Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scorpion replacment?

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

  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    I thought the DF claimed to have sorted the fume extraction problem on the Scorpion?

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    Do we have or have we ever had Centauro vehicles? When ever such vehicles are mentioned here there is a lot of shouting we don't do tanks or tank destroyers.
    There is a rise in the number of remote controlled vehicles, not just that from Rheinmetall to take over support function for the infantry.

    Personally I think the Scorpion CVR(T) fitted the description of a light tank very well, something that provided both a recon capability and a direct fire support capability. However many only see the recon as being important and thus claim that the P3 MRV/CRV vehicles are replacements. What I wanted to highlight with the A-UGV Mission Master was that even this small robotic vehicle has mast mounted sensors, something only a couple of our LTAV's have (those intended to support the artillery).

    But on the other side as this type of vehicle becomes more mainstream will it take over from some of the manned platforms we have today? Would something like the Textron Ripsaw M5 be considered a fire support vehicle for light infantry? The Mission Master has demonstrated that it can be fitted with other systems such as missile and guided rockets.

    Just cast your mind back to the days of foot patrols along the border and how something like a Mission Master with a mast mounted sensor suite would have been such a support.
    As one who worked on the border for as the British army infrastructure was being dismantled, I'm not sure the terrain on the border would have lended itself to being of much use. Lots of steep rolling hillocks and small but deep valleys, the best friend you had was eyes in the sky. If we had LTAV then they would have been useful too, instead of the M3 and soft skin land rover. Big enough to see over the ditch, but not too big for the concession roads (like the Piranha 3). The danger north of the border was roadside bombs and well concealed snipers. Electronic eyes would have been useful at the time, but armour was better. That's why they ended up using Saxon.

    Scorp was never a tank. It had tracks and a gun like a tank but it was never a tank. It was a tracked recce vehicle. A scout car that didn't have wheels. It could not defend itself against other tanks, it was never expected to fight one. Even the Gun we had was obsolete as soon as it was fitted, a relic from the Saladin 6x6 scout car of the postwar years. The fumes were toxic to the crew. Even the much older panhard AML90 had a fume extractor.

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    Originally posted by apc View Post
    completely different roles to the centauro
    Do we have or have we ever had Centauro vehicles? When ever such vehicles are mentioned here there is a lot of shouting we don't do tanks or tank destroyers.
    There is a rise in the number of remote controlled vehicles, not just that from Rheinmetall to take over support function for the infantry.

    Personally I think the Scorpion CVR(T) fitted the description of a light tank very well, something that provided both a recon capability and a direct fire support capability. However many only see the recon as being important and thus claim that the P3 MRV/CRV vehicles are replacements. What I wanted to highlight with the A-UGV Mission Master was that even this small robotic vehicle has mast mounted sensors, something only a couple of our LTAV's have (those intended to support the artillery).

    But on the other side as this type of vehicle becomes more mainstream will it take over from some of the manned platforms we have today? Would something like the Textron Ripsaw M5 be considered a fire support vehicle for light infantry? The Mission Master has demonstrated that it can be fitted with other systems such as missile and guided rockets.

    Just cast your mind back to the days of foot patrols along the border and how something like a Mission Master with a mast mounted sensor suite would have been such a support.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    An extra logistics tail for whatever unit has to work with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • apc
    replied
    completely different roles to the centauro

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    Although I too would like to have an 8x8 with a nice large hole making gun maybe as the army is "light" infantry we should go for a loads of these:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzv_...ture=emb_title

    A mix of recon versions with fire support, logistic and ambulance versions.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    There is no argument from me. I'd have Centauros on tour in the morning.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    So, if our men and women, deployed to a UN job in some shithole, find that their much wanted replacement tanks and armoured cars are nowhere to be seen and they are confronted by a better armed foe, the DoD will simply adopt the Bart Simpson defence and the DF will have to mend and make do, as usual.
    Already happened.
    Congo: Troops sent out carrying WW2 rifles and machine guns, equipped with PreWar armoured vehicles. Face well equipped local militia, equipped by Major European military industrial complex.
    Lebanon: 1960s vintage light armoured vehicles face off against Modern Israeli tanks.
    Liberia: Same 1960s vehicles unable to keep up with the Modern APCs in use. Withdrawn from overseas service. Not replaced.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    So, if our men and women, deployed to a UN job in some shithole, find that their much wanted replacement tanks and armoured cars are nowhere to be seen and they are confronted by a better armed foe, the DoD will simply adopt the Bart Simpson defence and the DF will have to mend and make do, as usual.
    And this is different from the historic norm how?

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    So, if our men and women, deployed to a UN job in some shithole, find that their much wanted replacement tanks and armoured cars are nowhere to be seen and they are confronted by a better armed foe, the DoD will simply adopt the Bart Simpson defence and the DF will have to mend and make do, as usual.

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    Originally posted by Laners View Post
    Never would have thought we had that many Scorpions to replace .
    and AML's

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by CTU View Post
    Let me guess, someone in DoD went to Florida on holiday, fell for a Timeshare Deal at one of the "Free Breakfasts" and when they returned to work thought "that Timeshare idea was good, lets run the DF just like that"
    I'd be more inclined to say the Timeshare folk learnt from the DF, it's been that way for years. Neither Arty or Cav had the vehicles that were on the establishment.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTU
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Same cars, just on different days.
    Let me guess, someone in DoD went to Florida on holiday, fell for a Timeshare Deal at one of the "Free Breakfasts" and when they returned to work thought "that Timeshare idea was good, lets run the DF just like that"

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Laners View Post
    Never would have thought we had that many Scorpions to replace .
    Think it was 14

    Leave a comment:


  • Laners
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    They have been, with MOWAG MRV, CRV and LTAV
    Never would have thought we had that many Scorpions to replace .

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X