UOR new equipment

[WinnipegFella]

View attachment 83680View attachment 83679

Compare and contrast.

Lower ride height - midline below shoulders instead of at eyeballs
Less clearance - between the tires and the wheel wells
Skinnier tires - less bouncy
Longer wheel base - more stability

And no spare wheel with rigger's crane on the roof.

Not an automotive engineer but have got jeeps stuck good.

Those spares should be in the ech anyways, it was approved to do so. The benefits of carrying it are outweighed by the loss of SA and the added weight on the roof causing rolls and what not. All I know is the flattop is useless and if not upgraded with something, should be dismantled for parts and packs.

 

[markppcli]

Those spares should be in the ech anyways, it was approved to do so. The benefits of carrying it are outweighed by the loss of SA and the added weight on the roof causing rolls and what not. All I know is the flattop is useless and if not upgraded with something, should be dismantled for parts and packs.

The Flat Top TAPVs are an incredible waste of time. They should at a minimum have a pintle / shield combination to allow some kinda of self defence. Or alternatively we mount ATGMs and MANPADs.

 

[Kirkhill]

One thing I have been curious about with those shields is, don't they act like grenade catchers in urban environments? I can see the value countering small arms fire and deflecting some of the shrapnel from a near miss. But it still looks like a basketball hoop to me, shooting for the 3-pointer.

The pintle seems like a minimum solution though to supply dismounted ATGM and MANPad teams with self-defence, as well as LOs and other C4 types.

How about even the lightest duty RWS offered by Kongsberg with a C6 and good optics? RS4 Low profile is it?

 

[WinnipegFella]

One thing I have been curious about with those shields is, don't they act like grenade catchers in urban environments? I can see the value countering small arms fire and deflecting some of the shrapnel from a near miss. But it still looks like a basketball hoop to me, shooting for the 3-pointer.

The pintle seems like a minimum solution though to supply dismounted ATGM and MANPad teams with self-defence, as well as LOs and other C4 types.

How about even the lightest duty RWS offered by Kongsberg with a C6 and good optics? RS4 Low profile is it?

I think a 50 at minimum would be far superior to the C6 in this role. The 40mm is useless on movers at 400 m +, maybe a couple 50s for soft targets and to fix enemy movers and then the HEDP can finish off whatever is pinned/M-killed by the 50s. That said, in my perfect world the LW 20mm cannon that can be used on the RS6 is mounted on TAPVs. (Well, in a real perfect world the TAPV is divested from the Regs and solely a MO vehicle and we buy CV90 w/ATGM for the RegF Cav haha)

 

[KevinB]

One thing I have been curious about with those shields is, don't they act like grenade catchers in urban environments?

Not if you have angry folks out paying attention - but the whole drone aspect has made a roof a fairly solid requirement

I can see the value countering small arms fire and deflecting some of the shrapnel from a near miss. But it still looks like a basketball hoop to me, shooting for the 3-pointer.

The pintle seems like a minimum solution though to supply dismounted ATGM and MANPad teams with self-defence, as well as LOs and other C4 types.

Pintles alone are fairly pointless - as everyone attempts to target support weapons - so you will a bunch of folks aiming at a gunner using a pintle.
Look back to the M113's first outing in Vietnam - the gun shield popped up in short order.

How about even the lightest duty RWS offered by Kongsberg with a C6 and good optics? RS4 Low profile is it?

I think a 50 at minimum would be far superior to the C6 in this role. The 40mm is useless on movers at 400 m +, maybe a couple 50s for soft targets and to fix enemy movers and then the HEDP can finish off whatever is pinned/M-killed by the 50s. That said, in my perfect world the LW 20mm cannon that can be used on the RS6 is mounted on TAPVs. (Well, in a real perfect world the TAPV is divested from the Regs and solely a MO vehicle and we buy CV90 w/ATGM for the RegF Cav haha)

40mm HV definitely isn't useless at movers at 400m plus. 40mm HV is a solid performer out to 1,800, and depending on your FCS can push out to 2,300m. -- plus you can get some neat rounds for 40mm HV, including proximity rounds for C/UAS
Honestly a GAU-19 / GMG staggered in a RWS would be the better option for these - in a 4 car troop you get 2 .50's and 2 40mm GMG, which is significant firepower.

 

[WinnipegFella]

Not if you have angry folks out paying attention - but the whole drone aspect has made a roof a fairly solid requirement

Pintles alone are fairly pointless - as everyone attempts to target support weapons - so you will a bunch of folks aiming at a gunner using a pintle.
Look back to the M113's first outing in Vietnam - the gun shield popped up in short order.



