- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Yeah but don‘t they lose most of their main gun ammo when they embark infantry onboard? (the Merkava) I seem to remember reading and being taught something to that effect many many years ago.
New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,189
- Points
- 1,160
Yep, they lose most of their ammo storage except for their ready ammo, 12rds I think?
the same problem for the Centurio when they carry the dismounts.
the same problem for the Centurio when they carry the dismounts.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I think if a new MBT is out of the question then the M8 would be ideal. Has anyone heard of any significant problems associated with this platform? From what I‘ve read it walks all over MGS. I think bottom line is that if we‘re sending a wheeled LAV 111 battle group into combat it needs to be fronted by something with tracks, adequate armour (M8 already has fully-capable RPG protection available) and, of course, DFS capability. It would probably prove cheaper, too.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,189
- Points
- 1,160
Can't remember who mentioned it, but the first thing a â Å“hover tankâ ? will do is find a ditch and stay it it! Trust me I spent 8 years working on a hovercraft and quite a few times we had to use an anchor and a come-along to get us unstuck, messy as it has to be on hover and it throws muck around like crazy.
Future Combat System
If it appears in Popular Mechanics then it is doomed!!! The Styker interim vehicle will be around for a long time, at least 15 years, look how long the M113 has been in service.
Right now we can get M1's and Leo's 2 very cheaply, what fools we will be not to. This would guarantee us a combat viable MBT for the next 15 years, with a lot of part support and compatibility with our allies.
In regards to the Spike/Javelin concept, so how much does it cost per round? And just how many do you think our government will buy? I think they are good systems, but they will be countered and then you will need something right now. I would not hang my hat purely on one system.
As to the role of the army, right now we do not have a direction and frankly the government is not dealing very well with the changes in the world, new events outstrip even our abilities to form yet another committee! Where are the next threats:
Balkans boiling over
Islamic hardliners in Egypt
Islamic hardliners in Pakistan
North Korea
China
Several of the â Å“Stan'sâ ?
Egypt vs numerous countries in East Africa (water related) or Yemen
Russia (perhaps in 10 years to get it's act together)
Almost anywhere in Africa
The tougher nations will have anything from M1's, T80UD, T90's, T-72's to deal with.
Most of the others will have T-55's and T72's (some with upgrades).
If we want to play with the big boys, then we are going to have to carry our weight. A light force will be ok with Haiti, but outgunned anywhere else.
Future Combat System
If it appears in Popular Mechanics then it is doomed!!! The Styker interim vehicle will be around for a long time, at least 15 years, look how long the M113 has been in service.
Right now we can get M1's and Leo's 2 very cheaply, what fools we will be not to. This would guarantee us a combat viable MBT for the next 15 years, with a lot of part support and compatibility with our allies.
In regards to the Spike/Javelin concept, so how much does it cost per round? And just how many do you think our government will buy? I think they are good systems, but they will be countered and then you will need something right now. I would not hang my hat purely on one system.
As to the role of the army, right now we do not have a direction and frankly the government is not dealing very well with the changes in the world, new events outstrip even our abilities to form yet another committee! Where are the next threats:
Balkans boiling over
Islamic hardliners in Egypt
Islamic hardliners in Pakistan
North Korea
China
Several of the â Å“Stan'sâ ?
Egypt vs numerous countries in East Africa (water related) or Yemen
Russia (perhaps in 10 years to get it's act together)
Almost anywhere in Africa
The tougher nations will have anything from M1's, T80UD, T90's, T-72's to deal with.
Most of the others will have T-55's and T72's (some with upgrades).
If we want to play with the big boys, then we are going to have to carry our weight. A light force will be ok with Haiti, but outgunned anywhere else.
- Reaction score
- 7,952
- Points
- 1,160
On 2004-03-08, Recce41 wrote:
Just wondering where they are going to find the space to carry a golfclub bag or two, a radio-link and a monitor (the apparent foot-print of the Silver Fox)?
Also while I am at it, the Coyotes, will they be the mast-mounted version (I thought there were only about 32 of them) or the standard battle-group ground-mount versions?
