Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?

[ArmyRick]

I was reading on the armoured TAPV thread and someone posted in their the idea of using low-medium velocity weapons for armoured recce.

Then I got to thinking of a crazy idea. The US use a stryker MGS as its close support weapon for assaulting infantry and lets face it, thats a dead horse in the CF.

What about a LAVIII with a low-medium velocity weapons system. Thinking of something similar to the M551 sheridan with its "stubby" 152mm gun-missile launcher. My idea is to have a lower tech (lower cost) but effective platform with a 3-4 man crew (manned by infantry).

The lower velocity platform would not have as much platform rocking as say 105mm Tank rounds would.

The real beauty would be the different nature of ammunition it should be able to fire. HEP or HESH, HEDP, HEAT, Smoke, Illumination, Canister, Gun Launched Missiles (Something better like a fire and forget system not the old wire guided crap shillelagh missile).

They could probably design a missile that fires up to 6-8 KM away (Their is a 105mm and 120mm Tank gun launched missile MRM, can not remember the exact designation)

The concept would be this would be a LAV Coy Comd fire support weapon. Hangs out in a fire base and uses ammo specific to the mission. If you have an immediate heavy armour threat, Then you would have your leo2 to battle that out. However if we have ever encounter an oppurtunity to fight enemy armour at long range, then maybe this is where the gun launched FF missile would come in.

Ideally, it would still be tanks that fight the anti-armour battle.

This in my opinion would be a true and much more usefull "MMEV".

It is important though to have a large caliber gun (something 120-155mm). The key is here is for ammo that doesn't require a high velocity.

Ideas and thoughts?

 

[tango22a]

Army Rick:

When fired the 152mm gun/launcher would literally pick the front end of the Sheridan off the ground. If you ever fired a Cougar with its low/medium velocity (533m/sec) 76mm and experienced the platform rock, the blast and the flash, you would realize that a low/medium velocity weapon is a non-starter even on the much more stable LAV III. When fired at ranges over 2000m using the QFC the recoil from the 76mm would bottom out the suspension. You could almost hear the suspension components scream in agony!


tango22a

 

[ArmyRick]

How is it that the Stryker MGS is able to fire a higher velocity 105mm? This includes APFSDS and it is stabilised.

The cougar I can see as shaking because it is a smaller vehicle and the hull probably wasn't designed for anything larger than a machine gun/smaller caliber chain

 

[vonGarvin]

The wheel has definitely turned 360.

The tank was originally invented to be a "Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle".  Then tank vs. tank then whatever. 

I would argue that instead of specialised vehicles for each and every case, let's all take a collective breath, step back and really analyse the situation.

I have my own thoughts, but suffice it to say that it's not just tanks or infantry or whatever that we need.  We need a variety of weapons systems, coordinated at an HQ level and synchronised to maximise effect where and when we need it.  That's why we have artillery, tanks, infantry, machine guns, planes, tanks and even bears (if need be, dammit!)

In short, I see no need for a specialised vehicle when we have tanks, artillery, angry penguins, etc on our side

 

[Franko]

How is it that the Stryker MGS is able to fire a higher velocity 105mm? This includes APFSDS and it is stabilised.

It FAILED every trial it ever went through...from boiling desert to freezing arctic.

Talk to a few MGS commanders in Iraq and they'll tell you. I've heard their stories from them and it's not pretty.

The stab is atrocious. The gun also jammed frequently, taking 40+ minutes to allow for safety, taking them out of the fight, causing the crews to dismount...it goes on and on from there.

The suspension was designed for the 25/ 35mm and nothing more. Throw a 105 weighing in at well over 2 tons and have it recoil and say it'll handle the load and forces while driving down the road is pure BS.

Tanks do the job and hit things to 4000m with surgical precision while keeping the crews safe under extremely dangerous conditions where a MGS would be a sitting duck.

Regards

 

[tango22a]

ArmyRick:

Years ago, IMI and Oto-Melara collaborated on a 60mm high velocity gun which was fitted on an Israeli M113. Seemed the cat's a$$ at the time but has disappeared off the sensors into oblivion. Don't know why but I guess ther must have been some hidden problems. Just as there are with the MGS,

tango22a

 

[TCBF]

- The Commies had this same discussion 35 years ago. 

