# Successul trials held for direct fire system



## Blakey

Interesting and maybe informative read for all you TOW qualified people out there (RCR,VanDoo, & PPCLI). 
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=367

Exert



> While the infantry and armour troops were fairly familiar with each other in the field, the air defence gunners were the new element to the mix in a number of ways. In fact the crews and their vehicles came from 4 Air Defence Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, in Gagetown, New Brunswick.


----------



## McG

> The DFS is a significant step in Army Transformation. The end result will be the transformation of Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) from a traditional armour regiment into a DFS unit composed of multiple weapons systems. Instead of using tanks to deliver mobile heavy firepower, task forces will be able to deploy DFS teams equipped with the 105mm mobile gun system, as well as tube-launched optically-tracked wire-guided (TOW) and ADATS missiles in an integrated system. Using all three systems in a layered approach from up to eight kilometres away, the DFS team will be able to provide soldiers with the direct firepower to take the objective and achieve the mission.
> 
> While the vehicles themselves will be different in the future, Major Paul Peyton says the weapons systems will be the same. Maj. Peyton, the officer in charge of the trials, says the armour, infantry and artillery were able to work out the nuts and bolts of integrating on the field into something that will give deployed forces a considerable punch in combat operations.
> 
> "We found that these three platforms can be integrated into something that is more than the sum of its parts," he says. "It is decisive, flexible and sustainable. It has the potential to be the most effective land-based direct-fire organization ever."


Is there anybody here who was on the exercies and that can comment on how well this worked?



> Despite the trials' successes, everyone involved said there is still a lot more work to do. The next step will be to take the results in the field and translate them into doctrine and tactics for the whole Army. In the meantime, the work will continue towards more DFS training in the coming year, with the aim of fielding a cohesive direct fire team in the near future.


----------



## George Wallace

Interesting.  In my day we had M109s with 155 mm rds reaching out to touch the enemy.  Then as the enemy got closer we had tanks with 105 mm and TOW and mortars along with the 155 arty to engage him.  When he got closer we had tanks, arty, mortars, TOW, M72 and Eryx, .50 Cal, and 7.62 mm.  If he got too close we added some 9mm and bayonets.

What is so new about 'Layers"?

GW


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting.   In my day we had M109s with 155 mm rds reaching out to touch the enemy.   Then as the enemy got closer we had tanks with 105 mm and TOW and mortars along with the 155 arty to engage him.   When he got closer we had tanks, arty, mortars, TOW, M72 and Eryx, .50 Cal, and 7.62 mm.   If he got too close we added some 9mm and bayonets.
> 
> What is so new about 'Layers"?
> 
> GW



I think "transformation" is the new buzzword for "reinventing the wheel"


----------



## George Wallace

;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Very good analogy,...but unfortunately they are trying to make that tiny spare in the trunk do the full-time work of the old 4x4 tire.


----------



## Blakey

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Very good analogy,...but unfortunately they are trying to make that tiny spare in the trunk do the full-time work of the old 4x4 tire.



I like that analogy, seems to nail it right down.


----------



## aesop081

Why is it i can't help but feel that "transformation" ( ATOF too while i'm at it) is like a used car salesman. Its the same old shit....emphasis on old.  They are making it sound like some kind of revolution but IMHO, all it brings to the army is decreased capabilities. I know this is the subject of alot of other threads here but i don't buy this "niche" capabilities thing at all.  Alliances are great but what happens WHEN we have to do our own dirty work ?


----------



## George Wallace

aesop081 said:
			
		

> ...... They are making it sound like some kind of revolution but IMHO, all it brings to the army is decreased capabilities. I know this is the subject of alot of other threads here but i don't buy this "niche" capabilities thing at all. Alliances are great but what happens WHEN we have to do our own dirty work ?



Ummm?...........We die......

GW


----------



## 022  AD Gunner

I was not there, but talking to the troops who went said it was a good show all the NCM,s from all three trades worked hard to make it work. Aswell by the end of the EX there was the playfull cutting up between the three trades.

From the PXR points I have read say this "new unit" will work if the CSS side is sorted out. But that being said we all know that they just need to be pointed in the right direction, and CSS is very good at ther job and will be great.

The AD guys are looking foward to be in a real Regt with clear direction, somthing we have never had. :skull:  :skull:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"Instead of using tanks to deliver mobile heavy firepower, task forces will be able to deploy DFS teams equipped with the 105mm mobile gun system, as well as tube-launched optically-tracked wire-guided (TOW) and ADATS missiles in an integrated system. Using all three systems in a layered approach from up to eight kilometres away, the DFS team will be able to provide soldiers with the direct firepower to take the objective and achieve the mission."

Doesn't this "layered approach" create more logistical problems as well as having 3 vehicles do the job of 1 (in a land role).  That is the most ass backwards thinking I have ever heard.  Also wouldn't this "layered" approach create a greater "signiture" to the enemy?


----------



## George Wallace

CFL said:
			
		

> Doesn't this "layered approach" create more logistical problems as well as having 3 vehicles do the job of 1 (in a land role). That is the most ass backwards thinking I have ever heard. Also wouldn't this "layered" approach create a greater "signiture" to the enemy?



Well, with the Liberal's "Kinder - Gentler" Army, what better way to do it, than to lower the numbers of Combat Arms Troops and increase the numbers of the Admin and Support troops.

A friend sent me this:



> How Government Works
> Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of the woods. Parliament said, "someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
> 
> Then Parliament said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
> 
> Then Parliament said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.
> 
> Then Parliament said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.
> 
> Then Parliament said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
> 
> Then Parliament said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."
> 
> So they laid off the night watchman.
> Fm Dean Fairbairn


----------



## 2 Cdo

Thanks for making my day George. That was either the funniest thing I've read or the saddest. Depends on how you take it!


