PDA

View Full Version : ford mk 6 armoured car



vintary
13th January 2010, 12:42
ford mk 6 in a field in the uk,,
i have not seen this photo on the net or in a magazine, i have a interest in classic irish military vehicle but i am not a member of any irish vehicle club and therfor may not be as well informed as others so this mite be old news and this vehicle may be long gone the photo was taking (not by me) in october 2006. on the off chance that it is still there i have more photos, info, & map, it would make a nice restoration or for parts for the two irish ones thats here.

Connaught Stranger
13th January 2010, 13:11
Nice find. needs a tad restoration though, thanks for posting!

hptmurphy
13th January 2010, 22:14
The ones in Ireland are running so no parts needed . In fact it would be quite possible to get this machine running again as the running gear is quite simple.
Wonder how much its current owner is looking for it.

Can you get aregistration so we can at least track its history and see is it worth restoring.

I sure some one will want it now we know there is one out there.

vintary
14th January 2010, 09:52
16 of the mk6 were sold at auction in the early 70s 3 of which went to GB and i do not know what happend to the rest, the farmer who owns the field said (in 2006) that it was owned by a engineering shop that use to convert lorrys into special puspose vehicles but had gone bust a long time ago. i have no reg but there is a name on the side (see photo). to be honest lads i would be very surprised if it is still there, i also have this up on a irish military forum site that i know has members of irish military vehicle clubs and so far no one knows about it i will leave it for a fue days and if no one knows anything about it i will post any info i have..

vintary
14th January 2010, 17:06
check out the 2009 sat map

vintary
25th January 2010, 11:17
she's gone...click on the link for more info http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055797637

yooklid
11th February 2010, 23:37
Sad. I'd have bought it and tooled around in SF in it.

vintary
12th February 2010, 19:35
there is a chance that this vehicle is back in ireland as a restoration project and may turned up somewere, i got an email that said it went to ireland with a private collector

hptmurphy
12th February 2010, 21:49
Its actually the one in the Museum at Collins Bks Dublin. Was bought specifically for the purpose.

vintary
13th February 2010, 07:34
im not sure but i though the one in collins bks was from preston ZD 1760 i have photos of the 3 vehicles and they don't seem to match nor doe's the dates but you could be right and maybe someone eals may post more info.(.preston photo 1995} if i had money id bet that the rusty one is from the grange cavern museum in wales the photo was taking in that area.

Border Bunny
13th February 2010, 09:24
What ever happened to the Congo Fords?

GoneToTheCanner
13th February 2010, 10:47
Did the cars have serial numbers? A better way to track them than roadlegal number-plates.
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
13th February 2010, 11:38
What about the Ford that used to be in the Cobbaton collection?

Border Bunny
13th February 2010, 14:56
im not sure but i though the one in collins bks was from preston ZD 1760 i have photos of the 3 vehicles and they don't seem to match nor doe's the dates but you could be right and maybe someone eals may post more info.(.preston photo 1995} if i had money id bet that the rusty one is from the grange cavern museum in wales the photo was taking in that area.

I think you right about ZD1760.
It has the cuts in the side of the engine bay.

hedgehog
13th February 2010, 15:09
Great thread- great pics, well done

Whne I see the Ford I always for some reasons think of the Daleks

Connaught Stranger
13th February 2010, 15:38
Ford Mk V. A Peerless connection:-

On the 11th of July 1940 the Dept of Finance sanctioned the purchase of .5 inch mild steel plate for the production of 14 Ford Mk V. armoured cars by Thompson & Son, Carlow.

These vehicles were designed by Major A. W. Mayne. While they drew on the Rolls-Royce armoured car for inspiration they incorporated lessons learned during the construction of the Leyland armoured cars.

The mild steel plate was welded by Thompsons and each car's wheelbase reduced to 122 inches. The design ensured that each vehicles weight was optimally distributed between front and back.

As a result the Thompson (or Carlow) Ford Mk V was a stronger (and cheaper) vehicle than the GSR's Mark IV and had far better road performance.

All 14 Ford Mark Vs were fitted with Hotchkiss .303 armed turrets that had been retained in Cavalry Workshops when the Perless armoured cars were scrapped.

While the Hotchkiss were obsolete the turrets themselves were made from good quality armoured steel plate.

All the Ford Mark Vs were sold on the 28th May 1954.

Connaught Stranger.

Connaught Stranger
13th February 2010, 15:46
What ever happened to the Congo Fords?
On the 12th of May 1964 the Irish Army handed over to the Congelese Army at Kolwezi Airport the following 6 Ford Mk VI's.

ZD 1759

ZD 1763

ZD 1765

ZD 1766

ZD 1771

ZD 1775

All were in running order.

vintary
13th February 2010, 18:32
What about the Ford that used to be in the Cobbaton collection? sorry goldie fish im not familiar with the cobbation collection is that in shropshire england,,i know only of 4 mk 6s
"1" curragh camp ZD 1844
"2" preston isaac museum now (collins bks) ZD 1760
"3" field in wales (now gone) no reg
"4"shropshire ZD 1757

vintary
13th February 2010, 18:46
On the 12th of May 1964 the Irish Army handed over to the Congelese Army at Kolwezi Airport the following 6 Ford Mk VI's.

ZD 1759

ZD 1763

ZD 1765

ZD 1766

ZD 1771

ZD 1775

All were in running order.

thanks for the info connought stranger glad to see a bit of interest in the aul irish stuf

vintary
13th February 2010, 18:59
Did the cars have serial numbers? A better way to track them than roadlegal number-plates.
regards
GttC
there would have been a reg (ZD)but i cant find it there is a name on it have a look.

Border Bunny
14th February 2010, 21:24
The Irish Army was not the only army to build improvised armoured cars on a Ford truck chassis during the WW2 period.

Australia built 3 types the Dingo Scout Car, Rover Light Armoured Car and Ford S1 Scout Car (for the US Army).
India built the Indian Pattern Carrier and South Africa the South African Reconnaissance Car (also called the Marmon-Herrington Armoured Car).

spider
14th February 2010, 22:05
Slightly off topic -

Major Mayne. Was that his Irish Army rank?

