• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wm. Harris
  • Start date Start date
Thank you Major with your update. Our public library isn;t as up to date.On the Stingray II did they up gun that tank also? I know that the Thai army uses this tank Stingray I.I‘ve read that the M113 is back in production for two middle east countries?
 
If it had to be wheeled: Rooikat 105
If it had to be tracked: Leopard 2A6 EX
Merkava Mk 4

or I am surprised no one has thought of this one yet MTVL/TLAV (M113A3) w/ the MGS Weapon System LOL :rocket:
 
If we choose the LAV III platform the most immediately available and best operationally proven 105mm turret is the TML 105mm turret from GIAT if we wanted a proven turret. It is mounted on the French Army‘s upgraded AMX 10RC vehicle, the vehicle arguably is not the best, but the turret is supposedly quite good. Another excellent system is the United Defense--maker of the M113/MTVL--Armoured Guns System. Like the MGS turret it is a 105mm turret, and it is fully developed. Unlike the MGS turret, the AGS turret has been accepted for service by the US Army without restrictions. The only reason it was not purchased in 1994 was because of the Clinton administrations military budget cuts. Personnaly, I think either would be sufficient. I like the TML 105 turret better, because it has a 4 person crew. Check out a picture of it on the GIAT‘s Vextra DFSV/Arm Recce vehicle from this link http://www.army-technology.com/projects/vextra/vextra1.html
 
Take a look at Korus. Read his reply, click on to (this website) USA medium tanks. There you will find the Stingray II The other one is call M8 Thunderbolt.Both of these tanks have 105‘s for main armament.They can be air-dropped from C-130 Hercules.
 
Originally posted by RECON-MAN:
[qb] Tracks over Wheels. [/qb]
F‘n A!!
Don‘t let the Boffin‘s fool you.

We who have the time in know what we need but what we have is a bunch of Civies who revue what is asked for and we get stuck with ****e from the lowest bidder.

Give me a Eng. M113 with blade against a Lav. and I‘ll cross more country than that beer can!
Yes they are good but are limeted on terrain!
We still need track!!!!!!!!!

We have to combine both with in a Light Force as this is the way we are going.

We need Track and Lav.‘s combined,supporting each other to be effective. :fifty:
 
Anyone who maintains that a 105 is as effective or better than a 120 hasn‘t got a clue about modern MBT guns or armour, let alone the history of recent armour battles.
-Former RCAC (RCD/LdSH(RC)) officer 1962-1999
 
Strat
The new 105s are just as good as the 120MM. The new 105s have a high energy level. I saw a flic about the 105, for the MGS. The only problem is the veh its on. The Brits are also working on a new 105.
Fellas, the 25MM cannot take out T72s. US BS.
Strath, e mail me. I‘m a old Hussar and RCD.
 
This is going to be a "hot button" topic for both old and new Armd soldiers everywhere. Whether or not an MBT can be replaced by a wheeled variant isn‘t the question. The questions raised should deal with "when" we get the ?Wombat? what will it‘s role be? There is no established doctrine for employment of this vehicle! :tank: From that question comes many more. At the individual crewman level, it becomes a matter of how best to employ individual skills as part of a well trained, disciplined and effective crew, which is part of a well trained, disciplined and effective larger organization such as troop, squadron, regiment, or whatever. Effective use of whatever equipment, vehicles, munitions, weapon systems we are dealt is the mark of a professional soldier. Ive just read an article about the Stryker Bde deployed in Iraq. I‘ll post it here.
Quick-Hitting Brigade Test-Drives a New Army Vehicle in Iraq

By ERIC SCHMITT



SAMARRA, Iraq, Dec. 24 — The United States Army is betting much of its future on the success of an unlikely new warrior: an ungainly 19-ton wheeled combat vehicle wrapped in a steel-grilled hoop skirt.



Here at the edge of the Iraqi desert, the vehicle‘s combat debut is unfolding with the Army‘s first Stryker Brigade combat team. This much-debated $10 billion experiment aims to field as many as half a dozen 3,600-soldier units equipped with these high-tech, lightly armored vehicles that can speed infantry to a fight.



