UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

British Army Future Wheeled APC

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10407
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 May 2019, 18:17

Let's see if LJ approves:
"The system uses a panoramic gunner’s sight with 3rd GEN thermal imager, and an independent commander’s sight, to offer 95% hit probability at a stationary target sized 2.3×2.3 meters (+80% probability against moving target), with a first three rounds burst. TOUTATIS is designed to “drop-into” existing 1.20 meter diameter turret rings."

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 31 May 2019, 00:46

Well if the price is right, the Government can be made to put up the funding, and the Donkeys in the MoD realise the current Strike Brigades Structure is inadequate for the role they are to be given, then yes we should as long as the RWS allows the Boxer to still carry the necessary number of dismounts whilst acting as an IFV. If not then we might as well just use either the Warrior of Boxer Turrets to provide a number of fire support platforms in each Mechanised unit.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1334
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Jake1992 » 31 May 2019, 08:15

IMO for the strike brigades to really work and be anything more than just a fancy name they’ll need all the different variants of the Boxer from APC to command, IFV, Reece, repair and recovery and eventually pack a bigger punch with the likes of a 120mm variant and 155mm SPG.

The key is it needs all these type of vehicles but they all need to be wheeled other wise you’ll lose the key asset of strike in being fast moving over long distance.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby whitelancer » 02 Jun 2019, 22:13

The question is what is Boxer their to do?
If we look at its predecessor, if one can call it that, Saxon was designed to carry an infantry section and its equipment and self deploy from the UK to Germany to reinforce BAOR. Once their it provided a degree of protected mobility, though not in the direct fire zone. It was not designed to provide the infantry section fire support, except in very favourable conditions. Turning to Boxer we now its meant to be able to self deploy 2000km carrying an infantry section. So rather than the UK to Germany, the UK to Eastern Europe, the Baltic States for instance. Once their it can provide the Infantry a good degree of protected mobility, but will still be limited in the direct fire zone and again has limited ability to provide direct fire support having only an RWS. Now Boxer has much better levels of protection and better cross country performance than Saxon but at the cost of being larger, heavier and much more expensive, never the less their roles are not dissimilar. The problem for Boxer is that its not reinforcing 1 BR Corps, but along with Ajax will be the spearhead (maybe) of a British Division. So it will be operating alongside whatever forces happen to be in place without an existing logistic supply line. In such circumstances its role would be limited.
As for other operations if Boxer had been available in Iraq or Afghanistan I'm sure it would have proven its worth, though its size and weight would have been a problem in some situations. Then their are Mali type operations. A combination of Light Cavalry and Mounted Infantry would seem the ideal combination (along with other assets), for such missions. The main problem in this situation is one of logistics, both getting the force in place and keeping it supplied especially if its operating over large distances. Boxer and Ajax if its included, are really too large, too heavy and logistically demanding for such operations.
In fact I see Boxer's best role as supporting heavy Armoured forces, providing infantry mass where and when required.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Jun 2019, 03:03

I think you have identified a number of the issues we face with the Boxer. It is a very capable and flexible platform but at present the British Army doesn't seem to be able to appreciate this, instead seeing it simply as an infantry transport. This maybe down to their limited experience of operating this class of platform, and one of the reasons I see the need to both speed up and slow down the MIV programme.

We need to accelerate the delivery of a reasonable number of Boxers in all variants currently planned so that a trials units of at least company strength can be established. This would be to allow the Army to become familiar with the platform in both its use and its support needs. it would look at what integral support and logistics would be needed to move formations equipped with these platforms to where they could be needed by conducting a series of exercises where it would self deploy to say Poland or by moved further a field by air or sea. In addition this unit would work with the new Ajax family of vehicles to gain experience on how the units of the planned "Strike" Brigades would work together allowing a doctrine to be developed that can be applied to the full strength formations when they are stood up.

But it is the lessons that I hope the Army would learn and the capability gaps it should identify that would be really important. I would hope that in conjunction to the in house trials, exercises would be conducted with the mechanised forces of our allies such as the United States, Italy and France, to learn how they organise, operate and support their formations of this type. All of these nations have used mechanised forces for a substantial period of time and also successfully in combat in recent years In addition they have also developed plans as to how they would be used in a peer conflict in the future should one arise.