If so - When / why was the rank of Major done away with ?

hptmurphy
14th February 2010, 22:37
the name Senteniel is stenciled on the side of the turret from the field find, Shouldn't be to hard to track down which one held this name

railwaylad
1st March 2010, 16:53
sorry goldie fish im not familiar with the cobbation collection is that in shropshire england,,i know only of 4 mk 6s
"1" curragh camp ZD 1844
"2" preston isaac museum now (collins bks) ZD 1760
"3" field in wales (now gone) no reg
"4"shropshire ZD 1757

the cobbation collection is also known as the preston isaac in devon collection ZD 1760 which is now in collins barrackshttp://www.cobbatoncombat.co.uk/

vintary
5th March 2010, 12:49
great stuf railwaylad,, more fords armoured cars
"mk 4" 1940 inchicore dublin
"mk 5" 1941/42 on exercies
"mk 6" 1960/61 congo
you may have to zoom in for better detail

ZULU
5th March 2010, 13:39
Great last photo. Thanks for sharing

yooklid
5th March 2010, 15:35
You have to wonder about the wisdom of sending them to Africa though!

Great pics indeed

hptmurphy
5th March 2010, 23:57
Definetely of limited use but gave a good account of themslves in their final ops,

No one seems to know aht ahppened them after they were turned over to the locals but thankfully some were retained at home and in fairness the Cavalry Collection is beautiful and perfectly maintained.

the Rollys Royce armoured car is the only one of it s vintage still running.

Many restored and static in mueum..but running alas there is only this one.. Silver Phantom based model I believe. It sounds line an industrial sewing machine when going.

vintary
6th March 2010, 09:31
how a rolls royce engine should sound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbKTPAoYqV0

danno
26th March 2010, 22:18
Were any of the armoured cars lost when Jabotville was overun?

hptmurphy
26th March 2010, 22:34
Armoured cars never made it to Jadotville , were in the relief column, but a couple were left behind when the Irish contribution to the UN mission finished.

Border Bunny
26th March 2010, 22:35
Two were lost in action but later recaptured.

Connaught Stranger
27th March 2010, 15:39
Armoured cars never made it to Jadotville , were in the relief column, but a couple were left behind when the Irish contribution to the UN mission finished.

Post 17 has the list of 6 that were handed over to the Congelese Army.

Connaught Stranger.:biggrin:

danno
27th March 2010, 21:35
Border, Thanks for the info,I had read in Michael Whelans book that attacks on Jadotville had been repulsed by inter alia fire from armoured cars but the book never specified the type concerned or whether they were spiked to prevent use by the hostiles after the defeat of the Company.

In my opinion
27th March 2010, 22:49
Armoured cars never made it to Jadotville , were in the relief column, but a couple were left behind when the Irish contribution to the UN mission finished.

There were two armoured cars in Jado as part of the cav group attached to A Coy under Lt. Kevin Knightly. Their presence is mentioned on page 74, page 43, p18, p5 of heroes of Jadotville and other pages too! I am attaching a picture from book which is a Ford Armoured car. They were very involved in the battle!

danno
28th March 2010, 10:52
By all accounts tha Fords performed very well at Jadotville as mobile mg platforms including damaging a Fouga jet that hitherto had been bombing the Company with impunity.Is this the first successful AA defence on record for the PDF if so the Cav were first to do so.

GoneToTheCanner
28th March 2010, 20:33
Hi there,
The Fouga pilot, the late Jean Zumbach, said that he had been hit by small-arms fire as part of a vigorous response but it was repaired before each flight.
regards
GttC

hptmurphy
28th March 2010, 23:17
I apologise, Two armoured cars were indeed deployed, I knew it and overlooked it just was focusing on those in the relief column that never made it.

To make matters worse I then go referencing Mick Whelans book in the pages mention to read again its Rose Doyles book the reference is made to.

Fianóglach
17th April 2010, 11:20
Hi

The following link to the Curragh History site shows Irish troops in the Congo and has some good quality photographs of the Ford Armoured Cars.

http://www.curragh.info/New_Folder/congo.htm

All the best

Fianoglach

Fianóglach
17th April 2010, 11:24
http://www.curragh.info/congo/congo1961/congo33.jpg

http://www.curragh.info/congo/congo1961/congo23.jpg

Tyronesteve
26th April 2010, 16:19
were the mark 6 used on border patrols in the late 60s early 70s

vintary
2nd January 2011, 00:22
The Ford mk 6 was recovered a fue years ago by a group of military history enthusiast from the field in Wales and its restoration is almost complate and the car should be on show this year. The car originally belonged to the Grange Cavern museum in wales. Check out the web page for more info. http://www.waryearsremembered.co.uk/home/WarYearsRememberedBringingHistorytoLife.htm29.htm

Connaught Stranger
2nd January 2011, 18:37
were the mark 6 used on border patrols in the late 60s early 70s

I believe, and stand open to correction, that they were with F.C.A. (Reserve) Cavalry Units by then.

Connaught Stranger.

Goldie fish
2nd January 2011, 18:38
I believe, and stand open to correction, that they were with F.C.A. (Reserve) Cavalry Units by then.

Connaught Stranger.

I thought that was the Landsverks.

GoneToTheCanner
2nd January 2011, 21:41
Hi there,
Im not sure what book it was but it referred to the Congo operation and one man was quoted as saying how intimidated they were by the enemy M8 Greyhounds, which sported a 37mm main gun, which was blamed for knocking out the two Irish cars. Sad state of affairs when a 1962 army is intimidated by pre-WW II low-calibre guns. Apparently, the Fords were not armour-plated, merely made of mild steel, so about as safe to hide behind as a saucepan.Makes you shake your head in wonder at the pillocks who sent them out in the first place.
regards
GttC

B Inman
2nd January 2011, 23:42
were the mark 6 used on border patrols in the late 60s early 70s

I was stationed during the 70's in Cootehill, Monaghan and Dundalk. The only "armour" that I saw in use on the border were Unimogs, AML 60,s and Panhard APC,s.

Connaught Stranger
3rd January 2011, 14:52
I thought that was the Landsverks.

Hi Goldie, just been looking through my references and I see by the mid 1960's there were 17 Ford Mk Vis in Service in Ireland.

They were finally retired in the early 1970's after over 30 years service

ZD 1844 was retained by the Army in the Curragh.

The balance sold by public auction.

3 Fords were purchased by Arthur and Dave Janes of Baschurch, Shrewsbury, England.
was sold by them to the now closed Grange Cavern Musuem in Wales.

1. Reg and Chassis No & currant location: Unknown.

2.ZD1767 - Chassis No: BB18F5992516 was sold to a collector in Shropshire.

3. ZD1760* - Chasis No: BB18F5992084 was sold to Preston Issac in 1977 and displayed in his museum in Devon.

* ZD1760 was kitted out as a Command car (for possible use in the Congo)

No indication as to what happened to the others.

In 1970 a Ford Mk VI was driven from Finner Camp, Bundoran, Co. Donegal to Dublin without mishap or breakdown in fact the accompanying Bedford RL that was sent as escort in case of mechanical defect was itself towed home by the Armoured Car!!

