MGS/MMEV dead yet?

[Scoobie Newbie]

Please post this letter if its true and unclassified.

 

[vonGarvin]

-will there be many suitable HESH targets, bearing in mind the requirement to minimize collateral damage - hmmm, not likely.

I disagree. Given that they've been launching Volkswagens in suborbital transits on the bad guys (155 rounds from the M777s), I'm pretty sure that they'd launch the pumpkins on the baddies in similar situations.

 

[orange.paint]

+1

think of hesh as "the more friendly way" ;D

 

[dapaterson]

"The unclassified CLS letter cancelling the MGS  has been released around the Army."

- Not so fast.  The letter you speak of:  was it refering to a proposal he submitted to higher RECOMMENDING the cancellation of the MGS? 

Always the voice of reason around here, aren't you? 

I suspect that is the letter PBI raised; it's one of two that were signed off.  It indicates CLS' desires to the centre.  But never underestimate the importance of jobs in London vs military requirements.

 

[Jordan411]

I would think this would be a pretty big issue. I guess I'll just wait patiently for something media release.

 

[Infanteer]

Make no bones about it, this had something to do with it.

 

[armybuck041]

Want to destroy morale?Place guys in a position where they can never deploy and train on beautiful equipment that will never be used for anything except getting a combat team commander a check in the box for his course.

Slightly OT, but:

Granted with our MOC a vehicle is more of a mode of tpt and rolling tool box, but we just took possesion of a brand new fleet of very nice MTVE's and TLAV's that will never leave the country either.

Best part is that we train crews on the tracked fleet we have in Canada and then end up having to scramble to produce LAV crews and eventually borrowed Dragoons to crew our LAV's when we deploy overseas. 

 

[armybuck041]

Make no bones about it, this had something to do with it.

Good read...

 

[Franko]

Heard about that the other day....and it's bloody well over due.

Now get 'em into theater.....    >

Ooops....sorry. Getting too aggressive for a moment.    :

Regards

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

One other note...MMEV was also recommended for cancellation - both cause for celebration!

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Don't tell me common sense is starting to rule the day.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Make no bones about it, this had something to do with it.

Page 3 of that pretty much sums up all the reasons why an MGS or equivalent will never be able to replace a proper MBT regardless of how you try to rewrite doctrine or tactics.


Matthew. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"ultimately war demands closure with the enemy force within the minimum safety distance.  Our armored systems enabled us to close with and destroy the heavily armed and fanatically determined enemy force often within urban terrain and impunity.  No other ground combat system currently in our arsenal could have delivered similar mission success without accepting  enormous casualties, particularly in urban terrain."

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The comment about situational awareness is also telling.

 

[a_majoor]

On a heretical note, there is a place for a wheeled fire support vehicle to compliment the wheeled LAV fleet, so long as the role is clearly defined as either "Cavalry" or integrated closely with the LAV infantry battalion. Commanders need the ability to substitute speed for mass when shaping the battlefield, and this sort of formation has a lower "profile" in COIN OPs than a heavy combat team.

Tanks (of any sort) need a complimentary set of tracked vehicles to make an effective combat team/battle group. This is only common sense, if the FOO/FAC/MFC,  Infantry and Engineers cannot keep up with the tanks (especially if you have to leave the road and go cross country), then everyone will be in trouble. Current Leopards can make do with M-113 and their derivatives, and Generation 3 and 3.5 tanks have their own "national" IFV or HAPC counterparts.

With the current state of the art, the Swedish CV90 family could provide the basis of a "mechanized" combat team (CV-90120 tanks, backed by "CV9025" armed with a 25mm chain gun to mesh with our logistics chain, rather than a CV9035 or CV9040 as in European service), and if we are willing to do the R&D, a family of heavier and more protected vehicles (about equal to early model M-1s) could be developed from the PUMA.

As noted, there needs to be a great deal of attention paid to the logistical aspects of this; if the tanks and heavy combat team/battlegroup is unable to get to theater, then what is the point?

 

[Thorvald]

Make no bones about it, this had something to do with it.

Hey good find on that one!

Thanks

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Nothing in the CANFORGENS yet.  Would they be published there?

 

[Red 6]

Clearly, a mix of light, medium and heavy forces is the optimum goal. The logistical tail, all things being equal, should not be what drives the choice of a combat system. If you need it, you need the ability to get it where it needs to be deployed. Conversely, if your higher HQ will not support the logistics to get it into combat, maybe it isn't the correct combat system for your force.

My two cents worth is that you need an MBT and a wheeled gun support system. The trouble with AT missiles is that they all go under light armor. It takes a 125 mm round about a second to travel 1,200 meters. I think it takes 12 for a TOW to travel the same distance. My times may be a little rusty, but you get my point. There's a problem with basing your force structure on the last war. You learn all the wrong lessons for the next one.

The US Army is putting all of its eggs into the Stryker basket. If we ever have another conventional battlefield (ie Korea) I think this will be a huge problem. For all its cost and complexity, the Stryker still mounts a .50. Granted, its a reliable and deployable system, but you would think the Army could put a bigger main weapon on it.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Probably not, Quagmire.  As indicated earlier, they're requests for cancellation, not the actual direction.  Things could conceivably change with political intervention...  Even if they're cancelled, you won't likely see a CANFORGEN unless it's done as part of a wider update to the entire CF.

Cheers,

TR

 

[ArmyRick]

Keep in mind that in the US Army, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team is a MEDIUM weight force (more powerful than light infantry but doesn't deliver a punch like bradley-abrams tag team).  No they are not putting all their eggs in that basket either. They are not replacing any of their heavy divisions with strykers.

The reason they don't have heavier guns on the stryker IMV is because it will cut down the number of dismounts and if you require 25mm fire power than they view the fight as a bradley-Abrams (Heavy armoured type of fight).

hope this clears it up where the SBCT stands in the US scheme of things.