New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[Mortar guy]

Ahhhh, Thunderbolt! I was close.

Anyway, the M8 with a 120mm seems much more suitable to me than the MGS. However, as I have stated before, the biggest problem with the MGS isn't its specs (although they aren't jaw-dropping), it's the way our Army wants to use them. The MGS would make a decent assault gun but is a very weak direct fire anti-armour weapon. The problem is that our Armoured Corps has essentially said that the MGS will never be used in intimate support of the infantry (as an assault gun, if you will) as the US is doing, but rather, will be part of a system of systems designed to engage hard targets from long ranges in open terrain. You have to be fairly delusional to think that we are going to be engaging massed armoured formations at long range any time soon. And besides, even if that was our principal threat, wouldn't a tank make more sense!?

Morsermensch

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Arthur,

There is a 120mm version of the M8. It's called the Thunderplug or Thundermonkey or something like that. (Sorry, I'm short on time).

MG

Beware the "Thundermonkey"....


Matthew.  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Ahhhh, Thunderbolt! I was close.

Anyway, the M8 with a 120mm seems much more suitable to me than the MGS. However, as I have stated before, the biggest problem with the MGS isn't its specs (although they aren't jaw-dropping), it's the way our Army wants to use them. The MGS would make a decent assault gun but is a very weak direct fire anti-armour weapon. The problem is that our Armoured Corps has essentially said that the MGS will never be used in intimate support of the infantry (as an assault gun, if you will) as the US is doing, but rather, will be part of a system of systems designed to engage hard targets from long ranges in open terrain. You have to be fairly delusional to think that we are going to be engaging massed armoured formations at long range any time soon. And besides, even if that was our principal threat, wouldn't a tank make more sense!?

Morsermensch

I find it fascinating how language twists reality.

Assault Guns are useful for many things, except Assaulting.  For the Assault, the close with the enemy bit, Armour is a decided advantage.  Therefore heavily armoured Tanks are suitable Assault vehicles, lightly Armoured Assault guns are not.  Assault Guns are however useful as Self Propelled Anti-Tank or ANTI-Assault weapons capable of defeating enemy forces from prepared positions.

At the same time, if Tanks are Assault vehicles that close with the enemy the fact that they have a long-range cannon/rifle is less important than the fact that the rifle/cannon can deliver a massive amount of energy against armoured and fortified targets with a high rate of fire and rapid sighting.

Apropos of little..... ;D

 

[Mortar guy]

Tomato, tomah-to. I think you get my point. The MGS was designed (by the US Army) to be a gun that provides intimate support to assaulting dismounted infantry (a "gun for assaults", if you will    ). We, in our boundless wisdom, have decided this vehicle is best suited to take on T-72Ms and BMPs in open terrain. I bet the US Army wishes they were as smart as us...

MG

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

By the way, I just want to throw this out there to bend the model a little bit....

Has anyone done any brainstorming or wargaming with a LAV-III chassis with let's say (3) PWS as opposed to a single larger gun?

I'm just visualizing such a vehicle with multiple independent weapons and sighting systems (let's say 2-0.50 calibre HMG's and 1-small ATGM launcher or 40mm grenade launcher).  My thought is that with three sets of eyes dedicated to enemy identification in multiple directions as opposed to 1, you would be much better at keeping situational awareness in particular in built-up urban areas.  I guess my bottom line hypothesis is having many eyes and identifying and engaging an enemy before they can launch their attack could perhaps be more important than getting hit due to a lack of situational awareness and then returning fire with a more damaging gun (in particular since a 0.50-caliber should be able to shred through any mud-brick hiding place that appear to be our enemies' favourite domain at the moment).

Thoughts?


Matthew.  

 

[Kirkhill]

Tomato, tomah-to.

Potatos or Tatties. 

Sorry Matthew, back to the thread....

 

[a_majoor]

By the way, I just want to throw this out there to bend the model a little bit....

Has anyone done any brainstorming or wargaming with a LAV-III chassis with let's say (3) PWS as opposed to a single larger gun?

I'm just visualizing such a vehicle with multiple independent weapons and sighting systems (let's say 2-0.50 calibre HMG's and 1-small ATGM launcher or 40mm grenade launcher).  My thought is that with three sets of eyes dedicated to enemy identification in multiple directions as opposed to 1, you would be much better at keeping situational awareness in particular in built-up urban areas.  I guess my bottom line hypothesis is having many eyes and identifying and engaging an enemy before they can launch their attack could perhaps be more important than getting hit due to a lack of situational awareness and then returning fire with a more damaging gun (in particular since a 0.50-caliber should be able to shred through any mud-brick hiding place that appear to be our enemies' favourite domain at the moment).

