PDA

View Full Version : Update the armour?



Whippet
30th September 2008, 17:51
Wouldn't some more modern light tanks be useful to the Army? Something along the lines of a light tank like this one from Sweden, the Ikv-91 or otherwise known as Infanterikanonvagn 91 ......see link:

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/ikv_91.htm

Some of those could replace the aging Scorpions and AML-90's, no?
A dozen or two would be great. They're light, fast, pack a fair punch for the tag. They look like they would be a bit more lethal. Less of a silhouette for someone to fire at too, eh? 2.36m tall! The lack of gyrostabilization is a letdown though...:frown:

Jetjock
30th September 2008, 18:26
Update the armour with a tank that ceased production in 1978. Interesting concept.

Connaught Stranger
30th September 2008, 18:51
Perhaps its time too look for the return of the .303 as well, the model with the 18" bayonets,
sure to scare the opposition the sight of all that naked aggressive steel!!

Goldie fish
30th September 2008, 19:17
I have it on good authority that the DF is currently considering replacing the Scorpion with this example from the French. It has already proved its value for them in combat...

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4574&g2_serialNumber=1

GoneToTheCanner
30th September 2008, 20:45
Thompson's of Carlow will start churning them out! There won't be a manhole cover or steam boiler left safe(to supply the appropriate steel)......still, the French habit of using the commander as the gunner lives on in the AML, so maybe using a Renault FT isn't that bad an idea.They probably still make bits for it....
The Scorpions will be replaced by something cheap, obsolete, cheap, lethal to scarcely-armed native wallahs, cheap,made out of existing car parts, cheap,equipped with an obsolete calibre gun, cheap, not a threat to any known tank, cheap.....so, could Thompson's put the Landsverk back into production, d'ye think?
regards(in jest)
GttC

Connaught Stranger
30th September 2008, 20:57
The Scorpions will be replaced by something cheap, obsolete, cheap, lethal to scarcely-armed native wallahs, cheap,made out of existing car parts, cheap,equipped with an obsolete calibre gun, cheap, not a threat to any known tank, cheap.....so, could Thompson's put the Landsverk back into production, d'ye think?
regards(in jest)
GttC

. . . . . . starting with Third place,

and in Second place,

and the winner is:-

the rusty Japanese bucket, only one previous owner and low mileage!!:tongue:

Connaught Stranger:biggrin:

hptmurphy
30th September 2008, 22:22
Oh God..another American expert on the Irish Army.........................

paul g
30th September 2008, 23:30
Not only has the IKV-91 being out of production since 1978, it has also been retired from service with Sweden, and have gone to the scrap heap with a few preserved.

Jetjock
30th September 2008, 23:40
They look like they would be a bit more lethal.

Gotta love that quote. :biggrin:

Well done to the mod who let this first post stand!! :biggrin:

Whippet
1st October 2008, 00:41
Update the armour with a tank that ceased production in 1978. Interesting concept.

Well, I never tried to be an expert on the Irish Army, and I will admit, I was pressed for time when I wrote that post and didn't have my copy of Janes' about - therefore the Ikv was the only thing I could remember. I only made a suggestion that was flawed I admit, but I only intended to make some form of decent impression upon you all.

Besides, wasn't the first prototypes for the Alvis Scorpion Recon Vehicle put out in 1969, and the AML 90 in '75? I don't see much threat from those either.... What are you going to do if you have to use those antiques? Ram them and hope to cause an explosion that might blow off an enemy track? My example for replacement might not have been the greatest, but I think that the fact still stands that the current vehicles need to be replaced.

For the record, my grandfather was in the Irish military and so was his father. I'm not just some random know-it-all American. I truly have an interest in the Irish military. I have unbelievable amounts of matierial have collected and pored through over and over, an entire bookshelf of books and DVD's and photographs, and I have all of the White Papers on Defence for the last decade, etc. etc. Flatly put,

Sorry I made such a bad entrance guys. Apologies.

Whippet

hptmurphy
1st October 2008, 03:38
the French habit of using the commander as the gunner lives on in the AML

two seperate entities... commander and gunner...one sits on the right the other on the left.

GoneToTheCanner
1st October 2008, 04:41
So, do they toss a coin to see who loads, then? No, it's your turn...no, it's yours....:)
regards
GttC

hptmurphy
1st October 2008, 09:05
No you ginnet ..one makes the tea and warms the breakfast rolls while the other does all the work.... did they teach you anything in the Don

**** sake thats why there is a three man crew... Driver to get you to the filling station, one turret sitter to aquire vittles while the third turret sitter fights off the' phatasians.'.. boy has the army changed since your day !

