Alvis Salamander, Stalwart, Saracen, and Saladin series of 6X6 wheeled vehicles

[rickshaw]

The 90mm Cockerill gun was deliberately developed to be a drop-in replacement for the L5 76mm gun.  It has similar inboard length and recoil to the L5 (I suspect it was in fact originally a bored out L5).  The L5 is quite a nice piece of engineering.  Having also observed it firing canister, I know I wouldn't want to be standing in front of it.   An upgunned Saladin wouldn't be out of place, I believe and I'm surprised no one developed one.   Saladins are still going strong in some out of the way places like Indonesia.

Pipsqueak would not have made a suitable AA weapon.  Each round was loaded by hand.  The 30mm RARDEN wasn't a suitable AA weapon either, firing from six round magazines.

[rickshaw]

I'm really confusing this arn't I 

I didn't mean to say that Pipsqueak used the adaptor but I did think it was a sqeezebore. Obvioulsy reading the bit about APDS I was wrong. I shall go and stand in the naughty corner until I need to go to the loo, which won't be long at my age 

I once had a discussion with Tony Williams about this after he appealed for info on the Pipsqueak.  Everything claims it was a squeezebore.  I sent him the only reference I had which was in the old Profile on the Saladin and Saracen which repeated the claim.  However Tony had a round for it and it was clearly APDS not APCNR.  He also managed to find more info about it at the PRO so it was obvious that somewhere some misinformation had crept into the military Zeitgeist and a myth was created that it was a squeezebore gun.   Disinformation perhaps?

So, you're saved from the corner.  For now.  I'm in a happy mood with hopes for the Melbourne Test. 

[Mossie]

So if you wanted to go the whole hog & modernise the Saladin, how could it be done?  Lets say two scenarios, a cheap alternative to the Scorpion/Scimitar entering service in the early seventies & an upgrade to smaller armys vehicles, say in the mid-eighties?  I'm talking about the whole kit & caboodle, rather than just the weapons.

[apophenia]

rickshaw: you're right. Here's the relevant bit from Williams' website:

"The final line of this development was the 2 PDR 'Pipsqueak', a postwar gun originally intended as the main armament for the Saladin armoured car. Although a positive link has not been made, it seems probable that the intended cartridge was the long (40x438R) 2 PDR HV (see headstamp on the right). This was designed to fire APDS rounds which would match the penetration of the 'Littlejohn' shot while still allowing HE shells to be fired. In fact the claimed performance was better, the 1,295 m/s shot penetrating 85mm of armour at 60 degrees at 900m. This gun was abandoned when a low-velocity 76mm cannon was selected instead, indicating a shift in role towards infantry fire support. Ironically, the specification is reflected in modern trends towards 30-50mm guns, firing sub-calibre armour piercing projectiles, for light AFVs."

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/37-40mm.htm  [BTW, good read on COW gun development, too]

In the photo of 37-40mm rounds, the Pipsqueak's 40x438R casing is shown alongside Bofors 40x311R (L/60) and 40x364R (L/70). Since the British Army was using the L/60 and, from 1953 on, the L/70, wouldn't it have made sense to adopt the Bofors instead of developing an all new 40mm round or adopt the L5 'pumpkin launcher'?

Compared with Pipsqueak, the trade-off would be slightly-reduced performance but with the advantage of some degree of ammo commonality. Compared with the L5, a big reduction in HE but a big jump in muzzle velocity. Anyhoo, the Bofors worked for the CV9040 and certainly would've been better than the clip-loaded Rarden!

[Weaver]

What you have to remember about the RARDEN is that it's an expression of the British Army's obsession with accuracy. It was designed to be a "small tank gun" rather than a "big machine gun" and is, indeed very accurate. It loads from three round clips, two of which can be held in the mechanism as one time. Rate of fire for those six rounds is 90 rpm, so it could fire an accurate burst with a fair chance of hitting, say, a hovering helo. I'm not suggesting it's in the same league as a proper autocannon in a dedicated AAA system, just that it's probably worth giving it extra elevation as bonus. It has 40 deg of elevation in the Scimitar anyway, and the extra elevation would also be useful in urban or mountain terrain.

As an alternative, I don't see any reason why you couldn't fire a very sub-calibre APFSDS round out of the L5 for a kinetic anti-armour kill; after all, the French developed such a round for their 81mm breech-loading mortars.

Posted by: Weaver 

Certainly both versions would have the thermal camera (box alongside the CVR(T)'s gun).

