Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The roles of armour

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

  • The roles of armour

    After spending some time looking wistfully at the two Sizus and overhearing that our only tracked armour is being saved from the scrapheap by the shock revelation that wheeled vehicles wont go in mud; I decided to start another topic on the future employment of armour in the DF.

    For simplicities sake Im going to throw in a few fairly disparate suggestions and questions under the one banner:

    1. Will we ever operate one or more fully mechanized operational units? i.e. a battalion or battalion battlegroup capable of moving entirely under armour cover and should we.

    2. Is it feasible to centre all armour purchases around one common design in each weight class? i.e. LTV/APC/FSV?

    3. Given the increasingly warlike and uncivilised AOs we're heading for is it time to reconsider tracked vehicles?

    4. Will neccessity ever force the purchase of MBTs of any form?

    Now my theories on the questions are as follows.

    1. We should be capable of operating a mechanised (or at least motorised) brigade for flexibilities sake if not to deploy it as a whole.
    Also In high risk situations I dont see how a transit van or other softskin is an acceptable means of transport.

    2. Following on from this I believe that the PIII is a mite too expensive to fill all roles in a battalion group that require a truck size capacity, a second tier APC in a lower cost bracket (i.e. the Sizu/Patria) to fulfill utility and CS/CSS roles could be managed efficiently if it had significant commonality with another vehicle in service (say a softskin truck).

    3. The problems of mobility in locales like Liberia (anyone seen the photos of the convoy negotiating the "roads" at the start of the rainy season), seem to present a pretty urgent case to me for some sort of tracked armoured vehicle s capable of moving troops and supplies, not neccesarily a fighting vehicle as such.
    One suggestion would be the the Armoured extended version of the BV 206s, (BV 210?).

    4. The weapon system on any future fire support vehicle is less likely to be needed in Kosovo style policing roles, and not likely to be useful in more volatile situation if its wheeled chassis is stuck in rough terrain unable to catch up with the more mobile units its supporting.
    "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

  • #2
    I also seen on militaryphotos.com that the scorpions are being upgraded for a "future" deployment? What type of upgrade are they to receive?
    "Why am I using a new putter? Because the last one didn't float too well." -Craig Stadler

    Comment


    • #3
      can u give a url for that in militaryphotos.com ?

      Comment


      • #4
        http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...=asc&start=272
        "Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here...this is the War Room!"

        Comment


        • #5
          Point 1: I think we are heading there.
          Point 2: I don't know
          Point 3: If you chang "warlike and uncivilised" to "difficult terrain unsuitable for wheels" your point would make more sense.
          Point 4: Read California Tanker's Blog to see the impact of using MBTs in roles other than tank battles.

          Comment


          • #6
            They're getting new diesel engines and tracks, the upgrade process isn't starting till January.

            1. We already have the ability to move a whole battalion under armour, there are enough Mowags to kit out 1 battalion.

            2. Do you mean 1 design to fulfill all roles in different up armoured and down armoured configurations or 1 design for each role? The less types you have the less strain you put on your logs support.

            3. Just because its tracked doesn't mean it has greater mobility, each offers advantages and disadvantages.

            4. As far as I know Irish roads are only capable of taking MLC 40 vehicles, what modern MBT that offers excellent survivability characteristics fits into this class? No Modern Western MBT anyways.
            Death before Dishonour.

            Comment


            • #7
              Your sure that our 65 Mowags can be used to move every person in a 650+ man infantry battalion group under cover?
              Of course we couldnt deploy all the PIIIs on ops without giving up training for other personnell, such as the next class of APC drivers.

              LTVs will bring us a step closer but there still wont be enough capacity to protect a whole deployed battalion.

              Another point is that an APC with a high enough ground clearance (see: Sizu) could make a good fist of towing an L118.
              Last edited by Come-quickly; 12 November 2004, 16:32.
              "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


              • #8
                Armour?

                Point 1: We are already, even if there are still a few problems (See Come-quickly's message).

                Point 2: That would be the sensible thing to do in order to make it easier for the logistics guys. You can even mount a bigger gun on the same chassis so as to enable different roles for the same vehicle type.

                Point 3: a) Tracked vehicles are of the "medium" i.e AIFV or "heavy" i.e MBT armour variety. Those types of vehicles are more for high-intensity conflicts (Kuwait 1990/ Iraq Invasion recently). They are not effective either in terms of costs or usage (Relatively low speed as compared with wheeled vehicles/ High irritation factor with indigs) in low intensity situations.
                b) The AOs we will be in won't be the high-intensity type, but rather peace-keeping after someone else has gone in to do the heavy stuff before us. Also, we're surrounded by allies in the EU, so I doubt we'll ever have to fight a war in Ireland where we might conceivably need heavy armour.
                c) Tracked vehicles of the heavy type won't be able to operate effectively in Ireland.
                d) So with our restricted budget we can contribute better with what we have (Mowag P III) and maybe some more support vehicles of the same type for different roles.

                Point 4: See above.

                On another note, I read in one of the older threads that the role of the Cav has been downgraded. Can anyone tell me what that is about?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Summary=CQ Likes tanks...been here before so often...


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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    point to note oh one who knows all, only one point mentions tanks.
                    "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


                    • #11
                      I'm sorry..."tracked armour"


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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I remember reading a long time ago that the Scorpion had a lighter footprint (in terms of force per area) than a fully loaded soldier. I also remember that during the Falklands War, the British Scorpions/Scimtars were able to cross the bogland and so facilitate the cross-country advance. Don't we have a lot of bogs ?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dbpackers
                          I remember reading a long time ago that the Scorpion had a lighter footprint (in terms of force per area) than a fully loaded soldier. I also remember that during the Falklands War, the British Scorpions/Scimtars were able to cross the bogland and so facilitate the cross-country advance. Don't we have a lot of bogs ?
                          We do,but the environmentalists wont let anyone cross them in any sort of vehicle,never mind tank,for fear of upsetting the delicate ecological balance.

                          The RM now use the Hagglunds ATV for this purpose...(Licence Built by alvis,of course)


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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thats the BV 206/210 I referred to

                            "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


                            • #15
                              No,its a different one.


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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X