----------



## Zipper

That was awesome George. Even my wife saw the irony behind it (being a Federal employee and all).

As to the idea of layered light armoured vehicles. Didn't you know that survivability goes up if you have three targets instead of one? Someone will make it out alive. Lets hope it is you...


----------



## EODSpr

From the limited research I have done (heavy on the limited part) my impression of the MGS is that it just plain doesn't work all that well. I think I have the feel of the RCD out there from my conversations with them that they are just plain not impressed. I can understand this, I don't think I like the idea of following this MGS in the advance, and i'm sure our Armoured guys would rather have a little more armour between them and the bad guys. Are there *any* proponents in the rank and file for this thing?

E45

Chimo!


----------



## George Wallace

Not too many proponents in the Rank and File.   Gen Hillier did highly praise it in a half to 3/4 page letter to the Ottawa Citizen (copy in one of these threads), but he is the only 'RCD' that I know that thinks so.   Years ago, Rick Whelan was RGWO for the RCD and as such was down south to do trials on it.   He and his crew failed it.   GM and NDHQ, however, thought differently.   

GW


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Where is Hillier now?


----------



## George Wallace

Oh!    ;D

GW


----------



## Cloud Cover

CFL said:
			
		

> Where is Hillier now?



LOL! Sometimes you just have the knack for capturing the moment.


----------



## Good2Golf

Intersting note about a discussion that several of us in the Doctrine and Combat Capability Development world had with a US Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) Batallion Comd months ago...he said he'd didn't really know why we bought the MGS...and that he'd actually trade their MGS and LAV I's for our LAV III.   He noted that the only reason the MGS was developed was to fill the gap between a turretless LAV I with a .50 and the Bradley.   He said he'd kill to have our LAV III with turreted 25mm Bushmaster!   Ironic, eh?

Not that I've spent a lot of time in AFV's ;D ...but I'd mount CASW and ALAAWS to our LAV III's, skip the MGS, LAVTUA and MMEV.anyV entirely and go straight for FCS.   Do folks think that LAV III and an FCS-type AFV rally wouldn't provide a decent layered approach to a DFS capability compared to MGS/TUA/MMEV?

Then again, maybe I should just stay in my own office in DAD and amuse myself by making helicopter noises...   

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Zipper

Ga? Ironic isn't it?

Its the fact that they are trying to replace the Leopards with the MGS that makes it all the more hurtful. 

The 25mm only has a certain penetration capability, and so to take out the benefits of a cannon would not be very smart. (I can't believe I just defended the MGS in some way! Sheesh.)

Sigh.

Now, where is Huey and Louie? ;D


----------



## EODSpr

I know this is flavour of the month and most likely a common chassis/dollar issue but it just seems strange how so many people can be opposed to this purchase inside and outside of Canada and yet the powers that be are still going ahead with it. I wonder what it will be like after we actually receive these pieces of kit. I guess time will tell.

Utterly confused   ???

E45 

Chimo!


----------



## George Wallace

Well I would have to admit that 25 mm Chainguns are a little more potent than a .50 Cal or 7.62 mm GPMG.

Gw


----------



## STONEY

I still believe that the Leo c2 despite its shortcomings (many) is still better than the alternatives proposed by NDHQ.  Simply put, a MBT of any type charging at you full bore firing its main gun has a higher sphincter factor than a MGS , ADATS ETC.  A good question is , do all the so called brain trust at NDHQ really believe in these so called "transformation ideas"  or is it just trying to fit square pegs in round holes. We know that they are not all stupid , can it just be that they are unable to articulate or justify these idea's to the Military rather than the general public who will believe anything. Let's face it , it would be a lot easier to understand  if we were just converting a small percentage of the Army like the USA rather than the whole Army. Does changing to DFS system really make you any more mobile , despite a few systems going by chartered air since Hercs can't lift them the bulk would still be going by sea where it really dosn't matter if the kit weighs 20 or 70 tons. When thay arrive do you think the opposition would shiver in their boots seeing armoured cars or some real ARMOUR.


----------



## George Wallace

Unfortunately, I think many of the decisions being made are a result of the Cold War and the relative Peace that we have experienced for the last sixty years.  None of our top Generals and Admirals have actually experienced combat as young officers and therefore have not faced the fears experienced in a battle and the effects the various weapons systems have had on creating those fears.  

I know someone will respond that these officers have been is some "Hot Spots", but have they really?It   Very few of them have really.  It was the Rank and File who fought in the Medac Pocket, the officers were far removed in their CPs.  It was the Rank and File who had to face the incoming rounds and experience the sights and sounds of battle.  The Officers waited for reports from the front to make their decisions.  They did not experience the sights and sounds of the battle, so didn't experience the fears exuded by enemy weapons system.  With the exception of the Platoon Commanders, few of the Officers truly experienced first hand any of this.  Whatever conflict we have been in over the last few decades, have not provided much of this insight on our current leadership.  Therefore, when it comes to trimming, they will listen to the "Bean Counters" and do away with our most effective tools for cheaper, less effective ones.

They have forgotten, or never experienced, the psychological effects of various weapons systems employed on the Battlefield.  Anyone experienced with Tanks will know what kinds of fear they produce when introduced into a battle, or even moved up to close proximity to an area in the middle of a night.  

We are destined to reinvent the wheel and have to relearn all our mistakes over again.

GW


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The MGS is not a tank replacement.  That's what they will keep tell us and the public.  That said the MGS as horrible protection and will only be survivable if its far removed from the sh!t.  I think I read that on the move its first round hit rate is 40% against a moving target as well.  I can not fathom doing a section/platton/coy etc attack with these things.  If the desire of the CF is to focus on FIBUA then they better take a long hard look at the lessons learned from Iraq.  And when they tell you that you will never go it along offer to give them a ride in your MGS or LAV III in Faluja.  The armoured fist is now made out of aluminium for all intesive purposes.


