Thanks Thanks:  30
Likes Likes:  66
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 130
  1. #101
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.britishpathe.com/video/V...fighting+congo

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

  2. #102
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,985
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    A mowag with a 90/105/120gun turret is not a APC, its a AFV, the MRV is too specialist machine to have it acting as a taxi while its dismountable element has been reduced by the turret fit.
    If you want Self propelled artillery , you buy self propelled artillery, not hoping to use a APC with a gun in the role.



    Agreed, but you still need more APCs to make more of it mobile.
    I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.

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

  3. #103
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.

    I didn’t say that a MOWAG could be SP artillery
    Well the US Army did trial the LAVIII (cousin of our MOWAG) as a SP Artillery piece.
    https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...e_0908113.html

  4. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  5. #104
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.
    Depends on the objective and available intelligence

    I didn’t say that a MOWAG could be SP artillery
    Its a general comment, a big gun on a mobile platform isn't always classed as artillery, but if you want artillery that's mobile buy mobile artillery as opposed to an up gunned version of what you already possess.
    Time for another break I think......

  6. #105
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Depends on the objective and available intelligence



    Its a general comment, a big gun on a mobile platform isn't always classed as artillery, but if you want artillery that's mobile buy mobile artillery as opposed to an up gunned version of what you already possess.
    Well KMW one of the makers of the Boxer family think a bit different, they are pushing a 155mm howitzer version based upon their 155 AGM module.
    https://www.kmweg.com/home/artillery...formation.html

  7. #106
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Well KMW one of the makers of the Boxer family think a bit different, they are pushing a 155mm howitzer version based upon their 155 AGM module.
    https://www.kmweg.com/home/artillery...formation.html
    It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

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

  8. Likes Flamingo, hptmurphy, sofa, pym, CTU liked this post
  9. #107
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Well KMW one of the makers of the Boxer family think a bit different, they are pushing a 155mm howitzer version based upon their 155 AGM module.
    https://www.kmweg.com/home/artillery...formation.html
    Almost everyone who, builds an APC tries to market the chassis combined with multiple weapons systems to get maximum value from the design, rarely does it lead to actual sales..even some of the Timoney variats had AML 90 turrets mounted for trials.

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


    But this is far more practicle


    Last edited by hptmurphy; 7th August 2019 at 20:09.
    Time for another break I think......

  10. Likes sofa, ropebag, pym, DeV, meridian liked this post
  11. #108
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

    I, for one, would be hugely confident that it wouldn't fall over when fired on even the steepest ground...
    Think that's an insult to both, that might be one of the ugliest modern vehicles that I've seen in a while.

  12. Likes hptmurphy, ropebag, pym liked this post
  13. #109
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

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

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

  14. #110
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Manufacturers trials fill me with more confidence than you could possibly imagine...

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

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

  15. Likes Sparky42, hptmurphy, meridian liked this post
  16. #111
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Manufacturers trials fill me with more confidence than you could possibly imagine...

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

    Using 155 also puts you in the market for mass produced PGM's as well, which would increase the effectiveness several fold.
    Caesar is on the silly money side of things, what the French ask for that system is beyond me, an alternative would be the 8x8 version of the ATMOS which can use the MAN HX-77

  17. #112
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Caesar is on the silly money side of things, what the French ask for that system is beyond me, an alternative would be the 8x8 version of the ATMOS which can use the MAN HX-77
    The MAN concept is the same as Caeser, so we are only at semantics, need 155...stick it on a truck....
    Time for another break I think......

  18. Likes ropebag liked this post
  19. #113
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like
    One of the huge advantages of Caesar is that you're buying something that has been combat proven, mobility proven in harsh environments, and that is in service with a major western military - and that will remain in service with that military for another couple of decades - and therefore that the upgrades and support will be in place and not need to be bespoke.

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

  20. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42, DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  21. #114
    C/S Tempest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    268
    Post Thanks / Like
    Artillery in the DF is of the tokenistic/cadre of an all arms force. I doubt the DoD would ever spend any money on any new artillery pieces.

  22. #115
    Lieutenant
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempest View Post
    Anything in the DF is of the tokenistic/cadre of an all arms force. I doubt the DoD would ever spend any money on any new equipment .
    Think I fixed that...

  23. Likes ropebag liked this post
  24. #116
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    The thing is, for it's size, when you added the number of mortars and guns in the FCA / RDF, the total establishment was actually very high for such a small army. The failure to bring next to no artillery of any kind on overseas deployments is down to the DF and the DoD. Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.

  25. Likes ropebag, hptmurphy, Tempest liked this post
  26. #117
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,819
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    One of the huge advantages of Caesar is that you're buying something that has been combat proven, mobility proven in harsh environments, and that is in service with a major western military - and that will remain in service with that military for another couple of decades - and therefore that the upgrades and support will be in place and not need to be bespoke.

    That, I would suggest, has a ticket price and value all on its own, and I would further suggest that the value of that is going to be rather greater than the cost.
    If I remember French Army sent over a couple to Britain to try out a year or two ago?

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  28. #118
    CQMS
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    650
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    The thing is, for it's size, when you added the number of mortars and guns in the FCA / RDF, the total establishment was actually very high for such a small army. The failure to bring next to no artillery of any kind on overseas deployments is down to the DF and the DoD. Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.
    My understanding is that on a UN mandated peacekeeping deployment the parties to the conflict have an input into what weaponry the peacekeeping force is allowed to bring with them. So for example in UNIFIL the Israel could prevent artillery being deployed. Open to correction and also unsure how it would relate to a peace enforcement mandate.

  29. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  30. #119
    Lieutenant X-RayOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dublin
    Posts
    1,329
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.
    Unfortunately, as they stand the arty pieces, if brought, would be just for show.

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

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

    The reality is the DF concentrates on mobile, armoured / light infantry formations but the combat support arms are not equipped to same standard as to mobility or self protection so may as well be still using the horsey school horses to pull the guns around.
    The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete.....It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure.We are to-day not far from a disaster.

    T.E. Lawrence, 2 Aug 1920.

  31. Likes DeV liked this post
  32. #120
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggie View Post
    My understanding is that on a UN mandated peacekeeping deployment the parties to the conflict have an input into what weaponry the peacekeeping force is allowed to bring with them. So for example in UNIFIL the Israel could prevent artillery being deployed. Open to correction and also unsure how it would relate to a peace enforcement mandate.
    I guess the French ignored that, as they brought Leclerc tanks and ATGWs, when they took a turn on UN duty.

  33. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag liked this post
  34. #121
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    @xray one, good points but I'd rather have a gun on hand to provide some kind of overwatch than have none at all. The British brought 105s to Afghanistan and got into the habit of setting up firing points on hills, lifted in and out by helicopter and used to interdict Taliban traffic. If you get all historical, I'll bet a battery or two of 25 pdrs would have made life easier for the Irish in the Congo. Jadotville, by the grace of (insert diety here) depended on luck and stubborness to a great extent and the intervention of a gun battery would certainly have changed the odds. It's all about the mental security of knowing that if you get hit up, you can dial up some artillery intervention. Tooling around parts of Africa, depending on a single 12.7mm per APC, is a tall order when even the lowest scumbag militia can whistle up multiple RPGs, recoilless rifles, mortars, weapons like Dshkas and ZU-23s and sundry legacy Soviet AFVs. I'd rather Irish soldiers brought guns or heavy mortars with them and dragged them about, than be left uncovered.

  35. Likes ropebag, spider liked this post
  36. #122
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    The French took their GCT-155mm SPGs with them to UNIFIL and IFOR, they also have deployed the CAESAR systems to Lebanon.
    The Italians have often deploy Centauro tank destroyers on peace-keeping including with UNIFIL.
    So if we though we had an operational need we could deploy the 105's.

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

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

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

  37. Thanks DeV, meridian thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, X-RayOne, DeV, Tempest, meridian liked this post
  38. #123
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like
    We used three interlocking models in Afghanistan - a) numerou static, two/whatever 105mm gun firebases on hilltops to provide a network of fires over the AO, b) mobile two/whatever gun firebases moved around by helicopter - you could have two guns, each firing at 10 rounds a minute within 2 minutes or so of the first gun touching the ground, and you could have them airborne again within two minutes of the last round leaving the muzzle, and it wouldn't be unusual for a gun troop to move half a dozen times in a day to cover patrols and developing contacts - and c) static, but positioned, long ranged systems like GMLRS and SpikeNLOS, that provided specialist, precision fires within the AO.

    Moving Exactor (SpikeNLOS) around is child's play - an AW139 could move the firing post and crew in one hop...
    Last edited by ropebag; 11th August 2019 at 09:33.

  39. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, GoneToTheCanner, spider liked this post
  40. #124
    Sergeant Major EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    846
    Post Thanks / Like
    Talking of NLOS, there was even a light weight version developed with a weight of 1350kg, easily within the capability of am AW-139. The idea behind is to have mobile artillery for SOF's.

    https://defense-update.com/20190204_...os-tomcar.html

  41. #125
    gunner at heart Archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    True a 105LG could not even cover the relatively small operational area in the UNIFIL or UNDOF missions for that a modern 155mm 52 cal with ERBB would be needed.
    L118s could easily cover the Irish AO. The attached map shows the area within 17.2km of a battery at the Irish HQ (max range of the standard ammo). Planning range would be about 10% less. Greater range is available with basebleed ammo. As ropebag pointed out, the area covered can be greatly increased by dispersing the battery into interlocking 2-gun firebases.

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

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  42. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, meridian, Tempest, pym, EUFighter liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •