Both FRES Specialist vehicle Scout and the new and improved Warrior MICV will be fitted with the CTAI 40mm cannon. There are a number of debates about this, does the cased telescoping ammunition offer enough of an advantage to justify the cost, will we ever field advanced natures, is the calibre too high when everyone else uses 25mm to 30mm and will this unique system provide any export potential but instead of these an interesting question to pose is why an automatic cannon and why not a large calibre systems like 90mm or 105m?
With the Warrior, the weapon will primarily provide supporting fire for disembarked infantry and to destroy enemy MICV. In a typical armoured manoeuvre operation it will be joined by automatic 7.62mm and 12.7mm machine guns, 40mm GMG, supported by dismounted Javelin anti-tank missiles (we no longer have an under armour ATGW, which is another issue entirely) and the 120mm of the Challenger 2. In addition, indirect fire will be provided by 81mm mortar, 155mm artillery, GMLRS and even close air support from fast jets, Apache and unmanned systems (almost makes one sympathise with the enemy)
In another scenario, like Afghanistan for example, the Warrior might not have 155mm available or 120mm direct fire (at least not from the UK) but have 60mm mortar and the 105mm light gun.
Infantry weapons like underslung grenade launchers, the various tube launched anti structure munitions and the new NLAW can also be used.
So from this it can be seen that it operates in a complex matrix that is ever changing depending on deployed forces and other variables.
FRES Scout in its traditional CVR(T) replacement role will, in many situations, be operating beyond the forward CR2 where the anti-armour performance will be of greater importance than its ability to supress infantry, especially given the old Striker/Swingfire combination of anti-armour overwatch will no longer form part of the FRES family. The TRACER programme had this capability and most of the early incarnation of FRES likewise, but it has been quietly dropped.
Another factor worth considering is that both CVR(T), FRES and Warrior have and will be used outside of their neat doctrinal boxes, often acting in the role of light tank or infantry fire support. I looked at these secondary roles in a number of recent posts and came to the conclusion that in many operations these seem to assume a primary role.
This also opens up the natural questioning of the need for a proper light/medium tank but enought of that for now!
A medium calibre main gun was last seen in UK service on the Scorpion and Saladin, the 76mm L23A1 in the Scorpion was a development of the earlier L5A1 in the Saladin. Ammunition natures included HESH-T, illuminating, smoke, HE, canister and various training rounds. The Scorpion was withdrawn many years ago but the same turret on Canadian Cougars saw service in the Balkans.
In export models, the CVR(T) has been sold with the Cockerill 90mm medium velocity cannon and there were even concepts for a vehicle called the Sagita that Alvis proposed for the US Army Mobile protected Gun System (MPGS) based on an evolved Stomer chassis. Three models were proposed, one with the 76mm L23A1 with twin TOW launchers, another with a two man turret equipped with the 75mm ARES high velocity automatic gun and a final variant fitted with a higher calibre weapon, either the Cockerill 90mm Mk III, the Rheinmetall Rh105-11 or a new design from Royal Ordnance.
With other systems and in the context described above the 25-40mm automatic cannon would seem to offer an excellent and relevant set of capabilities and therefore the withdrawal of the 76mm weapon entirely vindicated but in an operation like that in Afghanistan would something similar provide an additional set of capabilities that would make an investment worthwhile?
Javelin has proved invaluable, long range, highly accurate, portable on small vehicles and powerful but the principle problem is that of cost. At approximately £70k each their use becomes problematical in an extended campaign. There is a view that it doesn’t matter what they cost, if a weapon system can be used to kill an IED emplacer then that is an effective operational and economic use. This is a persuasive argument and from one perspective entirely valid. But we have seen that there is no unlimited pot of gold and decisions in one area of defence have implications in other. Javelin also has a relatively long flight time at range when compared to a gun launched round.
Relying on close air support delivered from UAV, helicopters or fast jets is also hugely expensive and subject to delays caused by both availability and rules of engagement.
Indirect fire support from organic infantry mortars can be extremely fast into action and hugely effective but the lack of precision matures makes them not suited to many situations and adding precision guidance negates many of the advantages of mortars as well. Artillery and GMLRS are also not without their own problems.
When Challenger is not deployed, as in Afghanistan, or there is a need for a higher elevation angle, the largest calibre vehicle mounted weapon will be the 40mm CTA cannon. Looking into the crystal ball and the future character of conflict, urban environments would seem to be highy likely.
The question therefore is, is there a gap in firepower, somewhere between the 25-40mm automatic cannon and 120mm high velocity system on the Challenger 2 that is not filled by Javelin, infantry weapons and indirect fire in these secondary roles that seem to be utilised more often?
One of the commenters made an interesting and very valid point about first deciding what you want to do and then go shopping, not before.
The first thing to say is it would not be needed to act as a tank, defend against them perhaps but it would be used more often for fire support and anti light/medium armour.
