# LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)



## mattoigta

By Nathan Hodge, Defense Today May 27, 2004 

After ironing out kinks in the system, the Army this month successfully 
concluded an important series of tests on the Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS), Defense Today has learned. 

According to an Army source, the MGS is now "on a glide path" toward approval of low-rate production, a decision that is due in August or September. 

The MGS is a variant of the Stryker wheeled armored vehicle made by General Dynamics Corp. As envisioned by the Army, the MGS would mainly be an infantry-support vehicle, providing bunker-busting capability with its 105 mm cannon. 

The first Stryker-equipped brigade currently is seeing service in Iraq. If low-rate production is approved, the first MGS could be fielded as early as next year. 

However, the MGS experienced some hiccups in development, including a cramped crew compartment, glitches in the ammunition-handling system and the "halo effect"â â€a ring of overpressure and blast debris caused by firing the cannon, which originally had a perforated muzzle brake at the end to lessen recoil. 

The Army source told Defense Today that all of those problems long since have been solved, allowing Limited User Testing, or LUT, to move forward. Those tests were completed at Fort Knox, Ky., this month. Originally, the LUT was scheduled for last year, but the testing was suspended while problems identified earlier were remedied. 

"The limited user testing was temporarily suspended back in October," the source said. "... After that we went into about a sixty-day period, there were numerous fixes implemented on the vehicle, and we started a series of user demonstrations and exercises starting in the January time frame to validate these fixes before we entered LUT." 

Through these demonstrations, the source said, "the system performed excellent[ly]."


----------



## 30 for 30

I sure hope the thing works out. Critics say these tests are deeply flawed in favour of success. Apparently RPG armour is simply too heavy for the thing as well (it's supposed to be already overweight), so God help MGS if it is engaged by anything substantial. Hopefully some technological advances will come about in the near future to remedy this.


----------



## RCD

We should not have gotten it in the first place.


----------



## ags281

> After ironing out kinks in the system...



Does this mean it's miraculously lost a few thousand pounds so that a C-130 can carry it like it was supposed to be designed for? Problems fixed... HA! Even if it were "fixed" to be good at what it's supposed to do, it still ain't no MBT replacement   :akimbo:


----------



## Trogdor

As a young citizen who is considering joining the forces I am very worried about this decision to replace Canadian tanks.  I've been trying to research this myself but there's a lot of contradictory information out there.  At first I heard all the Leopards were to be concentrated in the West and the Strykers would be in the rest of Canada.  But now it seems that ALL the Leopards are to be replaced by the Stryker.  

My question is what IS the army planning to do with the Leopards?  Also this Stryker looks to be inadequte to replace the Leopard, does anyone think differently and why?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The current plan, as I understand it, is to maintain a total of 66 Leo's until they are replaced, one for one, by the MGS.  The remaining 48 are to be parked in Wainwright, until somebody makes a decision on what to do with them.  The 66 Leo's are going to be based at the School, in Wainwright, and with the LdSH.

Somebody who is still wearing a uniform may have more current information, but I think I have the latest.

The MGS (not the Stryker, the Stryker is a family of vehicles, which include the MGS) could not replace the Leo in any way, shape or form.  It can supplement the Leo, but not replace it.


----------



## McInnes

I was under the impression that the MGS will not be a direct replacement. Instead they are supposedly using three systems to replace them; the MGS, ADATS and TOW Under Armour which are supposedly supposed to work together to make a "3-D" system or something to that extent.


----------



## Infanteer

> the MGS, ADATS and TOW Under Armour which are supposedly supposed to work together to make a "3-D" system or something to that extent.



Either way, none of those is a MBT....


----------



## Limpy

All I say is, RPG bait.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Somebody is just trying to justify the decisions.  We've had the ADATS for a couple of decades, we've had the TOW since I joined. so for at least thirty years, and now all of a sudden these two, with the MGS, can replace the Leo?  

Gimme a break.

It's spin, CYA, whatever you want to call it.

It's not good leadership by our so-called leaders in NDHQ, that's for sure.  They are better at spinning than leading, in my opinion.


----------



## PTE Gruending

Food for thought regarding the Stryker/Leopard debate;

Perhaps this decision is based on todays practical thought, versus the hard-charging military we would all like to have. Yes it would be nice to have hundreds of heavy MBTs, Strategic Bombers, Nuclear Subs and Carriers, Amphibious Assault Vehicles, and the like, but based on the current climate (low intensity conflict likely combined with a small budget) it is unlikely to happen.

It could be a matter of keeping our handful of Leo's scattered around the country, NES (due to lack of parts/maintenaince, or operators), un-transportable due to logistics, being a purpetual drain on the budget, versus actually being able to field large numbers of light/medium AFV's around the globe on short notice. This is assuming we actually get some lift capabilities in the near future to complement deployment of these vehicles.

As people have said here before, the days where we will be spearheading armoured blitzkriegs across Eastern Europe are gone. Surely any MBT's of Soviet design in the hands of our potential enemies will be outclassed by superior C&C, electronics, surveillance, and training that our new light AFV has. Development and support of these Soviet hulks has been evaporated since 1989, sure they have heavy armour and a big gun, but that doesnt help you if you do not get the first shot in, or do not have proper recconaissance. The German Armour Corps in 1939-1941 was outnumbered and outclassed by Allied vehicles (Matilda, etc), yet they managed to absolutely annihilate through good command, control, tactics, etc....

Just a few of my thoughts, I would love to hear what you have to say.
thanks


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Well, you could take that argument further, as well.  Why have CF-18's?  One of those cost the same as 100 tanks to keep operational.  It's not as if any enemies you foresee would have SU-27's, is it?  Ane why have the 280 class of destroyer?  Exactly what would it do in times of conflict?  And the frigates!  Surely they are a relic, designed to fight submarines.  Surely no enemy would have operational subs, would they?

OK, I'll stop being sarcastic.  The MGS, even combined with the ADATS and TOW, cannot replace the tank for mobility (in-theatre mobility, not strategic mobility), for the ability to very accurately fire on the move, and to provide intimate close support to our infantry brethren.  The MGS, TOW and ADATS cannot fire on the move.  In today's world, in open terrain, or even close terrain, a static target is a dead target.  Further, the MGS, TOW and ADATS are all defensive weapons, not offensive.  In other words, they may be able to dominate a field of fire, but they are much more easily dominated by lesser weapons sighted in defensive positions.

I, for one, am not advocating any of your suppositions, such as heavy tanks, strategic bombers, and on and on.  However, as a supposed medium power, we should be able to field a force, along the lines of say, Australia?  Which has a smaller budget, but a much larger and potent sharp end, in all three services?  I believe we can afford medium tanks, medium lift helicopters, attack helicopters, and more.  I do not buy in to the argument of "we can only afford the LAV family, so suck it in".


----------



## JasonH

We don't even have the means to transport the Leo's to a hotspot do we?  Then whats the point in keeping them unless we got the lift capabilities.  Their collecting dust right now, least the MGS we could move around.  Then again I know nothing when it comes to our armour so yea, just food for thought. :warstory:


----------



## vr

The main issue with the MGS is how we are going to use it.  It was never intended by the US to replace tanks.  According to current doctrine the MGS platoon is an integral part of the mech infantry company.  It is intended to be surrounded by a swarm of RPG-swatters where-ever it goes.  It is to be used for direct fire support of the infantry not for independant operations.  A few of the the other Stryker variants have already burned nicely on CNN; the MPG is no different.

We're replacing the Leos then so be it.  As was stated in a recent Canadian Army Journal article we need a new doctrine to go with this equipment.  We can't use the same Cold War-Fulda Gap tactics or concepts with the MGS.  It's not ever going to be the tip of the spear..it's more of a mounted archer.


----------



## Military Brat

Tanks are a thing of the past, a relic of the Cold War era. Light, fast wheeled vehicles like the Coyote are the thing of the future. Tanks are too easily defeated, especially from the air(they have no defense against air targets). Planes and helicopters can easily destroy any ground target imaginable whereas tanks are sitting ducks for not only attack by air but also attack from RPG-7s. In the future, I suspect that armoured units on the battlefield will be used for reconnaissance only, vehicles like the Coyote that has recon capabilities plus self-defense capabilities, whereas the engaging of the enemy will be left to air units. 

Just my 2 cents. I think tanks are too bulky and slow, let alone nice big juicy targets for attack by insurgents, terrorists, resistance forces, and the like.


----------



## NavyGrunt

First off tanks arent slow at all. Secondly tracked vehicles can be repaired in the field. A wheeled vehicle is just that- a wheeled vehicle. Suck an rpg and your waiting for a tow truck.

Just my 2 cents I could be wrong. As far as Ive read a wheeled vehicle like the stryker can only be effective if it is backed up by heavy armor.


----------



## NavyGrunt

One more thing- The jets and helicopters we use now are also cold war relics- if tanks are sitting ducks now for "rpg-7"'s and air attack why were they ever used? There have always been air power able to defeat them....


"Tanks are a thing of the past, a relic of the Cold War era. Light, fast wheeled vehicles like the Coyote are the thing of the future. Tanks are too easily defeated, especially from the air(they have no defense against air targets). Planes and helicopters can easily destroy any ground target imaginable whereas tanks are sitting ducks for not only attack by air but also attack from RPG-7s"- military brat


----------



## Lance Wiebe

People have for decades been sounding the death knell of the tank.  So far, every time, they have been proven wrong.  Tanks are still a requirement for modern warfare, but remember, they have to operate in an all-arms team.

Another thought, the MGS cannot be transported in our Hercs.  They CAN be lifted by the "J" model, of which we have none, but because the "J" can't carry much fuel, it has a range of about 500 miles.

We cannot transport our fleet of LAV's in to theatre by ourselves.  Never have, and never will, unless the Navy gets new ships, or the Air Force gets C-17's or an equivelant.


----------



## Mortar guy

For those of you who think tanks are dead, I invite you to read the Lessons Learned of 3ID and the Marines for the beginning of OIF. Both organizations said tanks were critical to the success of their missions. Read all about it here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-lessons-learned.htm

Also, for those who think the MGS is air transportable, just cruch the numbers for a few minutes. We have 32 CC-130E/Hs. 12-14 of which are working on any given day. Of those, about 6 are on SAR standby and are unavailable for transport taskings. So, optimistically, we have 8 old Hercs. Assuming these Hercs could transport an MGS (which they can't). How long do you think it would take us to get even a Squadron of these things, with the personnel, support vehicles, spares, food, fuel, ammo, water and other bits and pieces into a theatre? Well, considering it would take about 4 flights just for one Herc to make it across the Atlantic, I'm going to say it will take a freakin' long time! (It would take so many flights because at max payload, the Herc has to sacrifice fuel which reduces its range significantly). I doubt the Americans are going to be falling all over themselves to offer up free C-17 flights and there will be fierce competition for the 16 aging An-124s. So the only other viable option is to send the vast majority of our forces by sea. When you do that the most important factor is not weight but the size of a vehicle. An MGS and an MBT are about the same size. Would you rather have an MGS that is not air deployable and is a death trap or would you rather have an MBT?

Alex


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

:
I think if tanks were as obsolete as Military Brat has pointed out then other nations would be unloading their tanks like we are. *looks around* Nope looks like we are the only ones that think LAVs, MGS and Coyotes can take the place of the tank.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

One thing further that I don't think has been mentioned.

The US Army is buying the Stryker family of vehicles as an *interim* vehicle in its' *interim* Brigades.

Its there to fill the hole until their future combat vehicle is deliverable.

While we look on the LAV III and the MGS as the end-all and be-all for the future of our Army, the Americans see it as a stepping stone.  It is far from perfect, as is the concept of an all-wheeled Brigade based on it.  Perhaps the future vehicle will have its own version of the MGS, but it will be purpose built, not a cobbled together piece of cr*p that the MGS is.


----------



## jrhume

The after-action reports available on the Global Security site and elsewhere make it clear that tanks are absolutely necessary for urban combat unless one is prepared to accept horrific casualties.  A tank is a mobile pillbox and can approach dug-in positions in urban settings with relative impunity.  M1 tanks in Iraq were hit with everything up to and including 125mm gun rounds with little effect.  Accompanied by properly trained infantry, tanks can function effectively in MOUT operations.

I don't know why that surprises people.  It's been that way since the tank was invented.  WW2 histories depict mobile forces in sweeping attacks, but the truth is that many tank units fought primarily in support of infantry in and around cities.  It wasn't glamorous and it was damned dangerous.  Your average WW2 tank was far more likely to be damaged or destroyed by anti-tank guns and various armor countermeasures than current tanks.

Tanks are here to stay -- in one form or another.  I think multi-wheeled armored vehicles are one more tool in the armor/cavalry force structure.  Whatever the design function of a particular vehicle, it is sure to be used in roles invented on battlefields we have yet to see.  M1s were designed as open-country tanks, yet they worked fine in urban settings.  I can think of several additions/changes that would have made it a better urban tank, but would have degraded its high speed capability.  Alas, one can't have everything.

I'm more concerned that Canada will have soldiers to put in CF vehicles, regardless of what they are.  I hope so.

Jim


----------



## PTE Gruending

I think it important to consider what possible engagements we may find ourselves in, in the future. What role is it that we need to conform our military to, and particular to this discussion - what type of armour is needed to fill the job description. As history has taught us; it is impossible to predict with certainty what kind of global conflict may errupt, even in the short term (20 years ~).

It is safe to say that in todays world (or at least in the Canadian scope of things), extended periods of mobilization are not likely (ie: an unlikely WW3-type large scale conflict). As someone has mentioned previously on this forum, attrition rates in likely future conflict are likely to be low, thus perhaps we should consider a quality vs quantity doctrine. Speed of mobilization has always become an important factor, moreso in todays world of high speed communications.

As far as likely engagements in the future, assuredly urban-warfare will play a large part. The world's demographic (particularily in countries where conflict is likely) is shifting towards cities; where people are massed - warfare is more likely.

Will we be the perpetual peacekeepers? Or will we be part of massive NATO/UN coalitions that take place in high intensity conflicts?

Who are our enemies/potential enemies today? Could the Canadian Forces (in the projected lifespan of the new generation light AFV, ~20-30 years?) be engaged in battle in the Middle East? Eastern-European USSR splinter nations? North/South Korean border war or invasion? Peacekeeping on the West Bank?  Blocking Chinese incursions in Siberia? South American civil wars? Hell, Quebecois partisans or defending against a possble U.S. invasion?

I think it is important that we need to consider where our military will be seeing duty in order to deceide what type of equipment and training will be needed.
thoughts?


----------



## Military Brat

Tanks are still used by our allies like the US and UK because their tanks are far superior to the tanks of our enemies (who mainly have Soviet tanks like the T-72). They still do the job, and they are still around so rather than collecting dust, so they put them to use. But I was recently reading an article saying the RPG-7 can now penetrate M1A2 Abrams tank armour. Most countries we and our allies could possibly have a showdown with, like Iran, Syria, North Korea, have air defense capabilities that would be extremely lucky to take down a fighter jet, especially with all the technology we have to evade AA fire. 

Now if I have a choice between sending a column of tanks to wipe out the enemy, which risks the lives of the crew, or a few fighter jets, which has considerably less risk to the crew, I think I'm going to choose the less risky option so they can live to fight another day.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

But hardly a relic as you ascertain. There is a difference.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Sigh.

An RPG-7 cannot penetrate the front or side armour on a M1A2.  It may be able to penetrate the top armour over the engine deck, thats it.

During the second Gulf war, the US Air Force and US Navy flew, literally, thousands of sorties.  They dropped thousand of tons of bombs, launched thousands of missiles and rockets, and knocked out less than 10% of Iraq's armour.  Why?  Because air power cannot do it.  If the US, with all of its technology, and all of the missions it flew, couldn't take out Iraqs T-72 and T-55's, what makes you think anyone else can?  The US would have loved it if Iraq could have been defeated by air power alone.  

The US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia and Australia, plus all of the others, do not have it wrong.  Canada does not have it right.  The day of the tank is not yet over.


----------



## Limpy

How it works Military Brat is unless you have air superiority that idea will fail. They're tanks will keep rolling mostly unopposed while your fighter bombers are caught up in dog fights with enemy aircraft and dodging SAM's and triple AAA. Tank columns especially in the old Soviet doctrine were usually always bristling with SA 9 Gaskins and SA 6 Gainfuls


----------



## jrhume

I think the piece Military Brat is missing is that one rarely has a clear-cut situation requiring only one weapon.  That presupposes a one-dimensional threat.  Few combat situations are so simple.  

Whether the newest RPG-7 rounds can penetrate an M1 anywhere is a moot point.  Someone, somewhere either has or will develop a round that can.  Then the armor will be changed to defeat that threat.  And around we go . . .

For the forseeable future, the most useful force will be one with a combination of tanks, personnel carriers, specialized support vehicles (armored) and mobile artillery along with aviation assets.  The US Army is apparently realigning its divisions into just such units -- an enhanced version of the present Brigade Combat Team.


----------



## Pugnacious

One thing being overlooked is the 'war of attrition' factor.   One modern tnk is approx $60+ million dollars, plus needs 3-4 trained soldgers to man it.
One RPG is around $3.000-$10.000 dollars, and needs only one guy to operate it.   Over time an Army will loose to the RPG based on cost alone.

This has happened all through history over and over again..see light armour archers vs heavy armoured knights. Mongols, Welsh, Japan etc etc.
Knocked of your horse by some peasant with a longbow, and a Bodkin/armour piercing head.

There is another board (military photos) that has posted a huge arry of pics of RPG vs M1.   
It has been summerized that the results of lost tanks where mostly luck of the momnet on the part of the enemy, and also tanks without good infantry cover.

I vote for fast high tech vehicles, ones that can be modular e-quiped to the situation at hand, and also be transportable to the theater of operations.
i'm not sure this new vehickle is good enogh though, and besides which why aren't we making our own stuff here in Canada?   
Surely we have lots of people here that need work, and can do the job.

BTW on topic check out this little beasty that the the Belgian Army is testing to replace their M113's:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17130&highlight=iguana

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

And when your aircraft gets shot down thats an even bigger loss in money not to mention the pilot and what you spend in training him.


----------



## JasonH

Kinda sucks from a viewpoint that the flyboys get the fun first because they hafto take out all the aircraft.  I mean, unless a side can win the air I'd hate to be sitten in a trench then all of a sudden get picked off by a heli from 4 or so km's away with it's Chaingun.  That'd suck.

Kinda felt bad when I saw that Iraq vid of the Apache taken out those 4 guys in the middle of the night over an RPG or Anti-air missile.  They had no clue it was commin.  And when you think of modern warfare and you see something like that... from a civvy standpoint wanting to join as an Infantry Soldier... you gulp at that.  I know I did haha.


----------



## armyguy916

I was under the impression that the MGS was gonna be a new artillery gun, but that is just what I heard.  And by reading this post, it looks as if my source of info may be wrong.  It has been before, hopefully someone can correct me, but this is what I heard.
MGS slowly replaces the Leo's, which then we have no heavy tank.  Then the MGS is then in turn used for an arty gun, thus getting rid of the armoured regiment.  
Now I know this is gonna spark up all kinds of juicy posts on here, and like I said, I just heard this info, its not concrete, so don't shot the messenger  
I'm all for the tanks, I don't think we can have modern warfare without them :tank:


----------



## nULL

There is a thread out there which is on the newest RPG round, one that is capable of defeating composite armour. Also, Iraq was a stricken country - first from the devastating Iran-Iraq war, then the Gulf War, then sanctions. A war with a more technologically advanced enemy would seem to be the only certain way of showing the limitations of current equipment, I would think.


----------



## Franko

Military Brat said:
			
		

> But I was recently reading an article saying the RPG-7 can now penetrate M1A2 Abrams tank armour.
> 
> Now if I have a choice between sending a column of tanks to wipe out the enemy, which risks the lives of the crew, or a few fighter jets, which has considerably less risk to the crew, I think I'm going to choose the less risky option so they can live to fight another day.



The article you read was incorrect. An RPG-7 CANNOT penitrate the M1A2 turret or hull armour. I don't know who or what your sources are, but they are definatly completly out of their gourd.     :

I have seen shots of a M1A2 that went through a fire fight where it was hit with no less than 7 RPG-7 rounds and was able to keep the crew safe and sound. They fought on and won the fight.

Regards


----------



## Pugnacious

Some intresting things about the M1.

http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/new/07sr01.html

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4863

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50337

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to this debate

Here is the info on the RPG 7 and its various rounds

http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm


----------



## Guardian

People keep mentioning transportability...

Even assuming a combat-loaded MGS is air-transportable by Hercules (I don't know if it is...), for all Canadian intents and purposes, it would be no more strategically mobile than a tank. Why?

1. The Herc is a short-haul transport. Most theatres of operation are overseas - i.e., we won't be sending them by Herc, even if we had enough Hercs and air-to-air refuelers (we don't, anyways...)

2. We have no heavier aircraft of the C-17 or Antonov types. We are also unlikely to buy them - they cost hundreds of millions apiece. Therefore, the idea of a Canadian Army that can dispatch rapid-reaction forces by air is quite literally putting the cart before the horse.

3. Since, accepting the two previous points, we won't be flying our own stuff, could we borrow from allies? Well, in an international crisis, the Yanks and everyone else will be using their own transports, and we will find it very difficult to borrow (most of our allies feel thay don't ahve enough strategic lift). Ditto for hiring civilian transports - demand on those will be so high we'll never see them, because we don't have the funds to outbid our allies for the contracts.

4. Therefore, the air-portable Canadian Army concept is dead. If we're going to get to a combat zone, it'll have to go by ship. Leaving aside the fact that Canada has no such vessels of its own, this means that having lighter armoured vehicles is less important. If it's going to take us four weeks to get there anyways, why not take heavier kit like tanks? We'll be better protected once we're in combat.

In a thread in the Armour forum, I made the point that the MGS can't support the infantry in the assault because it's vulnerable to fire. A MBT can roll through a prepared defensive position, punching holes and disrupting enemy cohesion. Try that in an MGS - a .50 cal will knock it out. So the Canadian Army can no longer close with and destroy a prepared enemy on its own.

Any way you look at it, it's a bad idea.


----------



## Kirkhill

Guardian,

The only real counter I can offer to your comment about sealift allowing the transportation of heavier kit (I would include Heavy IFVs as well as MBTs and Engineer Vehicles) is the need to carry support vehicles as well.

The USMC transports tanks along with their MEUs but my understanding is that they expect to use the tanks primarily in supporting the landing operation.  Once on shore they are not expected to voyage far inland.  Iraq was the exception, perhaps.

The types of operations that we are likely to be involved in are more likely to require lengthy road moves to get to the area of operations. Think perhaps of Gulf War I, or Kosovo, or for that matter Somalia and Rwanda.

Ships would be used to transport the Battlegroup/DemiBrigade to a port with facilities adjoining a road network.  The vehicles would be off loaded, formed up and moved by road.

Any move much over a hundred miles ? is going to be very wearing on tracked gear, (suggestions on max distance from those that REALLY know about tracked vehicles).  That means that in addition to the Tanks you are probably going to want to carry on those ships an equivalent number of Tank transporters.  They are considerably bigger than the tanks themselves.  They will need additional MRT and MRVs as well as requiring additional fuel transporters.  Not to mention bodies.

By Contrast the wheeled vehicles can self-deploy, use less gas and require less support.

Now before people get on my case about the need for tanks.... I agree, I am a convert Franko and Slim..... Tanks, Tanks, Tanks 

I am just pointing out that when you talk about easily changing MGS for Tanks because MGS has the same footprint inside the vessel and weight doesn't matter so much, it ain't necessarily so.

Having said all of the above, I do happen to like the idea of Heavy Armour accompanying a BattleGroup on a Peace Support Mission, even if they never leave the vehicle park at the port. Nice to have on hand.

I also agree with everything said by Guardian about airlift.

And I would add that in most scenarios sealift will get a Battlegroup on the ground faster than airlift, and it will get there in a formed up unit all at once, not in dribs and drabs over 2 weeks to a Month.


----------



## Guardian

Kirkhill,

That's a good point about the road moves and the logistic footprint.... Tracked vehicles require a bigger logistics footprint and more service support, I agree. There's an inherent tradeoff between getting your troops to the line faster (i.e., wheeled combat vehicles) or slower, but with heavier equipment (tracked). Which one is preferable? Probably, it will depend on the situation. 

If we're going to go, and there's going to be combat, and we won't be the first ones into the breach, I think we should accept the fact that we'll take longer getting there by sealift and take advantage of the extra time and space that sealift provides - let's bring the heavy stuff.

That said, your point about the Marines mixing tanks into their units is excellent - they always have that spanner in the toolbox, so to speak. 





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Having said all of the above, I do happen to like the idea of Heavy Armour accompanying a BattleGroup on a Peace Support Mission, even if they never leave the vehicle park at the port. Nice to have on hand.
> 
> 
> We did this in Kosovo, after all. And you're right about the unit arriving all at once - didn't think about that....


----------



## Guardian

Oops, I added that part at the end of the quote - should have read:



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Having said all of the above, I do happen to like the idea of Heavy Armour accompanying a BattleGroup on a Peace Support Mission, even if they never leave the vehicle park at the port. Nice to have on hand.



Apologies...


----------



## AntiArmour Guy

This is a subject that gets my blood boiling...

If only someone with influence was aware of the following:

The Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are purchasing 59 M1A1 AIMD MBT's, 5 Hercules M88A2 Armnd Recov Vehs, a bulk fuel variant of the M978 Heavy Mobility Tactical Truck, M1070 Heavy Equipment Transporter Truck, training simualtors and a complete spares inventory and support program... all for *$550 Million AusD * (a tad less in CAD).

Canada is purchasing 66 (is it still?) MGS (P.O.S.) for almost *$700 Million CAD*. We are being ripped off, not only in terms of capability (which could cost lives) but in an effort to line the pockets of GDLD in London ON.

If only reporters like Scott Taylor or a journalist or *SOMEONE* brought this to the attention of the public and more importantly to some of our MP's (as Parliament is the only thing that can kill this horrible waste of resources now).

Someone, please save us from ourselves,

Mike


----------



## Pugnacious

Oh my gods!

Who is in charge of buying these things?
We are getting a bad deal, but I'm sure someone in charge is getting some perks for this.

UHG!
P.


----------



## Mortar guy

Well said AntiTank Guy! This MGS thing was foisted on the Army and will only result in bad things for us. I'm anxious to see how the Army comes up with a "war fighting" doctrine for us now that we can no longer manoeuvre in the face of the enemy!

Alex


----------



## Firepower

They are purchasing USED M1A1 tanks, that's the cheaper price. We are buying new MGS systems, an since there is some grand vision they think we need them.

PS The ADF actually has a way to Transport their M1A1 tanks

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=35163&session=dae.4276352.1089667595.QPMCC8Oa9dUAACPQSa8&modele=jdc_1


----------



## loyalcana

Well maybe the Australians are getting such a good deal is because they got screwed by several purchases of used U.S equipment.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/14/1079199092295.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I think that the used tanks the Aussies bought are a good deal.  They really are low-mileage units, ones that were pre-positioned war stock.  Also, each tank is being stripped down to its last nut and bolt, inspected, and any worn parts replaced.  A comple rebuild.  They are also getting the latest electronics, so that the comms, FCS  and strategic displays are the exact same as the M1A2SEP.  The M88's aren't that great a deal, but the tank transporters are nice.  Also, as mentioned, the Australian Navy can actually transport army stuff.  How's that for a concept?


----------



## Gunnerlove

Ah the MGS. The light tank of the new millennium. 

The Abrams would seem to be the better bet. Dollar wise though a dollar spent in Canada only costs the government 60 cents. That is one reason why buying used gear from another country and then overhauling it in Canada is (usually) more economical in the long run than buying refurbished kit. 

This might just be me thinking outloud but shouldn't we draw up a plan for our "new" Army then workout some doctrine then run some simulations then buy/build the new army?

Kind of like building a house. Talk to the customer, draw up some plans, make a model, and build the house.

Seems like we are buying a toilet and are just going to have to live with whatever gets cobbled together around it. Kind of like some of those shacks you see in the US deep south you know the ones shingled with Bud cans.


----------



## Guardian

Rumour I've heard is that the simulation guys are trying to make this combined-arms (MGS / TOW / ADATS) direct-fire twem concept work, and that they are having a real hard time of it. I haven't heard specifics, but something along the lines of heavy casualties incurred in several scenarios. Has anyone heard anything on that?


----------



## AntiArmour Guy

Guardian,

I'm sure that is true...after all it took us some time to dispel the rumour that a LAVIII could destroy a tank.   We wargamed that to death and found that in a mechanized battlefield (a la Iraq- even against a "poor quality" mechanized force) once the friendly tanks were stripped away...the LAVIII's were toast.   Comforting isn't it.

Once the Navy (oh please God make it so) purchases their new Joint Support ships, we will finally be able to transport combat troops and veh's and be able to project power.   That would be nice.   Like Mortar Guy said earlier, ships worry about space not so much weight so even if you could only take 3 tanks or 4 MGS, what would you choose...?

Sure the Aussies are buying used kit and sure buying used kit has its problems (look at our new subs).   In   my opinion this is still a smarter route to take.   A buddy of mine has a cool picture of his lads in Eritrea with Dutch Chinooks flying behind... refurbished ones they bought from us (that we said were nearly obsolete)...   We wouldn't have to buy them from the Yanks we could look at surplus Challenger2's or   Leo 2A4/5's that the UK, the Dutch and the Germans are thinning out... (mind you if we bought the Challenger2's we'd have to remind them about the whole submarine Dog's breakfast...lol).

Anyhow, hopefully someone will take note, do a little research (on Jane's and other Military thinktanks) and see that we are being taken for a ride and that Canadian Soldiers will pay the price.

...oh part of that price is buying fewer LAV TUA's and stripping Infantry bn's their intrinsic LR AT capability... remind you of other brilliant plans... Mortars...pioneers...?   *sigh*   It seems that while other countries are expanding the capabilities of their Infantry Battalions we are stripping ours...

Time for a Light Infantry discussion anyone... a new thread perhaps...

Mike


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Yeah, I've heard that they've run dozens of simulations on the JANUS.

Rumour has it that the new direct fire team doesn't work.

What does work is telling the politicians that we can dump the tank, save millions that can be wasted by NDHQ on researching idiotic concepts, and keep some capability for Peacekeeping operations.

Even without the JANUS simulations, anyone in their right mind would be able to tell that Canada is only capable of operating in a low-intensity conflict, and even then, we would need support from our allies.

Quite the fall for the proud army of the late 70's and 80's, isn't it?  From an army capable of fighting in general warfare to one that needs support in a low-intensity conflict.


----------



## AntiArmour Guy

Indeed, we are woking ourselves into a RAS role for NATO.... one that we'd need support in doing.

Our bloated NDHQ is actually one of the premier decision making beaurocracies in the Puiblic Service (which os scary in itself)... the problem lies in the fact that we like to make things "Canadian" and therefore time consuming (can't hurt anyone's feelings can we? better have the new (whatever) built in (insert province that needs it here).   Just look at how its taking to choose a new frigging combat boot.   

It would be nice to have a streamlined HQ that makes decisions... (of course you need political will and support form DFA).

Lets look at the aussies again... (paraphrased by me from an article I read...to be located...sorry)

The ADF has a miltary of approx 52 000 pers and a military budget of approx $ 8 Million USD.   They are purchasing tanks, attack helicopters, upgrading their ASLAV's, expanding their Special Forces among other "minor" purchases and upgrades... (Not to mention they have a Para bn (3RAR) and a Commando (read SOF) bn (4RAR) and an SASR...there seems to be a few things to aspire to in the ADF....)

The CF has a military of approx 55 000 pers and a budget of $8.2 Million USD.   How are we spending our money....?   Wisely?   

I think not.

Mike


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Indeed.  I have mentioned the Australian Armed Forces a few times in comparison with us.  We do not compare well, in any one of the three services.

But, then, I really doubt that the Australian version of NDHQ has 12,000 people on strength, unlike ours.


----------



## Gunnerlove

I wonder if they like us have more Captains than Privates? I doubt it. 

DND has a big fat @ss.  

Our problems go right to the top. The MGS is just a sign of the sickness of our organization. 
Review the whole organization and restructure the whole organization.
Stop the waste.


----------



## Yard Ape

Jay Hunter said:
			
		

> We don't even have the means to transport the Leo's to a hotspot do we?   Then whats the point in keeping them unless we got the lift capabilities.   Their collecting dust right now, least the MGS we could move around.


We do not have the ability to move anything.  We rent planes  or boats.

If we get rid of tanks because we have not used them recently (but we have used them recently) then we will not have the skills to use them when the time comes that we do need them.


----------



## Pugnacious

Here is a question...how did we get our troops, and stuff to A-stan?

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Gobsmacked

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> Here is a question...how did we get our troops, and stuff to A-stan?
> 
> Cheers!
> P.


 

Pugnacious,

Unfortunately not through the overtaxed Airforce with operational rates for the fleet of 32 Hercs running at some 48% - per ATI requests, which by the way does not have the capability to lift strategically.
As noted in SCIP:
SCIP info in this color edited from public version.
SCIP notes "Hercules Replacement/Modernization project (effectively the Future Strategic Airlift project in all but name due to political sensitivities of former MND) proposes to replace the tactical airlift capability by the 2012-2015 timeframe", within a notional C$2.6 Billion replacement budget ["C$4.117,906B per SCIP Equipment Annex"] in Subsequent years (FY08/09 onwards) - even though the SCIP listed strategic mobility as a Critical High Priority project.  "The CC-130s [Hercules], although an excellent tactical platform, "
This missing Portion edited from publicy available SCIP (found through ATI request): "is aging and needs replacement to meet our ongoing transport needs. VS The CC-130s [Hercules], although an excellent tactical platform, have insufficient strategic airlift capability and capacity.  Their effective deployment range, with a strategic payload, is limited rendering them unable to carry outsized [will not fit into a Hercules] military equipment that are necessary to air deploy.  These equipments are necessary to air deploy our Vanguard forces, as well as the Disaster Assistance Response Team [DART]."

As noted in Air Force's 2003 'Aerospace Capability Framework' released 31 May 2004, the "Airlift Capability Project [ACP] aims to acquire a replacement capability for the current CC-130 E and H (-73 model) aircraft.  A variety of options will be investigated to include contracted services, lease, lease to buy, purchase or potential 'teaming' arrangements.  To determine 'best value', the ACP will examine options that range from the status quo, replacement of the CC-130 with like capability, or replacement of the Hercules with an aircraft with the capacity to carry outsized cargo.  Outsized cargo is defined as cargo that, because of length, width, height and/or weight, cannot fit into a Hercules-sized aircraft.  Such cargo includes equipment such as the HLVW used by the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART); the Beaver Tail Trailer; 6K and 5K forklifts; and the 6x4 Dump Truck.  Other equipment, such as the Army's LAV-III must be disassembled to enable transport by Hercules.  Three Hercules flights are required to transport two LAV-III vehicles."

Airlift to Afghanistan was unfortunately provided via rented Polet (Russia) & Antonov (Ukraine) An-124s (equivalent to USAF C-5) and Non-Stage 3 compliant (ie. does not meet North American or European air quality noise regulations) IL-76s.  As of 15 Dec 03 our continuting Afghanistan commitment alone has required over US$58.341 for strategic airlift charter, not counting the US$Ms for sealift charter due to complete lack of sea/airlift, with return lift costs by this fall expected to add a minimum US$28M extra - and this was before the additional lift requirements for the 1 year extension to the ISAF commitment was announced.

Hope this clears up any confusion.


----------



## Pugnacious

Actually you answered a bunch of other questions I was going to ask also, but I'm still wondering...who or what flew us to A-stan?
Did we have to hire out another countries plane or do it ourselves.  I allready have an idea..I was just wondering how common knowledge it was.  

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Yard Ape

Privatly owned aircraft which we payed big $$$ to have fly us down there.


> Airlift to Afghanistan was unfortunately provided via rented Polet (Russia) & Antonov (Ukraine) An-124s (equivalent to USAF C-17) and Non-Stage 3 compliant (ie. does not meet North American or European air quality noise regulations) IL-76s.


----------



## Gobsmacked

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> Actually you answered a bunch of other questions I was going to ask also, but I'm still wondering...who or what flew us to A-stan?
> Did we have to hire out another countries plane or do it ourselves.  I allready have an idea..I was just wondering how common knowledge it was.
> 
> Cheers!
> P.


 

As of 15 Dec 03 our continuting Afghanistan commitment alone has required over US$58.341M [CORRECTED, forgot $M - Chartered Airlift costs Always run in the US$500K or more per each single flight, when available] for strategic airlift charter, not counting the US$Ms for sealift charter due to complete lack of sea/airlift, with return lift costs by this fall expected to add a minimum US$28M extra - and this was before the additional lift requirements for the 1 year extension to the ISAF commitment was announced.

 :


----------



## Pugnacious

Yup that's what I heard also..thanx for confirming this.
My gods that must have been a ride.   

This planning things based on renting stuff really bugs me for some reason.
Seems to me like a major weakness for an Army to have.

I mean even the RCMP have their own planes.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/air/air_e.htm

I also hear the guy in the Army Surplus place back east made a killing selling CF some Desert Camo gear.
Which is pretty sad IMHO.

I still don't under stand why we can't build our own stuff with all the unemployed talented people we have in Canada .
anyone have any thoughts on this?

Cheers!
P.


----------



## AntiArmour Guy

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> I still don't under stand why we can't build our own stuff with all the unemployed talented people we have in Canada .
> anyone have any thoughts on this?



I'll give you two reasons off the top of my head maybe why we shouldn't...

1 - LSVW

2- Iltis


As if it's not bad enought that Canadians build us some crap kit, they also rip us off... (see my above post on GDLD MGS costs...)

Now we do also have some sweet homemade kit too...but "fool me once..."

Cheers
Mike


----------



## 12alfa

Franko said:
			
		

> The article you read was incorrect. An RPG-7 CANNOT penitrate the M1A2 turret or hull armour. I don't know who or what your sources are, but they are definatly completly out of their gourd.     :
> 
> I have seen shots of a M1A2 that went through a fire fight where it was hit with no less than 7 RPG-7 rounds and was able to keep the crew safe and sound. They fought on and won the fight.
> 
> Regards




Franko... your wrong. A M1 was penitrated in Iraq by a reported RPG. In fron rearside top side skirt , into the fighting compartment, nickin the gunner and ending up in the NBC sys on the other side of the compartment. Though it was a 1 in a million shot, it was still done.

Also , are you sure it was a M1A2, i don't think any were deployed yet, but i will ck my sources.

12Alfa


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php



> Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad â Å“was hit by somethingâ ? that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.





> The soldiers of 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division who were targets of the attack weren't the only ones wondering what damaged their 69-ton tank.



Both quotes from the same article in Army Times.  The unit is apparently assigned to the 3rd BCT of 1 US Armd Div.



> After the victory in the Persian Gulf, 2-70 AR returned to Germany and was reassigned to the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) in 1992. The Battalion was deactivated in Germany in 1994 and reactivated in February, 1996 at Fort Riley, KS as part of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/2-70ar.http

As to the M1A2 or the M1A2 (SEP) US Army TRADOC (Training and Documentation Command?) seems to think that the M1A2 was deployed in Iraq



> TRADOC is responsible for training all Soldiers who join the U.S. Army, including members of the 4th Infantry Division -- a recent "shining star." The 4th Inf. Div. is the main unit of Task Force Iron Horse, which was primarily responsible for the capture of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In early December, several units of 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and Special Operations forces of Task Force 121 found Hussein hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole during an early morning raid in Ad Dawr, Iraq. Hussein's capture marked a milestone in the Global War on Terrorism.
> 
> The 4th Division is a mechanized division armed with M1A2 Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, 155 mm howitzers, anti-tank and anti-armor AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and UH-60 Black Hawk transport helicopters. Soldiers who operate in these military occupational specialties receive training at various TRADOC schools. The Army's tankers train at the Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky. The Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, Okla. is responsible for training the artillerymen who performed during the raid, while the helicopter pilots received their formal training at the U.S. Army Aviation School at Fort Rucker, Ala. Infantrymen receive their basic and advanced training at the U.S. Army Infantry Training Center, Fort Benning, Ga



http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/TNSarchives/January04/014004.htm

I think we can chalk both points up to Franko on this one 12A.

I could find no word on the M1A2 SEP but I was under the impression that the 4th were actually driving the SEP variant rather than the plain vanilla M1A2.

As to one vehicle being hit by multiple RPGs, I am sure Franko knows there are a number of different warheads, some more effective than others.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

Here are some M1A2 SEP references:



> The 4th Infantry Division has the latest model of the tank, the M1A2 SEP, which weighs 69.5 tonnes, is armed with a 120mm main cannon and is equipped for digitized communications.
> 
> "It is the most heavily equipped, and heavily armored main battle tank that the US has ever put out in the field, and supposedly can protect those inside fairly well," said Patrick Garrett, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.Org, a private research group.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031029-m1-abrams.htm




> Soldiers from the 3rd ID are asking for a driver's vision enhancer on their M1A1 tanks. DVE is on the upgraded Abrams tank the M1A2, as well as the M1A2 SEP. The DVE is a thermal system that allows drivers to see through dust, smoke, haze and darkness.
> 
> Staff Sgt. Jared Hamilton, who fought in Iraq with the 3rd ID, said he is not very fond of the M1A2, even though it is more technologically advanced than the M1A1. â Å“It has too much stuff that can break,â ? he said. Because of the 3rd ID's busy schedule, it has not had the time to upgrade its M1A1 tanks.
> 
> The commander's independent thermal viewer is a key element of the M1A2 SEP model. However, troops have expressed interest in having the viewer installed in the M1A1, even though the Army has no funds budgeted for the upgrade.



http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1487

And another, this one by a 4th Inf Div Coy Cmdr

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114025/posts.

This one is particularly interesting because it is a "lessons learned" post.


----------



## 12alfa

3ID M1A1 Common, USMC M1A1 Common, 3ACR M1A2, 4ID M1A2 SEP & M1A1(exact model unknown), 1AD M1A1 AIM, 1CD M1A2 SEP. 1ID 1BCT M1A1 with some M1A1 Common
3ID was using M1A1 HA's (the DU armored ones). No M1A2's made it into Iraq until the very last day or so of the war (4th ID). 
USMC was using M1A1's as well. 

There are some A2's there now with the Ft Hood based units and 3ACR, but also some M1A1's from 1AD in Germany



 as well the us army itself has said that, a M1A1 has been penetrated, it has posted pics, how much more proof does one need?


----------



## Kirkhill

Didn't Franko say that it was the M1*A2* that had NOT been penetrated?

The photos confirm that an M1*A1* has been penetrated.


----------



## Pugnacious

That 'lessons learned' post is really interesting.

Esp' this part...
"Train your soldiers - all of them, even the cooks, clerks, and command drivers, on dismounted operations. Teach dismounted patrol, ambush, and counter-ambush techniques. Tankers, scouts, mortarmen, you will need to do this. Teach everyone how to react to ambushes - mounted and dismounted. You cannot take your tanks and personnel carriers everywhere." 

Thanx!  ;D
P.


----------



## 12alfa

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Didn't Franko say that it was the M1*A2* that had NOT been penetrated?
> 
> The photos confirm that an M1*A1* has been penetrated.



My mistake..

Although I can't find any data on A2 beeing deployed there, lots of talk, but no hard data. my sources in the US says no, and I can't find any pics either. What has led to the A2 story is a M1a1HA that some units are using with a turret head system that is located in the same position as the CTIV as on the A2.

Untill I see a pic of one, i'm leaning on there being none there.

A side note: I think that the side hull armour on the A2 is not heaver or upgraded from the A1Ha, therefore it as the M1A1 can be penetrated by a RPG as we have seen, the front glacis and turret have additional armour in the A2. But I'll ask and do some more data research to be sure.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The M1A2 has few chassis mods from the A1, and none that would affect armour or protection.

I saw a documentary where a basic M1A1 went through the A2 upgrade.  While lots of it was classified, it did show the hull going through a complete rebuild, then being mated to the turret afterward.  

I don't think that any A2's were deployed either.  They were certainly not part of the initial deployments, although some may have been shipped there recently.


----------



## 12alfa

Thats what I thought. My data shows no increase in armour protection on the side hull.
There have been lots of sightings of them in Iraq, but like I said they were the USMC mods.Many like the M1A1HA over the sep models, quoting them as saying "there's to much teck stuff to break", wish we had that problem...

So Kirkhill  I stand by my orginal post....I think, LOL


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair enough 12A.  

Just looking for the accurate gen.  Cheers.


----------



## Gobsmacked

Unfortunately, not having had the benefit of military experience myself, I thought I would post some pertinent a few documents recently released under ATI and resultant puzzling questions, and some interesting tidbits, about the MGS.
This lets the subject-matter experts provide their comments/advice.  


A 19 Jan 2004 _'Presentation to JCRB'_ re: *MOBILE GUN SYSTEM [MGS] Statement of Operational Requirement*' notes:
"The MGS is not a replacement or substitute for a main battle tank.
Equipped with M68A1 _"105mm gun, stabilized (fire on the move);
Can Defeat T-72M at 2000m;
Operational mobility C-130 (1000 naut miles @ 38,000 lbs);
Leopard Tank Transitional Distribution - Asst CLS Approved:  Total Fleet = 66,
CMTC BlueFOR - 14; CMTC OPFOR - 4; LdSH (Live) - 14; 
CTC (Gagetown) - 8; CFSEME (not yet approved) - 2;
Operational Depl Stock (prob Montreal) - 14; Log Stock (prob Montreal) - 10."_
 What is CFSEME??  

Although, during the slide presentation the PD notes: _"It has been clear to all involved with the project, including the former minister's staff, that movement by C-130 is not the normal mode of transport and would only be done in an emergency with limitations.
The vehicle can be prepared for a transport weight of 38,000 pounds.  The limitations will probably include a reduced ammo load and removal of the 14.5mm heavy machine gun armour.
You can see that the primary weapon will be the NATO standard 105mm gun.  It is still a very capable weapon able to defeat a T-72M tank."_

 :tank:  The point that MGS _"Can Defeat T-72M at 2000m"_  seems to directly contradict other DND Briefings that MGS only capable of defeating a level II armoured threat (up to T-62).
An 8 May 2003 _'*BRIEFING NOTE FOR ADM(Mat) - MGS*'_  states _"The main gun, a stabilized 105mm with autoloader, will defeat hardened bunkers and armoured vehicles up to T-62 Tank [roughly equiv to Leo I ??]."_
While, a 2003 BN (Briefing Note) _'CONCEPT FOR PROCUREMENT OF THE US MOBILE GUN SYSTEM [MGS]'_ affirms _"The MGS does not have the capabilities of a modern main battle tank in terms of firepower and protection, however, it is capable of fire support tasks short of tank on tank engagements against modern MBTs.  *The logic in delaying ACV *_*(MGS predecessor) was that it did not offer a significant capability improvement over that provided by Leopard I.*_  This logic is still valid."_ :tank:


Meanwhile, MGS _'Backgrounder'_ notes: _"The MGS can be deployed aboard CF air assets, a major step forward in providing protection for Canadian soldiers quickly when they deploy."_


  Regarding MGS deployability, a public domain answer provided by DAR 2, the LCol in charge of Directorate of Air Requirements tactical transport business, noted:
"Typical Maximum Payloads [MPL] for an eastern crossing to Europe are 28,000 lbs for an E-model and H30, and 30,000 lbs MPL for a regular H.  Western crossing are limited to 25,000 lbs MPL for an E or H30 and 27,000 lbs MPL for a regular H."
Therefore a 'stipped-down' 38,000 lb MGS is only tactically deployable via C-130H (of which the CF only has 11) over short distances of a couple hundred nautical miles at most, compared to over 3,000nm to cross Atlantic Ocean - 1,000nm via C-130J only.  

  As noted in Air Force's 2003 _'*Aerospace Capability Framework*'_ released 31 May 2004, the _"Airlift Capability Project [ACP] aims to acquire a replacement capability for the current CC-130 E and H [-73 model] aircraft.  To determine 'best value', the ACP will examine options that range from the status quo, replacement of the CC-130 with like capability, or replacement of the Hercules with an aircraft with the capacity to carry outsized cargo.  Outsized cargo is defined as cargo that, because of length, width, height and/or weight, cannot fit into a Hercules-sized aircraft.  Such cargo includes equipment such as the HLVW used by the Disaster Assistance Response Team [DART]; the Beaver Tail Trailer; 6K and 5K forklifts; and the 6x4 Dump Truck.  *Other equipment, such as the Army's LAV-III must be disassembled to enable transport by Hercules.  Three Hercules flights are required to transport two LAV-III vehicles.*"_  

A high-level Jan 2004 *'Project Brief For a Major Capital Project - MGS'*, to PMB for Preliminary Project Approval, had some interesting, SOR Highlights, assertions:
_"2.3.5 - Risk of buying long lead items.  Long lead-time items (specifiically the gun tube and breech) will have to be procured prior to finalizing the main production contract to meet the delivery schedule.  It is, however, known that the contractor will have to place an order for these same items for the US Army program after the Canadian long lead item order.  Negotiating a buy back clause with the contractor could mitigate this risk.
3.4  *Project Constraints*  3.4.1.2 - There is no intent for the project to buy additional stocks of existing configurations of ammunition."_  Which seemingly implies no additional AMMO is required. :bullet::bullet:

 :tank:
Interestingly, a Oct 2003 report _'Stryker Brigades Versus the Reality of War'_ by Mr. Victor O'Reilly (article pdf link available on Army.ca) - an author and counterterrorism authority with an obvious bias for the MTVL upgrade, has some damning contradictions and revealing information:
"Bought to be C-130 deployable but too heavy."
MOST INTERESTINGLY on pg47 - _"*Stryker MGS problems with the 105mm cannon get worse.* . . . _(numerous issues listed)_ . . .  *Why are the contractors trying to use the wrong cannon, on the wrong chassis - at the taxpayers' expense?*
The short answer to this question is that the Army has a large number of surplus M68A1 cannons which are being made available to the contractor virtually for free.  [The M68 105mm cannon was the standard weapon for the M60 tank and the early Abrams.]  Accordingly, it is very tempting indeed to try and use that free cannon in the Stryker Mobile Gun system because it increases profit per vehicle by about US$250,000."_
This provides GDLS with a major profit incentive to make an unsuitable gun such as the high-velocity M68A1, that requires a muzzle brake and heavy recoil mechanism to reduce gun recoil impulse - with has the side-effect of adding to the weight problem, work on the MGS vs a LRF 105mm gun (Low Recoil Force).  As problems are being fixed at taxpayer expense, x204 MGS for Interim Styker Brigade Combat Teams = US$51M profit, plus x66 MGS for DND = US$16.5M additional profit, or US$67.5M Overall additional profit from just the M68A1 cannon alone.  
 :fifty:  This seems to blow a major hole in _'2.3.5'_  "Long lead-time items (specifiically the gun tube and breech) will have to be procured" ??  While _"Negotiating a buy back clause"_ adds yet more unnecessary cost to the MGS project - seemingly more profit for GDLS. :tank:

 :tank: While a DND *'MGS UPDATE 12 AUG 03'* seems to implicitly confirm O'Reilly's assertions about _"*Stryker MGS problems with the 105mm cannon get worse.*"_ as other than listing MGS decision, order, and delivery timelines, plus _"Proposed Project Timelines"_, the remainder of the briefing is _"WITHHELD - per s.13.1 & s.20.1.b"_ of ATI.  Highly probable that only major integration problems, with LRIP already delayed until Feb 04, would require such severe pruning of an Update Brief?? :tank:

 :tank:  Meanwhile, a _'21 Oct 02 Info Brief to CLS'_ on 'MGS' sheds interesting new light on '3.4.1.2' as section on _'AMMO'_ affirms: _"MGS must provide direct, supporting fires . . . in order to destroy hardened enemy bunkers, machine gun, and sniper positions.  To accomplish this the MGS primary armament must defeat a standard infantry bunker and create an opening in a double reinforced concrete wall, through which infantry can pass.  Primary armament must engage and defeat a dismounted Infantry squad in the open from a minimum of 50m to a maximum of 500m.  Primary armament must have the capability to deliver high explosive munitions in an anti-personnel mode.
New buy/development"_ AMMO required:
_"- M393A2 HE-T [based on a HEP rd);
- XM1028 AP Canister [based on 120mm rd];
- M467A1 TP-T."_ :tank: :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: :tank:

 :tank:  Meanwhile, besides the Type Classified tracked M8 Armoured Gun System (light tank) mounting a Watervliet Arsenal M35 LRF 105mm gun in a well-armoured turret, that is air deployable via C-130 (including via parachute), in the mid-90s an 8x8 LAV-based MGS predecessor successfully completed development and testing.  This was the Textron Marine & Land Systems (Cadillac Gage) Light Armoured Vehicle - Assault Gun [LAV-AG].  The LAV-AG is based on the LAV-I as supplied to the Marine Corps (3 prototype LAV-AG completed using chassis supplied by USMC) and mounts M35 LRF 105mm in a two-man reduced profile turret similar to that used on the Cadillac Gage 'Stingray' light tank (which also mounts the more suitable M35 LRF 105mm).  Even though the LAV-AG was completed on time and within the fixed price budget,_'Jane's Armour and Artillery 1996-97'_ notes it was cancelled _"due to lack of production funding between FY93 and FY96 as Pentagon acquisition policy did not allow continued development of a program unless there was assured production money."_  Unlike the MGS _"Trials have shown that the LAV-AG can engage stationary and moving targets with a high first round hit probability while the vehicle itself is stationary or moving."_   :soldier:

Interesting, that GDLS (General Dynamics Land Systems) does not use a proven solution, the Cadillac Gage LAV-AG turret on the LAV-III chassis (easily transferable from earlier LAV-I), in favour of saving company money (by not having to pay a license fee or subcontract to TM&LS for the 90s technology LAV-AG turret) by using 'no-charge' high-velocity M68A1 cannons - US$67.5M Overall additional profit - on the cramped GDLS Low Profile Turret [LPT] just to try to save a few pounds in weight due to use of the heavier M68A1.  Also noteworthy that the GDLS LPT is 80s technology as it was originally designed by Teledyne Vehicle Systems (taken over by GDLS in early-1996) for the mid-80s private-venture tracked Expeditionary light Tank (which compared to the 10 round replenisher for the MGS had a 22 round replenisher) with the more stable chasis able to accomodate the M68A1 or the M35 LRF 105mm gun.  Jane's notes _"The company envisaged it could be fitted to such chassis as the M48/M60 and Leopard 1 series MBTs, the old M47 medium tank and the M41 light tank, and the Marine Corps AAV7A1 armoured amphibious assault vehicle."_  No mention of a LAV type chassis - Interesting!  :tank:

 Curiously, DND seems to have bought into the notion of padding GDLS's profit margin as, besides the noted _'2.3.5'_, the December 2003 _'*Project Profile and Risk Assessment Project 00000731 MGS*'_ notes: _"The Industrial and Regional Benefit strategy would be to seek an IRB commitment of 100% of the contract value.  This would be achieved though both direct and indirect benefits, with a target of 50% direct Canadian value-added, with a view to improving General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada viability."_  By implication, the 2,131 Stryker LAV-III.5s for the Interim SBCTs, the 651 LAV-III; 203 Coyote LAV-II; 199 Bison LAV-II, and numerous foreign sales of thousands of LAVs (USMC, Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia) must not have done much to improve GDLS-Canada's viabillity??  


  I sincerely hope the above provides/provokes some thoughtfull discussion amongst all the regular/reserve/retired Armour types out there as this directly affects the livelihood of the current RCAC members.  I look forward to reviewing the responses after a few days.
[I do ask that those with No subject matter experience stay out of the discussion.  :]


----------



## Infanteer

Yowza that's an eyesore.  I didn't see anything on here that we have yet to bring up and discuss on previous threads concerning the MGS system.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

A very interesting compilation of facts.

The Leo with its 105 could NOT defeat a T72M frontally at 2,000 M.   Hitting it is not the problem, turret penetration is.   Unless of course, DU ammo is used, in which case we can defeat it.   So the statement is not necessarily a lie in itself, but it is misinformation!

As for the rest, you will note that the ADDITIONAL armour required to defeat 14.5 mm projectiles over the frontal 45 degree arc had to be removed to attain the 38,000 lb goal.   And, of course, we all knew that our C130's could not carry it.   As an aside, even the C130J has to be refuelled air to air after take off to meet its range requirements.   It is out and out misinformation saying that three Hercs are required to move two MGS.   If you want the MGS operational, you know, full ammo (all 16 rounds vs the Leo's 52 rounds) fuel, crew, water, rats, etc, etc, you would need five Hercs to move three MGS.   I can just see that happening, can't you?

Canada has several spare L7A1/A3 and M68 barrels laying around.   We bought hundreds of them in the early '70's to upgun the Centurion, and we had spares for the Leo.   We have plenty to put on the MGS, but as was noted, the MGS should have the new light-weight LRF 105 as is used on many other vehicles.

It doesn't matter how you slice it, we are buying a brand new vehicle that has less capability than our old Leo's.

But, the vehicle is wheeled, and thus "politically correct".


----------



## 12alfa

Mmmm.
The T-72 has around............. Turret: 510-530        Glacis: 520-560
Lower front hull: 250, for Ke wpns

Best non-du 105 ammo will get 52cm peneration.

Given the ammo is better than what Canada has/used (DM) we could just use the better ammo to do the same job as Du, could we not?

12Alfa


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The T-72M is the model with the "Dolly Parton" armour on the front.  If you see one, you would know how it achieved that name.  A very obvious add on armour package, specifically designed to defeat all known KE projectiles at that time.  I believe the turret front was equivelant to something like 1 Meter of RHA.

It can be defeated by 105 projectiles, but not anything we own.  We would either have to re-gun to the new Royal Ordinance 105 gun with its new ammunition, or to purchase DU projectiles.

There are not that many M models around, but that is still the standard that we (NATO) strive to be able to defeat.

The DM63C is most likely the best non-DU/ standard 105 NATO barrel available, and that is the round we bought.  But, whether it is fired from the MGS or the Leo, it will not penetrate the turret front of the T-72M at 2,000 meters or further.


----------



## Gobsmacked

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The T-72M is the model with the "Dolly Parton" armour on the front.  If you see one, you would know how it achieved that name.  A very obvious add on armour package, specifically designed to defeat all known KE projectiles at that time.  I believe the turret front was equivelant to something like 1 Meter of RHA.
> 
> It can be defeated by 105 projectiles, but not anything we own.  We would either have to re-gun to the new Royal Ordinance 105 gun with its new ammunition, or to purchase DU projectiles.
> 
> There are not that many M models around, but that is still the standard that we (NATO) strive to be able to defeat.
> 
> The DM63C is most likely the best non-DU/ standard 105 NATO barrel available, and that is the round we bought.  But, whether it is fired from the MGS or the Leo, it will not penetrate the turret front of the T-72M at 2,000 meters or further.



Lance,

Appreciate the informative advice on T-72s and gun stocks.
FYI, the CF already has DU stocks as an Oct 02 CLS 'Info Brief' notes that besides the three types of 105mm "New buy" munitions that would be required for the MGS bunker-busting and anti-infantry roles, CF intends to retain "Stock-piled M900 DU", although this seemingly goes against Canadian Environmental/Medical concerns against using Depleted Uranium shells (especially with the touchy-feely Politically Correct government Canadians seem to have voted back in).

Lance/12Alfa, If open info, out of curiosity what is the penetration of the 105mm DM63C shell [Lance - when you said barrel I take it you ment best shell available] we have in stock (ie. Level II MBTs)?  and at what sort of distance?


Also, I believe Infanteer is in error as I don't recall any previous mention of either:
high-level Jan 2004 'Project Brief For a Major Capital Project - MGS', to PMB for Preliminary Project Approval, or 19 Jan 2004 'Presentation to JCRB' re: MOBILE GUN SYSTEM [MGS] Statement of Operational Requirement', or 'Aerospace Capability Framework' released 31 May 2004 - specifically LAV-III transport restriction anywhere on the MGS threads before.

Meanwhile, the Leopard Tank Transitional Distribution - Asst CLS Approved:   CMTC OPFOR - 4
seems to indicate at least a small dedicated OPFOR (Likely Company size) as opposed to LFWA units from 1 CMBG being used for OPFOR?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Indeed.  Instead of barrel, insert projectile.

I read a Janes article that was unclassified, and said that the DM63 was capable of penetrating 40-45 cm of armour at 2 KM.  I assumed at the time that they meant RHA, although that was not specifically mentioned.  You may be able to found more on the web.


----------



## 12alfa

105mm DM63 (= Israeli M-426, Germany â Å“earlyâ ? 90's, Italy, Canada (DM63C) c2000, probably Chile c2000) 40-45cm@2km


----------



## Gobsmacked

For a program that DND, as of January 2004, expected the US Army to award the LRIP contract for 72 vehicles by August 2004 (itself deplayed from original early 2003 schedule due to numerous MGS problems), the following contract does not bode well for the future of Armour in the CF.  

With its cramped interior as noted in the 93 report by Victor O'Reilly, "The ergonomics - human factors - in the Stryker MGS have proved to be appalling.  You cannot see what you need to see - and there is no space for 95% of the population", the Cdn mods for additional equipment are likely to exacerbate the ergonomics problem.  ^-^

Armour types - have any directives come out yet that only lightweight Midgets (no 'little people' disrespect intended) will be allowed to undergo MGS crew training?  


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=47637&session=dae.5522906.1098844437.QX8JFMOa9dUAAF3HPDw&modele=release

*General Dynamics Awarded $5 Million Contract to Perform Engineering Studies in Support of Mobile Gun System*

(Source: General Dynamics Land Systems â â€œ Canada; issued Oct. 22, 2004)

	LONDON, Ontario --- The Canadian Department of National Defence has awarded General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada a $5 million CAD (approx. $4 million USD) contract to perform engineering feasibility studies in support of the Canadian Mobile Gun System program.  

These studies will assist the Department of National Defence in defining modifications to the Stryker Mobile Gun System to meet Canadian requirements. Studies are anticipated in a number of technical areas including communications, navigation and logistics support.  

In April 2004, the Canadian Government announced that they would be entering into negotiations with General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada for the acquisition of 66 Mobile Gun Systems. These vehicles will provide direct-fire support and are a key element of the Canadian Army Transformation. The performance of these engineering studies will be an important part of the negotiation process.  

The Mobile Gun System is a variant of the Stryker family of infantry combat vehicles that are currently being manufactured for use by the U.S. Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. On Thursday, October 14, 2004, the U.S. Army authorized low-rate initial production of the Stryker Mobile Gun System. All ten Stryker variants are now in full-rate or low-rate initial production.  

General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada, located in London, Ontario, Canada is a business unit of General Dynamics Land Systems of Sterling Heights, Michigan. For more than 25 years, approximately 1,500 highly skilled technical personnel at the company have designed, manufactured and delivered a unique family of light armoured vehicles (LAV).  

General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, employs approximately 71,600 people worldwide and anticipates 2004 revenue in excess of $19 billion. The company is a market leader in mission-critical information systems and technologies; land and expeditionary combat systems, armaments and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and business aviation.  

-ends-  


On Thursday, October 14, 2004, the U.S. Army authorized low-rate initial production of the Stryker Mobile Gun System. All ten Stryker variants are now in full-rate or low-rate initial production. 