(http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3629701.1081871598.QHwM7sOa9dUAAGWDMHQ&modele=jdc_34 http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C2100%2C58173%2C00.html)
Just intrigued.
I note from the articles that it seems that the Silver Fox might also be able to take over some Sea King patrol duties at sea. Its original purpose was apparently Whale-Watching for the US Navy before the Marines got ahold of it!!!!
Question to Recce41. I see that DND has purchased the ACR Silver Fox and that reminded me of your post. Your 8 car troop, did that include the HQ vehicles? You stated that the troop would include a TOW det, which I understand would usually be 2 vehicles. Or is the organization 6 Coyotes, 1 Coyote Command and 1 LAV-TUA?
Just wondering where they are going to find the space to carry a golfclub bag or two, a radio-link and a monitor (the apparent foot-print of the Silver Fox)?
Also while I am at it, the Coyotes, will they be the mast-mounted version (I thought there were only about 32 of them) or the standard battle-group ground-mount versions?
(http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3629701.1081871598.QHwM7sOa9dUAAGWDMHQ&modele=jdc_34 http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C2100%2C58173%2C00.html)
Just intrigued.
I note from the articles that it seems that the Silver Fox might also be able to take over some Sea King patrol duties at sea. Its original purpose was apparently Whale-Watching for the US Navy before the Marines got ahold of it!!!!
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Being in one, could you explain your "6/6/5 Mast/Remote/CP" Statement. Six Masts/Six Remotes I can figure out, but 5 CPs does not compute. Four or five Command Variants and two CPs seems more likely.
GW
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
This leaves the Recce Sqn one troop short. With the forth troop becoming an Assault Troop several years back, an asset was added and one was lost. Now both are gone.
Money is the factor that is causing so many of the headaches for the Corps. Thus, a new DFS vehicle is a cheap solution for the politicos, all to the detriment of the Corps. Bandaid solutions detract from the continuation of the Training and Experience required to field an effective Field Force when the time requires us to do so. Experienced Soldiers and Equipment can not be knit overnight.
GW
Money is the factor that is causing so many of the headaches for the Corps. Thus, a new DFS vehicle is a cheap solution for the politicos, all to the detriment of the Corps. Bandaid solutions detract from the continuation of the Training and Experience required to field an effective Field Force when the time requires us to do so. Experienced Soldiers and Equipment can not be knit overnight.
GW
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
BTT
http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf
A link to news on Stryker performance in Iraq and fears of new RPG 7 variants.
http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf
A link to news on Stryker performance in Iraq and fears of new RPG 7 variants.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
I think CV 90120 or CV 90105 before the M8 Thunderbolt.
We could even get the CV 90 IFV for a heavy Bde!
See the CV 90 here.
We could even get the CV 90 IFV for a heavy Bde!
See the CV 90 here.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Very true, common chassis is a strong consideration. Perhaps MGS for our LAV BGs and M8 for an MTVL BG (divide the 66 DFS order into 1 x M8 Sqn and 2 x MGS Spn, plus training/replacement vehicles). I've read that M8 and MTVL have a lot of similarities in terms of parts and supply (??). I'm thinking speed and firepower will keep LAVs alive, and anything tracked in a LAV BG will affect the BG's speed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I saw the Norwegian CV 90's in Kabul - they looked good.
But, as already pointed out ... there are politicians and bureaucrats who are more concerned with appearances (and road damages caused by tracks), as opposed to functionality or survivability.
One of the worst hazards of "peacetime" ...
But, as already pointed out ... there are politicians and bureaucrats who are more concerned with appearances (and road damages caused by tracks), as opposed to functionality or survivability.
One of the worst hazards of "peacetime" ...
1
12alfa
Guest
Colin P said:
From what I have been told, they don't carry grunts to often. They do how ever carry extra ammo back there as well as extra water, both need in fightin.The inf carrying role is not required, they have there own heavy apc's for that task. Rember when the Merk's were on the planing board they did not have heavy APC's in service, there fore the dual role.
