PDA

View Full Version : Scorpion replacment?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Silver
20th November 2004, 00:44
Is there any plan to upgrade the Scorpions ?

I recall reading (about 2 years ago) that it would cost circa €200,000 per vehicle to do so.

Seeing as it was considered sending the Scorpions to Liberia, is the DoD finally admitting that there is a place for tracked vehicles in the Army ?

http://irish.typepad.com/photos/events/scorpiontank-thumb.jpg (http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/army/alvis.shtml)

andy
20th November 2004, 04:32
january i heard

Docman
20th November 2004, 04:49
Yes

What would the upgrade involve? Anything like the Sabre

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/gallery/warminster/images/0123815.jpg

Goldie fish
20th November 2004, 05:31
Diesel engine...fume extractor on the turret,new tracks....(That are cheaper to replace when worn).

FMolloy
20th November 2004, 20:11
Is there not an armour upgrade on the cards as well?

Come-quickly
20th November 2004, 20:12
Comms upgrades are the main thing afaik

mutter nutter
20th November 2004, 21:19
but their not putting in any thing like the "night elbow" Night vision system or laser range finder from the AML 20/90's then?

Come-quickly
20th November 2004, 21:33
Presumably they'll do the minimum, the original planned upgrade was basically a full refit with new weapons, sensors, running systems and powerpack as well as comms.
The story I heard only mentioned comms but its safe to assume that the dieselisation is a prerequisite.

The price tag mooted for the full upgrade was something like 7m for the fleet but there was no funding found and there were various rumours of the fleet being scrapped.
As to why the upgrade is going ahead, look at the pics that came out of wheeled vehicles floundering on the "roads" in Liberia, time to invest in those BV 210s methinks.
As to why upgrade w

ODIN
21st November 2004, 19:30
but their not putting in any thing like the "night elbow" Night vision system or laser range finder from the AML 20/90's then?
I hear they were

rod and serpent
21st November 2004, 22:07
Scorpions now thats a rave from the grave.

Goldie fish
21st November 2004, 22:25
Wheeled Vehicles floundering? Where?

ias
17th February 2005, 19:03
I just read in "Battlespace", though only available if you Google Search, steyr cvr(t) ricardo ireland, and read the cache version, that Ireland is a customer for "Ricardos", the company that sold the DF the Ford F-350s for the ARW, Scorpion upgrade. The reason for the "" is because it appears, on reliable information, that the originators of the upgrade was actually an Irish company.

Here's a copy/paste of a portion of the article (dated Sep. 2004):

"Since 2003 they have converted over 400 vehicles for military applications including 250 for Special Forces including, UK, Ireland, the Dutch Marines and Italy. ........ An interesting project was that to dieselise the CVR(T)range of armoured vehicles for the Nigerian Army. "We were the original bidders against Alvis for the Steyr diesel engine to replace the jaguar in the MoD's CVR(T) fleet. After extensive trails the MoD chose the Alvis solution. We believed that our Steyr solution proved unbeatable and to that end we have been marketing this to other CVR(T) users such as Nigeria, where we have an ongoing contract to convert vehicles across the range and Ireland. We are hopeful of other customers," Tarry said."

As you can see the report is not clear if the Scorpions will only get an engine upgrade or if tracks, weapon, armour etc. will be upgraded (apparently Nigeria also upgraded the main armament from the 76mm to a Cockerill Mk3 90mm.

Does anyone know anything further?

IAS

hptmurphy
18th February 2005, 02:52
there are no plans to up grade the weapon and fume extractor as thsi ws the primary caise for the Brits getting rid of their scorpions. The PDF have already carried out a fume extrctor mod. All that reamnains is an engine change and a new coms fit....the problem with the slab on armour is an increase in weight whould much reduce the performnace of the vehicle.

The emphasis on replaving the jaguar engine is the the army want to phase out petrol altogether...and have a complete diesel powered fleet....even motorbikes are heading in this direction. Given the type of operation carried out the RM with the new grade Badwagon ..maybe this is what we should be looking at to replace the Scorpion ...similar performance and agility..

Steamy Window
18th February 2005, 09:06
.the problem with the slab on armour is an increase in weight whould much reduce the performnace of the vehicle.


by that do you mean ERA?

ias
18th February 2005, 15:31
I imagine HPT is talking about passive armour, I've never heard of anyone putting ERA on a Scorpion.

Incidentally, one of the benefits of replacing the Jag engine with the Steyr is that the Steyr is considerably lighter but with a similar performance and therefore extra armour can be added without loss of performance. A Steyr powered Scorpion set a new world record as the fastest Tank (yes tank, CVR(T) being the British Army designation and they do not use the Steyr powered version).

IAS

Viking
29th December 2005, 01:24
What’s the story with replacing the Scorpions? Are they becoming obsolete? The UK have developed the “Sabre” from a Scorpion body (dieselised engine, I think) and Fox turret, would that be a runner?

The Blue Max
29th December 2005, 12:18
Well info i have to hand i was told that the Scorps are here to stay and that they are to be upgraded with a diesel engine and modern sights and sensors and that the cav were thinking about purchasing some form IRR/Thermal Imagining type reducer camouflage type sheet (theres probley a proper name for it but i forget) the possibility of changing the 76mm gun for a 90mm gun has been decided against and that 76s is viewed as good support weapon when working alongside mechanised infantry. Now all this information could have changed but it has been said to me by several sources most recently was last november on the PSO EX in The Fury Glen!!! Oh the Sabre is round year nearly as long as the Scorps I think there just scorps with 30mm cannon something we just aquired with the new Mowags the only difference with the Sabre being Tracked and CVR-T compared to the Mowag APCs.

sledger
29th December 2005, 12:49
I'd say there looking at the Saab Barracuda Camo system, see below:


Saab Barracuda LLC, which was acquired from BAE Systems in 2002 and which is a fully owned subsidiary of Saab Barracuda AB, produces ultra-light camouflage netting systems. ULCANS prevents detection by enemy sensors in all environments and climates. The systems provide an advanced protection against detection in the visual, near infrared, thermal infrared and the radar ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Saab Barracuda AB is located in Gamleby, Sweden, where it develops, manufactures and markets signature-matched products for multi-spectral protection against detection and identification. The company is a world-leader in its field, with subsidiaries in five countries and representatives and customers in fifty countries.

The Blue Max
29th December 2005, 13:24
I have it upstairs in an issue of Combat And Survival somewhere it discusses such equipment i'll have to dig it out... (Ponders Where My Shovel Argh...)

Goldie fish
29th December 2005, 13:30
Way off the mark there. Expect to be dissapointed.

The Blue Max
29th December 2005, 13:37
Thanks God not in the Cav so i only say wat I hear after it being confirmed these are just plans not confirmed options but the Cavarly were considerin it, they even published these idea in kind of commemorate hand out thing it was to do with the Anniversary Of The Cavarly Corps it was few years old but picked it up one day in the McKee. (Swiped) lol but that what they seem to belive in the Cav might happen to the Cav to the Scorps from what i heard from personnel in the curragh when i was there in the summer aswell as what i was told by Seniour NCOs from Cav Unit PDF when was on PSO EX in november..

FMolloy
29th December 2005, 19:50
Those upgrades have been talked about for a long time, there's nothing new here.

ldman60119
30th December 2005, 19:51
How about getting a new vehicle like the Stryker or LAV-25? The Scorpions a great AFV, but it should be retired by now. It seems like a lot of money to spend to refurbish them. For 1.5 million you could get a new Bradley M2 or M3 and a used one for a lot less. I operated one in Iraq and they are one hell of a vechile. You have the 25mm Chain gun, a 7.62 and and TOWs. During the 1991 Gulf War they took out more tanks than the M1s did. A Bradley is not a tank, but neither is the Scorpion.


I know it cost more money than an upgrade, but since the Scorpins are not being used in a combat/peackeeping mission at the moment, save the money and buy a different AFV. The cheapest thing would be to use armored humvees with TOWs or MK-19s.

Goldie fish
30th December 2005, 19:56
Possibly why the Mowag Piranha with the 30mm Cannon is being selected. It is similar to the Stryker/Lav in many ways. As for the Bradley, have you seen "The Pentagon Wars"? I would have more confidence in the Warrior, if a tracked afv was being considered as a replacement, or better yet, a CV90. But thats getting into "TANKS" territory.

As an aside, the Hughes Chain Gun was trialled on a Panhard AML many many years ago when a replacement for the 60mm Mortar turret was being considered. I don't know what the outcome of the testing was, but needless to say, the 60mm turret was not replaced until about 15 years later with the 20mm cannon.

There is mentioned elsewhere the Competition that was held for the Light Tactical Armoured vehicle, which would have been a humvee type vehicle, with a remotely operated HMG. Though many expected the MOWAG EAGLE IV to succeed, the competition was closed with no successful bidders. All mentioned on another thread in this section.

ldman60119
30th December 2005, 21:22
I agree about the history of the Bradley, of course that was more than 25 years ago. I have seen and experienced the Bradley take many hits from small arms/RPGs/IEDs and live to tell about it.

Do the Scorpions deploy for peacekeeping missions? Even in places like Africa there is many nutjobs running around with RPGs.

However you can take any AFV and make it 10x stronger. Look at what the Isrealis and South Africa have done with theirs.

From my AFV experience, if you are to upgrade the Scorpions you have to do several things. Better armor, better engine, more blast resistant track, night vision.

Are the Irish Scorpions 76mm or 90mm versions? If they are 76mm you are probably better of leaving it that way. Against a MBT like the M-1 its not going to make that much of a difference. And since MBT are not the main threat, having a 76mm cannon with more ammo would probably be more useful. You can take out other AFVs, trucks, bunkers. etc

hptmurphy
30th December 2005, 22:53
For aguy who is intersted in Irish military history...you seem to read very little...

ldman60119
30th December 2005, 23:26
Wow murphy, what a great thought. No content, no support for your comment. 'I'd tink i cans reedes'

Anyway, do the Scorpions have night vision gear? If they do I am sure that it can be upgraded even further. Also perhaps a GPS system, considering they would have a recon role.

Gasplug
30th December 2005, 23:41
Mod: unnecessary comments removed


i thought it was confirmed some time ago that the scorpions were being scrapped/sold/becoming targets in the glen?? :confused:

The Blue Max
30th December 2005, 23:50
Well it would be great to see the Scorps serve overseas and this could be a poosibility i presume with the Cavarlys new enhanced Recce Role.Like i said the 76s is viewed internationally as a great support weapen working alongside the likes of Mechanised Infantry (APC Mounted e.g Mowags Units) the Scorps cant be that much over 15/18 years old can they?? and would have prodominatly been used for training so with a new upgrade, they could easily serve for another 10-12 years.

ldman60119
31st December 2005, 00:22
Gasplug, are the Scropions still fully operational?

hptmurphy
31st December 2005, 00:56
The Irssh army Scorpions haven't and won't serve overseas in their current configuration...and that won't change any time soon....For vehicles of their era they were above average.the only reason they have survived is that the fume extractor problem was solved. The AML 90 is a superior weapons platform...they were never meant to be used as tanks....look at the designation...Tanks are fighting vehicles...scorpions are recce vehicles.