Unlike an Abrams tank or a Bradley fighting vehicle, the Stryker is a medium-weight, eight-wheel vehicle that can carry 11 soldiers and weapons at speeds of more than 60 miles an hour. With its giant rubber tires instead of noisy tracks, it is fast and quiet and draws on the brigade‘s reconnaissance drones, eavesdropping equipment and the Army‘s most advanced communications gear to outflank an enemy rather than outslug it.



Critics of the system, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, say the Stryker is a risky gamble that could leave American soldiers vulnerable to guerrilla attacks. But proponents in the Army say it is an alternative to light infantry and heavy armored forces in the shift from a heavy cold-war arsenal to a more agile, mobile force that can be dispatched quickly to hot spots around the world.



The Stryker, supporters contend, also fits the new American blueprint for war: use an array of sensors to pinpoint an enemy, share that information through satellite links, and quickly direct precision firepower on that target.



"The strength of our engagements in the future is the ability to gather, see and share information rapidly across the battle space," said Col. Michael Rounds, a West Point graduate and a native of Greene, N.Y., who commands the brigade, formally known as the Third Brigade, Second Infantry Division.



Originally conceived to rush troops to battle in the early days of a conflict and, later, to assume peacekeeping duties, the Stryker Brigade has been thrown into a counterinsurgency role in Iraq for which it was not specifically designed. It is adapting on the fly.



"Obviously, this is a big experiment," said Michael O‘Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "This is going to be Stryker‘s real-world test."



The Stryker has already weathered a wave of criticism. A report prepared by a defense consultant earlier this year for Representative H. James Saxton, a New Jersey Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said the Stryker was vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenades, an easy target for any hostile forces and too cramped for gear-laden soldiers.



The Stryker has more armor than a Humvee and is equipped with a .50-caliber machine gun and a grenade launcher (an antitank variant has heavier weapons), but it was never intended for front-line combat. The vehicles, which cost $2 million each, were built to take a hit from a heavy machine gun, but confidence in that capability was shaken last summer when some of the ceramic tiles that form the protective skin on the brigade‘s 309 Strykers were found to be faulty. Army officials say they have fixed the problem.



Like almost every other combat vehicle and helicopter here, the Stryker is susceptible to rocket-propelled grenades. So General Dynamics, the Stryker‘s manufacturer, built a protective grille, called slat armor, that is bolted onto the vehicle. It is designed to deflect a grenade‘s explosive blast before it reaches the Stryker‘s ceramic skin, but it has yet to face the ultimate test here.

The new armor also adds 5,000 pounds to the vehicle, making it too heavy to be flown on an Air Force C-130 transport and calling into question whether the brigade can live up to its billing of being deployable anywhere in the world within four days.



That capability was not tested when the brigade rolled up from Kuwait this month, but Stryker soldiers and commanders say the vehicle is well suited for missions like guarding checkpoints, patrolling urban streets and rushing soldiers to raids on suspected insurgent hide-outs. The vehicle is named after two unrelated combat heroes who earned the Medal of Honor, Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker in World War II and Specialist Robert F. Stryker in Vietnam.



Before leaving for Iraq, the brigade received 30 days of training at Fort Irwin, Calif., and Fort Polk, La., and 10 more days at its home base, Fort Lewis, Wash. "They‘ve put us through every training situation imaginable," said Sgt. First Class Max McLaughlin, 39, a platoon sergeant from Olympia, Wash.



With the cost of fielding each brigade now at about $1.5 billion, the Army is not cutting any corners in seeking the unit‘s success. It is even spending $9 million on individual gear for the soldiers, like kangaroo-leather gloves and custom-designed uniforms with built-in knee and elbow pads. "The Army has set this unit up to do well," said First Lt. Leonardo Flor, 23, a platoon leader from Leavenworth, Kan.



Still, there have been setbacks. Shortly after the brigade moved into Iraq with its Strykers, three soldiers died when two of the vehicles flipped into a rain-swollen irrigation ditch.

