The RUAG 120mm Compact Tank Gun (CTG) smoothbore, developed by RUAG Land Systems in Switzerland, is a high-pressure, lightweight weapon system designed to provide MBT level firepower to vehicles in the light and medium weight classes. Originally prototyped in 1988, with the goal of upgunning Switzerland’s existing fleet of L7 105 equipped PZ68 MBTs, the CTG was engineered to combine reduced recoil and weight with high performance. It is fully compatible with NATO 120mm ammunition, and has been tested with German, French, and Israeli 120mm APFSDS. The CTG has been successfully intergrated on vehicles such as the CV90-120, which is in game in the Swedish tree.
The Swiss M109 self-propelled howitzer was adapted to trial this 120mm smoothbore, serving as a platform to evaluate the feasibility of a large-caliber multipurpose cannon. Trialed in 2002, it successfully demonstrated the system’s ability to integrate with an existing platform, including a recoil mechanism capable of generating a maximum recoil length of 420mm and forces suited for the M109 chassis. The cannon could be elevated to a maximum angle of 70°, and it only required several minor modifications to fit the gun within the M109 turret housing. Additionally, fitting an adaptor allowed the cannon to fire 120mm smoothbore mortar bombs. In terms of fire control, there is no evidence that the vehicle received any upgrades from the Swiss M109, meaning no stabiliser, LRF, and the same optics.
Generally this vehicle received very little publicity, and as far as I’m aware only the single image exists of it (at least in the public domain, undoubtedly more exist within private and business archives), published in several defence magazines. The final fate of the testbed vehicle is unknown, but it is likely that it was dismantled, with the M109 rejoining the Swiss artillery, and the RUAG 120mm being installed in further demonstrater vehicles for marketing purposed.
Specifications
Spoiler
Cannon
Some of the above specs (recoil travel) are based on the cannon as installed on the CV90120 and will therefore differ slightly from the cannon installed in the M109
Yep, images such as these have been proven to be fake before. Wouldn’t surprise me if this is another case. I don’t think gaijin should add this until we have more solid proof on its existence.
Yeah exactly, just because it’s published somewhere doesn’t mean it was actually built. I think this has happened a few times before with Janes specifically. It’s especially suspicious that a) there’s only one photo and b) the colouration of the front of the turret is obviously different and just looks a bit ‘off’.
Turning a artillery piece on a direct fire vehicle, seems to be very interesting, I support the further addition of Swedish vehicles that eventually helps F2P players that wants to grind this tech tree without paying much.
On their excellent militairy vehicles ‘fan’ website this 120mm modification is not mentioned anywhere: Panzerhaubitzen - Raupenfahrzeuge | militärfahrzeuge.ch
They only have information of the 155 mm modernisation project carried out by RUAG…
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use quotes out of context. The cannon was made by RUAG, and there’s no debating that, send them an email if you want, but this project was made in conjunction with the Swiss Army procurement organisation (Armasuisse), a government run organisation.
If you think this vehicle wasn’t built then that’s absolutely fine. But its not my job to prove you right, if you think this vehicle wasn’t built then its up to you to do the legwork and prove that, not just copy and paste the email of an internationally significant arms manufacturer.
I just want to say that you provide 4 sources, only 2 of which mention this vehicle and both of those 2 sources are from the same Publisher that is not a primary but a secondary source.
I don’t currently doubt the existence of this cannon, nor that it is made by RUAG, nor do I mention that in my post.
You provide no source from
any swiss company that mentions this specific modification.
Swiss brochures that we would often see for these kind of developments
Swiss government sources, which are open source and available to all citizens and some foureign citizens, especially for old military developments
Armasuisse
And you provide a source that’s not the right one from one that should be a primary source.
RUAG (you use a source for a ‘different’ 120 mm modification)
What I doubt is your credibility in terms of research. I understand that this vehicle is most likely a very niche vehicle that has almost no information on it, but I just don’t like the lack of sourcing that I see here.
P.S.: I also searched a lot around Swiss army forums for this vehicle, but I can’t find any info on it, only some doubt about the Janes article.
Sources that I tried, but that don’t ever mention this vehicle. (1st to 9th edit)
about the edits
these 9 edits were made to correct spelling and add these sources in about 30min of adding the tabs I had opened.
Schweizer Soldat : die führende Militärzeitschrift der Schweiz 79th edition (2004) https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=sol-004:2004:79::616This one mentions in 2004 the 120mm gun that RUAG then produced, but not this supposed M109 with that gun, which would be weird to exclude.
More from the Allgemeine schweizerische Militärzeitschrift
This is a well-known Swiss publisher that frequently publishes about Swiss military trials and has done so since 1833, all these records are publicly available.
Pfeil und Bogen - festung-oberland.ch (about trials conducted with M109’s that had their barrels replaced with L47 and L52 tubes, but this was in 1986, not in 2002).
«Die besten Handgranaten der Welt» | Tages-Anzeiger This article mentions upgrades for the M109 and a 120 mm artillery piece made by RUAG in the same sentence, but this 120 mm gun is actually the Bighorn Mortar.
Not a single one of these Swiss publishers or online forums ever mention this vehicle. I can’t do research about this vehicle if the country that supposedly made it don’t even acknowledge it.
How does one prove that something does not exist if it might possibly never have existed? The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. You propose that this vehicle existed, but use a dubious paper that is known to get things wrong or make things up and you don’t use a single Swiss source that even mentions the 120 mm gun and the M109 in the same article.