The last tanks we deployed were comets...three generations behind any current MBT. The current status of The Irish defence forces is as an infantry based force with armored recce elemnets.

Given your interest in the DF I thought you would have seen this aread whta our capabilities and intentions are. the cavary Corps in the Df are purely intended as recce...and ven that role has been enhanced toward spec ops and not armoured warfare.
I tend to tire of people equating our armoured capabilities to Armoured fighting units rather than recce roles. We have never had that capability. The original intention for having tanks was to train non mechanised units how to deploy against them...Maybe further reading should be recommended.

As for Mowags with or without guns..they are battlefield taxis with intent on survivability not as offensive fighting units.Now with all the action you have seen please tell me where the Irish could fit in to any armoured warfare role in their current operational status. We have not or will not in the forseable future have such capabilities...after all our forces are organised to defend against internal agression and provide peace keeping forces...we leave the war stuff up to others.

ldman60119
31st December 2005, 01:11
I am not fully read up on EVERY aspect of the Irish military. Sorry I don't know everything. I will settle for knowing almost everything. For further reading you might want to take a look at this, you can download it-https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/altfmt/7668-1

I have been in a Cav/Recon unit. If you are up at the front, you will get shoot at. Military 101. You still need to train how to fight, even if it is only a recon mission

hptmurphy
31st December 2005, 02:53
I know how to fight....I won't ever be in action..mny time has passed

Goldie fish
31st December 2005, 03:11
Wow murphy, what a great thought. No content, no support for your comment. 'I'd tink i cans reedes'

Anyway, do the Scorpions have night vision gear? If they do I am sure that it can be upgraded even further. Also perhaps a GPS system, considering they would have a recon role.

Some Irish Scorpion CVRT(2) are fitted with a laser range finder as standard, but most are not. They are fitted with the L23A1 76mm gun.
As for a GPS system, we have these in Ireland too. I even have one myself. Why some of us even know how to use one.
I think Garmin have been providing GPS to the DF for many years now. But you can't beat a good map and someone who knows how to use it for when the US decide to switch of the GPS satellite network.

The Blue Max
31st December 2005, 12:52
Exactly what the Army should be looking to retaining the Alvis Scorpians CVR-Ts or "Combat Vechicle Recconaissance-Tracked" with upgrade thats still pipeline as previously disscussed would provide the basis for re-engined,better communications fit (up-to minute secure intelligence flow back to HQ),better Thermal imaging equipment,sensors, new laser range finder,new thermal imaging/IRR reducer camouflague cover,Applique Armour.rubber tracks (reducing weight,noise and footprint of vechicle) and it already great support weapon in the shape of the 76mm gun.

All this to me it would give the Cavarly Corps a great assets in its new enhanced role of Armoured Recce especially in Peace Support Operations (PSO) either with the EU/UNSAS etc.. and it has the spped to keep up with the likes of the Mowag as Murp correctly put it the Troops "Taxi Of BattleField''

hptmurphy
31st December 2005, 14:34
Ah goldie thats why I as cavalry recce sergeant have this little black thing with the screen and numbers fixed to the rail in a nissan....always wondered what it was...I knew I bought it for something...

Maps ..the army has maps...and here was I buying my own all along....have they got guns too?

Spook
31st December 2005, 14:46
This question may already have been answered.....during the 80's the scorpions gained a .50 on the turret,thet seemed to keep these for a few years but I have not seen them fitted for many years..any reason why they were removed.
Happy new year all :smile:

Goldie fish
31st December 2005, 14:51
Maps ..the army has maps...and here was I buying my own all along....have they got guns too?

No, Its the artillery that has guns...

futurepilot
31st December 2005, 16:04
This question may already have been answered.....during the 80's the scorpions gained a .50 on the turret,thet seemed to keep these for a few years but I have not seen them fitted for many years..any reason why they were removed.
Happy new year all :smile:
According to Karl Martins book, The .50 cal raised the profile of the Scorpian dramatically and so was discontinued.

Måk
31st December 2005, 17:50
The 25mm armed AML-60 was trialled in the French T-25 turret during 1986. The following year trials were carried out with a 30mm armed Schimitar turret on the same vehicle type.

Regards

Måk

hptmurphy
1st January 2006, 00:50
The Rarden on the scimitar is fed from a three round clip so is totally obselete...as for the french thingy...well the 20mm on the 'new' turrets is a copy of the french 'Defa'and is also obslete...so next option please?

spider
5th January 2006, 10:55
http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/PWiesel.html

Would these serve as potential replacements for the Scorpion ?? Small, very light, fast, airportable, various weapon fits, APC versions and very importantly, German so they should'nt break down.

About 1 million euro each, probably depending on theweapon fit.

For the light recce role, 20mm cannon and TOW versions ?

The Blue Max
5th January 2006, 14:45
Personnally I think at the momment there is not a decent replace for the scorps on the market its either going to be to light such as the German Wiesel or slightly to big with the Swedich CV90 class of tracked armoured vechicles. personnally i prefer the CV90 class if they ever replaced the Scorps in 5/10 years time but i still think it would be better investment to upgrade the Scorps to the Scorpian 2000 CVR(T) Standard as this would provide us with a much better armoured recce platform than anything else currently available.

Goldie fish
5th January 2006, 20:07
Scorps to the Scorpian 2000 CVR(T) Standard as this would provide us with a much better armoured recce platform than anything else currently available.

Why do you think this?

And it's SCORPION

The Blue Max
6th January 2006, 00:29
Im from County Dublin so its what we call it here LOL!! "Scor-pians"

I think it is a great platform for Armoured Recce as it has the capability to acces all aspects of a modern battlefield as it is tracked it can can cross bogs were Jeeps/LATVs would sink and flaunder it will beable to access areas of the battlefield that wheeled vechicles simple couldnt reach.

If they were refitted with the new powerpack it could offer a better creep capability (similiar to that of the Mowags) also if was also fitted with new sensor package and Thermal Protective Sheeting and rubber tracks to reduce footprint of the vechicle. It could be a great asset to this newly enhanced recconasaince roles of the Cavarly Corps..

ODIN
15th February 2006, 16:38
I have just spent the last half an hour reading through another sites thread (ie protacpx.com) and mentioned there was the offer of 275 Scorpians from Britian in 2004 which was turned down(imagine, every cav sqn with scorpians). Posted yesterday was that the Scorpians are to be rebuilt

hptmurphy
15th February 2006, 22:14
To Blue max..pity you weren't with the Brits in the falklands then,( they could have done with your expertise)..as they were not deployed operationally there...in contradiction to what the DFTC website says..yes they went..but even the bits were afraid they might vanish without trace in the bogs!

And if they are so brilliant why did they get rid of them ..even after the fume extractor problem was solved..

rod and serpent
15th February 2006, 22:26
http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=1440&stc=1&d=1140042321

yellowjacket
15th February 2006, 23:09
as they were not deployed operationally there...in contradiction to what the DFTC website says..yes they went..but even the bits were afraid they might vanish without trace in the bogs!

Don't go telling that to the Blues & Royals..


http://www.naval-history.net/F57wireless.htm

http://www.naval-history.net/F57wireless.htm

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Wireless-Ridge.htm

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/MarchStanley.htm

http://www.war-art.com/falklands_war.htm

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/scor34.gif

hptmurphy
15th February 2006, 23:20
Only used in mopping up ops...Blues and royals would be the first to admit it.....they weren't deployed in their intended role
In hind sight ..the Band Rs would have been better of on horse back!

spider
15th February 2006, 23:50
http://www.proletariatcomics.com/working/MiscellaneousWriting/2%20Para.pdf

Interesting article. I am almost certain there was a brief Scorpion v Panhard AML 90 engagement in the Falklands, can't find any references to it tonight but I will dig out a few old books and have a look.

GoneToTheCanner
15th February 2006, 23:59
Hi there
I read somwhere that the Scorpion/Scimitar crews were dreading an encounter with the AML-90s on the basis that the 90mm gun outranged the CVR(T)s guns. The AMLs were not, as far as I know, deployed off firm ground and were captured intact. From a later war, I recall a Scimitar crew in Bosnia, in a turret-top TV interview, bemoaning the lack of the 76mm gun for bunker-busting.They demonstrated this by shooting up a Serbian bunker and not causing any damage to the interior. Incidentally, the Rarden magazine can hold at least three or four 30mm clips at once and give a modicum of sustained fire.Didn't one get credited with shooting down a Skyhawk in the Falklands? Must be some good, after all.
regards
GttC

California Tanker
16th February 2006, 00:14
Incidentally, the Rarden magazine can hold at least three or four 30mm clips at once and give a modicum of sustained fire.Didn't one get credited with shooting down a Skyhawk in the Falklands? Must be some good, after all.
regards
GttC

Two clips. Six rounds total. Same as all the other Rarden-armed vehicles.

NTM

HE_Load
16th February 2006, 09:26
Only used in mopping up ops.

Wrong


Blues and royals would be the first to admit it
No they would not, have you spoken to them about it?



they weren't deployed in their intended role


Yes they were...if you are talking from an Armd Recce point of view there are many more considerations to be taken account of: the fluidity of the conflict, battle org etc, as opposed to the terrain factor which you have singled out.



In hind sight ..the Band Rs would have been better of on horse back!


... WTF over.


"After 2 Para has finished marching that Sunday evening (13th) from Furze Bush Pass, supporting fire is opened on 'Rough Diamond' at 9.15 pm, and 30 minutes later, D Coy crosses its start line backed up by the fire of four Scimitars and Scorpions". This is not a "mopping up" role.


http://www.war-art.com/dhm1390.jpg

hptmurphy
16th February 2006, 10:33
Not its not a mopping up role......merely an artists rendition....and it certainly ain't Armoured Recce!
There was a certain misconception that people had at the time regarding the deployability of AMLs. Yes in certain situations they would have been superior to the CVRTs but as the south africans had leaerned with the ELAND...take them off road...especially into wet areas and you are in big trouble.

As for fire power they are about equal and it would have been down to tactics and training in any fighting..the CVRTs having the greater mobility off road....and speed on road.....but lacking the manoueverability of the AMLs.

As in all forms of mechanised warfare ..if you don't have the definete edge in fire power and manouverability ..you don't engage.

As for the horse element what was intended was under the conditions ..given the sudden loss of helios...lack of cross country mobilty except on foot....and general lack of confidence in the armoured option ...because of the battle ..or lack of consideration....horseback mounted troops would probably have had greater mobilty than other methods available at the time.

Given that the land based engagements were a very low tech affair and the Brits Regular forces.5 brigade, were so far up their own arses about their own capabilities.....shortages of ammunition..etc...it was a damn close run thing as in the words of one authour.

I agree with Murph the armour played a negligble part in the whole thing and was only deployed in the latter stages instead of being deployed ahead of any brigade as per the concept of Armoured recon...rather than being used as fire support as depicted in the rendering...which is only a secondary tasking of any Cavalry unit...which The Blues and Royals are!

