Future Armour

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

International Light Tracked Vehicle Market Robust; "Family of Vehicles" Concept Takes Hold
   
(Source: Forecast International; issued Sept. 19, 2005)
 
 
NEWTOWN, Conn. --- The international market for light tracked vehicles remains robust, with Forecast International's Weapons Group projecting production of more than 14,800 light tracked vehicles - worth nearly $19.7 billion - over the coming 10-year forecast period. 


In a purely technical sense, the light tracked vehicle market has evolved into two distinct market segments: armored personnel carriers (APCs) and mechanized infantry combat vehicles (MICVs). However, as Forecast International Military Vehicles Analyst Dean Lockwood notes, the most significant trend in the light tracked vehicle market involves the developing "family of vehicles" concept, in which a modular common chassis design serves as the basis for a variety of combat vehicles. 

The various players in the international market are adapting to an evolving market environment, precipitated by the end of the Cold War and the emergence of new threat scenarios and military doctrines. Operation Iraqi Freedom clearly demonstrates the benefits of an operational synergy between light tracked vehicles and light wheeled vehicles on the modern asymmetrical battlefield. 

On the international market, an ongoing product glut and the influx of new players have combined to shift control of the market away from the traditional U.S. and European players. However, these traditional players continue to dominate the rather exclusive high end of the market, while the new players have effectively taken over the significantly larger lower end of the market. For most nations, the expense associated with the modernization and retrofit of high-end light tracked vehicles pales in comparison with the prospect of new procurement. 

"New production of high-end vehicles - such as the 2T Stalker, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), the Igel/Puma, and Japan's Type 89 - will account for only about 10 percent of all production through the forecast period," Lockwood said. "Yet, these programs will provide about 46 percent of the total value of the light tracked vehicle market." 

In terms of sheer numbers, the Type 90 APC and the Type 90 MICV of the People's Republic of China represent the most significant new-production light tracked vehicles during the forecast period. According to Lockwood, "As the People's Liberation Army (PLA) standardizes its mechanized forces around the Type 90 APC and MICV, we believe combined production of these two vehicles will account for over 47 percent of all new light tracked vehicle production worldwide through 2014." 

Despite the uncertainties of a post-Cold War world and the glut of available vehicles, the international light tracked vehicle market remains a vibrant, dynamic environment. Although threat scenarios and force structures continue to evolve, the light tracked vehicle soldiers on as the basis of modern mechanized infantry warfare. 


Forecast International, Inc., is a leading provider of market intelligence and analysis in the areas of aerospace, defense, power systems and military electronics. Based in Newtown, CT, USA, Forecast International specializes in long-range industry forecasts and market assessments utilized by strategic planners, marketing professionals, military organizations, and governments worldwide. 

-ends- 

Also this one:


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

BAE Systems Team to Develop Traction Drive Subsystems for Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles
 
 
(Source: BAE Systems; issued Sept. 19, 2005)
 
 
SANTA CLARA, Calif. --- A BAE Systems-led team has been selected by the Future Combat Systems (FCS) One Team to develop the common Traction Drive Subsystem (TDS) for FCS Manned Ground Vehicles (MGVs).   

The FCS Lead System Integrator (LSI) -- The Boeing Company and SAIC -- recognized the source selection team for its detailed analysis of all TDS proposals. The analysis was conducted by integrated MGV One Team partner evaluation panels led by LSI personnel. Following the analysis, a team led by BAE Systems, along with QinetiQ and Honeywell, was recommended and selected to develop the TDS system. The selection was announced by BAE Systems' firewalled FCS MGV program, which issued the TDS request for proposal in January. 

The TDS is a series-hybrid drive system that will provide vehicle propulsion, steering and braking, and regenerate electrical power from braking and downhill grades for use in vehicle electrical systems. Initial deliveries of the objective TDS design are due in October 2006, with deliveries for 45 total TDS units and follow-on support running to 2011.  

"We are pleased the FCS One Team selected our approach as the best-value solution for the Manned Ground Vehicles," said Matt Riddle, BAE Systems' director of Advanced Development at Santa Clara, Calif. "Our development and integration experience with hybrid systems, combined with QinetiQ's compact E-X-Drive tracked vehicle transmission and Honeywell's expertise in power electronics, motor manufacture and controls, will advance this key technology for FCS and other vehicle systems." 

Under the award, the TDS Team will join the MGV Propulsion Integrated Product Team to work in conjunction with BAE Systems and General Dynamics to develop and fully integrate the propulsion system for the common chassis. 

