# LAV III Mobile Gun System - Status of Purchase?



## dull bayonet (15 Jun 2004)

Hello, I am just wondering if the Army is still looking at replacing the Leopard C2 with the Stryker. And if so when are they planning to do this if any one knows?
 :tank:


----------



## Lance Wiebe (15 Jun 2004)

Well, I'm just a civilian now, but last I heard, they were looking at the 2008-2010 time frame.

Maybe somebody else knows a more definitive date.

Personally, I hope it gets canned!


----------



## Recce41 (15 Jun 2004)

Lance
 Thats about it, I may make seeing one. Before I join George and yourself, when the yell ( March on the old Guard) HAHA. I know Standards has another good go to look. 
They can't go to the field , but can go golfing down south. 
 :evil: :tank:


----------



## RCD (16 Jun 2004)

Stykers are not the answer to the forces needs.


----------



## 12alfa (16 Jun 2004)

RECON-MAN said:
			
		

> Stykers are not the answer to the forces needs.



You are not towing the party line...heheh

you will not go far in this mans army.......heheheh


I totally agree though, a tankless army....uh OK :


----------



## Coyote43D (16 Jun 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Well, I'm just a civilian now, but last I heard, they were looking at the 2008-2010 time frame.
> 
> Maybe somebody else knows a more definitive date.
> 
> Personally, I hope it gets canned!



Just a civilian my a**, you probably know more about whats going on than half the armoured people up there in Wally World with you Lance.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (16 Jun 2004)

Coyote43D said:
			
		

> Lance Wiebe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HEHEHEH

I do try to stay current.

But it's also my intention not to fool anyone and let them think I'm one of those old grey haired guys still in uniform, mumbling about the good old days.

Take my word for it, the good old days?  

They weren't all that great either.

Except for Germany.  

Germany was great!


----------



## Coyote43D (17 Jun 2004)

But it's also my intention not to fool anyone and let them think I'm one of those old grey haired guys still in uniform, mumbling about the good old days.

No, you're one of those old grey haired guys in civvies, mumbling about the good old days.   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2004)

And let's not forget the gray Goatee!
 ;D
GW


----------



## Lance Wiebe (18 Jun 2004)

Allright, allright.

Sheesh, a guy grows a little bit grey, and grows some scruff on his face, and he gets picked on?

But, if we get that MGS, there will be a lot of us mumbling about the good old days!


----------



## Coyote43D (18 Jun 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Allright, allright.
> 
> Sheesh, a guy grows a little bit grey, and grows some scruff on his face, and he gets picked on?
> 
> But, if we get that MGS, there will be a lot of us mumbling about the good old days!



A* LITTLE* bit grey?????


----------



## 12alfa (18 Jun 2004)

dull bayonet said:
			
		

> Hello, I am just wondering if the Army is still looking at replacing the Leopard C2 with the Stryker. And if so when are they planning to do this if any one knows?
> :tank:




Yes they are, but it's on hold now as per the latest dnd data. You are of course thinking of the MGS (mobile gun systen). The striker is a family of wheeled veh's.
The main difference in the MGS is the 105mm turretless gun, that sets it apart from all the other veh's in the family.
When? who knows? some dates have been thrown around but it has not passed all requirements of the US army yet, it has some problems from what is coming to light from the testing/army pers. The army (both) would have you belive that all is well, but the problems are slowly leaking out, some can be fixed, some will take more time. We may bring it into country/system with some problems that we will in true canadain fashion fix our selves.The chassie itself is ok, it is just the wpn systen that is not qiut right.

There are many good links on the web for data, I would stay away from both army's, and the contractors sites however, they tend to be one sided. Also don't waste you time on slick powerpoint or contractors vedio's, do a search for other views and sources to get a complete story, it's out there.

Others here will have a differnt view, thats allmost a given......lol

GW have you a view you wish to share? Or will this post put you/others in spin-dry? I seem to do that with you don't I ?   I don't really mean to...really,heheheh
JK'ing


----------



## ZipperHead (18 Jun 2004)

I'll let George get in his own licks, but I thought I'd at least point out one error from your post: 





> The main difference in the MGS is the 105mm turretless gun, that sets it apart from all the other veh's in the family.



From GlobalSecurity website http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-mgs.htm


> The Mobile Gun System configuration carries a General Dynamics 105mm tank cannon in a low-profile, fully stabilized, â Å“shoot on the moveâ ? turret.



Al


----------



## 12alfa (18 Jun 2004)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I'll let George get in his own licks, but I thought I'd at least point out one error from your post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL 

GlobalSecurity, really now, go through the whole site , then report back here on what you find. There data is not up todate and has errors on it.

But a small point. I belive (and you may correct me) but a turret in the pure form was in the begining a "  a self-contained  armoured compartment housing the main wpn and crewmembers".
Given that all crew members are in the chassie, and the wpn (105 M68A1) is on the outside of the hull with no REAL armoured protection as in a MBT, can you really call it a turret?

Another heated debate heading my way.....................Can I be your wippen boy or so the song goes......


----------



## ZipperHead (18 Jun 2004)

In my mind, a turretless tank would be like the Swedish S-Tank (Stridsvagn 103). http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/stank/stank.html

Here is a definition from Free-Definitions.com: 
http://www.free-definition.com/Turret.html


> In summary, here are the characteristics of modern main battle tank turret:
> 
> Armoured.
> Armed with large caliber gun.
> ...



I'm sure a big semantics argument could follow to prop up either argument, but it would be pointless in the long run. As I am always right  8)

Al


----------



## tabernac (18 Jun 2004)

Who ever in DND suggested the CF buy the MGS needs to rethink their decision. And have their head examined. ;D


----------



## 12alfa (19 Jun 2004)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> In my mind, a turretless tank would be like the Swedish S-Tank (Stridsvagn 103). http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/stank/stank.html
> 
> Here is a definition from Free-Definitions.com:
> http://www.free-definition.com/Turret.html
> ...



I'm begining to see that now. But a battleship has all of the above, is it a tank? LOL


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2004)

12Alfa said:
			
		

> I'm begining to see that now. But a battleship has all of the above, is it a tank? LOL



Well; if you really go back in history to the very beginings in WW I, you may be surprised at where we came from.   The Tank was an idea developed from the Battleship.   Just add Tracks.



Now on the question of the Stryker and Bison.   The US are using Strykers in Iraq.   They have no turrets.

The habit being developed of calling the MGS a Stryker is getting many confused.

Problems with the MGS are numerous.   The turret crew, particularly the C/C, do not have 360 degree vision as the Gun is smack dab in the middle of them.   The 14 round carousel of the Auto Loader is slow when it comes to selecting another type of Ammo once it is firing.   14 rounds is not too many.   It takes a considerable amount of time to reload.   One less crew member, means less down time for the remaining three.   Fatigue will become a serious problem.   The list will go on and on.

GW


----------



## Guardian (21 Jun 2004)

The fundamental problem about the MGS that no one seems to have answered (at least as far as I can tell) is this:

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the MGS is the greatest anti-tank platform ever conceived (in conjunction with TOW and ADATS, as the Army plans). Fine - we can kill the bad guys' tanks. Now, think back to WWI. Back then, when the tank was invented, there weren't a lot of other tanks on the battlefield to kill. The basic problem was getting our soft, squishy infantrymen (apologies to the grunts) "over the top", across no man's land, and into the enemy trenches without being converted to hamburger. And (much as it pains me to admit this) artillery concentrations of 1000 guns or more weren't solving the problem. How do you get our grunts into a well-prepared, well-dug in, well-sited defensive position without taking horrendous casualties?

The tank was the answer - barbed wire couldn't stop it, it could crawl across trenches, and IT WAS IMPERVIOUS TO MACHINE-GUN FIRE. 

Fast forward to today. How are the grunts going to properly conduct an assault on a prepared position, covered by medium and heavy machine guns, with LAVs alone? How is a LAV supposed to close with and destroy enemy machine-gun emplacements, bunkers, and hard points without getting destroyed? 

Maybe someone who's smarter and/or has more experience than I do can answer that question...


----------



## 12alfa (21 Jun 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 12Alfa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



14 I have read it was 18, maybe a mis-information, I'll ck again and report back.

And I think if you go back even further it was on the old ironclads, and I have seem to rember seeing a piece on the turret on sailing ships, something to do with cannons on the deck, i may have mis-read that though...off the may data base again...