Then, two Strykers were attacked by roadside bombs. One vehicle was destroyed by fire and the other lost a tire but kept going. Only one soldier was injured, and commanders say the incidents show the vehicle‘s survivability.



The brigade passed its first combat test on Dec. 15 when a patrol thwarted a complex ambush and, with help from other soldiers, waged a 45-minute firefight in Samarra, a hotbed of forces loyal to Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader. Soldiers came under fire from mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and gunmen on motorcycles, but suffered no casualties or damage to the vehicles. Stryker commanders said 11 attackers were killed.



Since then, the eastern half of this city of 250,000 people that the brigade oversees has been largely quiet, commanders say. They think the insurgents have fled or are lying low until the brigade moves on.



Three truckloads of weapons, including 271 AK-47‘s and 412 grenades, as well as 47 detainees, have been seized since Dec. 10. "We‘re cleaning up the town and trying to set the conditions so we can turn it over to the Iraqi people," said Lt. Col. Rob Choppa, of Glens Falls, N.Y., the deputy brigade commander.



On two missions this week — one a night patrol here and another a raid against a suspected recruiting center in a nearby town — Stryker soldiers showed the system‘s versatility.

Soldiers spend a lot of time inside the vehicles, and many have customized their cramped interiors with coffee pots, stereo systems and even small television sets to watch DVD‘s during lulls. On their way to their predawn raid on Tuesday, Sgt. Billy Parker, 23, of Clemson, S.C., and Sgt. Anthony Glover, 31, of Los Angeles, both from Company C, Fifth Battalion, 20th Infantry, studied a laminated sheet of useful Arabic phrases, including the phrase for "Shut up!"

Some soldiers shrugged off criticism of the Stryker‘s vulnerabilities but others showed concern. "I‘d feel better if we‘d gone in after they‘d tested it more," said Specialist Jake Herring, 20, of Kirkland, Wash.



During an early-morning patrol on Wednesday, Strykers from Company A disgorged soldiers who fanned out into streets and alleys, the vehicles following at a distance.



Inside his command vehicle, Capt. Eric Batchelor, the 30-year-old company commander from Barnesville, Ga., monitored his vehicles‘ movements on a digital mapping system, ready to reposition them quickly at the first sign of trouble or fresh intelligence. Stryker vehicles are blue icons on the screen. Opposing forces are marked in red. Every soldier on the ground had a radio, and the patrol columns moved silently through deserted streets.



Suddenly, an insurgent‘s .50-caliber machine gun barked three times, and Stryker radios crackled. By the time a team rushed inside a building, the attacker had fled into the night. The 12-hour patrol detained one person after finding rifles, a submachine gun and bomb-making material.



"We‘re on the threshold of something new," Captain Batchelor said afterward. "We‘re making history."
 
Is this really a fair comparison between our new vehicle and this version? They are different vehicles with different capabilities.
 
Good point ex-Dragoon. The US Army‘s Strykers and the Canadian Army‘s LAV III vehicles should not really be compared. The Strykers mostly have .50cal HMG/40mm AGL remote turrets while the Canadian Army vehicles have 25mm chain gun conventional turrets. The standard Stryker is a true wheeled APC while the LAV III APC is not really an APC at all, but a wheeled infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). Although, I think infantry combat vehicle (ICV) is more appropriate, but that is topic for another discussion.

It is interesting to read that they are "too cramped for gear-laden soldiers" yet soldiers find room for coffee machines and TVs. Some of the troops in 2RCR found a way to hook up Playstations for downtime activity, and the Canadian Army‘s LAV III vehicles have a 25mm chain gun turret and are far more cramped. The person who said the vehicles are cramped was obviously comparing their interior to a hotel suite rather than the inside of a Bradley, M113 or similar, because in comparison their is a lot more interior room.
 
I know there isn‘t a lot of love for Scott Taylor on this forum, but he raises some good points in this article in today‘s Chronicle-Herald.

