FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It would have the potential to defend itself if spotted, then drop a load of love from above when bugging out. An proper offensive option is always nice to have rather than waiting to get a heavy armoured back up
Sod it. Let’s have direct fire (120mm should do it), indirect fire (missiles plus 120mm mortar), smoke, chaff, sharks with lasers, attack dogs, a helipad, tea room, tennis court and soft furnishing/break-out area. 1,000t GVW do you?

Nowhere is the need to defend being dismissed. What should be being dismissed is the very small number of occasions on which a reconnaissance vehicle would have to engage at a high off-axis angle versus the very real advantages of an MMS. The vision systems even without an MMS will likely far outrange the effective range of the main gun, even 40mm CTA, and especially if engaging AFVs - and not just heavy armour.

Which bit of ‘an’ asset not ‘the’ asset is being missed here? It’s all getting a bit World of Tanks.

Want an indirect-fire option? Call the artillery or the air force. Want a direct-fire option? Call in the armour boys and girls. Want to watch and report in greater safety? Then do it from a distance or from on high.

Reconnaissance. Your main weapons are your sensor systems and comms links.
 
Or a vertically launched missile of some description.

OR (better yet)... a radio or data link with nearby artillery or air assets?

Too many people in this thread are considering reconnaissance assets in isolation and as the only asset, or failing to distinguish between reconnaissance and direct action.

The vehicle or unit which finds need not be the vehicle or unit which does the malletting. It's very often not their job... look at it another way: if you were in a four-man OP and you spotted something, would you be expected to take it on and destroy it, or would you put in a call to those rather better-equipped to do so?

Same principle.
Of course if your recce vehicle does have a 25-40mm cannon it can also be employed more flexible
 
Sod it. Let’s have direct fire (120mm should do it), indirect fire (missiles plus 120mm mortar), smoke, chaff, sharks with lasers, attack dogs, a helipad, tea room, tennis court and soft furnishing/break-out area. 1,000t GVW do you?

Nowhere is the need to defend being dismissed. What should be being dismissed is the very small number of occasions on which a reconnaissance vehicle would have to engage at a high off-axis angle versus the very real advantages of an MMS. The vision systems even without an MMS will likely far outrange the effective range of the main gun, even 40mm CTA, and especially if engaging AFVs - and not just heavy armour.

Which bit of ‘an’ asset not ‘the’ asset is being missed here? It’s all getting a bit World of Tanks.

Want an indirect-fire option? Call the artillery or the air force. Want a direct-fire option? Call in the armour boys and girls. Want to watch and report in greater safety? Then do it from a distance or from on high.

Reconnaissance. Your main weapons are your sensor systems and comms links.
All very true but recce vehicles are often used for more than recce
 
All very true but recce vehicles are often used for more than recce
Indeed, and another issue we discovered was that setting a limited number of dismount spots is a problem, our Cav Brads were designed to hold only a couple of troops. By the time we added in everyone from a forward observer to a medic to an interpreter, we had to start leaving actual Cav dismounts behind. As a result, M3s have started being replaced by M2s in some units. They need greater seating at the cost of less ammo. And, of course, people are bigger so you start talking IFV size soon.
 
Sod it. Let’s have direct fire (120mm should do it), indirect fire (missiles plus 120mm mortar), smoke, chaff, sharks with lasers, attack dogs, a helipad, tea room, tennis court and soft furnishing/break-out area. 1,000t GVW do you?

Nowhere is the need to defend being dismissed. What should be being dismissed is the very small number of occasions on which a reconnaissance vehicle would have to engage at a high off-axis angle versus the very real advantages of an MMS. The vision systems even without an MMS will likely far outrange the effective range of the main gun, even 40mm CTA, and especially if engaging AFVs - and not just heavy armour.

Which bit of ‘an’ asset not ‘the’ asset is being missed here? It’s all getting a bit World of Tanks.

Want an indirect-fire option? Call the artillery or the air force. Want a direct-fire option? Call in the armour boys and girls. Want to watch and report in greater safety? Then do it from a distance or from on high.

Reconnaissance. Your main weapons are your sensor systems and comms links.
except the cruel lesson learned is that when you send light recce off to go find the enemy, you often find the enemy’s tanks, and your sturdy Boys anti tank rifle looked a bit silly when you did. See armoured cars quickly joins the gun race and finishing WWII with 56mm and and even 75 mm guns.


