Author Topic: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)  (Read 71173 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,856
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,053
  • The usual suspect.
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2013, 07:47:01 »
Yes a mistake that again proven this spring on Ex PR/MR, LAV's are no match for a troop of any tanks that manage to sweep behind the FEBA, and take out the CCP :-/

But on another note, the LAV TUA though needed to augment the AT capabilities of a Inf Bn, are not a true TD, as they do not out range a Tanks 4km range.  The proposed(at one time) ADATS turret on a LAV chasis would fill the true role of a TD as they have a 10km range.  Far out reaching the Tanks ability to reach out and touch them, which is the while point of TD's not needing heavy armour protection.  They should never be in range of a tank round :-/

Sorry to burst your bubble, but tanks can indeed engage targets out past 10km. It's not done very often, but it can be done.

Besides, if we do our job correctly, ADATS wouldn't see a tank troop until its too late and too close.

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 240,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,583
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2013, 13:34:30 »
This capability was available in the 80s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QehccGhnR94

Shouldn't we have it by now?

From the Comments:

1. The missile is the Swedish Bofors RBS-56 BOFORS BILL2 - the first 'top-attack' SACLOS ATGM in the world.

2. The date is around 1986 and the location is the BOFORS AB live-firing test range in Sweden - you can hear the Swedish WOC if you listen hard.

3. The target tank is a retired Centurion and is it radio-controlled.

4. It has doctored munitions to give an impressive result.

5. The clip can be seen on the video 'World Missiles and Missile Systems'.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 426
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2013, 17:41:27 »
Sorry to burst your bubble, but tanks can indeed engage targets out past 10km. It's not done very often, but it can be done.

Besides, if we do our job correctly, ADATS wouldn't see a tank troop until its too late and too close.

Regards

Theoretically yes, but not practical at all, using HE/HESH rounds and superelevating the gun like an artillery piece, it can be done.  Apparently the isreal's did this using M51 and Centurions using spotters with special long range optics, to do corrections, but this is a special case.  We both know the FC Computer in either the C2 or 2A4 can't range/direct fire past 4K/5K respectively.  And this is what our doctrine is based on. 

The longest confirmed "recent" case of long range tank engagement was in the first gulf war, with the Brits Challenger 1's hitting targets and just over 5K with HESH round fired from their smooth bore barrels, in desert terrain of course were you can see that far with the standard FCS of the tank.

As far as ADATS goes, yes I've seen tanks hide and maneuver very well, and you could likely hide from their optics....it's rather harder to hide from their RADAR though....

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,461
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2013, 17:50:53 »
Of course in a conventional war, the ADATs would have to bug out as soon as it has lit up the area with it's radar and fired a couple of shots, otherwise it would quickly be on the receiving end of a MLRS strike.

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,856
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,053
  • The usual suspect.
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2013, 17:52:36 »
I can tell you with some certainty that there were engagements between 4-5km in Afghanistan. I've heard of a few over that, but only rumour and not substantiated.

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,426
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,055
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2013, 18:07:04 »
I won't ask what we need this for, because it's always a good thing to be able to kill tanks....but the question of adding a separate platform/vehicle to gain this capability makes...well....not much sense to me.

I'll go back into my lane and stick with small arms and Navy stuff....

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 426
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2013, 18:28:31 »
Of course in a conventional war, the ADATs would have to bug out as soon as it has lit up the area with it's radar and fired a couple of shots, otherwise it would quickly be on the receiving end of a MLRS strike.

The old M113 TUA always had to move soon as well, all that smoke pin pointing their location :-/  On Ex MR we had an ADATS with the A2 and the "enemy" actually jammed the RADAR on part of the map, which of course lead to a recce of the area :p

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,593
  • Crewman
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2013, 19:26:40 »
I won't ask what we need this for, because it's always a good thing to be able to kill tanks....but the question of adding a separate platform/vehicle to gain this capability makes...well....not much sense to me.

I'll go back into my lane and stick with small arms and Navy stuff....

NS

Well; I suppose it would be like designing all the ships in the Navy off one platform and then making your Aircraft Carriers, Landing Ship Tanks, Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, Patrol Vessels, Tenders, etc. modular and mixing and matching to fit the requirements.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,732
  • Freespeecher
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2013, 21:24:08 »
Maybe we should ditch the Tank Destroyer designation and just focus on the idea of a compact fire support vehicle. In a perfect world, a Leopard 2A5 would show up in the nick of time and send the threat to the other world with a well placed APDSFS dart, but there are precious few Leopard 2 tanks in our inventory, Leopards have mobility restrictions based on size and weight, and there may be times *we* might have to take fire support in by air or sea (Kirkhill's suggestion about the airportability of a Hetzer like vehicle hints at that).

