FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Short range air defence
Against what? It’s not got the range to be worthwhile against helicopters or fast air and hopelessly inefficient against the sort of UAVs that might stray into range
intimate fires.
i’ve heard that you can get ointments for that.
But again, what are the targets that are best suited to being Engaged by a single mortar?
 
Against what? It’s not got the range to be worthwhile against helicopters or fast air and hopelessly inefficient against the sort of UAVs that might stray into range

i’ve heard that you can get ointments for that.
But again, what are the targets that are best suited to being Engaged by a single mortar?
3 mortars in the company group and 3 shorad.
Have you read the RUSI report? Jack Watling may be as mad as a box of frogs, yet that is coupled with a very good mind*




*and either balls of steel or just classic english eccentric - he had some holiday snaps from northern Mali/Timbuktu "how did you get those? "oh we left the UN contingent we were with, hired a couple of bikes and drove where we wanted to go" - to put it in context, that's similar to visiting a quaint traditional Irish pub in "sleepy" Crossmaglen in the early 80s as a brit... )
 
3 mortars in the company group and 3 shorad.
Have you read the RUSI report? Jack Watling may be as mad as a box of frogs, yet that is coupled with a very good mind*




*and either balls of steel or just classic english eccentric - he had some holiday snaps from northern Mali/Timbuktu "how did you get those? "oh we left the UN contingent we were with, hired a couple of bikes and drove where we wanted to go" - to put it in context, that's similar to visiting a quaint traditional Irish pub in "sleepy" Crossmaglen in the early 80s as a brit... )


These types of things are what is needed....
 
Why doesn't the British army have artillery anymore? It seems that the political and military (lack of) leadership think it's cheating to blast the enemy, preferring instead to scare them off (?) with bayonets and handheld A/T rockets. If there aren't any mobile artillery, how about investing in big, fat, multi-barrelled, self-propelled mortars at every level? The things exist and are (relatively) cheap. On top of all that, there aren't even enough people to deploy anyway. At some point things will have to go to a part-time home-defence force, plus RM and Para -- then it won't matter what vehicles anyone has because all four thousand bods will get hammered regardless.

Not optimistic today. The generation that went through WW2 designed the systems and kit for the cold war, and the couple of generations after WW2 inherited the plans achieving good results with them. Since then British defence power has been dribbling out of holes in a leaky bucket.
The British Army has 89 x AS90 and 50 x MLRS.

Er, that’s it.
 
Nothing shabby about that. That's a lot of firepower by any standard.
If you have the shells. how many transport regiments got put into the AR to save infantry cuts?
 
Apologies, I wasn't setting out to teach you to suck eggs.

He may never have seen a track part, but then he's never seen one run over a mine (I note that a later post than yours asks about mine damage.)

On the other hand, if a 'conventional' track runs over a mine and it's a mobility kill, then it's still a mobility kill. Whether you're having to replace a few links or a whole track is probably a moot point.

I'd be very interested to see the whole-life running costs of a rubber track versus a metal one. That'll be the clincher. If a vehicle runs over a mine and survives, then a rubber track should just be seen as a 'perishable'.
A MK in a CR2 with 29 RGP strikes, was back In service later that day, wonder if the hallowed T72 would be,
 
Is boxer is to be used for a Mali type expeditionary "adventure" ?
Its a good looking platform but needs some stick to slap the enemy before the foxhounds deploy, I dont think a .50 has enough shock and awe.
 
Yes and how many mines will we be facing defending Europe from the Russians, since I believe we've been daft enough to sign up to some no mine pact and their troops will be trying to move too fast to lay them. We're back to what is the army for neo-colonial policing or fighting high intensity warfare.
We have signed the anti-personnel mine convention.

Nothing to stop anyone to lay AT mines. Even AT mines with integral anti-handling switches.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
There were more of them and with any of their 75mm natures (many of which were AT) they could defeat a 1940 British Cruiser at any range up to 2500m...

So despite short barrel, much more effective....
Yes, down to the nature of the ammunition used. My point stands.

And, er, we're arguing to agree eh?
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
We have signed the anti-personnel mine convention.

