Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74

Thread: Panhard AML

  1. #1
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,852
    Post Thanks / Like

    Panhard AML

    'Veteran' Army cars soldier on

    A fleet of Irish armoured vehicles in service for over 45 years is to soldier on for the foreseeable future. French Panhard 4x4 armoured cars first entered service in 1964, when the Defence Forces demanded modern armoured cars after they were forced to fight in home-built 1940s vintage Ford cars in the Congo operation.

    Later batches were also bought, including AML-90 vehicles with a powerful 90mm anti-tank gun.

    However, when the Defence Forces re-equipped with a €120m fleet of 8x8 Mowag armoured vehicles in recent years, they found that the Panhards could not keep up with the modern vehicles.

    Although they served in operations in Cyprus, Lebanon, and Liberia, the Panhards were not taken to Chad or the latest mission in Lebanon.

    Now the Army wants vehicle spare parts to keep the Panhard fleet on the road in Ireland. The Panhards were upgraded in the last decade by South African firm Reumech OMC, with new sights and 20mm guns.

    Five years ago, outgoing Chief of Staff Lt Gen Jim Sreenan said that the next vehicle equipment priority was to get a replacement for the AML-90 fleet.

    However, that now appears to have been shelved for the moment, with more Mowag reconnaissance vehicles bought for the Cavalry Corps instead.
    http://www.independent.ie/national-n...n-3105741.html

  2. #2
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    2,192
    Post Thanks / Like
    Which are of greater use, the Mowags or the AML-90's, in the big scheme of things?
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  3. #3
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    They still won't be going overseas any time soon. The "upgrades" made many practically useless.
    Well done on a non story from the indo. "army seeks spare parts for a vehicle it uses-shocker".
    Shame on you Rhodes for reading the Indo-enemy of the Public Sector worker.

    While the AML60 entered service in 1964, the current in-service cars bear only a faint resemblence to that car.
    Petrol engine-gone(and with it the whole back end of the car).
    60mm Mortar-Gone, replaced with a 20mm upside down gun.
    It is unfortunate they didn't upgrade the drivers seat while they were at it.
    Its like saying the army still uses the same GPMGs it first got back in Nineteen-smonty smosh.

  4. #4
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    Which are of greater use, the Mowags or the AML-90's, in the big scheme of things?
    Mowags, definitely. The AML is no longer a realistic defence against enemy armour and its design makes it an ineffective recce car. Crew Fatigue plays a big part in this, though, improved crew helmets has made a difference.
    Driver position is only good for 50 miles max. They are of a bygone age. Remember when cars had a single bench seat in front, no reclining, and no seat belt? That generation. Turret drop seats are OK, but the opiscopes were not included in the upgrade.
    It is still based on a WW2 design, when the opfor it will encounter will probably be armed to cold war standard.
    The Mowag on the other hand provide a modern, fast, comfortable means of armoured transport to its crew and passengers, while still providing them with excellent situational awareness. It has proved itself in Eritrea, Chad, Liberia and of course Lebanon. Apart from the initial complaints about weld cracking (which was rectified in the first batch) we have heard no complaints from its users. The Cav versions also provide a modern, realistic armament for the percieved threat.

  5. Thanks Flamingo, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo liked this post
  6. #5
    Lt Colonel Connaught Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Town of Deva, Transylvania Romania
    Posts
    2,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    However, when the Defence Forces re-equipped with a €120m fleet of 8x8 Mowag armoured vehicles in recent years, they found that the Panhards could not keep up with the modern vehicles.
    No mention of the defect in the recoil mechanism of the 90, which caused them to be pulled from service on Health & Safety issues.

    Connaught Stranger

  7. #6
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Connaught Stranger View Post
    No mention of the defect in the recoil mechanism of the 90, which caused them to be pulled from service on Health & Safety issues.

    Connaught Stranger
    What defect is that? It works fine when fitters put the right things in the right places.

  8. #7
    Lt Colonel Connaught Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Town of Deva, Transylvania Romania
    Posts
    2,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    What defect is that? It works fine when fitters put the right things in the right places.
    The defect, as I remember was in the recoil mechanism, causing oil from the recoil mechanism to be sprayed into the compartment, it was a little more serious than just Fitters forgetting to put the right things in the right places.

    Connaught Stranger.

  9. #8
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    The defect was caused by fitters putting the wrong thing in the wrong places. The oil only escaped because the wrong gas was put in the mechanism. When it couldn't go where it was designed to go, it had to find another route. Result, big flash inside turret, which was actually caught on camera. Gunners helmet was blown off, and is seen flying through the air.

  10. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  11. #9
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    14,915
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    Which are of greater use, the Mowags or the AML-90's, in the big scheme of things?
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    Mowags, definitely. The AML is no longer a realistic defence against enemy armour and its design makes it an ineffective recce car.
    Depends on what you want it to do?!