--------------------------------------------------

Hard questions about Stryker

By Scott Taylor

IN OCTOBER, when then-defence minister John McCallum made the unexpected announcement that the Canadian army would be purchasing 66 new Stryker Mobile Gun Systems, the $600-million procurement immediately blew up into a storm of controversy.

Touted as the cornerstone upon which Canada will build a modern combat force, the Stryker MGS was the focus of some astonishing claims by McCallum and his spokesmen.

Unfortunately, much of their sales pitch to the public was sorely undermined by media revelation about the Defence Department‘s internal study of the Strykers. The report outlined many of the design flaws that were revealed during tests conducted by the U.S. army, as well as the Canadian military panel‘s conclusion that to purchase Strykers as tank replacements "would be morally and ethically wrong."

When critics questioned how the purchase of 66 lightly armoured 23-ton wheeled vehicles could possibly replace our existing 115 Leopard 42-ton tanks, McCallum and his generals were quick to respond. The defence minister declared tanks were, in fact, "obsolete weapons" and "relics of the Cold War."

McCallum was already out of the Defence portfolio when another internal DND study hit the media Jan. 8. After careful analysis of the U.S.- led attack on Iraq, Canadian tactical planners had concluded that "tanks were crucial" to the Americans crushing Saddam‘s forces.

Naturally, those opposed to the Stryker purchase were quick to point out this disconnect between the reality of the modern battlefield and DND‘s procurement policy. In defence of his political masters, army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier wrote a lengthy rebuttal.

Unfortunately, the good general put a little too much torque on some of his counter-spin and thereby created distortions of his own. To wit: While admitting that it was tanks that spearheaded the Americans‘ drive into Iraq, Lt.-Gen. Hillier noted that the U.S. marines had also successfully employed light armoured vehicles such as the Strykers. However, it was when Hillier tried to compare this to a Canadian case that his leap of logic fell drastically short.

"Deployed with a variety of air and ground systems, as Canadian units will be (the U.S. vehicles) protected their crews, were lethal to the enemy and helped to completely overwhelm the ground defences," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote. "Our medium weight army will be able to do the same."

Unfortunately, those support systems he speaks of mean squadrons of modern helicopter gunships and fleets of 70-ton main battle tanks - none of which Canada has any plans to ever acquire.

The other myth the commander continues to perpetuate is that the acquisition of the Strykers will mean his army will become more flexible and readily deployable.

True enough, the major selling point for the U.S. army was that the Strykers can be deployed by Hercules aircraft. But due to its increased weight, the Mobile Gun System variant which Canada intends to purchase is too heavy to be transported in this manner except by the very latest upgraded model of Hercules.

Again, Canada does not possess any of these, and there is no plan to replace our old tactical airlift planes before 2015.

Lt.-Gen. Hillier cleverly skirted this issue by acknowledging: "We may at times move the Mobile Gun System ... by sea. But we will be able to move the MGS aboard C-130 Hercules aircraft, particularly directly from allied ports into a theatre." Alert readers will notice the army commander did not specify Canadian Hercules, and he implicitly acknowledged that airborne deployment into a war zone would first necessitate a sealift to an "allied port." Again, Canada now has no strategic sealift capability, and no plans or funding are in place for any.

The final point stressed in Lt.-Gen. Hillier‘s rebuttal appears to contain an inherent contradiction. On the one hand, the general claims that "protection for our soldiers is vital," but then, in the next paragraph, he admits that the new Strykers are vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenade launchers. It is these versatile anti-tank weapons that have been widely employed by the Iraqi resistance and are reportedly responsible for more than half the combat deaths suffered by American forces in Iraq.

So if the Strykers can‘t really be transported by air and they‘re proven to be a liability on the modern battlefield, then why are we suddenly planning to build the Canadian army around them? More importantly, one might ask why Lt.-Gen. Hillier - himself a former tanker - is so desperately trying to sell the Stryker.

--------------------------------------------------

So? Thoughts, any one?
 
