Vietnam Huey

Howie,

  I have tried to stay out of this "are Nighthawks gunships?" discussion.  I think you meant Rich or Gino.  As far as I am concerned, you guys who served in Vietnam can call them whatever you want and I have NO problems with it.  I think you earned that right!

     Ray

Just as a matter of interest, C/229 AHB had a "Nighthawk" in 1970 that they used on daylight assaults into Cambodia. It was a UH-1H armed with two miniguns a 50 cal, starlight scope and a nightsun. It was added to the reaction force to suppress enemy fire directly beneath the flight and in hot "LZs"  it was nicknamed "Dayhawk" by the guys untill it had its name changed to "Judge".

Andy

Sorry Ray.

For purposes of this forum, so we're on the same page, I posted that this forum stated the dual definitions of 'official' and 'forward firing' define a gunship vs not a gunship.  That seemed to be the consensus here and that's fine with me.  You guys are past my level of expertise and knowledge - I've learned more than I knew on this forum - and I thank y'all!

More of interest to me right now is the Dragon release of the 1/35 UH-1D with 4 crewmen and photoetch.  Has anybody seen it?  Is it the Panda Huey with DML figures all in a new box?

And the post that there was a C/229 with 2 miniguns, a 50 etc by Andy!!  Do you have any pictures or at least can you describe it's layout?  Were the two mini's hanging outside  or mounted like a nighthawk in the doorway?  Ditto with the 50 - how/where was it mounted?  I've heard that the 50's recoil just shook the ship apart!

Howie

Howie,

  I have the Dragon model on the way as we speak.  Gino has written a very good review based on the info he had both here and at Aircraft Resource Center.  I will take detail pics of the sprues with special attention to the new frets of PE and post them probably as a new thread. 

         Ray

Andy,

   Was this your source for the "Dayhawk" info?:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6485/Photos/index.html

Here is the original Nighthawk description:

"At about that time I got locked into reverse-cycle living, flying "Nighthawk", for a couple weeks. "Nighthawk" was an H-model Huey with a Starlight Scope, a Nightsun, and a 7.62 mm "minigun" - all mounted in the left door. It had a .50 cal. in the right door. We flew around low-level at night with our lights blacked out - all except for the top of our anti-collision light - escorted by a Cobra - looking for signs of the bad guys. We were radar-vectored around a "box" by a tactical radar station at one of the base camps. Several times it seemed like we were in the wrong place. When we checked, we found ourselves a couple "clicks" (kilometers) inside Cambodia."

Here is the "Dayhawk" description:

 "A few weeks before the incursion we had mounted a second mini-gun onto the right side of "Nighthawk" and sometimes that ship was added to our reaction force flights to help suppress enemy fire directly beneath the flight and when we were in hot "LZ's". Initially we called that ship "Dayhawk", but before long it became known as "Da' Judge". "Da' Judge" really came into its own on some of those low-level combat assaults into Cambodia."

I think if you read the account closely, you will see that the Nighthawk originally had a mini on the left and a 50 on the right.  The "Dayhawk" had a mini on both the left and the right, but no 50.  I think twin minis and a 50 were just too much to lug around! 

   Ray

That's some story!  I just helped research and flush out a 'wannabe,'  someone claiming to be a decorated vet who isn't.  They have gotten so out of hand since it's become respectable to admit that you're a VN vet, that Congress passed a 'Stolen Honor' law last yr making it illegal to falsely claim service and medals.  It has turned out that there are numerous congressmen who claimed vet status who never served, much less others in business and elsewhere.  I'm sorry to say, but you have to take a lot of stories with a grain of salt - and not take them as gospel.  I have no idea if this C/229 pilot is for real or not, nor do I accuse him of anything.

In researching and 'outing' the 'wannabe' I was involved with, I was in contact with a number of alumni from my C/227 as well as another unit.  It took a lot of digging to find anyone who had ever mounted a 50 cal on their Huey but it didn't remain long because the recoil was too much for the airframe.

Even 'more than one' mini and its ammo and additional crew put the Huey to its lift limit - and over its limit if they were to move troops around much less supplies.

I don't question a 'Dayhawk' existing because you used what you had, when you needed it.  If a Nighthawk was sitting around and the ****** was hitting the fan somewhere during the day, you used it.

Anyway, just a word of caution.  If you don't have photos and if the story sounds too good to be true (or some variation on that), it may not be true.  It might be a little exaggaratted - or highly exaggaratted.  So be wary is all I can warn...

