Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Mowag Piranhas in action

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

  • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    They mostly flogged them to their former colonies.
    Argentina had some in 1982 in the Falklands where the British brought Scorpion and Scimitar.
    And brought a 90 back as a souvenir for the Bovington tank museum

    Comment


    • We could have saved them a fortune on shipping..
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
        They mostly flogged them to their former colonies.
        Argentina had some in 1982 in the Falklands where the British brought Scorpion and Scimitar.
        Brits were petrified of them....but also realised that they were of limited use in the FI due to the terrain. They also expected the Scorpions & Scimitars to be of limited use, hence why they only brought 4. Turns out they had no issue at all with the terrain and were quickly pressed into service as extra transport, ambulances etc. Were in constant demand and heavily involved in the battle of Wireless ridge. The AMLs never left Port Stanley and never even fired a shot. They were lined up outside the Globe Hotel in Port Stanley and became a popular backdrop for photos by British troops and journalists. Many of them never left the Falklands and were used as targets by the garrison afterwards.
        Last edited by Poiuyt; 20 January 2020, 11:40.

        Comment


        • The Argentinians did try to get the Panhards out to the outer garrisons but they bogged down so they were pulled back to the town. The British had to rely on impressed farm tractors to move kit, especially crucial kit like the Milans. The Argentinians had Pinzgauer and Unimogs with them and they were coveted by the British military and the civpop after the fighting was over. Very few vehicles can move offroad out there with any certainty,so 4x4 were a priority.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Poiuyt View Post
            Brits were petrified of them....but also realised that they were of limited use in the FI due to the terrain. They also expected the Scorpions & Scimitars to be of limited use, hence why they only brought 4. Turns out they had no issue at all with the terrain and were quickly pressed into service as extra transport, ambulances etc. Were in constant demand and heavily involved in the battle of Wireless ridge. The AMLs never left Port Stanley and never even fired a shot. They were lined up outside the Globe Hotel in Port Stanley and became a popular backdrop for photos by British troops and journalists. Many of them never left the Falklands and were used as targets by the garrison afterwards.
            When did the RMs get their BV206s? Was it after the Falklands?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
              When did the RMs get their BV206s? Was it after the Falklands?
              The RM had the "Bandwagons" with them

              Comment


              • Originally posted by sofa View Post
                The RM had the "Bandwagons" with them
                https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&q...hGRVfQaycFLnM:
                Hah, That pic shows the Scorpions, BVs and AML90s outside the Globe Hotel - AMLs are in the background.

                Comment


                • So from answers to my questions:

                  90mm is a dream of yesteryear.
                  105+ doesn't easily go on a P111 hull.
                  Cav direct fire support option seems to be 30mm+ cannon unless you want to add a different vehicle brand to the fleet.
                  Self propelled 120mm mortar is option for upgrading / modernising arty capabilities to mobile inf / cav groups and maintaining commonality in fleet.
                  Still seems to be no coherent combined arms / mobile doctrine for combat and combat support units.
                  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 X-RayOne View Post
                    So from answers to my questions:

                    90mm is a dream of yesteryear.
                    105+ doesn't easily go on a P111 hull.
                    Cav direct fire support option seems to be 30mm+ cannon unless you want to add a different vehicle brand to the fleet.
                    Self propelled 120mm mortar is option for upgrading / modernising arty capabilities to mobile inf / cav groups and maintaining commonality in fleet.
                    Still seems to be no coherent combined arms / mobile doctrine for combat and combat support units.
                    Any fire support vehicle should be Infantry, not Cav. The Cav should stick to formation recce. Up until a few years ago, the Cav had six different armoured vehicle variants to do one job, they now have three, which is still two too many. They certainly don't need more.

                    The US have/had three 105mm Stryker's per mech infantry company, which would allow one vehicle to be attached to each platoon if needed. Seams the best way to do things if a fire support vehicle was to be procured, whether it be 105mm or 30mm RWS armed vehicle.

                    A 120mm, 81mm and 60mm mortar detachment with ammo can be transported in a Mowag, dismounting to go into action.

                    With the Mowag DRWS upgrade, firepower has been increased adding 40mm GMG as an option in lieu of the HMG and also Javelin in the near future all going well.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
                      Any fire support vehicle should be Infantry, not Cav. The Cav should stick to formation recce. Up until a few years ago, the Cav had six different armoured vehicle variants to do one job, they now have three, which is still two too many. They certainly don't need more.

