Over 80 Mowag personel carriers procured, whats next?

Maskhadov

There is nothing wrong with the GPMG. But its not very light and easy to carry when doing Fighting in Built up Areas. The Minimi is an excellent weapon.

Dub13

Maskhadov wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the GPMG.But its not very light and easy to carry when doing Fighting in Built up Areas.

As the GPMG man in my old section I have the agree with the above 100%.

cushtac

Maskhadov wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the GPMG. But its not very light and easy to carry when doing Fighting in Built up Areas.

Which is why they're looking at ways to lighten it - collapsing buttstocks, fluted barrels, use of lighter materials etc. They're also mulling over putting a sight on it.

Who said there was anything wrong with the Mag? If the DF thought so they would have replaced it by now.

Maskhadov

Most western armies have the Minimi at section level. They obviously reckon its a better option

cushtac

As I've said, the Army is considering getting a 5.56mm machine gun for overseas deployments. This is down to the fact that troops are more likely to be using APC's when overseas.

Manic Moran

A Hummer's width is more of an end result than a design goal. It just came out that way.

Why?

Look under a Hummer. Then look under any other 4x4. All that stuff related to powering the wheels, (the transmission, differential, clutch, whatever) has to go somewhere. To get the massive ground clearance, it all had to go up, which meant either making the whole vehicle higher, with accompanying stability problems, or making a gap in the middle by moving the sides outwards. This is why the vehicle is massive on the outside, but incredibly cramped on the inside.

NTM

Morpheus

minimi fires 5.56
MAG (GPMG) fires 7.62

personal preference in a fire fight is 7.62, you hit someone with that they wont get up and walk away, they may hop carrying their leg under their arm though. GPMG fired 7.62 makes most armour look like swiss cheese.

Having been on target ranges, raising and lowering the targets, believe me when i tell you that you know when someone is throwing rocks instead of pebbles.

I can see the choice of minimi though, for covering fire, it doesnt really matter if your firing a minimi or gpmg as with that many rounds snapping over an enemys head, he doesnt care what the round is being shot from and admittedly I would definitely prefer a much lighter version of the MAG if it was possible, as it is a biatch to carry.

cushtac

This has been mentioned more than once:



It's a lightened MAG that the Swedes have been experimenting with, details of which can be found at http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/Ksp58DF.html

babybundy

plus if you use the minimi at section level you can carry more ammo as the 5.56 is lighter and you only carry one type of ammo

Maskhadov

babybundy wrote:

plus if you use the minimi at section level you can carry more ammo as the 5.56 is lighter and you only carry one type of ammo

Lighter ammo just means you will carry more of it

The thing

The Defence Forces bought 500 new FN Mag's some while ago, so I don't think they are in a hurry to replace them. The US army want their Mag's back in service as the Minimi doesn't pack the same punch. The US army built their version of the FN Mag under licence from Belguim and included many upgrades including new gas plugs, plastic barrel grips, sights and folding stocks.
What is needed for the Army is more medical equipment and field hospitals. I don't think the one in Liberia will come home! They could do with about 3 for training and deployment purposes.
The Engineers should have some proper armoured vehicles and proper engineering vehicles for long range patrolling abroad. They currently have none.
The DFTC should have a proper FIBUA village. When you consider you can build a basic house shell for as little as 10,000 Euros, a complete village could be built for under one million Euro's.
The new Nissan GR's are fine for Ireland but should not be deployed overseas. The army should be looking for a small utility truck like the Steyr Pinnzucher vehicle (spelling?) it's not only troops that have to be protected but stores and equipment also.
I know this isn't army equipment but the Air Corps need to paint the Aluettes the same colour of the Eurocopters and Agustas.

armchairninja

The thing wrote:

I know this isn't army equipment but the Air Corps need to paint the Aluettes the same colour of the Eurocopters and Agustas.

I was actually thinking last night when i saw a pic of a Dauphin, an Alouette and a Gazelle flying in formation, why they decided to paint the Eurocopter and AW 139 Green

All the other aircraft bar the CASA and the AW 139 are a silver or white, just wondering why they newer airdraft are painted this colour, is it because they are primarily going to be used for Army Co-op or what?