Just realised a couple of issues with that:

1. It's an image intensifier, not a thermal imager.

2. It would have to be on the other side of the gun, with it's door opening the other way. This is because the turret crew in a Saladin sit the opposite way around to a CVR(T) crew, so the gunner (on the left) would need the scope in front of him (it has direct vision optics).

According to an old Jane's I have, there was a scheme to fit the Fox turret to the Saladin hull, but nothing came of it.


For a full upgrade, a diesel engine would be essential and is, I believe, available IRL. You'd want the II sight as above (early '70s) or TI scopes (mid '80s), for all the crew. For NATO use, you'd definately want an NBC system. There's room for a big stowage basket to the rear right of the turret (see my colour pic) so that would be the logical place to put it. The basket and the sand channels also show that you could fit spaced (anti-RPG) armour to the turret and hull front easily enough, but the sides and rear would be more problematic without making the vehicle much wider (remember you have to leave enough clearance for the wheels to steer). Adapting the suspension to take any weight increase could be tricky: it uses longitudinal torsion bars, so it's not as simple as just swapping a coil spring unit for a heftier one.

[rickshaw]

So if you wanted to go the whole hog & modernise the Saladin, how could it be done?  Lets say two scenarios, a cheap alternative to the Scorpion/Scimitar entering service in the early seventies & an upgrade to smaller armys vehicles, say in the mid-eighties?  I'm talking about the whole kit & caboodle, rather than just the weapons.

The quickest and more than likely cheapest way in both cases would be replace the turret.  I'd choose either the CVR(T) ones (Scorpion/Scimitar) or perhaps even the CVR(W) (Fox).  There are also numerous other turrets on the market which would upgrade the weapons and the sensors.  The French are particularly fond of producing such things.  It may require a new turret ring though.   Overall such an effort would be cheaper than trying to fit new weapons into the existing turret and then trying to integrate it yourself with new sensors.  One of the mistakes many militaries make is that they either bit off more than they can actually manage or allow capability creep to occur (adding new capabilities while the programme progresses).  The first costs more because integration of differing systems is harder than is usually believed and the second because with added complexity comes cost.   With a complete new turret most of the work's been done and adding it to an existing hull is easier.

The Saladin hull is pretty old and hard to maintain.  It was never a star performer to start with anyway.  I've heard numerous horror stories of long-distance deployments in Saracens and Saladins where crew are using foot pumps to keep the lubrication system going while the speed limiter makes such deployments very time consuming.   I'm a great believer in just scrapping the existing vehicles and replacing them.  Over the life of a military vehicle its usually cheaper and easier than trying to upgrade them.   Unfortunately the bean-counters tend to look at the upfront costs rather than the life-cycle costs.

[NARSES2]

  Everything claims it was a squeezebore.  I sent him the only reference I had which was in the old Profile on the Saladin and Saracen which repeated the claim.  However Tony had a round for it and it was clearly APDS not APCNR.  He also managed to find more info about it at the PRO so it was obvious that somewhere some misinformation had crept into the military Zeitgeist and a myth was created that it was a squeezebore gun.   Disinformation perhaps?

So, you're saved from the corner.  For now.  I'm in a happy mood with hopes for the Melbourne Test. 

Thankyou kind sir  I've got that old Profile in the collection, which is probably where I got my info from ?? As you say could have been deliberate disinformation.

Glad I got my forgiveness before the Melbourne Test 

[rickshaw]

rickshaw: you're right. Here's the relevant bit from Williams' website:

"The final line of this development was the 2 PDR 'Pipsqueak', a postwar gun originally intended as the main armament for the Saladin armoured car. Although a positive link has not been made, it seems probable that the intended cartridge was the long (40x438R) 2 PDR HV (see headstamp on the right). This was designed to fire APDS rounds which would match the penetration of the 'Littlejohn' shot while still allowing HE shells to be fired. In fact the claimed performance was better, the 1,295 m/s shot penetrating 85mm of armour at 60 degrees at 900m. This gun was abandoned when a low-velocity 76mm cannon was selected instead, indicating a shift in role towards infantry fire support. Ironically, the specification is reflected in modern trends towards 30-50mm guns, firing sub-calibre armour piercing projectiles, for light AFVs."

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/37-40mm.htm  [BTW, good read on COW gun development, too]

In the photo of 37-40mm rounds, the Pipsqueak's 40x438R casing is shown alongside Bofors 40x311R (L/60) and 40x364R (L/70). Since the British Army was using the L/60 and, from 1953 on, the L/70, wouldn't it have made sense to adopt the Bofors instead of developing an all new 40mm round or adopt the L5 'pumpkin launcher'?