Thoughts?


Matthew.  

I thought about it, but didn't come up with a LAV: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-195665.html#msg195665

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Tomato, tomah-to. I think you get my point. The MGS was designed (by the US Army) to be a gun that provides intimate support to assaulting dismounted infantry (a "gun for assaults", if you will    ). We, in our boundless wisdom, have decided this vehicle is best suited to take on T-72Ms and BMPs in open terrain. I bet the US Army wishes they were as smart as us...

MG

Where do you get this?  I just read over the SOR and it says no such thing.  The "Armour Corps" knows full well - probably better than anyone - how limiting the MGS is and certainly did not concoct the "system of systems" cunning plan on its own.  The fact that the SOR calls for a gun capable of defeating a T-72M is hardly indicative of what roles are planned for the vehicle.  Indeed:

It is important to understand that the MGS is not a replacement or substitute for a main battle tank...

The MGS is not expected to fight alone, particularly one on one, against later generation main battle tanks.

Nowhere in the SOR does it even mention a role as a tank destroyer nor does it describe AT as the MGS' primary mission.  Indeed, the SOR talks extensively (too much?) about insurgents, irregular forces, terrorists and the like as the probable threat.  Just because the main gun is to be capable of defeating a T-72M does not necessarily mean that this is the vehicle's designed role - or the one envisioned by the Corps.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Nowhere in the SOR does it even mention a role as a tank destroyer nor does it describe AT as the MGS' primary mission.  Indeed, the SOR talks extensively (too much?) about insurgents, irregular forces, terrorists and the like as the probable threat.  Just because the main gun is to be capable of defeating a T-72M does not necessarily mean that this is the vehicle's designed role - or the one envisioned by the Corps.

Teddy, in your opinion, does that mean in your opinion that multiple PWS's (one with an ATGM) may fulfill the designated role better than the 105mm?


Matthew.  ???

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Matthew:  actually, just the opposite.

(all IMHO, of course)

The problem with all the shiny PGWs, ATGMs, etc. is that they're support intensive and, in some cases, rely on very new technology.  The point I've made for the touted MMEV, for example, is that we're looking at firing extremely expensive missiles at bunkers - why?

I like guns.  The rounds are fairly cheap, you can correct quickly if you miss (as you will), the time of flight for the projectile is very short and the range is quite decent.  Moreover, you can quickly switch between types of rounds depending on the target you're engaging.

Take the 105mm, for instance.  It will soundly defeat anything but the latest tanks, will make a mess of a bunker at 2000 metres and (if you buy it) comes with a very nasty canister round to engage troops in open and the like.  My issues with MGS aren't so much the cannon, but the vehicle itself (with the very limited turret) and the "system of systems" concept, as I've ranted about on the MGS and MMEV threads.

If it were me, we'd be looking at a lighter tracked vehicle with a 105mm (or higher) calibre gun as an interim Leopard replacement, while investigating a longer-term "high tech" solution.  I'm a big fan of the CV-90 family - they made a huge impact with the Norwegians in Kabul - but there are a lot of vehicles out there.

FWIW,

Teddy

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Just before the Iraq invasion, the US army tried to buy back the M8 AGS that were in private hands, no one would sell them back. I had the chance to sit inside one, interesting vehicle, lots of space inside, but some components were missing, likely a Sabot dart would zip right through it. Would make a good tank trainer and has better SA than the MGS.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Matthew:  actually, just the opposite.

(all IMHO, of course)

The problem with all the shiny PGWs, ATGMs, etc. is that they're support intensive and, in some cases, rely on very new technology.  The point I've made for the touted MMEV, for example, is that we're looking at firing extremely expensive missiles at bunkers - why?

I like guns.  The rounds are fairly cheap, you can correct quickly if you miss (as you will), the time of flight for the projectile is very short and the range is quite decent.  Moreover, you can quickly switch between types of rounds depending on the target you're engaging.

Take the 105mm, for instance.  It will soundly defeat anything but the latest tanks, will make a mess of a bunker at 2000 metres and (if you buy it) comes with a very nasty canister round to engage troops in open and the like.  My issues with MGS aren't so much the cannon, but the vehicle itself (with the very limited turret) and the "system of systems" concept, as I've ranted about on the MGS and MMEV threads.

If it were me, we'd be looking at a lighter tracked vehicle with a 105mm (or higher) calibre gun as an interim Leopard replacement, while investigating a longer-term "high tech" solution.  I'm a big fan of the CV-90 family - they made a huge impact with the Norwegians in Kabul - but there are a lot of vehicles out there.

