CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Is the talk of lahat etc to help sell the idea of a 120mm smoothbore for CR2 ?
 
Is the talk of lahat etc to help sell the idea of a 120mm smoothbore for CR2 ?
It’s all smoke and mirrors, there’s no funding for a ATGM from CR2. Or a requirement.
 
Is the talk of lahat etc to help sell the idea of a 120mm smoothbore for CR2 ?
I think someone just asked their ADC to google ”advantages of smoothbore vs rifled”...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It’s all smoke and mirrors, there’s no funding for a ATGM from CR2. Or a requirement.
True, but the sell is in the "we can do this when funds allow if we have the smoothbore, we can't with rifled. One is going to be developed further regards ammo etc, the other isn't "
 

aardvark64

War Hero
Or if you fancy something a bit more substantial than PowerPoint, this was done six years ago:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or if you fancy something equally substantial that was done before that video, and which isn't PowerPoint and isn't American.....

Sea Spear:



Brimstone (latest incarnation as CSP - proposed for ground launch around the same time as Sea Spear), now available for the Polish bid in a CAMM-like containerised system:



One of the things I think will come from the defence review is a directive to spend defence pounds in the UK, i.e. to stop FLCs hankering after buying more American gear. The exchange rate is killing the defence budget badly enough as it is without yet more scarce UK tax pounds disappearing overseas.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Stug's were in the infantry regiments, they weren't the ones leading the spear head. They were mooching along with the rest of the horse drawn formations.
STuGs were classed as assault guns but really came into their own in defence.

There are stories from the steppes, verified by non-Soviet Allied troops, of looking at the aftermaths of various actions and seeing 1-2 knocked-out STuGs with 30-50 T-series tanks arrayed before them.

STuGs were classed as artillery.
 
STuGs were classed as assault guns but really came into their own in defence.

There are stories from the steppes, verified by non-Soviet Allied troops, of looking at the aftermaths of various actions and seeing 1-2 knocked-out STuGs with 30-50 T-series tanks arrayed before them.

STuGs were classed as artillery.
I'm well aware of the Stug's awesomeness, however, in my reply I was talking about the French 1940 campaign, not the entire war. Back then the Stug was a very different beast.

If anyone has an hour to kill, there's plenty of Stug Porn available on this video (infact the entire video is contempary footage, and no presenters), and the narration is sensible and well done.
 
But it is funny watching the commentariat tie themselves in knots trying to work out what it is. Top level Trolling.
I always think when things like this come up, why is t it in widespread use? Usually it’s down to two things it’s shit or it would be cheaper to genetically engineer a unicorn that shits diamonds.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
As a UOR for Afghanistan, it only needed to be on a trolley that could be re-positioned from within a compound.
True, except the trolley-mount version was to take it into core... cue elements of "...and what on earth are STRIKE meant to do with this?"

It was, shall we say, not well planned or well considered.
 
STuGs were classed as assault guns but really came into their own in defence.

There are stories from the steppes, verified by non-Soviet Allied troops, of looking at the aftermaths of various actions and seeing 1-2 knocked-out STuGs with 30-50 T-series tanks arrayed before them.

STuGs were classed as artillery.
The Finns used them to great effect in the Continuation War.
 
True, except the trolley-mount version was to take it into core... cue elements of "...and what on earth are STRIKE meant to do with this?"

It was, shall we say, not well planned or well considered.
Not sure how they could have done anything else though?

They couldn’t justify a vehicle integration as part of the UOR, and there was no more money to do anything else with it when brought into core - at least until the MLU money kicks in. By the time STRIKE actually comes of age (if it ever does), EXACTOR will either be integrated on something else, or out of service...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TamH70

MIA
STuGs were classed as assault guns but really came into their own in defence.

There are stories from the steppes, verified by non-Soviet Allied troops, of looking at the aftermaths of various actions and seeing 1-2 knocked-out STuGs with 30-50 T-series tanks arrayed before them.

STuGs were classed as artillery.
Wittman got his start in STuGs.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm well aware of the Stug's awesomeness, however, in my reply I was talking about the French 1940 campaign, not the entire war. Back then the Stug was a very different beast.

If anyone has an hour to kill, there's plenty of Stug Porn available on this video (infact the entire video is contempary footage, and no presenters), and the narration is sensible and well done.
If you've not been, get yourself along to the next ARRSE Weald Foundation gathering, whenever that is.
 

TamH70

MIA
Yeah, turrets were clearly a bad idea where he was concerned.
AFAIK his Tiger's hull had the same idea, hence they parted company when whoever twatted him, twatted him.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Not sure how they could have done anything else though?
Well, they could have not canned what was still "IFPA Mobile" because 'EXACTOR will handle that now it's coming into core' - one of those cases where "this is better than nothing" kills off other work and still doesn't deliver anything useful outside "the next Afghanistan".

A problem seen quite often with UORs was their being used to short-circuit proper acquisition to get the "want one of those!" goodies - which made the problem worse when "proper acquisition" was being chinned off as slow and boring, because the OJAR moments in Andover were to be had doing snappy Urgents and so you couldn't get any decisions or progress on the dull routine work.

UORs are by nature inefficient and wasteful, where you buy some sticking plaster in a hurry, then throw a lot of the pack away once the crisis is over - which is still worth doing when necessary. But they evolved into a way to avoid proper scrutiny, doubtless with the well-meaning intention of saving time but ending up with solutions like... a trailer-mounted EXACTOR system that can't be towed any distance and has to travel by flatbed.

Would we really have lost much by ditching the M113-mounted EXACTOR, then buying what we actually needed, rather than cobbling together something of minimal combat value and praying for the money fairy to visit in the indeterminate future?

Having made the arguments as to why it's adequate, value for money and closes important capability gaps (to bring it into core, which are on record), how do you show that it now falls short of what's required and needs a serious upgrade?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Well, they could have not canned what was still "IFPA Mobile" because 'EXACTOR will handle that now it's coming into core' - one of those cases where "this is better than nothing" kills off other work and still doesn't deliver anything useful outside "the next Afghanistan".

A problem seen quite often with UORs was their being used to short-circuit proper acquisition to get the "want one of those!" goodies - which made the problem worse when "proper acquisition" was being chinned off as slow and boring, because the OJAR moments in Andover were to be had doing snappy Urgents and so you couldn't get any decisions or progress on the dull routine work.

UORs are by nature inefficient and wasteful, where you buy some sticking plaster in a hurry, then throw a lot of the pack away once the crisis is over - which is still worth doing when necessary. But they evolved into a way to avoid proper scrutiny, doubtless with the well-meaning intention of saving time but ending up with solutions like... a trailer-mounted EXACTOR system that can't be towed any distance and has to travel by flatbed.

Would we really have lost much by ditching the M113-mounted EXACTOR, then buying what we actually needed, rather than cobbling together something of minimal combat value and praying for the money fairy to visit in the indeterminate future?

Having made the arguments as to why it's adequate, value for money and closes important capability gaps (to bring it into core, which are on record), how do you show that it now falls short of what's required and needs a serious upgrade?
Something like the Alvis Stormer would have been ideal. Couldn't it be MAN-mounted?

(Or should that be MAN-packed? :-D )
 

Latest Threads

Top