CVR(T) production to restart

[nigelfe]

Not forgetting IMA sqns in armoured regts outside armd bdes that are equipped with Scimitar.

 

IMA = Interin Medium Armour.

[WRW]

slightly off topic

 

given the current state of the UK Army and taking into consideration the non regimental size deployment of Armour and the existence of the RAC why not put really specialise - HOusehold Cavalry Rgt do the FR for the Marines and Paras

 

The Lancers do the FR for other units - Sqds named after old regiments

 

The Hussars for light reconaissnace

 

The Dragoons do the seriously heavy assault armour

 

and the RTR do the MBTs

 

in fact I would turn mosts of the AAC over to the cavalry -

[commander]

Maybe we should launch a campaign to rename Scimitar 'Gavin'.

 

Stuart wash you mouth out!!! the very thought of the CVR(T) Gaviner 30mm

[Wobbly Head]

Thats got my vote at least, because we could reform 3 Regiment AAC as the 11th Hussars.

 

Don't worry the Amalgamated regiment KRH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Royal_Hussars still kept the Crimson trousers with George boots it makes a barrack dress that even the Village People would consider gay But look on the bright side with the amalgamations the band of the light calvary have an even worse dress the entire LAD had to bite their lip and not hum the theme to Captain Scarlet when ever one of them came into the LAD in their barrack dress.

[Wobbly Head]

double tap

Edited May 12, 2010 by Wobbly Head

[GK Dundas]

Never mind the frickin gun it might use I'd just like to know if they're going to move the plastic fuel cell from the fighting compartment

[Wobbly Head]

Never mind the frickin gun it might use I'd just like to know if they're going to move the plastic fuel cell from the fighting compartment

 

And where are they going to put it, there is hardly enough room for the crew and their kit.

[WRW]

Thats got my vote at least, because we could reform 3 Regiment AAC as the 11th Hussars. Not sure if it would really save much money, particularly now since the end of arms plotting. I know in the 70s they tried to give the Antitank units back to the Royal Artillery, and they couldnt make it work. In the end it made sense to train the units up as part of the unit they would fight in combat with, which is why they attached Striker units to Tank Regiments in the end (and Recce units of course).

 

Incidentally, I gather in the 60s they did have helicopter units directly attached to artillery units as air ops. They chopped it in the end as a cost cutting measure. Administratively it did seem to make sense for that at least to all be part of a distinct unit.

 

Ultimately the real problem here is that if a particular branch of the army gets badly hit in defence cuts, one particular regiment could face near extinction. You also face the problem of particular regiments recruiting in particular areas, therby meaning one branch of the army might be overstaffed, and another understaffed.

 

Good idea though. It would certainly put some colour back in the army. I had often wished the Lancer regiments were reformed as antitank units.

 

 

LRATGW is really a major war requirement so why not have a 'Lancer Rgt' with a RHQ for admin and holding, training development etc, one/two regular sqds training sqd and a clutch of TA sqds

[nigelfe]

Thats got my vote at least, because we could reform 3 Regiment AAC as the 11th Hussars. Not sure if it would really save much money, particularly now since the end of arms plotting. I know in the 70s they tried to give the Antitank units back to the Royal Artillery, and they couldnt make it work. In the end it made sense to train the units up as part of the unit they would fight in combat with, which is why they attached Striker units to Tank Regiments in the end (and Recce units of course).

 

Incidentally, I gather in the 60s they did have helicopter units directly attached to artillery units as air ops. They chopped it in the end as a cost cutting measure. Administratively it did seem to make sense for that at least to all be part of a distinct unit.

 

Ultimately the real problem here is that if a particular branch of the army gets badly hit in defence cuts, one particular regiment could face near extinction. You also face the problem of particular regiments recruiting in particular areas, therby meaning one branch of the army might be overstaffed, and another understaffed.

 

Good idea though. It would certainly put some colour back in the army. I had often wished the Lancer regiments were reformed as antitank units.

 

In the 60s Air Tps & Pls (3 x Sioux)were formed in armd, field regts and inf bns, recce regts had 6 a/c IIRC. The cost of dentralisation were too great.

 

Swngfire tps and pls were concentrated into divisional RHA atk btys for almost a decade. It worked extremely well for training and operations, because it gave the divisional commander a very useful force that could be decentralised to BGs or used as a unit.

