irish army mbt

Stovepipe

With infinite respect for those who served in Lebanon, especially in AMLs, the car in question knocked out a WW-II vintage M3 half-track, not another tank or equivalent threat.The DFF had access to Super Shermans and M48s, against which the AML would have been a death-trap for it's crews. What's rarely mentioned about the At-Tiri fight is that the DFF/Israelis were more worried about Dutch TOWs being used against their armour.

Apart from all that, I believe that the Army should maintain even a token force of light tracked armour to maintain experience,even if it was SPGs or tracked ARVs.
regards
Stovepipe

don18

i dont think the dff were more worried about dutch conscripts..they were worried about the irish professional soliders..the dutch did fire a TOWS that day but it didnt hit the target..but a irish AML 90 hit a dff half track with a HE round..the AML 90 had a greater range than Shermans...after the battle of Tiri.. there was a death threat against the irish in lebanon .....

Manic Moran

the AML 90 had a greater range than Shermans

I find that highly unlikely, unless, maybe, the Shermans had remained unchanged from the WW2 76mm gun, in which case that would be a close thing. The M50's high velocity 75mm would certainly be more accurate, and you can make quite the argument for the M51's 105mm gun being better than the AML's 90mm, especially given the recoil forces involved in relationship to the weight of the vehicle.

NTM

don18

well my dad fought in the battle of Tiri and he told me any time the dff seen AML 90 comeing the dff tanks would bug out..the AML 90 had greater range because they were using a ligher round which was a HE ROUND.the dff were using a heavier solid round....

Manic Moran

don18 wrote: »

well my dad fought in the battle of Tiri and he told me any time the dff seen AML 90 comeing the dff tanks would bug out..the AML 90 had greater range because they were using a ligher round which was a HE ROUND.the dff were using a heavier solid round....

Think about that, for a second...

Firstly, which round is used for long range engagement by snipers? The light 5.56mm round, the middle-weight 7.62mm round, the heavier .338LM, or the seriously heavy .50cal BMG?

Bear in mind also that with the greater inertia of a heavy round, it's less affected by crosswind or drag, other factors being equal.

But there is another factor, which is that of muzzle velocity. Generally the faster the round, the flatter the trajectory, the less time for external forces to apply, and the more accurate the shot. However, you have the problem of putting a 90mm cannon on a 6-ton vehicle. They had to fit a low-pressure gun, resulting in a lower muzzle velocity, which would be about 600m/s. The 75mm of an M50 Sherman would be about 950m/s, the M51 about 1km/s.

NTM

Fishtits

I think that if you examine the evidence you'll come to the conclusion that the IDF were caught on the hop, ie UNIFIL had never assaulted them before.

JM and his '90 established a marker regarding backbone re Irishbatt. Atiri was the last serious confrontation.

Don't get any grand ideas about our abillity to control superpowers as a result of this incident btw...

RIP to all those who died in service.

BlaasForRafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

I find that highly unlikely, unless, maybe, the Shermans had remained unchanged from the WW2 76mm gun, in which case that would be a close thing. The M50's high velocity 75mm would certainly be more accurate, and you can make quite the argument for the M51's 105mm gun being better than the AML's 90mm, especially given the recoil forces involved in relationship to the weight of the vehicle.

NTM

Yes, only the 105mm armed Shermans would have been in IDF service at the time and seeing as this type of tank performed well against Syrian T54/55s and T62s in the Golan in the Yom Kippur war I think they would have had the measure of the AML90 if they had really wanted to.

B 52

We could at least pick up some T90s there only $2.23 million with 125mm main gun 46.5 tonnes 60km/h even a small country like ireland can afford a few

tac foley

Avgas wrote: »

If the debate is moving on to whether Ireland needs MBTs... (because I think most people are conceding just how useful some are even on deceptively so called light PK missions)......then I think a dose of realism is called for....

There will NEVER be a purchase of MBTs....in the near or far future ...given budgetary constraints.......and sadly just for image reasons alone....public perception being what it is...no minister would be happy to sign off on buying the army tanks at 3-10m Euro a go at a time when 400,000+ are unemployed.

HOWEVER ..... the Irish military could play a 'long game' viz procurement.....and begin now making a case for heavy tracked surplus/second hand mechanized infantry combat vehicles.....I'm thinking these could be be bought or leased -say a dozen or two dozen-from either the USA/Canada (modified M113s) or more interesting perhaps from Sweden....a lease of some CV90s.....

While NOT a tank of course...if up armoured and up gunned.. [crucial if] perhaps they would have some 'force projection' capabilities and good anti-IED potential by better off road/track mobility.....

It could be that for FIBUA...where the Tank has now rediscovered a role for itself arguably.....the same job could be undertaken by a heavy tracked MICV with say one of those new mortar systems [AMOS] in 120mm.....which to lay-man [me:D] look sorta scary and quite like a tank gun at low elevation and indeed it can do direct fires of HEDP...but also indirect fires....as well...v. useful....obviously it doesn't have the high velocity kinetic performance of a real tank gun......but it would be support fires rather than AT fires we would presumably want it for.....

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_%28IFV%29

and especially.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS


For your spend you get...
(a) The fear factor of a Tank to laymen/crazies
(b) a better protected MICV than our Pirhanas
(c) a SP artllery asset as well

Both the standard 40mm on the basic Swedish CV90 is a calibre we know and buy...and if a 120mm ATOS turret was fitted on a few ...we stock and know 120mm mortar rds as well.....

+1

Best and most sensible post so far.

tac

tac foley

B 52 wrote: »

We could at least pick up some T90s there only $2.23 million with 125mm main gun 46.5 tonnes 60km/h even a small country like ireland can afford a few

The point about having tanks is not that you have tanks, but that you have the infra-structure to keep on having tanks.

Points to note -

a. The 'average' MBT requires a minimum of three hours per day skilled maintenance from a mix of crew and trained armoured vehicle technicians who are basically divided into three types - the CE [control equipment] tech, the VM [vehicle mechanic] tech and the gun-fitter [armourer tech]. All three are separate skill MOS or whatever you call them in the Irish Army. The training establishments for these three differing trades are not only HUGE, but expensive to run and take a long time to teach the skills. I know, when I joined the Army as a CE Tech many moons ago my post-recruit basic training was 74 weeks long.

b. In spite of rumours to the contrary, the average tank is actually quite fragile - when things go tits-up it is not a matter of running down to the local truck accessory dealer for a 25mm wongle-washer. You have to call up your 'trained armoured vehicle technicians'...more high-priced help. They futz around the FEBA in their VERY high-priced specialist support vehicles that cost as much as, or even more than, the MBT's they support.

c. These days the interior of the average MBT looks like, and performs much like, the con of the starship 'Enterprise', as a look at any of the many Youtube clips of the gunnery, fire-control and CP stations in a tank would show you. These elements of the tank are dealt with by a bunch of leccy-techies [high-priced help].

d. The financial burden has been mentioned before, but I'll just reinforce it for you - based on figures from the average European NATO tank squadron equipped with ten-year old Leo 2's - that's about 24-31 tanks. A tank regiment has THREE squadrons/companies/battalions - around 80-100 tanks, BTW. I have NOT included the fun-stuff, like the armoured bridgelayers plus other TONKA stuff, and all the other stuff that goes along with an armoured regiment, like tracked air-defence systems to keep up with the tanks, the specialist track C3 vehicles [around 20 in a regiment], the fuel supply vehicles [about sixty or so] nor the ammunition resupply vehicles [another sixty or so]. I won't even go near the other elements of the armoured regiment, like Chem Def, Engineer, Infantry battalion [on tracks], transport, artillery, medical..........I'm sure you get the idea.....

Annual training bill - including transport to the ranges by road [to cut down on track-mileage], battle drills and live-firing - eu14.85M. It seems obvious that you use specialised tank transporting trucks to do this, but remember that the road/rail infrastructure has to be in place to drive the tanks off the SPECIAL tank transporter [FAUN/MAN - eu2.5M each - you'll need 31 at the very least, plus a couple of spares in case of breakdown] and onto the special rail flatcars....no idea how much they are, but again, they are SPECIALLY-built to take a 70 tonne tank. IE don't have any that I know of.

[ii] Annual maintenance bill - spares, back-up spares, spare back-up spares and spare back-up spares for back-up spares - about eu10M [costed in a year without a major exercise].

[iii] Annual equipment/fit updates - per vehicle - eu350Kx25/31.

[iv] Crew training using dedicated AFV simulators - eu1m - includes annual simulator maintenance and updates....

[v] Crew training using live tanks in barracks - eu0 [phew]

[vi] Replacement 120mm Rheinmetall gun barrel set - eu225K - they DO wear out, even though they are smooth-bore to begin with.

[vii] Replacement track set [both sides] eu245k - Diehle will do you agood 'deal'..hah [German-type humour].

[viii] Replacement MTU engine pack and ancilliaries [eu1.35M] - a unit exchange deal is in operation, you'll be pleased to note. You give MTU the old one and they give you a new one. Well, for eu1.35M, that is. AND you have to fit it yourself - no big deal with the Leo 2 - it takes about 40 minutes and then you can drive off. Did I mention the specialist armoured support vehicle? You'll need one of those....

The cost of ammunition would make even all you rich Irish gentlemen weep - the cheapest [let's call it the 'most economical'] 120mm FS round is SMOKE - around eu1150 per shot.......you really don't want to know how much it costs to shoot even the practice long-rod penetrator...

And IF you managed to prise a few older Abrams out of our American buddies, in a typical Irish/American gesture pf friendship, remember that these items run on AVGAS or Kero at a rate that makes Blind Drunk O'Pisshead, the blind-drunk drinking person, look as abstemious as Mother Theresa. Cross-country performance is very impressive, but at 6 gallons a mile it should be....

Anyhow, by the time it's got up to full speed, it would have run out of Ireland to run around in.

But thankfully there is no road tax to pay, and you can park anywhere you want to.

tac

daithicarr

the idea of us buying tanks seems nuts. out defence budget is the third smallest in europe after Lux and Malta.
i doubt there are any chance of it being increased in the forseeable future due to our dire economic cimate and even worse goverment revenue, there are plenty of other things like helicopters and patrol boats which would have a much greater impact on the capabilitys. tanks would never really be a option. huge waste of money.
money better spent on foergin aid, if more countrys but more effort in to foergin aid there would be less (not none) wars to fight.

irelands budget is about 0.7 % of GDP or around 1.5 billion usd, our aid is about or was 760 million, with a goal of matching our military expenditre.

the usa spends 685 billion to 1.2 trillion on defence - depending what you count in -
but its aid is only 22 billion or 0.2% of GDP, modern militarys are highely expensive, and frankly i think Ireland could do more good through aid than some battle tanks

Delancey

B 52 wrote: »

We could at least pick up some T90s there only $2.23 million with 125mm main gun 46.5 tonnes 60km/h even a small country like ireland can afford a few

Why the vast price difference between an Abrams vs. a T90 ?

Manic Moran

Probably primarily the cost of labour. Russian salaries are likely a tad lower. I don't know enough about the interior of a T-90 to determine how gizmofied it is. And by that, I don't mean the fancy stuff like the sights or defensive measures, I mean background things like the engine control computers or the auto-diagnostic equipment, which never grabs the headlines but is still quite important.

(a) The fear factor of a Tank to laymen/crazies

If the experience with Bradleys is anything to go by, that doesn't work. The opposition were willing to take pot shots at Bradleys. Tanks they really had to come prepared and willing to deal with before they'd shoot at them.

NTM

daithicarr

also are tanks really that usefull against an opponent who could have modern weapons? a javelin missile costs a lot lot less than a tank for base price and maintanance etc, and can leave you expensive tank a chunk of burrning metal is minutes.