Now a high mobility vehicle like a BV 206/Viking/Bronco has the mobility to get in and out of all kinds of unexpected places, and can be slung under (or if properly prepared, carried inside) a helicopter like a Chinook. The large size allows it to carry extra ammunition and ancillary gear like electro/optical surveillance equipment or an APU which can enhance the ability to engage targets with a missile or a recoilless cannon. The downside is even a Bronco isn't that heavily protected, and once the enemy is aware of your presence (from the launch signature of the missile or the backblast of your recoilless weapon) they will be shooting back. Technical solutions like a "soft launch" missile with a reduced signature or a High/Low pressure recoilless cannon are possible, but have not been developed to the extent that we could engage with a Hellfire like missile or the equivlent to the 120mm WOMBAT recoilless cannon (anything less would just make an enemy tanker angry).

A small protected platform like the hypothetical Hetzer II allows the crew to close up and engage bunkers and field fortifications, fire at exposed enemy infantry with HE, cannister rounds or machine gun fire and if properly situated, ambush enemy AFV's and have a fighting chance of surviving enemy counterfire while escaping. Just as an aside, the newest ROK IFV (K-21) is evidently made of composite materials so has the protection of typical steel IFV's in a 25 ton package, so the Hetzer II could potentially make use of this technology to provide far more protection than might be expected. While a small, high velocity cannon would provide the means to deal with AFV's, it would have less effect on other targets, so a 105mm cannon or howitzer would provide the ability to take on a wider range of targets at the price of less performance against an AFV. A box launcher with Javelin fire and forget ATGMs on the roof could fix that.

So what do we have? A hypothetical vehicle to provide direct fire support in close terrain, potentially capable of being placed alongside light forces to give them more punch and to free up tanks for other roles. Is is doable? OF course; the technical issues are relatively simple, and we have more than a century of AFV experience to draw from. Can it be done? Maybe, if a need presents itself and the Army decides to put resources to the project. Will it be done? Not likely. (Even if I was Generalissimo of the Armed Forces I would preferentially put resources to bulking out the tank fleet and standardizing platforms. You would see an armed version of the Bronco, though)
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,762
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2013, 02:21:03 »
Thucydides,
Are you looking for a Hetzer 2013, or a Universal Carrier 2013 to support light forces and act as the platform for various heavy weapons (from HMGs & AGLs to heavy long range anti-armour missiles)?

When you talk about a Hetzer 2013, you are really talking about a vehicle to fit in along the mechanized force.  In that case, LAV Anti-Tank or even just missiles on platoon LAVs would achieve the desired capability while keeping to a manageable number of platform types.


Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,856
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,053
  • The usual suspect.
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2013, 06:00:14 »
We both know the FC Computer in either the C2 or 2A4 can't range/direct fire past 4K/5K respectively.  And this is what our doctrine is based on.

Lets just say I'm a SME on Armd doctrine, and the tools are there for any CC to engage further out, kept at the unit IG level. It's not hard, nor is it rocket science.

There are corrections and techniques available using onboard GLI  and using estimated technique then to allow for semi-indirect and are taught on the basic Leo gunner course, for both C2 and Leo2.

On the subject of ADATS, if it was the be all, end all platform for both air and anti-tank....why was it not adopted by every major NATO ally? Why did we drop it? I know every time (5 launches by three different CFRs) I saw an attempt to fire a missile, it didn't or would completely miss the intended target.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 283,721
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,077
  • CFSME STAFF
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2013, 06:42:17 »
Think the only hits I saw where from the Direct Fire Team trials....... ;D
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,461
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2013, 10:35:50 »
In some ways the Sheridan did try to fulfill the role we are giving to the Hetzer II. The problem of course was that the Sheridan was supposed to also do recce, AT work and be amphibious. It ended up being an OK infantry support vehicle in Vietnam, thanks mainly to the HE/cannister rounds for it's 152mm. The missile system was a bust in real life.

One option for the Hetzer II would be a redesigned 152mm gun, using ammo fitted with conventional cases instead of combustible and do away with the screw breech.

Cases and breech can be seen here
http://   

HE shells here

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,732
  • Freespeecher
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2013, 11:18:10 »
Thucydides,
Are you looking for a Hetzer 2013, or a Universal Carrier 2013 to support light forces and act as the platform for various heavy weapons (from HMGs & AGLs to heavy long range anti-armour missiles)?

When you talk about a Hetzer 2013, you are really talking about a vehicle to fit in along the mechanized force.  In that case, LAV Anti-Tank or even just missiles on platoon LAVs would achieve the desired capability while keeping to a manageable number of platform types.

Hmmm.