                      The US have/had three 105mm Stryker's per mech infantry company, which would allow one vehicle to be attached to each platoon if needed. Seams the best way to do things if a fire support vehicle was to be procured, whether it be 105mm or 30mm RWS armed vehicle.

                      A 120mm, 81mm and 60mm mortar detachment with ammo can be transported in a Mowag, dismounting to go into action.

                      With the Mowag DRWS upgrade, firepower has been increased adding 40mm GMG as an option in lieu of the HMG and also Javelin in the near future all going well.
                      In my old copy of FM3-21.31 SCBT (2003) it is true the MGS's were allocated to the Infantry Battalions but it seems now that the M1128 MGS vehicles together with the M1134 ATGM vehicles have been transferred at least in some units to the Cavalry Sqd. The SCBT's that have done this so far are those which are based around Cavalry Regiments.
                      http://www.fortcarsonmountaineer.com...weapons-troop/
                      This cavalry weapons troop is made up of 6 platoons, 3 with 3x M1134s and 3 with 4x M1128s. Also at least one SCBT, 2 Cav has introduced into its RSTA (ISTAR) squadron also now the up gunned M1296 Striker with the Kongsberg MCT30 turrets. The US Army at least sees the need to put much more fire power into their Cavalry units, at least in Europe as the likely opponents are more heavily armed. But as we know these same vehicles are also heavily exported and there is a good chance we could be squared off against a similar level of threat.

                      Also remember the MGS was to provide Direct Fire Support while M1129 MC have 120mm mortars for indirect, and the SCBT also has their (3x 6) M777 for longer range indirect support.
                      Last edited by EUFighter; 22 January 2020, 06:43.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
                        So from answers to my questions:

                        90mm is a dream of yesteryear.
                        105+ doesn't easily go on a P111 hull.
                        Cav direct fire support option seems to be 30mm+ cannon unless you want to add a different vehicle brand to the fleet.
                        Self propelled 120mm mortar is option for upgrading / modernising arty capabilities to mobile inf / cav groups and maintaining commonality in fleet.
                        Still seems to be no coherent combined arms / mobile doctrine for combat and combat support units.
                        The Stryker which is the American cousin of the PIII has a 105mm fitted, the M1129 Mobile Gun System, so in theory a PIII should be capable of being fitted with the same turret system.

                        Comment


                        • One thing many of you forget is that the equipment and calibres that you take on a mission are not your own chouce.

                          You are there with the consent of the host nation. A peacekeeping force, or any part thereof cannot be there without host nation support, otherwise it is an occupation. As part of the MOU there will be stipulations placed on equipment, max calibres, wheeled or tracked vehicles, armour variants etc. There is a reason that everyone (that has them) doesn't send MBTs on PSOs.

                          Look at the FIB in MONUSCO, MBTs and fighter aircraft. Every time they deployed, the other force assets were targetted heavily. They no longer deploy.

                          Host nations and other parties to a conflict must approve and support a mission otherwise the PSO will fail. Doesn't matter if it is Chapter VI or VII

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fantasia View Post
                            One thing many of you forget is that the equipment and calibres that you take on a mission are not your own chouce.

                            You are there with the consent of the host nation. A peacekeeping force, or any part thereof cannot be there without host nation support, otherwise it is an occupation. As part of the MOU there will be stipulations placed on equipment, max calibres, wheeled or tracked vehicles, armour variants etc. There is a reason that everyone (that has them) doesn't send MBTs on PSOs.

                            Look at the FIB in MONUSCO, MBTs and fighter aircraft. Every time they deployed, the other force assets were targetted heavily. They no longer deploy.

                            Host nations and other parties to a conflict must approve and support a mission otherwise the PSO will fail. Doesn't matter if it is Chapter VI or VII
                            Bosnia and Kosovo: every western MBT was to be seen.
                            UNIFIl the French not only took their Leclers with them but also AMC F1 155mm SPH *did keep them there long)
                            And I could go on; thing is, if you do not have them, you can never take them with you.

                            Comment


                            • The only reason UNIFIL doesn't have them is Israel want to have the only big guns in the neighbourhood.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                                The only reason UNIFIL doesn't have them is Israel want to have the only big guns in the neighbourhood.
                                French deployed Leclercs and 155mm SP arty to UNIFIL (post 2006)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X