Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Mowag Piranhas in action

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Is that an APU on the left rear of the hull? Also, is there any public data available on the applique armour? Those are big flat surfaces for any gunner to be shooting at.

    Just checked - the Belgian guns are the medium pressure (MP) version of the 90mm. The LP version wasn't a million miles from the one on the AML, with a mv of around 1200m/s for its APFSDS (a 2.5kg projectile with a diameter of 20mm), and which had very marginal penetration against tanks, even older ones (T-55 etc) from the front. It might have better behind armour effects, but as an anti tank weapon, it's about on a par with the 30mm Bushmaster the DF use. The MP seems better, with an mv of 1350m/s for the APFSDS, which should do 150mm RHAE at 2km - a bit back from even a 50 year old L7/M68, but not terrible. CMI advertise it as having 'similar' anti-tank capabilities to 105mm systems - in this case 'similar' appears to mean a bit 'worse', and on a platform that is very vulnerable to anything above 7.62mm ...

    http://www.armyrecognition.com/belgi...t_product.html
    Last edited by Aidan; 10 May 2013, 12:47. Reason: Actually did some research

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Aidan View Post
      Is that an APU on the left rear of the hull? Also, is there any public data available on the applique armour? Those are big flat surfaces for any gunner to be shooting at.

      Just checked - the Belgian guns are the medium pressure (MP) version of the 90mm. The LP version wasn't a million miles from the one on the AML, with a mv of around 1200m/s for its APFSDS (a 2.5kg projectile with a diameter of 20mm), and which had very marginal penetration against tanks, even older ones (T-55 etc) from the front. It might have better behind armour effects, but as an anti tank weapon, it's about on a par with the 30mm Bushmaster the DF use. The MP seems better, with an mv of 1350m/s for the APFSDS, which should do 150mm RHAE at 2km - a bit back from even a 50 year old L7/M68, but not terrible. CMI advertise it as having 'similar' anti-tank capabilities to 105mm systems - in this case 'similar' appears to mean a bit 'worse', and on a platform that is very vulnerable to anything above 7.62mm ...

      http://www.armyrecognition.com/belgi...t_product.html
      its not designed to fight tanks, its designed to support infantry units in low intensity conflicts. For that mission its fine, as it will mainly be firing HE, HESH, cannister and smoke rounds

      You've got an obsession with these vehicles engaging tanks, in reality they're there to support infantry units fight third world units armed with technicals abnd light armoured vehicles.

      Comment


      • #18
        I'd be more curious about its stability, mobility, load and fcs.

        Can it smashy smashy pop up targets on the move I.e. as close in dfs on an advance to contact or when in a Liberia style coy gp patrol
        "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

        Comment


        • #19
          You've got an obsession with these vehicles engaging tanks, in reality they're there to support infantry units fight third world units armed with technicals abnd light armoured vehicles.
          When the reason for going with a large direct fire weapon (as opposed to an autocannon) is generally pointed out to be the effectiveness of the system in an anti-tank role, then it seems rational to start by having a look at it's effectivess in that role. For the Belgians, this replaces the Leo 1 and they were far from comfortable with the decision for a load of reasons, this being one (another being the widespread perception that the only reason this turret was purchased was to give a hand to the MECAR and CMI facilities in Belgium). This is a good outline.

          http://www.lalibre.be/index.php?view...&art_id=210132


          The question of weight, mobility and optics are every bit as important in the real world, given that it would likely have a role as a convoy escort or as a QRF role (where the Q matters). Mobility off road would be key in most of its roles, and that turret has a lot of weight, stacked very high up. Mechanical reliability is also going to be a factor, given the weight of the thing over the standard PIII - haven't the Irish ones had issues with axles and hubs? How is this going to manage if deployed somewhere typically third world, working off road for long periods with such high axle loads? Armour matters too, and not just because of the size of the thing, or because it is unlikely to have to deal with tanks. After all, a 'gunner' might be using a 23mm ZSU-2 on the back of a Hilux (or even a 12.7mm), and he's going to aim for the most dangerous target - this beast.