Its is not the same in the Mowag as the have a breakfast roll heating thing fitted as standard..and a teasmaid... jesus you know nothing about 'tanks'

mutter nutter
1st October 2008, 10:08
If (and it's a big un) they were going to get a light tracked heavily armed vehicle....my monies on the CV-90120
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5198/isimg3577yb0.jpg
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5800/isimg3648kb5.jpg

GoneToTheCanner
1st October 2008, 16:02
Silly me for thinking that the party-hats might be doing anything other than posing or scoffing! you probably boil water off the engine for tea, do you?
regards
GttC
PS: no tank will ever be bought for the DF unless it has a "footprint" less than that of a horse.Wouldn't do to scratch the precious Curragh, would it, now?

hptmurphy
1st October 2008, 17:18
Silly me for thinking that the party-hats might be doing anything other than posing or scoffing! you probably boil water off the engine for tea, do you?

You're really showing your age ..you can get some nice tea and coffee in service stations, two coffees in an insulated mug ..ah the comforts of home.

While deployed on exercise the cav can also send out the DR to get pizza or chinese...ration packs are for those who haven't learned the finer things in life yet!

Pod
1st October 2008, 17:30
I'm waiting...

Connaught Stranger
1st October 2008, 17:32
GttC

PS: no tank will ever be bought for the DF unless it has a "footprint" less than that of a horse. And can be converted to a mini U-boat for some of the more wetter parts of the country Wouldn't do to scratch the precious Curragh, would it, now?


Fixed it for ya:tongue:
:biggrin:
Connaught Ranger

Jetjock
1st October 2008, 17:39
Sorry I made such a bad entrance guys. Apologies.

Whippet

Don't worry about it, I've seen worse entrances! Welcome to IMO.

From the same website you linked to here's a little beast of a machine:

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm

If it wasn't for the 125mm main armament....

There is a video promo at the bottom of the page-watch how it jumps backwards when firing the main gun from a stand still.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd_l2.jpg

Fireplace
1st October 2008, 18:28
It's not all the surprising the someone looking from outside would try to come up with good deals for an under resourced military. The truth is we could come up with cash for such goodies as the CV-90 if we were that bothered.

If we had been offered that IVK-91 20 years ago(and prepared to pay for it), it might have been a very good addition. Looked the business for it's day.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2904464847_63f6595f9d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3251/2904464609_b914c62f8e_o.jpg

Victor
1st October 2008, 18:34
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd_l4.jpg :eek:

GoneToTheCanner
1st October 2008, 19:48
Murph,
It's good to have handy underlings available to do the mundane stuff.It's quite tedious having to scrape sheep-dung off the tyre treads.A task one should always leave to others, of course...The "erks" are excellent but tend to leave oily finger prints on one's car, though.Not to mention the Panhards.They get absolutely scruffy with crisp wrappers and breakfast roll remnants.Thank God, the driver is handily placed to catch the stuff as it falls...The ammunition racks are just the right size for Pringles tubes and cleverly placed so near at hand,too.Had to stop carrying champagne in the racks, though.All that heat from the engine caused a bottle to blow off.Damn near killed my crew, that bloody cork did, ricochetting around inside for absolute ages until it lodged in a radio. Useless bit of kit, that.Can't pick up the BBC but seems to be always tuned to some ghastly country-music station.
The cavalry.Last refuge of the right kind of chap, I find.
regards and toodle-pip
GttC

paul g
1st October 2008, 22:40
The whole question is what do we need this sort of vehicle for. Stoping a british armoured assault at the Boyne?

If its for overseas, as with the rest of our equipment, then the only real reason for it is to engage other main battle tanks; if that the case we should look at buying MBT like the leopard 2 , not something like the Cv-90120T.

The Canadians for example were all set to buy the Stryker Mobile gun system, but opted instead for Leopard 2, as it was more effectiv. And despite the fact that these vehicles have been on sale for over a decade in the case of the Cv-90120, nobody else has bought them partly becuaue they offer no real advantage over MBT, and are considerable less effective. The Ikv-91 was retired because the Swedes realised that it was ineffective against MBT.

hptmurphy
1st October 2008, 22:42
Can't pick up the BBC but seems to be always tuned to some ghastly country-music station.
The cavalry

BBC using the coms in Pahards in days of yore you werwe lucky to be able to pick up the guy sitting next to you.