[WRW]

There are a number skills/roles in the BA that are really serious WW3 war roles - small regualr imprint BIG reserve imprint - MBT NBC MLRS GBAD, these could be done in indivitual Rgt , part regular majority TA

[DanielStarseer]

Never mind the frickin gun it might use I'd just like to know if they're going to move the plastic fuel cell from the fighting compartment

 

And where are they going to put it, there is hardly enough room for the crew and their kit.

 

Hate to yet again support the M113,

but along its evolution, troops desired the internal fuel bladder(s) be moved to a less-disastrous location (somewhere it didn't spray the crew/dismounts with fuel when it was hit).

So later models featured two rear-mounted external fuel tanks, protected by light armor plating, mounted over the trailing idler to each side of the rear hull, instead of the one big fuel pod (fiberglass?) just inside the rear ramp.

 

Could something like that be done with the CVR(T) family?

 

A very nice intro for me into the CVR(T)'s was from a mid/late 1980's Eagle magazine (1986-88?),

and one of the points of the article was about the choice of petrol engine (Jaguar J60?) over diesel: the argument being, when hit with a few rounds of anything 20mm and upwards (exploding shells), would it really make much difference what kind of fuel you had...?

 

Most today have been upgraded to diesels, correct?

(easier on the fuel/logistics chain, I assume.)

 

LRATGW is really a major war requirement so why not have a 'Lancer Rgt' with a RHQ for admin and holding, training development etc, one/two regular sqds training sqd and a clutch of TA sqds

 

 

Swingfire is a tad on the obsolete/antiquated side, isn't it?

Still, the US Army has made considerably more use of its Bradley-mounted TOWs as anti-structure/anti-obstacle breaching rounds moreso than antitank (because they got no tanks to shoot at, in part), to the point that older but still serviceable TOWs were rebuilt into "demo" variants with the warhead modified or replaced altogether with something more suited to general demolition use.

Swingfire was always praised for the brute force of its warhead: that should surely be useful in the 'Stan against many target types, even if time-of-flight for wire guided ATGMs has always been an issue...

 

 

Personally, Im waiting for them to pull the plug on FRES because its a large cost program. Judged in that light, building more Scimitar hulls rather than going for a new build of Stormer equivilents looks very odd indeed.

 

Either or, seeing as there aren't any in-service production lines running now (is anyone the world over doing any sort of major overhauling?),

are the production tooling and jigs still in existence, or would that all have to be built anew?

On that note, reading aruments as to the fuel layout, transmissions, engines and electrical power, and armament,

would we just manufacture new builds off the old blueprints, or would we modify them accordingly wit lessons learned from the current conflicts?

(improved engine & trans, better armament and optics/fire control, better electricals and fuel layout, better applique armor provisions, etc...)

 

If this latter path (new and improved, not just original specs), that could just as well balloon out of proportion cost-wise as FRES has done...

Even worse if a projected FRES-builder gets the contract, and it is announced FRES will be cut dramatically on grounds of costs...that alone could "encourage" the new CVR(T) manufacturer to steadily increase its costs...

 

Those ST (Singapore Tech) people seem to have a way with creating cost-effective upgrades and competent designs (40mm grenades, for example) without getting all costs-way-out-of-hand like many of the western defense contractors (must be the higher wages of westerners to compensate for?)...perhaps they should be invited to tender a bid in any upgrades/new builds to the CVR(T) family.

Although I'm sure it would be more favorable to keep the jobs in the UK, someone like ST may come up with a more cost-favorable upgrade/rebuild scheme than BAE (bought Alvis some time ago) or GDLS ($8million a copy for a new one?).

[Wobbly Head]

Hate to yet again support the M113,

but along its evolution, troops desired the internal fuel bladder(s) be moved to a less-disastrous location (somewhere it didn't spray the crew/dismounts with fuel when it was hit).

So later models featured two rear-mounted external fuel tanks, protected by light armor plating, mounted over the trailing idler to each side of the rear hull, instead of the one big fuel pod (fiberglass?) just inside the rear ramp.

 

Could something like that be done with the CVR(T) family?

 

A very nice intro for me into the CVR(T)'s was from a mid/late 1980's Eagle magazine (1986-88?),

and one of the points of the article was about the choice of petrol engine (Jaguar J60?) over diesel: the argument being, when hit with a few rounds of anything 20mm and upwards (exploding shells), would it really make much difference what kind of fuel you had...?

