- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #121
They are not very expensive and probably much cheaper to maintain than alternatives.
They are based on the same plane as the P-99 (EMB 145) and in an emergency you can't just that the NATO Sentry's.
My idea's to upgrade the Dutch military.
They are based on the same plane as the P-99 (EMB 145) and in an emergency you can't just that the NATO Sentry's.
Well I thought about MALE UAV like the Heron which can be used far a great deal of roles.
In an serious emergency which sees the Netherlands as defender and not as aggressor I can hardly imagine that the NATO ressources will be denied.
Anyway I though and read a little about the IMV Bushmaster and the effectivness of the crew served weapons in general.
The Dutch Bushmaster
Take the Ozzie baseline address the specific weaknesses detected by the soldiers. Ask many questions, ask for many details. Things like
(i) To which extent can the amor, especially the one against IEDs and mines be improved without getting too negative returns in other areas of performance? Seats are also a key component of the "armor". Camo, SA and good weapons form also intrinsic parts of the protection of the crew. How can I improve them in this component, how in accordance with the wider system/network?
(ii) To which exten can I increase the comfort and safety of the crew and infantry? The scorching heat of Afghanistan can be mitigated by modern camouflage which shades the skin and breaks up the visual and IR outline of the FV. An isolating paint or a light and cheap layer on top of the FV and the outlaying systems will reduce the heat-up and the signature. This mitigates also the strain on air conditioning systems.
a) Fit every or every second IMV used for patrolling with a sniper detection system like the Boomerang or muzzle flash detector. Add a seperate periscope/light RWS with an MG for the commander with good optics and IR. The secundary RWS is a goodie, if too complex, screw it. The seperate wide-view optic is imporant to allow the commander/assistent gunner (an infantry guy) to get SA and search for the target.
Every shot taken at the IMV will get automatically geolocalized with the help of the GPS. Feed the information into the BMS (Battle management system) and into the sighting systems of the RWS and the commander. This helps to get the eyes on the sources of fire really quick.
b) The IMV should be equipped with the same RWS with two main configurations, GMG or HMG. It should have excellent optics (IR and day) with good optical zoom (4-16), Laser range finder and the ability to geolocate the target and mark it at night with IR. With a ballistic computer providing a accurate firing solution already the first round should be spot on. This way you will be able to acquire, identify and engage the target speedily, call in arty and air really fast and easiyl mark the target for CAS or fire support at night.
(i) Without the secundary, independent RWS on top possibly add a coaxial MG or LMG to the GMG RWS. It gives redundency and a different tool with a lot of ammo. This version is the ideal for quick and deadly suppression. Plenty of different rounds available for that one, so something for all the tastes. It has also some indirect capability too.
(ii) The HMG version is the "sniper" and can reach out a long way. It has the same "basic" package but might get a two Spike launchers instead of the coaxial MG if cost and weight allow it. A crazy idea might be a duo/quad of Bunker/Panzerfausts with an warhead suited against infantry on the side of the RWS, slated to the optics and the FCS. Should help to break ambushes pretty fast and give four mighty heavy punches with a relative cheap ammo.
c) Look into an active defense suite, like the AMAP-T, as it may be just a matter of time unitil the IMV has a nasty encounter with a modern AT missile or round. It seems to be likely and sensible addition of almost any AFV. It may also increase SA by helping to detect the source of the incoming fire.
d) Equip a couple of them with heavier belly armor and the tools (cameras, sensors) needed to detect and handle IEDs under armor. If not sufficient to the task, buy specialized platforms. This is an too important aspect to neglect. It is a very important, yet very small component in the broader fight against the IEDs and mines.
e) Given that the IMV will have to function in an fire support I think that a GCS/system for a couple small/micro UAV should always be present. This will require a trained operator. The data/video link should be fed into the BMS.
f) The FOO of the Fire support team should of course be able to acccess the BMS/maps to faciliate the integration of the indirect fire suppoort. He still will have his personal equipment.
g) When organic IDF support is needed an IMV Bushmaster with appropriate trailer might function as an mini-RSTA mortar vehicle with enough rounds for most fights. You can transport in a 2 men UAV team ( Skylark-alike), an FO (CAS, IDF), a mortar crew of 4 men, an RWS gunner. A 120mm or 81mm mortar should be used depending on the situation, and the 3-men "mortar section" will be supported by other members of the "Bushmaster platoon", like the second men of the UAV section.