----------



## Zipper

But thats the whole point.

The Government, and those at the top who haven't been in the sh!t don't want us there. Simple.

They want to turn us into a stand off and support military that has to fill in the gaps of other countries military's rear areas, and to do light intensity "patrol" type work so that they can say we are contributing, but they don't have to spend the money.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Thats fine as long as they don't forget that and the enemy doesn't flank our allies.


----------



## plattypuss

Let's just remember the nature of the threat.  We are no longer going to be committed into action against the Russian hordes or against a tank based army on aan open front.  As the theorists are fond of saying the world is becoming more urban, thus more battle will be fought in the urban environment.  The American experience so far with the SBCT in Iraq has so far, proven that the Styrker with Slat armour can defeat both RPG and IED attack.  Yes I would prefer to have the Abrams underneath me and yes I love the rumble of the Leopard when it starts up. But part of the fear inspired by the tank rumble also warns the enemy that we are coming, especially when magnified in the urban environment.  The Stryker apparently puts fear in the enemy now because it can litterally sneak up on you.  Keep in mind that in the urban environment tanks should never work alone and this will be true for the MGS.  I agree that the MGS may not be ideal but it does offer advantages.  The government has made a commitment or policy as to what type of operation we are to be involved with in the future, whether this is based on understanding of our capabilities or sound advice from the leaders, is up for debate.  The MGS is not being used by the Americans to replace tanks like we are, but Canada is not alone in adopting a primarily wheeled fleet, even the Brits are re-rolling a large chunk of their Armoured units.  For the type of operations we will face in the future the MGS is sufficient for our needs. :-\


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You also forgot to mention that the Americans swear by small tank unit tactics in urban ops.  I don't know how stealthy an MGS is going to be in Urban operations.  The LAV is huge.


----------



## George Wallace

Well, if we want to go with the MGS then we would probably be wise to look into improving/increasing the upper limits of elevation, especially if we are "going to use it in Urban combat".

GW


----------



## Cloud Cover

plattypuss said:
			
		

> For the type of operations we will face in the future the MGS is sufficient for our needs. :-\



So much for our plan to take over the world.  :'(


----------



## Kirkhill

OK, try this one on for size.

The MBT is an Assault Vehicle that does Fire Support.

We don't have MBTs and Heavy APCs therefore we are out of the Mounted Assault business.

The MGS/TUA/MMEV systems are all Fire Support systems that will deploy BEHIND the Forward Line Own Troops.

Arty handles Fire Support.

Therefore hand the MGS/TUA/MMEV over to the Arty and let the Cavalry Corps get on with Recce, Patrols and Rapid Displacements to a Flank.


----------



## EODSpr

Now prior to receiving a new piece of kit that we are inventing tactics for we are retiring our armour and limiting ourselves to static engagements. Pretty hard to go on the offence when you are static. I believe it was stated previously that the MGS only has a 40% hit ratio while on the move.

As a Sapper I don't profess to be a major tactician, but it seems to me that until we actually receive the MGS and the LAV TUA and the LAV ADATS and exhaustively exercise these new tactics to see that they work. We should maintain a modern combat capable MBT that is tried and true. They don't have to be new, just better than what we have. 

As it sits now if the MGS turns out to be crap then we will have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars and be without any armour. If it works out fine well then you retire the MBT, but not until you are sure the new system will work.

Just the opinion of a humble Sapper.

E45

Chimo!


----------



## Cloud Cover

E-45: are you suggesting some sort of fixed term lease, ala no down payment, 0% financing, contact your local Krauss dealer?  *




Limited time offer, offer ends at commencement of hostilities. See local arms dealer for details. 20,000 km, $45 each kilometer over. Accessories and ammunition not included. Taxes due upon signing. Factory incentives and rebates assignable to dealer. Void where prohibited by UN trade restrictions.


----------



## EODSpr

That sound like an offer that would be acceptable the government. :


----------



## Zipper

plattypuss said:
			
		

> Let's just remember the nature of the threat.   We are no longer going to be committed into action against the Russian hordes or against a tank based army on an open front.   As the theorists are fond of saying the world is becoming more urban, thus more battle will be fought in the urban environment.   The American experience so far with the SBCT in Iraq has so far, proven that the Styrker with Slat armour can defeat both RPG and IED attack.   Yes I would prefer to have the Abrams underneath me and yes I love the rumble of the Leopard when it starts up. But part of the fear inspired by the tank rumble also warns the enemy that we are coming, especially when magnified in the urban environment.   The Stryker apparently puts fear in the enemy now because it can litterally sneak up on you.   Keep in mind that in the urban environment tanks should never work alone and this will be true for the MGS.   I agree that the MGS may not be ideal but it does offer advantages.   The government has made a commitment or policy as to what type of operation we are to be involved with in the future, whether this is based on understanding of our capabilities or sound advice from the leaders, is up for debate.   The MGS is not being used by the Americans to replace tanks like we are, but Canada is not alone in adopting a primarily wheeled fleet, even the Brits are re-rolling a large chunk of their Armoured units.   For the type of operations we will face in the future the MGS is sufficient for our needs. :-\



First off. I could have sworn that there are more countries then just Russia that can field tanks? In fact, most of the country's in the Middle East do. Maybe not en-masse and across a wide front. But to discount the idea of massed armies for all time is foolish at best. Deadly at worst. And lets just say for the sake of argument, that the Croats/Surbs had Serbsed to take further exception to our presence when we were there? We'd be in a world of hurt. Same with Somalia. If the technicals had more access to fuel, it would have gone very bad for us. It didn't luckily. But we cannot rely on that happening each time.