It is wrong to depict these vehiclers as force mulitpliers..as they were only used as support.

hptmurphy
16th February 2006, 10:58
having read the attachment at some lenght..I still maintain the case that the CVRTs were not deployed in their intend role as Recce vehicles are were employed as fire support vehicles...so that role was not the primary intended role of any cavalry unit.

Not wanting to take from that role...it would show that the commanders as ususal..as in all armies oour own included are slow to fully utilise Cavalry to its maximum potential and usualy only give them singular taskings rather than the multi tasking which they train for.

Cav can be formidible force mutipliers when deployed correctly..but are under utilised when used in imitation roles such as fire support...flank protect and their many other roles,
The B and Rs certainly deemed this to be the case on their return from the falklands as they felt if the battlefield commanders had understod their multiple capabilities fully they would have been more usefully deployed in all types of engagements.
I am not trying to under mine the roles carried out..just stating that the Skorpion..its crews and capabilities...as our own cavalry units are rarely deployed to their full potential..with the exception in our own armies case of a recent operation in liberia.

Even if you want to examine their role overseas at the moment..they mainly carry out convoy protection duties....which again is a secondary role..purely suited to wheeled rather than tracked vehicles.

Bosco
16th February 2006, 11:35
As for the horse element what was intended was under the conditions ..given the sudden loss of helios...lack of cross country mobilty except on foot....and general lack of confidence in the armoured option ...because of the battle ..or lack of consideration....horseback mounted troops would probably have had greater mobilty than other methods available at the time.
.

I've heard of this in the Rhodesian bush war in the 80's, they used troops on horseback to track and insurgents and call in the fireforces on their positions. Cannot remember what the particlar unit was called will try and find it out.

hptmurphy
16th February 2006, 12:10
Greys Scouts being the unit in Rhodesia...the Yanks also used them in Afghanistan.

hptmurphy
16th February 2006, 13:14
Having just checked it out..there was a total of 4 scorpions and 4 scimitars and 1 sultan deployed to the falklands. These were split into two troops..of two types per troop.

They were used as fire support...and taxis.

One was lost to an ani personel mine...and one suffered gear box failure.

There were no inter armour engagements as the Argie AML 90s never left Stanley.

The Blues and Royals Troop were awarded the grand total of three mentions in dispactches..suffered no casualties..fire 120 rounds of amo per scorion......and the troop was comanded by LT Ian Jones.

HE_Load
16th February 2006, 13:26
would have been down to tactics and training in any fighting
This is a huge factor in any conflict.


the CVRTs having the greater mobility off road....and speed on road.....but lacking the manoueverability of the AMLs.

CVRT far out manoeuvre an AML at every level Harmon on road/ off road, speed of engagement, ability to break contact etc.


horseback mounted troops would probably have had greater mobilty than other methods available at the time.

Yes using them for hauling supplies etc may be used in poor terrain e.g Afganistan. Using them in high intensity conflict....not a good option, direct and indirect fires in modern conflict would wreak havoc.Planning and logistical considerations: Ride up to assy area leave the horses and advance to contact?Noise discipline..loss of the element of surprise before it gets "noisy" with arty fire.Many many more considerations that would need to be taken into account.Thats another topic.


It is wrong to depict these vehiclers as force mulitpliers..as they were only used as support

These vehicles were a HUGE force multiplier
"...by which time 2 Para has taken the whole feature at a cost of three men killed, considerably aided by the fire of the Scorpions and Scimitars ".
Armoured vehicles are a force multiplier when used in the fire support role, they had a huge impact in this engagement., along with other all arms employed. Your argument is absolutely flawed here.


I still maintain the case that the CVRTs were not deployed in their intend role as Recce vehicles are were employed as fire support vehicles...so that role was not the primary intended role of any cavalry unit.


I disagree once more, they British Forces had a very good idea as to the location of Argentine positions, they had obtained this information from SF sources on the ground and recce which was conducted by organic ground forces as well as aerial recon. The use of Armd recce was not essential in this case, why expose the vehicles to Argentine defensive fires. I would agree with how the commander employed them, he was successful in his mission.


The B and Rs certainly deemed this to be the case on their return from the falklands as they felt if the battlefield commanders had understod their multiple capabilities fully they would have been more usefully deployed in all types of engagements.

I have not read of any such observations, yes there may well have been other elements of that conflict where they could have been used and were not. This may be due to a number of variables: Cautious commander etc. Lessons are learned, expierence is gained.


Even if you want to examine their role overseas at the moment..they mainly carry out convoy protection duties....which again is a secondary role__________________


Of course they are conducting one of their secondry roles, they are now working in an area of non-conflict. Things have stabilised, they are there for force protection,the proverbial "hand with big stick".There is no need for conduct of Armd Recce operations in that A.O. other than route recce maybe.


..purely suited to wheeled rather than tracked vehicles.

Another alternate argument where I disagree with you. The majority of the tracks in Liberia away from the more urban populated districts actually favour tracked platforms due to the tropical climate and its effects on dirt tracks making them very much anti wheel.

hptmurphy
16th February 2006, 14:00
" have not read of any such observations, yes there may well have been other elements of that conflict where they could have been used and were not. This may be due to a number of variables: Cautious commander etc. Lessons are learned, expierence is gained."

Was referred to in Marshall Cavendishes Falklands war published in 82. It also acknowledges that the force commander was unsure what to do with the actual vehicles and hence deployed them to fire support roles.

The wheeled option in Liberia is the most cost effective one due to low life and levels of spares available.

As per used in accessible areas in Rhodesia.....in the recce role...adversly to your comment

"Ride up to assy area leave the horses and advance to contact?Noise discipline..loss of the element of surprise before it gets "noisy" with arty fire.Many many more considerations that would need to be taken into account.Thats another topic."

"
These vehicles were a HUGE force multiplier"

Eight vehicles could hardly be quantified as a huge force multiplier when you have deployed against twice your strength 7 thousand miles from home .

"

hptmurphy
16th February 2006, 14:04
The above mentioned reference dedicates one paragraph to the deployment of armour during the Falklands war and attritubutes its individual action as purely fire support operation..and taxiing....and not as the vehicles( Scimitars included) were employed for.

HE_Load
16th February 2006, 15:14
Eight vehicles could hardly be quantified as a huge force multiplier when you have deployed against twice your strength 7 thousand miles from home .


Yes they can when employed with all other all arms i.e combined arms operations and they did.


The above mentioned reference dedicates one paragraph to the deployment of armour during the Falklands war and attritubutes its individual action as purely fire support operation..and taxiing....and not as the vehicles( Scimitars included) were employed for.
This publication is by no means the gospel on the conflict, the author is giving his view in hindsight.
The vehicles were employed effectively for that phase of operations. The commander used his asset as he seen fit. as I have mentioned previously yes they may have been used for other roles and may have proved very effective. Mines fields, Argentine anti-armour capabilites coupled with terrain issues, the field commander would have to have to paid close attention to these considerations.


As per used in accessible areas in Rhodesia.....in the recce role...adversly to your comment



Rhodesia was counter Insurgency (COIN), the Sealous Scouts were conducting COIN operations, Greys Scouts were a unit operating as a sub-unit, Mounted Infantry they were referred to as I believe. They operated as a tracker unit and guided in stronger forces once a terrorist unit was located.Horse have their place on the battlefield under certain conditions in certain conflicts. The Falklands was High Intensity conflict, different ballgame. ** Gone off topic there ..apologies..**


The wheeled option in Liberia is the most cost effective one due to low life and levels of spares available.

Focus here...cost effective...(in your opinion) may not be the most suitable though.


We have also drifted off topic from Falklands war to battlefield employment of Horses. Back to the main topic I say.

hptmurphy
16th February 2006, 15:23
Which was the up grade of scorpions.....interesting discussion though.

The Marshall cavendish publication was the most recent after the cessation of hostilities and is in my opinion one of the most generally comprehensive works available. Other works focusssed on individual aspects. This one gave a good over view.

See as you know your stuff in depth and are well able to back up your opinions......whats next.....

Welcome BTW.

HE_Load
16th February 2006, 15:32
See as you know your stuff in depth and are well able to back up your opinions......whats next.....

Welcome BTW.

Thank's Harmon. Great to see an individual capable of intelligent discussion. Long live CVR(T) i say!

Aidan
16th February 2006, 15:47
Horses schmorses! What about the rebuild for the Scorpions?

California Tanker
16th February 2006, 16:22
If you've got the only tank around, it doesn't matter if it's not a particularly capable one. It's very scary, and is capable of killing lots of the enemy.

Part of the reason the Scorps weren't used much until the end was also that a lot of the battles were within range of the warships which provided NGS, far more effective than the odd 76mm or 30mm round.

I believe you'll find that the ninth CVR(T) was a Sampson (Recovery vehicle) not a Sultan (command vehicle)

NTM

yellowjacket
16th February 2006, 16:57
What about the rebuild for the Scorpions?

I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable here, but I understand that subject is still up in the air, and no decision has been made. A large number of proposals have been in the frame, ranging from the minimal to the radical.

Docman
17th February 2006, 00:47
Having just checked it out..there was a total of 4 scorpions and 4 scimitars and 1 sultan deployed to the falklands. These were split into two troops..of two types per troop.........and the troop was comanded by LT Ian Jones.

2 troops from B Sqn, the Blues and Royals were involved attached to 3 Cmdo Bde. Each Troop had 2 Scorpions and 2 Scimitars. A Samson recovery vehicle was also deployed. 3 troop was commanded by Lt Mark Coreth and 4 troop by Lt Lord Robin Inness-Ker.

During the San Carlos landing, Scorpions and Scimitars were transported in LCUs in the initial landings with their guns trained over the ramps in an effort to provide extra fire support to the landings. Scimitars also successfully engaged Agentinian planes later in the campaign

The unit suffered greatly from the fact that it was commanded by a Lt and had no more senior rank in what was basically an Infantry Bde. 3 Commando officers were unsure as to how to use them and were not sure that they were of any use at all in the Falklands Terrain. The biggest attack that they were involved in was 2 Paras attack on Wireless ridge where 4 troop provided fire support. While they were initially only supposed to provide support during the initial part of the attack, They proved immensely useful as they were able to see their targets using NVE and provided extremely accurate direct fire at all times to the Paras. As the battle progressed, the troop was actually able, despite predictions to the contrary, to make it all the way up the first summit and provided fire support throughout D Coy, 2 paras attack on the main ridge. Such was 2 Paras love of the Troop for the support that was given that they were given the honour of leading 2 Para into Port Stanley flying the Regimental flag. However it is noted that the Paras love of the Troop also came from the fact that they transported many weary troops across the formidable terrain.

The Blues and Royals were also involved in 3 Paras attack on Mount Longdon and The Scots Guards attack on Tumbledown. Here they launched a diversionary attack past Mount William towards Port Stanly supported by a Recce Pl of the Scot Guards. The attack is reputed to have cause consternation in Stanley as Argentian troops rushed to defend against an armoured assault into Stanley that never came thereby successfully pulling away troops that could otherwise have been used to reinforce Mt Tumbledown.

Gunner Who?
18th February 2006, 04:01
Saw an BBC interview with Julian Thomson , who was I think the field commander in the Falklands War, he was asked what in hindsight he would have done differently. His answer was that he would have used the Scorpions more widely as he underestimated their usefulness.

He is not alone in that , we all do it, The rough terrain crossing ability of those AFVs is truely astonishing.

Bosco
18th February 2006, 04:55
Greys Scouts being the unit in Rhodesia

They are the boys I was on about I got onto my aunt, she said they were used a lot to track the terrs(her words not mine) once they found them they called in the Fireforces(para's or heli borne troops that seriously ****ed up the bad guys). Off topic I know.

California Tanker
18th February 2006, 08:07
Have the claims of effeciveness of the Scimitars vs Aircraft in the Falklands actually been verified? Or is it just a bit of a brag by the crews? I'm having some difficulty in accepting that a hand-fed (and hand-cranked) cannon with all of six rounds in it, could be a viable weapon against anything that wasn't headed directly for it.

NTM

GoneToTheCanner
19th February 2006, 02:18
Hi Cal et al
The story goes that the Scimitar Gunner was looking thru his sight and suddenly saw the arse-end of a Skyhawk and simply fired.One round went up the tailpipe and blew the back end of the turbine to pieces.The pilot realised his engine was useless and ejected and was taken alive.I'm sure this can be traced and confirmed.
GttC

spider
19th February 2006, 13:23
I emailed the Bovington Tank Museum re my query about a Scorpion v Panhard engagement. They say it did'nt happen, apologios !!!

I thought I had read somewhere that a brief contact occurred, with no hits on either side. Wrong again.

California Tanker
19th February 2006, 16:52
The two units might have met each other. Apparently the AML crews grabbed their submachineguns and attempted a dismounted attack for some reason.

NTM

Bam Bam
19th February 2006, 17:15
Maybe they got stuck in the mud :)

hptmurphy
20th February 2006, 10:49
Sorry Docman. But the man did wonders given he was a lowly lieutenant .I got the name wrong. So aplogies alround.

Its amazing to see how concepts of operations have developed since the falklands.May be a ltle war is a good thing from time to time....no matter how realistic training may seem ..there is nothing like a shooting match for the paced to be upped.

hptmurphy
20th February 2006, 10:53
Just a thought..at 200,000 euro per upgarde and given that the AmL 60s were alread obselte after the upgrades is it not a waste of time. Or is it a sign of unsureity in the Army ...upgrade because we have then...in fear that if we write them off we may get nothing to replace them..as i said ..just a thought.

Big Al
20th February 2006, 11:47
Just a thought..at 200,000 euro per upgarde and given that the AmL 60s were alread obselte after the upgrades is it not a waste of time. Or is it a sign of unsureity in the Army ...upgrade because we have then...in fear that if we write them off we may get nothing to replace them..as i said ..just a thought.

This it in a nutshell, the old public service problem, spend the budget this year or they will reduce our budget next year....

thebig C
30th March 2007, 11:19
Re the question of the 'correct' role of CVR(T)s, the British have created Medium Armour Squadrons in three of their armoured regiments. These squadrons are equipped with Scimitars and their main mission is to provide direct fire support for light role infantry.

ODIN
30th March 2007, 11:37
so what is your question?

ODIN
30th March 2007, 11:54
ah my bad....oops

mutter nutter
29th May 2007, 23:34
I was just wondering, did the Army ever find a solution to the problem with the 76mm gun on the Scorpion?

hedgehog
30th May 2007, 00:42
no,

now off to bed with you

Goldie fish
30th May 2007, 05:32
Problem? What Problem?

B Inman
30th May 2007, 07:26
Problem? What Problem?

At one time there was a problem with fumes in the turret when the 76mm was fired..

It was a big problem for our neighbours on the other island and received coverage in the Defence media including Janes Defence weekly.

womble
30th May 2007, 08:41
what? does it not go bang when you want it to no? is that why they were never deployed abroad?:smile:

Aidan
30th May 2007, 08:42
I assume the question relates to the fume extractor. And the answer is yes.

hptmurphy
30th May 2007, 10:12
Yes they did..hence they are still in service.

thebig C
30th May 2007, 12:45
Can the Irish Scorpions be CBRN-sealed? I think that was part of the problem in the British Army: they couldn't extract the gun fumes if they were in a CBRN closed down environment. That was one of the reasons they replaced the Scorpion's turret with 30mm-equipped turrets from the unsatisfactory Fox armoured cars, which gave them the Sabre, used a recce platoon vehicle in Armoured and Mechanised Infantry battalions. (Similar but not the same as the Scimitars used in Armoured Reconnaissance Regiments.)

mutter nutter
30th May 2007, 19:37
Thank you gentlemen.

DeV
18th June 2007, 15:38
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/scorpion2000.htm
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/Home.htm

Gives good details of the upgrades available

thebig C
18th June 2007, 16:35
From the minutes of a meeting held recently in DFHQ


"…Item 7 on the agenda was the proposal to upgrade the Scorpions, based on the Scorpion 2000 Peacekeeper package offered by Repaircraft Plc. The proposal from the Director of Cavalry included a number of options, including
(a) a limited upgrade to existing vehicles, mainly to improve safety and reduce costs;
(b) the full upgrade, which would also include improvements to armour and weapons;
(c) the full upgrade to existing vehicles, together with the acquisition of a number of extra vehicles, including some modernised Spartan APCs, to complement and support the Scorpions and provide a realistic light armoured cavalry force.

It was noted that the funding requirements for this proposal were not likely to be problematic, in the context of overall DF capital expenditure. It was agreed that the vehicles in DF service were in need of modernisation and upgrading in a number of areas. However, the question was raised as to whether or not the DF should continue to operate tracked vehicles at all, given all the logistical, operational and cost difficulties posed by such vehicles. The likely use of tracked vehicles by the DF in anything other than a training role was questioned. Compatibility with the Piranha and LTAV was also raised as an issue.

In view of the differences of opinion and uncertainty as to future policy re tracked vehicles, the CoS thanked the Director of Cavalry for his well presented and researched proposal, but said the issue clearly required further consideration.

Conclusion: decision deferred.


The next item on the agenda was the wearing of Dutch para wings…… "

Goldie fish
18th June 2007, 19:47
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/scorpion2000.htm
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/Home.htm

Gives good details of the upgrades available

http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/menu1.gif

1 Auxiliary Power Unit / Secondary Generator
2 Night Vision Commanders / Gunners Sights
3 Heavy Duty Air Conditioning
4 Turret Fume Extractor
5 Improved Engine Cooling
6 Brushless Heavy Duty Generator / Regulator
7 Modern Electrical System (DIP-ES)
8 Automatic Fire Suppression System
9 Explosion Suppressant Fuel Cell
10 High Speed Diesel Engine
11 35mm / 90mm Main Gun
12 Laser Rangefinder
13 Drivers Periscope - Day / Night
14 External Pintle Mounted 7.62mm / 0.50" HMG / 40mm AGL
15 Larger / Additional Hull Storage Bins
16 Uprated Suspension
17 Improved Track
18 Appliqué Armour and Spall Liners
19 Turret Power Traverse and Elevation
20 Radio and Intercom
21 Nuclear / Biological / Chemical Pack
22 Computerised Fire Control and Navigation Systems
23 Laser Attack Countermeasures
24 Any special equipment or modification required by Users

(because it took ages to open for me)#

The items in Italics would be what I'd consider a requirement. The other features would add unnecessary weight to what is intended as a light recce vehicle.
Pintle mounted weapons are pointless when you have a perfectly good coax. The notion of using a pintle mounted weapon for AAA is merely a morale booster.
When you don't have a perfectly good coax, you need an even better reverse gear.

warthog
25th June 2007, 16:24
ditch the pintle mounted gpmg and put a 40mm automatic grenade launcher on there,the rangers already have them so it's not beyond imagination and would be a very usable bit of kit

easyrider
31st January 2008, 12:38
Jordanian Scorpion upgrade - note the ATGMs

http://www.kaddb.com/static/images/scorpion.jpg

details at http://www.kaddb.com/static/project9.shtm

Jetjock
1st February 2008, 17:59
Is that a Russian upgrade? The ATGM are Kornets.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/moyen_orient/Jordan/Exhibition/Sofex_2006/images/sofex_2006_Special_forces_operations_defence_exhib ition_Scorpion_CVRT_missile_Kornet_001.jpg

ODIN
1st February 2008, 18:36
Would it be an option for the vehicles we have??

GoneToTheCanner
1st February 2008, 19:31
Hi there
The British found a need in Bosnia for 76mm guntanks as the 30mm was inefficient at bunker-busting, ie, Serbian concrete emplacements withstood the 3cm rounds and they had to use ATGWs to be certain of "opening" the bunkers. Which earned them the ire of Army bean-counters....
regards
GttC

hptmurphy
1st February 2008, 21:20
14 External Pintle Mounted 7.62mm / 0.50" HMG / 40mm AGL

tried but it raised the p-rofile of the crew and made them bullet magnets.

The brits have just trialled a new turret for the Warrior using a Rheiemetall gun in place of the Rarden.

Good thing about it is it requires no hull modification.

As regard bunker busting you'd think the brits would have learned from the falklands where they used MILAN or CG 84mm to do the job without having to revert to the scorpiion although they were used as well..

the rebuild of the scoprpion with a 90mm gun proves the point that there is a definete role althhough there is a major refit required engine wise before the 90mm turret could be used to equate the power lost by adding the heavier turret..

yooklid
1st February 2008, 21:40
Check out the Ferret upgrade on that site.

Goldie fish
1st February 2008, 21:46
"ferret" and "upgrade" is a sure sign of desperation. Ferrets were obsolete in the early 70s.

Barry
1st February 2008, 21:55
Maybe we should ask them if they can refurbish 25 Pounders or AMLs..........but that's a different thread altogether.

turbocalves
1st February 2008, 22:05
what about brens???

Come-quickly
2nd February 2008, 22:07
Maybe we should ask them if they can refurbish 25 Pounders or AMLs..........but that's a different thread altogether.

Didn't they do that already?

hptmurphy
3rd February 2008, 00:41
the last of the ferrets were off loaded after Gulf War One ..please put some context on to comments...but then again a realistic replacement has never been found

jock
3rd February 2008, 02:15
I think the upgraded Ferrets on that site were to be used in an internal security role only, in which case they would have been more than adequate. Murph is the new Iveco MLV not the spiritual successor to the Ferret? As it was used as a general run around vehicle towards it's later years.

Goldie fish
3rd February 2008, 02:57
What the hell is a "spiritual successor"?
Is that like saying the M1Abrams is the spiritual successor to the Sherman?

California Tanker
3rd February 2008, 05:50
Not really. Sherman was more of a cavalry vehicle, M1's a tank destroyer.

NTM

Goldie fish
3rd February 2008, 09:49
Not really. Sherman was more of a cavalry vehicle, M1's a tank destroyer.

