Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
PzH 2000 is certainly a better artillery piece in general, but given the needs of the Australians, the choice may be more difficult than it first seems. Like you said, the PzH 2000 is much more problematic logistically than the Paladin. If Australia desires to have an expeditionary capability, and I believe they do, the greater size and weight of the PzH 2000 are a big problem. This is why the US has stuck with the 39 cal gun on the Paladin. They have traded performance for mobility. Also, tactically speaking, the much heavier PzH could have issues when employed in countries with poor infrastructure. Of course, if they're working with tanks, it's mostly a moot point, as the PzH can go anywhere that can support an MBT's weight.
So in my mind, it comes down to a few questions: do the Aussies want to use it overseas? If so, what are their sealift capabilities? How much strategic flexibility are they willing to sacrifice for greater tactical performance?
|
US Army AFAIK did not choose mobility over performance , but were stuck with Paladin after Crusader got cancelled . It is much upgraded but still a almost 50 year old design .
Interesting to note that Austr. had Leopard 1 tank before current M1A1 . So they chose a vehicle that has quite a large logistics footprint . Canada chose Leop.2A6 that is in the same weight category as M1 and Pzh-2000 . M-109 is in the same weight cat. as Leop.1 that both Can. and Austr. have replaced .
I guess a 36ton Paladin + it´s resupply vehicle will not go to places the MBT will not put it´s foot (track) . Pzh-2000 has been used in Afghanistan , so it is deployable too .
just my 0.18 cents