Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ford mk 6 armoured car

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    Did the AML's and Scorpion's all had the same spares, same munitions, same driver and crew courses as the MOWAGs???
    No but keeping commonality as far as possible means better VFM, easier maintenance, more availability

    Not forgetting the size of the DF has reduced by 1/3

    Comment


    • #92
      The DF often bites it's own foot by having multiple vehicle types, be it ground vehicles, ships or aircraft and the resultant stores chaos would bring a tear to your eye. The DF has made efforts to tidy up the car park, so to speak, but it seems to continuously repeat the error. At least going total diesel got rid of all but a very few petrol engined types out of the fleet. As a real world example, when we had three active French helicopters in service, each stores stream was seperated by design and the practicalities of actual storage for spares but there was common hardware such as screws, bolts, filters, seals, gaskets but you had to be very, very careful not to mix up incompatible parts that looked right, but were not actually correct for type by part number or modification state or engine sub model and so on. In some cases, you have to physically seperate parts for types and subtypes of vehicles / guns / ships / aircraft. Every time you introduce a new object to the DF, you have to think about the effect it has on the supply system. If you have a unique type or subtype, you are adding a whole world of hurt to yourself...........and it's not confined to the DF, either. Airlines are riddled with incompatible fleets because they have different seat sets or different galleys. Commonality, provided it is done correctly, is brilliant but it is hard to actually achieve in practise.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
        The DF often bites it's own foot by having multiple vehicle types, be it ground vehicles, ships or aircraft and the resultant stores chaos would bring a tear to your eye. The DF has made efforts to tidy up the car park, so to speak, but it seems to continuously repeat the error. At least going total diesel got rid of all but a very few petrol engined types out of the fleet. As a real world example, when we had three active French helicopters in service, each stores stream was seperated by design and the practicalities of actual storage for spares but there was common hardware such as screws, bolts, filters, seals, gaskets but you had to be very, very careful not to mix up incompatible parts that looked right, but were not actually correct for type by part number or modification state or engine sub model and so on. In some cases, you have to physically seperate parts for types and subtypes of vehicles / guns / ships / aircraft. Every time you introduce a new object to the DF, you have to think about the effect it has on the supply system. If you have a unique type or subtype, you are adding a whole world of hurt to yourself...........and it's not confined to the DF, either. Airlines are riddled with incompatible fleets because they have different seat sets or different galleys. Commonality, provided it is done correctly, is brilliant but it is hard to actually achieve in practise.
        You’d have to wonder sometimes is the requirement for something unique actually because DoD says we don’t need x which is on the standard vehicle which is offered but it actually ends up costing more

        Comment


        • #94
          Today it is normally far more expensive to remove a feature for a small market rather than buy the full spec version. If the DoD went to Apple and requested new iPhone but without a camera but they only want 20 then the price would shoot through the roof. It is why some programmes like the NH90 are trying to generate a single common standard from all the different customer standards. The Dauphin's were a great example, a be-spoked design just for us and then only a tiny number around 0.4% of all built!!

          Modularisation should allow things to be added or removed easier but very few products are modular despite what the sales brochure says.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            the ideal replacement for the AMLs would be the 90mm Mowag but the Govt doesnt seem to want to go down that route.
            No.. the doctrine has changed for Cavalry Ops and we no longer work the traditional role where the Cavalry have to have that kind of fire power available. The DF finally woke up that concept of ops that it had trained for was over and that traditional pitched battles and large scale troop movements are a thing of the past., hence a single piece of equipment such as the Mowag MRV in its own right is more use in our concept of ops with a 30mm weapon than with a heavier weapon.

            The AML 90 while mythical and fabled about how great it was , was a single shot, bullet magnet, death trap if deployed against anything other than rifle equipped infantry or soft skinned vehicles. One has only to look how the South Africans deployed them in their bush wars to realise that they were almost disposable.

