Styker‘s first deaths

[Grunt_031]

The US M109 Palladin and UK AS90 where used in the Gulf.
In Ref about the comment "as we seen during the war, all the US used was tanks" it may what you saw played on TV, there were lots of other AFV‘s, APC‘s, Hummvee in the fight. In the North of Iraq there was very little Armour, mostly light forces (Airborne/Air Assault). The armour battles that occured enroute to the capital were classic tank tactics and ideal terrain, using shock, mobility, firepower, what armour is designed for. Once they encountered defiles and MOUT is where they showed their weakness/vulnerabilities.

If we had deployed to the Gulf (Strategic Lift??) no doubt the Leo would have gone.

I think they would have adequate, but compared to the HVY Armour M1/Challenger how would they have faired. The US had hundreds of their tanks damaged by RPG‘s, some destroyed. Would have our tanks (Medium Tanks) been able to withstand that kind of beating. How many of our 120? Leo‘s or so would have gone.

Any Reg 011‘s know how may have been converted to the new turret?

 

[Brock]

Slim:

The LAV III/Stryker MGS does have manual fire capability as do the infantry‘s LAV III equipped with the 25mm chain gun. I concede that the LAV III platform is not as manouverable tactically as a fully tracked platform. However, the LAV MGS is not a tank and is not intended to be used as a tank despite no changes in tactics for some situations. The combined arms team frontal attack capability against heavy armoured forces or against extremely well entrenched enemies will no longer exist with a wheeled medium combat force, although I would argue that Canada has not really had the capability for a long time, but that is another discussion

I fully agree the army has adopted vehicle systems without adequately addressing that doctrine changes necessary to most effectively use a wheeled medium combat force. I do, however, support the medium combat force concept for the Canadian Army. I believe it is a niche role that the Canadian Army should embrace. Canadians will support it financially, becuase it "looks good" for peacekeeping, but militarily it allows the Canadian Army to provide a very useful combat force across the full spectrum of operations, albeit more limited for at some levels. The status quo is unacceptable, because right now the Army is essentiallly limited to peace support operations and/or low intensity combat.