Originally Posted by jackehammond

...It is based on a naval cannon which is far more powerful...

That's "naval rifle", rather than "cannon".

That's "naval rifle", rather than "cannon".

What is the diffrence, if a non-english speaker can ask?

A rifle has spiralled grooves to make the shell spin as in a gun. A cannon is smoothbore.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

What is the diffrence, if a non-english speaker can ask?

Dear Member,

It is tradition. Just like the US Marines will skin anyone alive who refers to their weapon as a gun instead of a rifle or in the US Navy they insist you call "your hat" "your cover" etc.

Jack E. Hammond

NOTE> Naval cannons tend to have a higher muzzle velocity, but also they are much heavier and a much heavier recoil. The first antiaircraft cannons were converted naval cannon - rifle, gun, whatever.,

Umm, I thought that a "rifle" referred to rifling of the barrel. As opposed to a cannon which has a smooth bore.

Some folks refer to "rifles" with very large bores as cannons. It's not wrong, just a different way of saying "Big Damn Gun".

I have several friends that fought in Angola and the 76mm's big brother, the 90mm Cannon, mounted on the ratel 90, decimated Angolan/Cuban tanks. I can't recall exactly what models they were, but the were of the later T series tanks introduced during the 70's. The key to success was that the Ratel moved at a faster pace than the T's turrets could rotate. This would enable the Ratel to move so far ahead that it could actually stop, aim and get a good shot, then move before the tank could aqcuire target, if it wasn't destroyed.
No, the Rooikat is not a tank killer, but it could be used as one in a pinch. What it is, is a very high mobility, heavily armed scout vehicle that would so very well in urban operations. There is not magical weapon out there - you will have to compromise something. The rooikat compromised a bit of armour and a Massive gun for speed, simplicity, costs and reliability. I can tell you that anyone that takes a tracked vehicle into sub-saharan Africa is sure to regret it. The cubans paid a high price for making that mistake. IMO, we should never have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq without decent wheeled armour. Tracks are great for muddy situations, but absolutely suck when you want to move fast or on pavement.

I dont know about that, Israel makes good use of tanks in desert, mountainous and paved terrain.

Dear Members,

The RATEL mounts a French 90mm cannon that is made for light armored vehicles. It has a much lower muzzle velocity than the 76mm cannon mounted on the Rooikat which is based on a high velocity naval cannon which South African manufactured under license from Italy. The RATEL 90mm cannon has to rely on a HEAT (ie shape-charge) warhead to defeat armor. But that limits its engagement range. The Rooikat's cannon has its own high velocity APDS-FS round for engaging armor at much longer ranges. Also, the South African Army was very uncomfortable with having to engage Russian MBTs with that 90mm cannon. Yes, they did and were successful. But most chalked it up to total lack of training of the tank crews. They developed a version of the RATEL fitted with a turret that fires an antitank guided missile after that.

The reason for the South African Army having wheeled armored vehicles over tracked in large numbers is logistics and distances. Heavy tracked vehicles you can't send over long distances on their own because of the wear and tear, speed and fuel consumption. That is why most nations with large numbers of heavy armored vehicles have fleets of tank transporters.

Israel operates on interior lines. Over much shorter distances. That is why it has a huge fleet of tracked vehicles. Also it has to operate over some pretty rough terrain (lava fields in the NE section, etc) that would tear a wheeled vehicle to pieces. In fact the Merkeva when it was developed had operations in the northern areas in mind and instead of using the standard torsion bar suspension that is fitted to most modern MBTs used the older type suspension which is better on rocky ground and the lava fields up north.

Jack E. Hammond

GRanted, wheels over lava rocks wouldn't be a good idea. The moral of my previous post was that when travelling on paved roads or long distances through savannah, veld, or over sand, a wheled vehicle will make more sense.
I saw a few of the Ratels with the anti tank missiales mounted. They were Mokopa's if I'm not mistaken. A VERY effective missile to be sure.
Yes, the Ratels' 90mm gun was not nearly as high velocity as the weapon on the rooikat, but it proved my point that with a faster vehicle with better FCS and better crews, it could work.
Personally, if I was in a country that had to bootstrap it because of sanctions/failing economy or some similar situation, I would go with something like the Rooikat.

This leads me to another topic. The Rooivalk. As far as anti-tank missions go, where would you place it?

Its a ok for a wheeled AFV but not better then a tank but is affordable
for nations that don't have a lot cash.