FWIW,

Teddy

Without breaking OPSEC, what percentage of attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming from that 2,000 metre range as opposed to from 50m or less (I keep thinking of the Somalia Blackhawk Down scenario with the enemy with RPG's as the worst-case which we should be planning for)?

....because in my civvie hypothetical model it would seem that creating 90%+ awareness in all directions with 3 small turrets moving in various directions with the ability to kill anything within 500m (estimate) with .50 caliber HMG's and outward from there with an ATGM system seems superior to 30% awareness only in the direction the turret is facing at the time with the ability to kill everything with extreme prejudice from 50m out to 2000m as you describe with the 105mm main gun.

In short, I keep envisioning some little prick with an RPG on a rooftop or in an alley where the one set of main 105mm turret sensors may not catch him, but the three sets of eyes on the individuals RWS's 'might' have a better ability to identify him and kill him before he can fire.

Thanks again Teddy....


Matthew.   

 

[a_majoor]

The crews of Merkava tanks usually ride hatches up (although the hatch is designed in such a way to provide overhead cover to the crew) to keep their situational awareness, with the gunner looking through the FCS and the commander and operator covering arcs with pintle mounted GPMG's. There is usually an Achzarit nearby with a section of seven Infantry who are there to deal with party crashers as well. This combination worked out very well in the battles inside congested West Bank cities and towns, using very large vehicles which were not designed specifically for Urban OPs.

By analogy, American units would operate in a similar fashion with their M-1 and M-2 AFV's, and the British would do the same with their Challengers and Warriors. This is an interesting example of "evolution in action" since this is about the same way "we" would have operated doing a combat team attack against a Soviet defensive position (substitute Leopard and M-113 for the vehicles listed above), and indeed any western army has similar TTPs for assaulting trenches and fortified positions.

On the Future Armour thread, I speculated on a "gunfighter" support vehicle with multiple RWS for the very purpose you proposed, but given the threat would be at very close range and the crew would have almost 0 reaction time, a well protected platform was a real "must have" for this idea to work. Something like this would probably go into the Combat support company (fire support platoon) of an Infantry Battalion, given its specialized nature, and given the small size and manning base of our Army, perhaps it does not pay to be too specialized.

 

[Mortar guy]

Where do you get this?  I just read over the SOR and it says no such thing.  The "Armour Corps" knows full well - probably better than anyone - how limiting the MGS is and certainly did not concoct the "system of systems" cunning plan on its own.  The fact that the SOR calls for a gun capable of defeating a T-72M is hardly indicative of what roles are planned for the vehicle.  Indeed:

Nowhere in the SOR does it even mention a role as a tank destroyer nor does it describe AT as the MGS' primary mission.  Indeed, the SOR talks extensively (too much?) about insurgents, irregular forces, terrorists and the like as the probable threat.  Just because the main gun is to be capable of defeating a T-72M does not necessarily mean that this is the vehicle's designed role - or the one envisioned by the Corps.

Really? We must have different versions of the SOR. Mine is from April 2005 so I'm pretty impressed that they have re-written the SOR (after announcing a sole-source contract) to better reflect the COE. Section 2.4 (Concept of Ops) of my SOR makes no mention of insurgents, terrorists or COIN operations. In fact, it is heavily biased towards conventional, linear operations with a clear emphasis on armoured targets and 'traditional' Armoured Corps tasks (i.e. when we had tanks). I'd love to get my hands on the updated SOR if you could tell me where it is.

The big problem with us lies not in our SOR (whichever version) but in two other documents. Firstly, the US Army's ORD for their MGS describes a vehicle that provides intimate support to dismounted infantry. Their target set includes bunkers, infantry in the open, soft skinned vehicles and lightly armoured vehicles. However, the big difference lies in their doctrinal employment of MGS as integral direct fire support within infantry companies rather than as part of some direct fire system optimized for the anti-armour fight.

The second document is the PXR from Ex INITIAL STRIKE where several senior Canadian officers (some with black hats) stated emphatically that the MGS (along with the rest of the DFSofS) would almost never be used for intimate support of the infantry. They (and those in DLR/DAD who think about these things) seem to envision the DFSofS engaging armoured targets at long ranges in open terrain. You can hardly blame them: who would want to take those extremely expensive vehicles into close terrain and who would want to waste those extremely expensive missiles on anything but tanks!