BostonB

daithicarr wrote: »

also are tanks really that usefull against an opponent who could have modern weapons? a javelin missile costs a lot lot less than a tank for base price and maintanance etc, and can leave you expensive tank a chunk of burrning metal is minutes.

The opponents generally don't though.

tac foley

BostonB wrote: »

The opponents generally don't though.

Thanks to the Iranians and others, there HAVE been occasions where modern explosively-formed penetrators have done the job on an Abrams in Iraq. However, as you note, 99% of the opposition does not have an effective means of dealing with a modern MBT of the Abrams, Challenger 2, Leo 2A6, or LeClerc type.

Having clambered over a T-90, it is certainly a very impressive vehicle, and the gun alone - bigger than anything in the west - gets a lot of well-earned respect. It has a number of other 'good ideas', such as the incoming round detector and retaliation system, that picks up the direction of the incoming and fires back at the source. Being able to fire a missile down the gun-tube is also a good idea.

It has not been tried in combat, and here the west has a decided advantage, since Abrams and Challenger have, and have not been found wanting.

Still, it's a moot point, since the only tanks Ireland has are in the Curragh museum, and likey to stay there. I was never sure why you had even them.

tac

BostonB

tac foley wrote: »

Thanks to the Iranians and others, there HAVE been occasions where modern explosively-formed penetrators have done the job on an Abrams in Iraq. However, as you note, 99% of the opposition does not have an effective means of dealing with a modern MBT of the Abrams, Challenger 2, Leo 2A6, or LeClerc type....

Anything other than a RPG?

arybvtcw0eolkf

don18 wrote: »

i dont think the dff were more worried about dutch conscripts..they were worried about the irish professional soliders..the dutch did fire a TOWS that day but it didnt hit the target..but a irish AML 90 hit a dff half track with a HE round..the AML 90 had a greater range than Shermans...after the battle of Tiri.. there was a death threat against the irish in lebanon .....

With all due respect to your father, I cringe when I hear "the battle of At Tiri".

First off the Irish put a solid round into an empty half track, no one was left quaking in their boots.

The IDF used a limited number of 90's in the '67 war, and found them to be rubbish & never used them again.

And btw, every day was a death threat to the Irish in Lebanon, unless you were swanning around Naqoura - then you might die of boredom, drowning or getting knocked down while staggering across Mingey St.

Manic Moran

daithicarr wrote: »

also are tanks really that usefull against an opponent who could have modern weapons? a javelin missile costs a lot lot less than a tank for base price and maintanance etc, and can leave you expensive tank a chunk of burrning metal is minutes.

That argument has been made ever since the Israeli tanks got a battering from suitcase Saggers in 1973. And before that in the Navy, when Eliat was sunk by a Silkworm missile. And before that when small craft were fitted with torpedoes.

That expensive chunk of metal can perform a number of operations which a guy with a Javelin missile cannot. And, it seems that with recent developments in active protection systems, that the tide of balance may be turning back to the vehicle for the moment.

NTM

Avgas

Manic Moran wrote: »

If the experience with Bradleys is anything to go by, that doesn't work. The opposition were willing to take pot shots at Bradleys. Tanks they really had to come prepared and willing to deal with before they'd shoot at them.

BUT I suggested a CV90 with an ugly looking ATOS barrel...which I admit for now is just a demo (apparently). It would look a lot more 'tank' to a civvy.

The Bradley probably does not look scary enough to your average crazy..its a super MICV.....more or less.......a more discerning crazy might respect the 25mm gun/TOW combo and optics a lot more........and I'm sure a few found that out to their cost...........

Of course a really crazy-crazy won't care.
And a half-clever one will simply use an IED.

But guilty as ever of wandering wildly off OP.:rolleyes:

kevinhalvey

i personally think that the irish defence forces should invest in the french leclerc

its one of the fastest mbts
it is the lightest mbt
it packs a punch
it only needs a crew of 3 because of its auto loading
its one of the most tec advanced tanks
its armour can be changed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawWnDRtQv8

check it out

tac foley

kevinhalvey wrote: »

i personally think that the irish defence forces should invest in the french leclerc

its one of the fastest mbts
it is the lightest mbt
it packs a punch
it only needs a crew of 3 because of its auto loading
its one of the most tec advanced tanks
its armour can be changed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawWnDRtQv8

check it out

Sadly, any main battle tank is a bit like a Pringles chip - you can't just have one.