Whilst all of the above is going on, I would recommend that we do not continue to purchase further Boxer variants so that when we do initiate production we use the lessons learned from the trials and from working with others to purchase the right numbers of the right variants to make the Mechanised Battalions effective combat formations with the capabilities needed to conduct operations against all threat levels. As important we will know what level of logistical support would be needed to operate these units and the Brigades we intend to use them in, and ensure that we have the necessary assets available to do so. As the Strike Brigades will be spearhead formations on high readiness therefore the same must apply to the support units. designated to support them

The Boxer is not a platform the British Army can simply plug into its existing structure. To bring it into service as a 8x8 version of the Saxon and use it as such would be a waste of money and resources. This is what I fear could still happen as the Army struggles to re equip its AFV fleets under severe financial pressure with inadequate funding to do so properly. The Army's procurement processes have not be exactly an example of efficiency backed by a well thought out long term plan, but at least there are some results finally being seen.

With the Strike Brigade concept we have a clean sheet of paper and the opportunity to take the ideas and doctrines of other nations, look at them through a fresh pair of eyes and develop and deploy truly effective and balanced formations fir the needs of the 21st century. We must not waste this rare opportunity.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1334
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Jun 2019, 08:27

Lord Jim wrote:I think you have identified a number of the issues we face with the Boxer. It is a very capable and flexible platform but at present the British Army doesn't seem to be able to appreciate this, instead seeing it simply as an infantry transport. This maybe down to their limited experience of operating this class of platform, and one of the reasons I see the need to both speed up and slow down the MIV programme.

We need to accelerate the delivery of a reasonable number of Boxers in all variants currently planned so that a trials units of at least company strength can be established. This would be to allow the Army to become familiar with the platform in both its use and its support needs. it would look at what integral support and logistics would be needed to move formations equipped with these platforms to where they could be needed by conducting a series of exercises where it would self deploy to say Poland or by moved further a field by air or sea. In addition this unit would work with the new Ajax family of vehicles to gain experience on how the units of the planned "Strike" Brigades would work together allowing a doctrine to be developed that can be applied to the full strength formations when they are stood up.

But it is the lessons that I hope the Army would learn and the capability gaps it should identify that would be really important. I would hope that in conjunction to the in house trials, exercises would be conducted with the mechanised forces of our allies such as the United States, Italy and France, to learn how they organise, operate and support their formations of this type. All of these nations have used mechanised forces for a substantial period of time and also successfully in combat in recent years In addition they have also developed plans as to how they would be used in a peer conflict in the future should one arise.

Whilst all of the above is going on, I would recommend that we do not continue to purchase further Boxer variants so that when we do initiate production we use the lessons learned from the trials and from working with others to purchase the right numbers of the right variants to make the Mechanised Battalions effective combat formations with the capabilities needed to conduct operations against all threat levels. As important we will know what level of logistical support would be needed to operate these units and the Brigades we intend to use them in, and ensure that we have the necessary assets available to do so. As the Strike Brigades will be spearhead formations on high readiness therefore the same must apply to the support units. designated to support them

The Boxer is not a platform the British Army can simply plug into its existing structure. To bring it into service as a 8x8 version of the Saxon and use it as such would be a waste of money and resources. This is what I fear could still happen as the Army struggles to re equip its AFV fleets under severe financial pressure with inadequate funding to do so properly. The Army's procurement processes have not be exactly an example of efficiency backed by a well thought out long term plan, but at least there are some results finally being seen.

With the Strike Brigade concept we have a clean sheet of paper and the opportunity to take the ideas and doctrines of other nations, look at them through a fresh pair of eyes and develop and deploy truly effective and balanced formations fir the needs of the 21st century. We must not waste this rare opportunity.


What variant would you look at for the forces as a whole ?