BAE Systems, as part of the firewalled FCS One Team, teamed with General Dynamics, is already working to develop and field a family of highly deployable Manned Ground Vehicles that will be key supporting systems linked through the overarching network that will enable the FCS-equipped Units of Action to effectively complete their missions. 

The two companies have formed integrated design teams to develop and demonstrate the family of eight manned ground vehicles featuring a common platform design with common components and subsystems, such as TDS, with unique mission modules and all the variants linked together by networked battle command. 

Under the FCS MGV contract, BAE Systems has responsibility for five MGV variants: Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C); Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV); Medical Vehicle (MV); Non-Line of Sight Mortar (NLOS-M), and FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV). 


BAE Systems is an international company engaged in the development, delivery, and support of advanced defense and aerospace systems in the air, on land, at sea, and in space. The company designs, manufactures, and supports military aircraft, combat vehicles, surface ships, submarines, radar, avionics, communications, electronics, and guided weapon systems. 

-ends- 

 

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Hmm.

A couple of comments.  Navies can operate, and have for decades, unmanned turrets.  However, these "unmanned" turrets are operated by scores of men, as well as sensors and computers, one of the key detection/aiming devices being radar.  However, the navy operates in a relatively uncluttered environment.  I'll elaborate in a bit.  The ships also purposely broadcasts its presence for hundreds of kilometers, using the same radar.  The unmanned turret would not be quite so effective if the radars (all of them) were to be shut down for purposes of stealth or other reasons.

Elaboration - there is presently sensors and equipment in fielded tanks that are incorporated into a target detection capability.  This technology, briefly, operates in the following manner:  The tank gunner/commander activates the system, then traverses the arcs to be covered.  The computer takes over, and using cameras, scans the arcs, building a database of the imagery.  After a few scans, the system is ready.  The computer constantly traverses the turret, and compares the image with the one in the database.  If a discrepency is found, the computer reacts by laying the gun in the direction of the threat, and sounds an alarm for the crew.  A system such as this is being used in the Merkava 3/4.  Most systems use thermal imagery, because it is much simpler to compare images in two colours, and it lessens the effects caused by clouds and such.

There are problems with these systems, as you can imagine.  The Israelis like them, because for overwatch in open terrain, the system places less strain on the crew, and the problems are minimised.  A major part of the problem is clutter.  The more trees, birds, animals or whatever moving around, the more false alarms.  Another problem is that the crews rely to much on the technology, and less on their own senses.  Changing weather also changes the image in the database, as rocks and such get cooled by nightfall, clouds, rain or snow.

Now to the biggest problem, for those who haven't figured it out yet.  The automatic target detection and tracking systems can, obviously, only be used in the defense.  The system is useless on the move.  Also, if the crew, for whatever reason, moves the vehicle/turret/gun, then you have to start all over.  Another major problem is that (in presently fielded systems) the tank is exposed.  This is because the camera is mounted on the mantlet.

All this to say (and this is just my opinion) that sensors and technology are, and will continue to be, huge assets to crews operating in a static environment.  By this I'm talking defense or surveillance.  However, one of the "raisons d'etre" of the tank is mobility, and its capability of fighting on the move.  In these situations, the crew have to rely on their own capabilities, not technology, to detect and destroy the enemy.  Not to say that the various battlefield management systems aren't an aid, they are, but they are only an aid, just like binos.

 

[Kirkhill]

Lance:

If a discrepency is found, the computer reacts by laying the gun in the direction of the threat, and sounds an alarm for the crew.   A system such as this is being used in the Merkava 3/4....Another problem is that the crews rely to much on the technology, and less on their own senses.

Interesting that. I wonder if that might not have contributed to some of the nastier incidents involving kids and tanks.   Tired crew in warm tank relying on sensors.   Alarm goes off and some reflexively hits the big red panic button.   Over reliance on sensors is never a good thing.   Industry confronts the same problem (sorry, I am sure some of this constant industrial reference offends some).   There are many processes can be controlled by one operator in a control room on their own.   In the event that there are a number of systems to be controlled it is possible to put all of them on one board and still employ only one operator.   The problem is that the operator gets bored with nothing to do waiting for something to happen.   They lose touch with the situation and fail to anticipate what's coming down the road at them.   When the alarm does go off they often over-react.