US Army sure has kept this overdue decision low-key - no announcements anywhere on US DoD or Army sites.  :-X
[Pentagon to Rumsfeld - 'maybe we can slip this MGS thingy through if we keep quiet and the Media doesn't find out its actually in production?']  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

If you believe any of this, I got some prime land in Florida just waiting for a buyer :


----------



## Gobsmacked

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you believe any of this, I got some prime land in Florida just waiting for a buyer :



While not a fan of the MGS - the above defense-aerospace notification is taken from the Press Release on the GDLS-C website.  

I don't invent it - just make sure its duly noted.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I haven't heard of any changes to our military's plan.

So, as far as I know, in December we are going to order 16 MGS, all of which will be standard US production Units, for delivery starting  sometime in late 2005, and going on into 2006.  Four will be given to GDLS (the above contract) to fit suitable heaters, our MBGD's, and TCCCs.  The other twelve will be given to the LdSH to help form suitable tactics, training packages and so on.

And so the transformation begins..........


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> While not a fan of the MGS - the above defense-aerospace notification is taken from the Press Release on the GDLS-C website.
> 
> I don't invent it - just make sure its duly noted.



Take a pill. It was the articles I was talking about. Sorry if you were confused.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I just got back from the AUSA show in Washington DC last night and had the opportunity to see the MGS up close and personal.  

With regard to the interior ergonomics, GDLS has expanded the interior turret basket to somewhat alleviate the cramped crew compartment.

The biggest drawback to the MGS that I see is its limited ammunition capacity of 19 rounds TOTAL for the vehicle's combat load.

Can you imagine the difficulty in arranging logistics for a squadron of these things in battle?  I'm quite interested to see how a squadron commander is to maintain forward momentum while juggling pulling a troop from the line into a running replen. to re-arm every couple of hours, not to mention how the support echelon's are to be running all over hell's half-acre to resupply the F echelon.  This also brings up another question:  What is planned as the ammunition carrier for the A1 echelon?  An unarmoured MLVW/HLVW operating forward as such doesn't inspire much confidence for the survivability of the crew.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

They'll probably give us an ammo trailer to tow behind each MGS :


----------



## m_a_c

I remember during gun camp with the Leopard C1 having 13 rounds in the ready rack, we would go through them in an aweful hurry.  It was a hassle just to keep the ready rack full using the rounds from the ammo bin, and we carried 53 rounds!!  I cannot imagine what kind of nightmare it would be to only have 19 rounds total on board, the ammo vehicle, (whatever it may be) will be constantly shoving rounds in the pistol port.  Does this thing even have a pistol port?  I would imagine that to stay in the fight the crew would have to resort to engaging targets with machine fire.  I also heard that they will not be using APFSDS ammo with the MGS.  Do they really want our Armoured Crewman to survive or are we all just fodder to them?


TARGET!!!....TARGET STOP!!!


----------



## Matt_Fisher

No pistol port that I saw on it.

I'm kicking myself for not having my camera with me.  Sorry   :'(


----------



## pappy

maybe'm far off the track..... but why a 105mm gun on an APC ?  I would think 60mm would be the biggest needed, if something larger is needed use a MBT, or Arty.
The IDF designed a neat little system based around a rapid firing 60mm gun, could even do 2 or 3-round bursts.  I think it foolish to try to design an APCs to take on tanks.
I think each time we design a single vehcial to do all roles it does each role baddly.  I think something more the 25 - 30mm is needed for defense on an APC but 105mm with only 19 rounds is a tad over the top.  Any APC should only be used along side Tanks and both these should only be used in combination with Arty and Close-Air support.

But since I don't make policy no need to worry about my ideas :0)


----------



## pappy

some pics of the 60mm  HVM system.  I did a little search on the MGS so be kind to me when the flames are fired   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

I just saw this posting of yours Pappy.  Which army are they from?

I have been intrigued by 60mm HVMS myself.  I gather the Italians and the Poles are both quite serious about including it in their Orbats and the Chileans and the Israelis have had some success with it.

Mounted in an M113 the vehicle could carry 80 rounds of 60mm, 4000 rounds of 7.62 and still carry six dismounts while keeping the weight under 14 tonnes.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-60.html

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-60.html

http://www.otobreda.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_hitfist_60_te

It's a dual feed weapon, that fires one round every two seconds, kills NATO triple 60 armour out to ranges between 1500 and 2000 m and has a really flat trajectory out to that range.

I thank that in combination with the Wireless-Fire & Forget TOW and something like the DELCO or AMOS 120mm mortar it would constitute a great medium support squadron weapon well suited for the Close Quarters Battle.   That high rate of fire and tank killing capacity at short ranges looks like and impressive capability to me.

That type of fire support backing up an infantry battalion armed with Javelins would make for a capability that would cover a large range of targets.  Maybe you could even put a pod of Javelins on the 60mm turret.

There would still be a need for an MBT and a heavy tracked APC/IFV in a heavy force  for  the assault on heavily defended positions but the LAV-60 would give the same kind of capability that the French  are using in the Ivory Coast, have used in Chad and the Sahara generally and did use on the left flank of the Gulf War I assault.

The gun is based on the 76mm used on the Halifax frigates.  It uses the same breech and receiver as I understand, and probably a related auto loader.


----------



## pappy

I believe the photos are of the HV-60mm in Chielian service.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The weapon was specifically designed to replace larger calibre, low pressure weapons such as the old 75mm, and to provide a kinetic energy killing power that the older weapon would not have had.  It was never intended to replace existing 105/100mm guns, which is one reason it is being marketed to countries using older weapon platforms.  It gives a new lease on life to an M24, Sherman and similar vehicles, that will be facing first generation vehicles.  It would have been one way to upgrade the Cougar, for example.

I don't think you will ever see this weapon on a new platform.  There are just too many more capable weapons out there.


----------



## McG

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> The biggest drawback to the MGS that I see is its limited ammunition capacity of 19 rounds TOTAL for the vehicle's combat load.


Are the 19 rounds divided across a primary and secondary ammo type  (HE, HESH, APFSDS, etc), or is the crew only given the choice of one ammo type when loading the gun?


----------



## Kirkhill

This was originally posted on the Stryker Robots thread but as a_majoor pointed out they are relevant to both the MMEV and the LAV threads as well and so are being reposted here.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65885,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

More on robots.

The US are deploying armed versions of the little 6x6 bomb disposal crawlers to back up their Stryker equipped infantry units.   Also talking about robot ambulances.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=318

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_5.asp?Offset=3&sKeywords=&sConjuction=&sRadioButton=&sFromDate=&sToDate=
Scientists work on new generation of armoured vehicles 
VALCARTIER, Quebec - A group of scientists is working on what may become a new generation of Light Armoured Vehicles. (Video Story) 
Friday, October 29, 2004

And these links to related work being done by DRES on the LAVs

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

New Stryker order by the Americans (continuation of the previously announced plan to kit out 6 brigades).

This one includes 14 MGS for delivery next year.  For continued reliability testing.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Darn.

That means our order for sixteen will be placed this month, as planned.

I was hoping the Americans would defer the MGS order until all the bugs had been worked out.


----------



## a_majoor

The big difference is our order is the "be all-end all", while the US will undergo a prolonged period of OJT, modifications and testing to create a new machine. Five years from now, our guys will barely recognize the US MGS, while an American might say: "We've got one of those in the Patton Museum" when he sees the CF MGS.

 Sigh.....


----------



## Gobsmacked

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Darn.
> 
> That means our order for sixteen will be placed this month, as planned.
> 
> I was hoping the Americans would defer the MGS order until all the bugs had been worked out.



Lance,

Maybe not, especially as the 8 Prototype vehicles are not LRIP.

As I previously noted on 'Leopard C2 is Not a Tank' thread in Armour section:
Per Recent 2003 SECRET level ANALYSIS _'Whether to acquire the Mobile Gun System for the CF'_.
The Schedule calls for contracting of initial 16 MGS vehicles, _"no later-than Dec 04"_ under MND C$30M authority (w\o ILS), for _"January to June 2006 delivery"_ - with *"No Canadian Acquisition Prior to U.S. Order for [initial 72 Low-Rate Initial] Production Version"*

Yet a Jan 04 _'*Project Brief For a Major Capital Project* MGS'_ notes:
_"2.2.1.3 No Canadian Acquisition Prior to U.S. Order for Production Version - the initial Canadian order for sixteen vehicles [to conduct our integration activities] would take place once the U.S. has ordered the production version of the Mobile Gun System at a low-rate phase [the U.S. would acquire 72 vehicles to conduct its integration phase, which also includes TTPs development, in order to have its own early initial operational capabilty).  The PMO will time its procurement decisions to the US Army production milestones [ie. Low Rate 2 in Aug 04 for the initial buy of 16 vehicles and Milestone III in Feb 06 authorizing full rate production for the remainder of the Canadian vehicles]."_
And the 29 Oct 03 _'MGS BN for the Minister'_ notes:
_"The *ordering* of these *first 16 vehicles is tied to the second US low rate production decision* due Aug 04.  *We will not get ahead of this decision point.*"_   

{As noted below, LRIP II decision for the remaining 54 MGS is not due now until June 2005.
Plus, *ordering the initial 16 Canadian vehicles would mean that DND would* _"*get ahead of this [LRIP II] decision point*"_, as the first 14 US MGS are LRIP I (14 + 54 = 72].   :sniper:
Meanwhile, MGS is still Developmental until reliability testing is complete.}  

*General Dynamics Awarded $206 Million for 95 Additional Stryker Combat Vehicles*
(Source: General Dynamics; issued Dec. 1, 2004)
STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. --- The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command today awarded General Dynamics Land Systems three delivery orders valued at $206 million for 95 Stryker combat vehicles, including the first production of the Mobile Gun System and Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Reconnaissance variants.
The Department of Defense approved the mobile gun variant and NBC reconnaissance vehicle for low rate initial production in October of this year.  
Production of 14 mobile guns [LRIP I], 17 NBC vehicles, 25 infantry and 39 mortar carriers begins in January 2005 at plants in Anniston, Alabama; Lima, Ohio; and London, Ontario. Production will be completed in February 2006.
*The Mobile Gun System*, which began development in 2001, *continues reliability testing through June 2005* when a decision to purchase 58 additional systems [LRIP II] is expected.
Stryker fulfills an immediate requirement to equip a strategically deployable (C-17/C-5) and operationally deployable (C-130) brigade capable of rapid movement anywhere on the globe in a combat-ready configuration.
-ends- 
{Note the switch in strategic deployability emphasis away from C-130 to C-17/C-5.}  
 :tank:


----------



## Kirkhill

Good dissection Gobsmacked and thanks.

Just one point and that is the issue of strategically and operationally deployable.  Strategically usually implies between theatres or inter-theatre, operationally usually implies within theatre or intra-theatre.  Most of the discussion that I have seen about using C130s to transport Strykers emphasises intra-theatre applications or roughly speaking heli-portable ranges, out to a maximum of about 1000 mi, possible with refuelling of both helos and C130s in-flight.

I think it is only here in Canada that speculation has run rampant about using C-130s to transport Stryker/LAVs over strategic or inter-theatre distances.

Cheers.


----------



## Gobsmacked

As disected above, looks like the CF has a bit of a reprieve before MGS order placed.

In early December 2004 GDLS-C spokesperson Ken Yamashita noted, in the London Free Press, that the company is adapting the MGS vehicle for the Canadian order but production is not expected to begin until later next year.


December 09, 2004, By Matthew Cox; Army Times staff writer

Stryker officials hope redesign of MGS will fix jamming problem

Stryker program officials are hoping that redesigning the sophisticated loader on the Mobile Gun System will prevent the jamming problems that last year caused the vehicle to fail reliability tests. :

Still in development, the Mobile Gun System is planned as one of the 10 variants in the Stryker family of wheeled, armored vehicles and is equipped with a direct-fire, 105mm cannon to destroy bunkers and other hard targets.

The Army wants to field 72 MGS Strykers as part of the total 2,449 vehicles slated for fielding to the six approved Stryker Brigades and a seventh that is still in the planning phase.
[Funny, even Army Times can't seem to get their #'s right.  203x MGS required for 6x SBCTs.
With each SBCT containing: 27x MGS (+4 ORF), with MGS integral to each Inf Bn - to be used more as an over watch force to support infantry movement into urban areas.]

The MGS Stryker and a nuclear-chemical-biological reconnaissance vehicle are the only two variants yet to be fielded. Other variants include an Infantry Carrier Vehicle; Commander's Vehicle; Fire Support Vehicle; Mortar Carrier; Engineer Squad Vehicle; Medical Evacuation Vehicle; Reconnaissance Vehicle; and the Anti-Tank Guided Missile vehicle (ATGM). [...]


As previously noted,
A Oct 2003 report 'Stryker Brigades Versus the Reality of War' by Mr. Victor O'Reilly - an author and counterterrorism authority with an obvious bias for the MTVL upgrade, has some damning MGS contradictions and revealing information (reference report page 5 and pages 46 thru 54).  Most Notably, "*Executive Summary: STRYKER MOBILE GUN SYSTEM [MGS] & ITS PROBLEMS:   Too heavy to be C-130 deployable, a key requirement;   Cannon too powerful for Stryker Chassis;   Does not carry enough ready main gun Ammunition;   Auto loader jams and fails to select correct ammunition;   Commander and Gunners positions so cramped they fit less than 5 percent of the population.*" 
[Purportedly GDLS has expanded the interior turret basket to somewhat alleviate the cramped turret compartment ergonomics, as previously noted by Matt, but on the lowered 8x8 LAV-III.5 chassis the room for expansion is minimal - at most MGS can now fit 20-25 percent of the Armour crews.]

_"The ammunition issue.  Too little, too late, and in the wrong place.  Serious problems with the MGS Autoloader.  The Stryker MGS provides only an 8 round carousel.  The further 10 rounds available in the replenisher [giving a total of 18] can only be accessed by taking the gun out of action for minutes.  This is absolutely not something you want to do in combat with hostiles shooting at you.  It is a matter of basic survivability.  *The MGS autoloader has a tendency to jam.*  The sensors in the MGS autoloader may not be able to recognize certain types of ammunition with brass casings _(such as existing CF warshot)_.__  The MGS . . . autoloader cannot identify types with accuracy.  *Brass cased rounds are just not detected.  Also, the Stryker gunner cannot set the fuze on anti-personnel rounds, therefore the MGS cannot fire with soldiers to the front [a major capability limitation].*"_


----------



## Patton jr

didn't sure if someone already posted something on this(i didnt read all the forums), but i'I'veeard that Canada is going to convert some LAV's into "Strikers" which is pretty much a 120mm turret, mounted on a LAVIII. Could someone possibly verify this for me,and if it should prove true, get me Paul Martin's email adaddressso i can tell hI'm how suicidal he is being.



> Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
> --Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne


----------



## Kirkhill

Young Patton,

Your heart is in the right place but you will serve the cause better if you read through this thread, and other similar ones on this site, consider the arguments, prepare your own reasoned argument for your position and then present it to the PM.  And the world at large through this site as well if you wish.

Opinions carry more weight when supported with facts.

Cheers,  enjoy the reading and I look forward to hearing more from you.

Kirkhill


----------



## ArmyRick

young patton, the srtyker MGS has a 105mm automatic loading "low profile turret" (Don't ask me why its called that because it sure don't look low profile) their is also a GD and AC delco joint venture of a 120mm breach loading mortar mounted on a LAVIII chasis (I beleive its a demo model).

Also you can not convert a LAVIII infantry vehicle to an MGS... Its a little different than slapping a grizzly turret on a M113. Look at the vehicle chasis on both and you will see there is very little in common between the two.

Cheers.


----------



## STONEY

Another point to ponder here as there is constantly new options.
Military Technology issue 12/2004  Israel has tested on a Leo 1 the LAHAT Gun/tube missle that can be fired
from standard L7 105  and destroy heavily armoured targets at a range of up to 8 km with pinpoint accuracy.  
The tank does not require expensive and complex upgunning. The LAHAT uses a high performance advanced warhead which can defeat all known mordern MBT armour, with a penetration capability of 800m. The LAHAT weapon system offers a cost effective upgrade of the tanks firepower especially at long range. The upgrade kit introduces a laser target designation capilibility with existing laser designator sights and software changes. This weapon can be fired from defilade positions and hit any target marked for attack either by the firing tank or a forward observer with a designator. The LAHAT is the same size as a standard 105 round and stowed exactly the same.  The Leo ! is not the sitting duck some would have us believe.

Cheers
Stoney


----------



## Kirkhill

Great point Stoney. Nothing stands still. There is always another option.


----------



## Gobsmacked

12Alfa said:
			
		

> My mistake..
> 
> Although I can't find any data on A2 beeing deployed there, lots of talk, but no hard data. my sources in the US says no, and I can't find any pics either. What has led to the A2 story is a M1a1HA that some units are using with a turret head system that is located in the same position as the CTIV as on the A2.
> 
> Untill I see a pic of one, i'm leaning on there being none there.
> 
> A side note: I think that the side hull armour on the A2 is not heaver or upgraded from the A1Ha, therefore it as the M1A1 can be penetrated by a RPG as we have seen, the front glacis and turret have additional armour in the A2. But I'll ask and do some more data research to be sure.



FYI, the Actual 'Skinny' from the source (GDLS themselves) notes that as of May 2004:
_"Two M1A2 SEP Tanks were 'combat losses' "_,  
out of some 550 M1A2 SEP in Active service at that point, plus some 595 M1A2.
So I guess that means they were in active service during OIF.
Can't say any more than that, although Lance can confirm as I passed him a copy of same info source.


----------



## Keyes

Hey all, first off, this is my first post and I'm new here, just found it recently. I don't know if anyone's posted this, but I saw it, and since I don't have much in the way of military knowledge or experience, yet, I'm applying for the reserves, I wanted to see what you actual forces members though of it. 

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mgs.htm


----------



## Fishbone Jones

If your asking if the MGS should be a replacement for the LAV 3, the answer is no. They are two completely different vehicles designed for two very different roles.


----------



## COBRA-6

Some day in the not-too-distanant future, composite armour technology will give us more protection with less weight than the current steel armour on the LAV-III, that's why the Stryker is considered a intrem-vehicle by the US. I'm not up to speed on all the technology, but I don't think we're there yet... anyone out there work for GDLS??


----------



## 48Highlander

I'm not seing any improvements in composite armour.  What's seems to be the big goal these days is "active" armour.  Basicaly a defensive system capable of destroying projectiles before they impact the vehicle.


----------



## Blue Max

Active armour is said to work very well even for projectiles that are fired from as close as 100ft away, I believe I read, but.  The problem is that the area around the vehicle becomes dangerous without necessarily any warning to dismounts and civilians.


----------



## disqx

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Active armour is said to work very well even for projectiles that are fired from as close as 100ft away, I believe I read, but.  The problem is that the area around the vehicle becomes dangerous without necessarily any warning to dismounts and civilians.



Conversely, doesn't the area around the vehicle already becomes dangerous if, for instances, an ATGM is allowed to explode on the vehicle's surface spreading sharpnel in all directions, detonating stored ammo, igniting fuel and/or hydrualics?


----------



## Blue Max

disqx, I believe you are partially correct. As the most recent examples show, US M1's have fared very well when they have been breached by a ATM of some kind. It is usually a small entry hole to maximize kinetic energy and then the round will bounce around inside, maybe tearing the crew to shreads, but not always. Western tank design has progressed a great deal in proctecting the crew when the hull has been breached vs Russian/Chinese tanks I have read.

Some of the armour guys may be able to explain this better, but the tank will only cook off or blow of its turret if the round entering the hull can reach the onboard stored rounds... Now that I think of it, it appears that more M1's have been lost in Iraq due to fires (engine, fuel, not clear why). The crews usually were able to get out and some times have tried to put out the fires even thought in the middle of a fire fight. :tank:


----------



## Cpl.Banks

This is my first post, im not currently serving in our country's military but I soon will  Anyways  just too add to most of the other posts, I think that replacing out MBT with a small light, fast recce vehicle's is ridiculous and we are getting ripped off, something like 40 vehicles for 700 million$?And adding a 105mm turret to a chasis of a LAVIII isnt gonna sold anything because the vehicle would have to stop to fire...maybe we could use it as a mbile gun platform ??? Why couldnt we just buy two dozen M1 Abrahms? The Aussie's are doing that and they have a much smaller budget. Or even better buy new transport planes...the hercs wont last much longer just my thoughts. so really what is the use of getting anything if we cant get it out there?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

My problem with the MGS is that the 105mm version that is currently being tested does not have the ability to defeat frontal armour of any MBT it happens across.  If you cannot fire off-line, and you can only kill from the flank and rear, your chances of surviving a meeting engagement are really small.  If an MGS is to be our tank replacement, it better be able to kill a tank, or we may as well have sent in a Cougar, it dies just as well, and with a lower price tag.  The Leo had the armour to fight like a medium tank, to use mobility and armour to take the flank shots, and shoot/scoot tactics to survive.  The MGS hasn't got the armour or ability to fire offline to allow it to manouever in the face of the enemy, and hasn't got the armour penetration for long range frontal engagement.  Its the worst of both worlds.  I may be wrong, the 105mm ammo in use today might be better then the treadheads were shooting in the 80-90's when I was in, but back in the day, head on a T-72 or T-80 was not a good shot for a tank with a non-uranium sabot or HEAT 105mm.  If the MGS had a weapon that allowed it to perform stand-off tank destroying, then its greater mobility (stategic, not tactical), lower cost etc would make it a decent system.  As it is, it sounds like the match up my grandfather faced when he rang three main gun rounds off a Tiger turret and glacis before getting his first tank shot out from under him.  Equipping yourself with "armour" that can't survive what prospecive enemies shoot, and can't kill what the same people field sounds like a baaaaad move.


----------



## ArmyRick

Like the MGS or not, we are getting it.
I think we are simply not employing it properly.

In the US SBCT Doctrine, they acknowledge what the MGS is and is not. It is actually assigned as an infantry weapon in the US Stryker Infantry companies.


----------



## Zipper

I was sitting here looking at a picture of an MGS.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics-mgs.htm

And it hit me...

This is nothing but a LAV III chassis with a stabilized 105 recoilless rife with an auto loader on top. So in other words, when we want to get rid of  them, we'll look up the various ski patrols and sell them a mobile avalanche gun. And able to go through mountain snow storms to boot. They'll love it.

Wow, two birds with one bad stone.


----------



## ArmyRick

Zipper, interesting point (public works canada doing a little magic?)  ;D


----------



## AmmoTech90

Zipper said:
			
		

> I was sitting here looking at a picture of an MGS.
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics-mgs.htm
> 
> And it hit me...
> 
> This is nothing but a LAV III chassis with a stabilized 105 recoilless rife with an auto loader on top. So in other words, when we want to get rid of   them, we'll look up the various ski patrols and sell them a mobile avalanche gun. And able to go through mountain snow storms to boot. They'll love it.



I'm not sure if you are being completely sarcastic, or if it's just your last paragraph, but it's not a 106mm recoiless rifle mounted on there.  For one thing the big f***-off fireball is coming out the wrong end.  It would be interesting to see a RR fire a cart with the prop charge that an APFSDS has, you would need bino's the check the BBA.


----------



## ArmyRick

Whoa, do I feel foolish. How did I miss the whole recoiless rifle remark.

Zipps buddy, recoiless rifles and tank/mgs guns are too different things completely.

Man I am  :-[


----------



## Zipper

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Zipps buddy, recoiless rifles and tank/mgs guns are too different things completely.



I WAS being totally sarcastic. I know it is not a recoiless rifle. It is the same gun that was on the early versions of the M1. I was just trying to get the point across that it is such a bad idea. 

With that being said. We are getting it anyway. And no, it is not a Tank replacement. We are as of now, out of the Tank business. No shock, no direct armoured combat ability for us anymore. We are a support, screening, escort, recce force only. Well, beyond infantry tasks that is.

If you read the SBCT doctrine (that their still working on), you note that the stryker forces are for light intensity operations only, unless directly attached to a larger (more capable) force.


----------



## LordOsborne

ahhh yes, the MGS... not my favourite choice for a DF vehicle. it's such a silly fit for the job.. if we ever come to the point where it needs to be used operationally, the shortcomings will present themselves the hard way. the lack of Gyro-stabilised gunsights negate a fire-on-the-move capability. this represents a big step back in technology for the CF.. it's a basic ability of modern armour to be able to fire accurately while moving. 

the fact that the MGS is designed with a "Low Profile Turret" is a farce. what's the sense in pretending that you're lowering the silhouette of this monstrosity when the LAV platform it's mounted on is taller than a tank? it's asinine. because of this turret, the crew is handicapped with an 18-round magazine for their gun.. and that'll have many disadvantages in a tactical situation. an autoloader is just one more thing that can break down and fail in combat. Why couldn't we have used the LAV-105 turret? or a composite turret with a 90mm gun? less weight, more ammo, not much of a loss in power. 

and why are we trying to make a vehicle fit inside our old CC-130s? why aren't we designing it to fit in our heavy-lifters? or the C-130J?


----------



## Franko

> "having 18 rounds for the autoloader's magazine is a shortcoming"



It's actually one of many. If it jams it takes a crew approx 45 min to clear it, which entails the crew to dis-engage from the fight, dismount, then get the jam sorted out, re-load, then get back into the fray.....

At least in the panzers, one person can do the job, not have to dismount. Yes there is only 13 rounds at the ready (most loaders stack the hole for more), and you can do a reload in mere minutes...depending on the skill of the loader.

The biggest thing about the MGS is it has failed most of the trials put to it. The US is thinking of scraping the thing completly....last I recall anyways.

So you know we're going to buy it!   :

Wes....isn't Austrialia getting 60 M1's for about the same price as 66 MGS?

Regards


----------



## LordOsborne

Franko, do you by any chance happen to know the MGS' rate of fire?

thanks.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

The document at this link was released a while ago and created quite a stir.  To my knowledge, most of the shortcomings in the vehicle identified in the study have yet to be addressed and it answers many of the questions raised.  Quite frankly, the "birdcage" anti-RPG armour gives me the willies as I picture myself trying to dismount from the burning hulk.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

On another note, comparing M1 and Stryker costs, etc. is an exercise in futility.  The Army leadership has decided that tanks are not required doctrinally and the availability of "cheap" armour is unlikely to change that.  There is a mindset (which I don't happen to agree with, but will suck it up) that the tank's day is done - at least as far as Canada is concerned.  The question becomes:  what are we getting instead?

Has anyone heard any of the latest trial results in the US?

Cheers,

TR


----------



## McG

That study is a POS.  It was written for political ends and draws absolutely ridiculous conclusions (like author whines that the Stryker APC has no 25 mm cannon then preaches the greatness of the M113 because he has a picture of one with a LAV 25 turret.  He does not mention that US M113s don't have 25 mm cannons any more than a Stryker, nor does he mention that the same turret he shows on an M113 has been placed on the LAV III).  There is no recognition that of increased room for soldiers and kit.  There is no mention of the significantly reduced noise.

I think many other aspects of that document have already been called out in this thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25555.0.html


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

MCG:

I'm not sure I agree. The study is a political document - in this case ammunition for a US congressman - and has to be viewed in that light.  

However, it makes very valid points regarding the MGS, which was the point I was trying to make - and the author was referring to the M8 and the MTLV rather than the M113 as he was "preaching the greatness" of various alternative vehicles, so your criticisms of the study aren't overly valid in this context.   With regards to the MGS - the issue at hand - the analysis of the vehicle's ability to be carried via C-130, the shortcomings of the gun, the shortcomings of the coax and the slat armour are all decent criticisms of the vehicle and ones that haven't yet adequately been answered by the "transformation" mafia as far as I've heard. 

As it is, I'm waiting to see what the latest US trial comes up with - the entire point might be moot if the rumoured problems have been addressed.  My gut feel is that the MGS is itself a POS, but we'll see - I'm keeping an open mind.

This seems to have been beaten to death on the other thread, so I'll jockey now.  I had at least one friend (far more of a tank supporter than I) flame his career over this debate and it didn't solve a thing!

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Zipper

So then I ask from someone people who know...                      ...what are their views on the whole DFS idea?

I would like to know what those in the Strats think, since their being stuck with it.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> This seems to have been beaten to death on the other thread, so I'll jockey now. I had at least one friend (far more of a tank supporter than I) flame his career over this debate and it didn't solve a thing!



And therein lies the problem. If you don't buy into the bad ideas, then your toast. Some of the ideas floating around here about "transformation" are quite good. Unfortunatly some are just plain bad. MGS comes to mind (if the problems are not solved), as does the whole DFS unit. But oh well.


----------



## TCBF

Well, you've probably heard what a few Strats think allready - you probably won't hear all 600.

But I'll give you one - my opinion - here it is:  "Whatever."

I spent four of my five years with the 8 CH(PL) in Germany with my kit ten feet from a Lynx on two hours notice to move for the "4 Cdn Mech Suicide Bde Gp".  Note to self: Never do this again and read "Red Army" by Ralph Peters at the same time.

So now I figure - having done Zgon and Kandahar in a Coyote - that if we at present  have a choice of:

1. Coyote
2. Leo C2
3. MGS
4. AGS XM8

My choice is "Whatever."

It still beats drinking Heineken in a Lynx on an exercise 10 km from the East German border, wondering if .50 APIT will punch through the hull of a T-80U between the 3rd and 4th roadwheel.

So, pardon me for not getting too worked up and joining the Black Hat Mental M_sturbation Society about whatever mounts Canada picks to convince the National Care Bear Gallery that "Canada Matters".  Canada matters alright, but what we really think about AFVs doesn't. 

My advice?  

Buckle up, Buttercup, and learn how to be as DEADLY as you can with whatever vehicle fate and the BQ bestow on you.

No offence to the Lynx gallery.  I am a big fan of the Lynx, it was just undergunned, is all.  In 1944, crossing the Melfa, Regtl Recce Tp was equipped with de-turreted light tanks, each with a .50 cal and a .30 cal Browning Machine Gun.  TWENTY THREE YEARS, in 1967, as a Centennial Project (just kidding), we bought, from Food Machinery Corporation, of San Jose, Calif., the Lynx.  Did we put a 20mm on it?  No, we put on it.... wait for it...a .50 cal and a .30 cal Browning Machine Gun.  Thats 23 years of progress folks.  

 "You can always get a tank to help you if you need it, right?"

Wrong.  In Recceworld, a friendly tank is like a cop - there is never one around when you need him.

Just give me something I can make work, give me the ammo and time to teach my Troop how to use it, get us over there, then attach us to the Yanks far from our own base camp, so our own Army of ROTO -rooters  (Campoids) can't screw us over. 

Tom


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

TCBF said:
			
		

> Well, you've probably heard what a few Strats think allready - you probably won't hear all 600.
> 
> But I'll give you one - my opinion - here it is:   "Whatever."
> 
> I spent four of my five years with the 8 CH(PL) in Germany with my kit ten feet from a Lynx on two hours notice to move for the "4 Cdn Mech Suicide Bde Gp".   Note to self: Never do this again and read "Red Army" by Ralph Peters at the same time.
> 
> So now I figure - having done Zgon and Kandahar in a Coyote - that if we at present   have a choice of:
> 
> 1. Coyote
> 2. Leo C2
> 3. MGS
> 4. AGS XM8
> 
> My choice is "Whatever."
> 
> It still beats drinking Heineken in a Lynx on an exercise 10 km from the East German border, wondering if .50 APIT will punch through the hull of a T-80U between the 3rd and 4th roadwheel.
> 
> So, pardon me for not getting too worked up and joining the Black Hat Mental M_sturbation Society about whatever mounts Canada picks to convince the National Care Bear Gallery that "Canada Matters".   Canada matters alright, but what we really think about AFVs doesn't.
> 
> My advice?
> 
> Buckle up, Buttercup, and learn how to be as DEADLY as you can with whatever vehicle fate and the BQ bestow on you.
> 
> No offence to the Lynx gallery.   I am a big fan of the Lynx, it was just undergunned, is all.   In 1944, crossing the Melfa, Regtl Recce Tp was equipped with de-turreted light tanks, each with a .50 cal and a .30 cal Browning Machine Gun.   TWENTY THREE YEARS, in 1967, as a Centennial Project (just kidding), we bought, from Food Machinery Corporation, of San Jose, Calif., the Lynx.   Did we put a 20mm on it?   No, we put on it.... wait for it...a .50 cal and a .30 cal Browning Machine Gun.   Thats 23 years of progress folks.
> 
> "You can always get a tank to help you if you need it, right?"
> 
> Wrong.   In Recceworld, a friendly tank is like a cop - there is never one around when you need him.
> 
> Just give me something I can make work, give me the ammo and time to teach my Troop how to use it, get us over there, then attach us to the Yanks far from our own base camp, so our own Army of ROTO -rooters   (Campoids) can't screw us over.
> 
> Tom




     That about sums it up I guess.  Canadian soldiers have learned their civilian leadership hold them in the same regaurd as a tampon (necessary, distasteful, disposable).  If this is not the kit of our dreams, it is not the kit of our nightmares.  Its better to take an MGS than a Cougar, but when the MGS start their deployment, there had better be a weapon mix and doctrine in place that is a little less fantasy based than the Cougar's was (fight like a tank, only without armour or firepower).  I hope that our beloved leaders are going to allot enough funding for training, especially live fire, to get the new crews the experience necessary to master a whole new weapon system, rather than plugging it in to a tank doctrine this MGS cannot fulfill.


----------



## ArmyRick

TCBF, straight from the horses mouth (the Lord Strat's Horse that is)....


----------



## Zipper

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> That about sums it up I guess.   Canadian soldiers have learned their civilian leadership hold them in the same regaurd as a tampon (necessary, distasteful, disposable).   If this is not the kit of our dreams, it is not the kit of our nightmares.   Its better to take an MGS than a Cougar, but when the MGS start their deployment, there had better be a weapon mix and doctrine in place that is a little less fantasy based than the Cougar's was (fight like a tank, only without armour or firepower).   I hope that our beloved leaders are going to allot enough funding for training, especially live fire, to get the new crews the experience necessary to master a whole new weapon system, rather than plugging it in to a tank doctrine this MGS cannot fulfill.



So as usual its button up the trap hole and get on with the job. Thats great since that is what you have to do. You'll do it fine.

I'm sure those guys who were looking out of their cougar sights at those Serbian MBT's in Bosnia had much the same feeling as you did Tom.

But then again, if your willing to accept sh!t, then that is exactly what your going to get.

But the way things look from the outside with all the talk about transformation and all, is that we are going over to a force that is made to patrol, peacekeep, and do some rear area protection. The DFS unit was created to make a show of hitting power, but the chances of it ever leaving base is questionable. As for training? Well you'll be lucky if you get the money to launch even one ADAT missle, and made 3 or 4 TOW. Other then that the MGS will put as many rounds down range as the Leo did. Just don't expect to ever do a battle run.

Other then that, its the same as always. Do your job, shut up, and like it.


----------



## TCBF

Speaking of Battle Runs, the LdSH(RC) just did a leo C2 gun camp in Wainwright last week, starting Monday.  They did the battle runs on Wed afternoon, and Troop shoots on Thursday.

It does one's soul good to hear main gun rounds going off.   ;D

Tom


----------



## Zipper

Won't argue with you there. 

There still doing them (and spending money on such) even though everyone knows the things are on their way out? Wow.

I would just love to hear that again. Plus the feel of the ground. Sound of the engines...      :'(


----------



## patt

Zipper said:
			
		

> Won't argue with you there.
> 
> There still doing them (and spending money on such) even though everyone knows the things are on their way out? Wow.
> 
> I would just love to hear that again. Plus the feel of the ground. Sound of the engines...         :'(



ive herd rumors that there keeping them for another couple years or so..remeber just rumors not actual facts!


----------



## TCBF

Prob keep the Leo C2 until the MGS starts showing up.

Tom


----------



## Zipper

Well then I guess it goes back to IF they show up. Who knows if the States is going to be able to fix the problems or scrap it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

A friend of mine is a civvie trainer at GDLS and says Canada is not slated to receive it's first four MGS until July 2006.


----------



## TCBF

And remember, there is no plan 'B', so if the program gets cut or delayed, ....... Leo C2.

But they should be able to get the bugs ironed out.  

Tom


----------



## Zipper

I'm actually more worried about the MMEV. Top heavy and costs per shot are going to make it a real lemon as far as bang for the buck.

As well, if you have to set up/break down the damn thing everytime your forward elements move beyond its 8 km range (less if your in obstructed terrain, which is most often) then it drastically slows down any mobility.


----------



## TCBF

Doesn't slow anything down - we just leave the gun bunnies behind. "So long, suckers!"

Tom


----------



## Zipper

;D :

Nice. Then I guess you've just solved the biggest problem with the DFS concept. Maybe we should re-think the whole thing and come up with something better then the MGS as a close Infantry support platform(acting like a Tank???), with the TUA on overwatch and the MMEV on over-overwatch and being left behind.

But then again, we're not supposed to do that.


----------



## Gobsmacked

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> There is a mindset (which I don't happen to agree with, but will suck it up) that the tank's day is done - at least as far as Canada is concerned.  The question becomes:  what are we getting instead?
> 
> Has anyone heard any of the latest trial results in the US?
> Cheers,
> TR



Major,

Funny you should ask that.
The following 8 November 2004 _'*MGS Project Update*'_ by Maj Alain Brule SEM MGS has some interesting info to answer your question, sort of - newly released per ATI of course.

_"*US Stryker MGS Update*
EMD - 8 MGS produced._  [Nothing new here.]
_Low Rate Initial Production [LRIP] for MGS
LRIP 1 - 14x MGS [testing] and long lead time items;
- Award of Contract for LRIP 1 announced 17 Sep 04;
- Delivery Sep 05 - Nov 05;
LRIP 2 - 58x MGS [ramping up to full rate];
- Decision in Jun 05;
- Delivery Dec 05 - Jun 06;
Full Rate Production Decision [Milestone III] in Mar 07 - 128x MGS._
[Confirms what I previously stated on this and other threads re: US status]

_*Canadian MGS Project Update*
Definition - procurement of 16x US-specific MGS vehicles with interim ILS support during definition.
- Purchase of select long lead time items;
- Minimize 'Canadianization' of MGS, especially for first 16.
The timing for these phases is designed to coincide with the US Stryker MGS production schedule.
*MGS Project Schedule*
16x Developmental Vehicles - 1st Delivery Not Before Aug 06 - TBD - At the end of US MGS LRIP 2.
IOC: Not Before July 2007.
4 for Project Activities, 12 to LdSH-RC (incl. 4 avail for initial 'Penny Packet' deployment).
Remaining 50x Vehicles - Mar 07 thru Aug 09 - TBD - Mixed with US MGS Full Rate Production.
FOC: Not Before December 2009.
*MGS Fielding*
Operational Stock - 24;  LdSH-RC Edm - 12;  Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre - 24; 
Log Stock - 6._
[Confirms what I previously asserted on this and other threads re: initial Cdn MGS delivery.]

_*Challenges/Observations*  _(A Major Understatement)  :-[
_Different Requirements - MGS as infantry support weapon [US] vs Direct Fire Support [DFS] to combined arms operations [Canada].
Procure MGS with 'no' changes, *but detailed information lacking*;
*NO release of US Army information* - efforts to establish Data Exchange Agreement ongoing;
Similar lack of information between GD and GDLS despite TAA in place."_
[*This is an Appalling state of affairs for a Major Capital Project (MCP)* with a full-time staff of 11 Key Personnel that was Officially established back on 29 Oct 2003, *especially a MCP with a C$694M Budget.*  This seemingly indicates that MGS test results are even worse than publicly acknowledged and that US Army is keeping info 'close to their chest' to avoid MGS project Cancellation.
*The Cdn MGS MCP has also seen a further C$63.929M increase over the Project Charter full-up cost (C$630M +10.14%), to C$693.929M* per 3 June 2004 MGS 'BN for the Minister'.  _"Funding.   Funding is available in the current Strategic Capabilities Investment Plan.  *The total indicative full-up cost of the project is C$693,929,000 [Budget Year] less GST.  Expenditure authority has been granted for the definition phase, at a substantive full-up cost estimate of C$170,297,000 [Budget Year] less GST.*"_]

Further to info release issue:  Eight months prior on 5 March 2004, then-MGS PD Maj J.A. Atkins (prior to his replacement as MGS PD by his boss - DLR10 LCol Luc Petit) noted to those in immediate MGS PMO loop, for new members, that even back then: 
_"*The MGS project is having a difficult time getting information on the Stryker MGS from US Army.*  Our previous requests for information from GDLS were refused either because the info was US Army proprietary [pictures, TMs, trg material and test reports] or could not be released under ITAR regulations [all other tech info].  At no time was GDLS IP an issue and I can assure you we can sort this one out very quickly if it does.  A TAA will open the door for tech info IAW IRAR regs _(since proven otherwise)_, but GDLS will probably not be able to give us the stuff we are asking the US Army for without US Army release.  GDLS and the US Army have been playing us back and forth for some time now.  GDLS is currently staffing a TAA and we expect it to be in place by the time we start discussions with the company.  Note, until we get TB approval cfm a 'sole source' buy we must wait to begin formal talks with company."_
 :fifty:

Meanwhile, a _'MGS USE STUDY'_ Info Brief on 21 Sep 04 by MGS ILSM Maj Jim N. Hicks provided Definitive  _"MGS Fielding"_ Info:
Initial _"*16 for 3 Years:*  LdSH-RC - 8x Indiv/crew Trg;  CMTC - 0x LdSH vehs in trg, trials;  GDLS - 2x Eng;  CFSEME - 1x Maint Trg Dev;  NRC - 1x Sub-system integration [comms, etc];  CTC - 1x Op Trg Dev;  Depl Ops - up to 4 _(3 avail)_/ surge 8.
*66x Steady State:*  LdSH-RC - 16x Indiv/crew Trg;  CMTC - 24x Collective Trg, Precision Gunnery;  CFSEME - 1x Maint Trg Dev;  CTC - 1x Op Trg Dev;  25 CFSD Montreal - 0-30x Ops/Log Stock;  Depl Ops - up to 24."_


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Doesn't look like much has changed......

Unfortunately, it looks very much like we will see the MGS, despite our fervent prayers.   :threat:


----------



## TCBF

Depends how political it becomes before the next election.     The Pearson Airport deal and the EH 101 were cancelled due to political promises made, and to heck with the costs.   If this MGS thing becomes something else to beat the LPC over the head with, it to might be on the chopping block if Ontario finds it's nuts after the writs are dropped.   I don't even want to think how things might go if they start asking questions about TCCCS, and somebody starts beaking about spending 9 billion dollars and getting only 2 billion dollars worth of useable kit.


----------



## devil39

If someone can tell me what "Capability Gap" the MGS is filling in a Canadian Army that has LAV III, and will have a 2.5 - 4 km "Fire and Forget" anti Tank missile(ALAWS), I will consider engaging in discussion.

MGS *does* make sense in the US Army where Stryker does not have the 25mm turret of our LAV III. 

MGS makes no sense in our Army. 

MGS is not filling any "capability gap" in the CF.  ALAWS will kill tanks.  LAV III will kill APC, destroy bunkers, etc.  Our "capability gap" is now an armoured direct fire capability... ie TANK.  MGS with its pitiful armour will not fill that gap.

This from an Infantry officer.


----------



## TCBF

Sounds like you're already engaging in the discussion! ;D

And you are most correct.  However, the civvies with 'academic hair' who influence political decisions in our sub-arctic banana republic have deemed tanks to be 'Evil', and that's that.  The only "capability Gap" the MGS will fill is that created by the demise of the Cougar. 

The technical equivalent of a BMP3 turret on a BTR 90 seems to be the general pie in the sky non-tank solution for most problems that do not need a real tank.

As for the remaining problems that need real tanks - the only solution is real tanks.  Hopefully, our friends will loan us some.  If we have any friends left by then.


----------



## devil39

TCBF said:
			
		

> Sounds like you're already engaging in the discussion! ;D
> 
> And you are most correct.   However, the civvies with 'academic hair' who influence political decisions in our sub-arctic banana republic have deemed tanks to be 'Evil', and that's that.   The only "capability Gap" the MGS will fill is that created by the demise of the Cougar.
> 
> The technical equivalent of a BMP3 turret on a BTR 90 seems to be the general pie in the sky non-tank solution for most problems that do not need a real tank.
> 
> As for the remaining problems that need real tanks - the only solution is real tanks.   Hopefully, our friends will loan us some.   If we have any friends left by then.



Long Live The Son of "Pumpkin Launcher"


----------



## TCBF

"Firing NOW!"  BOOM!

- Crew dismounts, prepares and eats'crew cook' breakfast of bacon and eggs, washed down by canteen cups of hot steaming coffee you could float a .50 cal barrel on, crew mounts...

WHUMP!

"Left and add!...Firing NOW!"  BOOM!

-Crew dismounts...


----------



## a_majoor

Jumping back into the technical/tactical arguments for a moment (while waiting for TCBF's round to land  ;D), Infanteer has posted some Australian articles in the Infantry thread which basicly suggest we have things backwards. To paraphrase the articles: manoeuvre is the act of bringing us to battle, and the best way to prosecute a contact is by supression through fire. 

The examples given include a series of 12 company attacks on a defended village over a three year period, using a fully instrumented range and MILES type gear, where the winning combination was to use 3/4 of the company to lay fire on the enemy, and when their will cracked, do the assault with an overstrength section! Similar results were found in East Timor in firefights between Australian forces and Indonesian and "Militia" forces during the initial deployment there.

If this is really the case, then a DF vehicle of any kind either needs magic bullets or a pretty large magazine to  provide the level of supression needed. The MGS, with just 18 rounds on board, is a total non starter in this case, and I doubt the MMEV concept based around ADATS is much better. In fact, for the forseeable future, only a tank has the carrying capacity to supply supressive fire (and carry "magic bullets" in the form of through tube missiles) on the scale required. Even a light tank like the CV 90120 can carry 30 rounds of 120mm ammunition, plus the co-axe and turret mounted MGs, and if you add the LAHAT missile to the ammo mix, you have the ability to strike targets up to 13km distant.

The MGS seems to be more of a salesman's weapons system to get you to order more platforms from GD, rather than a means to adress any capacity gap in the CF. If the analysis in the Australian articles is correct, then even using the MGS as a dedicated Infantry support weapon on the model of the SBCT is a mistake, the support platoon will run out of ammo just when you need it the most! Given the sheer size of a LAV hull, it is hard to understand how it cannot hold a sufficient supply on on board ammunition. That alone should be the death knell of the MGS.


----------



## Zipper

I'm not even going to go into how much I agree with the idea that the MGS is a sales job. Just like 3/4 of all the military contracts.

Can you post the thread that Inf is on?

And I wonder about the idea of "cracking" an enemies will through volume of fire. I don't really see an enemy cracking under the fire of a full companies fire or even that of an armoured squadrons fire unless either had a VERY long ammo supply line. It may work against untrained locals or "militia's", but against trained forces I just don't see it.


----------



## Zartan

Personally, I consider this a total waste of resources. The government is spending $700 Million on this (as mentioned before) - but this is roughly $10.6 Million a unit - and they can't even fire while on the move? I doubt that, but if it is true, what's the point of this? I thought this was supposed to be mobile. What is the price of a Leopard tank?

Well, at least  so they could transport it by air - but here's today's fun fact. Okay, it's more of a memory - I read somewhere that due to the size of the MGS, it can't even be fit into a Herc, without having the extremeties removed. Rather lame, eh? I'll try to find the site; I think it was SFU's strategic page, but I can't remember the url.

Furthermore, when it was revealed that this weapon was purchased, I remember a CBC report on the MGS. Apparently, they ran a computer simulation where 4 MGS engaged 2 T-72s. In the end, all the MGS were destroyed - while the T-72s suffered no damage. (Then again, apparently there was a simulation where the CF-18 fought the Avro Arrow, and lost).


----------



## Lance Wiebe

It's not the size of the MGS that prevents us from lifting it, it's the weight.  The only Herc that can lift it is the "J" model, and then only if the MGS is stripped of fuel and ammunition.  Even then, the "J" model will have a range of only 100 NM before it requires air to air refuelling.  So, our model C130's cannot even think about lifting it.

The fire on the move capability has been removed from "essential requirement" to a "desirable requirement" because of problems GDLS has been having trying to fire on the move.  Actually, it will fire on the move, but just one round, as long as that one round was loaded before the move started.  The autoloader doesn't.  Autoload that is, on the move.

The one reason we are going to buy this piece of crap is because it is wheeled.  Tracks are bad, tracks are expensive, tracks make us look aggressive.  Wheels are good, even if they can't do the job.  Plus, of course, we originally thought that they would be built in Ontario.  Now we know they are being built in the southern states, IIRC, Alabama.

Plus, we also thought they would have parts commonality with the LAV III.  Which they don't.  

All of which begs the question, why are we still on the MGS bandwagon?.


----------



## Zartan

So, what we have, in effect, is a TURRET!!
Yippee.
It would probably just be easier to remove the chassis and body and simply plug the cannon on top of some tower in a base. Makes more sense.

If the liberals were looking for an air-transportable fire support vehicle, they should have bought Scorpions - cheaper, faster, more manoeuvrable, and defensible. Doesn't New Zealand have about 3 dozen that they retired from service? Those little tanks are pretty cool - the armour shatters missiles before they can detonate, thereby preventing destruction.


----------



## aesop081

Zartan said:
			
		

> (Then again, apparently there was a simulation where the CF-18 fought the Avro Arrow, and lost).



Even though this is an MGS thread.....i would love to see you back this one up........

Can you say "talking out of your hat"   :



			
				Zartan said:
			
		

> Those little tanks are pretty cool - the armour shatters missiles before they can detonate, thereby preventing destruction.



I'm not sure that " cool" was a requirement for the canadian army.   The scorpions have been retired for a reason.   Old and not survivable.   I'm not sure about the accuracy of your missle statement( i have serious doubts on its accuracy.......maybe you could back that up with someting ?)   but being able to survive a missle hit does not prevent detruction.   The Scorpion could not survive being hit by an APFSDS made of DU or even tungsten.   Moreover, the scorpion's 76mm gun is even less apt at dealing with modern threats as is the MGS's 105mm


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Zartan said:
			
		

> If the liberals were looking for an air-transportable fire support vehicle, they should have bought Scorpions - cheaper, faster, more manoeuvrable, and defensible. Doesn't New Zealand have about 3 dozen that they retired from service? Those little tanks are pretty cool - the armour shatters missiles before they can detonate, thereby preventing destruction.



What is God's name are you talking about?

Yeah, the Scorpion is "cool" alright...so cool that most Western armies have gotten rid of them and the Brits have converted theirs to Sabre.  By the way, in case your net surfing hasn't discovered this yet, the Cougar had a Scorpion turret...  POS.  I'm not even going to discuss the "armour" you mention...  Mon Dieu!   :


----------



## aesop081

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> What is God's name are you talking about?
> 
> Yeah, the Scorpion is "cool" alright...so cool that most Western armies have gotten rid of them and the Brits have converted theirs to Sabre.   By the way, in case your net surfing hasn't discovered this yet, the Cougar had a Scorpion turret...   POS.   I'm not even going to discuss the "armour" you mention...   Mon Dieu!     :



Thanks TR...i was begining to think i had missed the last 20 years or so of technological developement !!   ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Yeah, I've still got scars on my knuckles from knocking base clips off 76mm rounds...15 years ago!   ;D

We won't get into Scorpion turret problems with the fume extraction system, turret ring cracks, mantlet cracks, nitrogen requirements, lack of a penetrating round, blah, blah, blah...  I've hijacked this thread enough...back to bashing the MGS!  

Cheers,

TR


----------



## ArmyRick

Scorpion armor stops missiles? Zartan, would care to sit inside of a scorpion while I fire a TOW or javelin missile at it?

Or will you trust those of us that know what we are talking about?

get back in the box, sonny!


----------



## bravo2

The MGS has its qualities but was never designed to replace a MBT these two types of vehicles have different functions on the battlefield. One of the main arguments for buying the MGS was airlift capability, as I understand the MGS in full battle order with upgrade armour is too heavy to be airlifted in a C-130.


----------



## Zartan

You got me. I had only heard of the Arrow vs. CF-18 through another source which I have since forgotten, but rest asured it likely held no clought oncesowever (makes you think though - perhaps not in the way intended, but still). However, I did see a Scorpion withstand a missile - albeit on the Discovery Channel. Although I have no experience in either the MGS or Scorpion, or anything like that (though I'm looking to change that)... nevermind.

However, there is a point on the MGS I was wondering if anyone could clarify: Is it true that it also lacks the water capabilities of the other LAV models? I don't know the correct terminology, but somewhere I found info stating that all of the LAVs have the ability to travel through, or on water, while the MGS will be lacking this ability. 
Finally, also in regards to it's manoeuvrability - this should be obvious: wheels don't travel well in rough terrain. Treads do.* Leopards have mobility, whereas, as far as I know, the MGS doesn't.
* I win for "Most blatantly Obvious Statement" award.

P.S. I didn't mean "cool" like that. Sorry. It's just I tend to speak like Bill & Ted on occasion.


----------



## Zipper

Oh good grief.

As for the amphibious capabilities of the early LAV's and AVGP's, I believe the LAV III chassis's (stryker) are to heavy for that little trick. I'm not sure 100%, but I believe that to be true.

Quite honestly until further notice, we don't even know if the MGS is going ahead or not. Until up to date test results come out from the US Army, we know nothing. For all we know they may have either already dumped the damn thing, or have fixed the numerous problems and proceeded. If the US doesn't go ahead with it, then it is a dead project and we'll just have to find some other stupid politically acceptable vehicle to waste money on.

What disturbs me most is the fact that they readily admit that they are not replacing the MBT, but are moving our entire force in a much "lighter" less (war fighting) capable direction and towards more patrol oriented and support (of US forces) type missions. The very fact that we cannot even field a battle group for longer then a 6 month period puts us in the very ineffective category rather solidly. But I digress as this has been discussed many times on many different forums.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

None of the current LAV varients can swim.  We had that capability with the AVGP fleet (Grizzly and Cougar), but it was removed as part of the DLIR process a few years ago.  Coyote (unfortunately) cannot swim.

As far as I know, MGS is still a "go", with Canada having negotiated early delivery of approximately 16 US-configured vehicles for training (no, I don't know the dates).  All is contingent, though, on the vehicle's passing US trials and surviving Congressional oversight.  I'll leave it at that, as I know there are people more knowledgable than I am on this subject.


----------



## aesop081

The more is said on this thread, the more you prove you talk out of your a** there Zartan    :


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The US has ordered the MGS version of the Stryker into Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP).  Production rate is at about one vehicle delivered every week.  Canada was to take delivery of 16 of these initial LRIP vehicle, under the understanding that they would be "off the shelf", in other words, produced to US Army standards.

This buy may be in some jeopardy, I have heard.  It may be because the price per unit has ballooned to something like US$8 million per copy, or very near the price of a M1 or Leo2.

As for the amphibious capabilities of the Coyote and LAVIII, the requirement was dropped in the Coyote to save weight.  They had to be capable of being carried in a C130, with the marine drive they would be too heavy.  We carry them all the time in Herc's, don't you know.  The amphibious capability was never planned in to the LAV III, for cost and weight considerations.


----------



## McG

Zipper said:
			
		

> As for the amphibious capabilities of the early LAV's and AVGP's, I believe the LAV III chassis's (stryker) are to heavy for that little trick. I'm not sure 100%, but I believe that to be true.


I've spoken with pers that build the vehicles and been told that the vehicles were designed so as to be producible in an amphibious variant.  I do not know what the trade-offs are (cost, weight, armour, etc?).  I have seen photos of the Piranha III swimming with its LAV 25 turret sticking above the water.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Probably true, if a customer wanted swimming vehicles they can probably put the drives in.  However, Canadian variants don't have this capability.  I cannot imagine an MGS being amphibious under any circumstances...  eek!


----------



## TCBF

"Coyote and LAVIII,....  We carry them all the time in Herc's, don't you know."

In Dec 2001, we prepped our Coyotes to be flown by Herc to Kandahar.  The LWRs came off, and the TacNav ant was tied back.  The AMUs also came off.  Then, the plan changed, we were going by C5B/C17, and everthing went back on.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

As I said.......

It seems very foolish to me to limit a vehicles weight to a maximum of 19 tons just so that maybe, just maybe, we will have thirty operational Hercs to carry two troops of vehicles somewhere.  The Coyote barely fits, and the LAV III has to have all the gas removed from the shocks and the tires deflated to fit on, not to mention removal of the LWR and the bin.  Even then, minimum fuel, no ammunition, no crew......it seems to be an insane requirement, "being capable of being transported by the c-130"..  

We will not be attempting to use our Hercs for strategic lift for the LAV III, ever.  It is extremely doubtful we will use them to lift the Coyote.  Now as for in-theater, or tactical lift, I see even less use of that.

So, let's quit playing games and imagining LAV III's and MGS floating down gently from parachutes after being dropped from Hercs, or just as foolish, imagining Hercs taking off from Pembroke airport bound for some overseas destination with a complete Recce Sqn ready to deploy on arrival.  Instead, we should live in the real world, the one where we rent big aircraft, or rent big ships to do our movement.  Our Air Force does not have the capability ....although it should have. 

Now, if we were to procure the C-17, then I could see us using tactical airlift, but the weight limit would be gone anyway......

I really, really hope that the buy of the MGS ends up the same as the proposed buy of the M47, in the garbage.  And maybe, we'll get something better than the MGS, just as we got something better than the M-47, the good old Centurion.


----------



## Gobsmacked

Maybe the following means a tacit admission that the additional 6 months testing have revealed yet more problems??  Or possible cancellation in the works??  [Yeah I know, wishfull thinking!] ^-^

June 11, 2005
*No Mobile Gun System for Stryker â â€ for now*

By Matthew Cox, Army Times (subscription)

Stryker brigade commanders, in need of more firepower, have asked for an early fielding of the Mobile Gun System variant for street fighting in northern Iraq.

But they're going to have to do without it.
The high-tech, wheeled cannon won't be seeing combat for at least a year after the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (SBCT) returns home this fall, Stryker program officials say.

The unit is equipped with the Anti-tank Guided Missile Strykers, but the wire-guided, TOW missile system is proving to be ineffective against fast-moving insurgent forces operating in crowded neighborhoods of Mosul.

â Å“The Stryker Brigade Combat Team needs a vehicle capable of rapidly delivering direct fire explosive projectiles in confined urban terrain,â ? said 1-25 commander Col. Robert Brown, in an email from Iraq. [...]

The plan is to begin equipping Stryker brigades with the MGS in fiscal 2007.
â Å“The unit is operating at a reduced capability until they get MGS,â ? Fuller said, describing how 1-25 had sent an â Å“urgent operational needs statementâ ? in March asking that the MGS be fielded as soon as possible.
END

Anyone have the full article?


----------



## TCBF

"Now, if we were to procure the C-17,.."

Then everyone could have one of those way cool C-17 mini-pillows with USAF stencilled on them in five inch high black letters.  They fall into the hatches of the coyote, in flight from Ramstein to Kandahar.   

;D

Tom


----------



## Gobsmacked

Heres the meat of the 'Army Times' article, borrowed from a post on Tank Net.

The MGS has a stabilized, direct-fire 105mm cannon mounted atop a Stryker vehicle for destroying hard targets like bunkers and barricaded enemy positions. 
It also had a faulty ammunition handling system that put the program behind schedule in spring 2004. The first 14 of the new MGS prototypes (LRIP 1), with a redesigned ammo handling or loading system, won't be ready to begin testing until October, said Col. Peter Fuller, the head of Project Manager Stryker Brigade Combat Team.


----------



## Crimson Army

I may still be learning about this kinda stuff, but I think the MGS will be allot better for the Army then the leopards. The leopards we couldn't move over seas or anywere for that matter(I like the leopards, but they are not what Canada needs), but the MGS will give us some indepence when it comes to direct fire.


----------



## aesop081

Crimson Army said:
			
		

> I may still be learning about this kinda stuff, but I think the MGS will be allot better for the Army then the leopards. The leopards we couldn't move over seas or anywere for that matter(I like the leopards, but they are not what Canada needs), but the MGS will give us some indepence when it comes to direct fire.



 :


----------



## TCBF

Balls.   Are you forgetting about the Leopards in Kosovo? In a third world country where people know enough about tanks to respect them, a lone tank in a peace support operation will have the same psyops effect as a half squadron of wheeled light armour.   Remember part of the reason we went the light armoured route: they don't SCARE people.   Same same enemy.

My Coyote got into Kandahar by C-5B/C-17, and out by C-5B.   It could just as well have been a tank, as far as weight goes, but, different mission.

If we need direct fire that bad (8,000,000 CAD each), lets buy more Infantry, and give them hand-held thermo-barics.

Tom


----------



## devil39

TCBF said:
			
		

> Balls.   Are you forgetting about the Leopards in Kosovo?
> Tom



I generally agree with what you have to say Tom.  

I find the Leopards in Kosovo to be one of the most amusing employments of armour ever.

Having grown up arguing the tactical employment of armour, we infantry officers were constantly bombarded with Armour Corps propaganda about never splitting the Tanks Sqn... but if you absolutely had to you could split it into half squadrons.

But over their dead bodies could you ever break up a half squadron... operate a troop independently?..... never.   

That is until there was an opportunity to put a troop overseas


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

I was there for this one - as one of the mounting guys.

The original proposal was for a sqn.  1 CMBG (with LFWA) built the recce sqn orbat and we deployed it.  Then, when Kinetic Plus hit, we configured a deployment based on a battalion with Grizzlies/Bisons (mainly the latter), guns and a tank sqn.

This was pushed up to the Army, which (at the staff level) bought into it.

The way then-Col Leslie told it in 1999, he was at Rideau Hall getting (as far as I recall) his OMM.  There, he met the CDS, the fearless Gen Baril, a known tank-hater.  Baril shut down the tanks then and there, right in the GG's house.  We managed to retain a troop, only because the capability was sold based on the anti-mine plows and rollers that could be fitted to the vehicles.  Therefore, they deployed as an "anti-mine" capability rather than as gun tanks.  AFAIK, the plows and rollers were never fitted.

We had started sourcing Israeli 105mm rounds especially to engage Serbian T-72s (remembering that we thought this might turn into a shooting war).  In the event, we settled for DM-21 rounds, as the Israelis wouldn't sell us the small numbers required.

The Armour mafia didn't push this one at all.  The troop went because of some political decisions - and in the end it was thought five tanks (there was one rover tank) were better than none.

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## TCBF

CO LdSH(RC) at the time (Kosovo) said "We have re-invented the Medium Tank."  It could go over bridges the hulking behemoths with 120mm tubes (that we normally drool over) could not.  The old "better a 105 there, than a 120 not there" argument...wait!...strike that from the record, lest some damn fool try to mount a 105 on a LAV...

As for the penny-packetting vs doctrine, I seem to recall the context of the penny-packet discussions being of the Heavy Metal War On The Central Front variety, not OOTW, but the irony is noted and appreciated.

XM8 AGS anyone?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

Probably the fundamental problem here is no one in a position to decide things has actually sat down and really stated what the MGS is for. We have a hockey sock of requirements and scenarios (most which are mutually exclusive) attached to a monster machine which is suffering from a lot of teething problems, some technical and some due to attempts to violate the laws of physics. (Never, ever try that. The laws of physics are rigorously enforced).