How would you look at setting up the strike brigade and what variants do you think would be needed for them ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Jun 2019, 16:33

Well here is a list of Boxer variants we should be looking at both the equip the Mechanised Battalions and replace legacy platforms like the FV430 series across the Army;

Enhanced APC.
Command vehicle.
Mortar carrier.
Engineering vehicle.
NBC Recce platform
ARV.
Signals/ISTAR platform.
Direct Fire Support.
Ambulance.
Logistics carrier.
ATGW/Over watch platform.
SPAA Platform.
Joint Fires platform.
Artillery/Mortar Locating Radar platform.
AVLB platform.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Frenchie » 04 Jun 2019, 21:47

Lord Jim wrote:But it is the lessons that I hope the Army would learn and the capability gaps it should identify that would be really important. I would hope that in conjunction to the in house trials, exercises would be conducted with the mechanised forces of our allies such as the United States, Italy and France, to learn how they organise, operate and support their formations of this type. All of these nations have used mechanised forces for a substantial period of time and also successfully in combat in recent years In addition they have also developed plans as to how they would be used in a peer conflict in the future should one arise.



The Griffon (6x6 around 25 tonnes) will have these roles in the French army for Mechanised Brigades :

APC
MMP carrier
81mm mortar carrier
Sniper vehicle
120mm mortar carrier
engineering vehicle
repair
Supply carrier
Artillery observation vehicle
NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle
Command post
Ambulance
Geographic vehicle

The Serval (4x4 around 17 tonnes) will have these roles for Light Brigades :

APC
Command Post
Ambulance
Engineer
MMP carrier
81 mm mortar carrier
Artillery Observation vehicle
120 mm mortar towing vehicle
Ground Based Air Defence vehicle (Mistral)
Radar GM60 carrier
Supply carrier


I doubt that a Jaguar of 25 tonnes can be a vehicle capable of replacing the Sagaie, so I'm thinking of a 25-30 mm gun version for the cavalry, It is planned a recce vehicle but without specification ?

- Like the VABs, there will be Griffons in the Armoured Brigades, which will support VBCI IFVs and Leclerc tanks. Jaguars in recce and Scarabees in scouts.

- The median (mechanised) brigades will be equipped with Griffons and Jaguars as the main cavalry vehicles with Scarabee scouts.

- The Light Brigades will be equipped with Serval with probably a Scarabee with a 25-30 mm gun or a Serval variant with a 25-30 mm gun.

It's very schematic but it's about this. Everything is on wheels except the Leclerc, it's very unusual and very boring if we put these vehicles on very muddy ground, but a tracked vehicle can also get bogged down. It may seem counterintuitive, but Lebanon and Afghanistan have shown that the tracks are worn out more faster than tires, while being more expensive and more complicated to change. In addition, while a tracked vehicle would have been immobilised by a track rupture, a VBCI for example was able to regain its base with two wheels ragged by an IED.

I don't know if this help you :oops:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Jun 2019, 01:40

As far as I am concerned you are preaching to the converted, but there are many who still believe tracks are essential in modern peer level warfare and that wheels still lack the cross country mobility.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1334
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Jake1992 » 05 Jun 2019, 07:28

I think personally both track and wheeled have a purpose to serve but it really does need to be reduced in the different families, IMO all medium armour along with SPG RPA starstreak and some of the bridging should be based on Boxer and Ajax. Some roles would over lap and it’d look like we’re doubling up on some capabilities but I believe it’d be needed in some cases.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Frenchie » 05 Jun 2019, 22:41

It depends on the MoD budget and also on the purpose of Strike Brigades.
If you want to do missions in Africa it is not with Boxers of 36-38 tonnes that you will cross very basic bridges and very narrow roads, plus a very heavy logistics for this type of vehicles.
If it's a question of attacking Russia, I'd say it's the role of the Armoured Infantry Brigades. Do not waste time and money on Strike Brigades and reinforce Armoured Infantry Brigades with more modernised Challengers.
If it is a lack of money I advise French vehicles, inexpensive and with significant capacity.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Jun 2019, 10:22

And with that we return to the argument as to whether the British Army can actually afford to do both the Armoured Infantry Brigades and the Mechanised Brigades properly or end up with four Brigades equating to a Dog's dinner and not for for purpose. My personal view is that we should Concentrate on keeping three Armoured Infantry Brigades each comprising of;
1 Armoured Regiment.
1 Armoured Recce Regiment.
2 Armoured Infantry Battalions.
1 Mechanised Infantry Battalion
1 Artillery Regiment.