The comment of the Government understanding our capabilities is very much up for debate. No disrespect to our new CDS who I think is a stand up guy. But the very position of CDS (as well as any of the heads) is to put the best face forward on our forces to the politicians and public. Its political suicide otherwise. The powers that be on capitol hill don't give a rats a*s beyond the bottom line, and the public just sees what is presented to them, thus they are ignorant of most of it. Thus the MGS, which if you read this and other threads on the subject is in severe question
even with the American forces. Its a bad piece of kit beyond a simple light stand off fire support platform.

And I'm sorry to say as for being sufficient for our needs...                                       ...well I guess we're getting the short end of the stick as always and we'll continue to be a joke on the world stage. That is if we are even going to be able to transport them anywhere.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The MGS/TUA/MMEV systems are all Fire Support systems that will deploy BEHIND the Forward Line Own Troops.
> 
> Arty handles Fire Support.
> 
> Therefore hand the MGS/TUA/MMEV over to the Arty and let the Cavalry Corps get on with Recce, Patrols and Rapid Displacements to a Flank.



Sigh. Your probably right again Kirkhill. but arn't those tasks being handed to the Infantry? There is no Armour in the Forces anymore. Just glorified IFV's and support vehicles.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

It was my understanding that TUA's always deployed ahead of the troops.


----------



## George Wallace

CFL said:
			
		

> It was my understanding that TUA's always deployed ahead of the troops.



It has always been my experience that TUA's deployed on flanks, behind forward troops in defensive positions or in Ambush Positions.   But I am only and Armour Guy and to this date I don't ever recall Friendly TOW ever being to my front.


GW


----------



## a_majoor

I would have far fewer reservations about the MGS/TOW/MMEV "troika" if any of these pieces of kit could successfuly fire on the move.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

What I find interesting is that the CF is citing these trials of the direct fire "trio" as being successful, however the MGS was not even on hand to take part in the trials, instead the Leopard was substituted.

Kind of reminds me when I was in the BC Dragoons and we'd do an ex. using Iltis' to simulate Cougars, which in turn were supposed to simulate Leopards.   :

This 'layered' approach will work well when you've got a set-piece battle, however I don't think that it's too well suited to a fluid, asymetric battlefield, or an enemy that is particularly adept at concealing his reserve and launching a counterattack into your lines that are set up to deal with specific enemy threats in a specific order.


----------



## Zipper

Amen to that Matt.

We're being made into a support force. Thus the lightly armoured vehicles with non-shock, non fire on the move, and little sense in a stand up fight.


----------



## plattypuss

Deadly at worst. And lets just say for the sake of argument, that the Croats/Surbs had Serbsed to take further exception to our presence when we were there? We'd be in a world of hurt. Same with Somalia. If the technicals had more access to fuel, it would have gone very bad for us. It didn't luckily. But we cannot rely on that happening each time.


  All right - first of all I am familiar with the number of tanks that are out there amongst the world's nations.  To play devil's advocates slightly, Canada will not commit to a military operation without the full committment of one of its bigger brothers (US, Brit).  These big brothers will set the stage for our involvement and I cannot see commitment of our Armour Forces until the counter armour threat had been neutralised.  Our friends will continue to offer overwhelming air superiority which will negate the most serious Armour threat unless we're talking a face off between the US and China.  Canada is trying to fill a niche in the world, without spending a lot of dollars - I think that the MGS will offer the capability to fill the niche somewhere between heavy armour and recce.  As sad as it is to say, we will not be the ones called upon to engage the enemy's armour.  Even if we had the Armour required, we don't have the lift to get it in place and in time to be useful.


----------



## George Wallace

plattypuss

A couple of quick problems with your statements.  First, our "Big Brothers" are not always there to lend a hand in all of our deployments.  Second, Air Superiority means nothing in inclement weather.  The enemy will not wait for a bright sunny day to attack you.

The MGS really isn't a "combat" vehicle.  It is a very flawed "show of force" for Peacekeeping and lesser commitments.  Flawed "show of force" in that if you want to bring out your big sticks, you had better be ready to use them, and I seriously don't think the MGS will cut it if called upon to do so.  Gen Hillier is already stating that we need an Effective Combat Force to send on our missions.  I would not honestly say the MGS will fill that bill.

Gw


----------



## plattypuss

George

I acknowledge your statements but I am perhaps still comitted to the MGS (Of course the final product is very much in development).  What scenario do you for-see in the future that will require a future Canadian MBT (Hu-ah as much as I love'em)?  I just can't see us deploying the Armour Corps unless there was a minimal threat.  As far as I know the LDSH(RC) are the only ones maintaing any Direct fire capability and even that will be task tailored to missions and deploy as a single troop.  We deployed the Leopard to Bosnia but it would have been of minimal effectiveness and probably never been used if the sit had hit the fan compared to the British Challengers which were also limited in where they could or could not go.  An MGS may have proven more flexible and may have been able to go where the Challenger had not if the sit had gotten worse.  I think that the future enemy which Canada would become engaged with would be a thinking enemy and will not try and go toe to toe with Western armour resources, but will go "geurrilla".  All that being said Gen Hilliers comments seem to be contradictory to what the MGS is and what he foresees the future CF capability being. I suppose that his comments would have to be assessed against what he envisons future combat as being ie Combat capable against who?


----------



## big bad john

Has anyone compared the problems France had deploying and maintaining the AMX10RC a similar weapons system?


----------



## Kirkhill

BBJ:

Have you observed the French on ops with the AMX10RC?  Any opinions yourself?


----------



## big bad john

It  never impressed me, then again they had tube and stability problems when firing.  I was asking for opinions as I am not in any way an armoured expert.


----------



## big bad john

A side view of the AMX10RC


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

yikes


----------



## big bad john

It is very impressive to look at....I'm even told told that they sometimes work....but you can't believe everything you're told.


