Obrum PL-01 Concept Direct Fire Support Vehicle
- Thread starter Triton
- Start date
http://youtu.be/-_TPzN1s9FQ
http://youtu.be/BosrrA4Ie10
http://youtu.be/8XPkz1o6t98
http://youtu.be/BosrrA4Ie10
http://youtu.be/8XPkz1o6t98
http://youtu.be/I5tzKYwpT1o
Neat, though I have never understood the concept of putting a tank-killing gun on a light chassis unless it was a dedicated tank destroyer used essentially as a self-propelled anti-tank gun--ambush and then run like your life depended on it (because it does).
Presumably the role of a cannon on light chassis in the modern context is usually going to be direct fire support. In that case, then a lighter gun with less range and a lot more ammunition would make more sense. Something like the OTO Melara Mod 56 105mm pack howitzer would be perfect and the short barrel would make the vehicle easier to maneuver. The Mod 56 is not robust enough for heavy, continuous barrage use but it's perfect for this kind of direct point use. How often is direct fire support going to be used at more than 11,100 m (12,100 yd), the published max range fo the Mod 56?
Heck, for that matter, a modern equivalent of the old 75mm pack howitzer in a self-propelled mount would be very handy. Even the M116 75mm could reach out 8780 m (9600 yd). Bring back the M8 HMC! ;-)
Presumably the role of a cannon on light chassis in the modern context is usually going to be direct fire support. In that case, then a lighter gun with less range and a lot more ammunition would make more sense. Something like the OTO Melara Mod 56 105mm pack howitzer would be perfect and the short barrel would make the vehicle easier to maneuver. The Mod 56 is not robust enough for heavy, continuous barrage use but it's perfect for this kind of direct point use. How often is direct fire support going to be used at more than 11,100 m (12,100 yd), the published max range fo the Mod 56?
Heck, for that matter, a modern equivalent of the old 75mm pack howitzer in a self-propelled mount would be very handy. Even the M116 75mm could reach out 8780 m (9600 yd). Bring back the M8 HMC! ;-)
Avimimus
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 December 2007
- Messages
- 2,282
- Reaction score
- 590
It is tempting to talk design choices... especially with a concept vehicle. But I'll try to restrain myself
Any thoughts on the shell-trap on the right side of the turret? Sure, this design probably doesn't have the armour to withstand direct fire from anti-tank guns, but what about 20mm AP rounds? Of course the optics would be unlikely to survive, but it still seems suspect to me to create a basket behind the optics for the round to get trapped in.
Let me know if I'm still thinking like its 1943... Perhaps there is nothing important behind the optics (the turret is unmanned after all) and a small calibre round would be unlikely to cause lateral damage...?
Any thoughts on the shell-trap on the right side of the turret? Sure, this design probably doesn't have the armour to withstand direct fire from anti-tank guns, but what about 20mm AP rounds? Of course the optics would be unlikely to survive, but it still seems suspect to me to create a basket behind the optics for the round to get trapped in.
Let me know if I'm still thinking like its 1943... Perhaps there is nothing important behind the optics (the turret is unmanned after all) and a small calibre round would be unlikely to cause lateral damage...?
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,971
- Reaction score
- 3,248
It'S design and colour reminds me very much of the PZL-230 Skorpion aircraft project. I hope for better faith and success this time.
http://youtu.be/Q4U3MwV9jeA
i find myself really hoping this armored vehicle actually sees production in something near this form.. tech wise it would be nice to see how the success or failure of the vehicle in actual use effect armor combat doctrine, it could help spur the development of other, similarly advanced vehicles to replace the older stuff in the 1st and 2nd world militaries, and frankly, it just looks cool.
i'd actually written something very similar to it (also inspired by the CV90 series and the FCS proposals) for a future tech Scifi RPG i freelance for.. i've not near a final draft yet, so now i might have to go back and alter the one i wrote and its derivitives, since it doesn't seem as futuristic now that the PL-01 exists..
i'd actually written something very similar to it (also inspired by the CV90 series and the FCS proposals) for a future tech Scifi RPG i freelance for.. i've not near a final draft yet, so now i might have to go back and alter the one i wrote and its derivitives, since it doesn't seem as futuristic now that the PL-01 exists..
lastdingo
Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
It's a CV90120 / EGS crossover, but some even quite fundamental problems are visible already:
- bullet trap issue (small arms DO damage optics)
- not enough hangover for tracks over hull (if any), and thus plain mechanical obstacle crossing issues
- neglect of forward-projecting smoke dischargers
- suspiciously narrow tracks (CV90 tracks, but vehicle is at maximum weight known from CV90 series, likely suboptimal)
- questionable field of view for driver through panoramic telescopes
- difficult-to-camouflage barrel cover
- barrel overheating risk (I know normal barrels got thermal sleeves as well, but this thing requires extra tests)
- absence of standard antennas
- no stowage space for personal equipment (backpacks)
- bullet trap issue (small arms DO damage optics)
- not enough hangover for tracks over hull (if any), and thus plain mechanical obstacle crossing issues
- neglect of forward-projecting smoke dischargers
- suspiciously narrow tracks (CV90 tracks, but vehicle is at maximum weight known from CV90 series, likely suboptimal)
- questionable field of view for driver through panoramic telescopes
- difficult-to-camouflage barrel cover
- barrel overheating risk (I know normal barrels got thermal sleeves as well, but this thing requires extra tests)
- absence of standard antennas
- no stowage space for personal equipment (backpacks)
Source:
http://www.defence24.pl/news_pl-01-concept-nowy-pojazd-modulowy-z-labed
http://www.defence24.pl/news_pl-01-concept-nowy-pojazd-modulowy-z-labed
Attachments
Reply to post #3
I agree. There seems to have been some ambivalence in the design of this vehicle. Direct fire-support suggests exactly that: supporting infantry of light mechanized forces in, for instance built up areas. The idea that the vehicle also has to have a gun capable of killing the latest generation MBT, degrades the direct fire-support role. A vehicle fitted with a 105mm field gun/howitser type weapon would have been much better in the support role, mayby something like the ols Abott SPG, or the vehicle depicted here.
http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/fscv_003.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/xy_fscv.htm&h=263&w=500&sz=30&tbnid=uX46qIa6Zg1iYM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=171&zoom=1&usg=__UV-ygp1ukgjQ4x1YUgTwC3JhiUc=&docid=0Pa6b_qXzPNd_M&sa=X&ei=X8y5UvfKBomS0QXh4IDYAw&ved=0CEoQ9QEwAw
I agree. There seems to have been some ambivalence in the design of this vehicle. Direct fire-support suggests exactly that: supporting infantry of light mechanized forces in, for instance built up areas. The idea that the vehicle also has to have a gun capable of killing the latest generation MBT, degrades the direct fire-support role. A vehicle fitted with a 105mm field gun/howitser type weapon would have been much better in the support role, mayby something like the ols Abott SPG, or the vehicle depicted here.
http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/fscv_003.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/xy_fscv.htm&h=263&w=500&sz=30&tbnid=uX46qIa6Zg1iYM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=171&zoom=1&usg=__UV-ygp1ukgjQ4x1YUgTwC3JhiUc=&docid=0Pa6b_qXzPNd_M&sa=X&ei=X8y5UvfKBomS0QXh4IDYAw&ved=0CEoQ9QEwAw
On the issue of fire support, once most MBTs moved to a 120mm standard in the late 70s/early 80s, 105mm seemed to be reserved for just the stated fire support role being deployed on light tracked and heavy wheeled platforms.
Is the current preponderance on 120mm not just another inevitable evolution?!
Although to reinforce your broad point, I have spoken to several guys who operate in these areas and most swear by the 105 and are wary of any "upgrade".......having said that I also know a few who long to be reissued with the FAL
C
Is the current preponderance on 120mm not just another inevitable evolution?!
Although to reinforce your broad point, I have spoken to several guys who operate in these areas and most swear by the 105 and are wary of any "upgrade".......having said that I also know a few who long to be reissued with the FAL
C
It makes you wonder what a true modern fire support vehicle would look like...this seems to be trying to be all things to all people.
Actually, my thinking was along different lines. A low-pressure, low-velocity cannon (75mm or so?) could be quite light (carbon fiber over a steel barrel insert?) and still have a range of several kilometers and deliver far more punch than any multiple-shot man-portable weapon. Add smart technology to explode overhead and behind cover and you have a powerful urban fire support tool. Perhaps a conventional munition developed around the projectiles for the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle?
C
CostasTT
Guest
Yes on the punch, no on the range. Low pressure weapons have traditionally low muzzle velocities and thus short effective ranges.cluttonfred said:
The range quoted for the L23A1 76mm gun as used in the CVR(T) Scorpion is 2200m. The earlier and heavier L5A1 gun of the Saladin armored car offered similar performance. The low pressure 2A28 Grom hybrid gun/rocket launcher was likewise short ranged. The experimental long barreled Zarnitsa gun, derived from the Grom, would undoubtedly have offered a longer range, but not to the level of a high velocity weapon.
If range is required, along with a large warhead, the solution is a high velocity, high pressure gun mated to a soft recoil system.
Interesting, thanks, CostasTT. I suppose it comes down to your definition of fire support and how much range you really need for the job. I do still think that a smaller gun could fill useful niche for direct fire support. For example, the old M1A1 75mm pack howitzer weighed only 653 kg including the M8 carriage and threw 6 kg projectiles 8 km. A modern incarnation ought to be able to improve on all those numbers and add air burst and even guided munitions yet help keep the overall vehicle size and weight down for airlift.
C
CostasTT
Guest
You are welcome.
Indeed, it's a matter of requirements. But as we are talking direct fire support here, I think I must remind you that even the 75mm howitzer used elevation (i.e. indirect fire) to achieve the range you mention. Personally, I think that if one does not want to go the way of 76-125mm high pressure gun systems, a breech loaded mortar between 81-120mm is the way to go, as it offers both direct and indirect capabilities. For instance, imagine the BMP-1 with the Vasilek automatic mortar instead of the Grom.
Indeed, it's a matter of requirements. But as we are talking direct fire support here, I think I must remind you that even the 75mm howitzer used elevation (i.e. indirect fire) to achieve the range you mention. Personally, I think that if one does not want to go the way of 76-125mm high pressure gun systems, a breech loaded mortar between 81-120mm is the way to go, as it offers both direct and indirect capabilities. For instance, imagine the BMP-1 with the Vasilek automatic mortar instead of the Grom.
Absolutely, I doubt that the 75mm pack howitzers were used for direct fire at any more than 1,000 m if that far. I agree that something like the Patria AMOS or NEMO mortar systems might also provide a much lighter and more flexible alternative for an infantry fire support vehicle.
