Leonardo complete Italian Army Centauro II requirement

👍 mate.

Where was that, if you can say?
Yes, it looks enormous!

Well the British army are obviously really now happy with it as they had had both Ajax and Aries..running around doing displays at tankfest..so go to watch it run around the Arena as well as look all around it when it was parked up…that 40mm CT cannon is a big main armament…I was looking up some of the released fire testing and it’s one hell of a gun. 1600ms on the APDS at 1500meters…apparently it will go through 14cm of RHA at 1500meters…which means everything other than the front of an MBT.

I’ll bet Jonathan was at tankfest like me, we had Ares, Ajax, Chally 2 and Warrior all lined up. The Ajax was clearly the largest of the lot.

I am concerned at the signature of Ajax. We have lost the medium tank terminology, but I wouldn’t think a 40mm cannon would be definitive of a medium tank.

Signature wise, capability drop three is “meant” to deliver a low signature vehicle…but you’re never hiding it behind a bush …medium tank has always been a bit of an iffy title..some people have described any MBT weighting in at the 40-50 ton mark as a medium tank…I’m being a bit flipant and using a WW2 definition..which Ajax fits into…its an impressive looking vehicle.

Thanks Jonathan. I cannot conceive of a recce vehicle being called a tank, irrespective of its weight – but that is not true of the popular media who think anything with tracks, a turret and a gun barrel is a tank!
Of course a tank does a different job to a recce vehicle – its an offensive AFV with its use of its primary weapon system to degrade or destroy enemy armour being its raison d’etre.
In contrast, a recce vehicle gains raw information about the enemy, processes it and then transmits it to decision-makers in the command chain – and intends not to be seen by the enemy doing it ie recce by stealth.

What muddies the waters is when Ajax is required to do a Strike role, rather than a recce role – in that regard its use of its weapon system becomes its main task, combined with cueing artillery.

What info do you have on capability drop three?

Indeed, I’m not really sure putting a 40mm on your recce vehicle is the way forward..sort of muddies the water…bit like an old WW2 Chaffee..far to much gun for a recce vehicle…anything that may make your recce stay and fight is bad and anything that adds weight is bad…but then I think the army got very confused on what it wanted Ajax to do..and at first it was not just recce but to provide direct fire support.

As far as I’m aware drop three is essentially the standard deployable vehicle, with full protection and signature reduction package..essentially all the 50+ odd vehicles already delivered are drop 1 and 2 and not usable in operations ( they lack the full protection package and have no Signature reduction at all).

WW2 Chaffee! That’s going back a bit. Is it a relevant comparator?
We had a 30mm cannon on recce wagons for decades. The L21A1 Rarden 30mm was designed in 1966 and mass produced from 1970 – fitted to the Fox armoured car and Scimitar of course.
Mostly calibres increase over time, tank cannons being a particularly good example. So not a massive surprise to see that the army wanted something more effective at range than the tired old 30mm, ie a 40mm. They really had to be able to destroy enemy recce convincingly at range if ordered to do so, ie to break from stealth mode. They might also come up against T-series tanks as the opposition had an SOP of employing tanks alongside lighter recce vehicles – 40mm might do some damage but 30mm with an ageing design of ammunition may not.

I was not aware that the requirement at the Concept phase of Ajax was to use Ajax as a fire support vehicle – for who…and why? It was surely only later that the Strike concept was created and it was then clear that Ajax would work with Infantry in Boxers in those 2 such brigades. In that case it would be very useful for the Infantry in poorly armed Boxer APCs to have fire support assistance from Ajax, and there was discussion about co-location (of Ajax and Boxer) right down to the platoon level. Those Strike brigades were later dropped of course.

When operating in the recce role, there is no way that an Ajax crew would want to abandon that task and ‘stay and fight’. The commander relying on that recce info to come back to him to plan the next phase would not be impressed if the info feed was stopped and his recce vehicles became pinned down or damaged/destroyed.

Perhaps beware of saying that drop 1 and 2 would not be usable in operations. What would we then use? These wagons are expensive and are not just for training purposes. No-one told the RAF not to use tranche 1 of Typhoon on operations! You use what you have got, not what you wish you had.

Hi graham..when Ajax was ordered it was definitely order as a turreted reconnaissance and strike vehicle, with ares being ordered as a reconnaissance and APC vehicle…so ever since the order for Ajax was placed it was also considered a strike vehicle..which is a bit confusing…with ares being an equally confused recce and APC

I think Chaffee is a good discussion point as recce is still recce..if you look at the time the British army was even removing turrets from a lot of its 37mm armed recce vehicles..as they did not even want that and losing the turrets made the vehicles smaller…so the chaffee was a bit anti what the British army wanted in its recce vehicles.

I did read an interesting paper from one old army leader who was very much pitching that modern AFVs try to do to much and what you end up with is very large compromised vehicles that make very big targets …his main thrust was it was all Russias fault with the BMP1, that the west then jumped on..but actually he disliked the large IFV as he though they were changing infantry tactics for the worst..the argument he used was us an APC without a turret was better and safer as they are smaller..dismount at the appropriate distance…and the APCs can remove themselves and the IFV gives false security as it cannot deliver proper direct fire support and deliver the infantry at the same time and they always ended up to large and vulnerable….direct fire support should be from separate dedicated vehicles…that because they were not carting a load of infantry around can manoeuvre into the correct position, have increased protection and greater firepower…just like the Italians 8 wheeled 120mm armed fire support/strike/tank destroyer.
He also felt the same about recce…moving from a 10tonne to 40 tonne recce vehicles..that have a second job.

Re the drop one and twos, they will be heading back to the factory to be upgraded to drop three..apparently they are missing quite a lot of kit.

Interestingly the army has a plan to do a drop 4..which will be about modifications to increase reliability..and all the drop threes will be upgraded after that work has finished.

I think something that needs to be remembered is that the FR regiments where never pure scouts. While the British Army has done relatively stealthy recce, as Graham says, compared to the Americans, there’s always been an element of screening and having to fight and defeat the enemy recce screen that’s been inherent in the role. Worth remembering that while some Stuarts did loose their turrets in North West Europe, formation Recce units in General remained armed with turreted armoured cars, and armament increased on more than a few of them (eg the AEC going from a 2lber to a 75mm gun and the Humber going from a Besa MG to a 37mm).

Also Ares isn’t really a Recce and APC vehicle, it’s a supporting asset for Ajax. The way British FR regiments have generally been orbatted is to have an ATGM troop in APC’s in support of 3 troops of CVRT/Ajax.

Ajax is a Recce vehicle that can fight for information and keep the enemy’s recce screen away from the FLOT, Ares is a supporting asset that can either ambush enemy advances or support Ajax if it gets into dramas.

GDUK was awarded the contract to build what had been called FRES SV, then SV (Scout) in March 2010. The term ‘Strike’ was not used.
It was not until Army 2020 Refine work which was packaged into SDSR 2015 which was published on 23 Nov 2015 that the Strike concept & Orbat was formally unveiled – so I am puzzled as to why anyone would be calling Ajax a Strike vehicle in 2010, over 5 years earlier.

I am not so confused about ARES being described variously as a APC with a recce role, as it can carry a dismount team of up to 4, who could conduct dismounted recce, such as Engr recce. Other teams can be transported conducting other tasks. But it would be better if it did not have a recce label, just the APC label.

Modern AFVs can do too much ie to be multi-roled. We all know that someone on this site has advocated that tanks should be capable of indirect fire (I assume he means with greater elevation of barrel than CR2 can achieve).

I have heard of this old chap who dislikes IFVs in the way you describe. How does he propose that a western APC destroys enemy IFVs at long range, before they use their cannon on our APCs or before they drop off their dismounts? He is swimming against the tide – the Infantry hugely benefits from organic cannon fire – and of course they can use their cannon to deliver suppresive fire on the move (especially with a stab cannon) and fire support during debussing and after debussing.

Fire support vehicles (eg M10 Booker) are ideal for Infantry who do not have cannon-equipped IFVs, but have just an APC.
So, if you are an infantryman in an IFV your fire support comes from the cannon, and also from the accompanying tanks. If you only have an APC, then having close-by fire support vehicles is bordering on essential.

Thanks for the info on the drops – not seen that. Where is it published?

Personally I think elements of Booker are a mistake. Specifically the use of a 105mm rifled gun. As this adds another calibre of ammunition to the logistic train. Though I guess with the US Army being so big, they don’t care.

For this type of infantry support vehicle, I feel the CV90 120, would have been the better option. As the Ruag L50 120mm smoothbore gun uses the same NATO standard 120mm tank gun ammunition. Therefore will have ammunition commonality with other NATO partners.

As an expeditionary vehicle, that is expected to be air lifted to hotspots by C5 and C17. It will undoubtedly find itself facing up against 3rd World/Developing Country’s Ex Sov MBTs, in particular the export version of the T72. Which can vary from the mickey mouse mild steel armoured versions to the full fat ERA versions. Will the Booker’s 105 have the oomph to counter one of these tank’s frontally? Whereas with the CV90 120, there is a significantly better chance of overmatching a T72.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly for the infantry support role. There has been some significant advancements in 120mm programmable HE shells. Where the 105’s HE shells are lagging quite far behind. But is this really the weapon needed for infantry support? It certainly does not provide in-direct fire. Though is very good against hardened buildings. Perhaps what would be better is the Mjolner or preferably the AMOS 120mm gun-mortar. Which can provide both the in-direct as well as the direct fire support. Though wouldn’t be of any use mixing it with an old T72 for example. However, with an unassisted in-direct range of 10km. It can hide behind a hill and lay down around 10 rounds of sustain fire pre minute. The beauty of the AMOS is that it can be fitted to either an 8×8 such as the PATRIA or a tracked vehicle like the CV90. For the UK that would mean Boxer and both the Ajax chassis could be used.