Had to stop carrying champagne in the racks,



tip from a cavarly man..fill the bins on the hull with ice.. keeps the champers nice and cool and you can take the picnic bastket from the turret bustle basket of box.. depending on whether its a twent or a ninety , unfurl the Awning and invite the rest of the truop around for lunch


The ammunition racks are just the right size for Pringles tubes

or the spare breakfast role should the next availble service station be closed.

The placing of the trenching plates on the front make for anady place to store ones golf clubs in case a break in the exercise allows one to get nine holes in.

Turncoat
2nd October 2008, 00:31
On a slightly more serious note is there a brew box in an aml?
The spartans we use occasionally have one on the door, positioned perfectly to spill boiling water all over the back seaters when you hit a bump. Its a bit like locking yourself in a metal locker, getting your mates to roll it along the ground while simultaneously pouring boiling water into it!

Whippet
2nd October 2008, 01:45
Well if you were going to face off against another MBT it would probably be better to match it with another MBT. If the DF was to obtain Leopard 2's, wouldn't those be a tad expensive? I'm currently unaware of the spending limits of the DF, but I never thought that it had that much to give for a MBT. If it does have sufficient $, then why haven't they done something about it already? :confused:

hptmurphy
2nd October 2008, 15:11
No there isn't a 'brew box' on an AML.

There is something that equates to the 'brew box' on the Mowag APC however.

When you think of AMLs ..think of 1960s...Did your fathers Austin Cambridge or Ford Anglia have electric windows.

Its not intended as sarcastic , just a subtle reminder of the age they come from.

While optics, sites and engines, comms have been updated everything else is like a time capsule.

Whippet
2nd October 2008, 19:47
Here's a thought -

The Mowag comes in an variant that mounts a 90 mm. It wouldn't be the MBT we were discussing, but it would be so similar to the Piranha's already delivered to the DF that it would be easier and hopefully cheaper to obatain spare parts, ammunition, etc. The Swiss are using them in an anti-tank role. Ditto for the DF?

Goldie fish
2nd October 2008, 21:34
There is an AML60 parked outside the Museom that holds the Carriage where the 1918 armistice was signed. It is not made clear if the AML 60 was involved in WW1 or not.....

Fireplace
2nd October 2008, 22:14
Here's a thought -

The Mowag comes in an variant that mounts a 90 mm. It wouldn't be the MBT we were discussing, but it would be so similar to the Piranha's already delivered to the DF that it would be easier and hopefully cheaper to obatain spare parts, ammunition, etc. The Swiss are using them in an anti-tank role. Ditto for the DF?

Isn't anyone going to tell him to use the you know what?

hptmurphy
2nd October 2008, 22:19
No.. why not leave him off ..we need a laugh

Whippet
3rd October 2008, 00:00
Okay.

I see. :frown:

I guess I'll just keep to myself for a while.

And what's all this about the "you know what?"

Guess I'll grow up to be a comedian for the troops, daddy!

Jetjock
3rd October 2008, 01:26
you know what = Search function. All discussed previously. The only bad thing about your suggestion would be the calibre. The trend is towards 105mm-therefore guaranteeing greater availability and diversity of ammunition available. The Belgians are the only recent purchaser of 90mm variants, no surprise given the weapon is actually manufactured in Belgium.

ackack
3rd October 2008, 01:50
i'm just surprised that he hasn't been directed to the hovertank thread yet!!!!

Whippet
3rd October 2008, 14:41
Yeah, I got that right after I read it last night.

Thanks

Well, as a final suggestion and afterthought....

The solution for the 8x8 with the 90mm could be to just move one step up. There's a 10x10 with a 105mm. Sorry if I'm bringing up old posts, I just wanted to see if anyone has thought about that...:rolleyes:

See link:

http://www.military-today.com/apc/mowag_piranha_l3.jpg

hptmurphy
3rd October 2008, 20:35
Well, as a final suggestion and afterthought

the link provided a nice thought and is a lovely idea. I'm sure there are plenty who would love to have such a machine at their disposal.

The concept of Ops for the cav however has moved in a different direction with no such machine being envisaged to replace the AML 90 which to my mind is a pity as the 90 is a use ful bit of kit.