The Armoured and Armoured Infantry units would now retain their integral Recce component equipped with eight Ajax and the current support vehicle slots currently filled by CVR(T) and FV430 variants would be replace by variants of both Ajax and Boxer. All units would be maintained at full strength by transferring personnel form other units which would be disbanded With this the Army retains a true capability to fight peer opponents and it will be far easier to maintain a balanced and effective combat capability at this level.

In addition, and as I have repeatedly banged the drum for, 16 Air Assault Brigade with be reorganised grouping all three Parachute Battalions together. These would rotate the duty of support of SF operations though all three would be trained and equipped as such. They would retain their Parachute capability, operate as light infantry but also have sufficient variants of the planned MRV(P) to form motorised units up to Company level within each Battalion together with their integral support units including the Mortar and Javelin teams. In support of this Brigade would be a dedicated AAC Regiment equipped with a platform able to lift up to twelve fully equipped troops. This organics rotary support together with the MRV(P)s would enable the brigade to manoeuvre both by air and on the ground effectively with heavy lift being provided by RAF chinooks when needed.

Finally eight Infantry Battalions, currently organised as Light Infantry would be equipped with the MRV(P) and to become Motorised Infantry Battalions, with together with two Recce Regiments equipped with the Jackal would form two Motorised Infantry Brigades. Half of the Infantry Battalions would be full strength whilst the remainder would be made up of half full time and half part time personnel, The latter would also apply to the two Recce Regiment.

With this the Army would now have a total of twenty Infantry Battalions in total, but as mentioned above, personnel from Battalions disbanded would be moved to other units, not necessarily other Infantry units, to keep as many personnel as possible.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Jul 2019, 02:41

Well it appears the MIV/Boxer has taken a step forward with the British Government approving the establishment of a joint venture between BAE Systems and Rheinmetall called RBSL (Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land) to be located in Telford. BAR Systems will be the junior partner meaning the UK will no longer have a domestically controlled mainstream vehicle supplier. In addition to being the location for the manufacture of the Boxer the Telford site may also be used to carry out some or all of the work on the Challenger 2 CEP if Rheinmetall are the winning bidder. However in the case of this programme BAE Systems will have little or no part in the programme as they are excluded from working with Rheinmetall on the latter's bid as they are also submitting a bid of their own. On the plus side the UK will have a true ARV manufacturing facility once again and if the size of the UK order is toward the higher ended of what has been suggested, Telford could become the main centre for the Boxer construction worldwide.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby mr.fred » 09 Jul 2019, 08:44

What’s an ARV?
And who is BAR?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Jul 2019, 16:29

Ok very funny, I was typing at two in the Morning.
BAR = BAE
ARV = AFV
just in case you really didn't know :D

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby mr.fred » 09 Jul 2019, 18:50

I like to be sure. You do have a habit of introducing your own abbreviations.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2444
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby RetroSicotte » 12 Jul 2019, 11:44

In fairness, ARV is a common one for military vehicles. :p

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 13 Jul 2019, 21:21

Well the video isn't the best but it does give a good idea of what is out there regarding 81mm and 120mm mortars that could be mounted on the Boxer or even the MRV(P)/JLTV.

Obviously the Russian systems are more an example of what the opposition could be using.

Online
Voldemort
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Voldemort » 14 Jul 2019, 10:49

Lord Jim wrote:Well the video isn't the best but it does give a good idea of what is out there regarding 81mm and 120mm mortars that could be mounted on the Boxer or even the MRV(P)/JLTV.

Obviously the Russian systems are more an example of what the opposition could be using.