Connaught Stranger.

vintary
3rd January 2011, 18:57
The Ford mk 6 that was sold to the Grange carven museum is now in northern Ireland. When the museum closed down the car was left rusting away in a field in north Wales ontill St paddys day 2008 when it was recoverd. It is an ongoing restoration and is running. THere is a youtube video on it running for the first time and there is lots of infomation & photos on the owners web page aswell as our facebook page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwUnNahgBjc

http://www.waryearsremembered.co.uk/home/WarYearsRememberedBringingHistorytoLife.htm29.htm

RoyalGreenJacket
3rd January 2011, 19:21
http://www.curragh.info/congo/congo1961/congo23.jpg

i see it is equipped with a British Army jerrycan.

:biggrin:

Goldie fish
3rd January 2011, 22:50
i see it is equipped with a British Army jerrycan.

:biggrin:

You can be such a twit sometimes.

hptmurphy
3rd January 2011, 23:05
Read the Draft copy of Raphael Riccos book on Irish Armor, the corrections have gone back to the printer, will be available really soon.

B Inman
4th January 2011, 00:06
i see it is equipped with a British Army jerrycan.

:biggrin:

10 out of 10 for observation. Well spotted.

In the Congo we also used Wireless Set C11 and C12 designed and manufactured in the UK.

In my early days (1972) I was trained on this equipment and it had WD marks on it.

http://www2.armynet.mod.uk/museums/royalsignals/equipment/station_radio_c11.htm

http://www2.armynet.mod.uk/museums/royalsignals/equipment/stationradioc12.htm

RoyalGreenJacket
4th January 2011, 01:04
You can be such a twit sometimes.

i'd actually say a lot of the time :tongue:


10 out of 10 for observation. Well spotted.

it's the British Army's 'Crows Foot' that has been haunting me for the past 22 years:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:blGXUgPn0_EoFM:http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh97/Eugene1942/Petrolcans007.jpg&t=1

jesus B Inman you are showing your age now using museum pieces like those! did you carry spare crystals for them?

anyhow they are great pics and very interesting. i'm sure hundreds of soldiers have tales to tell, both good and bad, about their time with these vehicles. very well researched.

Connaught Stranger
4th January 2011, 08:39
You can be such a twit sometimes.

RGJ merely pointed out the Jerry can is marked with the W (Arrow) D stamp which was to be found on all British Military Property, (in fact these symbols are carved into the stonework on the walls of Castlebar Infantry Barracks if one knows where to look.)

Connaught Stranger.:biggrin:

Goldie fish
4th January 2011, 09:57
RGJ merely pointed out the Jerry can is marked with the W (Arrow) D stamp which was to be found on all British Military Property, (in fact these symbols are carved into the stonework on the walls of Castlebar Infantry Barracks if one knows where to look.)

Connaught Stranger.:biggrin:

Are you sure thats not a Datum mark you see? A spot height for civil engineering use?

RoyalGreenJacket
4th January 2011, 11:30
Are you sure thats not a Datum mark you see? A spot height for civil engineering use?

the same markings are on my British Army issued G10 watch and Mk6A helmet - i guess you could use them for civil engineering use but i am pretty sure they are not spot heights. :tongue:

Connaught Stranger
4th January 2011, 14:10
Are you sure thats not a Datum mark you see? A spot height for civil engineering use?

No, I don't believe so, its the War Department mark found on all Military Issue property from weapons including firearms, swords, bayonets, pistols, carriages, leather / web gear etc..etc..

And why would you find a symbol in use by two departments at the same time?

will have a search through my picture files and see if I can find an example for you.

Connaught Stranger.

RoyalGreenJacket
4th January 2011, 15:36
the 'Crows Foot' as we know it is STILL on virtually every bit of kit issued to us in the British Army.

Goldie fish
4th January 2011, 15:56
the 'Crows Foot' as we know it is STILL on virtually every bit of kit issued to us in the British Army.

How many times a year are they issued to crows?

Flamingo
4th January 2011, 19:02
They have been in use since Henry VIII (according to Wiki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_arrow#Use_for_British_Government_property

cruisedub
4th January 2011, 23:06
i see it is equipped with a British Army jerrycan.

:biggrin:

" jerrycan " , A British copy of a container used by the German Army to carry either petrol or water hence the name jerrycan .:-D:-D:-D

RoyalGreenJacket
4th January 2011, 23:13
How many times a year are they issued to crows?

well you could say about 14,000 times a year because that is how many we recruited into the British Army last year alone :biggrin:

Goldie fish
4th January 2011, 23:45
well you could say about 14,000 times a year because that is how many we recruited into the British Army last year alone :biggrin:

You take crows now? Have you no standards?

RoyalGreenJacket
4th January 2011, 23:58
You take crows now? Have you no standards?

every recruit is a 'crow'. and as for standards - we have recruited a number of lads from the PDF and RDF who are also members of IMO and from what i am led to believe - they are of very high standard :biggrin:

Goldie fish
5th January 2011, 00:00
If your recruits have feet like that no wonder the boots give them trouble.

GIVE IT A REST WITH THE RECRUITING JUST FOR ONE THREAD!

Barry
5th January 2011, 00:54
Keep it on topic. The next person to post about anything other than a Ford Mk6 armoured car in this thread will get lots of points - and then I'll go look at some of their recent posts and find an excuse to give them even more points. The crap ends now.

hptmurphy
5th January 2011, 15:48
can I mention the Soldier wearing the Cavalry Collar patches on his fatigue shirt..slightly unusual. Any one notice other corps doing something similar?

Steamy Window
4th April 2012, 11:11
Did the now Curragh- based car make it to the Congo?

(Apologies for dragging up an old thread...there is a method to my madness)

Rhodes
4th April 2012, 11:36
Did the now Curragh- based car make it to the Congo?

No, none of the Congo Fords were taken home.

Steamy Window
4th April 2012, 11:44
Thanks.

The car will hopefully be on display in Enniscorthy on Easter Monday

vintary
10th April 2012, 22:19
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=341252609257237

Rhodes
29th July 2019, 11:08
"Decorated cavalry corps veteran Art Magennis DSM gives an illustrated first-hand account of fighting in .303 Vickers-armed 4x2 Ford armoured cars against more powerfully armed M8 'Greyhound' 6x6 armd cars in Katanga, Congo, in 1961 as part of the ONUC (UN) mission. The Ford Mk VI armoured car was an updated version of the WWI .303 Vickers-armed Rolls-Royce armoured car. It was designed by the Irish Cavalry Corps and built in Carlow, Ireland in 1941.
Conversation recorded in Art's house in Dublin in 2013. Art was born in Ardglass, Co. Down in 1919. He served in the Cavalry Corps, Irish Defence Forces, from 1940 to1979. Art died on 12/2/2019 in his hundred year.
For more see: 'Ireland, the United Nations and the Congo' by Michael Kennedy and Art Magennis (Four Courts Press, 2014)"

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NjhlJSaSD38" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

GoneToTheCanner
30th July 2019, 22:24
Brave men, going to war in such appalling vehicles, when postwar Europe was crawling with cheap, available and much better vehicles than the Fords. Imagine being intimidated by a 37mm gun, nearly two decades after Ww2.