To counteract this I prefer to install two operators and give them a check list so that every 15-30-60 minutes or whatever one of them has to go out onto the floor to gather field data from manual thermometers, gauges, flow meters etc so that they can compare and calibrate the remote ones.  

Oh, and the other stunt.   Put the coffee pot in a room on the other side of the plant from the control room.   Then they have to walk across the floor to get it

I suppose the tanker's equivalent to this situation ("ASSUMING" that a sufficiently reliable sensor suite and remote gun were available that permitted one operator to drive and shoot)   would be requiring a minimum crew of two both being able to drive and shoot and both being able to put their heads in the breeze.   What to do about the coffee pot I am not sure.

On the remote battlefield (just supposing for a moment) which would be more effective? One operator per vehicle, or a pair of operators for four or five vehicles?

As to camera position on the mantlet Lance - in the Merkava and a conventional tank that may indeed be a problem although it could be solved easily enough by either installing it in the Commander's or gunners sights on the roof of the turret, or by installing it in a Remote Weapons System on the roof.  

Indeed, if you adopted the German turret you have mentioned, the crewless overhead system then the camera on the mantlet would seem to be in exactly the right place, assuming that there is a mantlet.

Your point about relying on sensors in the attack as opposed to the defense, or even on overwatch, is valid, especially in the manner in which you describe it.   But suppose we're not talking about auto warning systems?    Suppose instead we're talking about a tank with cameras (and for that matter microphones) mounted around the vehicle to give the crew a real-life, true-colour image of the tank's surrounds.    Mikes and lenses aren't that expensive. Consider the lenses and microphone on a cellular phone and envisage arrays of them on the corners of your vehicle with software to integrate the picture.   You would still have the large lens gunner's and commander's sight.

I may be stretching a point here but from reviewing the kit out there I don't think so.

Final point.   Navies have indeed operated unmanned turrets however I think I take issue with your scores of men comment.   That is only true if you stipulate that the crew of a ship includes second and third line support personnel that are found at squadron and regimental level in a tank unit, not on board the tank.

Unmanned turrets really are coming down to a calibre issue.   The smaller the calibre and the slower the rate of fire the more reliable the system is.   Rifle calibre systems now fire thousands of rounds between failures.   Chain gun systems are likewise very reliable for calibres up to 25 to 40 mm?.   Navies seem quite happy with the reliability of turrets like the Bofors 57mm and the OtoMelara 76mm (used on the DDHs and the model for the 60mm HVMS turret suggested as a light turret for LAVs).   In fact in Denmark their patrol boats' guns are modular and can be installed or removed in less than half an hour they are that self contained.

Someone mentioned the Marder and their overhead remote MG on the rear deck and mentioned that they had been removed.   True.   However, AFAIK they stuck with the original 20 mm cannon mount which is externally mounted above the two-man turret.   The Dutch use (used?) a similar 25 mm mount on their Lynxes after they upgraded them.

I take no issue with the advantages of the conventional layout, nor the deficiencies of the layouts like the Marder (pretty much the same as the MGS except for the size of the weapon), nor do I question the problems with the auto-loader or the lack of ammunition or armour - all perfectly good reasons to dislike the MGS.  

However... I do think that just becaus "this" works and "that" doesn't, shouldn't mean that there isn't "something else"

Cheers

And I just confirmed that the new Puma to be used by the Germans also employs a remote main weapons system.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/puma_tracked2.html

 

[Kirkhill]

On the remote battlefield (just supposing for a moment) which would be more effective? One operator per vehicle, or a pair of operators for four or five vehicles?

The US Air Force seems to think that they can handle at least/up to 4 aircraft (Predators) with one operator.  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34996.0.html

 

[a_majoor]

Taking this thread in a different direction: we need better crew ergonomics.

Just think about it; a LAV III costs over $300,000 and has seats and a layout not much different from a WWII vintage AFV. Even economy cars come with fully adjustabel seats, airbags, adjustable 3 point seatbelts, not to mention cupholders and a center console. Controls are easy to reach and the dashboard is easy to read.

Here are some things I think modern AFVs need:

Fully contoured seats similar to race cars, which cradle and protect the occupant from impacts or rollovers . These seats need five point harness to keep the crewman firmly braced within.

Head and neck protection for the mounted crew. Once again following racing practice; crewmen who are primaraly mounted should have a neck brace to protect against whiplash injuries. An even more drastic measure would be a tether attached to the helmet , but this would limit motion a bit too much, and involve a lot more gagetry (such as self locking inertial reels on the tethers).