Howie

Ray

Thats the same thing i read, But not from the same web site link.It was from the C/company page on the 229th site, From reading the whole thing in context it sounds to me like the nighthawk is the same ship they used as the dayhawk, they added the minigun on the right side along with the 50 cal was the impression i got. in the past i would have doubted that a 50 and two miniguns would be installed on the same ship but in the past few months ive come across a few accounts of nighthawks being rigged out this way and theres a few photos floating about  with minigun and 50 cal on the same side (with no sign of the starlight scope! which i presume was mounted on the other side with some sort of door mounted weapon) Im no expert but i cant see why anyone would lie about it. It doesnt say we removed the 50 cal, just says we added a minigun to the right side of "nighthawk" Il try to find where i saw these other comments, in the bugship photo i posted further up you can see a 50 cal and a minigun but i remember the comment posted with the picture from the guy that flew in it said that it had door mounted miniguns on both sides.

Who knows? We need a picture of one flying dont we lol.  

Howie

The information i got was from http://www.229thavbn.com/ Like many of the unit sites it is self run by the guys on there,The webmaster seems to know his stuff and many of the guys know each other served together and im sure would quickly route out any "wannabe's" The Charlie Company roster, put together by another C/Co member includes photos of Daniel E Tyler (The author of the Dayhawk comments) Then and now, he was an AC from 70/71 and has contributed alot to the Charlie Company Site and i am quite happy to believe his comments. There are pictures on the site of #082 "Judge" one from the front with only the left side visable but weapons are covered, another shot just shows a minigun close up.

Its terrible that people jump on the band wagon and pretend to be something they are not, its a sick insult to all you guys that served. I know theres a few little websites that look a little suspect but im sure the larger member governed ones would soon spot any tall tales and quickly deal with the wannabes. I hope so anyway! But like you say, its best to be careful and check check and double check info as best you can.

(EDIT)

You asked for photos but as you know its pretty hard to get a detailed shot of both sides of a helicopter at the same time lol. If the C/Co judge was armed with a 50 cal next to a minigun on the right side, i expect it looked like this.

Its obviously a nighthawk and if this was its normal configuration its probable that the spotlights were on the left side with another door mounted weapon.

Heres another pic i posted earlier of a Nighthawk that apparently comes from the 114 AHC and had two door mounted miniguns.

Anyway i thought the "dayhawk" info was interesting enough to share with you guys.

Andy

Anyway getting away from the dreaded nighthawk debate for a bit and onto another point of interest Ive recently come across a few pictures of left side door gunners holding their M60s upside down and firing with the little finger ! Apparently it was to stop the spent shells from flying back into the helo. I have no idea if this is common knowledge or not but its new to me.

Just wondered if anyone knows if this was common practice amongst crew chiefs and gunners in the days before M23 mounts?

Im tempted to have one of my dragon gunners in the mrc gunship holding the 60 upside down for added realism but im not sure if its worth all the " HA Ha he cant even get the guns the right way up" comments lol.

Has anyone else come across this before?? or am i treading on controversial debate territory again lol (Be warned,im armed with pictures).

Andy

Andy,

   First, let me apologize for doubting your word about the "Dayhawk."  I knew I should have stayed out of that whole discussion.  Great pics by the way!  Isn't that a Browning 30 cal in the first pic?  I may have a lead on a study made of all weapons systems used on helicopters during the Vietnam war.  I'll know next week. 

  Yes, I have heard of firing M60's upside down to avoid FOD tail rotor damage.  I have no idea how common it was, though.  The doorgunner would be more likely to do this than the crew chief I think since brass from that side (right) is ejected towrds the rear of the ship.  Don't keep us in suspense, though, put the dang pictures up and quiet any impending criticism.

     Ray
 

Ray,

Yep you got me there, its a Browning 30 cal in first pic, but i thought it worth posting to give a general idea of various mixed armaments and mounts used regardless of weight issues by some of the units. I look forward to any new info you can get from the weapons systems study.

I remember posting a while back that i had noticed that 1st Cav Hueys only tended to have spent shell bags attached to the left M23 mounted door gun! I was told that it was to avoid TR damage from the spent brass but it still didnt explain why the right side door gunners 60 was lacking a shell bag! I felt that surely if the 1st Air Cav was going to mount bags on one side of their ships to avoid TR damage it would make more sense to have ammo bags on the right side M60 as spent shells from that side are expelled from the right of the gun towards the TR! on the left they are expelled towards the interior of the ship.

Anyway by chance i came across some pictures and a simple explanation that made sense.

Apparently the Gunners were asked to fire their guns like this....

to avoid having to clean up this lol....

Im not saying the info i was given on here was wrong, as through my research ive found that there where many cases of tail rotor damage caused by spent shells, but strangely enough the majority of TR damage was blamed on brass from infantry passengers firing their M16s coming into LZs. (blame the grunts lol). But it could explain why the most combat experienced huey crews of the time (Ia Drand Valley) 229th ships, issued with the new M23 mounts in early 66 chose to use the shell bags on the left side only! During the next major operation (Masher/White wing)

You learn something new every day, i had no idea who sat where, so i take it from your post that the gunner sat on the right and the CE on the left? thanks Ray for the info i have no idea who was responsible for cleaning up the ship but i presume it was the CE? but im sure that i read that the AC had asked the CE or gunner to fire their 60 inverted to avoid the mess, but i may be wrong, cant remember, anyway unless the picture is inverted also, heres a shot of the Gunner doing his best to avoiding the TR

Andy

P.S

With regards to the Nighthawk/Dayhawk/Gunship debate My "official" standpoint and new word, from this point on, is.. the Nighthawk/Firefly was a "Support" ship and im sticking with it lol .  

The guy running the C/227 website has been vouched for by others whose tours overlapped.  Anyone who runs a unit's website or contributes regularly has got to have huge ones if he's a fake, phoney or fraud as it wouldn't be long before it blows up in his face.

The handheld M-60 was before my time so I can't add to that.  Some equipment was hard to find - on my ship we had only one, so the crewchief flew with a bag attached to collect expended brass while on the right side, gunner's side, I didn't.  The tail rotor was on his side of the tail boom.  Apparently my brass stayed clear of the rotor even though it ejected toward the rear.  It was more important to keep the brass out of the cabin!  Either so people didn't go flying tripping on them - or we didn't want to clean up at days end...

With all the neat stuff you guys are coming up with, you definitely should be wary of judges who think they know it all.  Definitely show 'real' photos by your contest winning models or they won't believe you.  If you thought Revell was crazy with it's 1/32 UH-1D gunships, they must wish they had your research back in the day, mounting two minis a .50 etc.  I wonder if anyone will jump on a Dayhawk conversion?  And how fast before someone yells, 'never happened!?'

Ray, I hope you get that study on all the weapons systems used - that'll be interesting to have.

Howie

Andy

the picture's worth a thousand words all right! 

I never knew why the 1st Cav didn't want the grunts shooting while on board, while I was there (1969-70).  I thought they were afraid they'd shoot off our rotors, or the crewmen?!

As for Nighthawk/Dayhawk/Firefly - Support?  What argument?

Howie

Crew chiefs generally sat on the left side, he could then look at the instrument panel (it was off-set for this purpose) and monitor the instruments he needed to watch for maintenance purposes, the door gunner sat on the right side.

As mentioned the tail rotor was on the left side which was the reason the bag was carried on that side, if at all. It varied from unit to unit and from CO to CO, although some door gunners did use bags also.

Please note, if a D/H model carried the M-23 system it was mounted on both sides, not just one. So if you are going to build the Panda kit, break down and buy another crew set which is being sold seperately.

Note, the first picture is a Browning 50 not 30.

Howie,

Although much of my helicopter interest has been directed towards the history of the 229th AHB, Through research of the unit, the 227th has appeared numerous times through helicopter Buro number histories or operations, especially during the April 68 A Shau valley incursions, which thankfully you would have missed with a 69/70 tour, I would love to pick your brains at some point on your memories of your service with the 227th Im sure you could help me loads with my research. Its mentioned by the guys from 229 to thank a Vet every day, but as a UK resident thats easier said than done lol, So i jump at the chance from my side of the pond to say Welcome home Howie and thank you for your service.

Andy

Andy,

  Ever wonder why Mel always signs off "Clear Left"?  He was a crew chief.  Cool, huh?

    Ray

Grandadjohn

Thankyou for the info and for correcting 30/50 cal issue, i was pretty sure it was a 30 cal but to be honest they both look the same to me anything over an M60 isnt my strong point lol.

Glad you made the point that Any D/H model that carried an M23 had it on both sides as the previous posts could be miss construed.

Though without meaning to disagree with you, i still think the main reason behind the use of ammo bags on the left side of air cav birds was to save on cleaning up the mess or hitting infantry passengers with brass lol. but i wasnt there and im only going on what ive read from various accounts so im not qualified to say.

I have pictures lurking somewhere, incase anyone questions the use of bags on one side, but untill i sort them out if you have a copy of Chickenhawk check the front cover, You will see what i mean, its a picture of 229th AHB birds (possibly A/Co, 1972) coming into a pick up zone with ammo bags mounted only on the left gun.