40mm HV definitely isn't useless at movers at 400m plus. 40mm HV is a solid performer out to 1,800, and depending on your FCS can push out to 2,300m. -- plus you can get some neat rounds for 40mm HV, including proximity rounds for C/UAS
Honestly a GAU-19 / GMG staggered in a RWS would be the better option for these - in a 4 car troop you get 2 .50's and 2 40mm GMG, which is significant firepower.

Trust me when I say, it is certainly useless. OPSEC in mind, the rounds take an excruciatingly long time to target even at 1000. At 2000, the enemy has time for lunch, a nap, a wank and then a jockey. Never mind that since the aerodynamics are comparable to a tennis ball, any stiff breeze will throw the round way off target. A weapon system that can't guarantee first round hit at 1000m with a 10kph crosswind is useless to any AFV.

A GAU19 would be way too round hungry and expensive imo. A good ole fashioned M2B will suffice.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not if you have angry folks out paying attention - but the whole drone aspect has made a roof a fairly solid requirement

Pintles alone are fairly pointless - as everyone attempts to target support weapons - so you will a bunch of folks aiming at a gunner using a pintle.
Look back to the M113's first outing in Vietnam - the gun shield popped up in short order.



40mm HV definitely isn't useless at movers at 400m plus. 40mm HV is a solid performer out to 1,800, and depending on your FCS can push out to 2,300m. -- plus you can get some neat rounds for 40mm HV, including proximity rounds for C/UAS
Honestly a GAU-19 / GMG staggered in a RWS would be the better option for these - in a 4 car troop you get 2 .50's and 2 40mm GMG, which is significant firepower.

One thing I am trying to understand is what is possible while not raising the centre of gravity. Particularly important given that this discussion refers to the TAPV.

Looking for something, low, light and effective.

And accepting that somebody really should ditch that spare and the lifters and buy some new, more highway friendly tires.

 

[WinnipegFella]

One thing I am trying to understand is what is possible while not raising the centre of gravity. Particularly important given that this discussion refers to the TAPV.

Looking for something, low, light and effective.

And accepting that somebody really should ditch that spare and the lifters and buy some new, more highway friendly tires.

That is the problem isn't it? The height is not a design flaw of the TAPV, it's a feature to give it standoff from IED/mine strike. Anything would have to be low profile, so maybe a modernized version of the old 1M turret? It was designed for this family of vehicles anyways and I can't see it weighing too much more than the tyre. If it's centred on the hull and maybe slightly recessed, as opposed to left or right justified, it might actually help keep this big bitch on its tyres. It's not a fun problem to solve.

Hard agree on tyres. Driving these things on highways is white-knuckle at the best of times.

 

[Kirkhill]

I just realized that I falled myself into the "effective" trap. What is effective?

I was thinking about A and B echelon types keeping the locals off their vehicles while wandering around loose. So SAA calibres, 5.56/7.62.
Now if you are thinking F echelon and want to use the beast as a fire support platform, with bigger guns with more mass in the gun, heavier loads of ammunition and more recoil then that is something else again.

Of course the top weight can be reduced by stowing the ammunition inside in the hull rather than on the gun, and feeding the link through the hull to the gun.

 

[markppcli]

One thing I have been curious about with those shields is, don't they act like grenade catchers in urban environments? I can see the value countering small arms fire and deflecting some of the shrapnel from a near miss. But it still looks like a basketball hoop to me, shooting for the 3-pointer.

I think your find an unlikely situation, the 3 pointer grenade toss, and extrapolating it into a more likely problem than it is.

The pintle seems like a minimum solution though to supply dismounted ATGM and MANPad teams with self-defence, as well as LOs and other C4 types.

How about even the lightest duty RWS offered by Kongsberg with a C6 and good optics? RS4 Low profile is it?

I think the question was what to do with the flat tops. Frankly the should all be RWS equipped but here we sit.


I tend to agree about the problems with 40mm HV vs a mover. Yes it can have good effect but with -, very publicly available, muzzle velocity of 241 m/s your looking at 10+ seconds of hang time. Hard to compensate for a ten second lead time.

 

[WinnipegFella]

I think your find an unlikely situation, the 3 pointer grenade toss, and extrapolating it into a more likely problem than it is.



I think the question was what to do with the flat tops. Frankly the should all be RWS equipped but here we sit.


I tend to agree about the problems with 40mm HV vs a mover. Yes it can have good effect but with -, very publicly available, muzzle velocity of 241 m/s your looking at 10+ seconds of hang time. Hard to compensate for a ten second lead time.

