Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MOWAG replacement

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

  • #61
    not really.....

    for example putting 120mm mortars on a mobile platform (e.g. MOWAG type vehicle, instead of current towed arrangement) is merely updating equipment.
    I'm not talking about changing gun numbers, deployment doctrine, etc. it is modernising a Corps ability to operate effectively with the other Corps it supports and hopefully would also increase gun deployment speed and survivability by increased mobility.

    105's mounted on vehicles are obviously more problematic in terms of choosing a suitable and effective platform to operate from. but also i think people get confused between having mechanised 105's as direct support fire systems or indirect support fire. I would argue the latter should still be the main Arty objective. but again it remains necessary to find a way to enable them to keep up with and support mechanised recce or infantry. something i fear Arty is lacking in ability now.
    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


    • #62
      Well, Memo or Amos on whateever platform and T7 on the same or something like a 105mm Archer?

      Comment


      • #63
        We got rid of the 60mm Mortars on the Panhards when we had them.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • #64
          Or are we saying goes that the vehicle above could be envisaged as an Arty Corps asset, rather than a Cav asset?
          "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


          • #65
            Do arty do direct?
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • #66
              The T7 can be used direct I believe

              Comment


              • #67
                Ever since the mid 1980's there have been various attempts to put a direct fire 105mm gun on an APC chassis as above.

                The vast majority of these projects have been disasters and nobody has bought them.

                The only people who have are the americans but the Stryker MGS was less than adequate at its role and production was curtailed, as everytime they fired it the recoil was such that they affected the vehicles smarts.

                That been said there is a case for the Df to have a direct fire capability to support dismounted infantry but i think the vehicle for that role is still on the drawing board.
                Last edited by paul g; 5 September 2016, 00:12.

                Comment


                • #68
                  The Recoil from the 90mm on the panhard was such that it could not be fired on the move, and that was a low pressure gun. The entire gun also moved three feet to the rear, into the cramped turret.
                  The AMX10RC managed to sport a 105mm, shared with the AMC30 tank, however the vehicle to succeed it, the Scorpion EBRC, has a 40mm main gun, and Medium Range anti Tank missile.

                  Stick a Big 105 like that on an APC derived vehicle and your useful firing arc is 20 degrees left and right of front centre. Fire anything directly left or right, on anything but flat ground, and the car will turn over.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                    The Recoil from the 90mm on the panhard was such that it could not be fired on the move, and that was a low pressure gun. The entire gun also moved three feet to the rear, into the cramped turret.
                    The AMX10RC managed to sport a 105mm, shared with the AMC30 tank, however the vehicle to succeed it, the Scorpion EBRC, has a 40mm main gun, and Medium Range anti Tank missile.

                    Stick a Big 105 like that on an APC derived vehicle and your useful firing arc is 20 degrees left and right of front centre. Fire anything directly left or right, on anything but flat ground, and the car will turn over.
                    You sure about that?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      The B1 Centauro was produced in decent numbers but is no longer in production.

                      I don't think anyone has purchased the CV90105/CV90120.

                      At a guess, if you want that firepower it's probably cheaper to get it with a secondhand Leopard 2.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                        You sure about that?

                        Well, I wouldnt want to fire it on anything other than a flat surface:

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                          You sure about that?

                          Why else do you think they park it with a bank behind?
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                            Why else do you think they park it with a bank behind?
                            Well, if they were liable to tip over, wouldn't they be end up lying on that berm?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Most countries have tanks, mostly MBT's, it is only when you have none available or need something you can airlift more easily you go for a 90/105/120mm armed 8x8.
                              I know we live on an island and thus still dream the cavalry should be horse mounted but modern warfare is different.
                              Tanks have two functions, a). to engage enemy tanks.
                              b). to provide direct fire support to troops.
                              It was common until WW2 actually to design two different tanks for these roles but the modern MBT can do both. In fact the main purpose of the M1's in the US Marine Corps is to provide direct fire support and the Marines are mainly a mechanised infanty force.
                              So could a heavily armed 8x8 be useful for us? Yes as normally when we deploy to places like Chad or Mali we have no CAS. The distances are such that even if we deployed the 105mm LG's (something we never do!) some patrols would be outside their cover. Then a 105mm armed 8x8 could be a useful asset to have.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                                We got rid of the 60mm Mortars on the Panhards when we had them.
                                They were a CAV asset. Not ARTY. We now again have 60mm within INF org so some measure of self sufficiency available.

                                Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                                Do arty do direct?
                                No.

                                Talk of direct fire support 105's seems to be confusing bods. And again where introduced has been Cav assets for most part in other countries, regardless of questionable success rates of individual platforms.

                                Arty needs a mechanised capability for some, if not all, of their indirect fire support role and to enable fully cover mechanised recce (which already has direct fire support, i.e. 40mm grenade, 30mm cannon) or mechanised Inf.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X