Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suggesting a new Cav ORBAT

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

  • Its some height too. Deff won't fit in the back of a Herc/C17 with that on the roof.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Isn't 25mm effectively obsolete in autocannons?

      Does it really offer much over a GMG on this type of platform?

      It feels like the ship has sailed on MRAPs after Afghanistan. The Canadians seems to have uparmoured the usefulness of the M1117 in the pursuit of more protection for the TAPV
      "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Come-quickly View Post
        Isn't 25mm effectively obsolete in autocannons?

        Does it really offer much over a GMG on this type of platform?

        It feels like the ship has sailed on MRAPs after Afghanistan. The Canadians seems to have uparmoured the usefulness of the M1117 in the pursuit of more protection for the TAPV
        Mines and IEDs weren’t a new thing in Afghanistan… lessons relearnt the hard way

        Comment


        • But the humble VAB performed ok as did the M1117.
          "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

          Comment


          • Does anyone know the thinking behind Belgiums approach of lightly armed Cav Cars (the heightist Pandurs) and integrated direct fire support into their Mech infantry?

            Until recently I'd always assumed that their autocannon and 90mm LP equipped PIIIs would have been analogous to the AML90/20 in Irish service
            "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Come-quickly View Post
              Does anyone know the thinking behind Belgiums approach of lightly armed Cav Cars (the heightist Pandurs) and integrated direct fire support into their Mech infantry?

              Until recently I'd always assumed that their autocannon and 90mm LP equipped PIIIs would have been analogous to the AML90/20 in Irish service
              This paper from a few years ago will possibly answer some of that:

              https://doc.anet.be/docman/docman.ph...e2d57.9774.pdf

              After the Cold War the Belgian government pushed for a lighter armed forces and budgets were cut. The Pandurs, originally purchased for their airmobile commando brigade, were reroled as recce vehicles. Tanks were replaced by 90mm/30mm guns equipped PIIIs.

              Comment


              • They seem to have gotten ahead of what we were doing in UNMIL etc with a light self protecting mobile group.

                Looks like we're not alone in a lack of meaningful mobile artillery for this concept
                "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Come-quickly View Post
                  They seem to have gotten ahead of what we were doing in UNMIL etc with a light self protecting mobile group.

                  Looks like we're not alone in a lack of meaningful mobile artillery for this concept
                  I believe they have less artillery than us currently, but they're buying into Caesar.

                  Comment


                  • 155mm DFs at the crossroads

                    I can't help but wonder if the PIII 90mm LP wasn't a case of the Belgian taxpayer funding to Cockerill develop the integration of their product onto a more contemporary platform for the export market.

                    The US funded a bunch of Cockerill 90mm LP guns for ANA M1117s
                    Come-quickly
                    Commandant
                    Last edited by Come-quickly; 18 May 2022, 20:31. Reason: prepositions
                    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Come-quickly View Post
                      155mm DFs at the crossroads

                      I can't help but wonder if the PIII 90mm LP wasn't a case of the Belgian taxpayer funding to Cockerill develop the integration of their product onto a more contemporary platform for the export market.

                      The US funded a bunch of Cockerill 90mm LP guns for ANA M1117s
                      I'd put money on it considering they're now talking about going back to tanks, which the 90mm were supposed to take over the role of.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Come-quickly View Post
                        155mm DFs at the crossroads

                        I can't help but wonder if the PIII 90mm LP wasn't a case of the Belgian taxpayer funding to Cockerill develop the integration of their product onto a more contemporary platform for the export market.

                        The US funded a bunch of Cockerill 90mm LP guns for ANA M1117s


                        https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...s-ensue-01872/

                        In December of 2003, Belgium’s federal department of Finance gave a negative advisement on arming Belgium’s 6×6 Pandurs with this same weapon (see this Army Technology page for a picture of a 90mm turret on a Kuwaiti National Guard Pandur 6×6 APC.). The gun apparently cost twice as much as a 105mm gun, and reduced interoperability with the 105mm caliber that equipped Belgium’s existing tanks and serves as the secondary “global standard” caliber for tanks and assault guns. It was also seen as a tactically unsound decision, for the reasons noted above. At the time, therefore, they saw no valid reasons to purchase the 90mm guns and install them onto the Pandurs.

                        These same guns are now being procured for the more advanced Piranha IIIs.


                        Belgium Map
                        (click to view)

                        One possible angle may be seen by following the money.

                        CMI is the sole European producer of the Cockerill 90mm Mk 8 gun, with production in Seraing, near Liege in Belgium’s Walloon south. Yet CMI also makes a new 105mm turret called the CT-CV.

                        Washington, DC-based Allied Defense Group Inc.’s subsidiary MECAR , however, is the sole European company capable of delivering 90mm Mk.8 ammunition . MECAR’s Nivelles production facility is located between Brussels and Charleroi, is also considered to be part of the Walloon South, and just happens to be the Minister of Defense’s electoral district. David further notes that “the Parti Socialist (that the Minister of Defense belongs to) is tied to past DoD scandals including a Dassault bribe in the beginning of the 1990s.”

                        Comment


                        • The question is do we want to limit Cav to ISTAR or do we want it to do more as the armoured element of our forces. Even in the ISTAR role do we not need to integrate more drone, (higher and lower level ones). Do we want to give Cav battlefield radar etc? And as the amroured element do we want it to provide the direct fire role and a mounted anti-tank capability. As for the Belgium model it is almost alone in the EU. Most countries did not get rid of their tanks and in any case they operate as part of a NATO combined arms formation.

                          Comment


                          • Once upon a time there was a plan to equip Cav LTAV with mast mounted battlefield Radar. It got Battlefield Radar, but never mounted it above ground. I think , like the drones, it became an artillery thing then.
                            A clean slate may be required here. Review what is expected from Combat support units, and equip accordingly. At one stage the recce element of Cav was spending more time on foot than infantry, and were lighter armed.
                            na grohmiti
                            Commander in Chief
                            Last edited by na grohmiti; 19 May 2022, 16:13.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Some countries have started moving towards ISTAR as a discrete element. But screening and flank security will likely remain relevant tasks with UVs and sensor kits built into that model.

                              Really ISTAR should be a network with CAV, Arty and infantry all having complementary organic capabilities. This is as important for UNMIL style task groups as conventional warfighting.

                              Artillery fires are an important part of light armoured Cavalry tactics so having mobile Artillery for DFs is a bigger hole than the direct fire piece if you're not deluding yourself into pseudo tanking.

                              I'm as trainspotter horny for the Centauro B2 as anyone else and it could be a huge asset in the right force structure but it's clear that the ability to take sensors and missiles that can see and harm the enemy for breaking off or delaying actions will be essential for any grouping operating in a Force structure that can't coddle them (I.e. 90% of UN missions)

                              "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                              Comment


                              • Cav have the Foxtrack radar

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X