In most of the current missions in Afghanistan the smaller 81mm might often the better tool for the job, as the 120mm mortar has not yet guided rounds which makes close suppor due to the large payload more dangerous. The range should usually suffice and the large amount of the compact rounds should be helpful. It is also less hard on the soft underground and easier to handle. Anyway it depends also on the larger plans of the Army.
The Fennek with all his gear and the UAV would be able to perform the RSTA part a great deal better. In this case you can use the Bushmaster to carry more eyes and hands to the battle.
The Dutch Fennek
As far as I can see the Royal Army has a sensible approach to the many Fenneks it purchased. Seemingly the Dutch already have the assets required for g) in place: An combination of an Fennek voorwaartse waarnemer (Forward Observer/Detector) or an Verkennings- en Bewakingsvoertuigan version an Fennek moritier with an 81mm mortar. IMHO the Korps should get the same vehicles or similar capabilites. See g)
In any case the combination of both vehicles should include UAV (the Aladin is already leased in small numbers) and perhaps UGV beside the excellent sensor suite.
In an serious emergency which sees the Netherlands as defender and not as aggressor I can hardly imagine that the NATO ressources will be denied.
Anyway I though and read a little about the IMV Bushmaster and the effectivness of the crew served weapons in general.
The Dutch Bushmaster
Take the Ozzie baseline address the specific weaknesses detected by the soldiers. Ask many questions, ask for many details. Things like
(i) To which extent can the amor, especially the one against IEDs and mines be improved without getting too negative returns in other areas of performance? Seats are also a key component of the "armor". Camo, SA and good weapons form also intrinsic parts of the protection of the crew. How can I improve them in this component, how in accordance with the wider system/network?
(ii) To which exten can I increase the comfort and safety of the crew and infantry? The scorching heat of Afghanistan can be mitigated by modern camouflage which shades the skin and breaks up the visual and IR outline of the FV. An isolating paint or a light and cheap layer on top of the FV and the outlaying systems will reduce the heat-up and the signature. This mitigates also the strain on air conditioning systems.
a) Fit every or every second IMV used for patrolling with a sniper detection system like the Boomerang or muzzle flash detector. Add a seperate periscope/light RWS with an MG for the commander with good optics and IR. The secundary RWS is a goodie, if too complex, screw it. The seperate wide-view optic is imporant to allow the commander/assistent gunner (an infantry guy) to get SA and search for the target.
Every shot taken at the IMV will get automatically geolocalized with the help of the GPS. Feed the information into the BMS (Battle management system) and into the sighting systems of the RWS and the commander. This helps to get the eyes on the sources of fire really quick.
b) The IMV should be equipped with the same RWS with two main configurations, GMG or HMG. It should have excellent optics (IR and day) with good optical zoom (4-16), Laser range finder and the ability to geolocate the target and mark it at night with IR. With a ballistic computer providing a accurate firing solution already the first round should be spot on. This way you will be able to acquire, identify and engage the target speedily, call in arty and air really fast and easiyl mark the target for CAS or fire support at night.
(i) Without the secundary, independent RWS on top possibly add a coaxial MG or LMG to the GMG RWS. It gives redundency and a different tool with a lot of ammo. This version is the ideal for quick and deadly suppression. Plenty of different rounds available for that one, so something for all the tastes. It has also some indirect capability too.
