Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Panhard AML

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

  • #16
    Have we encountered a situation in the past where we needed something bigger than a 90mm?
    Given our primary overseas commitments have been peace keeping or partcipation in Battle Groups that have their own armoured support 90mm would be sufficent.

    Armoured infantry would require IFVs as opposed to APC's the Mowag MRV fulfils this role adequately and could be compared in weapon performance , with the Brdaley being the exceptio being co axially armed with TOW, but with the 25mm Bushmaster chain gun as primary gun system the British using the 30mm gun as the primary weapon system on their IFV.

    Problem being as weapon size increases, troop carrying capability falls away.

    The army has been tailored toward a specific type of role that does not envisgae have to fight pitched engagements with heavy armour unite...ie MBTs so employment of the 90mm gun is purely a precautionary measure is is available on the AML245 chassis only because we have it in existence rather that having to procure a system that gave the same capability.

    Given there is MRV was the system of choice , there will hardly be a secondary requets for anoth variant of the mowag given we have a 90mm gun in service albeit 30 years out of date.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • #17
      Don't forget, the 90mm was designed as an anti tank gun. But if you don't get a kill on your first shot, or there is more than one armoured target, its over.
      The only effective face to face defence against a tank is another tank.
      Not an anti tank gun on a light wheeled AFV.


      Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
        The only effective face to face defence against a tank is another tank.
        Or an Apache

        (In your own time, carry on...)
        'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
        'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
        Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
        He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
        http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

        Comment


        • #19
          I suppose it comes down to this - do you want a brigade level asset to be able to have organic fire support ? Eg a troop of LTAVs is engaged by enemy light armour outside the range of artillery?

          Comment


          • #20
            If LTAVs are engaged by enemy armour, then the threat assessment was seriously underestimated.
            You don't send armoured trucks into an area where you may encounter hostile tanks.


            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

            Comment


            • #21
              This type of thread always degenerates into talk about the DF's need to engage with tanks, without pointing out that fighting tanks, even overseas is the least likely senario for the defence forces. .

              The simple fact is that the defence forces will operate in the future as part of a western coalition, essentially with overwhelming air power, and the bad guys have worked out from experience since 1991 that their tanks will be attacked from the air and destroyed before they come in range of western ground forces, hence why over the past twenty or so years they moved onto the "technicals", you see in every third world country that are mobile and easier to camoflage from air power.

              Thats largely why most european counties have abandoned their tank fleets, Belgium and the Netherlands combined operated over a thousand MBT during the cold war but have now phased them all out.

              As for the mowag with the 90mm belgium uses and the Stryker mobile gun system, neither are sucessful, the Stryker MGS still is rated as deficient and has not gone into full rate production, while the belgium buy of 90mm armed mowags has been capped at 18 instead of the planned for 40, and they are being offered for sale soon. And its important to remember that neither were designed as anti tank vehicles, they're both there to provide support to infantry units, to engage machine gun nests and bunkers and the like.

              Now if you look at the defence forces annual report and the like, where they list the forces for overseas the combat units offered are an infantry battalion, a reconnaissance unit and an artillery battery.

              The reconnaissance unit in question is the istar company for the Battlegroup, and the MRV serve that role very well.

              Which leaves us with the infantry battalion. Now if we look at the standard british infantry battalion, they've restructured their support company on deployments to Afghanistan and have combined the sniper and reconnaissance platoon into a patrols unit and their anti tank and machine gun platoons into a fire support group, with about nine landrover WMIK/jackals mounted with GMG 40mm AGL and 12.7mm HMG and a Javelin in the back.

              if you look at the Reconnaissance company in the unifil battalion, with the CRV in the cavalry troop, and the LTAVS in Javelin platoon, you've got something similar evolving.

              As for why they're keeping on the AML 90, there is a need for medium armour and a direct fire support capability, but the two wars over the past decade have sent everybody back to the drawing board to rethink their requirements, and there will be a load of new projects around 2016 bearing fruit, such as the British FRES and the French Scorpion, and they'll be able to make a better informed decision then.
              Last edited by paul g; 17 May 2012, 16:50.

              Comment


              • #22
                Just out of interest, has the army ever deployed anywhere where having to take on tanks was a realistic scenario?

                Would it have been more than a possibility that Israeli MBT's would have been taken on in the Leb, for example?
                'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                Comment


                • #23
                  The only potential place recently that I can think of was Chad (in the unlikely scenario where the Sudan tried to push into eastern Chad using armour). It would have been highly unlikely that UNIFIL forces would have ever had to engage Israeli forces directly (other armed elements perhaps).

                  As Paul pointed out, most European countries don't figure on having to fight tanks and particularly modern ones in the open any time soon. That said, there is a potential role for a large caliber gun in terms of reducing fortifications and obstacles but that doesn't really justify such a purchase any time soon either. Short to medium term replacement for the AMLs is obviously more MRVs - long term, who knows?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                    If LTAVs are engaged by enemy armour, then the threat assessment was seriously underestimated.
                    You don't send armoured trucks into an area where you may encounter hostile tanks.
                    What if the enemy has light armoured recce? For example, Scorpion or the like.

                    Battle is fluid!

                    Originally posted by paul g View Post
                    This type of thread always degenerates into talk about the DF's need to engage with tanks, without pointing out that fighting tanks, even overseas is the least likely senario for the defence forces. .

                    The simple fact is that the defence forces will operate in the future as part of a western coalition, essentially with overwhelming air power, and the bad guys have worked out from experience since 1991 that their tanks will be attacked from the air and destroyed before they come in range of western ground forces, hence why over the past twenty or so years they moved onto the "technicals", you see in every third world country that are mobile and easier to camoflage from air power.

                    Thats largely why most european counties have abandoned their tank fleets, Belgium and the Netherlands combined operated over a thousand MBT during the cold war but have now phased them all out.

                    As for the mowag with the 90mm belgium uses and the Stryker mobile gun system, neither are sucessful, the Stryker MGS still is rated as deficient and has not gone into full rate production, while the belgium buy of 90mm armed mowags has been capped at 18 instead of the planned for 40, and they are being offered for sale soon. And its important to remember that neither were designed as anti tank vehicles, they're both there to provide support to infantry units, to engage machine gun nests and bunkers and the like.

                    Now if you look at the defence forces annual report and the like, where they list the forces for overseas the combat units offered are an infantry battalion, a reconnaissance unit and an artillery battery.

                    The reconnaissance unit in question is the istar company for the Battlegroup, and the MRV serve that role very well.

                    Which leaves us with the infantry battalion. Now if we look at the standard british infantry battalion, they've restructured their support company on deployments to Afghanistan and have combined the sniper and reconnaissance platoon into a patrols unit and their anti tank and machine gun platoons into a fire support group, with about nine landrover WMIK/jackals mounted with GMG 40mm AGL and 12.7mm HMG and a Javelin in the back.

                    if you look at the Reconnaissance company in the unifil battalion, with the CRV in the cavalry troop, and the LTAVS in Javelin platoon, you've got something similar evolving.

                    As for why they're keeping on the AML 90, there is a need for medium armour and a direct fire support capability, but the two wars over the past decade have sent everybody back to the drawing board to rethink their requirements, and there will be a load of new projects around 2016 bearing fruit, such as the British FRES and the French Scorpion, and they'll be able to make a better informed decision then.
                    I never said anything about tanks! The DF is a light infantry based force with mininal fire support. That fire support in the past has consisted of cavalry light armour and light artillery.

                    There have been a number of situations where battle groups could have been deployed and yet they haven't been, nor AFAIK have their been any calls from them to be. Due to the financial situation this country is likely to continue to suffer for the next 5-10 years, it is unlikely that Ireland will become involved in non-UN blue beret missions (eg KFOR, EUFOR etc). Therefore it will be UN missions like UNIFIL. Western coalitions don't like getting involved in them historically (and especially since UNPROFOR)!

                    Just look at how hard it was for the might of NATO to find Serb armour when it was given permission to engage in both Bosnia and Kosovo.

                    I'm not suggesting MBTs or even a 105mm armed vehicle. 90mm is enough IMHO, why?

                    The Army is organised on conventional military lines providing a sufficiently flexible structure to carry out all the roles assigned by Government. The Army is a standing force and provides the primary capabilities for joint military operations at home and combined military Peace Support Operations abroad.


                    Look at the strategic vision - The Cavalry Corps will continue to develop, sustain and deliver effective, flexible and appropriate Combat Support resources to the Defence Forces to ensure that it has sufficient.......armoured reconnaissance and direct fire support capabilities

                    Tasks like "pursuit", "raids", "counter recce", "recce strike" and "flank protection" may require a gun bigger than 30mm.

                    In my view, something around 90mm is required in order to give direct fire support when required both to Cavalry and Infantry units. They are more flexible than the likes of Javelin (and a lot cheaper!). It is exactly the likes of fixed positions and light armour that they would engage.

                    Recce and artillery aren't combat units, they are combat support. That unit is 80 strong, the Irish element of the battlegroup is a lot higher than that.

                    The Brits are using Scimitar at Battalion level in Afghanistan




                    Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                    Just out of interest, has the army ever deployed anywhere where having to take on tanks was a realistic scenario?

                    Would it have been more than a possibility that Israeli MBT's would have been taken on in the Leb, for example?
                    Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                    The only potential place recently that I can think of was Chad (in the unlikely scenario where the Sudan tried to push into eastern Chad using armour). It would have been highly unlikely that UNIFIL forces would have ever had to engage Israeli forces directly (other armed elements perhaps).

                    As Paul pointed out, most European countries don't figure on having to fight tanks and particularly modern ones in the open any time soon. That said, there is a potential role for a large caliber gun in terms of reducing fortifications and obstacles but that doesn't really justify such a purchase any time soon either. Short to medium term replacement for the AMLs is obviously more MRVs - long term, who knows?
                    The Dutch fired TOWs (as warning shots I think) at DFF MBTs in Lebanon in the early days.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The Dutch fired TOW warning shots at Super Shermans during the Battle of At-Tiri.
                      The 30mm is as good for fire support as the 90mm in a modern conflict, and can keep more heads down. The AML 90 as a direct fire gun had a relatively limited range.
                      You are really into whataboutery now though.
                      Think of the combat history of the vehicle. I'd say the only combat kill the type saw, worldwide, was At Tiri. The Argies had them in 1982, they may have suited the Junta for intimidating its opressed population at home and in the falklands, but by june, they were parked up in Stanley, after being outflanked by the Superior mobility offroad of the Scorps and Scimitar of the Blues and Royals.
                      The gun was fine in the 50s, when nobody had things like thermal imaging, stabilised guns, smart ammo, active armour, and most importantly "dry" turrets. I imagine it is bad for one's blood pressure to have hostile nutjobs open up with AP on you as you sit within a hairs breath of a known to be unstable 90mm precussion cap.
                      If you want something that big, it needs to have an unmanned turret and an autoloader. That would be a stryker MGS, which has died a death. Feck all good for recce though.


                      Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        @aidan, funnily enough, those self same europeans got to face down fellow "europeans" (Serbians) who were very keen to use their tanks and were thrilled to find that the peaceniks hadn't brought any heavy ones with them. At least the Dutch managed to bring a few M109s and a few shells with them to redress the balance. It was rather embarrassing to find the Serbians using T-34s,M47s and T55s to intimidate the shit out of the good guys. Mladic managed to besiege Sarajevo with elderly Bofors, old Russian mortars and a handful of modern field guns for three years. Unsurprisingly, they failed to be intimidated by the good guys bearing 30mm. If I was in charge of the magic wand at DF HQ, I'd retire the AMl at once and buy something with a 105mm L7 and I'd compel the Df to bring their artillery the next time they go on tour.