            With retirement of the AML fleet and the Scorpion the DF have made a statement around its ability to do all things in small packets as opposed to being able to do one thing well. Any diversion from that direction given the limited resources would be stupidity. Ok it needs a little fine tuning and all things being equal the Mowag Fleet is quite a modern well equipped asset. The RG32 is a disaster and absolute waste of resources and should be sold off as quickly as possible with a new LTAV needed for the direction the doctrine was to have taken....but we were almost there in 2001 until someone blew the budget on more APCs.

            Mots important thing is we now have the APCs, properly armed, we have the MRVs again good fit out, all we need to address is the LTAVs, disregard the hover tanks and un real wish list and work to the strengths in the ops that we do. Anything else is just a waste of money and time.
            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

            Comment


            • #96
              Is that why the DF has no artillery caliber higher than 105mm for a gun tube and 120mm for a mortar? Every credible army has 155mm to give a greater reach / overwatch. The DF has always shied away from heavy artillery and I always suspected that cost was blamed for it.

              Comment


              • #97
                It's bizarre actually - 105 and 120 only really work with a doctrine of high mobility, so you use diesel and aviation fuel instead of propellant. The longer ranged stuff on the other hand can be much more static - less mobility,and therefore cost - is required to use it effectively.

                The farcical element is that the helicopters, the vehicles, the training and the fuel that (would) make 105/120 work are vastly more expensive than the capital costs and then ongoing costs of operating a system of systems like 155/SpikeNLOS/GMLRS.

                What the DF/DoD has therefore accomplished is the worst of all worlds - a system thats both less able to support deployed forces, and is more vunerable to counter-battery fire...

                To me, the political answer is more convincing than the military or financial one - if the deployed force doesn't have artillery support, and it all goes horribly wrong, then it's someone else's fault, and that's what really matters.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                  No.. the doctrine has changed for Cavalry Ops and we no longer work the traditional role where the Cavalry have to have that kind of fire power available. The DF finally woke up that concept of ops that it had trained for was over and that traditional pitched battles and large scale troop movements are a thing of the past., hence a single piece of equipment such as the Mowag MRV in its own right is more use in our concept of ops with a 30mm weapon than with a heavier weapon.

                  The AML 90 while mythical and fabled about how great it was , was a single shot, bullet magnet, death trap if deployed against anything other than rifle equipped infantry or soft skinned vehicles. One has only to look how the South Africans deployed them in their bush wars to realise that they were almost disposable.

                  With retirement of the AML fleet and the Scorpion the DF have made a statement around its ability to do all things in small packets as opposed to being able to do one thing well. Any diversion from that direction given the limited resources would be stupidity. Ok it needs a little fine tuning and all things being equal the Mowag Fleet is quite a modern well equipped asset. The RG32 is a disaster and absolute waste of resources and should be sold off as quickly as possible with a new LTAV needed for the direction the doctrine was to have taken....but we were almost there in 2001 until someone blew the budget on more APCs.

                  Mots important thing is we now have the APCs, properly armed, we have the MRVs again good fit out, all we need to address is the LTAVs, disregard the hover tanks and un real wish list and work to the strengths in the ops that we do. Anything else is just a waste of money and time.
                  It is true to say the emphasis has changed from vehicle based Recce to dismounted (eg CTR) Type Recce but that isn’t to say that they are dismounted at all times (hence the MRV/CRAV/LTAV).

                  There also remains a requirement (currently unfilled) for a fire support vehicle.


                  Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                  Is that why the DF has no artillery caliber higher than 105mm for a gun tube and 120mm for a mortar? Every credible army has 155mm to give a greater reach / overwatch. The DF has always shied away from heavy artillery and I always suspected that cost was blamed for it.
                  Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                  It's bizarre actually - 105 and 120 only really work with a doctrine of high mobility, so you use diesel and aviation fuel instead of propellant. The longer ranged stuff on the other hand can be much more static - less mobility,and therefore cost - is required to use it effectively.

                  The farcical element is that the helicopters, the vehicles, the training and the fuel that (would) make 105/120 work are vastly more expensive than the capital costs and then ongoing costs of operating a system of systems like 155/SpikeNLOS/GMLRS.