          Strikes me that there is a gap in the market here for Mowag - take the engine, drive train, suspension, axles etc from a PIII/PIV, and put them all in a lower, better armoured chassis than the PIIIC/H, and put a mid mounted turret on the thing, capable of taking anything from a 25mm, through 40mm CTA, to 105mm. It would resolve any stability or visual profile issues that arise from customers plonking a turret on top of an already quite tall apc, be better protected, but allow the benefit of commonality of mechanical and electrical systems across with existing customer PIII fleets. Bingo, an AMX-10RC for the 2020s, but cheaper to run.

          Comment


          • #20
            Aidan the canadians did a really good review into this type of vehicle back in 1998, have a look its on the web at



            The large weapon is there for infantry support, that is why the Americans developed the MGS, its there to fire HESH, cannister and Smoke to support infantry units, they use Stryker TOW or M-1 Abrams to engage MBT.

            if you think about the DF, the battalion for any future operations will be pretty similar to the one in the lebanon at the monent, two infantry companies and a Recce company with a battalion Support group; if you're going to have a Direct fire Support Cability at all, it will fit in the Recce Company, as an extra troop to support the infantry companies.

            Now personally I think that there is a role for Direct fire support, but I'd rather see a mortar carrier bought first and the mowag fleet updated.
            Last edited by paul g; 10 May 2013, 15:11.

            Comment


            • #21
              Interesting paper.

              However, it is worth noting that both the Americans and Canadians have cancelled their MGS order, and both now use MBTs in the fire support role in Afghanistan. The Canadians went so far as to have their Leopard 2s shipped straight there, despite the lack of an armoured threat, such was their desire to have a tank in theatre (after starting off with their Leopard 1s). The future tank, in both cases, is a tank (and to be fair, supplemented by a mix of LAVIIIs/Strykers, Bradleys and air support).

              In simple terms, the majority of western countries have not pursued the concept of landing a big gun on an APC and using that to supplement or replace a tank. There are reasons for this.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                The LP version wasn't a million miles from the one on the AML, with a mv of around 1200m/s for its APFSDS (a 2.5kg projectile with a diameter of 20mm), and which had very marginal penetration against tanks, even older ones (T-55 etc) from the front. It might have better behind armour effects, but as an anti tank weapon, it's about on a par with the 30mm Bushmaster the DF use.
                I don't know of hand what the effects on armour of the AML 90 or MRV but a HEAT round from an AML 90 wound penetration twice the thickness of armour the MRVs 30mm gun could.

                The French are planning on moving away from the big gun on their recce vehicles, replacing both the ERC 90 and AMX 10 with a vehicle armed with a 40mm gun and multi target missile.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Aidan, all valid points. But I kind of think your reply is non sequitur to Paul's last.
                  "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                    However, it is worth noting that both the Americans and Canadians have cancelled their MGS order, and both now use MBTs in the fire support role in Afghanistan. The Canadians went so far as to have their Leopard 2s shipped straight there, despite the lack of an armoured threat, such was their desire to have a tank in theatre (after starting off with their Leopard 1s). The future tank, in both cases, is a tank (and to be fair, supplemented by a mix of LAVIIIs/Strykers, Bradleys and air support).

                    .
                    yep, actually quite sad to see the men who spent their careers dreaming of fighting kursk mk 2 reduced to providing direct fire support to mere infantrymen.

                    What is it, three danish leopards and about 14 abrams in total in Afganistan? Out of how many armoured vehicles?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by paul g View Post
                      yep, actually quite sad to see the men who spent their careers dreaming of fighting kursk mk 2 reduced to providing direct fire support to mere infantrymen.
                      "Mere Infantrymen" My tanker friends, including the last Tank Sqn Commander in Kandahar, did not seem to mind their DFS role. Actually, they thought that was much better than operating some "tank-wannabes" and showing the flag on peacekeeping missions (we did that for far too long...). Armies are designed and trained for combat; everything else is a side show.

