Replacement for cavalry

Maskhadov

Is the D.F. looking for a replacement for the cavalry ? I think we really need to get some kind of 105mm replacement.



Anything less than 105mm cant realistically be called cavalry. The DF needs a substantial number of these and also some Main Battle Tanks.

muletide

Maskhadov wrote:

Is the D.F. looking for a replacement for the cavalry ? I think we really need to get some kind of 105mm replacement.



Anything less than 105mm cant realistically be called cavalry. The DF needs a substantial number of these and also some Main Battle Tanks.

Here we go again why do we need MBTs and how would they fulfill our current roles. Current Cav elements fulfill the Recce?Screening role perfectly and they will soon have some extra firepower. This debate has been done to death

Maskhadov

this is a cav thread. recce, smoke and mirrors isnt cav.

testicle

Maskhadov wrote:

this is a cav thread. recce, smoke and mirrors isnt cav.

Yes it is.

newby.204

We are not an AGRESSIVE army, its a DEFENCE FORCE, here we go again with someones wet dream for mil tech to oogle at the next airshow or something. Forget about it never gone happen, unless the Government wins some sort of Europe wide government lotto and at that i doubt any of it would be spent on mil tech like this. We dont need it never have never will, if we get invaded/attacked we wont be fighting by standard military tactics for long, actually anything longer than a week and we will turn to a guerilla like army. For the love of god lock the thread before it takes off with more ridiculous wet dreams!!!

arybvtcw0eolkf

newby.204 wrote:

We are not an AGRESSIVE army, its a DEFENCE FORCE, here we go again with someones wet dream for mil tech to oogle at the next airshow or something. Forget about it never gone happen, unless the Government wins some sort of Europe wide government lotto and at that i doubt any of it would be spent on mil tech like this. We dont need it never have never will, if we get invaded/attacked we wont be fighting by standard military tactics for long, actually anything longer than a week and we will turn to a guerilla like army. For the love of god lock the thread before it takes off with more ridiculous wet dreams!!!

I think that response to someone here is alittle uncalled for. If you don't like the content of a thread, don't read it/post in it or report the thread to a Moderator.

Oh, and btw the Israeli army is a Defence Force too (I.D.F.) does that mean they shouldn't be aggressive?. Don't answer, I don't want a debate with you.

Zambia

Maskhadov wrote:

Is the D.F. looking for a replacement for the cavalry ? I think we really need to get some kind of 105mm replacement.

I think your playing it a bit fast and lose with the word need IMO.

micdug

Maskhadov wrote:

Is the D.F. looking for a replacement for the cavalry ? I think we really need to get some kind of 105mm replacement.



Anything less than 105mm cant realistically be called cavalry. The DF needs a substantial number of these and also some Main Battle Tanks.

Why not? In the U.S. you have Air Mobile US Cavalry divisions. Have not seen a 105mm gun on a helicopter (maybe a 30mm cannon on a Hind). The Bradley Cavalry fighting System uses a 25mm bushmaster gun. So clearly you are way off on describing Cavalry are 105 and above :rolleyes:

Why does the DF need a substantial number of these and also some Main Battle Tanks? In what scenario are the DF going to engage a substantial armoured force?

Heck we could go and get some 152mm main guns - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/mbt-u.htm

Judt

We need 105's why? And I note that's a Stryker with a 105 on top... Apart from the fact that it's a controversial vehicle in its own right, that's basically a MOWAG with a big gun on top.

Give me a good reason for having them, apart from the wet dream scenarios that see us going somewhere and doing something other than a few patrols (our aggressive Peace Enforcement being tempered by the fact that our DoD says it won't go anywhere that might be dangerous, remember).

Why does the DF need this? We don't even send the handful of things that pass for tanks overseas, because we don't need to us them. You use a big gun to take out tanks, fixed emplacements and so on. What do we engage that an AT-4 can't do a number on?

If you want tanks, big guns and explosions, join the American or the British Army.

cushtac

Leaving aside the OP's innacuracies about the cav & it's roles, I think there is an argument for having a large calibre weapon in service. It shouldn't be seen as an MBT subsitute, but as a fire-support vehicle like the AML90.