Wish list as Generalissimo would be a "standard" platform, so if we stick to a wheeled fleet for everything except tanks then some sort of LAV varient will do. There are plenty of "drop in" turrets on the market for gun armed versions (the BMP-3 turret was demonstrated on a similar Finnish 8X8 AFV, to give you some idea of what is possible). LAV SPAAGs, Engineer support vehicles, mortar carriers, logistics vehicles etc. all exist or have been demonstrated as well. The madness of multiple incompatible LAV platforms would end, however.

If we want to go for a tracked fleet, the CV-90 family has demonstrated most of the models our ideal army would like (instead of a "Hetzer 2013" we could get a light tank armed with a 120mm cannon: the CV90120)

For difficult terrain, a fleet of Broncos would do the job, once again serving as the basis of a fleet of varients for the various roles needed.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,689
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2013, 12:47:30 »
Interesting point about the "Bren" Carrier.  That is kind of what I see every time I look at the Wiesel.

It doesn't really fit in with the LAVs and in fact is surplus to requirement for a LAV force.

But... >:D

What happens if instead of force that is 30% light, 60% medium and 10% heavy what happens if you turn the force around to 60% light, 30% medium and 10% heavy.  I suggest that the money saved in acquiring air portable support vehicles for the light forces could be invested in properly equipping the medium and heavy forces.  Also, with a little imagination in terms of cap badge allocation the light forces could rotate through the medium and heavy roles.

The light configuration would be equally valid for reserve troops fitted with Pickups, trailers, bobcats and quads. 


Our governments are not likely to be using LAVs and Tanks in Canada (or North America).  And they can't ship them overseas without long consultations and preparations.

A light force that can be heavied up over time makes for a much more useful configuration - although the Government may not actually want a useful force.  Then they might be called to use it.


Back to the point.


A Hetzer (or Stug) would be a useful addition to the 10% of the force that is Heavy.

The "Bren" carrier might make a useful addition to the 60% of the regular force that should be light.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,762
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2013, 12:58:22 »
... a redesigned 152mm gun, using ammo fitted with conventional cases instead of combustible and do away with the screw breech.
semi-combustible cases would probably be the way to go today.

A Hetzer (or Stug) would be a useful addition to the 10% of the force that is Heavy.
I think a heavy force would be better suited with more tanks or missile systems than with WWII tank destroyers and assault guns.

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 426
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2013, 13:50:00 »
Lets just say I'm a SME on Armd doctrine, and the tools are there for any CC to engage further out, kept at the unit IG level. It's not hard, nor is it rocket science.

There are corrections and techniques available using onboard GLI  and using estimated technique then to allow for semi-indirect and are taught on the basic Leo gunner course, for both C2 and Leo2.

On the subject of ADATS, if it was the be all, end all platform for both air and anti-tank....why was it not adopted by every major NATO ally? Why did we drop it? I know every time (5 launches by three different CFRs) I saw an attempt to fire a missile, it didn't or would completely miss the intended target.

And I'm and EO/FCS  Tech with 8 years fixing tanks at the strats and 6 years teaching LeoC1/C2 Maint at the school....since we exchanging resumes :-/

And while the tools are there and taught doesn't mean they are effective.  The Cougar had a QFC as well, that was never used as anything but a foot step :-/  Never in my 8 years with the strats did I ever see rounds wasted practicing semi-indirect/indirect fire on a gun camp.  It is fundamentally better to let the artillery handle indirect Fire missions, and let the tanks destroy the enemy with firepower and violence :/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,461
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2013, 13:57:56 »
The Hetzer II would be a dedicated vehicle for airborne troops, worrying about weight and size is nowhere near as important for regular deployments. Specializing vehicles for the airborne assault role is worthwhile and may need to have a number of different vehicles to draw upon depending on the operations. Of course this is all pie in the sky and we can also pretend that we have the aircraft to support such. I don't see a need in such an operation for more than 4-6 assault guns, a battery of mobile mortars and perhaps 4-6 autocannon armed vehicles. Throw in 6 CP's, supply vehicles, you are still looking at roughly 12 lifts of a C130J or C-17 just for the vehicles and assorted bits. Not sure how many lifts are required to drop a battalion of Paratroops.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 240,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,583
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #43 on: July 26, 2013, 14:22:06 »
The Hetzer II would be a dedicated vehicle for airborne troops, worrying about weight and size is nowhere near as important for regular deployments. Specializing vehicles for the airborne assault role is worthwhile and may need to have a number of different vehicles to draw upon depending on the operations. Of course this is all pie in the sky and we can also pretend that we have the aircraft to support such. I don't see a need in such an operation for more than 4-6 assault guns, a battery of mobile mortars and perhaps 4-6 autocannon armed vehicles. Throw in 6 CP's, supply vehicles, you are still looking at roughly 12 lifts of a C130J or C-17 just for the vehicles and assorted bits. Not sure how many lifts are required to drop a battalion of Paratroops.