Other roles would be immediate fire support, wall breaching, destruction of obstacles and road blocks, clearing large areas with canister and numerous others where it’s large round and very low reaction times would be invaluable. Of course, low reaction times and rapid time between firing and effects appearing on the target would also be achievable by an automatic cannon so the key difference would be the effects on target delivered by a small number of large rounds versus a larger number of smaller rounds.
There might even be a psychological advantage in some situations, a big gun looks scary and the noise has its own impact as well.
Would the advantages offered by a larger calibre main gun on FRES and/or Warrior be compelling enough to negate the cost of introducing a new system?
It is interesting to see how our US cousins look at these things and worth noting that the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams do not utilise an automatic cannon armed Stryker variant, there is none. Although their doctrine is completely different the Reconnaissance Vehicle is only armed with a 12.7mm machine gun but they do have the Mobile Gun System variant that uses an automatic loading 105mm M68A1E4 cannon.
After initial problems (a new systems with problems seems acceptable) the MGS started to receive rave reviews in Iraq and was viewed as a battle winning system.
The official description for the MGS is;
The Mobile Gun System (MGS) supports dismounted infantry and engages the enemy in close combat in order to clear opposition and permit rapid movement allowing the force to maintain the initiative, defeat strong points, and occupy and/or secure key objectives.
I suspect any criticism of the MGS had more to do with the implementation rather than concept. It only has 18 ready rounds and a relatively complex automatic loader for example and some of the ergonomic issues remain. The initial stories about not being able to fire on the move or being knocked over by the recoil proved to be completely incorrect.
If we accept that there is a gap, and this is far from certain, there exists a few interesting off the shelf systems worth considering.
The first would of course be the same system as used on the US MGS, this has the advantage of being a mature system with the wrinkles ironed out and obvious commonality with a major ally.
The ASCOD was trialled with this system, the drawings must exist somewhere!
ASCOD and GD 105mm
More realistically, the ASCOD Light Tank has been supplied to the Royal Thai Marine Corps. This is equipped with an integrated manned turret with a 105mm main weapon from LIW, now Denel Systems. The main weapon is the 52 calibre GT7 which is capable of firing the full range of 105mm natures available from a wide variety of manufacturers. 105mm is still a hugely popular calibre. An interesting feature of the GT7 is that it doesn’t have a muzzle brake and thus avoids some of the problems with injuring surrounding infantry that such equipped weapons can sometime suffer from. The GT-7 is derived from the venerable Royal Ordnance L7 with a new recoil system.
ASCOD2 LT105
The LMT-105 turret, a development of the 76mm Rooikat, is also equipped with a full suite of advanced set of fire control and electro optical sensors, is fully stabilised and has a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.
Other turrets/guns could also be used such as those from Oto Melara HITFACT or CMI Defence CT-CV
If a smaller intermediate weapon was required the Cockerill 90mm MKIII is still available from CMI and would allow a greater number of rounds to be carried.
The CT-CV is interesting, not because of the Falarick gun launched missile because it also offers a high elevation of 42 degree for use in urban environments although it only has 15 ready rounds, more would be carried on the vehicle and loaded into the automatic loading system under armour.
CT-CV has been fitted to the General Dynamics Pandur armoured fire support vehicle, General Dynamics of course being the manufacture of FRES Scout and the Polish Anders armoured vehicle has also been integrated with the turret.
Pandur II with CT-CV turret
When we look at these it does not have to be an either or, would, for example, 1 in 3 FRES Scouts fitted with one of these turrets offer an increase in capability worthy of the extra capital and through life cost or are we fine with what we have?
An interesting question.
Why not a 120mm gun mortar.
US cousins also -
USMC have the TOW ATGM capable LAV II in their armd recce battalions
US Army also have TOW ATGM Bradleys and the newer M1 Abrams have a heavy machine gun coaxial
No capability gap, just a reluctance to deploy MBTs and engineering vehicles. A lightly armoured big gun (diminishing returns below 105mm) will just be a burden waiting for an appropriate mission. Autocannons counterparts can be more widely used.
Given that what we are looking for is a way to defend the vehicle against tanks, with a high rate of fire, it would seem that a turreted 90 or 105mm is both a very disruptive and expensive upgrade that couldn’t penetrate an upgraded T72, say. Given that LOSAT has been proven and CKEM has been demonstrated, why not equip FRES with say 8 HVM’s in armoured bins at the side of the turret? Minimal disruption to design with a solid ability to engage even a high end tank, with a high rate of fire.
Isn’t fireshadow designed for the effects you are describing, I know it will be more expensive than an artillery round but I think low cost has been one of its driving requirements.
http://www.latinaero.com/news/defence/2011_09/nws_dfc_110916-001.html
Since there is no dedicated platform to staff, fuel or maintain it may be in terms of total lifetime costs be a cheaper option
@ RW,
Fire Shadow may (or may not) have its’ uses, but not in the role which this article is examining. What TD is proposing is for an organic, rapid reaction / reasonable clout weapon system that can be used almost instantly by the troop concerned. Personally, I think that anything over 40mm is complete overkill for recce, and would rather have a few Javelin for the very rare occasions on which they would be useful (and accept the tradeoffs such as time of flight for the even rarer occasions on which recce find it useful to engage at distance).
The problem with concepts such as Fire Shadow are that they are mostly marketing wet dreams. The example MBDA choose of responding to an ambush is almost ludicrous. The ROE involved, the comms and bandwidth limitations, airspace management issues all make it unsuitable for rapid response to an ambush.
Fire Shadow would be useful for deliberately planned operations with an unpredictable element such as the time an enemy does something (e.g. two commanders meeting), or as insurance on an open flank. As such, it would probably be held and used at Brigade or Divisional level. I suspect that Hereford could also find a use for it as a stealthy and somewhat deniable 100 mile range sniper rifle.
TD and all.
Forgive me if I start teaching Grandma to suck eggs, with a short history lesson:-
The adoption of the tracked assault gun in WW2 by Germans and Russians was largely a production compromise, cause in the German case by having production lines for Pz111 which was to small to upgrade to a fighting tank.
And by the Russians need to counter Panther and Tiger with bigger guns on T34 chassis.
The USA had the ‘Tank destroyer command’; (Hampered somewhat by an almost resolute refusal to deploy in any numbers a vehicle capable of destroying tanks)!
In each and every case these vehicles were not without utility. Indeed the Stug 111 has been described as the most useful armoured vehicle the Germans had.
The SU152 (yes I know it was on tghe KV chassis)was the ‘Beast killer’ because it killed panthers and Tigers.
Both because it was so much cheaper assault guns / tank destroyers than to build a turreted tank
For the Americans Hellcat and M10′s were popular with their crews and the US and UK both tried out the super heavy assault gun idea on the test grounds.
The problems with ‘Fire support vehicles is the old:-
‘If it looks like tank it gets used like a tank’
Again and again these vehicles and the Recon vehicles, the armoured cars and the light tanks, in real battlefield situationss got used like Heavy Tanks (and suffered for it), because that’s all there was at that point at that time.
It’s why bye and large the medium fire support vehicle was dropped by worlds armies after WW2, and light tanks became strictly recon vehicles, on the real battlefield.
Light tanks hung on for third world use. The amx series for example were big sellers. (There was some very Prescient stuff by British writers in the 1930′ about the seductive nature of the light tank for politicians and serving soldiers, it was cheaper and easier to build and use; and did most of what a heavy tank could do in ‘Colonial’ wars. But would be F all use except for recon on a European battlefield.
On to the modern battlefield, and on this site, one of the theory ‘flame wars’ (almost up there with Nellie and Dumbo); is the CVRT 10 ton replacement vs 40 ton fighting for recon vehicle.
Where is all this rambling going? You ask yourself.
Well to this end.
If you build a 40 ton armoured vehicle and put a 105 mm+ gun on it:-
It will be very useful.
It will save lives
It will be popular with it’s crews, and troops and commanders.
IT will used for blowing holes in mud compounds, taking out bomb layers etc.. with great success.
It will be fair bit cheaper than Chally 2 or replacement to buy or deploy.
Congrats you have just reinvented the Medium Tank!
Because that’s what it will be used as. And with that, the heavy tank will wither and die. Units will be told to get buy on the logistically similar to their MICV/APC (Please god)’Fire support vehicles, instead of those expensive chally 2′s.
OH yes they will! We send F’in snatch landrovers out to war because it was all we had and were cheap,
Sorry I should say I am not necessarily against the idea. of a medium tank. Just what follows IMHO is the (in practice), slow death by a thousand cuts of the heavy one.
PS
one of the ideas I keep propounding to another one of those thunderous silences with which my technical ideas get greeted. (perhaps that should tell me something); Is the 105 Light gun on an armoured chassis.
Full range of ammo already deployed,
Excellent direct fire support and longer range credentials…
Now where did we put all those Abbots???
@James
We’ll see this year in Afghanistan, but I can’t see why, when fireshadow is already loitering, as intended, why it can’t do all that’s required, since its line of sight, I don’t get the bandwidth reference. Given fireshadow’s ISTAR element I think it’s actually more likely to be cleared for use, it’s not as if there are no ROE for other forms of artillery or direct fire. Courageous restraint etc..
All the problems you describe are already overcome for artillery such as GMLRS but are an easier fix for fireshadow, I expect it will become as frequent a flyer as the desert hawk spotter UAV and will save people the effort of lugging javelin etc around, so it will also be used more frequently than those weapons have been.
I also reckon as a general principle its better to have eyes in the sky than have to peer out of a ditch and that direct fire from the air can be forward controlled/tasked just as much as direct fire from the ground.
Try a budget of 2000 fireshadow for 10 hours local ISTAR coverage at £60,000 each. Total delivered is 20,000 ISTAR hrs and 2000 potential precision strikes for £120,000,000, which I reckon is a not an unreasonable budget for a year’s activity, when you think that we recently sent 3000 javelin at say £70,000 each to Afghanistan for a cost of £210,000,000 while using them for anything other than taking out tanks.