The Americans are not happy with the MGS in its current form, and they are quite clear it is an Infantry support weapon. If we go by that premise, a "real" MGS would have a low or medium pressure gun, of medium calibre (75-90mm) designed to fire HE in support of the Infantry, with HEAT or HESH as secondary rounds to deal with unexpected AFV and hard contacts. The machine should carry at least 30 main gun rounds on board, and be festooned with secondary weapons as well (coax, commander and loader GPMG, maybe a .50 mounted over the gun barrel).

If the MGS is supposed to do the job of a tank, then let it be a tank. The XM-8 is one option, although I would preffer an evolved CV 90120 gun tank. Arguments could be made for any number of other systems (Upgunned PT-76 anyone?) depending on what, exactly, you want done.


----------



## TCBF

Essentially, a "Super-Cougar."

Tom


----------



## TCBF

"King Cougar"?  



Tom


----------



## TCBF

"Hunting Cougar"?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Zipper

Aw Tom, whats your wife going to say? :-X

Its more like a lame cougar with a tooth ache (MGS that is...).


----------



## Crimson Army

I like "Super-Cougar", sounds deadly


----------



## devil39

"Son of Pumpkin Launcher"


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We can't afford pumpkins. We'll have to settle for cantalopes from the discount grocer.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

devil39 said:
			
		

> "Son of Pumpkin Launcher"


Call it the "Chicken Cannon"; who knew the Air Farce was dabbling in CF procurement (although it figures).


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> who knew the Air Farce was dabbling in CF procurement (although it figures).



You should have realized that when they got their CADPAT before the rest of us.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

devil39 said:
			
		

> "Son of Pumpkin Launcher"



Damn, you beat me to it!  ;D

How about "Queen Mary II" - an even bigger boat...


----------



## TCBF

Boats have propellors.  They took our propellors away.  Too dangerous.  

Tom


----------



## Whiskey_Dan

I don't quite remember where I heard this from, but can anyone clear this up.
Is it true that the MGS Can't fire while on the move and/or reload while on the move?
Thanks to anyone who can clear that up for me.

Cheers,

Dan


----------



## McG

Whiskey_Dan said:
			
		

> Is it true that the MGS Can't fire while on the move and/or reload while on the move?


It is a stabalized cannon.  That means, if the stab works, it can fire on the move.


----------



## Zipper

Whiskey_Dan said:
			
		

> Is it true that the MGS Can't fire while on the move and/or reload while on the move?



As MCG said, it can fire while moving. It just cannot re-load while doing so.

How about a potato gun? Always had fun with those when I was a kid.  >


----------



## Franko

Crimson Army said:
			
		

> I may still be learning about this kinda stuff, but I think the MGS will be allot better for the Army then the leopards. The leopards we couldn't move over seas or anywere for that matter(I like the leopards, but they are not what Canada needs), but the MGS will give us some indepence when it comes to direct fire.



Not in the forces yet.....not old enough to join yet....can't wait to get his hands on a C9....    :

Obviously didn't read all the threads on the subject....just piping in without any substance.

What do you know about direct fire exactly?

 :

Regards


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Zipper said:
			
		

> As MCG said, it can fire while moving. It just cannot re-load while doing so.



Somewhere I have a grainy video of MGS firing with stab...the platform rock is brutal... (although not quite as bad as the Cougar's "see the sky, see the ground, add 100, loaded!"  CC drill... ;D)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Franko said:
			
		

> Not in the forces yet.....not old enough to join yet....can't wait to get his hands on a C9....      :
> 
> Obviously didn't read all the threads on the subject....just piping in without any substance.
> 
> What do you know about direct fire exactly?
> 
> :
> 
> Regards



Way less than you know about monkeys????


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

If the MGS can fire on the move, but not reload on the move, doesn't that make it a little hard to "shoot and scoot"?  Since it has little armour, light weapons (in the direct fire game), little ammunition, its only advantage is mobility.  If it can't reload and stay mobile, then it is about as much use in a direct fire engagement as a regular LAVIII with a TOW mount to agument its bushmaster (I saw that turret option on one of the Stryker/LAV sales sites).  They both have one anti-vehicle or bunker-buster salvo per engagement, but the LAVIII has a 25mm backup, while the MGS has to chose between manoevering to stay alive, or stopping to reload.  Considering the low amunition levels of an MGS, a platoon of LAVIII with TOW paired with the autocannon would probably have the same total firepower as a regular LAV platoon with an attatched MGS, while providing greater tactical flexibility, and redundancy.  Also, the TOW has a better ability to deal with enemy armour than a non-uranium 105mm.


----------



## devil39

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> If the MGS can fire on the move, but not reload on the move, doesn't that make it a little hard to "shoot and scoot"?   Since it has little armour, light weapons (in the direct fire game), little ammunition, its only advantage is mobility.   If it can't reload and stay mobile, then it is about as much use in a direct fire engagement as a regular LAVIII with a TOW mount to agument its bushmaster (I saw that turret option on one of the Stryker/LAV sales sites).   They both have one anti-vehicle or bunker-buster salvo per engagement, but the LAVIII has a 25mm backup, while the MGS has to chose between manoevering to stay alive, or stopping to reload.   Considering the low amunition levels of an MGS, a platoon of LAVIII with TOW paired with the autocannon would probably have the same total firepower as a regular LAV platoon with an attatched MGS, while providing greater tactical flexibility, and redundancy.   Also, the TOW has a better ability to deal with enemy armour than a non-uranium 105mm.



I'd rather have LAV III twinned with Javelin/Spike-Gill (fire and forget, no wires).


----------



## TCBF

"I'd rather have LAV III twinned with Javelin/Spike-Gill (fire and forget, no wires)."

- I agree.  Plus, we need to develop a good Thermo-Baric round for the 84mm Carly G.

- It was Canada who started developing the cocept of DU Ammo (originally for the 20mm ammo the Badger APC and later the Lynx was going to use), and this data helped the USA develop their tank tube ammo.  We should - if we are going to take light forces seriiosly, consider fuel air/ thermobarics for our hand held 84 and veh mtd 105 guns.

Tom


----------



## JackD

hi... as a"guest i have been following this argument for awhile. it seems to be hard to find information on this MGS beast on the net. What exactly is wrong with it now - I'm referring to its delay. How is this thing going to be used by the Cdn Armed Forces - Opinion time now - it seems to me to be the wrong beast for the job - too much for infantry support and too little for traditional armoured taskings - by the way does it make economic sense to ditch the leopards and aren't they becoming the appropriate size for armour once more - about 55 tons....


----------



## Zipper

JackD said:
			
		

> hi... as a"guest i have been following this argument for awhile. it seems to be hard to find information on this MGS beast on the net. What exactly is wrong with it now - I'm referring to its delay. How is this thing going to be used by the Cdn Armed Forces - Opinion time now - it seems to me to be the wrong beast for the job - too much for infantry support and too little for traditional armoured taskings - by the way does it make economic sense to ditch the leopards and aren't they becoming the appropriate size for armour once more - about 55 tons....



Hi Jack.

There are many places to find the info on the MGS. You just need to type it (MGS, LAV, Stryker) into a search engine and you should get quite a bit. However here are a couple.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Armour_school/bulletin/index_e.asp

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm

http://www.gdls.com/

It is not necessarily the beast for the job if "traditional armoured" is what you want. However, the CAF is no longer playing that game. We do not have the funds, personal, support capacity, political will, political correctness, etc to play the "heavy armoured" game. They want us to be a smaller (again), faster, more transportable, less scary army that is able to carry out a wider range of missions (whether their suited to a military body or not) and support our allies (somehow) at less cost.

As for ditching the Leo's. Well considering how much they cost in time and money to keep running, how few techs we have now to do so, and the fact that a "tank" is a projection of power shock weapon which doesn't sit well with the "soft approach" our politicians want, well...

Also, the Leo with its 105mm cannon cannot play in today's heavy armour field as it wouldn't be able to take on any modern equivalent.


----------



## George Wallace

Also, the Leo with its 105mm cannon cannot play in today's heavy armour field as it wouldn't be able to take on any modern equivalent.

[/quote]

This is true to a certain extent.  However, there may not be "modern equivalents" in our next taskings


----------



## JackD

Thank-you for your prompt reply - I was reading retired Wo Lance Wiebe's rebuttal and that seems to say it all. I have checked out the other sites but not much new under the sun there - up to date information on this MGS seems to be scarce. Funny that. So where goes the armoured? Where IS the problem?


----------



## Zipper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is true to a certain extent.   However, there may not be "modern equivalents" in our next taskings



Very true George. The chances of us operating anywhere where such exists is remote. However to discount it in the long term plan is naive as you know, considering what we faced in Bosnia and Croatia, etc...



			
				JackD said:
			
		

> So where goes the armoured? Where IS the problem?



That is the question. The second part could have ravings go on for some time.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Zipper said:
			
		

> Very true George. The chances of us operating anywhere where such exists is remote. However to discount it in the long term plan is naive as you know, considering what we faced in Bosnia and Croatia, etc...



Which were T-72s.  A Leopard C2 is more than capable of handling these...


----------



## prom

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Which were T-72s.  A Leopard C2 is more than capable of handling these...




exactly.....and for the most part, we are not going to be facing any nation that has a match to it. They will either be stronger or weaker. to play the political game for a second, if we readily deployed our leopards we would have the techs to support them. Where they are home locked we dont need the feild techs to support them..... something go wrong drag me outta the feild and repair.... or park as the way seems to be with this goverment. However to pull their line for a few seconds, if i can feild more LAV's up fire powered that can do some damage for less cost then deploying/replacing leopards. This goverment seems to look at the cost of equipment as being the reason for replacing everything that we have and still has a use. Then they use the loss of lif as an excuse not to go or to pull out. If we recieved what equipment we need, we could worry less about loss of life and more about force projection and deploying what we need for a certain area.  granted untill we get some C-5/17's we will never deploy leopards into a theatre. 

I see that we replaced the iltis with the g55..... nice peice of kit..... though not getting great reviews from deployed memebers..... right now they should be in the process of contracting out its replacement.... something that will take out the milcot and make a common chasis for P res and reg..... to me it makes sence to start the process now..... alas teh cupboard is bare......

meh..... rant done


----------



## Zipper

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Which were T-72s.   A Leopard C2 is more than capable of handling these...



Hmmm...

Now please correct me if I'm wrong. But I could have sworn I learned somewhere that a 105mm does NOT penetrate a T-72's front armour except under optimal conditions?

If this is so, then I would not call this "more than capable". Especially in this world of 1 shot is all you get.



			
				prom said:
			
		

> If we recieved what equipment we need, we could worry less about loss of life and more about force projection and deploying what we need for a certain area.



Actually the government worries not only about lose of life (and voters), but they also avoid anything close to force projecting as possable. We're the good guys remember? We play nice, and hand out candy (and food) and don't scare people with loud machines with big guns. We're (one of...) the worlds only armed aid agency.

Sigh and yes, it all comes down to getting some kind of air transport for us to do anything (but not projecting).


----------



## ArmyRick

ENOUGH WITH THE ARM CHAIRS CRITICS !!!  
Leopards are gonzo. 

Prom, who the heck are you and what is your expirience you base your grand ideas on ? 

Zipper, I have had some things to say about you before. Now I aint going to bottle stuff up anymore. besides 3 years in the Reserved Armour, what expiriences do you actually have? Any tours? Or is it just crewing cougars and iltus? 

I think Ruxpin is in a better position to speak of leopard vs T72.  

Come to think of it, Zipper. I spent several years in 2VP and did lots of CBT team stuff. So I am willing to bet I have seen a bloody tank more than you have.  My point? You try to come off as an expert and I think you are speaking well above your expirience level.

Offended? Want to PM me? Or make a public slam, Go ahead.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Now please correct me if I'm wrong. But I could have sworn I learned somewhere that a 105mm does NOT penetrate a T-72's front armour except under optimal conditions?



A Leopard C1/C2 firing DM-21 (German sabot) rounds should penetrate any T-72 over all arcs.   In fact, we deployed them to Kosovo (so equipped) for precisely that purpose.   I also believe that the Israelis engaged T-72s with 105mm back in 1982, with few problems.   A great deal depends on the round and engagement distance.

For an decent article on the T-72, see here:   http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/T_72


----------



## Lance Wiebe

A Leo firing DM63C will penetrate the T-72, except for the few uparmoured ones. (the ones with the "Dolly Parton" armour)The uparmoured T72 will stop a DM63C at ranges of 2000M or greater, but that's really not the point.   No tank has to be penetrated to be defeated.  Any T72 receiving a DM63C anywhere, at less than 2400 M will be defeated, and out of the battle.  

Of course we, with the Leo, have to use our skills as well as the gun/ammo combination.  The Leo is not that well protected...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Thanks Lance...  I do remember us looking at very effective Israeli sabot rounds, but they wouldn't sell such "small quantities" to us - and this is when we were looking at deploying a squadron!

For all:  Lance is the acknowledged gunnery/ammo expert here and I will defer to him on all related issues - my memory is a bit hazy on the specifics of what was done for Kosovo, for instance, even though I was heavily involved.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## prom

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> ENOUGH WITH THE ARM CHAIRS CRITICS !!!
> Leopards are gonzo.
> 
> Prom, who the heck are you and what is your expirience you base your grand ideas on ?
> 
> Zipper, I have had some things to say about you before. Now I aint going to bottle stuff up anymore. besides 3 years in the Reserved Armour, what expiriences do you actually have? Any tours? Or is it just crewing cougars and iltus?
> 
> I think Ruxpin is in a better position to speak of leopard vs T72.
> 
> Come to think of it, Zipper. I spent several years in 2VP and did lots of CBT team stuff. So I am willing to bet I have seen a bloody tank more than you have.  My point? You try to come off as an expert and I think you are speaking well above your expirience level.
> 
> Offended? Want to PM me? Or make a public slam, Go ahead.



grand ideas?


funny they didnt seem to grand to me........ 

as for expirience....... what is the point in it.... really tell me.... cause its just going to come off as some wack idea to you that you so throughly seemed to want to jump on and run over with your MGS..... im neither for nor agnist the procrument of a new system, heck its a great idea....... though to be fair to myself and my previos post.... you tell me how it was so far off target...... seems that what i have expressed is shared by a few people here..... just because my post count is low does not mean that you can jump all over me..... if you still have any problems feel free to PM me and we will deal with it there.


----------



## ArmyRick

You know what I smell, Prom? YOU NEVER SERVED A DAY IN YOUR LIFE IN UNIFORM ! Have you? If you have served, please do enlighten us? How long? What trades? What units or at least what area or brigade you served in? How about tours?

You talk nothing but a bunch of nonsense. You have no real validity to your reasoning or argument.


----------



## ArmyRick

"Then they use the loss of lif as an excuse not to go or to pull out. "

Tell me Prom, when did this ever happen? When did our government ever decide not to send us strictly because there might be casualties?


----------



## prom

tell me when they have not under the liberals have they not sat back longer then expected.... though with them you expect it...... before deciding they would go anywhere...... then they tell the general pop that they are very concerned about the situation and are monitering the situation closely......... they are told we should send x then they send y......


funny that that is the only thing that you could come back on me on...... hmmmm


----------



## ArmyRick

Prom, you are troll.

(1) Iraq. Our government made it clear they did not support the invasion of Iraq. We did not go for simple reasons, they didn't beleive in it. 
(2) Afghanistan. Our government committed troops fairly early on (Given our track record). Beleive me, if we had C17s and C5s, we would have been in theater much sooner. Lucky for us the neighbours to our south helped us out.

Prom, it is very obvious you are a key board warrior. I am a soldier. Unlike you, I can say that.


----------



## prom

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Prom, you are troll.



thank you it means so much to me that you could see my true self



> (1) Iraq. Our government made it clear they did not support the invasion of Iraq. We did not go for simple reasons, they didn't beleive in it.



are we... or were we not part of the battle group patroling the persian gulf? were we not the ranking command of the BG headed up by the Halifax....



> (2) Afghanistan. Our government committed troops fairly early on (Given our track record). Beleive me, if we had C17s and C5s, we would have been in theater much sooner. Lucky for us the neighbours to our south helped us out.



again give us the proper tools to do the job and we will do it. we should not have to rely on any ally to give us teh abilty to get ourseleves to and from a BZ.....I do not expect Canada to have the numbers to invade a country.......but shouldn't we have the tools to do the job once we are the ground? answer me this since i do not know anything.... and am a troll as you have so beautifully put it...... how fast were our deployments since '93? was there no so to respond to required assistance? DART delay was one of he most useful delays, it put us where we needed to be. Hati was a quick deployment..... as it was required..... as it is with the kandahar retasking occuring now.... and continuing for teh next few months, i would not be overlly surprised that something will occur that will delay our move....  to use a statement that i ahve seen used here.... we have a cat and try to make it into a dog.....



> Prom, it is very obvious you are a key board warrior. I am a soldier. Unlike you, I can say that.



Im glad that it makes you feel great to say things like that, its just funny how quickly you turn to an attack on the lowest poster in the thread. you hit zipper but that was clearly a build up from another thread(s). was i your excuse to hit him? i just want to know...... and again... i give you the option of PMs... though im not sure you know where the button is... afterall im a keyboard warrior.


----------



## muskrat89

Let's keep the thread on track guys. If you want to insult each other, take it to PMs. Thanks.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sorry, there's just no where else to put this. Simple request and the next post can go back within arcs. 

Prom,

You have not addressed the original request from Army Rick, you've actually skirted it pretty well. To end all this, please just fill in your profile. It will add weight to your statements if you can back it up. Simple solution, n'est pas?


----------



## Zipper

Thanks Lance, Teddy. As I stated to please correct me. You did.  

Rick, take a pill. I may have spent most of my time in a Cougar and Iltis, but unlike most people on courses and around, I paid attention and studied my ass off (usually top 3 or 1/3). 

My opinions are just that, opinions. They change when I'm presented with the evidence that there wrong. But that doesn't mean I won't put them out there to be challenged. Oh, and there are no stupid questions...

As for around here, I have my opinions on how things are going with our (yes, our) military and the MGS. They suck in my eyes. Does it mean I don't support our soldiers and what they have to go through? Hell no. Does it mean that I disagree with all of the changes? No. There are some great things coming (I hope). And if they ever listen to 2B and AMajoor on their ideas, even better things...

So please get down off your high "I'm a soldier, and your not" horse for a moment and realize that the military is a concern for everyone in Canada, not just those who are still in.

Thanks and have a nice day.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Yes, in this specific instance, you qualified your statement and sought correction.  However, a few posts before:



> Well considering how much they cost in time and money to keep running, how few techs we have now to do so, and the fact that a "tank" is a projection of power shock weapon which doesn't sit well with the "soft approach" our politicians want, well...
> 
> Also, the Leo with its 105mm cannon cannot play in today's heavy armour field as it wouldn't be able to take on any modern equivalent.



This was presented - to a new poster - as "facts" coming from someone in the know. The fact that you're probably correct in your first line doesn't change things.  Furthermore, I seem to recall engaging you over comments about officers made in another thread - comments that were inflammatory and that reflected your very limited previous service.  

If you've got opinions, great, that's what this is for.  If they're opinions, state them as such and clearly distinguish them from what you think rather than know.  A qualifier such as "as far as I know" goes a long way, as does the provision of sources and concrete evidence.  In this case (MGS/Leo), a simple Google search would have given you - and the rest of us - all sorts of information to ponder.

In my own case, since Army Rick has deferred to me, I will state that I am hardly a gunnery god and can't remember the various nomenclatures for the various specialist tank rounds (DM-21, DM-XX, etc.) we've been speaking of.  However, I KNOW, because I was involved with both the deployment of the tanks and the procurement plan for the ammo, why we deployed uparmoured Leopard C1s to Kosovo...and why the Danes used Leopard 1s in Bosnia.

TR, jockeying now.


----------



## prom

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry, there's just no where else to put this. Simple request and the next post can go back within arcs.
> 
> Prom,
> 
> You have not addressed the original request from Army Rick, you've actually skirted it pretty well. To end all this, please just fill in your profile. It will add weight to your statements if you can back it up. Simple solution, n'est pas?



Well since you have asked nicely 


since i ahve nothing to put into the profile section except for my age and location....... ill give you how i have my base of knowledge that i tend to work off of for my prespective. I have had 3 uncles that have been in Armour till about 98-99 when the last one had retired. one died in '86 in a trainning accident, one retired in 93 and joinned teh LBP peacekeeping centre. the other has moved onto construction but maintains ties with amny current service and former service members. I have 2 uncles that have been in Arty and have retired about 95-96. 2 cousins in the Navy still serving, and 4 friends, 1 navy Ocdt, and 3 in inf attached to RCR. well you know after years of talk and comments from these CF members i think that I do have a prespective when it comes down to it.... its just shapped by the served and serving......and well soon to be serving. Personally I have alot of exp in CAD.... and parts production..... and Network Installs and maintance.  done 5 yrs of Cadets, not sure what else you want from me..... I was legit on statements.... they were not far from their mark...... considering no one called me on anyhitng other tehn the govermetn sucking and being stupid about how they handle things..... 


if ya want anything else feel free to PM me.... as i have been saying for what 4 posts?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

..and on that note, folks, either keep it on topic or go to PM's.
Thank you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thx prom,

Just like to know who we're talking to.


----------



## Zipper

Alright. Point taken Teddy.

Then I will try to qualify my above statement on the Leo being able to take on a modern equivalent through you.

Do you believe if all things being equal, that a Leo C-1 can take on a Leo 2A4, Challenger, M1A2, T-90, Merk, Leclerc, etc...?

Also, what is your opinion on the MGS? Viable or just another political curve ball? Since we wish to stick to topic and all.

As for my opinions of officers, oh well. There are good ones, and then there are bad ones. What the cut is between the two is your own guess.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Zipper:  Roger, out...   Back to the subject at hand.

It's slightly unfair to compare the Leopard C2 to most newer tanks.  I'll give an example.  The Strathconas have an annual shoot with the Idaho National Guard.  The ING uses their M1A2s, while the Strathconas use the Leo.  This was actually featured on the program "Truth, Duty, Valour" last year.  The LdSH(RC) didn't win last year, but have won in the past.  The C2 has a very good night capability and our crews are very well trained - the Americans were quite shocked when they first lost.  As Lance pointed out, there are all sorts of factors regarding tank vs. tank competition that have to be weighed.

My personal opinion?  I would take a C2 against any Russian-built tank, even the "Russian only" models and even the T-90.  I simply don't have any confidence that Russian technology has managed to equal that of the West, particularly in fire control systems.  Moreover, I have tremendous confidence in our crew training and in our guys' ability to hit targets.  No, it isn't an M1A2, Challenger 2, Leopard 2A5/6 or any of those.  My question is:  does it have to be, given the current geopoltical climate?

As for the MGS (the subject of this thread, after all), I think it is the wrong vehicle for what we're after and was selected almost entirely because of where it is built.  We are buying it in too few numbers and there are too many questions surrounding it's viability as a gunnery platform.  I am still not confident that (and someone can correct me if I'm out of date here - I've been away from this for a while) the overpressure problems with the gun have been resolved, that the platform is stable enough to permit stablized firing over all arcs, that armour protection (ie: the "birdcage" used on Stryker in Iraq) is effective against RPG, that the autoloader is robust enough to enable sustained firing and that problems with the coax have been addressed.  Finally, I am of the firm opinion that there are not enough main gun rounds on the vehicle itself, no matter how sophisticated the fire control system and no matter how sure the crew commander can be of first round hits.

Finally, I remain skeptical of the entire MGS employment concept, whereby it is a part of a "system of systems" providing close range direct fire with TOW and ADATS providing longer range overwatch.  Personally (and I have zero experience with the system itself), I have my doubts that ADATS can be a truly effective direct fire ground platform.  It is heavy, expensive, logisitically burdensome and lacks mobility.  Yet we've created a three-headed monster in the form of the Direct Fire Regiment, combining all three systems in one unit - thus tripling the maintenance and logistical difficulties...

My two cents - which isn't worth a helluva lot in the final scheme of things!

Cheers,

TR


----------



## a_majoor

Alas, Teddy, the MGS is the 21rst century LSVW  . Even the "promise" of jobs has proven a mirage, GD is shifting production to under utilized plants in the US. Other posts and threads have demonstrated the shifting requirements of the program; essentially they are constantly rewritten to reflect what the MGS "can" do rather than what we "need" an MGS to do.

If we need an MGS, it is to provide rapid and accurate gunfire against enemies in fairly close proximity (where gunfire has a big advantage), while a missile platform needs a very versatile weapon. ADATs has the issues you identified, and is also a line of sight weapon, since it depends of a sensor system in the tail of the missile to recieve signals sent from the firing post via laser link. As long as we can lure the enemy into attacking us in Suffield, we will be OK, but the vaunted 8km range is nonsense across most of the world. 

Actually, even though a LAV-TOW could be modified to carry HELLFIRE, BRIMESTONE or FOG-M (which can be fired at maximum range since they can fly over obstructions to seek targets), it may end up being cheaper to fire weapons like that off HMMVW or similar platforms, a capacity which has been demonstrated many times.


----------



## Zipper

Oh my God!! Teddy, you have hit the nail on the head about the MGS and the DFS concept. Everything stated is exactly what myself, and I am sure most here feel towards it. Thanks for putting it all in one easy to read format.  

As for what you said about the C1 Leo. I will not knock the crews and their capabilities one iota. Their awesome and do a bang up job. But on the range and hitting a target is one thing. Hitting and killing another tank is another.

What I guess I was getting at is that in perfect conditions with similarly trained crews (even Russian, as they are not slouches by any means), that a C1 will lose out on a first round shot tank to tank at range. Its front armour and the 105 do not stand up to the front armour and 120/125 rounds of the previously mentioned tanks.

And it does not take a ballistic/soldier expert to look at the numbers and penetrating powers of each to figure that out.

And yes, I agree with you on the probable lack of modern firing systems on most eastern block tanks being on par with ours.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Zipper said:
			
		

> What I guess I was getting at is that in perfect conditions with similarly trained crews (even Russian, as they are not slouches by any means), that a C1 will lose out on a first round shot tank to tank at range. Its front armour and the 105 do not stand up to the front armour and 120/125 rounds of the previously mentioned tanks.



True, but the problem is that we're dealing in semantics and in situations were there are a million variables.  What round is the Leo firing?  Is it at night?  Is it a frontal engagement?  How well drilled are the crews?  On and on.  All I can say is that I wouldn't want to get my bell rung by 105mm sabot - even in an M1A2.  As Lance points out, the round doesn't need to penetrate!





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Alas, Teddy, the MGS is the 21rst century LSVW   . Even the "promise" of jobs has proven a mirage, GD is shifting production to under utilized plants in the US. Other posts and threads have demonstrated the shifting requirements of the program; essentially they are constantly rewritten to reflect what the MGS "can" do rather than what we "need" an MGS to do.
> 
> If we need an MGS, it is to provide rapid and accurate gunfire against enemies in fairly close proximity (where gunfire has a big advantage), while a missile platform needs a very versatile weapon. ADATs has the issues you identified, and is also a line of sight weapon, since it depends of a sensor system in the tail of the missile to recieve signals sent from the firing post via laser link. As long as we can lure the enemy into attacking us in Suffield, we will be OK, but the vaunted 8km range is nonsense across most of the world.



Exactly.  Good point on the MGS' construction.  Even LAV III is now (largely) American (turret, engine, drivetrain, etc..).  As for ADATS, the missiles are extremely expensive (over $250k when I was working in the ammo world seven years ago) and I just cannot see this being cost effective in a mid to high-intensity context.

If it were me, scrap the whole plan.  Settle on a single medium direct fire platform (CV-90ish) as an interim vehicle.  Give TOW back to the Infantry.  Keep ADATS as an air defence system or, more likely, scrap it.  Then, over the next ten years or so, pursue a technolgically-advanced replacement in concert with a major ally.  Field this in 2015 or so and away we go.

Then again, maybe it's just me...

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## Zipper

Lol, Ok ok. We're dealing in semantics. And no, I sure as hell wouldn't want to get my bell (or turret) rung by a 105 sabot. Although I'd probably live with bleeding ears, at least I wouldn't be sucked out a 3" hole. ;D

As for the CV90 idea. Alright!!


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I do not claim to be a tank expert  or LAV expert.  
The facts are there, Canada will not have a tank force on any  training field or battle field.  For various reasons, costs of maintaining a fleet of aging Leos,  cost of moving the aging leos from training area to base of operations. We cannot do it ourselves.

When I was in highschool back in the late 80s I did a paper on the results of the FLQ crisis in Quebec, I do not recall the book I read for part of my  paper.  In the book it was stated that  the  "army" was buying the wheeled weapons systems back then was not to look like an army  driving tanks down the streets of Quebec.  That was too army  like and was the wrong image would be given to the public and the press.

Image and money  is nipping at the heels of the army again. They  could buy  a new fleet of tanks with the big gun systems, and tracks, and they  would hardly  ever leave Canada for operations due to lack of shipping them.   Lets look at this way we go out and buy enough of what ever model of tanks to replace each L1 we have now.  We have nice shiny  new or used tanks sitting at our Bases,  we train the soldiers to crew the and operate them to the level where they  should be able to do a great job.  We go to send them to whatever the opeartional zone is, we cannot air ship them ( C5 aircraft can carry one M1 at a time) , so they have to be shipped by  sea, we do not have a roll off ship in our fleet, and they are kind of hard to lease on short notice.  We  buy  a LAV model at least we can ship one or two by air if need be, our c130s would be not be the aircraft of choice but  we could .

we could do the rental of a ship again have to send out my  army  to seize control of the ship again like they gad to do before when the bills were not paid by  the contractor to his sub contractor. 

the Canadian Forces need huge amounts of cash, for transport aircraft, roll off ships for the navy, weapons systems for all 3, new truckx, jeeps, fire support vechis, and uniforms. 

they  need all this in place before  they  consider tanks that  cannot be used outside of Canada .


----------



## Lance Wiebe

As Teddy has pointed out, the Leo C2 cannot really be compared with the latest and greatest tanks from the west.  The one, and only, advantage Russian tanks have over the Leo C2 is their defensive armament suite, from their armour to other active systems.  Their FCS, their ammunition, and their main gun are all inferior to the C2.  Our tank is still not useless, or totally obsolete, given the enemies it would likely face.

Reference FormerHorseGuards post, the LAV III and the MGS cannot be carried by our C130's either.  So, we're back to transporting them by ship.  So much for your theory!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Reference FormerHorseGuards post, the LAV III and the MGS cannot be carried by our C130's either.   So, we're back to transporting them by ship.   So much for your theory!



Exactly.  For the record, a C-5B can carry 2 x M1A2 (and routinely does), while a C-17 can carry one.  As I understand it, the MGS can be carried in a C-130, but only if stripped of add-on armour and only for an "inter-theatre hop" of about 100 km or so.  The vehicle then requires preparation time before proceeding into action.  Not very useful.  We are certainly not going to be flying LAV IIIs and/or MGS into Afghanistan from Edmonton anytime soon.  The fact of the matter is that we had a helluva time just lifting Coyote (which is C-130 transportable) into Kandahar in 2002; I cannot imagine what lifting a heavier, more unwieldy vehicle would be like.

This is why I suggested a medium weight vehicle as an interim...  We're going to have lift problems anyway, so why not take a second look at the capability we're going to be adopting?  Wonder how many CV-90s you can cram into a C-5 (or an Antonov, for that matter)?  A Galaxy has airdropped 4 x Sheridans (42,000 pound tanks) in one go (7 June 1989), so why limit ourselves to a vehicle that only theoretically will fit into a Herc?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I find it hard to believe that Hillier actually wants MGS or any of the other parts of the "System of Systems".

Is there any chance that this is simply "approved funding" that he is keeping in his pocket and will reallocate when the time is right?




Matthew.   ???


----------



## Zipper

Agreed. Until we sort out our transport problems, everything else rather pales in comparison. We need money spent in so many places to come UP to a base level that it is hard to look at and not cry.

And no, the C-1 is far from being useless. In fact I still think it is a great vehicle, if we were only going to keep it operational. But as Former has said, there are more important things that need the cash right now that would be better served then tanks.

We could look at our forces on a tier system, with say tier 3 being tanks and other heavy platforms, and tier 1 being base needs for Canada's defense (uniforms, rifles, etc.). So what do you think? Are we even solidly in a tier 1 position?

As for the MGS. Sigh. I'm tired of knocking the thing. Everyone here knows already how poor the thing is, that its no use screaming at the choir. So we can only hope that Hillier is doing just that Matthew.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

In theory, there is a chance that the vehicle won't actually make the procurement phase - I know that all force structures are under examination as part of the CDS' transformation initiatives.   I also know that they were taking a hard look at the utility of a three system "system".

However, Gen Hillier has been pretty outspoken in saying that the MGS is "it" and the rest of the Armour Corps has been told to get on with it and stop naysaying (which I am certainly - to an extent - guilty of).  Moreover, I beleive that the MGS is a government and Treasury Board directed purchase, with all that means for the military.

In the end, we'll have to wait and see.   MGS is already delayed another year and, AFAIK, no contracts have been signed (I am out of the loop on this one, though).   If it survives in the US (as it is likely to), I think we'll end up with it - regardless of the limitations of the platform.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Is there the possibility it's being acquired not for its firepower/protection levels but because of its battlespace awareness gear?

More to the point, once you bring in the MGS, the Armed Forces will have no choice but to upgrade battlespace awareness gear on its remaining vehicles?

In short, by buying a questionable Direct Fire Support Vehicle, you're not just getting a questionable Direct Fire Support Vehicle, you're committing yourself to upgrade your entire land fleet to a new standard.

If so, that starts to make more sense....



M.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Unfortunately, that's not the answer.  We will pay a premium to modify the MGS from the base US configuration to a Canadian-specific set-up, including the Athene tactical system and Iris comms.  Both are already in service or are coming into service throughout the Army.


----------



## ArmyRick

"Battlespace awareness" ?

I am not 100% sure but I beleive the Coyote mast and remote surveillanvce variants have a better surveillance/radar package availible (when its in a good OP position).

There is no radar on the MGS (as far as I know) however it does have a good gun sighting system.

Also, the ADATS (as it is now) has a very good surveillance and I beleive a radar system (air def arty guys want to correct me?).

I know the TUA (I am qualified on it) has a thermal (x 12) and optic sight (x 13).

I talked to some RCD friends at work and they also said the Leo C2 has a fantastic sight system.

The US are employing a system (with stryker brigades and I beleive some of their heavy ones as well) a Friend or foe ID system that shows on a GPS style scren where they are (Freindlies are idicated by blue and enemy by red). You can find out more about this technology on the US army FCS web site.

Is this what you are getting at with battlespace awareness?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that's not the answer.   We will pay a premium to modify the MGS from the base US configuration to a Canadian-specific set-up, including the Athene tactical system and Iris comms.   Both are already in service or are coming into service throughout the Army.



Two terms I never wanted to hear together: "MGS" and "pay a premim to modify...."



M.   :blotto:


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

so let me guess here what  do we buy  for a tank with tracks and big gun to train with and never take out of Canada without 6 months to 1 year notice.

M1 series  a1, a2 later versions  a3? great machines, lots of fire power, proven on the battle field,  can be shipped by air if you have big enough cargo planes,  sqn has 16 tanks if I remember correctly, that  is 8  flights of C5, 16 flights of C17, and how many  flights of c130s to bring the  crews and ammo and spare parts?  and the airbus fleet to bring the maintainers? 
easiest way  to ship roll off container ship.  cost? we could buy  another 2 sqns of tanks and have money  left over but no way  to move them , good thing about the ship it can carry  everything a sqn would need in battle on one trip and it would last 30 days, less fuel. Ships in Canadiian navy  usual last 30 to 40 years with reto fits.  that  is a good thing cost less over the life span.

Leo C2, do not think it has been fired in anger, or been fired at. so i think it is unproven , soon to be out of date anyways I am sure

British tanks.....does the sub fire mean anything they  would never do that  again in fear the past would be bought up, just in case, but is a proven tank in battle, might get a good deal on them

French tank  it would have to be rebuilt in Quebec and that  would only  lead to more anti french problems and we have enough troubles with France , Quebec and the French Islands off our coast. we fight over fish andstuff there now, do not need to create a spare part problem.

Israel made tanks , that  would look good for missions in muslim countries like we are on now, so they are out

South African Tanks ,  maybe they  would sell us some that  would fit our needs, after all half of the tanks and arty  guns are of Canadian design, Mr Bull, the creator of the super guns. 

that  leaves us the following

M60s from the states out of date and in need of rebuilding, might be a good deal, meaning work for Quebec,

or the locally made wheeled want to be tanks from london

at least some of the money  would stay in Canada. 

everything else the money  would leave here in huge brinks truck loads.


that  is my  thoughts tonight


----------



## Zipper

I'm a little confused about the battle awareness of the MGS as well? In fact, I thought its "situational" awareness was next to useless since each turret position only had about 180 degrees of view? Clarification please!

Former. Not a bad way of looking at it, but I think the Leo 2 has been upgraded to the 2A4 (or 6?) model now and is one of the most advanced tanks on the market. 

But no more tank talk. It hurts... :-X


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The CC of the MGS will have (supposedly) exceptional tactical awareness, thanks to the Tactical display in the vehicle.  Our mighty TCCCS system will allow the digitalized display to stay current for all known enemy and friendly vehicles.  As you so correctly pointed out, however, the CC will have poor situational awareness, not only because there is next to no field of view, but because it cannot be operated "heads up".  The CC and gunner are closed up, depending on monitors and cameras to see what is going on.  That is one of my major complaints about the MGS.  It HAS to be operated with the crew down inside.

Amended to add:  the MGS will not be produced in Canada.  IIRC correctly, it will be produced in Alabama.  One of the southern states, anyway.  Not one portion of it will be produced in Canada, except for the "Canada unique" items.  Like the aforementioned TCCCS.


----------



## blacktriangle

Hello, 

I am a civilian that is quite interested in all of this. I have read mostly negative replys when it comes to the topic of the MGS. Does anyone think that it would be possible to develop a more capable system, while still using the LAV III platform? 

Sorry I can not add anything else.

Thanks.


----------



## TCBF

"More to the point, once you bring in the MGS, the Armed Forces will have no choice but to upgrade battlespace awareness gear on its remaining vehicles?"

- So, are we buying an $8,000,000 portable radio?   ;D

 "...when it comes to the topic of the MGS. Does anyone think that it would be possible to develop a more capable system, while still using the LAV III platform?"

- In the interim, will a M-551 Sheridan turret fit on the LAV III chasis?  Could you modify the 152mm tube to fire TOW and also a 'soft' bunker busting HESH round?  Is there room in a 'retro' turret for all of the gee-whiz gear we want nowadays?

Maybe not.

I think we are stuck with MGS until the Yanks cancel it, then go back to looking at the AGS. I like what the MGS is trying to do, I just don't think the technology is mature enough to allow us to do it under the constraints of the contractually imposed (but flexible?)  size/weight envelope.   I think the powers that be made a good choice with the info they were given, but they may have been sold a pig in a poke.

Tom


----------



## Zipper

I liked Majors idea of backing off the 105 idea and going with a 90 instead. It would solve many of the problems the MGS is going through at the moment and still be able to fulfill its Infantry direct fire support mission. As we have said many times before it is NOT a tank replacement, so why have a 105 on it at all pretending it is? 

Well, except for the fact that I'm not aware of many NATO countries still using 90mm rounds. But hey, its not like we haven't gone against the current many times before?


----------



## a_majoor

I am a bit surprised the Tactical awareness system is so dependent on a "heads down" display, but it "shouldn't" be too hard to adapt the helmet/monocular sight system that is used on American attack helicopters.

In the MAV thread we also talked a bit about display/control units, some of which were sized to fit on a soldier's wrist, or clip on to the front of the body armour/ LCV. An even simpler idea (I stole this from seeing a restored GTO from @ 1969-70 era) is to have an external display screen that the CC can see when he is heads up. This could be in an armoured binnacle ahead of the hatch, or if the hatch cover can rotate freely (or is hinged to the front), built into the hatch itself.

The idea of an multi million dollar portable radio is rather amusing, if it wasn't so sad....


----------



## maxxevv

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Exactly.  For the record, a C-5B can carry 2 x M1A2 (and routinely does), while a C-17 can carry one.  As I understand it, the MGS can be carried in a C-130, but only if stripped of add-on armour and only for an "inter-theatre hop" of about 100 km or so.  The vehicle then requires preparation time before proceeding into action.  Not very useful.  We are certainly not going to be flying LAV IIIs and/or MGS into Afghanistan from Edmonton anytime soon.  The fact of the matter is that we had a helluva time just lifting Coyote (which is C-130 transportable) into Kandahar in 2002; I cannot imagine what lifting a heavier, more unwieldy vehicle would be like.
> 
> This is why I suggested a medium weight vehicle as an interim...  We're going to have lift problems anyway, so why not take a second look at the capability we're going to be adopting?  Wonder how many CV-90s you can cram into a C-5 (or an Antonov, for that matter)?  A Galaxy has airdropped 4 x Sheridans (42,000 pound tanks) in one go (7 June 1989), so why limit ourselves to a vehicle that only theoretically will fit into a Herc?



Hmmm .. interesting, anyone remember the US IDF ( Interim Defence Force ) programme back in '00 ??  They had a few vehicles up in contention besides the LAV which were C-130 transportable.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't have time to read the whole thread, but Mowag was doing experiments using the GAIT turret with the French 105 & 120mm on a 10x10 LAV body. Seemed like an up to date Centario. Anyone knows how those trials went?

The 90mm would be a good selection, reduced recoil, more ammo stowage, etc. Of course our stock of 105mm ammo will be useless.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

The MGS autoloader saga continues.  

Still think the Otomelara 60mm HVMS turret with a couple of 5-8 km ATGMs hung on the outside is a better bet 

http://www.otomelara.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_hitfist_60_te

Cheers.


----------



## Zipper

Hey Chris, glad to see you back. 

So does this mean that they have fixed all the problems? Or is it another ram through for political purposes?

Oh, and very nice turret. That would be sweet on a LAV chassis.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Zipper, looking forward to more discussions.

Does that mean its fixed?  I don't know -  just relaying the report.  Do I think it is fixed?  Doesn't sound likely - a few more units produced by another supplier to see if they can accomplish what the other chaps couldn't perhaps.

Cheers.

Oh, and glad you like the 60.  The thing that has always impressed me about the gun is the combination of the rapid fire (from a well proven autoloader with large capacity) and the ability to penetrate a NATO triple at 1500 to 2000 m.


----------



## ChopperHead

Just wondering how this is going to work. Are the currrent Leo crews going to have to be retrained on the MGS or are they all ready qualified? Second When is the MGS supposed to arrive? I heard not for another year or 2 some what are new tankers being trained on? Leo's if so kinda seems pointless to train them on equipment that will only be around for a year then it's gone and the traing is no longer relivant. Also one more thing how is the MGS transportable does it fit in a C-130? Just one final comment here. I think the MGS sucks We need a tank not a LAV with a big gun. I wanted to join the armour untill I found out about this now Im not so sure. Do you think the MGS is a temporary soulution like for 5 years or so then tanks will come or not likely? 

Thanx


Kyle.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

There's lots of threads on this already. Do a "search" and read the other stuff in the Armoured Forum on the subject.


----------



## ChopperHead

Ok I did check a bunch of other threads but they dont really tell me what I want to know some of my original questions were answered but not all of them and I dont really appreciate you just locking it out like that. But anyway I will revise my questions. First I want to know if the current Leo operators will have to undergo training all over again to operate the MGS or are they allready qualified. Also If the MGS is not supposed to arrive for anothe 2 years or so how are new tankers going to be trained seems Kinda pointless to train them on The Leo's which will be gone in 2 years anyway and make their traing no longer relivant. And one final question is do you think that the MGS will just be an interm vehicle for like 5-10 years then the tanks will be back because by then Im sure the tories will have gotten in to power and Im sure they will fix this mess.


kyle.


----------



## mover1

Look to the navy and the parallels between the o-boats and the victoria class subs. They survived.
Now look at the army and the Leo replacement. Like any new piece of kit. the users will need to have training. PPL didn't just jump from the M-113 to the Coyote. 
It doesn''t seem pointless to train for two years on an old piece of kit. A Baisic engagements in only three years.
 By your standard of thinking. Those personell who are intending to be in the CF for the short haul needn't be trained.


----------



## Zipper

Ok, I don't know for sure. But logic seems to dictate that yes, they will have to be re-trained (qualified) on the new piece of kit because it is a new piece of kit with enough differences to warrent such. No, training on the Leo will happen until which time we do have the actually vehicle to re-train everyone on. Logic dictates again that to stop all training on the Leo would be silly because we don't actually have the MGS yet. 

As for Interim. What is truly interim in the CAF? Everything is interim if you think it will be used for 5-10 years and ends up being used for 30. The Cougar was supposed to be an interim tank trainer. We're still waiting...


----------



## ChopperHead

LOL ya thats true.

BUt maybe pointless wasnt the best word. Just kinda seems like a waste of time to train new recruits right now and then have to retrain them all again when the MGS gets here. It takes about a year to pop out new recruits I believe and the MGS is supposed to be here in 2 years so These recruits with have little to no expercience out of training with the Leo and then have to turn around and go through it all again. Perhaps we could lease some from the states or something to train on kinda like the dutch apaches.



Kyle


----------



## McG

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> First I want to know if the current Leo operators will have to undergo training all over again to operate the MGS or are they allready qualified. Also If the MGS is not supposed to arrive for anothe 2 years or so how are new tankers going to be trained seems Kinda pointless to train them on The Leo's which will be gone in 2 years anyway and make their traing no longer relivant.


There are no more tank squadrons in Canada.  There is a DFS squadron that trains in leopards.  This may seem like semantics to you.  However, using the leopards, the DFS sqn will be developing & training in the doctrine that will be used by the platform which replaces the leopard.

Troops will have to be trained in the technical aspects of a new vehicle, but the the leopard allows the DFS guys to develop/maintain the tactical skills and knowledge of their roll.  Unless you are one of the techs, the tactical side is the more important side of skills to be maintained.  It does not take long to convert someone to a new piece of equipment.


----------



## McG

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> It takes about a year to pop out new recruits I believe and the MGS is supposed to be here in 2 years so These recruits with have little to no expercience out of training with the Leo and then have to turn around and go through it all again. Perhaps we could lease some from the states


The US does not yet have any MGS to lease (so that is a non-starter) & only those armd soldiers that will be employed in leopards will be trained on the leopard.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Chopperhead,

How about filling out your profile.


----------



## ChopperHead

MCG said:
			
		

> The US does not yet have any MGS to lease (so that is a non-starter) & only those armd soldiers that will be employed in leopards will be trained on the leopard.




Ok thanks thats basically what I was looking for But Im sure the US will have them before we get them.



Kyle.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

Has anyone seen the MGS on a Spanish tracked APC. If not check it out on army-technology.com, it's pretty cool. :skull: :skull:


----------



## geo

Chopperhead,
Training a section of men is never pointless. It's training and develops teamwork - something that will not be lost - even if and when we get around to taking delivery of an MGS at some future date. Train for today - let tomorrow show it's colours in it's own good time.

Also - do you really think that a PC gov't would be in any position to revert back to tanks and rerole our troops back?.........for one thing; there are so many projects that would require cash that they'd be in the same jam the current gov't is in - too many things to do with not much cash to do it with.... and I don't see where the PC would get any more cash to fix what's wrong... cuts on education? healthcare? EI? Canada Pension? Raise GST % rates?

Do you think our politicians will turn around and order up a couple of hundred M1s, Hummers, Hercs, C17s and the like without trying to get the product built in their political riding?...


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

That would be an awsome dream to come true for our force's, but it's unlikeyl. And in the case of Canadian politicians, it's always about their A** and their riding, meaning it would be Canadian made (probably by bombardier) so it would be crap. I think the most we could see is C-17' being leased.


----------



## ChopperHead

No I don't think that the PC's will be able to do that right away but they are "pro Military" so there will undoubtly be more military spending. how much? who knows but It's bound to better then what we have now. and also you say where will the money come from well I dont have exact numbers on this but The Australian's spend less money on defense then we do and yet they have better and more equipment then we do and are exepting attack helios in the near future so it definatley is possible to do we just need people who know how to do it.



Kyle.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

The attack helicopters they are purchasing are the Eurotiger's.


----------



## ChopperHead

Also whats wrong with having made in Canada? Why does having it made by Canadians mean it will be a piece a junk? Persoanlly I would rather see the money be spent in Canada It's good for the economy, opens up jobs for people so why not? I dunno I was just kinda taken back by your comments that if it's built in Canada it's a piece a shit.




Kyle.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Chopperhead, the problem with the made in Canada imperative, is that we make a small fraction of the spectrum of equipment that we need.  The LAV is grade A kit, made in Canada; but if we expect Bombardier to produce our strategic heavy lift, our armoured force is going to consist of guys in doubled flack jackets pointing a Carl Gustav MAT gun from an aluminum armoured wheelbarrow.  What we do, we do well, what we don't do, we MUST get abroad, not buy something that cannot do the job, just because its made in Quebec.  The US has always had a firm made in the USA program for its kit, but when the USMC wanted Harriers, they went to the UK, because the US had nothing that could fit the bill.  If the US admits it has to shop abroad, then maybe we can to eh?


----------



## Zipper

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> Also whats wrong with having made in Canada? Why does having it made by Canadians mean it will be a piece a junk? Personally I would rather see the money be spent in Canada It's good for the economy, opens up jobs for people so why not? I dunno I was just kinda taken back by your comments that if it's built in Canada it's a piece a crap.



As Mainer said, we can build what we are good at. Our frigates are a great example as well as the LAV. However there are MANY examples of botched projects (Iltis cost overruns, LUVW, etc...). Unfortunately far to much politics gets involved in choosing a contract holder and it very often goes to those who have the most pull with the politician in question/ gives most kickbacks, and the requirements of the military get shoved down the line until their left with a lemon. Sad but true.

And with that being said, there are many great piece of kit being built by other countries (allies) that are cheaper off the line (no R&D costs). So why try to reinvent the wheel?


----------



## ChopperHead

Ya I suppose i see your point It's all politics thats screwing the army we have plenty of money get things done more be nice but still we do have money just gets pissed away by politicans trying to make themselves look good I guess.




Kyle


----------



## geo

If you thing the Cdn pork barrel is deep... you should see the riders that are attached to legislation in the US. Passage of Bills for African relief or Hurricane Andrew relief would be bought - riders for the continued existance of old obsolete bases or new unproven or inefective weapons systems (eg: Sgt York air defense system) would be attached - to ensure passage.

LAV, HLVW, Frigates and DDH are all good examples of Cdn system development - in spite of it all.

G Wagon that replaces some of the Iltis came straight off the shelf - in Austria.

I am amazed that people continue to bash Bombardier for tle Iltis. Anybody have anything nice to say about the LSVW built out in BC? For what it's worth, the Iltis, built in 83 ran for some 23+ years; 83 to 06 (2R22R are still using them) ... while the previous batch ran from 70 to to 83 (13 years)... when you get down to it; is it / was it reasonnable to expect the Iltis to be operated for a total of 23 years? I think not!   That's part of our problem - we buy a "fleet" of equipment ..... and wait until it's so decrepit before we even start to plan on it's replacement.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

The HLVW is a Euro design and built in Canada, like the LS and the the LAV is built in Canada, but designed GM Defense (now General Dynamics).


----------



## Lance Wiebe

We bash Bombardier for the Iltis because of the pork-barrelling that went along with it.  The Iltis was offered to us by VW for $28,000, which included training and parts.  But because Bombardier was having a bit of a rough go, Canada decided to have Bombardier build them for what turned out to be a final cost of $80,000.  The product, despite being more than twice as expensive, was not as good as the German product.  Early models suffered from lots of breakages and the fleet was grounded more than once.  The LSVW is the exact same thing, it's just that the early 80's have faded from so many memories, and the LSVW is in recent memory.


----------



## geo

at least the iltis worked...........

with respect to pork barrel politik'n no politifcal party has exclusive claim to it
be it the Irving shipyards that got the Frigate program for NB, Western Star that got the LSVW program for BC, the Airforce training centre in MB, Diemaco for the C7s thru C9s, Bombardier that got the Iltis & MLVW program for QC......

If the country exclusively purchased from outside the country, then the Canadian taxpayers would be asking; "can't we make any of this stuff?" - "why are my tax dollars going to some other country?" - "is canadian industry so incompetant OR so overpriced that they don't have the ability to produce and provide Canadian troops with what they require?"

In your book, do all military procurement programs represent pork barrel politikin'?


----------



## Kirkhill

geo said:
			
		

> If the country exclusively purchased from outside the country, then the Canadian taxpayers would be asking; "can't we make any of this stuff?" - "why are my tax dollars going to some other country?" - "is canadian industry so incompetant OR so overpriced that they don't have the ability to produce and provide Canadian troops with what they require?"



All good arguments for buying overseas.   Right now the taxpayers do not realize that overpriced and incompetent suppliers are depriving you of a lot of kit by taking up 2 dollars of the budget to supply 1 dollars worth of gear.   Newspaper articles haven't clued them in.   Only some open vigorous competitions where foreigners beat locals fairly are likely to cause both taxpayer and supplier to see facts.

Cheers, 

Chris.


----------



## geo

While I do / don't necessarily agree,
many people will say that if the $ is spent in the country, paid to Cdn suppliers, then the Gov't has done what is expected of it.... even at twice the price.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion.


----------



## Kirkhill

> even at twice the price.



Not a hope mate.


----------



## geo

guess you don't vote NDP either.......


----------



## Infanteer

geo said:
			
		

> While I do / don't necessarily agree,
> many people will say that if the $ is spent in the country, paid to Cdn suppliers, then the Gov't has done what is expected of it.... even at twice the price.
> Everyone is entitled to his opinion.



Defence only has a finite amount of resources, and if we can't properly train or lack a key piece of equipment because the budget was pissed away on an overpriced yet Canadian project, then there is a problem.  If we lose a troopie or can't accomplish a mission because he's missing a piece of training and/or kit, then we have a serious problem.

Sorry geo, can't buy that statement or the NDP....

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## geo

well... my point would be that for one - if we don't have the equipment or the training then we should not have the troops put into those situations.... send the politicians - let them get their @#$ shot at for a bit and then they may make sound decisions in retrospect.

based on the budget surpluses that the gov't has been showing - don't really think that a shortage of cash is a real problem.... what they decide to do with it (hold it for rainy day) is.

NDPres are very much buy / build at home kinda guys... though they aren't very strong on the military (is anyone?) they very much support "buy canada'


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm kind of sick of this argument in that people are blaming the concept of a domestic arms industry for cost overruns.

The problem is not the model.  

It's the crooks in our political ranks/bureaucracies/Liberal Front Companies that screw up what should work.

In my opinion we should be following the Swedish model.

The priority therefore is not to throw the baby out with the bath water, but to take the crooks, thieves and hangers-on and get them the hell out of the process and put some serious people in charge.  No more cost+ contracts.  Everything is turn-key.  Take military procurement out of the domain of Public Works and allow it to be 100% run by DND and get rid of all the silly PC nonsense like aboriginal content.  (I cannot even imagine a foreign company getting one of our RFP's and seeing that.)

I repeat, the problem is the procurement system and the people who take advantage of it for their own purposes.  

A single serious PM could fix both with a couple of penstrokes and we could build whatever we want....



Matthew.


----------



## geo

Single serious PM........
Do we have one of those anywhere nearby?.... 
(and I'm including Loyal opposition leaders here)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I'm kind of sick of this argument in that people are blaming the concept of a domestic arms industry for cost overruns.



The problem is that it is perfectly true in many cases.  The defence budget is the single largest piece of _discretionary_ funding that the Federal Government has access to.  This creates enormous temptation to use that discretionary spending for political or other purposes, including regional industrial development.  Thus, as has been pointed out, the funding is often more used for developmental purposes than for any clear-cut military or operational reasons.

Canada currently does not have a defence industrial base that would enable the production of equipment on the scale of (say) Sweden, where a defence base has been purposely developed for political reasons over the course of decades.  Therefore, the CF is forced into the procurement of "Canadian" items for purely political reasons even if those items are single source or are only marginally suitable for operations and are built by contractors with limited or no experience in the design and development of military equipment.  The LSVW is a perfect example.

Even in the case of major foreign purchases, the Government insists on an element of Canadian production or on financial "industrial off-sets" to compensate Canadian industry for the perceived loss of work.  This adds greatly to the cost and to the length of procurement timelines.

Frankly, I'm tired of the military budget being used as a form of internal "aid" and am hoping against hope that the current restructure and procurement programs are conducted with operations as the primary consideration.  There is a LOT of equipment out there that can be purchased "off the shelf" for much less than what we're paying for it now.  Surely the taxpayer deserves better bang for his/her buck rather than bailing Bombardier out (yet again) with a half a**ed defence contract.

My 2 cents.


----------



## ArmyRick

Not to mention when you purchase most off the shelf things, they are availible immediately and not in the next 5-7 years  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

> where a defence base has been purposely developed for political reasons over the course of decades.



Make that centuries Teddy.. 

I am in full agreement with you, Infanteer and ArmyRick.

How's this for a cutoff point for decision making?  If we have to pay to build a factory and train a workforce as well as to buy the kit we should buy elsewhere.  The factories of offshore suppliers have been written down by years, decades, sometimes centuries of constant use - generations of the same families have worked in the same trades.

I could bring myself to accept a rational decision to build an armaments industry domestically - any reasonable government would make that investment.  What really frosts me is the following:

Wait for need to be expressed

Look for best licencing agreement

Search for riding that needs support

Wait for election

Announce new factory

Appoint Liberal Party volunteers to the Board of Directors

Build two systems

Charge  DND enough to but 50 systems off shore

Quietly reduce workforce

Supply no follow on orders

Wait for new need to be identified

Repeat process in adjacent riding

Carry on ad nauseam.


----------



## Eland

The idea of fielding a war-fighting army in what are effectively armoured cars (i.e. LAV's) strikes me as idiotic.

The only way the Canadian Army's LAV concept can work is if the troops mounted in them never encounter anything more than poorly trained light infantry with a minimum of heavy machine guns, artillery and anti-tank weapons at their disposal, and few or no tanks or more sophisticated anti-armour guided weapons (such as the Russian-built AT-3 Spigot, the Khrysantema or Kornet).

The Americans have experienced some limited success with the Stryker in Iraq, but not until they learned to stop using the vehicles for FIBUA (Fighting In Built-up Areas) and modified them with jury-rigged RPG7 screens which totally destroyed the tactical maneuverability of the vehicle. The Coyote recce vehicle succeeds only because of its sophisticated sensor systems - but as a traditional sneak-and-peak-then-scoot -away machine, it sucks because it's too top heavy and slow. The USMC had the right idea using their LAV25's (predecessor to the LAVIII family) as taxis for cavalry scouts operating on foot - similar to the way Canadian armoured recce units have assault troops.

I agree with one poster who suggests that the LAV and MGS were built simply to line the pockets of GDLS and keep Liberal MP's in the London area well supplied with votes.

It is true that a country like Canada cannot afford to field a large army or take on 'nutcracker' roles as someone else in this forum has suggested. But that's why we need to follow Australia's example and buy the limited numbers of tanks and heavy weapon systems that can be afforded. At least that way Canadian troops would not be caught out if they found themselves having to operate against serious opposition without coalition support.

Buying the LAV's without figuring how they were going to be transported and then ensuring that organic, not rented transport assets were built first was an unbelievably bad move.

But until Canadian troops die in large numbers and Canadians back home start screaming blue murder, this is how Canada's quarter-assed (no offence intended to the well-trained, skilled and dedicated troops we do have) military is going to be run.


----------



## geo

when you wait to buy equipment (of dubious worth) before writing doctrine on how it's to be used - you'll always get into trouble.

Does this sound like Adolph and his wonder weapons.......


----------



## ArmyRick

Eland, go shields up!
No logic in what you say, so I am going to fire a volley at you
(1) What is the point in buying 10, 20 or 200 modern totally up to date MBTs if we do not have a quick and availible means of getting them into theater? We need ships or aircraft that can carry them. Unless we are OK with contracting them to a civy company that delivers them in 4-8 months.

(2) The stryker Infantry carrier has more than proven its weight in a Iraq and yeah so what it has a bird cage? Guess what so does the paper thin M113 and at the very least the Stryker and LAVs are more suitable for the quick moving war/operations being fought in Iraq or A-stan. The bradley? Wouldn't do us much go either if we don't have the MBT. If your going to be lightly armored, might as well be fast.

(3) Modern day troopies who work with the LAVIII like it ! Oh yeah, its a fact. I worked with M113 and Grizzlys alot and beleive, they had their time and day, but even with my limited expirience with LAVIII, I will take it any day over a grizz or track.

(4) If the GDLS (Who alspo produce The M1 Abrams) wanted to get $$$ off our tax dollars, I think they would have convinced our guys we need the M1.

(5) Right now the enemy is a suicide bomber, a terrorist, those planting IED devices, spotters with cell phones who observe and report our activities, etc. The enemy we are dealing with HERE and NOW does not bomb around in a T72 or T80 with BMP1 or BTR80s.

(6) Fill out your profile more in detail and please do expand on your expirience.


----------



## bravo2

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> .
> 
> (2) The stryker Infantry carrier has more than proven its weight in a Iraq and yeah so what it has a bird cage? Guess what so does the paper thin M113 and at the very least the Stryker and LAVs are more suitable for the quick moving war/operations being fought in Iraq or A-stan. The bradley? Wouldn't do us much go either if we don't have the MBT. If your going to be lightly armored, might as well be fast.
> 
> (3) Modern day troopies who work with the LAVIII like it ! Oh yeah, its a fact. I worked with M113 and Grizzlys alot and beleive, they had their time and day, but even with my limited expirience with LAVIII, I will take it any day over a grizz or track.



The MGS mobile gun system and LAV III combination is not a bad system but It has shown its limitation in Iraq. In April 2004 The Italian deployed in Iraq their Centauro light armoured vehicle (105 mm),M113 and and light trucks (VM90P). After a few engagement they realized that light armoured vehicle were very vulnerable to RPG7,they were slow down by barricades and they lost a few soldiers do to the lack of armoured protection. Because they still have MBTs they were able to bring into theater two Platoon of Ariete MBTand AAV-7A1 up-armoured apc.
Would Canada have a similar option in the future? We could easily be involved in a similar situation...


