Author Topic: Scorpion (CVR(T)) family (and Scorpion turret users) - Ideas and Inspiration  (Read 35528 times)

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Helio turrets.

Helio are a British company that produce a range of 1-man turrets and cupolas, a couple of which have been fitted to CVR(T) family vehicles, either for trials or production:

FVT925 turret on Scorpion chassis. This turret has a 25mm Bushmaster and a 7.62mm co-ax:




FVT900 turret on a Stormer APC. This turret has a 20mm Oerlikon KAA ans a 7.62mm co-ax:

"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
It looks like the Phillipines have made some M113 FSVs of their own by adding Scorpion turrets to them:

http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=94lkv5trrdlrs70kdmu8u0ksm1&topic=4025.0

"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Mk.1 fitted with a Scorpion turret with limited traverse... ???

Are we talking about a Italian BMP-1 or just another light tank?

From the look of Taifun the rearward field of fire is probably very limited to begin with......

Italian BMP-1 in effect.... driver plus turret at the front, engine in the middle, 6 infantry with two remote MGs + firing ports in the back.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Mowag wasn't really really set up to carry out large scale production itself of it's designs.  It relied more on licensing it's designs out, to other nations and was quite successful in mainly Latin and Southern America before it hit the big time with the Canadian LAVs.   The Mowag Pirate was IIRC the basis for the Jagdpanzer Canone and Rakete series of SPAT vehicles.  It also greatly influenced the Marder MICV.    The Pirate, IIRC even had two SS11 ATGW missiles, one each side of the engine, in flip-up boxes which raised only at the front.  Mowag hawked their MICV designs around for a couple of decades but apart from a technology sale to Germany, never really found a buyer.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Not exactly: MOWAG participated in the design of the Jpz Kanone and built some of the prototypes, but then produced their own version using essentially the same upper hull on the Torando running gear and engine. It didn't sell. MOWAG did indeed influence the Marder: they also built 1/3 of the (many) prototypes and were a major sub-contractor for the production vehicles, supplying the rear MG mount, the firing ports and the seating.

I havn't heard of SS-11s, but there was a version of the Pirate or Tornado which had two Bofors Bantam ATGWs in flip-up boxes.

MOWAG has a fair bit of production capacity in Switzerland, but you're right: they can't meet a major order without sub-contracting. The major subbies were Alvis in the UK (built the Saudi Piranhas), Cardoen in Chile who later lost the contract to FAMAE and, of course GM Canada.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 11:01:58 AM by Weaver »
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
MOWAG has a fair bit of production capacity in Switzerland, but you're right: they can't meet a major order without sub-contracting. The major subbies were Alvis in the UK (built the Saudi Piranhas), Cardoen in Chile who later lost the contract to FAMAE and, of course GM Canada.

MOWAG could produce high volume in Switzerland and did so for a range of contracts but the ‘sub-contractor’ deals were more about international marketing and access. Obviously Canada and Chile were deals for the local market which the Canadians were able to leverage into the USA. Alvis in the UK was all about selling to the Sauds and getting past Swiss export concerns and onto the established Anglo-Saud deal making. Switzerland has a highly engineered economy with lots of medium sized firms about to produce large quantities of stuff and relatively short notice. Even in the past few years of low demand MOWAG have built or rebuilt a few hundred ARVs per annum.



Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
OT, I know, but very interesting about Alvis building LAVs for the Saudis. Most sources say it was GM Canada.

"During 2000 the Diesel Division of General Motors of Canada retained its position for the fourth successive year as the largest military contractor in Canada. The London, Ontario-based company, now the senior partner in the GM Defence subsidiary of General Motors, spent the year building light armoured vehicles (LAVs) for the armed forces of Canada, Australia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia."

For the Chilean Piraña, Cardoen built the 6x6s (four versions) while FAMAE did the 4x4 and 8x8 types. At one point, 20 or so 6x6s were fitted with new turrets for 90mm Cockerill MkIII guns. But the Ejército de Chile also has a dozen FV101s so picking up more Scorpion turrets for other Piraña 6x6s makes good sense.

Going way back (and apologies for the late reply), those Canadian Forces aluminium turrets originated with Alvis. It is puzzling that nobody else had that cracking problem.  ???
Auferstanden aus Ruinen; Glück für Menschen und Maschinen ...

Offline AGRA

  • Took the opportunity to tease us with a RAAF F-82
OT, I know, but very interesting about Alvis building LAVs for the Saudis. Most sources say it was GM Canada.

The UN arms transfers database shows that all the Saudi LAVs came from Canada via US FMS contracts. It also shows that the only UK exports of Piranhas were to Oman (168) and Qatar (40) with production running from 1995 to 2003.

Going way back (and apologies for the late reply), those Canadian Forces aluminium turrets originated with Alvis. It is puzzling that nobody else had that cracking problem.  ???

Most Scorpion turrets were mounted on aluminium hulled vehicles (Scorpion itself and M113 MRV). The Piranhas with Scorpion turrets combined a steel hull with aluminium turret. This could have lead to cathodic corrosion problems and therefore the cracking. The moral of the story being don’t try and cross your fish with arachnids.

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Thanks for the Saudi LAV confirmation AGRA. And interesting point about bodging together piscids and arachnids!
Auferstanden aus Ruinen; Glück für Menschen und Maschinen ...

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
My uncle used to be an engineer in the defence industry. He visited Alvis at one point, saw Piranha bodies being welded in big rotating jigs (so that all the welding was downhand, which is much easier) and was told at the time that they were for Saudi Arabia.

Canada wasn't the only user to experience cracking problems: the Malaysian Scorpion 90s have had similar problems. Can't recall where I read it now, but the explanation I saw for the Canadian problems was simply that they'd fired FAR more practice rounds than most users, leading to them hitting the fatigue limit of the turret's alloy before anyone else. It seems reasonable to suggest that the Scorpion 90's higher recoil results in more stress and so it reaches that point much earlier with fewer firings.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Very simple wiff, Cadillac Gage T-50 turret on a Spartan for the RAAC Cavalry regiments.  In fact we could have Australia adopting the Spartan in a variety of versions, including 76mm MRVs, 30 or 25mm LRVs, twin 30 cal Assault Troop carriers and 30/50 cal scout vehicles.

  Basically the Spartan replaces the M-113 in the cavalry and the M-113 mechanises the entire army, including the reserve.  While I like the Scorpion and Scimitar the more spacious hull of the Spartan would make more sense in Australia.  Oh yes local production of the thousand odd vehicles.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Well the British Army have responded to the failure/delay of replacements and the increased usage wearing out the Scimitars by transferring Scimitar turrets onto Spartan hulls, which has the added advantage of allowing them to mount mine-resistant suspended seats too. Not sure how a similar mod would cope with the recoil of firing a 76mm sideways though...

Don't forget for your Assault Troop Carriers that the Spartan is SMALL: 3 crew plus 4 dismounts, and that's only with a commander's MG cupola. There's a stretched version (one extra roadwheel) called the Stormer which claims 3+8 with a small turret, though again, I'd imagine it's pretty snug and 3+6+gear+elbow-room might be more realistic.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Basically the Spartan replaces the M-113 in the cavalry and the M-113 mechanises the entire army, including the reserve. 

Very expensive way of doing it.  Considering Army was having real difficulties throughout most of the late 1970s and early 1980s paying the costs of running the M113's it was using (which was only a small fraction of the total it did have.  We purchased over 800 of the things) to the point that ARes units were bringing their own fuel to be used (and illegally disconnecting the odometers), I can't see it affording to mechanise the entire army.   The M113 was a poor choice for that, for Australia.  Wheels makes more sense.  What we needed and ended up getting, the Bushmaster is perfect.  Enough armour and enough mobility for most units.

As already mentioned by Weaver, Spartan is tiny.  Stormer is larger but still too small for everyday use.  You need to have basically room for 10 dismounts plus gear.   Stretched M113 or 10x10 ASLAVPC is the right size for infantry.  Normal M113 or ASLAVPC is the right size for Cav.   Remember, the average sized Australian is about 5-10% bigger than the average sized European according to anthropomorphic measurements, then you need to put their gear in.  The Spartan must be hell in NBC gear.  In an Australian summer it would see diggers keeling over from heat exhaustion.

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
The Spartans arn't used for APC or even "Cav" work in the British Army, rather they're used for transporting specialised teams like MANPADS, ATGW, Engineer Recce and the like.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
The Spartans arn't used for APC or even "Cav" work in the British Army, rather they're used for transporting specialised teams like MANPADS, ATGW, Engineer Recce and the like.

Downunder Cavalry units are primarily Recce units, despite their name.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
The Spartan is not too small for Cav and I was not suggesting it as an APC for infantry, they already had the M-113 for that.

The Spartan would only need to carry a pair of Assault Troopers as scouts and if the manning was available for full assault troops then the M-113 is still available.  As it was the RAAC moved away from separate assault troops over the years to the point that infantry had to be assigned to assist with the roles previously undertaken by them, so four to six scouts per troop would be more than they normally had anyway.

All of this aside, a Spartan with a T50 in Australian cam would look cool.  Twin 30s and four assault troopers or 30/50 with extra ammo and two scouts.

Online GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
There is the argument for sing smaller APCs - basically 2 with 4 troops per rather than 1 with 8.  They always operate in pairs but the advantage is that if you take out one, you still have some troops rather than a complete loss.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
There is the argument for sing smaller APCs - basically 2 with 4 troops per rather than 1 with 8.  They always operate in pairs but the advantage is that if you take out one, you still have some troops rather than a complete loss.

The thought had crossed my mind.  The Light Horse in WWI had one man in four holding the horses and a number of militaries have embraced the four man squad, brick or fire team for some time, most forming sections from two or more of these smaller elements. Even the traditional Australian infantry section used to consist of scout / command group, gun group and rifle group, each of three or sometimes four men.  Any of these would fit a Spartan quite well.

