UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 21 Nov 2020, 14:23

Lord Jim wrote:Is something like a telescopic mount a possibility?

My first thoughts and concerns would be mine blast and lateral strength through recoil. I'm sure you could make it happen, and perhaps if you wanted to drive on/off an aircraft you might need it (but I think airbag suspension largely solves that).

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 504
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby whitelancer » 21 Nov 2020, 14:24

RunningStrong wrote:Designers quite literally put it as low as possible, there really is no justification for putting it any higher than is absolutely needed to maintain 360 coverage and depression angles.

As I see it their are two main reason for the height of the weapon mount;
1 To allow for the maximum depression in order to engage very close range targets. This implies operating in close country or an urban environment where the visual signature of the mount is not really a problem. However if its a manned as opposed to a RWS it does expose the gunner to a considerable extent.
2 When taking up a hull/turret down position it allows you to engage the enemy while exposing the minimum target. In this instance your are reducing your visual signature which is a plus.

To gain these advantages you are seriously compromising the ability to remain undetected under different conditions. Height is much more important to the chances of being detected than the width or length of an AFV, a low profile should always be the aim. To use an analogy its like fitting F35b with a non stealthy gun pod, gives a useful capability with no down side if the enemy have no radars, but if they do it compromises your ability to remain undetected.

The answer in my opinion is to have a low profile mount for general use and a higher mount for the particular set of circumstances in 1 above, or preferable as I said above one that can be raised or lowered as required. Yes their will be some engineering challenges to overcome, but frankly I don't see that as a serious problem.
Which do you think will be easier to spot?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 21 Nov 2020, 16:02

whitelancer wrote: 1 To allow for the maximum depression in order to engage very close range targets. This implies operating in close country or an urban environment where the visual signature of the mount is not really a problem.

The CR2 in your picture is quite literally demonstrating the benefits of weapon depression in a hull-down, open-cpuntry scenario...

However if its a manned as opposed to a RWS it does expose the gunner to a considerable extent.

The Jackal exposes the crew to risk to maintain a lightweight design with extreme mobility and deployability. It's quite literally the raison d'etre...

Height is much more important to the chances of being detected than the width or length of an AFV, a low profile should always be the aim.

Given that not a single MBT has replicated the low profile of the S-tank, I would argue that a low profile is a lower priority than many other design aims.

The answer in my opinion is to have a low profile mount for general use and a higher mount for the particular set of circumstances in 1 above, or preferable as I said above one that can be raised or lowered as required. Yes their will be some engineering challenges to overcome, but frankly I don't see that as a serious problem.

When is that alternative mount fitted? Before or after you have to engage a target?


Which do you think will be easier to spot?

You're not comparing like with like in those photos. The AJAX wears a RWS when fitted for PSO, which includes the ECM. CR2 does exactly the same when fitted with a RWS and ECM. Guess what isn't the tallest item on the turret?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 504
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby whitelancer » 21 Nov 2020, 21:36

RunningStrong wrote:The CR2 in your picture is quite literally demonstrating the benefits of weapon depression in a hull-down, open-country scenario...

Yes and Challenger has 10 degrees depression, but why not more? Because more would require an increase in the height of the turret. Indeed Soviet/Russian tanks have less depression in order to minimise height.
RunningStrong wrote:Given that not a single MBT has replicated the low profile of the S-tank, I would argue that a low profile is a lower priority than many other design aims.

The S-Tank is more of a special case, its really a Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun rather than an MBT. Chieftain was deliberately designed to have the lowest possible profile consistent with other requirements for instance gun depression. Hence the reclining drivers seat. Challenger followed suit.
RunningStrong wrote:When is that alternative mount fitted? Before or after you have to engage a target?

You have to make a choice beforehand, depending on the nature of the operations you are engaged in, then live with the downside of your choice. I didn't say it was the best option.
RunningStrong wrote:You're not comparing like with like in those photos.

Not the best choice of photos I admit. I was just trying to give some idea of how prominent the RWS would be in a combat situation. Ideally it would have been pictures of Ajax in a hull down position with the RWS fitted and not fitted, against various backgrounds, just to show how prominent the RWS would be. You mention that the RWS fitted on Ajax was for PSO, fair enough, but then what was the point of fitting Barracuda camouflage, just for demo purposes, maybe! But then look at a pic of Ares its RWS just seems unnecessarily prominent to me.

Believe it or not the British Army did in the past try to keep its AFVs as low profile as possible. It seems now they have other priorities.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Jackal and Coyote MWMIK (Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 21 Nov 2020, 22:22

whitelancer wrote: Yes and Challenger has 10 degrees depression, but why not more? Because more would require an increase in the height of the turret. Indeed Soviet/Russian tanks have less depression in order to minimise height.

Or the turret to be further forward. Or thinner glacis. Or fewer features on the glacis. Or a compact breech (like CT40). Or a roof bulge. It's really not that simple...

The S-Tank is more of a special case, its really a Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun rather than an MBT. Chieftain was deliberately designed to have the lowest possible profile consistent with other requirements for instance gun depression. Hence the reclining drivers seat. Challenger followed suit.

The S-tank is a tank. It's armed as a tank. It's armoured as a tank. It's designed to compete with... Tanks. It wasn't designed to assault anything. Very much the opposite.

There's a whole host of reasons to recline the driver, it's not just depression angle.


You have to make a choice beforehand, depending on the nature of the operations you are engaged in, then live with the downside of your choice. I didn't say it was the best option.

That's not the kind of theatre entry decision you make. You're working on the idea that they've mounted the RWS as high as they liked. It's not. It's as low as it can be to meet the user's need.

Not the best choice of photos I admit. I was just trying to give some idea of how prominent the RWS would be in a combat situation. Ideally it would have been pictures of Ajax in a hull down position with the RWS fitted and not fitted, against various backgrounds, just to show how prominent the RWS would be. You mention that the RWS fitted on Ajax was for PSO, fair enough, but then what was the point of fitting Barracuda camouflage, just for demo purposes, maybe! But then look at a pic of Ares its RWS just seems unnecessarily prominent to me.

Believe it or not the British Army did in the past try to keep its AFVs as low profile as possible. It seems now they have other priorities.

Yes, and that time was long, long before EO and RWS.

The PSO fitment includes the ECM equipment, same for CR2. It's taller than the RWS on either.

Not sure about your gripe with a RWS on an otherwise unprotected vehicle. If you can't achieve you're lookdown angles them you're very much at risk from infantry.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests