# 2/23 Infantry Receive MGS



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2006)

The MGS will compliment the Stryker on the urban battlefield. I have every confidence it willperform as well as the Stryker.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=9467


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Aug 2006)

> Each infantry company is slated to receive three vehicles, though crews don't expect to operate together  except on rare occasions.


  (One per platoon?)



> “The vehicle’s basic role is to support the infantry. It’s not there to take on tanks or go toe-to-toe in the wide-open desert like we did with the Abrams,” said Sgt. 1st Class William Ozmet, an MGS instructor from Fort Knox, Ky. “Its primary function is blowing a hole in the wall or blowing up bunkers.”



From the article supplied by T6.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2006)

Right now the plan is to place one MGS in each platoon. But some bright fellow decided that the Stryker platoon didnt need 3 squads with the MGS so they cut the platoon to 2 squads plus the MGS.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Aug 2006)

Who was that black-hatted chap?  Firepower to replace boots on the ground?

Or was it a bean-counter?

I thought the whole idea of the Stryker concept was to supply the infantry with an armoured, all-terrain bus, so as to be able to get "boots on the ground"?


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2006)

One can only hope for change at some point in the future.


----------



## geo (29 Aug 2006)

Hmmm Develop equipment and then develop doctrine OR develop doctrine and get the equipment necessary??


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2006)

Doctrine is set. The units were just waiting for the bugs to be worked out of the MGS so they could be fielded.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Aug 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Doctrine is set. The units were just waiting for the bugs to be worked out of the MGS so they could be fielded.



...and how did that go?


----------



## brihard (29 Aug 2006)

Strikes me that a more reasonable approach for what they're aiming for would be to retain the three squads of boots, and have the MGS supplement as the platoon's de-facto weapons det- with a 105mm, .50, and 7.62 it could do that quite capably, and helps to make up for the doctrinal difference of Stryker platoons not having the 25mm that we use on our LAVs.

I'm not a 'mech, nor armoured, nor American though, so I leave the lane straying at that for tonight. This jsut strikes me as the more common sense approach that maintains the best of existing capabiltiies while integrating what the Americans have determined to be a useful new tool.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Aug 2006)

Unfortunately we dont always follow common sense, its more like trial and error. ;D

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-31/c01.htm


----------



## brihard (30 Aug 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately we dont always follow common sense, its more like trial and error. ;D
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-31/c01.htm



Oh, OK. Well, we do that too, just without there necessarily being any progress as a result.  ;D


----------



## geo (30 Aug 2006)

Well, with the US Army deployed in Iraq, and plenty of boys over there for multiple tours, it figures that someone would try to do what was done at the end of WW2.... cut down Platoons/Troops by a section and try to compensate with a little bit more "umph"  with firepower.

Time will tell if that decision was the correct one. (I guess)

(Who knows, maybe our TFs need the MGS too ?)


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Aug 2006)

Interesting article. i beleive the US will be successfull with the MGS. They had always planned to use it as an INFANTRY fire support weapon, not a tank nor tank killer. In our military we had the whole system of systems planned and now we have cancelled the entire deal. Too bad. I'll bet each LAV equipped battalion could have used 8-10 MGS as fire base vehicle. Cheers.

The MGS may come in handy for blowing a hole in a taliban occupied hut or building or any other  numerous task in a-stan. yes a tank is better but it it would not keep up with the LAV III. Tanks have their place for sure. Example you see a squadron of T-72 looking down at ya, dial 1-800-ABRAMS and call for help.


----------



## geo (30 Aug 2006)

within the CF, there would always be a turf war....
which colour "hat" should manage the MGS - Black (armd), blue (arty) or green (Infantry)... lord knows the TOW are now with the Blacks & the TUAVs & mortars are with the Blues.... so who gets the MGS?... maybe it should be the Engineers - cause we're resp for bunker bustin & the like 

then there will always be the problem with how to use em - some poor sould suddenly feels he can take on the world and takes on a troop of Leos, T80s or whatever..... whups!


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2006)

It's been over thirty years since there were those Blue Berets.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Aug 2006)

IMO the US Army is heading toward a combat arms branch instead of our current branch system. This fall when the next battalion and brigade command boards meet for the first time combat arms officer Colonels will be considered for all combat arms brigades, so for the first time a FA or Engineer Colonel could command a heavy brigade or an infantry brigade. Armor and Infantry LTC's will be considered for infantry,Stryker and heavy battalion command jobs, another first.


----------



## geo (30 Aug 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It's been over thirty years since there were those Blue Berets.


and my boss said I had a bad memory


----------



## geo (30 Aug 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> IMO the US Army is heading toward a combat arms branch instead of our current branch system. This fall when the next battalion and brigade command boards meet for the first time combat arms officer Colonels will be considered for all combat arms brigades, so for the first time a FA or Engineer Colonel could command a heavy brigade or an infantry brigade. Armor and Infantry LTC's will be considered for infantry,Stryker and heavy battalion command jobs, another first.


Yeah.  T6
Something like our Task forces.... Combat teams and battle groups that are put together in a building block fashion to accomplish specific missions.  The old brigades sort of become administrative structures for the rear ech.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Aug 2006)

In our case the brigade is going to be the primary combat organization and the division will be both an administrative organization and the basis for a division size TF or JTF. The CF's basic ground organization is the BG whereas ours is the brigade.


----------



## geo (30 Aug 2006)

too true.... a matter of scale


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Sep 2006)

I find it interesting the new US Army Brigade combat team concept.  It kind of reflects our older brigade structure (Every brigade having 2-3 infantry battalions and an armored regiment, an arty regt, a cbt eng regt and a svc bn).


----------



## geo (1 Sep 2006)

compared to our TF, chess pieces that are just a bit larger


----------

