Rooikat Armoured Car

[Graugrun]

Thanks for the pics CostasTT.

Herewith an article from IDR 02-1999 giving some background on the development and thinking behind the LMT-105 as well as other Rooikat developments (including the electrical drive). Interesting that the British proposed it on their Warrior ICV as a light tank option for the SANDF.

 

[TomS]

I've been wondering about the function of the loops welded to the turret. Is it for some type of bolt-on or reactive armour?

The larger ones look like lifting rings for connecting a hoist to remove the turret for maintenance or replacement.

The smaller ones would be for securing gear (including camouflage nets but also just crew rucksacks and such) to the turret.

 

[CostasTT]

Tanks for the pics CostasTT.

Herewith an article from IDR 02-1999 giving some background on the development and thinking behind the LMT-105 as well as other Rooikat developments (including the electrical drive). Interesting that the British proposed it on their Warrior ICV as a light tank option for the SANDF.

You are welcome. I also have a low-res pic of the Warrior 2000/LMT-105 proposal and I also know of this one, which based on shadows and colors would seem to be an artist's impression of the Warrior with the GT7 (sic) turret.

 

[Graugrun]

Thanks once again CostasTT - first time I have seen a pic of the LMT-105 on a Warrior (and not just a model).

Getting into something that I found very interesting and followed with continued interest over the years, the air-less and therefore puncture-proof Allthane tyre - I also spoke to some of the Allthane development team at one or two defence shows, seems they were very, very close to getting it right, they just needed some decent funding for some further development and then marketing. Unfortunately it was after our Border War and with funds being diverted to social programs, there was absolutely no money for defence, or defence related projects.

It's a pity because naturally the commercial value of this was not being taken fully into account, should they have perfected it the sales value worldwide would have been phenomenal to things like trucks, pick- up trucks, various earth moving equipment, perhaps even cars too etc...etc.

I have some other info to scan, however first up is this article (pity it's a photocopy) from Janes IDR, June 1996.

 

[CostasTT]

Thanks once again CostasTT - first time I have seen a pic of the LMT-105 on a Warrior (and not just a model).

You are welcome, although I feel the need to repeat that the Warrior 2000 light tank pic is certainly one of a model, while I'm not sure if the other (linked) photo is authentic or not.

 

[Graugrun]

Thanks CostasTT - it seems I read your first reply too fast...

Here is the next article on the Althane Terra-Track tyre to appear in Janes IDR (01-1999 - three years later). I remember the 2 layer tyre mentioned - this and the 4 layered tyre pictured being both refinements on the early prototype I posted above.

 

[sa_bushwar]

Thanks CostasTT - it seems I read your first reply too fast...

Here is the next article on the Althane Terra-Track tyre to appear in Janes IDR (01-1999 - three years later). I remember the 2 layer tyre mentioned - this and the 4 layered tyre pictured being both refinements on the early prototype I posted above.

Not sure if this is a re-post.

 

[sa_bushwar]

Thanks CostasTT - it seems I read your first reply too fast...

Here is the next article on the Althane Terra-Track tyre to appear in Janes IDR (01-1999 - three years later). I remember the 2 layer tyre mentioned - this and the 4 layered tyre pictured being both refinements on the early prototype I posted above.

Related to the subject, maybe not the topic, see photo below.

 

[Graugrun]

Nice pics sa_bushwar.

Here is one of their brochures that I found on the Terra Trak tyre - a quick search and it seems they were bought out by a company called H+M Rollers a good couple of years ago, which does not seem to offer any of Allthane's products anymore (the Terra Track was shelved but they did supply tank wheels to the SADF it seems, more of which I will post in the SA armour thread).

Note the 2 layer tyres in the top pic/rendition.

 

[Graugrun]

This article should help in covering some of the outstanding questions around Rooikat's development etc. - courtesy Janes IDR November 1989. Pity it's a photocopy, that's all I could get at the time...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This article should help in covering some of the outstanding questions around Rooikat's development etc. - courtesy Janes IDR November 1989. Pity it's a photocopy, that's all I could get at the time...

Thanks for posting. There is an excellent photo of the elusive "Bismarck" there on page 2. Give me a few days to track down a copy of this IDR and I'll scan the pages in hi res colour.

