Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Query... how many GSR units do the Russians actually have, in working order?

Depends who you believe. Their PR machine will tell you it’s fitted to everything under the sun - but I’d expect at least their OPVs, and probably some of the larger UAS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Still MSTAR - I think it only equips Artillery OPVs and Armd Cav surveillance troops (dismounted) now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for the info.

The FRA Army has just received the last of its 30 Murin (Thales Ground Observer 12) radars. They are operated by Artillery units.


Murin.jpg
Murin 2.jpg
 
Depends who you believe. Their PR machine will tell you it’s fitted to everything under the sun - but I’d expect at least their OPVs, and probably some of the larger UAS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok next question, how much advantage does GSR provide? Doc's I've seen previously were talking about GSR being used to 5,000m. But Places where you can get 5km LOS are pretty rare?
 
GSR - grid smothering radar.

Ie an invite to smother a grid with bangy stuff.

Always wary of them, quite sure they must be useful though.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Enhanced blast explosives?
The best bang short of the big one? Lots of blast comes with lots of collateral damage - as we found out when we looked at this in the late 1990s.

@PhotEx Blast is not always as effective as expected, nor the outcome desirable. Classic example Monte Cassino

One can play weapon super trumps all day. The reality its all arms unit versus all arms unit. The playing board is the ground (which complicates everything).

As Voltaire did not quite say, the winner is usually the straight shooting (=well trained), big battalion that is prepared to fight, can best exploit the ground (=well led and experienced) AND can take the initiative (=well led and confident).

In that context the performance of a single weapon is actually the lowest influencer of outcome.

As has been alluded to in most threads on this board, the current weapon challenges (like what I did there?) faced by the British Army come from a lack of quality, confident leadership. If you can't answer (1) "What is the army for?" and (2) "What should it do to achieve (1)?" you're fecked. And if your answer to (2) comes out as cyberwarfare you really need a WO/SNCO to come and ask "Really, Sir?" {Max sarcasm "Sir"]

Edited to (at least part) sort the punctuation.
 
Last edited:

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
In an Armd Sqn-Coy assault on a defender position, there will be a small window when the dismounts are close enough to the vehicles to be vulnerable to APS. At this point, you either decide to take the risk, or you temporarily overide your system before backing off (or moving forward) to a safe distance, and turning back on again.
Noting of course that if you have got your dismounts to where their bayonets are needed you have:
  • As MBT )achieved you initial aim and are now focused on torching incoming counter attack with APFSDS or 7.62 ball (lots)/ 120mm WP/HE-FRAG (if you had it!) as appropriate.
  • As IFV mission 1/2 done, now get to destroying enemy in detail while lovely cav types keep your workload manageable (lets not get into implied required angles of depression on IFV turret etc)
  • As dismount - time to get over carsickness and work out your pent up aggression on Her Majesty's foes. If you get with it you can be back in the IFV for a cup of tea before you know it. KILL KILL KILL
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
The geopolitical problem being what happens when a moderately capable opponent says "what are you going to do about it, pal?" and seems prepared to make a proper fight of it.
  1. Deciding "actually, we'll leave you to it" is safe... and loses cheaply.
  2. Fighting and losing is really bad.
  3. Fighting and winning is still not good, it's an expensive and painful success.
  4. Being credible enough that the opponent tails off halfway through "going to do... er... sorry, must have mistaken you for someone else, I'll be going home now" is the ideal.
Superb summary.

#3 most by definition required panzers. Particularly if the "moderately capable" opponent has the nouse / tech ability to get hold of obtaining more capable (upwards of top upgraded T55 say) or do a deal with some MBT equipped power who might send "training" Bn+ of (say) T72.
Drone fanatics would add (with justification) that anyone with a mobile phone, an RPG and a model aircraft can become moderately capable. The awful truth of Jackal, our current light armour of choice is that it's cabriolet roof makes it hugely vulnerable.

If, as is likely, you deployed "light" armor you are about to be torched.

The political reality is that credibility means that you have to be able to deploy serious armour in serious package. And that armour needs to be ready to fight today. That the country's military leadership has failed to make this point with sufficient clarity to

I am increasingly of the opinion that "light armoured units" are about as effective as Snatch land rovers (which, of course, were deemed unfit for use in the high risk areas of NI, esp West Belfast, when Paddy and Murphy were getting a bit angsty with IED and RPG in the 1980s.

The Strike brigades may become the brigades whose soldiers (real military experts with skin and more in the game) go on strike.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Every angle oblique, even on the vision blocks, not a corner reflector in sight....
Which does not make the radar cross section = zero. So it is detectable. So big deal... CVR(T) turret not dissimilar in that regard.
 
notes the vision blocks are heavily recessed with large peaks to shield them from overhead, and the sighting optics are on the down facing turret face.
But the gunner’s sight and the panoramic sight aren’t protected or angled.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Ok next question, how much advantage does GSR provide? Doc's I've seen previously were talking about GSR being used to 5,000m. But Places where you can get 5km LOS are pretty rare?
GSR Advantages:

1) Far superior correction/accuracy of indirect fire - the close bit in"danger close" can be reached more quickly with more confidence
2) in fog (which inhibits thermal observation) ability to detect and engage AFVs
3) Anywhere - gives greater coverage. YEs limited to LOS and yes, in many places LOS <5000m (from memory average west Europe LOS is 1500m. But if you were clever enough to mast mount you could get further.
4) complicates the oppositions EW challenges. Yes he can detect - although continuous emission unlikley. But are you messing with his thoughts, eg by moving about and putting out a squirt of radar with no intention of observing, then moving and doing again.

Compactors are OTIS/SPYGLASS/TOGS/ x12 Optical / x8 Binos / CWS/ SUSAT/ eyeball mk1
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
A really noddy Operational Analysis point
Expanding on your excellent post, I had a quick think about incoming target arrays. Imagine you're on Ch/CR1/CR2 and the usual suspects advancing in the usual way. Assumed speed 60km/h (they don't hang about) you get engagement scenario below (firing APFSDS at 6 rounds per minute, which means the crew is seriously up to speed)

Time (Seconds)Range (metres)CommentHits
02,0001
101,8312
201,662Will have received incoming salvo from targets. Time to move3
301,493Should have jockeyed by now. Second salvo received4
401,324Third salvo received - maybe living on borrowed time5
501,155Getting a bit close - time to withdraw? How fast can you reverse?6
60986Ready rounds probably expended - need to restow (not easy on move)7
708178
806489
9048010
10031111
110142Do we have a bayonet for L30?12

More realistically one would be withdrawing sharpish after 3rd shot, with another troop on the next bound (perhaps 1Km away) to take on the lead elements while I was either reversing like a maniac (which fully occupies commander) or going forwards, which is much faster but abandons benefit of hull glacis armour - turret will be pointing towards enemy. Not a problem provided either troop on nest bound kills lead enemy or I manage to and firing over rear decks while moving is very tricky.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm glad I'm too old - this is getting scarey:-

No it isn't. Its a slow missile with a HEAT / EFP warhead. It's problem is the same as any other missile - it needs to survive to penetrate.

Also a company promo video..
 

TamH70

MIA

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top