Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Serge

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    976

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Serge

  1. Serge
    Not yet.
  2. Serge
    1992, for India.
  3. Serge
    The importance of the direct fire capability is stressed to provide MRSI and self protection. Of course, SPGH can be used to destroy strongholds with hit and run drills. This is why armored artillery is necessary. But considering the general use of artillery and mortars, it’s an exception. One point today is the fact that western countries realized clear FEBA no more exists. So, each element of land forces must self protect itself without the help of infantry. A very good exemple is the French fleet of Carapace trucks. Half of them have RWS for FARP just for self-protection.
  4. Serge
    Definitely no. Having a direct fire capability doesn’t mean the mortar carrier can be used this way. Mortar carriers can’t go into the same ground as IFV or MBT because there very nature call them on the best place to provide indirect fire support. To provide fire support, mortar carriers are using on dedicated firing positions, dedicated axes, with a dedicated tempo ruled by half planed rang concern and the request of the « availability » of tubes. The main interests for under turret mortars are : - MRSI capability ; - low profile pattern of fly to hit very specifically building areas ; - and self defense, of course. Problems are : - the cost ; - heavy weight so lower armor ; - more difficult deception.
  5. Serge
    The first is based on Merkava chassis. The second on the Namer one.
  6. Serge
    It’s interesting for self defense in brigades where there is no so much firepower.
  7. Serge
    You’re definitely right. The shear factor is superior with wheels than with tracks.
  8. Serge
    Many thanks for that point. I better understand how deep is the problem. Having a MBT squadron alone into a regiment means you can’t do anything. Releif tasks must be nightmare. Spreading assets is the worst to do. Because of this organization, I think a tracked or a wheeled choice are both very close to each other. The best would have been to have a real armored brigade with two medium brigade. But, it’s another story. The only rly point is to keep the Lance turret.
  9. Serge
    Such a comparaison does not exist (unless for poor countries). The choice is made at the brigade level. Do you want an armored brigade on wheels or on tracks ? Both choices are too much different. Once this choice is made, the next question is « wich AFV chassis is the best plateforme to achieve the request mobility we want ? » So, because of the Boxer selection, if the ADF wants a wheeled brigade, they have better to continue with it. If they want a heavy armored brigade, the choice is larger (just a little bit larger) : KF41 Lynx, ASCOD-2 and CV90 Mk-4. And, because the Lance turret is mounted onto the Boxer CRV, they have better to keep this turret.
  10. Serge
    The answer is yes. The customer decides because it’s got the money.
  11. Serge
    Two different tasks : to recon and to scout. To recon will reveal the enemy intent by fighting. Scout will do the same just by sneaking. If they have to fight, this is for their self protection. So, Recce are heavy with canon.
  12. Serge
    I’m not worried about Bumerang protection but when a poor country like Russia must makes a choice, the answer is by no means T14 Armata. How many T72B3 were deployed in Syria ?
  13. Serge
    Is the Boomerang so bad ? Is its mobility so bad ? Its mine protection so bad ? What about its firepower ? Is it confortable ? Do you have sources wich are considering Boomerang is worst than a BTR-82 ? No because there is something you’re not taking into account : when facing your enemy, the quality per vehicle is less important if you have the number. Russia’s got the number. So, have a good enough thermal sight per tank is a much more efficient goal than have a few heavy MBT, IFV they can’t maintain. Considering the Russian situation, a massive deployment of Boomerang AFV can dramatically improve the Russian Army capability. When facing hard decisions, you have to look for leveraging. If suppressing a T14 can provide 2 T72B2 and 3 Boomerangs, it’s my choice. Protecting the force along MSRs is a priority.
  14. Serge
    Russian Army wants to improve 100% of its armored fleet. In the same period, they are introducing : - a new family of heavy AFV family (T14, T15 and T16) with non mature technology ; - they want the Kurganets AFV family ; - they want the Bumerang AFV family ; - they want the BMD4 AFV family ; - and they are purchasing a large amount of MRAP. It’s impossible to fulfill all those challenges in the meantime. Italian Army tried to do the same (Ariete, Centauro, Dardo, Puma) during the 80’s. It was a deep failure. Look at the British Army. They are facing the same problem. So, the Russian Army must make it clear about its priorities. I think they have to : - continu to purchase there MRAP fleet ; - make a dedicated effort on Bumerang or Kurganets program for the next 5 years. (I would chose the Bumerang).
  15. Serge
    In 1976, when I was child, I was not in charge of maskirovka for the French Army. So, ask to people concerned by this period. I just give an explanation I was given a little after this period. When we were preparing war.
  16. Serge
    You, you don’t see. But other people, by the 70’d, saw. Maskirovka.
  17. Serge
    An explanation can be the following : sometimes intelligence services don’t want to make it clear to the enemy what they know about him. Maskirovka.
  18. Serge
    About Merkava Mk4 Barak standard : http://www.janes.com/article/82033/idf-details-new-barak-tank
  19. Serge
    Not on the droid. A Merkava dedicated fil is necessary. Tsahal is using more native AFV now.
  20. Serge
    Because it self adapts to the exact horsepower you need when driving. This way, you can save plenty of fuel. You can save your wages to have better welfare and decrease pollution.
  21. Serge
    Have fun.
  22. Serge
    Of course, one can quote the old AMX-13 family of chassis.
  23. Serge
    During the late 70’s, an attempt was made to use the AMX-10P as a light recce tank, the AMX-10C : A wheeled chassis was preferred as the successor of the EBRC. This is the AMX-10RC. An APC/IFV version was available : the AMX-10RTT wich never found any customers. An interesting concept was the Mars-15 family : It was introduced in 1987 as a successor of the AMX-13 for export market by Creusot-Loire Industrie (It was specifically designed to be produced by the customer’s industry.). In 1990, when CLI was purchased by GIAT Industries, it was killed. The latter considered it wasn’t possible to promote simultaneously a light tracked AFV family for export market, and the idea that wheeled AFV can performed as tracked one for the French Army. We have to remind it was forbidden by the 90’s, to talk about any tracked solution to succeed to the old AMX-10PH (even if the purchase of CV90 was considered in case of Leclerc MBT victory in the Swedish market.).
  24. Serge
    One very specific point (and little known) of the French AFV industry is the trend to develop simultaneously both a hight volume chassis and a low profile chassis each using the same running gear. Let’s see a few cases. With the EBMR program in progress, there are the Griffon VBMR and the Jaguar EBRC (right) : During the 60’s, the Panhard M3 (first) and Panhard AML : Later, came both the VCR (first) and the ERC : The famous VAB was available as a fire support vehicle, the VBC-90 :
  25. Serge
    Krupp Raumer-S ?
×
×
  • Create New...