EDIT: Sorry for being slightly off topic!

cushtac

The thing wrote:

The DFTC should have a proper FIBUA village. When you consider you can build a basic house shell for as little as 10,000 Euros, a complete village could be built for under one million Euro's.

The Civil Defence's 'Ballybruscar' training area in the Pheonix Park would be ideal, it's up for sale too.

The thing wrote:

The army should be looking for a small utility truck like the Steyr Pinnzucher vehicle (spelling?) it's not only troops that have to be protected but stores and equipment also.

Pinzgauers (aptly named after an Austrian mountain cow) are indeed great little movers, was fortunate enough to have a jaunt in a privately-held one in the UK & can testify it lives up to the name. The Brits are getting an armoured version of the 6 x 6.

An alternative would be the Mowag Duro, which the EOD are currently using.

babybundy

The thing wrote:

The DFTC should have a proper FIBUA village. When you consider you can build a basic house shell for as little as 10,000 Euros, a complete village could be built for under one million Euro's.
QUOTE]
to my knowlage there is talks of building one in kilworth co. cork as fort davis is to small and not enough buildings fun tunnels tho:D

cushtac

Apart from the new HK pistols (which I'm surpised no-one's mentioned here) the PDF is to get ESS Profile goggles and Lowe Alpine rucksacks on personal issue.

Nice to see the money is being spent on kit for the individual soldier as well as vehicles and equipment.

muletide

cushtac wrote:

Apart from the new HK pistols (which I'm surpised no-one's mentioned here) the PDF is to get ESS Profile goggles and Lowe Alpine rucksacks on personal issue.

Nice to see the money is being spent on kit for the individual soldier as well as vehicles and equipment.

In fairness to the DF money has always, last 12 years, been prioritised to the individual soldiers kit. This is nothing new. Every time Irish soldiers go overseas or on foreign courses they are the envy of many armies for the standard of their personal kit.And I dont mean third world countries I mean the British, French Austrailians and many other professional armies.

cushtac

They have bought some muck though, like the crap Matterhorns & cheapo Chinese webbing.

If the Lowe Alpine stuff is of the same quality as their commercial bags then the DF have chosen well.

EDITED TO ADD: You are right about overseas issue & the envy factor. I remember a friend of mine going to Cyprus some years ago and getting issued the lightweight greens. Over there they were serving alongside Brits who were wearing second-hand tropical combats. The Brits were indeed envious of the Irish kit & scale of issue.

Mick86

cushtac wrote:

They have bought some muck though, like the crap Matterhorns & cheapo Chinese webbing.

I thought the Matterhorns excellent. The Chinese webbing was on test and failed. The DF has a problem in that it awards contracts to Irish companies who sub contract to eastern sweatshops and so we get crap gear.

HST

Clare gunner wrote:

Errr,not trying to rain on the parade.But is it practible to have a squradron of Leo 2's in Ireland????Or any MBT for that matter,we are not exactly tank country.[Open plains,desert,etc] Apart from possibly Lenister and the Curragh plains?We have narrow roads,bogs,rocky outcrops,boreens,etc.And even good grassland or arable land can be wet for six months of the year,and it will even bog down agricultural equipment,what will it do to a sixty ton MBT?Not only do you need the tanks you need heavy recovery equipment and transporters to shift if stuck or move quickly on the road. More expense.What is it ,three ancilary service vechicles for two tanks?Wheeld armour seems to be the way to go in Ireland.We did have INMHO an exellent maid of all work,albeit expensive and stupidly converted to ambulances.The Mercedes G wagon.wonder what ever happened to those two ambulance G wagons ?

Thank you someone with a bit of sense.

The MOWAGS are a great vehicle no one here should be saying anything bad about them. Sure it can be crap when your overseas and sitting in one for five hours as part of a convoy but they get you there in one piece and are a reliable piece of equipment.

Manic Moran

HST wrote:

Thank you someone with a bit of sense.

As a tanker, I actually disagree with him on the operational/tactical side. I think MBTs can have a very arguable purpose in Ireland, both for domestic defense and foreign (UN etc) operations. For example, Farmer Bob's tractor sinking in the field doesn't really say very much about tankability when his 1.5-ton tractor's exerting about a 30PSI ground pressure footprint vs 15PSI for the heaviest 70-ton M1 Abrams variant. (Figures found after a little Googling). Bridges would be another issue, but how many of Ireland's rivers aren't fordable? Bowling-green 4km ranges such as the desert are not going to happen, obviously, but most modern tanks were designed for Germany which is kindof obstructed as well.

I agree with him on the practical side of cost, however: A squadron of tanks really wouldn't be enough, you'd need a regiment for any tangible benefit, splitting one squadron between each of the Brigades, leaving one for either training or foreign ops. For that many vehicles, you're talking serious amounts of cash which Ireland isn't in a position to spend given the current budget and priorities.

NTM

AbusesToilets

I would think that given Irelands small size,perhaps an investment in some viable multi-role helos would be a good option.Give the Air Corps something useful to fly?
As for a light machinegun for squads,i'd veer away from the SAW.From personal experience it's not a very reliable or well desiegned weapon,and there better alternatives out there.
This is one of the best i've ever shot,and is being considered by the USMC:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimax_100
This is also due for adoption by SOF forces:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_48_Mod_0

punchdrunk

eh that second one you linked to is just a modified SAW?

AbusesToilets

Yeah i know,but they've "upgraded" it somewhat,with titainium parts to increase it's ruggedness.I dont know if they have specifically addressed some of the SAWs design flaws ie. the cotter pin holding the gas tube,weak ejector etc. But from what i've been told talking to some who're more in the know than me about it,they seem fairly happy with it.
IMO i think the Ultimax is a much better gun altogether

Clare gunner

As a tanker, I actually disagree with him on the operational/tactical side. I think MBTs can have a very arguable purpose in Ireland, both for domestic defense and foreign (UN etc) operations. For example, Farmer Bob's tractor sinking in the field doesn't really say very much about tankability when his 1.5-ton tractor's exerting about a 30PSI ground pressure footprint vs 15PSI for the heaviest 70-ton M1 Abrams variant. (Figures found after a little Googling). Bridges would be another issue, but how many of Ireland's rivers aren't fordable? Bowling-green 4km ranges such as the desert are not going to happen, obviously, but most modern tanks were designed for Germany which is kindof obstructed as well.

Manic,not trying to talk down a "pro" but I have two German relatives who are tankers too.My cousin is a gunner and my second uncle is a tank commander of a squadron[?]or whatever you call a detachment of 4to6 MBTs or in this case Leo 2s.Both of them have looked at Ireland and have said they would NOT like to bring a tank onto our terrain.You mention one very important feature here about our rivers most of them are deep [ over 6meters] and steep banks,plus some of our strategic bridges are not exactly built for MBTs not to mind modern day trucks.Two 40ft trucks can block them quite nicely,and these are not huge American rigs,so what an M1a1 would do would be intresting.Not to mind alot of our secondary roads have bridges&culverts that have weight restrictions of 20 tons appx.
Noit to mind I have personaly stuck a small Catipillar dozer on what I thought was dry field,in a wet summer,and that was only a ten tonner.It was a blanket bog.
Indeed Germany is obstructed as well,but in comparison to the Irish countryside it is not made up of small fields with ditches and hedges,interspaced with bogs,rocks,swampy fields etc. Rather prarie style fields with forests and village clusters.Most importantly ,it has an exellent road infrastructure from autobahn to landwege[country tracks] which are capable of handling heavy traffic,up to tanks.
.Not surprising,considering if the Warsaw Pact were going to come over in the opening moves of ww3.Germany was going to be the battleground,so it was vital to have good road structure to move armour quickly,or demolish it even quicker as strategic roads,were already pre drilled for demolition charge emplacement.Even the roads are sign posted for the speeds of convoys,you know the signs?Sillouthe[sic] of a tank and to opposite facing arrows with a speed number?So to try and compare Germany and Ireland is comparing apples and pears.
Also,what role could you see MBTs playing in Ireland???By rights the Irish forces are set up to defend the Irish state from internal aggression and uprising.Secondary is UN peace keepinng.We are not really expecting anyone to invade us,and if they were ,we are not much of a match for them.Stratgey would be back to gureilla warfare.So tank destroying capability iNMHO would be more important than tanks.
Sure the best thing to kill a tank is another tank.But if you aint got one then??Hole it.trap it,burn it.Or a combo of those is still ASFIK the next best thing to kill tanks??
I am sure you have read the Winter War,about the Russian invasion of Finland in 1939/40? And how the totally underequipped Finnish army actually stalled and eventually destroyed the vastly superior Sov invasion force.By basically using the terrain,and isolating the armour from it's infantry support.I personally think there is still alot of tactical lessons that could be employed in Ireland from that campain today ,if need be.
Your thoughts???

Manic Moran

Clare gunner wrote:

Manic,not trying to talk down a "pro" but I have two German relatives who are tankers too.My cousin is a gunner and my second uncle is a tank commander of a squadron[?]or whatever you call a detachment of 4to6 MBTs or in this case Leo 2s.

Platoon/UK Troop. Number of tanks commanded doesn't automatically make one correct, mind. FWIW, I've got 14 M1A1s (A company/UK Squadron), plus 4 more just attached. (Just to make things more confusing, an American troop is a UK/Irish Squadron, and an American Squadron is a UK/Irish Regiment)

Both of them have looked at Ireland and have said they would NOT like to bring a tank onto our terrain.

Something I've noticed about us tankers is that there's a great range of 'courageousness' over what we're willing to try, and what we're not. My old platoon sergeant was mad, and would try taking his tank anywhere. Take, for example the commentary by the gunner/cameraman on my PSG's wing tank on my PSG's willingness to attempt to get across a canal, then the chances of getting three tanks across. (I'm TCing the third tank)
http://data.primeportal.net/videos/nlm/scared1.wmv (33MB video)

I was a little more cautious, but certainly more willing to take risks than my old wingman who was a grizzled old tanker. I've mired/thrown track quite a few times, but that hasn't stopped me from going around places. Short of us actually riding around Ireland in our MBTs, we never know for sure what the ground will or will not hold, we can only take guesses. If I'm more optomistic than your Bundeswehr relatives, so be it. Just bear in mind that more than one battle has been fought when the enemy hadn't been told of the friendly opinion that the ground was impassable to tanks.

You mention one very important feature here about our rivers most of them are deep [ over 6meters] and steep banks,plus some of our strategic bridges are not exactly built for MBTs not to mind modern day trucks.Two 40ft trucks can block them quite nicely,and these are not huge American rigs,so what an M1a1 would do would be intresting. Not to mind alot of our secondary roads have bridges&culverts that have weight restrictions of 20 tons appx.

It is the largest argument against. Certainly I'd be reluctant to take a tank over some of the old stone bridges that are on half the N roads. Then again, you've got railroad bridges that can be used as well, and they take hundreds of tons at once. I honestly don't know what proportion of Irelands waterways are tank-crossable, by bridge or ford, but I would be surprised if it is too restrictive to be practicable.

Noit to mind I have personaly stuck a small Catipillar dozer on what I thought was dry field,in a wet summer,and that was only a ten tonner.It was a blanket bog.

We've done the same thing: Middle of an Iraqi summer, bone dry to the touch, and you'll see the troop's feet aren't 'sinking'


This did not result in our putting Iraq off our patrol map.

Indeed Germany is obstructed as well,but in comparison to the Irish countryside it is not made up of small fields with ditches and hedges,interspaced with bogs,rocks,swampy fields etc.

Neither is all of Ireland as boggy as Offaly. It can be argued that in areas of shorter line of sight, more armour is actually more important than less, as you're dealing with much sharper fights with higher hit ratios. It's why the recent range of Heavy APCs and Urban Support Tanks have started appearing for use in restricted terrain. See also the development of the Sherman Jumbo in France.

Most importantly ,it has an exellent road infrastructure from autobahn to landwege[country tracks] which are capable of handling heavy traffic,up to tanks.