Judt

cushtac wrote:

Leaving aside the OP's innacuracies about the cav & it's roles, I think there is an argument for having a large calibre weapon in service. It shouldn't be seen as an MBT subsitute, but as a fire-support vehicle like the AML90.

What's the argument? What is the credible scenario in which we would need a fire support vehicle that can do a job that we currently cannot do anyways? Then, also remember to weigh the disadvantages to these vehicles, and also tot up the cost of having them versus something else.

testicle

The army already has towed 105mm guns. The case could be made for mechanised 105 Artillery pieces, but not for the Cavalry.

cushtac

Judt wrote:

What's the argument? What is the credible scenario in which we would need a fire support vehicle that can do a job that we currently cannot do anyways? Then, also remember to weigh the disadvantages to these vehicles, and also tot up the cost of having them versus something else.

The argument being that a bigger calibre would have more firepower than the cannon entering service & would also have a greater intimidatory value. The army currently has a reasonably big gun, the 90mm on the AML90, in service and once it retires there'll be a gap left in capability between the 30mm cannon & ATGW's. A credible scenario would be the need to provide direct fire support to Irish troops, without exposing the crew to fire, and/or to dominate the immediate area to discourage further attacks - this is exactly what the AML90 did in Lebanon. The alternative to this is using an 84mm or a Javelin, that means the crew would have to leave the safety of their vehicle, set up their weapon & fire it.

Another scenario would be firing warning shots at a beligerant party to discourage them from taking hostile action, to do this with an ATGW would be very expensive & you would have to be very close to do this with an 84 or SRAAW with any accuracy.

As for expense, I doubt very much the cost of providing a few 90mm or 05mm turrets for new Mowags would be prohibitive. You don't need squadrons of them, just a few for each support troop.

cushtac

testicle wrote:

The army already has towed 105mm guns. The case could be made for mechanised 105 Artillery pieces, but not for the Cavalry.

The towed 105mm gun are for indirect, long-range fire. A 105mm mounted on an armoured vehicle would be for direct fire at relatively short ranges. Surely the fact that the cav currently has 90mm guns makes a case for mounting a similar type weapon on new vehicles?

testicle

cushtac wrote:

The towed 105mm gun are for indirect, long-range fire. A 105mm mounted on an armoured vehicle would be for direct fire at relatively short ranges. Surely the fact that the cav currently has 90mm guns makes a case for mounting a similar type weapon on new vehicles?

I'm quite well aware what Artillery is, thank you very much. A 105mm gun mounted on an armoured vehicle can also be an Artillery piece.

Only the reserve Cavalry operate the AML with the 90mm gun, the PDF Cav changed theirs (and the 60mm) to a 20mm cannon some years ago.

cushtac

testicle wrote:

I'm quite well aware what Artillery is, thank you very much. A 105mm gun mounted on an armoured vehicle can also be an Artillery piece.

I'm not sure you are. Artilley ammunition uses variable charges to reach the different ranges, direct fire guns use fixed charge rounds. A direct fire gun could not provide indirect fire effectively as there'd be no way of adjusting range other than altering the angle of the gun, which wouldn't be very accurate.

testicle wrote:

Only the reserve Cavalry operate the AML with the 90mm gun, the PDF Cav changed theirs (and the 60mm) to a 20mm cannon some years ago.

The AML60's were the ones converted to 20mm. The AML90's retained their guns, had a laser rangefinder & night vision viewer fitted and have been used overseas.

Manic Moran

cushtac wrote:

Artilley ammunition uses variable charges to reach the different ranges, direct fire guns use fixed charge rounds. A direct fire gun could not provide indirect fire effectively as there'd be no way of adjusting range other than altering the angle of the gun, which wouldn't be very accurate.

Though obviously the ammo is not interchangeable, there is ample history of artillery pieces being mounted in vehicles primarily for the direct fire role. Sherman 105s and StuG 105s come to mind. These days, combination gun/mortars like AMOS and 2S23 provide plenty of direct-fire HE out of an indirect-capable system.