    If you want fire support to take on enemy light/medium armour, it may be better to have a 90mm

  12. #10
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Depends on what you want it to do?!

    If you want fire support to take on enemy light/medium armour, it may be better to have a 90mm
    if i had to take on any sort of armour I'd rather be in the MRV than the aml, the mk 44 30mm is light years ahead.

  13. #11
    Combat IT Specialist The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Fixing the MRAPS wifi
    Posts
    2,403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post

    If you want fire support to take on enemy light/medium armour, it may be better to have a 90mm
    And if they bad guy has anything more powerful than an AK it'd be better to be in a Mowag.
    Pillage, then burn.

    Don't expect the enemy to cooperate in the creation of your dream engagement.

    The longer everything goes according to plan, the bigger the impending disaster.

  14. #12
    Banned User hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    clonmel
    Posts
    11,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Given the engine upgrade could have included a bigger , more powerful engine, and increased the road speed, it would compromise crew safety.

    Anyone who has travelled in an AML will tell you that speed on metalled roads is fine but off road the car would be far to unstable.

    they have a tendency to roll into corners and once or twice there were reach out and almost touch the ground moments.

    The AML 20s gun is as good as useless, the 90 gun to old to be effective against modern armour.Given the have aboslutely no commonality with the tactics currently practised by the Cavalry they really have no place in the PDF.

    If they are not suitable for the PDF nor are they suitable for the RDF but the reserve squadrons outside the pale still have AML 90s on charge and while they are well maintained,capable of full filling their original intended role again unless the PDF Cav change their role (again) and the reserve follows they have no credible use.l

    They are difficult to maintain, difficult for driver training and of very limited value operationally so why spend money on something that should have been replaced 10 years ago.
    Here endeth the lesson!

  15. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  16. #13
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,229
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Brass know exactly what needs to be done, ie, confine the AMLs to a museum and buy Mowag-based 90 or 105mm guns, capable of dealing effectively with at least a T55 or a T-62, much more likely to be found in Africa or the Middle East. If a T72 rocks up, buy more javelins or an SU-25.

    regards
    GttC

  17. #14
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    386
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    The Brass know exactly what needs to be done, ie, confine the AMLs to a museum and buy Mowag-based 90 or 105mm guns, capable of dealing effectively with at least a T55 or a T-62, much more likely to be found in Africa or the Middle East. If a T72 rocks up, buy more javelins or an SU-25.

    regards
    GttC
    I know the Belgian Mowag/90mm was a political decision, but surely that solution would suit us rather than going down the unproven Mowag/105mm road or buying a completely different chassis.
    Have we encountered a situation in the past where we needed something bigger than a 90mm? If we have or will then a Mowag/105mm is not the answer ,we should be looking at something better (MBT) or reassessing our roles.

  18. #15
    Sergeant madmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    traveling to Cork
    Posts
    588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    I know the Belgian Mowag/90mm was a political decision
    http://www.armyrecognition.com/wheel...moured_uk.html

    the Belgians are not the only ones with mowag 90mm gun systems
    keep the faith and soldier on......

  19. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  20. #16
    Banned User hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    clonmel
    Posts
    11,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have we encountered a situation in the past where we needed something bigger than a 90mm?
    Given our primary overseas commitments have been peace keeping or partcipation in Battle Groups that have their own armoured support 90mm would be sufficent.

    Armoured infantry would require IFVs as opposed to APC's the Mowag MRV fulfils this role adequately and could be compared in weapon performance , with the Brdaley being the exceptio being co axially armed with TOW, but with the 25mm Bushmaster chain gun as primary gun system the British using the 30mm gun as the primary weapon system on their IFV.

    Problem being as weapon size increases, troop carrying capability falls away.

    The army has been tailored toward a specific type of role that does not envisgae have to fight pitched engagements with heavy armour unite...ie MBTs so employment of the 90mm gun is purely a precautionary measure is is available on the AML245 chassis only because we have it in existence rather that having to procure a system that gave the same capability.

    Given there is MRV was the system of choice , there will hardly be a secondary requets for anoth variant of the mowag given we have a 90mm gun in service albeit 30 years out of date.
    Here endeth the lesson!

  21. #17
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don't forget, the 90mm was designed as an anti tank gun. But if you don't get a kill on your first shot, or there is more than one armoured target, its over.
    The only effective face to face defence against a tank is another tank.
    Not an anti tank gun on a light wheeled AFV.

  22. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  23. #18
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    2,192
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    The only effective face to face defence against a tank is another tank.
    Or an Apache

    (In your own time, carry on...)
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  24. Likes Goldie fish liked this post
  25. #19
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    14,915
    Post Thanks / Like
    I suppose it comes down to this - do you want a brigade level asset to be able to have organic fire support ? Eg a troop of LTAVs is engaged by enemy light armour outside the range of artillery?