                        regards
                        GttC

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                          The Dutch fired TOW warning shots at Super Shermans during the Battle of At-Tiri.
                          The 30mm is as good for fire support as the 90mm in a modern conflict, and can keep more heads down. The AML 90 as a direct fire gun had a relatively limited range.
                          You are really into whataboutery now though.
                          Think of the combat history of the vehicle. I'd say the only combat kill the type saw, worldwide, was At Tiri. The Argies had them in 1982, they may have suited the Junta for intimidating its opressed population at home and in the falklands, but by june, they were parked up in Stanley, after being outflanked by the Superior mobility offroad of the Scorps and Scimitar of the Blues and Royals.
                          The gun was fine in the 50s, when nobody had things like thermal imaging, stabilised guns, smart ammo, active armour, and most importantly "dry" turrets. I imagine it is bad for one's blood pressure to have hostile nutjobs open up with AP on you as you sit within a hairs breath of a known to be unstable 90mm precussion cap.
                          If you want something that big, it needs to have an unmanned turret and an autoloader. That would be a stryker MGS, which has died a death. Feck all good for recce though.
                          the israelis bought some AML-90 in 1963, but retired them in 1968, mostly because they lacked any sort of capability against tanks and armour.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                            Think of the combat history of the vehicle. I'd say the only combat kill the type saw, worldwide, was At Tiri.
                            Given the amount of African countries that used the AML I doubt it.

                            I know it is Wikipedia but:


                            Used in over 30 countries including in the Lebanese Civil War and in action in El Salvadora.

                            Also don't forget it was also made in South Africa and called the Eland, which was used in the Angolan Civil War and in Western Sahara
                            Last edited by DeV; 17 May 2012, 21:35.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              Given the amount of African countries that used the AML I doubt it.
                              Off you go so.


                              Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Algeria: 55/44 AML-60
                                Argentina: 48 AML-90
                                Bahrain: 48, 22 AML-90 and 26 AML-60
                                Benin: 22
                                Bosnia and Herzegovina: 12
                                Burkina Faso: 15
                                Burundi: 18
                                Cameroon: 100
                                Chad: 50
                                Côte d'Ivoire: 16, 8 AML-90 and 6 AML-60
                                Colombia: 40 units with the colombian national police.
                                COD 40+
                                Djibouti: 24
                                Gabon: 24
                                Ecuador: 27
                                Egypt
                                El Salvador: 10 AML-90
                                Iraq: 10
                                Ireland: 52
                                Israel[citation needed]
                                Kenya: 72
                                Lebanon: 70, 60 AML-90 in service with the Lebanese Army, between 1976 and 1990.
                                Lesotho: 10
                                Malawi: 13
                                Malaysia: 140 AML-60
                                Mauritania: 60, 39 AML-90 and 20 AML-60
                                Mexico 45
                                Morocco: 230, 140 AML-90 and 38 AML-60
                                Nigeria: 180, 120 AML-90 and 60 AML-60
                                Niger: 125
                                Portugal: 40, 15 AML-90 and 32 AML-60
                                Rwanda: 12 AML-60
                                Saudi Arabia: 300/235
                                Senegal: 57, 24 AML-90 and 28 AML-60
                                Somaliland
                                South Africa: 118
                                Sudan: 6 AML-90
                                Togo: 10
                                Tunisia: 35, 20 AML-90 and 10 AML-60
                                United Arab Emirates: 50, 49 AML-90
                                Venezuela: 22
                                Yemen: 185
                                Zimbabwe: 20 AML-90
                                Cambodia: unknown number of AML-60s and AML-90s in service between 1960-1975.
                                FNLA: at least 2 unknown AML models equipped with 76mm cannons; saw service during the Angolan Civil War.[8]
                                Ethiopia 56 AML-6
                                Rhodesia: 34 Eland 90s and Eland 60s

                                How many of them were were involved in wars?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X