Andy    

Andy,

  Sorry about that.  I guess I haven't sen enough 30' and 50's side by side!  Hopefully, I can remedy that soon.  The perspective of the photo also threw me I guess.  Thanks for keeping us honest, Grandad.

    Ray

Ray,

For the life of me i cant remember how to quote on here, but Yep Mels "Clear left" always made sense Ive seen it mentioned on a few sites and Yep its cool but in my nievety i just thought he chose to sit on the left lol  ..silly me lol.

Andy

Andy,

  It's definitely a 50.  I srewed up big time.

   Here's your pic: 

[i

 Here's a definite 50 cal for comparison:

[img]http://" border="0" />

See, I just was mistaken.  It's the angle of the pic, I think.  Anyway, sorry for leading you astray.

   Ray
 

Ray,

Dont beat yourself up, im looking at both pics and they are virtually identicle. i would still leave those two close up pictures you had on just now for 50 and 30 cal comparison. i better go back and edit my post and pay homage to grandad for being able to tell the difference

Andy  

Andy,

  Your wish is my command.

   Here's the 30 cal:

[img]http://

And the 50 cal:

[img]http://

Any other requests?

   Ray
 

Andy,

  I found this site and thought you would like it.  Check out the An Khe video in particular.  Lot's of early 1st CAV Hueys(65-66) and as best I could tell, NO M-23 mounts!  There is footage of CH-47's, Ch-54's, and huey gunships as well.  Look carefully and you will see a M16 being fired out the door in front of the cameraman in one shot.  Clips show rotors and engines being serviced, fueling, rockets being loaded, lots of stuff you don't see on most videos about Hueys.  There are also lots of other helo videos as well.  Check it out:

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/asf/welcome.html 

Ray 

Ray:

I have gotten guite a smile from all the comments on the brass and who sat on what side. I crewed a B model and sat on the right side, why? I was left handed so I could cover that side better, also I had no problem seeing the center of the console that had all the important stuff at least from a mechanics standpoint. Besides it was my ship so I sat on the side most comfortable for me, and the door gunner most likely was right handed so he sat on the left. And if the gunner was left handed, he still sat on the left side as it was my ship.

I did notice the brass from my side right, would fly up and over the boom and hopefully miss the  tailrotor. In those days before M-60's we carried M-14's. Chances are that if you throw enough brass out either side you gonna hit the tail rotor. (Edited, brass from left side was more likely to hit tail rotor than from right side. The tail rotor blades that I saw were damaged most when the blade hit the brass on the base of the case. You could set a shell casing base in the depression on the leading edge.)

I haven't had a chance to look up the angle of the synch elevators however they are not of equal angle. You can't do anything about it as I beleive it is made into the elevator horn mounted inside the tailboom, could be the elevator attachment, however one or the other is correct. If someone really wants to know I can find the prints and then that would show which side had more or less pressure acting on it.

I was in A Co 227 11th Air Assault and then it became 1st Cav Div. I got out of the Army in Oct 65 so I didn't have to go back to Nam with them, but did go twice later for Bell Helicopter. I have a picture of Hal Moore not sure if he was Lt Col or Col inspecting weapons and I think the other person was Harry WO Kinnard, a general. My buddy was in the picture. When I get back to the states I will make it available for folks to see. Also have one of BG Cider Joe Stillwell, and another general who became chief of staff later. I can see his face but right now the name has gone south. (Edited the general was Westmoreland, could only think of gray haired guy yesterday)

Borrowing a line from my friend, Melgyver

Clear Right 

Ed 

Ray

Unfortunately the pictures of the .30 and .50 cal mg's aren't to scale. For those of you who might not realize it, the sizes are opposite of what seems to be shown.  The .50s are much bigger and heavier than the .30s.  The bullet for the .30  is close to that used on the M60 (but NOT the same, I believe).  I always had one word to differentiate between the 30 and the 50:  BIG.  Not that that helps anyone else to tell the difference!

BTW, a couple of posts ago, Andy provided a couple of photos including one showing expended brass on the Huey's floor.  Generally anything to do with the guns was the door gunner's responsibility while mechanical matters were the crew chief's.  So the gunner would be cleaning up the brass ‘etc' while the C.E. checked her out so she'd be ready to fly - or undertake maintenance.  The gunner and C.E. worked with each other to get their jobs done.  You pitched in as necessary.

During my tour the helicopter belonged to the C.E. and gunner, while the pilot and copilot rotated from ship to ship.  They didn't explain much to us - it just was.  As far as I knew, the Army intentionally didn't want us to grow too strong a bond between crew members so it was less traumatic when somebody was hit.  It also kept a ‘distance' between the officers and us lowly enlisted men (EMs).