----------



## Eland

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> |Eland, go shields up!
> |No logic in what you say, so I am going to fire a volley at you
> |(1) What is the point in buying 10, 20 or 200 modern totally up to date MBTs if we do not have a quick and availible means of getting them |into theater? We need ships or aircraft that can carry them. Unless we are OK with contracting them to a civy company that delivers them in |4-8 months.
> 
> Well, we can't get our new fleet of LAV's anywhere very quickly either as it stands - we either have to ship them by sea using rented cargo ships, which takes a looong time, or leech off our US friends, who have substantial airlift assets. Failing that, we deflate the tires of these vehicles after loading them into a C130, remove any add-on armour kits and ship them one at a time. We need tanks - even a limited number, to take on the heavy jobs that the LAV's can't handle. If tanks are so unnecessary, please explain why it is the US Army continues to use M1A2 Abrams tanks in the Iraq theatre, long after any credible armour threat has disappeared? Or why Australia found it necessary to acquire M1A2's - when the bulk of its armoured vehicle fleet consists of LAV's and Bushranger armoured patrol trucks? Do you see any industrialized countries of any significance getting rid of its tanks - eg. Germany, UK, France, et al. ? Do tell.
> 
> |(2) The stryker Infantry carrier has more than proven its weight in a Iraq and yeah so what it has a bird cage? Guess what so does the paper |thin M113 and at the very least the Stryker and LAVs are more suitable for the quick moving war/operations being fought in Iraq or A-stan. |The bradley? Wouldn't do us much go either if we don't have the MBT. If your going to be lightly armored, might as well be fast.
> 
> My point proven - these vehicles work best when placed in a threat environment which involves mostly light infantry with few or very simple anti-tank weapons. There is no question that the Strykers have proven to be quite mine-resistant and have shown surprisingly good survivability against IED's. But what about RPG7 and better ATGW's, if the 'birdcage' is taken off? More importantly, what happens if you have to go to war in the conventional way and all you've got for armoured vehicles are lightly armoured LAV's?
> 
> |(3) Modern day troopies who work with the LAVIII like it ! Oh yeah, its a fact. I worked with M113 and Grizzlys alot and beleive, they had |their time and day, but even with my limited expirience with LAVIII, I will take it any day over a grizz or track.
> 
> The LAV should be superior because automotive technology and armour technology have improved substantially since the M113 and the Grizzly were built. But that begs the question. If the LAV is so good, then why do Israeli forces stick with their up-armoured M113A2's for FIBUA? Don't get me wrong. The LAV has its strong points. It should excel in low-intensity warfare. On the other hand, placing it into a high-intensity situation (as our government might be wont to do to save money), is just asking for trouble.
> 
> |(4) If the GDLS (Who alspo produce The M1 Abrams) wanted to get $$$ off our tax dollars, I think they would have convinced our guys we |need the M1.
> 
> They've tried before (remember Mulroney's plan to buy 300 M1A1's, which was cooked by the then-upcoming federal election?). They still try. They keep failing because the government's (and the military's) unreasoning opposition to tanks is a well-entrenched cultural thing.
> 
> |(5) Right now the enemy is a suicide bomber, a terrorist, those planting IED devices, spotters with cell phones who observe and report our |activities, etc. The enemy we are dealing with HERE and NOW does not bomb around in a T72 or T80 with BMP1 or BTR80s.
> 
> The LAV is fine for the 'asymmetric' warfare you describe. But if you look at the wider geopolitical situation, consider the emerging alliances being forged between China, India and Russia, the make-up of their armed forces, and the soon-to-increase competition for remaining
> oil reserves as well as their desires for greater hegemony in the Asia-Pacific sphere. What kind of force structure is needed to deal with the mostly conventional forces these nations possess? LAV's?


----------



## Lost_Warrior

> The LAV is fine for the 'asymmetric' warfare you describe. But if you look at the wider geopolitical situation, consider the emerging alliances being forged between China, India and Russia, the make-up of their armed forces, and the soon-to-increase competition for remaining
> oil reserves as well as their desires for greater hegemony in the Asia-Pacific sphere. What kind of force structure is needed to deal with the mostly conventional forces these nations possess? LAV's?



That's actually a very good point and one that I have been thinking about since the mention of our new "light mobile forces" transformation.  Terrorism isn't going to last forever, or chances are that it won't be the dominant threat in the next decade or two.   Then what?  We are trapped in a cold war style situation between China, her allies and the US and theirs, only to be armed with light, low powered vehicles.


----------



## Kirkhill

The armoured knight wasn't driven from the field by more knights but by arrows and musket balls.

The horse wasn't driven from the field by other horses but by machine guns and shrapnel.

Tanks wont be driven from the field by other 10,000,000 dollar tanks but by precision guided munitions costing 10 to 100,000 dollars and launched from infanteers shoulders, wheeled and tracked vehicles, artillery tubes, missiles, helicopters, UAVs and aircraft.

Weapons outlive their usefulness when they can be killed faster than they can be fielded.


----------



## Britney Spears

Armyrick's sergent-senses are right. Eland is so far out of his lane, someone better call range control and start the lost candidate drill.
Don't believe me? Just watch.


----------



## ArmyRick

Thank you Eland for helping to make my point. We have got to stop playing the "what if" game. What if China and Russia move in on the oil reserves? We CAN NOT AFFORD A COLD WAR ARMY. Fight china and russia? With what? 100 maybe 150 tanks if we got lucky?

We are living here and now. The enemy is a terrorist or failed state. I am not concerned with 2020, I train soldiers for today, 2005. 
Kirkhill has the point as well that current missile technology is going to level out the playing field alot.

Anyways, here is a question. What would be more usefull to the CF? 30 really good attack helicopters or 100 of the latest greatest MBT? My opinion is get the damn choppers.


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The armoured knight wasn't driven from the field by more knights but by arrows and musket balls.
> 
> The horse wasn't driven from the field by other horses but by machine guns and shrapnel.
> 
> Tanks wont be driven from the field by other 10,000,000 dollar tanks but by precision guided munitions costing 10 to 100,000 dollars and launched from infanteers shoulders, wheeled and tracked vehicles, artillery tubes, missiles, helicopters, UAVs and aircraft.



This is all a fact of life.  Better weapons systems will always be devised.  When a Weapons System is put into production, today, there is already a counter system being produced.  It will never end.


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Weapons outlive their usefulness when they can be killed faster than they can be fielded.


The one flaw with this statement is you have forgotten the Infanteer.  How many weapons systems have we developed to destroy the Infantryman?  How many ways have we developed systems to protect him?  How many more ways have we developed methods of overcoming his defences?  The same can be said about Tanks, Aircraft, Ships, etc.  These systems only become obsolete, when someone can no longer produce a better system to defend against an enemies weaponry.  In most cases the biggest enemy to these systems is not a foreign enemy, but the enemy within our political systems.  

By the way, there are no $10 weapons systems that will destroy AFVs and MBTs.  Those systems cost almost as much as the vehicle they are designed to kill or disable.  Even handheld missile systems are very expensive, and their production is not infinite.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> We are living here and now. The enemy is a terrorist or failed state. I am not concerned with 2020, I train soldiers for today, 2005.


To me that is only continuation of the old game of "Catch Up".   We are concerned only with 'today' and not worried about the future.   As someone mentioned: "What about China?"   Are they going to be a threat in the near future?   If they are and we have swung into the "Low Intensity Battle" philosophy, the X Gen War, the GWOT, and don't have anything but LightFighters, we are putting ourselves up the creek without a paddle.

Me, I am concerned about 2020 and beyond.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hi George.

I was kind of expecting you to call. ;D

You are right on the 10 dollar weapon.  That's what I get for being lazy.  I meant that to be interpreted as $10,000 to $100,000.    Javelin currently costs around 100,000 as does Excalibur, Hellfire and Brimstone somewhere round about 60,000,  LAHAT is trying to get to market at 20,000,  JDAM/DAMASK/Paveway/SDBs are in the 12 to 60,000 range depending on combination (DAMASK being the low end).  Armour is even at risk from 155mm shells with Course Correcting Fuzes that are supposed to sell in the 1000-10,000 range (although they don't precisely target a specific vehicle they tighten the target area reducing the number of rounds necessary to defeat a target).

As to the infantry: 

3 reasons they are still there.  

Nobody has yet figured out how to have a war without people (if robots take over the battlefield they will sell tickets to the battle and the war will happen in the stands)

Many armies consider "infanteers" a low cost item. Take one 14 year old boy, add 1 AK-47 and a supply of Khat and you have an "instant infanteer".

Infanteers learned to duck.

Cheers.


----------



## TCBF

Notwithstanding wether or not we eventually field the MGS, the AGS, or whatever:

"If the GDLS (Who alspo produce The M1 Abrams) wanted to get $$$ off our tax dollars, I think they would have convinced our guys we need the M1."

- We will in fact pay more money for each MGS than we would for each M1A2.  Australia has just bought US tanks for, as their CGS put it "ethical and moral reasons" dealing with protecting their soldiers. They bought them each for less than we will pay for each MGS.

- GDLS would rather sell a new vehicle hot off the press at Anniston Alabama to amortize their development costs.  Lima Army Tank Plant is not the priority.

Tom


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

If we are going to pay more for the MGS than the M1A2, then we should be buying the M1A2.  For a direct FSV, having a vehcle that can be repaired and resupplied in tandem with the US and UK units along their supply lines would make us a more effective contributor in overseas deployments.  The US would rather add a small number of extra Abrams to the supply chain, than try to keep a small number of oddball 105 MGS supplied.  Any overseas deployment requiring direct fire support in any number will be an allied opperation, so why complicate the supply chain to supply a less effective, more vulnerable, MGS?


----------



## a_majoor

The sad part of this all is all the arguments would end (although we will have lots of new ones  ;D) if we simply ditched the LPT and replaced it with the CT_CV turret. (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-281193.html#msg281193)



> CMI Defence is offering a credible drop in turret alternative to the MGS, with a 105mm high velocity gun in a Wegmann style turret for LAV sized vehicles. The CT_CV turret has a 16 round bustle and autoloader, and a video was displayed which showed the LAV firing at targets both stationary and on the move, traversing 900 from the centerline while doing so. This turret is also suitable for retrofit onto existing tanks.



The turret also supports elevation up to 420, allowint DF against targets in a "3D" environment (those annoying people on the rooftops with RPGs) or indirect fire like an artillery piece. Very versatile nes pas?


----------



## horsegunner353

I've heard a rumour that the MGS program has been cancelled.  Can anyone authenticate this or is it only wishful thinking?


----------



## Gunner

The CLS toured the LdSH last Tuesday and it was still ago.


----------



## Da_man

And they decided to buy M1A2s Instead?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Still a go, as Gunner said.  Deliveries have been delayed until 2007 at the earliest.  I'm not sure that the vehicle is in production yet, although there are posters on this site who might have better information than I do...

(notice my remarkable restraint in not using this opportunity to criticise yet again a deeply-flawed direct fire strategy and procurement concept...   ;D )


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Well maybe if we can finally throw the Lieberals out of office, we can get the program scrapped also.

Hear the screeching as this screams right off the rails?


----------



## a_majoor

Of course, they don't need to cancell the MGS, just rethink it a bit:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-281321.html#msg281321

105mm high velocity cannon, 16 round bustle feeding the autoloader, full firing solution demonstrated up to 900 from the centerline both stationary and on the move, fits on an unmodified LAV III hull, air transportable on a Herc, and can fire at up to a 420 elevation.

I wonder how many we could get for the same amount of money being laid out for the MGS as it currently is?


----------



## KevinB

Why not a low velocity gun -- with AT missles attached -- we can use the 105LV for breaching and other HE tasks and use the missle for anti armour...


----------



## TCBF

"I wonder how many we could get for the same amount of money being laid out for the MGS as it currently is?"

New tanks are cheaper.  Take the money you save, and pay for shipping.  We have lots of money in the shipping budget - we sent winter tent groups to Kandahar and back in 2002, after all.

Tom


----------



## KevinB

Tom,
You, I and every other sane member wants TANKS -- but the gov't says no...

   Sadly it is doing the best without a Tanks (and thus no real high intensity conflict capability)  Creating a niche force - a niche w/o any armour.


----------



## TCBF

I often wondered what would have happened had we taken Vickers up on their offer to build tanks in Montreal in the eighties...

Oh well.

Tom


----------



## Kat Stevens

A bunch of desk pilots would have told them what to build and how to build it.... kind of like an LSVW on tracks...shudder.


----------



## Infanteer

KevinB said:
			
		

> You, I and every other sane member wants TANKS -- but the gov't says no...



The thing is, is it the government?  Everything I've been told to date indicates that the "no tank" decision was not a government decision (as was Trudeau's attempt to eliminate the fleet in the 70's) but rather an internal one (I understand there was a schism in the Armoured Corps over it - from top to bottom).  I may be wrong, but this is the way I understand it.

When looking at the MGS, we need to figure out what we want it for.  Do we want a high-velocity gun?  Would a low velocity gun work?  I linked the articles on the 120mm mortar and how it could act as a low-velocity direct fire weapon.  Is the low protection of the LAV (it is light armour, after all) going to allow it to perform many of the tasks required of intimate Direct Fire Support that the Infantry will require (a la Fallujah, where 2-tank sections were supplied to Marine Rifle companies and platoons)?  If it isn't, what role are we going to use it for?

As far as letting our MBT capability whither away and die, I will take every chance I get to point to the folly of doing so.  For today, I point to the Australians who recently purchased a small fleet of M1's.  When rationalizing the purchase, the Australian Chief of the Army (CA), Lieutenant General Peter Leahy stated that _"it would be irresponsible to the point of immorality to risk the lives of Australian soldiers by exposing them to this threat in the complex and ambiguous environment which will now prevail on the battlefield without adequate protection....The most efficient and safest way to enhance our combat weight and protect our soldiers is through the replacement of the aging Leopard tank by a more robust main battle tank which will rebalance the combined arms team."_

I guess the Canadian Army just "agreed to disagree" (or ignored) that assessment.... :


----------



## Slim

As a former tanker I'm going to weigh in with seeral thouts on this matter.

First of all, the MGS decision.

I liken it to the decision to buy the Grizzley/Cougar/Husky plan of the 70's/80's. At the time it was no more than a "stopgap" measure until the CF could come to grips with what sort of combat fleet it really wanted.

Instead they remained in service until '97 when the coyote was delivered with the lat of them phazed out in 2000 whn the first of the LAV 3's arrived for duty.

From personal experince (and other armoured types will agree) I've heard the Cougars called tank trainiers, mobile support vehicles, Fire support vehicles and a host of other names as the CF tried to find the 'niche' that would 'fit' the vehicle...Not the other way around.

The decision makers for the MGS seem to be enamoured of the veh itself, rather than the use that it would be put to...Its already been proven that the thing has many problems and cannot defend itself against anything other than the bad smell it generated the very first time someone brought up the idea to buy it.

Ask the guys, the crewmen on the ground and they'll tell you very quickly what our army in general and the Armoured Corps specifically needs in orderto do its job in the field of modern combat.

An up to date modern main battle tank.

Do they cost more than the MGS will...Well the oponents of the tank (and oddly enough supporters of the Mobile Gun System) will tell you the hrror stories about broken torshion bars, lack of parts, wear and tear on the vehicles themselves and the amount of echelon required to support them.

But what about crew surviability? The LAV3 already has extra armour plates glue to the sides to protect the crew from IED's along the side of the road in A'stan, where there is no such thing as stand off warfare, which is what the MGS was primarliy designed for.

What about cross country movement? We all know how restrictive the wheeled combat veh design is. What about survivability in the face of a mine strike?! I wonder how the MGS wold stand up to that?

There is a perfectly good design of tank sitting just across the border from us. It is battel tested and the crews know it works. Not onlyu that but many of the components are made right in Canada to begin with.

I'm sure the US would be glad to give us a deal on them...After all we've had them offered in the past for next to nothing! And the US being good neighbours (certainly better to us than we are to them) would give us parts and warrantees and training and the like...Everything we would need to operate OUR small fleet of M1 Abrams MBT's....Too bad its not POLITICALLY CORRECT to buy US kit. (of course the MGS is a US product as well, isn't it)

Time to face the reality of the situation... 

IN the end the MGS is nothing more than a Cougar with two more wheels and a bigger gun.


----------



## TCBF

A "Super Cougar":  

Twice the vehicle.

Twenty times the price.

Tom


----------



## George Wallace

TCBF said:
			
		

> I often wondered what would have happened had we taken Vickers up on their offer to build tanks in Montreal in the eighties...
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> Tom


And then there was Kraus Maffi who wanted to set up a plant in Cape Breton, close to Sydney and the Steel Plant, to have an AFV plant outside of Europe.   Peaceniks were very vocal in encourageing the Canadian Government not to become a 'Major" Arms Manufacturer.


----------



## George Wallace

Here is a post from the Armour news bulletin (a couple months old): 





> General Dynamics Awarded $69 Million Stryker Reset Contract
> 
> Sterling Heights MI (SPX) - The U.S. Army TACOM Lifecycle Management Command has awarded General Dynamics Land Systems a $69 million contract for Stryker eight-wheeled combat vehicle sustainment or "reset" work.
> 
> Through this contract, General Dynamics will service, repair and modify 265 Stryker infantry combat vehicles which are returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom, restoring them to a pre-combat, like-new condition in advance of reissuing the vehicles prior to their next deployment. These vehicles have been in service in Iraq since October 2003, supporting two 3,900-soldier Stryker Brigade Combat Team rotations.
> 
> The reset work is slated to begin in mid-November by existing General Dynamics employees in Sterling Heights; London, Ontario, Canada; and at Fort Lewis, Wash. Work is expected to be complete by Sept. 30, 2006.
> 
> During their service in Iraq, these vehicles were driven more than six million miles, participating in assignments ranging from Fallujah, Baghdad and the Euphrates River Valley to the Tigris River Valley and Mosul. The vehicles maintained an operational readiness rate above 95 percent throughout their deployment in Iraq.
> 
> The armored vehicles enable Stryker Brigade Combat Teams to maneuver easily in close and urban terrain, while providing protection in open terrain. Performance highlights include C-130 transportability; networked command, control, computing and communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capability; integral 14.5mm armor protection and 152mm artillery airburst protection; self-deployment and self-recovery capability; reduced vehicle acoustic signature; ability to carry a nine-man infantry or engineer squad; and bunker and wall breaching capability.
> 
> Stryker is the Army's highest-priority production combat vehicle program and the centerpiece of the ongoing Army Transformation. The Stryker family of eight-wheel-drive combat vehicles can travel at speeds up to 62 mph on highways, with a range of 312 miles.
> 
> Stryker vehicle configurations include carriers for mortars, engineer squads, infantry squads, command groups, and fire support teams; a nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance vehicle; anti-tank guided missile and medical evacuation vehicles; and the Mobile Gun System, a 105mm cannon mounted in a low-profile turret that is integrated into the Stryker chassis.
> 
> The Army recently approved the Mobile Gun System and the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle for low-rate production, and the first MGS and NBCRV are slated for delivery to the Army this month.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The MGS has been ordered on a diet.  The current version, which is currently in low rate production in Alabama, has been deemed to heavy.  The diet includes deletion of handrails and footsteps on the hull and turret, deletion of the drivers windscreen (along with the windshield washer), deletion of the second heater, a change from steel to magnesium seats, and a change from a steel engine grill to one made of composite plastic (which will be labelled "no step", similar to some areas on aircraft).  There are a few other deletions, none good.

The autoloader is still giving everyone fits, in that it still cannot differentiate between types of rounds, and (still) cannot reload on the move cross country.

The low rate initial production will remain in force until another set of trials is completed on the newer version.  Full production will not be ordered for at least another 18 months, which means Canada cannot get its copies until late 2007/early 2008 at the earliest.  It would seem that the Leo will just have to soldier on in the west for another five years anyway.....

Keep in mind that Canada has not yet ordered the MGS.  It has been "promised", but not ordered, so there still may be hope.........


----------



## George Wallace

I was going through that long list of deletions and "Safety Concerns" all came to mind.  Down grading a lot of the Armour and such, just to reduce weight and with the intention of adding Bolt On armour seems to defeat the purpose of the whole exercise.  Either a vehicle is sufficiently armoured to begin with or it isn't a Combat vehicle...These cost and weight cuts pose serious concerns to me.  Crew safety seems to have been completely disregarded.


----------



## Steel Badger

The "new" MGS , post modification:


----------



## blacktriangle

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I was going through that long list of deletions and "Safety Concerns" all came to mind.   Down grading a lot of the Armour and such, just to reduce weight and with the intention of adding Bolt On armour seems to defeat the purpose of the whole exercise.   Either a vehicle is sufficiently armoured to begin with or it isn't a Combat vehicle...These cost and weight cuts pose serious concerns to me.   Crew safety seems to have been completely disregarded.



Someone needs to get this on the news...

If people make a big enough deal about it, maybe they will cancel it. Governements will cancel projects if it makes them look bad. My feeling is that the military gets this stuff and always finds a way to make it work, I just hope it won't cost human lives in the process.


----------



## Cloud Cover

ShawnSmith said:
			
		

> If people make a big enough deal about it, maybe they will cancel it. Governements will cancel projects if it makes them look bad.



And then what?


----------



## Infanteer

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> The "new" MGS , post modification:



Worked for the Marines in Hue city....


----------



## KevinB

This is the Army doing it to itself.

 Brought to you be the same people that decided they coudl self validate the DFS concept...  :

 Surprised more shoulders did not pop out by all the self congratulating and back slapping


----------



## blacktriangle

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> And then what?



Maybe they should take a look at everything, and stop trying to invent all this "new" (and very expensive) stuff and maybe follow the lead of out other allies. If you all are going to get 66 of something, make sure that they are something that we could really use. Re-visit this mgs concept when technology and Canada's true needs are more clear. If the MGS is really the solution we need, we know what we will need to consider, and hopefully in time, the technology will be there to make the vehicle something more then it currently can be.


----------



## Infanteer

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> And then what?



 >


----------



## Cloud Cover

Funny- there aren't any beer bottles in the tube.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The MGS had to placed on a diet simply because the C130 cannot carry it.  The C130J can carry it, as long as the MGS has no ammunition, crew, fuel or any other supplies, but it can only carry 30 minutes of fuel on board, so it requires an immediate refuelling after take off.

I forgot to mention in my previous post that the run flat inserts had to be deleted as well, just too darn heavy.....

It seems strange to me that so much emphasis is being placed on the C130 requirement.  But, hey, it's not our project, it's an American project.....

I also forgot too mention that with all this weight reduction, the price of the MGS is expected to drop, we should be able to save almost $100 per copy.  Then again, $100 out of $6 million seems kind of puny..........


----------



## TCBF

Quote from: ShawnSmith on Yesterday at 17:09:01
"If people make a big enough deal about it, maybe they will cancel it. Governements will cancel projects if it makes them look bad."

- Like, you mean, the Gun Registry?

Tom


----------



## Mountie

Here is another option.  The Light Compact Turret System 90 by CMI.  It can match the performance of a 105mm gun with its low-recoil 90mm gun.  The 90mm gun is lighter and its ammunition is obviously lighter and smaller meaning more ammunition can be carried.  The 90mm Cockerill gun can defeat T-72 armour at 2000m and can easily defeat the armour of the T-54, T-55, T-62, AMX-30, and Leopard 1 at 8 km range.  

"The LCTS-90 has other amazing features. In this advanced turret, the gun is slaved to a stabilized day-night (thermal) gunner sight with a computerized fire control system allowing firing on the move and at moving targets, and the stabilized panoramic commander sight offers hunter-killer capability. Such features are usually found only on much heavier and more expensive vehicles..."


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Mountie, the CV-CT turret is the Cockerill 90 turret, replaced with a brand new, Cockerill 105, and some newer electronic gizmos.  The Cockerill 90 is in service with the Saudi Arabia National Guard on the LAV III chassis.  The SANG has/is conducting trials to determine whether or not to upgrade the LCTS with the CV-CT.


----------



## Mountie

Yes, I know that.  The point is that the 90mm gun is still capable of penetrating all armoured vehicles up to a T-72 tank.  And can even penetrate this at 2000m range.  Why upgrade to a 105mm gun that is heavier and has larger ammunition, which means less ammunition carried, when the 90mm gun will do just fine.  The heavier you make the vehicle the more problems you encounter.  When are Canadian task forces/battle groups going to go head to head with T-72's or anything bigger.


----------



## George Wallace

I just wonder if your statement of holding more ammo with 90 mm is accurate.  I imagine that the room saved in calibre really isn't the question, but the room saved by the Carousel.  I am not engineer, but I don't see much in the way of space being saved in a redesigned Carousel.


----------



## a_majoor

I would not be too worried about having tank duels with a LAV mounting anything, until a compact electromagnetic railgun is available.

A 105mm does have some down sides with size, weight and ammunition storage, but a 105mm HE shell, or HEAT-MP, or HESH is certainly going to do a better job of taking out the bunkers, troops in the open or enemy light vehicles (anything from a Toyota Land Cruiser "technical" to vehicles in the LAV class) than a 90mm. Given the CV-CT turret has a 420 elevation capability, a 105mm shell fired indirect or semi indirect will have more of an impact (heh) than a 90mm, all other things being equal.

In an emergency, when the local warlord rolls out his tank, or the PLA joins the fray, a 105 probably has a marginal improvement over a 90mm in terms of hitting power, and of course it would be easier to produce "smart" ammunition, through tube missiles etc. in 105mm than 90mm. As a final thought, I am fairly certain that 105mm ammunition is more common, making logistics easier.

As a final note, the CV_CT uses a 16n round "bustle" on the back of the turret to hold the ready ammunition, and more can be stored internally in a "wine rack" or other stowage arrangement. How much extra room you could get by switching to 90mm is perhaps debatable, but I would guess perhaps only two more rounds could be squeezed in the bustle.


----------



## George Wallace

On further reflection on the Ammo size, 90 vs 105, I would say that there would be no real benefit of it.  The round may be smaller, but the casing will probably be the same size.  When we had the Centurions, we had 20 Pdr and 105, ammo and barrels.  It was a simple change of the barrel ( the Chamber was part of the barrel) and we converted them between ammo types.  The breach and ammo stowage stayed the same.  Lance can confirm this better than I.

So a 90mm rd may still take up the same space as a 105 mm rd in the veh.  The problem now lies with the carousel, which would have to be converted between types of ammo, unlike in our centurion days when it was a quick barrel change.  Technology is more complex and more likely to fail in this system.


----------



## Infanteer

Perhaps another issue to add to George's critique - the MGS is a doctrinal part of the Stryker Brigades.  Do we want to go 90mm when a 105mm round is going to be a big part of the US inventory?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

You're correct, George.  When we swapped the barrels, there was no swapping of bins or anything else.  As a matter of fact, well up in to the early 1990's, all of the blank rounds we fired from the Leo were 20 pounder casings, cut down.  The 20 pounder and the 105 shared the same breech ring, recoil system and cradle as well.

In the early 70's, we did not have training ammunition for the 105.  When the Centurions were offloaded in Bergen-Hohne, as they entered the firing pad, the 105 barrels were removed, the 20 pounder fitted, and then they were ready to fire.  When they left the pad, the barrels were swapped again.  It was quite quick to swap barrels, too......


----------



## TCBF

"  When they left the pad, the barrels were swapped again.  It was quite quick to swap barrels, too...."

In Germany during the Cuban missle crisis, the Cdn Bde went into their conc areas.  The Centurians had started to re-bbl to 105mm already, but BAOR held no war stock 105mm, so the 8 CH(PL) had to re-bbl their 105s back to 20 pdr to get ready to maybe go to war.

The only reason the Yanks want MGS is because the PWS on the Stryker needs back-up.  If the Yanks had LAV 3 like we did, they would not bother with a LAV 3.  So, niether should we.

Tom


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Tom, are you trying to say that the 25mm pop gun is a viable replacement for a direct fire cannon?  We still require some kind of a platform that can mount a 105/120, preferably the 120.  Of course, our Leo can be mounted with the 120, the Leopard 1A6 mounted the 120, had a independant PERI sight for the commander, and turret electric drive.  The downside is that stowed ammunition dropped to 40 rounds.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

25mm cannon are nice, but lack the knockout punch of a 105.  Against hard targets, the 105mm has the ability to bunkerbust better than any light cannon, and for cheaper than the equivalent missile punch.  If our LAV mounted the 25mm with side mounted Spike, Javelin, or TOW missile systems, then you could argue that each section would have the equivalent anti-bunker and anti-armour capacity, but as long as the CF wants cannon only LAV, then the 105mm MGS is a better than nothing.  With the 105 rather than the 90mm, there is also the hope that through tube missile systems will give the LAV MGS a chance to score against heavier armour in anti-tank encounters.  We may not want to meet any MBT's in an MGS, but that doesn't mean some poor zipperhead isn't going to have to do it.


----------



## TCBF

"Tom, are you trying to say that the 25mm pop gun is a viable replacement for a direct fire cannon?"

- No, I am saying the direct fire cannon we have chosen is "bleeding edge" technology and other adult countries have stuck with MBTs for a reason.  Having said that, if they had 25mm on each Stryker, they would balance that off with their AT holdings and be happy with that.

Just like we are, now, on the ground.  

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

Don't be so sure, the American Army loves its firepower, and an SBCT with both chain guns AND 105mm cannons would certainly give a lot of Captains and LCols a very big smile each and every trip to the vehicle compound or range. 

The reason the Strykers did not get 25mm cannons has many answers (weight restrictions, desire for more room in the hull, prevent crew commanders form doing the "Charge of the Light Brigade" etc.). In principle, having some sort of "assault gun" to shoot in attacks is always a good thing, even a 25mm will have difficulty if the enemy is bunkered in urban terrain, while a tank, assault gun or SP is just the ticket to showing these people the error of their ways.

The error of OUR way is that we have forgotten the assault guns were *inexpensive* means of supplimenting the firepower of an Infantry formation, cut down and obsolete tank hulls formed the basis of most assault guns in WWII. A modern analogue would be an assault gun built on a M-113 chassis, or Mat Fisher's CAT Leopard C 1 conversion scheme. An unmodified LAV III hull with a CV_CT turret has many more options than are really "needed" for an inexpensive assault gun, but has the flexibility (combined with advanced ammunition and through tube missiles) to become the MMEV or an SP gun system as well.


----------



## TCBF

Well, since Canada has decided we need such a vehicle, I just hope we keep a balanced view of our options, especially if the MGS turns into an eight wheeled Avro Arrow - or more to the point, since it is American, a Sgt York SPAAG (or XF-108 if you want to keep a common aviation theme).

Tom


----------



## geo

Washington Report - November 2005
5.	Krieg Allows Mobile Gun System to Move Into Low-Rate Production.   The Pentagon has approved the Army's request to fully advance the Stryker Mobile Gun System into low-rate initial production, and the vehicles will begin rolling off production lines this month.   The Army had been under orders to produce only 14 MGSs, along with long-lead parts for an additional 58 vehicles.   But a 13 Oct 05 memo by Ken Krieg, the Defence Department's acquisition chief, allows the Army to proceed with its plan to produce a total of 72 of the Strykers topped with a 105 mm cannon.   The memo contains one caveat, however: The Army must provide Krieg "with the rationale in advance of deploying any MGS vehicle prior to the completion of testing."     The language reflects the view from the testing community that the vehicles should not deploy until the service has issued a final test report, according to Pete Keating, a spokesman for General Dynamics, which makes Stryker vehicles for the Army.   The primary hold-up to vehicle production had been reliability of the ammunition handling system.   (Contact - CFMA)


----------



## JackD

hello.. Going back to the topic, I was just browsing through the web-site www.warwheels.net. if you look at issue 330 of Armoured CAr (under "general", in the home page) there is an article on a beastie called the "shark". maybe Mowag can dust off the plans... The last issue that ins on-line by the way as an article on the Piranna III - and includes a picture of a medium gun system equivelent.........


----------



## Int

Well, guys. On 15 Dec 2 MGS Strykers rolled into service the first of 72 LRIP...Lets keep an eye on its performance.


----------



## Int

Mr. Wiebe, do you know if the Stryker MGS has successfully been transported in a C130? I cannot find any test results on line.  The only thing I have found is that they were going to conduct test flights in August 05.....thats all I can come up with...I need to know the final results of that test flight.


----------



## ChopperHead

TCBF said:
			
		

> Well, since Canada has decided we need such a vehicle, I just hope we keep a balanced view of our options, especially if the MGS turns into an eight wheeled Avro Arrow - or more to the point, since it is American, a Sgt York SPAAG (or XF-108 if you want to keep a common aviation theme).
> 
> Tom



the Arrow was a masterpiece, excellent machine far ahead of it's time. the MGS (IMO) is piece of SH*T. Keep the leopards we have and spend the money that was going to be spent on MGS and buy some new Leo 2's to supplement our current tank forces. 

so in away i hope your right but the arrow is just a bad example. The MGS is just a quick fix so that we have some armour in one form or another in field rather then having to buy ships and aircraft capable of transporting our tanks. thats all it is, the government being cheep and not buying the stuff that we need and just spending money where ever just to say that they are.

if you dont agree with me dont flame me it's just my opinion.


----------



## Guest

Technically, the MGS is CC-130 Air-Transportable, just like the LAVIII.. technically.

In practice.. you wouldn't want to use a CC-130 as your PRIMARY means of transport for either of them. (For obvious reasons)

We didn't lose the tanks because of optics.. in Canada.. a LAVIII is called a "Tank" by pretty much everybody NOT in the Military.

The MGS will be just as scary to those people. (It also has that "looks way cool peacekeeper gear " photo op factor going on.

Combine that with the MMEV.. with all it's fancy missiles, radar and toaster oven and coffee maker.. we're bound to impress our fellow sheeple.

We got them, to help us become more usefull as a UN and NATO GARRISON Force.

Thats right.. no more big battles for us.. if there are any.. we will be asked to stay home (so we won't get hurt)

The Brits, the Americans, the Aussies.. they'll be the ones doing the heavy slugging when called on.. we'll stay "near the rear" or "On the side"

Our Medium weight, high dollar,  tastes great, less filling force will have decent speed to "runaway in quite a spectacular fashion, should ENEMY TANKS show up in any significant number.

I suspect they wont let us play if they anticipate anything more dangerous than a T-55. (After all.. our new "Tank" and LAVS will be worth 3X as much.. and more vulnerable)

Nope.. we'll be doing all the " babysitting" work for the next 30-50 years..  making sure the  locals get plenty of Cdn flags and teddy bears. patrolling around areas where the biggest "armour" threat will be a rusty Nissan with a 20 mm in the bed

Oh, eventually we'll slap some cages, bring our Veh up to RGB proof standards..(after we lose a couple first)

Then we'll be ready for our new role..


You've met the Americans.. the world's Police Force?

Congratulations.. You are all serving members in the worlds new... SECURITY GUARDS


----------



## Blue Max

Guest said:
			
		

> Our Medium weight, high dollar,  tastes great, less filling force will have decent speed to "runaway in quite a spectacular fashion, should ENEMY TANKS show up in any significant number.
> 
> I suspect they wont let us play if they anticipate anything more dangerous than a T-55. (After all.. our new "Tank" and LAVS will be worth 3X as much.. and more vulnerable)
> 
> Nope.. we'll be doing all the " babysitting" work for the next 30-50 years..  making sure the  locals get plenty of Cdn flags and teddy bears. patrolling around areas where the biggest "armour" threat will be a rusty Nissan with a 20 mm in the bed



Unless Gen. Hillier does some serious shaping of Canadian forces, I am afraid your comments have cleverly forcast the lackluster future of our forces.


----------



## Mortar guy

Actually the MGS is not 'technically' air transportable in the C-130. It is at least 3,000 lbs too heavy and is unlikely to ever trim down enough to be C-130 transportable (see GAO report 04-925 here: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04925.html ) It is important to note that even the Canadian LAV III is _barely_ C-130 transportable as you must strip everything (add-on armour, most fuel, ammo, kit, passenger seats, tools) from the vehicle and remove the nitrogen from the suspension before you can even think about getting it in a Herc. And then, as it would then still be very close to its MTOW, the Herc would only have enough fuel to fly a couple of hundred kilometers. Hardly tactically useful eh?

MG


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The MGS has been fitted into a C130 mockup, to ensure it would fit.  In theory, a totally stripped, fuel-less, crew-less MGS can be carried by the C130J in minimum takeoff fuel mode, but this has not been actually completed.  Seems the USAF doesn't like taking off with less 30 minutes of fuel on board.  Even the "J" would have to be refuelled immediately after takeoff, and would have severe flight restrictions.  Hence why the MGS was put on another diet.....


----------



## brihard

At the risk fo straying from my lane, I've got one minor thought on this. Please correct me if I'm incorrect on any of this.

One of the primary considerations in the MGS/LAV fleet is that is be air-transportable by C-130, however the MGS exceeds the maximum carrying capacity of a Herc.

The CF is currently investigating new strategic airlift options, including the possibility of C-17s. The C-17 can carry an M1 tank, never mind a LAV.

So would it not be logical for someone in NDHQ to call a pause on this until strategic airlift is resolved so we can see if we WILL be limited to C-130s in the mid future, and if not, possibly re-evaluate what we want in terms of armoured vehicles taking any potential new developments in our air transport capability into consideration? I'd hate to think of our project being limited my the C-130 with the potential that we may be purchasing larger aircraft int eh coming years...

Again, I'm probably out of my lane here, but this just seems like common sense to this grunt...


----------



## George Wallace

Brihard said:
			
		

> One of the primary considerations in the MGS/LAV fleet is that is be air-transportable by C-130, however the MGS exceeds the maximum carrying capacity of a Herc.
> 
> The CF is currently investigating new strategic airlift options, including the possibility of C-17s. The C-17 can carry an M1 tank, never mind a LAV.
> 
> So would it not be logical for someone in NDHQ to call a pause on this until strategic airlift is resolved so we can see if we WILL be limited to C-130s in the mid future, and if not, possibly re-evaluate what we want in terms of armoured vehicles taking any potential new developments in our air transport capability into consideration? I'd hate to think of our project being limited my the C-130 with the potential that we may be purchasing larger aircraft int eh coming years...


As we know from all the previous posts, the MGS was required to fit into a C-130 and it has not been able to fill that requirement without drastic stripping of parts.  We also know from the previous posts that there is no way that the MGS can be effectively be moved in any great numbers to a conflict, by air; it will have to be transported by Sea.  This makes the C-130 requirements mote points.  As for any delays to the purchase of C-130s to replace or bring back up to strength our C-130 Fleet, think back to the replacement of our SeaKings and what delays have done there.  We can decide on C-17s, A-400s or Boeing 747s, or whatever, to fill the Strategic Lift capabilities, later.  To delay any purchase of C-130s, for Tactical Lift, would be against common sense. 


			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Again, I'm probably out of my lane here, but this just seems like common sense to this grunt...


When did common sense ever come into play in any of your experience with the CF?  ;D


----------



## brihard

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As we know from all the previous posts, the MGS was required to fit into a C-130 and it has not been able to fill that requirement without drastic stripping of parts.  We also know from the previous posts that there is no way that the MGS can be effectively be moved in any great numbers to a conflict, by air; it will have to be transported by Sea.  This makes the C-130 requirements mote points.  As for any delays to the purchase of C-130s to replace or bring back up to strength our C-130 Fleet, think back to the replacement of our SeaKings and what delays have done there.  We can decide on C-17s, A-400s or Boeing 747s, or whatever, to fill the Strategic Lift capabilities, later.  To delay any purchase of C-130s, for Tactical Lift, would be against common sense. When did common sense ever come into play in any of your experience with the CF?  ;D



Sorry, I'm not arguing against procuring new C-130s- just that since C-17s are under possible consideration as well, if they insist on keeping this idea of air transporting our armour, they might as well wait to figure out if we'll have a bigger transport to play with that would be taken into consideration in the program requirements (those being the same requirements that have apparently been abandoned anyway, though). If we can carry (notionally or not) a bigger vehicle, well, maybe we ought to consider one that won't leave the crew shake'n'baked when someone on the block realizes they don't like Canadians and decides to do something about it.

The common sense I chalk down to youthful idealism. Please allow this grunt to think that some things are right in this world, at least for a few more years.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Well, you don't seem to be arguing for or against the MGS, but for or against the purchase of Tactical vs Strategic Air Lift capabilities.

That is a whole different Topic in the Air Force Forums.


----------



## a_majoor

Although it is a compliment to the designers of the C-130 that after almost 50 years of service it is still the gold standard for air transporability, making the carriage of an AFV inside one as THE defining requirment is sheer madness, for many reasons as listed above.

Until we get our collective heads unwrapped around the axle of C-130 transporatbility, we will be left with vehicles of very marginal utility. If C-130 transporatbility *is* a critical requirment, then we need to: 

a) Buy enough C-130s to lift an entire battlegroup in one chalk (plus spares, training, SAR and "ash and trash" planes), and 

b) Design some radically different vehicles from the ground up which CAN be C-130 transportable and fight effectively. These will not resemble the LAV or anything else you have ever seen, for pretty obvious reasons (size, weight and volume must be utilized in some pretty radical ways to fit the C-130 parameters).

Once you start thinking that way, then the transformation of the CF into a "medium" expeditionary force requires changes far beyond anything we have even begun to contemplate, much less publicly express.


----------



## Infanteer

+1 to that Art.


----------



## Patrolman

Has anyone considered the roll-over potential of the MGS? Having Crew Commanded a Lav 3 for 4 years I have seen them roll on ex and have lost a old member of my pl.to a roll over. That soldier was Pte.Woodfield. An excellent guy who died too young.
 With the added weight on an already top heavy vehicle the CF will have to prepare itself for many more rollover deaths.
 How many tanks have we seen roll recently!


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The Americans have certainly discovered the roll over potential of the MGS!  They have rolled a few in Washington (the State), and have had at least one death that I know of.  The MGS has been ordered to remain on roads, all movement cross country and unimproved trails have been prohibited, at least for now.

Our entire fleet is now basically diesel, including the Gelandewagen.  But, the M1 will also run on diesel, so that's not much of a consideration.

When the Swedes ran their MBT trials, prior to selecting a modified Leo 2, part of the process was projecting the operating cost of the various MBT's.  The M1 cost was projected to be 2.5 times higher than the next most expensive MBT, primarily because of the turbine.


----------



## brihard

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, you don't seem to be arguing for or against the MGS, but for or against the purchase of Tactical vs Strategic Air Lift capabilities.
> 
> That is a whole different Topic in the Air Force Forums.



I don't know enough about MGS to argue for or against it- I'll leave that to you guys. What I'm saying is that part of the LAV/MGS program is the intent that it be air transportable. If that's to be a program criteria, the air transport issue should be resolved first in case it should impact on the vehicle considerations. I'm just pointing out a possible disjunct at NDHQ that could have impact on the future implementation of armoured vehicles within the CF based on the criteria we seem to have deemed necessary.


----------



## geo

Hat's off to the C130s designers BUT..... many another country has tasted the fruit and found it to be well.... lacking.
Others have concluded that you need more than C130s if you intend to project force around the world. Possibly Canada should be listening & it might be time to break out the old checkbook


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

We can't move an MGS across Canada, let alone to Kandahar in a C130, so why don't the feds face the facts that we require a plane that can transport something heavier than a G-wagon.     
     Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 pounds, and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 pounds. With a payload of 130,000 pounds and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet, the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 5,200 nautical miles. Its cruise speed is approximately 450 knots (.77 Mach).
     If we stick to C130's, even the newer J's, we may as well buy LeoII or Challengers as MGS's because we haven't got a snowballs chance of transporting enough MGS's to support a Canadian battlegroup deployed overseas.  For all the Hercules fans out there, I do agree it is a remarkable aircraft, and have logged enough miles in the back of them, but it is not enough for strategic heavy lift.


----------



## TCBF

"Oct 05 memo by Ken Krieg, the Defence Department's acquisition chief, allows the Army to proceed with its plan to produce a total of 72 of the Strykers topped with a 105 mm cannon.  "

72? How many are we going to buy?  You don't think Ottawa 'garanteed' the funding for these, do you?

"the Arrow was a masterpiece, excellent machine far ahead of it's time."

- Sure, but perhaps no more so than the XF-108 was or would have been, and cancelled for much the same reasons.  We don't own ALL of the good ideas on the planet - we just decided to accept risk (after risk, after risk) on the Arrow, and when the RCAF could not afford it without risking other programs, they junked it. The same RCAF that had to cancel all of the 'gap-filler' unmanned Pinetree Line sites a few years later when another funding crunch hit.

Now, had the govmint funded the Arrow like they now do Bombardier, etc, and not insisted the RCAF carry the whole can, they might be still up there.  

Some may be saying that about the MGS right now - rushed in ahead of planned dates - before other sub-systems matured - could they be right?

Besides, will it fit in an Airbus 400?  That's what I want to no.  Forget the C130J...

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Kirkhill

For those of you concerned about deploying the MGS in Canada, or any of the other LAV variants, it takes about 65 hours to drive from Vancouver to Halifax on the Trans-Canada.  With the way the LAVs are deployed in Edmonton, Shilo, Petawawa, Valcartier and Gagetown the only major urban areas not accessible by road in 12 hours or less are Whitehorse (23 hours from Edmonton) and Yellowknife (16 hrs).  Tuktoyuktuk is about 36 to 48 hours away.

These are the only areas with good road grids where LAVs can operate.  (And before the Tankers chime in here, I am going to suggest that without roads to supply gas and spares tanks aren't going to go very far either).

That area accessible by city streets and farm roads is only about 8% of  Canada's Land Mass.  Something like 20% of the rest of the country is bush with forest cut lines in it - neither very good sight lines, nor very good manoeuver options when restricted to trails ( and before folks start talking about the Ardennes you can drive across that in less than an hour on the highway), nor very good mobility on logging roads.  The rest of Canada, something like 70% of it, is totally unserviced by roads.  Once your LAV or MGS gets off the runway, where exactly is it going to go?

It isn't inconceivable that there may be uses for LAVs in insurrection situations in the South - though I don't expect to see any such in my life - but that isn't where we are being challenged.  We are being challenged in those areas we don't choose to live - up in the North, where there are no roads.

If we don't currently choose to live and work there then come the day that somebody else does so choose then we have little case to argue they should go away.  Until we decide that we can either dispose of, trade away or heaven forbid exploit those areas ourselves then the conventional means of staking a claim is to put a fence up, a few sign posts and have a night watchman on the premises.  The most probable enemy he/she will encounter in that role is criminals of the claim-jumping, poaching and smuggling variety - sometimes armed, sometimes organized, sometimes supported by foreign interests.

To deal with those threats in those environments helicopters, BVs and boats are more practical than LAVs.  

The CH-47F/G can self deploy anywhere in Canada in under 16 hours or so.  The Griffon would do better with an air assist like a C-17 or to be locally forward deployed (fixed base or perhaps Ice Breaker?).  The BVs and the boats however are both deployable by C130/C27/C295 (sometimes with the tops down).  They can also both be lifted short distances by the CH-47s.

MGS may or may not be a good piece of kit.  It may or may not be a valid addition to a LAV task force. It may or may not be liftable by the C130.  But, domestically, its air deployability is not a major issue.  It can get to most areas that it might usefully operate fastest on its own tyres - IF - it is regionally deployed (not the current plan but presumably there is actually little expectation of the MGS firing at live targets in Canada).

Cheers,


----------



## TCBF

"It isn't inconceivable that there may be uses for LAVs in insurrection situations in the South - though I don't expect to see any such in my life - but that isn't where we are being challenged.  We are being challenged in those areas we don't choose to live - up in the North, where there are no roads"

- We got out of the Artic business in a big way in the seventies.  CENTAG was the buzzword, and nobody liked the cold anyway.  But at least back then, we still had 1300 M113A1 APCs, the best Arctic veh we had (BV isn't splinter proof).

Any real ground challenge to our Arctic is - in the Winter -  best solved by water bombers. 

 ;D

If there is fighting in Canada in the next ten years, it may well be 'old country' terrorism protecting their leave centers and funding sources - the Tamil LTTE, etc.

Tom


----------



## Eland

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> <Description of the Leo 2's excellent qualities snipped>
> 
> Perhaps the best trade off for Canada, assuming a MBT buy, would be buying surplus M1A1, rebuilt with the MTU power pack?



MGS cancelled? Dear God, please, please let it be so! As for the idea of surplus M1A1's rebuilt and upgraded, they'd be a damn sight better than no tanks, or, God forbid, that abortion known as the MGS. In its dying days, the Mulroney government had the chance to get 300 M1's (armed with 105's) plus parts and spares for a song. If they had gone ahead with the purchase, rebuilding and diesel-izing the fleet and even up-gunning them could have been done very cheaply. Interestingly, the purchase price of the proposed 1984 M1 buy was $300 million. 

To think that the government spent one-third of that amount to upgrade the existing Leopard C1's to a level that doesn't even come close to the existing M1 in terms of armour protection or armament. Only to decide a few short years later that Canada would get out of the tank business altogether and go with deficient wheeled fire support vehicles cast in some sort of half-baked poorly conceived armoured cavalry role.


----------



## jumper664

The MGS is still a go. There are some problems with the loading system and until the Stryker program has completed the R& D on the trials and evaluation in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Baltimore, Maryland. The Canadian military will not take delivery of the 66 ordered from GDLS.
Rest assured…we will get then


----------



## Eland

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> For those of you concerned about deploying the MGS in Canada, or any of the other LAV variants, it takes about 65 hours to drive from Vancouver to Halifax on the Trans-Canada.  With the way the LAVs are deployed in Edmonton, Shilo, Petawawa, Valcartier and Gagetown the only major urban areas not accessible by road in 12 hours or less are Whitehorse (23 hours from Edmonton) and Yellowknife (16 hrs).  Tuktoyuktuk is about 36 to 48 hours away.
> 
> These are the only areas with good road grids where LAVs can operate.  (And before the Tankers chime in here, I am going to suggest that without roads to supply gas and spares tanks aren't going to go very far either).



<remainder snipped>

By detailing the sheer size of Canada, you bring up an interesting point about the MGS. 72 of them is far too small a number to even begin to employ in a territorial defence role, or for that matter, cover any reasonable portion of a salient in combat operations. Indeed, 72 MGS units seems not only laughably small, but a number better suited to a training establishment, and that's where I think the MGS will end up, with maybe a squadron or so deployed overseas in A'stan for light infantry fire support. 

When you consider Canada's vast tracts of boreal forests and areas impassable to wheeled vehicles, I wonder why we don't take a page out of the Swedish Army playbook. Sweden has terrain which is very similar to Canada's, and the Swedish have found that only one strategy really works for defensive operations in such terrain. That strategy involves use of tracked vehicles, significant pioneer and engineering assets, lots of light infantry trained in arctic and winter warfare, and materiel and ammo stocks pre-positioned in caches located in critical forward areas and other strategic areas.

Many say Canada is rendered effectively immune from attack by its sheer size and the presence of the US. What these people don't realize is that there are many countries who want Canada's rich natural resources - and may not want to pay for them. As competition for dwindling resources increases, a potential enemy may try to attack not by way of Canada's littoral, but through its weakest point - the  Arctic. Recent events have starkly displayed just how absent and therefore weak our arctic defences really are - Hans Island and the recent use of the Northwest Passage by US and UK nuclear subs comes to mind.

If US troops are occupied elsewhere in a major conflict, there may not be enough of them to help out with defending Canada's northern flank. Considerations of Canada's small population aside, the job would inevitably fall to us. This is one reason why I can't understand why we are not massively investing in our northern defences, and still maintaining our silly addiction to peacekeeping.


----------



## jumper664

I work at CFSEME and i worked for GDLS.
you will get the MGS....end of story


----------



## Kirkhill

Eland:

I agree with you on the MGS. I disagree on the Swedish comparison.

Sweden is a relatively small country compared to Canada.  It is also quite narrow and served by a very extensive highway network, some of which is used for expedient airfields.  They also have a large number of armoured vehicles which they can afford because: a) they build them themselves in crown corporations and b) they don't hve to pay their conscript drivers and CCs much.  Nor do they have to maintain those personnel when they aren't training or shooting.

The net effect is that Swedish tracks don't have to travel far to get to the front.  And the supply lines, the roads, are never far behind them.  Coupled with large amounts of stockpiles.

Canada couldn't begin to afford the density of deployed materiel that is available to the Swedes.  Now if you sucked all 30 million of us down to the maritimes, nationalized GM, imposed universal conscription and gave all the rest of Canada's land claims then you might make a decent stab at it.

Cheers again.


----------



## TCBF

"Considerations of Canada's small population aside, the job would inevitably fall to us."

- Huh?  With half of our present population, we put 1,000,000 men and women in uniform in WW2. Given a bit of prep time, we are more than capable of launching the 4th, 7th, and 12th Bns of the Jane and Finch Fusileers on an echeloned human-wave attack across Hans Island.  A sort of 21st Century Dieppe.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Considerations of Canada's small population aside, the job would inevitably fall to us."
> 
> - Huh?  With half of our present population, we put 1,000,000 men and women in uniform in WW2. Given a bit of prep time, we are more than capable of launching the 4th, 7th, and 12th Bns of the Jane and Finch Fusileers on an echeloned human-wave attack across Hans Island.  A sort of 21st Century Dieppe.
> 
> ;D
> 
> Tom



Especially given the 4rth and 12th battalions will probably be shooting at each other. 

Geography really does trump other factors here, even an Army of 1,000,000 men (much less an armed forces) will never be able to control the Canadian Arctic. On the other hand, do we really need to do so? Given that it is amazingly difficult to get to the arctic in force setting off from right here in Canada, the possibility of waking up one morning to find the Finns busily mining Baffin Island is pretty ludicrous. There is only one nation on Earth which could do this, and, hey, they already do so by buying into or just buying Canadian companies. China will be joining the Americans soon enough, so people worrying about the pile up of American Treasury instruments in China will have to wonder what WE will be doing with all that American cash.

Our potential problem will have to be solved by a combination of strategic airlift (the ability to fly missions over several thousand miles) and airborn/airmobile or at least air portable forces. Don't forget that any potential enemies who do decide to squat in the far north won't be bringing heavy armour to their party either.

The MGS (or a better solution like the CV_CT or CV 90120 light tank) are specific tools for specific jobs. Change the parameters too much and you will not be able to use these weapons. Similarly, airborn forces are not the universal answer to military problems either(as the British in "Market Garden" or the French at Dien Bien Phu could attest). A medium weight mechanized force does need the ability to have self propelled firepower to accompany them into battle, so we should not be arguing about the basic need, but rather the way to fulfill that need.


----------



## ArmyRick

Back on topic. If (God willing) harper gets in as PM, do you think the Canadian MGS order will be cancelled? Bets in please.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Depends how many conservatives get elected in the London area.


----------



## ArmyRick

If I am not mistaken, GM is now out of the Defence products business? I was sure General Dynamics purchased the LAVIII production lines and all that? Please someone in the know fill me in  ???


----------



## Cloud Cover

The plant is called GDLS (London). The LAV III/Stryker/FMS variants are still made there, but I think the MGS may be finished at another plant.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> If I am not mistaken, GM is now out of the Defence products business? I was sure General Dynamics purchased the LAVIII production lines and all that? Please someone in the know fill me in  ???


I think you are correct....things seem to be under the GD name now.  If the US has dropped their production requirements for the 'MGS', what are the odds that it will be dropped right across the board?  Will Canada go through the excessive expense to produce a small quantity of them or bail out to save costs?


----------



## Cloud Cover

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Will Canada go through the excessive expense to produce a small quantity of them or bail out to save costs?



To compensate, perhaps the MGS will be placed on top of a new batch of LAV III specialist variants. I'm not saying there is such an order in the works, but remember the chief elements of Canadian defence procurement policy are (1) votes (2) surprise (3) more votes (4) military requirements.


----------



## old medic

Both of these seem to confirm it:

GD Press Release
http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press_releases/2002/AudioNewsReleaseThursday,%20Dec19.htm
GD Profile
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/industry/general_dynamics.htm

GM just appears to have it's truck line remaining on the military end:
http://www.gmfleet.com/gmfleetjsp/government/product/military.jsp


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The MGS is being built on its own assembly line, in Alabama.  In some ways it makes sense, because it has less than 5% parts commonality with the LAV III.


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> If (God willing) harper gets in as PM, do you think the Canadian MGS order will be cancelled?


Well, he has not mentioned tanks as part of his defence platform.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The MGS is being built on its own assembly line, in Alabama.  In some ways it makes sense, because it has less than 5% parts commonality with the LAV III.



I thought a larger portion was coming out of Oxford street, but maybe its just the basic frame/chassis for the first 10 copies:

"GM GDLS Defense Group L.L.C. of Shelby Township, Mich., is being awarded a delivery order amount of $8,577,753 as part of an estimated face value $48,223,776 firm-fixed-price contract for ten Mobile Gun System Vehicles to include a one-time non-recurring charge. Work will be performed in at GM, Canada (32%); GDLS, Ohio, Michigan and Alabama (39%); and other various locations (29%) and is expected to be completed by Jan. 15, 2003. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Bids were solicited on the World Wide Web and 17 bids were received. The U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (DAAE0700-D-M051). "


http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2001/c12172001_ct643-01.html


----------



## CanadianBoy92

Now that the Conservatives are in power will the plan be scraped or has someone heard that they will keep it going?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

They just got in and haven't had time to break any of their promises so just wait a bit.  They haven't even sworn in Harper or formed a new cabinet.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Now, if the Conservatives are crafty, they'll pull this one out of the fire through some imaginative contract renegotiations;
If they cancel the order outright, GDLS will likely hit them with all kinds of cancellation penalties, but what they could do would be to keep that $66M going to GDLS, but change the contract (by also doing some political maneuvering with the US DOD) to acquire a regiment's worth of used M1A1s similar to what the Aussies did.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

As far as I'm aware, we haven't signed the final contract yet, just made promises.......or maybe that's just wishful thinking!


----------



## marty737

I have read about your LAV's on this forum. Sounds like alot of people are against them. We are using ASLAV's here in Australia, and I have found them to be one of the best vehicles around for high speed mobility. These vehicle's have also seen action in Iraq and we have only lost a couple of them due to IED's. Thank God due to the way these have been made all the crew have managed to survive these attacks. We have even had RPG's bouncing of these vehicle's . They might not be a tank but this is the way modern warfare is turning to. The day's of the tank are slowly coming to a end. We are going away from the Leopard here and have got M1 Abram on the way. The last time Australia sent tanks overseas was in Vietnam. I would gladly join your Army anyday to drive the worlds best vehicle ever made. Have driven them over here and love them.


----------



## George Wallace

marty737

We are discussing the LAV MGS, not the ASLAV.  Two completely different vehicles.  This is the POS that we are talking about:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm

The LAV family is a fairly good family of vehicles, we however have little to no faith in the MGS being a viable piece of kit.


----------



## geo

Marty.
Glad to have you aboard. I think that most people are not necessarily against the LAVIII itself. More of a gripe against the decision to give up whatever advantage an MBT (Leo/M1) might have for something like the MGS.
The MGS is supposed to be based on the American Stryker (LAV Variant) more than on the LAVIII original..... However, considering they have not, as yet, been field tested or deployed - we'll just have to wait and see.

In the meantime - enjoy the ride.


----------



## CanadianBoy92

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Now, if the Conservatives are crafty, they'll pull this one out of the fire through some imaginative contract renegotiation's;
> If they cancel the order outright, GDLS will likely hit them with all kinds of cancellation penalties, but what they could do would be to keep that $66M going to GDLS, but change the contract (by also doing some political maneuvering with the US DOD) to acquire a regiment's worth of used M1A1s similar to what the Aussies did.



Sound like a good idea.


----------



## Armymatters

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Now, if the Conservatives are crafty, they'll pull this one out of the fire through some imaginative contract renegotiations;
> If they cancel the order outright, GDLS will likely hit them with all kinds of cancellation penalties, but what they could do would be to keep that $66M going to GDLS, but change the contract (by also doing some political maneuvering with the US DOD) to acquire a regiment's worth of used M1A1s similar to what the Aussies did.



Or a contract for Stryker M1129 120mm Mortar Carrier variant... Canada should field a 120mm mortar, and then covert the Bison 81mm mortar carrier to other duties...


----------



## xxtruthxx

^^^all great ideas but we're going to get into the same "snafu" as we are now with the MGS . All these new LAVs and no way to get them where they might actually be usefull. As unlikely as it is the NDHQ needs a serious overhaul in the why it procures new equipment and for that matter on the way it does anything these days. 

Truth

Just my opnion.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I heard someone today mention that the MGS project has been zero-funded, and all personnel on the project assigned new tasks.

Can anyone verify this?

Or is it just more wishful thinking turning into rumours?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Lance could you quantify that rumor?


----------



## solidarnosc

Hi. I don't want to go off topic but maybe this is relevant for the discussion. Belgium bought 242 Piranha III AIV's from MOWAG (General Dynamics) for 700 million €. 99 equiped with a remote controlled weapon system. (probably the Arrows 300 .50 (FN)), 32 with a 30mm canon (probably the ORCWS from Elbit because they have a smal systercompany in Oudenaarde that makes optical instruments (OIP) and the statement said that the canon can be controlled from under the hull) and *40 MK8 90mm's.* 24 command vehicles, 12 ambulances, 17 repair vehicles en 18 engeneer. There was some debate about this, mainly political, not military since CMI is a Walloon company and we have a Walloon minister of defence so every discision in favour or that looks in favour of a Walloon company is (made) suspicious in the Flemish part of the country also because the only company that offers 90mm ammo for the Mk8 (Mecar)is situated in the home town of the minister of defence (Nivelle).  It is not mentioned in the media that CMI also has a gun/turret called the CT-CV and the fact Mecar also produces 105mm rounds (for the Leopard 1's). (They recently received a contract for 105mm's for the MGS system) Ministry of defence didn't defend their dissision for the 90mm nor explained why they didn't buy the CT-CV or another 105mm canon. Maybe also interesting for Canadians. The troop carriers (99?) will be equiped with a Small Arms Detection and Localisation System (SADLS.) Maybe they saw something usefull in Afghanistan. I think this was a good week for the sales people at GD.


----------



## TCBF

Very interesting.  Thank you for that info, and welcome to Army.ca!

Tom


----------



## solidarnosc

TCBF said:
			
		

> Very interesting.  Thank you for that info, and welcome to Army.ca!
> 
> Tom



Thanks. If I read something in Dutch/French that could be of interest for this discussion (in particular why they went for the 90mm instead of the 105mm) I will let you know.(Flemish) media are suggesting that Belgian MOD did CMI the favour of the year while CMI probably hoped that Belgium would have been the launching customer for their new "product". Now people interested in the CT-CV will be asking questions why Belgium didn't put _"the most advanced and innovative weapon system in its class specifically designed for air-transportable light armoured vehicles"_ on top of that vehicle. Lack of money is probably the answer or maybe the 90mm's looks less agressive.   Minister of defence said that other countries will choose a 90mm in the futur.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hi solidarnosc and welcome as well.

Do you happen to know, or can you find out, what types of 90mm ammunition Mecar currently has available?

Cheers.


----------



## TCBF

http://www.mecar.be/

For the CM1 Mk8 Wpn Sys:
M690A1 APFSDS-T (300mm of RHA at 2km)
M691A2 HEP-T

For the GIAT F3 and F4:
M669 APFSDS-T (defeats a NATO Single Heacy Tank Tgt at 100 meters)
M678 HE-T

For the CM1 MK3:
M620A1 HEAT-T (defeat 260mm of armoured steel)
M625A1 HEP-T

For the F1:
M630 HEAT-T (defeats 260mm of armoured steel)
M631 HE-T.

Over 50,000 rounds of MK3 delivered in the last five years.  
Over 11,000 rounds of MK8 tested, certified  at Aberdeen PG in 2002.

Tom


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Tom

I presume that APFSDS-T for the F3/F4 is at 1000 m not 100 m?

What do you professionals think of the 90mm option?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

This buy confuses the heck right out of me.  It appears that political pressure and military buys go hand in hand in Belgium as well.

