Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Panhard AML

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

  • #31
    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?
    now back in bosnia the canadians brought their cougar fire support vehicles, which was a mowag with a 76mm turret, except they found that in urban areas it was difficult to use as it lacked the accuracy to hit snipers and the like.

    And while the Stryker MGS has had technical problems, another reasons for it not going into production is that commanders of units with MGS attached often opted for weapons systems that caused less damage in urban areas.

    Now the brits are fighting a war in afghanistan, but they're using fire support groups with a gmg/hmg for supporting their infantry battalion, and haven't found it necessary to deploy any Challengers.

    if people could get along to 30mm shoot, or see the GMG and heavy machine gun combination in action, they wouldn't want 90mm

    Comment


    • #32
      were thrilled to find that the peaceniks hadn't brought any heavy ones with them
      Not quite true - it was a condition of access for the initial UNPROFOR troops that they couldn't be equiped with anything above .5. They were allowed bring some mortars and infantry anti armour weapons, but no direct fire weapons, hence no tanks and no IFVs. If they had been so equipped, they would have made a huge difference, particularly because the UN couldn't get out of it's own way in terms of clearing airstrikes on what were perfects valid targets, particularly in 92-93. Later UN forces (and NATO forces after that) brought everything up to MBTs. The French made plentyful use of their ERC-90s by all accounts, so the 90mm had its uses then too.

      Also, if you really were worried about taking on tanks, would a 105mm gun (that's what, 50+ years old?) mounted on a wheeled afv really be your first port of call? Anything newer than a T-62 will really need 120mm, which is really pushing it on a wheeled mount. Strikes me as a better bet (for us at least) to deploy with allies that have 'proper' anti armour equipment, air cover, - and bring plenty of Javelins.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DeV View Post

        How many of them were were involved in wars?
        Many were. How many engaged enemy armour?


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

        Comment


        • #34
          h
          is type of thread always degenerates into talk about the DF's need to engage with tanks,
          Only a clown would willingly engage a tank without having a tank, any one who even contemplates it with out an MBT,Apache, or A 10 is out of their tiny ****ing mind
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • #35
            Would there be a case for wiring a number of Piranha's in service for the Javelin?

            Comment


            • #36
              @GF, the South Africans certainly did engage T-34/85s and T-54/55s, belonging to Angola and Mozambique, with their Elands/Ratels. I recall one photo of a T55 claimed to have been knocked out by an Eland. It was published in one of those weapons part-works popular in the 80s.

              regards
              GttC

              Comment


              • #37
                Paul G, I recall a British soldier complaining on TV that the Scimitars in Bosnia were hampered by the Rarden's lack of punch against hardened targets and he wanted his old Scorpion back!

                regards
                GttC

                Comment


                • #38
                  Only a clown would willingly engage a tank without having a tank, any one who even contemplates it with out an MBT,Apache, or A 10 is out of their tiny ****ing mind
                  Depends entirely on the situation, but there are a whole range of assets available to western powers now that are far better at the anti-armour role than (say) a 105mm gun on a wheeled chassis. Our nearest neighbours alone have found Brimstone to be an extremely effective weapon, along with Paveways and a certain Israeli sourced missile. There are far more ways to skin a cat now than there were in the 1980s.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                    Paul G, I recall a British soldier complaining on TV that the Scimitars in Bosnia were hampered by the Rarden's lack of punch against hardened targets and he wanted his old Scorpion back!

                    regards
                    GttC
                    Bosnia was a long time ago, and technology has improved vastly since then, missiles amd guided mortars are far far more reliablle today. And 30mm ammunition has improved.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Our nearest neighbours alone have found Brimstone to be an extremely effective weapon, along with Paveways and a certain Israeli sourced missile. There are far more ways to skin a cat now than there were in the 1980s.

                      Alright in one off incidents but against multiple targets man portable missile are very very exposed and vunerable when engaging tanks.

                      Something like Hell fire can engage multiple targets at one time.

                      AML 90s were designed as direct fire support for recce teams withe ability to provide the potential to destroy light vehicles armoured or soft skinned and are not tank Destroyers.

                      Nor can they defend them selves or their crew against anything greater than a sling shot.

                      Warrior or Bradley are the way to go for tracked Infantry deployment, If Warriors gun was improved it would be better, Bradley has a good standoff capability, Mowag MRV would be on a par with Warrior but with a better gun, after that if you need the ability to defeat armour with a fair chance of surviving your into man portable weapons from an Irish perspective.

                      To my mind AMLs have no place in modern war fare. Given there is a given that the crew survivabilty is now as key to the fight as the ability to engage and knock out the enemy, AML 245 in any format just dosen't do this.
                      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Supporters of the AML(if there are any) as a useful fire support vehicle, should remember that it is less armoured and lesser powered than an LTAV.


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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I'd rather see them put out to grass and be replaced with a decent gun system, be it on a Mowag chassis or not. I'd also rather have a gun because the cost of buying and keeping Javelins and the like does not sit well with Finance, who are the real paymasters. The AMls are about as relevant as Fougas now.

                          regards
                          GttC

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            is there any argument to be made for retaining the turrets? and if so, could they be re-used on the Mowags?
                            I seem to recall these were upgraded some years back by the South Africans? or am i thinking that's the AML20's?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Herald View Post
                              is there any argument to be made for retaining the turrets? and if so, could they be re-used on the Mowags?
                              I seem to recall these were upgraded some years back by the South Africans? or am i thinking that's the AML20's?
                              None whatsoever.
                              The 90 was upgraded with a Laser rangefinder and Night vision sights ten years ago or more. Fine for shooting from a hide or a static position. Useless for firing on the run. Unpowered turret. Ever tried to track a target moving at 40km/h by hand cranking(apart from the fact the sighting system isn't designed to be fired on the move)? The upgrades brought a gun with 50s technology up to the 90s. Its still 20 year old technology.
                              It would be like taking a 4inch gun from the Navy Flower Corvettes built during WW2 , bolting a night sight onto it to replace the brass telescope, and sticking it on the front of the new Naval Vessel. Yeah its a great gun, but it makes a modern platform obsolete.


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

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Thks Goldie,
                                Yeah it kinda cameback to me after I'd posted, the antiquity of the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X