(ii) The HMG version is the "sniper" and can reach out a long way. It has the same "basic" package but might get a two Spike launchers instead of the coaxial MG if cost and weight allow it. A crazy idea might be a duo/quad of Bunker/Panzerfausts with an warhead suited against infantry on the side of the RWS, slated to the optics and the FCS. Should help to break ambushes pretty fast and give four mighty heavy punches with a relative cheap ammo.
c) Look into an active defense suite, like the AMAP-T, as it may be just a matter of time unitil the IMV has a nasty encounter with a modern AT missile or round. It seems to be likely and sensible addition of almost any AFV. It may also increase SA by helping to detect the source of the incoming fire.
d) Equip a couple of them with heavier belly armor and the tools (cameras, sensors) needed to detect and handle IEDs under armor. If not sufficient to the task, buy specialized platforms. This is an too important aspect to neglect. It is a very important, yet very small component in the broader fight against the IEDs and mines.
e) Given that the IMV will have to function in an fire support I think that a GCS/system for a couple small/micro UAV should always be present. This will require a trained operator. The data/video link should be fed into the BMS.
f) The FOO of the Fire support team should of course be able to acccess the BMS/maps to faciliate the integration of the indirect fire suppoort. He still will have his personal equipment.
g) When organic IDF support is needed an IMV Bushmaster with appropriate trailer might function as an mini-RSTA mortar vehicle with enough rounds for most fights. You can transport in a 2 men UAV team ( Skylark-alike), an FO (CAS, IDF), a mortar crew of 4 men, an RWS gunner. A 120mm or 81mm mortar should be used depending on the situation, and the 3-men "mortar section" will be supported by other members of the "Bushmaster platoon", like the second men of the UAV section.
In most of the current missions in Afghanistan the smaller 81mm might often the better tool for the job, as the 120mm mortar has not yet guided rounds which makes close suppor due to the large payload more dangerous. The range should usually suffice and the large amount of the compact rounds should be helpful. It is also less hard on the soft underground and easier to handle. Anyway it depends also on the larger plans of the Army.
The Fennek with all his gear and the UAV would be able to perform the RSTA part a great deal better. In this case you can use the Bushmaster to carry more eyes and hands to the battle.
The Dutch Fennek
As far as I can see the Royal Army has a sensible approach to the many Fenneks it purchased. Seemingly the Dutch already have the assets required for g) in place: An combination of an Fennek voorwaartse waarnemer (Forward Observer/Detector) or an Verkennings- en Bewakingsvoertuigan version an Fennek moritier with an 81mm mortar. IMHO the Korps should get the same vehicles or similar capabilites. See g)
In any case the combination of both vehicles should include UAV (the Aladin is already leased in small numbers) and perhaps UGV beside the excellent sensor suite.
Last edited:
Well you would two connect four Bunkerfausts to a suitable RWS you would neet a solid yet light frame which connect to the firing mechanism of the tube. It would be attached to the axle which also holds the main armament. IIRC the tubes with the rounds cost something around 3000-4000 €. The whole thing would add around 55-65kg on one or diveded on both sides.
On a stable platform with a lazing FCS and good optics it should reach out to at least 500m against stationary targets. Could be more and with an heavy frag sleve around the standard warhead it will be rather suited for the use against the poor guys on the other side. Anyway the standard Bunkerfaust should do fine, especially against infantry in houses/light Bunkers.
It is perhaps also most usefull to quickly suppress an enemy ambush and would increase thus the safety of the crew. At least we had rather large stockpiles of them as I was told, so it would put them to some good use. Perhaps put a decent frag sleve around the standard Panzerfaust.
IMHO there is no "normal" warfare. The Bushmaster should make good protected movers under almost all conditions and with such a sensor and weapon package they and their infantry will surly hold their own against most light infantry. Keep in mind the in the Cold War the IMV were far less protected.
BTW: I will leave DefenseTalk as my free time will soon be no longer be as long and free
So good bye.
On a stable platform with a lazing FCS and good optics it should reach out to at least 500m against stationary targets. Could be more and with an heavy frag sleve around the standard warhead it will be rather suited for the use against the poor guys on the other side. Anyway the standard Bunkerfaust should do fine, especially against infantry in houses/light Bunkers.
