PDA

View Full Version : AFV Armament.



concussion
2nd April 2008, 11:40
If it comes down to it, what would be preferable between a 120 mm mortar or the 105 mm gun? Mortar can fire high trajectory, the AMOS/NEMO has the capability of a TOT barrage and also has a direct fire capability. The 105 mm gun has better anti-armour capability.

Would the mortar be more suitable to the DF's needs?

Oh yeah, I know very little about the cav business so be nice :tongue:

Actually, can the NEMO be fitted to a Mowag??

easyrider
2nd April 2008, 11:50
It seems that the Cavalry will be equipped with Mowags with three different turrets/guns - 12.7mm, 30mm, and 105mm.

IMHO, they would be better off with

(i) one Mowag type, mounting a 30mm main gun, with 12.7mm and/or 7.62mm secondary weapons, and a couple of Javelins in launchers on the turret;

(ii) light armoured vehicles with RWSs;

and (iii) UAVs.

We don't need tanks, the 105mm is only intended for defence, so the ATGMs would cover any opposing tanks that might appear and the 30mm gun can deal with most other threats. The Mowags can carry dismounts and the light vehicles can be used where stealth and speed are greater priorities. The UAVs provide surveillance and targeting.

That would provide a much more flexible and useful set of assets than having all Mowags. These vehicles will be used primarily for patrolling and escort work on overseas deployments. Given the small numbers involved, how can they be sure to have the one with the little gun, the one with the medium gun, or the one with the great big gun, in the right place at the right time?

madmark
2nd April 2008, 12:03
It seems that the Cavalry will be equipped with Mowags with three different turrets/guns - 12.7mm, 30mm, and 105mm.

IMHO, they would be better off with

(i) one Mowag type, mounting a 30mm main gun, with 12.7mm and/or 7.62mm secondary weapons, and a couple of Javelins in launchers on the turret;

(ii) light armoured vehicles with RWSs;

and (iii) UAVs.

We don't need tanks, the 105mm is only intended for defence, so the ATGMs would cover any opposing tanks that might appear and the 30mm gun can deal with most other threats. The Mowags can carry dismounts and the light vehicles can be used where stealth and speed are greater priorities. The UAVs provide surveillance and targeting.

That would provide a much more flexible and useful set of assets than having all Mowags. These vehicles will be used primarily for patrolling and escort work on overseas deployments. Given the small numbers involved, how can they be sure to have the one with the little gun, the one with the medium gun, or the one with the great big gun, in the right place at the right time?

sorry that info is a need to know but if you were a cavalry man/woman you would already know the answer to that last question

Goldie fish
2nd April 2008, 18:53
How many ATGMs can you carry? How much per missile? You can't really beat a big gun for versatility, and more importantly, when engaged in the type of operations we are engaged in overseas, having the tools to intimidate.

A story is told that the appearance of the Panhard AML 90 at an incedent in Lebanon was enough to defuse the situation immediately. The sound of a chock dropping was usually followed with the sound of those engaged in debate with UNIFIL soiling themselves.

Very hard to "point" a missile at someone in threat...

chapofdryans
2nd April 2008, 19:31
is there a mowag in service with any army that has javilen launchers,also are we not in need for a larger weapon as our 90ml are out-dated.

@Goldie Fish i am sorry text speak wont happen again,also im a member of the reseve defence forces of ireland

easyrider
2nd April 2008, 19:34
How many ATGMs can you carry? How much per missile? You can't really beat a big gun for versatility, and more importantly, when engaged in the type of operations we are engaged in overseas, having the tools to intimidate.

A story is told that the appearance of the Panhard AML 90 at an incedent in Lebanon was enough to defuse the situation immediately. The sound of a chock dropping was usually followed with the sound of those engaged in debate with UNIFIL soiling themselves.

Very hard to "point" a missile at someone in threat...


A Cavalry Bradley carries two TOWs ready-to-fire and five reloads. The little French VBL with a MILAN launcher carries six missiles. So it shouldn't be a problem to carry enough to get you out of trouble. And if it's just for show, then the 30mm gun should be able to do the job, and it could also deal with anything short of an MBT.

Goldie fish
2nd April 2008, 19:50
Reloads...

"Gunner, get out of the turret and reload another missile there. You didn't quite hit the enemy with the last shot. You pissed them off though."

"Short of an MBT".