Victor
5th October 2008, 20:44
you know what = Search function. All discussed previously. The only bad thing about your suggestion would be the calibre. The trend is towards 105mm-therefore guaranteeing greater availability and diversity of ammunition available. The Belgians are the only recent purchaser of 90mm variants, no surprise given the weapon is actually manufactured in Belgium.
And indeed in the Belgian Defence Minister's constituency, I believe.

Whippet
6th October 2008, 01:23
What roles do they have planned that the 10x10 wouldn't be suited to?

:confused:

adwmaher
18th October 2008, 01:16
Has anyone considereed replacing the AML 90s and the Scorpions simultaneously?
An tracked AFV such as CV90-120 would provide versatility and power,in relation to its main armament, mentioned in earlier posts. Mobility would be improved(in case of both AML and Scorpion).
The Defence Forces would continue to retain knowledge and expertise in relation to tracked vehicles.
The CV90 has served in Afganistan with no crew losses. Our Scorpions have never served overseas so what is the rational in retaining equipment that you never intend to use (apart from Shannon Airport)

Homer
18th October 2008, 22:33
You really think that a cv 90-120 would have increased mobility over a Scorpion??? A light and extremely agile tracked vehicle vs a tracked vehicle with a heavy turret and MBT sized main gun.

I'd actually prefer a revised Scorpion anyday.

paul g
20th October 2008, 03:24
Scorpions have been in service with the defence forces since 1980, and and come 2015, it will be difficult to get spare parts, etc, as the UK phases out theirs, ( Belgium already has) and ours get increasingly decrepid. nor is there an awful lot of them in the DF, only 14 according to published sources, too few for a meaningful deployment.

As for the Cv-90120T, its been around for over a decade, and nobody else has bought it. Lots of reasons, one of the main ones being that second hand leopard 2 are being sold off relatively cheaply by the Germans Dutch and Switz, ( for example Portugal bought 37 of the Leopard 2A6 version from the Dutch for 51 million in 2007, which is probably less then you would pay for an assault gun version of the Piranha or the Centauro, but far more capable). The other main reason is that Cv-90120 doesnt offer any advantage over a MBT, and isn;t as capable.

As for the 105mm on a piranha, well only the americans have adopted it, but they use it as an assault gun, to support the infantry for breeching wall, engaging bunker clearing scrub lands with cannister rounds, their concept call for using a specialised anti-tank version of the stryker armed with Tow missiles to engage main battle tanks. Canada was going to adopt the same mix, but opted in view of their experience in Afghanistan to buy second hand leopard 2 instead. However, the americans can afford to buy two vehicles, and also have lots of heavy armour. the defence forces would have to look at one vehicle to fulfill any infantry support role and/or anti tank role that might be identified, which would point towards buying a vehicle with a 120mm main gun.


Which leaves us to the question, do we need an armoured tracked vehicle to engage other armoured tracked vehicles? Countries like Hungary and the Czechs, whom twenty years ago had thousand of MBT apiece have phased virtually all of theirs out leaving only a token force, because they feel that this sort of vehicle is not needed in future. In an urban environment, firing a 105mm or 120mm shell at an apartment block holding a sniper or RPG team will stop your troops being shot at, it will also destroy the building, killing innocent civilians who might be sheltering from the fighting, and will leave a mess that will be counter productive to your intentions. Engineers are probably more important to future armies as the world becomes more urbanised, given as the amercians have identified in Iraq that the key terrain is the people, and their failure to rebuild infrastructure in 2003/2004 helped fuel the insurgency.

My own personal feeling is that if the defence forces decide that they still need an armoured direct fire support capability, that they might upgrade the Scorpion and wait until the whole market becomes more mature. Possibly they'll opt for a version of the Stryker MGS to deliver stand off direct fire support to infantry units, once the americans have refined a design which appears to have worked in Iraq very well in its intended role, ( Mowag are owned by General Dynamics who developed the turret on the Stryker MGS).

But what is also possible is that the only role that the cavalry corps will perform in the future will be the reconnaissance one, and that they will work closely with the artillery corps at ISTAR.

Truck Driver
20th October 2008, 05:40
Countries like Hungary and the Czechs, whom twenty years ago had thousand of MBT apiece have phased virtually all of theirs out leaving only a token force, because they feel that this sort of vehicle is not needed in future....

Or is the real reason possibly that they can't afford to maintain such a force anymore,
seeing as the now departed Soviet Union isn't subbing their former allies with
equipment anymore ?

easyrider
20th October 2008, 13:48
MBTs are soooooo 20th century.....