It is perhaps also most usefull to quickly suppress an enemy ambush and would increase thus the safety of the crew. At least we had rather large stockpiles of them as I was told, so it would put them to some good use. Perhaps put a decent frag sleve around the standard Panzerfaust.
IMHO there is no "normal" warfare. The Bushmaster should make good protected movers under almost all conditions and with such a sensor and weapon package they and their infantry will surly hold their own against most light infantry. Keep in mind the in the Cold War the IMV were far less protected.
BTW: I will leave DefenseTalk as my free time will soon be no longer be as long and free
So good bye.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #125
We could experiment with that I suppose...
------------------------------------------Navy
Anyway I was looking around for other OPV's, light corvettes and fast attack crafts to find out what the Holland-Class would need.
Containerised weapons is a good option but not totally neccesary.
For weapons,
planned are 1 oto melare 76mm, 1 Marlin WS 30mm, 2 Hitrole 12,7mm, 2 12,7mm M2's and 6 FN MAG's.
So basically alot of guns in differen't sizes...
I would choose:
-Oto melare 76mm
-6 FN MAG's
-2 M2's OR Hitroles
-If possle vertical launchers with ESSM's (1 or 2 modulles).
-AS missle, maybe we could use the RBS15 as in the german Braunschweig class (although more missles) as these should be bought for the Gripen too as we (on this board) selected it as main fighter OR Harpoon missles.
-A goalkeeper.
-MU90 launcher.
Build 6 of those.
Then build another 2 LCF's with the extra (6th) mk. 41 module.
Upgrade the other 4 by giving them an extra module too.
Buy the SM3 and Thomahawks.
Maybe we could build a Scaneagle launch and recovery system on all frigates (and OPV's?) too.
Retire the last 2 Karel Doornman frigates from service and use there crew for the new ships.
(Give the new LCF's there names.)
----------------------
We should buy our own Aladin's and Scaneagles for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps.
And we should wait for the Mantis.
MQ-4 is no priority.
------------------------------------------Navy
Anyway I was looking around for other OPV's, light corvettes and fast attack crafts to find out what the Holland-Class would need.
Containerised weapons is a good option but not totally neccesary.
For weapons,
planned are 1 oto melare 76mm, 1 Marlin WS 30mm, 2 Hitrole 12,7mm, 2 12,7mm M2's and 6 FN MAG's.
So basically alot of guns in differen't sizes...
I would choose:
-Oto melare 76mm
-6 FN MAG's
-2 M2's OR Hitroles
-If possle vertical launchers with ESSM's (1 or 2 modulles).
-AS missle, maybe we could use the RBS15 as in the german Braunschweig class (although more missles) as these should be bought for the Gripen too as we (on this board) selected it as main fighter OR Harpoon missles.
-A goalkeeper.
-MU90 launcher.
Build 6 of those.
Then build another 2 LCF's with the extra (6th) mk. 41 module.
Upgrade the other 4 by giving them an extra module too.
Buy the SM3 and Thomahawks.
Maybe we could build a Scaneagle launch and recovery system on all frigates (and OPV's?) too.
Retire the last 2 Karel Doornman frigates from service and use there crew for the new ships.
(Give the new LCF's there names.)
----------------------
We should buy our own Aladin's and Scaneagles for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps.
And we should wait for the Mantis.
MQ-4 is no priority.
I think you are trying to make the planned Holland Class into something which it isn't. As has been discussed to death in the RNZN threads, if you wish to buy an all singing, all dancing frigate then that is what you should do, not try and up arm an Offshore patrol vessel into one when the design might not have the space/weight to allow it. By all means build the Holland class, but if you want more frigates buy frigates, not uparmed OPVs which may not/will not be best suited to the frigate role.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #127
Not in a frigate role, and with alot less launchers and missles then frigates, but with an actual warfighting capability.
You could use containerised weapons if you want to and then you can specialise it further.
But the ship is large enough and why would by build such a large vessle to give it some silly machineguns.
You could replace the vertical launchers with something more simple like Stingers if you want.
You could use containerised weapons if you want to and then you can specialise it further.
But the ship is large enough and why would by build such a large vessle to give it some silly machineguns.
You could replace the vertical launchers with something more simple like Stingers if you want.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #129
Is that the official and definitive design?
That would mean redesign...
But Stinger (or something like Simbad or starstreak) and a goalkeeper (if space) on the backside, besides where's the Marlin gun we could use that spot for something else?
Missles launchers should be (just like 4 missles 2*2 RBS15 or 4*Harpoon) integrated in the vessel as much as possible (both sides of the 76mm?)
That would mean redesign...
But Stinger (or something like Simbad or starstreak) and a goalkeeper (if space) on the backside, besides where's the Marlin gun we could use that spot for something else?
Missles launchers should be (just like 4 missles 2*2 RBS15 or 4*Harpoon) integrated in the vessel as much as possible (both sides of the 76mm?)
Last edited:
Yes. As pinched from Damens website.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #131
Ok, on the back a RAM (or CIWS version) or the future Starstreak CIWS.
Then on the front 2 x 2 RBS15 launchers, I don't know if anyone has good picture of the RBS launchers on the Braunschweig class or other ships so I can see how big they are...
The 76mm should have this cupola instead of the round one:
Google Afbeeldingen resultaat voor http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/F218_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern_Buggeschuetz.jpg/300px-F218_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern_Buggeschuetz.jpg
And ASW torpodoes.
Sounds viable to me and not very heavy.
Then on the front 2 x 2 RBS15 launchers, I don't know if anyone has good picture of the RBS launchers on the Braunschweig class or other ships so I can see how big they are...
The 76mm should have this cupola instead of the round one:
Google Afbeeldingen resultaat voor http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/F218_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern_Buggeschuetz.jpg/300px-F218_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern_Buggeschuetz.jpg
And ASW torpodoes.
Sounds viable to me and not very heavy.
Beatmaster
New Member
Sure we all have our wishlist.
The Dutch must do what they good at they have a small but kickass army its good trained it has in some fields topnotch weapons and it is overall a pretty good/very good army.
We lack airlift and we lack some additional support systems.
Also we lack brains in Den haag because our goverment are to say in dutch Achterlijke Sukkels (Complete morons)
We could use some upgrades and new systems in all 3 sections Army Naval and Airforce. Also more money to fund new projects and keeping our army in good shape, secondly making our army a little more bigger and adding some more multipurpose systems would boost our Nato/Eu obligations.
And we need to focus more on becoming self supporting we still rely to mutch on outside help.
There is no need to worry about security because we might be small but we are not defenceless and any foe will think twice to attack us because again we are small but we know how to kickass and besides that who would try to invade us? Venezula would be one but even if we would lose Chaves would be pay a mutch higher prize so in that regard i believe Chaves may have the upperhand but frankly? he has not a single option to win this the dutch are ready for him if he moves a mussle.
Back to the topic just 5 rules:
1) Support and Upgrade new projects and Systems
2) Buy and Train some multipurpose systems in all 3 devisions Air/Ground/Water or Airforce/naval/and army
3) Expand the armed forces and Infrastructure and keep the internal information uptodate ( Comminucation services) and make them more compartible with othersystems for better secure dataprocessing and battle analyses or intel what will improve the output and reaction time at any given situation.
4) And get more airlift power and raise overall funding to increase efficity/readyness and mobilty.
5) improve survival standarts so troops and systems last longer.
The list has some minor errors but the overall point is clear ill gues
Just to add a few keywords:
Self supporting, Well funded. Mobile/readynes, Airlift, Intel and sufficent funding with room to maneuvre that is what we lack.
For the rest i do belive the dutch doing not a bad job at our overall armed forces.
And use our minsters head as a target to test the new gripen that might give him some brains because its not the armed service thats screwes up but the BIG heads and Fat asses in Den Haag. We do We can and We will be there when NATO or an ally needs us we do have the right gear but our goverment makes us virtually immobile.
