- Status
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
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.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
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/
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/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
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
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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?
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?
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,346
- Points
- 1,010
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?
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,906
- Points
- 1,160
ArmyRick said:
Yes, but did they hit the target?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
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.
geo 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.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Mackie said:
"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.
- Status
Similar threads