No other NATO country is even one tiny bit interested in a 90mm.  There are really, no advantages that the 90 has over the 105.  Not in terms of cost of weapon or ammo, not in weight, not in rate of fire, not in performance......somebody got suckered.  Like the poor soldier, again.


----------



## solidarnosc

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> This buy confuses the heck right out of me.  It appears that political pressure and military buys go hand in hand in Belgium as well.
> 
> No other NATO country is even one tiny bit interested in a 90mm.  There are really, no advantages that the 90 has over the 105.  Not in terms of cost of weapon or ammo, not in weight, not in rate of fire, not in performance......somebody got suckered.  Like the poor soldier, again.



Correct me if I am wrong. The last decades over 8.000 Piranha's I,II; III's were sold world wide. At this moment none of them are equiped with a (working) 105mm gun. The only (working) MGS on a LAV platform (-20 ton) have a 90mm gun, used by Quatar, Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia. (I don't know but are the Centauro/Rooikat considered in the same category as the Piranha III, Pandur II,AMV,..)

The only times politicians in Belgium are interested in defence is when the economic compensation orders have to be divided (60% Flanders, 30% Wallonia and 10% Brussels) and when a German army crosses the border.


----------



## George Wallace

The 105 mm gun has been mounted on a LAV/Piranha chassis and fired for over five years.  It has been in the prototype stages for longer, but as yet has not been put into mass production.  Our Regiment sent our Regimental Gunnery WO and three Troopers down to do those trials.  They did not give it any positive reviews.  In the late 90's I saw promotional film at the GM Diesel facilities in London, Ontario, showing the MGS firing 105 stationary and on the move (Not over the side though).


----------



## big bad john

I was just at GDLS in London on Thursday last, where a MGS was put through its paces for us.  We took it around the test track.  The gun was not fired and we were not shown any footage of the gun firing on the move.


----------



## a_majoor

They are still trying to square the circle?

90mm cannons were popular years ago with the French on various Panhard Armoured Cars, but this calibre wasn't adopted by anyone else in NATO that I remember, and only by French client states outside. In theory, a 90mm cannon has less recoil impulse than a 105mm, and the ammunition is smaller, allowing more rounds to be carried. In practice, there isn't any real advantage to be had going down to 90mm, and as the Rooikat, Centurio and prototype LAV III with CV_CT turrets have proven, 105mm is doable.

The political aspect of this is pretty scary at the troop level (they are buying WHAT?), but the Canadian Forces should be used to this situation. After all, the MGS keeps receding on the horizon since the technical issues cannot be resolved, but is anyone at a level to make the call going to say "enough", and substitute a LAV III with a different turret, or even revisit the basic requirement and see if a gun armed vehicle is really what is needed for the role?


----------



## Armymatters

The headaches I have heard about MGS is the fact that they are trying to stick a normal 105mm gun on a LAV chassis when everyone else is placing a low-pressure system, hence the problems with recoil.


----------



## xxtruthxx

Not sure if everyone has seen this vid of the mgs. but it shows it fireing while moving, at moving targets, and from the side while moving. No audio tho.
http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/Video/2_0/MGS.mpg


----------



## Praetorian

I have seen the footage of the MGS and I have mixed feelings
the thing looks cool and can obviously fire on the move, but it always looks on the verge of tipping over.
Ive also heard that any problem with the gun requires a crewman to get out of the vehicle to fix.
considering our fleets (air+maritime) can not lift the damned thing, why not keep MBT's?
I am sure sealifts are much easier to get in emergencies (just press a commercial ship into service like the brits did in the falklands)
and with sealifts there is no limit on weight or size so why not have the combat capability of tanks.

One question, The MGS is supposed to be part of a 3D team, including TUA and ADATS.
In a piched battle what happens to them when they run out of missiles? (ADATS only carries 8 missiles and TUA carries, I believe, 4)

Personally give me a Tank   :tank:


----------



## Praetorian

With all the bad reviews this MGS has been getting (this website reeks of it) why hasnt someone stopped it?
Now that the great bureocratic wheels are in motion, can they be stopped?
The conservatives would be more then justified in cancelling the order, Cretien halted an order on Helos for the Navy
We are now purchasing ones that are inferior to those.

Lets just say that conervative gods smile and cancel MGS, what would we replace it with?
Albeit the Leo is superior to the MGS, it still needs to be replaced.
Leopard 2 (not C2, just 2), M1, Challenger 2, Merkava, LeClerc, or what else?

I am strongly considering join Armoured, but Im not comfortable joining a force that is, for all intents and purposes, a Recce Force


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The MGS can fire on the move.  No arguments.

What the MGS cannot do, at present, is reload on the move.  So, it can fire one shot, and that's it, until the vehicle stops.  Hardly ideal, you would think.

Also, for some dumb reason, Canada insists that any wheeled 105 platform must mount the L7/M68 family of barrels.  No light weight, low recoil barrels for us!  No sirree!

Seems that we have a surplus of spare barrels, that nobody in Ottawa wants to sell with the surplus tanks.  Short sighted thinking again...

I still like the idea of the LAV 105 as built by Cockerill, over the MGS, though.  At least the LAV 105 can be moved and fought with heads up, if so desired.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hey Lance - How much does a new barrel cost anyway?  Would the entire stock cost more or less than the cost of refurbishing a DDH and then decommissioning her early?


----------



## xxtruthxx

^^^^Im in the same boat. I voted conservitive with the hope they might be able to turn around the "s*&tstorm" the liberals got us in. My money is on the lep 2, but the US has made a very generous offer to us in the past reguareding the M1's. Following suite with the Aussies may not be such a bad idea.


----------



## oskarm

solidarnosc said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong. The last decades over 8.000 Piranha's I,II; III's were sold world wide. At this moment none of them are equiped with a (working) 105mm gun. The only (working) MGS on a LAV platform (-20 ton) have a 90mm gun, used by Quatar, Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia. (I don't know but are the Centauro/Rooikat considered in the same category as the Piranha III, Pandur II,AMV,..)



Hello Solidarnosc, your nick sounds very familiar 

You have forgotten AMX-10RC. They are undergoing modernization (new communication devices and some add-on armor) and will serve until 2020 when new 8x8 cars are going to replace them.

Centeuro and AMV are capable of having 120mm gun (at least their producers claims so) . Both can use this  http://www.otomelara.it/products/products.asp?id=prod_land_hitfact

As for 105mm gun IMO it is not enough to deal with future or even present threads. It can defeat T-72 (up to B standard so M, M1). Some information about what can be done with old T-72M1 you can find here: 
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html

and here in my and Revenant's posts (pleas notice the ERAWA capabilities):
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2892&page=10
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=52330&postcount=18

If CA is thinking about keeping its capability of dealing with enemy tanks (without own tanks), you should think about placing something like KEM on LAV.


Now some info about Polish 8x8 APC. We have bought 690 Finish designed AMV-360P (in Poland it’s called Rosomak). All vehicles should be delivered till 2013. 3 brigades (9 battalions) will be fully equipped in this cars. Planed versions are:
313 IFV (30mm ATK cannon in FitHist-30P, 96 of them with double Spike launcher)
135 APC (RCWS-12,7mm)
74 command  (RCWS-12,7mm) 
38 ARV (RCWS-12,7mm)
27 engineering veh.  
41 MEDEVAC
17 NBC recon
23 Fire Support (no one knows is it spotters car, or something else) 
32 6x6 Recon     

Some proposed structures of Polish Medium Mechanized Brigades you can find here starting from p.24  http://www.army.mil.pl/strona_pl/publicystyka/pwl/pwl12_05/dod12_05.pdf (KTO=APC; PPK=ATGM; kz=mech. coy.; plz=mech. plt.; pl=plt; drz=mech. team; kwsp=weapons coy.)


----------



## solidarnosc

Belgian military introduced a new concept called "adequate minimum" with means that the AIV's (Dingo II's and LMV) will be switched between the units acording to mission needs. Last year, adequate minimum was 300 AIV's. Now it apperently is 242. Money is used to buy 10 NH90's. ( I am Belgian not Polish by the way. Ok my name could be misleading.   )


----------



## Lance Wiebe

OK, in fairness, barrels are certainly not cheap.  However, if we kept that way of thinking, the Centurions we bought would have been equipped with the 17 pounder barrels from the Firefly as opposed to the brand new 20 pounder barrels.  And the Centurion would never have been upgraded to 105.

We're paying close to 10 million bux per MGS anyway.  An exorbitant amount, to be sure.  I'm sure that equipping the MGS with a lightweight, low recoil force barrel, and adding a few dozen spare barrels wouldn't affect the total price by more than another 10 or 20 million bux.  So the price for the MGS buy goes from 600 million to 620 million.  Small price, one would think, for a vehicle as capable as the  MGS, right?  At least, our betters in Ottawa would seem to think....

Further, anyone in a position to verify if the MGS project has been zero manned, even if the project still officially exists?


----------



## Kirkhill

20/600 = 3.3% of the project cost.  As you suggest, a fairly marginal incremental capital cost but I am betting one comes out of somebodies capital budget while the other comes out of somebody else's operating budget.

Interestingly enough I noted elsewhere that when the Conservatives laid out their platform they were careful to state that the budget for the forces was one thing but capital acquisition was something else.  IE when capital acquisitions were necessary they would be funded out of the Treasury at the time of acquisition, transferred to the CF then the CF would pay back the Treasury over the lifetime of the kit.  So if a ship or a tank were expected to serve 25 years then the CF would pay back 1/25th of the cost each year.

I was looking for clarification as to whether this was a change in procurement policy because if I look at the CPF purchase, for example, it looked as if the CF was required to purchase the equipment out of its annual budget when the supplier came knocking.  That meant that every time a new capital project is instituted it eats up all of the capital budget for a period of years.  In turn that means that everybody else has to sit and wait their turn for an opportunity to buy new kit.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Now that we have a govt that admits that we need guns, perhaps they will not shy from getting us ones that we can actually use.  The MGS needs a low recoil system to be useful for us, pretending that you can strap a Leo I 105 to the top of a LAV III and expecting it to fire effectively would be about as useful as trying the same trick on our old Cougars.
    I shy away from any kit that can't reload on the move, but lacks the armour to stay still while firing.  It sounds like we've bought the weak sister of the old Swedish S tank, and THEY replaced that with the Leo II.  Either fit the MGS with an autoloader that can reload on the move, a gun that can fire offline, or scrap the whole project and follow the Swedes to the Leo II.
    The last I read of the Stryker MGS variant, the US army had required a written explanation about why this item was needed and/or sufficient before any potential deployment overseas.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement as to its utility and survivability.


----------



## Eland

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Now that we have a govt that admits that we need guns, perhaps they will not shy from getting us ones that we can actually use.  The MGS needs a low recoil system to be useful for us, pretending that you can strap a Leo I 105 to the top of a LAV III and expecting it to fire effectively would be about as useful as trying the same trick on our old Cougars.
> I shy away from any kit that can't reload on the move, but lacks the armour to stay still while firing.  It sounds like we've bought the weak sister of the old Swedish S tank, and THEY replaced that with the Leo II.  Either fit the MGS with an autoloader that can reload on the move, a gun that can fire offline, or scrap the whole project and follow the Swedes to the Leo II.
> The last I read of the Stryker MGS variant, the US army had required a written explanation about why this item was needed and/or sufficient before any potential deployment overseas.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement as to its utility and survivability.



I agree fully with your argument that the current government should proceed to buy a fleet of Swedish-pattern Leo 2's. In fact, just about any current MBT would do, because they are the only platform that has sufficient mobility, speed, firepower and the survivability needed to provide fire support for the infantry AND deal with enemy tanks and IFV's if they should pop up.

I sometimes wonder if the proposed MGS buy was the result of a government that sought to:

i) stay in the GDLS fold and keep as many jobs/industrial spin-off benefits in Canada as they could

and 

ii) find a politically saleable way to get rid of those *ugh* _tanks_ <sarcasm intended>

If there really was a bona fide requirement for a wheeled fire support vehicle, then better choices are out there. Namely the
South African-built Rooikat, which is battle proven and has been around quite a while, and the Italian-built Centauro, which seems to be 
a fairly-well put together piece of kit. It is interesting to see that neither the South African, nor the Italian armies are prepared to use these  wheeled vehicles as anything other than a complement to (but not a substitute for) the tanks they already have. 

Canada is seemingly unique in purchasing the MGS in place of tanks. I hope that PM-elect Harper sees the MGS for what it is and cancels the deal.


----------



## a_majoor

Frankly, Prime Minister Harper has a lot on his plate right now, and will be focusing his efforts and attention in achieving his five core platform planks. The MGS will probably not make it on his radar, and IMO should not. If his attention is being diverted by issues like this, he could loose the parliament and thus the government. Selection and maintenance of the aim, and Economy of effort will be the watchwords on Parliament hill ladies and gentlemen.

The MGS problem will go away on its own accord, I believe, for the simple fact it is unable to meet its program goals. Once the US Army becomes tired of this, they will probably shift their attention to the FCS program, and the MGS will be an orphan. Even GD will probably decide they have better use of their resources than to raise and maintain a fleet of 66 vehicles for a minor customer. There will be some die hards who committed their careers to this who will be unwilling to let go, but even that will be an unpleasant interlude.

Combat teams and infantry companies still need a fire support platform, so as long as members are putting alternative suggestions *through the appropriate means* (CAJ, Armoured Bulletin, conferences, forums etc.) then the Army as a whole will be well positioned to pick up and carry on after this fiasco plays itself out.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Lets remember that the Conservatives did include a campaign promise to purchase a small number of tanks from a NATO ally during their previous election campaign.  Perhaps they should be reminded of their past promises and held to them?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"but the US has made a very generous offer to us in the past reguareding the M1'" 
This has been so many times before it seems to have become folklore.  Its not that I don't believe anyone that has said it but I would like an article or something similar that shows this as fact.


----------



## Grizzly

I believe the offer the Americans made was for used M60's, and it was made back in the Mulroney days. If there was if fact an offer for M1's, I'd like to see the article too.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Grizzly said:
			
		

> I believe the offer the Americans made was for used M60's, and it was made back in the Mulroney days. If there was if fact an offer for M1's, I'd like to see the article too.


 There was a rumour back in the early eighties that right after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan .The Americans made a quiet offer of some 400 M 48A5's.The story goes that these would come with spares and several trainloads of ammo.
The tanks would be cascade down to about three training centres with a troops worth going to each Armoured regiment.I have hear the story at least twice in the last 25 years as well as a variant of the story .


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

ahh rumours.


----------



## GK .Dundas

CFL said:
			
		

> ahh rumours.


Yeah I know! : Somewhere iIhave a collection of the better/sillier ones.


----------



## ArmyRick

Here is my favorite clown rumor ref abrams
"Back in (Gulf war, Op enduring freedom or Iraq freedom), the americans offered us M1s at $1 each if we helped them".  :


----------



## xxtruthxx

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Here is my favorite clown rumor ref abrams
> "Back in (Gulf war, Op enduring freedom or Iraq freedom), the americans offered us M1s at $1 each if we helped them".  :



I donno that seems a little stiff to me.  ;D


----------



## TCBF

While 4CMBG was 'getting ready to get ready' in the Fall of 90, plans were being made to have the LdSH(RC) leave Calgary and go to the states to train on M1s.   Had 4CMBG deployed, it would then have had two tank units, the 8CH(PL) in Leopard C1, and the LdSH(RC) in M1.

Once the govt at the time was informed of the large scope, cost, and political risk of the plan, they chose not to use it, but the LdSH(RC) were within a day or two of going south for the work ups. 

Tom


----------



## Cannoneer No. 4

They want to stick with a common chassis.  All the other wheeled tank destroyers/assault guns are incompatible.


----------



## TCBF

The so-called commonality of parts is a myth.  We probably waste more money following the archaic principles of a civillian fleet management system than we spend on parts.

To save money on parts, you actually have to buy some first.  No point in buying something because the parts are cheap, then not buying parts anyhow.

Tom


----------



## Slim

TCBF said:
			
		

> While 4CMBG was 'getting ready to get ready' in the Fall of 90, plans were being made to have the LdSH(RC) leave Calgary and go to the states to train on M1s.   Had 4CMBG deployed, it would then have had two tank units, the 8CH(PL) in Leopard C1, and the LdSH(RC) in M1.
> 
> Once the govt at the time was informed of the large scope, cost, and political risk of the plan, they chose not to use it, but the LdSH(RC) were within a day or two of going south for the work ups.
> 
> Tom



\How well I remember that time!

The CO standing on regt'l parade and telling us all to 'pack' for a trip south.

Scary time


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/new-stryker-variants-gear-up-for-testing/index.php#more



> The Stryker MGS and NBCRV variants entered low-rate initial production (LRIP) in December 2005. General Dynamics will deliver 17 of the Stryker NBC Reconnaissance Version and 72 of the Mobile Gun Sysytem variants during low-rate initial production. The vehicles will be used for various tests and user evaluations through Q4 2007, and the Milestone C decision to begin full-rate production of both variants is also slated for the fourth quarter of 2007.
> 
> The M1128 Stryker MGS variant is meant as a direct-fire infantry assault vehicle with a 105mm cannon mounted in a low-profile, fully stabilized, "shoot-on-the-move" turret. It's intended to provide firepower support for Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, primarily for engaging hardened positions but also for dealing with enemy vehicles as required. It will also be used by the Canadian Armed forces.
> 
> Stryker MGS has had a rocky development history, with widespread reports of problems with the recoil of its gun and center of gravity. DID's photo up top would even appear to indicate a support bracket for firing tests, though a specific inquiry to General Dynamics Land Systems, we received this response:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see from the photo (link to article - Kirkhill) the recoil is not a problem firing the gun for the vehicle.... in the past critics have made the claim that you could not fire over the side but the photo proves you can. What you identified in the red box is the instrumentation cables used to manual fire the gun and collect data. Other photos show the same cables as well.
> 
> Recoil was not an issue it was the pepper-pot muzzle break on the earlier vehicles that was used to let gas escape and lesson the recoil. When we lowered the gun turret to allow loading in C-130 Hercules the gas from firing was too close to the vehicles front end. We returned to a standard 105mm cannon without the pepper pot muzzle break and adjusted for the recoil in the mechanism.



Submitted without comment.


----------



## Guest

Guys, I know everybody and his mother seems to hate the MGS.

However, most of the "rumours" are based on some early pre-production work.

I've said before, there are no stability issues with the MGS, it won't tip over, it can fire in whatever direction it needs to.

The auto-loader/carriage system has been re-designed.  (since the initial reports  of problems)

Some of you DID go to the last industry show right? GDLS had one there, with the new system.

Do you honestly think the US Army would order 100's if it was such a POS?

Do you believe Hillier, a black hat, whom most of you have shown great respect for,
A man, I might add, who has publicly, on TV, and more than once.. stood behind the MGS purchase and given HIS full support...

Do you think this man would give you a tool, so fataly flawed as alot of post would lead ytou to believe?!?

As well, knowing full well the CDS's  very public position on the MGS and future DFS, do you think we would scrap it all after much planning, go out and buy tanks?

I doubt we shall see heavy armour, within the next 20 years at least. I think it would take a MAJOR conflict for that to be even a possibility.

We have been given our new role, and it won't include armour battles.. our allies will handle that stuff.


----------



## matty101

Maybe its just a matter of adequate protection for the people in and around it while moving through urban areas

Matt


----------



## xxtruthxx

matty101 said:
			
		

> Maybe its just a matter of adequate protection for the people in and around it while moving through urban areas
> 
> Matt



That I think is going to be one of the main oppisitions to the MGS. I think less people are concerned about it ability to fire then its ability to protect the crew. From what I have read on the fourms and various articals, it sounds like the CF is trying to replace the Lep with the MGS. Needless to say it cant complete all of the tasks that a MBT can. 

IMO.
" puting a square in a circle leaves gaps "


----------



## Guest

This has all been discussed before gents.

Do a search.

To sum up.

We are "replacing" the Leo with the Direct Fire Troop

Consisting of a Gun system - MGS, a Short to Medium Range Missle System - LAV TUA, and a Long Range Direct/Indirect Fire Platform - MMEV (Multi-Mission-Effects-Vehicle)


----------



## Kirkhill

Hear, hear Guest.

All they need to do is go back to page one on this thread and start reading all 25 pages of it.


----------



## Mortar guy

> We are "replacing" the Leo with the Direct Fire Troop
> 
> Consisting of a Gun system - MGS, a Short to Medium Range Missle System - LAV TUA, and a Long Range Direct/Indirect Fire Platform - MMEV (Multi-Mission-Effects-Vehicle)



Yes and they will all work magically together, despite their inherent, and possibly even critical, flaws to overcome the hordes of WTO tanks that are due to come over the Inter-German Border at any day now. The fact that all three systems are incomprehensibly expensive, untested, stymied by massive technical hurdles, and easily destroyed by a 12 year old with an RPG shouldn't worry us. Besides, Combat Team attacks on dug-in BMP platoons is our greatest challenge, not fighting insurgencies in complex terrain.

OK, I should have taken that sarcasm pill before breakfast...

MG


----------



## xxtruthxx

> Yes and they will all work magically together, despite their inherent, and possibly even critical, flaws to overcome the hordes of WTO tanks that are due to come over the Inter-German Border at any day now. The fact that all three systems are incomprehensibly expensive, untested, stymied by massive technical hurdles, and easily destroyed by a 12 year old with an RPG shouldn't worry us. Besides, Combat Team attacks on dug-in BMP platoons is our greatest challenge, not fighting insurgencies in complex terrain.



Exactly! 
Why are we spending countless dollars on three plat forms, and the echelon to keep them running and combat effective. These platforms namely the MGS have are not battletested and as such we shouldnt be phazing out our MBT untill we know for sure the MGS can fill its roll. Isn't the need for a heavily armored Direct Fire Support platform more necessary?


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Hear, hear Guest.
> 
> All they need to do is go back to page one on this thread and start reading all 25 pages of it.


Yeah your right we have been over these topics, but we haven't really come to a conclusion. The thread is moving from one topic to the next and back again. Cant really avoid it.


----------



## Guest

I'm curious, How many times has a  12 year old with an RPG  taken out one of the LAV's you ride in?!?!?

I know more than a handfull a U.S  Servicemen who HAVE taken RPG hits to their Strykers.


Everyone has such a hate on for this concept, why can't you people at least wait untill you have some experince with these tools before you blather on about how badly they suck. 


Have you seen RPG damage in person?  I have.. not getting into OPSEC issues, but the guys in charge know exactly what the threats are, and plan accordingly

If you think that man with an RPG means certain death to a LAV or Stryker.. ...  :

MMEV (if it works).. will  be one awesome vehicle.

I don't know of any reason at this point to prove it won't.

I'm curious as why you think it won't..know something we don't? On  the dev team?  :

As for your hordes of tanks,.. when did you see we will face this big threat?

Did'nt you guys get the memo?

NO MORE ARMOUR BATTLES!!!! FINISHED! WE WON'T BE ALLOWED TO PLAY!!!!

However an overlapping missle system with gun support should more than suffice for your BMP Platoon scenario.

We will never go anywhere without heavy support from our alies, as such, our leaders feel we need to be LIGHT-MEDIUM

Our leaders WILL NOT put us in a situation where we will have to face Heavy Armour alone.. Think about it.

It's been hashed to death.. get over it and move on.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Guest while you make points that are thought out and which I happen to disagree with why don't you do us all a favour and fill out your profile so it adds some credibility to what your saying.


----------



## Guest

I filled it as much as I can.

For the same reason I'm, a "guest"

I'll boil down my argument to this,

LAVs are much more survivable then most might imagine,
There are solutions to alot of percieved problems

Don't shoot the horse until you at least have a chance to look at the leg.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You wouldn't happen to be involved with the MGS or any other part of the DFS family are you?


----------



## Mortar guy

I have never seen such propaganda, such shameless toadying. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a believer on our hands! After giving people a hard time for not reading posts, how about you read this one:



> The MMEV (and to a lesser degree the MGS) are, in my humble opinion, the prime examples of what is wrong with both our doctrine and procurement systems. Here are some things I know with a fair degree of certainty about this whole situation:
> 
> 1) The Army is adopting new doctrine focussing on non-linear, asymmetric warfare in 'complex terrain'. Commonly known as three block war. Our own doctrine states that most fighting our Army will undertake in the future (or even now for that matter) will be in cities, forests, mountains and jungles against a guerrilla or insurgent type enemy. No one has yet been able to tell me how a lightly armoured, extremely expensive vehicle with limited mobility and weapons geared to destroying tanks at very long ranges is going to fight Tabliban insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan etc.
> 
> 2) The MGS was forced down our necks by politicians and was not the brainwave of someone in DLR. The Army looked at a light weight wheeled direct fire system in the mid to late nineties as a possible replacement for the Cougar and, maybe, the Leopard. An SOR was drawn up for this vehicle and GMDD in London did some initial conceptulization work on an Armoured Combat Vehicle (ACV). However, experiments showed that the ACV could not fight and survive on the modern battlefield so the project was shelved until technology could allow a 20 ton vehicle to fight and survive like a 60 ton tank. In the interim the Army spent a good chunk of change upgrading the Leo C1 to the C2 standard so that they could remain in use until 2015. Then, in 2003, out of nowhere the MND announces the MGS purchase and everyone who remembers the ACV project is scratching their heads. In fact, the SOR for the MGS wasn't realeased until one month after the announcement of the purchase and it was almost identical to the ACV SOR. The project staff literally did a find and replace on the SOR to put 'MGS' where 'ACV' used to be! So now we have a vehicle that has already proven it is not capable of meeting the requirements laid out in the SOR. Now, here is where I have a problem with the procurement/doctrine world. When the MGS/MMEV buy was forced down our necks we could have taken a hard look at the realities of modern warfare and the capabilites our Army would posses and written a decent 'concept of employment' for the direct fire system of systems. My argument here boils down to this: the MGS is a decent Assault Gun but is a shitty Tank Destroyer. In fact, the US Army lists the target set for their MGS as being bunkers, infantry in the open, soft skin and light armoured vehicles and its mission is to support assaulting infantry in close terrain. We, in our infinite wisdom, decided to employ the MGS as a tank destroyer in concert with other, similar, tank destroying vehicles (MMEV, TUA). The target set for the direct fire system of systems includes the T-72M tank first and foremost and the concepts I have seen in various briefings talk about 'range overmatch' against opponents thanks to the 8km range of the ADATS. This sounds distinctly like a system designed to fight the Soviet hordes on the rolling North German Plain rather than take on guerrillas with AKs, IEDs and Molotov cocktails. We should pull our heads out of our collectective posterior regions and start thinking about employing the MGS as an Assault Gun vs. as a Tank Destroyer.
> 
> 3) The MMEV may 'brief well' on PowerPoint but actually making that thing work will not be as easy as photoshopping an ADATS turret onto a LAV hull! The presentations I have seen have shown the MMEV equipped with the ADATS missile (or Hellfire for direct fire), CRV7 rockets (laser guided a la LKPK), NLOS missiles and (get this) SLAMRAAM missiles. On top of this they want to mount a new 3D search radar and new EO system on the turret too. This is an unparalleled technical challenge that will end up costing us a hell of a lot more than we think (if it ever works). Each of the weapon systems mentioned above uses a different guidance system (laser beam rider, laser homing, fibre optic, radar/data link) and none have ever been integrated onto the same platform. On top of that, if you replace the radar and EO system, you will have to replace the display systems and computers too and then you have to squeeze all that kit into a LAV chassis or, worse yet an MGS chassis! Someone is dreaming in technicolour. The icing on the cake is that we then intend to employ this vehicle in a three block war scenario - a scenario where LOS is rarely more than 1 km, where the enemy is not considerate enought to drive around in the open in T72s and where one IED or RPG could easily destroy your extremely expensive vehicle and kill your highly trained crew.



In that post I listed just a few of the problems with the MMEV and MGS. There are several other technical problems with each that have yet to be overcome. I will spare you as those problems have been posted several times before and are also available via OSINT.

Now, for some of your ingenious arguments in support of the DF system of systems:



> Everyone has such a hate on for this concept, why can't you people at least wait untill you have some experince with these tools before you blather on about how badly they suck.



Good point. Despite the flawed concept, the outdated and irrelevant doctrinal basis for the vehicles (created after the MGS was ordered I might add), and the numerous serious techical hurdles to overcome (to say nothing of spending close to 2 billion dollars on less than 100 vehicles), I think we should wait until DLR makes this sow's ear into a stunning silk purse. What right do we, as professional soldiers, have to get involved in what is clearly a political procurement process, right? We should just shut up and take all the LSVWs, nylon raincoats and MMEVs the government can throw at us. Or, on the other hand, perhaps we could voice our grave concerns over this whole idea. 



> As for your hordes of tanks,.. when did you see we will face this big threat?
> 
> Did'nt you guys get the memo?
> 
> NO MORE ARMOUR BATTLES!!!! FINISHED! WE WON'T BE ALLOWED TO PLAY!!!!



Exactly my point. So, if no more armour battles, why waste money on what amounts to a very expensive anti-armour vehicle (MMEV) and a very poor quality tank destroyer (MGS). Clearly sarcasm does not transmit on these means.



> However an overlapping missle system with gun support should more than suffice for your BMP Platoon scenario.



OK, once again, sarcasm did not transmit. While I agree that the DFSofS might work against a BMP pl, I think the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgent (i.e. the type of enemy we are most likely to face in the future) have disbanded the last of their BMP platoons due to budget cuts. Could you explain to me how an MMEV is going to help us fight the Taliban, or any other such insurgent force? Granted some of the capabilities are useful but those capabilities already exist on other platforms. For example, LR precision direct fire = TUA. NLOS fire = M777 with Exalibur. AD = ADATS (in its current form). So why try to make this vehicle the jack of all trades when it really doesn't add any capability on the battlefield, is extremely expensive, is very vulnerable, and doesn't contribute to our new doctrine of fighting the "Three Block War" in complex terrain?



> We will never go anywhere without heavy support from our alies, as such, our leaders feel we need to be LIGHT-MEDIUM



Ah yes, that old cop out. "We can have a mediocre army because the Americans will be more than happy to devote some of their stretched and limited resources to pulling our chestnuts out of the fire". Why should we always relegate ourselves to the status of beggars of NATO? Are we so lacking in self-confidence that we can't ever see ourselves operating out of reach of the American's shirt sleeves? I would argue that we are not and that Gen Hillier has already stated that we should be more independent. Do you realize how many Leopard 2's we could buy for the amount being spent on 66 MGS and 34 MMEV? More than we would need is the answer. Are you sure you know what medium weight means in the Canadian context? For the Americans it describes forces with more firepower and protection than their light forces while also being more mobile than their heavy forces. Medium forces are an American solution to an American problem and have little relevance to Canada. Our army now is heavier in terms of protection, mobility and sheer mass than it has ever been AND we are nowhere near air mobile. Adopting terms like 'medium weight' without understanding their context or applicability to our experience smacks of dilettantism and intellectual midgetry.

Sorry I got wound up about this, but as you can tell I (and a very large number of people I know) feel very strongly about this subject. I simply refuse to roll over on this subject because I feel so strongly. I believe it is my duty as a professional soldier to reach down, grab my nuts, and speak up when I see something wrong and, in my opinion, the MMEV falls squarely into the category of "something wrong".

"His Majesty made you an officer because he thought you would know when not to follow orders"

MG


----------



## Guest

Mortar Guy.

It's obvious you have a vastly different opinion on this subject then I do.. fair enough.

I won't argue manovure doctrine or deployment strategies.. thats out of my lane.

However I do know a thing or two about complex and heavy WS..

Your assesment of the MMEV's viability is quite flawed, IM-not so-humble-O.

Multiple munition types and complex, inter-married guidance systems have co-existed together quite well for years on 1000's of platforms with many hours of operational testing.

What could these possible magical platforms be?? Why.. you might call them AMMEVs.. (Airborne Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles) AKA Attack Aircraft.

Yes, engineers figured out a while back how to cram a whole bunch of weapons systems, sensors and electronics in a fairly tight space.

MMEV is basically an "Attack Aircraft".. on the ground.. okay.. thats stetching it.. but thats how system intregration is being approched. (I'm being serious.. I know of a couple of aircraft systems people who are consultants in a few projects, not related to aircraft.)

You do realize that no-one is intending to "drop an ADATS turret on a LAV" Ad-Hoc?

Current mission computer. radar.. EO.. all off it will be thrown out, replaced. Packages have grown alot smaller since the 80ies..

It won't need that horrendously large APU, either.

As for survivability,  an RPG-7 is by no means assured an ability to knock out a LAVIII variant.. 

In fact, due to the LAV's wheels.. I'd argue it's easier to get a mobility kill on a Bradley.. 

(no, I don't need to argue.. just ask someone in a Stryker brigade..)

There are up-armour projects continuing..

I have no doubt, as far as the LAV family is concerned, we will see protection systems that will make the infamous RPG-7,  even some large calibler AP rounds, "almost" a non-concern.

Not that far off either..

Are there challenges?.. sure.. but I can't see any we can't overcome.

I still think MMEV has a potential to be a revolutionary design, one that could put Canada in the forefront.

I get shudders thinking of a UAV passing targets off to the MMEV for NON-LOS fun. It would put fear into enemy blackhats.

Guided Rockets would be useful in the hills and ridges of A-Stan.

BTW, LAV TUA is a real success, systems integration went pretty smoothly, and ITAS is the cat's ***.

I think I recall a few nay-sayers bleating on about how "You can't do that" "It'll tip over" "You can't fit a new targeting system in there!".. bla..bla..

Look for TOW RF in the near future...


----------



## Guest

CFL said:
			
		

> Aou wouldn't happen to be involved with the MGS or any other part of the DFS family are you?



I suppose you( and possibly others) think i'm a corporate shill.

I'll just say.. I'm not a sales or managment person.. so I have no interest in "The Big Picture" or "Bottom Line"

I'm a Canadian who's lucky enough to be able to get my hands dirty.. 'nuff said.


----------



## George Wallace

Guest

First things first.  I have got a request from a few others that you append your 'name' as it is often confused with the thousands of other 'guests' who visit the site.

Second thing, would to be to fill out some of your profile so that we may know from where you are coming.  If you are a lobbyist for GM or General Dynamics or some other company with interests in this matter we may have some other questions to pose at you.  If you have no military experience, as seems to be the case, with your last post, we will be able to more accurately correct you in your assumptions.

I have kept quiet on this and a few of your other posts on this subject, but see that I must make some points.  You have stated that the LAV III MGS doesn't have stability problems.  What makes it any better than any other LAV in this case?

On this matter: 





> Multiple munition types and complex, inter-married guidance systems have co-existed together quite well for years on 1000's of platforms with many hours of operational testing.
> 
> What could these possible magical platforms be?? Why.. you might call them AMMEVs.. (Airborne Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles) AKA Attack Aircraft.
> 
> Yes, engineers figured out a while back how to cram a whole bunch of weapons systems, sensors and electronics in a fairly tight space.
> 
> MMEV is basically an "Attack Aircraft".. on the ground.. okay.. thats stetching it.. but thats how system intregration is being approched. (I'm being serious.. I know of a couple of aircraft systems people who are consultants in a few projects, not related to aircraft.)


This shows a very serious flaw in your arguments.  You obviously have not worked on Tracked Vehicles or any other Cross-country capable vehicles at all, or for any period of time, to have made that comment.  Land combat vehicles, unlike combat aircraft, take a lot of punishment and abuse and the equipment they carry is subject to that abuse.  The more technology you want to put into combat land vehicles, the more you will have to cushion from vibration and sudden shock.  The constant vibrations from the Tracks and the effects of rough ground on the contents of Armoured Vehicles constantly creates opportunities for technology to fail.  

I also find it interesting that we are progressing with the idea of using the MGS, MMEV, and other layers of defence in this "System of Systems", and our Doctrine seems to be getting away from that in our new concepts of Ops and fighting our WOT.


[EDIT]  Sorry....I don't type that fast and some of the questions were answered in anticipation of some of us asking them.


----------



## Mortar guy

Wow, what an increibly incoherent post. You have successfully managed to undo most of your own arguments so this is almost not worth the effort. Fortunately, I like the sound of my own typing. OK, where to start?



> I won't argue manovure doctrine or deployment strategies.. thats out of my lane.



Right on as both of those things are very much in my lane. If you want this to be a debate of the technical merits of the MMEV we can do that but I have to say that debating the technical merits of any military kit without talking about the why, where, how and when it will be used is like pissing yourself in a dark suit: you feel all warm but nobody takes notice.



> What could these possible magical platforms be?? Why.. you might call them AMMEVs.. (Airborne Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles) AKA Attack Aircraft.



Seeing as you are so versed in the ways of the airforce, perhaps you could let our viewers know how much one of those bad boys costs? Or better yet, explain how many maintenance hours per flight hour the average attack aircraft requires, or how many millions of dollars and years of training go into making a pilot, or how planes and bullets (or birds, or hail, or FOD - not to mention RPGs) don't mix well. I mention all these things because they are problems the MMEV will have to face. For example, the MMEV will be, without a doubt, the most costly armoured vehicle in the world. Its incredibly complex systems (EO ball, radar, Link 16, computers, radios, weapons, vertonics) will require intensive maintenance to stay up and running and the maintainers and crews will have a training bill that would rival that of some airforce trades. Furthermore, the exposed EO ball, radar and missiles will be *extremely* vulnerable to pretty much everything on the battlefield. A 5.45mm bullet in a 3D radar transit/receive module = a broken MMEV and a costly repair. Comparing the MMEV to attack aircraft may brief well but the two operate in vastly different environments with different threats.



> You do realize that no-one is intending to "drop an ADATS turret on a LAV" Ad-Hoc?



Never did I say that. In fact, if you read my posts you will see that I have been saying from the get-go that this is not as simple as Photoshopping an ADATS turret onto a LAV chassis.



> I have no doubt, as far as the LAV family is concerned, we will see protection systems that will make the infamous RPG-7,  even some large calibler AP rounds, "almost" a non-concern.



Yes I am familiar with the Israeli and German systems as well as the work done by DREV. However, I will reitirate what I said ealier: the MMEV will have to fear everything on the battlefield from 5.45mm ball to molotov cocktails to IEDs. Your magic armour solves only one problem and besides, history is rife with declarations of the invincibility of weapons systems. The only armour system that provides a reliable degree of protection against _most_ threats is that found on modern tanks. Finally, if you read the MMEV SOR you'll note that funding for the magic armour is not included in the budget. That means that our incredibly expensive MMEVs just got a little more pricey.



> I get shudders thinking of a UAV passing targets off to the MMEV for NON-LOS fun. It would put fear into enemy blackhats.



So which is it? Earlier you said that fighting enemy armour was a thing of the past but now the thought of MMEVs taking on enemy armour makes you shudder? Oh, and by the way, please describe for me the NLOS missile that the MMEV will mount as I assume it will be MOTS. The only one I can think of thats ready for fielding is the Spike NT-D which has a range of (drum roll please) 8km! Not too impressive. Why not just use Excalibur with its 40km range?



> Guided Rockets would be useful in the hills and ridges of A-Stan.



They would? How would the MMEVs get into the hills of Afghanistan? Slung under a Chinook? Granted in some situations direct fire rockets would be helpful but no more so than 25mm HEI fire from a LAV or even (once again) Excalibur rounds. So why risk a very expensive vehicle when there are other options that can do the job just as well with much less risk?



> I think I recall a few nay-sayers bleating on about how "You can't do that" "It'll tip over" "You can't fit a new targeting system in there!".. bla..bla..
> 
> Look for TOW RF in the near future...



I'd love to know if these two sentences are in anyway related in your mind. Anyway, are you telling me that the LAV chassis (yes the one that has rolled over numerous times in Canadian service) will somehow no longer be at risk of rollovers once you mate that massive ADATS (yes the one that has rolled over a couple of times in Canadian service) turret with it? Is this the physics equivalent of "two wrongs make a right"? Also, you still haven't addressed what I wrote about the MMEV having four or more weapons systems, each with their own guidance systems. You do know that the ADATS missile, SLAMRAAM, Spike NT-D, APKWS all require different guidance systems, right? Not only that but they each have a different form of pylon interface.

So I've gone on again about all the things wrong with the MMEV so I suppose its time to say what I would do differently.

1) Kill the MMEV project. Its a boondoggle and a long ways away from becoming technically feasible or even cost effective.

2) Redirect the funds into two new projects. Firstly, buy about a regiments worth of surplus German Leopard 2A4s (say $400 million). Secondly, buy a true NLOS capability in the form of PAM. The NT-D is a mediocre NLOS missile compared to the PAM and I would think we could get a couple of batteries worth of the latter for about $350 million.

3) Keep MGS and TUA but modify our doctrine to reflect their use as bunker busters and assault guns rather than as tank destroyers.

That was very much the Reader's Digest version but I think you get the point. Try as you might but I will never be so enamoured with the PowerPoint briefings on the MMEV as to believe this vehicle is a good idea. Far from putting us in the "forefront" I think this vehicle, and the techno geeks who ignore the realities of modern war and are entranced with the idea of fighter aircraft on eight wheels, will do more harm than good to our Army.

Regards,

MG


----------



## xxtruthxx

OK so I may not be able to keep up with the technical prowess of some of the senior posters. That being said I can still argue that common sense side of this debate. One of the main issues here was that fact that the SofS and the plat forms needed to create it and keep it running are going to expensive on a ludicrous level. The training, ammo, spare parts, and manpower cost are going to be dumped on top of the already out out rageious price tag. As mortar guy said, there are plat forms out there that can do to jobs of the MEEV, and the TUA and a fraction of the cost. As a booster to that point,( Guest )if you believe that we will be so readily back up by our allies, would it not make sense to use platforms that have parts commonality with those of our allies so we can take advantage of their supply lines? You could easily drop that technical side of this argument and drum it down to dollars and cents. Its going to cost allot money ( Something the CF doesn't seem of have allot of) to make MEEV and MGS combat effective.
Once again these are my observations.

Truth.


----------



## Guest

<sigh>

I DON'T think we should have given up heavy armour
I DON'T think MGS is a true Tank Destroyer (MMEV IS intended to destroy amour..)

I AGREE with quite a bit of what Mortar Guy has been saying actually.

I mainly feel alot of you are being a little unfair and jumping the gun in such loud opposition to 2 platforms that haven't even been fielded yet.

I strongly suspect that if we were keeping our Tanks or getting new ones, some of you might actually find MGS and MMEV usefull.

Sound like you should be blaming leadership (including the CDS), not platforms.


George W. 

I DO have experience with heavy Veh/WS.. I know exactly the constraints as opposed to fragile aircraft systems.
I still maintain that this is doable, and Millions of $$$/ 1000's of man hours and more than a few corporate reputaions are betting on producing a winner.

There are some VERY smart people behind these "Transformation Innitiatives"

As for MG,

I can't believe I'm arguing with you guys about the LAV's stability. 

How many "Hull pos at 90 deg." incidents have there been?.. Now add up operational hours and miles, factor out crew error.. The LAV is a stable, reliable weapons platform. (Why am I telling YOU this ferchrisake
?!?)

Obviously the armour school will work out how to employ the MGS without tipping it over.

I have faith in BlackHats 

I am out of my lane on this next comment..

Am I wrong to assume the following:

1x Coyote/ISTAR
1 x DFS trp  MMEV in overwatch
2x LAVIII w Inf sec to protect DFS

Is that not a deployable, defensible building block? (I admit tactics are not my forte)

No system is an island to itself, Even Tankers breath a little easier when an Inf trp is around. (although they'd never admit it)

The MMEV by itself is certainly vulnerable, but I doubt it will ever have to fight alone.

There was another platform that was rather vulnerable, yet considered invaluable.. the M109

You could almost poke holes in it with a high-powered washer from Canadian Tire. I new guys who joked " You hope the enemy uses AP, so it'll fly right through"

However, if you needed to reach out and kill something...... (or a whole plt. of somethings..)

Again, as I've asked before, Do you believe, that the CDS AND others would be so calous, as to throw away scant resources and spend armour crew lives on a fataly flawed system?

On the subject of MMEV missle guidance,

I predict:


Longbow inspired millimeter wave radar
LADAR
GPS/SAL or GPS/IIR

This will support both Hellfire and re-designed ADATS seeker (as well as the rockets)

pylon mounts/data bus have all been done in the world of Airpower. (yes, I know I know fragile.. but these systems can be hardened and isolated)

Just my prediction.. no returns or refunds, must be 18yrs or older.

I'm not pretending to know all the answers, I know some of the questions those who DO have the answers are asking themselves.

Some people I respect have their reputations on the line on this and other projects.. knowing how capable they are, I have all the faith in the world.

You should too.


----------



## prom

Guest said:
			
		

> As for MG,
> 
> I can't believe I'm arguing with you guys about the LAV's stability.
> 
> How many "Hull pos at 90 deg." incidents have there been?.. Now add up operational hours and miles, factor out crew error.. The LAV is a stable, reliable weapons platform. (Why am I telling YOU this ferchrisake
> ?!?)
> 
> Obviously the armour school will work out how to employ the MGS without tipping it over.
> 
> I have faith in BlackHats



You know what your brilliant!!! I cannot beleive I and all here have never seen this before! Thanks guest.

hell if you take out all possibilities of a roll over occuring then i guess it is a stable platform. Like anything that never moves and is only used in a very narrow wiondow of use it will rarely do something that is not meant to do, where if you a re to be adaptable you have to be able to be mobile not just be limited to flat terrain and no human operators......really, why spend that kind of money on a peice of kit that you cant do anything else with.


----------



## Guest

prom said:
			
		

> You know what your brilliant!!! I cannot beleive I and all here have never seen this before! Thanks guest.
> 
> hell if you take out all possibilities of a roll over occuring then i guess it is a stable platform. Like anything that never moves and is only used in a very narrow wiondow of use it will rarely do something that is not meant to do, where if you a re to be adaptable you have to be able to be mobile not just be limited to flat terrain and no human operators......really, why spend that kind of money on a peice of kit that you cant do anything else with.



I'm not sure I understand you.

What are you saying? That LAV's are inherently unstable? That we keep tipping them over?

Our LAVs have been doing the job just fine. 

My point was, MMEV, LAV TUA and LAV MGS are no more stable/instable than any other..


----------



## KevinB

I guess we plan on being ambush from the front or rear only these days?


Guest, you remind me of some of the DLR "Great" Minds who constantly defend their choices in the face of logical arguments from the end user...


----------



## Guest

KevinB said:
			
		

> I guess we plan on being ambush from the front or rear only these days?



I'm sorry, I don't get your reference.

In what way will the MMEV or MGS be indefensible from the sides.

You do realize that the MGS can fire broadsides just as well as anything else.

As well, I've never noticed a problem with the LAVIII spilling brass either.. (After at least 12 or more test firings I've been present at)




> Guest, you remind me of some of the DLR "Great" Minds who constantly defend their choices in the face of logical arguments from the end user...



You don't agree with me fine, but try not to close your mind completely.







[/quote]


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Guest said:
			
		

> I'm curious, How many times has a  12 year old with an RPG  taken out one of the LAV's you ride in?!?!?
> 
> MMEV (if it works).. will  be one awesome vehicle.
> 
> As for your hordes of tanks,.. when did you see we will face this big threat?
> 
> We will never go anywhere without heavy support from our allies, as such, our leaders feel we need to be LIGHT-MEDIUM
> 
> Our leaders WILL NOT put us in a situation where we will have to face Heavy Armour alone.. Think about it.



1)It is just a matter of time before we start to get some LAVs blown-up by RPGs. If the can destroy Russian MBTs, even if they are not well armoured, they can certainly destroy LAVs.

2)The MMEV will be an "awesome vehicle" for the first 20 seconds of combat..... until it runs out of missiles (it has only 2 AT missiles) and the enemy tank/anti-tank team destroys it.  

3)Hordes of tanks, our allies faced that just a decade and a half ago. One chance they had good MBTs.  : The problem with our leaders (political and military) is that because of the current OP in Afghanistan they think we will not face any other kind of enemy in the future. What did people say after WW1? "Humanity will never do the same mistake again." And then what? WW2. What did they say after that? "This war sorted out all conflicts in the world." But our troops were in Korea a few years later. When the Berlin wall was destroyed? "Our huge and powerfull armed forces are now useless..." Then Iraq, the 4th world military power, invaded Kuwait and was going to invade Saudi Arabia, therefore controlling half of the world petroleum. Our army was not there that time. But why? Oups! We could not move our army. Our allies decided not to move our army because they could send some far better equipment than what we could propose. And if they would have given us a lift, our troops would have had suffered some terrible losses. Why? Because "We don't need to buy modern tanks, we will never face hordes of tanks again."  :crybaby:

4)It is extremely sad that Canada, once the 4th world power (after WW2), once that country which had such a formidable army, that country which took Vimmy, Caen, Juno beach, Ortonna, ect., which fought so well at Ypres, Dieppe, Hong Kong, Kapyong, ect., that country which pushed back, not only once, but twice, the current world first super power, that country which designed the mother of all modern combat aircraft, the Avro Arrow, will NOT BE ABLE TO FIGHT ANY MODERN ARMY OUR WILL HAVE TO RELY ON ITS ALLIES TO BE ABALE TO DO SO.  :'(

I which this will never happend.


----------



## KevinB

Guest,

Your comments based upon "How many hull pos'n 90 incidents..." led me to beleive you dont consider them an issue.

FWIW the LAVIII turret can jam up with brass from the 25mm - that based on my very less than 12 shoots that I used it in both in Canada and in Afghanistan.

I've seen what and RPG can do to vehicles - I've even fired an RPG at something once too (it was on a range) The Fire Supression system may save US soldiers with their non burst into flame at the first sign of heat uniform - but I'm guessing that the "but it dries easily" CADPAT will shrink wrap the crew, prior to the flash being able to be extinguished.


I dont have a closed mind at all - I hope it works - I really do - its impact on me either way is NILL - I'm one of those dirty greasy civy PSD guys now so the goings on in the CF affect me at zero - other than I get worked up by self proffessed experts in some fields imposing their views of how life works onto the end user.  For all I know your Gen Hillier - either way it only affects my ulcer, as it does not affect my skin one iota...


----------



## Kirkhill

You know - I am starting to think this entire project may be a lost cause already.  Not from any technical reason but from a lack of "buy-in".  

I have sold and supplied identical systems (industrial, not military) to different customers in the past.  Some times I couldn't get away from phone calls at 3 O'Clock in the morning because something else had broken down.  In other instances the customer thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The difference was, in most case IMHO, whether or not there was "buy-in" on shop floor.  If the operators were involved from the get go, or the proposing manager was a trusted individual then things went smoothly.  If on the other hand the manager was not trusted and the system was imposed - well less sleep for me.

I don't know if any of this kit will work. I don't know if the tactics, training and procedures associated with the kit will get the job done.  I do think it is a bit of red herring to suggest that the "system of systems" is a fancy way of spinning replacing the Leopards.  The Leopards themselves are part of a system of systems - defined in terms of a Combined Arms Team, a Battle Group, a Brigade Group or such other concepts as mutual support and defence in depth.   It is not unreasonable to suggest that some of the jobs the MBT does can be done by other means.  It is also not unreasonable to suggest that MBTs can do things that can't be done any other ways.  However,  reality is that no matter how big and expensive your tool kit is every now and then you run into a job where you don't have the perfectly designed tool and have to improvise.

Is the MBT indispensable?  Possibly except when you don't have one and can't get it where you would like it.  It has to be able to get within at least 5 km of the enemy to be able to deliver its package of potential energy to the target.   Is the LAVIII more likely to be able to close enough to deliver its package?  I don't know. With missiles it can reach out 8 km anyway and remove a target.

If you want to remove obstacles by destroying them then I would suggest that a LAV firing from a defilade position is as capable as anything else that can hit what it is aiming at.  On the other hand if you want to get right into the other guy's face and convince them not to bother fighting (the humane solution?) then perhaps a large amount of armour plate is just the ticket. 

Regardless of the merits of the proposed solutions I also know that if the level of reservations to this project expressed on this site are indicative of the attitude of the "shop floor" then I, as a supplier or "manager"  would not anticipate getting too much sleep, nor would I anticipate the deployed effort living up to my expectations.

Cheers.


----------



## Guest

I'd like to speak to the WepTech who serviced that gun if your LAV was choking up like that....

The dual feed is supposed to work very well..were they breech blocks or something in the belts?

I've seen RPG hits on Strykers, 
I've read numerous AARs on wounded Strykers.. some fortunate, others not so.. 
(I've also seen a low pressure 75mm hit a LAV with spaced armour.. know what happens?.. Not much...

There are strengths and weaknesses as you know

I can see that most here are against the DFS Trp in it's current vision.
That the loss of Heavy armour has been a setback in both capability and Morale.

Is it specificaly the above, or more the entrenched position of pretty much every military mind I've known.. 
"The Old way IS the best way.. thats why it's the OLD way" 

It's hard to focus this mindset on new ideas.

Maybe the CF's vision for future armour roles will turn out to be flawed in the end. 

I'm no tactition, or strategist.

However, isn't it possible in the very least.. that in such an event, the platforms themselves might be worthy?!?


----------



## Kirkhill

> Is it specificaly the above, or more the entrenched position of pretty much every military mind I've known..
> "The Old way IS the best way.. thats why it's the OLD way"



Guest:  You just screwed up as royally as possible.  Suggest you consider back-tracking ASAP.  Reference other threads on Danish Cartoons about the value of trading insults.


----------



## Guest

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Guest:  You just screwed up as royally as possible.  Suggest you consider back-tracking ASAP.  Reference other threads on Danish Cartoons about the value of trading insults.



Actually, re-reading it.. it does sound like an insult..

This was not my intent, so on that note.. I apologise.

The point I was trying to make, was inherently.. as an institution, all militaries are fairly entrenched in their ways, and that changing doctrine/systems/concepts is usually an uphill battle.

I don't think the above statement is either incorrect, nor insulting


----------



## xxtruthxx

> The point I was trying to make, was inherently.. as an institution, all militaries are fairly entrenched in their ways, and that changing doctrine/systems/concepts is usually an uphill battle.
> 
> I don't think the above statement is either incorrect, nor insulting


I believe your wrong. Considering that most of todays new technology's have military roots. The Military is normally the first institution to adapt new "doctrine/systems/concepts". 

Truth


----------



## Mortar guy

Guest - and I'm going to say this as respectfully as I can in case you are Gen Hillier  :warstory: - do you have a smoke grenade? If so now would be the time to use it. You have admitted yourself that you know nothing about tactics and your posts lead me to believe that you have only the foggiest of technical knowledge about armoured fighting vehicles. Your constant comparison of the MMEV to fighter aircraft is the big clue, in my opinion, that you are treading dangerously close to Poserland. Just so you know, there are people on this forum who have dedicated their lives to the study of land warfare and the technical aspects of armoured vehicles so many dilittantes are smoked out very early in the game. I understand your enthusiasm for the MMEV because it does look real neat-o on PowerPoint but maybe you should spend a couple of days and read, really read, the _Force Employment Concept_, Robert Leonhard's _The Art of Manoeuvre_, Martin van Creveld's _The Transformation of War_, DLSC's _Future Force_, and the _Future Security Environment_. Do that and then come back and tell me if you still really believe that the MMEV is the solution to the problems our Army will face in the coming years. I will state once again why I think the MMEV is a boondoggle:

1) It is incredibly expensive and anyone with the slightest amount of technical knowledge will quickly agree that integrating all those sensors, comms systems and weapons in one platform that has to drive off road through mud and dust and water will be extremely difficult. Have you ever wondered why it takes a decade or more to design a fighter aircraft or attack helicopter? One reason is that it takes that long to work out the integration of the electronics and to un-frig the bugs that result.

2) It does not bring any new capability to the battlefield. The TUA with TOW 2 Aero can engage and destroy pretty much anything out there  at ranges that we are likely to encounter (have you ever seen an 8km shot other than in Suffield? I have been to the deserts of the Arabian peninsula and am now in Afghanistan and can tell you 8km shots are extremely rare). So in the DF engagement, the MMEV seems a little redundant. As for NLOS, we already have the M777/Excalibur combo and if we really wanted a good NLOS missile we could just muckle on to the PAM. This is a MOTS solution that will cost far less than the MMEV and offer a far greater capability. So, in the NLOS fight, the MMEV seems a little redundant. The only place I could see the MMEV being useful is in the realm of AD but the threat is so low as to make this kind of investment seem very wasteful. Once again, we could replace ADATS with CLAWS/SLAMRAAM and achieve a better capability for less money. So, in the AD world, the MMEV offers no great capability at an exorbitant price. To summarize, we will spend a disgusting amount of money buying a vehicle that, at best, only brings mediocre capabilities to the battlefield.

3) The MMEV is incredibly vulnerable on the battlefield and would be too expensive to risk in most situations. I would argue that because of the sensitivity of all those sensors and missile hanging off the turret, and because of the small numbers that will be available to any commander, and because of the highly trained (and difficult to replace) crew - the MMEV will only be used as a NLOS platform. If that is the case then it utility rapidly drops to a number I like to call zero. If it can be outranged by Excalibur by a factor of 5 and its sensors are of no use it really becomes the world's most expensive self-licking ice cream cone.

4) In terms of tactics, have you ever heard the expression "fire without manoeuvre is useless". Without rewriting Leonhard's or Lind's books here I will just say that long-range precision fire without supporting manoeuvre does not place the enemy on the "horns of a dilemma". By that I mean that when presented with only one threat, the enemy will rapidly adapt to avoid that threat. For example, if an opponent is out in the open and is getting pummeled by NLOS missiles he will adapt to avoid that threat. He will improve his camouflage or move into built-up areas or dress like civilians. However, if presented with _complimentary_ threats (i.e. fire and manoeuvre), he will face a dilemma. In our exmple, if he moves to avoid the NLOS missiles, he will make himself vulnerable to a manoeuvre force that is attacking in concert with the fires. If he stays put, he will be destroyed by the missiles: i.e. a dilemma. This is my single greatest problem with the MMEV and the DFSofS - it seems to presume that long range fire in the absence of manouevre will solve all of our problems. It is a symptom of the intellectual disease that has infected our army since the advent of precision guided weapons - namely that destruction equals defeat. Destruction by long range fires (even if they are precision fires) is very costly, will meet with diminishing returns, and doesn't present the enemy with a dilemma. The DFSofS, and specifically the MMEV are supplimentary weapons systems, not complimentary ones.

Regards,

MG


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Mortar guy for deputy CDS


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting developments in this thread.

MGS and MMEV are really short and long range self propelled artillery platforms, but are using all kinds of clever tricks to try to get the job done. Let's just do what the REAL gunners do, lay on the gun and select the appropriate ammunition for the job. Any generation three, and most generation two tanks still in service  have very sophisticated FCS which support fairly complex fire control solutions. Most modern tanks also have the ability to fire indirect with their gun laying instruments, allowing engagement of targets which are non line of sight. Conventional ammunition natures like APDSFS, HEAT-MP, HE and Smoke BE allow the tanker to engage a wide variety of hard and soft targets, and there are now through tube missiles on the market to extend the range out to 13km (LAHAT), as well as projected future "smart" rounds like TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions) and STAFF (Sensor Target Activated Fire and Forget) to increase hit probabilities over an even wider range of conditions. With this in mind, we are really looking for a protected and mobile launch system, a M-109 "Paladin" or an FH-77 would do just fine if we were not too concerned about people shooting back.

Wheeled vehicles have demonstrated the ability to carry high velocity cannon and fire these types of rounds, in terms of firepower our objections to the MGS are based on the fact there is little ready ammunition and a lack of faith in the autoloader system. Armoured corps personnel I have spoken to, and first hand observation of an MGS prototype at the AUSA exhibition show deficiencies in the actual turret layout, the limited field of view hatches up or down being the worst problem. Certainly an MGS with a different turret layout that carries more ammunition in the ready rack would go a long way to silencing these objections. 

Indeed a Fire Support Vehicle with a large capacity magazine or ready rack, sophisticated FCS and the ability to fire all the types of ammunition noted above would be able to serve both as the MGS *AND* the MMEV. As a bonus, such a vehicle tasked to perform the long range overwatch role will have more ammunition and be capable of a higher rate of fire than the MMEV as currently envisioned. A slight aside, the HMMVW/LOSAT demonstrator had the ability to do parallel target engagements i.e. lay on and fire at four different targets at the same time. I would suggest that unique capability would be worth persuing in a missile armed vehicle, but we already have the LAV-TOW to do this with.

Wheeled vehicles also have ultimate limits in terms of overall weight (and thus protection), as well as ground pressure, which translates to limitations in tactical mobility. I myself am not overly bothered by this, a wheeled "cavalry team" with its own TTPs would be able to take advantage of the speed and mobility LAVs do offer, and Strykers have demonstrated they are robust vehicles so long as we respect their limits. Mobility and protection should be revisited with a LAV 3.5 service life extension program, replacing parts with reduced weight substitutes, modifying the suspension to reduce ground pressure and retrofitting crew stations to maximize situational awareness (a series of contradictory prescriptions, I know, but nevertheless).

Tanks still make the best MGS and MMEVs because they have all the above virtues in spades, but also have large protected ammunition racks (compare a LAV mounting a CV_CT turret with 32 rounds of 105mm to a Leopard C2 with 51 rounds of 105mm, and you get the idea), protection against a wide range of threats over a wide aspect, tactical mobility due to the tracked suspension and high power to weight ratio and the ability to manoeuvre in the face of enemy fire.


----------



## prom

Guest said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand you.
> 
> What are you saying? That LAV's are inherently unstable? That we keep tipping them over?
> 
> Our LAVs have been doing the job just fine.
> 
> My point was, MMEV, LAV TUA and LAV MGS are no more stable/instable than any other..



what im saying is what you have said in the post that was quoted, and that is take out anything external that can cause a problem and the system is perfect.


----------



## Mortar guy

OK, guest, I hereby recommend you be banished to Poserland! I have just re-read some of your posts and have detected even more silliness that I just can't help but comment on.



> I DO have experience with heavy Veh/WS.. I know exactly the constraints as opposed to fragile aircraft systems.
> I still maintain that this is doable, and Millions of $$$/ 1000's of man hours and more than a few corporate reputaions are betting on producing a winner.
> 
> There are some VERY smart people behind these "Transformation Innitiatives"



Before we go any further, we should all know what kind of experience you have. You have written some things here that are so out in left field as to have me believe you wouldn't know an ADATS missile from a broomhandle. Also, are you suggesting that the defence industry is motivated only by providing the best possible product to the Army and not by profit? I would argue that defence industry has a long track record of providing substandard kit, late and over budget while still turning a very good profit. I don't deny that there are some smart people working on this but are they motivated by providing the most useful, relevant vehicle the Army needs or by keeping their jobs and maximizing corporate profits for the benefit of the shareholders? You put far too much faith in the altruistic nature of the defence industry. And besides, as I said earlier, a good chunk of the people I have met involved in this project are far too dazzled by the whiz-bangery of the MMEV to realize the Emperor has no clothes. Ask those same people about the tactical employment of the MMEV and they mumble something about range overmatch or information dominance (i.e spurious buzz words) and then quickly change the subject.