The Dutch must do what they good at they have a small but kickass army its good trained it has in some fields topnotch weapons and it is overall a pretty good/very good army.
We lack airlift and we lack some additional support systems.
Also we lack brains in Den haag because our goverment are to say in dutch Achterlijke Sukkels (Complete morons)
We could use some upgrades and new systems in all 3 sections Army Naval and Airforce. Also more money to fund new projects and keeping our army in good shape, secondly making our army a little more bigger and adding some more multipurpose systems would boost our Nato/Eu obligations.
And we need to focus more on becoming self supporting we still rely to mutch on outside help.
There is no need to worry about security because we might be small but we are not defenceless and any foe will think twice to attack us because again we are small but we know how to kickass and besides that who would try to invade us? Venezula would be one but even if we would lose Chaves would be pay a mutch higher prize so in that regard i believe Chaves may have the upperhand but frankly? he has not a single option to win this the dutch are ready for him if he moves a mussle.
Back to the topic just 5 rules:
1) Support and Upgrade new projects and Systems
2) Buy and Train some multipurpose systems in all 3 devisions Air/Ground/Water or Airforce/naval/and army
3) Expand the armed forces and Infrastructure and keep the internal information uptodate ( Comminucation services) and make them more compartible with othersystems for better secure dataprocessing and battle analyses or intel what will improve the output and reaction time at any given situation.
4) And get more airlift power and raise overall funding to increase efficity/readyness and mobilty.
5) improve survival standarts so troops and systems last longer.
The list has some minor errors but the overall point is clear ill gues
Just to add a few keywords:
Self supporting, Well funded. Mobile/readynes, Airlift, Intel and sufficent funding with room to maneuvre that is what we lack.
For the rest i do belive the dutch doing not a bad job at our overall armed forces.
And use our minsters head as a target to test the new gripen that might give him some brains because its not the armed service thats screwes up but the BIG heads and Fat asses in Den Haag. We do We can and We will be there when NATO or an ally needs us we do have the right gear but our goverment makes us virtually immobile.
About the artillery components
Overview:
PGM effects for the BCT commander
One of the authors was the Chief of FA and Commanding General
of Fort Sill, Oklahoma
The German Field Artillery in the Neues Heer Structure
The author is (was?) the chief of the German Field Artillery
Artillery and firepower
To make an informed choice, this links are a must read.
Interesting:
The light gun in Afghanistan
Fellujah - Urban Operations in a New Kind of War
Overview:
PGM effects for the BCT commander
One of the authors was the Chief of FA and Commanding General
of Fort Sill, Oklahoma
The German Field Artillery in the Neues Heer Structure
The author is (was?) the chief of the German Field Artillery
Artillery and firepower
To make an informed choice, this links are a must read.
Interesting:
The light gun in Afghanistan
Fellujah - Urban Operations in a New Kind of War
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #135
I like the German idea of units with those 3 roles, but that's not possible for our smaller army.
I don't like it that they asy there army should NOT be equipped and capable for conventional territorial defence.
IMHO this the most (and only) important role for a military.
I'm not saying we should not do any peacekeeping at all, but only just and viable once.
(Can't come up with one, sorry).
Currently things are not going well, on the MoD's site, in the pages about the reducing of tanks and Phz's they say it is to fund the programm 'worldwide available'
To me it feels like replacing the Leo 2A6's and the Phz's with Bushmasters.
I don't like it that they asy there army should NOT be equipped and capable for conventional territorial defence.
IMHO this the most (and only) important role for a military.
I'm not saying we should not do any peacekeeping at all, but only just and viable once.
(Can't come up with one, sorry).
Currently things are not going well, on the MoD's site, in the pages about the reducing of tanks and Phz's they say it is to fund the programm 'worldwide available'
To me it feels like replacing the Leo 2A6's and the Phz's with Bushmasters.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #137
As I remember...
Reaction, stabilisation and support or something.
There are no reports really, unfortunately...