 

[kaiserbill]

Thanks for posting. There is an excellent photo of the elusive "Bismarck" there on page 2. Give me a few days to track down a copy of this IDR and I'll scan the pages in hi res colour.

Indeed it is.
Probably the best view so far of it equipped with its original turret.
I hope you are successful locating a colour version, Abe.

 

[sa_bushwar]

This article should help in covering some of the outstanding questions around Rooikat's development etc. - courtesy Janes IDR November 1989. Pity it's a photocopy, that's all I could get at the time...

I have been told recently by a member of the Armour Formation that one of the main reasons the 76mm gun was chosen, was due to the large stock of naval ammunition that remained after the decommissioning of the strike craft. According to him it costs R19k per 76mm round, so ammo for practice is a bit limited.

 

[kaiserbill]

This article should help in covering some of the outstanding questions around Rooikat's development etc. - courtesy Janes IDR November 1989. Pity it's a photocopy, that's all I could get at the time...

I have been told recently by a member of the Armour Formation that one of the main reasons the 76mm gun was chosen, was due to the large stock of naval ammunition that remained after the decommissioning of the strike craft. According to him it costs R19k per 76mm round, so ammo for practice is a bit limited.

That doesn't make much sense, to be honest.

When the production Rooikat went into manufacturing, the naval strike craft were all in service, with the oldest vessel being just over 10 years old, and the last vessel about 3 years old, which is still basically new in naval terms.
When the gun was actually selected for the Rooikat would have been earlier, possibly before even the last strikecraft or two had even been built.

At least some of the 76mm naval guns were reused on the Valour class Frigates, and at least 3 are used in the refurbished Strikecraft now used as Offshore Patrol Vessels.

I don't think the ammunition is precisely the same. The ignition process and commonly used warheads are different. What I have heard of is that the naval ammo can be fired if the primer is changed from mechanical to electric.
In that way, the ammo can be cheaply modified for training.

I'd say that apart from the stated reasons for using the 76mm initially, which was a larger ammo load than the 105mm, that the fact that ammunition and barrels of the 76mm being produced in South Africa made it additionally attractive.

In that way, I suppose the almost identical ammunition and probably similar barrel manufacture were a big consideration, for economies of scale, IMHO of course.

One question though... are the naval and Rooikat HE warheads the same or different?

 

[sa_bushwar]

This article should help in covering some of the outstanding questions around Rooikat's development etc. - courtesy Janes IDR November 1989. Pity it's a photocopy, that's all I could get at the time...

I have been told recently by a member of the Armour Formation that one of the main reasons the 76mm gun was chosen, was due to the large stock of naval ammunition that remained after the decommissioning of the strike craft. According to him it costs R19k per 76mm round, so ammo for practice is a bit limited.

That doesn't make much sense, to be honest.

When the production Rooikat went into manufacturing, the naval strike craft were all in service, with the oldest vessel being just over 10 years old, and the last vessel about 3 years old, which is still basically new in naval terms.
When the gun was actually selected for the Rooikat would have been earlier, possibly before even the last strikecraft or two had even been built.

At least some of the 76mm naval guns were reused on the Valour class Frigates, and at least 3 are used in the refurbished Strikecraft now used as Offshore Patrol Vessels.

I don't think the ammunition is precisely the same. The ignition process and commonly used warheads are different. What I have heard of is that the naval ammo can be fired if the primer is changed from mechanical to electric.
In that way, the ammo can be cheaply modified for training.

I'd say that apart from the stated reasons for using the 76mm initially, which was a larger ammo load than the 105mm, that the fact that ammunition and barrels of the 76mm being produced in South Africa made it additionally attractive.

In that way, I suppose the almost identical ammunition and probably similar barrel manufacture were a big consideration, for economies of scale, IMHO of course.

One question though... are the naval and Rooikat HE warheads the same or different?

Agree, it sounds odd, but maybe the 76mm naval guns and ammo was a good departure point to develop the Rooikat main armament??? SA did not have any other modern medium caliber gun at the time apart from the ancient 88mm G2. It already had the ammo - provided it could be used for a land application, then there might be some truth in the statement?