EUFighter
31st July 2019, 11:08
Brave men, going to war in such appalling vehicles, when postwar Europe was crawling with cheap, available and much better vehicles than the Fords. Imagine being intimidated by a 37mm gun, nearly two decades after Ww2.

But made in Carlow!
Remember we got Comet tanks in 1960! A tank that was good in 1945 but by 1960 was well past it use by date. As you said post-1945 there was tons of equipment going cheap, not just armoured vehicles. We took Flower class whalers which where only ever intended as a stop-gap vessel while half decent sloops and frigates where available, enough said!

hptmurphy
31st July 2019, 13:33
But made in Carlow!
Remember we got Comet tanks in 1960! A tank that was good in 1945 but by 1960 was well past it use by date. As you said post-1945 there was tons of equipment going cheap, not just armoured vehicles. We took Flower class whalers which where only ever intended as a stop-gap vessel while half decent sloops and frigates where available, enough said!

Flower class whalers?

Auldsod
31st July 2019, 13:39
Flower class whalers?

They aren't whalers. The design was inspired by a whaler design but that's it.

na grohmiti
31st July 2019, 18:17
They were based on a whaler hull but.i dont think any Flower class Corvette had a confirmed kill of any cetaceans.
By the end of WW2 most users of the flower class had upgraded to The castle class. When we got our 3 flowers there was as many retired castles available and these were far more suitable for ocean work...
But anyway....
The state was being offered a multitude of surplus kit, post war, but instead close to spend the absolute minimum on the bare minimum on equipment that in many cases continued in service until the 70s and even 80s.

hptmurphy
1st August 2019, 11:01
They aren't whalers. The design was inspired by a whaler design but that's it.

I was being sarcastic.......

I always thought we were the last users of the Flower Class, but Portugal had one in service as did Greece after us.What always amused me about them was back in 1940 they were considered as a 'stop gap ' convoy escort, what gap were the successive governments going to fill with them 35 years after they were purchased.

The Ford, Dodge , Leyland and even the Landsverks were in fact useless since conception in any armoured warfare concept and weren't even useful as recce vehicles because of their limited off road mobility.... lets not even go there with Beaverettes

Panhards were light years ahead of anything previous but weren't that far advanced that the lineage couldn't be traced back to wartime armour, they were within 10 years of their introduction , obselete.

Timoney....well that was a real hiding to no where

Mowag and BAE vehicles.... will probably be in service as long as the Fords were.

na grohmiti
1st August 2019, 12:36
Mowag/General Dynamics seem to have a hull design that can be upgraded with new drive train, powerplant and armament as time goes by. However vehicles, like the Unimog, Landsverk and Ford were built around a truck chassis and any possible modification was possible only if the chassis could accommodate the change. In most cases, it couldn't. (THREAD DRIFT) Were the landsverks original armament upgraded with cannon taken from the spitfires or vampires or something? Results were questionable.
The Panhard was a design developed from an inter-war scout car design, and built to counter the type of threat found during the 2nd world war. By 1963 it was a mature design, that the French had long decided would only be for export to their former colonies. Meanwhile they had moved on to the AMX10 , ERC and VBC, basically light tanks with tyres, while they offered the likes of us the 1950s panhard upgraded with a bigger main gun, as useful in combat as a derringer against a smg. Your first shot better kill, because the enemy response will finish you off.

EUFighter
1st August 2019, 12:42
They were based on a whaler hull but.i dont think any Flower class Corvette had a confirmed kill of any cetaceans.

Some were sold to Norwegian operators who turned them into Whalers after the war.

EUFighter
1st August 2019, 12:48
I was being sarcastic.......

I always thought we were the last users of the Flower Class, but Portugal had one in service as did Greece after us.What always amused me about them was back in 1940 they were considered as a 'stop gap ' convoy escort, what gap were the successive governments going to fill with them 35 years after they were purchased.

The Ford, Dodge , Leyland and even the Landsverks were in fact useless since conception in any armoured warfare concept and weren't even useful as recce vehicles because of their limited off road mobility.... lets not even go there with Beaverettes

Panhards were light years ahead of anything previous but weren't that far advanced that the lineage couldn't be traced back to wartime armour, they were within 10 years of their introduction , obselete.

Timoney....well that was a real hiding to no where

Mowag and BAE vehicles.... will probably be in service as long as the Fords were.

To be fair to the Landsverk company the L-60 tanks were not bad when the entered service in 35/36 but with only 2 what were we ever going to do with them. They were a half decent light tank.

EUFighter
1st August 2019, 12:51
From the Yank, a video with some interesting old films and photos over the years!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oarLQY6VJzs

hptmurphy
1st August 2019, 14:47
To be fair to the Landsverk company the L-60 tanks were not bad when the entered service in 35/36 but with only 2 what were we ever going to do with them. They were a half decent light tank.

The best use for them is their current use...Museum exhibits!, they were the basis for an above average Medium tank as used by the Hungarians and the Swedes, probably on a par with early series Panzer IIIs, but then again we only bought them as atraining toool to teach infantry to fight tanks..and not as a deployable tank unit, not a bad idea in itself if you don't want to wear out you existing tank fleet training infantry.... we just overlooked the 'main tank fleet' thing!

hptmurphy
1st August 2019, 14:51
Were the landsverks original armament upgraded with cannon taken from the spitfires or vampires or something

Lelands and Landsverks

Hispanos taken from Vampires but rate of fire was too high and had to be retarded for vehicle use causing serviceability issues, very prone to stopages when firing below the cyclic rate they were designed for.


By 1963 it was a mature design, that the French had long decided would only be for export to their former colonies. Meanwhile they had moved on to the AMX10 , ERC and VBC,



You forgot the EBR:-D

na grohmiti
1st August 2019, 15:07
The EBR served alongside the AML in France. The EBR was replaced in service by the AMX10RC while the AML was replaced by the VBC90 (In 1983).

EUFighter
2nd August 2019, 07:27
The EBR served alongside the AML in France. The EBR was replaced in service by the AMX10RC while the AML was replaced by the VBC90 (In 1983).