> On the subject of MMEV missle guidance,
> 
> I predict:
> 
> 
> Longbow inspired millimeter wave radar
> LADAR
> GPS/SAL or GPS/IIR
> 
> This will support both Hellfire and re-designed ADATS seeker (as well as the rockets)
> 
> pylon mounts/data bus have all been done in the world of Airpower. (yes, I know I know fragile.. but these systems can be hardened and isolated)



You predict that do you? This statement more than any other is what has convinced me that you need a one way ticket to Poserland. As of right now, the plan for the MMEV is a 3D air search/MTI radar and an enhanced EO ball. There are no plans for LADAR and the other two systems you described are RTF out of 'er. What exactly is a GPS/SAL in your mind and how would it be used for missile guidance? Do you know that GPS and SAL are in no way related (same thing for IIR and SAL). That's like saying "I think it should have a laser spot tracker/cheese sandwich guidance system". Here is a rundown of the guidance systems of the proposed weapons for the MMEV:

ADATS missile: laser beam rider using a digitally encoded Carbon dioxide laser. 

Spike NT-D: Fire and forget (direct fire) or fibre optic (NLOS) using CCD/IIR guidance system.

SLAMRAAM: Active radar guidance with data-link mid course upgrade.

Hellfire: Semi-active laser seeker using A-Code lasers (Hellfire II) or millimeter-wave guidance (Longbow Hellfire)

APKWS: Semi-active laser seeker using A-Code lasers.

OK, so you mentioned a millimeter wave radar so I assume you would prefer the Longbow Hellfire. That means that you would require the following guidance systems:

Carbon-dioxide laser for ADATS along with IR missile localizer.
Fibre optic interface and EO CLU for Spike
Air search radar and datalink for SLAMRAAM
Millimeter wave radar for Longbow Hellfire
Code-A laser designator for APKWS (very different from the ADATS Carbon dioxide laser)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that there is a plan to mount a CASW on an OWS for local protection so there's another, stand-alone, system.

Here's where your brilliant fighter aircraft analogy falls apart. There is not a single fighter aircraft in the world that uses 5 different guidance systems for its weapons (including 2 different kinds of radar). Are you starting to understand? Even if we pretend that it wouldn't be difficult to train crewmen on 5 vastly different weapons systems; even if we believe that those complicated systems will be easy to maintain; and even if we argue that those capabilities are really needed in the Army; you still have the very real technical hurdle of mating all those incompatible weapons and guidance systems onto one platform. And I haven't even begun on the data radios or the Link 16 system yet! Still not convinced? Do you realize that none of these weapons have ever been integrated together on the same platform? Are you aware that almost all use different mounting systems? Why is the Army going to all the trouble of creating this system when it will not add any revolutionary capability to the battlefield and will be outclassed by other, cheaper systems now coming on line? I don't understand why everyone is not foaming at the mouth about this project!

MG


----------



## COBRA-6

Why am I reminded of the Simpson's episode where Homer designs a car  ???

Will the horn on the MMEV play "La Cucaratcha" too??


----------



## Guest

Okay guys. I give up. You win. I don't know a thing....

As to who I am. I am not an employee of any Defence Firm.

I am a freelance contractor in the field

MG, 

as to my GPS/SAL ref.

Handoff goes like this for NON-LOS:

UAV/ISTAR handoff
GPS-> Target Area/SAL for Target Acquisition  (And don't tell me this isn't so-- thats how you make precision GPS.. precision)

It's not a big deal to switch modes

I don't remember claiming to be involved with the specific project.

I made some educated guesses based on what I've heard from some people who ARE involved. 
(Not execs,or project liaison officers sitting in on briefings)

But the real geeks..the ones who make it happen.

My personal area of knowledge is more mechanical in nature.

I don't know how all of this is going to tie together. (for sure)

I'm told it will, I believe my colleagues.. obviously you don't.

MG, you seem well read up on various technologies, but you seem to discount completely any chance that maybe there MIGHT be ways around these intregration roadblocks you seem feel are insurmountable.

Again, I've been told different.


You guys don't believe me, call me a "poser"

(Why the hell would I pretend to be a Def. Civi-- If I was going to pose, at least give me credit.. I'd pretend to be a OMG-DELTA1111)

Thats fine.. I can't offer any "proof" at this time.. so I'll accept that moniker for now.

When CANSEC comes around, I'll PM a few of you and perhaps we can have a discussion over coffee.

I could get into alot of trouble by posting here, in fact.. I see that I shouldn't have.

I've been lurking at this board for years, I've learned my lesson and will go back to lurking..


Thanks for you time Gentlemen.


----------



## KevinB

Guest -- firstly the way the LAV ejects spent casings was the cause of the turret stoppage -- depending upon the direction of the turret to the hull expended casings can and do get caught up on the turret - same with spent links - where the commander has to lean way out and clear the link discharge door and the 7.62mm brass and link.


 WRT the MGS - I dont trust anything that cant reload on the move and continue engaging.


----------



## Mortar guy

Dude, (i.e. 'Guest') for the last time and for all that is good and holy, stay within your friggin lane!!



> UAV/ISTAR handoff
> GPS-> Target Area/SAL for Target Acquisition  (And don't tell me this isn't so-- thats how you make precision GPS.. precision)
> 
> It's not a big deal to switch modes



There is no such ground launched weapon in existence! I say again, there is no ground launched missile in production right now, to the best of my knowledge, that uses GPS to get to a target area and then semi-active laser homing for terminal guidance. None! And, if there is, it is not one of the missile proposed for the MMEV. And you wonder why you get called a poser?



> MG, you seem well read up on various technologies, but you seem to discount completely any chance that maybe there MIGHT be ways around these intregration roadblocks you seem feel are insurmountable.



Again, read my posts. I conceded that it might be technically feasible but at what cost? And to what benefit? You could make the MMEV hover is you threw enough cash at the program but what is the friggin point?



> I made some educated guesses based on what I've heard from some people who ARE involved.
> (Not execs,or project liaison officers sitting in on briefings)



Ah, at last the truth begins to emerge. You may have heard something from some guy who sweeps floors at the Oerlikon plant and you are only guessing at the technical stuff. See, all this embarrassment on your part could have been avoided if you had just stated what you know, stated what was your opinion, and kept your 'educated guesses' to yourself. You see, a lot of people come here looking for good discussion of the topics of the day based on knowledge, experience or opinion backed with good helpings of knowledge and experience. Second or third hand information and educated guesses do not make for intelligent debate.

Shot over!

MG


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Shot out!

I, like others, can actually see a role for the MGS, despite its oh so many shortcomings.

I just can't figure out how we are going to use the MMEV in the "three block war".  

Here's my prediction:  If in fact we go ahead with this boondoggle, the MMEV will be the most expensive army vehicle ever produced, and will have a VOR rate of 50%.  (minimum)


----------



## Mortar guy

Lance,

I totally agree with you - the MGS does have its uses. It is a decent (not great but decent) Assault Gun and would be suitable for bunker busting, blowing holes in walls, convoy escort etc. This is what the US Army Operational Requirements Document says the MGS will be used for. On the other hand, our SOR says that the MGS will have to be able to take on T-72Ms, BMPs and the like. In other words, we see the MGS as a Tank Destroyer and in my opinion it makes a very poor Tank Destroyer (even with the TUA and MMEV backing it up). If we bring our MGS usage in line with what the vehicle is capable of, it will be OK. Now the MMEV...

MG


----------



## Kirkhill

So Mortar Guy:

Leaving aside the heavy armour discussion for a moment do I take it that  in your opinion, the money being spent on the MMEV portion of the DFS Regiment would be better spent, perhaps, on some combination of more readily available artillery systems such as LAV-AMOS, M777, and the Netfires LAM-PAM missiles?  

Actually one area that I have had problems with is understanding what the missile vehicles in the DFS system have been intended for.  The TUA in particular seems to be redundant since similarly capable missiles, or in fact more capable missiles, could be mounted right on LAVIIIs which then could be grouped in a troop with a pair of MGS for heavier DFS.

At the same time, as you point out, the MMEV appears to be a Direct Fire System that overlaps with the TUA at one corner of its operational envelope and at another corner, perhaps its most survivable usage, it is actually an Indirect Fire System. 

Is there much that an MGS/LAVIII-Spike troop backed up by available artillery could not accomplish that  the MGS/TUA/MMEV could?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Zoiks.  We've been wrapped around this particular axle for some time now.

The MMEV strikes me as a Cold War system.  I'm sure it appeals to some as a WW III version of the 88mm gun.  Put twenty or so in a CMBG in Germany or Treblikastan and just dare those MRRs, Hinds and Frogfoots to come across the plains.  ADATs was a wonderful JANUS weapon, as it was given a big bubble of omnisicience.  Parked on a high feature it would happily fire off its load at red armour.

I'm not sure that the reality would be the same.  Regardless, given that in our current operating environment we will either be securing a country or undertaking offensive operations the MMEV has somewhat limited utility.  We've talked about ISTAR thresholds and other terms to get to the point that the enemy has a vote.  He is not a JANUS icon dutifully waiting to be engaged.  The enemy will conceal himself in complex terrain or among the population.  Many times he will get the first shot (all else being equal). 

Experience in Iraq (both wars) seem to indicate that the close battle is still a close battle.  The enemy situation is rarely known with great fidelity at the tactical level.  Firepower and mobility are important, but so is the ability to take hits as well. 

The idea of long range missile systems, anti-tank or anti-aircraft, is certainly not a bad one.  I just don't see them as a solution on their own.  I favour the idea of putting ATGM launchers on Coyotes and LAVs, but we've been down this road as well.  Iraq and Afghanistan also seem to tell us that the full gamut of fire support systems are also needed, ranging from 60mm mortars at company level to B52s dropping JDAMs.  If we are trying to match our resources to the threat, we need to compare the most likely with the most dangerous.  Perhaps the most dangerous threat is a near-peer nation with massive AFV forces coming across an international border that we happen to be on the other side of.  The most likely, however, is that we are stabilizing a failed state.  The MMEV seems to be designed for the former.

Looking at MGS, I still go back and forth on this one.  It is difficult to make judgements not having had the chance to get my hands on one or read accounts of those who have.  I have spoken with South African fellows who employed small armoured cars with 90mm guns against everything from trucks to T34s and T55s.  As a "recce" platform delivering anti-tank fires, the MGS may well have a niche to fill, although of course the whole 25mm vs 105mm vs TOW argument needs to be made here as well.  In a stability operation with "neutral" warlords about that own T55s etc, the MGS may present somewhat of a deterrent if included in a task force.  The MGS may have an advantage over missile systems in urban terrain.


----------



## Kirkhill

> If we are trying to match our resources to the threat, we need to compare the most likely with the most dangerous.  Perhaps the most dangerous threat is a near-peer nation with massive AFV forces coming across an international border that we happen to be on the other side of.  The most likely, however, is that we are stabilizing a failed state.  The MMEV seems to be designed for the former.



2B: Wrapped indeed.

Just one point that I would make about your threat assesment.  You seem to be suggesting that you might either be involved in securing a border or be involved in securing a failed state.  Isn't it as likely that you will be involved in both simultaneously, ie. securing the borders of a failed/failing/recovering state against incursions at the same time as assisting in the process of securing the state itself?  It seems to me that Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea (for that matter most of the African issues) all fall into this category. Iraq and Eritrea being examples of instances where there are conventionally armed forces on the borders waiting for a sufficient weakening of the defending state that they can then intervene successfully.

Further, given that there are a lot more poor people living in sub-par states than rich people living in approved states it seems likely that forces like Canada's involved in stability ops are always going to find themselves at a numeric disadvantage.  Trading infanteer for infanteer, tank for tank or even fighter for fighter seems unlikely to be a winning formula in that case.  We need to supply you with that infamous "over-match" capability.  IMHO TTPs and Quality will only get you so far down that path, allowing for exchange ratios of 2-5:1.  Technology seems to offer the only chance of achieving ratios of 10-20:1 and those ratios are only transitory. They are only possible until the enemy figures out a counter.  Apaches were once considered to have an exchange rate of 10-20:1.  I wonder if the expectations are still the same after the abortive Apache raid during the advance to Baghdad?

I am still confused about the role and viability of the MMEV, and I have no way of knowing if it could achieve a 10-20:1 exchange rate, but your statement 





> I'm sure it appeals to some as a WW III version of the 88mm gun.


 may in fact be its best justification.  Assuming it works.

Cheers.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Indeed.  Places like Iraq are surrounded by neighbours who could indeed pose a "conventional" threat.  Whether a MMEV is the best counter is a good question (assuming that the technology can be sorted out).  

"Overmatch" is an interesting term and exchange ratios were certainly in vogue during the cold war.  Overmatch that relies on the enemy not getting a shot in is somewhat optimistic in my opinion.  M1s and Challengers took hits during both Gulf Wars but were able to survive and in turn destroy their opponents.  

Whether the extra range of a MMEV (lets say 8 km for giggles) over a 4 of 5 km range for other missiles makes is worthwhile is an interesting question as well.  Questions of target identification at that range must also be considered. 

If you were securing a "failed state" against insurgents with the added fun of potentially hostile neighbours would you rather have:

       (1)   a force of M1s and LAV IIIs with TOW/Spike etc bolted on backed up by mortars, artillery and air support; or

       (2)   a force of LAV IIIs, MGS and MMEV backed up by mortars, artillery and air support?

If you absolutely had to get there quickly I suppose you would opt for version 2, but even then you might be tempted to go for the LAV IIIs with TOW/Spike etc to give you a little more simplicity and flexibility.  If we are really worried about conventional neighbours attacking with AFVs then our coalition air power will be a huge deterent.  If we are facing a true "peer" state then I suppose we are in trouble, but again we should look at the "most dangerous" vs "most likely" scenario.

Looking at the Apaches, while I was attending staff training down south the AH64 battalion was a big part of the Div Commander's "deep battle", along with his battery of MLRS (structures have since changed).  That being said, one of my instructors had been in the first Gulf War on M1s and commented that his Division had used the Apaches to accompany the ground forces.  A pair of Apaches would fly just behind the lead tanks to give a little extra view out front and engage at long range with Hellfires.  A somewhat different and "lunchbox" approach than doctrine suggested but effective nonetheless.  He commented as well that one Apache got out front a little and ended up getting shot down.  The ground forces and Apaches offered each other mutual support when they worked together.  Off topic. Sorry.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## DG-41

> Trading infanteer for infanteer, tank for tank or even fighter for fighter seems unlikely to be a winning formula in that case.



Even worse, the limit on Canadian staying power (or Western staying power for that matter) isn't the absolute number of troops on the ground, but rather the number of casulties the government/public is willing to sustain before pulling out - and that number is a good deal smaller than the total number of boots on the ground.

Unless they are physically surrounded and prevented from leaving, no modern Western nation will let its forces fight to the last man.

That suggests to me that it becomes imperative to not only be able to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible (to reduce the opportunity for him to inflict casulties) but it is imperative to have exceptional defensive capabilities. You need to be able to take hits and not incur casulties.

But at the same time... I've also become completely convinced that NO enemy is EVER truly defeated until he has become your staunch ally (see Marshall Plan) That means willing the hearts and minds of the local population, because the natural recourse for a heavily overmatched fighting force is to move to insergent/guerillia warfare, and the insergent/guerillia needs the tacit support of the local population in order to operate freely. So that tells me that not only do you have to defeat the enemy fighting forces as quickly and decisively as possible, you also have to to it with the minimum possible footprint on noncombatives.

On the surface, that might seem like a plea for more smart weapons, but I don't think that's the case. Instead, I think it is a requirement for better, faster, and more precise target acquisition, tied to a weapon system that exerts just enough force to eliminate the target with little to no collateral damage.

That sounds to me like a weapon system that can roll into an area with near-absolute impunity, decisively identify targets at its leisure, and then kill them with a pinpoint weapon.

What might that be I wonder?



> If you were securing a "failed state" against insurgents with the added fun of potentially hostile neighbours would you rather have:
> 
> (1)   a force of M1s and LAV IIIs with TOW/Spike etc bolted on backed up by mortars, artillery and air support; or
> 
> (2)   a force of LAV IIIs, MGS and MMEV backed up by mortars, artillery and air support?



I'll take the M1s, thanks.

DG


----------



## a_majoor

looking at a bigger picture approach (and not postulating any magic weapons systems) then a Cavalry formation using the MGS as an assault gun backed by an improved LAV-TOW for long range overwatch is probably the best of all possible worlds. With an all LAV force we get a "sort of" balanced combat team formation. the ability to use speed to keep enemies off balance and provide Kinetic effects through most of the full spectrum of operations, either individually, or as part of a larger formation. (A LAV Cavalry team could provide a cordon around an urban area while the M-1 equipped battlegroup moves in, for example).

Since I am pretty sure this is the actual "End State" that is being envisioned for the transformation, we need to find the most cost effective way of achieving this, and of course the best "technical" solution to the tactical, operational and strategic problems being faced. I am on record as liking a LAV III equipped with a 105 MM CV_CT turret to fill the role of the MGS, and I can make a strong case for using different ammunition natures to fulfill most of the projected roles of the MMEV.


----------



## Kirkhill

I am now well OT I know but all of this discussion of the MGS and every other weapons system has to be put in the context of what we expect to be doing.  (I and tried to teach my Granny how to suck eggs as well  ).

I am going to suggest that Canada's Expeditionary Command needs to be:

Strategically Offensive
Operationally Defensive
Tactically Flexible

The taxpayer and the government seem to be in agreement that it is a good thing to send troops overseas to help people and governments in need.  Therefore we need to be able to move troops towards the threat globally - Strategically offensive.  Given that Governments don't seem to like to commit dollars until there is a crisis at hand then the force needs to be able to react quickly.  Quick reaction demands a light force.  

A light force can't stand long - but it can survive longer on the defence than it can on offence.  Therefore it can either be used for very short duration offensive missions (raids essentially) or it can be used as a barrier force which will either convince an enemy to stay home because it demonstrates the intent to act, or it will buy time until a heavier force with more staying power can be deployed.  A light force is also an effective internal security tool.

Once overseas we then come to the question of what do we expect those deployed troops to do.  Well, the taxpayer/voter doesn't seem inclined to support throwing the first punch and the Government doesn't seem inclined to press the case. The CF, politically, could be used to stand WITH a threatened Government against an external threat, or to support that Government in securing its territory against domestic threats.  That puts the CF onto the defence Operationally.  It isn't going to be launching 1000 km opposed thrusts across international borders.

A medium force, heavy in ISTAR and Fire Support assets (ground, rotary, fixed wing, direct or indirect), can perform this task.  The wheels and ISTAR allow it to patrol and control large areas with a small number of bodies.  The Fire Support allows enemy thrusts and probes along the borders or on internal lines of communication to be rapidly countered.  Long range assets mean that large protective umbrellas can be created under which the medium force can patrol and where fire can be rapidly switched from threat to threat.  The longer the range, and assuming equal effectiveness of the rounds employed, then the fewer the Fire Support assets required, the lest costly the price of maintaining the umbrella and the larger the area the force can secure, or the longer the time the taxpayer will continue to pay for it to stay in place.

A Heavy Force could do the same job, given adequate Fire Support and ISTAR assets but it could not patrol as large an area (due to the speed - 100 km/h on good going versus 60 km/h on good going).  It would also cost more in terms of the costs of the individual vehicles, the need for more operational vehicles because of the reduced patrol areas, the need for more support vehicles, the need for more spare parts and ultimately the need for more bodies to man all that extra kit and maintain it.

However, in the process of conducting an Operational defence it is necessary to be able to act/react flexibly.  It is necessary to be able to not just block enemy assaults but also to be able to launch our own local offenses (following Principle 3 - Offensive Action) and also to launch counter offenses to parry enemy offenses and to be able to threaten them and keep them off balance. There is a need to be able to launch local assaults in the face of enemy action.

There are no safe ways to conduct assaults - regardless of pace (deliberate or rapid), preparation (hasty or planned), or use of fire support (quiet or noisy approach).   Armour plate  is useful in reducing the risk to assaulting forces.  Heavy forces are useful in that regard and it is worthwhile having such a force on hand to allow assaults to be conducted.  However the logistical costs demand that the entire force can't be all heavy, all the time.  The heavy assets need to be husbanded and used in packages that are effective but that don't drain the system.  The problem with heavy forces, beyond their cost, is their lack of rapid response capability.  Generally speaking heavy forces are best employed concentrated but if they are concentrated then they can only cover a limited area or take a long time to get into position to counter a thrust or launch an assault.  To get speed of response they need to be dispersed, necessitating either large numbers or else penny packets.

It seems reasonable to me to suggest that heavy forces are at their most cost effective when held in reserve and employed in planned assaults.  Patrolling is better done by light and medium assets.  Countering thrusts is better considered a Fire Support problem due to its speed of response and flexibility.

The ultimate advantage of an armoured force is its ability to manoeuvre in the face of enemy fire.  From that I take it that the "ideal" armoured vehicle is one that can't be killed (mobility kill included) even when standing on top of an enemy position.   Even if it were totally unarmed then it could advance to the enemy and occupy the ground.

Having said that, putting a block of steel in the midst of the enemy is not likely to make them give up ground.  Unless they sense that they are about to die and there is nothing they can do about it then they can cheerfully ignore the block of steel coming their way.  That block of steel has to have some effect on them.  It has to be able to blow them up, or shoot them, or deposit troops on their position or perhaps, ideally again, all three.  If all three capabilities can be put into one package, such as the Merkava 4, then that has advantages but at very least the assault force needs to be able to deliver all three threats when assets are combined on the objective.

But first and foremost the assault force has to be able to reach the objective - even if it doesn't fire a shot.  This is the only logically absurd conclusion that I can draw given that a) we can't accept casualties and b) no matter how much fire support and preparation available some enemy forces with intact weapons systems will survive on the objective.  Therefore any armoured force must be able to survive point blank hits from all weapons.  Given that then the issue of whether or not the armoured force requires a large calibre long range gun becomes moot,  especially if it slow in response and has a slow rate of fire (6-10 rounds per minute is not rapid).

What is required in armament, for a vehicle that fights on the objective, is speed of response and accuracy as at close range the enemy is capable of operating while only presenting fleeting targets and those need to be countered quickly. The weapon system also has to be able to deliver large packages of potential (or residual kinetic) energy to targets - the larger the better because it allows for larger, better protected targets to be dealt with.  However it does not need to be long ranged.  The energy expended in sending a projectile a long distance is better expended against the skin of a target.  As well, if the own force heavy vehicle is well armoured, and can take hits, then it doesn't have to worry as much about getting the first shot in.  

Based on this calculus my suggestion for a heavy force would be a vehicle with as much armour as the roads can bear, mounted on tracks to carry that load anywhere but armed with a mix of rapid fire small/medium calibre weapons and a short range, large calibre weapon, and preferably able to transport troops.  This minus the ability to transport troops virtually defines the original tanks of World War I vintage.

Today it is something like a cross between the Merkava, the Achzarit and Matt Fisher's Urban Combat Tank.

It would not be affordable, reasonable or useful to have an entire force of such vehicles, but to put such a steel core (10% of the assets for example) into a Medium/Light force would keep the initiative in the hands of the defending force commander.

And by the way,  Granny was just as impressed after I finished her lesson.  ;D

Cheers.


Final thought, just to tie this back to the MGS - the MGS with its gun would be most suitable in dealing with light vehicles and fixed positions at long ranges.  A useful tool for a Cavalry force, not so useful in the face of an armoured force, of limited use in an assault except for supplying stand-off fire support from hull down positions.


----------



## DG-41

I agree with almost everything you've said here, with one or two minor quibbles:



> Given that then the issue of whether or not the armoured force requires a large calibre long range gun becomes moot,  especially if it slow in response and has a slow rate of fire (6-10 rounds per minute is not rapid).
> 
> What is required in armament, for a vehicle that fights on the objective, is speed of response and accuracy as at close range the enemy is capable of operating while only presenting fleeting targets and those need to be countered quickly. The weapon system also has to be able to deliver large packages of potential (or residual kinetic) energy to targets - the larger the better because it allows for larger, better protected targets to be dealt with.  However it does not need to be long ranged.  The energy expended in sending a projectile a long distance is better expended against the skin of a target.  As well, if the own force heavy vehicle is well armoured, and can take hits, then it doesn't have to worry as much about getting the first shot in.



The nice thing about gun systems, at least when you are talking KE penetrators, is that "long range" becomes almost a side effect.

KE works by accelerating hard, dense projectiles to super-high velocities. The ability to penetrate a given chunk of armour is a function of the hardness, toughness, and density of the projectile, and its velocity at impact. 

Given that the material we make the penetrator out of (given some major technical development) is going to be either tungsten or DU, which have known properties, the penetration power of the gun is pretty well a function of muzzle velocity. And all that muzzle velocity, given that the penetrators don't slow down all that quickly, gives you range "for free".

Put another way, if you determine the maximum thickness of armour that your penetrator must be able to defeat at a certain range - 1km? 2km? - that will determine the muzzle velocity you need. But with that, you get the ability to penetrate thinner targets to longer ranges without adding any complexity to the weapons system, save perhaps a higher magnification on the sight to be able to make effective use of the longer range should the opportunity present itself (and that's cheap and easy)

If that maximum thickness is of MBT scale, then your gun is a killer to anything less than an MBT effectively out to the limits of vision. And if your spec distance is greater than about 1000m (I once got a very stern lecture from a WW2 vet that no tank engagement was ever longer than 400m) then you have a weapon system that is de facto undefeatable.

All of which sounds to me a lot like NATO 120mm - so in other words, I guess I'm arguing that a NATO 120mm main gun ought to be big enough for anybody. 

What might be interesting is the ability to increase the *rate* of fire out of a standard 120mm gun. I have a vision of something like the 5-round clip on a 40mm Oerlikon AA gun. What if there were a 3-round hopper on the top of the breach of a 120mm gun, and the loader filled the hopper instead of stuffing the breach directly? 

Also, I think this is an argument *against* missile systems, which have long ranges with high hit&kill probabilities, but have slow flight times, slow reload times, and often, minimum ranges.



> Based on this calculus my suggestion for a heavy force would be a vehicle with as much armour as the roads can bear, mounted on tracks to carry that load anywhere but armed with a mix of rapid fire small/medium calibre weapons and a short range, large calibre weapon, and preferably able to transport troops.  This minus the ability to transport troops virtually defines the original tanks of World War I vintage.



It also sounds a lot like an M1, or a Challenger. 

I don't think you can mix "all the armour the roads can bear", "big gun", "troop transport", and one you overlooked "keep a reasonable size such that it will fit in transport". Pic any three. 

DG


----------



## Kirkhill

> It also sounds a lot like an M1, or a Challenger.



In the absence of anything better. 

And PS - I agree with you on missiles.  From where I sit missiles work better as Cavalry and Fire Support assets.  Not assault assets.  Therefore Arty Missiles and LAV Missiles but not MBT Missiles.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Kirkhill,

I am not a fan of multiple weapon stations.  They were in vogue for some inter-war tank designs and they did not seem to do very well.   I am a fan, however, of having lots of machineguns.  Staying with main armament, having the ability to destroy enemy tanks is still important.  Long cannons are a pain in urban terrain but it can be managed.  What cannot be managed is the inability to destroy enemy armour.  I am also not sold on having the capability to transport infantry.

I guess I am arguing that if you are going to have "heavy" forces then get M1s and some form of APC/IFV for the accompanying infantry (LAV III, Stryker, M2, Warrior, BMP etc).  With the right ammo loads the M1 can deliver significant destruction during the run-in to the position. 

Looking at the strategic realm (well above my grade), recent experience seems to indicate that the crisis (such as an invasion) will already have happened before our troops are mobilized.  That is not to say that we could not be in a stabilty operation that goes wrong when a neighbour intervenes, but I'm not sure about the "operationally defensive" bit.

The LAV task force (including Coyotes and maybe MGS etc) does have an appeal for the types of missions that we have conducted over the past ten years.  It is an outstanding force for stability/counter-insurgency operations.  We should, however, be realistic about how quickly these forces can deploy.  Think weeks and months, not days.


----------



## Kirkhill

2B:

If you see the platform slashing through enemy lines disrupting their cohesion, but fundamentally leaving them intact to reform behind you, a la Patton,  then I can see the benefits of an all MBT force.

If you want to secure the ground behind then you need those infantry guys.  Speaking as an ex-infanteer, even if only militia-rat, and one that suffered from claustrophobia and at the same time didn't relish catching more than my fair share of incoming rounds, I was not too impressed by the thought of following along behind you with your 120mm - 400mm  armour plate in a vehicle with 8 mm to 30 mm of armour plate.  As good as you guys are with your guns delivering significant destruction I am willing to bet you might miss the occasional target.    If you want the infantry to keep up then they need the same armour that you carry.  Now whether they come along in the same vehicle, like this Merkava seems to be proposing or they come along in a separate, equally heavily armoured vehicle, like the Achzarit is open for debate.  

WRT multiple weapons stations: you have multiple weapons stations - main gun, coax, commander's RWS and loader's station (possible RWS as well), not to mention grenade launchers which can be used for rounds other than smoke.

WRT the long gun - both you and DG make good points.  The gun also has the advantage, like the M1 and Challenger, of being available now and useful.  It, along with a heavy APC, would be entirely useful in forming the steel core I was alluding to.

I was not arguing agains the tank per se.  I was just pointing out that the design criteria that the CF might desire might not be the same criteria that the US might desire.  Having said that the vehicles that are available and can meet 80 to 90% or requirement are better than something that  might be 100% capable but exists only on a drawing board somewhere.

I have long stipulated that heavy forces should be part of the force mix.  At the same time I feel that what gets lost in the discussion is what the capabilities are that are left on the table with the kit available.

I agree with your point about the deployability of a medium force.  That is why I talked about the value of a light force to hold ground until other forces can be brought in.  Medium weight forces CAN be brought in faster in small packets than Heavy forces and every increase in weight equates to an increase in capability making it that much harder to dislodge the early entry force which in turn buys time to bring in more forces, both Medium and Heavy.  For long stay operations the relative proportions of Light, Medium and Heavy seem likely to be driven by environment and operational necessity moreso than deployability.

I disagree to an extent about the suggestion that all crises start with an invasion.  All crises start with with an increase in tensions.  Even the first Gulf War was telegraphed.  What would the effect on Saddam have been if Canada had deployed a light battle group with an ongoing thickening of forces in support of the Emir of Kuwait.   The Brits and the Yanks couldn't have done it.  That would be seen as a possible precursor to invasion.  But suppose Canada had deployed just to stand with the Kuwaitis.  Would Saddam have been as ready to push?  Militarily it  might not be a major problem, even if his nose got bloodied in the process, although with allied naval and air support it might not be as easy as he might hope, but diplomatically I have to believe that he would have a  significant problem to deal with.  Perhaps enough to make him rethink about driving over the border in the first place.

"Better a Battalion in time, than a Division too late."

Cheers.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Machineguns are one thing.  The rapid-fire light to medium calibre guns you mention are another.  The now-classic MBT layout with one main gun backed up by a coax and one or two roof mounted machineguns has proven to be manageable.  Those roof-mounted machineguns are now capable of reliably being remote-fired, an added bonus in the close fight.

As for the infantry, their vehicles can be uparmoured to a point (the M2 has gone through a series of improvements in this regard).  The tanks should be taking the hits, that's why they are up front.  A series of compromise MBT/APC hybrids might end up being able to do neither job.  The tank/APC team has been somewhat validated in combat.

As for Canada deploying a medium task force to "deter" an aggressor I can think quickly of Hong Kong in 1941 or any number of UN forces that have been bypassed/overrun.  Deterring a big, conventional threat had better come with a coalition (US) presence.


----------



## a_majoor

Hypervelocity KE rounds do have long range as a byproduct of their kinetic energy, but this is somewhat analogous to the situation with the ADATS: extreme range requires an unobstructed sight line. I would guess this is getting to the point of diminishing returns, the curvature of the Earth is the limiting factor for direct engagements.

I believe we need a bag of tricks approach to our direct fire support, using various natures of ammunition to defeat different target sets, and smart rounds to defeat difficult targets. For a modern tank, I would be satisfied with a 44 calibre barrel and a hockey sock of ammunition, rather than a 55 calibre barrel even with its superior performance against hard targets. The shorter barrel provides a bit more mobility in confined areas, and if I was taking the fight to the enemy in complex terrain, Multi Purpose Anti Tank and HE would probably be the nature of ammunition needed anyway. Long range engagements were to be dealt with by projects like Tank Extended Range Munitions (TERM) and Sensor Target Acquisition Fire and Forget (STAFF); designed around a 44 cal barrel, and current through tube missiles also provide alternative means of destroying difficult targets. 

These solutions are independent of the firing vehicle (except for the calibre of the round, obviously smaller lighter vehicles would use smaller cannons with less recoil impulse), so in theory at least, we could have all of Kirkhill's Light, Medium and Heavy forces covered through the clever application of fire support ammunition. Picture, for example, a light force equipped with a 105mm on a traditional anti-tank wheeled mount (similar to a PaK 75). They could jump in with the guns and have a means to fend off enemy forces of greater "weight". Mobility could be by towing behind a light utility vehicle, or slung by helicopter. Medium Fire Support Vehicles are simply a means of carrying the same gun and ammunition combination with more mobility and protection, while heavy forces would be able to use tanks armed with 120mm cannons using the same natures of ammunition, but in a bigger package. Tanks armed with 105mm ammunition are not to be sneered at, the gun can destroy all target sets below MBT, and ring the bell on any enemy MBT hard enough to put it out of action (mobility kill, broken FCS and shaken or injured crews). The 50+ round carrying capacity of a Leopard C2 or Merkava Mk 1 also counts for a lot, especially when the other guy is running low on rounds and you are not.

I have no doubt that a properly designed autoloader could provide very high and sustained rates of fire for cannons, although I think there are other ways to get the same effect; parallel engagements like with the LOSAT demonstrator, "loitering" precision munitions like Kirkhill's favorite Netfires system (launch a round and let it look for the bad guys on its own...), or even artillery and mortar cluster munitions like DPCIM (the trick is to be able to acquire and fire the round fast enough before the target can flee).

There are lots of possible solutions out there for fire support, the MGS is simply not a good example of how to do this, but the idea of a complimentary fire support vehicle for the LAV III is sound.


----------



## TCBF

"Hong Kong in 1941 or any number of UN forces that have been bypassed/overrun.  Deterring a big, conventional threat had better come with a coalition (US) presence."

- Good point, and even they had a Corps over run in Korea ( read "The River and The Gauntlet" by S.L.A. Marshall).

Tom


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

One of the big problems I have with the LAV III/MGS/TUA/MMEV or ADATS "system of systems" is that I have never seen us deployed in such depth outside of Wainwright or Gagetown.  Relying on a doctrine that requires four vehicles to provide a survivable force, when we do not deploy all of them together routinely is asking for defeat in detail, or defeat of the detail as deployed anyway.  The MGS can be a nifty direct fire infantry support weapon, the TUA is a proven if mediocre tank killer, and the MMEV(whenever it comes to life) or ADATS provides the long range punch that a 120mm would have given us. 
      I would rather see LAVIII with Spike or even TOW missiles included at the troop level, so that bunker busting and real antitank capacity was available to the troops we deploy.  The low numbers of MGS suggested, the lack of doctrine for deployment, and the purely "offensive" role of the direct fire system lead me to believe that they are more likely to be left at home when the troops deploy.  If it cannot replace a tank, and is not included in numbers enough to make it a regular part of our mechanized infantry tool kit, it's just going to become another expensive white elephant like the upgrades to the Leo's that we never get to deploy.


----------



## Mountie

Exactly.  Therefore, significantly increase the number of LAV-III TUA systems and give them back to the mechanized infantry battalion either in an ant-armour platoon at battalion level or right down to the rifle company level like the US Stryker units do.  If they really insist on the MGS then do the same with it.  Give the support to the troops that are deploying.  Scrap the ADATS/MMEV all together.  When's the last time ADATS actually deployed?  A few systems concentrated in one regiment just doesn't seem to make sense.


----------



## Eland

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> One of the big problems I have with the LAV III/MGS/TUA/MMEV or ADATS "system of systems" is that I have never seen us deployed in such depth outside of Wainwright or Gagetown.  Relying on a doctrine that requires four vehicles to provide a survivable force, when we do not deploy all of them together routinely is asking for defeat in detail, or defeat of the detail as deployed anyway.  The MGS can be a nifty direct fire infantry support weapon, the TUA is a proven if mediocre tank killer, and the MMEV(whenever it comes to life) or ADATS provides the long range punch that a 120mm would have given us.
> I would rather see LAVIII with Spike or even TOW missiles included at the troop level, so that bunker busting and real antitank capacity was available to the troops we deploy.  The low numbers of MGS suggested, the lack of doctrine for deployment, and the purely "offensive" role of the direct fire system lead me to believe that they are more likely to be left at home when the troops deploy.  If it cannot replace a tank, and is not included in numbers enough to make it a regular part of our mechanized infantry tool kit, it's just going to become another expensive white elephant like the upgrades to the Leo's that we never get to deploy.



The operative sentence in your post is, _"... the MMEV (whenever it comes to life) or ADATS provides the long range punch that a 120mm
would have given us."_ For what it's costing us to develop the MMEV (and I think this has been pointed out by someone else in the army.ca site), we could have a significant number of up to date tanks. Those tanks would give us the long-range punch that is desired *and* a survivable platform. Better still, the tanks would offer another important item: simplicity. The MMEV is unproven. Yet there are lots of proven 120mm guns and fire control systems out there. The simplicity comes in the form of a 120mm round, good optics and a computer system not much more powerful than the 286 or 386 home computer systems of yore.

If you really want the ability to smack your enemy from a decent stand-off distance, you'd be better off acquiring the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) which offers the ability to bust bunkers, tanks, provide counter-battery fire, kill infantry in open-topped trenches - all for a fraction of the price. Since it's based on the M113 platform, you have a well-established stream of parts and support resources to boot. If you need more _force de frappe_ than that, just call in an air strike for God's sake.

To my way of thinking, the MMEV is a solution looking for a problem. Given how top-heavy the creature is, I think it will be as mediocre as you predict the LAV-TUA system will be. In fairness to the MMEV system, I could see a number of limited scenarios where it could be employed successfully. Most of those scenarios entail well-concealed defilades for launch points, and a low risk of retaliatory strikes from the enemy -if, and only if the enemy in question is relatively unsophisticated, with no real means of detecting the position of a MMEV before or just after it launches its payload. Unfortunately real-world combat situations rarely offer ideal launch positions and defilades, and underestimating one's enemy is always dangerous.

The comment I make about an unsophisticated enemy also holds true for the MGS. If your enemy has lots of ATGM posts and the training and skill needed to use them, watch out. Tanks are vulnerable to such a threat profile, and the MGS even more so. You say the MGS makes for a 'nifty direct-fire infantry support weapon'. However, a tank also makes a good support weapon too, and is capable of dealing with enemy tanks if they pop up. By comparison, the MGS can deal with dug-in infantry, but not enemy tanks because of its weak armour and de-powered main gun.

The MGS/MMEV systems are already obsolete. They were born at the time US Army General Eric Shinseki conceived of a way to make military forces faster and lighter, and in an era when it was believed that the future conflict would involve only low-intensity scenarios. I say 'obsolete' because there appears to be a real risk that the US will be going to war with Iran soon, possibly causing the outbreak of a general war in the Middle East, and, God forbid, another world war. You do not want to be sending your troops into the middle of a 'hot war' with vehicles like the MGS and the MMEV. 

I agree with you that the MGS and MMEV are likely to get left behind. Simply because their too-sophisticated electromechanical systems and lack of survivability make them a millstone around the necks of soldiers who can do their jobs far better with lower-tech, more traditional weapons.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Actually, I have always favoured LeoII(A5-A6?) over the MGS.  We don't have the ability to air deploy the MGS, so that issue is a non-issue for us.  The Americans can use the MGS because they have the M1 to do the tank destroying for them, and they have heavy tactical air helicopter and fighter-bomber assets to do the same.  I don't see us having the ability to use the MGS in its niche role, I see us using the MGS as a tank-destroyer as well as direct infantry fire support, and it lacks the armour and hitting power for the job.  Our doctrine requires MGS, TUA, and ADATS (or MMEV) to do the job that the LeoII could do solo.  If we are stuck using a LAVIII hull, then I prefer the LAV III with sidecar ATGM or NLOS systems for tank-killing and bunker busting, because the MGS brings no more armour, and less tank-killing power to the table, with a similar burden to the logistics train.  The problem with niche weapon systems, is that too often we are stuck with only the one tool in the box, and several jobs to do with it.  That situation can get us killed using an MGS to do the job of the dedicated tank destroyers we did not deploy.  I remember Jean Chretien telling the press that we did not need the Cadillac (referring to Sea King replacement), that we could get by with a Chevy. The problem is that we do need the Cadillac, as we will not have a dozen vehicles to do a dozen jobs, we will have one or two vehicles to do the same dozen jobs, and if its not the Cadillac, we (not the politicians) are up the creek.


----------



## TCBF

"Exactly.  Therefore, significantly increase the number of LAV-III TUA systems and give them back to the mechanized infantry battalion either in an ant-armour platoon at battalion level or right down to the rifle company level like the US Stryker units do.  If they really insist on the MGS then do the same with it.  Give the support to the troops that are deploying.  Scrap the ADATS/MMEV all together.  When's the last time ADATS actually deployed?  A few systems concentrated in one regiment just doesn't seem to make sense."

Good points.  History lesson?  Tanks supporting Recce.  As a Recce soldier, I always said that the only tanks I could count on accompanying me on the battlfield would be enemy ones.

If you don't have it now, you won't see it then.

Tom


----------



## Retired AF Guy

A couple of days ago there was a post in several papers about the MGS, and no it is not cancelled! According to the paper the first MGS is to come off the line in 2008.


----------



## Armymatters

Eland said:
			
		

> If you really want the ability to smack your enemy from a decent stand-off distance, you'd be better off acquiring the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) which offers the ability to bust bunkers, tanks, provide counter-battery fire, kill infantry in open-topped trenches - all for a fraction of the price. Since it's based on the M113 platform, you have a well-established stream of parts and support resources to boot.



Just to correct you, the American MLRS launch system is based on a a stretched M2 Bradley chassis, not a M113. Please do not confuse the two. Thanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Please do not confuse the two. Thanks.



Yes Sir. Three bags full Sir.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Armymatters said:
			
		

> ....... Please do not confuse the two. Thanks.


 ;D


----------



## GK .Dundas

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Just to correct you, the American MLRS launch system is based on a a stretched M2 Bradley chassis, not a M113. Please do not confuse the two. Thanks.



SIR! YES SIR!   :


----------



## GK .Dundas

Help me here perhaps  I'm a little slow but everytime I gaze upon Transformation (Tm.) I feel like I'm being sold a bill of goods.
As I understand it we are replacing tanks which we wont (note the use of the word)deploy overseas. They are each being replaced with four separate vehicles. Which we are unable to deploy overseas using current national assets. Futhermore they vehicle have difficulty in extreme terrain found on some  battlefields.As well they 're is that matter of weak armour.
 And finally we have to rely on enemies competence or rather lack of it to achieve victory.


----------



## Eland

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Help me here perhaps  I'm a little slow but everytime I gaze upon Transformation (Tm.) I feel like I'm being sold a bill of goods.
> As I understand it we are replacing tanks which we wont (note the use of the word)deploy overseas. They are each being replaced with four separate vehicles. Which we are unable to deploy overseas using current national assets. Futhermore they vehicle have difficulty in extreme terrain found on some  battlefields.As well they 're is that matter of weak armour.
> And finally we have to rely on enemies competence or rather lack of it to achieve victory.



You're not slow. You and all other Canadians have _been_ sold a bill of goods. The previous government bought the MGS and went whole hog on the current Army Transformation deal, on the assumption that the Canadian Army would never again participate in major combat operations. As was just demonstrated in Afghanistan early this week, significant combat ops are in store for Canadian troops deployed there. If the United States attacks Iran, there is a risk that we could see a general war erupt in the Middle East, which in turn would see Canada and other US alllies drawn in.

The idea behind the MGS is to provide a measure of fire support and 'intimidation factor' for infantry and other combat arms engaged in "operations other than war". OOW covers a pretty broad spectrum, all the way from humanitarian aid ops and anything else up to, but just short of a full-bore advance to contact. In most OOW situations, there's little need to deploy very quickly, so a lack of air-portability is generally not a concern.

I suspect the government which bought the MGS figured it could be deployed on leased RO-RO ships, and by the time the ships arrived, whatever crisis was brewing would already have been dealt with. By America, Britain, or some other country, take your pick of a number of possible choices.


----------



## a_majoor

Transformation in of itself isn't a bad idea; reducing the logistics train is always a good idea since it consumes a great proportion of the resources of any armed force. Substituting speed for mass is a viable option (well, I think so anyway), and increasing the tactical and operational mobility of a force provides the astute commander with a greater range of options.

The problem is the technology isn't quite there to make well protected vehicles and meet the operational/strategic mobility issues raised by the seemingly iron clad requirement that everything be transported by C-130. The further constraining factor is the sunk cost of all the existing equipment; if you REALLY wanted to, you could design an entire series of vehicles and systems which are transportable on a C-130 but they would not resemble a LAV or anything else you have ever seen, which in essence is starting from scratch.

Some solutions are available once you drop the C-130 issue, the LAV series does make a nice base for a fast moving, hard hitting "Cavalry" or "Mounted Rifle" type unit, and technical solutions like the "birdcage" stand off armour, CV_CT turret for the fire support version, through tube missiles for long range or "magic bullet" fire solutions, SP turrets in 105 howitzer or 120 mortar, Bison like support vehicles and so on exist or have been demonstrated. Like everything else, there are no perfect solutions, even if you could come up with a machine which is C-130 transportable and can fire a 105mm high velocity cannon, I can change tactics to negate the advantages of such a vehicle. "Cavalry" or "Mounted Rifle" units can chase the enemy around, split their formations, form cordons around complex terrain, but we will still need light forces to deal with some types of situations where the needed response time is very short, and heavy forces to use when cracking very hard positions or providing protected mobility in complex terrain.

The "problem" we are facing is political in nature; through forces beyond our control the Army is being "given" certain pieces of kit, then having to adapt or adopt TTPs and doctrine so they can be usable (G-wagon, MGS, MMEV....) rather than deriving our requirements from existing doctrine.


----------



## geo

Anyone ever see this Aussie "funny"

Bison LAV mounted with a breach loading 120mm mortar


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Out of curiosity, did anyone else see Hillier on CPAC last night? It was recorded yesterday (Feb 24) at the Institute of something-or-other conference.   He said something that applies directly to this thread.  He said that the Canadian Military will do its best to buy off-the-shelf military equipment from this point forward, that too often the additional requirements and customization requested by the military has left us with "orphaned equipment" that we then had to unilaterally fund upgrades for.  He mentioned "aircraft, planes and land systems" [paraphrased] twice and certainly made it sound like we were finished with our procuring of custom vehicles of all sorts that were not shared by at least one other NATO player.

Bottom Line:  I truly hope this means the axe is going to fall on this program....and maybe the MGS for that matter.


Matthew.


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> Anyone ever see this Aussie "funny"
> 
> Bison LAV mounted with a breach loading 120mm mortar



I saw some of those, back in the mid '90s, out behind GM Diesel in London while on a tour of the plant.  The turrets seemed much taller though.  They were destined for Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Armymatters

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, did anyone else see Hillier on CPAC last night? It was recorded yesterday (Feb 24) at the Institute of something-or-other conference.   He said something that applies directly to this thread.  He said that the Canadian Military will do its best to buy off-the-shelf military equipment from this point forward, that too often the additional requirements and customization requested by the military has left us with "orphaned equipment" that we then had to unilaterally fund upgrades for.  He mentioned "aircraft, planes and land systems" [paraphrased] twice and certainly made it sound like we were finished with our procuring of custom vehicles of all sorts that were not shared by at least one other NATO player.
> 
> Bottom Line:  I truly hope this means the axe is going to fall on this program....and maybe the MGS for that matter.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



I also think that MMEV is also getting the axe as well from Hiller's comments... it is a strategic orphan as well so if Hiller says we will try to buy off the shelf, MMEV is another one of those projects that no other NATO ally will use. My opinion only.

It is interesting to note that he didn't mention the navy at all during that speech regarding off the shelf procurement, so I am thinking the Vics are here to stay, and we will be developing JSS and the Tribal replacements ourselves...


----------



## a_majoor

Ships really are bespoke items, unless the navy is interested in buying 20+ units (in which case finding a shipyard capable of doing the work becomes a problem). Aircraft and vehicles can be built on an assembly line basis, which makes them more appropriate for off the shelf purchases.

Now we have to direct the good general to look at the items on certain shelves....


----------



## Avro_Arrow_1958

My dad is in the military, and he told me that they cancelled it. He also said it was an american attempt to drop off their "junk" on us. He also mentioned that we might be getting, or it might be a good idea ,in getting the Amx 10 Rc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_10_RC


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Avro_Arrow_1958 said:
			
		

> My dad is in the military, and he told me that they cancelled it. He also said it was an american attempt to drop off their "junk" on us. He also mentioned that we might be getting, or it might be a good idea ,in getting the Amx 10 Rc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_10_RC



Is your Grampa named Clive?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Avro_Arrow_1958 said:
			
		

> My dad is in the military, and he told me that they cancelled it. He also said it was an american attempt to drop off their "junk" on us. He also mentioned that we might be getting, or it might be a good idea ,in getting the Amx 10 Rc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_10_RC



Just curious what your fathers rank is and what is his trade?


----------



## ArmyRick

Avro Arrow 1958, I know too many people who are in the military that beleive the MGS deal is dead. Maybe some of these folks should tell Rick Hillier who only a few weeks ago confirmed the deal is still on and oh yeah, as we speak the yanks have put the MGS into Low rate production.

Maybe get the facts before you speak, eh?


----------



## Avro_Arrow_1958

He a master corporal , and hes been in the forces for 33 years. Hes now a traffic tech in the air force reserve.

Our government must be dumber then I though if they plan on getting the MGS.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Avro Arrow in the future make sure the information you post is correct and not hearsay, even if from your father, otherwise you will be introduced to the warning system.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm not an expert on vehicles...being a sailor and all, nor am I an expert on armoured warfare, tactics and equipment, being a sailor and all...but hey at least they're new vehicles.

I'm sailing on a ship that's been in commission for 12 years, been in the water for 14, with no replacement in sight.  The first ship in this class went into the water in the late 80s, so about 18 years or so.  And still, no replacement.  (The only replacement projects on the boards now are for the AOR's and 280s...nothing for the CPF's yet that I've heard about.)

Ships take a HECK of a long time to plan and build.  These ships will not be replaced until probably 2020 at the earliest....

The MGS may not be ideal, nor may there be a perfect doctrine for it's use, but it is available, deployable, and is actually being procured.

NS


----------



## a_majoor

I know you mean well, and probably have a bit of the "shiney kit" envy (hey, they are getting new stuff and we won't until the next millenium!), but if I was to offer to replace your Halifax Frigate with a Type 520T (Houjian Class) Fast Attack Missile Craft without changing your mission you might not be so quick to take me up on the offer. If I was to tell you that the twelve Halifax frigates were to be replaced by four of the 520T's, plus four Haiqing Class (Type 037-I/ID) Subchasers and four Osa-I Class fast attack missile boats as a "system of systems", you would probably tell me to take my head out of my ***.

The MGS "may" be able to perform as an assault gun when integral with an Infantry company in the American "Stryker Brigade Combat Team" (SBCT) model, but that has yet to be proven, and that is a VERY different role than the MGS is supposed to have in the CF.


----------



## NavyShooter

Point taken Majoor.

Putting the capability gap that way makes it a bit easier for a sailor to figure out.



NS


----------



## TCBF

"My dad is in the military, and he told me that they cancelled it. He also said it was an american attempt to drop off their "junk" on us. He also mentioned that we might be getting, or it might be a good idea ,in getting the Amx 10 Rc."

- Right, so the French can drop off their 30 year old junk on us?  You own shares in GIAT? A small reminder: It was Canada that sold the 8 wheeled Pirana Family/LAV-25?Striker to the USA - not the other way around.

Tom


----------



## rick7475

My daddy was in the military, too. When I asked him and his buddies at the legion about the Stryker they spat out their beers and went on about tanks and Gustav lines in Italy or something 

*tosses a nickel to a black hat* Here kid, go buy yourself a real tank  :'(




I was sad when I saw my rifle in the war museum ... bet we'll see the Leopard there, too.


----------



## Grizzly

Sadly, the Leopard already is there, both the C1 and the C2...


----------



## TCBF

Some are.  The ones that have been ultrasounded and found to have thin belly plates are the first to go. The rest will soldier on until replaced, to maintain a 'corporate memory' of crew, troop, and squadron skills. 

If what we are deploying most is Coyote Crews, then we have to concentrate a lot of our effort towards sustaining that deployment.  Fifteen years ago we had four regular armoured regiments , we now have three smaller ones.  

No one wants a repeat of ten years ago, when a unit went to send a Cougar Sqn to the adriatic - again.  Meanwhile, a barechested (no tours) Leopard Sqn sat busting track.  The Bde (?) Comd said "No way you are sending guys on their third Yugo tour when you have a bunch who have not gone."

So, the Leo sqn trained up on Cougar, and the Cougar Sqn trained up on Leo.  If you were to guess that the ammunition bill alone for the change round topped $1,000,000, you would not be far off.

Tom


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I know that we have dozens of MGS threads, but I wanted to start fresh.

As much as it pains me to admit this, I have begun to see a viable role for the Mobile Gun System (MGS) variant of the Stryker for us over here.  I know that I have said before that Direct Fire Support is not a role, but I may have to reassess.  I have also said that the MGS was an answer in search of a question.  I am humbly introducting the possibility that I may have been wrong.

I was at a Forward Operating Base (FOB) out in the rhubarb for a little while.  It struck me that a Troop of MGS would have come in very handy for defending the FOB against attack (either harassing small arms or a dedicated assault).  I should say that the 25mm is a wonderful weapon and we do have air/aviation/artillery available.   Nevertheless, having four 105mm guns that can quickly bring direct, precise fire to bear on a given target night or day without the need for higher coordination is a good thing.   Artillery sited in a FOB can also fire directly, I suppose, but that tends to be clunkier.

Another task could be to detach a fire team to a "Platoon Group" on independent operations.  If the element is "ambushed", then the MGS halt and start hammering the enemy while the infantry manoeuvre to assault.  25mm can do this as well, but 105mm HESH has an appeal of its own and the LAVs are then free to manoeure if the ground permits.   When the platoon is halted the MGS can also certainly improve security.

I'd dump the sabot and carry HESH and maybe a 105mm version of the new "cannister" round that the US has for the 120mm.  An "airburst" variant would be even sexier to fire just behind/above a ridgeline.  Might be a fuzing nightmare given the loading system but something to think about.

So there you have it.  Nothing radical, I admit, but I just wanted to say that a Troop of MGS could prove handy over here in a , ahem, DFS role.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Mortar guy

2B,

I agree with you 100%. I have been very vocal opponent of the direct fire system of systems here and elsewhere but not because I didn't see a role for the MGS but because the 'concept' was two fingers left of right out of 'er. As I said in the last MGS thread, the MGS is a fairly decent assualt gun and I think what you have described is basically a need for an assault gun. The US Army bought the MGS to do exactly what you suggest - i.e. to support the infantry. If the Army ever screws up and makes me an OC, I would kill to have a troop of MGS attached to my Coy for intimate support. An MGS with HESH or even canister rounds would be ideal for convoy escort, defending firebases, or even FIBUA where they would reduce fortifications and buildings.

However, the direct fire system of systems sees the MGS used as a tank destroyer rather than as an assault gun. Two senior officers intimately involved in the direct fire trials last year actually stood up and said something like: "The direct fire system will usually operate independently and the MGS will act in intimate support of the infantry only as an rare exception."

These officers and others actually think the DFSofS is going to sit back and destroy everything from 8km while the infantry goes forward and mucks out the bad guys all alone. This might work against a BMP company dug in in Suffield but I would argue that it is absolute craziness in most situations we will find ourselves in in Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti or god knows where.

Anyway, all that to say that I agree that the MGS has a place. Now the MMEV....

MG


----------



## a_majoor

That the MGS can be used as an Infantry support weapon is hardly controversial. A Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) is explicitly built around that premise, after all. As a Infantryman, I would certainly want to have that sort of firepower in my hip pocket wherever I go.

The problem isn't so much the MGS (although there are technical reasons I might prefer a different vehicle or turret for the MGS) but the doctrinal concept we are creating for its use. Even if a switched on OC or Squadron commander places the MGS into intimate support for the Infantry company/combat team, where is the armoured "fist" to do the other tasks we expect of armoured formations? I don't suppose anyone is going to step up to the plate and suggest LAV-TOW or MMEV will lead the assault, provide the countermove force or perform the exploitation task?


----------



## George Wallace

I tend to agree with these sentiments about the MGS.  In saying that, I also think that it should be an Infantry wpn, and taken out of the Armour inventory.  Keeping it in the Armour orgs, would not benefit the Infantry to the extent that it should when it is needed.  It also degrades the abilities and capabilities of Armour.  Armour needs a more aggressive and flexible platform than the MGS.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Exactly right.

Despite a potential role as a DFS platform, I still have grave reservations about the MGS.

First, the transition to MGS effectively removes any ability to use armour as a shock weapon, as pointed out very eloquantly in a_majoor's post.

Second, the platform has severe limitations - discussed _ad nauseum _ on other threads.

Third, like Mortar Guy, I think the "system of systems" concept is right out of 'er and that MMEV is a total boondoggle...

I'm hardly in a position to question 2B's assessment from in theatre.  However, I am concerned that we will be tempted to penny-packet MGS out as a infantry "big gun" (which is all the vehicle is - marginally - capable of doing), something a squadron OC has traditionally fought - the concept of mobility and mutual support goes right out the window when vehicles are attached to other arms in ones and twos.  The vehicle's very limited protection places severe restrictions on its use as a mobile "pillbox" and all but precludes its use on the assault in an intimate support role.  It has limited ammunition storage, which limits its tactical deployability and the L7 is a dated gun of restricted utility against modern armour (yeah, I know, it isn't designed to be).

A heavier vehicle (tracked, I suspect) will do all that 2B has gleaned from his time at FOB XXXX without the massive limitations of the MGS.  I have taken some comfort in the realization that the CDS has directed a review of direct fire systems and of the procurement plan.

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## DG-41

I also worry about this sort of scenario:

1) Enemy probes position

2) Enemy probe is fired on by MGS

3) Enemy brings tanks to the next probe - nothing fancy, T55 would do just fine.

4) Doh!

I don't know how many unaccounted-for T55s are running around Afganistan... so maybe on *this specific mission* the risk of encountering enemy tanks is low enough that the MGS's lack of protection isn't a factor. But I'd hate to have to play tank and discover that the enemy counters with REAL tanks of his own.

DG


----------



## Lance Wiebe

2B, well said.  I agree, and have always stated that the MGS could be useful in defensive roles.  The problem, as I see it, is that it provides limited situational awareness to the commander (a result of being designed with the weapon blocking 180 degrees of his view), and it's accuracy on the move is, well, shall we see not that great.

But as a vehicle to keep in the low ground, ready to run up to any number of fire positions, and support Infantry on the defense, it would be great.  It could also be useful in a blocking role.  But, doesn't all of these uses remind you of the WWII 75 mm guns mounted in half tracks?  Or the M10?  My fear is that the higher-ups will employ it patrolling, as a quick reaction force, or any other number of tasks much better suited by tanks.

Personally, the fact that I can't see half of my frontage while moving is the one greatest detriment of the MGS.  There are other faults, but this one is the biggest.  I would like to see the Cockerill turret mounted on the LAVIII chassis before the MGS.......


----------



## Kirkhill

Do any of the WWII buffs around here know what the "exchange" rates were like between MBTs/AFVs and towed AT guns like the 88mm, 17 pdr or even the 6 pdr?  Weren't they essentially used in a similar environment to that envisaged by the MGS?  And didn't have the advantage of being able to fire from what is effectively a "turret down" position or being able to relocate.

Admittedly they were AT weapons first (although the 88 was used for infantry support as I am sure parkie can attest) but that is a function of the ammunition and not the tube, mount or platform, surely?


----------



## a_majoor

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> But as a vehicle to keep in the low ground, ready to run up to any number of fire positions, and support Infantry on the defense, it would be great.  It could also be useful in a blocking role.  But, doesn't all of these uses remind you of the WWII 75 mm guns mounted in half tracks?  Or the M10?  My fear is that the higher-ups will employ it patrolling, as a quick reaction force, or any other number of tasks much better suited by tanks.



Patrolling, QRF and other tasks can be performed by armoured cars, so long as there is a well thought out doctrine and the crews know and understand what they are supposed to be doing. Getting into a tank duel or assaulting a fortified position is certainly not in the terms of reference there. Recce, flank and rear security, slipping around the enemy, threatening enemy flanks and rear areas are some of the tasks properly designed armoured cars can do, especially if they are part of a properly configured "Cavalry Team".

I am also guessing the people who write this stuff are anticipating technological solutions like "smart rounds" for the main gun (stuff like STAFF [Sensor Target Activated Fire and Forget] and TERM [Tank Extended Range Munitions]). While this would be exciting, it actually chages DF platforms like tanks, assault guns and armoured cars into part time IF platforms, which dosn't seem to be considered in the System of Systems approach the CF is adopting.


----------



## AmmoTech90

2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'd dump the sabot and carry HESH and maybe a 105mm version of the new "cannister" round that the US has for the 120mm.  An "airburst" variant would be even sexier to fire just behind/above a ridgeline.  Might be a fuzing nightmare given the loading system but something to think about.
> 2B



Shouldn't be a big problem with the fuzing.  The 35mm guns had something similiar with AHEAD rounds.  There's three induction coils mounted in the end of the barrel.  You range the target, the first two coils get a specific Mv for the round being firing, the third one programs in the burst time based on the Mv and range to the target.  The round functions at the desired range/time and you get a cloud of metal pellets flying at the target.
Then there's the old US beehive type round where you can set the fuze to function at a certain range (time).  Very similiar to the 76mm Smoke BE on the payload comes out the front instead of the rear.
Unless the autoloader has a problem with the shape of projectiles it shouldn't factor in this.

D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

First Comment:  If you're going to use it as an infantry support vehicle, why wouldn't you shorten the barrel, lower the velocity, lower the recoil and make it a better-balanced vehicle?

Second Comment:  I still don't like them.  If you need a heavy, well-armed vehicle, then buy the heavy well-armed vehicle and then spend the money to be able to transport them.  We could probably pick up some Challenger 2's for song and if we then invested in proper sealift-then-airlift assets we could get a small troop where they need to go.  Having defensive vehicle seems a little silly if the guerilla enemy is patient and is willing to ambush your forces in transit.  I should add that assault guns/tank destroyers like the StuG-III/Hetzer had frontal armour that could withstand many opposing tank guns.  The MGS has no such capability.  The MGS is more like Marder 2 or 3 which NEVER would've been deployed without the protection of real tanks.



Matthew.


----------



## Mortar guy

Oh I agree the MGS is far from the perfect solution. As others have mentioned, it is weak in armour, firepower, situational awareness and mobility. However, I think what we might be getting at in this thread is: if we're going to have this POS jammed down our throats, it might best be used as an infantry-support weapon rather than as anti-armour weapon as some rocket surgeons are suggesting.