Whippet
20th October 2008, 13:56
Which leaves us to the question, do we need an armoured tracked vehicle to engage other armoured tracked vehicles?


Because pretty much every nation in the world has an armour corps in their military and it would be ignorance to say that we don't need that.



In an urban environment, firing a 105mm or 120mm shell at an apartment block holding a sniper or RPG team will stop your troops being shot at, it will also destroy the building, killing innocent civilians who might be sheltering from the fighting, and will leave a mess that will be counter productive to your intentions.


I'm well aware of that, as well as pretty much everyone else. I'm also very aware of American tactics in Iraq. The American army in Iraq has changed its' tactics due to the above mentioned fact. The best weapon for urban combat is infantry, so use them and don't involve the armour.

The point is that the DF is using an antique which is isn't a known threat to any tank except itself. Something needs to be done about the armour, and that doesn't mean just buy APC's and 4x4's. When, if ever, the DF has to fight armour -the Scorpion won't pull the weight. I do realize that the infantry have the Javelin, but the best weapon to fight a tank is a tank. The only combat left isn't urban combat anyways, and until the world is just one big city, you'll have to fight in other places too.


Countries like Hungary and the Czechs, whom twenty years ago had thousand of MBT apiece have phased virtually all of theirs out leaving only a token force, because they feel that this sort of vehicle is not needed in future.

Because they probably got tired of updating a military THAT big and never using it until they became antiquated. However, countries like Iran (who is a known supporter of world terrorism) has quite a few tanks, and North Korea (who is currently causing the UN all sorts of issues due to its' nuclear weapons) has sizeable armoured assets in their military as well. The whole point is, the countries that might have to be fought in the future have tanks.

W

paul g
20th October 2008, 15:40
[ However, countries like Iran (who is a known supporter of world terrorism) has quite a few tanks, and North Korea (who is currently causing the UN all sorts of issues due to its' nuclear weapons) has sizeable armoured assets in their military as well. The whole point is, the countries that might have to be fought in the future have tanks.

W


So Ireland should buy tanks because it might neeed to invade Iran and North Korea?

ex pat 007
20th October 2008, 19:25
Because pretty much every nation in the world has an armour corps in their military and it would be ignorance to say that we don't need that.

We ? You're an American....WE have tanks



I'm also very aware of American tactics in Iraq.

When you get to basic, go ahead and tell your Drill Sgt you're very aware of TTPs from Iraq , he will probably be glad for your experience and get you to help him out with training.



The whole point is, the countries that might have to be fought in the future have tanks.
W

I really want to try to take you seriously but (I assume) you're an 18 year old gun porn enthusiast with enough open source information to make you pretentious and annoying(while making you feel self important). Do you realize you're lecturing grown assed men? Professional soldiers, NCOs and Officers from another country on what armored vehicles they should be equipped with? Just read that a few times and maybe you will see how preposterous it is.

Go chase a girl FFS !:biggrin:

Goldie fish
20th October 2008, 19:30
I was waiting for CT to come in and tear the talk of US tanking tactics to pieces, but I guess you beat him to it Expat.

hptmurphy
20th October 2008, 20:31
Professional soldiers, NCOs and Officers from another country


em ..are you talking about this board or has this been linked some where else? lol



Because pretty much every nation in the world has an armour corps in their military and it would be ignorance to say that we don't need that.

Assuming that country has a military...we tend to refer to 'ours' as the Defence Forces.

You might like to look at the roles and missions plus size, budget,strenght,deployments, etc and it'll give you a fair indication of why we don't need tanks.

Wasn't this thread killed a few years ago!

California Tanker
20th October 2008, 21:03
I'm not going to tear anyone to pieces, just correct a couple of minor errors.

For example, I am unaware of any restrictions against firing main gun into buildings in Iraq. US tanks are not the method of choice for demolishing buildings anyway, as the tank does not have a proper high-explosive round. (It can fire one, such as the Swedish mortar bomb conversion, but the US hasn't bought it). Stryker 105 actually provides a unique capability to US forces now in that it does have HE rounds.

I'm happy to say I can provide some personal experience as to the question of 'what happens when a tank shoots up a building'

You will note in this picture that there is about a meter-wide hole in the building which is made of no unusual materials and is of no large size. This is actually the exit hole caused by the shaped-charge jet of the MPAT round I fired at it.
http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/exithole.JPG

Although one would probably not get on very well with being inside the room, or the room afterwards, one cannot particularly claim that there is great structural instability as a result of the round.