----------



## 12alfa (22 Jun 2004)

Army Technology,Globalsecurity, and GLDdynamics are all reporting 18 rounds. 
Is the Canadain version of a lesser ammo loadout for some reason? ???


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2004)

12Alfa said:
			
		

> Army Technology,Globalsecurity, and GLDdynamics are all reporting 18 rounds.
> Is the Canadain version of a lesser ammo loadout for some reason? ???



Probably just a brain fart on my part...... :

GW


----------



## 12alfa (22 Jun 2004)

I forgive you, but am I forgiven? ;D


----------



## 12alfa (24 Jun 2004)

Guess not :


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jun 2004)

Just in from the Field.  What do you want to be forgiven for?


----------



## 12alfa (25 Jun 2004)

Lets start with everything, and move down from there, LOL


----------



## Mortar guy (27 Jun 2004)

Guardian,

Excellent points! I have spoken to some of the mandarins who are buying the propoganda about the MGS and here's what they say to your well thought out argument:

"Simple, we won't close with the enemy. We will isolate enemy strongpoints and destroy them with firepower!"

After I finish laughing, I tell them why, in my opinion, that is the stupidest idea in the history of armed conflict. Here are my reasons:

1) How do you go about isolating enemy positions? Are the enemy going to forget about mutual support and conveniently site their positions far enough away from one another? I think, in reality, you will have to fight (i.e. close with and destroy) at least some parts of the enemy force in order to isolate the main force. While, on the surface, the MGS poponents' arguments sound like dashing German blitzkrieg tactics, only someone with no knowledge of said tactics would believe that. The Germans always had to fight for a breakthrough before surrounding and isolating their foes (which involves closing with and des.... you get the picture).

2) Where does this "firepower" come from that will destroy the "isolated" enemy? Are our C3s and Mortar Batteries going to pummel the enemy into submission? How about our CF-18s? To this they say: "Our allies will provide the firepower!" I'm sure that would be every American Division Commander's dream: a Canadian Brigade Group that refuses to close with the enemy and finish the job and that is a disproportionate burden on his already stretched firepower resources. Unless we buy HIMARS and attack helicopters, we can pretty much assume that our allies will assign us to guard the hospitals so that we don't hurt ourselves.

3) What happens if our enemy decides to fight in close terrain (cities, forests etc.)? Tanks are still very effective in these scenarios but the MGS would be a death trap. Wheeled vehicles and close terrain do not match for reasons of mobility. Not to mention the fact that the MGS is very lightly armoured and the crew have very limited visibility, even with hatches open. 

4) Why are we forgetting almost every tenet of manoeuvre warfare with this new doctrine? Under the doctrine put forward by the pro-MGS crowd, we will cede the initiative to the enemy, we will effectively dislocate ourselves, we will not present the enemy with a dilemma, we will diminish our tempo, we will not attack their weaknesses but will instead encourage them to fight from positions of strength etc. etc.

I could go on but my two typing fingers are getting sore. It just seems to me that the whole MGS idea was not well thought out. Lets only hope we never have to use the thing on operations.

Pro Patria

Alex


----------



## Lance Wiebe (27 Jun 2004)

There is only one argument for the MGS.

That argument is that Canada will totally give up it's willingness to train for war.  From now on we will train for UN missions.  

Because that's the only thing the MGS is good for, being a  DFSV for operations other than war.

In anything approaching a mid-intensity confliict or higher, it is a deathtrap, and is totally useless.


----------



## Franko (18 Aug 2004)

The entire order was put on hold...thankfully

Hopefully someone will see the error of their ways and figure it was a bad idea to begin with.

"....lets put a turret that was built in FLORIDA, never trialed, takes 40min to clear a jam which the crew MUST dismount..."

 :

We got rid of this idea in WW2...why bring it back?

Mind you it would be fine as an addition to a combat team...working with the Leos, not alone.

Regards


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2004)

Which order Franko? The Canadian or the Yankee one?


----------



## Yard Ape (18 Aug 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Which order Franko? The Canadian or the Yankee one?


I belive our purchase was frozen until after the forgien affiars policy review (and then probably a defence review).


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2004)

Thanks Yard Ape.  When was that decision taken?


----------



## Slim (18 Aug 2004)

Thank Heaven...I hope it stays frozen!