 

Most today have been upgraded to diesels, correct?

(easier on the fuel/logistics chain, I assume.)

 

 

 

 

Swingfire is a tad on the obsolete/antiquated side, isn't it?

Still, the US Army has made considerably more use of its Bradley-mounted TOWs as anti-structure/anti-obstacle breaching rounds moreso than antitank (because they got no tanks to shoot at, in part), to the point that older but still serviceable TOWs were rebuilt into "demo" variants with the warhead modified or replaced altogether with something more suited to general demolition use.

Swingfire was always praised for the brute force of its warhead: that should surely be useful in the 'Stan against many target types, even if time-of-flight for wire guided ATGMs has always been an issue...

 

 

 

 

Either or, seeing as there aren't any in-service production lines running now (is anyone the world over doing any sort of major overhauling?),

are the production tooling and jigs still in existence, or would that all have to be built anew?

On that note, reading aruments as to the fuel layout, transmissions, engines and electrical power, and armament,

would we just manufacture new builds off the old blueprints, or would we modify them accordingly wit lessons learned from the current conflicts?

(improved engine & trans, better armament and optics/fire control, better electricals and fuel layout, better applique armor provisions, etc...)

 

 

To answer a couple off your questions moving the fuel tanks in CVRT is not going to happen there simply is nowhere to put them. The whole family of vehicle was designed to be small and airportable. CVRT tanks are all ruber bladders protected by a little bit of Armour Scimitar and Scorpion behind the crew and Spartian and the rest of the family the passengers are sitting on it. But the Armour protection on CVRT is just barley able to protect against 7.62mm so there is little point in trying to uparmour and move the fuel tanks like they said getting hit by anything larger it wouldn't mater what it gets hit by it will either kill the crew before it gets the fuel tanks.

 

There was a another missle varient of the CVRT called the Sturgion using the Milan Compact turret it was made redundant and is only used as a OPFOR vehicle in BATUS.

 

Most of the CVRT fleet were upgraded during their base overhaul (third line repair) but these vehicles are getting to be almost forty years old and metal fatigue and natural wastige through engagements and accidents which even base workshops can't fix. So they will require some new vehicles to be made which might only be the hulls to make the fleet last till or if they get FRES of the ground.

[Wobbly Head]

Hate to yet again support the M113,

but along its evolution, troops desired the internal fuel bladder(s) be moved to a less-disastrous location (somewhere it didn't spray the crew/dismounts with fuel when it was hit).

So later models featured two rear-mounted external fuel tanks, protected by light armor plating, mounted over the trailing idler to each side of the rear hull, instead of the one big fuel pod (fiberglass?) just inside the rear ramp.

 

Could something like that be done with the CVR(T) family?

 

A very nice intro for me into the CVR(T)'s was from a mid/late 1980's Eagle magazine (1986-88?),

and one of the points of the article was about the choice of petrol engine (Jaguar J60?) over diesel: the argument being, when hit with a few rounds of anything 20mm and upwards (exploding shells), would it really make much difference what kind of fuel you had...?

 

Most today have been upgraded to diesels, correct?

(easier on the fuel/logistics chain, I assume.)

 

 

 

 

Swingfire is a tad on the obsolete/antiquated side, isn't it?

Still, the US Army has made considerably more use of its Bradley-mounted TOWs as anti-structure/anti-obstacle breaching rounds moreso than antitank (because they got no tanks to shoot at, in part), to the point that older but still serviceable TOWs were rebuilt into "demo" variants with the warhead modified or replaced altogether with something more suited to general demolition use.

Swingfire was always praised for the brute force of its warhead: that should surely be useful in the 'Stan against many target types, even if time-of-flight for wire guided ATGMs has always been an issue...

 

 

 

 

Either or, seeing as there aren't any in-service production lines running now (is anyone the world over doing any sort of major overhauling?),

are the production tooling and jigs still in existence, or would that all have to be built anew?

On that note, reading aruments as to the fuel layout, transmissions, engines and electrical power, and armament,

would we just manufacture new builds off the old blueprints, or would we modify them accordingly wit lessons learned from the current conflicts?

(improved engine & trans, better armament and optics/fire control, better electricals and fuel layout, better applique armor provisions, etc...)