With a rapidly deteriorating velocity due to the aerodynamics. It's definitely not 10 sec to 1500-2000. I won't say anymore answers but you all get the gist of it. It drastically needs replacement within at least half of the troop.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think your find an unlikely situation, the 3 pointer grenade toss, and extrapolating it into a more likely problem than it is.

I can take the possibility of a kid on a sidewalk chucking a grenade in the basket as a low probability occurrence. Not sure about the probability if driving along a street with multi-store dwellings, windows and overhanging balconies. And either way, the kid has now got a toy drone to play with.

And this one could be turned into an alternative to Lawn Darts.

A roof seems like a good idea these days.

I think the question was what to do with the flat tops. Frankly the should all be RWS equipped but here we sit.

Agreed.

I tend to agree about the problems with 40mm HV vs a mover. Yes it can have good effect but with -, very publicly available, muzzle velocity of 241 m/s your looking at 10+ seconds of hang time. Hard to compensate for a ten second lead time.

 

[markppcli]

With a rapidly deteriorating velocity due to the aerodynamics. It's definitely not 10 sec to 1500-2000. I won't say anymore answers but you all get the gist of it. It drastically needs replacement within at least half of the troop.

Eh, it’s around that. Last time I shot HE I didn’t have a stop watch out.

It’s a great weapon, just not in the application it’s being employed in.

 

[WinnipegFella]

Eh, it’s around that. Last time I shot HE I didn’t have a stop watch out.

It’s a great weapon, just not in the application it’s being employed in.

Last time I used it (last year) it was a lot longer than 10 sec...

 

[markppcli]

so anyways, back to UOR discussions

 

[IKnowNothing]

The Flat Top TAPVs are an incredible waste of time. They should at a minimum have a pintle / shield combination to allow some kinda of self defence. Or alternatively we mount ATGMs and MANPADs.

When I hear TAPV ATGM I can't help but see the VAB Mephisto- wide, 4 shot low profile launcher carried next to flush and deploying upward to fire.

Now- I know that the the Mephisto turret actually extends down into the hull, and is a less possible upgrade for the TAPV than me shooting lasers from my eyes, but what about NLOS missiles or LAM launch canisters in a similar but simplified low, wide, arrangement surface mounted to the roof - dont need to slew to target- just pivot the business end up for launch

 

[WinnipegFella]

When I hear TAPV ATGM I can't help but see the VAB Mephisto- wide, 4 shot low profile launcher carried next to flush and deploying upward to fire.

Now- I know that the the Mephisto turret actually extends down into the hull, and is a less possible upgrade for the TAPV than me shooting lasers from my eyes, but what about NLOS missiles or LAM launch canisters in a similar but simplified low, wide, arrangement surface mounted to the roof - dont need to slew to target- just pivot the business end up for launch

Poor man's tank destroyer. I like it haha.

 

[markppcli]

When I hear TAPV ATGM I can't help but see the VAB Mephisto- wide, 4 shot low profile launcher carried next to flush and deploying upward to fire.

Now- I know that the the Mephisto turret actually extends down into the hull, and is a less possible upgrade for the TAPV than me shooting lasers from my eyes, but what about NLOS missiles or LAM launch canisters in a similar but simplified low, wide, arrangement surface mounted to the roof - dont need to slew to target- just pivot the business end up for launch

I mean that would be the ideal. Frankly I’d be happy with CROWS J and the option to dismount the CLU.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I mean that would be the ideal. Frankly I’d be happy with CROWS J and the option to dismount the CLU.

Ideally both. CROWS J TAPV's + LAV Recce in mixed car scout troops with a TAPV LAM troop would seem to make a better more useful Cavalry squadron than either homogenous LAV's/TAPV's playing light tank

 

[KevinB]

Trust me when I say, it is certainly useless. OPSEC in mind, the rounds take an excruciatingly long time to target even at 1000. At 2000, the enemy has time for lunch, a nap, a wank and then a jockey. Never mind that since the aerodynamics are comparable to a tennis ball, any stiff breeze will throw the round way off target. A weapon system that can't guarantee first round hit at 1000m with a 10kph crosswind is useless to any AFV.

I'm guessing you have a woefully bad FCS, as a Mk19 isn't that much different than the C-16 GMG, and if you've got a decent FCS system it can plug the lead and wind into your reticle.

A GAU19 would be way too round hungry and expensive imo. A good ole fashioned M2B will suffice.

For most things the 19 will chew up stuff way faster than an M2, and the recoil is a lot nicer so you can actually aim bursts at a decent range.