You get one chance with modern MBTs. Our lowly panhards often faced down Merkava tanks. The Izzies knew they'd win the firefight, but if the 90 got the first shot off accurately, it could ruin the crews day.
Its down to Guns V Missiles at the end of the day. Guns are more versatile. Thats the modern thinking. I'm sure Cal Tanker would prefer his 120mm smooth bore over the TOW any day. Remember with the TOW, you have to wait while the missile finds its target, exposing you to counter attack.

madmark
2nd April 2008, 20:01
is there a mowag in service with any army that has javilen launchers,also are we not in need for a larger weapon as our 90ml are out-dated.

@Goldie Fish i am sorry text speak wont happen again,also im a member of the reseve defence forces of ireland

the cav CRV can be fitted with javlin
the 2nd picture is the weapons platform on the cav CRV

Fireplace
2nd April 2008, 22:22
So do we want something that will provide fire support only or have an anti-tank capability as well? For the sake of the argument lets say we're looking at the Mk 8 90mm and the CT-CV 105mm. If it's fire support only, why go for the heavier/less mobile and more expensive 105mm. The 90mm may not have the advantage against armour but it is likely do to near as much as the 105mm can in other respects.

If we want an anti-tank capability(and I presume we do), the 105mm may be better than the 90mm but even with modern ammunition it's still inadequate against any tank from the T-72 up. After all, why are Leopard 2s being upgraded to the 55 calibre 120mm gun? Therefore, I see a need for atgms. They give you the ability to engage modern tanks and do so before they can fire on you. I suggest two options:


Mk 8 90mm and Hitfist with Tows


CT-CV 105mm with barrel launched atgms

madmark
2nd April 2008, 22:36
So do we want something that will provide fire support only or have an anti-tank capability as well? For the sake of the argument lets say we're looking at the Mk 8 90mm and the CT-CV 105mm. If it's fire support only, why go for the heavier/less mobile and more expensive 105mm. The 90mm may not have the advantage against armour but it is likely do to near as much as the 105mm can in other respects.

If we want an anti-tank capability(and I presume we do), the 105mm may be better than the 90mm but even with modern ammunition it's still inadequate against any tank from the T-72 up. After all, why are Leopard 2s being upgraded to the 55 calibre 120mm gun? Therefore, I see a need for atgms. They give you the ability to engage modern tanks and do so before they can fire on you. I suggest two options:


Mk 8 90mm and Hitfist with Tows


CT-CV 105mm with barrel launched atgms


there is one reason same car as what they have, same spare parts and so on. This is the way the army looks at things

Goldie fish
2nd April 2008, 22:41
Modern 105mm ammunition inadequate against any tank from T72 up you say? How know you this?

warthog
2nd April 2008, 22:52
would the 105 ammo be the same stuff as the 105mm howitizer use?

mutter nutter
2nd April 2008, 22:58
So do we want something that will provide fire support only or have an anti-tank capability as well? For the sake of the argument lets say we're looking at the Mk 8 90mm and the CT-CV 105mm. If it's fire support only, why go for the heavier/less mobile and more expensive 105mm. The 90mm may not have the advantage against armour but it is likely do to near as much as the 105mm can in other respects.

If we want an anti-tank capability(and I presume we do), the 105mm may be better than the 90mm but even with modern ammunition it's still inadequate against any tank from the T-72 up. After all, why are Leopard 2s being upgraded to the 55 calibre 120mm gun? Therefore, I see a need for atgms. They give you the ability to engage modern tanks and do so before they can fire on you. I suggest two options:


Mk 8 90mm and Hitfist with Tows


CT-CV 105mm with barrel launched atgms


The CT-CV is designed to defeat most MBT armour, but if your sending Mowags against MBT's face on then your ****ed either way, the 105 would be to give them a chance to defeat a tank, not engage them as a tank, and to give the option of fire support, ect ect, there are a lot of new shell's with various new capabilities being brought in, in 105mm, there are none in 90mm, and if our lad's ever came up against an enemy using Leo II, Challies, Abram's, Le Clerc's, ect, then I'm assuming it's WWIII/IV/V delete as you see fit. type situation:wink:


The Army in Belgium is annoyed as they wanted the 105mm, it proved far supirior in test's but as Cal said, the 90mm was a job's winner for the MOD, but the army there may have the last laugh, they may be getting the 105 anyway.

Goldie fish
2nd April 2008, 23:05
would the 105 ammo be the same stuff as the 105mm howitizer use?

The CT-CV is designed to fire all Nato 105mm Tank ammo. Howitzer ammo is a different kettle of haddock.

California Tanker
2nd April 2008, 23:47
A Cavalry Bradley carries two TOWs ready-to-fire and five reloads

We carry ten reloads, actually.

But Goldie's points are valid. You get more of an intimidation effect with a big gun when it comes to Stability/Support operations, more sustained firepower effects, and a greater variety of effects depending on which round you want to put in next.

NTM

Fireplace
2nd April 2008, 23:58
Modern 105mm ammunition inadequate against any tank from T72 up you say? How know you this?

Yes, 'inadequate' is a strong word. My intention was to point out that it's not the same as a 120mm. Manufacturers may claim it is, but given that medium sized vehicles are at a protection level disadvantage you would want to be confident of disabling the tank with the first shot. Anything that can, even barely as with the Centauro and CV-90, favour the 120mm.



The Army in Belgium is annoyed as they wanted the 105mm, it proved far supirior in test's but as Cal said, the 90mm was a job's winner for the MOD, but the army there may have the last laugh, they may be getting the 105 anyway.

I think that the Leopard 2 would have been their first choice.

GoneToTheCanner
3rd April 2008, 00:25
Hi there
If the 105 is of the L7 variety, then it is already a proven T-72 killer.Ask any Israeli gunner.Fireplace, I thought the Belgians were already taking the Leo out of service, as a budget cut?
regards
GttC

Docman
3rd April 2008, 00:54
We don't need tanks, the 105mm is only intended for defence, so the ATGMs would cover any opposing tanks that might appear and the 30mm gun can deal with most other threats.

The 105mm gun is a much better option than the ATGM. The one time the Irish had to do some armour killing, it had to be with a Gun. The range was too close in for ATGMs to arm and there was too much urban clutter to ensure a clear line of sight for an ATGM.


Very hard to "point" a missile at someone in threat...

Sometime after the At-Tiri incident (within the same day or so), Norwegian TOW M113s supporting the Irish had a face off against Isreali Tanks. The Isrealis completely ignored them until a TOW missile sailed over their heads.

Fireplace
3rd April 2008, 01:01
Hi there
If the 105 is of the L7 variety, then it is already a proven T-72 killer.Ask any Israeli gunner.Fireplace, I thought the Belgians were already taking the Leo out of service, as a budget cut?
regards
GttC

It's difficult to compare like with like; 1982 L7 ammunition against 1982 T-72 armour, both have improved since.

B Inman
3rd April 2008, 07:21
Sometime after the At-Tiri incident (within the same day or so), Norwegian TOW M113s supporting the Irish had a face off against Isreali Tanks. The Isrealis completely ignored them until a TOW missile sailed over their heads.[/QUOTE]


The Tow was fired from a Dutch YP APC and the target was a DFF Sherman moving from the "Brown Mound" towards At-Tiri.

pilatus
3rd April 2008, 11:06
Docman im not the biggest history buff so could please tell me when this incident of Irish taking on armour you mentioned in your post happened.Thanks

easyrider
3rd April 2008, 11:44
The Israelis have lost far more tanks to ATGMs than tank fire - remember the Yom Kippur war in '73. And Hezbollah made good use of ATGMs in the last Lebanon war, caused the Israelis major problems.

Seems to me the Cav are looking backwards, or at best looking at the present, in determining their requirements, when they should be looking to the future, the next couple of decades, since whatever they buy now will be with us for a long time to come.

California Tanker
3rd April 2008, 12:12
FWIW, shortly after the East German Army Closing Down Sale, various NATO countries conducted live fire tests on German T-72s. Most countries with the L7 105mm couldn't penetrate the armour frontally. (Some DU rounds excepted). The export T-72s found in the Middle East were not top of the line.

Tests with the M829A1 "Silver Bullet" of Gulf War fame indicated an inability of the 120mm DU round to penetrate a T-72 with ERA. Part of the reason we're at A3 now.

Basically, I'm sortof with Fireplace, and think 'inadequate' is not a strong word. With countries now buying longer-barrelled 120mm guns or even playing with 135 and 140mm guns experimentally, you do not want to rely on a 105mm as a primary armour defeating weapon against tanks, at least, not frontally. PCs, old tanks, fine.

NTM

Aidan
3rd April 2008, 14:03
I think a lot of the willingness to look at 105mm on PIII or Stryker MGS type platform is that it is highly unlikely that they will ever have to face modern tanks - they are not intended for high intensity warfare, and are very unlikely to be deployed in situations where there was a real chance of having to engage multiple modern tanks or AFVs.

The prime role for direct fire cannon in the BCT concept is in dealing with fortified positions and to deal with whatever armour as may happen to be in the area (as well as having an obvious physical presence). Cal Tanker will be able to correct me, but I think the dedicated AT asset in the Stryker brigades was always supposed to be the TOW Stryker? While Irish forces deployed abroad obviously don't operate on exactly the same basis, there are parallels. So, for example, in a future Chad deployment, the only MBT opposition likely would be T-55s or at a stretch T-62s. A Cav detachment running into these with 105mm would be (hopefully) able to deal with the problem at a distance while disengaging (better optics and training should help too).

Again, the alternative here is not having 70tonne M1A2/Leopard 2A6 vs a 25 tonne PIII - its either the Mowag with a 105mm or one with a 30mm and possibly a Javelin. A Mowag is not a tank, or even a tank destroyer, and shouldn't be confused with one!

Goldie fish
3rd April 2008, 15:01
Docman im not the biggest history buff so could please tell me when this incident of Irish taking on armour you mentioned in your post happened.Thanks

At-Tiri

Fireplace
3rd April 2008, 15:21
Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.



On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.

One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

The following weapons were used:

* Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)

o RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
o RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
o RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)

* ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)

o Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
o Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
o Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
o Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)

* APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.

The trials yielded the following outcome:

* ATGLs

o T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
o T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.

* ATGMs

o T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
o T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.

* APFSDS

o T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
o T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

Conclusions (VF)

* RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it. Considering sufficient proliferation of this weapon and the fact that this is still a fairly light infantry weapon, it is the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian MBTs, and is a very disturbing development.

* Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.

* Report of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS trials is confusing. Being laser-guided, ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely. It is possible, however unlikely, that it was caused by a sloppy work of removal the warhead which e.g. could cause a gyro cofusion.

http://fofanov.free.fr/



It should also be pointed out that since then, the Russians have developed newer ERA. 'Relikt' can be used to upgrade any T-72 and is claimed to offer up to twice the protection against APFSDS rounds as Kontact-5.

Despite all of this talk I am sure that if we were to have the Piranha III with a 105mm gun or vehicles with missiles there would never be a question of them going out 'looking for trouble', trouble which hopefully would not come looking for us.

T-72 fitted with Relikt

http://btvt.narod.ru/5/rogatka/01.jpg

Goldie fish
3rd April 2008, 15:27
Its not to look for trouble that you have the big gun. Its so that if you find it, you can keep heads down while you make a hasty retreat. Wire Guided missiles, such as TOW or MILAN do not give you this advantage.

Fireplace
3rd April 2008, 15:32
Its not to look for trouble that you have the big gun. Its so that if you find it, you can keep heads down while you make a hasty retreat. Wire Guided missiles, such as TOW or MILAN do not give you this advantage.

I don't see why not(against a tank), anyway I was thinking about putting those new wireless Tows into the shopping basket. :wink:

Connaught Stranger
3rd April 2008, 15:44
At-Tiri

The Irish used their AML90 to fire at a DFFM3 Half Track at a distance of about 80 meters.

3517 3518

The Dutch U.N.I.F.I.L. Component on the slopes of Hill 880, with T.O.W. missiles mounted on their armored cars meanwhile engaged D.F.F. Super Sherman's well away from Atiri in the direction of the Brown Mound, narrowly missing Major Saad Haddatt leader of the Christian Militia Forces.

Pictures attached are of the Dutch Vehicles used in the event on Hill 880, turning at the checkpoint in Haddata after coming down off Hill 880 the side view shows the tow missile crew in the rear behind the turret, the missile launcher was raised up from inside the body of the A.P.C for firing.

Connaught Stranger 46th IRISHBATT Veteran.

Connaught Stranger
3rd April 2008, 15:54
The 105mm gun is a much better option than the ATGM. The one time the Irish had to do some armour killing, it had to be with a Gun. The range was too close in for ATGMs to arm and there was too much urban clutter to ensure a clear line of sight for an ATGM.



Sometime after the At-Tiri incident (within the same day or so), Norwegian TOW M113s supporting the Irish had a face off against Isreali Tanks. The Isrealis completely ignored them until a TOW missile sailed over their heads.

The Irish A.M.L 90, took on a point .5 armed M3 Half-Track there only other option was to use the 84mm Carl Gustaff and Dutch Batt Tows fired at D.F.F. Super Shermans, NOT Israeli Tanks.

As for Irish A.M.L .90's facing down Merkavas:rolleyes: 90mm v. 105mm to 120mm depending on the model of the Merkava deployed.

Connaught Ranger:smile:

mutter nutter
3rd April 2008, 22:27
Anyone read this months Military machines international with the "Stryker" article?, there I was enjoying it when I got to the photo of the Stryker MGS with a tarpuline on it, apparently the system is "moisture resistent" not "water proof"...so that rules it out for us I think:biggrin:

mutter nutter
3rd April 2008, 22:29
Anyway, if it's some sort of tank destroyer and not a FSV you lad's want, the only real one would be the 120mm armed Centauro...but thats just adding another vehicle to the mix......can you fit the Centauro's 120mm turret to a Mowag?

Come-quickly
4th April 2008, 10:57
I'm no expert but I suspect the weight and forces in play on a 120mm might be pushing the envelope for a PIII chassis unless it is made seriously heavy. At which point you are talking about an M-kill waiting to happen.

I'm with Goldie on this one, a 105mm gun is a versatile bunker buster/Anti-Pers weapon with a useful capability against light AFVs and battlefield antiques.
It is worth remembering that the PIII isn't a fighting vehicle as such and is primarily a mobility enabler for the teeth elements...e.g the Infantry or Cavalry Dismounts.

Any gun systems fitted are aimed at supporting the actions of those dismounted elements but is not integral to their method of fire & manoeuvre in the same way that say the ICV is in a Warrior infantry section.

Missiles are more expensive per round, still less versatile (the Israelis at some point in the recent past looked at making yellowpack TOW HE rounds for bunker busting) and from a logs point of view you have to balance the the shelf life of a munition with its unit cost.

AMOS or NEMO type systems as I have already said would be a huge asset, but not in a Cav Sqn role, more likely they would be assigned to an Arty Regt and on operations o/seas operate as part of a Bn Gp's expanded Support Company.

expat01
4th April 2008, 11:43
Seems clear that a gun is more versatile and obviously threatening than a missile. You're not going to take on a tank for preference with a Mowag, but perhaps you need to hit a bunker. Perhaps the bunker is obscured by bush. Perhaps you just want to convince a few heavies with RPGs that yours is bigger than theirs and maybe you want to let off a round for encouragement. You'll think twice, but you'll think three times about using a missile.

So if you want a gun, it should probably be as heavy as you can make it. 90mm can score kills on T-55s and T-62s, but only by hitting them a lot of times. These particular models have a habit of popping up all over Africa.

Fireplace
4th April 2008, 14:44
It's clear that we do have a place for a 90mm/105mm gun. The only question is which one. The 105mm has the greater capabilities; the Piranha III can take it. But it can take the 90mm better - less likely to get bogged down, easier to transport, holds more rounds and is likely to be less expensive. So the choice will have to assess the greater capabilities of the 105mm against the advantages of the lighter 90mm.

A mortar carrier would be welcome but given the expense as well as the fear that in an urban conflict situation of collateral damage(even if precision guided rounds were an option), a direct fire weapon is likely to be the first choice. Although it has to be said that a 105mm round might very well go through a house targeted and hit another one behind it.

Come-quickly
4th April 2008, 14:58
Well I don't think anyone is advocating a cavalry Mortar. They are advocating a powerful artillery system for the artillery.

The 105mm Gun for the Cav is a seperate subject being discussed under the same topic. And no one in their right mind is going to go for 90mm when it is considered a legacy round by most of the world.

easyrider
4th April 2008, 17:44
Well I don't think anyone is advocating a cavalry Mortar. They are advocating a powerful artillery system for the artillery.

The 105mm Gun for the Cav is a seperate subject being discussed under the same topic. And no one in their right mind is going to go for 90mm when it is considered a legacy round by most of the world.

Yeah, but will the 105mm also be history in 10 years time... 120mm has been the standard tank round for at least 20 years, and the next generation MBTs will probably have 140mm main armament.

Come-quickly
4th April 2008, 18:49
Well since 90mm has been around since the closing days of WW2 I doubt 105 will die out quite that quickly. Being about two decades younger and much more widely used.

Factor in a trend in all technologies for things to stop getting bigger and I think we could be fairly safe in our belief that the 105mm will last most of the service life of the vehicle types and concepts it would support.

Fireplace
7th April 2008, 15:08
The Type 59D/D1 is added with the Chinese indigenous FY series ERA plates on the front of the hull and turret. With this package, the tank’s protection against the kinetic armour-piercing round and HEAT round had increased by 180~260% and 200~300% respectively. According to the test results, the tank can survive a direct hit by the 105mm APFSDS round at a distance of 2,000m.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type59d.asp


More evidence that the 105mm should not be regarded as being a tank-killer. Sudan have plenty of these tanks rumbling around Darfur. Old and ugly but still lethal against lightly armed and lightly protected vehicles.