FYI in that photo of spent brass: there are also coiled dark steel ‘links' in that mess.  Mission Models has a set of 50 cal rounds, including spent rounds and photoetch that has to be ‘curled' to create links.  You slide your rounds thru the curls or loops, creating the disintegrating ammo belt, just like the real deal.  With every spent brass expended a link was also expended.  So if you really want to shoot for reality, your mess of expended brass should also have those expended links!

Thanks Andy for the ‘welcome home' - I don't want to claim more than my due though...  The heroes are those who gave all. We all had different experiences depending upon when and where we were.  More than anything I wanted to fly and am grateful to have had that opportunity and lived to tell about it.  But my tales might put you to sleep compared to some of what you've read about!  I don't know how ‘obvious' UK vets appear to the general public, but they're there.  Their numbers are dwindling to a trickle from WWII but the UK was involved in quite a few ‘wars' during the last half of the last century, and war is war whether with Monty or Malaysian monsoons.  I imagine your 'press' has been beating them up like ours has here over the War on Terrorism...  Definitely give them their due!

Grandadjohn's point about the M-23 being on both sides when used, is one of the reasons I'm waiting to hear what Dragon has done with their new UH-1D release.  Did they provide two M-23 mounts or is it like the Panda combo release with the DML figure set?

BTW   - the photo of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is a good example of a replacement door - at some time this door replaced a previous one.  The OD is darker, possibly a semi-gloss.  A lot of Hueys were a patchwork of different shades of OD when a simple patch wouldn't do the trick and an entire panel or door would be replaced.  And the Huey would keep on tickin...

I have to check out that site with the video you provided, Ray.  Thank you!

Well, enough from  me tonight!

Clear right!

Howie

Howie,

  Your point about the scale is well taken, I just put them up for comparison like Andy suggested.  It does make the point, though, that perspective is important for telling them apart.  Browning 30 cal was originally chambered for .30-06 Springfield, but many were converted to 7.62 NATO, same as M60.

 Ed,

   My dad told me that Crew Chiefs sat on the left and gunners on the right.  I guess he never met a left handed Crew Chief!  Any chance this was standardized later in the war after you left?  I look forward to seeing your pics.

  Ray

Howie Belkin wrote:

During my tour the helicopter belonged to the C.E. and gunner, while the pilot and copilot rotated from ship to ship.  They didn't explain much to us - it just was.  As far as I knew, the Army intentionally didn't want us to grow too strong a bond between crew members so it was less traumatic when somebody was hit.  It also kept a ‘distance' between the officers and us lowly enlisted men (EMs).

IIRC, Bob Mason mentions this practice a few times in his book "Chickenhawk".

rotorwash wrote:

Howie,   Your point about the scale is well taken, I just put them up for comparison like Andy suggested.  It does make the point, though, that perspective is important for telling them apart.  Browning 30 cal was originally chambered for .30-06 Springfield, but many were converted to 7.62 NATO, same as M60.  Ed,    My dad told me that Crew Chiefs sat on the left and gunners on the right.  I guess he never met a left handed Crew Chief!  Any chance this was standardized later in the war after you left?  I look forward to seeing your pics.   Ray

I don't think the Army ever standardized the left/right issue for crew chiefs, it was more of an accepted practice and in some cases did boil down to personal preference. Aircraft commanders and pilots seats were set, but not always followed also. We never carried gunners after Vietnam. 

AC sat on the right side, pilot on the left, but again if the AC wanted to sit on the left, he did. Sometimes if both were rated as AC they would even switch duties during flight and then was logged as such.

Never heard of the .30 being rechambered for 7.62, but it could have been. The military had tons of ammo left over from WW II, you can still find it in some gun stores. Remember in 1971 using .50 cal at Graf that had been repacked in 1953.

Clear

Ray,

Thanks for the link, Ive just finished watching the An Khe video. Its great, thank you , some nice footage of B/Co 229th hueys.

If your interested in some more videos, heres a link to an absolute Gem of a site . Theres hours of early footage Including: The Fight for LZ X-Ray, First Cavalry Division (Airmobile) in Vietnam, The First Team in Vietnam, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), The Air Mobility Concept, The Army and Vietnam, The Combat Infantry Soldier, 5 videos about Bruce Crandall and on the set of "We Were Soldiers" theres loads of videos on the army media player but those are the ones concerning Vietnam and Helicopters.

http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/crandall/video/index.html

Andy