Ireland is the most paved country in the world, according to Guinness. No, the boreens will not withstand battalions of tanks cruising up and down them, but if you are in a situation that you need them, does it matter that the roads will get ripped up? (Besides, nobody's ever going to see a battalion of Irish tanks moving as one)

Also,what role could you see MBTs playing in Ireland???By rights the Irish forces are set up to defend the Irish state from internal aggression and uprising.

The Irish Army's brigade structure incorporating things like field artillery and combat engineers indicates that the Defense Forces are at least honouring the concept of conventional battle. Unless you're planning on calling in 105mm howitzers on an uprising. And if it's gotten to that stage, a few tanks might actually be kindof handy.

Secondary is UN peace keepinng.

Indeed, and tanks are proving quite popular in peacekeeping roles. They tend to keep the natives in line:

Indian T-72s in Somalia
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4127/dfst9804790fu5.jpg
(Direct image link broke the page)

French Leclerc in Lebanon.

[caption: An Israeli soldier gestures after French U.N. peacekeepers with their Leclerc tank blocked an Israeli tracked armoured vehicle and jeeps from penetrating deeper into Lebanese territory near the southern village of Marwaheen, Lebanon, Thursday Sept. 28, 2006.]

Danish Leopard 1s in Kosovo


British Challenger in Kosovo.


German Leopard 2, Kosovo


And what would Srebenicze have been like had Dutch troops had a few tanks along to deal with the Serbian ones? Obviously other countries seem to think that tanks on peacekeeping missions is a good idea, otherwise they wouldn't be shipping them off around the world.

Obviously this is all hypothetical as the budget just isn't there, but it's an opinion.

NTM

BrianD

And what would Srebenicze have been like had Dutch troops had a few tanks along to deal with the Serbian ones? Obviously other countries seem to think that tanks on peacekeeping missions is a good idea, otherwise they wouldn't be shipping them off around the world.

They would probably ended up repainted in the local Serb depot. Srebenicze was not a result of a lack of fire power it was due to a lack of moral will power amongst the rest of the civilised nations in Europe including ourselves. As you may have noticed, I don't exactly approve of Ireland arming itself for the sake of it but if ever there was an event for us to abandon our so called neutrality and "get in there" this was it. I don't know if anyone has seen a documentary called "13 days in July" (not sure on title) that documents the events. Horrific stuff and the best and least armed nations in Europe stood idley by.

Capt'n Midnight

babybundy wrote:

thats to do with land mines
we need 2 types 4x4's here one heavily armoured like the hummer or eagle and one like the defender because of the irish roads

TBH The old police landrovers in the north were better armoured than the hummers that got sent to iraq. The two ton landrovers had an additional ton of armour.

Humvees hold the same number of landrovers, depsite costing more to buy and run. And most 4x4's come in diesel these days. It's a long time since Shermans were called "Tommy cookers" , though the russians used to make trucks that would run on Diesel or Petrol or mixtures of both.

It depends on where the armoured version would expect to be deployed. If on the streets as in the North, the Landrover option would be more suited. If in an area where armour is needed then a 6x6 or 8x8 perhaps.

Manic Moran

BrianD wrote:

They would probably ended up repainted in the local Serb depot. Srebenicze was not a result of a lack of fire power it was due to a lack of moral will power amongst the rest of the civilised nations in Europe including ourselves.

The Dutch really had their judgement called by the lack of air cover, which had been supposed to have been the French responsibility. They were willing to fight, but not commit suicide. It is an excellent example of why it can be beneficial not to totally rely on allies for support. "Ah, there's no need to bring a helicopter, the Ukrainians will provide" is a lot less reliable and reassuring to the troops on the ground than being able to call on your own countrymen.

NTM

theliam

Dub13 wrote:

The hummer does something like 11-13 miles per gallon.This is simple unsustainable.

sure a cayenne will only get about 18/19, not saying it would be suitable. surely anything else like the humvee will have a similar economy

komsomol

lol i really have to say this but the Humvee just looks beautifull, thats why we should have them, aesthetic value



feel free to massacre me now.