You do know the TES armour spec for AJAX is classified?the vehicle even in TES spec, isn’t proof 360 degrees against better than 14.5mm, much of its very punch holeable with a 23mm.... and that’s it deployed with the full TES armour pack
Interesting claims there, and I fear you're mixing things up a little.
Speed of response: Yup, we were kings. I've seen times stated as low as 30 seconds from call, to impact. I've got a report on a Panzerwerfer 42 shooting at some British formations somewhere, were a British FO could see them. They sensibly launched and buggered off, only trouble is their 2nd point was 500 yards left of the first, and things went badly. We had plenty of training in using it in colonial policing to, as you say nail individual targets. So we emphasised speed of response and accuracy. We also had the highest rate of fire around.
Also our habit of using our officers as FO's meant that if an FO was present he could, at the very least, order all the guns under his command to fire. Thus the formation he was assigned to would always be guaranteed some level of support.
Sounds great doesn't it?
Yeah, downsides as well. The 25lbr, the workhorse of our artillery, was pretty bad at destruction, but great at neutralization, due to the small calibre. Its been well known since the WWI to achieve decent casualties on infantry who are in anyway protected, you need 105mm's or bigger. Hence why most of the Arty on D-day was re-equipped with 105mm's. Because it was well understood that every target we'd be involved agaisnt would be dug in. Plus in a pinch you could get some mileage out of the guns by using them as DF weapons if need be.
Equally, yes we could lay guns fast and get huge concentrations, if you could get your CO's to agree! The procedure was simple, if you had a target you thought was worth a kicking with more than the guns under your command you Issue a call for fire by the associated code words: Mike: All guns in Rgt, Uncle: all guns in Div, Victor: all guns in Corps and Yoke: All guns in AGRA (basically "This grid square offends my sight. Remove it!").
However, to get that you have to request it, and so the requests have to move up the chain of command and get reviewed each time, then gets passed on. Once the shoot has been agreed, then the orders have to be cycled down to the guns.
Where as the US system had all the FO's reporting targets to a central CP, and requesting a level of fire. They would then parcel out the targets to their guns. This would mean a much more effective use of their guns, on much more critical points. For example in a British Front you could have guns shooting at something that seems rather critical to the FO at the time, but a village over, There's a German spearhead crashing forward, but there's only a few guns firing at it.
Equally the US system allowed computation of Time on Targets, which meant all the rounds arrived at the same time, and they were bigger than the British ones. If you want something dead then use the US system, if you wanted agile fast responsive arty, but much more diluted use the British.
And if you want a disaster in artillery form look at the Japanese, for want of a better word "System".
Which was precisely my point. More to the point, what do we have ready to go into production that could do the job?Sorry, but what do we have that can do the job?
I wonder what would happen if you pointed out that BAe Land systems are now owned by RHM, which is somewhat German in origin? Not that BAe is really a British company these days.Which was precisely my point. More to the point, what do we have ready to go into production that could do the job?
There's derision because it doesn't have tracks; because it's "being built in Spain with Swedish steel and assembled in Wales" (I assume that's being confused with AJAX; because it's a "German design" and so on.
You know what they say about idiots and never arguing with them?Truly astounding the levels of ignorance. Right up there with the "We should never of [sic] got rid of are [sic] Harrier. We should of [sic] just done a supersonic version" idiocy.
Also that Alvis was part of the design team before BOXER got 'too expensive'.I wonder what would happen if you pointed out that BAe Land systems are now owned by RHM, which is somewhat German in origin? Not that BAe is really a British company these days.
Indeed. But how such opinions persist astounds me.You know what they say about idiots and never arguing with them?
Better not let the Facebook groups know that the Bedford's they used to drive and love going up hills with anything heavier than a Sodexo sausage roll in the back at 5mph, has been replaced by a Boxhead Truck!!I wonder what would happen if you pointed out that BAe Land systems are now owned by RHM, which is somewhat German in origin? Not that BAe is really a British company these days.
You know what they say about idiots and never arguing with them?
Boxer is very good, very much the Mercedes of 8x8's…
…but, a lot of that expense was its modularity, modularity we probably not going to use.
Errrr era 1970's chassis...? Why don't we just stretch the wheelbase on a Saracen then? Its about the same technology level.Pirahna would have done the job.
We don't do upgrade it when we have cash… the path to the gas axe is littered with fitted for but not with systems that cost over the odds in the s=assurance the bells and whistles would follow.How do you know we're not going to use the modularity? In five years, say you got your wish for a twin linked 57mm gattling cannon turret, and it became viable. Just pop off the current body, and stick in the new one. All we'd need to do is buy new bodies.
It literally allows through life upgrades and replacements. Making the "Upgrade it later, when we have more cash" approach more likely. Or we UOR something, in it goes.
Hell, It'd likely be worth buying a few extra chassis now while they're cheap, just while the costs are low.
Errrr era 1970's chassis...? Why don't we just stretch the wheelbase on a Saracen then? Its about the same technology level.