- Their answer? Tanks and BMPs/BTRs.

- It was a good answer, too.  Very deadly and highly cross-country mobile BMPs with high speed BTRs supported by tanks.  They thought of everything except Heavy APCs, but during Chechnia 1, they thought of that, too.

- Our Centennial Project in 1967 was to buy 167 Lynx C&R M113 1/2.  The same year The Comrades introduced BMP 1.

- Whose crying now?  ;D

 

[McG]

How is it that the Stryker MGS is able to fire a higher velocity 105mm? This includes APFSDS and it is stabilised.

Maintaining a same mass of the reciling parts and using a longer recoil stroke.  The MGS cannon would be striking the turret ring if you tried to put it inside a MBT turret.  This also reduces the potential max rate of fire as the weapon takes longer to return to battery.

The US has also done studies of opening the breach during firing in order to minimize recoil without the high balistic ineffeciencies of recoiless rifles.  The goal was to put fully capable 120 mm cannons on lighter than LAV platforms.

 

[ArmyRick]

DP, I challenge you on your claim and I quote SFC S. Collum (A abrams tanker and currently an MGS crew commander)...

"there are quite a few people who talk a lot of crap 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. "

He is also known as Tankcommander33 on youtube. I will trust his comments LONG before I trust yours since he has crewed both TANKS and MGS. I am not advocating the revival of MGS just a new idea for a complimentary system.

Tanks are awesome and I have worked with both Leo1 and 2 (As infantry though fighting alongside). However There are disadvantages, we can't afford the size of the tank fleet we should have. Not every mission that involves a little extra fire power always needs to tie up valuable resources like a tank.

Maintenance cost, no matter how you look at it is huge.

Fuel cost is also huge.

This idea I am throwing forward would be dedicated to infantry (in a similar fashion to the way US uses Stryker MGS in Infantry battalions). This would be similar to the days when Infantry had 106mm recoiless rifle (which didn't just fire HEAT rounds).

The TOW system, while far superior to destroying enemy armour is kind of one mission assett except when you employ bunker buster missiles. However it gets a little expensive and certain ammo types are simply not availible in TOW such as
-Illumination
-Smoke
-Canister

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What's the sense of having a support vehicle with an 18 round main gun magazine?

 

[TCBF]

ArmyRick,

- The high Maint cost in today's new vehicles is not in the power pack and drive train.  it is in the vehicle electronics - Vectronics, if you will. 

- The new high-tech systems reduce some of our techs to diagnostiticians and box changers.  Those boxes fail, go back to the factory and we buy a new or re-built box.  Our techs are smart enough to fix them, but we don't buy the test equipment or internal box -parts and relevant supporting pubs.  I think you know where the money goes there.

- Thus, buying 'lighter' kit does not garuntee one any real savings.

- A direct fire armoured car - which an MGS is - would be an expensive side-show unless it was multi-roled.  Thus, a tank is cheaper: it can do it all. 

- The perfect balance remains elusive, but the BMP3 made a run at it.

 

[ArmyRick]

Recceguy,

Where did I advocate the MGS with its 18 round magazine?

I said in my original post, a LOW tech vehicle. I would have it set up a manual loader.

I find it is hard to get you crewman types to see my idea from an infantry perspective. Forget MGS. I beleive its a fire support vehicle with way more bells and whistles than it needs (YES it can fire on the move and engage it targets, GDLS has the videos on their web site).

Wrap your noodles around this. Something that can fire a variety of ammo (excluding APFSDS) but is far cheaper and faster than a 60 ton tank.

 

[TCBF]

... I find it is hard to get you crewman types to see my idea from an infantry perspective. Forget MGS. I beleive its a fire support vehicle with way more bells and whistles than it needs (YES it can fire on the move and engage it targets, GDLS has the videos on their web site).

Wrap your noodles around this. Something that can fire a variety of ammo (excluding APFSDS) but is far cheaper and faster than a 60 ton tank.

