Jump to content


Photo

Bdrm 2


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#121 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,384 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0243 AM

Yes, Stuart, I was aware of the (short-lived) Mk 5 Ferret. The Mk 5 is pretty much a Mk 4 with a different turret. They're superficially similar to the Fox if you squint, but neither is the lower half of a Fox :)

Look at the wheels and suspension, its clearly interrelated, even if the engine and transmission differs. Which is no surprise, because they were both built by the same company.

 

Ferret_Mk5_anti-tank_missile_wheeled_arm

 

Fox_Armoured_Car,_Monmouth.jpg


  • 0

#122 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,543 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0551 AM

Did you ever use the Hungarian variant, the PZsH? Supposedly they solved the hatch problem on that. Seems to have a lower profile too.


PSzH, Sz is like s in English. The name is the abbreviation of Armored Transport Vehicle.
 
 

The M1117 was intended more for security or MP use, as I understand it.


PSzH was used by the Hungarian Police, too:

Spoiler

 

There was a running joke that it was done to give support to the British Car industry. Which when you look at the people that made them (Alvis, Humber, even CVRT had a Jaguar engine) there may even be some truth in it.


Hungarian and UK armored car development was intertwined pre-WW2. Hungary was desperately trying to free herself from the German influence, so after Miklos Straussler emigrated to UK, the cooperation was state-supported. His AC1 and AC2 built in Hungary early 30's were armored in the UK He followed them in 1937. The AC3 was joint development, the undercarriage was produced in Hungary. Straussler left the cooperation in 1939, but worked on the probably only successful Hungarian weapon program ~WW2, the 39M Csaba, based on the AC2. More on the subject.


  • 0

#123 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,384 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 0745 AM

Yeah, im a big admirer of anything Straussler.


  • 0

#124 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 1059 AM

 

Yes, Stuart, I was aware of the (short-lived) Mk 5 Ferret. The Mk 5 is pretty much a Mk 4 with a different turret. They're superficially similar to the Fox if you squint, but neither is the lower half of a Fox :)

Look at the wheels and suspension, its clearly interrelated, even if the engine and transmission differs. Which is no surprise, because they were both built by the same company.

 

Ferret_Mk5_anti-tank_missile_wheeled_arm

 

Fox_Armoured_Car,_Monmouth.jpg

 

 

They share a few similarities in suspension components. That's hardly the same thing as the one being the bottom half of the other. :)


  • 0

#125 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,384 posts

Posted 26 January 2020 - 1102 AM

Im so glad I made a new years resolution to not argue so much. :P


  • 0

#126 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 31 January 2020 - 1959 PM

Im so glad I made a new years resolution to not argue so much. :P

 

LOL. :)


  • 0

#127 GJK

GJK

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 0724 AM

Well you have to remember what we wanted Warrior for. It was to provide fire support for infantry in static positions. British Army doctrine was to fight from overwatch so I guess the thinking was why do you need fire on the move capablity? I think through the 1980's doctrine was moving to a more counter offensive strategy, and in that, yes, clearly a fire on the move capablity would be useful.money was tight. The positive to all this is that come 1991, Warrior had an availablity of over 90 percent, unheard of in British kit, perhaps at least partially due to its simplicity.
 
Yes, but think about it. If we had bought another gun for Warrior, we would have to buy ammunition for it. They really wanted to share the same stockpile between Fox, Scimitar and Warrior (as they had previously between Scorpion and Saladin). I dont think the costs warranted introducing yet another automatic weapon, particularly as the only conceivable role was killing light armour, and it still works fine for that.

I have to disagree with you here Stuart, at least in part. Warrior was procured to deliver infantry onto a position, rather than short of a position as per FV432 (the UK belatedly moving from an APC to an IFV) and to be able to keep up with Challenger. The RARDEN gun was intended to be used from static positions, with the chain gun used in the assault, so as you say there was no need for stabilisation.


As well as the procurement issue you correctly highlight, another factor for using existing armament on new vehicles is to ease supply and maintenance in the field.