As the AMX10RC's will be phased out over the next few years I wonder if some bright spark is thinking of asking the French for a few to replace what we lost with the retirement of the AML90's and the FV101's?
Would be fitting our normal practice of buying something that was good in its time but is going obsolete!

GoneToTheCanner
2nd August 2019, 18:24
buuuut......they dont match the Mowags so you'd have to have a seperate spares stream for them.

DeV
2nd August 2019, 22:23
buuuut......they dont match the Mowags so you'd have to have a seperate spares stream for them.

And different drivers courses

GoneToTheCanner
3rd August 2019, 00:51
the ideal replacement for the AMLs would be the 90mm Mowag but the Govt doesnt seem to want to go down that route.

EUFighter
3rd August 2019, 05:18
Even if I only mentioned the AMX10RCs as a joke....the display of "ohhh no that we could not do" has been classic, and in any case;
Did the AML's and Scorpion's all had the same spares, same munitions, same driver and crew courses as the MOWAGs???

And btw, the Belgium would gladly sell us their MOWAG Piranha IIIc 90mm variants if we ever made serious inquiries, ahhh but they have IIIc and ours are IIIh, shame.

DeV
3rd August 2019, 09:47
Did the AML's and Scorpion's all had the same spares, same munitions, same driver and crew courses as the MOWAGs???


No but keeping commonality as far as possible means better VFM, easier maintenance, more availability

Not forgetting the size of the DF has reduced by 1/3

GoneToTheCanner
4th August 2019, 20:41
The DF often bites it's own foot by having multiple vehicle types, be it ground vehicles, ships or aircraft and the resultant stores chaos would bring a tear to your eye. The DF has made efforts to tidy up the car park, so to speak, but it seems to continuously repeat the error. At least going total diesel got rid of all but a very few petrol engined types out of the fleet. As a real world example, when we had three active French helicopters in service, each stores stream was seperated by design and the practicalities of actual storage for spares but there was common hardware such as screws, bolts, filters, seals, gaskets but you had to be very, very careful not to mix up incompatible parts that looked right, but were not actually correct for type by part number or modification state or engine sub model and so on. In some cases, you have to physically seperate parts for types and subtypes of vehicles / guns / ships / aircraft. Every time you introduce a new object to the DF, you have to think about the effect it has on the supply system. If you have a unique type or subtype, you are adding a whole world of hurt to yourself...........and it's not confined to the DF, either. Airlines are riddled with incompatible fleets because they have different seat sets or different galleys. Commonality, provided it is done correctly, is brilliant but it is hard to actually achieve in practise.

DeV
5th August 2019, 07:24
The DF often bites it's own foot by having multiple vehicle types, be it ground vehicles, ships or aircraft and the resultant stores chaos would bring a tear to your eye. The DF has made efforts to tidy up the car park, so to speak, but it seems to continuously repeat the error. At least going total diesel got rid of all but a very few petrol engined types out of the fleet. As a real world example, when we had three active French helicopters in service, each stores stream was seperated by design and the practicalities of actual storage for spares but there was common hardware such as screws, bolts, filters, seals, gaskets but you had to be very, very careful not to mix up incompatible parts that looked right, but were not actually correct for type by part number or modification state or engine sub model and so on. In some cases, you have to physically seperate parts for types and subtypes of vehicles / guns / ships / aircraft. Every time you introduce a new object to the DF, you have to think about the effect it has on the supply system. If you have a unique type or subtype, you are adding a whole world of hurt to yourself...........and it's not confined to the DF, either. Airlines are riddled with incompatible fleets because they have different seat sets or different galleys. Commonality, provided it is done correctly, is brilliant but it is hard to actually achieve in practise.

You’d have to wonder sometimes is the requirement for something unique actually because DoD says we don’t need x which is on the standard vehicle which is offered but it actually ends up costing more

EUFighter
5th August 2019, 15:27
Today it is normally far more expensive to remove a feature for a small market rather than buy the full spec version. If the DoD went to Apple and requested new iPhone but without a camera but they only want 20 then the price would shoot through the roof. It is why some programmes like the NH90 are trying to generate a single common standard from all the different customer standards. The Dauphin's were a great example, a be-spoked design just for us and then only a tiny number around 0.4% of all built!!

Modularisation should allow things to be added or removed easier but very few products are modular despite what the sales brochure says.

hptmurphy
5th August 2019, 17:01
the ideal replacement for the AMLs would be the 90mm Mowag but the Govt doesnt seem to want to go down that route.

No.. the doctrine has changed for Cavalry Ops and we no longer work the traditional role where the Cavalry have to have that kind of fire power available. The DF finally woke up that concept of ops that it had trained for was over and that traditional pitched battles and large scale troop movements are a thing of the past., hence a single piece of equipment such as the Mowag MRV in its own right is more use in our concept of ops with a 30mm weapon than with a heavier weapon.

The AML 90 while mythical and fabled about how great it was , was a single shot, bullet magnet, death trap if deployed against anything other than rifle equipped infantry or soft skinned vehicles. One has only to look how the South Africans deployed them in their bush wars to realise that they were almost disposable.

With retirement of the AML fleet and the Scorpion the DF have made a statement around its ability to do all things in small packets as opposed to being able to do one thing well. Any diversion from that direction given the limited resources would be stupidity. Ok it needs a little fine tuning and all things being equal the Mowag Fleet is quite a modern well equipped asset. The RG32 is a disaster and absolute waste of resources and should be sold off as quickly as possible with a new LTAV needed for the direction the doctrine was to have taken....but we were almost there in 2001 until someone blew the budget on more APCs.

Mots important thing is we now have the APCs, properly armed, we have the MRVs again good fit out, all we need to address is the LTAVs, disregard the hover tanks and un real wish list and work to the strengths in the ops that we do. Anything else is just a waste of money and time.

GoneToTheCanner
5th August 2019, 17:36
Is that why the DF has no artillery caliber higher than 105mm for a gun tube and 120mm for a mortar? Every credible army has 155mm to give a greater reach / overwatch. The DF has always shied away from heavy artillery and I always suspected that cost was blamed for it.

ropebag
5th August 2019, 18:22
It's bizarre actually - 105 and 120 only really work with a doctrine of high mobility, so you use diesel and aviation fuel instead of propellant. The longer ranged stuff on the other hand can be much more static - less mobility,and therefore cost - is required to use it effectively.

The farcical element is that the helicopters, the vehicles, the training and the fuel that (would) make 105/120 work are vastly more expensive than the capital costs and then ongoing costs of operating a system of systems like 155/SpikeNLOS/GMLRS.

What the DF/DoD has therefore accomplished is the worst of all worlds - a system thats both less able to support deployed forces, and is more vunerable to counter-battery fire...