  26. #20
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    If LTAVs are engaged by enemy armour, then the threat assessment was seriously underestimated.
    You don't send armoured trucks into an area where you may encounter hostile tanks.

  27. #21
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    This type of thread always degenerates into talk about the DF's need to engage with tanks, without pointing out that fighting tanks, even overseas is the least likely senario for the defence forces. .

    The simple fact is that the defence forces will operate in the future as part of a western coalition, essentially with overwhelming air power, and the bad guys have worked out from experience since 1991 that their tanks will be attacked from the air and destroyed before they come in range of western ground forces, hence why over the past twenty or so years they moved onto the "technicals", you see in every third world country that are mobile and easier to camoflage from air power.

    Thats largely why most european counties have abandoned their tank fleets, Belgium and the Netherlands combined operated over a thousand MBT during the cold war but have now phased them all out.

    As for the mowag with the 90mm belgium uses and the Stryker mobile gun system, neither are sucessful, the Stryker MGS still is rated as deficient and has not gone into full rate production, while the belgium buy of 90mm armed mowags has been capped at 18 instead of the planned for 40, and they are being offered for sale soon. And its important to remember that neither were designed as anti tank vehicles, they're both there to provide support to infantry units, to engage machine gun nests and bunkers and the like.

    Now if you look at the defence forces annual report and the like, where they list the forces for overseas the combat units offered are an infantry battalion, a reconnaissance unit and an artillery battery.

    The reconnaissance unit in question is the istar company for the Battlegroup, and the MRV serve that role very well.

    Which leaves us with the infantry battalion. Now if we look at the standard british infantry battalion, they've restructured their support company on deployments to Afghanistan and have combined the sniper and reconnaissance platoon into a patrols unit and their anti tank and machine gun platoons into a fire support group, with about nine landrover WMIK/jackals mounted with GMG 40mm AGL and 12.7mm HMG and a Javelin in the back.

    if you look at the Reconnaissance company in the unifil battalion, with the CRV in the cavalry troop, and the LTAVS in Javelin platoon, you've got something similar evolving.

    As for why they're keeping on the AML 90, there is a need for medium armour and a direct fire support capability, but the two wars over the past decade have sent everybody back to the drawing board to rethink their requirements, and there will be a load of new projects around 2016 bearing fruit, such as the British FRES and the French Scorpion, and they'll be able to make a better informed decision then.
    Last edited by paul g; 17th May 2012 at 15:50.

  28. Likes Flamingo, Aidan liked this post
  29. #22
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    2,192
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just out of interest, has the army ever deployed anywhere where having to take on tanks was a realistic scenario?

    Would it have been more than a possibility that Israeli MBT's would have been taken on in the Leb, for example?
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  30. #23
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Villa Straylight
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    The only potential place recently that I can think of was Chad (in the unlikely scenario where the Sudan tried to push into eastern Chad using armour). It would have been highly unlikely that UNIFIL forces would have ever had to engage Israeli forces directly (other armed elements perhaps).

    As Paul pointed out, most European countries don't figure on having to fight tanks and particularly modern ones in the open any time soon. That said, there is a potential role for a large caliber gun in terms of reducing fortifications and obstacles but that doesn't really justify such a purchase any time soon either. Short to medium term replacement for the AMLs is obviously more MRVs - long term, who knows?

  31. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  32. #24
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    14,915
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    If LTAVs are engaged by enemy armour, then the threat assessment was seriously underestimated.
    You don't send armoured trucks into an area where you may encounter hostile tanks.
    What if the enemy has light armoured recce? For example, Scorpion or the like.

    Battle is fluid!

    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    This type of thread always degenerates into talk about the DF's need to engage with tanks, without pointing out that fighting tanks, even overseas is the least likely senario for the defence forces. .

    The simple fact is that the defence forces will operate in the future as part of a western coalition, essentially with overwhelming air power, and the bad guys have worked out from experience since 1991 that their tanks will be attacked from the air and destroyed before they come in range of western ground forces, hence why over the past twenty or so years they moved onto the "technicals", you see in every third world country that are mobile and easier to camoflage from air power.

    Thats largely why most european counties have abandoned their tank fleets, Belgium and the Netherlands combined operated over a thousand MBT during the cold war but have now phased them all out.

    As for the mowag with the 90mm belgium uses and the Stryker mobile gun system, neither are sucessful, the Stryker MGS still is rated as deficient and has not gone into full rate production, while the belgium buy of 90mm armed mowags has been capped at 18 instead of the planned for 40, and they are being offered for sale soon. And its important to remember that neither were designed as anti tank vehicles, they're both there to provide support to infantry units, to engage machine gun nests and bunkers and the like.