----------



## a_majoor

The AMX-10 (RC) is a recce vehicle, or more precicely a DF platform to support recce operations. It will hang back in the "bushes" and cover the other members of the team as they advance. I am not sure how it is armed now, but the verion 1.0 had a low pressure 105mm cannon, which was rather unique since the driving bands on the rounds were mounted on ball bearings (those whacky French engineers...). Like most systems, it has been upgraded over the years so stabilization, laser rangefinders, LLTV or Thermal Imaging and so on are probably a given.

It is bigger, has better armour and carries more rounds than the MGS, but like all wheeled vehicles, it has low cross country mobility and less armour than a comparable tank (AMX-30 in this case, which was never up there in the protection department either). It does have two "tricks" the MGS is missing; the suspension is driver adjustable so you can "stand up" and increase your ground clearence, and it uses differential steering like a track, so you can pivot steer out of a tight spot.

Over all, this is a 1960s design which has aged well, works for what it is designed for, and is not a tank substitute either. I suppose we could cut and paste all kinds of modifications on the beast to "improve" it, but the French are working on a family of 8X8 LAVs (where have I heard that before?), including an armoured car mounting a high velocity cannon.


----------



## big bad john

It is alway nice to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about.  Thank you.

That being said, the ones I have seen were in the direct fire support role.  And yes, you really don't want to be in the forward vicinity when the gun goes off.  France has just announced a massive upgrading program for them.  I have also heard that they have a few problems with the suspension.


----------



## Zipper

lol, they are rather impressive to look at. I know this sounds weird, but it would almost be better as a support role to be a SP gun. Along of the lines of the old jagdpanzers.

So with all that said above Majoor, do you still prefer the CV-90 family? I know I do.

And why is out military so against the idea of track? Yes it is more maintenance, and thus costs more. But it is so much more capable in many situation. 

Hell, I was reading that the Greeks even ordered the latest Leo 2 variants. WTF is that? Like they have the terrain or the money to support them? Sheesh.


----------



## George Wallace

Going back to the AMX10RC for a minute.  It is, as a_majoor stated, an old design, but efficient for what it has been used for.  The Italians have a similar vehicle, the Centaro, which they use in similar roles.  The guys who where in Kosovo with our Leo 1's will tell you about their inabilities, as wheeled vehicles with big gun systems, at moving cross country or on poor road systems that have turned into quagmires.  

I find this a major oversight of our military planners in their moving our Army into a "Wheeled Force".  In time of war, most of our major road systems will be destroyed.  They will be bombed, mined, cratered, etc.  With the movement of heavy Military traffic added to any civilian traffic, and no one repairing roads, they will soon turn to dust.  In absolute perfect conditions, with no rain or snow, these road systems may still remain open, but should it rain or snow they will devolve into swamp very quickly.  Wheeled vehicles don't handle mud and swamp conditions too well, especially large numbers of vehicles travelling over long distances.

GW


----------



## Zipper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find this a major oversight of our military planners in their moving our Army into a "Wheeled Force".   In time of war, most of our major road systems will be destroyed.   They will be bombed, mined, cratered, etc.   With the movement of heavy Military traffic added to any civilian traffic, and no one repairing roads, they will soon turn to dust.   In absolute perfect conditions, with no rain or snow, these road systems may still remain open, but should it rain or snow they will devolve into swamp very quickly.   Wheeled vehicles don't handle mud and swamp conditions too well, especially large numbers of vehicles travelling over long distances.



Good point. I find it difficult to understand why they are so against track, when so much of Canada is not paved? As well, the idea that you have to "truck" you armour into a theatre also doesn't make much sense (unless its hundreds of KM's). How far did the Sherman's in WWII and Korea have to travel without the benefit of transport? If you need maintenance, then get it.


----------



## Kirkhill

> How far did the Sherman's in WWII and Korea have to travel without the benefit of transport?



Not very far Zipper.  Juno to Falaise - 3 months and 40 miles (one side of Toronto to the other), Falaise to Antwerp about 300 miles (Toronto to Montreal).  And that stretch was mainly a run on paved roads.    As to the Juno-Falaise bit - I don't think many of the Shermans that landed on D-Day were still runners when the Falaise Gap was closed.

As to Korea, Pusan to the Hook is about 300 miles again and most of the Tanks spent their time dug in as pill boxes.

Even the Americans haven't been able to keep all of their tanks running in Iraq -  the factories couldn't supply shoes and links fast enough.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Jan/Army_Catching.htm



> Track usage in Iraq has been staggering, as armored vehiclesâ â€especially Bradley fighting vehiclesâ â€have been crunching sand and asphalt on continuous patrols and convoy escorts. â Å“In some cases, we were having a year's worth of op tempo in a week or a month,â ? according to Dugan.
> 
> The numbers speak volumes. Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, average peacetime demand for Bradley track was 7,500 track shoes per month. Demand soared nearly 1,300 percent, to an average of more than 100,000 shoes per month from March to October 2003. In Operation Desert Storm, track usage wasâ â€adjusted for the lesser durability of older trackâ â€the equivalent of 50,000 shoes per month in February 1991.
> 
> Abrams track usage multiplied nearly tenfold, from an average 8,500 shoes per month to 79,500 per month from March to October 2003. Equivalent demand in February 1991 was 41,500 shoes. And the surge in track usage in Desert Storm lasted for a much shorter period, noted Dugan.
> 
> Dugan said he did not know of any missions that were hampered by track shortages. â Å“Some readiness rates were bad, but nothing that stopped a commander from doing his mission,â ? he added. While the readiness goal is 90 percent vehicle availability, in some cases it was 60 or 70 percent in Iraq. However, Dugan emphasized that track durability depends on numerous suspension-related items such as road wheels, as well as terrain, temperature and vehicle weight.
> 
> The track breakdown does not appear to be a design flaw. â Å“I talked to a soldier in the 3rd Infantry Division,â ? Dugan said. â Å“He said the track held up well. They just wore it out.â ? In a test environment, Abrams track lasts 2,100 miles, while Bradley track is good for 2,400 miles.