Leopard 2A6 gevechtstank | Ministerie van Defensie
26 tanks between 2008-2010, but I hope they've retired most of the planned number as they only have 56 active in 2009...
Pantserhouwitser 2000 (PzH 2000) | Ministerie van Defensie
(To get rid of 26 Phz's, more than 50% I believe between 2008 and 2010)
But they only have 24 active in 2009, bit strange maybe.
Maybe they want to retire ALL in the following years
I hope we don't end up like the Belgians...
(The PDF's only contain the same info as the pages.)
EDIT: 'Worldwide Deployable' would be the better translation.
Reaction, stabilisation and support or something.
There are no reports really, unfortunately...
Leopard 2A6 gevechtstank | Ministerie van Defensie
26 tanks between 2008-2010, but I hope they've retired most of the planned number as they only have 56 active in 2009...
Pantserhouwitser 2000 (PzH 2000) | Ministerie van Defensie
(To get rid of 26 Phz's, more than 50% I believe between 2008 and 2010)
But they only have 24 active in 2009, bit strange maybe.
Maybe they want to retire ALL in the following years
I hope we don't end up like the Belgians...
(The PDF's only contain the same info as the pages.)
EDIT: 'Worldwide Deployable' would be the better translation.
Well, I would flatly refuse to believe that. An NATO army of a 16 million nation without artillery... :?2
Perhaps they want to keep only 26 devided in two coys/btls per heavy brigade with two batteries of 6 and overall 2 in reserve.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #139
Like the Belgians...
Well 24 or 0...
Tanks: 56 or 0...
Only a small step.
But if they don't want to fight symetrical wars anymore why the Fennek anti-tank, planned SM-3 and the NASAMS's?
Even if they decided NOT to reduce the number again (I hop the budget increase proposal will get trough the crisis...) that's just too few for 2 mechanised brigades.
More like 1...
So IMO they should double the active numbers even if this would mean buying some new.
(They sold 18? PhZ's and other stuff to Norway for NASMAS's.)
Quite rediculous countries like Norway and Sweden have a much better equipped military.
Well 24 or 0...
Tanks: 56 or 0...
Only a small step.
But if they don't want to fight symetrical wars anymore why the Fennek anti-tank, planned SM-3 and the NASAMS's?
Even if they decided NOT to reduce the number again (I hop the budget increase proposal will get trough the crisis...) that's just too few for 2 mechanised brigades.
More like 1...
So IMO they should double the active numbers even if this would mean buying some new.
(They sold 18? PhZ's and other stuff to Norway for NASMAS's.)
Quite rediculous countries like Norway and Sweden have a much better equipped military.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #140
No they have 24 I think.
They want to DITCH 26.
Because how do you want to explain 26 tanks otherwise?
I believe those 2 brigades are underequiped, the command structure of the army is good IMO they only need more personel (the new recruitemt trick seems to works quite well, lol, paying money to soldiers who recruite there friends and let them pass military school) and new (reactivated) equipment.
Maybe the reductions in numbers have other reasons as well, I suspect a pure lack of personel to drive them...
that's why there salaries should be increased and more PR (not just tv-spots) to attract more recruits.
And so we retun to my list...
Structure:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Royal_Netherlands_Army.png
Where can I find the meaning of the marks inside those coloured blocks?
(Like a cross or a circle?)
They want to DITCH 26.
Because how do you want to explain 26 tanks otherwise?
I believe those 2 brigades are underequiped, the command structure of the army is good IMO they only need more personel (the new recruitemt trick seems to works quite well, lol, paying money to soldiers who recruite there friends and let them pass military school) and new (reactivated) equipment.
Maybe the reductions in numbers have other reasons as well, I suspect a pure lack of personel to drive them...
that's why there salaries should be increased and more PR (not just tv-spots) to attract more recruits.
And so we retun to my list...
Structure:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Royal_Netherlands_Army.png
Where can I find the meaning of the marks inside those coloured blocks?
(Like a cross or a circle?)