There’s also a show of force element to the weapon, just as fast air moves people away without having to deploy munitions, the idea that there is probably a fireshadow orbiting a patrol would make it less easy to set up an ambush unseen and more risky to do so. We may only cover 2000 patrols with the weapon but how do the Taliban know which ones?
@ RW,
a section or platoon commander, or a recce commander only has limited comms, and nothing that is going to get him a video feed of what the Fire Shadow is seeing. Plus, he’s fighting and commanding his soldiers, so he’s a bit too busy to be looking at TV.
Unless it is flying directly over a patrol the strong likelihood is that it will be in the wrong place, and have to turn around and fly to the right place.
Someone in a control station is going to have to acquire the target that is required (not so easy when the operator is looking at a vertical view, and the tasker looking from ground level. Even if told that target’s grid reference, the controller is going to have to conduct a local area search in case there are any civilians in the area.
The airspace this thing will use has to be deconflicted from other users, so casevac operations are going to be slower while the incoming helicopters need to wait for positive confirmation that the Fire Shadows are all loitering somewhere safe.
All of a sudden your rapid effect has got bogged down in retaking time and procedural clearances – I can’t see all of that taking less than 10-15 minutes on average. In those 10-15 minutes you’ve got about the response time of close air support or aviation on call. In comparison, artillery can be on target in around a minute, and mortars in less than 30 seconds. Granted, they are not as precise as a guided weapon. Javelin can be on target in about 15 seconds.
Fire Shadow costs rather more than £60,000 and is not yet fully developed. After three years, MBDA have now downgraded the loiter time to 6 hours, and the range to 100 kms.
I’m certainly not against the Fire Shadow concept, but using it as a surrogate for an organic weapon system for close contact strikes me as completely unsuitable. As part of a deliberate operation, I’m sure it would be great. I can also see it being a very attractive option for some of the Libya style missions. Four of them flying over a sector of Libya (launched from safely offshore from the deck of Ocean) would probably be far more cost-effective than putting up 8 Tornado or FGR4 for the same 6 hours of coverage over the target area, not to mention not needing all of those AAR assets.
Wow, this topic really is the gift that keeps on giving eh !
I see one of my previous articles to provoke discussion on the concept was included in the automatic links:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/medium-armour-%E2%80%93-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-the-post-2020-force-structure/
Also we discussed armament of MICV’s / APC’s here:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/10/is-the-micv-concept-past-its-use-by-date/
Anyone who has haunted these forums long enough knows I have been accused of being a salesman for 120mm breach loading mortar manufacturers – so you can guess what my answer is…. !!
I have been researching mortars in general for an article, and it is interesting to look at the way the US Army uses them in the Stryker brigade, as the MGS was mentioned.
A Stryker brigade has 10 MCV-B vehicles – that being the Mortar Carrying Vehicle – type B variant of the Stryker. It is fitted with a 120mm smooth bore, manually muzzle loaded mortar on the Israeli Soltam companies CARDOM platform, which automatically lays the mortar (but as noted, it is not an autoloader). These vehicles are split, 6 are with the 3 ‘Rifle” Companies (2 each) and 4 are kept at the Battalion level.
The reason I mention that, is that I find that split interesting from a doctrinal viewpoint. If they had they gone with 120mm turreted mortar, for example BAe’s AMS II (which is used on equivalent Saudi wheeled armour), then you might expect the 2 with each Company group to be involved in direct fire support missions, while the ‘retained’ at Battalion level would be available to the Battalion commander for indirect fires.
Now, having said that, there are also 9 MGS per battalion – so there are 19 “fire support” weapons systems in total compared to a “war time” establishment of 9 x 81mm mortars for a British Army battalion.
So, as I have noted before, perhaps the 120mm turret mounted mortar, while being a very flexible weapon system, would actually prevent the carrier vehicle from being embarrassingly used as a “Medium Tank” (with potentially deadly results for our side).
On the other hand…… continuing on the mortar theme, the Israeli’s use 60mm mortars, aimed and fired from under armour on everything from their re-built / upgraded M113 APC’s to their Merkeva tanks. As we we have 60mm mortars procured under UOR, perhaps fitting these to FRES protected mobility might be an idea ? At this smaller calibre the South African Denel (part of the BAe empire) have a new breach loading, long barreled, long range 60mm mortar for turreted applications, its called the M10 if you want to Google.
Jed
One of the statements in the articles you’ve ref’d say
‘We are not getting into tank on tank action’
But it will.
Ixion
Not sure I understand your comment, but why would you send a 120mm turreted mortar, which is essentially the infantry’s own self propelled artillery, up against enemy MBT ?
Sure they could be equipped with stand off AT weapons, as discussed, but as the turret armour is thin i.e. probably proof against 14.5mm AP at the most, I really don’t think the most insane Coy CO (Major) is going to send his “gun section” against “real” tanks !!
If you mean there will be tank on tank battles in future wars, obsolutely, why not; that is why we need to retain all CH2, at a good upgraded state, even if some (or many) are in storage…….
perhaps its just me showing my ignorance, but i dont ‘get’ company / battalion / brigade splits.