You should watch the video with a pint of salt, some of those figures are way off. Turntable mortars will provide best bang for buck and mounting them on a cheap(ish) 4x4/6x6 will provide a bargain mobile firesupport that's not just easy on the wallet but a good punch too. Preferrably smoothbore one to maintain high rate of fire which is pretty god damn important for a mortar and that sets it apart from artillery.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3289
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Jul 2019, 11:38

Agreed, the default should be a simple turntable mortar, ideally 120mm being vehicle mounted. This is what I strongly believe the UK should be looking at, retaining the 81mm for light forces, but even they could have a vehicle mounted 120mm weapon using the JLTV for example or the Viking in the case of the RM. The UK seems to be wedded to the idea that all we need is an 81mm mortar, with the next weapon up being the 105mm Light Gun. This leaves the UK outgunned in artillery across the board in most areas and I am not even going to mention larger artillery. Ok we do have the MLRS but not many of them. Anyhow both the 81mm mortar and 105mm Light Gun lack the capability and flexibility needed to day and neither have sufficient firepower to provide adequate support to our planned Strike Brigades let alone out high readiness light forces. Neither can use either precision rounds or cargo rounds carrying submunitions.

We need to make a step change in the weight of artillery we use with the 120mm Mortar replacing the 81mm weapon at Battalion level in most units and replacing the 105mm Light Gun with a highly mobile, possibly air transportable 155mm weapon. It is the former that is of most importance to the new Strike Brigades and the existing Armoured Infantry units. As stated above, a simple turntable mounted 120mm mortar mounted in a mission module for the Boxer could fulfil this role in both formations.

This is not some radicle idea, in fact most NATO armies actually use vehicle mounted 120mm mortars at Battalion level, with possible light weapon in airborne and marine units. We seem to have this one size fits all mentality not just here but across the board. Yes there is an argument that having only one systems saves money in training and support, but honestly how mush maintenance and support does a smoothbore 120mm mortar need? If we need a light weapon to equip 16AA and 3Cmdo and so retain the 81mm that is fine but surely they could use the same support infrastructure. We are not talking complex weapons here until you get into the realm of the more advanced ammunition that can be used by the 120mm.

The UK not adopting a 120mm Mortar has more to do, I believe, with a lack of willingness to invest sufficiently in the Army as a whole, repeatedly asking the Army and Royal Marines to make do with what they have rather than having a cohesive plan to ensure they have the right equipment to do he job. UORs are a minimal band aid that cannot be used as a substitute for a proper plan and linked procurement policy. The MoD and Government are fixated on high ticket items that make headlines rather than making sure the basics are dealt with.

Online
Voldemort
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Voldemort » 14 Jul 2019, 12:41

Lord Jim wrote:Agreed, the default should be a simple turntable mortar, ideally 120mm being vehicle mounted. This is what I strongly believe the UK should be looking at, retaining the 81mm for light forces, but even they could have a vehicle mounted 120mm weapon using the JLTV for example or the Viking in the case of the RM. The UK seems to be wedded to the idea that all we need is an 81mm mortar, with the next weapon up being the 105mm Light Gun. This leaves the UK outgunned in artillery across the board in most areas and I am not even going to mention larger artillery. Ok we do have the MLRS but not many of them. Anyhow both the 81mm mortar and 105mm Light Gun lack the capability and flexibility needed to day and neither have sufficient firepower to provide adequate support to our planned Strike Brigades let alone out high readiness light forces. Neither can use either precision rounds or cargo rounds carrying submunitions.

We need to make a step change in the weight of artillery we use with the 120mm Mortar replacing the 81mm weapon at Battalion level in most units and replacing the 105mm Light Gun with a highly mobile, possibly air transportable 155mm weapon. It is the former that is of most importance to the new Strike Brigades and the existing Armoured Infantry units. As stated above, a simple turntable mounted 120mm mortar mounted in a mission module for the Boxer could fulfil this role in both formations.

This is not some radicle idea, in fact most NATO armies actually use vehicle mounted 120mm mortars at Battalion level, with possible light weapon in airborne and marine units. We seem to have this one size fits all mentality not just here but across the board. Yes there is an argument that having only one systems saves money in training and support, but honestly how mush maintenance and support does a smoothbore 120mm mortar need? If we need a light weapon to equip 16AA and 3Cmdo and so retain the 81mm that is fine but surely they could use the same support infrastructure. We are not talking complex weapons here until you get into the realm of the more advanced ammunition that can be used by the 120mm.