FMolloy
7th April 2008, 15:16
More evidence that the 105mm should not be regarded as being a tank-killer. Sudan have plenty of these tanks rumbling around Darfur. Old and ugly but still lethal against lightly armed and lightly protected vehicles.

Does Sudan have the armour in question?

easyrider
7th April 2008, 15:44
Looks like it.... Wikipedia says that Sudan's Military Industry Corporation (MIC) may have licensed the T-59D for domestic production as the Al-Zubair 2 tank. (pic. from Sudan's Military Industry Corporation)

http://mic.sd/images/products/db/zbir2.jpg

FMolloy
7th April 2008, 15:51
Why would you believe sales blurb of the Chinese and not of the Belgians? You're also counting on the ATGW living up to it's hype.

The DF has ATGWs, but it doesn't have a 105mm gun. What's your objection to them getting the gun & having both options?

greyfox
7th April 2008, 17:39
are the javelins designed for sitting on turrets for long periods perhaps years on deployment , when they would need to be used would the confidence be high they would function ? ,,,

mutter nutter
7th April 2008, 18:01
A 105 mounted on a Mowag is just as potent in a psychological factor, any little fecker driving around in upgraded T-59's, 62's 72's ect will think twice about it, it'll have a presence and an effect and isn't that half the battle right there? un-nerving the oppsotition.

Fireplace
7th April 2008, 18:30
Why would you believe sales blurb of the Chinese and not of the Belgians? You're also counting on the ATGW living up to it's hype.

The DF has ATGWs, but it doesn't have a 105mm gun. What's your objection to them getting the gun & having both options?

I have no objection to the 105mm or both the gun and atgms being purchased. On the contrary, my sole concern is that the 105mm may be seen as an always reliable way of dealing with tanks. The gun is versatile while long range atgms can engage tanks before they can threaten you. Not much may be known about Chinese armour, however, Explosive Reactive Armour has always been underestimated until independent testing or combat experience proves it's worth.

Goldie fish
7th April 2008, 19:50
Having a Gun like the 105, or in the Past, the 90, was always considered a defensive weapon. Enough to get you out of trouble. If you want to go out to fight tanks, you need another tank, pure and simple. But if you go out expecting to fight other light afvs, and meet a tank, you need a good "shoot and scoot". Few missiles offer you that opportunity. For a start most modern tanks have ecm that can detect seekers found in many fire and forget missiles. They'll have a bead drawn on you and two rounds down range while you are waiting for a lock on.

Barry
7th April 2008, 19:54
If you wanna go killing tanks with a javelin, you're much more likely to survive if you go out as a 2/3 man team dismounted, rather than in a big metal target.

hptmurphy
7th April 2008, 21:21
Is the 105mm to be used as mobile fire support or direct action.

the role of the artillery is fire support and was a secondary tasking of the cavalry.

the concept of the AML 90 was a get out of trouble weapon.

Manportable ATGM are fine in ambush and defensive roles but as time has proved are not as flexible as guns and should not be used as a replacment as such but as a secondary support.

The priamry role of the Cva is recce...and recce doesn't need offensive 105mm or 120mm guns , it needs to me agile and able to defend itself in the vent of a firefight ..so commiting heavy weapons would be seen as a awaste of resources.

Once the recce unit can support itself during and contact without having to commit assets as large as enviasged above the weapons up to 30mm calibre are fine.

What is required is an armoured fighting vehicle as opposed to an armoured support vehicle which 105mm and 120mm vehicles fall into.

If you want some thing of a tank nature get tanks... wheeled mobile howitzers are not tanks and cannot perfom in that role.

Cav is not about tanks..and neither is artillery.. just cause you have a big gun doesn't put you into the frame of tanks.

The current army straucture does not and cannoit support a credible force of tanks..tank killers in the form of ATGM equipped units but these cannot give the fleibility of guns.

two different entities I'm afraid

GoneToTheCanner
7th April 2008, 21:48
All I can say is God help any Irish unit if the Sudanese field even a few platoons of tanks and get aggressive.They have lots of tanks, plentiful air cover in the form of Fantan fighter-bombers and Hind gunships and plenty of well-armed, battle-hardened men.The Irish are out there with dune buggies and redneck "technicals", APCs with thin walls,no artillery worth a damn, a pitiful amount of helicopters and a handful of untested anti-tank missiles.The French MIGHT react on the Irishs' behalf if things get nasty and the Sudanese have the psychological advantage of never having been meaningfully challenged and have the holders of the Olympics backing them up to the hilt.
Do I sound worried?
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
7th April 2008, 21:53
I think we have been lucky in the last few overseas operations. However this one has the potential to get very nasty.

Come-quickly
7th April 2008, 22:27
Javelin is hardly untested though.

easyrider
7th April 2008, 22:34
Having a Gun like the 105, or in the Past, the 90, was always considered a defensive weapon. Enough to get you out of trouble. If you want to go out to fight tanks, you need another tank, pure and simple. But if you go out expecting to fight other light afvs, and meet a tank, you need a good "shoot and scoot". Few missiles offer you that opportunity. For a start most modern tanks have ecm that can detect seekers found in many fire and forget missiles. They'll have a bead drawn on you and two rounds down range while you are waiting for a lock on.

Does this apply to Javelin?

Barry
7th April 2008, 22:34
Anybody who thinks that Javelin can't be used against anything other than tanks might want to have a look at Ross Kemp in Afghanistan. It's a very expensive way to kill 2 lads behind a wall, but it works!

California Tanker
8th April 2008, 00:19
Does this apply to Javelin?

No.
It's purely passive.

Such detectors are usually radar or laser based. Outside of an active defense system like Arena or Trophy which uses a radar system on the tank itself to determine when and where to launch the hard-kill system, most missiles will not be detected by the target.

Lase the target (eg to get range for a tank cannon or to command a beam-rider missile) and the target will often know about it. Most other guidance systems, won't.

NTM

Fireplace
8th April 2008, 00:24
Fortunately, the Javelin launch signature is said to be low, especially compared to the Spike. At least that's what Lockheed say.

FMolloy
8th April 2008, 13:31
The French MIGHT react on the Irishs' behalf if things get nasty

Why would you think the French would not react, given that they are part of the same force?

GoneToTheCanner
8th April 2008, 16:17
Given that the French have the underlying motive to back up the Chadian government, which is in their own interest,before doing anything for the EU/against the Sudanese, I wouldn't hope to be absolutely dependent on them for air defence/airlift until they prove it when the bullets start to fly.
regards
GttC

FMolloy
8th April 2008, 16:24
Do you think the DF would commit troops to a force if they honestly felt they couldn't rely on the other contributors?

GoneToTheCanner
8th April 2008, 17:04
They've worked with worthless countries before!! I certainly hope the French will respond robustly to any Sudanese agression and will give our guys their best effort.
regards
GttC

Banner
8th April 2008, 17:18
I'm sorry but really lads what planet are ye living on? This is an operation IN CHAD! It would create a massive international incident if a Sudanese armored column were to cross and internationaly recognised border to attack an UN mandated EU force. the scanrio mentioned above where Sudanese troops complete with armour and air support will forceibly engage an irish battalion will only ever happen on someones PC based wargame...get real.

GoneToTheCanner
8th April 2008, 20:05
Hi there
Given that the Sudanese have used their hardware(An-12s as bombers, low-level airstrikes by MiGs against villages and so on) against their enemies, it is not that much of a projection to see them using their toys against Westerners, especially if they play the Islamic card.They have been extremely crafty so far and literally, have got away with murder.They have acted with impunity and probably believe that they can continue to get away with it as long as they do nothing to provoke a severe reaction from the French or UN.Apart from all that, UN mandates are regarded as worthless unless the UN forces are prepared to get tough.This was amply demonstrated in Bosnia, Rwanda and other places.
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
8th April 2008, 20:11
We are being assured that this mandate is considerably tougher than those that went previously. I am assuming its simiar to the Initial INTERFET one.

DeV
8th April 2008, 20:44
EUFOR Chad is a peace enforcement mission (ie "all necessary means").

greyfox
9th April 2008, 16:33
a more likely scenario is Sudan waging a war by proxy rather then using its hardware low level stuff where rpgs are the main opposition a big gun would come in handy, but i would prefer to see something to replace the Nissan before money is spent on big guns ,,,

Docman
10th April 2008, 17:04
Seems the White Thingy has been sorted out.... whatever the technical term for the thingy is.