Please read my post a few posts back - the Republic of Ireland would blow its entire annual military budget to pieces with simply buying just ten modern MBTs, and, as I tried to point out to you, you have absolutely no supporting infrastructure for such a vehicle. Figure on ten LeClercs and their compulsory spares costing eu50M and you be pretty much there.

...and just in case my type-face doesn't register, that's fifty million euros.

Mr manic moran and any other soldier would tell you, tanks don't operate by themselves, but with supporting elements, regardless what games you've played with.

It's fun to 'play' tanks, but please be realistic.

tac

Delancey

kevinhalvey wrote: »

i personally think that the irish defence forces should invest in the french leclerc

its one of the fastest mbts
it is the lightest mbt
it packs a punch
it only needs a crew of 3 because of its auto loading
its one of the most tec advanced tanks
its armour can be changed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawWnDRtQv8

check it out

Superb tank I agree but alas to my knowledge it's out of production and for reasons unknown to me ( but perhaps known to others here ) it achieved very limited overseas sales compared to , say , Leopard 1 and 2

tac foley

delancey42 wrote: »

Superb tank I agree but alas to my knowledge it's out of production and for reasons unknown to me ( but perhaps known to others here ) it achieved very limited overseas sales compared to , say , Leopard 1 and 2

1. It's French.

2. Until recently, when the French had another spat with NATO about commonality of equipment, it fired unique ammunition, unlike all of NATO except the British, whose tank, Challenger 2, also fires unique ammunition. The British are forgiven their weird ammunition because they have a 700-year long history of actually winning wars, particularly those against the French. Incidentally, the only British tank lost in battle in GW2 was a tragic blue-on-blue. No British tanks were lost in GW1.

3. As for LeClerc, did I mention that it's French?

4. As for the Leopard-series MBT, well, it is the most-purchased and most widespread MBT the western world, AND Australia, has ever seen, even including the various marks of Sherman during WW2.

6. And unlike LeClerc, it's NOT French either.

tac

kevinhalvey

well something tells me that since military cutbacks that our military will be investing in more of these they all ready have a few toy city are there manufactuer :p

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2007/Cutbacks.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2007/Cutbacks.htm&usg=__EnLuDzWZAxFJo5UiUqHAh3eK_7w=&h=336&w=500&sz=43&hl=en&start=0&sig2=uiZHJRMKOBQz3ybfPOPHjQ&tbnid=RugutTl57am9jM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=180&ei=Q_JeTLHcEdubsgbH5bjOBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmilitary%2Bcutbacks%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D610%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=965&vpy=89&dur=733&hovh=184&hovw=274&tx=209&ty=118&oei=Q_JeTLHcEdubsgbH5bjOBw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

Manic Moran

tac foley wrote: »

4. As for the Leopard-series MBT, well, it is the most-purchased and most widespread MBT the western world, AND Australia, has ever seen, even including the various marks of Sherman during WW2.

I'm not sure either version of Leopard quite had the same export success as Centurion. Bear in mind that despite the similarity in names, Leo 1 and Leo 2 are pretty much entirely different tanks. The Aussies went with Abrams to replace their Leo 1s.

NTM

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure either version of Leopard quite had the same export success as Centurion. Bear in mind that despite the similarity in names, Leo 1 and Leo 2 are pretty much entirely different tanks. The Aussies went with Abrams to replace their Leo 1s.

NTM

Dear Mr Moran - I joined the Army in 1967, just as Chieftain was being phased in, and left in 2000, just as Challenger 2 was replacing all the Challenger 1s. I have driven every variant of Leopard on the planet, including the Hippo BARV, of which only four exist.