If it were up to me I would have done things a lot differently. Firstly, I would have kept about a regt's worth of Leopards as history and recent events in Iraq have shown that the tank still has a very large role to play in modern combat. The LTS project was supposed to ensure that our Leopards were able to soldier on until about 2015.

Secondly, I would have initiated a project to acquire a true assault gun/armoured car for LIC. Basically, I would be looking at getting a vehicle that does all the things we have just described: infantry support, patrolling, escort etc. This vehicle should be able to take out light armoured vehicles, bunkers, buildings and infantry but should not be tasked with taking on anything bigger than a BMP-2. My thought on this was that a good solution might be a "Super Cougar" (Supair Cougair in french). OK, when you're done giggling, just hear me out. The Cougar hulls (of which there are over 190) would be put through DLIR like the Grizzlies and then would be refitted with the CMI Mk3 90mm gun and a thermal sight. Voila! A cheap, effective and genuinely air transportable armoured car/assault gun. Granted, the protection and mobility issues remain but I believe that the MGS is seen as having weak protection and firepower because we keep talking about it going up against T-72Ms. The problem isn't so much the vehicle as it is the doctrine. The Super Cougar would also have weaknesses but it would be used solely as an assault gun/armoured car and not part of some pie in the sky direct fire system of systems.

In my opinion, if I was at that FOB in Arsecrackistan, or if I was an OC of a rifle coy, a tp of Super Cougars would be just as acceptable as a tp of MGS but at much less cost. The benefit of this plan is that it's relatively cheap. If you were to also cancel the MMEV, all that money would be redirected to first acquiring a Leopard replacement around 2010 and then a Super Cougar replacement around 2015.

Anyway, there are lots of options other than what we're doing and many of them are cheaper and more realistic.

MG


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> The Cougar hulls (of which there are over 190) would be put through DLIR like the Grizzlies and then would be refitted with the CMI Mk3 90mm gun and a thermal sight. Voila! A cheap, effective and genuinely air transportable armoured car/assault gun. Granted, the protection and mobility issues remain but I believe that the MGS is seen as having weak protection and firepower because we keep talking about it going up against T-72Ms. The problem isn't so much the vehicle as it is the doctrine. The Super Cougar would also have weaknesses but it would be used solely as an assault gun/armoured car and not part of some pie in the sky direct fire system of systems.



The problem with this idea is that even the 76mm gun of the old Cougar was far too powerful for both the turret and the hull.  I shudder to think what a 90mm on the POS AVGP hull would be like...  Platform rock was brutal and there were all sorts of stability problems.  I won't get into the effect on the turret, with mantlet cracks, etc., all from the pumpkin launcher.  'Sides we DLIRed some 95 Cougars in the 97/98 timeframe; the rest were left to rot (some can still be seen at 7 CFSD here in Edmonton.  Best not to go there.

If we're going wheels, we need a proper, turreted vehicle with proper protection, situational awareness, a coax that can be reloaded under cover, decent crosscountry mobility (and speed), and a realistic number of rounds aboard.  The MGS has none of this...except perhaps the mobility.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Great replies all.

First off, thanks to the Ammo guy for giving me hope about the "fire just behind the bad guy's head on the ridgeline round."   I'll take 1,000 for starters.

My new-found optimism about the MGS is based on this theatre.  I suppose there is nothing that an MSG could do that a Leo C2 couldn't, except that it would be easier to get the MGS here and it could then roll about with the LAVs, Coyotes and Bisons.  Given the threat, the relatively low number of rounds carried is not a show-stopper in my opinion.  

As for who would crew the thing, I see no reason why it wouldn't be armoured guys.  In fact, I figure it should be.  They have the skill sets already.

As for "penny-packeting" we are fighting a counter-insurgency war.  Platoon groups and company-minuses are fairly standard blobs running around out there.  A fire-team might be all that is allocated to an independent group running around.

I agree with everyone here that the MGS is not a tank and that people who dream of manoeuvering Sqns of these things around the battlefield should take a second sober thought.

I guess long-range anti-tank shots are possible, and in this respect it would be a little bit like the German Nashorn and Marders of WWII.  Once again, however, I see this thing blasting insurgents, not tanks.  I guess a "pumpkin-launcher" might be more practical, but at least with the 105mm you have the option of wasting a rogue T55 or BMP with some degree of certainty.  If we moved theatres to a future "failed state" I suppose the MGS could then have some role against "warlords" with a company group of armour hanging around.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## a_majoor

This is perhaps moving into "Future Armour" territory, but given we like common hulls (LAVs) we could have some pie and eat it too. Picture a LAV III with the CV_CT turret as the base model Fire Support Vehicle (FSV). (There are several threads about this topic with pictures, look it up).

For infantry close support, the FSV would either be attached in platoons to each company, or else held in the Combat Support Coy. This version would be decked out with a modular armour package, so it could survive encounters with enemy HMGs, RPGs and LAW type weapons. The vehicle can carry 32 rounds (16 in the turret bustle and 16 in the "wine rack"), and should be loaded with a combination of some form of multi purpose round (HESH, HEAT-MP), as well as a portion of smoke and canister rounds to reflect the requirements of the infantry. Extra machine guns on the commander and loader's hatches, and a .50 HMG mounted over the main gun barrel provide extra firepower to supress enemy infantry. This would give the company commander the ability to suppress or destroy bunkers, "technicals" and light armoured vehicles, and even have some chance of dealing with the occasional tank. In this case, the defining principle is the size and explosive power of the shell.

Armoured or Cavalry FSVs would be organized in traditional squadrons and troops, dispense with the heavy ceramic tiles (although they might have a stand off cage) and extra machine guns, and carry a different load-out of their ammunition, to reflect the perceived threat. There is no reason they should not carry "smart" rounds to deal with difficult targets, and since they will spend more of their time in the open terrain, it would seem reasonable to invest in APDS-FS rounds to strike targets at long range. In this case, the defining principle is the ability to carry our rapid engagements at ranges beyond the 25mm.


----------



## TCBF

"Do any of the WWII buffs around here know what the "exchange" rates were like between MBTs/AFVs and towed AT guns like the 88mm, 17 pdr or even the 6 pdr?"

- No, but Micheal Wittman HATED anti-tank guns with a passion.  Thought them unsportsmanlike, I think.  He probably killed more towed AT gunners than he did AFV crews.  In other words, a lot.

Tom


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Wittmann's tally of kills has never been surpassed. He is known to have destroyed at least 138 tanks and 141 artillery pieces, along with an unknown number of other armoured vehicles. At the time of his death he held (amongst other decorations) the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords. He is buried in the graveyard of "La Cambe" in France.


----------



## Kirkhill

> No, but Micheal Wittman HATED anti-tank guns with a passion.  Thought them unsportsmanlike, I think.  He probably killed more towed AT gunners than he did AFV crews.  In other words, a lot.



Hmm....He hated them.  Sounds like they might have been sufficiently effective to distress him.  On the other hand 





> He probably killed more towed AT gunners than he did AFV crews.


.

Sounds like a useful piece of kit as long as someone else is manning it.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I'm not all that worried about the Taliban coming after us with a rogue T55.  I'm more worried about what they would use the ammo for if they indeed had one.


----------



## DG-41

Fair enough.

But what about the next war?

I've got a friend in the Sudan right now, and his pictures predominantly feature companies of T55s rolling around.

Or if you'll forgive me some wild speculation... how about something like where a group of the ANA splinters off, takes their tanks with them, and we wind up fighting against ex-ANA tanks?

There's no question in my mind that having access to a 105mm or 120mm gun is really useful in an infantry support role. History has shown over and over again that infantry supported by mobile large-bore direct-fire weapons (and protected machine guns - the ability to move a 7.62 MG into a position where it can fire with impunity is equally useful) is in much better shape and will have a much better chance of success than infantry that lacks that support.

But unless these guns are carried with an appropriate level of protection, they are sitting ducks for real tanks - and it's not like real tanks are rare.

Lemme ask you this - the situation you saw where you felt the MGS would have been useful: was there any reason why that task could NOT have been done by Leopards?

DG


----------



## vonGarvin

2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'd dump the sabot and carry HESH and maybe a 105mm version of the new "cannister" round that the US has for the 120mm.  An "airburst" variant would be even sexier to fire just behind/above a ridgeline.  Might be a fuzing nightmare given the loading system but something to think about.


Not a nightmare, but a reality.  The Israeli APAM round is designed for just such a scenario.  Google it and check it out.  I believe that there is a 105mm variant being produced, and it is scheduled for trial here in the Great White North.  The fuzing system is done when the target it lased and basically the round sails over the target, detaches into a bunch of "hockey pucks" that descend onto the unsuspecting enemy and detonate above them, showering them with hot love  >


----------



## a_majoor

RecceDG said:
			
		

> Lemme ask you this - the situation you saw where you felt the MGS would have been useful: was there any reason why that task could NOT have been done by Leopards?



Please don't think I am arguing against having tanks, but the primary reason in my mind for having a wheeled, LAV based FSV is to compliment the mobility of the LAV equipped Infantry and Coyote "Cavalry". Combat or Cavalry teams, patrols, convoy escorts etc. can all move together. Speed is the modern substitute for mass, and hanging around waiting for the Leopards or M-1s to show up really isn't much good for us.

I would say that there is _usually_ a very good indication that you might need tanks and heavy combat teams, so the commander can "set up" the battlespace with his light and medium forces (i.e. setting up a cordon around the enemy held town or city, putting out flank security etc.) before swinging Thor's Hammer with the heavies. Bottom line; heavy forces are an important element of any balanced manoeuvre force.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Further, the APAM is designed to be integrated in to the IFCS.  There is a piece that attaches to the breech ring that accepts the lased range as inputted in to the computer.  This piece sets the fuse of the round automatically as the fuse passes by the breech ring.  Of course, this means that the round cannot be loaded until the target is identified and lased to.

Problem with the APAM in either 120 or 105 is....well, it has failed two trials that I know of, and has not been successfully exported to anybody as of yet.  Trying to be all things, it masters neither one.  In the AP setting, the canisters are a bit too small for effective use, considering that they blow like a grenade, in all directions.  The intended ground target only gets a minuscule amount of the blast.  In the AM role, 105 HESH is far more effective (as effective as three APAM rounds), and the round is no more effective than the newer dual purpose HEAT rounds.

So, while the literature on the APAM makes it look great, take it with a grain of salt.  One NATO country, which has parked all of its Leopard 1's, are still looking desperately for a 120 round that is as effective as the 105 HESH in the AM role.....


----------



## George Wallace

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Please don't think I am arguing against having tanks, but the primary reason in my mind for having a wheeled, LAV based FSV is to compliment the mobility of the LAV equipped Infantry and Coyote "Cavalry". Combat or Cavalry teams, patrols, convoy escorts etc. can all move together. Speed is the modern substitute for mass, and hanging around waiting for the Leopards or M-1s to show up really isn't much good for us.


But we aren't fighting with Combat or Cavalry teams.  Convoy escorts don't necessarily require a MGS for support, nor will it be a valuable support platform.  It would have the speed to keep up with a convoy, yes, but to actually provide an effective defence on an open road in an ambush......no.  It would be the first vehicle targeted and taken out quite easily, in all seriousness.  

With the conditions of the roads there, I doubt that a Convoy really has that great a speed advantage, that a Leopard or M-1 would not have any problems with keeping up.  Only on open, flat, well surfaced hard standing would the LAVs be able to use their advantage of speed.


----------



## a_majoor

STAFF (Sensor Target Activated Fire and Forget) was supposed to detonate and fire a self forming fragment down at the target below, which is sure to give most AFV crews a really bad headache >

DRES in Suffield also has been working on the warhead aspect, I remember seeing in an older version of this page some description of creating multiple Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) in a "shotgun" pattern. This would be useful for anti helicopter/anti air if warhead is oriented "forwards" and for an anti personell "airburst" munition if oriented to fire "down". http://www.dres.dnd.ca/ResearchTech/Products/MilEng_Products/index_e.html


----------



## vonGarvin

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> One NATO country, which has parked all of its Leopard 1's, are still looking desperately for a 120 round that is as effective as the 105 HESH in the AM role.....


Germany?
The HESH round is great.  I mentioned the APAM as for a HE round that detonates "above" the target, which is behind cover.  But without hijacking the thread, aren't high trajectory weapons good for that?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Civvie Question:  What exactly is wrong with the Rooikat?  If you want wheeled DFSV, why force yourself to use a LAV-III chasis that was designed to carry troops and is therefore much higher, presents a much larger target and because of its internal volume requires an equal weight of armour to be more thinkly spread than a more compact design?  

Ergo, why not just order baseline Rooikat and then fit out the electronics/communications gear to match the LAV-III set-ups?

My understanding on the new 105mm version is that it fires full pressure 105mm NATO rounds (as opposed to reduced pressure) and has significantly better armour protection (at least stated protection) than LAV-III or Centauro (23mm vs 12.77mm across frontal arc is my recollection).

Thanks in advance as always gentlemen....


Matthew.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The MGS could actually be useful for convoys reacting to ambush.  If the bad guys can hit the MGS then they can hit anything else over here.  A pair of MGS with a LAV Platoon based convoy could, however, hammer the ambushers.  If one is hit that is of course a bad thing , but it would have been a Coyote/LAV/Bison truck hit anyway if the MGS wasn't there.

I don't want to downplay the threat of failed-state T55s, but it ain't my number one fear.   With a troop or pair of MGS in a company then a platoon of rogue T55s advancing to attack said company would have a bad time.  If they sit still then the airforce and AHs will be all over them like a pack of fat kids on a spilled box of Smarties.  If we are someplace without CAS and AHs then I don't want to be there.  I'd much rather we face three T55s then one hundred odd 100mm IEDs.

If we are going to fight OIF again (the invasion part), then my previous reservations stand.  For counter-insurgency, which we are fighting and look to continue to do so, I do see a place.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## a_majoor

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Civvie Question:  What exactly is wrong with the Rooikat?  If you want wheeled DFSV, why force yourself to use a LAV-III chasis that was designed to carry troops and is therefore much higher, presents a much larger target and because of its internal volume requires an equal weight of armour to be more thinkly spread than a more compact design?
> 
> Ergo, why not just order baseline Rooikat and then fit out the electronics/communications gear to match the LAV-III set-ups?
> 
> My understanding on the new 105mm version is that it fires full pressure 105mm NATO rounds (as opposed to reduced pressure) and has significantly better armour protection (at least stated protection) than LAV-III or Centauro (23mm vs 12.77mm across frontal arc is my recollection).
> 
> Thanks in advance as always gentlemen....
> 
> 
> Matthew.



In the ideal world, I would be heading down to "Honest Jan's AFV emporium" and picking up a troop of Rooikats at lunch, but alas, there are many considerations which speak against this course of action. On the military side of the house, the biggest problem is logistics. We have a very small army to begin with, so the number of units we would want might be too small to interest the supplier, much less ensure we have a stock of spare parts and trained mechanics and techs. If everything is based on substantially the same chassis, then we are far better off in supply, training and so on. (In reality, we have actually pooched this aspect, having fleets of rather incompatible LAV variants. At least we can correct this by standardizing future variants on the LAV III).

The other side of the house is political. We already have a proven supplier in Canada (GDLS in London, ON), attempting to get a new product from a different company would require negotiating industrial offsets or licencing the product to Bombardier or something similar to satisfy various policy and political requirements. There would be many groups competing for the political gravey dripping off a military contract of this size, making the process even longer and more costly (see threads about the Iltis). By the time a Rooikat C-1 actually appeared in the hands of the troops, the Taliban might be using fuel cell powered Toyota Land Cruisers with electromagnetic rail guns bolted to the load bed.....

In the end, the best solution is actually to go with "good enough", and work on the doctrine and TTPs instead.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Civvie Question:  What exactly is wrong with the Rooikat?



The Rooikat is an exceptionally well designed and effective vehicle.  Problem is, it's billed as an "anti-tank" platform.  And we all know that in the new troika  of vehicles, anti-tank is the role of the MMEV and the TOW.

There is no doubt that the Rooikat can do the same job as the MGS, or the Centuaro, or the CV-CT, but for whatever reasons, our political leaders have announced that we were going to tack on to the US buy of MGS.  When, of course, the production line leaves low rate production and starts going full steam ahead.

The Americans, by the way, have put out tenders for 105mm HEP rounds for the MGS.

I just hope that the new political masters conduct a thorough review of the MGS, and after such a review, scrap it in favour of something that will actually do the job effectively. (like the CV-CT & Rooikat.....)

Mind you, that would mean a surplus of L7/M68 barrels that we would have to sell along with our tanks.......

Oh, and as another aside.....I also heard that GD has the marketting rights to the Rooikat in North & South America,...did anyone else hear this?


----------



## Eland

RecceDG said:
			
		

> I also worry about this sort of scenario:
> 
> 1) Enemy probes position
> 
> 2) Enemy probe is fired on by MGS
> 
> 3) Enemy brings tanks to the next probe - nothing fancy, T55 would do just fine.
> 
> 4) Doh!
> 
> I don't know how many unaccounted-for T55s are running around Afganistan... so maybe on *this specific mission* the risk of encountering enemy tanks is low enough that the MGS's lack of protection isn't a factor. But I'd hate to have to play tank and discover that the enemy counters with REAL tanks of his own.
> 
> DG



Well put. The inability of the MGS to survive encounters with tanks (besides its lack of transportability in a C130) is the biggest objection I have to it. There is one thing that would save the MGS in an encounter with T55's. That is the fact that most Third World T55's are poorly maintained and their crews poorly trained. The T55 is a pig even for experienced crews to operate well. South African troops equipped with Eland armoured cars mounting 90mm guns were able to take out enemy T55's all the time. They were able to do so by taking advantage of their enemies' lack of training and ability to react quickly to threats. 

On the other hand, if you encounter some T55's which are well maintained and crewed, and have ERA and other improvements, you're screwed.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

My point here is that we are in Afghanistan and we are fighting a war here.  It is being fought in a way that is different from our comfort zone (Normandy 44).  

 :warstory: This is my second time here and both times I have seen a requirement for something like the MGS.  A Leopard C2 would have fit the bill, I suppose, during the first tour.  An MGS, however, could have achieved the same effect and we might have actually brought some as opposed to the Leopard we left behind. 

It pains me to say this, but I don't think that a Leopard or M1 would make it down some of the valleys that we have been going down on this tour.  TAdd to that the reality we haven't brought tanks here in the first place.

I want the MGS primarily for the ability of the 105mm to fire a nice big HESH round at an insurgent hiding in a rock pile.  I also like the ability to make big obvious holes in the walls of compounds if required.  I want it to be able to turn and blast the insurgents firing on the convoy that it is moving with.  That it can also spark a T55 is a bonus for other situations.

Lance,

The "over the ridgeline" targets I'm thinking of are either small groups of men running after setting off an IED or maybe a mortar crew firing from the reverse slope.  How practical would the round be?

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Kirkhill

2B:

If they can do what you are looking for in 25mm caliber (XM25 shoulder-fired, low velocity and the XM307 crew-served, high velocity)......

For that matter could the same fire control system be retro'd to the LAV to enable the Bushmaster to fire these rounds.  It wouldn't get you your big hole but it might get you over the ridge-line...

If it were available.

Edit:  

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/becker.pdf   This was from 2002. 
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003fuze/hiebel.pdg   and this was from 2003 

and by 2004 they had successfully trialled 40mm rounds  www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004guns/wed/alacv.ppt (may need to save and open this one)

Maybe AmmoTech90 or Lance can offer current comments.


----------



## George Wallace

As I have said before, there is a role for the MGS as the old WW II Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun/Ant.  There is no need of it to be Armour.  It could easily be an Infantry wpn.

The Infantry have lost their TOW and Mortars.  This is the role I see the MGS as filling or supplementing.

In all seriousness 2B, I would see 120 Mortars being more effective in the cases you have cited.  I am sure TOW or Mortar variants of the LAV III would be much more easier to transport on Deployment, than a MGS.  I would love to see us have the 120 Turreted Mortars, but straight 120s would do (and be much more easily transportable).  We already have TOW UA, so why not use it?  

I look at the MGS as a compliment to the Infantry's Anti-Tank capabilities, not a capability for the Armour Corps to fill.


----------



## DG-41

Err...

As much as I dislike the MGS, as much as I think we'd be better served with Rookiat (a better armoured car) and/or Leo2 (an actual tank, not a tank-wannabe) if the choice truly is "MGS or nothing" I'm in no hurry to see the Corps hand those off to the Infantry.

If the Infantry are going to be specialzing in the light role, it makes a whole lot of sense to have the crews on the vehicles be blackhatters - not just the MGS, but the LAVs as well.

It strikes me as foolish to spread the Pongoes even thinner, learning *yet another*vehicle and weapon system, when we have black hats who are already (mostly) trained for the job.

DG


----------



## TCBF

So, we have come back to the "Super-Cougar" or "King Cougar" I joked about a while back.

How many of you witnessed the Fire Power Demo NATO put on for the locals in FRY years ago, where Cougars outshot Challenger?  Would the Cougar fit the bill now?  What about a less technically challenging 105 turreted LAV?  Or, are we back to the AGS?


----------



## vonGarvin

RecceDG said:
			
		

> If the Infantry are going to be specialzing in the light role, it makes a whole lot of sense to have the crews on the vehicles be blackhatters - not just the MGS, but the LAVs as well.


I see some problems with that: first of all, if the crew is not the same trade as those in the back (eg: armour guys crewing LAVs for Infantry or Engineers: wouldn't work for FOOs: they do their "Foo'ing" from the turret), then they are useless in every situation except when on the move.  Also, who can help man the turret during the OP watches, etc on a 24/7 period? ("Sorry, dude, can't sit in the turret tonight from 0200-0400: I'm not qualified....hey, look, the machine that goes *ping*!")
One possible solution: make a new trade, call it "combat arms", basically a 'melange' of the current armour/infantry trades?
Another: split the infantry into two: Panzergrenadier and Jäger (Armour Infantry and Light Infantry).  It could work, and it does work for the Germans ("Oh look, the Germans are made at me.  Help me, Smithers!").  In all seriousness, the "light" infantry could focus on their light stuff, and the mech-warriors could focus on mech stuff.
Just my thoughts, they were free, and you get exactly what you paid for them 

Garvin out


----------



## reccecrewman

Well, look at history and we can see new pieces of kit introduced that people balked at their introduction or they were misemployed by leadership. A good example that jumps into my mind is the advent of the Battlecruiser. World War I was a horrible display of modern weapons with outdated tactics that only produced unprecedented casualties on the battlefield for little or no gains. The Navies of world powers however were always on the cutting edge of technology. By WWI, all modern Navies had done away with wooden ships and had upgraded to steel. They went from sail, to coal fired to diesel and oil propelled in a 40 year span.  The German optic industry produced range finders and the British were constantly upgrading their Battleships to be the best armed and fast as possible.  Admiral Fisher came up with the concept of a very lightly skinned ship, but guns of the same size and calibre of the Battleships.  His idea for employment was that of a ship that was capable of recce (radar and voice comms not available at the time) but had enough firepower to effectively throw punches with the enemy while using its outstanding speed (gained from lack of armour) to disengage and get back to the main Battlefleet for them to go forward and engage. Fantastic idea, BUT, when the fleets took posession of these new Battlecruisers, they were grossly mis-employed. Narrow-sighted Admirals didn't look at these ships as the outstanding recce vehicle they were, but rather another big ship to join the Battlefleet and join into main actions. 

The Battle of Jutland in 1916 showed with disastrous results what this sort of thinking spelled for the Royal Navy; Admiral Jellicoe (Grand Fleet Commander) had Admiral Beatty take his advance guard of 5 Battlecruisers to go out on an advance screen to seek out the German High Seas Fleet which British intel said was breaking out onto the North Sea. However, upon finding the German fleet, Beatty's orders were to engage and deliver the opening shots of the battle and wait for the Grand Fleet to join the action. Within minutes, the HMS Indefatigueable and HMS Queen Mary were sunk due to deep hits that set off their propellant charges in their magazines, HMS Invincible would suffer the exact same fate shortly after. This tragedy never should have occurred - Beatty's Battlecruiser Squadron should have immediately disengaged and beat a retreat back to Jellicoe's Battlefleet and let his 16 battleships and accompanying vessels take care of the Germans. With their average speed of 33 knots and the German battleships being an average speed of 23 knots, they could have easily disengaged and saved the lives of almost 3,000 sailors.

As mentioned before, I agree the MGS has a role in the Army, but it should be the as already mentioned assignment of an Infantry vehicle. With the world powers still building heavy armour, the only solution is for the Corps to counter with heavy track of their own. This is a cheap cop-out to give the Corps these Strykers and say we have armour. It can be a good piece of kit if employed in the right way. Give the Infantry the MGS and the Corps.................... new Leopards.  : *sigh* Never gonna happen..................


----------



## warrickdll

Direct Fire support for use (mainly) with infantry is always a great idea and having an MBT provide this is usually best - except when:
	- The MBT is too heavy for use (the US Army used Tank Destroyers in Korea in locations where the MBTs could not be used, as did the USMC in Vietnam with the Ontos TD)
	- The MBT is too heavy for transport
	- The MBT is too expensive to fill all the DFS needs
	- And, I guess a few other considerations (speed, operating cost, etc)

Whether the MGS fulfills the DFS role where the MBT fails... well there are other threads for that. But a DFS vehicle in common with the IFV is great if an MBT is not an option.

Having a dual DFS/anti-tank capability also seems like a great idea - though there are plenty of historical examples of having too limited an ammo supply (see the USMC Ontos or the early German Stugs).

Mentioned several times in this thread is whether the Armoured branch would be able to figure out that the MGS is not a tank. I don't see why not, since they have always been capable of using recce vehicles and apc dozers without trying to use them as the Iron Fist - much like the infantry was always able to somehow Not attach bayonets to mortars.


As for another branch using them... well - if a direct fire cannon on a vehicle that carries no dismounts isn't Armoured branch then what makes it anyone else's?!



			
				vonGarvin said:
			
		

> ...
> One possible solution: make a new trade, call it "combat arms", basically a 'melange' of the current armour/infantry trades?
> Another: split the infantry into two: Panzergrenadier and Jäger (Armour Infantry and Light Infantry).  It could work, and it does work for the Germans ("Oh look, the Germans are made at me.  Help me, Smithers!").  In all seriousness, the "light" infantry could focus on their light stuff, and the mech-warriors could focus on mech stuff.
> ...


Infantry is Infantry. Mechanized or Light - no need for different trades - especially in the CF where a Light Battalion can deploy with vehicles, and a Mech Battalion can deploy without (I do like the combined Armoured/Infantry trade idea but I can hear the squeals already). As for the Germans - the Stugs were meant for the artillery.


----------



## George Wallace

Iterator said:
			
		

> As for another branch using them... well - if a direct fire cannon on a vehicle that carries no dismounts isn't Armoured branch then what makes it anyone else's?!



What then is your opinion of who should own TOW UA, or Mortars, or back a little further the 106.  All have been mounted on wheeled and Tracked vehicles.  In WW II the Infantry had numerous 'Funnies' mounted on the Universal Carrier Chassis and other chassis'.  All of these following your logic should have been Armoured?


Historically, this type of vehicle has been either Infantry or Artillery Anti-Tank.


----------



## warrickdll

I know I differ from most others on this - but TUA - Armoured, Mortars - Artilley, and Assault Pioneers - Engineers.

Historically, yes (Infantry or AT Arty) but why be restricted by that? No one from WWII will be manning the MGS.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I still prefer investing the money on an across-the-board LAV-III upgrade package because I don't think in the new battlefield we appear we're going to be deploying to, we're going to be able to choose which vehicles will need to respond to an ambush.  

Specifically, provide a fund of let's say $40 million ($10 million R&D fund per potential supplier) and provide 4 LAV-III's to Raytheon (Javelin and FOTT), Bofors (BILL 2) and maybe EADS (Trigat), etc. in order that they each build prototype turrets.  The objective is to modify the LAV-III turret to provide a DFS ability against infantry, hardened positions, armour and whatever else the CDS thinks is essential.  Set a per unit budget and then leave them to use their creativity to come up with good solutions.

The winner gets the right to upgrade the a fixed number of LAV-III's (maybe 200) with an option on upgrading the remainder.

Bottom Line:  I like the idea of not forcing companies to do a bunch of work for free in order to make a submission.  I think that's just bad business. I'd rather be fair, give them an R&D fund and let them use their experience and ingenuity and I think everyone wins....


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill

> One possible solution: make a new trade, call it "combat arms", basically a 'melange' of the current armour/infantry trades?
> Another: split the infantry into two: Panzergrenadier and Jäger (Armour Infantry and Light Infantry).  It could work, and it does work for the Germans ("Oh look, the Germans are made at me.  Help me, Smithers!").  In all seriousness, the "light" infantry could focus on their light stuff, and the mech-warriors could focus on mech stuff.
> Just my thoughts, they were free, and you get exactly what you paid for them



And my personal favourite - Armoured Corps "Dragoons" and Infantry Corps????......well.....Infanteers!!!

The price of the opinion is the same as von Garvin's although the value may be less. 

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

PS Matthew:

I like your R&D idea.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I suppose a 120mm mortar could fit the bill, but the 105mm has some other capabilities (such as anti-tank).  More importantly, the plan is to be the MGS with the 105mm.  I don't have control over what kit gets bought.  

It is conceivable, however, that I can influence how it gets used.  I can see the potentialities (the desert and mefloquine have that effect on me).  I had a similar vision regarding the LAV and Coyote during my last time in the wastes.  We've got great kit for the theatre, even it if was by accident and not design.  As long as we use it right.

One problem that I face when discussing the MGS is that I haven't actually played with one or talked to someone who has.  I have to make guesses.  I'm giving it the mobility of a LAV III with the hitting power of a C2.  I'm not too sure about shooting on the move but it may work out.  I don't like the crew arrangement too much, but if its sited behind a hesco firing position in a FOB suddenly it works out somewhat.  Even parked on the road during an ambush its boomstick will come in handy.  Got a building occupied by insurgents with friendlies in close proximity?  Got a line of sight?  Kaboom.  Precise, direct and lethal firepower that can actually be brought to the theatre and manoeuvred around.

I'm not talking about assaulting dug-in positions with the MGS taking the place of tanks.  I talking about blasting insurgents in the kind of war we are fighting right now where we do not have tanks.

As for who crews it I still think that the Armoured Corps is the logical user.   WWII was a different time and place.  There were battalions of tanks to crew.


----------



## TCBF

Okay, 

1.  Anything integral to an infantry bn should be crewed by infantry.  That includes mortars, anti-armour, pioneer and recce (mounted and dismounted).  There are operational and profesionally developmental/social (which are ultimately operational) reasons for this.  This especially means having the infantry crew and fight their own turreted vehicle - in this case, the LAV III.  The Russians went BMP in 67, The Germans got the Marder soon after.  The Warrior and Bradley followed.  If the infantry in the 'adult' armies can do this, ours (some of the best infantry in the world, I figure) should have no problems at all.  Futher, if infantry leaders have not been exposed to realistic mech ops at junior levels, what happens when they get a mech command?  Will they give up those command positions?  Not bloody likely.  How many more armd regt CO's will be 'sidelined' after their in-the-box aggressiveness 'embarrassed' their non-maneuevrist non-armoured brigade commander? 'Staff school' wont fix that.  Nurses go to staff school.  Want one as your brigade commander?

2.  Since we have virtually turned the RCAC back into a more 'cavalry' state of being with Coyote/MGS/ VBL(?), I see no reason the tanks/MGS have to stay in 'cavalry' regiments.  A role is a role (many WW2 tank regiments were infantry before WW2).  So, why not bring back the WW1 organization of the 'First Canadian Tank Bn' as part of the Armoured Corps? It could be a cadre unit in a major trg area, and be crewed - like CMTC OPFOR is now - by a permanent Reg F cadre, and flushed out during the 'campaign season' with regulars and reserves to keep the tank skills alive.  We could offer this as a university summer like Ceremonial Guard, as well as six month and longer class B contracts.  As` well, reg and reserve units could rotate through the bn for short periods to maintain skills.  The  alternative would be creating a tank regiment in the regular force, but that entails too many issues with career flow, tours, and so on.  The cadre would have to be robust enough to actually maintain the pooled vehicles - a trick our army has yet to master.


----------



## George Wallace

2Bravo said:
			
		

> I suppose a 120mm mortar could fit the bill, but the 105mm has some other capabilities (such as anti-tank).  More importantly, the plan is to be the MGS with the 105mm.  I don't have control over what kit gets bought.



With the new munitions for the 120 mm Mortars, they are one of the most flexible wpns on the battlefield.  They can provide HE in the traditional way, as well as illumination and smoke.  They also have a deadly Anti-Tank role with Top Attack rounds, precision guided rounds, etc.  They can have Time Delay.  The variety of rounds now available for the 120 makes it a very versatile piece of kit.  Much more so than the MGS in any of the scenarios so far discused.


----------



## McG

2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'd dump the sabot and carry HESH and maybe a 105mm version of the new "cannister" round that the US has for the 120mm.


The US had a 105 mm canister round in Vietnam.


----------



## Armymatters

The only problem that concerns me is the fact that Canada is procuring 3 different direct fire systems (MGS, LAV-TUA, and MMEV) when in the past, 2 direct fire systems (one gun, one missile) was considered enough during the Cold War. Argueably, any future mission the CF will deploy on will be less target rich than the Fulda Gap could have been if the Cold War turned hot. I can see a role for MGS with the infantry, but the other two concerns me, as they may be possible waste of funds. If two vehicles were judged adequate to fight Soviet tank armies, why does the army require a total of three vehicles (including two missile-carriers) for ground support in today’s strategic climate? As a taxpayer and a strategic studies student, I can't see any reasonable justification (it is unlikely that we are going to face hordes of tanks in the future) to justify a purchase of 3 different systems that do in short, the same job.

I say give MGS over to the infantry as an infantry support vehicle, then procure a proper heavy armoured vehicle for the armoured corps. MGS was designed for infantry support, not as a tank replacement.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Who the vehicle is supporting should not drive who crews it.   We would assign a Troop of tanks as "intimate support" during a combat team quick attack.  This didn't require a PSO to come and OT everyone in the crews.  FOOs go along with infantry without rebadging.  Its a fighting  vehicle and we have guys who specialize in fighting their vehicles.  We have had threads before on capbadges and branches.  Right now I'd like to focus on how to employ the capability rather than who will crew it.  I don't see Sqns of MGS rolling around crushing the enemy beneath their wheels, but Tps could be cut out to infantry companies, recce sqns, CSS convoys or someone else's FOB.  How big should a Tp be?  Four, six eight?  Does the Tp Ldr go in an MGS or ride in a LAV III like some slides I have seen?

The US has developed a new anti-personnel round for the 120mm (basically improved cannister) which looks pretty hand for some situations.  There is a thread on it somewhere here.

We may find the 120mm mortar has some problems as well (high profile, can it fire on the move?).  I still find it hard to believe that we don't seem to have the 81mm Bison vehicle anymore.  Six of those would be handy as well.

Armymatters,

Actually, during the Cold War we had ADATS, Leopard and TUA.  ADATS was indeed seen as air defence, but it still had the anti-tank capability.  Does that mean we need MMEV, TUA and MGS?  I'm not sure, but I wouldn't right them off just because they have layered anti-tank capabilities.   MMEV has the advantage of range (I've heard up to 8 km, vs the 3,750m of TOW).  If we were to face some third world tank army that was attacking little ol' us on our stability operation then I guess having the possibility of 8 km shots looks good (if the terrain permits). Whether we find ourselves in that situation, of course, is another matter.  We're not there now.

That being said, MMEV is certainly the weirder beasty of the three.  I have a harder time seeing MMEV being employed here unless it has some kickass anti-personnel/anti-structure warhead.  

To be brutally honest, I have a hard time seeing air defence coming in handy any time soon.  If we fight without the USAF or USN overhead with air supremacy I just don't want to play.  Once we have that then I do NOT want an air defence system in my battlespace because all it is going to do is cause coord nightmares and attract negative attention.

Still, as an anti-tank system it has some benefits.  We shall see, of course. 

In the meantime I shall await the arrival of MGS in this dusty theatre where it will fill the role of Lt Morrison's detachment of 12 pdrs, albeit crewed by Strathconas.  Don't worry, I won't wait up at the aircraft ramp.


----------



## a_majoor

I wouldn't write off AD just yet. USAF "Fast Movers" are not optimized to knock down UAVs or cruise missiles, capabilities that third world militaries could develop or purchase fairly easily. This can be dealt with using one of the many proposed LAV AA designs, preferably one of the ones with a 25mm Gatling cannon and a 4 or 8 pack of "Stinger" anti-aircraft missiles. The cannon, of course, is a dual use weapon....

Most of the "pro" MMEV arguments revolve around the idea that you can get a long range shot with the ADATS. Realisticly, you won't find that very often, so the more sensable way to go would be refit the LAV-TOW to fire a more capable missile, Fire and Forget like BRIMESTONE, long range and controllable like FOG-M, or a hypervelocity "snap-shooting" missile like an evolved LOSAT. Since these abilities are complimentary, there is no reason (except cost) that a vehicle could not carry a mixed battery. This wouldn't be difficult if the rounds were all capable of firing from the same launcher, either.

A gun armed vehicle compliments this capability by having a higher rate of fire, and being able to carry more rounds. When the enemy gets close enough (or you get close enough to the enemy  >), then you can start force feeding them HE in quantity.


----------



## George Wallace

Besides maintaining Gunner's skills, wouldn't the MGS require a whole new set of Commander's skills and total revision of how to use a vehicle mounted 105 DS weapon system.  Would there be a requirement for another C/S to provide overwatch or security as the MGS moved?  Would a dedicated Ammo Carrier have to be incorporated into the F Ech to keep the MGS supplied?

I do see a valid use of the MGS in some of the FOBs with the luxury of all around defence and the ability to have situation awareness provided by an external source such as an OP or controller.  It would be extremely effective in open country, but less so in the FOBs that were located in relatively close country.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

In response to DG's questions in the other thread, perhaps the MGS as I see it is filling the role that the Cougar was designed for, if not employed for (Wheeled Direct Fire Support Vehicle).  The Cougar, of course, turned into a tank trainer.  On operations it became an armoured car.

The MGS, as conceived, is purely a direct fire weapon for blasting offending things.  While I haven't been in it, I don't see it rolling around as a Troop conducting independent operations.  That is not to say that it could not operate at Troop level as part of a team.

A fire team could be attached to a "platoon group" for operations.  It could also be attached to a Recce Tp Group.  A Troop could support a Company or Squadron.  

Using a "platoon group" convoy as an example (that is bringing a CSS element with it), the pair of MGS could be split up in the column.  One could move behind the lead vehicle or pair of vehicles, while the other moves just in front of the trail.  In an ambush the MGS engage with direct fire, and by having them split up like that then at least one gun should be in LOS of the bad guys (or not, life's like that sometimes).  Alternatively, the pair of MGS could move in the middle of the convoy, but right now I favour front and back.

For the defence of a FOB then a Troop would be ideal but even a fire team would at least give the FOB commander some mobile, lethal direct firepower that can be integrated into his own fire plan.  You don't need to clear fires etc, and the MGS should be coming with the full range of night vision (TI etc).  Add Hesco firing positions and MGS is fighting from the kind of position that its maker's intended.

For a cordon and seach, the MGS could be included in the outer cordon, or used separately to be ready to bring precise fires onto a given target (a compound full of bad guys, for example).  The conditions for the use of the MGS in this task would be made by the other arms (infantry, recce, etc).

Ammo load is certainly an issue, but we need to think of the enemy we are facing.  An ambush will likely be over in the time it takes to fire the first 8 rounds, as we will be assaulting the bad guys.  The 25mms will also be rocking.  The 105mm is providing the added punch and target effects, not to mention allowing the LAVs to manoeuvre if the ground permits.  In a prolonged FOB firefight then the MGSs might go through all their ammo and need to upload.  That will be easier said than done, I suppose, but fire discipline and re-bombing are not new problems.  A Troop could dish out a great deal of firepower before running dry, the trick I suppose is to not all run dry at the same time!

Turning to Tp size, four to six callsigns seems about right.  Six allows for breaking the Tp down to support independent platoons.  Platoon groups is a whole other thread, I suppose.

Learning how to employ the MGS (both technically and tactically) will certainly pose challenges, and it will not just be like jumping into a new tank.  It will take some forethought and a lessons learned process to get it right.  Who knows, the technical problems may never be solved.  Nevertheless, we may have an opportunity to actually take advantage of a good system for the kind of war we have found ourselves in.


----------



## Armymatters

MGS was just approved for low rate production, according to Jane's:
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr060425_1_n.shtml

Also approved was the NBC recon variant, of which Canada is also interested.


----------



## The Wrong Guy

http://tankride.com/Sales.html

T55s
T72s
BMPs
even some T34s

Im gona start saving up my pennies for my own T72  :tank: and I'll park it where ever I want.  ;D


----------



## TCBF

Hey, an autoloader is just like a big Coke machine.  You push one button, you get one thing.  You push another button, you get another thing.

What's the big deal?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

Most Coke cans don't weigh 33 Kg, and rarely explode when shaken.....


----------



## The Wrong Guy

1: 105mm Coke Round, followed by a burst of 7.62 Rum Rounds.  8)


----------



## TCBF

"Most Coke cans don't weigh 33 Kg, and rarely explode when shaken..... "

- Most coke cans would have exploded had they been in the Leopard CI was in that had both tracks off the ground for about twenty feet.  The onboard HESH-T and WP did not explode - even after the 2000 round co-ax bin left the turret wall and landed on the noses of the ammo in the 13 round ready rack.

It was a good time to stay well clear of the bouncing breech ring.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Here's the latest - my emphasis added...



> *Stryker ramps up to unveil Mobile Gun System*
> 
> FORT BENNING, Ga. (Army News Service, May 9, 2006) – The newest version of the Stryker vehicle, designed to provide fire power to Infantry units, will be unveiled May 15 at Fort Knox's Armor Warfighting Symposium.
> 
> The development of the Mobile Gun System is being managed by Fort Benning's Training and Doctrine Command System Manager-Stryker/Bradley.
> 
> The system was developed to meet the infantry’s need for a highly mobile support vehicle to supply rapid, direct fire, specifically during close assaults, said Dave Rogers, a TSM-Stryker senior analyst. The Mobile Gun System will eventually be integrated into Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
> 
> "The Mobile Gun System brings a tremendous battlefield capability to the Stryker formation, providing direct fire support to infantrymen in close, complex terrain," said Col. Donald Sando, the director of the TSM Stryker/Bradley.
> 
> The Mobile Gun System's firepower includes a turret-mounted 105 mm cannon, a mounted M-240C machine gun and a pedestal-mounted *M-2.50 caliber machine gun for the vehicle commander*.
> 
> The cannon can blast holes through reinforced concrete walls creating a breach point for infantry, and destroy bunkers and machine-gun nests that typically pin down infantry squads and platoons.
> 
> The 105 mm cannon can also take out snipers, Rogers said, because with one shot, it can destroy the entire area where a sniper is firing from. The cannon also fires canister rounds, which are used when confronting large groups of combatants. The canister round sends out a spray of titanium balls, similar to the pellets from a shotgun, which can impact several targets at once.
> 
> It's the heavy fire power and versatility that will make the Mobile Gun System an asset in combat, Rogers said.
> 
> "People will assume it's a tank when they see it because it has a big gun," Rogers said, "but it's much lighter than a 70 ton tank, making it more mobile. *Its primary role is to support the infantry*, not to go head to head with tanks."
> 
> The Mobile Gun System also features the Ammunition Handling System, an ammo loading device for the 105 mm cannon. With the ammo system, several types of rounds can be loaded in advance, then the ammunition types are displayed on the cannon operator's central control panel monitor. Depending on the mission, the operator can select which ammunition to use and the Ammunition Handling System automatically loads the cannon.
> 
> This capability gives the Mobile Gun System an advantage over other Army vehicles, which must be manually loaded with specific ammunition by a fourth crew member, Rogers said. The Ammunition Handling System makes loading and firing on targets faster and more efficient, he said.
> 
> "When planning for the 10 variants of Strykers, the Army took into account everything a Soldier could need on the battlefield," Rogers said. "From that, they developed the other Stryker variants, like the Medical Evacuation Vehicle, the Antitank Guided Missile Vehicle and the Engineer Squad vehicles, which are all uniquely designed for their mission. The Mobile Gun System fills a hole, and gives the infantry another capability."
> 
> The Mobile Gun System will be the last Stryker variant to be fielded. The Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle, the other new Stryker vehicle, was fielded to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment at Fort Lewis, Wash., in February. Soldiers with the 2nd Cav. Regt. will also be the first to receive the Mobile Gun System. They will receive 27 vehicles from July to August, which will be tested in an operational unit environment.
> 
> The Army designated 14 Mobile Gun System vehicles for extensive testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., and White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
> 
> Testing the vehicle in extreme climates and terrain helps the Mobile Gun System's designers look for potential problems that may appear in a combat environment.
> 
> "People go to great pains to almost abuse the vehicle," Rogers said. "It's tested realistically in harsh settings so we can identify any shortcomings during the testing stage. We don't want to find out about a problem after it’s in combat, so we're not cutting corners. During the tests, these vehicles aren't treated with kid gloves. We want to make sure we don't equip our Soldiers with a weak vehicle."
> 
> *It will still be a while before the Mobile Gun System will get to the battlefield. The Defense Acquisition Executive will decide if the vehicle should go into full rate production in July 2007.*



http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=8979


----------



## tomahawk6

Some pictures of MGS.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics-mgs.htm


----------



## MEV

The MGS is dead... lets leave it be.


----------



## geo

Not dead.... no one has said the program has been cancelled.
The Leos are out there roaming the plains outside Kandahar but no one has terminated the MGS contract.


----------



## MEV

Didn't the CLS announce that he was canelling the program ???

I'll look for the paper trail that I have somewhere on it.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

The previous CLS requested that DND cancel the programme in face of changing operational requirements and lessons learned from operations.  It's as good as dead.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

"ding dong the wicked witch is dead"  sung by a conga-line of black hats along the yellow brick road....
Good riddance to the Cougar MkII (really, its just like a tank, without armour, tracks, or stopping power...)


----------



## vonGarvin

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> "ding dong the wicked witch is dead"  sung by a conga-line of black hats along the yellow brick road....
> Good riddance to the Cougar MkII (really, its just like a tank, without armour, tracks, or stopping power...)


Or Firepower.  (Yes, I know, same gun, but only carries a tiny fraction of what a Leo can carry, and at a much slower rate of fire as well)

Or Mobility.

Or Protection.


----------



## PteGDD

And can't fire on the move, or sideways

It's as good as crap.


----------



## vonGarvin

PteGDD
The 105mm LAV MGS can indeed fire on the move.  And sideways.  But it's not a tank.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

It can fire sideways?  Wow, that's a neat trick!

Even tanks can only fire over the side......


----------



## vonGarvin

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> It can fire sideways?  Wow, that's a neat trick!
> 
> Even tanks can only fire over the side......


:rofl:

Yes, it CAN fire sideways!  You see, first, you install a set of mirrors, and pimp up that bee-yatch, with spinners on the tires and all that.  Next, you get a huge patch of ice.  You rock that baby out at 100 km/h, lock the brakes and go sideways and then BAM!  You fire sideways!


----------



## George Wallace

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Yes, it CAN fire sideways!  You see, first, you install a set of mirrors, and pimp up that bee-yatch, with spinners on the tires and all that.  Next, you get a huge patch of ice.  You rock that baby out at 100 km/h, lock the brakes and go sideways and then BAM!  You fire sideways!



Would that be the CBS Braking System/method?    (Counter Blast Sequence)


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Of course, you'd have to have the rollover protection system enganged! ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Of course, you'd have to have the rollover protection system enganged! ;D


That's why you fire sideways, to prevent roll over


----------



## Shamrock

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Yes, it CAN fire sideways!  You see, first, you install a set of mirrors, and pimp up that bee-yatch, with spinners on the tires and all that.  Next, you get a huge patch of ice.  You rock that baby out at 100 km/h, lock the brakes and go sideways and then BAM!  You fire sideways!



You're giving a simple problem a complex solution.  Just load the rounds sideways.

And until the MGS is fitted with a gun that fires bees, it's doomed to suck.


----------



## SABOT

How can you load a round sideways, if they are round?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Since when are howitzer rounds err... round  ???


----------



## TN2IC

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Since when are howitzer rounds err... round  ???




Gee... even TN2IC knew that... j/k.. I had to ask my son..


----------



## Nfld Sapper

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Gee... even TN2IC knew that... j/k.. I had to ask my son..


:nana:


----------



## SABOT

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Since when are howitzer rounds err... round  ???



They ain't square.  

So?  How did howitzers fit into this topic?  

(If yer Arty, isn't that round thing in the middle of your tactical sign a cannon ball?)


----------



## ArmyRick

A lot of comedians on this web site. bashing the MGS on and on. 

OK, I see. everyone is an expert. Probably none of you have ever seen it in person or know of its capabilities.

The only clowns out there who ever thought of putting the MGS into a tank replacement position was us, the CF.

The yanks are now using MGS in their stryker brigades and the first ones will be deployed to Iraq this spring. They use it exactly as it was meant to be used, an INFANTRY direct fire support vehicle. Yeah, yeah, the Abrams or any other MBT are more capable than an MGS. But they wizz along at 100 KM/H plus.

Oh by the way, it does fire side ways. Without flipping over.

Oh well, maybe us silly canadians better tell the yanks to stop with the upcoming deployment of MGS to Iraq because our "armchair experts" know better.


----------



## vonGarvin

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> A lot of comedians on this web site. bashing the MGS on and on.
> 
> OK, I see. everyone is an expert. Probably none of you have ever seen it in person or know of its capabilities.
> 
> The only clowns out there who ever thought of putting the MGS into a tank replacement position was us, the CF.
> 
> The yanks are now using MGS in their stryker brigades and the first ones will be deployed to Iraq this spring. They use it exactly as it was meant to be used, an INFANTRY direct fire support vehicle. Yeah, yeah, the Abrams or any other MBT are more capable than an MGS. But they wizz along at 100 KM/H plus.
> 
> Oh by the way, it does fire side ways. Without flipping over.
> 
> Oh well, maybe us silly canadians better tell the yanks to stop with the upcoming deployment of MGS to Iraq because our "armchair experts" know better.


Here's why we "armchair experts" didn't like the MGS.  Not because of anything about flipping over, whatever, but because of its intended role: tank.  Trust me, I know of its capabilities, and I realise how it is to be used.  Having said that, it may wizz along at 100 kph, but it ain't no Abrams or any other MBT.


----------



## TN2IC

Panzer is a panzer.

MGS will never be a panzer.

Sorry.


----------



## ArmyRick

Command-Sense-Act, I, sir, declare you an non-comedic, real expert  

You are one of the people on these forums to see what I have been trying to say ever since i read the Stryker Infantry company in battle (Yeah, I know, get a life, I read a PAM, but it was curiousity). It was there I first stumbled on seeing the stryker as an Infantry DFSV.

TN2IC, I never said MGS will be a panzer. 

Do I think we should get rid of MBT? H*ll no! Keep 'em. In fact make it Abrams or Leo 2 IMO. When you need to fight like a heavy weight, you need a heavy weight. 

However the Stryker is a "middle weight fighter" if you will. Fast on its wheels, 105mm is nothing to sneeze at. Its got its place on this modern battlefield. 

The Stryker family of AFV have been very successful in all. I have talked to some Yanks first hand who used them (one fellow was a former bradley crewman) and they like the vehicle very much.


----------



## TCBF

A few years back, a Canadian civilian wrote an interesting article in one of our professional journals on how Canada should ditch the Leopard and buy 300 M8 AGS (Armoured Gun Systems) to equip our regular and reserve armoured regiments.

He surmised that having a 105mm gun on a TRACKED, Herc-portable platform would be a good solution for a middle power such as Canada, and revitalize our RCAC Militia units as well.

At the time, we were transitioning from Leo C1 to Leo C2, and most of us poo-poo'd the idea of ditching an MBT.

In any case, the M8 AGS - which claimed to do most of the things the MGS could not - fell by the wayside after 6 or so prototypes were built.

Enter politics:  Did the 'Armor Mafia' in the USA see a light, tracked, tank gun carrier as a threat to future MBT funding?  Did Canada decide to go 'all wheeled' because of it's smoother 'soft power' image?

Good questions.  In any case, we have seen two interesting partial solutions.  If the tracked mobility, size and 'roll out tray' power pack from the M8 AGS could be melded with the advanced FCS/vectronics from the Stryker MGS, we might see a vehicle that actually fills the void - someday.

A few years ago an American commander stated that the MGS existed only because the Stryker APC was equiped with .50 cal/40mm, and that if he had Canadian LAV IIIs with the 25mm turrets, he would not need/want the MGS.  But, just one man's opinion.

In the meantime, the words of the Australian CDS from a few years back still ring true.  On the eve of the announcement of the Australian purchase of American tanks by Australia, he more or less stated that Australia would have loved to have aquired a light, mobile, air-portable, modern, protected large gunned armoured vehicle, but one does not yet exist that combines the mixure of Protection, Mobility and Firepower thought necessary to save Australian lives.  Hence - the tank purchase.

His interview drew amazingly few comments from serving soldiers in Canada at the time.  I wonder why that was?  Ever read any Orwell? "Four legs good - two legs bad!" and so on.


----------



## a_majoor

Various solutions are available, and even in production (although the political capital and "face" of the people pushing MGS will be lost, probably the greatest obstacle to overcome), as a survey of various Army.ca threads will demonstrate.

The quick and dirty solution would be to take LAV III hulls and mount the CV_CT turret; reputedly a "drop in" solution. The turret is a low profile Wegmann design (i.e. the gun is in a slot cut in the turret, allowing it full elevation to 420 as well as the NATO 100 depression angle), mounts a high pressure 105mm cannon with an autoloader and a 16 round bustle for immmediate action. One or more "wine racks" can be fitted so the crew can go to battle with 32 or more main gun rounds. The turret is fullly stabilized, LAV's mounting the turret can fire on the move with the gun traversed 900 and it rolls on and off a C-130 Hercules without modification or disassembly. It exists now and a version mounting a 90mm cannon (due to internal politics) is used by the Belgian army.

For an air portable, full tracked tank solution, we need look no farther than Sweden and the CV 90120. As the name suggests it mounts a full pressure, 44 cal 120mm cannon just like its larger counterparts the Leopard 2 and M1 family, but weighs in at around 30 tonnes rather than 60-70 tonnes like most Generation 3 tanks. The next lightest tank is the Generation 3.5 LeClerc, which weighs 50 tonnes.

Both these solutions meet different needs, the LAV CV_CT would be a DFSV attached to Infantry units in the manner of the MGS for a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, or a Cavalry fire support vehicle backing up recce C/S or doing convoy escorts, rear area security and similar tasks. The CV 90120 is a tank, and has a much better ability to carry out DF tasks in the defence and assault (recognizing it does not have the passive protection of the larger Gen 3 and 3.5 tanks).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The CV_CT turret looks like it would make the LAV-III extremely top-heavy.  Have they tested it yet?


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor

Yes it looks top heavy, but I discussed it with the company rep at AUSA a few years ago, and watched a series of videos which demonstrated the roll on/off capabilities, shoot on the move at up to 900 traverse, firing the weapon at 420 elevation and so on. 

If I were the CDS then, we would have these now............


----------



## 28402 engineers

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Yes it looks top heavy, but I discussed it with the company rep at AUSA a few years ago, and watched a series of videos which demonstrated the roll on/off capabilities, shoot on the move at up to 900 traverse, firing the weapon at 420 elevation and so on.
> 
> If I were the CDS then, we would have these now............



if you were the CDS, I'd say we'd be a heck of a lot better off.


----------



## bruno

i thought Canadians remember history better than us yanks! the history i study has a lot of good young kids getting kill in WW2 because army did not upgrade the Sherman tank they had to fight German panther and tiger tanks out gunned, out armored, and inferior gun sights. for Canada to stay with leopard will cause Canadian young to fight enemy armor superior in armor, gunpower, and gun sights. yes MSG is not perfect but no weapon is perfect if you are waiting for perfection you wait in vain. you have a limited defense budget and MSG is best buy for Canada and America


----------



## aesop081

bruno said:
			
		

> i thought Canadians remember history better than us yanks! the history i study has a lot of good young kids getting kill in WW2 because army did not upgrade the Sherman tank they had to fight German panther and tiger tanks out gunned, out armored, and inferior gun sights.



If you studied your history correctly, you know the reasons why the Sherman remained.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

x


----------



## tomahawk6

Some pic's I ran across of MGS in "injun country" - Tarmiyah, Iraq.


----------



## McG

Any feedback on how well it is performing?


----------



## tomahawk6

So far so good. They havent rolled one yet. ;D


----------



## Eland

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> Bruno, a couple friendly points:
> 
> Capitals usually start sentences.  Countries (Canada, America, etc) are also usually capitalized.
> 
> I'm puzzled that you view the Leopard (even Leo 1) as "out gunned, out armoured and inferior gunsights".  My first question is "inferior to what"?  I will refute your claims:



<remainder snipped for brevity's sake>

Good rebuttal, CSA 105.

The MGS is an interesting concept in theoretical terms. Without belabouring the issue of its many deficiencies, let me say this: the MGS has always struck me as a solution in search of a problem which does not exist. It's really the culmination (and an extension) of US Army General Shinseki's 'wheeled medium brigade' doctrine. The doctrine works fine if the enemy force is comprised of light infantry with few or no anti-tank weapons - or where the wheeled vehicles are basically 'battle taxis' which drop troops off at a given point one or more tactical bounds behind the FEBA and will not engage the enemy except in self-defence or at suitable stand-off ranges and in defiles. 

For Canada, at least, the MGS was an attempt to solve a political problem. I won't get into details about what that problem is - that's been discussed elsewhere at length.

Even twenty-year old Leopard 2A4's are light years ahead of the MGS in terms of capability. Going for the ones the Dutch had on offer (which includes 40 more or less 'new build' A6 models)
was an extremely shrewd move. The Leo's aren't that much slower than the MGS. I would dare say over really rough terrain, you would find the Leopards capable of negotiating it at much higher speeds and with surprising agility.

Seeing Leopard 2's on the move, one can easily appreciate just how powerful and magnificent the cats really are.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eland said:
			
		

> the MGS has always struck me as a solution in search of a problem which does not exist. It's really the culmination (and an extension) of US Army General Shinseki's 'wheeled medium brigade' doctrine. The doctrine works fine if the enemy force is comprised of light infantry with few or no anti-tank weapons - or where the wheeled vehicles are basically 'battle taxis' which drop troops off at a given point one or more tactical bounds behind the FEBA and will not engage the enemy except in self-defence or at suitable stand-off ranges and in defiles.
> 
> ....



Respecfully Eland I would suggest that the Yanks appear to have FOUND a solution for their problem.  They seem to have an enemy that wishes to fight in a manner befitting General Shinseki's doctrine.  The Stryker Brigades seem to be getting an awful lot of work.

This is not to denigrate the role of the Panzers, nor their usefulness for the CF.  That said both the wheeled Stryker/LavIII concept AND the MGS appear to have found application on modern battlefields.


----------



## ArmyRick

In a large, multi-capability army (american) it makes sense to have heavy, medium and light forces. 

The MGS has a role in the modern operations but limited thats for sure. It doesn't seem to fit Canada's needs. We have limited $$$ to blow so we need the best overall vehicle (LEO 2 was hell of a good answer).

For those people who critisize its existence, they better check its use within the US doctrine. I have said it many times before, the yanks plan to use it as a _Infantry fire support vehicle_ not a panzer...

Only some of our guys decided we would fight it like a tank.

Has anybody seen the combatreform.com pages? There is alot of pure crap being spewed on those pages about the stryker family of vehicles (the only one even in question on performance is the MGS, the other ones are good to go).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> RBD  while most Cdn troopers will share that opinion of the MGS, I haven't heard the US saying negative things about the beast since they have fielded them in Iraq.  Based on the Stryker, the US Army appears to rave about the vehicle.



They also use the vehicle as a intergal fire support vehicle in a combat team. It fills a niche, where we were planning to use it as an Uber-super wheeled MBT.


----------



## geo

I understand that Colin.  
Very valid point BUT, based on the comment by RBD, there are inherent problems in the beast and it's a POS.  Sooo... I just wanted to know what it's problems were (other than the fact that it's not a tank).

Now that we have decided to maintain and renew our MBT capacity, is there a need for a MGS as an integral fire support vehicle in our combat teams?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think we could use a wheeled gun equipped LAV, but I do agree the MGS is not the answer. If you want to go big, then the LAV 10x10 with the GIAT turret and 105 is a possibilty. However I think that all that is needed is a L/V 76-90mm gun with HE, smoke, HESH, HEAT and cannister. 

I wonder if they could be mixed into a unit using the 25mm LAV, giving them some organic fire support?

The other option is using the 120mm  AMOS mortar verison in a turret which I understand can also do direct fire?


----------



## Rayman

A couple of the problems I heard mentioned were that it couldnt fire over the side, its weight making it too heavy for a Herc, and the muzzle blast to name a couple. Others were a high center of gravity and problems with the auto-loader and the gun in general. Honestly in my opinion I could see that as being a replacement for the Cougar-ending up in the reserve units as it beats G-wagons and C6's.


----------



## geo

The thing about problems firing over the side.... this is something that we brought up.... not somethig that has been brought up by the US military.  WRT the dimensions of the beast - so what, neither the LAV nor the Stryker fit into the Hercs... though they're all supposed to fit in the back of the notional A400.  At least we now have the C17s
WRT the Muzzle blast... what about it?  is this something we brought up or is this something that has been brought up by the US Army?


----------



## McG

Rayman said:
			
		

> A couple of the problems I heard mentioned were that it couldnt fire over the side,


You've heard wrong.  Another related myth is that the gun is not stabilized.  The gun is stabilized.



			
				Rayman said:
			
		

> ... problems with the auto-loader ...


Were on pre-production developmental vehicles.



			
				Rayman said:
			
		

> ... a high center of gravity


Is another myth.  MGS actually has a lower CG because the a significant amount of top weight is reduced through the hull being lower.  Other internal design steps were taken to bring down the CG.  Even the heavier 3.5 suspension helps drop that C.G.






Do you have anything substantive WRT the limited production models (the ones which are operational)?  Maybe something that is better than vague rumour?


----------



## Rayman

I did say this is what Ive heard, as Geo asked what some problems with this beast were. These are things I've seen posted all over the internet. MCG you're probably right, as I'm not sure of these authors credability (like if they actually served with a SBCT or were any way part of it) as they could just be arm-chair-analysts writing an article for a site.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One of it's downfall is a small ammo loadout, something to the effect of 18 rds total, 8 in the nmag and 10 in the hull. Also not equipped with any MG if I recall correctly.

The Centaruiro carries up to 40 main gun rounds or reduced to 20 if carrying 4 dismounts I think.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG
The middle LAV in your picture is the mortar version anyone crawled around it yet? Opinions?


----------



## Infanteer

The American's should probably have them as their Stryker infantry carriers have small arms on RWS.  Does Canada, with a stabilized 25mm turret on EVERY infantry carrier require this?  Is the requirement that big between what a 25mm can handle and what our new 120mm can handle to justify another vehicle system?