I agree that the US Army will not have a problem establishing a 105mm supply chain for M10 Booker, any more than the UK had no difficulty establishing a supply chain for ammunition for our rifled 120mm tank cannons.

The US would have a problem buying CV90 (with 120mm) as it is not American and they buy very little that is foreign.

I don’t know the penetrative performance of the M35 tank gun, so can’t say if it could defeat the frontal armour of any T-series tanks, such as export T-72s, whether up-armoured or not.

I do not see the inability of M10 Booker to deliver indirect fire as being a weakness – that is what artillery and mortars are for.

4th and 7th brigades in 1st Armoured Division have nothing like the M10 Booker to provide intimate large-calibre direct fire support, but of course do have a call on indirect fire from brigade’s artillery.

Would the M35 not be comparable to the L7 and M68. The Stryker AGS which uses the L7 barrel with the M68 breech block and recoil system. The M68 was used against “representative” targets at Aberdeen proving ground. That included a number of acquired T72s. So I’d happily say the 105 is adequate at punching a round through the upper glacis of a T72 minus the ERA. But with ERA it’s debatable.

With regards to an infantry support tank/vehicle. I can see the reasons for it, I’m just not sure they chose the right calibre. I would have thought the 120 gives you more options. As it will have a wider choice of off the shelf ammo types. Plus it has a much better chance of property taking out a MBT and not just mission killing it.

I still think a vehicle with AMOS would provide better close support to dismounted infantry. A 120 mortar shell contains more explosive than a 120 multi-purpose high explosive shell. Plus you can attach guidance kits to them. Would have been real handy in Afghan.

Strike Brigades (historical). In the short-lived era of the Strike brigades, our Infantry in MIVs (Boxer) would have had Ajax providing their direct fire support with 40mm cannons! But of course it was hoped/expected that they would not encounter tanks en masse, that being the remit for the armoured brigades.

In 3 Div. Now of course our mechanised infantry (in Boxer APCs) are to be in the two armoured brigades as some clever person decided to bin IFVs – and they have mutual support from CR2/CR3. So they don’t need anything else.

In 1 Div. It is a different story for the Infantry of 4th and 7th Brigades in 1 Div. They just have artillery and mortars and no direct fire large calibre AFVs to provide fires support. But it would not be expected that they would encounter enemy tanks – they would come off second best as the Infantry vehicles have insufficient protection.

So maybe this debate is not for the future British Army.

I don’t think it’s not expected that 1 Div would encounter enemy tanks, if we thought that we wouldn’t retain Jav at Battalion Level, and NLAW at section level…

Yes, of course. Maybe I should have said ‘less likely to encounter enemy tanks’.

They shouldn’t have a problem establishing an ammunition supply for Booker either way, 105x617mm is a NATO standard tank round, that is in use by (amoungst others) older Merkava and K1 variants, the Striker MGS, the M60 Patton, Leopard 1, and (ironically enough) the B1 version of the Centauro.

One of the reasons that Ajax has such a big turret ring is because there was talk of a fire support variant of Ajax, so big turret ring needed for a big gun, like on M10. Maybe that’s where the original concept of Ajax as a “strike vehicle” comes from?

Very interesting point.

Sorry to use Wiki here for an unconfirmed comment: “There was a possibility for a third Block of vehicles encompassing a “Direct Fire” vehicle with a 120 mm main gun, “Manoeuvre Support”, and a “Joint Fires” variant equipped to succeed the FV102 Striker in the anti-tank role. However, in September 2014, Block 3 vehicles were dropped and the Ministry of Defence had “no plans” to order any Block 2 vehicles”.

If you can naviage the poor formatting Think Defence has the same claim in his article on Ajax, so I’m inclined to believe it, even if it’s just a little side tangent.

Thanks mate. As ever, a comprehensive (in scope and numbers) new AFV programme is pared back to save costs.

It is of course the incomplete fielding of Warrior back in the day which left us with so many FV430s (about 900 – 1,000 at one time, I think) running on into and beyond their 60th year of service. This is not seen in the other services: Type 23 is not running in parallel in service with a bunch of ancient Leander class frigates!

