- Reaction score
- 7,594
- Points
- 1,160
I just saw a picture of a Leo and a LAVIII revetted into an overwatch position at Masu Ghar and it got me to wondering about the waste of resources that that picture represents (seen below).
In addition to two vehicles, complete with wheels, transmissions etc., there are two engines/generators, and 14 personnel that are being under-utilized. As well the vehicles are heavily armoured to protect personnel, electronics and ammunition. This is essentially the way that the Tanks fought in Korea.
Does it make any sense at all to combine some of the Remote Operating Weapons Systems concepts and combine it with the static/trailed platforms common for earlier large caliber anti-aircraft guns?
The ROWS is being used on vehicles in small to medium calibers but has been used on warships in small to large caliber weapons (up to 127mm / 5in). Otomelara has done something of the sort with their twin 40/L70, very similar to our own Oerlikon Twin-35 that has been taken out of service and similar in concept to the 20mm CIWS/CRAM system that is being contemplated to protect garrisons from incoming mortars and rockets.
http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_land_hitrole
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/area.aspx?FolderID=402&docID=94
http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_naval_small
http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_naval_large
http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_land_aa
Perhaps the concept could be extended to put the 105mm gun of the MGS onto a trailer to create a modern version of the FlAK 88?
Would such a stationary role be an appropriate use of the skillsets learned by the Air Defence Artillery but with a larger array of weapons and sensors (Radar and E/O) at their disposal?
Garrison Artillery fell out of favour with the move to manoeuvre warfare. But if we are heading back to maintaining garrisons as permanent bases to control unsettled parts of the world maybe there is a need for the Garrison Artillery again - only now we don't need as many gunners to man the firing points.
It just seems a pity to me to tie up Leo's and LAVs, with all the necessary extra gear for survival and mobility, when permanent firebases could be wired in much more cost effectively. Not to mention a few gabions with some overhead cover supplies more protection to the weapon itself than a tank does, fewer bodies would be required and exposed to risk, and fewer engineering compromises associated with confined spaces would be necessary. For instance I would think it would be possible to develop a separate, trailable auto-loader that could be married in place to a gun and be reloaded by palletized rounds.
In addition to two vehicles, complete with wheels, transmissions etc., there are two engines/generators, and 14 personnel that are being under-utilized. As well the vehicles are heavily armoured to protect personnel, electronics and ammunition. This is essentially the way that the Tanks fought in Korea.
Does it make any sense at all to combine some of the Remote Operating Weapons Systems concepts and combine it with the static/trailed platforms common for earlier large caliber anti-aircraft guns?
The ROWS is being used on vehicles in small to medium calibers but has been used on warships in small to large caliber weapons (up to 127mm / 5in). Otomelara has done something of the sort with their twin 40/L70, very similar to our own Oerlikon Twin-35 that has been taken out of service and similar in concept to the 20mm CIWS/CRAM system that is being contemplated to protect garrisons from incoming mortars and rockets.
http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_land_hitrole
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/area.aspx?FolderID=402&docID=94
http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_naval_small
http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_naval_large
http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_land_aa
Perhaps the concept could be extended to put the 105mm gun of the MGS onto a trailer to create a modern version of the FlAK 88?
Would such a stationary role be an appropriate use of the skillsets learned by the Air Defence Artillery but with a larger array of weapons and sensors (Radar and E/O) at their disposal?
Garrison Artillery fell out of favour with the move to manoeuvre warfare. But if we are heading back to maintaining garrisons as permanent bases to control unsettled parts of the world maybe there is a need for the Garrison Artillery again - only now we don't need as many gunners to man the firing points.
It just seems a pity to me to tie up Leo's and LAVs, with all the necessary extra gear for survival and mobility, when permanent firebases could be wired in much more cost effectively. Not to mention a few gabions with some overhead cover supplies more protection to the weapon itself than a tank does, fewer bodies would be required and exposed to risk, and fewer engineering compromises associated with confined spaces would be necessary. For instance I would think it would be possible to develop a separate, trailable auto-loader that could be married in place to a gun and be reloaded by palletized rounds.