I am not omnisciencent, I can’t prove that something doesn’t exist if there’s no concrete proof that if does, with the only given ‘proof’ being some hearsay from a secondary source which, while known for being a good source on transportation systems, isn’t always the best source to use for weapon systems, especially if it’s your only source.
If you think this vehicle was built, then please prove it.
I might not be the best researcher on Swiss armoured vehicles, but I’m just concerned that this kind of vehicle will never see the light of day with these quality of sources.
I would be very pleasantly surprised if this vehicle existed, but no indigenous sources can confirm this.
Respectfully, he did. And, as he mentioned, as the author the burden of proof is on you. ‘You can’t prove it didn’t exist’ isn’t a solid argument, you should instead be proving without a doubt that it did exist. I’ve made my fair share of suggestions for niche and poorly documented vehicles but I always try and find as much as humanly possible.
You could also check the Swiss Archives (Online-Zugang zum Bundesarchiv), it seems there’s a few documents about the M109 from the relevant time period, although whether they’ll mention a RUAG trial vehicle, I’m unsure. (directed at anyone who wants to find more info)
I’m not so sure about this vehicle, there seems to be little proof of it existing other than the one image, and that itself looks a little…off. It wouldn’t be the first time Jane’s published an edited image either, as BasherBenDawg pointed out, there was an edited image of a regular Magach 7A in one of their publications, to make it look like it had a 120 mm gun. Until and/or if we find out more about this vehicle, I think its existence is doubtful.
Respectfully, notice those 9 edits on that comment of his? He hadn’t done any research when he first posted it, just been rather rude instead.
And I’ve adequately proved the vehicle exists to the standard of this forum. Regrettably, its not my job to personally satisfy the individual research requirements of every person who comments. And if someone comes in here and makes a claim ‘this vehicle was never built’, the burden of proof for their own claim lies with them.
This is unbelievably simple. If this is a fake vehicle then the imagery of it is doctored, so the original image of the vehicle, either with no armament or the original 155mm, will exist and that will be concrete proof that there was some computer tomfoolery involved.
Same can be said about a reference image of the 120mm, that must have come from somewhere as well.
Hell, if an image of the M109 can be found in the same conditions (on the same training ground, in the same camo scheme, with the same crew member sticking out the hatch), even if it doesn’t match up perfectly, that would be decent enough proof.
This claim has no grounds to stand on. If someone is critical of your research it is not an insult upon your person.
And no, I actually did research before I posted, but your response prompted me to post that research in the same comment.
Don’t worry, I have also been looking for the original M109 picture, but that one will most likely only exist in physical archives, which I can’t access being a Belgian that doesn’t live in Switzerland.
Even the most obscure prototype vehicles made in Switzerland have several pages on them on swiss military enthusiast websites and most often also several mentions of it in military magazines, why doesn’t this one?
And one last reason why I am sceptical of this vehicle: your (singular) source itself says that the information of its existence was supplied by a spokesperson from RUAG. The author their selves don’t mention having seen that vehicle. Coincidentally the timeframe of its supposed creation coincides with the trials for the new 155 gun for the MLU of the swiss M109 to NATO 155mm standards that were roughly conducted between 2000 and 2004. Those M109 trials were mentioned in several of my sources, which is why I added them Post Script.
Yeah you’ve just edited your comment 10 times for a laugh then? Not my cup of tea but you do you I suppose.
Everything you have provided so far is 100% speculatory and assumption based, but I do appreciate the work you have put into this.
I believe I’ve already made this clear but just to reiterate - I don’t mind at all having a discussion about whether this vehicle was actually built. The last thing I want to be doing is spreading misinformation and I will happily correct or take down this post if further information comes to light.
What I take issue with is ‘I have doubts as to whether this vehicle was built, I won’t provide any evidence for this, here is RUAGs email address for you to go sort this out’, which is how this conversation started on your behalf.
I agree that this might have come off as rude, but what I was asking was if you had actually contacted the company itself. In that same post I also added the website of the swiss armoured vehicles fan forum, where this vehicle isn’t mentioned. The lack of a mention of this vehicle on that forum and the content of your sources prompted me immediately to reply with such a question.
Yes, I like to edit my replies to correct for mistakes, such as wrong dates or faulty links. I just edited it a 10th time to add the context of these edits:
The first 9 were from the first hour/half an hour where I posted my tabs that I had opened and read-in on all sources about the M109 in swiss service and its modifications/trials.
The 10th edit was from today, where I added some additional sources, some from RUAG, some from the Artillery test units and some from swiss news papers and the government.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m already amazed that such a vehicle as this one has come to light, but considering currently this forumpost and that Jane article are the only mention of it on the entire internet, including databases from the Swiss government, just surprised me so much that I had to look into it.
Well, yes, because there is only one source for this vehicle. When proving that something doesn’t exist without using the only source that should prove it exists that tends to be the case.
The supposed primary source mentioned in this text (a ‘spokesperson from RUAG, Walter Lanz’, who is now a volunteer at the Swiss army museum)
You provide 2 secondary sources, one of these 2 sources directly sources the other article, so only one of these 2 sources claims to have this information from a primary source (this spokesperon).
Edit: ;) I looked into this Walter Lanz person, and he does seem to be the right person to speak to: Der Weg zum Bison und zur Panzerhaubitze mit Langrohr – Festungswerke He is mentioned as an ex-employee working for a current subsidiary of RUAG and is a frequent speaker at the swiss army museum. Sadly Belgium is region-locked from the website of this museum, so I can’t find his professional contact details.