Internal padding all around. This is actually not as difficult as it sounds if the vehicle is fitted with a spall liner inside. A spacer should be provided between the kevlar and the metal, and a closed cell foam of fireproof material would provide the "give" when head meets hull.

Much better driver stations. This will require much work, since the driver is in two different positions (hatches up, and hatches down), but the idea of an easy to read dashboard you can read at a glance should be stressed.

Situational awareness. While 2Bravo is concerned about the ability of the crew to stick their heads up and see outside, there should also be a major effort to ensure they have as good a veiw when operating hatches down as well. Supplimentry systems like TI, SAS and so on should be "portable" in the sense the crew can access them in either position. Monocole sights anyone?

I'm sure there are lots of other design features which should be investigated to provide the AFV crew with a user friendly environment.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Robot Bradley...

BAE Systems Displays Armed Robotic Demonstrator at AUSA
 
 
(Source: BAE Systems; issued Oct. 3, 2005)

The demonstrator is an early prototype of an armed robotic vehicle equipped with operative turret components from the Bradley Combat Systems program.

The Armed Robotic Demonstrator can be controlled from the operator's station in the back of a manned system -... Gun and turret position, as well as information from a Commander's Independent Viewer (CIV), and the Improved Bradley Acquisition System (IBAS) can be seen on a screen ..."As soldiers dismount, they take a Dismounted Control Device (DCD) along, and continue to operate the Armed Robotic Demonstrator, receiving information on the single screen on the DCD,"...

The article makes clear that in this instance, for demonstration purposes, that the DCD is mounted in the same Bradley as the weapons but that it could be dismounted and used by troops on foot or it could be used by Crew in another vehicle.

Kind of puts a different slant on that telephone that hangs off the back of well-equipped tanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Contract for Helmet Mounted Displays (Monoculars)  awarded to Rockwell Collins for Strykers crew members (CC/Dvr presumably)

...Mounted Warrior equips Army crew members assigned to Stryker vehicles and requires the use of a helmet mounted display for hands-free viewing and increased situational awareness. 

Rockwell Collins was chosen as a result of a competitive field evaluation at Yakima, Wash. on August 9-14, 2005. The evaluation also consisted of user feedback from soldiers assigned to Stryker vehicles with recent operational experience.

...The recommended HMD of choice that was demonstrated to the Army and General Dynamics was the ProView S035 monocular.

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting observation from the AUSA show; "light" armour is the current "wave of the future".

CMI Defence is offering a credible drop in turret alternative to the MGS, with a 105mm high velocity gun in a Wegmann style turret for LAV sized vehicles. The CT_CV turret has a 16 round bustle and autoloader, and a video was displayed which showed the LAV firing at targets both stationalry and on the move, traversing 900 from the centerline while doing so. This turret is also suitable for retrofit onto existing tanks.

As for new products, the CV-90120T was there in spirit, demonstrating there is a viable 120mm gun tank that has strategic, operational and tactical mobility. Survivability is enhanced by a suite of SAS and DAS equipment, which may not be a full substitute for 70,000 kg of armour, but helps keep the vehicle nice and light. The German PUMA is similar in concept to the CV-90, although quite a bit heavier at 31 tonnes basic and 43 tonnes fully bombed up and uparmoured. Presumably a family of PUMA based vehicles will arise, similar to the CV-90 although carrying a heavier armour suite. The protection of a PUMA is similar to that of the Leopard 1 tank, in that it will stop almost anything less than an ATGM or full power tank round.

Most of the vehicles on the floor were protected versions of commercial trucks, ranging from armoured Ford  F-350s to various trucks and truck conversions, with special emphasis on mine protection and small arms protection, as well as the ability to take armour kits vs RPGs. Products ranged from rather crude conversions that seem to have been done in a shop class to pretty complete makeovers. The best vehicle in this class was the Australian "Bushmaster", which unlike most other vehicles was designed and built from the ground up. It combines a straightforward and sensible layout with well though out mechanical features, including a low centre of gravity and seats suspended from side rails rather than bolted to the floor to isolate shock and impact from mine strikes. The Australians use this in the same way we used to use M-113s in Mech Infantry Battalions, and are considering many variations as follow on systems. It costs about 1/3 as much as a LAV, so is quite affordable for what it does.