This is where I see the intellectual flaw of our approach. We keep saying the MGS and the DFSofS are not replacements for the tank but then we keep trying to shoehorn those POS vehicles into a similar role.

However, if as you say they have re-written the MGS SOR to reflect the reality of the modern battlefield, then great. I have always said that the MGS, while not ideal, could play a very useful role in places like Afghanistan, Haiti, etc. That role is not going head to head with tanks and BMPs but rather providing intimate support to the infantry.

Cheers.

MG

 

[Kirkhill]

Their target set includes bunkers, infantry in the open, soft skinned vehicles and lightly armoured vehicles.

As per MG

How about renaming the MGS as the SPVVLRSS = Self-Propelled Very Very Long Range Sniper System? 

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Without breaking OPSEC, what percentage of attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming from that 2,000 metre range as opposed to from 50m or less (I keep thinking of the Somalia Blackhawk Down scenario with the enemy with RPG's as the worst-case which we should be planning for)?

....because in my civvie hypothetical model it would seem that creating 90%+ awareness in all directions with 3 small turrets moving in various directions with the ability to kill anything within 500m (estimate) with .50 caliber HMG's and outward from there with an ATGM system seems superior to 30% awareness only in the direction the turret is facing at the time with the ability to kill everything with extreme prejudice from 50m out to 2000m as you describe with the 105mm main gun.

In short, I keep envisioning some little prick with an RPG on a rooftop or in an alley where the one set of main 105mm turret sensors may not catch him, but the three sets of eyes on the individuals RWS's 'might' have a better ability to identify him and kill him before he can fire.

Thanks again Teddy....

Matthew.   

Two points.  Tanks never - never - operate alone.  As a minimum, you'll have another callsign watching your back as you move and prepared to hose you off should the infantry start crawling over you.  In built-up areas, tanks will have attached infantry (or, more properly, will be operating in support of the infantry), whose job it is to engage close in threats.  It's good doctrine, why throw it out?

Secondly, a tank typically has more than main gun available.  The coax and pintle MGs provide the bulk of additional close-in firepower, as can the smoke dischargers (if equipped with the right round).  While a 2000m engagement range with main gun is possible, it certainly isn't the norm.  Moreover, as I indicated, a canister round does a great deal of damage at much closer ranges (think of it as a big shotgun shell)...

MG:  Not that it matters much which version of the SOR we're dealing with (I have my copy at home, so will have to check which version I was quoting from from there) - you're quite right.  While the vehicle was touted as a new capability, it was a de facto Leopard replacement, with all that comes with it.  The whole system of systems concept was a boondoggle to start with and didn't make much sense operationally, as I've posted on both the MGS and MMEV threads...  FWIW.

Cheers,

TR

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Here's a new packaging of our favorite Leopard!

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://eurosatory.janes.com/docs/eurosatory2006/sections/daily/day2/leopard-strikes-for-peace.shtml

    Gosh, can we have tanks again? Now that Rheinmetal has designed an actual Peacekeeping tank!
In all seriousness, this is a nice design for urban low intensity operations.  The dozerblade, variable anti-personnel turrets, and 120mm airburst round, all controlled from fully armoured positions, is a very nice addition to the arsenal, and makes the Leopard look a lot more like a MMEV than that Frankenstein creation that was our proposed MMEV.  The all around armour also addresses the reality of urban armour; the first shot will not come on the frontal armour, and will be a surprise.

 

[a_majoor]

Wow, a Leopard 2A6b.

To tell the truth, this looks pretty much like the Strv 122 (Swedish Leopard 2) with ALL the accessory packages lined up (including the armoured cup holder). Not a bad idea, over all, but considering the Strv 122 is the heaviest of all the Leopard varients, we might start wondering what trade offs will have to be made to deal with the extra weight (operational and strategic mobility and logistical considerations come to mind).

A small saving could be made by specifying the shorter 44 calibre gun, which also reduces the chances of being hung up while traversing, and it may be possible to trade weight for cost by replacing steel armour with ceramic or advanced composite materials wherever we can. Please don't think I am against Leopard 2's (of any model), but smaller and lighter is the trend these days, so we need to use that to guide our thinking.

 

[Jantor]

Is the Hagglunds 32 tonne CV-90120 something to consider? If, and I mean if thoughts on acquiring tracked vehicles makes a comeback.

http://www.baesystems.se/Hagglunds/stdpage.asp?Pid=4&id=16


Edited for spelling and to add link

 

[GK .Dundas]

The Thunderbolt     http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/lighttanks.htm

I might take it more seriously if it had'nt come from one of Mike Sparks 's sites.There is a man in need of serious medication.