----------



## pbi

Zipper said:
			
		

> Good point. I find it difficult to understand why they are so against track, when so much of Canada is not paved? As well, the idea that you have to "truck" you armour into a theatre also doesn't make much sense (unless its hundreds of KM's). How far did the Sherman's in WWII and Korea have to travel without the benefit of transport? If you need maintenance, then get it.



I think we all have to admit that, rightly or wrongly, the idea of fighting in Canada is probably one of the very last things included in any Statement of Requirements for any new combat vehicle system: we don't train (or even plan seriously...) for the defense of Canada. I would argue that if we did operate in Canada(probably in support of law enforcement), it would be in inhabited areas with roads.

As far as suggesting that in modern war we will see total destruction of the transportation infrastructure, I suggest two things.

a) modern war (ie: the type of war _most commonly _ being fought in the world today, and likely to be fought in the near future) no longer features the massive total destruction of all infrastructure. All infrastructure in Iraq, for example, was not destroyed, nor was it in Afghanistan nor even in Kosovo. Wheels should be quite adequate in most of those situations; and

b) if we were to actually get ourselves into a conflict in which somebody decided to devastate the transportation infrastructure, the MBTs might get through, but the CSS that keeps the MBTs running would not. After a while the MBTs would be big steel targets. This point (vulnerability of and reliance on a large CSS chain) has been brought home very clearly both in Afghanistan and Iraq. IIRC WWII had a few good examples too.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace

pbi said:
			
		

> I think we all have to admit that, rightly or wrongly, the idea of fighting in Canada is probably one of the very last things included in any Statement of Requirements for any new combat vehicle system: we don't train (or even plan seriously...) for the defense of Canada. I would argue that if we did operate in Canada(probably in support of law enforcement), it would be in inhabited areas with roads.
> 
> As far as suggesting that in modern war we will see total destruction of the transportation infrastructure, I suggest two things.
> 
> a) modern war (ie: the type of war _most commonly _ being fought in the world today, and likely to be fought in the near future) no longer features the massive total destruction of all infrastructure. All infrastructure in Iraq, for example, was not destroyed, nor was it in Afghanistan nor even in Kosovo. Wheels should be quite adequate in most of those situations; and
> 
> b) if we were to actually get ourselves into a conflict in which somebody decided to devastate the transportation infrastructure, the MBTs might get through, but the CSS that keeps the MBTs running would not. After a while the MBTs would be big steel targets. This point (vulnerability of and reliance on a large CSS chain) has been brought home very clearly both in Afghanistan and Iraq. IIRC WWII had a few good examples too.
> 
> Cheers



I disagree.  I don't like to use Iraq and Afghanistan as good examples of warfare to come.  I would not agree that the road systems there are sufficient to constantly hold up to a high volume of heavy military vehicles and transport.  Look at the problems we have with our own road systems in Peace, then compound that with the lack of maintenance and heavy military traffic.  Many of the roads in Kosovo and Macedonia were reduced to quagmires.

On the argument that our CSS would fall behind, again I would disagree.  In all our major conflicts, we have had no problems keeping the bullets, fuel and food flowing in the long haul.  We have our Engineers following up and maintaining the Supply Routes.  

What we don't have anymore, is the maneuverability of our Cbt Arms to properly defend the CSS in the Rear.  In example like Iraq, we have a strong large force overwhelming a much weaker small force, who has been reduced to using Guerrilla tactics and foreign terrorists to carry on a reign of terror, which no Army in the world can successfully fight.  It is now up to the civilian populace and police to round up these people who are hiding amongst them.

GW


----------



## plattypuss

A couple of comments
1)  Apparently the VOR for the Stryker fleet in Iraq was 98% despite the fact that they looged over 3 million miles in a 12 month period.
2)  PBI, I totally agree with you.  Sustaining the infrastructure of the country which you are in, is a big part of the hearts and minds campaign.  If you start bombing roads, bridges you will lose the hearts and minds of the civilian populace which will then in turn be more encouraged to become the geurilla which you do not want.
3)  George, what  major conflicts are you referring to?  If you are referring to the WWs, then you must admit we did not have neccessarily a more manoueverable combat force to protect the echelons but a larger combat force which was helped in that we were operating with extended supply lines in countries which we were liberating.  We might have the engineers following up but they would need protection in a non-contiguous environment.  Also even the Americans were stuped on how to protect their convoys and for a while were seriously thinking of pulling a large portion of LAVs back from the Marines to do the job.


----------



## George Wallace

I see "Wheels" as playing a role, but in most cases, not a front line role.  I agree with the British idea with their Saxons.  They transport their Troops forward in the armoured Saxons, from Britain to the front, where the troops then transfer to Warrior AFVs.  In essence, they have "armoured" their "Wheeled" CSS, and left the fighting AFVs "Tracked".  To me this makes sense.  I don't see the true benefits of going totally "Wheeled", let alone start mounting a DF system on wheels.  

It is super that wheeled vehicles can move up to the Front faster than Tracks, but once there and engaged with the enemy, their lesser abilities at manoeuvre will be their downfall.  

I look at the MGS as a bigger dinosaur than the Tank.  It is a fall back to a WW II system of Assault Gun or Tank Destroyer that did not survive past the 1960's, due to it's weapons shortfalls and maneuverability being less than a MBT.  It will not be able to replace a Tank in the Advance, Quick Attack, or Withdrawal.  It may be able to provide some role in the Defence.  It will not be able to do many of the smaller tasks called upon MBTs in the Rear, Reserve or Counter Attack.

