Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MOWAG replacement

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

  • #16
    regarding rubber tracks, didn't they get used by Canada on an M113 hull? These days, you can refit any tracked APC with rubber tracks. Great service life, too.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
      regarding rubber tracks, didn't they get used by Canada on an M113 hull? These days, you can refit any tracked APC with rubber tracks. Great service life, too.
      Norwegians have them on their CV90s and got great use in 'stan

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Graylion View Post
        Patria looks like the most interesting one at the moment.

        So what versions would we foresee for a full compliment of 300?

        APC
        Fire support with what? 90mm MP?
        120mm Mortar carrier?
        Command?
        Ambulance?
        The Patria AMOS 120mm appears to be a terrific asset, not least for counter battery role.

        Also..

        Engineering?
        Recovery?
        Anti-Air?
        Tank Destroyer? (Similar to M1134)

        Comment


        • #19
          The AMV has been fitted with turret from Cockeril with a 105mm gun. It could easily take a 120mm.
          The italians are upgrading their tank destroyers with a 120mm

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            The AMV has been fitted with turret from Cockeril with a 105mm gun. It could easily take a 120mm.
            The italians are upgrading their tank destroyers with a 120mm
            I always wondered about the point of these large guns on light chassis. I know the South Africans intentionally did not arm their Rooikats with big guns so their commanders did not hit upon the idea of engaging MBTs. What about the Cockerill 90mm MP and some Spike LR?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post
              The Patria AMOS 120mm appears to be a terrific asset, not least for counter battery role.

              Also..

              Engineering?
              Recovery?
              Anti-Air?
              Tank Destroyer? (Similar to M1134)
              Anti-Air: SkyRanger? With Giraffe 1X and RBS70 NG as well as Millennium guns?

              I like the tank destroyer idea - mix it in with the fire support vehicle?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                regarding rubber tracks, didn't they get used by Canada on an M113 hull? These days, you can refit any tracked APC with rubber tracks. Great service life, too.
                Soucy Defense
                "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


                • #23
                  Not quite on topic, but a lovely one on the subject of IFVs: https://warisboring.com/the-comedy-t...t-2bc6aaa69457
                  Last edited by Graylion; 29 August 2016, 02:32.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    On the topic of operating tracked vehicles, we already do and they have rubber tracks; BV206. Not just the 206 uses rubber tracks but also the BvS10 and the Bronco/Warthog
                    Most likely the most complex advanced piece of kit we have with their AD search radar!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The South African Rooikats have an APFSDS round. And what do we use APFSDS for? Ahhh yes talking out armour (also known as tanks).
                      In fact during the Bush war they would use their Elan90's and Ratel90's to take out Angolan T55's. Tactic was to hit them from the sides. They would do the same today if they got the chance. The T54/55 series is still the only tank they are likely to meet.
                      I don't think the SAA commanders are shy of engaging armour with the Rooikats.
                      Reason for the 76mm was weight as the primary mission is very long range scouting as well as "seek and destroy" in sandy desert conditions. And if there is a chance then take out a tank or two!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        For air defence I would intigrate the turret from the Korean K30 BiHo. Twin guns, missiles, radar etc all on one vehicle.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          The South African Rooikats have an APFSDS round. And what do we use APFSDS for? Ahhh yes talking out armour (also known as tanks).
                          In fact during the Bush war they would use their Elan90's and Ratel90's to take out Angolan T55's. Tactic was to hit them from the sides. They would do the same today if they got the chance. The T54/55 series is still the only tank they are likely to meet.
                          I don't think the SAA commanders are shy of engaging armour with the Rooikats.
                          Reason for the 76mm was weight as the primary mission is very long range scouting as well as "seek and destroy" in sandy desert conditions. And if there is a chance then take out a tank or two!
                          By the late 1980s the 90mm was proving to have great difficulty penetrating the upgraded armour on Angolan T55s. Repeated hits and luck was the only chance their HEAT rounds had. That's why they developed the 76mm high velocity gun, and you're right.. Little apart from T55s to worry about in southern Africa. Denel did stick a 105 on the rooikat for the as yet non-existent export market.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            We could do worse than follow the Russian doctrine that every armoured vehicle should have an anti-tank capability, based on the Russian doctrine that every armoured formation includes tanks.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                              We could do worse than follow the Russian doctrine that every armoured vehicle should have an anti-tank capability, based on the Russian doctrine that every armoured formation includes tanks.
                              But in that case I'd stick a RWS that also has ATGW on the IFVs. Mind you' I'd rather have the Samson Dual with HMG and 40mm AGL and the ATGM. Or 30x113 and GPMG.
                              Last edited by Graylion; 29 August 2016, 08:55.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                                Last time TERREX (Not Terex, they make construction excavators) didn't make the cut as it was not in full production, while Mowag and Pandur were already in full production and used by other armies.
                                TERREX has a long way to come yet. Singapore are still currently the only operators. The USMC version under development is coming in currently at $7.5m per unit.
                                Terrex was not offered by Timoney the last time around. Bushmaster was their offering. With Bushmaster being 4 x 4 and the tender specifying 6 x 6 it wasn't considered. In the end an 8 x 8 variant was selected as we all know.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X