To me, the political answer is more convincing than the military or financial one - if the deployed force doesn't have artillery support, and it all goes horribly wrong, then it's someone else's fault, and that's what really matters.

DeV
5th August 2019, 23:19
No.. the doctrine has changed for Cavalry Ops and we no longer work the traditional role where the Cavalry have to have that kind of fire power available. The DF finally woke up that concept of ops that it had trained for was over and that traditional pitched battles and large scale troop movements are a thing of the past., hence a single piece of equipment such as the Mowag MRV in its own right is more use in our concept of ops with a 30mm weapon than with a heavier weapon.

The AML 90 while mythical and fabled about how great it was , was a single shot, bullet magnet, death trap if deployed against anything other than rifle equipped infantry or soft skinned vehicles. One has only to look how the South Africans deployed them in their bush wars to realise that they were almost disposable.

With retirement of the AML fleet and the Scorpion the DF have made a statement around its ability to do all things in small packets as opposed to being able to do one thing well. Any diversion from that direction given the limited resources would be stupidity. Ok it needs a little fine tuning and all things being equal the Mowag Fleet is quite a modern well equipped asset. The RG32 is a disaster and absolute waste of resources and should be sold off as quickly as possible with a new LTAV needed for the direction the doctrine was to have taken....but we were almost there in 2001 until someone blew the budget on more APCs.

Mots important thing is we now have the APCs, properly armed, we have the MRVs again good fit out, all we need to address is the LTAVs, disregard the hover tanks and un real wish list and work to the strengths in the ops that we do. Anything else is just a waste of money and time.

It is true to say the emphasis has changed from vehicle based Recce to dismounted (eg CTR) Type Recce but that isn’t to say that they are dismounted at all times (hence the MRV/CRAV/LTAV).

There also remains a requirement (currently unfilled) for a fire support vehicle.



Is that why the DF has no artillery caliber higher than 105mm for a gun tube and 120mm for a mortar? Every credible army has 155mm to give a greater reach / overwatch. The DF has always shied away from heavy artillery and I always suspected that cost was blamed for it.


It's bizarre actually - 105 and 120 only really work with a doctrine of high mobility, so you use diesel and aviation fuel instead of propellant. The longer ranged stuff on the other hand can be much more static - less mobility,and therefore cost - is required to use it effectively.

The farcical element is that the helicopters, the vehicles, the training and the fuel that (would) make 105/120 work are vastly more expensive than the capital costs and then ongoing costs of operating a system of systems like 155/SpikeNLOS/GMLRS.

What the DF/DoD has therefore accomplished is the worst of all worlds - a system thats both less able to support deployed forces, and is more vunerable to counter-battery fire...

To me, the political answer is more convincing than the military or financial one - if the deployed force doesn't have artillery support, and it all goes horribly wrong, then it's someone else's fault, and that's what really matters.

Of course part of it makes sense as the DF is primarily light infantry based with minimal armour. For that reason, the vast majority of the infantry will be able to supported by the artillery we have for a longer period compared to armoured/mechanised infantry using the same artillery.

That of course is not to say that we shouldn’t have more APCs and SP artillery

ropebag
6th August 2019, 11:43
Of course part of it makes sense as the DF is primarily light infantry based with minimal armour. For that reason, the vast majority of the infantry will be able to supported by the artillery we have for a longer period compared to armoured/mechanised infantry using the same artillery.

That of course is not to say that we shouldn’t have more APCs and SP artillery

I disagree with your first point - while it's true to say that 105/120 can provide intimate fire support out to 17km, and that with dismounted troops they are likely to be within that range - ish, what it ignores is the need to provide counter-battery and suppressive fire. With 120/105 and no practical mobility, even troops 3km from the gun line are vunerable to hostile groups with 105's and you've little ability to counter-battery fire, and at just12km those troops are vunerable to 81/82mm mortars, recoilless rifles and ATGW, and you've no counter-battery fire.

hptmurphy
6th August 2019, 14:33
It is true to say the emphasis has changed from vehicle based Recce to dismounted (eg CTR) Type Recce but that isn’t to say that they are dismounted at all times (hence the MRV/CRAV/LTAV).

There also remains a requirement (currently unfilled) for a fire support vehicle.


A mowag with a 90/105/120gun turret is not a APC, its a AFV, the MRV is too specialist machine to have it acting as a taxi while its dismountable element has been reduced by the turret fit.
If you want Self propelled artillery , you buy self propelled artillery, not hoping to use a APC with a gun in the role.


Of course part of it makes sense as the DF is primarily light infantry based with minimal armour. For that reason, the vast majority of the infantry will be able to supported by the artillery we have for a longer period compared to armoured/mechanised infantry using the same artillery.


Agreed, but you still need more APCs to make more of it mobile.

recoil
6th August 2019, 16:41
https://www.britishpathe.com/video/VLVA9X4RNDH9KTDZAGQ2YK5V2OR3W-CONGO-REPUBLIC-STREET-FIGHTING-SUBSIDES-IN-ELISABETHVILLE/query/fighting+congo

Looks like an Irish Ford armored (without turret) car.

DeV
6th August 2019, 16:50
A mowag with a 90/105/120gun turret is not a APC, its a AFV, the MRV is too specialist machine to have it acting as a taxi while its dismountable element has been reduced by the turret fit.
If you want Self propelled artillery , you buy self propelled artillery, not hoping to use a APC with a gun in the role.



Agreed, but you still need more APCs to make more of it mobile.

I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.

I didn’t say that a MOWAG could be SP artillery

EUFighter
6th August 2019, 20:19
I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.

I didn’t say that a MOWAG could be SP artillery

Well the US Army did trial the LAVIII (cousin of our MOWAG) as a SP Artillery piece.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2011_news_defense_army_military_industry_uk/denel_stryker_lav_iii_105_mm_howitzer_can_directly _fire_three_shells_through_the_same_hole_0908113.h tml

hptmurphy
6th August 2019, 20:24
I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.


Depends on the objective and available intelligence


I didn’t say that a MOWAG could be SP artillery

Its a general comment, a big gun on a mobile platform isn't always classed as artillery, but if you want artillery that's mobile buy mobile artillery as opposed to an up gunned version of what you already possess.

EUFighter
7th August 2019, 14:04
Depends on the objective and available intelligence



Its a general comment, a big gun on a mobile platform isn't always classed as artillery, but if you want artillery that's mobile buy mobile artillery as opposed to an up gunned version of what you already possess.