NTM

Exactly

GoneToTheCanner
3rd February 2008, 10:59
Eh..no.The M1 is the spiritual successor as it is the primary tank of the Army, succeeding the M60 and all the Pershings/Pattons, all of which evolved from the M4 as the primary tank of the US Army/Marines.The M26 was developed to beat the tanks the M4 couldn't cope with(Panther/Tiger) and it's successors were evolved to beat the Russian equipment(t-34/85, T-55, T-62 and so on.Read Belton Y Coopers' book "Death traps" on the M4 and it shortcomings and the evolution of the M26.Lessons learned from the later Pattons came into being in the M1(such as crew protection against fire/ammunition protection against fire/suspension and roadwheel design).There is, IMHO, a clear lineage between the M4 and the M1.
Also, BYC's opinion was that the M4 was a compromise between the demands of the infantry, the artillery and the armoured and ended up as a weak compromise.
regards
GttC

easyrider
3rd February 2008, 12:56
The Sherman was a big improvement on British tanks of WWII. Whatever its faults - the Germans called them 'Tommy cookers' because their tendency to burn when hit; the British nickname was 'Ronsons', after the cigarette lighter - the Shermans and their Grant predecessors were the only tanks that could take on the German panzers in the North Africa campaign.

WWII showed that the British pre-war concept of having separate cruiser (cavalry) tanks and infantry support tanks, didn't work: the former were underarmoured and undergunned, the latter too slow. So the postwar fashion became Main Battle Tanks. But now it looks like tanks are going the way of battleships and bombers: the last big tank battles were 35 years ago, during the Yom Kippur War.

Connaught Stranger
4th February 2008, 13:03
The U.S. Grant* was not suitable for taking on German Armour in the Desert and it was quickly replaced by the Sherman.

Sherman Units found out very quickly they would have to expend 3 Sherman's out of 4 to take out one Panther or Tiger.

The U.S Factories were able to turn Sherman's out in far greater numbers to replace combat losses, whereas the Germans could not compete, the industry base being in ruins from the bombing and their panther - Tiger needing far more man-hours per vehicle than Allied or Soviet tanks.

* The Grant did find favour in the Burma Campaign operating against Japanese Armour and Bunkers, but in all reality it was a stop-gap weapon.

Connaught Stranger:smile:

GoneToTheCanner
4th February 2008, 16:33
Hi there
The Grant, whilst it was a poor excuse for a real tank, did cause the Germans concern as it allowed the Allies to fire at equal ranges instead of having to get within deadly range of the panzers and it could outshoot the 50mm of the Pz III and the short 75 of the Pz IV.It was certainly better, in terms of gun power, speed, servicability, ease of use and stowage capacity than anything the British had.Unfortunately, it was vulnerable to even 20mm rounds and could burn as readily as a Sherman.Still, it was better than nothing.
regards
GttC

Piranha
15th February 2008, 09:14
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Cmi1.jpg

Scorpion fitted with the 90 mm gun used by the Malaysian Venezuelian and Indonesian armies.

warthog
7th March 2008, 20:49
i think the 90mm is the way to go,don't think we should bother with the atwg if we get the 90mm gun,

but having just read "dusty warriors" a book about the PWRR in Iraq it seems that 90% of there firepower came from the 7.62mm co-ax in the warrior IFV, and also they mention commanders taking alot of fire from small arms and RGP while manning the hatch,even resorting to using minimi's from the roof on occasion,sounds pretty dangerous to me

why not mount a 7.62 or 40mm GL in a remote weapons station in the turret,with the commander using it's sensors for recon aswell,this combined with the coax it would turn it into an excellent firesupport platform in the kind of guerrilla fighting we're seeing more and more of these days,combined with a 90mm gun it could certainly give us more "teeth"

Goldie fish
8th March 2008, 05:55
Two words: Top Heavy.

The Scorpion is a small vehicle, and would be under severe pressure to fit an RWS, and its associated electronics anywhere on the turret without deleting a crew member.

easyrider
8th March 2008, 10:11
Doesn't the Scorpion have a 7.62mm co-ax, which is fired from under armour anyway?

Goldie fish
8th March 2008, 10:22
Yes.

DeV
8th March 2008, 13:39
but having just read "dusty warriors" a book about the PWRR in Iraq it seems that 90% of there firepower came from the 7.62mm co-ax in the warrior IFV, and also they mention commanders taking alot of fire from small arms and RGP while manning the hatch,even resorting to using minimi's from the roof on occasion,sounds pretty dangerous to me


Warrior's co-axial weapon is a M242 7.62mm chain gun, not a MAG.

Barry
8th March 2008, 14:01
Warthog didn't say it was a MAG, he just said it was 7.62, which the chain gun is.....

warthog
8th March 2008, 17:30
indeed,the co-ax on the warrior is a 7.62 chaingun which seemed to jam alot,so they would return fire using minimi's from the mortar hatches or the commanders hatch,this seems really dangerous to me,and the ability to use a RWS would be great for quickly engaging the enemy to the rear or if they tried to outflank the patrol from the sides without having to traverse the turret,also if the gunner was manning the co-ax the commander could use the RWS so they could engage two targets at once,
i've seen these fitted to HMMV'S and other soft tops,surely if they could take the weight then a scorpion could?

is the 90mm turret any bigger than the one for the 76mm?

easyrider
8th March 2008, 18:31
Looks like the Scorpions are history anyway, they've never been deployed overseas and there's no sign of an upgrade.

California Tanker
9th March 2008, 02:39
Two words: Top Heavy.

The Scorpion is a small vehicle, and would be under severe pressure to fit an RWS, and its associated electronics anywhere on the turret without deleting a crew member.

In fairness, if you look at the electronics upgrades that the British have managed to squeeze into the Scimitars in the last couple of years, it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Granted, the Scimitars are now absolutely cramped, but they've done it.

NTM

paul g
9th March 2008, 03:06
Looks like the Scorpions are history anyway, they've never been deployed overseas and there's no sign of an upgrade.

Tha's partly true, but they do provide a valuable training tool, and have, with an upgrade, about ten years life left in them

sledger
9th April 2008, 12:00
"At the moment the Cavalry Corps has one of its Scorpions on a pilot upgrade project."

An Cosantoir March 2008

easyrider
9th April 2008, 17:38
That's interesting. Anyone know what sort of upgrade?

Goldie fish
9th April 2008, 18:38
Engine. Dieselisation.

chapofdryans
9th April 2008, 21:02
it also said that the were looking for a fire support vehicle (fsv) would this be the mowag 105 or something similar

Goldie fish
9th April 2008, 21:12
See lengthy thread titled "AFV armament, and keep on topic.

Slaphead
9th April 2008, 22:47
Upgade was completed last summer,Steyr marine diesel engine and new diehl tracks.Being tested at the moment.

easyrider
10th April 2008, 08:20
So it's just the bare minimum to maintain the status quo? No change to comms, sensors, armour, weapons?

DeV
10th April 2008, 08:52
The FSV would be at least 90mm.

Slaphead
10th April 2008, 10:11
Just to see if dieselisation would work.There isn't the money or the will from higher ranks to upgrade the fleet.This upgrade was sort of on the sly at first I'm led to believe.There is no point just doing engines but there is no money to do engine and turret.
I heard a quote from a few years back of €6mil to upgrade whole fleet,engine,turret,the whole lot.€3mil of that was for optics.

chapofdryans
11th April 2008, 18:03
Is there a place for the scorpions in the DF?

as they dont really fufill any role, on paper they do,but would it not make sense to send them overseas?

Goldie fish
11th April 2008, 22:14
No.
Petrol engines. Logistical nightmare.

chapofdryans
11th April 2008, 23:17
ok,but i was more on about there role in the DF

Goldie fish
11th April 2008, 23:36
Same difference. Their role in the DF is mostly for training. To get troops used to the idea of operating with "Tanks" and other tracked AFVs.(Note, The Scorpion CRV(T) is not a tank.

easyrider
12th April 2008, 11:13
Just a reminder...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/05/Irish_Scorpion_Tank.JPG

chapofdryans
12th April 2008, 11:52
ok thanks for that,as it happens i was aware that they weren't tanks.

Goldie fish
12th April 2008, 12:43
Their Former C.O turned anti war activist wasn't aware of that...

chapofdryans
12th April 2008, 13:58
that i didnt know,what was the story there .

Goldie fish
12th April 2008, 14:22
1. http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/search.php
2. Next to the letter z on your keyboard is a useful little button(not x, the other side). The same button can be found next to the / Please use it.
3. When you have mastered using that button, you can move onto using other wonderful keyboard features, such as:;'?!" and ,

It'll make me happier, and I won't be on your case as much. Irish Military Online encourages the use of proper punctuation.

GoneToTheCanner
12th April 2008, 16:48
The "Action Man" tank! If you tried really hard, you could get three Action Men inside.:)
regards
GttC

sledger
7th November 2010, 13:07
Scorpion shoot November 2010

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfmagazine/sets/72157625307146922/

DeV
7th November 2010, 19:39
Have they got the FES then?

hptmurphy
7th November 2010, 19:49
Very Nice.

apc
7th November 2010, 22:16
Why are some of the crew wearing what looks like industrial face masks? Was there a problem before with the fumes from the main armament?:S

Goldie fish
7th November 2010, 22:30
Have they got the FES then?

Seems not.
Hence the masks perhaps.

hptmurphy
8th November 2010, 13:43
Only one has been fitted out with FES on trial basis.From pictures its almost inpossible to distinguish as the profile of the vehicle remains unchanged. The registration being the only identifer.

Its not amongst the vehicles photographed in the shoot but work on engine replacement was carried out.

GoneToTheCanner
8th November 2010, 14:11
Perhaps it's just as simple as protecting their faces on the move from dust? More to the point, has the DF formally decided to take them out of service or will they continue until they start to disintegrate? Having seen the continued utility of the Scimitar in Afghanistan, could there be a role for a 30mm-modded Scorpion for the DF or has the Mowag 30mm seen that off?
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
8th November 2010, 14:26
The key is the engine. It is(other than motorcycles) the only petrol powered vehicle in frontline army service. That itself is a logs nightmare, particularly considering the 4.2L Jaguars thirst.

warthog
8th November 2010, 16:53
seen as though money is unlikely to be forthcoming for upgrades,I think the scorpy's are doomed :(

Goldie fish
8th November 2010, 17:20
seen as though money is unlikely to be forthcoming for upgrades,I think the scorpy's are doomed :(

One could suggest the shoot took place to clear the stocks of ammo. Having 3 cars on the gunline seems unusual.

warthog
8th November 2010, 19:46
One could suggest the shoot took place to clear the stocks of ammo. Having 3 cars on the gunline seems unusual.

Balls :frown::mad:

GoneToTheCanner
8th November 2010, 19:59
So it's 30mm mowags and aging AMls for the mobile "heavy" hitting, then?
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
8th November 2010, 20:02
Dont think the AML has been overseas since Liberia.

apod
8th November 2010, 21:31
Dont think the AML has been overseas since Liberia.

Correct.And they wont be again.MRV's currently in Sweden with NBG.

hptmurphy
8th November 2010, 23:16
erhaps it's just as simple as protecting their faces on the move from dust? More to the point, has the DF formally decided to take them out of service or will they continue until they start to disintegrate?

Still in very good nick with reasonable mileage despite their age and ammo a plenty off the shelf if you look hard enough.
Wouldn't write them of just yet.

As for the AMls ..nobody is reading what I write, the Cav school are no longer training people at that location to drive AMLs. The AMls that came back from Liberia were still in white under canvas at the back of the workshops.Work load with Mowags is great enough without adding the AMls to it.

The Director of Cav has albut said it there gun and even technical support should they be divided up between the RDF would be a problem.The want to be rid of them now they have the new toys.

Scorpions cav be used for vehicle assimiation traing as they are still very nimble off road.

sledger
17th November 2010, 22:58
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BXSQ7OOfpnI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BXSQ7OOfpnI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

GoneToTheCanner
18th November 2010, 00:35
Hi there,
I can't shake the image of my Action Man Scorpion tank out of my head! Ruined the real thing for me, it did.:)
regards
GttC

BANDIT
18th November 2010, 08:50
If its still working has sufficient stocks of ammo and can still pack a punch then why scrap them. Yes the engine, logistics can be a bit of a headache but its probably the most mobile and hard hitting piece of equipment in stock. Even the AMLs yes they are old , do not know what state of serviceability , maintenance they are in but why just scrap , I see them still in service all over Africa . I am not suggesting the return of 18 pounders, Bulls wool,( although the old woolenl grey coats were better than what is issued today,) but just look at Israel, it wastes nothing , old tanks captured in the 6 day war are still in service in various configurations , probably in reserve units but still going with lots of modifications ,Ok I know they have an arms industry behind them.
The Taliban are still causing havoc with a simple RPG in various configs.
There seems to be an obsession with the latest gadgets and while I appreciate the importance of keeping up to date, Ireland tends to want to keep up to date with the UK and US which it cannot afford or probably does not really need.
And as for my old hobby horse: was in a Uruguayan base recently in the DRC , lots of Mags, FNs till in service and still doing the job. 50-60 yrs old weapon and still relevant

GoneToTheCanner
18th November 2010, 09:41
Hi there,
Couldn't agree more.Shiny toy syndrome has wasted a lot of the DF's budget over the years.Personally, they should piss or get off the pot.Refit the Scorpys with a diesel engine, a 90mm and whatever aiming/nvg mods you might need, otherwise, scrap them and go Mowag( bigger than 30mm, please) entirely.
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
18th November 2010, 10:47
If its still working has sufficient stocks of ammo and can still pack a punch then why scrap them. Yes the engine, logistics can be a bit of a headache but its probably the most mobile and hard hitting piece of equipment in stock. Even the AMLs yes they are old , do not know what state of serviceability , maintenance they are in but why just scrap , I see them still in service all over Africa .


It doesn't have sufficient stock, and it is becoming hader to source since the UK stopped using the Saladin or Scorpion 76mm turrets.

Petrol????
its the only petrol fuelled armoured vehicle in the DF.. do you not consider that a bit more than a headache?

When was the last time you travelled in a Panhard? I am delighted to see it is still in use with other 3rd world banana republics. It is great to have something to aspire to. Though the fact the drivers compartment was designed for pygmies and not europeans makes things a little cramped.. but we can continue to aspire to be like them so we can be just like those 3rd world african nations....

hptmurphy
18th November 2010, 11:23
Even the AMLs yes they are old , do not know what state of serviceability , maintenance they are in but why just scrap

far from scrap just their role in the PDF has been taken over by new vehicles, fewer in number but far more capable. There is no longer time in the sylabus to retro train drivers and crew onto vehcles that will not be deployed operationally overseas again

When the upgrades came into being it was with the understanding that the vehicles were to be replaced at some point.

Given the advances in new vehicles and the potential theatres of operation we have arrived at a point where the safety of the people operating the machines cannot be guaranteed as they were designed a generation ago.

To ensure that the DF could operate within any European battle group the vehicles on offer should at least be on a par with others participating.

Goldie fish
18th November 2010, 12:01
But murph.. didn't you hear? They still use the Panhard in Africa.....

BANDIT
18th November 2010, 12:36
Yes they are still using a lot of gear in Africa that Ireland do not use but then again armies such as Rwanda, Uganda even Zimbabwe when they are not killing their own people would have probably a bit more practical experience of war and operations than Ireland . As for banana republics , given todays news its probably a bit like the kettle calling the pot black . Its been a long time since I was in a Panhard and was never in a cav unit but remember seeing ... Chubby?? Griffin , who was rather rotund driving them..
So if ammo stocks are short good reason to change but how many rounds does Ireland need in the next ten years , say 200 rds a year practice per veh, plus and another 1000 round each just in case , say, 20,000max.
As for petrol engines change them...
But what about the point that Gone to the Canner makes.

Goldie fish
18th November 2010, 14:55
GTTc says.. grandfathers axe.
Since they added the rangefinder to the panhard there is less room in them. These days you don't want all your crew patrolling IED laced areas out on top. The less room they have inside, the more things will cause them injury when their AFV hits an IED.

Also, you don't buy ammo just for training.

RoyalGreenJacket
18th November 2010, 15:13
Hi there,
Couldn't agree more.Shiny toy syndrome has wasted a lot of the DF's budget over the years.Personally, they should piss or get off the pot.Refit the Scorpys with a diesel engine, a 90mm and whatever aiming/nvg mods you might need, otherwise, scrap them and go Mowag( bigger than 30mm, please) entirely.
regards
GttC

you still need a tracked vehicle to go where the MOWAG cannot.

tracks will let you dominate ground OOB to wheeled vehicles.

tracks are better than wheels across difficult terrain - fact.

MOWAG is a great bit of kit but not the answer to everything.

i think the upgrade or a new purchase off the shelf is the better option.

Goldie fish
18th November 2010, 17:33
I think the FV432, or its variants, would be a more suitable tracked vehicle for purpose than the scorpion, in irish use anyway.
A decision has yet to be made if the Armoured recce require a heavier punch than 30mm. or AGL. If yes, then tracked, with a diesel engine seems to be the way to go...

DeV
18th November 2010, 17:47
I think the FV432, or its variants, would be a more suitable tracked vehicle for purpose than the scorpion, in irish use anyway.
A decision has yet to be made if the Armoured recce require a heavier punch than 30mm. or AGL. If yes, then tracked, with a diesel engine seems to be the way to go...

But the 432 is older!?

RoyalGreenJacket
18th November 2010, 20:23
But the 432 is older!?

get Bulldog - cheap and cheerful, combat proven in Iraq and popular with the troops.

http://www.army.mod.uk/images/central-panel/bulldog_410px.jpg

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1c-Kq9L1Yo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k1c-Kq9L1Yo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Goldie fish
18th November 2010, 21:31
But the 432 is older!?

Apologies. I was thinking BV206, but wrote FV432...

Too many vs...
http://www.military-today.com/apc/bvs10_viking_l1.jpg

DeV
18th November 2010, 21:36
get Bulldog - cheap and cheerful, combat proven in Iraq and popular with the troops.

Isn't Bulldog just a rebuilt and upgraded 432?

GoneToTheCanner
18th November 2010, 21:40
Hi all,
Don't forget the Irish won't allow tracked vehicles heavier than a Scorpion to enter service lest it spoil the hallowed turf of the Curragh, which is the preserve of golf courses and horses. They also are apparently incapable of leaving tracked vehicles reside in Coolmoney or Kilworth permanently, lest they be spooked away in the night, so they must continue to expend lots of diesel and sweat getting them to the ranges instead.Perhaps they might learn from their fellow soldiers in other parts of Europe how to actually operate tracked armour properly instead of in a half-arsed fashion. They do seem to know how to operate Mowags, which is a good thing,too.
GF, good analogy!
regards
GttC

knocker
18th November 2010, 21:44
Isn't Bulldog just a rebuilt and upgraded 432?

Yup

RoyalGreenJacket
19th November 2010, 00:27
i don't think you can mount a decent turret on them other than a .50 or a Grenade MG.

Viking:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYIWqdnkCYJvj7h_wPSvRR8i8dt8GDa mPG_-6V59mHCFrAXw28Og

Warthog:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTASOqAWY4yxpjRpWo8VCjIbtcTfzHj 3IPPB01iwRXrTwgT_DW

i think there are better things out there to meet the Irish DF requirements.

also - these are a bitch to reverse (i know because i drove one in the Falkland Islands for 4 months) and you need something similar to the CVRT family to be able to perform the recce role and the ability to bug out fast in reverse if compromised.

Banner
19th November 2010, 10:34
I think the FV432, or its variants, would be a more suitable tracked vehicle for purpose than the scorpion, in irish use anyway.
A decision has yet to be made if the Armoured recce require a heavier punch than 30mm. or AGL. If yes, then tracked, with a diesel engine seems to be the way to go...

THere aren't really a lot of options out there for tracked combat vehicles with a heavier punch than 30mm. As far as I know the only real contender is the Swedish CV90 (I believe there is a variant with a 105MM stabilised gun with the latest and greatest suite of targeting laser rangefinders etc). Either way given the current fiscal Meltdown we are dangeroously close to "walting" here getting into a discssion about replacing the Scorpys :-)

warthog
19th November 2010, 12:56
stick a diesel in them

fit the Oto Melara 30mm in the turret so they use the same Gun as the mowags do

we'd have a great recce tank then!

DeV
19th November 2010, 13:08
Take the 90 or 20 turrets off the AMLs!

Goldie fish
19th November 2010, 13:09
Take the 90 or 20 turrets off the AMLs!

Then what?

Put a 1950s gun on a 1970s car? What would the point of that be?

apc
19th November 2010, 16:23
you would have something from the 1960s:rolleyes:

hptmurphy
19th November 2010, 17:41
fit the Oto Melara 30mm in the turret so they use the same Gun as the mowags do

Won't fit!

we'd have a great recce tank then!

Nope ,we'd just have an abortion of a vehicle.


Cost of upgrade per unit is not justifiable on the age grounds.

Upgrading the AMLs has kept them alive for too long.In reality if the replacements such as the Mowags and RG32 had arrived when first proposed as opposed to being 6 years late we would have no need to keep the AMLs serviceable.

Problem is that they are and will all end up in the hands of RDF Cav units which will mean the Cav will have a split with no replication of roles.

Other wise just board the lot of them , The 20s could actually be sale able, The 90s because of the gun are worthless. One big shoot get rid of all the ammo, stuck a couple of AML 90s in museums..and just expend the rest as targets.

DeV
19th November 2010, 18:22
Then what?

Put a 1950s gun on a 1970s car? What would the point of that be?

I taught it was a new turret and gun on the 90s - I stand corrected

GoneToTheCanner
20th November 2010, 14:06
Hi there,
If there's a current Mowag with a larger-than-30mm main gun, buy it, for fleet commonality, if nothing else. Board the Scorpions and AMLs, as Murph says, on the basis that the upgrade would be pointless.
What else is out there, that's light, fast and has a minimum 90mm main gun?
regards
GttC

knocker
20th November 2010, 14:33
If the AMLs are boarded wont that spend the end of the reserve cavalry units or are they being trained on the mowags ?

hptmurphy
20th November 2010, 17:16
If the AMLs are boarded wont that spend the end of the reserve cavalry units or are they being trained on the mowags ?