                  What the DF/DoD has therefore accomplished is the worst of all worlds - a system thats both less able to support deployed forces, and is more vunerable to counter-battery fire...

                  To me, the political answer is more convincing than the military or financial one - if the deployed force doesn't have artillery support, and it all goes horribly wrong, then it's someone else's fault, and that's what really matters.
                  Of course part of it makes sense as the DF is primarily light infantry based with minimal armour. For that reason, the vast majority of the infantry will be able to supported by the artillery we have for a longer period compared to armoured/mechanised infantry using the same artillery.

                  That of course is not to say that we shouldn’t have more APCs and SP artillery

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by DeV View Post

                    Of course part of it makes sense as the DF is primarily light infantry based with minimal armour. For that reason, the vast majority of the infantry will be able to supported by the artillery we have for a longer period compared to armoured/mechanised infantry using the same artillery.

                    That of course is not to say that we shouldn’t have more APCs and SP artillery
                    I disagree with your first point - while it's true to say that 105/120 can provide intimate fire support out to 17km, and that with dismounted troops they are likely to be within that range - ish, what it ignores is the need to provide counter-battery and suppressive fire. With 120/105 and no practical mobility, even troops 3km from the gun line are vunerable to hostile groups with 105's and you've little ability to counter-battery fire, and at just12km those troops are vunerable to 81/82mm mortars, recoilless rifles and ATGW, and you've no counter-battery fire.

                    Comment


                    • It is true to say the emphasis has changed from vehicle based Recce to dismounted (eg CTR) Type Recce but that isn’t to say that they are dismounted at all times (hence the MRV/CRAV/LTAV).

                      There also remains a requirement (currently unfilled) for a fire support vehicle.
                      A mowag with a 90/105/120gun turret is not a APC, its a AFV, the MRV is too specialist machine to have it acting as a taxi while its dismountable element has been reduced by the turret fit.
                      If you want Self propelled artillery , you buy self propelled artillery, not hoping to use a APC with a gun in the role.

                      Of course part of it makes sense as the DF is primarily light infantry based with minimal armour. For that reason, the vast majority of the infantry will be able to supported by the artillery we have for a longer period compared to armoured/mechanised infantry using the same artillery.
                      Agreed, but you still need more APCs to make more of it mobile.
                      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                      Comment


                      • https://www.britishpathe.com/video/V...fighting+congo

                        Looks like an Irish Ford armored (without turret) car.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                          A mowag with a 90/105/120gun turret is not a APC, its a AFV, the MRV is too specialist machine to have it acting as a taxi while its dismountable element has been reduced by the turret fit.
                          If you want Self propelled artillery , you buy self propelled artillery, not hoping to use a APC with a gun in the role.



                          Agreed, but you still need more APCs to make more of it mobile.
                          I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.

                          I didn’t say that a MOWAG could be SP artillery

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.

                            I didn’t say that a MOWAG could be SP artillery
                            Well the US Army did trial the LAVIII (cousin of our MOWAG) as a SP Artillery piece.
                            https://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...e_0908113.html

                            Comment


                            • I would assume that the CRV/MRV isn’t going to discharge the DEs on the objective, they could have alonggggg march and that vehicle may then be in overwatch or pulling out.
                              Depends on the objective and available intelligence

                              I didn’t say that a MOWAG could be SP artillery
                              Its a general comment, a big gun on a mobile platform isn't always classed as artillery, but if you want artillery that's mobile buy mobile artillery as opposed to an up gunned version of what you already possess.
                              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                                Depends on the objective and available intelligence



                                Its a general comment, a big gun on a mobile platform isn't always classed as artillery, but if you want artillery that's mobile buy mobile artillery as opposed to an up gunned version of what you already possess.
                                Well KMW one of the makers of the Boxer family think a bit different, they are pushing a 155mm howitzer version based upon their 155 AGM module.
                                https://www.kmweg.com/home/artillery...formation.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X