An entry hole from another round I fired can be seen in the extreme right of this picture, just under the window. (The holes in the warehouse themselves are a combination of 120mm, 2.75", and small arms.
http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/warehseholes.JPG
Again, you will note that the structural integrity of the building is really not at issue.

I am, however, in agreement with Paul as to the concept of CV90-120. It doesn't do anything which could not be done better and cheaper by other vehicles currently on the market. (i.e. 2nd hand tanks). I would also submit that if you are unable to field a useful force (and I mean more than a dozen) there's probably not much point in fielding anything at all, unless purely for training value, which the scorps are generally fulfilling right now. As it is, if you're going to get a tank, get a proper tank, not a tank destroyer. Ireland just doesn't have the money to specialise.

NTM

paul g
20th October 2008, 23:07
CT, a few months ago you said that you've been in a mobile gun system, and that you weren't that impressed by the crew ergonomics and ammunition storage. Do you think they need more work on the vehicle. I believe that the batch orderd in August has some improvements, such as installing the same Commander's Display Unit as the Abrams, and air conditioning. Do you think it wll make much of a difference?

as for deploying armour, a mimimum of three squadrons would be ncessary for one overseas

California Tanker
21st October 2008, 02:04
I didn't have any great issues with the TC's display that I noticed, but then it was hard to get a full feel for the functionality of the thing whilst sitting in the motor pool. (I only played with the simulator from the gunner's position)

Air conditioning is a must.

The problem with the ergonomics (and ammunition stowage) is that they're trying to make a round peg fit into a round hole. There's only one way it'll work. (Well, there's also upside-down, but that may look funny if you did it to a Stryker). There is no other practical way I can think of to get the autoloader to work for all 18 rounds whilst still keeping weight down than to do it the way they did. That basically set up the design for the rest of the vehicle. The main problem I have with the ammo storage is the way that the ready rounds are exposed to the crew compartment. This has generally been deemed rather a Bad Thing (TM) and they should at least armour the ammo compartment. The problem with doing this, of course, is the increase in weight. The vehicle is already heavy enough, and I'm sure the air conditioning didn't help. About the only ergonomics that could practically be changed will be things like the switchology. They'd do a massive improvement by just moving the magnification and TIS buttons to the gunner's control handles.

NTM

paul g
22nd October 2008, 01:27
Thank for that.

GoneToTheCanner
22nd October 2008, 11:24
The day will come when the Scorpions will be too old and worn to be worth replacing and will have to be replaced.Given how long it's taking them to sort out an LTAV, they should be planning now for a Scorpion replacement.(they could well be, who knows?). Personally, I believe that they should always have some form of tracked (tank)armour, with a gun of greater than 30mm calibre, even if only to maintain a basic experience level.
regards
GttC

apc
22nd October 2008, 12:22
As a matter of curiosity I have seen it quoted that we should maintain Some tracked vehicles for experience and for training purposes. Why?.
Would it not be better to replace them and train with armour that we will use . As has been said the Scorpions probaly will not serve overseas

paul g
22nd October 2008, 18:44
GTTC I take your point, but there is not really that much on the market that suits that description, and the army is unlikely to want to act as an R&D department, which would also be the case with a piranha armed with a 105mm. However you realistically need a 120mm to retain a capability against MBT in the longer term and while there are development programmes like the FCS and FRES, they are more than a decade away from fielding.


As for replacing the Scorpions, they'll probably squeeze another decade out of them, so as not to loose the capability and take a decision then.

Jetjock
23rd October 2008, 16:58
Cadillac Gage Stingray. Only in use with the Thai Army but a nice little tank all the same. Clip of Stingray I in Thai use: ignore the soundtrack!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3h6AU-Mzdg

A more modern model was developed,the Stingray II. It is up armoured to defeat 23mm rounds. Surprising a vehicle like this has not received more interest. Read somewhere too that a wheeled version was also trialled.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_Light_Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_Light_Tank)

edit: would not embed.

Goldie fish
23rd October 2008, 22:06
You know that only the Thai soldiers can fit into it?

Jetjock
23rd October 2008, 23:03
I forgot to mention it had a crew of four. Tight fit.

paul g
24th October 2008, 18:02
I think that the Stingray is no longer marketed by Textron. its fine for thailand in certain areas of that country, but for the last twenty years, MBT have been far cheaper to buy and more effective. Nor were sales helped by the fact bthat Thailand had to get these vehicles repaired in the late 1990;s after severe hull cracking.