Is a gun team going to refuse fire support because its for a different company? Or tell the lt col to bugger off because it isnt a battalion asset?
There are three target audiences for a large caliber guns here:
1. Mechanized scout units (FRES)
2. Mechanized infantry units (Warrior)
3. Light/medium infantry units.
Scout units don’t typically need to breach walls, but do need a heavy anti-armor punch. However, mechanized scouts can just operate with MBTs.
Mechanized infantry does need to breach walls and destroy field fortifications, but they too can operate with MBTs.
Light/medium units would benefit from a direct-fire gun system. Whether they can use MBTs or not depends on the situation. Having a lighter armored gun system would appear to be valuable. But is basing it on FRES SV really the right way to go? At 32+ tonnes it’s still rather heavy.
@IXION,
Great post! And so right.
My oh my, have we been round the houses on this one.
As we begin to think about future armoured requirements, there is a school of thought that believes infantry combat vehicles should be as well protected as tanks. If a recce vehicle is required to fight for information then perp has it too should have equivalent protection? This being the case, a common chassis for both MBT and MICV with the engine mounted forward may well be the way ahead for Challenger and Warrior replacements. You would want a 120 mm gun on the MBT and Recce versions and a smaller cannon for the MICV version to ensure maximum troop carrying capacity.
As far as FRES SV is concerned, I don’t think there is a valid case for medium tracked armour. You are 100% correct when you say: ‘if it looks like a tank, it will be used like one.’ That is fine until the shooting starts. (Which may explain why recce regiments in WW2 used heavy (as possible) tanks not light tanks. with Cromwell being better than Stuart due to its greater speed, protection and firepower).
In the short term, and because we desperately need to replace our ageing CVR(T)s, I believe that the medium recce role could and should be performed by Warriors with 40 mm CTA. Long term, perhaps we need something better than the FRES SV ASCOD 2, and preferably something with a 120 mm gun.
Do we need medium armour? Yes, I believe we do. The Italian Army has adopted the Freccia 8×8 APC and an 8×8 tank destroyer the Centauro (now being up-gunned from 105 mm to 120 mm). They are designed to complement each other using a common chassis. The concept works well. Both vehicles have a remarkable off-road ability. While ultimately less capable than tracked vehicles, they can go just about anywhere a tank can, are not immobilised by the loss of 2 or 3 wheels and, in particular, they offer superb long range strategic mobility. Their capabilities are complimentary to those of heavy armour, i.e. they sacrifice protection for mobility. Even so they provide IED and RPG protection that is close to that of a Mastiff (Cougar). In effect, the latest 8×8 designs are wheeled medium armoured vehicles not tracked.
For these reasons, I think a 8×8 Centauro with a 120 mm gun would make a much better FRES SV than a tracked ASCOD 2 with a 40 mm CTA. (Both offer comparable protection.)
MBT or 8×8 tank destroyer, you need a 120 mm gun to take out enemy tanks. The 40 mm CTA cannon will effectively neutralise other 8x8s and MICVS, but not tanks. This weapon is more capable than other cannons so is definitely worth acquiring for the infantry support and anti-APC role. Although it is a larger calibre from other NATO MICVs, its clever design means that the gun mechanism and breech take-up less turret space than those of an inferior 30 mm cannon.
Jed
What I mean is that if it has a gun in a turret, it looks like a tank, then it will start to be used as one, and work that should be done by Challenger 2 to be on the safe side; will be done by this fire support vehicle because it is available, and will be cheaper to use.
The CO will send them because they will be all he has to hand when the enemy attacks. Indeed the political powers that be (both in and out of uniform) will tell him to get on with it.
‘Look Colonel Blimp we need the right kind of man too lead the Bwifflesneezeshire Rangers in this tight spot. Your just the chap too do it, of course we can’t spare Chally2 but you you’ll have some FSV’s’ so that will be ok won’t it. Of course if you don’t fancy the job Colonel Bogey is free…’
I know one or two brave souls did resign but an awful lot of CO’s led their troops into ‘Battle’ in Snatch in Iraq, and earlier in Bosnia in Saxon, because it was all we had available.
Not sure about all of this fascination with guns – unless the doctrine and subsequent TTPs have changed significantly for both recce and armoured / mechanised infantry (and I’m not aware that they have), the gun on the wagon is one of the least considerations, a very long way behind protection and mobility.
Rapid in-theatre operational mobility, tactical mobility and protection from shrapnel are the main three that need to be balanced off for recce. Additional protection is always welcome, but not to the extent of compromising mobility. Firepower needs to be highly accurate for oddball tasks like taking out landing helicopters and faster moving targets of opportunity e.g. liaison and command vehicles. I understand why Scorpion was included in the formation recce mix, but frankly these days I’d rather have a troop of 120mm mortars in the indirect role, and a recce vehicle with something like the M3 CFV Bradley turret offering 20mm and TOW.