 

 

To answer a couple off your questions moving the fuel tanks in CVRT is not going to happen there simply is nowhere to put them. The whole family of vehicle was designed to be small and airportable. CVRT tanks are all ruber bladders protected by a little bit of Armour Scimitar and Scorpion behind the crew and Spartian and the rest of the family the passengers are sitting on it. But the Armour protection on CVRT is just barley able to protect against 7.62mm so there is little point in trying to uparmour and move the fuel tanks like they said getting hit by anything larger it wouldn't mater what it gets hit by it will either kill the crew before it gets the fuel tanks.

 

There was a another missle varient of the CVRT called the Sturgion using the Milan Compact turret it was made redundant and is only used as a OPFOR vehicle in BATUS.

 

Most of the CVRT fleet were upgraded during their base overhaul (third line repair) but these vehicles are getting to be almost forty years old and metal fatigue and natural wastige through engagements and accidents which even base workshops can't fix. So they will require some new vehicles to be made which might only be the hulls to make the fleet last till or if they get FRES of the ground.

[CV9030FIN]

Don't worry the Amalgamated regiment KRH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Royal_Hussars still kept the Crimson trousers with George boots it makes a barrack dress that even the Village People would consider gay But look on the bright side with the amalgamations the band of the light calvary have an even worse dress the entire LAD had to bite their lip and not hum the theme to Captain Scarlet when ever one of them came into the LAD in their barrack dress.

 

I've heard that the heritage in regiment histories that shows in their dressing is a very important part of BA. Can you give an example of these "intresting" heritage uniforms?

 

Sadly in our "national army" all heritage that shows has been killed as a cost saving measures during last ten to fifteen years. First our conscripts lost traditionally grey parade and vacation uniforms in favor of BDU that is used also publicly as in parades and in vaction - even as grand dress uniform for conscripts! That just looks horrible - IMHO even better would be to order conscripts go on vacation with their own civilian clothes than in fricking BDU with all shiny medals and crosses (in same prosess they also changed current BDU to sh*it due the ability to use it as both field and dress uniform...you probably can figure out that what it did to functionality in field). Then they took our battalion crests from uniforms and made every body to adabt BDE leveel crests. In the same time we adopted berets to every one...and these problems with that hat are same as in US too...

[Wobbly Head]

I've heard that the heritage in regiment histories that shows in their dressing is a very important part of BA. Can you give an example of these "intresting" heritage uniforms?

 

Sadly in our "national army" all heritage that shows has been killed as a cost saving measures during last ten to fifteen years. First our conscripts lost traditionally grey parade and vacation uniforms in favor of BDU that is used also publicly as in parades and in vaction - even as grand dress uniform for conscripts! That just looks horrible - IMHO even better would be to order conscripts go on vacation with their own civilian clothes than in fricking BDU with all shiny medals and crosses (in same prosess they also changed current BDU to sh*it due the ability to use it as both field and dress uniform...you probably can figure out that what it did to functionality in field). Then they took our battalion crests from uniforms and made every body to adabt BDE leveel crests. In the same time we adopted berets to every one...and these problems with that hat are same as in US too...

 

You realy need to start another thread just for all the little querks of BA dress within regiments. At one time before the creation of the RLC Royal Logistic Corps(realy large corps)there were technicaly no privates in the British Army there were Craftmen,Troopers,Rangers,Storemen,Cooks,Guardsman and everthing else but the only place private apeared was on your pay slip. Even Black coverauls and Death head insignia were standered parts certian Regiments dress.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Wobbly Head

[baboon6]

You realy need to start another thread just for all the little querks of BA dress within regiments. At one time before the creation of the RLC Royal Logistic Corps(realy large corps)there were technicaly no privates in the British Army there were Craftmen,Troopers,Rangers,Storemen,Cooks,Guardsman and everthing else but the only place private apeared was on your pay slip.

 

Not true, the rank of Private was and is used in many infantry regiments and in several other corps besides the RLC. "Storeman" and "Cook" were never ranks either.

[jmcmtank]

Pull up a sandbag; I was on Sultan for a few years and we had horrendous problems with fuel contamination. Various EME's would trot out the "You must have removed the fuel strainer when filling up with cans on exercise". A couple of times I invited them up to view the said long mesh filter and the massive breather around it which allowed all sorts to fall into the tank! On a visit to 23 Base Workshops we brought up the problem with people much more inclined to listen; we were told that the metal tank/seat on Sultan was un-lined and prone to corrosion. One of their guys thought up a unique solution, which was to pour a can of epoxy glue into the tank and swirl it about, then pour out the excess-once it dried the corrosion was then safely sealed.

