• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer

Old Sweat said:
It is my understanding that the Soviets used to design both their towed and SP artillery for employment in direct and indirect fire roles. We did not, nor I believe, did the Germans.

Every thing I've read on their towed Arty in the Second World War, oops sorry Great Patriotic War, suggests that was the case.
 
MCG said:
I think you will also find that the Russians and Ukranians employed Gvozdika in the direct fire role (both as assault gun and tank destroyer) to good effect in their war over east Ukraine.  More SPH casualties than if these were employed solely in an indirect role?  Probably.  But in war, you sometimes risk casualties to win or to just keep more of your force alive.  If ATGM can be technologically defeated, the direct fire SPH is not a tool we should discount.  Hopefully the requirements guys keep that in mind whenever they get around to staffing for a new SPH; we could engineer it to be ready for such eventuality.

If I were to do that I'd be looking at something along the lines of the Swedish Archer gun system mounted on the South African G-6. Fast, relatively mobile and carrying a hard hitting gun to start, and the magazine fed weapon of the Archer reduces the amount of people needed at the sharp end and provides some interesting options for the artillery.

As a 155, we should also be looking at expanding the ammunition selection, everything from the extended range rounds the USN is looking at (a fire mission shot from 80km away will spoil pots of people's days), "smart rounds" like Excalibur, carrier shells for submunitions and of course the traditional HE and smoke. I would also be looking into mass production so the artillery park has actual, you know, guns; not to mention applying streamlined management and mass production principles to bring down the unit cost of ammunition as well (especially the smart rounds). Having enough to equip the entire RCA with these weapons (Regular and Reserve) would also do a lot to provide depth to the artillery park, and a larger pool of trained gunners (the Regular Force can handle the higher end stuff, so long as the crews of the SPH can apply the inputs and fire the guns at the targets when ordered).

As a complimentary system, I would also look at rebuilding the tanks with low profile Wegman turrets, especially since an existing example (the 105mm CV-CT can elevate the gusto 420, providing both the ability of shooting semi indirect and providing DF against annoying people on rooftops and other high places.
 
Soviet/Russian and their clients see things differently, SPG's will be used to take out strong points. For an airborne assault onto an objective against one their client states I would be worrying more about a Grad/thermobaric counterstrike in the first day before they have had a chance to dig in. Armour attack will likely be piecemeal.

For airborne troops, mortars and ATGM's, with Carl G, LAWS and other handheld DF weapons make sense as most of your transported weight is munitions and not delivery systems.

You could go back to the Kannonpanzer, with a Low pressure gun 105mm-120mm for DF and a TOW mount for AT work or have a mixed unit with Tow and gun equipped vehicles on the same chassis. The Leopard 1 chassis would have worked, give it decent front Armour and very light side armour. The MGS turret would work as well.
 
Colin P said:
Soviet/Russian and their clients see things differently, SPG's will be used to take out strong points. For an airborne assault onto an objective against one their client states I would be worrying more about a Grad/thermobaric counterstrike in the first day before they have had a chance to dig in. Armour attack will likely be piecemeal.

For airborne troops, mortars and ATGM's, with Carl G, LAWS and other handheld DF weapons make sense as most of your transported weight is munitions and not delivery systems.

You could go back to the Kannonpanzer, with a Low pressure gun 105mm-120mm for DF and a TOW mount for AT work or have a mixed unit with Tow and gun equipped vehicles on the same chassis. The Leopard 1 chassis would have worked, give it decent front Armour and very light side armour. The MGS turret would work as well.

Perhaps something closer to the M8 AGS concept, a light tank with a good gun, with multiple add on armor packages that can be added later. This makes the tank light and air transportable, bring the add on armour seperately, bolt it on in theatre within a few hours, and you have your heavy armor to support your airborne forces. Heck could add a simple ATGM launcher to it in the design phase if we wanted to, or make the gun capable of firing a simple ATGM.
 
MilEME09 said:
Perhaps something closer to the M8 AGS concept, a light tank with a good gun, with multiple add on armor packages that can be added later. This makes the tank light and air transportable, bring the add on armour seperately, bolt it on in theatre within a few hours, and you have your heavy armor to support your airborne forces. Heck could add a simple ATGM launcher to it in the design phase if we wanted to, or make the gun capable of firing a simple ATGM.

I think you just described the CV90120 with the LAHAT missile. Why over complicate things? All these weapons already exist. We don't need R&D, we need to articulate our requirements and buy off the shelf.
 
Ostrozac said:
I think you just described the CV90120 with the LAHAT missile. Why over complicate things? All these weapons already exist. We don't need R&D, we need to articulate our requirements and buy off the shelf.

Well a Version of the M8AGS already exists with a 120mm, Competition always drives prices down right? might be an idea for us as well to have a light tank to supplement the small leopard fleet we have at a reduced cost.
 
MilEME09 said:
Well a Version of the M8AGS already exists with a 120mm, Competition always drives prices down right? might be an idea for us as well to have a light tank (Assault Gun) to supplement the small leopard fleet we have at a reduced cost.

FTFY.

Don't call it a tank.  If you call it a tank you will encourage its use as a tank.  While I like the idea of a lightly armoured, self-propelled gun, even a turreted or RWS gun, I accept that there is a qualitative difference between a tank like the LEO/Abrams/Challenger and the AGS/MGS/SPAG - principally in the ability of the latter to manoeuver in the face of enemy fire.
 
Using the word "Assault" will generate opposition to the vehicle in today's political environment.

"Peacekeeping Support Vehicle" would give it a much better chance of acceptance and purchase.
 
  • Humorous
Reactions: ueo
Loachman said:
Using the word "Assault" will generate opposition to the vehicle in today's political environment.

"Peacekeeping Support Vehicle" would give it a much better chance of acceptance and purchase.

So I guess the "grass-chewing, diesel-burning, depleted uranium-shooting death machine" is right out of the question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
You left out "first-strike-capability" and "stealth", so it might sneak past critics.
 
As we contemplate, in this thread, buying a lighter tank-like vehicle to supplement Leopard 2, perhaps also reconsider this bit of wisdom:
Tango2Bravo said:
... you could design a turretless AFV with a 120mm, but once again why do so when you could just make more tanks? Sights and associated fire controls are a huge part of the cost of an AFV, not to mention the costs of training the crews. If your choice was 200 Leopard 2A6Ms or 100 Leopard 2A6Ms and 100 Chimeras with turretless 120mm guns then what would your choice be?
Up front procurement savings will be lost to lifecycle costs of supporting mixed fleets.
 
There were concept vehicles likley inspired by the success of the Swedes STRV-103 and the German/American tank destroyers of WWII. The Germans even played with a dual cannon version.
 
Back
Top