Armoured infantry need to be able to keep up with tanks and be rather better protected. The main requirement for the gun on an IFV is to be able to provide rapid suppressive fire, often at steep depressions in order to park virtually on top of a trench or other position and hose it down with utmost violence from about 5 yards away.
monty
i’ve been thinking about a common chasis, with a 120mm turreted gun, a dual 40mm cta on a turret or an embarked fireteam/section whatever.
To the outsider, 5 sections in unarmed heavy apcs, 2 autocannon carriers and a ‘tank’ sounds reasonable for a lot of uses.
You could ‘flex’ any quantity for various roles, and you cant throw tankettes into armoured engagements and hope for the best.
I still think theres a place for much smaller vehicles, like the current cvrt series, not so much for ‘recon’ on fulda, but as tanks where tanks cannot be, obvious example here, falklands.
IXION
My take on WW2, was that the medium tank/close support aircraft combo was unstoppable. The early Blitzkrieg with Panzer III/IV & Stukas. Then the UK/US with Shermans & Typhoons, not forgetting the Russians with the T34/Sturmovik.
The Germans lost when they put their effort in a few heavy Tiger 2s.
I like the idea of light,mobile armour(Vickers Valkyr or Stormer with a 40mm CTA unmanned turret)+ medium armour such as the Engesa Osorio 41 ton tank armed with 120mm gun, but they must be backed up by air support(Apache,Hawk, A-10,etc).
Old Fossil that I am, I think it a shame we retired the 84mm Carl Gustaf RCL. Cheap,deployable fire support for dismounted troops.
JH
My take on WW2 was what happened afterwards. It is very interesting that in essence all sides (in the west) came to the conclusion MBT (in reality a heavy tank) was the answer.
Leopard, Centurion, M series, Similar in terms of weight, (OK centurion was bit heavier generally)
All with similar guns.
The Germans lost WW2 in the factory.
We could (and did) Loose 10 Shermans for one panther and still win, The T34 more so.
We had fuel, the Germans did not, we had tungsten cored shells, the Germans did not.
The Germans could never have hoped to compete.
Churchill said something like:- the day US declared war on Germany he went to sleep knowing we had won the war the result was now inevitable.
The point of this discussion is that all the ‘fire support vehicles’ were stopgaps (very useful ones) forced on parties that would rather have built tanks.
@ John Hartley.
Firing the Charlie G was an apocalyptic experience, particularly as the firing signature was significant, and it only had a range of about 500 metres against moving targets. It was fairly reliably going to be spotted as soon as it fired, and invite a firestorm of response. I’d rather have a Javelin and considerably more standoff distance. It also weighed a ton, and therefore became the staple of any number of dubious stories about Arab cadets at Sandhurst burying them and offering to buy another rather than carry it.
Perhaps we should consider the Canadian experience. A few years ago they were quite content to see their older Leopards go out of service in favour of an LAV combination including TOW and MGS variants. That was of course before buying up over 60 second hand Dutch and German Leopard2.
The Leopard’s 105mm gun can provide the same direct fire infantry support as the same gun mounted on the MGS, while the MGS lacks the armour to face up to a tank. Meanwhile, the LAV TOW is a limited platform if your enemy isn’t driving around in armoured vehicles.
IXION
In 1944 the US introduced the Chaffee light tank. Stayed in service with many armies til the 1980s. Then the M41 Walker Bulldog light tank. Again in service with many armies till the millenium. I grant you the Sheridan was unfortunate, but it could go places in Vietnam a heavy MBT could not.
James.
I am not saying we should scrap Javelin missiles in favour of the Carl Gustaf, but it would be handy in the back of whatever vehicle you are in, if you have to stop & fight, taking out mud brick walls the Taliban is hiding behind.
JH
The Chaffee and Bulldog were always recon platforms and even the US used M60′s in recon role.
It certainly was not doctrine to use them as fire support or anti armour weapons, with infantry. Sheridan had it’s faults.
BTW have those who support a lightweight tracked vehicle with a 120mm mort also firing missiles, ever considered how close to Sheridan that concept is?
IXION
Maybe for the US, but I bet the smaller armies used them for some sort of fire support.
Footnote on Carl Gustaf. I agree its time has gone for fighting modern MBTs, but against Taliban style enemies, it provides a cheap counter RPG weapon. CG had a wide range of rounds. The illuminating round could be fired to 2km & provide half a million candle power for half a minute. Great for night counter ambush.
The Americans have used the Carl Gustaf in Afghanistan, John.
@ John Hartley,
CG is completely over-matched by any number of modern weapons in any number of situations. I certainly wouldn’t give it vehicle space now unless no other option was available. Apart from anything else, limited range and a huge firing signature mean it’s a bit of a bullet-magnet. Why not sit back 1,000 metres and let the 30mm do the work, sit back 2,000m and let mortars do the work, or 2,500 metres and let a Javelin do the work?
If you are trying to breach a compound wall, it’s because you have some intent of putting troops through that breach. It’s a lot more guaranteed, and a lot more accurate with other options, none of which involve some intrepid CG team crawling to within 500 metres of a compound carrying a 20 kilo drainpipe.