GoneToTheCanner
10th April 2008, 17:24
Ejection port? the magic of IMO:)
regards
GttC

ODIN
10th April 2008, 18:53
Tampion way.

chapofdryans
10th April 2008, 20:14
thats on the cover of this months "an cosantoir" theres another pic on the inside which is nice

Goldie fish
10th April 2008, 21:23
There are lots of nice pictures in an cosantoir. Be more specific?

GoneToTheCanner
10th April 2008, 21:38
hi there
Tompion, is it not? For naval guns?
regards
GttC

chapofdryans
11th April 2008, 15:14
You know i meant the MRV which we are talking about,as i did say THIS MONTHS edition

Goldie fish
11th April 2008, 22:13
Where inside is there another Photo of the MRV?

chapofdryans
11th April 2008, 23:11
in the contents goldie its small but still a pic

Goldie fish
11th April 2008, 23:32
Oh dear.

easyrider
12th April 2008, 10:42
Read on another site that the Belgians have "reviewed" (=cancelled) their purchase of Mowags with 90mm guns. Defence Minister also reported to have rejected the possibility of a 105mm gun on the Piranhas. True?

mutter nutter
14th April 2008, 17:24
A cheaper 120mm mortor, from RUAG in Switzerland
http://www.ruag.com/ruag/binary?media=135353&open=true

Fireplace
18th April 2008, 01:56
OK, so it's unlikely to ever happen but for the record here is the heaviest firepower you could put on the Mowag.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/04_Vickory_105mm_Indirect_Fire.pdf

California Tanker
18th April 2008, 02:15
That's the Denel/GDLS SPG. Fits in a C-130, and has fired rounds to 34km. Developed as a private venture, the US currently has no plans to buy it, the Stryker brigade uses towed 155mm howitzers.

NTM

chapofdryans
18th April 2008, 16:32
In this months "An Cosantoir" an article states that they are looking at a "Fire support vehicle" would this be the 105mm mowag?

FMolloy
18th April 2008, 19:10
In this months "An Cosantoir" an article states that they are looking at a "Fire support vehicle" would this be the 105mm mowag?

Yes.

Fireplace
28th June 2008, 15:32
Pandur II tests with CMI CT-CV 105 Turret.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8138/p28012ee6.jpg

Pandur II tests with Oto Melara 105 Hitfact Turret.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2198/p28018yh9.jpg

Goldie fish
28th June 2008, 18:31
The Pandur II seems to be turning into a Mowag Piranha Clone.

DeV
28th June 2008, 19:14
Well the tender did come down to a choice between the MOWAG Piranha IIIH & the Steyr Pandur II (at least I think Steyr make it).

Goldie fish
28th June 2008, 19:22
The Pandur we had on trial was a 3 Axle model.

GoneToTheCanner
28th June 2008, 19:26
As an aside, Steyr make a very handy fully-tracked truck, one of which is in use on a road-building project near Portlaoise/Mountrath.I don't have a picture right now but I have seen it a few times.Might be no harm to ship a few to Chad.....there's also a pic in today's Times of a Lt Boylan standing in front of a Mowag, of which the Army are clearly so proud, the sticker of an Irish flag is peeling off.Ever hear of paint, lads?
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
28th June 2008, 19:36
Ever hear of low viz, flyboy? Stickers can be removed much easier than paint.

GoneToTheCanner
28th June 2008, 23:01
Given that NATO forces have been using low-viz painted markings for many years now, it would not be beyond the abilities of the DF to rustle up a few cans of paint and do it right, instead of having a shabby, peeling sticker.Makes you wonder what else is wrong, if they're too lazy to fix something as simple and basic as that.Not good for such a media/image conscious DF, to fall down on such basics.In the airline business, we get negative remarks from the passengers if we allow our aircraft to appear scruffy.I know full well that soldiers using the Mowags couldnt give a shit about stickers but if it's reflective of a mentality...
regards
GttC

Come-quickly
29th June 2008, 18:45
Topic anyone?

Quiet you!

adwmaher
17th October 2008, 11:27
Hi guys,
Just using the 'search' function( aren't I a good boy!) and was reading this discussion. Just wondering what if we combined replacement of Scorpions and AML 90s?I'm thinking for example of the CV90-120.
This provides a large calibre gun for use in all the aforementioned scenarios.
It allows us to rid ourselves of antiquated equipment, some of which (scorpions) were never used overseas anyway and yet it allows the Army to continue to use tracked vehicles and thus retain the knowledge and experience they have acquired with these vehicles since the 1930s.
This would provide us with a highly mobile AFV with significant fire-power in the event of it ever encountering real trouble.