The German "Dingo" and the GD "Eagle IV" deserve some mention, being bigger than the HMMVW but smaller than an MLVW, making them good candidates for Mud Recce and other assorted utility vehicles. The Eagle is based on the Duro truck chassis, and has some pretty amazing suspension travel, while the Dingo seems to be purpose built, and the example on display was actually the victim of a mine strike, which destroyed the wheel but left the vehicle intact.

Pride of place in the American pavillions was the FCS, which combines the light weight of the CV-90 class of vehicles with mind boggling electronic gadgets, including an even greater emphasis on SAS and DAS for protection, as well as a hybrid diesel electric drive train and a very modular layout (aprox 80% of the parts are common throughout all the manned FCS varients). The Americans have been seduced by the ISTAR/Surveillance idea even more than we have, one weakness is there does not seem to be a "Cavalry" or "Scout" version of the FCS for when things go south...

Summary: smaller and lighter is the way to go, and whatever system is on offer needs to be protected against mines, IEDs and small arms as a minimum. Armies are demanding (and companies are supplying) vehicles which are quite a bit "smarter" with SAS and DAS on board to "side step" the opponent, rather than layering on even more armour.

 

[Infanteer]

I was most impressed with the Bushmaster, but probably because it had the best salesman.  I made sure I stacked up on literature for my CV90 fanclub.  The LAV turret looked promising - much more that the MGS.

 

[ArmyRick]

CT-CV turret looks like a good solution to the MGS short comings. I went to the CMI Defence site and looked up more info on this turret.

 

[Infanteer]

CT-CV turret looks like a good solution to the MGS short comings. I went to the CMI Defence site and looked up more info on this turret.

And you didn't include the link!  Bad boy, no supper. 

http://www.cmi.be/defence/ws105_en.htm

http://www.cmi.be/defence/doc/050823_ctcv.pdf

The CMI booth had a nice video for the thing.

 

[DG-41]

That's a whole lot better looking than the MGS.

The one immediate downside I see is the small ammo capacity. Just 12 rounds in the bustle and another 4 on the turret floor. Not much staying power there.

DG

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Still better than the eight for the POS MGS.

 

[a_majoor]

12 rounds is for air transport, there is a 16 round bustle as well. Since the bustle carries the ready ammunition, the rear of the LAV/MGS CT_CV could have a "wine rack" with at least another 8-10 rounds, if not more.

 

[Kirkhill]

CT-CV WEAPON SYSTEM (105mm)
The CT-CV weapon system is designed to meet the present and future requirements of modern armed forces for powerful weapons on light air transportable vehicles. A series of trials and stringent tests have been conducted successfully and final qualification is underway.

The turret and gun have been completely developed in-house by CMI thanks to its long standing experience in the design of systems specifically adapted for light and air deployable vehicles.

It is a two-man turret armed with the "CV" gun with low recoil force.

The system is compatible with all current NATO 105mm ammunition but the barrel has been designed to be able to fire ammunition with higher pressure as well as smart ammunition and guided missiles.

With a view to complying with specific requirements from customers, CMI Defence has designed a modular system able to integrate alternative sub-systems.

Particular attention has been paid to safety and comfort of the crew. The crew is seated low in the turret to take advantage of the vehicle hull protection. For safety reasons too, the crew and ammunition compartments are independent and separated by a firewall; in addition, crew protection is ensured thanks to a safety fuse plate above the ammunition rack.

The system is equipped with an automatic loader which contains 16 rounds in standard configuration and 12 rounds in air-deployable configuration.

The system is ready to fire immediately upon leaving the aircraft and is capable of panoramic observation after 15 minutes. The complete system can be prepared in about 4 hours, including the installation of a pintle-mount or RWS and the fitting of add-on armour.

The sighting system for both the gunner and the commander consists in two identical displays, one for day vision and the other one for night vision. The gunner's sight with laser range finder is stabilised for firing on the move and at moving targets. A panoramic sight gives the commander observation and hunter killer capabilities.

Back up devices are foreseen to allow continued use of the turret in case of loss of electrical power supply.

One of most striking features of this new system resides in its BLOS (Beyond Line of Sight) firing capabilities thanks to a 42 ° gun elevation, adapted to urban and mountainous warfare conditions as well as allowing firing against airborne targets.

The CT-CV is definitely the most advanced system available today to serve the needs of modern armed forces.

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/turrets/cmi/

Does this turret answer those critics who complain about situationall awareness due to the low position of the crew, the small number of rounds available, the use of an auto-loader generally, the reduced crew requirement, light armour and wheels generally?