    Now if you look at the defence forces annual report and the like, where they list the forces for overseas the combat units offered are an infantry battalion, a reconnaissance unit and an artillery battery.

    The reconnaissance unit in question is the istar company for the Battlegroup, and the MRV serve that role very well.

    Which leaves us with the infantry battalion. Now if we look at the standard british infantry battalion, they've restructured their support company on deployments to Afghanistan and have combined the sniper and reconnaissance platoon into a patrols unit and their anti tank and machine gun platoons into a fire support group, with about nine landrover WMIK/jackals mounted with GMG 40mm AGL and 12.7mm HMG and a Javelin in the back.

    if you look at the Reconnaissance company in the unifil battalion, with the CRV in the cavalry troop, and the LTAVS in Javelin platoon, you've got something similar evolving.

    As for why they're keeping on the AML 90, there is a need for medium armour and a direct fire support capability, but the two wars over the past decade have sent everybody back to the drawing board to rethink their requirements, and there will be a load of new projects around 2016 bearing fruit, such as the British FRES and the French Scorpion, and they'll be able to make a better informed decision then.
    I never said anything about tanks! The DF is a light infantry based force with mininal fire support. That fire support in the past has consisted of cavalry light armour and light artillery.

    There have been a number of situations where battle groups could have been deployed and yet they haven't been, nor AFAIK have their been any calls from them to be. Due to the financial situation this country is likely to continue to suffer for the next 5-10 years, it is unlikely that Ireland will become involved in non-UN blue beret missions (eg KFOR, EUFOR etc). Therefore it will be UN missions like UNIFIL. Western coalitions don't like getting involved in them historically (and especially since UNPROFOR)!

    Just look at how hard it was for the might of NATO to find Serb armour when it was given permission to engage in both Bosnia and Kosovo.

    I'm not suggesting MBTs or even a 105mm armed vehicle. 90mm is enough IMHO, why?

    http://www.military.ie/army/organisa...-corps/cavalry

    Look at the strategic vision - The Cavalry Corps will continue to develop, sustain and deliver effective, flexible and appropriate Combat Support resources to the Defence Forces to ensure that it has sufficient.......armoured reconnaissance and direct fire support capabilities

    Tasks like "pursuit", "raids", "counter recce", "recce strike" and "flank protection" may require a gun bigger than 30mm.

    In my view, something around 90mm is required in order to give direct fire support when required both to Cavalry and Infantry units. They are more flexible than the likes of Javelin (and a lot cheaper!). It is exactly the likes of fixed positions and light armour that they would engage.

    Recce and artillery aren't combat units, they are combat support. That unit is 80 strong, the Irish element of the battlegroup is a lot higher than that.

    The Brits are using Scimitar at Battalion level in Afghanistan




    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    Just out of interest, has the army ever deployed anywhere where having to take on tanks was a realistic scenario?

    Would it have been more than a possibility that Israeli MBT's would have been taken on in the Leb, for example?
    Quote Originally Posted by Aidan View Post
    The only potential place recently that I can think of was Chad (in the unlikely scenario where the Sudan tried to push into eastern Chad using armour). It would have been highly unlikely that UNIFIL forces would have ever had to engage Israeli forces directly (other armed elements perhaps).

    As Paul pointed out, most European countries don't figure on having to fight tanks and particularly modern ones in the open any time soon. That said, there is a potential role for a large caliber gun in terms of reducing fortifications and obstacles but that doesn't really justify such a purchase any time soon either. Short to medium term replacement for the AMLs is obviously more MRVs - long term, who knows?
    The Dutch fired TOWs (as warning shots I think) at DFF MBTs in Lebanon in the early days.

  33. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  34. #25
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Dutch fired TOW warning shots at Super Shermans during the Battle of At-Tiri.
    The 30mm is as good for fire support as the 90mm in a modern conflict, and can keep more heads down. The AML 90 as a direct fire gun had a relatively limited range.
    You are really into whataboutery now though.
    Think of the combat history of the vehicle. I'd say the only combat kill the type saw, worldwide, was At Tiri. The Argies had them in 1982, they may have suited the Junta for intimidating its opressed population at home and in the falklands, but by june, they were parked up in Stanley, after being outflanked by the Superior mobility offroad of the Scorps and Scimitar of the Blues and Royals.
    The gun was fine in the 50s, when nobody had things like thermal imaging, stabilised guns, smart ammo, active armour, and most importantly "dry" turrets. I imagine it is bad for one's blood pressure to have hostile nutjobs open up with AP on you as you sit within a hairs breath of a known to be unstable 90mm precussion cap.
    If you want something that big, it needs to have an unmanned turret and an autoloader. That would be a stryker MGS, which has died a death. Feck all good for recce though.

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
  •