[Colin]

I did the same to my Landrover fuel tanks, will also seal up pinhole leaks. It's an aircraft product. You might be able to move the fuel to the back in a setup similar to the M113 and then use the space saved for other equipment. The key will be how it affects the weight balance of the vehicle.

[Wobbly Head]

Not true, the rank of Private was and is used in many infantry regiments and in several other corps besides the RLC. "Storeman" and "Cook" were never ranks either.

 

I was kindoff generalising but you are right about the cooks considering their most famous alumni was Dennis Nilsen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Nilsen the cooks would generaly like to sound tougher than they were. As for Storemen the first posting I had was a Armoured workshop they had a RAOC stores platoon and they refered to their most junior ranks as Storeman.

 

Another sandbag story during a stint with OPFOR in BATUS the CVRT were all petrol engines and every few days we got one with fuel troubles. The process for disposing of the old fuel which was the high octane fuel they sold as premium at the local gas stations was quite a pain in the ass lots of paperwork and such like so we adopted an alternitive method. we drained the CVRT tanks and filtered the fuel through a rag to remove smaller contaminates then disposed of it in the fuel tank of who ever parked their car around the hanger the parking lot got a lot fuller when it was known there was a CVRT comming in with fuel line problems.

[Colin]

I picked up a BATUS Ser IIA 109, the amount of fine silt from the dust in the fuel system was impressive, tossed the tank strainer, carb and fuel pump. Now she need an engine overhaul and I need the time to do it.

[D Simcock]

Speaking of pink trousers, I see the new UK Minister of Defence has launched the long awaited SDR.

Are there any clues as to what this will say for the army and FRES?

 

Purchasing new Scimtars under a UOR seems to be one of a line of vehicle purchases bought under hasty UOR's because FRES is yet to materialise and the specs for this overarching program keep changing. Given the cost cutting that will have to go into the implementation of the SDR, are the following feasible:

 

1. Scimitars actually keep rolling on for another 20 years and FRES Scout gets cut.

 

2. The Saxon FRES utility be filled by further purchases of Mastiff, Ridgeback and Wolfhound which are already in service, so no Piranha V's.

 

3. The FV432 fleet gets a complete overhaul to fulfil the tracked component of FRES, so no Ascod utility variants.

 

FRES is a bit of a poisoned chalice being expensive, late and likely to be lambasted by the press as soon as it hits service for not providing enough protection for the troops it carries. It has to be the prime target for the knife when the demanded cuts are made. Seems unlikely they can cut troop numbers with the army already being overstretched.

[commander]

How absolutely SUPER.

 

Actually my Dad was RGH, so I cant remotely be critical of their senior regiment. Mind you the RGH were dressed in Beaufort Blue, and looked remarkably snazzy.

 

Captain Scarlet! Well could have been worse, I always thought the old dress hats the KRIH wore looked just like out of Thunderbirds.

 

Didn't we just, looking at a shot right now taken at the memorial in Glos with me in blues and cavalry sword oh so dashing

[mikegolf]

From the Texan Anglo-USian gunnery contingent: Y'all need to quit with all the Rarden talk. You are giving me nightmares. I left sunny, wind-swept Dorset three years ago, and the mere mention of Rarden has given me flashbacks of teaching 30mm mech. Thanks to the continuous prep sessions, I think I could probably still teach it to this day....though I don't think I would want to. The worlds longest part name...ever.

[commander]

From the Texan Anglo-USian gunnery contingent: Y'all need to quit with all the Rarden talk. You are giving me nightmares. I left sunny, wind-swept Dorset three years ago, and the mere mention of Rarden has given me flashbacks of teaching 30mm mech. Thanks to the continuous prep sessions, I think I could probably still teach it to this day....though I don't think I would want to. The worlds longest part name...ever.

 

My final TP on my Instructors course all 5 periods of it and to make it harder I had a crew of grunts who could not take anything in so if you recall the first part of the mech lesson is confiming name parts, well you can guess the problems. Hardest lesson I think I have had to teach, (got an A for it though) now were did I leave that rack catch plunger etc etc.