Or is it just that this system, with its 15 tonne recoil force, functioning auto-loader and effective muzzle-brake has a track record?

Sorry if this sounds facetious but I can't see that this system fundamentally alters the characteristics of the MGS.  It may make for a more effective MGS turret, although from here it looks as if it will raise the centre of gravity increasing instability, but fundamentally it won't convert the MGS into a Tank.

The Americans load the MGS with 3400 rounds of 7.62, 400 rounds of .50 and 18 rounds of 105mm.  That is in line with their conception of the MGS as being better than a Hummer but not a Tank.  The alternatives to the MGS are both the M1 Abrams AND the HUMMVW with Fifty's and 40mm Auto Grenade Launchers.  While MGS is a step down for the Armd Commander it is a step up for the Infantry Commander.  Because of its weight it is more likely to be available than a tank but not as available as a Hummer.  Because of its load carrying capacity it can carry more armour and a heavier weapon than the Hummer, making it more survivable and useful, but not as much as an Abrams.

Replacing the MGS's existing armament for one with a better loader, lower recoil forces and better muzzle brake may make sense but only if they are better.  It can't make them into tanks and they should never be confused with tanks just because the turret makes them look more like tanks.

2 cents......

 

[Infanteer]

Replacing the MGS's existing armament for one with a better loader, lower recoil forces and better muzzle brake may make sense but only if they are better.

That's all my interest in the gizmo was based on - I never confused it with the M1 that was parked a few stalls down.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's all my interest in the gizmo was based on - I never confused it with the M1 that was parked a few stalls down.

I'm sure you didn't Infanteer.  But some here might.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Sigh.  While I knew that Cockerill had dabbled with the idea of making a 105, and had in fact made a prototype, I never knew that it had completed development and is now for sale.

Here I was wondering why Cockerill never followed up on the 105 complement to their excellent 90mm gun.  The Cockerill 90 is mounted on a large number of platforms, including the LAV III, as it is in service with the SANG.

And here it is, and I never even knew that it had been tested and is now for sale.  Sigh.

OK, the Cockerill is an excellent gun, the weapon and turret are tested and proven.  It fits on the LAV III. 

Hey, I have an idea!    Stop spending dollars on the LPT for the MGS, and buy the ready made product.  Sell our current L7 and M68 barrels to whoever wants the darn things, which would be almost any country using the 105 still.

This must make sense to somebody in Ottawa............right?

 

[a_majoor]

Replacing the MGS's existing armament for one with a better loader, lower recoil forces and better muzzle brake may make sense but only if they are better.  It can't make them into tanks and they should never be confused with tanks just because the turret makes them look more like tanks.

In the Infantry thread there is a discussion about the need for fire superiority and lots of suppression in order to prosecute an attack. The MGS in its current form cannot supply the volume of fire with its eight round magazine, while a similar MGS/CV_CT would bring 12 or 16 rounds in the fight right away. Add the fact the fire would be reliable due to a superior autoloader, and the bonus of a 420 elevation to take out those annoying people on the rooftops, and you have a far superior fire support vehicle for the Infantry commander, as well as a fairly useful armoured car for a "Cavalry" commander.

As a bit of blue sky thinking, the high angle elevation coupled with proper rounds would also make this a rather unique SP for our artillery friends. The battery could motor down the road as fast as the rest of the team, and they would have a very potent direct fire capability to deal with ambush situations or attacks on the battery position (remember, no secure rear areas).

Lets see, a "fire support company" per Infantry battalion, 2 X Armoured Cavalry regiments (we can let the Strathconas retain the tanks and experiment with exotic concepts) and three artillery regiments would lead to a pretty decent economy of scale. Any takers?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The current Leo, and the CV_CT both are capable of indirect fire, and of course, of semi-indirect fire.  At one time both were taught, but that concept was dropped.  It took too much time (and ammunition) to train crews to fore indirect.  However, it was a very valid concept, and one I think should be brought back in.  Part of the problem, certainly, is that indirect fire suppression takes a large number of 105mm rounds, and the tanks and echelon just are not geared to carry that many. 

The high rate of fire, accuracy, and speed of engagement are all plusses.  I wonder if the Artillery were upset with the Armour Corps conducting indirect fire missions?

On the other hand, the MGS does not have that wonderful capability of elevating the main armament beyond something like 20 degrees, and is not fitted with any capability for semi-indirect or indirect fire.

Someone remind me, because I forget.  Exactly what does the MGS bring to the table that the CV_CT does not?