Well KMW one of the makers of the Boxer family think a bit different, they are pushing a 155mm howitzer version based upon their 155 AGM module.
https://www.kmweg.com/home/artillery/autonomous-howitzer/rch-155/product-information.html

ropebag
7th August 2019, 16:23
Well KMW one of the makers of the Boxer family think a bit different, they are pushing a 155mm howitzer version based upon their 155 AGM module.
https://www.kmweg.com/home/artillery/autonomous-howitzer/rch-155/product-information.html

It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

I, for one, would be hugely confident that it wouldn't fall over when fired on even the steepest ground...

hptmurphy
7th August 2019, 20:06
Well KMW one of the makers of the Boxer family think a bit different, they are pushing a 155mm howitzer version based upon their 155 AGM module.
https://www.kmweg.com/home/artillery/autonomous-howitzer/rch-155/product-information.html

Almost everyone who, builds an APC tries to market the chassis combined with multiple weapons systems to get maximum value from the design, rarely does it lead to actual sales..even some of the Timoney variats had AML 90 turrets mounted for trials.

But for ugliness, that one comes top of the league.


But this is far more practicle
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/e0/b0/c6e0b071b875f5323f245c1228cb8c89.jpg

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/atmos2000/

Sparky42
7th August 2019, 20:55
It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

I, for one, would be hugely confident that it wouldn't fall over when fired on even the steepest ground...

Think that's an insult to both, that might be one of the ugliest modern vehicles that I've seen in a while.

EUFighter
8th August 2019, 07:42
It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

I, for one, would be hugely confident that it wouldn't fall over when fired on even the steepest ground...

Well actually they have test fired it a lot. One of the reason why they did test firing was to see if they could get away with having no additional supports, and due to the massive weight of the Boxer they don't. The big advantage of the GAM system is that you can use it as a mobile artillery system or lift it off the vehicle and use it in a fixed base at a FOB. But I do admit it does look ugly, but it is not designed to be in a beauty competition. KMW have also proposed the AGM system to be mounted on 8x8 / 10x10 high mobility truck, there it looks better.

But the G6 is still king of the wheeled SPG's, followed by the various Czech SPG's.

ropebag
8th August 2019, 13:14
Manufacturers trials fill me with more confidence than you could possibly imagine...

If I was DF I'd be pretty much sold on the Caesar gun-truck. Personally I think it's too compromised in favour of low-end conventional/insurgency warfare for anyone who may also be fighting a traditional high-end conventional war, but for PK/PE I think it's fine, and it has some huge advanced over a big, tracked SPG in terms of its mobility, ease of logistics support, cost etc...

Using 155 also puts you in the market for mass produced PGM's as well, which would increase the effectiveness several fold.

EUFighter
8th August 2019, 15:26
Manufacturers trials fill me with more confidence than you could possibly imagine...

If I was DF I'd be pretty much sold on the Caesar gun-truck. Personally I think it's too compromised in favour of low-end conventional/insurgency warfare for anyone who may also be fighting a traditional high-end conventional war, but for PK/PE I think it's fine, and it has some huge advanced over a big, tracked SPG in terms of its mobility, ease of logistics support, cost etc...

Using 155 also puts you in the market for mass produced PGM's as well, which would increase the effectiveness several fold.

Caesar is on the silly money side of things, what the French ask for that system is beyond me, an alternative would be the 8x8 version of the ATMOS which can use the MAN HX-77

hptmurphy
9th August 2019, 09:14
Caesar is on the silly money side of things, what the French ask for that system is beyond me, an alternative would be the 8x8 version of the ATMOS which can use the MAN HX-77

The MAN concept is the same as Caeser, so we are only at semantics, need 155...stick it on a truck....

ropebag
9th August 2019, 10:47
One of the huge advantages of Caesar is that you're buying something that has been combat proven, mobility proven in harsh environments, and that is in service with a major western military - and that will remain in service with that military for another couple of decades - and therefore that the upgrades and support will be in place and not need to be bespoke.

That, I would suggest, has a ticket price and value all on its own, and I would further suggest that the value of that is going to be rather greater than the cost.

Tempest
9th August 2019, 16:09
Artillery in the DF is of the tokenistic/cadre of an all arms force. I doubt the DoD would ever spend any money on any new artillery pieces.

Sparky42
9th August 2019, 18:49
Anything in the DF is of the tokenistic/cadre of an all arms force. I doubt the DoD would ever spend any money on any new equipment .

Think I fixed that...:)

GoneToTheCanner
10th August 2019, 19:05
The thing is, for it's size, when you added the number of mortars and guns in the FCA / RDF, the total establishment was actually very high for such a small army. The failure to bring next to no artillery of any kind on overseas deployments is down to the DF and the DoD. Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.

sofa
10th August 2019, 22:55
One of the huge advantages of Caesar is that you're buying something that has been combat proven, mobility proven in harsh environments, and that is in service with a major western military - and that will remain in service with that military for another couple of decades - and therefore that the upgrades and support will be in place and not need to be bespoke.

That, I would suggest, has a ticket price and value all on its own, and I would further suggest that the value of that is going to be rather greater than the cost.

If I remember French Army sent over a couple to Britain to try out a year or two ago?

Sluggie
10th August 2019, 23:36
The thing is, for it's size, when you added the number of mortars and guns in the FCA / RDF, the total establishment was actually very high for such a small army. The failure to bring next to no artillery of any kind on overseas deployments is down to the DF and the DoD. Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.

My understanding is that on a UN mandated peacekeeping deployment the parties to the conflict have an input into what weaponry the peacekeeping force is allowed to bring with them. So for example in UNIFIL the Israel could prevent artillery being deployed. Open to correction and also unsure how it would relate to a peace enforcement mandate.

X-RayOne
11th August 2019, 00:29
Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.

Unfortunately, as they stand the arty pieces, if brought, would be just for show.

The African missions you mention were all mobile patrolling missions with multi day patrols. 105's would have sat idly by in mission HQ's as the units would have been well out of the range of their cover. If you bring them on the patrols then you are into a situation the the gun carriages probably wouldn't have been able to traverse the ground the armoured vehicles struggled in. Or worse, if in contact arty pieces have absolutely no armour protection even from small arms fire, etc. Plus the patrols speed would be limited by constantly having to stay under arty cover if the arty was leap frogging to sites to provide overwatch.

Similarly, even if 105's were deployed in the Leb would they even cover the entire AO in terms of being able to provide cover fires??

The reality is the DF concentrates on mobile, armoured / light infantry formations but the combat support arms are not equipped to same standard as to mobility or self protection so may as well be still using the horsey school horses to pull the guns around.

GoneToTheCanner
11th August 2019, 02:22
My understanding is that on a UN mandated peacekeeping deployment the parties to the conflict have an input into what weaponry the peacekeeping force is allowed to bring with them. So for example in UNIFIL the Israel could prevent artillery being deployed. Open to correction and also unsure how it would relate to a peace enforcement mandate.

I guess the French ignored that, as they brought Leclerc tanks and ATGWs, when they took a turn on UN duty.

GoneToTheCanner
11th August 2019, 02:44
@xray one, good points but I'd rather have a gun on hand to provide some kind of overwatch than have none at all. The British brought 105s to Afghanistan and got into the habit of setting up firing points on hills, lifted in and out by helicopter and used to interdict Taliban traffic. If you get all historical, I'll bet a battery or two of 25 pdrs would have made life easier for the Irish in the Congo. Jadotville, by the grace of (insert diety here) depended on luck and stubborness to a great extent and the intervention of a gun battery would certainly have changed the odds. It's all about the mental security of knowing that if you get hit up, you can dial up some artillery intervention. Tooling around parts of Africa, depending on a single 12.7mm per APC, is a tall order when even the lowest scumbag militia can whistle up multiple RPGs, recoilless rifles, mortars, weapons like Dshkas and ZU-23s and sundry legacy Soviet AFVs. I'd rather Irish soldiers brought guns or heavy mortars with them and dragged them about, than be left uncovered.

EUFighter
11th August 2019, 09:22
The French took their GCT-155mm SPGs with them to UNIFIL and IFOR, they also have deployed the CAESAR systems to Lebanon.
The Italians have often deploy Centauro tank destroyers on peace-keeping including with UNIFIL.
So if we though we had an operational need we could deploy the 105's.

True a 105LG could not even cover the relatively small operational area in the UNIFIL or UNDOF missions for that a modern 155mm 52 cal with ERBB would be needed. And if we go across to the potential operational areas in Africa then the ranges become too large. This is why those nations that have them take their attack helicopters with them. Simply to provide fire support when needed, but they work well. But you do not have to wait for "air", France et al also have their 90/105mm armoured cars/tank destroyers to provide direct fire support and over-watch. So the experience is out there even if we try and ignore it as much as possible.

There is the adage that armies equip to fight the last war and are never equipped for the next. While there is some truth to that, there are many lessons to be learnt from the past. Could we have done with CAS, fight support and armoured cars with something more than a 303 in Congo.......yes. Was it helpful to deploy the AML90 to Liberia and Lebanon....probably. They showed their worth several time but also their limitations.

We continue to deploy troops to situations often without providing them with the equipment they need. A modern armoured infantry does not act alone, even a armoured formation such as a tank unit relies on support functions such as SPG's etc. To say we are "just" an infantry organisation might reflect current reality but it should not be the goal. We are a relatively wealthy country who should be able to provide its troops with the right equipment in the right quantities it needs.

ropebag
11th August 2019, 09:24
We used three interlocking models in Afghanistan - a) numerou static, two/whatever 105mm gun firebases on hilltops to provide a network of fires over the AO, b) mobile two/whatever gun firebases moved around by helicopter - you could have two guns, each firing at 10 rounds a minute within 2 minutes or so of the first gun touching the ground, and you could have them airborne again within two minutes of the last round leaving the muzzle, and it wouldn't be unusual for a gun troop to move half a dozen times in a day to cover patrols and developing contacts - and c) static, but positioned, long ranged systems like GMLRS and SpikeNLOS, that provided specialist, precision fires within the AO.

Moving Exactor (SpikeNLOS) around is child's play - an AW139 could move the firing post and crew in one hop...

EUFighter
13th August 2019, 21:01
Talking of NLOS, there was even a light weight version developed with a weight of 1350kg, easily within the capability of am AW-139. The idea behind is to have mobile artillery for SOF's.

https://defense-update.com/20190204_spikenlos-tomcar.html

Archimedes
13th August 2019, 23:35
True a 105LG could not even cover the relatively small operational area in the UNIFIL or UNDOF missions for that a modern 155mm 52 cal with ERBB would be needed.


L118s could easily cover the Irish AO. The attached map shows the area within 17.2km of a battery at the Irish HQ (max range of the standard ammo). Planning range would be about 10% less. Greater range is available with basebleed ammo. As ropebag pointed out, the area covered can be greatly increased by dispersing the battery into interlocking 2-gun firebases.

As others have pointed out, the reasons that they were never brought probably had more to do with politics than logistics or operational capability.

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8682&d=1565735207

DeV
14th August 2019, 08:33
An artillery battery is on the Irish Palette of forces for deployment.

However, our guns don’t have the updated systems like RA guns and the 120 mortars have a large danger area. In a PSO that is a consideration.

Plus is there the demand? Normally it is infantry that is more in demand

ropebag
14th August 2019, 09:46
...Plus is there the demand? Normally it is infantry that is more in demand

Wrong way around.

The UN is sufficiently desperate for competent forces that will fulfill the mandate that they will take what they're offered.

If the Irish government says that they they will offer X force, but that that force will contain an Artillery Bty, and the force is offered on a 'whole force', take-it-or-leave-it basis, the UN will still take it.

The IG is the arbitor of what form it's deployed forces take and what force protection measures it's forces require - not a Thai UN administrator or Nigerian Staff Officer.

This isn't a new thing, it's merely a continuation of existing, and long standing government policy - the IG chooses, on a case by case basis, to offer, or not offer, forces to UN and EU operations as it sees fit according to the nature and objectives of each operation. There's already quite a bit of 'no thanks, it's not for us....' in deciding whether Irish forces should be involved in this or that operation.

Archimedes
14th August 2019, 10:21
However, our guns don’t have the updated systems like RA guns and the 120 mortars have a large danger area. In a PSO that is a consideration.


The big advantage of the LINAPS system that the UK uses is that the fixation and orientation of the gun is done for you.
You can drop it off of the tow hitch and be ready to fire are soon as you can swing the barrel, there is no need for laying out.

In any potential L118 deployment by the Irish DF, the guns would likely be static and already laid out.
In the static case, using optical sights is only marginally slower (if at all) than usiing LINAPS.

As for danger area, the L118 is more accurate than a 120mm mortar so if the worry is that civilians are in the vicinity, the L118 is a much better choice for fire support that the mortars that are currently being deployed. There is little chance of those mortars ever firing HE and they are there primarily for illumination purposes.

Poiuyt
16th August 2019, 10:31
Am I dreaming or didn't I see an article in An Cosantoir once about an Artillery shoort in UNIFIL with 120mm Mortars? They were using illum rounds and that may have been all they were allowed to have but they def had mortars of some type.

DeV
16th August 2019, 10:42
Am I dreaming or didn't I see an article in An Cosantoir once about an Artillery shoort in UNIFIL with 120mm Mortars? They were using illum rounds and that may have been all they were allowed to have but they def had mortars of some type.

The Brandt was definitely used in UNIFIL up until at least the 90s