 

[kaiserbill]

Agree, it sounds odd, but maybe the 76mm naval guns and ammo was a good departure point to develop the Rooikat main armament??? SA did not have any other modern medium caliber gun at the time apart from the ancient 88mm G2. It already had the ammo - provided it could be used for a land application, then there might be some truth in the statement?

I think you are right.
I suspect that once the Strikecraft were in service with their 76mm guns, then a decision was easier to make.

It was clear they were looking for a higher velocity weapon, something with more punch than the low pressure 90mm found on the Eland.
The 90mm of course is perfectly suitable for fire support, but falls down somewhat as an anti-tank round against tanks that were probably likely to be introduced into the region at some point.

Interestingly, the very early prototypes in the beginning of this thread, that eventually lead to the Rooikat, seem to have employed the 77mm HV (High Velocity) gun from the Comet tanks, but in a newly designed turret that was fitted to all of the vehicles, but only 2 of which still have their turrets and gun.

It would be actually quite interesting to know the history behind the choice of that weapon on the early concepts, what the results of testing were, and what it's relationship was with the process that lead to a gun being selected that was based on the Oto Melara 76mm.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have been told recently by a member of the Armour Formation that one of the main reasons the 76mm gun was chosen, was due to the large stock of naval ammunition that remained after the decommissioning of the strike craft. According to him it costs R19k per 76mm round, so ammo for practice is a bit limited.

Not true. The ammo is not compatible. Also the trial vehicles used the "77mm" gun from the Comet WWII tank because it was the right size and performance for the job. Production vehicles used a version of the 76mm Oto gun because plant was on hand to supply the Navy guns and ammunition and it had excellent performance. Its pretty much the same reason a lot of Navies have been looking at 155mm guns to replace their 113mm/127mm guns. Better performance and economies of scale.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Indeed it is.
Probably the best view so far of it equipped with its original turret.
I hope you are successful locating a colour version, Abe.

(Jane's) International Defense Review Volume 22 Number 11. No copies available on the second hand market on the internet but will try and get a chance to search the library systems today. Of course if anyone reading this has a copy in their private library please scan!

 

[Graugrun]

I accidentally posted this in the general SA army vehicles thread, forgetting that there is this dedicated Rooikat thread - here is concept 2 being field tested.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It would be actually quite interesting to know the history behind the choice of that weapon on the early concepts, what the results of testing were, and what it's relationship was with the process that lead to a gun being selected that was based on the Oto Melara 76mm.

IMI in Israel had a close relationship with OTO-Melara not just for the naval guns (where the RSA got the guns for their strike craft) but also for land use. Which lead to the modification of the 76mm L62 gun into the 60mm high velocity anti tank gun by IMI and Oto. However the Minister class strike craft project was contracted in 1974 so no doubt the facilities for the Oto gun and ammunition were well established before the SA Army settled on a 76mm class weapon for the new armoured car.

 

[Graugrun]

It would be actually quite interesting to know the history behind the choice of that weapon on the early concepts, what the results of testing were, and what it's relationship was with the process that lead to a gun being selected that was based on the Oto Melara 76mm.

IMI in Israel had a close relationship with OTO-Melara not just for the naval guns (where the RSA got the guns for their strike craft) but also for land use. Which lead to the modification of the 76mm L62 gun into the 60mm high velocity anti tank gun by IMI and Oto. However the Minister class strike craft project was contracted in 1974 so no doubt the facilities for the Oto gun and ammunition were well established before the SA Army settled on a 76mm class weapon for the new armoured car.

Okay, I had a chat with one of the guys on the Rooikat program today - although only a short chat so I could not cover all that I wanted with him - this is what I got:

1. They considered but could not use the 90mm gun (as a base to develop further) as the license to manufacture from the French had expired and due to sanctions could not be renewed.
2. As already mentioned they then made use of a 77mm gun from an old British Comet tank as the basis of the design (I have attached two pics of the actual test gun below - I might have posted the one before, the other should definitely be new).
3. I could not ask but assume then that our license to manufacture 76mm guns still had a lot of 'credits' in it, or perhaps the Italians turned a bit of a blind eye - so long as we paid them...?
4. I have an old AC-100 brochure that mentions a 76mm gun as being one of the potential turret weapon options - I suspect the brochure hails from the early 1980's
5. He promised to send me one or two nice picks of "Bismarck" - since he is pretty reliable, I hope to have them in a few days time (BTW I got the 'Concept 2' pic in my post #100 above from him too).