GW


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The protection of the lines of communication for a coalition would be a good task for the Armoured Cavarly (Coyotes and LAV IIIs).   Not necessarily as glorious as charging across the battlefield in tanks but still an important task.   There is historical precendence for the use of wheeled AFVs in Recce roles (Canada/UK, US and Germany in WW II).   

Linking this back to the thread, I'd like our Cav forces to have an anti-tank capability in a general warfighting scenario, but perhaps missiles would be better.   RAS (Rear Area Security) battles and security operations are probably best fought by our 25mm and 7.62mm systems (along with the small arms of the crews).   TOW, ADATs and MGS may have limited utility in the "three block war."  Long range missile fire may not be the best thing to pin our hopes on in the urban environment.  At least the MGS uses gun fire so perhaps it could find a role there (but I don't think that it can take an RPG hit).  Then again, these trials may prove me wrong and I'm sure that they will learn some interesting lessons regardless.   ADATS and TOW may be more useful as surveillance platforms that as direct fire systems (saves on missiles)!

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that an army without tanks (and tracks) cannot perform the whole range of combat (including perhaps the warfighting block of the three block war).   We are becoming somewhat of a niche army, but I think that we can find a meaningful niche.


Cheers,

2B

p.s. I did have some CV9030 envy in Kabul...


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I disagree. I don't like to use Iraq and Afghanistan as good examples of warfare to come. I would not agree that the road systems there are sufficient to constantly hold up to a high volume of heavy military vehicles and transport. Look at the problems we have with our own road systems in Peace, then compound that with the lack of maintenance and heavy military traffic. Many of the roads in Kosovo and Macedonia were reduced to quagmires.



Honestly George, how can we not look to Iraq and Afghanistan as good examples of warfare to come?  Since 1990, except for a few skirmishes in the Balkans and in Somalia, where else has "future war" taken place?

I'm not too quick to look as Wheel/Track as a +/- thing, leading to the inevitable and ubiquitous debate that has been on-going for years.  Although I don't buy into the argument that the Coyote proves that wheeled vehicles are better in that regards, because you could easily stick that mast on a tracked chassis, I feel that there is a demonstrable utility in having some sort of wheel-capability.  As the US Marine Corps' 1st Marine Division Lessons Learned document point out, the Marines noted that the Light Armored Regiments (LARs) of the 1st Marine Division where able to utilize the mobility of their older model LAV's to strike out from Baghdad and successfully seize the key city of Tikrit and Bayji, more than 200 km away.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-lessons-learned.htm

Obviously, for the interim, we've made our stake in the Wheeled force and it is up to us to figure out how to best configure it to work and be effective.  We can't afford not to because when the flag goes up, we have to be ready to fight the enemy the best way we know how.  Considering that for quite some time, we only really ever had a few squadrons of Leo's, I think we've been out of the Armour game longer then we care to admit - we would never have been committing ourselves to any operational tank maneuvers.

My hope is that the Wheeled Force is truly "interim" and that we can move to a lighter, more effective tracked force (a future model of the CV series or perhaps the US FCS) down the road along with abit of a wheel capability for suitable tasks.  But until then, Cav screening and flanking it is.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Isn't the Coyote great because of the add-on's as opposed to the chassis?

Specifically, if you put the same gear including a telescoping mast on a CV90 chassis, would it not be an even more capable vehicle (although more expensive to operate)?




Matthew.  ???


----------



## Zipper

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Isn't the Coyote great because of the add-on's as opposed to the chassis?
> 
> Specifically, if you put the same gear including a telescoping mast on a CV90 chassis, would it not be an even more capable vehicle (although more expensive to operate)?



I believe your right. At least that is all they ever talked about when the thing came into service.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Obviously, for the interim, we've made our stake in the Wheeled force and it is up to us to figure out how to best configure it to work and be effective. We can't afford not to because when the flag goes up, we have to be ready to fight the enemy the best way we know how. Considering that for quite some time, we only really ever had a few squadrons of Leo's, I think we've been out of the Armour game longer then we care to admit - we would never have been committing ourselves to any operational tank maneuvers.
> 
> I agree with you there. Ever since we brought the 4CMB home from Germany and sent the 8th down to reserve.
> 
> My hope is that the Wheeled Force is truly "interim" and that we can move to a lighter, more effective tracked force (a future model of the CV series or perhaps the US FCS) down the road along with abit of a wheel capability for suitable tasks. But until then, Cav screening and flanking it is.



Mine as well. Its not so much an argument of wheeled versus track outright. They both have their place. For myself, it is the fact that we are getting (for all intents and purposes) out of track all together. We've basically pigeon-holed ourselves into operations on road. And well maintained roads at that. 

What gets me worked up (and this is that social side of me again ;D) is that we are going with vehicles that have a low survivability against RPG's/heavy MG, and the like. As we've seen in all our operational theatres, the weapons that the "other side" have had access to have been more then enough to kill us outright. Its just been by the kindness of God that we haven't had more causalities to worry about. Wheeled vehicles can only carry so much armour.

As well. The idea of our new "layered" approach in lighter vehicles relying on TOW/ADATS/MGS is just not going to work within alot of the missions we do which are patrol/close contact in nature. The TOW and ADAT are long range support platforms requiring alot of support and protection, and useless within the "urban" environment. The MGS being a cannon is better suited, but once again it may get one shot off before counter fire takes it out.

So no argument about the Coyote and the LAV. Good pieces of kit. Its the rest that are questionable.

Survivability is what worries me most.


----------



## George Wallace

One real advantage of Wheeled over Tracked is "Vibration".  Anyone who has worked tracks knows how much vibration there is in the vehicle.  With all the new electronics that we are installing in our vehicles today, the vibrations caused by tracks would cause serious problems with N/S kit and prolonged VOR rates on operations.