'They' have been working for years to design a suitable air portable/ airborne tank e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M56_Scorpion

I recall that one of the problems during Gulf War 1 was that it took a ridiculously long period of time to transport M1s due to their size and weight. I think 1 x C5 can only move 1 x M1. One option, of course, is to have agreements with countries (or invade and occupy them  ;D) near the usual trouble spots and keep your heavy armour there. There are obvious political and 'blood and treasure' disadvantages to that option though.

"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5920.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 278,827
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,604
    • Army.ca
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2013, 15:54:31 »
And I'm and EO/FCS  Tech with 8 years fixing tanks at the strats and 6 years teaching LeoC1/C2 Maint at the school....since we exchanging resumes :-/

And while the tools are there and taught doesn't mean they are effective.  The Cougar had a QFC as well, that was never used as anything but a foot step :-/  Never in my 8 years with the strats did I ever see rounds wasted practicing semi-indirect/indirect fire on a gun camp.  It is fundamentally better to let the artillery handle indirect Fire missions, and let the tanks destroy the enemy with firepower and violence :/

Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.

I don't need a resume. 8)
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,732
  • Freespeecher
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2013, 15:56:13 »
Well, we already have the BV 206 and C-17's (and C-130's), so emptying out the rear half and fitting a pedestal for a DF weapon or a baseplate for a mortar (using the formula upthread then go 6-6-6 with 4 being gun, missile or mortar armed vehicles and 2 each for the HQ/CQ roles) provides the air mobility, platforms and firepower, although sacrificing the protection. (relpacing the BV-206 with the Bronco boosts the protection a bit).

Since the BV 206 or Bronco can be slung under a Chinook, operational and tactical air mobility is possible as well.

Very few changes actually have to be made to our current force structure and holdings to do this (dust off the TOW launchers and bring the 81mm Mortars back from the artillery for heavy DF and IF tasks, and use .50 HMG's or C-16's as the light DF gun).

This is actually doable (for a change)
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 426
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2013, 18:27:16 »
Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.

I don't need a resume. 8)

I should have specified I was more talking about tank ranges, but then isn't every fire mission with a Cougar "indirect fire" with it's low velocity 76?  :)  Even when the sights are used  ;D

I think the last Cougar range I was on was a firepower demo in 97 in Bosnia....when Cougar's were declared DFV's and operationally sent to the Balkans....which is another topic  :nod:

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,593
  • Crewman
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2013, 18:33:06 »
I should have specified I was more talking about tank ranges, but then isn't every fire mission with a Cougar "indirect fire" with it's low velocity 76?  :)  Even when the sights are used  ;D

I think the last Cougar range I was on was a firepower demo in 97 in Bosnia....when Cougar's were declared DFV's and operationally sent to the Balkans....which is another topic  :nod:

You experiences may vastly differ from others.  We used the Gun Clinometers on ranges in Germany when firing the Leopard 1 C1.  Was it done often?  No.  Was it done at the School in Gagetown?  Yes.  It is a backup tool in the box, that is used very infrequently.  Just because your experience did not see it, does not mean that it was never done.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,856
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,053
  • The usual suspect.
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2013, 18:48:10 »
Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.

I don't need a resume. 8)

Agreed RG.

Semi indirect was practiced on Leo C1 and C2 here in Gagetown on a regular basis. Advanced Gunnery did indirect every course until recently. Cougar gunnery was the same.

EO Tech - You obviously weren't in Ft Bliss when we did semi-indirect shoots in 2008. I'd say the 500+ rounds of SH and HESH that were fired were far from wasted.

Just because you know to fix them, doesn't mean you know tank doctrine. Saying that the QFC was nothing more than a footstep speaks volumes.

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 426
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2013, 19:13:11 »
Agreed RG.

Semi indirect was practiced on Leo C1 and C2 here in Gagetown on a regular basis. Advanced Gunnery did indirect every course until recently. Cougar gunnery was the same.

EO Tech - You obviously weren't in Ft Bliss when we did semi-indirect shoots in 2008. I'd say the 500+ rounds of SH and HESH that were fired were far from wasted.

Just because you know to fix them, doesn't mean you know tank doctrine. Saying that the QFC was nothing more than a footstep speaks volumes.

Regards

No I would have been in Afghanistan then enjoying the sun in FOB Frontenac :-/  But no in my time with the Strats I never saw that done.  I never said it was not taught, nor did I say I was an expert in tank doctrine, but I am an expert at the capabilities of the equipment in a tank.  And I can say for a fact that tanks are not designed to be an accurate indirect fire instrument.  And I use the term "accurate"  in reference to what is an accurate system, the Artillery howitzer.  I could dig up all the specs on all the indirect FCS we are discussing.  But I think that would be redundant, and we can just agree to disagree  :-\