 

[sa_bushwar]

Found this on http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/icvtd.htm

Wonder which prototype vehicle they are referring to?

South Africa's major military vehicle manufacturer, Reumech OMC, developed a prototype of the vehicle that could be the next-generation Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV) for the South African Army. The vehicle has a combat weight in the 25 ton-region. The vehicle is still unnamed, and is provisionally being called the Rooikat ICV Technology Demonstrator (ICVTD). The vehicle was originally developed as an alternative front-engined drive-train prototype for the Rooikat (Afrikaans for the African Lynx) armoured car project.
The production model has a rear-fitted 10 cylinder water-cooled diesel with turbo charger. Like the production Rooikat, this is an 8x8 with the front four wheels power steered. The ICVTD has a ramp at the rear that allows access to the troop compartment. The vehicle mounts a Ratel-20 turret. It also has a loose top deck and could conceivably alternate between a small turret, such as the Ratel's or a large turret, with a much bigger turret ring, such a that of the Rooikat.
The vehicle was built in the early 1980's and was dusted off for the DEXSA '98 to show the rest of the world that South Africa already then gave thought to the currently fashionable wheeled heavy ICV concept. Similar in appearance to recent European designs like Vextra and the tri-national project, it was built in 1982 and then abandoned.
The vehicle is on par with the GIAT Vexstra and the Anglo-Franco-German GTK/MRAV/VBCI project. Armor-wise the vehicle is identical to the present Rooikat. That means it is protected against landmine blasts up to TM 46 size under a wheel, proof against NATO 7.62mm AP all round and can withstand 23mm AP rounds on a 60 degree frontal arc (South African vehicles damaged or lost to enemy fire during cross-border operations in southern Angola in the 1980s generally fell foul of Russian-made ZU-23-2 AA guns used in a ground role).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for posting. There is an excellent photo of the elusive "Bismarck" there on page 2. Give me a few days to track down a copy of this IDR and I'll scan the pages in hi res colour.

Well it took a few months not days but here it is. The photo of the Bismarck from Christopher Foss's article in IDR.

 

[Anderman]

Thanks for posting. There is an excellent photo of the elusive "Bismarck" there on page 2. Give me a few days to track down a copy of this IDR and I'll scan the pages in hi res colour.

Well it took a few months not days but here it is. The photo of the Bismarck from Christopher Foss's article in IDR.

Mh the turret looks quite similar to a Leopard 2 turret!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Mh the turret looks quite similar to a Leopard 2 turret!

Did you just "Meh" the SADF Bismarck?


The RSA had quite a bit of military tech transfer from West Germany during the 70s and 80s despite the UN embargo. Considering the turret front of the TTD and the Bismarck it would appear that the armour array of the Leopard 2 was part of that transfer.

 

[kaiserbill]

Thanks for that Abe Gubler.


Oustanding post putting the vehicle with it's original turret in far better clarity.


It's quite a beast...

 

[Anderman]

Mh the turret looks quite similar to a Leopard 2 turret!

Did you just "Meh" the SADF Bismarck?

No i mean mh in the sense mh i make when i think about something

 

[Jemiba]

Did you just "Meh" the SADF Bismarck?

"mh" in German (and anderman lives in Paderborn/Germany) means something like "wait",
"well", or "I see".

It's sometimes a bit difficult, when all people talking here, principally are using the same language,
but from time to time unwiitingly sprinkling words and phrases from their own background, Not sure
where and when, but I remember, thaht this even lead to misunderstandings between native English
speakers !

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for the guide to "Mh" fellas. Miscommunication on the internet? I'm shocked!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It's quite a beast...

39 tonnes of beast. There is probably an ARMSCOR brochure for it out there somewhere. Next on the wishlist.

 

[compton_effect]

I saw something interesting in traffic this morning. There was a hold-up on the N1 North in Johannesburg. Turned it out be a Military Transporter with a very interesting Rooikat variant on it. Sadly I was unable to take a photo, due to the high volume of traffic.(Dammit)
It looked like a Rooikat Chassis, with a modified turret. The turret ring had a raised adapter on it, about half a meter high, re-sizing it to a smaller diameter. On top of that was a boxy turret, about the same diameter as the bottom turret ring, rectangular, almost square if viewed from above. 1 m high. Unfortunately it was covered with a fitted sheet.