I think TD mentioned in the article about a comment someone made on another thread; we need to figure out the why and what first before we look at how.
What do we realistically expect recce vehicles and AIFV to shoot at on a regular basis?
Why do they need to shoot at this targets?
Which should lead us to the “how then do we arm these vehicles?”
@John Hartley
“but it (the Carl Gustav) would be handy in the back of whatever vehicle you are in, if you have to stop & fight, taking out mud brick walls the Taliban is hiding behind.”
But isn’t that the reason we have, over recent years, purchased weapons such as the 66mm Light Anti-Structures Missile or L72A9 (while waiting for the Anti-Sturctures Munition proper) and the ILAW (Interim Lightweight Anti-Tank Weapon or AT4 CS)? The AT-4, I believe, was a disposable, low-cost alternative to the Carl Gustav, which had a heavier and more expensive steel tube with rifling.
Or would they have been inappropriate weapons to use against mud brick walls. Much, much cheaper than Javelin! By the way, is Milan still around somewhere or is it considered unsafe to use now? Might be an idea to use a few of those up?
Ref ChrisB referring himself to TD’s question – what do we think the threats are I.e figure out who the enemy is, and then how we are going to fight him.
During the Cold War this was easy – masses of Soviet armour. Now, for us its not so clear.
As i mentioned on the CTA brochure thread, some countries that we look at show how they have devolved doctrine and kit to defend against very specific threats.
Israel – more tank on tank experience than the rest of the world put together (at least until GW1) = Merkeva and Namer.
South Africa – terrain and threat leading to wheeled armour with 90mm cannon and 60mm gun-mortars= Elandand then Rooikat.
South Korea – 2500 tanks ranging from upgrade M48 Patton variants to the K2 Black Panther, the most expensive tank in the world.
So what path do we want to tread? HMG appears addicted to meddling in others affairs (under the guise of R2P or whatever) – so do we make sure we always have enough CH2 available in a given force to make sure they are available as “direct fire support” OR do we need a lighter alternative; a more strategically mobile, modern “infantry support” tank, a Sherman for the new Millennium if you will !
“a section or platoon commander, or a recce commander only has limited comms, and nothing that is going to get him a video feed of what the Fire Shadow is seeing. Plus, he’s fighting and commanding his soldiers, so he’s a bit too busy to be looking at TV.”
But units going out in the field, and definitely the Brigade Recce Force, are supposed to have Fire Support Teams from the RA going with them and equipped with the Rover 4 handheld terminal and Firehawk video downlink, for which Fire Shadow is to be kitted.
They will see from the Fire Shadow eye, and order it to strike.
For Section-level work, of course, we’ll have to wait. But 2015 is supposed to bring forth the FIST C4I element, and that might expand the envelope of what can be done.
Not doing it now does not mean not doing it tomorrow.
@ Gabriele,
you mostly make my point. Fire Shadow will be employed by specialist units (the RA certainly, possibly a few others), not available to any ordinary patrol as was suggested further up thread, and it would not be sensible to view the system as a replacement for an on-vehicle weapon system.
The RA deploy teams down to squadron / company level as a matter of routine, not to section level. Of course, for a special task, that can be changed, but for everyday stuff at patrol level, it is highly unlikely that an RA team will be physically present. That’s the main reason that recce vehicle commanders and some others in the infantry (e.g. MFCs, recce platoons) are trained to call for fire over the radio.
I’ll wait to see what FIST C4I delivers, but I doubt we are going to get FMV of targeting quality down to a section commander. The US cannot do it now for their regular forces (I don’t know about their SF – that may be different). The best quality available in 2010 even over a micro mesh network of data capable tactical radios was 10 frames a second at 640×480. Dedicated downlinks of course offer more, but impose other constraints like being static to operate, or requiring specialist antennae and control systems, none of which are going to find their way into a section vehicle. There are other issues: in order to be able to be received by one of no doubt dozens of patrols which may need Fire Shadow support, the broadcast footprint of the loitering munition is going to be huge, which has power implications for the air vehicle, and is hardly stealthy. As the air vehicle moves out of coverage of a particular patrol and another air vehicle comes into coverage, you are going to be having a lot of electronic and data protocols exchanged, which may compromise the patrol’s position.
I just can’t see Fire Shadow being used as a general loitering munition. It will be put up and controlled in packs for dedicated operations.
I was just looking up the Carl Gustav. There are references to the SAS using it in Afghanistan, but no particular details; the US Rangers and Special Forces also make use of it, so it must have some benefits over the other systems available.
Interestingly, there is a flechette round finding some use out there. Good for location defence apparently. That is quite some shotgun, if I were a clay pigeon I wouldn’t fancy my chances in front of that.
“Interestingly, there is a flechette round finding some use out there. Good for location defence apparently.”
The US Army resurrected their long-put-to-rest recoilless gun, M67 if i remember the number correctly, for that reason. It seems that recoilles rifles are quite popular in Afghanistan (or feared, apparently, since Talibans also use/used them).
I remember reading a report on that and thinking “bring back the Wombat!” XD
James
“The RA deploy teams down to squadron / company level as a matter of routine, not to section level.”
