From memory there was a scheme to upgrade the Scorpions in the late 1990's but cabinet or the Defence minister binned it. The main issue with the 76mm was the lack of a fume extracter and the consequential fouling of the air in the fighting compartment. A 90mm gun was available with later new builds and as a refit. The gearbox gave trouble, but a new unit was available and the engine was an unreliable gas guzzler from Jaguar, but again a diesel unit was available in later units. On the plus side the vehicle had very good cross country ability and could cross extremely soft ground, reports from the Falklands noted that the vehicle crossed ground that people sank up to their knee's when they tried What the proposed upgrade involved I don't know .
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I strongly suspect the cost of replacing/reworking the NZ LAV turrets will mean NZ keeps the current 25mm just as Canada did.
The real question is how many will get an upgrade. There have been reports for years that the army is trying to offload 30-40 of them (link below is from 2010). Colombia allegedly looked at them before deciding to buy new-builds.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3732671/Govt-to-sell-35-army-LAVs
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If and when Canada deploys its LAVs, they could well be facing off against Russian supplied kit with 30-35 mm guns. The extra cost of a modified turret won't seem so high when compared to replacing an entire LAV. Then again, it looks like junior is backing away from the Mali mission so our out-gunned LAVs will do I guess.
Correct Rob it was a whole host of problems with the Scorpion from the petrol engine, cost of tracks, no fume extractor on 76mm, no night fighting capability not to mention the deaths of crewmen on State Highway 1 & inside the Waiouru Training area. Was there when QAMR was trialling M113 tracks to the Scorp it did work but they did have a drop in speed both on road and cross country. Army possible replacement at that time was the M8 AGS it died when the US Army binned that project M8 was the Scorp replacement along with original motorization of Infantry Bn project with Bushmaster PMV.
Dave
Yes, they were purchased with the bare minimum of gear, as was everything that defence got during the Muldoon era as minister of finance and PM. We got either the bare basics or second hand.
Yes heard they were virtual death traps by the end, prone to rollovers, petrol engine fires etc, not a good look for a "key" platform so bar a complete overhaul in training, operation and application then obviously easier for the axe to swing. Saving money on any upgrades (which would have definately needed doing) is always a bonus for the beans on a normal day so hardly a challenge for them to justify their disbandment and demise, the general public would have never even noticed them slip into history as not as controversial as say the A4s or even the old M113s.
Lost some good mates when both those vehicles over turned one was badly burnt he's been fighting for compensation ever since he was discharged as medically unfit no H&S bill back then.
Dave
Even with a new diesel engine and upgrades a big problem with the Scorpion is its thin armour. If I'm not mistaken 7.62mm AP might be able to penetrate it. It's long overdue but the Malaysians have finally taken off the 90mm Cockerills (it made the vehicle slow and capable of flipping over when firing on uneven ground) from their Scorpions (new engines and gearboxes were added years ago) and have replaced the Cockerills with Oerlikon 20mms recycled from Stormers. Even with the Cockerills the Scorpions still have a low ground pressure. During excercises there were several ontnces of USMC LAVs getting bogged down but not the Scorpions.
Will be curious to see who buys New Zealand's Scorpions from the company that got them. The Brits apparently insisted on an end user certificate should a buyer be found.
Will be curious to see who buys New Zealand's Scorpions from the company that got them. The Brits apparently insisted on an end user certificate should a buyer be found.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I understand the US Army Stryker upgrade is looking at fitting Javelin anti-tank missiles to some Strykers and a Kongsberg turret/ATK XM813 30mm cannon to others.
Just wondering out loud (so may be off track completely) .... I wonder could any of the lessons learned from the LAVIII deployments to Bamiyan and Kabul see NZ Army advocate for the same new turret and gun, therefore giving the LAV both increased lethality and a greater choice of munitions to use? Eg this promo video mentions programmable airburst munitions etc.
Then in terms of the Javelin option, would NZ Army doctrine allow for the deployment of both turreted and Javelin equipped LAV's (seeing we would deploy small numbers anyway) eg would QAMR require that dual option (is it even practical)?