Everything about it shouted 'prototype'.

 

[sa_bushwar]

Mh the turret looks quite similar to a Leopard 2 turret!

Did you just "Meh" the SADF Bismarck?


The RSA had quite a bit of military tech transfer from West Germany during the 70s and 80s despite the UN embargo. Considering the turret front of the TTD and the Bismarck it would appear that the armour array of the Leopard 2 was part of that transfer.

Further confirmation of the German co-operation is the fact that Bismarck had a German power pack.

 

[kaiserbill]

I think Behr, or BERU, make certain ancilliaries and parts for engines.


The SA Armour museum site lists the engine of the Bismarck as an MTU V6 of just under 800hp.

PROTOTYPE, CLASS 3 NEW GENERATION ARMOURED CAR PROJECT (RSA)
Crew: 4

Combat Mass: 41, 049 mt

Armament: 105 mm (L7) GT-3 Gun; 2 x 7,62 mm Browning Machine-gun; 60 mm Breech Loading Mortar; 8 x 81 mm Smoke Generator Launchers; 105mm - APDS/T L52; APFSDS/T; HEAT/T; HESH/T WP/T

Engine: MTU-V6-6396; V-6 Cyl; Turbo Charged; Liquid Cooled Diesel; 588 kW (786 hp) at 2 400 r/min

Transmission: ZF4HP 2000; Fully automatic; 4 Fwd 1 Rev; Manual Selection; 1-4 and Rev; Configuration - 8x8; Transverse and Longitudinal Differential Locks

Speed: Road 86 km/h

Operating Range: Road 1 000 km

Unique Feature: Hydro-Pneumatic suspension system; Turret mounted 60mm breech-loading mortar


This vehicle manufactured, circa 1982/83, was the heaviest of the three different classes built for evaluation. The suspension was hydro-pneumatic with a turret designed to accommodate a 105 mm L7 tank gun. The vehicle was built in South Africa by Sandock Austral (Pty) Ltd who was technically assisted by an West German firm. The project was shelved in favour of the Class 2B.

http://www.saarmourmuseum.co.za/lesakeng.html

 

[Graugrun]

I saw something interesting in traffic this morning. There was a hold-up on the N1 North in Johannesburg. Turned it out be a Military Transporter with a very interesting Rooikat variant on it. Sadly I was unable to take a photo, due to the high volume of traffic.(Dammit)
It looked like a Rooikat Chassis, with a modified turret. The turret ring had a raised adapter on it, about half a meter high, re-sizing it to a smaller diameter. On top of that was a boxy turret, about the same diameter as the bottom turret ring, rectangular, almost square if viewed from above. 1 m high. Unfortunately it was covered with a fitted sheet.


Everything about it shouted 'prototype'.

You mean this....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You mean this....

Looks like the Badger turret on a Rooikat. Probably for mobile test firings.

 

[compton_effect]

I saw something interesting in traffic this morning. There was a hold-up on the N1 North in Johannesburg. Turned it out be a Military Transporter with a very interesting Rooikat variant on it. Sadly I was unable to take a photo, due to the high volume of traffic.(Dammit)
It looked like a Rooikat Chassis, with a modified turret. The turret ring had a raised adapter on it, about half a meter high, re-sizing it to a smaller diameter. On top of that was a boxy turret, about the same diameter as the bottom turret ring, rectangular, almost square if viewed from above. 1 m high. Unfortunately it was covered with a fitted sheet.


Everything about it shouted 'prototype'.

You mean this....

Dats der bunny!
I went by so fast I didn't even notice it was a Badger Turret. That is one ugly mod.
Mind you - it would make for one interesting cavalry version.

 

[sa_bushwar]

I think Behr, or BERU, make certain ancilliaries and parts for engines.


The SA Armour museum site lists the engine of the Bismarck as an MTU V6 of just under 800hp.