Sorry to treat you as my own personal military google, but is there a reason for that?
To me it just seem obvious to put a single gun in all of our various bases in Afghanistan.
Track any patrols that are out and about, and then you can provide near instant return fire from any ambush.
Be that a 105 gun, 120 mortar, or a 155 gun
BB/G
The CG looks very handy for defending a base, but carrying them around seems mental.
There are so many gun and platform options in many weight catergorys. The list of options is infinate.
The B1 Centauro with a 120mm tank gun is an interesting idea. The AMOS or Advanced Mortar System, the one with the twin barraled motars can be use in both direct and non direct fire so in a good option that can be used on verious platforms.
Hi Guys,
I think the infantry would love a close support in house option.
As a former foot slogger, I feel the British infantry company lacks direct fire support.
I would suggest a 105mm turret for direct fire support and anti tank turret similar to the Bradley.
Mounted on a warrior, or the new recce vehicles.
In my humble opinion a company commander would love a section of each!
I would also agree with the following points made earlier;
We shouldn’t be looking for a new tank.
The infantry can always use more fire support, especially now there’s a reluctance to use MBTs.
The Charlie G was a good weapon in its day.
Plan for the next war, not the last!
Regards
Phil Z29
@ DominicJ,
Manning levels. The Army can only put with with so many Gunners, and there are only so many Norland Nannies to marry ex-Cavalry officers’ conquests.
Artillery should be massed for firepower and shock effect. Not pea-shooting on a “one gun per section” basis.
Gabriele,
Bring back the Wombat! Definitely worth a consideration, albeit with a laser sight instead of the 0.50 spotter rifle and possibly with DAGR technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Attack_Guided_Rocket
The WOMBAT was also at home on top of the FV430, so bolting one on a FV430 Bulldog is a possibility.
Carl Gustaf.
I have never suggested some poor soldier should be expected to lug one on his back while hiking mile after mile. I do think they are a cheap way of fire support for ambushed convoys or forward bases.
Yes you can use one shot disposables, but my earlier post mentioned the choice of rounds available to a CG. Load what you need at that moment.
If we bought new, doubtless modern lighter materials(aluminium, carbon fibre) could be used to reduce weight. A modern airburst round might be handy. Modern laser ranging & night sights also handy.
re Charlie G vs 40 mm AGL vs organic mortars.
One biggish round every 10 seconds, a huge firing signature, and attracting lots of bullets in return. 500 metres effective range.
Lots of smaller rounds every 10 seconds, which you can fire in an arc to cover a wider area. Over three times the distance. With a firing signature considerably reduced.
About 6-8 81mm or 120 mm rounds in the air and impacting the target anywhere within 5,000 metres within 30 seconds, followed by several iterations of 6-8 rounds every ten seconds.
As this is a “vehicle mounted” thread, I’m allowing for the weight of all systems to be vehicle borne.
You pays your money, you take your chances.
james
in fulda, i agree, in afghanistan?
James
Chances are, you would only use Carl Gustaf when you are already being shot at, so I think the enemy knows where you are.
500m was against moving tanks. 2000m effective range against fixed positions.
Here’s some info on Carl G use by US Army
http://kitup.military.com/?s=carl+gustav&x=0&y=0
Definately in Afghan Dom. Nothing like a good stonking from a few organically and closely controlled 81mm barrels to mess up Terry’s day.
ref charlie G i sent a link to TD about the panzerfaust 3 system used by the german army, has a new fandango sighting system looks like a posh RPG, i only like it as it comes with a round called the bunkerfaust, which just sounds ally as hell!!!!
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/de/panzerfaust-3-e.html
Dom. One thing I learned out there about artillery, and it wasn’t much, is that the bigger and more longer ranged the artillery system the more of a pain in the arse it is to get it fired quickly. Deconfliction becomes a bigger and bigger problem. Organically controlled mortars embedded in a company group are incredibly responsive and have a far smaller pain in the arse factor. Skilfully controlled they are über responsive. We’re talking seconds. And you dont have to worry about some cowboy arsehole fucking A10 pilot refusing to get out of the flight path of a GMLRs barrage meaning it couldn’t be fired. Id have shot that fucker right out of the sky but then that’s why I’m not an Officer.
I wonder how much testing the MoD has done on infantry weapons vs the Afghan mud wall.
Recoilless weapons make a certain amount of sense for the conflicts we are currently involved in. Modern fire control and limited targets mean that the larger ammunition is less of a problem – chances are that such a platform would not use more than a few rounds before resupply.
Then you have a large calibre weapon that you can mount on a lighter vehicle. A lighter vehicle means you have less impact on the local infrastructure or put a greater share of the GVW towards protection or mobility, depending on what suits your role.
It would be interesting if a large recoilless weapon could be fitted with a countermass system like on the AT4-CS to reduce the backblast danger area.
Maybe a Foxhound variant with a large recoilless rifle, some kind of fire control and a machine gun would make a good light-infantry fire support platform for dealing with hard targets