Slim


----------



## Yard Ape (18 Aug 2004)

During the election (I think).   It was a responce to the Liberal promise of a foreign affairs review.   The thinking was why spend money building an army that may be inconsistent with the policy to be developed.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2004)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> The thinking was why spend money building an army that may be inconsistent with the policy to be developed.



Unfortunately, the question of funding or lack of funding or cuts to funding never bothered them before, nor did they seem to have any problems with inconsistancies with the policies to be developed (and never done).

Liberals?

GW


----------



## c_sqn_tanker (20 Aug 2004)

Well that is indeed news, I had heard nothing of a freeze put on the purchase prior to block lve anyway.  Last thing we were told was to be ready to receive the MGS at the School in [most likely] early 06.  

Well it did take years to get the helicopter deal sorted out............


----------



## Lance Wiebe (20 Aug 2004)

I don't think frozen is quite the right word.

The purchase had been announced by the Minister, as we all know. but...

There was not Statement of Requirement (a pre-requisite to purchase)

There was no Request for Proposals (another requirement)

There was no funding allocated.

So, although the project is quite fully manned in Ottawa, there are still some steps that have to be taken before the PWGSC crowd gets on board.  After they are on board, contract negotiations can start.

Who wants to bet, that even if the process starts this month, that we will not receive any vehicles for at least three years?  Oh, precluding any borrowed prototypes or pre-production units, of course.


----------



## 12alfa (20 Aug 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> There was no funding allocated.



Ahh, not that we haven't spent vast amounts of cash already on them. More funds will be spent on this and other projects we may never get. A total waste of tax payers money. Spend the $ even if we don't buy.....only in Canada eh?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (21 Aug 2004)

"Ahh, not that we haven't spent vast amounts of cash already on them. More funds will be spent on this and other projects we may never get. A total waste of tax payers money. Spend the $ even if we don't buy.....only in Canada eh?"

I wouldn't say only in Canada.  Here in the US we've spent a goodly sum on projects that have cost the taxpayer plent, but have never came to fruition.  M8 AGS, Crusader and Comanche just to name a few...

It's just that the difference between the US and Canada is that we've got a defense budget that is so massive we can afford to throw a few hundred million into projects that never come to fruition, whereas Canadians must be far more frugal.


----------



## Recce41 (21 Aug 2004)

12A
 We have not really spent too much on the MGS. We just had the US do all of the work. The moneys spent are for what we will require as an improvments. I heard the hold up was that the US had not finished their trials, and we had to wait.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (21 Aug 2004)

The US did indeed finish all of their trials, with the exception of user acceptance trials.  Whether fortunately, or unfortunately, the MGS managed to fail every single test, with the sole exception of being able to fit in to a Hercules.

Because it failed so miserably, the US Army has not formally accepted the MGS, and therefore, it has not been placed in to series production.  No assembly line would be set up for our miserable little order for 66 of the pieces of sh*t, ergo, for the forseeable future, no orders for the MGS.  It was always the intent to tag our order on to the US order, presumably for many hundreds of the things.


----------



## Slim (22 Aug 2004)

Good that the order was held up pending an inquiry or whatever they're gonna do with it.

In the mean time maybe the govt. will see sence and get us some tanks...

Fat chance but I can always dream.

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Aug 2004)

The MGS may be down but it does not yet appear to be out.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20943~2358776,00.html



> Army cannon car gets first airdrop test
> 
> Paratroopers hope to wheel into combat
> 
> ...


----------



## 12alfa (28 Aug 2004)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> 12A
> We have not really spent too much on the MGS. We just had the US do all of the work. The moneys spent are for what we will require as an improvments. I heard the hold up was that the US had not finished their trials, and we had to wait.




Do a search on the net.

We have allready spent enough for you and I to retire on, and a few more I would think. I have seen 3 different figures, think millions.


----------



## RCnapalm (12 Dec 2004)

Frankly i'm relieved to hear the MGS was stalled, maybe stopped entirely?
all ive seen is pics and vids, and from those the outlook wasn't good.
A-from the vids every time the thing turned it looked inches away from goin over
B-the guy who was commentating (think it was a M.Gen) even said it wouldn't take Tank vs. Tank
C-it was uncertain wether an RPG-7 could penetrate the amour
Lets hope they put this thing down the drain for good
(the vid was on the army site for a very short time)


----------