Figures from numerous sources show the following numbers, so I have lumped ALL Leopard-named tanks together, including all the many variants used by engineers, maintenance and mobile AAA -

Leopard tanks built -

Leopard 1 - 6485

Leopard 2 - 3480

I have similarly conjoined all variants of Centurion -

From 1945 to 1962 - 4423.

However, Centurion has taken a part in more wars/conflicts than any other tank in the history of warfare.

tac

Manic Moran

Interesting. I can think of a number of countries which purchased Centurion before purchasing Leopard (Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Netherlands Switzerland amongst others), a few which purchased Centurion without purchasing Leopard (Israel, South Africa, India), but not too many which purchased Leopard without purchasing Centurion (Greece, Turkey, Italy, Belgium).

My guess is that the Leopard-only countries purchased them in such raw numbers (3,600 going to Germany alone) that they made up for the apparently lower number of countries that actually bought them. I'll see what I can't track down.

NTM

tac foley

Dear Mr Moran - I'd agree that if numbers built count, then the Leopard-series tanks/variant-series wins paws down.

If the number of diverse overseas customers count, then Centurion wins by a country mile, even taking into account that Centurion had a near twenty-year head start in sales. Nobody, at home or overseas, bought ANY Leopard prior to 1965.

You win this one, although I didn't know it was a 'Ripley'.

tac

Delancey

What is the main advantage of the Abrams Gas Turbine engine over the more common diesel units in , say , Leopard ? I know the fuel consumption is savage but is there any particular upside to this engine ?

Manic Moran

It also has only one moving part, so the reliability isn't too bad either. On the downside, the blades are susceptible to damage, so the efficiency reduces a little bit over time. The lighter weight results in a slight increase in transportability when the fuel tanks are empty. Important when flying, indeed Crusader was to have a turbine engine for this reason.

I would make two changes to the Wiki article. At full tilt, the turbine is supposedly more fuel efficient than the diesel. This is somewhat academic, however, as the tank doesn't spend all that much time at full throttle.

The other change I would make is that yes, GDLS were looking at putting the MTU diesel into the tank, but that was for export sales purposes. The US Army actually selected the Honeywell LV-100 turbine to replace the AGT-1500, but the engine replacement programme was cancelled. Instead, the cheaper route of the TIGER rebuild of the AGT-1500 was taken.

Similarly, budget cuts also nixed the small auxilliary turbine designed to reduce fuel consumption when stationary. Instead they just threw a bunch more bateries in the compartment where the TAPU was going to go.

NTM

Delancey

Thanks for the replies ( though your post has vanished Tac ). I am fascinated to learn the engine can utilize different fuels as I had assumed it could only use jet fuel.
I still think the fuel consumption is a drawback though as has been pointed out by Manic the U.S. is in a position to provide the logistics required to keep a beast like the Abrams fed and watered.

Manic Moran

delancey42 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies ( though your post has vanished Tac ). I am fascinated to learn the engine can utilize different fuels as I had assumed it could only use jet fuel.
I still think the fuel consumption is a drawback though as has been pointed out by Manic the U.S. is in a position to provide the logistics required to keep a beast like the Abrams fed and watered.

He deleted it. No idea why, it was pretty accurate except for those two differences. JP8 is the standard fuel for the US Army. From the tank to HMMWVs. The only disadvantage of the change from JP-4 to JP-8 is that the vehicle smoke generators no longer worked. New Abrams rebuilds have a new VSS which can create smoke with JP8.

NTM

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

He deleted it. NTM

Confucius say - 'One expert on the spot is much better than one a long way off.'

Your post rendered mine unneeded and pointless.

tac

Delancey

tac foley wrote: »

Confucius say - 'One expert on the spot is much better than one a long way off.'

Your post rendered mine unneeded and pointless.

tac

Perhaps so - still it was a most informative post. Thanks

muppet01

they might get these...http://us.mbt.com/:D

Delancey

muppet01 wrote: »

they might get these...http://us.mbt.com/:D

Dead link I'm afraid...........