Compared with Pipsqueak, the trade-off would be slightly-reduced performance but with the advantage of some degree of ammo commonality. Compared with the L5, a big reduction in HE but a big jump in muzzle velocity. Anyhoo, the Bofors worked for the CV9040 and certainly would've been better than the clip-loaded Rarden!

The Bofors 40mm is quite a complex gun.  It also has a long inturret length.  I suspect you'd find that to use it, it would also either have to be turned on its side or inverted to allow access to the ammunition feed, which in turn would require a new mounting to be designed for it.  The Bofors is not quite the panacea it appears.  Even the Swedes you'll notice don't use the weapon until the 1990s, how many years after it was first designed?   The first modern use of the Bofors action that I know of was the Germans with their "escort tank" (based on the Marder MICV) back in the late 1970s and that was the 57mm gun and they had to invert it (with all the associate feed problems) to fit it inside a turret.  The CV9040 turns it on its side IIRC.   The 2 Pdr and its derivatives are actually quite a compact weapon, hence the ability to fit it into quite small turrets.

[Weaver]

So if you wanted to go the whole hog & modernise the Saladin, how could it be done?  Lets say two scenarios, a cheap alternative to the Scorpion/Scimitar entering service in the early seventies & an upgrade to smaller armys vehicles, say in the mid-eighties?  I'm talking about the whole kit & caboodle, rather than just the weapons.

The quickest and more than likely cheapest way in both cases would be replace the turret.  I'd choose either the CVR(T) ones (Scorpion/Scimitar) or perhaps even the CVR(W) (Fox).  There are also numerous other turrets on the market which would upgrade the weapons and the sensors.  The French are particularly fond of producing such things.  It may require a new turret ring though.   Overall such an effort would be cheaper than trying to fit new weapons into the existing turret and then trying to integrate it yourself with new sensors.  One of the mistakes many militaries make is that they either bit off more than they can actually manage or allow capability creep to occur (adding new capabilities while the programme progresses).  The first costs more because integration of differing systems is harder than is usually believed and the second because with added complexity comes cost.   With a complete new turret most of the work's been done and adding it to an existing hull is easier.

The Saladin hull is pretty old and hard to maintain.  It was never a star performer to start with anyway.  I've heard numerous horror stories of long-distance deployments in Saracens and Saladins where crew are using foot pumps to keep the lubrication system going while the speed limiter makes such deployments very time consuming.   I'm a great believer in just scrapping the existing vehicles and replacing them.  Over the life of a military vehicle its usually cheaper and easier than trying to upgrade them.   Unfortunately the bean-counters tend to look at the upfront costs rather than the life-cycle costs.

On the other hand, you could still do the Whiff by having the production line stay open for advanced versions, so the "upgrades" are actually factory-fresh "second generation" vehicles.

[Mossie]

Spotted these proposed Stolly variants on Secret Projects, a helicopter landing platform, toting a SAM system (possibly PT.428 or Mauler) & mother of all whifgasms, armed with Blue Water!
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4055.0/highlight,blue%20water+stalwart.html



From this Alvis advert:

[pyro-manic]

Excellent find, Mossie! I really wish someone would kit any of this family (especially the Stalwart) in 1:35.

[Weaver]

Tamiya did the Saladin in 1/35th some years ago, but I understand it's a bit hard to find these days.

[rickshaw]

Tamiya did the Saladin in 1/35th some years ago, but I understand it's a bit hard to find these days.

Accurate Armour and Firing Line also do a Saladin and IIRC a Saracen in 1:35.  Accurate Armour IIRC does a Stalwart as well.  All are multimedia kits with the attendant prices those sorts of kits entail.

[icchan]

Talking about an antiair version, I wonder if you couldn't do something akin to the M163.  Take one of the aircraft guns, in this case a 30mm ADEN perhaps, and make it fit?

[rickshaw]

Talking about an antiair version, I wonder if you couldn't do something akin to the M163.  Take one of the aircraft guns, in this case a 30mm ADEN perhaps, and make it fit?

Anything is possible with sufficient time and money.  I would imagine you'd need two or more ADENs to have a viable AAA system.  The ADEN is perhaps the slowest ROF & Muzzle Velocity of the MK213 derived revolver cannons that were developed after WWII.

If you used a turret, I'd recommend something like the WWII Grizzly AA tank's.   Alternatively, a Crusader/Cromwell Mk.II AA tank turret would work.  With radar added of course.   There was a twin 30mm turret developed for the Abbot but it was never taken up (it had visual only aiming).

Weaver's pictures of a SAM system are interesting as they depict the Mauler SAM system which only ever reached prototype form.