GW


----------



## pbi

> On the argument that our CSS would fall behind, again I would disagree.  In all our major conflicts, we have had no problems keeping the bullets, fuel and food flowing in the long haul.  We have our Engineers following up and maintaining the Supply Routes.



I disagree with this. In both WWII and in the two Gulf Wars, IIRC, Allied ground forces faced serious logistics problems caused by the inability of any logistic system to keep up with the speed and voracious appetite of modern mechanized forces. I am  not suggesting they were brought to a halt, but close to it, especially for fuel.

Anyway, as Infanteer said, wheels are what we've got, so we better start thinking about how to be as effective as we can with them, since we have no way of knowing what we'll be called upon to do next, or where, or against whom. I would love us to have a heavy tracked combat capability, but the days of the MBT appear to be numbered in our Army, and anyway we are probably never going to buy adequate lift to get a heavy force anywhere in a hurry. We're going to medium weight now, and those who have to make this work need to consider what is the art of the possible, vice pining for heavy armour.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor

We have seen mixed fleets of wheels and tracks in the past; Soviet Motor Rifle Regiments often had the infantry and many AT support weapons carried in wheeled vehicles (BTR-60/70/80 90 series and BRDM anti tank platforms).

After the Persian Gulf war, I attended a briefing where a US Company Commander explained how they drove a company of 16 M-2s and a convoy of 25 HEMMET trucks carrying their fuel and ammunition into Iraq to cut the highway between Basra and Bhagdad under combat conditions. This is probably a better model of the future, "embedded CSS" to allow wide ranging "Cavalry" style manoeuvres. Using my crystal ball, I would think a "Bison" type development of the LAV 3 chassis would be the next logical step to support this.

I think much of this debate is becoming misplaced. Like Infanteer said, we are going to have wheeled vehicles for a generation, so we best figure out the best way to use them. There will be technical changes to the LAV family as the years go by, to increase protection and mobility, new or modified weapons systems, improved sensor systems and so on. Yes, tracked CV-90 style platforms can do most of what the LAV can do, superior in some aspects and inferior in others, but if Santa or Gen Hillier isn't coming down the chimney with them, then we just have to get over it.


----------



## Zipper

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Yes, tracked CV-90 style platforms can do most of what the LAV can do, superior in some aspects and inferior in others, but if Santa or Gen Hillier isn't coming down the chimney with them, then we just have to get over it.



Damn if you haven't made me into a CV-90(family) believer Majoor. Sigh.


----------



## Maclimius

We also have to keep in mind what the Government refers to as interim. The ILTIS was an "interim" vehicle. The AVGP familiy of vehicle were "interim" training vehicles never intended for deployment overseas. I recall a crusty old Sargeant discussing his time "well" spent in them on operation. The MILCOTS is an "interim" vehicle that was supposed to only go to reservists. Go figure, that didn't last long. Kind of like the Bison which never did go to reservists. Like it or not, we're stuck with these "interim" vehicles and we just have to figure out how best to employ them. 

As for the MGS, in a support role, I'm sure it's fine to get out of the vehicle to fix a jam on the coax, but think about it. If you're using the coax, generally you're using it at a range of no more than 1200m. That's some awfully close support if you ask me.


----------



## Zipper

Maclimius said:
			
		

> As for the MGS, in a support role, I'm sure it's fine to get out of the vehicle to fix a jam on the coax, but think about it. If you're using the coax, generally you're using it at a range of no more than 1200m. That's some awfully close support if you ask me.



Tell me about it.

But since the decision is already made to take us all wheeled, niche roll, and MGS. Its no sense arguing about the pros and cons. We all know it is a bad idea, but hey...                     ...we wern't asked.

We're just going to have to do with what we get and hope to God that we're not packing body bags when things get heavier then we can handle.

In other words...             ...somewhere no-one is shooting at us.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"In other words...             ...somewhere no-one is shooting at us."

Why bother then?


----------



## Zipper

Why bother with the MGS? I agree... 

Why bother upgrading the military? Because we need one, even if they are equipped with gear that doesn't suit our long term self-determination interests.

Why bother going to someplace people are shooting at us? Because it is our jobs, and serves the interests of our Government. However, the people who make the decisions (the people) will not like us filling body bags because of "light" equipment. We'll have to learn the hard way on that one though.


----------



## a_majoor

The MGS idea can still be saved, just ditch the current turret (From Janes Armour and Artillery 2002-2003):



> *90 mm assault gun vehicle*
> Late in 1986, MOWAG demonstrated the AGV-90 in Switzerland and France. This is essentially an improved MOWAG Piranha 8 x 8 fitted with the Giat Industries TS 90 Weapons Station. This is armed with the 90 mm gun with a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun.
> * The 90 mm gun fires APFSDS-T, HEAT-T, HE, smoke and canister rounds with 18 ready rounds carried in the turret. A further 25 rounds are in the hull.*
> Optional equipment includes a land navigation system. Other improvements include a fuel tank with increased fuel capacity which increases operational range to 1,000 km, a small access hatch in the left side of the hull and a winch with a direct pulling capacity of 6.8 tonnes.
> Combat weight of the AFV-90 is 13,000 kg, length with gun forwards 7.28 m, width 2.5 m and height 2.7 m.
> *Significant quantities of the Canadian-built MOWAG Piranha (8 x 8) vehicles fitted with the Giat Industries TS 90 turret were supplied to the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) by the now General Motors Defense. Additional details of this contract are given under Canada.*
> More recently, the MOWAG Piranha has been fitted with the latest Cockerill LCTS Mk 8 90 mm turret armed with a Cockerill 90 mm gun and this version has been ordered by Qatar (built by Alvis Vehicles of the UK) and the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), additional details are given under Canada as this forms part of a complete order for 1,117 vehicles.



It's not as if we don't know how to build these things, and having 33 main gun rounds available is certainly an improvement over 18...


----------