Ditto ‘light’ tanks used for reconnaissance, by wars end, even the British were using this sturdy little chap with a butch 75mm gun instead of things armed with a 37/40mm pop gun.

1560835873538.jpeg
 
Sod it. Let’s have direct fire (120mm should do it), indirect fire (missiles plus 120mm mortar), smoke, chaff, sharks with lasers, attack dogs, a helipad, tea room, tennis court and soft furnishing/break-out area. 1,000t GVW do you?

Nowhere is the need to defend being dismissed. What should be being dismissed is the very small number of occasions on which a reconnaissance vehicle would have to engage at a high off-axis angle versus the very real advantages of an MMS. The vision systems even without an MMS will likely far outrange the effective range of the main gun, even 40mm CTA, and especially if engaging AFVs - and not just heavy armour.

Which bit of ‘an’ asset not ‘the’ asset is being missed here? It’s all getting a bit World of Tanks.

Want an indirect-fire option? Call the artillery or the air force. Want a direct-fire option? Call in the armour boys and girls. Want to watch and report in greater safety? Then do it from a distance or from on high.

Reconnaissance. Your main weapons are your sensor systems and comms links.
Why did they have a 30mm rarden on Cvrt then ? Swingfire ? All very nice having the Gucci sensors , they won’t give you much help when you find the enemy and they find you. Having the mortar system means you could use supporting CS and bring in your own arty
 
Google STRIX mortar
Feck - I'm almost in love.

XM395 - GPS guided, accurate to 5m at 7k.

There is sooo much 120mm in service out there, I have to ask the question why has the UK never looked at it and remained shackled to light gun?

Is this a dropshort/cap badge thing?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
All very true but recce vehicles are often used for more than recce
CVR(T) in the Falklands springs to mind.

The point is that too many people on this thread are seeing recce as also needing to be able to deal with what it sees immediately and directly.

Recce’s job is to see and remain hidden, or else bravely sneak away. Hence my point about a four-man OP. Hence the existence of such as Fennek. Or dismounts bellying forward with a TI set or somesuch.

Yes, tanks can be used. CR1 was used on GW1 because TOGS outranged CVR(T)’s vision systems on the flat terrain and at the ranges encountered. You don’t need to go as far back as WWII for a British example.

But generally we’re not going to be looking to use AJAX to fight for information in a Soviet style. Nor should we be using it in a WW2 “advance up this road until the enemy kills you - then we know where they are” style.

We’ll be using it to move in bounds to where it can see, or else sit still and watch for things approaching. You know - recce. For that, an MMS is very handy, per TRACER etc.

In non-recce roles, yes the gun will be handy - especially the 40mm - but in non-expeditionary warfare you’d employ the bigger boys primarily. In the Falklands, CVR(T) was king because it was the biggest boy in town because of the terrain. The Argentine Panhards couldn’t make it past the roads at the edge of Stanley. In jungle or mountain terrain, you’ll be less likely to encounter MBTs, although AJAX is hardly small... you’re back to CVR(T) or Fennek... or the Ferret or a Land Rover/equivalent.

My main point is that people seem to be going to ridiculous lengths on his thread with “it would be nice to have”. AJAX is big enough as it is. Hence my hyperbole.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Feck - I'm almost in love.

XM395 - GPS guided, accurate to 5m at 7k.

There is sooo much 120mm in service out there, I have to ask the question why has the UK never looked at it and remained shackled to light gun?

Is this a dropshort/cap badge thing?
There’s a far greater logistical footprint involved with going from 81mm to 120mm.
 
There’s a far greater logistical footprint involved with going from 81mm to 120mm.
Yes, but a lot less than that required for 155mm or perhaps even 105mm
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Why did they have a 30mm rarden on Cvrt then ? Swingfire ? All very nice having the Gucci sensors , they won’t give you much help when you find the enemy and they find you. Having the mortar system means you could use supporting CS and bring in your own arty
Scimitar/RARDEN and Scorpion/76mm gave a range of direct-fire and support-fire capabilities. They often worked in pairs. RARDEN had a fairly decent AP capability back in the day. 76mm with HESH was a good GP round. Striker provided overwatch and a very good anti-MBT capability if necessary. But the primary role wasn’t to fight.

The ‘Gucci sensors’ are all about finding the enemy before the enemy finds you... and that’s perfectly possible. Even if you had the mortar system, you wouldn’t have it on the same vehicle. You’d have it on overwatch. Look at the above: three CVR(T)s of different types.