So clearly you are way off on describing Cavalry are 105 and above

Cavalry roles are not such that they mandatorily exclude 105mm+ guns, or even full MBTs. The classic Armoured Cavalry platoon of the US Army in the 1980s, for example, consisted of a couple of tanks, a couple of APCs and a mortar vehicle. Useful for counter-recon, recon, and independent operations including flank security, all the classic cavalry roles. Some cavalry units in the US are in effect re-roled tank battalions with nothing but tanks. Those which are now converting from tanks to Bradleys do have the advantages of having craploads of supporting assets from air and artillery arms, plus each vehicle has their own twin TOW launcher to deal with heavy stuff, so they can 'afford' to lose the weight in armour and still survive.

However, there is no substitute for HE if it's required.

NTM

Maskhadov

my understanding of the 105mm mowag is that it can engage moving armor like a MBT. The only difference is a slightly smaller gun and being a lot quicker than a MBT. The advantage of the above is it being so quick that the commander could put in a quick flanking maneuver.

It can probably fire in the in direct role also and support ground forces, which probably might not be that useful.

Manic Moran

Maskhadov wrote:

my understanding of the 105mm mowag is that it can engage moving armor like a MBT. The only difference is a slightly smaller gun and being a lot quicker than a MBT. The advantage of the above is it being so quick that the commander could put in a quick flanking maneuver.

It can probably fire in the in direct role also and support ground forces, which probably might not be that useful.

If by '105mm MOWAG' you're referring to the MGS which you picture in the original post (Yes, I know it's a Pirhana III under license), you actually have it reversed.

The MGS is primarily for the infantry support role, and is being fielded with one 3-truck MGS platoon per infantry company. Or in other words, each infantry platoon gets a 105mm cannon of its own to help it deal with pesky things like machinegun nests and other such strongpoints. Tanks are dealt with by the Stryker AT with the TOW missiles, the ability for MGS to deal with medium tanks is really more just a fringe benefit. It actually suffers some problems as an anti-armour vehicle, compromises which were made in order to retain its ability to fit onto a C-130.

This is, of course, contrary to the B1 Centauro, which was designed from the outset as a cavalry vehicle and tank destroyer, but the Italians and Spanish have a different armour mix than either a US Airmobile brigade or the Irish Defence Forces.

NTM

magick

well instead of a main battle tank, how about something lighter, like a British Warrior AFV?

Judt

Some decent arguments for the 105's. What are the setbacks? I recall the American's are having some difficulty with their 105 mounted Strykers (effectively MOWAG's, for our purposes.)

You could make a case for it, but I would think that with all the vehicle procurement going on, someone has already looked at this and made a better case against it. I'm not a cavalry man, so you tell me... Leaving aside the wet dreams and giving the impartial spiel. Someone who knows what they're talking about, what's the Devil's Advocate position here?

Manic Moran

Judt wrote:

I recall the American's are having some difficulty with their 105 mounted Strykers (effectively MOWAG's, for our purposes.)

The problem was that having a main gun on a vehicle which still needed to fit into a C-130 meant that you could not have a conventional turret a-la AMX-10RC or B1 Centauro. The autoloader system caused much trouble, and shaving those last few pounds and inches in order to get the thing to fit inside the aircraft was no easy thing either.

In terms of the actual concept of having a 105mm (or even a 120mm on the B1), there's no issue with it physically, as long as you're not pushed about other requirements.

NTM

testicle

Judt

Well, better than MBT's eh

I can see some use for them perhaps. Doubt we'd get them, but fitting some fire support into our existing light MOWAG force makes some degree of sense.

cushtac

A 90mm high-pressure gun with the right ammunition might fit the bill either. there's plenty of 90mm turrets mounted on Piranha III's & similar sized vehicles.

Beside the extra initial cost, I can't see a downside to using such guns in Irish service. Generally, there's a risk that operators of such vehicles will decide to use them like MBT's & put them in situations where they're out of their depth. But given that the army is used to operating light armoured cars with big guns, I doubt that would happen here.