Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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?
given how non-state actors - IS, BH, the various AQ/IS affilliated nasties spread over North Africa and the Sahara - have been able to sweep State armies before them and steal their tanks, APC's, Self-Propelled Guns etc... at some stage in the near-medium term an Irish MOWAG patrol is going to meet a handful of T-72's coming the other way.
you do not want to meet a handful of T-72's with a single Jav launcher and one 30mm.
for me the territoral defence issue is a red herring - any power that had the capability to put an Armoured Bn on Irish soil is also going to have the capability to close all Irelands sea lanes of communication and reduce all of its military infrastructure to broken concrete and twisted metal without taking a single casualty in return. that Armoured Bn is also going to turn up with AH and fast jets - whatever armoured/mechanised force you were to send to fight that Armoured Bn isn't going to get with 20 miles of it before it gets turned into scrap metal.
Ireland can't fight that kind of enemy without a sustained defence budget of 8% of GDP, and it would be a waste of life trying. its also not on the cards, whereas meeting half a dozen T-55/T-64/T-72 certainly is on the cards.
Oh I agree, I'm not suggesting the target because we will need to be able to defeat such an enemy in Ireland, nor suggesting that if such a situation was happening Ireland would have a hope in hell. I'm saying it's something we should be able to do as a capability and that achieving that capability turns the DF as a whole into a fighting force which impacts its capacity to undertake operations at all levels overseas. "Can we defeat a theoretical armoured brigade?" If "yes" then adequate return on defence investment and competent international partner. If "no" then continue investing.
This target also informs the air corps of it's needs in terms of army support.
I'm just suggesting this target as a means of measuring.
Going back to the support gun question. When we kicked that around on Tony's forum we kinda agreed on the idea of a PC with 30x113 and a gun-mortar like AMOS, Nemo or the Polish rifled 120mm mortar as support gun. It can do the necessary direct fire stuff, including HEAT for armour and HESH for walls and with Strix is quite useful for anti armour. Not as good as a 90mm MP, but you don't lug 2 different guns around and you have integrated fire support in the company or even platoon (platoon = 3 APCs with squads and a support gun-mortar)
Also don't forget EU mutual defence. If that happens, EU forces are going to be around to lend a hand.
doesn't apply to Ireland. when you opt out of mutual defence with regards to others, they opt out of mutual defence with regards to you.
even if Ireland did go for mutual defence within the EU structures, take a look at the actual wording of the treaty, not the headline - its says that mutual defence is aid, in a quantity, nature and timing as decided by the donating nation: that means it could be an Armoured Division, but it could also be 5 litres of diesel, a 24 hour ration pack and a pair of well worn hiking boots. - or, infact, absolutely nothing. all three fit well within the wording of the treaty.
Ok here is my complete 100% Amateur opinion on this.
Firstly can a thread split be done by the mods so that posts relating to SP artillery be moved to the Arty Section? There seems to be some confusion here about the difference between SP Arty and direct fire vehicles.
Anyhu, my tuppence worth is that the Govt should invest in something like the CV90 40MM variant. It should be used to replace the Scorps and also used as an additional brigade level asset for each of the INF brigades that we have on paper.
How many vehicles makes up a squadron? (I have no idea that’s why Im asking) Is it 12? If so then why not get 36 combat vehicles plus 3 Command vehicles plus 3 recovery vehicles. 1 unit of 12 plus command vehicle plus recovery vehicle for each brigade and also a further 12 to replace the scorps.
This is not challenging from a political perspective. Wont cost a fortune, provides a significant boost to firepower, can effectively take on T55 /T62 and is in use with a number of countries that contribute to EU Battlegroups.
The downside is introducing another calibre of weapon. And also the crusties will go bananas about Ireland buying “Tanks”. (no bad thing and at least they are Swedish tanks that play ABBA as the default setting not nasty American killing machines. :-))
All the Cav CRVs and LTAVs have capability of command vehicles and are regularly used as such overseas. Especially when the Inf variant goes down. So if that's done with all replacement s for Cav corps then no need for a designated command car. And before some one says it I wouldn't go with the addition of the camera on the arty car as it can't be used while mobile which takes the speed out of cavalry reconnaissance
Sir I cant find my peltors........Private they are on your face
Anyhu, my tuppence worth is that the Govt should invest in something like the CV90 40MM variant. It should be used to replace the Scorps and also used as an additional brigade level asset for each of the INF brigades that we have on paper.
How many vehicles makes up a squadron? (I have no idea that’s why Im asking) Is it 12? If so then why not get 36 combat vehicles plus 3 Command vehicles plus 3 recovery vehicles. 1 unit of 12 plus command vehicle plus recovery vehicle for each brigade and also a further 12 to replace the Scorpion
But CV9040 is a IFV it isn't a recce vehicle
To me if we have the same vehicle in 1 ACS as in the Cav Sqns that means get rid of 1 ACS and ensure the Cav Sqns have the full compliant of approx 12 AFVs.
Firstly, the AML90, it could not fire on the move as it lacks a suitable stabilisation system and associated sights. Also it put a 90mm gun on a 5.5t vehicle. A 105/120mm CMI or OTO Melara turret on a 30t AMV is a totally different matter. Nevertheless the AML90's gave great service over the years despite their many limitations.
Large guns on wheeled vehicles have a long history, Sd.Kfz 234 an 8x8 the Germans used in WW2, is the Best early example. It at one time mounted the same high velocity 50mm gun they had on their tanks. Later upgraded to 75mm weapons. The modern version is the Italian Centauro, first entering service in 1991 with a 105mm gun. It had perform well on Peacekeeping duty and will now be replaced by the Centauro 2 armed with a 120mm gun. The main advantage of the large gun is munition commonality with the MBT's that Italy operates. They also developed an IFV on the same chassis the Feccia.
The big advantage that a purpose designed vehicle like the Centauro has is the lower CoG. APC's such as the AMV or Piranha V have a high body due to the need to carry the dismounts. Putting a turret on the top does generate a vehicle with a very high CoG with the associated stability problems. But as the engine, Transmission, suspension etc are all in the lower half it might be worth while modifing the body to lower the CoG with a suitable turret. Sure Timoney could knock out a demonstrater relativly quickly.
All artillery can do direct fire, I remember seeing the Israelis looking down though the barrel of a M107 to aim it at targets close by! The L118/119's are capable of firing direct at targets. They are fitted with a direct fire sights for this purpose even if they are better for indirect fire.
We could fit a DENEL T7 turret but there are some fundamental difference between a SPG turret and a CMI or OTO Melara 105/120 turrets. The latter are fully stabilised and have sights designed for direct fire. This normally means laser and night vision equipment. They can if necessary also provide indirect fire out to 10km, but manually laid! The Denel turret is optimised for indirect fire with the appropriate fire control systems. If I had to go for just one it would be either of the CMI / OTO Melara offerings. Naturally if money was available I would buy also the T7.
The CV 90 could be used in the Recce mode, just look at the Bradley, M2 and M3! Although today the difference is just how many sit in the back.
But as the engine, Transmission, suspension etc are all in the lower half it might be worth while modifing the body to lower the CoG with a suitable turret. Sure Timoney could knock out a demonstrater relativly quickly.
bespoke vehicle reduces the advantage of the common hull
The CV 90 could be used in the Recce mode, just look at the Bradley, M2 and M3! Although today the difference is just how many sit in the back.
bespoke vehicle reduces the advantage of the common hull
Yes, but those are mostly due to parts commonality. Patria, if suitably motivated, could probably be persuaded to build a lower hull with mainly the same machanics
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment