Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ford mk 6 armoured car

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

  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    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
    It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

    I, for one, would be hugely confident that it wouldn't fall over when fired on even the steepest ground...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      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
      Almost everyone who, builds an APC tries to market the chassis combined with multiple weapons systems to get maximum value from the design, rarely does it lead to actual sales..even some of the Timoney variats had AML 90 turrets mounted for trials.

      But for ugliness, that one comes top of the league.


      But this is far more practicle


      Last edited by hptmurphy; 7 August 2019, 21:09.
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
        It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

        I, for one, would be hugely confident that it wouldn't fall over when fired on even the steepest ground...
        Think that's an insult to both, that might be one of the ugliest modern vehicles that I've seen in a while.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
          It looks like the unholy bastard lovechild of a Mowag and the USS Missouri.

          I, for one, would be hugely confident that it wouldn't fall over when fired on even the steepest ground...
          Well actually they have test fired it a lot. One of the reason why they did test firing was to see if they could get away with having no additional supports, and due to the massive weight of the Boxer they don't. The big advantage of the GAM system is that you can use it as a mobile artillery system or lift it off the vehicle and use it in a fixed base at a FOB. But I do admit it does look ugly, but it is not designed to be in a beauty competition. KMW have also proposed the AGM system to be mounted on 8x8 / 10x10 high mobility truck, there it looks better.

          But the G6 is still king of the wheeled SPG's, followed by the various Czech SPG's.

          Comment


          • Manufacturers trials fill me with more confidence than you could possibly imagine...

            If I was DF I'd be pretty much sold on the Caesar gun-truck. Personally I think it's too compromised in favour of low-end conventional/insurgency warfare for anyone who may also be fighting a traditional high-end conventional war, but for PK/PE I think it's fine, and it has some huge advanced over a big, tracked SPG in terms of its mobility, ease of logistics support, cost etc...

            Using 155 also puts you in the market for mass produced PGM's as well, which would increase the effectiveness several fold.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
              Manufacturers trials fill me with more confidence than you could possibly imagine...

              If I was DF I'd be pretty much sold on the Caesar gun-truck. Personally I think it's too compromised in favour of low-end conventional/insurgency warfare for anyone who may also be fighting a traditional high-end conventional war, but for PK/PE I think it's fine, and it has some huge advanced over a big, tracked SPG in terms of its mobility, ease of logistics support, cost etc...

              Using 155 also puts you in the market for mass produced PGM's as well, which would increase the effectiveness several fold.
              Caesar is on the silly money side of things, what the French ask for that system is beyond me, an alternative would be the 8x8 version of the ATMOS which can use the MAN HX-77

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                Caesar is on the silly money side of things, what the French ask for that system is beyond me, an alternative would be the 8x8 version of the ATMOS which can use the MAN HX-77
                The MAN concept is the same as Caeser, so we are only at semantics, need 155...stick it on a truck....
                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                Comment


                • One of the huge advantages of Caesar is that you're buying something that has been combat proven, mobility proven in harsh environments, and that is in service with a major western military - and that will remain in service with that military for another couple of decades - and therefore that the upgrades and support will be in place and not need to be bespoke.

                  That, I would suggest, has a ticket price and value all on its own, and I would further suggest that the value of that is going to be rather greater than the cost.

                  Comment


                  • Artillery in the DF is of the tokenistic/cadre of an all arms force. I doubt the DoD would ever spend any money on any new artillery pieces.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tempest View Post
                      Anything in the DF is of the tokenistic/cadre of an all arms force. I doubt the DoD would ever spend any money on any new equipment .
                      Think I fixed that...

                      Comment


                      • The thing is, for it's size, when you added the number of mortars and guns in the FCA / RDF, the total establishment was actually very high for such a small army. The failure to bring next to no artillery of any kind on overseas deployments is down to the DF and the DoD. Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                          One of the huge advantages of Caesar is that you're buying something that has been combat proven, mobility proven in harsh environments, and that is in service with a major western military - and that will remain in service with that military for another couple of decades - and therefore that the upgrades and support will be in place and not need to be bespoke.

                          That, I would suggest, has a ticket price and value all on its own, and I would further suggest that the value of that is going to be rather greater than the cost.
                          If I remember French Army sent over a couple to Britain to try out a year or two ago?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                            The thing is, for it's size, when you added the number of mortars and guns in the FCA / RDF, the total establishment was actually very high for such a small army. The failure to bring next to no artillery of any kind on overseas deployments is down to the DF and the DoD. Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.
                            My understanding is that on a UN mandated peacekeeping deployment the parties to the conflict have an input into what weaponry the peacekeeping force is allowed to bring with them. So for example in UNIFIL the Israel could prevent artillery being deployed. Open to correction and also unsure how it would relate to a peace enforcement mandate.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                              Going back to the Congo time, the Americans would have gladly carried the 25 pdr over for the Army yet none went. None of the modern African deployments brought guns, despite them being easily airlifted or even porteed on trucks. I'm sure the Artillery Corps must have begged to bring field guns with them yet it seems, that like tanks, the DF has guns for show more than actual utility.
                              Unfortunately, as they stand the arty pieces, if brought, would be just for show.

                              The African missions you mention were all mobile patrolling missions with multi day patrols. 105's would have sat idly by in mission HQ's as the units would have been well out of the range of their cover. If you bring them on the patrols then you are into a situation the the gun carriages probably wouldn't have been able to traverse the ground the armoured vehicles struggled in. Or worse, if in contact arty pieces have absolutely no armour protection even from small arms fire, etc. Plus the patrols speed would be limited by constantly having to stay under arty cover if the arty was leap frogging to sites to provide overwatch.

                              Similarly, even if 105's were deployed in the Leb would they even cover the entire AO in terms of being able to provide cover fires??

                              The reality is the DF concentrates on mobile, armoured / light infantry formations but the combat support arms are not equipped to same standard as to mobility or self protection so may as well be still using the horsey school horses to pull the guns around.
                              An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sluggie View Post
                                My understanding is that on a UN mandated peacekeeping deployment the parties to the conflict have an input into what weaponry the peacekeeping force is allowed to bring with them. So for example in UNIFIL the Israel could prevent artillery being deployed. Open to correction and also unsure how it would relate to a peace enforcement mandate.
                                I guess the French ignored that, as they brought Leclerc tanks and ATGWs, when they took a turn on UN duty.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X