Location specific.Can't train on whats not at your location.


If there's a current Mowag with a larger-than-30mm main gun, buy it, for fleet commonality,

There is but it brings the vehicle into the realms of self propelled artillery as opposed to Cavalry role.


What else is out there, that's light, fast and has a minimum 90mm main gun?

Into another class of vehicle like the IVECO Cenaturo.

Do we really need it?

smegers
20th November 2010, 17:20
Hi there,What else is out there, that's light, fast and has a minimum 90mm main gun?
regards
GttC

CV-90105 or 120

Fridge Magnet
8th August 2013, 02:24
No sights or slings?So we have housings groups that can't be issued and under barrel rail block the same!
Nobody has asked where the money has gone and more importantly why??

(Hint its for a Cav vehicle that doesn't deploy overseas;)

Scorpion?

apod
8th August 2013, 17:54
Chicken dinner for Fridgy!!
Yes.The scorpion.A vehicle that plays no part in our current overseas doctrine.At all.Nice prioritising there:rolleyes:

Buck
8th August 2013, 18:31
Chicken dinner for Fridgy!!
Yes.The scorpion.A vehicle that plays no part in our current overseas doctrine.At all.Nice prioritising there:rolleyes:


Does the scorpion do anything within the scope of the army? Anything meaningful I mean.

DeV
8th August 2013, 18:40
Does the scorpion do anything within the scope of the army? Anything meaningful I mean.

With an upgrade it could (including overseas)

kaiser
8th August 2013, 20:15
wear overseas??
were sending nothing bigger than a fvt 800?
scopions going? not for a few years to some other mission were not involved with yet

Fridge Magnet
8th August 2013, 20:54
With an upgrade it could (including overseas)

Where would it go? What would it's job be?

The role the Cav play overseas now, the Scorpion fits in nowhere. The MRV's and CRV's are their puppies now and the Scorpion's won't feature at all.

Next month, we have a Coy of lads deploying to the Golan Heights with UNDOF. Before the end of the year, we'll have a Coy of lads deploying to Lebanon with UNIFIL. Both trips will have a Cav platoon involved and guess what? Neither of those platoon's will ever have a Scorpion near them. Guess what both Coy's will have though? An outdated rifle.

Spending what limited money we have on a Scorpion upgrade, if it actually goes ahead, is ridiculous.

northie
8th August 2013, 22:38
Does the scorpion do anything within the scope of the army? Anything meaningful I mean.

When they're not in the garage, providing the DF with the practise in operating a tracked recce vehicle. I was driving up on the cooley penninsula last summer and encountered a Scimitar being driven to either a vintage rally or an airsoft site up there! Its madness civvies with more modern armour than us.....

warthog
9th August 2013, 00:33
rumour has it this could be due a bump??

Goldie fish
9th August 2013, 01:06
Next time anyone considers deploying the scorpion overseas, look at its reg plate. I don't think there are any older vehicles in use.

HavocIRL
9th August 2013, 01:10
Where would it go? What would it's job be?

The role the Cav play overseas now, the Scorpion fits in nowhere. The MRV's and CRV's are their puppies now and the Scorpion's won't feature at all.

Next month, we have a Coy of lads deploying to the Golan Heights with UNDOF. Before the end of the year, we'll have a Coy of lads deploying to Lebanon with UNIFIL. Both trips will have a Cav platoon involved and guess what? Neither of those platoon's will ever have a Scorpion near them. Guess what both Coy's will have though? An outdated rifle.

Spending what limited money we have on a Scorpion upgrade, if it actually goes ahead, is ridiculous.


Lets face facts, in a heavy contact the last thing you want to hear is the sound of a QRF filled with boggers in a museum piece coming to 'rescue' you

Come-quickly
9th August 2013, 08:19
Lets face facts, in a heavy contact the last thing you want to hear is the sound of a QRF filled with boggers in a museum piece coming to 'rescue' you

Yeah but if the troops in contact are on one side of a boggy field and the...no nevermind.

Truck Driver
9th August 2013, 09:08
Lets face facts, in a heavy contact the last thing you want to hear is the sound of a QRF filled with boggers in a museum piece coming to 'rescue' you

Enjoy Valhalla so... ;)

HavocIRL
9th August 2013, 14:06
enjoy valhalla so... ;)

I will

kaiser
9th August 2013, 15:15
I don't know havocirl the scorpion gun packs one hell of a punch
I wouldn't mind it behind me
but I,d also like the 30mm

HavocIRL
9th August 2013, 22:11
Well put it this way. If I'm part of APC patrol which gets hit up and one of the MOWAG gets taken out by an anti armor weapon, is the relatively light scorpion gonna help or will it come under fire from those same weapons and become a dismounted crew that also needs rescuing. We need something heavier. I don't know what but something heavier, with an MG that can be fired without the commander leaning out the turret, a bigger main armament, pointy sticks and a loudspeaker system to play ride of the valkyries

kaiser
9th August 2013, 22:21
the scorpion has a coax mg 7.62
and a main 76mm gun (low velocity)
the armour might be shit but that main gun could take the bend out of you from over 2000meters

DeV
9th August 2013, 22:54
Well put it this way. If I'm part of APC patrol which gets hit up and one of the MOWAG gets taken out by an anti armor weapon, is the relatively light scorpion gonna help or will it come under fire from those same weapons and become a dismounted crew that also needs rescuing. We need something heavier. I don't know what but something heavier, with an MG that can be fired without the commander leaning out the turret, a bigger main armament, pointy sticks and a loudspeaker system to play ride of the valkyries

As is, a Scorpion has protection against 14.5 on the frontal arc and 7.62 AP elsewhere (that is widespread knowledge), MOWAG depends in what we ordered. The armour can be upgraded.

The 76mm will cause a fair amount of damage and will definitely take out other light armour (remember 20-30mm is used to take out light armour these days). It has a coax 7.62 and the AA mount will take either a 7.62 or HMG. What it needs is a sight/FCS upgrade and fume extractor in this regard. If you want something bigger it can be upgraded to a 90mm.

What Scorpion has that practical no other armour vehicle has very low ground pressure (it is lower than a human's). That makes it extremely mobile. If it had a Diesel engine it would be better (available as upgrade).

I argued for a replacement for the AML90s and was told no.

pym
9th August 2013, 22:59
Derp question - aside from the turrets, could an upgraded Scorpion swap pretty much everything with a FV107 Scimitar?

DeV
9th August 2013, 23:06
AFAIK yes

When the BA retired the Fox CVR(W) they put the turrets on the Scorpions.

HavocIRL
9th August 2013, 23:11
the scorpion has a coax mg 7.62
and a main 76mm gun (low velocity)
the armour might be shit but that main gun could take the bend out of you from over 2000meters

Apologies, didn't realise it was coaxial. Always thought there was only the AA mount for the GPMG.

HavocIRL
9th August 2013, 23:12
What Scorpion has that practical no other armour vehicle has very low ground pressure (it is lower than a human's). That makes it extremely mobile. If it had a Diesel engine it would be better (available as upgrade).

I argued for a replacement for the AML90s and was told no.

Well thats why the brits loved em in the Falklands.

danno
9th August 2013, 23:15
Well thats why the brits loved em in the Falklands.

The Brit establisment always big up anything produced by their own arms industry.

kaiser
9th August 2013, 23:21
Apologies, didn't realise it was coaxial. Always thought there was only the AA mount for the GPMG.
no need for apologies mate there is a hmg mount on the turret of some of them not sure if all have them

Goldie fish
10th August 2013, 08:20
no need for apologies mate there is a hmg mount on the turret of some of them not sure if all have them

Only 1 in 4 and it's shit. No point in sticking armament OUTSIDE the armour. Introduced by a famous anti war ex commandant.

DeV
10th August 2013, 10:41
Only 1 in 4 and it's shit. No point in sticking armament OUTSIDE the armour. Introduced by a famous anti war ex commandant.

Can an AA MG mount be done under armour giving the elevation required?

Even the US do it

kaiser
10th August 2013, 11:22
not in the space provided

DeV
10th August 2013, 11:25
I was talking about any AFV.... Not just CVR(T)

kaiser
10th August 2013, 11:29
Only 1 in 4 and it's shit. No point in sticking armament OUTSIDE the armour. Introduced by a famous anti war ex commandant.
don't most of natos mbt have hmg,s on the outside for crew use?
don't our rws have the capabilities to be fired manually by someone on the outside incase the system fails
theres always a point

kaiser
10th August 2013, 11:30
As is, a Scorpion has protection against 14.5 on the frontal arc and 7.62 AP elsewhere (that is widespread knowledge), MOWAG depends in what we ordered. The armour can be upgraded.

The 76mm will cause a fair amount of damage and will definitely take out other light armour (remember 20-30mm is used to take out light armour these days). It has a coax 7.62 and the AA mount will take either a 7.62 or HMG. What it needs is a sight/FCS upgrade and fume extractor in this regard. If you want something bigger it can be upgraded to a 90mm.

What Scorpion has that practical no other armour vehicle has very low ground pressure (it is lower than a human's). That makes it extremely mobile. If it had a Diesel engine it would be better (available as upgrade).

I argued for a replacement for the AML90s and was told no.
who did you argue with??

DeV
10th August 2013, 12:03
http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/html/UpgradeMenu.html

Come-quickly
10th August 2013, 12:38
who did you argue with??

Presumably with someone who kept reading his Google-fu posts.

Back on topic. I'm all for a Scorpion Upgrade in its due time and place, the timing seems strange considering there aren't even any Liberia type missions on the Horizon and the specialisation of the platform marks it out more as a Bn GP asset while we are currently only committing coy gps.

I'm not doubting the benefits of its mobility and direct fire support potential, but it is a mobile gun on a very lightly protected recce chassis. Does anyone know if the upgrade is anything more than a diesel powerpack and improved FCU?

There are probably off the shelf applique and cage kits out there but I can't see the budget stretching that far; the only real reason I can think of for this sudden prioritisation is that the fleet was about to go u/s.

Even if that was the case, the rifle upgrade definitely seems more pressing.

DeV
10th August 2013, 12:59
who did you argue with??

I was disagreeing with Havoc

Goldie fish
10th August 2013, 16:48
Can an AA MG mount be done under armour giving the elevation required?

Even the US do it

On what?
What we have is akin to the ww2 tanker standing on the hull of a Sherman pointing a 30 cal skyward.

DeV
10th August 2013, 17:06
On what?
What we have is akin to the ww2 tanker standing on the hull of a Sherman pointing a 30 cal skyward.

It is standard practice, there is no other way to put it on an AA mounting on any AFV. Also it is for self protection only obviously!

Goldie fish
10th August 2013, 17:33
Show me a photo of a similar setup in use on a modern AFV.

Come-quickly
10th August 2013, 18:40
Only 1 in 4 and it's shit. No point in sticking armament OUTSIDE the armour. Introduced by a famous anti war ex commandant.

Was that for shooting down the black helicopters?

danno
10th August 2013, 18:57
Is the obsolete word appropriate?

trellheim
10th August 2013, 19:31
OK so..... someone in the know usually pitches up. What is being upgraded on the Scorpions ?

