Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MOWAG replacement

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

  • #76
    Alright, this is pure amateur hour so my apologies in advance, but here I go.
    Armoured recce in terms of Irish cav doctrine is basically, get out of dodge when you meet any armour or anti-armour.
    Which is right, of course. But once upon a time when we had a few tanks there was actually the capability to support cavalry with armour - in practice, if not in doctrine.
    It seems to me that the DF's greatest gap is in combined arms capability. A tank squadron that dreams of being part of a regiment but will never be, artillery that doesn't really do joined-up thinking with the supposedly mobile units the rest of the infantry and cav thinks it provides. The idea that, on deployment as part of a larger multinational force, these heavy elements are supplied is well an good but if the DF can't train at home to act organically as part of a combined arms team then how well can it integrate with foreign formations it doesn't consistently train with?
    Surely we need either self-propelled artillery or some other mobile indirect fire weaponry, as well as anti-armour capability, so that even if the DF doesn't actually deploy the whole combined arms team, each part of the team is well-versed in the practice? Cavalry should never move without fire support, if the Scorpions are ever replaced with something up-gunned then that small squadron should be dedicated to escorting APCs. If artillery can't keep up, and scoot before the counter-battery kicks in, then it's not fit for our purpose.
    I think in the long run the DF should aim to field a brigade that, theoretically, can bump into an armoured brigade and fight it, once.

    Comment


    • #77
      Haha, all this talk of A vehicle being a cav asset or an arty asset. The Defence Forces is so small that it shouldn't even have seperate corps. The land component is smaller than a BCT, people just haven't realised it yet!

      Comment


      • #78
        while i accept entirely that the Irish patrol in some sub-Saharan hellhole needs a great deal more defensive capability than it currently has, the 105/90/whatever wheeled vehicle is not the answer.

        firstly because no one has been able to really make the platform actually work despite lots of attempts, and secondly because 105/90/whatever isn't the answer to pretty much any question you might like to ask.

        if you want the ability to brass-up any vehicle you're likely to meet then 40mm will happily do the job, if you want to be able to do precise, as-little-collateral-damage-as-possible engagements then 40mm will happily do the job, and if you need area fire to engage dismounted troops then 40mm will happily do the job.

        if meet an actual, honest-to-goodness tank, driven by people who know what they are doing, then a 105 isn't going to help you - you need another tank, or an aircraft, or an anti-tank missile.

        105 wheeled vehicle is a one trick pony: its not a very good trick, and not a very good pony.

        personally i'd suggest that the current 30mm is acceptable, though the number of them isn't, and if you want longer reach then you should use a combination of the current 120mm mortar with guided ammunition, and something like the Spike NLOS fitted on the SPARC launcher which go to 25km+ and can be towed by any pick-up truck you might want to buy.

        Comment


        • #79
          Have the DF arty got the embedded fire support team idea implemented yet? Without that, even considering to use tubes as any sort of support for recce is going to be wasted.

          if meet an actual, honest-to-goodness tank, driven by people who know what they are doing, then a 105 isn't going to help you
          It certainly isn't. In my VAST (read: extremely short) experience, I've never seen a crew hit a stationary tank hull before the 3rd round. Good luck when it's a T-14 coming at you like honda civic on crack.
          Last edited by gibedepusib0ss; 5 September 2016, 16:14.

          Comment


          • #80
            well, if the artillery aren't prepared to give direct (by which I mean line of sight) fire support,(which the 105 is perfectly capable of doing) by dragging their guns out on tour, then it stands to reason that the mobile people should have a gun capable of defeating or at least severely annoying anything bigger than a technical. They won't bring the Scorps out on tour so 76mms out of the question; the AMLs are gone so 90mm is out unless they buy a 90mm Mowag (don't hold your breath), they are stuck with very expensive missiles or AT4 or the old CG 84mm. If the Irish start flinging around Javelin like snuff at a wake, then the Govt will soon bring that to a halt, so it won't get fired unless it absolutely, absolutely has to. A 30mm might do for brassing up technicals but if anything heavier rocks up, they'd better have lots of ATGMs on hand. Experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa has shown the need for a decent, wheeled gun, especially if your Govt doesn't want to own, field and pay for the upkeep of tanks. A 90mm would give the DF on tour a decent fighting alternative, because as recent deployments have shown, the odds on having a fighting tour are increasing and the last thing the DF needs is to be caught out for lack of hitting power. The excuse that "we only do ISTAR" is a thin one.

            Comment


            • #81
              [QUOTE=GoneToTheCanner;444531] well, if the artillery aren't prepared to give direct (by which I mean line of sight) fire support,(which the 105 is perfectly capable of doing) by dragging their guns out on tour, then it stands to reason that the mobile people should have a gun capable of defeating or at least severely annoying anything bigger than a technical... [QUOTE]

              sorry, there appears to be some confusion arising - the 105's on this thread are the 'tank destroyer' things someone welds onto an APC and flogs to cheap imbeciles who think they've got a tank for 10% of the price which then rolls over when they fire it, not the L118 105mm Light Gun used by the Gods of War.

              against a modern tank driven by people who know what they are doing these 'tank destroyers' are a waste of time - the 105mm isn't powerful enough to get a kill, and the tank can fire from a greater range, and he certainly will get a kill.

              40mm AP will rip the shit out of a T-55 and wreck everything on a T-72, certainly enough to get a mobility kill, and almost certainly enough to get a mission kill.
              Last edited by ropebag; 5 September 2016, 17:41.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                40mm AP will rip the shit out of a T-55 and wreck everything on a T-72, certainly enough to get a mobility kill, and almost certainly enough to get a mission kill.
                Relevent. And a good read tbh. http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/0...be-even-105mm/

                edit: sorry wrong link, brb. Not as on the money as another one I read.
                Last edited by gibedepusib0ss; 5 September 2016, 17:27.

                Comment


                • #83
                  when you look at the activities of pure tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq, once dealing with actual enemy tanks was done with, the tanks simply became mobile artillery, knocking down compound walls or flattening buildings or simply intimidating by their presence. Unfortunately, the better RPGs and the ATGW have started to turn the tables on tanks, especially with massive IEDs in urban areas. Syria and Iraq and now Yemen are a case in point. Big gun tanks are becoming vulnerable like never before, so, it seems to me that a case exists for a fast moving AFV, with a 90 or 105, to keep up with and protect the wheeled APCs and support vehicles. For the Irish, leaving a gun gap in the vehicle park's capability is not a good idea, if you are not going to bring your 76mms or best field gun on tour. 120mm mortars are all very well but if they are in a static battery, they are of limited use.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                    Alright, this is pure amateur hour so my apologies in advance, but here I go.
                    Armoured recce in terms of Irish cav doctrine is basically, get out of dodge when you meet any armour or anti-armour.
                    Which is right, of course. But once upon a time when we had a few tanks there was actually the capability to support cavalry with armour - in practice, if not in doctrine.
                    It seems to me that the DF's greatest gap is in combined arms capability. A tank squadron that dreams of being part of a regiment but will never be, artillery that doesn't really do joined-up thinking with the supposedly mobile units the rest of the infantry and cav thinks it provides. The idea that, on deployment as part of a larger multinational force, these heavy elements are supplied is well an good but if the DF can't train at home to act organically as part of a combined arms team then how well can it integrate with foreign formations it doesn't consistently train with?
                    Surely we need either self-propelled artillery or some other mobile indirect fire weaponry, as well as anti-armour capability, so that even if the DF doesn't actually deploy the whole combined arms team, each part of the team is well-versed in the practice? Cavalry should never move without fire support, if the Scorpions are ever replaced with something up-gunned then that small squadron should be dedicated to escorting APCs. If artillery can't keep up, and scoot before the counter-battery kicks in, then it's not fit for our purpose.
                    I think in the long run the DF should aim to field a brigade that, theoretically, can bump into an armoured brigade and fight it, once.
                    The DF train for combined arms but it is light/mech Inf combined arms as that is are composition and doctrine.

                    What do the infantry and Cav have for anti-armour? The top notch Javelin. Do we have enough? No.

                    An Irish Bde coming up against heavy armour in a conventional ops sense is likely to see the Cav making contact first who as they call in heavy arty and mortar support go through boxes of 30mm, 40mm and 12.7mm, plenty of Javelins, 84s and AT4s. While they burn through the gears to get to the main defensive positions. That is what they are for. They are also most likely to engaging recce elements than MBTs.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I love the phrase "most likely" and "plenty of javelins". I suspect such comments wouldn't survive close contact with the enemy and/or the Department of Finance.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                        I love the phrase "most likely" and "plenty of javelins". I suspect such comments wouldn't survive close contact with the enemy and/or the Department of Finance.
                        Well no plan survives contact with the enemy and if there was a likelyhood of an invasion of a heavy armoured division you would assume that at the very least DoF would allow 10 more missiles to be purchased

                        The Cav comment could vary but in a conventional sense that would be how it would go. whatever the scenario the Cav will be involved early.

                        But as I said the Cav will expend a lot of ordnance bugging out.
                        Last edited by DeV; 5 September 2016, 22:57.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          The 40mm looks like an interesting option for an APC chassis.

                          Given the amount of movement in evidence on the MGS, I'd really wonder about their effective rate of fire with the 105mm versus an MBT.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            It would also demand that a vehicle for transporting any main gun shell has to travel along with the 90 or 105mm armed Mowag. I think the DF could persuade the DoF to fund 90s but not 105s.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              It's the "bugging out" part I don't like. The DF should be equipped to be able to attack and defeat an armoured brigade on home soil, when the Fantasians teleport one onto the plains of Kildare. We can't retreat at home. How we actually operate overseas is adifferent matter, but the DF must be a fighting force in disposition. What's the point, otherwise?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                                It's the "bugging out" part I don't like. The DF should be equipped to be able to attack and defeat an armoured brigade on home soil, when the Fantasians teleport one onto the plains of Kildare. We can't retreat at home. How we actually operate overseas is adifferent matter, but the DF must be a fighting force in disposition. What's the point, otherwise?
                                Cav are recce, that is their main job.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X