Or would they be better off with the LAV turret/gun upgrades only and perhaps (in the future) an additional dozen or so new "fighting vehicles" with a larger caliber weapon 76mm or better (effectively the M41/Scorpion/M8 replacement)?
M113A1 & Scorpions were scrapped and turned into razor blades there are only a couple left in running order, two I think are held by the Army National Museum in Waiouru & one in a private collectors hand.
CD
Yes saw the documentry on that awhile ago. Not a good look for the NZDF and govt of the day considering it was quite blatently a military accident by military pers conducting military buisness and therefore should be covered by the military, not good at all you would expect better treatment without fail of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, past, present and future.
I have been reading that doco the valley on stuff i can't believe how naive some people are to be shocked that our soldiers were scanning peoples eyes to put into the database and asking why we were doing it because we were only there as a PRT team.
We had people in a war zone being targeted by insurgents who were killing an wounding our people we had every reason to be doing the scanning.
We had people in a war zone being targeted by insurgents who were killing an wounding our people we had every reason to be doing the scanning.
Every Country including PRT were using that system, some of the troops scanned themselves as a joke, it was no laughing matter when trying to enter other Countries on the way home & you were ID as a possible threat going through airports, took a lot of effort on behalf of NZDF & other agency became a chargeable offence from that point on.
Dave
The Valley series they have done is certainly attempting to do a job on the NZDF which is not surprising for the New Zealand media the only time they give the NZDF any attention is when they are trying to attack it.
I do feel for Major Craig Wilson i don't know what happened in Afghanistan and have never met the man but some people are calling him out and he is in no position to give his side of the story and is really getting done over it is certainly not a position i would want to find myself in.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Crack shot: Inside the sniper's mind - NZ Herald
A piece from the NZ Herald a few days ago on a sniper trainig exercise.
A piece from the NZ Herald a few days ago on a sniper trainig exercise.
The NZ media have been doing a beat up of Defence over the Battle of Baghak in Afghanistan during which NZDF sustained 2 KIA and 6 WIA. NZDF have released their response to the media beat up.
NZDF’s response to issues raised: ‘Baghak Contact’ 04 August 2012, And related Matters
NZDF’s response to issues raised: ‘Baghak Contact’ 04 August 2012, And related Matters
Really impressive read the sniper course has such a high failure rate 90% the standards are so high.
It was a shame we didn't have them in Afganistan operating in the north east where the insurgents were causing most of the trouble around the time of the battle of Baghak they would have come in very handy.
Is it impressive really????
If the 90% figure is correct, I would argue that it is extremely poor. Whilst it may be an indication of high and exacting standards, it also shows an organisational failing to either select the right people or prepare them adequately for the course. It could also show other things like poor instruction etc...
If the 90% figure is correct, I would argue that it is extremely poor. Whilst it may be an indication of high and exacting standards, it also shows an organisational failing to either select the right people or prepare them adequately for the course. It could also show other things like poor instruction etc...
How does it show exactly an organisational failing? It has the same fail rate as the SAS selection course so by your measure SAS must be a poor organisation with poor selection of instructor's and failing to prepare students for the rigors of selection & cycle both course's have the same fail rate.
Skill sets for being a sniper are learnt on basic training if you haven't grasped and developed your soldier and fieldcraft skills which are basic fundamentals of soldiering no amount of extra training will get you ready so no it has nothing to do with poor instructors or an organisation failing either you have it or you dont.
Last those who do well but fail the course return to the Battalion & become Designated marksmen for there Rifle Companies.
Potentially - there is always a case to be made, and on occasions a 90% wastage rate may be appropriate. Would 90% be appropriate on Basic? How about initial infantry training? When does it become appropriate?
I fundamentally disagree with this. Either the gents you are talking about have been a) poorly trained in basic, b) haven't been given the appropriate time and exposure and additional training to develop their skills, or c) they haven't been identified appropriately by the unit that sent them in the first place. To take it further, recently the Aus SASR took on two FA-18 drivers who were competent enough to have passed selection. They have no experience in small arms, infantry tactics, patrolling, fieldcraft etc. Why then would the SASR do this if they did not believe they could be trained enough to become an asset?
Thats fine - its probably easier and cheaper to design a bespoke Designated Marksman course for the 80% who were never going to pass.