Nothing to stop anyone to lay AT mines. Even AT mines with integral anti-handling switches.
A troop with something like the Volcano/Shielder mine laying system could pretty quickly shut areas down even if only temporary.
 
Hmmm...

"According to Heinz Guderian, the Wehrmacht invaded France with 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s"

While the majority of those are 20mm or 37mm armed there are nearly 300 75mm armed Mk IVs in there plus those pesky 88mm AT guns. Remind me of a comparable British tank with a 75mm at that stage of the war (and I don't mean CS variants)?
Then you'd better take the Panzer IV's out because that's what the 75L24 was, a close support HE gun. The 75L43 firing proper AP ammunition at reasonable velocities didn't appear until late in the desert war, by which time we had Shermans to match it. The nearly 1,500 Mk I and II were no match for any British Cruiser tank, but there 1,500 of them to our ~150.
 
There were more of them and with any of their 75mm natures (many of which were AT) they could defeat a 1940 British Cruiser at any range up to 2500m...

So despite short barrel, much more effective....
You're assuming it carried the Pzg39/1 in 1940. I'm not sure it did and was HE only equipped. Even if it did at any range above ~ 500 m you'd be seriously lobbing this stuff. In theory the 2 pdr was also effective at > 2000 m but we all know you wouldn't have any chance of hitting with nothing more than Mark 1 eyeball for ranging and the 2 pdr muzzle velocity is over twice that of the 75L24.

Rarden was 20% better than the 2 pdr and with a bigger shell and after 1,200 m it got tricky so I'd say effective range of the 2 pdr was about 8-900 m and 75L24 4-500 m, which gives us a significant advantage.

The problem we had was we had 150 cruisers tops against multiple thousands of Germans and the tanks were in an isolated formation with no integral infantry or artillery.
 
Regt was split up into War footing, i.e. as Recce Regt, working with our different Regts and working in Troops down in the Black Forest over a large area.
So did the rest of the troop go round the corner.
 
We have signed the anti-personnel mine convention.

Nothing to stop anyone to lay AT mines. Even AT mines with integral anti-handling switches.
Good and do we have any of these and means to lay them, or was that deemed not necessary for Afghanistan and scrapped 20 years ago.
 
The British Army has 89 x AS90 and 50 x MLRS.

Er, that’s it.
Which, relatively, is a lot better than say the MBT count. You could realistically support 2 good sizes divisions with this lot, the sort of divisions that might have say 600- 900 MBTs, which is something the RAC can only dream of.
 
You're assuming it carried the Pzg39/1 in 1940. I'm not sure it did and was HE only equipped. Even if it did at any range above ~ 500 m you'd be seriously lobbing this stuff. In theory the 2 pdr was also effective at > 2000 m but we all know you wouldn't have any chance of hitting with nothing more than Mark 1 eyeball for ranging and the 2 pdr muzzle velocity is over twice that of the 75L24.

Rarden was 20% better than the 2 pdr and with a bigger shell and after 1,200 m it got tricky so I'd say effective range of the 2 pdr was about 8-900 m and 75L24 4-500 m, which gives us a significant advantage.

The problem we had was we had 150 cruisers tops against multiple thousands of Germans and the tanks were in an isolated formation with no integral infantry or artillery.
In the Desert, British tank crews could hit Panzer IIIs at 800m( with the 2 pdr) and above but getting a kill was not guaranteed, as the Panzer III with added armour could keep out the 2 pdr shot so the Germans were able to sit out at 1000m and get kills with their long 50mm. The short 75mm L24 gun was said to be only good for about 40mm penetration in 1939 and it was not effective against the Char B and the Matilda in frontal hits, so they had to try and get side hits on them to have a chance of a kill. That didnt mean it didnt hurt, because it could rattle the teeth out of a French or British crew, yet not penetrate, and, if they kept their nerve, they could kill the Panzer IV with the 2 pdr or the French 47mm.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Army Reserve 3
TheIronDuke The NAAFI Bar 84
schweik The NAAFI Bar 45

Latest Threads

Top