Thanks Thanks:  107
Likes Likes:  259
Dislikes Dislikes:  10
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 375
  1. #76
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    436
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  2. Thanks na grohmití, X-RayOne, EUFighter, apod thanked for this post
    Likes X-RayOne, apod liked this post
  3. #77
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    645
    Post Thanks / Like
    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!

  4. Likes GoneToTheCanner, The real Jack liked this post
  5. #78
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,671
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  6. Thanks pym, DeV, na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes X-RayOne, morpheus, DeV, sofa liked this post
  7. #79
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 5th September 2016 at 15:14.

  8. Likes ropebag, northie liked this post
  9. #80
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,268
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  10. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes ias liked this post
  11. #81
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,671
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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; 5th September 2016 at 16:41.

  12. #82
    Closed Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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; 5th September 2016 at 16:27.

  13. Thanks ropebag thanked for this post
  14. #83
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,268
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  15. Likes ias liked this post
  16. #84
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  17. #85
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,268
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  18. #86
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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; 5th September 2016 at 21:57.

  19. #87
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  20. #88
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,268
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  21. #89
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    436
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?

  22. Likes ropebag, ias liked this post
  23. #90
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  24. #91
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,671
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Cav are recce, that is their main job.
    and what, pray, is the plan on reciept of whatever information this reece screen brings back?

    'theres two dozen mixed ex-Soviet MBT's on the way - we've done our job, good luck with that 84mm. see ya...'?

  25. Likes X-RayOne, apod, Flamingo liked this post
  26. #92
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,671
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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?
    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.

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, sofa, Flamingo liked this post
  28. #93
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like
    Also don't forget EU mutual defence. If that happens, EU forces are going to be around to lend a hand.

  29. #94
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    436
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Last edited by expat01; 6th September 2016 at 09:03.

  30. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
    Likes Graylion liked this post
  31. #95
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like
    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)

    NEMO_Patria_8x8_AMV_120mm_wheeled_self-propelled_mortar_carrier_Finland_Finnish_defense_industry.jpg
    Last edited by Graylion; 6th September 2016 at 09:28.

  32. #96
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,671
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    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.

  33. Likes DeV liked this post
  34. #97
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like
    as far as I am aware we actually did not opt out but are full participants. We _can_ opt out, but AFAIK have not exercised that option.

  35. #98
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    128
    Post Thanks / Like
    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. :-))

  36. #99
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ah but they're owned by BAE and dontchyaknow the Indonesians used BAE Hawks to... etc.

  37. #100
    BQMS spider pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    515
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  38. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

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
  •