DeV
10th August 2013, 20:26
Show me a photo of a similar setup in use on a modern AFV.


Is the obsolete word appropriate?

Definite modern?!

As in deployed in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. I more than likely can't because in many cases the vehicles are designed with zero threat and high IED threat in mind. You don't put a MG on a turret on an AA mount if there is zero air threat.

BA Challenger had there 7.62 AA MG mounts removed and replaced by a RWS.

I think the same happened the Abrams with there HMGs.

But point stands many AFVs have AA/pintle mounts (but very few (if any) have them in Iraq/Afghanistan).

Why because there is zero air threat, high IED threat and threat from dismounted infantry.

In conventional warfare with air threat they are useful.

In a IED/COIN environment they are of limited use.

Goldie fish
11th August 2013, 03:03
There is a reason they were replaced with RWS. Modern=anything in combat in the last 30 years. There has not been an AA threat to a UN mission since the Congo. Shooting 7.62 at passing attacking aircraft is a morale boosting exercise only, as was discovered in 1982.
No point bringing an armoured vehicle with you if you have to fire any weapon from outside the armour.

kaiser
11th August 2013, 18:03
There is a reason they were replaced with RWS. Modern=anything in combat in the last 30 years. There has not been an AA threat to a UN mission since the Congo. Shooting 7.62 at passing attacking aircraft is a morale boosting exercise only, as was discovered in 1982.
No point bringing an armoured vehicle with you if you have to fire any weapon from outside the armour.
what about Israeli planes and choppers?

Edited to remove language which may be regarded as offensive, let's not have any more of it

DeV
11th August 2013, 18:27
Show me a photo of a similar setup in use on a modern AFV.

http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=Abrams+iraq+invasion&um=1&sa=N&hl=en&rlz=1T4ACEW_enIE395IE396&biw=1366&bih=612&tbm=isch&tbnid=EwVp515GxdXgcM:&imgrefurl=http://www.businessinsider.com/most-effective-weapons-in-the-us-arsenal-2012-12%3Fop%3D1&docid=TQDQwF1jSXKI0M&imgurl=http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/50c76696eab8ea6376000002-1200/21--m1-abrams-tank.jpg&w=652&h=489&ei=_MEHUvDeAufm7AampYCgBg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:57,s:0,i:260&iact=rc&page=3&tbnh=180&tbnw=259&start=39&ndsp=21&tx=127&ty=87

Abrams - Invasion of Iraq

http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=Abrams+iraq+invasion&um=1&sa=N&hl=en&rlz=1T4ACEW_enIE395IE396&biw=1366&bih=612&tbm=isch&tbnid=w3zvV8WRfBKUqM:&imgrefurl=http://defense-technologynews.blogspot.com/2008_08_06_archive.html&docid=JhbXR2dz9RxiPM&imgurl=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1s_3-ID_Iraq_Tal_Afar_lg.jpg&w=800&h=531&ei=_MEHUvDeAufm7AampYCgBg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:5,s:0,i:95&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=174&tbnw=267&start=0&ndsp=16&tx=101&ty=89

Abrams - post invasion

http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=Abrams+iraq+invasion&um=1&sa=N&hl=en&rlz=1T4ACEW_enIE395IE396&biw=1366&bih=612&tbm=isch&tbnid=kBB8XZXGJw1fhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.islamtimes.org/vdca0anu.49n661gtk4.html&docid=3-D4AUVThY3mPM&imgurl=http://www.islamtimes.org/images/docs/000021/n00021817-b.jpg&w=800&h=600&ei=_MEHUvDeAufm7AampYCgBg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:6,s:0,i:98&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=174&tbnw=241&start=0&ndsp=16&tx=163&ty=74

Challenger 2 - Iraq invasion

http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=leopard+afghanistan&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1T4ACEW_enIE395IE396&biw=1366&bih=612&tbm=isch&tbnid=HGr2vrvo41OzbM:&imgrefurl=http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php%3F115334-Canadians-Training-on-Leopard-2A6M-in-Germany/page2&docid=7GgYRFNZSD7uSM&imgurl=http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9365/ar2006g0700014td5.jpg&w=2464&h=1632&ei=JcMHUqPvN5GI7AbixIGoDw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:15,s:0,i:123&iact=rc&page=2&tbnh=179&tbnw=265&start=15&ndsp=20&tx=123&ty=130

Leopard 2 - Afghanistan

DeV
11th August 2013, 18:32
There has not been an AA threat to a UN mission since the Congo. The DF don't just train for UN missions


Shooting 7.62 at passing attacking aircraft is a morale boosting exercise only, as was discovered in 1982.

In some ways yes but as a Cadre NCO for 2 AD many moons ago (when they had L70s (not EL70s)) - the idea is not to shoot the plane down but to divert the pilot's attention and stop them pressing home the attack.

danno
11th August 2013, 19:15
AA threat or requirement?

DeV
11th August 2013, 19:16
AA threat or requirement?

Standard fit

Goldie fish
12th August 2013, 00:20
Not sure about vehicles but the IAF have had no problem attacking UNIFIL positions in the past.

They are still violating Lebanese airspace (and UN Resolutions) on a daily basis.

When?

pym
12th August 2013, 01:00
2006 when 4 UN observers were killed in a well marked UN building by a 1000lb bomb, after days of shelling. Hezbollah were operating nearby.

A gun on top of a lightly armoured recce vehicle isn't going to deter an F-16 at 20kft dropping a LGB from 10 miles away, nor is it going to prevent an Apache firing a volley of Hellfires from 5 miles away.

If your opfor is using something like a Gazelle & machine guns/rockets - like the Syrians - perhaps it's a reasonable defensive mount in that case, but I'd rather they face up to at least shoulder mounted SAMS before guns come into play.

Anyway, the Israeli's would in all probability have knocked them out of the sky a few months before the UN decided the UNDOF guys could fire back.

Come-quickly
12th August 2013, 01:21
The DF don't just train for UN missions



In some ways yes but as a Cadre NCO for 2 AD many moons ago (when they had L70s (not EL70s)) - the idea is not to shoot the plane down but to divert the pilot's attention and stop them pressing home the attack.

The 2 AD were always somewhat deluded about their relevance, the gun systems they operated were out-ranged by most contemporary Air-To-Ground missiles and their radars were bait for HARM type systems.

You're not going to distract a strike aircraft after they've easily spotted and wadied you from beyond your maximum engagement range.

hptmurphy
12th August 2013, 15:07
And to all those who constantly rant about scorpions, please go away and read about the deployability of tracked vehicles vs what the Irish Forces do overseas, and take a little look at the logistics around the same.

Now if any one can make an arguement for retention of the Scorpions based on an overseas role, I'm sure 1 ACS would love to hear your theory as before long the Scorpions will go the way of the AMLs.

They have no role in peacekeeping ops due to their nature and shortcomings which are primarily those highlighted when the AMLs were deployed to Liberia.

DeV
12th August 2013, 18:19
They have no role in peacekeeping ops due to their nature and shortcomings which are primarily those highlighted when the AMLs were deployed to Liberia.

I'm asking questions to stimulate discussion, nothing else but:

And it could be an upgraded Scorpion or a Scorpion replacement but:

Does a 76/90 mm not bring something to the party? Especially if you are in a FMR/QRF role?

A tracked vehicle should have coped better with the "roads" in Liberia than an AML90, how did the Swedish CV9040s get on?

Shads
12th August 2013, 20:12
Swedish CV90S were low loaded on metal roads and went it alone when the going got bad, nothing matched them in the scrub and their recovery CV had a bull dozer blade on the front and it regularly ploughed trees out of the way to recover a few mis-laid mowags up to their bo***cks in mud! A scorpion could've done the same

hptmurphy
12th August 2013, 20:57
I'm asking questions to stimulate discussion, nothing else but:

Why? When the facts are there for them selves


And it could be an upgraded Scorpion or a Scorpion replacement but:

Lesson from the past, upgrade AML fleet and and down grade it and sdrap it within 10 years..hindsight...why bother making the same mistake with CVRT.


Does a 76/90 mm not bring something to the party? Especially if you are in a FMR/QRF role?

No because you have to get it the party first.Tracked armour isn't built for roads its built to be carried to where its neeeded which slows down the whole QRF idea. Recce Vehicles of this nature were designed to be used in a coventional War of fix battles against a definite enemy.


A tracked vehicle should have coped better with the "roads" in Liberia than an AML90, how did the Swedish CV9040s get on?

Scorpion is a very dated vehicle with limited crew protection built around a high spec petrol engine which needs high maintenence , has no troop carrying capacity and is very demanding of its crews and is unsuited for sustained patrolling.

danno
12th August 2013, 23:40
.......
No point bringing an armoured vehicle with you if you have to fire any weapon from outside the armour.

Just like the Ford Thompsons that shot up the Fouga at Jado

trellheim
13th August 2013, 10:10
long time ago.


any more off topic about israelis will incure severe wrath as you all know well it doesn't belong here. Back to CVRT discussion please.

What(or more importantly, why) the upgrade ?

Goldie fish
13th August 2013, 11:06
The upgrade should have happened 10-15 years ago, when the rest of the Armoured fleet went diesel. It didn't. The scorpion no longer has a place on the armoured orbat. The only reason the UK forcec upgraded their scimtars etc was because they urgently needed vehicles of this type in Iraq etc. The Irish DF has no such urgent requirement in its overseas deployments, even if the vehicle was ever deployed. To date the cars have barely gone beyond the Glen of Imaal, and anywhere further was on the back of DROPS or Low Loader.

pym
13th August 2013, 11:11
What(or more importantly, why) the upgrade ?

Well we can't have them spluttering and breaking down on O'Connell St. come 2016, can we? :)

Goldie fish
13th August 2013, 12:43
I wonder, given their age, can they accept "Unleaded" petrol?

Schmigs
13th August 2013, 13:53
Is it still possible to get leaded petrol?

Goldie fish
13th August 2013, 13:55
I think you must put additives into unleaded for older vehicles, as the fuel burns much hotter.

hptmurphy
13th August 2013, 14:46
and anywhere further was on the back of DROPS or Low Loader.

Correct....and as it should be.

Look at what the British Army has spent on dedicated tank transporters in the past years....and why... because tanks don't get driven any where, the get dropped there,fight,get picked up....and go home.

Hence the German invasion of Russia in 1941 failed.......they wore out the tanks driving them to the battlefield.


What(or more importantly, why) the upgrade

(a) Diesel engine.
(b) Diesel engine.

Commonality of fuel and lack of means of transporting petrol and the need to have petrol in storage.

trellheim
13th August 2013, 15:02
So, who then said ... rifles or diesels... and why now !

Come-quickly
13th August 2013, 15:09
So, who then said ... rifles or diesels... and why now !

That was my question back in post no. 239. before we got into indepth discussions of the ability of HMGs on pintle mounts on CVRTs in Lebanon/The Golan to shoot down Israeli spy satellites without offending anyone or denying the validity of army culture...oh and a bunch of semi-coherent stuff about tanks from you know who.