I can‘t believe I‘m saying this... I AGREE with Scott Taylor on this one. Mark it down in your calendars :D

Stryker is to the Armour Corps
As
Cheese is to a roast

They just don‘t go together!

Regards
 
Rick Hillier was my last CO before I remustered to the navy and I must admit for a man that was happy to have tanks again in Pet he has since done a full reversal of his position. It saddens me to see such a fine officer bend to the will of the politicians. :(
 
You said it Ex-Dragoon... I won‘t be able to look him in the face this year at the annual cadet parade inspection in Connaught. He‘s let us ALL down.

Regards
 
We are still going in the wrong direction in the post 911 era. I for one will never be able to look the man in the face, he‘s let us all down. He should have fought harder for more or better MBTs. Now that we‘re stuck with this POS, who‘s going to be the one going to battle in it? Sure isn‘t going to be Rick. I always looked up to the man, seemed he was one officer who had the best interest of the troops in mind. I guess at the rank he‘s got he is now more of a politician than soldier.

Sir if you‘re reading this forum answer this one question:

Why have you sold out the Army?

Regards
 
And we will transport these Strykers to the theatre how? He says with Hercules aircraft, but the reporter has already pointed out that our superannuated Hercs are insufficient to the task, particularly the Strykers we are planning on getting.

<QUOTE>The MGS and LAV III have significant
protection from direct fire and mine blast, but we need more. We are aggressively pursuing, together with other countries and many companies,
improved armoured protection through additional armoured plating and what is referred to as active protection systems (that actually destroy
incoming projectiles).
Our short-term goal is protection from the most common rocket propelled-grenade that we encounter, the RPG 7, and we will not rest until
that is achieved. </QUOTE>

So they really *are* vulnerable to RPG‘s, but you‘re looking at ways to minimize that. Great. And what exactly does "not rest until that is acheived" mean? That you‘ll buy the Strykers anyway, then do a long-term and expensive review on possible upgrade options, which will be shelved as soon as the newspapers start to comment on something else? Or do you actually mean that you won‘t buy the Strykers until they do what you want them to? Or, most likely, that you‘ll buy the Strykers, do a long-term expensive review, then buy a specially made upgrade package which no other nation will use, which will cost us more than the original order and will never be fully implemented due to the need for spare parts?

It‘s a response to the article, but it‘s short on answers. All it really says is that we‘re moving to a rapid-reaction force concept instead of using the old set-piece battles concept of warfare, and that we should get used to that idea. Great. I‘m used to the idea of trimming our forces down to something like the US Marines. Now are you going to answer the **** questions about the shortcomings of the Stryker and our transport issues?
 
Sad to say but if this keeps up the only black berets in the CF will be those worn by the navy. :(
 
Gen Hillier was my CO as well, and I have great respect for him.

Guys, nothing‘s changed.

Read the article again. Canada is NOT going to get $$ for MBT‘s. We are NOT going to be an all arms, balanced war machine. Never.

That truly sucks.

However, it is reality. We have passed the defence of our country on to our Allies.

That truly sucks.

So, what do we do about it? Either we change the rules, and elect a Government that will make us what we were, or we groan and moan and whine and do nothing, or we accept the fact and try to move on.

Hillier is (imho) trying to move on.

We may well see the CF specialising. We may lose more assets and abilities than heavy armour- who knows, maybe the Fighter Force (F-18‘s) are next.

If I read Hillier right, we‘re going to lose some capability in some areas, and gain in others. Always with the concept of fighting as part of an Allied war machine.

Just for giggles, we could become the experts on Recce. Not just in Armoured, but Infantry as well. F-18‘s could go to the Recce role, as well as the Navy. Heck, the enitre CF could be the eyes and ears for our Allies.

Nice? No, but at least we‘d be the best we could be, and provide a credible asset to NATO.

That‘s one idea, there will be more. Whatever way we go, I want our troops to be well equipped, well trained, and well led.

I believe Hillier thinks the same way.

Cheers-Garry
 
I hope so Garry...it‘s hard to read between the lines with the drivel that makes the news these days.

Regards
 
Back
Top