Which bit of ‘reconnaissance’ don’t you get? Which bit of ‘mutual support’ or ‘supporting arms’ don’t you get?

Actually, I’m beginning to suspect that it’s most of it.

Ask reconnaissance specialists if they’d like a bloody great mast that would allow them to see over things. Ask them if it would make their lives easier and safer. The answer would be yes.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes, but a lot less than that required for 155mm or perhaps even 105mm
For whatever reason, we’ve long had an aversion to big mortars, preferring guns or more latterly guns plus MLRS (selection of which was based on careful study, not just accident). One reason is cost: can we afford another capability when we can do most of what we want with what we have? Another is role and suitability: mortars are very good at indirect fire. Think hilly or rough terrain, and then why such as the Austrians, Swiss and Finns like big mortars.
 
For whatever reason, we’ve long had an aversion to big mortars, preferring guns or more latterly guns plus MLRS (selection of which was based on careful study, not just accident). One reason is cost: can we afford another capability when we can do most of what we want with what we have? Another is role and suitability: mortars are very good at indirect fire. Think hilly or rough terrain, and then why such as the Austrians, Swiss and Finns like big mortars.
I've always been led to believe that the issue with mortars and why we've stayed with 81mm only as guaranteed FSp for infantry Bns was capbadge related.
I.e, when Charges 4 & 5 were first introduced, RSA/DRA were seriously considering making a play for taking Mortars off the infantry.
Mind you this is 90s Mortar Div chat, and I'm sure there are other reasons why for light agile forces we've stuck with an 81mm/105mm combination in the light role.
It would be reassuring to know that an interim mortar that our allies (add French and US to the list) and enemies (Russia& most sovbloc kit clients)use is off the table for sound reasons rather than intra-arm political fatigue
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I've always been led to believe that the issue with mortars and why we've stayed with 81mm only as guaranteed FSp for infantry Bns was capbadge related.
I.e, when Charges 4 & 5 were first introduced, RSA/DRA were seriously considering making a play for taking Mortars off the infantry.
Mind you this is 90s Mortar Div chat, and I'm sure there are other reasons why for light agile forces we've stuck with an 81mm/105mm combination in the light role.
It would be reassuring to know that an interim mortar that our allies and enemies use is off the table for sound reasons rather than intra-arm political fatigue
There is a LOT we could do better if (pun intended) we were to beat some heads together over capbadge rivalries.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
...equally, there are lots of capabilities that we use ‘doctrine’ as an excuse not to provide, when cost is the reason. Theatre High-Altitude Air Defence springs to mind. We’ve got nothing like Patriot.

[/THREAD DRIFT]
 
But generally we’re not going to be looking to use AJAX to fight for information in a Soviet style. Nor should we be using it in a WW2 “advance up this road until the enemy kills you - then we know where they are” style.

But in practice we are.

We may not want to fight for information, but the other side does. What do we do when an AJAX squadron runs into a Motor Rifle Regiment recce units T-72’s? Send then a stern PowerPoint reminding them we don’t fight for information?

Advance up the road until deaded? Well, a certain General is calling AJAX as just that, the ‘medium tank’ heavy muscle for his Strike Brigades that goes looking for a fight. And even an ancient T-55 outguns AJAX by a country mile, and has armour thick enough to shrug off 40mm return fire.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
But in practice we are.

We may not want to fight for information, but the other side does. What do we do when an AJAX squadron runs into a Motor Rifle Regiment recce units T-72’s? Send then a stern PowerPoint reminding them we don’t fight for information?

Advance up the road until deaded? Well, a certain General is calling AJAX as just that, the ‘medium tank’ heavy muscle for his Strike Brigades that goes looking for a fight. And even an ancient T-55 outguns AJAX by a country mile, and has armour thick enough to shrug off 40mm return fire.
"See before being seen."

That said, cancelling the overwatch version was errant and dangerous nonsense.

The CVR(T) family was very well-considered in terms of the roles to be undertaken and the variants needed. AJAX is rather less so.
 
Last edited:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
"See before being seen."

The said, cancelling the overwatch version was errant and dangerous nonsense.
But that's why everyone is drooling over the MBDA Boxer Module, I have a feeling a slack handful of those will be part of our inventory too, eventually
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Army Reserve 3
TheIronDuke The NAAFI Bar 84
schweik The NAAFI Bar 45

Latest Threads

Top