That is one ugly baby. And what I never understood was why they needed so many versions of it. The Germans didn't want the gun, so they created a new version, why not just NOT USE THE GUN?!?!
Short version: cost. A non-gun, pure AT-version would've been cheaper as a replacement for German Bo-105C with TOWs. It was developed with Fulda Gap scenarios in mind, so a fast, nimble tank-hunter was of prime interest to the Germans back then.
The French wanted a fire support (cannon/rockets) version as a replacement to their 20mm armed Gazelles, which in turn could act as an escort to the AT "German" Tiger type.
The Spanish however, looked at all that and decided they wanted a multi-role variant - more expensive, but more attractive to international customers so foreign sales would be able to cover development costs.
All this (re)designing made it arrive late though, with still some tech issues to be solved.
It's a nice choppa, but (un)fashionably late. Glad we stuck with the Apache.
ReplyDeleteThat is one ugly baby. And what I never understood was why they needed so many versions of it. The Germans didn't want the gun, so they created a new version, why not just NOT USE THE GUN?!?!
ReplyDeleteApache was definitely the more sensible choice.
Short version: cost. A non-gun, pure AT-version would've been cheaper as a replacement for German Bo-105C with TOWs. It was developed with Fulda Gap scenarios in mind, so a fast, nimble tank-hunter was of prime interest to the Germans back then.
ReplyDeleteThe French wanted a fire support (cannon/rockets) version as a replacement to their 20mm armed Gazelles, which in turn could act as an escort to the AT "German" Tiger type.
The Spanish however, looked at all that and decided they wanted a multi-role variant - more expensive, but more attractive to international customers so foreign sales would be able to cover development costs.
All this (re)designing made it arrive late though, with still some tech issues to be solved.