Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MOWAG replacement

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by paul g View Post
    There is an obsession with 90mm guns on armoured vehicles on this board that borders on the ridiculous, as it’s an old low velocity gun, and the type of ammunition it fires is also dated. As you rightly point out the SADF were lucky and truth be told had Angolan tank crews higher levels of training it would have been a different story .I suspect that many who praise it have never seen it or 30mm ammunition in action, 30mm is miles ahead

    The us army have a paper project at the moment called "mobile protected firepower" which is essentially going to provide light tank for the us army sometime in the early 20’s, from the little that’s been published about it, the vehicle appears to have a turret which will have a 50mm bushmaster and twin javelins, which they believe will provide direct fire support for the infantry units and take anything up to T72 level armour out. There are other projects in development provide cannons on AFV between the 50-60mm range (the Germans even mounted a 57mm bofors on their marders back in the 1980’s) and I suspect in ten years’ time guns in that range of calibre will increasingly be fitted to AFV.
    Isn't that the 90mm LP you are talking about? This is the one I mean:

    Comment


    • #47
      Don't take any corners at speed with that. I estimate overall height to be about 5-6m?
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • #48
        it even has a stove fitted!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          The reasons for fitting two different systems is as follows:

          AMV -35 is more for open country where it can provide long range support to dismounted troops. The 35mm proved very effective in Afghanistan where the Danes had their CV9035's. They could engage at long range and destroy Taliban even when protected by thick local mud walls.

          AMV with a RWS is for urban areas where sometimes the firepower of the 35 would be too much. Also the long barrel of any decent cannon would restrict the turret rotation in tight alleys. The smaller RWS weapons do not have this problem.
          kellys heros anyone...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by restless View Post
            kellys heros anyone...
            Ah childhood memories...

            Comment


            • #51


              105mm HP on LAV III
              Last edited by Graylion; 3 September 2016, 16:15.

              Comment


              • #52
                1267.pdf



                Rafael Samson 30 Mk!!

                70° elevation, under armour loading facility and a hatch for the commander to stick their head out. 25 ... 40mm gun, coax MG and ATGM
                Last edited by Graylion; 3 September 2016, 20:14.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Graylion View Post


                  105mm HP on LAV III
                  Cavalry porn!
                  "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Not exactly low profile for RECCE is it? Its taller than an M1 Abrams.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      It is not for Recce, it is to provide direct fire support. If you want a lower profile vehicle then buy a Leopard II or a K2 tank.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        It is not for Recce, it is to provide direct fire support. If you want a lower profile vehicle then buy a Leopard II or a K2 tank.
                        No good to us then.
                        We don't do mechanised fire support. We do armoured recce.
                        Can't really see the point of it. It's not an SPG, and it's bigger than a tank, without either the firepower, ability or armour of one. The size of the gun reduces its usefulness as an APC.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                          No good to us then.
                          We don't do mechanised fire support. We do armoured recce.
                          Can't really see the point of it. It's not an SPG, and it's bigger than a tank, without either the firepower, ability or armour of one. The size of the gun reduces its usefulness as an APC.
                          It's not carrying infantry.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                            It's not carrying infantry.
                            What is it supposed to be then?
                            Apart from a vanity project or capability demonstrator.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                              No good to us then.
                              We don't do mechanised fire support. We do armoured recce.
                              See my posts in the Arty thread....general point is we should consider and some element of mechanised fire support......as it stands our armoured recce has no long range cover or fire support capable of deploying close enough to it to be effective.

                              we can't develop and improve some aspects of the combat arms and then leave them hanging out swinging when trouble arrives because combat support arms "don't do mechanised..."
                              An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Doing so would require a major shift in doctrine from our current light infantry based army.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X