12Alfa
1
12alfa
Guest
Colin P said:
The Merk holds 50 rds of 120mm
12Alfa
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Best for the CF? Hard to say. Similar weight and armament. The M8 is a better platform, with far fewer design/testing problems, tracks for cross-country mobility, and optional RPG armour already developed and available (still only 25 tons with full RPG protection...or about half the weight of a Leo). The problem is speed. It seems only the MGS can keep up with our LAV bns, and my understanding is that speed is a key advantage of LAVs, as speed is likely going to keep a LAV alive. A slow-moving LAV is probably a very vulnerable LAV, due to minimal armour protection compared to other, easily up-armoured vehicles.
I would like to see the MGS purchase include some M8s, as I think it's important for the CF to maintain one tracked battlegroup. We've committed to maintaining a mixed wheeled/tracked army already with the current comprehensive upgrade of around 300 M113s to A3/MTVL status (around half with Grizzly turrets installed), so it wouldn't be too difficult to maintain, say, a small inf bn (such as one of our light bns) with turreted, already modernized M113A3s and TUAs etc., an engineer sqn with MTVEs (already in use), an armoured contingent with M8s (included in the purchase of 66 DFS vehicles), and other units using our upgraded MTVLs in other capacities (M113 ADATS for air defence etc.). It's just a matter of maintaining and deploying these tracked units together, not mixed-in with wheeled battlegroups. 1 CMBG could be home to a tracked BG without too much complication. A tracked BG could be highly useful if we ever needed to deploy somewhere where roads either don't exist or are in very poor condition (think tropical monsoon seasons or temperate rainy/muddy/boggy terrain regions).
And the M8 is indeed C-130 transportable, apparently without the weight issues of MGS airtransport. In its lightest configuration, the M8 weighs around 17 tons, which I believe is around the maximum weight for C-130 long-distance transport. The M8 can also be parachuted, making it an ideal platform for 3-Dimensional "Air-Mech" engagements.
I would like to see the MGS purchase include some M8s, as I think it's important for the CF to maintain one tracked battlegroup. We've committed to maintaining a mixed wheeled/tracked army already with the current comprehensive upgrade of around 300 M113s to A3/MTVL status (around half with Grizzly turrets installed), so it wouldn't be too difficult to maintain, say, a small inf bn (such as one of our light bns) with turreted, already modernized M113A3s and TUAs etc., an engineer sqn with MTVEs (already in use), an armoured contingent with M8s (included in the purchase of 66 DFS vehicles), and other units using our upgraded MTVLs in other capacities (M113 ADATS for air defence etc.). It's just a matter of maintaining and deploying these tracked units together, not mixed-in with wheeled battlegroups. 1 CMBG could be home to a tracked BG without too much complication. A tracked BG could be highly useful if we ever needed to deploy somewhere where roads either don't exist or are in very poor condition (think tropical monsoon seasons or temperate rainy/muddy/boggy terrain regions).
And the M8 is indeed C-130 transportable, apparently without the weight issues of MGS airtransport. In its lightest configuration, the M8 weighs around 17 tons, which I believe is around the maximum weight for C-130 long-distance transport. The M8 can also be parachuted, making it an ideal platform for 3-Dimensional "Air-Mech" engagements.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
The M8 is not a tank. It was originally designed to be dropped from an airplane, so the Arborne would have some firepower.
Having said that, it is much more capable than the MGS, in terms of mobility and protection. But the MGS is not a tank either.
A good replacement for the Leo would be another MBT. M1A1, perhaps, equipped with the Europack?
Or the Leo 2?
We could debate having Brigades equipped differently. I, for one, would advocate a totally different configuration for our army than the present one. But that's not what this thread is about, right?
Having said that, it is much more capable than the MGS, in terms of mobility and protection. But the MGS is not a tank either.
A good replacement for the Leo would be another MBT. M1A1, perhaps, equipped with the Europack?
Or the Leo 2?
We could debate having Brigades equipped differently. I, for one, would advocate a totally different configuration for our army than the present one. But that's not what this thread is about, right?