- I jokingly called the MGS a "Super Cougar" on this site a few years back.  But, given your parameters (above), I see no reason why a currently manufactured "low-tech 'big-bore' gun turret could not be mated to a LAV hull, or the hull of any new veh we buy to replace part of our 'F' fleet.

- Whether or not such a vehicle would have cheaper life-cycle costs than the Leopards remains problematic, but we don't have to adopt it for the Army as a whole or on a common hull:  I see no problem with 'mission buying' such vehicles for a given operational need.  We have done lots of that in the last seven years:  South African armoured cars, US Armoured trucks, etc.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Recceguy,

Where did I advocate the MGS with its 18 round magazine?

I said in my original post, a LOW tech vehicle. I would have it set up a manual loader.

I find it is hard to get you crewman types to see my idea from an infantry perspective. Forget MGS. I beleive its a fire support vehicle with way more bells and whistles than it needs (YES it can fire on the move and engage it targets, GDLS has the videos on their web site).

Wrap your noodles around this. Something that can fire a variety of ammo (excluding APFSDS) but is far cheaper and faster than a 60 ton tank.

Sounds like a 106 recoiless mounted on a jeep ;D

Sorry for the hijack. Couldn't resist.

 

[TCBF]

Sounds like a 106 recoiless mounted on a jeep ;D

Sorry for the hijack. Couldn't resist.

- Where are we going to find 106mm HEP nowadays?  Hard enough in the early eighties, and now that the USMC is out of the ONTOS game...

 

[vonGarvin]

I go back to my original post in this thread. You cannot simply wish to have a dedicated, sole-purpose vehicle introduced into the army like that (insert sound of fingers snapping). 
Yes, TOW cannot do it all, neither can a tank, a bayonet or even a penguin.  That's why we form combat teams and battle groups.  We put together those assets we need for the job at hand, and voila, we synchronise the effects available and get the results desired.  So, forget MGS, forgets Leos, and forget that the quote that was put up here re: MGS commander. 

As an aside, the MGS as used by the US is part of a system that includes Main Battle Tanks, Aircraft Carriers and MX Missiles.  Just saying, is all.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

- Where are we going to find 106mm HEP nowadays?  Hard enough in the early eighties, and now that the USMC is out of the ONTOS game...

Greece?

 

[TCBF]

Greece?

- You got me.  Darn internet...

 

[Franko]

DP, I challenge you on your claim...

What do I know after crewing both Leo C2 and Leo 2 for 7 months worth of combat in Afghanistan....might as well toss out everything I know and have been told about MGS from actual US crews as well.    :

You're obviously the armour SME here.

Regards

 

[a_majoor]

At the risk of getting into a gunfight with a knife, I don't think there is a "low tech" solution to the problem that ArmyRick is advocating.

The CV-CT turret is a nice drop in for a LAV 3, mounting a 105mm cannon with an autoloader and capable of carrying 12 rounds in the bustle and another 12+ in the hull. It can also elevate to 420, making it capable of urban ops or being an impromptu artillery piece, and is probably the closest to what is being suggested.

The downside is it is a high tech piece of kit mated to a vehicle with light armour. I would say this would make a suitable Cavalry or Recce vehicle, not an FSV.

Other solutions are worse. The BMP3 turret was mated to another 8X8 hull, which would need the mother of all FCS and be a logistical nightmare, not to mention making a spectacular bang if it were to brew up. The Centurio "Tank Destroyer" suffers the same flaws as a LAV 3+ CV-CT solution as an Infantry FSV. Turret mounted mortars would make very poor direct fire vehicles, so would any other low pressure gun (the "High Low" pressure gun is similar to the M203 but very scaled up: the ultimate pumpkin launcher). Even hypervelocity guns like the Israeli 60mm or ARES 75 suffered from high barrel erosion and needed to fire a 3 round burst to destroy an 80's vintage tank, advanced high tech ammunition could overcome these problems, but the amount of HE a 60 or 75mm shell can carry is limited as well.

Light vehicles would make excellent Cavalry or Recce vehicles, so there is a place for this kind of thinking, but for Infantry support a tank really is the tool for the job. (Mind you, todays tanks could be improved as well, but we have the "Future Armour" thread for that...)