South African ROOIKAT 8X8 Wheeled AFV - The Best?

J

jackehammond

Active member
Folks,

Some military experts consider the South African ROOIKAT to be "the best" wheeled armored fighting vehicle in the world. With the exception of its main 76mm cannon it out does every other wheeled AFV -- armor protection, engine power, range, mobility, mine-protection, etc.

The South African Army in 1986 when they issued a requirement for the Rooikat deliberately stated they did not want the 105mm cannon that could have been fitted. The reason was they did not want future commanders seeing the Rooikat as a tank-destroyer. In their opinion against modern MBT a fools game.

But don't let the 76mm cannon fool you. It is based on the Italian 76mm naval cannon that you see mounted on US frigates and USCG cutters. It is a high velocity cannon with a high rate of fire.

Finally, the Rooikat was designed for long range operations (1,000km) over extreme terrain without having to refuel. Its mission is to take on supply convoys, air bases, radar installations, etc. Everything except go toe to toe with modern MBT - ie it can easily with its modern fire control system take on the older Russian tanks like the T-55 and T-62 with its APDS-FS 76mm round.

Jack E. Hammond

Rooikat3.jpg



Rooikat2.jpg



Rooikat1.jpg
 
Even against older tanks like those mentioned ( T-55 and T-62 ) I would still consider engaging them with a vehicle like that as a last resort, and btw does that 76mm cannon really have enough power to penetrate front armor of T-62 over longer ranges :?
 
Armyjaeger said:
Even against older tanks like those mentioned ( T-55 and T-62 ) I would still consider engaging them with a vehicle like that as a last resort, and btw does that 76mm cannon really have enough power to penetrate front armor of T-62 over longer ranges :?
Click to expand...


Dear Member,

I would not consider it a last resort, but I would not go looking for combat against an MBT. And the answer to your last questions is, Yes when firing the new APDS-FS round. Remember the cannon on the Rooikat is not the normal 76mm found on tanks. It is based on a naval cannon which is far more powerful. That is one reason for the Rooikat's larger width and weight over other 8X8 wheeled AFV.

Jack E. Hammond
 
I would not consider it a last resort, but I would not go looking for combat against an MBT. And the answer to your last questions is, Yes when firing the new APDS-FS round. Remember the cannon on the Rooikat is not the normal 76mm found on tanks. It is based on a naval cannon which is far more powerful. That is one reason for the Rooikat's larger width and weight over other 8X8 wheeled AFV.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with you. That is probably a very modern and high velocity 76mm gun, right? So wih modern ammo it can definetly punch a hole in a T-55 or t-62...Heck, Shermans with 75mm weapons took on and destroyed T-62s. This was before the use of modern ammo.

As to it being the best in the world, i really dont know many other like it... Most of the recce/tank destroyer wheeled vehicles are 6X6...
 
Impressive. Wouldnt want to take on a tank in it, doubt it would stand up against M1s, Leos etc. Against other APCs and AIFVs i think it would stand up well.
 
Impressive. Wouldnt want to take on a tank in it, doubt it would stand up against M1s, Leos etc. Against other APCs and AIFVs i think it would stand up well.
Click to expand...

Assuming it has good FCS, than it should stand up very well....
 
It has a good FCS. It is also much cheaper to produce than a regular tank. The 76mm gun will punch through most types of armour available today. The key to the Rooikat's power is in it's speed. It is a fast bugger and will outrun the turret speed on most tanks out there.
If I (still) lived in a place like Africa or Iraq, I would seriously consider this over a conventional tank, purely because chances are that my enemies don't have anything better than T55's and that I can outmanuever pretty much anything they have. Install a bigger gun if you like, and take on pretty much any tank, since you will be able to field many more of them than you can tanks.
 
Folks,

Thanks for the reply, and especially the one with the link on the Rooikat. But a note, the first Rooikat was not tested till 1987 (ie the article in the link says it was operational in 1980). The first operational Rooikats were delivered in 1988.

Jack E. Hammond
 
SHERMAN said:
That's "naval rifle", rather than "cannon".
Click to expand...

What is the diffrence, if a non-english speaker can ask?
Click to expand...

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.

:?:
:shock:
 
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top