Offline nils

  • 1/144 addict
  • Za Rodina!!!
here are some Belgian Versions of the Scorpion, next to Britian, we were the largest operator of the vehicle with 701 units delivered, here are a few pics i made when all preserved versions (Scorpion, Sultan, Scimitar, Striker, Spartan, Samson, Scholing,....) were on display in Ursel 3 years ago  8)



















on the bench:
-various models

on the drawing board:
-various 1/72 TinTin aircraft
-1/72 Eurocopter Tiger (Belgian Army)
-various other 1/72 and 1/144 aircraft

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Do they have to use a mallet to get the Swingfire back in the box?



Cheers,

Logan

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
There is the argument for sing smaller APCs - basically 2 with 4 troops per rather than 1 with 8.  They always operate in pairs but the advantage is that if you take out one, you still have some troops rather than a complete loss.

I've thought of that before too, but the problem is that it means twice as much maintenance and twice as many crew. If two four-man APCs each have two crew, then that's four in total, or 1/3rd of your manpower driving or commanding. Of course that's not "doing nothing", but it does mean they're tied to the vehicle: if twelve men approach an objective in an M113 then ten of them can debus and take it, but if the same twelve men approach in two Spartans, only eight of them can debus. On the maintenance side, most tasks are per engine or per vehicle, not per litre or ton: one big engine has one oil filter to change, but two small engines have two to change.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Good pics Nils! :)

The MG fits caught my eye. The Spartan, Striker and Samaritan all have proper Mk.16 cupolas with remote-controlled MGs, but the Sultan and Samson have a low-profile cupola with a manual MG. I wonder what the thinking was?
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Good pics Nils! :)

The MG fits caught my eye. The Spartan, Striker and Samaritan all have proper Mk.16 cupolas with remote-controlled MGs, but the Sultan and Samson have a low-profile cupola with a manual MG. I wonder what the thinking was?

Neither Sultan or Samson were intended to directly engage the enemy.  Commanders command, not shoot MGs, Engineers dig holes/build bridges/etc.

You're right about the increased maintenance load of a multitude of smaller APCs would bring, as well as the manpower problem.  Costs also appreciably increase, with increased requirements for POL and twice as many track pads, let alone paint, etc.  Every expendable item is essentially doubled, that quickly appreciates.

Speaking of manpower problems of crew versus passengers, the BMP-3 has the worst IMO.  It has a crew of five to six dismounts!

Nils, I wasn't aware that Belgium had adopted Swingfire.  As Logan has pointed out, the practice round looks a little the worse for wear!

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Neither Sultan or Samson were intended to directly engage the enemy.  Commanders command, not shoot MGs, Engineers dig holes/build bridges/etc.

I was going to say "and medics save lives instead of take them, yet the Samaritan has the full No.16 cupola" but I've just looked at it again and I think I'm wrong: it has the same low-profile cupola plus manual MG as the Sultan and Samson. Having said that, most sources say the Samaritan is unarmed and it's hard to find a pic of one with a gun.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
It depends on the role of the vehicles, are they cavalry or mounted infantry? 


If cavalry then the dismounts are an adjunct to the vehicle that provide scouting, man OPs, listening posts, defend the lager, lay ambushes, checkpoints, roadblocks, etc. They can also assist in maintaining the vehicles, preparing positions, including defences and camouflage, possibly even providing spare crews for the vehicles.  The troops in the back would be Armoured Corps troopers rather than infantry and an integral part of the crew, assisting in the effective and proficient operation and employment of the vehicles.  Smaller capacity vehicles are ideal for this and the ideal complement to gun cars or even tanks, highly effective at screening and providing security to supported units.

Mounted, including armoured, mechanised and motorised infantry are different in that the vehicle, and its crew, are an integral part of the embarked section.  Rather than the dismounts supporting the vehicle, the vehicle supports the dismounts with the vehicle being a part of the section. Its all about the vehicle supporting the rest of the section, getting them where they need to go and supporting them.  With the dismounts being more important there are more of them, usually six, seven, or eight, in one or two fire teams or bricks.  This is your AIFV, MICV, usually tracked but occasionally wheeled with the vehicles being an integral part of the infantry battalions and the infantrymen being specially trained to operate with the vehicles.  These battalions are also trained to work with armoured (tank) battalions / regiments.

Next you have your APCs, IMVs, etc. that provide armoured, or protected, lift for other arms, predominantly infantry but also engineers etc.  This is where you have your capacity for a nine man section or even more , i.e. the original eleven man capacity of the M-113 or the even greater capacity of the AAAV-7.  These are specialised units that transport other units, under armour, to where they need to go.  The RAAC used to do this pretty well with their APC regiments and squadrons (reserve) providing lift for the RAR in Vietnam and reserve battalions back in Australia.  Post Vietnam we moved to specialised mechanised, motorised, light and airborne infantry but are now moving to the concept of infantry supported by armoured cavalry.