Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

irish army mbt

1246

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    *cough*
    concussion wrote: »
    The DF operated tanks up til the middle of the 70's, the last models being Comets.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    But the comet was a cruiser tank,not an MBT


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 don18


    punchdrunk wrote: »
    our terrain is just like the uk's so thats bull****e

    the real reason is our woeful road system couldn't handle transporting them

    most of the british tank Divisions are based in germany .like the 1 Armoured Division. ...which was for the cold war...and you said that the reason we dont have tanks was our road system couldnt handle transporting them...

    why would we us a motoway to transport our tanks when we do not have air Superiority..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    Absolutely! Just look at the iraqi's in the last war and you'll see that transporting armour by road in wartime is a risky venture!

    But I was really talking about peacetime disruption caused by tank movement
    our railway couldn't handle it (don't we use some strange narrow rail gauge track? It would mean buying custom made freight cars too even if they could take it)

    and more importantly alot of our roads would be too narrow for an MBT tank transporter


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I thought it was because we didn't need them.

    As for the Comet being a cruiser tank not a MTB, thats irreverent because its effectively a WWII design, and intended as match for the German tanks when it was designed. As it had the 17 pdr gun. It was a heavy cruiser tank.


    Service history
    The 11th Armoured Division was the first to receive the new tanks in December 1944 and the only division to be completely refitted by the end of the war. Because of its late arrival, the Comet did not participate in any major battles though it did see combat against the Germans. The Comet was involved in the crossing of the Rhine and the later Berlin Victory Parade in July 1945. The Comet's maximum speed of 32 miles per hour was greatly exploited on the German Autobahns.
    During the following Korean War, the Comet served alongside the heavier Centurion, a successor tank introduced in the closing days of World War II on an experimental basis, but too late to see combat. The Centurion was formally adopted in 1949 and was partly based on the Comet's design. The Comet remained in British service until 1958, when the remaining tanks were sold to foreign governments; up until the 1980s, it could be found in the armies of various nations such as South Africa.
    41 Comet Mk I Model Bs were also used by Finnish Defence Forces armoured brigade until 1970. The tanks were stored until 2007, when four of them were auctioned out.

    Eight Comets were delivered to the Irish Army, beginning in 1959. Severe budget cutbacks were to severely harm the service lives of the Comets, as not enough spares were purchased. The Comet appealed to the Irish Army as it was cheap to buy and run, had low ground pressure, and good anti-tank capability. In retrospect, it was an excellent buy, and would have stood the army in good stead had vital spares been supplied initially.[citation needed] However, faulty fuzes meant the withdrawal of the HE ammunition, limiting the tank's role to an anti-tank vehicle. With stocks of 77 mm ammunition dwindling in 1969, the army began an experiment to prolong the life of the vehicle. It involved replacing the turret with an open mounting with a 90 mm Bofors Pv-1110 recoilless rifle. Lack of funds saw a cancellation of the project. The last 77 mm Comet shoot occurred in 1973 and the tanks were withdrawn soon afterwards. One is preserved in the Curragh Camp, one in the Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence, and two more survive in other barracks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    Isn't the centurion regarded as being the first MBT?
    About ten tones heavier than the comet


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    The comet is really a WWII tank. The centurion is a post war tank. Its seems we bought comet because they were cheap.

    Which is the same problem we have now. We can't afford MBTs. Even if we needed them which we don't. They are a nice to have not a need to have for Irish defense. We have other priorities. Peace Keeping duties I see as a separate issue tbh.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 368 ✭✭Avgas


    Comet was around 33 tonnes...your average MBT would be nowadays well over 50 tonnes...I don't have the ground pressure data for various models...a google search may throw that up... but it is usually a good linear relationship between increase in overall weight and increase in ground pressure.. and that is before you consider vehicle width/ barrel clearance issues, etc......interestingly the big issue with TANKs is not so much road width BUT Bridge weight restrictions...Argentines made much of the TAM tanks being able to manage weight limits on their bridges....I think a vehicle between 30-50t is about the upper limit our infrastructure and geography can cope with before your into serious mega-hassle....so that would speak against modern MBTs in the Leopards 2 class perhaps...but you know I still say.....go for it.:)

    Those new motorways are v. underused......:rolleyes:

    BTW Irish Rail gauge is ODD but not because its narrow ....its 5ft 3in or 1.6m in width whereas the standard British and west European rail gauge is 1.435m...so our Gauge is actually then broader and wider...and I've heard that some engineers regards it as fundamentally superior....eh....that is deeply deeply sad trivia.........sorry for the GEEK ATTACK:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Logistics of moving MBT's for peace keeping would be another problem.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 don18


    well are main tank is ALM 90 and it done the job at the Battle of At Tiri..AML90_1.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 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 .....


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,956 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 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....


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,956 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2 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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 425 ✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,956 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 425 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,500 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,956 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 368 ✭✭Avgas




    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:


Advertisement