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The American's should probably have them as their Stryker infantry carriers have small arms on RWS.  Does Canada, with a stabilized 25mm turret on EVERY infantry carrier require this?


There is not enough tank for support to every company.  MGS could provide something to those that must do without tanks.


----------



## Rayman

That does make sense, but wasn't it cheaper for us to pick up 100 used tanks, than to buy something like 60 MGS(s)? Would it be better for Canada to try and acquire more tanks this way? Being searching the allied markets for surplus machinery. Or is everything else on the market in terms of Leopards more like leprosy? 

I do see what MCG means in that its some sort of gun like a tanks...despite the pricey chassis its on its still that added piece for the infantry


----------



## geo

Rayman.... you're bringing up all sorts of points that were discussed in the LEO and MGS thtreads.
Try to do a search.... it's all there... Read!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

geo said:
			
		

> Rayman.... you're bringing up all sorts of points that were discussed in the LEO and MGS thtreads.
> Try to do a search.... it's all there... Read!



Same as other people, that keep rehashing all the arguements. Just about anything you want to know about the MGS, is already here somewhere. This thread, and others, are just going in circles.


----------



## geo

Some rehash... some new.
When these threads got started, the MGS weas on the drawing board or in Prototype form
No army anywhere had any AND Canada had mothballed the Leo C2 fleet - intending to go all wheeled.

Now that we are back in the MBT tank business AND the US has received, trained and fought (?) with the MGS it may or may not be a valid time to consider if an MGS or a LAV based mortar platform might be of desirable.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rayman might be able to do us ALL a service by re-reading all many words written and summarizing the "ifs, ands, and maybes" of those discussions so that we can take another look at the situation in light of current realities, as geo suggests.

Then there were no MGSs and the CF had no prospect of tanks.  Now both are fielded.  Now would be a good time to go over the "fears" and determine which should be consigned to the myth box and which ones have been borne out.

Unfortunately, doesn't some discussion on these types of matters risk rolling into Operational Security issues? 

Rayman's as good a candidate as any as he is interested and "virginal" ;D


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Wow.  It is neat _and_ sobering to go back and read what one wrote in the past...

Bear in mind that I started this thread back when we didn't have tanks and I was looking around thinking that we needed some additional firepower over there.  Its all a very much moot point now.


----------



## Rayman

Well... I guess I just got the "Welcome to army.ca" Believe it or not when I first found this site I was looking up info on the MMEV as a friend of mine who wants to go in as a SARTECH and I were talking about the Stryker and such, and I at that time wanted to be AD. I found all the old threads and such with black hatters mad as a Toronto motorist at rush hour that they were replacing the Leo with the MGS. Of course there were people suggesting modifying the Leo with a modernization package that included the main gun firing a 120mm mortar and such. Even I was getting hot under the collar. I may not have hours on a Leo but it doesnt take a retard to see that making a wheeled assault gun fill the roll of a MBT is as some were putting it, dumb. As for what I was saying I guess im only helping by adding a curved section to the circle so...


----------



## geo

too true Rayman
but that discussion was quite some time and many tears ago.

Much has changed - we've signed up for some Leo2 A4s from Holland and are back in the MBT game.
Before rehashing & tearing open some old wounds, you should still read over our lod threads on the subject - It'll fill in most of your questions


----------



## Kirkhill

And Rayman, I wasn't kidding.  It wouldn't hurt to have somebody that wasn't involved on the merry-go-round to go over the threads and try and summarize the arguments for checking against the current reality.

Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Rayman said:
			
		

> Well... I guess I just got the "Welcome to army.ca" Believe it or not when I first found this site I was looking up info on the MMEV as a friend of mine who wants to go in as a SARTECH and I were talking about the Stryker and such, and I at that time wanted to be AD. I found all the old threads and such with black hatters mad as a Toronto motorist at rush hour that they were replacing the Leo with the MGS. Of course there were people suggesting modifying the Leo with a modernization package that included the main gun firing a 120mm mortar and such. Even I was getting hot under the collar. I may not have hours on a Leo but it doesnt take a retard to see that making a wheeled assault gun fill the roll of a MBT is as some were putting it, dumb. As for what I was saying I guess im only helping by adding a curved section to the circle so...



Welcome to our world. Put forth a legitimate discourse, and join the discussion.

Be advised, the posters with experience tolerate questionable postes lightly. If you feel offended, or put upon, be ready to defend your position. They tend to tolerate fools lightly, and posers even less. Best be at least knowedgeable, at the most a SME on the subject involved in the posts. You are dealig with those that do this for a living.

Have a ball ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

OK - I am going to wade in again, having suggested that Rayman do some heavy lifting for us.

Suppose.... 

The Tank is an Assault Vehicle that may be used for Direct Fire Support
The MGS is a Direct Fire Support Vehicle that should never be used for the Assault

If the MGS is as mobile as the LAVs
If the MGS is as well protected as the LAVs
If the MGS is designed to supply stand-off fire support

If Fire Support is the Primary Role of the Artillery
If the Artillery has historically supplied both direct AND indirect fire support
If the Artillery's howitzers can still be fired in direct and indirect mode
If the Artillery travels with the Infantry in LAV-FOOs in order to supply timely fire support

Then

Why not assign the MGS to Arty as a combination DFS-FOO vehicle?

Sighting systems, comms and a ready supply of rounds for the FOO to instantly react personally to the Commanders need for Fire Support and also to mark the target for Follow On Fires from any/all available means.  It would recreate the role of the old Horse Artillery which operated on the front line before the days of machine guns and long range rifles.

The Arty Crew would be at least as well protected as the Infantry, Dragoons or Recce units they were travelling with, and by virtue of their longer range (both observation and effects delivery) they would be able to stay one short tactical bound to the rear, to make up in some sense for their increased vulnerability as a high value target travelling in a distinguishable vehicle.

That would put the Arty back in the game and leave the Cavalry free to continue in its primary, historic, preferred and necessary roles of Assault first and Recce second.

I believe there is precedent in the form of Aerial Forward Air Controllers in OV-10 Broncos and such which were "lightly" armed with 70mm WP/RP and other smoke rounds or Light Helicopters armed with 7 packs of 70mm and miniguns.


----------



## Old Sweat

Kirkhill,

Your unusually fertile mind has produced a lonely little onion in a petunia patch - to fiddle with a song we both may remember from our youth. (For the rest of you, there was a post-1945 ditty that began "I'm a lonely, little petunia in an onion patch . . .") 

First, the FOO is the fire support coordinator and provider for the combat team. His/her job is to get the vehicle in the best position to do that. The FOO party must also be able to operate dismounted supporting a ground attack, climb on a helicopter or man a ground OP well separated from the vehicle for protracted periods. The vehicle also requires specialized communications and other gear which would eat into the ammunition space in the MGS. None of these features are generally thought to be good things by our black bereted friends.

Second, no one is suggesting, I hope, that the MGS would operate in others than multiples; single vehicles are a no no. While having more than one FOO would raise the social tone in the combat team no end, again this is a non-starter.

p.s. I have kept the tone light not to ridicule your proposal, but to gently point out the unusual breakdown in your thinking.


----------



## a_majoor

I think most of us can agree there are multiple possibilities for a wheeled DFSV platform (recce overwatch, escort, "Cavalry", Infantry fire support), I'm pretty sure most of us ALSO agree that the MGS is *not* the platform to be doing this on.

Part of the problem with this argument is we have halves of two combat teams now: a Medium or perhaps "Cavalry" mounted element on the LAV III, and the Heavy fire support element represented by the Leopard 2A6.

The complimentary halves are missing: where is the mobile fire support with similar range and mobility capabilities to the LAV III (i.e. a Centurio/LAV CV_CT/Rooikat etc.), and where is the HAPC/IFV (Achzarit/Puma) to escort the tanks? (probably the same place all the troops to man them are.......sigh)


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That would put the Arty back in the game


Artillery is certainly "in the game" and more than busy with the calling & controlling of higher fire support (air, howitzer, avn) and controlling airspace over the fight.


----------



## Kirkhill

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> 
> Your unusually fertile mind has produced a lonely little onion in a petunia patch - to fiddle with a song we both may remember from our youth. (For the rest of you, there was a post-1945 ditty that began "I'm a lonely, little petunia in an onion patch . . .")



Was that Flanders and Swan?

As you rightly point out even the most well tended patch occasionally produces a weed or two.  And nobody has ever accused me of lacking fertilizer. ;D

As to your point, and Arthur and MCG....I sit duly corrected


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Given that our Leo 1 and LAV III team worked out, I imagine that the Leo 2 and LAV III will be fine.  All tracks or all wheels in the combat team would have some advantages, but for our small army this duality works out OK.  The force sent to a given conflict can be tailored to suit the threat.  

As for the guns, I would gladly have two FOOs in a combat team, especially if they are also JTAC/FACs.  For heavens sake, though, don't put them in an MGS.  

Going back to the start of the thread, I should remind everybody that I was on mefloquine at the time...


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ..................................
> 
> Then
> 
> Why not assign the MGS to Arty as a combination DFS-FOO vehicle?
> 
> Sighting systems, comms and a ready supply of rounds for the FOO to instantly react personally to the Commanders need for Fire Support and also to mark the target for Follow On Fires from any/all available means.  It would recreate the role of the old Horse Artillery which operated on the front line before the days of machine guns and long range rifles.



Kirkhill

I see others have persuaded you on the folly of this already, but a point they missed out on was that if the FOO party is fighting the MGS, then they are not doing their job as FOOs.  On the other hand, if they are concentrating on the job of being FOOs, then that big honking gun is not doing anything.  Either way, to put FOO parties in a MGS would be a waste of manpower and/or equipment.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks George....

I am now reminded of another little ditty learned in the Highlanders in the 80s: "...... Beat me. Hurt me. Make me cry. Masochistic needs within.  Love to feel that burning skin...."  The boot marks are now becoming as permanent as the message: "FOO-MGS Bad".  Seen.  ;D 

But as the song says -- "Masochistic needs within" so....

While I understand not giving the FOO a gun of his own (although if I understand naval practices correctly - and that is a long stretch indeed - the Navy has been using "one button" directed fire from prior to the Battle of Jutland.... but I digress as usual) howabout the notion of supplying the Arty with the Assault Guns/DFSVs.  Perhaps they would be less likely to be seen as poor tanks then rather than mobile guns.  

Also, wrt my comment about getting the Arty back in the game, I understand that the Arty is clearly making its presence and usefulness felt these days BUT it is in very small packets.  Are there enough junior billets in the Arty to maintain a sufficient corps of bodies to be able to support a large enough pool to find and train the talented individuals that are capable of providing the co-ordinated fire support necessary for ANY military action - Combined Arms or Special Forces.  The concern is equivalent to whether or not the Army is big enough to support large higher level Special Forces units and formations.

By giving the Arty the DFS role and assigning it in 2 gun sections and 4 gun troops to support inf, armd and recce sub-units and sub-sub-units that would open up an additional number of arty billets doing arty jobs in support of combined arms.


Uncovering and waiting for the next battering...


----------



## a_majoor

Kirkhill, you seem to be thinking about infantry assault guns and SP anti-tank guns on the model of WWII.

Things like the Stg III or Hetzer made sense in those days, since they were relatively cheap and specialized to do jobs that tanks of that era could not do as well. On the other hand, a Gen II tank like the Leopard C2 could sweep the battlefield of all these things and the 
Leopard 2 A6M is a massively capable Gen III tank which is even better.

There is a possible place for an integral DFSV in an Infantry battalion; the SBCT is built around integrated company sized sub units with a fire support platoon, and a USMC LAV Coy also has integral fire support in the form of a LAV-TOW (conceptually, a gun armed LAV variant could take it's place). Do we have the doctrine, PY's and resources to do so?


----------



## tomahawk6

Trying to find something for the Artillery to do shows how far down the ladder of priorities it has slid. If it werent for the Afghanistan deployment there might not be any tubes left. It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery. If you are going to play with the big boys you must have artillery. I couldnt quite figure out why the CF hasnt bought HIMARS. It fits into a C-130 and one fire unit is equal to a battery of guns.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trying to find something for the Artillery to do shows how far down the ladder of priorities it has slid. If it werent for the Afghanistan deployment there might not be any tubes left. It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery. If you are going to play with the big boys you must have artillery. I couldnt quite figure out why the CF hasnt bought HIMARS. It fits into a C-130 and one fire unit is equal to a battery of guns.



Agreed T6. Entirely.  And cheaper and more deployable than a flight of Hornets.

As to the Stg III Arthur, what is the MGS BUT a Stg III?  Both were/are direct fire weapons designed to supply intimate support to the infantry, to be readily available to take out fortified positions such as bunkers and houses.  Not to fight tanks.   As you rightly point out a single Wittman in a Leo 2 would slaughter a battery of MGSs.  That doesn't make the MGS any less useful.  It just means it should be kept well away from Michael Wittman clones.  They are deployed with the SBCTs on those grounds.  

Here's the question though - are they manned by infanteers with armoured gunnery courses or by tankers with inf courses or by gunners with armd and inf courses?

A related question for T6 would be: in the old(current?) Cavalry Squadrons there was a battery of M109s IIRC.  Were those Redlegs attached to the Cavalry or were those Cavalry troopers with arty training? Or like the 107mm/120mm mortars that were part of the infantry organization and under the command of the infantry commander but, in practice, when a FOO/FISTV was attached weren't they under the Operational Control of the FOO?  And didn't I here some discussion as to whether the FIST-V was an arty or inf asset?

I am afraid that all of these options leave me more than a little confused - resulting in a fair number of onions in my patch.


----------



## tomahawk6

You are correct. Any artillery battery/battalion attached to an infantry unit is manned by redlegs and they are in a direct support role under the operational control of the unit commander. In our old organization all artillery battalions were under the direct command of the division artillery commander. Battalions could be detached under the operational control of the brigade commander they were attached to. Now for the first time since we deactivated our seperate brigades ,artillery is organic to the infantry brigade. I cant think of any instances where artillerymen operate infantry weapons. The difference is that we have always maintained a large pool of artillery units at division/corps level. Until OIF we had large numbers of FA brigades manned by the NG buit with the demands for MP's in Iraq a number of these brigades have been reclassified as MP brigades. The problem that I see with the CF is that Pres units dont deploy as units and as such you dont need artillery for domestic operations. If the government cleared the way for Pres units to deploy on ops overseas you would see less OPTEMPO issues. Also it would encourage +100% manning of Pres units.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery. If you are going to play with the big boys you must have artillery.



What do you mean was?  They did.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Why not assign the MGS to Arty as a combination DFS-FOO vehicle?



There is also precendent in the German Army: the StuG units were part of the artillery, not the armour.


----------



## c4th

Why is the MGS debate not dead?  The Armoured Corps is getting Leo 2's not Strykers.  Unless someone knows something I don't, Canada is not purchasing the MGS platform thus no other arm is going to get saddled with them either. 

For those out of the loop, arty and armoured have very real rolls.  Arty is 155 plus everything stacked above.  Armoured is fast approaching 120.


----------



## vonGarvin

Trust No One said:
			
		

> For those out of the loop, arty and armoured have very real rolls.  Arty is 155 plus everything stacked above.  Armoured is fast approaching 120.


I note that you neglect to mention the 81mm.  That very useful and effective weapon has been relegated to local defense rolls for the gun lines.  The armour corps has already reached the 120mm barrier with the purchase of the Leo 2A6.

As for the MGS debate, though we aren't getting it, we can still talk about it, its successors and its roles.  That is all.


----------



## c4th

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I note that you neglect to mention the 81mm.  That very useful and effective weapon


...

Being a mortarman I did not neglect but deliberately chose not to mention it.   The 81 obviously plays a supporting role to the 777.

"It's better to give than to receive"


----------



## vonGarvin

Trust No One said:
			
		

> Being a mortarman I did not neglect but deliberately chose not to mention it.   *The 81 obviously plays a supporting role to the 777*.
> "It's better to give than to receive"


That's just awesome.  Really really awesome.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery..



At the risk of reopening old wounds, are the mortars in the US Army manned by infantry with a distinct MOS indicator?  To ask the question a different way, are the mortars manned by infantryman on a three year stint who then go back to infantry sections or by infantrymen specialized into mortars?

The loss the support platoons was as much about trying to keep nine hollow battalions sustained as it was about finding jobs for artillerymen.  Those nine mortar platoons were taking in a battalion's worth (close to anyway) of infantry platoons.  

For Kirkhill, my understanding from my own short time with the US Army Cavalry organizations was that the guns were manned by gunners, as were the FIST.  The mortars were manned by infantry (same as the mortars in the tank battalions).  We can look at old organizations from WWII for inspiration, but the designation of the crews of Stugs and Canadian SP AT guns may lead us astray.  I'm not sure if the Stug crews were guys pulled off the gunline and thrown in a Stug or were "Stug Crewmen" who happened to belong to the artillery.  Maybe some old Stug crewmen can shed some light here.


----------



## tomahawk6

> At the risk of reopening old wounds, are the mortars in the US Army manned by infantry with a distinct MOS indicator?  To ask the question a different way, are the mortars manned by infantryman on a three year stint who then go back to infantry sections or by infantrymen specialized into mortars?



Indirect Fire Infantrymen have their own designator - 11C. The infantry MOS is 11B. That said if the company mortar section/platoon is short an 11B fills the slot. Soldiers are trained as 11B's first and then go on to an 8 week 11C AIT.


----------



## Kirkhill

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> .... Maybe some old Stug crewmen can shed some light here.



I believe that they had relatively short careers.  Their career paths may be indistinct.

I also understand that the manning of conscript armies for a limited period of warfighting presents a different set of challenges than manning a volunteer army for constant operations in a time of "peace".  The particular question, of manning the MGSs or any DFS system, is as old as the discussion over trade specialization or regimentation.  We have become accustomed to the infantry battalion as a combined arms force unto itself - a mini Regiment if you like.  During the long peace of Pax Britannica (1815-1914) - neither long nor peaceful - Direct Fire Support was the job of the Artillery, the Field Artillery.  They manned the 3-18 pounders and ultimately the Machine Guns that formed on the frontline with the supported troops.  That is the same position that the Royal Tank Regiment was raised to occupy, as opposed to the Cavalry regiments that most commonly DID NOT form alongside the infantry.  They were in reserve, on the flanks or out in front screening and patrolling - accompanied by their own DFS artillery, the Royal Horse Artillery.

Going further back Gustav Adolph's Regiments included "leather guns" that were manned by members of the Regiment and the Regiment was trained to act as a Combined Arms whole.  

But you lot know this better than I do ..... which is why I find it fascinating that after almost 400 years there is still an ongoing debate as to whether to group and train for ease of training and maintenance, platform specialization, or whether grouping and training should be focused on creating organizations that deliver particular effects that can be exploited by the government.  I see the merits in both views.  I also see that historically it has been made to work both ways with both alternatives having pluses and minuses.

I believe, like MCG and others, that there is value in a DFS system that operates in the same environment as the wheeled LAV, just as there is value in having an APC that operates in the same environment as the Tank.  If the Tank and the LAV are fully compatible across the entire spectrum of operations then great, this entire discussion is moot.  But if, as seems to be the case, there are mutually exclusive operations then there is room for discussion of how to fill the resulting gaps. One way is to fill the infantry DFS role with gunners.  It has been done in the past and it might be argued that it was the first task of gunners (or bowmen).  Cavalry has always been an entirely separate entity that specialized in mobile operations and was used to different tactical and operational effect than the infantry.


----------



## tomahawk6

The MGS is crewed by armor soldiers after a two week training course.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks T6.


----------



## George Wallace

I just removed an ill-informed fraudulent post.  There is no need for any more such posts.  Facts will be accepted, not rumours, myths or misrepresentations.


----------



## tomahawk6

The MGS isnt a "tank" and isnt meant to be a substitute at least in the US context.Rather its an infantry support vehicle.The link below is an overview of the MGS which had been published in Infantry magazine.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAB/is_3_115/ai_n16740548/pg_1

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/army_stryker_mobilegun_070504w/


----------



## T19

Interresting to read this thread in light of our (CF) going with LEO2 and deploying not only our old LEO1's but buying LEO 2in less time than this thread has been alive.

I have a bias toward the LAV family.  But I have always thought the MGS was a poor idea.  Glad to see we are no longer looking at it!!

The idea of a 105 on a wheeled veh holds some promise, but this deployment seems bad.  I remember trials of a 10x10 with a turret that actually allowed the crew to look around like a real trurret, my problems with MGS is the lack of  vision field for the Mk 1 eyeball.  

That being said, I think a mixed force of LEO2 and LAV's makes for the idea force projection as you get the best of all worlds and few of the drawbacks.

And now that we have the second C17 and more to follow, I am really happy


----------



## geo

T19
Note that the Leo2A5s we have bought are still in Holland and it will still take a while before we can lay our hands on them
The Leo2A6Ms we have are those we borrowed from the German operational inventory ... C2 crews were rushed thru an abreviated training schedule to make things happen - and that is the only reason why we are using (and breaking) Leo2s in Kandahar.

Many countries (Italy & SouthAfrica) have developed and are still using 8 wheeled "destroyers" like the MGS.

After disposing of the Cougar, is there room (or a need) for an wheeled gun in the Canadian military?
Would there be a need for this kind of punch with a Coyote RECCE troop?
Would there be a use for a troop of them in a LAVIII Coy?


----------



## tomahawk6

In Iraq some Stryker battalions have had an Abrams platoon attached. Some commanders wished they had an organic MBT platoon to augment their unit.


----------



## ArmyRick

Tomahawk, I have been reading up about how the SBCT are using the MGS and I watched a cool you tube video with an MGS blowing up a bunker. Does the abrams also have a HEP round? Is the procedure for destroying/breaching enemy fortifications the same with an Abrams as it is with the MGS?


----------



## tomahawk6

The Abrams uses the M830A1 MPAT and it also has a canister round the M1028.

http://www.gd-ots.com/sitepages/dirfire.html
120mm M830 HEAT-MP-T		

Chemical Energy Anti-Tank Multi Purpose Ammunition

The M830 High Explosive Anti-Tank - Multipurpose - Tracer (HEAT-MP-T) service round for the smoothbore 120mm combustible cartridge case tank ammunition employs a full diameter shaped charge to defeat a wide spectrum of targets. Extremely effective against buildings and bunkers, as well as armored vehicles and other targets, the M830 serves as the companion ammunition to the kinetic energy M829 series anti-tank munition. The M830s safe and reliable fuzing ensures detonation on frontal impact or graze. The combustible cartridge case has proven to be safe, rugged and capable of withstanding the rigors of field service.


----------



## tomahawk6

An MGS firing on a building in Iraq.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=63b_1199056806


----------



## geo

Hmmm... looks like a fairly stable platform from my perspective.  Agreed that the MGS fired to it's front, wonder how much of a "rock" the vehicle picks up when it fires over the side?


Thanks for the clip T6


----------



## vonGarvin

Don't forget that the vehicle was stationary, firing at the front at a very low angle.  Firing from the side produces a LOT of platform rock, as does firing whilst on the move (especially over bumpy ground).


----------



## tomahawk6

The platform has proven itself during testing. I would like to see more action videos of the MGS in Iraq to satisfy our curiosity .


----------



## Kirkhill

I rather think that the video shows it doing what the Project Managers intended it to do.  To supply occasional Heavy Direct Fires in support of Dismounted Troops that were transported to the battlefield in an armoured all terrain bus. The Gun was transported to the same battlefield on the same bus chassis.

Rocking and Rolling across the plains cranking off rounds isn't, to my mind, compatible with Shinsecki's requirement of getting Infantrymen to the area where they can get out and go to work.  He had his Heavy Divisions of Abrams and Bradleys to handle that task.  

We now have the Leo2 for part of that job.


----------



## ArmyRick

Mortarman rockpainter, on the gdls-canada.com web site there is video footage of the MGS firing on the move over the side.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Mortarman rockpainter, on the gdls-canada.com web site there is video footage of the MGS firing on the move over the side.




Yes, but did they hit the target?


----------



## geo

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Don't forget that the vehicle was stationary, firing at the front at a very low angle.  Firing from the side produces a LOT of platform rock, as does firing whilst on the move (especially over bumpy ground).



100% in agreement with you.

That's more or less what my questions were all about.
Members of the Cdn Armoured corp came up with all sorts of negative things to say about the concept of buying into the MGS.  Though at the time is was a question of Leopart OR MGS.... instead of analysing the concept of integrating an MGS into the infantry combat team.... with LEOs in DS.

My question remains - has the MGS' performance been analyzed to determing if there is a place for the MGS in a LAV combat team.


----------



## vonGarvin

geo said:
			
		

> My question remains - has the MGS' performance been analyzed to determing if there is a place for the MGS in a LAV combat team.


Yes it has.  Here is a recap:


 :deadhorse:


----------



## Jammer

Just as useful as the Cougar in a Sabre Sqn.....


----------



## Mackie

geo said:
			
		

> Many countries (Italy & SouthAfrica) have developed and are still using 8 wheeled "destroyers" like the MGS.



Those platforms are designed to carry a 105mm gun. Rooikat and Centrauro.  

Weights:
Centauro: 28 tons (105mm cannon)
Stryker MGS: 20 tons (105mm cannon)
Rooikat: 28 tons (76mm cannon)

8 tons more and the same or less kinetic Energy shows the problem of the MGS.


----------



## George Wallace

Mackie said:
			
		

> Those platforms are designed to carry a 105mm gun. Rooikat and Centrauro.
> 
> Weights:
> Centauro: 28 tons (105mm cannon)
> Stryker MGS: 20 tons (105mm cannon)
> Rooikat: 28 tons (76mm cannon)
> 
> 8 tons more and the same or less kinetic Energy shows the problem of the MGS.



"8 tons more and the same or less kinetic Energy shows the problem of the MGS."   ???

Your figures show the MGS as lighter than the others.  Where you get your figures for the KE equation in your argument escapes me.


----------



## Mackie

Ok, again.  ;D

The kinetic energy of an 105mm or 76mm cannon on the 8ton lighter MGS looks strange. 
You can save weights, but 8 tons?


----------



## geo

Mackie,
FYI, the Rooikat was regunned to 105mm some time ago... thus increasing the weight.

WRT the MGS, I believe the 20 tons was the magic number needed to make the vehicle Herc compatible - even then, there appears to be some height issues - things that have to be dismantled to make the darned thing fit inside the box.


----------



## vonGarvin

I love ballistics talk: takes me back to the IG team...  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Of course squeezing the said recoil system into a turret in a manner that allows semi-normal human beings to service it is the interesting part.


----------



## tank recce

"(I)t's really not much of consequence after a certain point" - true, but is that not the question at hand? *IS* the MGS' weight sufficient to effectively anchor the recoil system the engineers designed? Having watched Cougars, Leos and M1s all rock back on their haunches after firing, I certainly get the impression that a fairly large portion of the recoil energy is being damped out through the hull and suspension, not just the recoil mechanism. 

Example ad absurdum - Is it possible to design a recoil mechanism that you and I could hold in place (on a trolley, say) ourselves? Probably, but it would be far larger, with much longer recoil than what is likely practical in the confines of a turret. Trying to manually restrain a 105 with most recoil systems would result in a couple of mashed black hatters...


----------



## George Wallace

Unlike Artillery pieces, Armoured vehicles do not have "Spades" to dig in and provide some 'support'.  Therefore, the vehicle suspension now becomes part of the recoil system.


----------



## McG

Mackie said:
			
		

> Those platforms are designed to carry a 105mm gun. Rooikat and Centrauro.
> 
> Weights:
> Centauro: 28 tons (105mm cannon)
> Stryker MGS: 20 tons (105mm cannon)
> 
> 8 tons more and the same or less kinetic Energy shows the problem of the MGS.


You've neglected to consider the length of the recoil stroke, recoiling mass, and other features of the recoil system.


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unlike Artillery pieces, Armoured vehicles do not have "Spades" to dig in and provide some 'support'.  Therefore, the vehicle suspension now becomes part of the recoil system.



Alternatively, you can get a crewman in back who failed his BMI - and have him shift from side to side to help balance the vehicle.  >  No names, no pack drill.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I often wonder that for a wheeled fire support vehicle if somesort of outrigger/spades might be worth it, something that could be used when desirable, but also able to fire without them. I see backhoes deploying moving and redeploying their outrigger in a matter of seconds. If the use of outriggers improved accuracy and 2nd rd follow through it might be worthwhile. Certainly not something you would want to use in a close in fight though.


----------



## vonGarvin

Colin P said:
			
		

> I often wonder that for a wheeled fire support vehicle if somesort of outrigger/spades might be worth it, something that could be used when desirable, but also able to fire without them. I see backhoes deploying moving and redeploying their outrigger in a matter of seconds. If the use of outriggers improved accuracy and 2nd rd follow through it might be worthwhile. Certainly not something you would want to use in a close in fight though.


You know what?  I have a better idea: put the "fire support vehicle" on tracks.  I know it's radical, but give it a thought.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually I agree with you, a CV90 hull would be my first choice. However as we are mainly talking about wheeled gun systems here, I am trying to think how you could improve them or make them workable.


----------



## TCBF

Think of it as an armoured car, because that's what it is: a King Cougar.


----------



## COBRA-6

Been hanging out at Maxwells on Elgin Street again have we?  >


----------



## dapaterson

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Been hanging out at Maxwells on Elgin Street again have we?  >



No, that's what this thread is all about:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66228.0/all.html


----------



## Shamrock

I've always been of the impression that the name would have to be the same in French and in English as well as an animal indigenous to Canada.

Therefore, I propose the Marmot.


----------



## ArmyRick

SuperCougar, King Cougar, Marmot, etc, etc... Aren't the names kind of pointless? I was under the impression we were way out of the stryker MGS business?


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I was under the impression we were way out of the stryker MGS business?


Maybe, but if you read the FFCV document it still talks about eventually replacing the interim heavy capability with a lighter multi-role vehicle (MGS/MMEV hybrid?).


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I was under the impression we were way out of the stryker MGS business?



I'm a little bit hazy on that one......but I don't recall the MGS "Officially" being Cancelled.  All I do remember are "Recommendations" that the MGS be cancelled.


----------



## geo

Am certain that the project did get cancelled on the Army side of the house
Not 100 % certain that the contract issues have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction though


----------



## Spencer100

Here is some new infomation about the MGS in iraq.  Sounds not good.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160981,00.html

New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field
Military.com  |  By Christian Lowe  |  January 30, 2008
BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull. 

The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof. The gun fires three different types of projectiles, including explosive rounds, tank-busters and a "canister round" that ejects hundreds of steel pellets similar to a shotgun shell.

But while the system looks good on paper and the Army’s all for it, Soldiers with the 4th Battalion of the 9th Infantry Regiment -- one of the first units to receive the new vehicle for their deployment to Iraq -- don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.

More news from our man in Iraq .

"I wish [the enemy] would just blow mine up so I could be done with it," said Spec. Kyle Handrahan, 22, of Anaheim, Calif., a tanker assigned to Alpha Company, 4/9’s MGS platoon.

"It’s a piece," another MGS platoon member chimed in. "Nothing works on it."

The gripes stem from a litany of problems, including a computer system that constantly locks up, extremely high heat in the crew compartment and a shortage of spare parts. In one case, a key part was held up in customs on its way to Iraq, a problem one Soldier recognizes is a result of a new system being pushed into service before it’s ready.

"The concept is good, but they still have a lot of issues to work out on it," said Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Teimeier, Alpha, 4/9’s MGS platoon sergeant and a tanker by trade. 

According to a Jan. 28 report by Bloomberg News, the 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language limiting funds for the MGS pending an Army report on fixes to the vehicle’s growing list of problems. The Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation said in his annual report the vehicle was "not operationally effective," Bloomberg reported.

Soldiers here say the searing heat in the vehicles -- especially during Iraq’s blazing summer -- forces them to wear a complicated cooling suit that circulates cold water through tubing under their armor. Ironically, Soldiers often complain the suit makes them cold, Teimeier said, adding to their vehicular woes.

Despite the poor review from DoD auditors, the Army is standing by its vehicle, Bloomberg reported.

"The Army has determined that the MGS is suitable and operationally effective," Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Martin Downie, told the financial news service.

Where there is no debate is in the lethality of the vehicle’s firepower.

But Soldiers in the middle of a tough counterinsurgency fight here in Diyala province say commanders are reluctant to use the vehicle’s lethal gun on enemy strongholds out of concern of killing or wounding civilians. As a result, many of the dozens of MGS vehicles go unused while precision air strikes have become increasingly prevalent -- along with the usual Soldier-driven raids.

That’s got MGS drivers here frustrated. Not only do they have to deal with a complex system that gives them fits, but when it is working, they’re not allowed to employ the vehicle in combat.

"You can kick down doors and risk losing our guys," Handrahan said. "Or I can just knock down the building from a [kilometer] away and call it a day."

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.


----------



## George Wallace

As this topic is still active:



> New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field
> 
> Military.com | By Christian Lowe | January 29, 2008
> 
> BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull.
> 
> The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof. The gun fires three different types of projectiles, including explosive rounds, tank-busters and a "canister round" that ejects hundreds of steel pellets similar to a shotgun shell. But while the system looks good on paper and the Army’s all for it, Soldiers with the 4th Battalion of the 9th Infantry Regiment -- one of the first units to receive the new vehicle for their deployment to Iraq -- don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.
> 
> "I wish [the enemy] would just blow mine up so I could be done with it," said Spec. Kyle Handrahan, 22, of Anaheim, Calif., a tanker assigned to Alpha Company, 4/9’s MGS platoon. "It’s a piece," another MGS platoon member chimed in. "Nothing works on it."
> 
> The gripes stem from a litany of problems, including a computer system that constantly locks up, extremely high heat in the crew compartment and a shortage of spare parts. In one case, a key part was held up in customs on its way to Iraq, a problem one Soldier recognizes is a result of a new system being pushed into service before it’s ready.
> "The concept is good, but they still have a lot of issues to work out on it," said Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Teimeier, Alpha, 4/9’s MGS platoon sergeant and a tanker by trade.
> 
> According to a Jan. 28 report by Bloomberg News, the 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language limiting funds for the MGS pending an Army report on fixes to the vehicle’s growing list of problems. The Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation said in his annual report the vehicle was "not operationally effective," Bloomberg reported.
> Soldiers here say the searing heat in the vehicles -- especially during Iraq’s blazing summer -- forces them to wear a complicated cooling suit that circulates cold water through tubing under their armor. Ironically, Soldiers often complain the suit makes them cold, Teimeier said, adding to their vehicular woes.
> 
> Despite the poor review from DoD auditors, the Army is standing by its vehicle, Bloomberg reported.
> "The Army has determined that the MGS is suitable and operationally effective," Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Martin Downie, told the financial news service.
> 
> Where there is no debate is in the lethality of the vehicle’s firepower. But Soldiers in the middle of a tough counterinsurgency fight here in Diyala province say commanders are reluctant to use the vehicle’s lethal gun on enemy strongholds out of concern of killing or wounding civilians. As a result, many of the dozens of MGS vehicles go unused while precision air strikes have become increasingly prevalent -- along with the usual Soldier-driven raids.
> 
> That’s got MGS drivers here frustrated. Not only do they have to deal with a complex system that gives them fits, but when it is working, they’re not allowed to employ the vehicle in combat. "You can kick down doors and risk losing our guys," Handrahan said. "Or I can just knock down the building from a [kilometer] away and call it a day."



SEE LINK; 
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...160981,00.html

Quite a discussion brewing here with some Canadians making assumptions that are not exactly correct, as well, the "Sparky" crowd is involved also.


----------



## Franko

Ha ha ha, Sparky got caught.

Kids....just say no to the Gavin

Regards


----------



## Rayman

....Does he have tourettes or something? Reading the convo when asked a question about something all he can reply with was...well... something I wouldnt say in front of my mom...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

He can't even lie well....


----------



## McG

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Here is some new infomation about the MGS in iraq.  Sounds not good.


When you go through that discussion, all of the guys that claim to have fought the MGS seem to have high praise for it.

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/6330088661001?r=5990061761001#5990061761001





> i have read all these poorly thought comments about the MGS. I am, in my opinion, the most combat proven mgscommander in theater right now. I have fired 58 maingun rounds and a little over 8,000 7.62 rounds, 4 confirmed kills, 3 unconfirmed (not enough remains left). People get it out of your heads....ITS NOT A TANK!!! i have been a tanker and still a tanker for 19 yrs. I love tanks however in an urban enviroment the MGS IS A BETTER VEHICLE TO HAVE, END OF STORY. This may piss tankers off i got it i understand but facts are facts, I have proven that. The 105 kills but limits collateral damage, the accuracy is..well 58 rounds 58 target hits you do the math. The coax is awsome most kills are within 5 rounds. Yes the vehicle has a few issues, most have been corrected but like all vehicles in the army they break down too. out of the 10 months i have been here mine has been down twice but was up within 24 hours. i can cross baghdad in a matter of minutes. the stryker moves out at 65 mph and is designed the same as a tank, full up fire control system, stabalization, same ammo. as far as armor goes tanks blow up from ied's, mgs's blow up from ied's....fact of life. I will leave the tankers with this thought if the army buys the MGS you will be on it sooner or later so practice ruck marching. a infantry company is no joke.



http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/6330088661001?r=7400030761001#7400030761001


> Hello all, my name is Spc. Handrahan, I am the gunner/co-TC of the MGS that was qouted in the article. At the time of my deployment I was, and to the best of my knowledge still am the MGS top gun, between me and my driver/co-TC Spc.Baker I feel we have a fairly solid grasp of most every aspect of the vehicle.
> 
> In regards to some questions and points that were brought up:
> 
> No the vehicle has no issue firing over the side. There is a very large amount of felt recoil. The vehicle will rock from side to side, or if fired over the front, the two front wheels will come off the ground. Some gunners (mtself included)have come out of a gunnery run with a black eye or a busted nose from the thermal sight bucking back at them. However all issues regarding rollovers during firing have long since been addressed.* I would say over 50% of our gunnery was firing over the side on the move, and I never missed a shot* thanks to the vehicle. The most obscure shot was a 1700m+ Sabot fired over the back deck while on the move, again, center mass every time.
> 
> The vehicle was not intended to combat MBT's. In a recent armor study magazine I read, it was decided that V.S. a T72 the MGS would likley have the first hit advantage, however would ultimatly be destroyed by the enemy. I think that the weapon is (supposed to be) used to uproot entrenched enemies. And by other companies in my battalion has been used with some success in that regard. From my personal experiance I have found that just it's presence a huge deterent to enemy activity; AQI largly chooses to ignore us when the MGS is out on patrol.
> 
> Yes, the vehicle is freakishly hot. I captured on my video camera temps of over 135 in the shade. I believe that this is a large part for component failure and is being investigated.
> 
> The cooling suit however is fantastic! I was skeptical of how well it would work, but as stated, if cranked to max you can be TOO cold in those extreme conditions. My only complaint is that the suit wasn't installed until the summer was almost over. *EDIT* I forgot to mention that when the cooling suit is installed, they need to remove some parts from your heater. So since they installed the suit (dubbed "air warrior"; as the rumor is that it is installed on helo's) at the end of summer, my crew and I have spent the winter pulling gaurd 6-8 hours at a time with temps. getting close to freezing being rather miserable.
> 
> The main gripe with the system is that it is just outright unreliable. It will go from fully functional to 100% turret power failure instantly with no reason. Shutting down the turret and powering back up is the only real solution given to us by GDLS, and much like a computer (the turret is ran by the lunix OS) maybe it will work. Maybe it won't.
> More often than not we will leave the vehicle on the FOB being 100% mission capable. But when we return the the FOB 9-14 days later it will somehow have broken itself while just sitting parked in the motor pool.
> It is also agrivating that when we bring the vehicle into the maintence bay it will sometimes just "fix" itself. And if there is no problem to be diagnosed it cant be fixed. "Gremlins" of the worst kind, but I hope that this will get better with time.
> 
> The stryker vehicle as a whole is a really excellent platform, it is silent, fast, mobile, reliable (besides the obvious exception lol) and far more resiliant that you might think. I have personaly been in 6 IED attacks on my vehicle and there has never been more damage than replacing tires and hubs and other cosmetic damage.
> 
> GDLS has taken comment cards, and held censuses with the MGS crew members where we were always told that they were interested in our opinions and feedback. However even when presented with easy and cheap solutions to serious problems MULTIPLE time they were rarley if ever implemented which often causes the crew to creat makeshift modifications (My coax machinegun will not fire without the aid of a cardboard and duct tape contraption one of my NCO's rigged up).
> 
> About the closing comment about knocking down houses from 1KM away. Admittedly I signed up in the military to bask in bloodshed and it is how I would like to fight the war but I am aware that it just wont work here. I spend about 90% of my time walking the streets, shaking hands and kissing babies. The whole "winning the hearts and minds" thing. "WHAM Ops" as we have come to call it. The comment was more to be in the context that since my company is over 90% 11B infantrymen, the answer to any problem is always "Battle Drill 6" (room clearing) even when a safer and easier solution such as a 105mm HEP round is readily available.
> 
> Anyway, if there are any more questions of comments I will likley check back here a couple time.
> 
> Spc. Handrahan, Baqouba Iraqistan


----------



## vonGarvin

those are interesting reports.  Now, before armchair generals come out of the woodwork and claim that the Leo 2A6M CAN was an error, consider the qualified statements, such as "in urban fighting" and the author's consideration for collateral damage.  

As stated before and I'll state again, the MGS is no tank, it has a niche with the U.S., but it's not for us.


----------



## McG

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> As stated before and I'll state again, the MGS is no tank, it has a niche with the U.S., but it's not for us.


It certainly could be put to good use by us if it is in addition to tanks (and not instead of tanks).


----------



## tomahawk6

The name of the system says it all - Mobile Gun System. Its job is to support the soldiers of the SBCT. I want to point out that Stryker battalion commanders love to have a platoon of Abrams attached to them which has occured a number of times in Iraq.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Other types of 'Mobile Gun Systems' have been used in COIN ops for decades by other countries who concurrently maintained large, tracked armour inventories. That doesn't mean that we have to buy into the concept on the 'me too' basis, but it's interesting nonetheless that these armies felt the need to design and field a totally wheeled armoured vehicle, mounting a large gun, in addition to their tracked armour fleets. Maybe we need to accept that acquiring vehicles like this is just part of the evolutionary process towards being a fully COIN capable army?

Some examples (that look amazingly similar to the MGS) below: 

Panhard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_AML

Saladin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Saladin

AMX 10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_10_RC

Centauro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centauro


----------



## Kirkhill

"Some examples (that look amazingly similar to the MGS) below"

Crikey D&B, is that the product of Para AFV recognition?  Wheels. Check. Gun. Check.  CG. 200m. Big armoured thing crossing your front.  1 round HEAT. In your own time. Fire.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> "Some examples (that look amazingly similar to the MGS) below"
> 
> Crikey D&B, is that the product of Para AFV recognition?  Wheels. Check. Gun. Check.  CG. 200m. 1 round HEAT. In your own time. Fire.



As long as it has a BV and a crew that can use it to produce a nice big steaming mug of Rosey Lee for me & me muckers, what do I care?  ;D


----------



## geo

D&B... you forgot the ROOIKAT from South Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat_AFV


----------



## daftandbarmy

And the Fox... which I worked with in 5AB Bde. Run by the Household Division chaps. Very useful. Deployed from the back of C130Js as part of airlanding operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Armoured_Reconnaissance_Vehicle


----------



## George Wallace

The Fox was a nice piece of kit.  First saw them in Fallingbostel when some were in from Berlin.

I do have problems with many British AFVs, in that they are a "plumber's nightmare" to maintain.

Why was the Fox removed from Service in the 1990's?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They did suffer from a high centre of gravity, but I think the real reason was downsizing the army, they tossed all of their wheeled recce, including the Vixen which was just starting to be made. (Vixen was the next generation of Ferret)


----------



## GK .Dundas

The Fox was pulled by the Brit Safety Nazis after the Territorials had a series of accidents involving the Fox.Although it was felt by some of the people involved that the problem could have been solved by better driver skills. But it saved dollars or in this case pounds sterling and the reason you have a military after all is so you can cut it budget isn't it?
 A further note safety was also the alleged reason for scrapping the Scorpion as well the fumes from the breech were considered toxic and rather then increase the power of the turret ventilation system they elected to scrap the vehicle. Btw  thats why we got all that 76 MM in the early to mid 90's for the cougars


----------



## daftandbarmy

Yes, I recall seeing a Fox from the 'XYZ Yeomanry' on it's side on Salisbury Plain one winter. Frozen tank tracks + high camber + high speed = Timber!!!


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/02/army_new_MGS_080204w/

Mobile Gun System brings the heat in Iraq
Soldiers like Stryker system’s firepower, but hope for cooler crew space
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Feb 4, 2008 13:23:38 EST

CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, Iraq — The Stryker Mobile Gun System’s automatic loader clinks and clanks as it feeds a high-explosive shell into the breech.

A few seconds later, the menacing cannon fires with a thunderous crack, sending a 105mm round downrange, where it blows a big hole in a dirt berm.

The new direct-fire weapon arrived in Iraq for the first time when the 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, deployed 10 months ago. The MGS is one of 10 variants of the Stryker series of wheeled and armored vehicle.

The soldiers who spoke with Army Times generally approved of the new vehicle’s battlefield performance, despite difficulties caused by design flaws. The most immediate shortcoming was the vehicle’s lack of air conditioning, an omission that — until a solution was fielded — had crewmen patrolling while hooked up to intravenous fluids to counter triple-digit temperatures under the summer sun.

Nevertheless, “the MGS is a fine vehicle and has proven itself here multiple times,” said 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, Command Sgt. Major Richard Leirdahl.

Bravo Company of 4-9 learned just how effective MGS firepower can be in May, when one part of the unit drove into an ambush near Taji.

Enemy forces detonated a huge bomb beneath one of Bravo Company’s Strykers. The blast destroyed the vehicle, killing two soldiers and blowing the leg off another.

Small groups of enemy fighters began rushing the Bravo Company soldiers as they tried to help the wounded, recalled Capt. Jack Moore, who commands Bravo 4-9.

Bravo Company soldiers fought off their attackers, but could not knock out the intense small-arms fire that was coming from a house about 300 meters away.

One of the company’s MGSs rolled into the fray and blasted the house with three high-explosive rounds.

“It destroyed the house,” said Sgt. Jesse Ryland, a squad leader in 4th Platoon. “They are pretty impressive.”

Each battalion in the brigade has nine MGS Strykers, each of which is armed with a stabilized 105mm cannon that can shoot on the move and destroy hardened targets out to 3,000 meters.

The MGS can carry up to 18 rounds of ammunition and is capable of firing six rounds per minute. It carries anti-tank rounds in its arsenal, but the MGS “isn’t meant to go up against tanks; it’s meant to support the infantry,” said Moore.

The MGS’s turret can rotate 360 degrees, Moore said, making it effective at scanning for enemy threats while on the move.

Its vehicle commander and gunner “can just sit there and spin as the vehicle goes down the road,” Moore said at a Jan. 28 live-fire exercise here at Memorial Range, where MGSs from B and C companies practiced firing at targets out to 1,000 meters. “I love this piece of equipment.”

In addition to anti-tank and high-explosive rounds, MGS can also fire anti-personnel ammunition known as canister rounds. Each canister round fires 3,200 tungsten carbide balls that resemble 00 buck shot.

When fired, these rounds turn the MGS into a giant shotgun, shredding a path 75 meters wide out to 300 meters.

“They are also good for disabling threat vehicles,” said Sgt. 1st Class Benjamin Tucker, 4th Platoon sergeant and MGS vehicle commander. “It peppers the whole thing, obliterates the windows and anybody who is inside.”

Each time the cannon fires, the MGS lurches backward from the force of the recoil.

“We don’t feel that inside,” Tucker said. “The stabilization system is really good.”

Twice during the Jan. 28 live fire, two MGS Strykers experienced misfires. One MGS crew solved the problem by extracting the round and reseating it into the breech. The other MGS had to come off the firing line.
Keeping cool critical

Despite the misfires, Tucker said the vehicle has few maintenance problems.

MGS crewmen here praise the effectiveness of the system but say the design needs improving.

The main concern of the unit before it deployed in April was that the MGS’s cramped crew space leaves no room for air conditioning.

In the summer, three-man MGS crews had to operate in dangerously hot conditions, Moore said.

“In Baqubah this summer, it was literally 147 degrees in there,” Moore said, describing how they had to hang IV bags inside each MGS Stryker. “We forced them to eat and drink, but we still had guys riding down the road with IVs in their arms.”

As a quick fix, Program Executive Office Soldier supplied 4-9 in July with special micro-coolant vests that aircrew members wear to cope with the extreme heat in helicopter cockpits. These specialty garments, worn underneath body armor, feature coiled tubing that runs throughout the interior of each vest. Two small compressors mounted on the outside of each MGS circulate chilled water through the tubes.

“It keeps the core cool … some guys actually have to turn down the dial,” Tucker said.

MGS gunner Cpl. Matthew Andrews agreed the vests made a huge difference.

“They work pretty well,” Andrews said. “It beats pouring water over yourself.”

But that doesn’t solve the problem of computer systems overheating in some of the MGS Strykers, said Leirdahl.

Another challenge with the MGS design is that the huge turret partially overhangs the vehicle commander’s and gunner’s hatches, making quick escape no easy task, Tucker said.

“Everybody has their own technique for getting in and out of the vehicle,” he said.

To compensate, they carry only the essentials on their body armor vests — ammunition and first-aid gear. In addition, crew members regularly practice evacuation drills.

Leirdahl maintains that the hatches on the MGS are noticeably smaller than those on other Stryker variants, creating a safety hazard.

“Reaching down and trying to pull a soldier out is difficult because the hatch circumference is smaller than hatches on other Strykers,” he said.

The gun system has had its problems. In early 2005, before the weapon was fielded, Stryker program officials decided to redesign the sophisticated loader on the MGS to prevent jamming problems. The decision delayed fielding of the system until early 2007. Program officials had hoped to begin fielding MGS in September 2006.

The Army wants 72 MGS Strykers to outfit its seven planned Stryker brigades.

Besides the firepower MGS brings to the battlefield, 4-9 soldiers maintain that the huge cannon on this new Stryker variant also gives them a psychological edge when they roll through populated areas.

“They have seen Strykers, but they hadn’t seen an MGS,” Tucker said. “You just see the heads turn and the mouths hang wide open when we pass.”


----------



## geo

Well... no air conditioning.  The guys in our Leopards can relate to that.

As everyone has stated, this thig is not a tank and not intended to go up against any.
However, as an infantry support role - fighting in built up areas, it's ability to fire canister rounds & HE make it an important item on the Coy commander's tool belt.


----------



## Stryker_11A

I take issue with this head hunting news piece. MGS Poorly in Field? Hardly, aside from the computer problems, the article is nothing but petty complaints from Soldiers. Nothing new there.

Computer system that constantly locks up. *I wonder which computer? The Stryker has several. I would contribute this in large part to the high temperatures inside the vehicle. We have not seen this in my battalion, but we have yet to see anything outside of Pennsylvania, but they are going to be rectifying that this year.* 

Extremely high heat in the crew compartment *No AC in an armoured vehicle in the desert equals high heat in the crew compartment, I fail to see how this makes the MGS fair poorly in the field.*

Shortage of spare parts *This is the fault with General Dynamics Land Systems logistics, not with how the MGS performs.*

A key part was held up in customs on its way to Iraq *Again, a logistics issue, not a vehicle performance issue.*

Searing heat in the vehicles forces them to wear a complicated cooling suit that circulates cold water through tubing under their armor *I wish that we would have had these when we were sitting in armored vehicles in 147 heat.*

Soldiers often complain the suit makes them cold *Waaaaaahhhhhh! Suck it up and be thankful you are cold during the Month of Fire.*

Vehicle’s lack of air conditioning *This will be rectified with AC retrofit kits. My battalion has already received theirs and our GDLS tech reps are installing them.*

Two MGS Strykers experienced misfires. One MGS crew solved the problem by extracting the round and reseating it into the breech *Misfires are not necessarily due to the gun system, more than likely ammunition related or operator error as stated above. Everyone trains misfire procedures. You haven’t lived until you have shaken a 120mm round out of a mortar tube and do the long lonely walk to the dud pit.*

MGS’s cramped crew space leaves no room for air conditioning *Cramped? It’s an armored vehicle, and AC will be added during retrofit.*

Computer systems overheating in some of the MGS Strykers *Again, which computer?*

Turret partially overhangs the vehicle commander’s and gunner’s hatches, making quick escape no easy task *The only quick way out of a Stryker is dropping the back hatch.*


----------



## geo

Thanks for comments from the horse's mouth  Stryker 11A


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Welcome aboard Stryker_11A!  Your ability to speak on the employment of the Stryker from first hand experience is most welcome.  

T2B


----------



## Stryker_11A

I am happy to contribute what I can.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So what are your dislikes/needs improvements?


----------



## Stryker_11A

The MGS carries a limited amount of ammunition, 12 rounds. This needs to be doubled or tripled.

The rate of fire is 6 RPM, and should be increased. The Rapid Deployment Force – Light Tank (RDF-LT) program concept vehicle, the M-8 Buford had a 12 RPM rate. I seriously doubt that United Defense would be willing to share their proprietary technical information with GDLS though.

The Stryker is not just a vehicle, but a combat enterprise system which includes an entire brigades worth of assets, which gives it an edge over any other infantry transport ever fielded. I am still amazed at some of our capabilities, how quick and accurate the systems are. A Stryker Brigade Combat Team is a deadly organization and shouldn't be undersold for perceived weaknesses, because backing up that "weakness" is an overwhelming strength.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So would you say that the MGS on its own by itself would be severly limited in what it could do with out its other organizations?


----------



## Stryker_11A

Yes and no. As long as you have supporting infantry, it would still perform well as an assault gun. Without the systems that attach it to the brigade, it would not have the situation awareness, C3, and immediate access to support that the rest of the SBCT provides which greatly enhances it's capabilities.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Ok.  Do you know enough of the Canadian Army to speak on whether it is a capability we should again activly aquire?  Including considering the loss of tanks for the MGS.


----------



## Stryker_11A

The MGS is not a tank replacement. The only time that I would intentionally employ an MGS against tanks is if I was out of Javelins and could not call in CAS due to weather. Even then I would use the MGS as a part of an anti-armor ambush with the infantry, shoot and displace to the next fall back position.

For the CA, I would select a tank and utilize it in the MGS role for the motorized LAV battalions and in a traditional role in armor battalions. I feel for you guys and your procurement/logistics system. I am amazed at what you accomplish with the little that you have.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Thanks for your insight.


----------



## Stryker_11A

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> Please write an open letter to the Canadian Main Stream Media, the Treasury Board, the strategic planners and Public Works and Government Services Canada saying same.



Hell, they don't even want to award you guys our medals for valor that you earned. I will approach this another way, I will file a report on This Hour Has Twenty-Two Minutes.


----------



## McG

Stryker_11A said:
			
		

> For the CA, I would select a tank and utilize it in the MGS role for the motorized LAV battalions and in a traditional role in armor battalions. I feel for you guys and your procurement/logistics system. I am amazed at what you accomplish with the little that you have.


If Canada could buy enough vehicles to fill both roles, why would you not recommend both types of vehicle?


----------



## Stryker_11A

Considering that the Canadian defense budget is not as robust as the US, I think a dual role tank would be more efficient in allot of ways. But if it can be afforded for the equipment life cycle, get both. The reason that the US went with the MGS is solely due to the interchangeable logistics of all Strykers. There are better vehicles out there, but the additional cost of supporting them and difficulty in support them out-weighed their advantages.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Courtesy of Manic Moran of Tanknet

Back end of the ammo carousal, not the lack of protection for the ammo and no division between it and the crew.


http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1181wf9.jpg


----------



## ArmyRick

Guys, I know we are not getting the MGS but I had a chance to get some first hand info from an MGS PL SGT who has served in Iraq. I had a conversation with him and I got some direct answers from him.

"there are quite a few people who *talk a lot of shit* to include my own armor guys. its normal for people to not like what they don't understand. i will say that the vehicle does have some flaws that need to be worked out to make the vehicle better but i was asked by the secretary of defense is the vehicle worthy and i told him that as of right now it is as good as it needs to be. its a infantry support vehicle and the dismounts on the ground love it. i have not had a firefight last over 3 minutes. the best thing about it is its maintenance cost, fuel costs, reliability, speed and maneuverability. it were not for the lav we would not have the mgs. i would be stuck on a hummer if it were not for the mgs so the future tankers going to stryker units better be thankful." 

and this as well, from the same guy but it was posted on a web site.

"i am a mgs platoon sergeant and i will say that the MGS has proven its worth in combat if you would like to have any questions answered feel free to shoot me an email. i see there are a lot of myths out there like flipping over when fired, not being able to shoot on the move, etc"

I realize that the MGS is not ideal for our army (only so many dollars, so many pers and so many capabilities but this is to shut people up who simply TRASH talk it to death, have no expirience on it and do not understand its role.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> ........do not understand its role.



That was the biggest problem.  We weren't giving it the proper role, nor giving it to the proper Branch.  We were using it as a replacement for tanks.


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That was the biggest problem.  We weren't giving it the proper role, nor giving it to the proper Branch.  We were using it as a replacement for tanks.



You mean like the Cougar? Give me 76mm in a tough little infantry gutter scrap or give me death. We worked alot with Scorpion on various exercises in the UK and it was first rate.

This 'wheeled light tank' would also be an ideal system for the reserves to master (and to back up the regs) as it's obviously far easier to get an MGS onto the armoury floor for the weeknight/ weekend of training than a Leo 2.


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You mean like the Cougar? Give me 76mm in a tough little infantry gutter scrap or give me death. We worked alot with Scorpion on various exercises in the UK and it was first rate.
> 
> This 'wheeled light tank' would also be an ideal system for the reserves to master (and to back up the regs) as it's obviously far easier to get an MGS onto the armoury floor for the weeknight/ weekend of training than a Leo 2.



You just confirmed my statement.

The MGS should never have been thought of as a replacement for the tanks we had (not to be confused with a "Tank Replacement".), nor should they have been for the Armour Corps.  They would have been a great supplement to the Inf Bn Support Wpns Coys, as would the Mortars, HMGs, etc.

The Cougar was a mistake for the Armour Corps, and we also saw what happened with the "Tank Trainer" that was never to be deployed.  It was the match of a fine turret from one fine vehicle, to the hull of another fine vehicle, to create of a piece of junk (sorry for the rant).

The older members of the Armour Corps remember this.  They also looked at a vehicle that really did not teach or maintain key skills required of Armour soldiers, a vehicle that did not carry a large Ammo load and required a long amount of time to replenish, and a vehicle that was better suited for the Infantry as a support wpn.

The Armour Corps now has a great "Surveillance" platform, and is getting tanks once again.  They now need a good Recce veh.  The Armour Corps also has to start equipping the Armour Reserve Units with the same equipment as the Reg Force or Reservists will no longer be able to fill posns in Reg Armd units............which is the current state of affairs already, but continuing to get worse.  

The MGS would not have done anything for Armd Reserves, other than provide a Gunnery platform to train on.  Driver skills would not be taught to the extent needed.  Commanders would learn all the wrong lessons for Veh SA.  All crews would learn bad lessons (as with the Cougar) on the use of ground and Tactics.  Maintenance would be a serious problem.   The list goes on and on, and it is compounded by the fact that the gap between Reserve Trg and Reg Trg in the Armour Corps is continuing to widen.


----------



## ArmyRick

I talked to a couple of our older armoured guys and even they admitted a 76mm HESH round was pretty nasty thing to have flying at an enemy bunker or even firing a 76mm canister round.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I talked to a couple of our older armoured guys and even they admitted a 76mm HESH round was pretty nasty thing to have flying at an enemy bunker or even firing a 76mm canister round.



True.

However, it was not a tank, nor a real "Tank Trainer".  It did not teach, or reinforce, use of ground and tactical use of ground, as I witnessed in Suffield when other Armour (Cougar) units used our tanks for a Live Fire Exercise with a 2 Km wide trace, and all four troop tanks were litterally fender to fender - frontage of 50 m as opposed to 1.5 km.  Many poor lessons were learned.  

The loss of tanks meant the loss of many skill sets, not only in the Armour Corps, but in the whole of the Cbt Arms.  Infantry, Engineers and Artillery loss their knowledge of how to work with and employ tanks.  The Cougar was not a substitute for that, nor would the MGS have been.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I talked to a couple of our older armoured guys and even they admitted a 76mm HESH round was pretty nasty thing to have flying at an enemy bunker or even firing a 76mm canister round.



The high trajectory is also good for getting into those 'nooks and crannies' that higher velocity weapons can't reach. 

If I read George correctly though, he wants it mounted on tracks and therefore make it more cross country capable. Right George?


----------



## Recon 3690

I agree with George a Wheeled LAV is not a tank, no matter what infantry types think.


----------



## ArmyRick

OK, what is your point? Yeah, we get it, LAVs and MGS are not tanks but guess what? A Leopard 2 is not an IFV nor is a M113 a Helicopter.

Seriously, follow the thread a bit. If you want to make the point that the MGS should not be used in the role of a tank, then maybe state that.


----------



## Recon 3690

my point was pretty clear I AGREE WITH GEORGE


----------



## McBrush

Good day gentleman. In reguards to the cougar, there where a few problems with it.  
             1. the lack of fire power 
             2. lacked stabilization
             3. lacked a descent night site 
             4. lacked accuracy and the list goes on
 All of these problems can be  addressed, my question is... Did at any time anyone look into addressing these issues? Some time ago I put some thought in to it and came up with the following.
             1. use cryogenics to man. the war head  .. a swiss company was using the process to man. the 60mm HVG ammo. it stated the HESH round performed like a 85mm round. So what would a 76mm HESH be like.
             2. increase the barrel length from 23 cal. to 32-34 cal. long and intergreat a muzzle break and fume extractor, This would allow for a higher muzzle vol., improved accuracy, less felt recoil  and allow for  a full charge of proplent. I believe it was reduced dew to turret cracking. 
             3. possibly use the auto loader from the Israeli 60mm HVG.  I know it is limited to 3 or so preloaded rounds but that is better then nothing.
             4. mount the turret on a lower profile wheeled hull ie. a  cut down LAV hull or a stretched Lynx type hull or both
 This would not be a trainer, it would replace the coyote in the Direct Fire Support role or Recce role. If you added the Starstreak missile you have a very useful system. By using both wheeled and tracked platforms both Reg. and Res. would have a common weapon system and allow for full integration of both Reg. and Res. with little additional training on overseas missions.
              5. and of course the rest of the bell and whistles, Stab it, Thermal site, laser range finder... etc.
   One last thought I believe this gun would not support APDS rounds. So adding the Starstreak would be a great help. Sorry to all you arty types, the Starstreak missle does step on your toes as it is a anti-air/anti-armour missle, and I believe it is the of the future of all missiles.
   You could of course pick up some surplus CVRT's from Spain and up gun them to a 90mm, re out fit the cougar and away we go!! Cheers all.


----------



## Michael OLeary

This thread was dead for two years.  It did not need to restart to simply restate (again) that "an MGS is not a tank", or to create a discussion on resuscitating the COUGAR which has been relegated to gate guard status already.

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