PROTOTYPE, CLASS 3 NEW GENERATION ARMOURED CAR PROJECT (RSA)
Crew: 4

Combat Mass: 41, 049 mt

Armament: 105 mm (L7) GT-3 Gun; 2 x 7,62 mm Browning Machine-gun; 60 mm Breech Loading Mortar; 8 x 81 mm Smoke Generator Launchers; 105mm - APDS/T L52; APFSDS/T; HEAT/T; HESH/T WP/T

Engine: MTU-V6-6396; V-6 Cyl; Turbo Charged; Liquid Cooled Diesel; 588 kW (786 hp) at 2 400 r/min

Transmission: ZF4HP 2000; Fully automatic; 4 Fwd 1 Rev; Manual Selection; 1-4 and Rev; Configuration - 8x8; Transverse and Longitudinal Differential Locks

Speed: Road 86 km/h

Operating Range: Road 1 000 km

Unique Feature: Hydro-Pneumatic suspension system; Turret mounted 60mm breech-loading mortar


This vehicle manufactured, circa 1982/83, was the heaviest of the three different classes built for evaluation. The suspension was hydro-pneumatic with a turret designed to accommodate a 105 mm L7 tank gun. The vehicle was built in South Africa by Sandock Austral (Pty) Ltd who was technically assisted by an West German firm. The project was shelved in favour of the Class 2B.

http://www.saarmourmuseum.co.za/lesakeng.html

The MTU power pack has a Behr engine cooling system

 

[kaiserbill]

Thanks SA Bushwar.

 

[panzerskool]

why is the test bed on a private truck and trailer?

 

[Herman]

Reply to post # 102.
At the time the Rooikat was initially envisaged (late seventies), the lightest production armoured vehicle mounting a 105mm NATO type gun, was the French AMX 30, at about 35 tons. The German TAM (about 30 tons) was at a prototype stage. The low-recoil 105mm guns initially developed by Rheinmetall had not yet seen the light at that time. Afaik, the combat weight initially projected for the Rooikat was around 22 tons. At that time it was inconceivable that a 105mm L7 type gun could be mounted in a vehicle that light. High velocity 76mm (3 inch) guns had been mounted on vehicles in that weight range however, noteably the M41 Walker Bulldog tank (US).


I am convinced that the initial design/planning for the Rooikat bever envisaged a 105mm gun. The guns which might have been considered for the proposed Rooikat include the following, imo.


1. The French 90mm F4 ("Super 90") gun. This was a derivative of the gun used on the Eland. It used the same projectiles but had a larger cartridge case and higher velocity. Despite that, it was mounted on armoured cars weighing less than 10 tons and was simply not powerful enough for SA purposes.


2. The French 105mm F2 MECA gun. This was a new design at that time. It was a medium pressure, smooth bore gun fitted to the AMX 10-RC reconnaisanse vehicle just entering service in the late seventies. That vehicle weighed about 15 tons. The gun relied on a HEAT shell for anti-armour purposes but an APFSDS projectile was later developed. The gun was mounted in a sophisticated 3-man turret with an advanced fire-control system. I think this gun and turret would have been a viable option for 20 ton Rooikat but it would have been very expensive to acquire and, of course, the arms embargo was in place at that time.


3. A gun based on the US M41, 90mm gun. This was the original gun for the M48 tank. For SA, this would have entailed acquiring ammunition and production capability for the ammunition and developing a new gun. This gun had also only been mounted on tanks weighing in excess of 40 tons and would, in the late seventies, not have been regarded as a realistic option for a 22 ton armoured car.


4. Then we get to the 3 inch guns, with which SA had had a lot of experience. The 77mm High Velocity gun mounted on the Comet was available as was a substantial stock of ammunition. The 17 pounder was available mounted in the Sherman Firefly and as an anti-tank gun, as were large stocks of ammunition. The 76/62 Oto Melara naval gun was in service with SA at that time and the ammunition was being produced in SA. The 77mm gun was used in trials on the Rooikat prototype because it was available. I don't think it would have been seriously considered as the definite weapon for the Rooikat. It is an efficient gun but case capacity is relatively small and it would probably not have been possible to squeeze enough velocity out of the gun, even with a modern gun, using modern propellants and an APFSDS projectile. The 17 pounder would have been an excellent basis for the 76mm gun of the Rooikat. The achieveable performance of the 17 pounder and the Oto 76/62 is probably similar though and the Oto ammo was already in production whereas modernised 17 pounder ammunition would have had to be developed from scratch.