Best,

Greg.

Edited by GJK, 14 February 2020 - 0726 AM.

  • 0

#128 GJK

GJK

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 0734 AM

How were the members of the CVR-T family intended to fight? I'm sure they would end up fighting reconnaissance elements of Soviet forces but were they expected to deal with anything heavier?

In many ways the 30mm Rarden seems an inferior choice of armament for the Scimitar versus a HMG+ like the 14.5mm KPV or even the UK's old WW2 15mm Besa. The ideal armament seems like it would have been an automatic 20mm cannon like the Rh-202 or HS-820. Maybe the frontal armor of the BMP was specified as a target the chosen weapon had to be capable of defeating?

Still the Rarden makes a lot more sense as the armament of a 1972 Scimitar than a 1982 Warrior IFV.


The short answer is they weren't. British Cold War doctrine called for reconnaissance by stealth, rather than by force as per the Americans and West Germans with tanks in their recce units. The armament of Scorpion and Scimitar were intended to get them out of trouble. I agree this would likely have been Soviet recce units (BRDM/BRM). The only exception is Striker with the Swingfire ATGM, although I have not been able to find any information of planned offensive use rather than anti-tank defence for recce vehicles.

Best,

Greg.
  • 0

#129 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,384 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 0750 AM

 

Well you have to remember what we wanted Warrior for. It was to provide fire support for infantry in static positions. British Army doctrine was to fight from overwatch so I guess the thinking was why do you need fire on the move capablity? I think through the 1980's doctrine was moving to a more counter offensive strategy, and in that, yes, clearly a fire on the move capablity would be useful.money was tight. The positive to all this is that come 1991, Warrior had an availablity of over 90 percent, unheard of in British kit, perhaps at least partially due to its simplicity.
 
Yes, but think about it. If we had bought another gun for Warrior, we would have to buy ammunition for it. They really wanted to share the same stockpile between Fox, Scimitar and Warrior (as they had previously between Scorpion and Saladin). I dont think the costs warranted introducing yet another automatic weapon, particularly as the only conceivable role was killing light armour, and it still works fine for that.

I have to disagree with you here Stuart, at least in part. Warrior was procured to deliver infantry onto a position, rather than short of a position as per FV432 (the UK belatedly moving from an APC to an IFV) and to be able to keep up with Challenger. The RARDEN gun was intended to be used from static positions, with the chain gun used in the assault, so as you say there was no need for stabilisation.


As well as the procurement issue you correctly highlight, another factor for using existing armament on new vehicles is to ease supply and maintenance in the field.

Best,

Greg.

 

Well it was designed with increased mobility over FV432 to keep up with Challenger 1, so I take your point.

 

If you think about it, on the offensive, it would have possibly been using the same tactics as Challenger 1, fire and overwatch.


  • 0

#130 GJK

GJK

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 0756 AM

Sort of! When Warrior-mounted armoured infantry assault (which they do with tanks), they fire the chain gun in the last bound onto the objective before the dismounts debus, so no overwatch. However, when the infantry are dismounted or in defence, the vehicles will be in an overwatch position.
  • 0

#131 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,384 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 0759 AM

I so wish I got my hands on some British Infantry doctrine manuals from the 1980's. The nearest I got was 1972. :D


  • 0

#132 GJK

GJK

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 0804 AM

I so wish I got my hands on some British Infantry doctrine manuals from the 1980's. The nearest I got was 1972. :D


Likewise! My knowledge is based upon a cousin who served in a mechanized infantry battalion in the late 80s/early 90s who converted to armoured inf in case they were required as reinforcements for the Gulf, and from personal experience much later.
  • 0

#133 GJK

GJK

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 1148 AM

Getting back on topic, does anyone know if BRDM-2 was used in reconnaissance units at both regiment and divisional level in GSFG/WGF?

Thanks in advance.

Greg.

Edited by GJK, 14 February 2020 - 1148 AM.

  • 0