The UK not adopting a 120mm Mortar has more to do, I believe, with a lack of willingness to invest sufficiently in the Army as a whole, repeatedly asking the Army and Royal Marines to make do with what they have rather than having a cohesive plan to ensure they have the right equipment to do he job. UORs are a minimal band aid that cannot be used as a substitute for a proper plan and linked procurement policy. The MoD and Government are fixated on high ticket items that make headlines rather than making sure the basics are dealt with.


I believe a good way to give mortars the much needed facelift would be to have them in a company of their own. Put them on a equal ground with the units they're supporting, give them added logistical and comms capabilities. The mortars themselves are not relevant yet, be they 6x 81mm or 12x 120mm, the important part is the staying power and prestige. Making the mortars self-sustained capability allows throwing them around the battlefield. This way even the lighter battalions could have mortar companies attached to them thanks to the mortar company being self-sustaining and not putting a grave toll on the mother unit's logistics. A Finnish mortar company has command platoon and logistics platoon and four mortar platoons.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby mr.fred » 14 Jul 2019, 12:52

while a turntable mortar may be cheaper, it is limited.
A turret mounted mortar, such as NEMO, has advantages in that it can be used for direct fire as well, plus it’s under armour. Seems to me that’s more valuable for strike since they’re supposed to be moving around, isolated, in unsecured locations. While each one may be more costly, you save by not having to buy a dedicated direct fire variant.

Online
Voldemort
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Voldemort » 14 Jul 2019, 12:57

mr.fred wrote:while a turntable mortar may be cheaper, it is limited.
A turret mounted mortar, such as NEMO, has advantages in that it can be used for direct fire as well, plus it’s under armour. Seems to me that’s more valuable for strike since they’re supposed to be moving around, isolated, in unsecured locations. While each one may be more costly, you save by not having to buy a dedicated direct fire variant.


Using mortars in direct fire as in the barrel pointing forward is as probable as using Sky Sabre in direct fire. Just no. Turntable mortars can also do direct fire, it is when the target can be seen on the mortar sights. Being under armor is very small added benefit, the mortar system can be rendered ineffective in many other ways than just disabling the main weapon. Turret and turntable have their pros and cons.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby mr.fred » 14 Jul 2019, 13:38

Voldemort wrote:
mr.fred wrote:while a turntable mortar may be cheaper, it is limited.
A turret mounted mortar, such as NEMO, has advantages in that it can be used for direct fire as well, plus it’s under armour. Seems to me that’s more valuable for strike since they’re supposed to be moving around, isolated, in unsecured locations. While each one may be more costly, you save by not having to buy a dedicated direct fire variant.


Using mortars in direct fire as in the barrel pointing forward is as probable as using Sky Sabre in direct fire. Just no. Turntable mortars can also do direct fire, it is when the target can be seen on the mortar sights. Being under armor is very small added benefit, the mortar system can be rendered ineffective in many other ways than just disabling the main weapon. Turret and turntable have their pros and cons.

The NEMO is designed to do it. It struck me that, rather than have a separate vehicle to act as an assault gun, a turreted mortar can do it, along with providing crew protection for normal operation.

Online
Voldemort
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Voldemort » 14 Jul 2019, 13:42

mr.fred wrote:
Voldemort wrote:
mr.fred wrote:while a turntable mortar may be cheaper, it is limited.
A turret mounted mortar, such as NEMO, has advantages in that it can be used for direct fire as well, plus it’s under armour. Seems to me that’s more valuable for strike since they’re supposed to be moving around, isolated, in unsecured locations. While each one may be more costly, you save by not having to buy a dedicated direct fire variant.


Using mortars in direct fire as in the barrel pointing forward is as probable as using Sky Sabre in direct fire. Just no. Turntable mortars can also do direct fire, it is when the target can be seen on the mortar sights. Being under armor is very small added benefit, the mortar system can be rendered ineffective in many other ways than just disabling the main weapon. Turret and turntable have their pros and cons.

The NEMO is designed to do it. It struck me that, rather than have a separate vehicle to act as an assault gun, a turreted mortar can do it, along with providing crew protection for normal operation.


But why? What is the situation where one of many hand held rockets/missiles or indirect fire won't do the job? A miniscule niche I say.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Voldemort and 2 guests

 

 

cron