                      Originally posted by paul g View Post
                      What is it, three danish leopards and about 14 abrams in total in Afganistan? Out of how many armoured vehicles?
                      If you look at it in raw numbers only, you gotta point... but you shouldn't; we deployed 20 MBTs to Kandahar until 2011, and the effects they brought were disproportionate to their numbers.
                      "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

                      Never give up!!"

                      Comment


                      • #26

                        As a fan of the big gun concept, the lack of enthusiasm for throwing a few shapes in their advertising for this version is cause for disappointment.
                        "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jungle View Post
                          "[I]
                          If you look at it in raw numbers only, you gotta point... but you shouldn't; we deployed 20 MBTs to Kandahar until 2011, and the effects they brought were disproportionate to their numbers.

                          Buit you can't get away from raw numbers, there are less than 20 MBT in Afghanistan with ISAF and were never more than 40 in the first place, intresting that the brits left their MBT behind but brought their MBT based engineering vehicles.

                          I'ver no doubt that Canadian MBT were very effective especially in the fighting around September 2006 when they were taking on enterenched Taliban forces, but the key system was the 105mm and the ability to fire HESH, would the MGS not have performed that task as well.

                          And you cant get away from the fact that comparable armies in size to ireland don't deploy MBT and have got rid of their large fleets.

                          If you look at the infantry battalion ireland can deploy overseas (and there was a really good series of articles on the unit in An cosantoir over the past few months) , then there are areas like the battalion mortar platoon and engineering platoon along with casuality evacuation that are as, if not more important than direct fire support in any environment, where we could do with improving out capabilities in before thinking about direct fire support
                          Last edited by paul g; 10 May 2013, 17:11.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Out of how many armoured vehicles?
                            Thousands. How many of these were APCs with large calibre direct fire weapons lobbed up top?

                            There are and were plenty of autocannon and HMG equiped ASLAVs, LAVs, Strykers etc (and CV90, Marder and Bradleys too). Thats my point - big gunned wheeled vehicles are not in favour anywhere in the developed world really - the MRV the DF here use is pretty much the ame answer as everyone else arrives at too, unless you happen to have a factory building 90mm turrets and another making the ammunition for it - in your country. I'm not arguing for a second that the DF should operate MBTs (in fact, I haven't really been talking about the DF at all in this thread), just that there are huge compromises associated with this type of weapons system, and that two countries that put a lot of thought into a highly evolved version of one (the MGS) have both walked away from it, not because the mission changed, but simply because it didn't stack up.
                            Last edited by Aidan; 10 May 2013, 17:12.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by paul g View Post
                              I'ver no doubt that Canadian MBT were very effective especially in the fighting around September 2006 when they were taking on enterenched Taliban forces, but the key system was the 105mm and the ability to fire HESH, would the MGS not have performed that task as well.
                              I think the key ability was the level of protection they brought.

                              Originally posted by paul g View Post
                              And you cant get away from the fact that comparable armies in size to ireland don't deploy MBT and have got rid of their large fleets.
                              They did, but for financial reasons, not because other systems are better. They are jeopardizing long term security capabilities for short term financial gains; I understand the economic climate in some countries, but once a capability is gone, it is extremely difficult to stand it up again. Until it bites you in the ass...

                              Some countries could have bought a Sqn+ of modern MBTs to replace their Regt's worth in order to maintain the capability, without spending an enormous sum of money. Buying more tanks becomes a lot easier then reintroducing them in your inventory.
                              Last edited by Jungle; 10 May 2013, 17:56.
                              "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

                              Never give up!!"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                M1 Abrams, Tank (Invention), United States Army Ordnance Museum (Museum), Army Reserve (Military Unit), Army National Guard (Armed Force), United States Military Academy (College/University), m1a1, abrams, Tank Ship (Ship Type)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X