenders can also be documented as loaded to VNAF Skyraiders; but beyond this we are somewhat to seek.  Personally, I believe given the politics and logistics of the time and relationship we would be stretching technical and historical accuracy to go much beyond this evidence.

Conclusion

That’s about it for this submission.  My big suggestions here, in order to keep your creations out of the fantasy realm, are:

• Do your homework and to not rely on the lazy modeler’s method of Goggle-type internet searches (unless, of course, my SEO brings you here…J but still…).
• Get some books, read the fine print, compare and document
• Always, always pay attention to period photographic references. Lacking other specific information you can never go wrong reproducing what you see in a photo of the real thing taken in real time.
• Forget warbird reproductions altogether, those abortions are worse than some of the least accurate model builders; they should be impaled…

This post has little in the way of pictures of most of the weapons mentioned.  I am presently working on a matrix of photos, drawings and specs to make up that oversight.  When it is ready, I will post it in the Research Section and link to it through a future update.

The next installment of the “Things Under Wings” blog will be a discussion of the scale representations available of all the weapons listed here if they are generally available.  Look for that in the relatively near future.

Until then build long and prosper.