Ahem:
https ://upload.wikimedia. org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Yuma_Proving_Ground%2C_Arizona_%2842188342504%29.jpg

As ever remove spaces… but: It’s a tank. That does Recce.
It uses it’s primary weapon system to degrade and destroy enemy armour, but it’s also a recconaissance vehicle.

I couldn’t find the photo even with removing spaces…but the Americans (and others) have always done recce rather differently to our traditional approach ie recce by fighting rather than recce by stealth.

It’s a M551 Sheridan, which is, by any standard, a Tank, but also a recce asset.

Thanks. Not too successful by some accounts – poor survivability and reliability. But certainly it was a light tank/recce vehicle.
The choice of a 152mm gun was interesting! Presumably the Shillelagh ATGM was deemed essential for the role and needed a ‘launcher’.

I think that was it, I don’t think the gun was high velocity enough to be used in an anti armour role, and by all accounts firing it was a minor emotinal event for the crew. But the same tank with a 105 or 90mm and a more mature techincal base I think would have had been a pretty good vehicle IMO.

Part of the original concept was that it would support the US Army’s airborne division. I think it was supposed to be air droppable from a Herc. From all accounts it was pretty hopeless when used in anger. The main gun was not very accurate firing standard ammo. Plus the wire guided ATGM meant the tank had to be stationary to guide the missile into the target, ie No shoot and scoot.

M551 Sheridan/Shillelagh ISD 1967 under-performed in Vietnam for those reasons, had weak armour and was unreliable – it started to be phased out from 1979.

To be fair, shoot and scoot ATGM from that era was unknown, I think.

Trying to think what the first shoot and scoot ATGM was? I have a feeling for us it was Javelin. Everything prior (SS/AS12, Milan, TOW, Swingfire and Hellfire 1) was either wire or laser guided. Hellfire 2 had a degree of shoot and scoot.

I am sure you are right.

Ooooh I dunno. Matilda, Crusader and chums got by with the 2 pounder 40 mm for a while. (Sorry, couldn’t resist it.)

That winds the clock back a bit! Amazing how lightly armed some of those old tanks were.

I prefer the Quarter-Pounder!

I don’t see the parliament u-turning on Leopard, I think they’ll just end up caving to KNDS and buying unmodified Leopards, but time will tell.

The thing is the L55 is pretty much standard on all MBT’s coming out now, minus M1 Abrams, and while the 120/45 can withstand a higher chamber pressure, in practice, with a shorter barrel, and the same ammunition I don’t think it actually achieves the pressure it is designed for.

Point being, normally a Tank Destroyer is supposed to have a better gun than most tanks. (Think M10/M18 with 76mm while M4 had 75, M36 with 90mm while M4 had 76, Achillies with 17lber when Sherman V and Cromwell had 75, even Jagdpanzer I with a 47mm over the Panzer I’s twin MG’s). Most modern tank destroyers that, doctrinally, are tank destroyers are now ATGM carriers (think Swingfire armed Striker CVRTs, lying in wait to ambush specifically enemy armour). Centauro is a bit more general purpose than that, it’s a very good M10 Booker style DF support platform, that has a MBT gun on it.

I wonder if we could swap some old challenger 2s for Centauro…after all we will have a load of spares lying around….Italy is still looking to replace all its MBTs with the main ground combat system in 2035..so anything it buys now is an interim with a decade life span…bit tongue in cheek but all Italy really wants is a quick up the numbers for this decade solution…

Would be nice, but also would be shocked if it happened.

Parliament is closely linked to the industry. Leonardo is now in talks with Rheinmetall. I don’t see the point of a tank, they should go for Lynx variations. Missile launcher, combat, recon with drones, autonomous Lynx, IFV Lynx.

Thanks for reminding me that you exist to be wrong. Bore off and find someone who gives a f*ck about your sh*tty opinions.

Or, maybe learn to listen to people who actually know what they’re talking about (but that would require you to get over your dunning kruger complex).

I’m sure if they shook the sofa a bit they could find £600,000 for 75 or so…as you say now wheels are going to be a big thing in the army ( what with boxer) it really makes sense..especially as boxer does not come with its own useful direct fire option.

We could get some boxers and fit the Ajax 40mm turret. Lithuania have a 40mm turreted boxer IFV variant and it looks decent enough

Isn’t that a Bofors 40mm? (Lithuania that is).

Yes, that’s my view too. All recc assets have a place. I’m not against Jackal in 4, in 16, with SF, with the reserves, or other LI Bns.
7 is the one isn’t it. I’d like it to have greater firepower and mechanization, so something heavier than Foxhound, Jackal and Light Guns. But if that’s not possible, it’s ok in conjunction with Foxhound. A very light wheeled brigade.