furkensturker

Built on a Leopard II chassis, so it's a beast.

========================================

My first posting , 1977, was to a RAEME workshop just as the Leopard, or as the Germans called leo pard, was being phased in and the Centurion was being put out to pasture. I went for a ride in a Centurion and wondered how a crew could live in a bucket of bolts like that.

I then had a go in a leopard, was like chalk and cheese. But as times change, the Army in all it's wisdom, moved our only tank regiment from a cool climate in Victoria (down the bottom on the right hand side) to Darwin (right up the top end) not far from the equator. It's a bit warm up there, while the Leopard is a great tank, all that armour heats up and holds the heat and the Leopard has no Air Conditioning and I hear can't be retrofitted. So a great MBT is hamstrung by something as simple as an A/C and driving around with the hatches open is not always a good idea.

I don't know what they are doing with the Leopards but if they decide to keep them, maybe a retrofit to make it an artillery piece may be a cheaper option?
Any thoughts?

Freddie

__________________
I'm the Happiness Fairy. I've sprinkled happy dust on you.
So Smile dammit. This sh1t's expensive.
Bulla Fiax concouria quantium vis

Versus

What is this? A silencer????

Attached Images

1161096116_pzh-2000.jpg (30.1 KB, 139 views)

__________________
Human stupidity is immortal.

Feanor

Is that a real photo, or photoshop?

furkensturker

If it is a silencer, it's not real portable, then again it could be a Felic symbol for the wishful gunner.

DO NOT USE STEROIDS

Freddie

Bluesman

Exactly. It's used at a Bundeswehr artillery training range.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

ArmchairGeneral

Ah, the annual "is that a silenced howitzer?" thread. Three years straight now.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

S-2

An abomination. One doesn't silence Thor. The King of Battle demands satisfaction (at least a few broken windows).

Offbase north of Ft. Sill, I'd wake to the sounds of M110 (8") battalions shooting TOTs during ARTEPS. They'd rattle your window. The impact area was 15 kms south!

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Feanor

Somewhat more back on topic, so which one should it be for Australia? PzH 2000 or M109 Paladin?

While at first glance the two seem like comparable vehicles, when looking at them in more detail, I get the feeling that they're not even in the same class. The M109 is lighter, has a slightly larger crew, and a slower rate of fire. The PzH 2000 is far heavier but (at least is seems that way) much better armored, given the Leo 2 chassis. The range of the M109, with rocket-assisted projectiles maxes out at about 30km. The PzH 2000 has fired accurately at over 40km with an estimated maximum effective range of 60km. While the logistical requirements of the PzH 2000 are much higher, over all it seems to deliver much better performance.

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?

braindead

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

__________________
....

furkensturker

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?

=================================================

Answers.
1/ most proberley

2/ Sealift capabilities, now theres an interesting concept, one the ADF has not taken seriuosly, we have 2 heavy, well, lift ships, Landing Ship Heavy (LSH) (Royal Australian Navy) that can carry, well not much, but we have just bought 4 Globemaster planes, we're in the big league now.

3/ Strategy and flexibility are two words that the ADF don't use in the same sentence.

4/ sacrifice, we know sacrifice, we've been doing it for the Poms and the US since the year dot.

But seriously, We have a very small defense force, all told about 60,000. It used to be like "dads army" but now we're coming out of the dark ages and getting some decent equipment, but for some reason, they insist on buying Landrovers, Why, I'm buggered if I know. I hope we don't go the way of the "humvee", too big a vehicle. At one stage, a West Australian company called OKA, was making vehicles for the mines here, a great vehicle with heaps of pluses, but the ADF stuck with the Landrover.

It makes one wonder at times if the people making the decisions are, 1/ ADF personell and 2/ have any idea what they are doing.

No matter what happens with the new arty, It will cost heaps, will be the wrong one and it will be situation normal SNAFU.

Freddie, Hurumf, hurnmf

el_guapo

Towed artillery is cheaper as well, and easier to transport like the M777, or the M119/L119. That's one of the reasons why the US hasn't even bothered with a dedicated mortar vehicle, or fully enclosed. They also say the 105mm howitzer is just too light for SP action to be any worth unlike the Russians, though I wouldn't consider 121.92mm howitzer to be light artillery. Sure in comparison to 152.4mm, but really not that light weight in comparison to the 105mm light howitzers. There is also the issue of storage.

Blademaster

The Crusader was the finest SPARTY ever created and Dummy Rumfeild killed Crusader.

kato

M121?

Gun Grape

It depends on what version. If you mean the original idea, and what was being worked on back in 1994, then I agree. The liquid propellent, light enough for 2 systems to be carried in a C-17, long range (due to tube design/PL use) howitzer would have been the cats meow.

But if you mean the overweight POS that it turned into by 2002, I disagree.
Rumsfield was right to cancel it.

There were not enough things that the gun did that were better than the M109A6 to justify the cost. All of the range and accuracy bennies were projectile projects not related to the tube. Most transferable to the much easier deployed and maintained M-109.

Wow, I can think of at least 4 dedicated mortar vehicles in US service right now.
The USMC LAV and AAV7 both have dedicated mortar variants. The Stryker and M113 have Mortar variants in the US Army.

And we did the 105mm SP back in the old days. Google up the M-108.