The subject of this article concerns a wheeled fire support car Wilk, which has been offered to our troops jointly by Rosomak S.A. and CMI Group for respective years, more specifically whether it is needed in our military. mildly bonding, the author claims that we request KWWO, and as for its assumptions and arguments, I will follow the remainder of this opinion.
Wheel fire support Wolf with CT-CV 105 HP tower
Let's start with the fact that Wolf was first shown publically in 2012. In the first presumption was the base KTO Rosomak, who at the site of the Hitfist-30P tower got the CT-CV strategy from the Belgian CMI company.
The thought of a wheeled fire support vehicle (or otherwise an artillery tank destroyer) was born due to the problem of the structure of the infantry battalion motorized in the Polish Army. due to the planned unification of vehicle traction in mechanized units, 12 and 17 Mechanized Brigades were deprived of their organic T-72 tank battalions. It's like also The deficiency of ppk on vehicles, caused the brigade's ability to combat the enemy's armored weapons to be limited to just 18 portable Spike LR-type ppk launchers and anti-tank cluster ammunition fired by M-98 mortars and 2S1 carnations.
Regarding the review of the article itself,I'm back. Note that the main problem, wokThe author's rotation is defined as follows:
"One of the biggest pains reported present is the deficiency of sufficient
firepower against reinforced positions, engineering firewalls and
buildings with fire consecutive ahead."
Yes, the Wolf would be best suited to the modern counterpart of the assault cannon, whose task is primarily to supply direct fire support to the infantry and, consequently, to destruct reinforced positions and surviving forces. He rightly noted that the usage of Cancers (as artillery) for this intent may be an inappropriate move.
However, I cannot agree.
To this end, a very good example is the civilian war in Syria, or alternatively the lessons drawn from it. There, a very large function is attached to the usage of anti-tank guided missiles, mainly older types (Little, Fagot, Contest, Toophan, TOW-2A). Although they are inactive utilized to combat armored weapons and armored vehicles, on the another hand, we can find many cases where ppk is utilized to destruct the fortifications and fight the aggregates of the surviving forces of the opponent. In the event of combating fortifications, attention should besides be paid to the ability to destruct (and this is completely forgotten today)and specialized defence positions (i.e. concrete and reinforced concrete shelters) and here ppk defends the fact that they are in this respect much more effective weapons than artillery kal. 105 mm - they can penetrate a concrete shelter with a thickness of 1 metre from any distance, while the classical 105 mm shrapnel projectile has a problem with the elimination of light combat shelters (wall thickness: min. 0.5 m) over 500 mand the HESH projectile not moptions pierce Gel wallsmore than 20 cm thick. Moreover, in urban combat, akin capabilities as ppk get anti-tank infantry grenade launchers and jet-free guns that can be moved from place to place more easy and safer than a large-sized fire support car, which will always be the main mark for defenders hiding in buildings.
On the another hand, the chances are even erstwhile it comes to combating the power of surviving and very light defensive positions. Here, shrapnel heads (HE, HEDP, HESH) have a crucial advantage, as the HEAT head has very tiny abilities, due to the fact that the mark (soldier) must be in the line of the cumulative stream or be hit by a shrapnel created by the same stream. But you can inactive construct a ppk that can be equipped with specified a head, so that they inactive have the advantage here. Moreover, specified tasks (the combating of fortifications and surviving force) are to receive the MESKO-designed Pirate, which is to happen in versions with HEAT and HE.
Time to decision on to the second argument
"This vehicle must be a complement to the armored defence system
a subdivision based fundamentally on sets of ppk (on wagons and
set up after rush by operation)"
The problem here is the same threaded cannon. 105 mm- The Belgians (and all lobbyists "into it") in their promotional materials praise this weaponry, claiming that thanks to the usage of state-of-the-art ammunition these guns are capable of combating Russian tanks from distance approx. 2 km.
JedReality can be cruel.
In the early 1990s. The Canadians decided to test the capabilities of their tanks in a theoretical clash with Eastern production machinery. For this purpose, usage was made of infuserauunmodified substawowe MBT of their army, or Leoparded C2 and 5 T-72M1 of Czech productionSlovak previously owned by NVA (East German Army). During the tests it was decided to simulate puniquek armored according to the conditions assumed on the Fuld pass - means the machines were to be shot at 300 meters (no, I did not eat zero) or any another digit). To be sure, each tank was expected to get 5 hits in the frontal armor. In the wash, however, it turned out that the monkeys of the T-72 variety were then immune to hits with 105 mm anti-tank ammunition even from specified a distance. Monkeys, let alone T-72B, T-90 or T-80B, or non-existent T-72B3 and T-90A.
True, modern ammunition 105 mm is more efficient (example is M1060CV), however, she is effective at most against the unmodified T-72B. Of course, you'll find that if you can't go from the front, you gotta effort from the side or from the back, but what are the chances that a poorly armored vehicle with the bestmobility in the field (a These include wheeled vehicles) will be in specified a situation in clash with the tank?
Last thing I could say about a 105 mm wolf., is that the author did not mention that thanks to the considerable lifting of the barrel (even to 42°) mIt would be he besides serves as a company or battalion field artillery. But this solution besides has any serious drawbacks. First dla The wolf was provided with a tiny supply of ammunition, due to the fact that he had only 22 bullets..WIfTo make it full The function of both assault and classical self-propelled guns, the HE ammunition supply would be up to 10-15 rounds. And consequently, Wolves would request extra ammunition cars, which they would depend on. A p2nd They'll request alsoCommanded wagonsa and current access to imaging and radar data so that they can pcause effective artillery fireski for longer distances. The effect would be suchthat the Wolves would double their structures and tasks with self-propelled mortars cancerwho can besides run direct fire.
I fishy CMI noticed this problem and aboutd 2015 startHe was about to offer a Wolf armed with a smooth-bore cannon. 120 mm. OcLife's 120 Unlike "105" is much better anti-tank weapons and most importantly it is presently utilized in the Polish Army. On the another hand for 24-, maxan highly 26-ton vehicle this cannon is, however, an overgrowth of the form over content, due to the fact that it even erstwhile reducedThe rejection is besides strong for a vehicle of specified mass. For comparison Centauro 2 is simply a vehicle that was specially constructed as an artillery tank destroyer, is differently balanced than Rosomak and is much heavier due to the fact that he weighs 30-32 Tons.
Wheeled fire support car Wolf with tower XC8 120 HP
Another option I've encountered is:"Skoau We're taking Wolf, so let's just buy Centauri," but I'm going to make a brief message on that. Is it cost-effective to make a logistics chain for 100, up to 150 vehicles that are importantly different from the Rosomaks utilized here, and we do not request them that much?
In summary, the author pointed out first of all the deficiency of capabilities of our infantry battalions motorized in combating fortifications.but did not draw conclusions onthe current civilian war in Syria, where - as I have already mentioned - ppk is utilized for these tasks.He noticed limited capabilities "105" in combating modern tanks, considering the taskIn this respect, rocket tank destroyers (we do not have) should meet. He stressed besides that presently "120" do not meet the objectivesin front of a wheeled fire support wagon. However, if Wolf were to strengthen the anti-tank defence of the bpzmot., then in terms of capabilities from "105" importantly more economicCommon the solution is installation parts Rosomacs tower with automaticau cannonsau tanksau average caliber (cal. 50 - 76 mm) included in the set with ppk launchers, but in this respect no 1 but the Russians is presently working on it. And if we truly want to own