Donny5

muppet01 wrote: »

they might get these...http://us.mbt.com/

FYP

jw93

I found pics online of an Irish MOWAG equipped with a 30mm not exactly MBT I know but at least its something. To a civvie like me it looks mean enough

kevinhalvey

jw93 wrote: »

I found pics online of an Irish MOWAG equipped with a 30mm not exactly MBT I know but at least its something. To a civvie like me it looks mean enough

mowag is nice looking and would be twice as intimidating if it had a bigger gun that one looks like a stick mind you it is a apc so i doesnt need that much fire power

concussion

To be pedantic about it, it's a recce vehicle not an APC.

petergfiffin

kevinhalvey wrote: »

mowag is nice looking and would be twice as intimidating if it had a bigger gun that one looks like a stick mind you it is a apc so i doesnt need that much fire power

Saw this on Wikipedia:


It may have already been discussed but basically the Canadians have fitted the turret from a Scorpion onto a Mowag (a 6 wheel version at that!). Might be an interesting idea of the Scorpions reach end of life but maybe the cost would be prohibitive - these things are never as simple as they first appear are they!!

deise go deo

petergfiffin wrote: »

Saw this on Wikipedia:


It may have already been discussed but basically the Canadians have fitted the turret from a Scorpion onto a Mowag (a 6 wheel version at that!). Might be an interesting idea of the Scorpions reach end of life but maybe the cost would be prohibitive - these things are never as simple as they first appear are they!!

Well worth haveing a look at, if its been done already we at least know its possible

punchdrunk

76mm gun is crap though,and ammo is hard to get

tac foley

punchdrunk wrote: »

76mm gun is crap though,and ammo is hard to get

The Kings is a reservist unit, and I agree that the 76mm gun ammunition is now hard to find, especially as it has been obsolescent since the late 1970's wherever in was in use.

There are, however, some very fine guns of around the same calibre made by Oto-Melara, Tampella, Bofors and others, that would certainly do the job well.

tac

punchdrunk

tac foley wrote: »

The Kings is a reservist unit, and I agree that the 76mm gun ammunition is now hard to find, especially as it has been obsolescent since the late 1970's wherever in was in use.

There are, however, some very fine guns of around the same calibre made by Oto-Melara, Tampella, Bofors and others, that would certainly do the job well.

tac

it'd be cheaper in the long run to just buy off the shelf,with a turret thats got a bigger gun say 90mm or 105mm

BostonB

punchdrunk wrote: »

it'd be cheaper in the long run to just buy off the shelf,with a turret thats got a bigger gun say 90mm or 105mm

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/turrets/cmi/cmi1.html

Stovepipe

Hi there,
Whilst some modern tank engines are allegedly multi-fuel, they do require the stuff, be it diesel or kerosene or chip-fat, to be clean before it even gets into the fuel tank and especially before it enters the fuel system.naturally, in the field, this is not always possible.I seem to recall a story over on Arrse about a field experiment done by the British Army of trying out various fuels on Chieftains and all it resulted in was a pile of wrecked engines.As has been pointed out, tanks are great for propaganda but hurt the local defence budget like hell.
As for the post that said that the Df should have deployed tanks in Chad, well, they couldn't cope with what the Chadian "roads" inflicted on the wheeled fleet so God knows what would have happened to tracked vehicles.
regards
Stovepipe

Delancey

Stovepipe touches on something that I have heard about MBT's - fearsome they may look , devastating firepower they may pack but at the end of the day they are ' fragile ' machines which require constant and time - consuming maintenance.
I do know that in WW2 Geman and Allied tanks were Garage Queens - more recently the Chieftain was , I believe , a pig to work on and somewhat unreliable.
What are the maintenace needs of , say , Abrams or Leopard 2 ?

Manic Moran

Can't speak for Leopard, but Abrams isn't too bad at all. As long as you have the spare parts. Torsion bars, roadwheel arms, lots of spare roadwheels and so on. Hydraulic systems leaked a fair bit, but the engine itself rarely gave trouble.

NTM