LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Lance Wiebe]

One thing further that I don't think has been mentioned.

The US Army is buying the Stryker family of vehicles as an interim vehicle in its' interim Brigades.

Its there to fill the hole until their future combat vehicle is deliverable.

While we look on the LAV III and the MGS as the end-all and be-all for the future of our Army, the Americans see it as a stepping stone.  It is far from perfect, as is the concept of an all-wheeled Brigade based on it.  Perhaps the future vehicle will have its own version of the MGS, but it will be purpose built, not a cobbled together piece of cr*p that the MGS is.

 

[jrhume]

The after-action reports available on the Global Security site and elsewhere make it clear that tanks are absolutely necessary for urban combat unless one is prepared to accept horrific casualties.  A tank is a mobile pillbox and can approach dug-in positions in urban settings with relative impunity.  M1 tanks in Iraq were hit with everything up to and including 125mm gun rounds with little effect.  Accompanied by properly trained infantry, tanks can function effectively in MOUT operations.

I don't know why that surprises people.  It's been that way since the tank was invented.  WW2 histories depict mobile forces in sweeping attacks, but the truth is that many tank units fought primarily in support of infantry in and around cities.  It wasn't glamorous and it was damned dangerous.  Your average WW2 tank was far more likely to be damaged or destroyed by anti-tank guns and various armor countermeasures than current tanks.

Tanks are here to stay -- in one form or another.  I think multi-wheeled armored vehicles are one more tool in the armor/cavalry force structure.  Whatever the design function of a particular vehicle, it is sure to be used in roles invented on battlefields we have yet to see.  M1s were designed as open-country tanks, yet they worked fine in urban settings.  I can think of several additions/changes that would have made it a better urban tank, but would have degraded its high speed capability.  Alas, one can't have everything.

I'm more concerned that Canada will have soldiers to put in CF vehicles, regardless of what they are.  I hope so.

Jim

 

[PTE Gruending]

I think it important to consider what possible engagements we may find ourselves in, in the future. What role is it that we need to conform our military to, and particular to this discussion - what type of armour is needed to fill the job description. As history has taught us; it is impossible to predict with certainty what kind of global conflict may errupt, even in the short term (20 years ~).

It is safe to say that in todays world (or at least in the Canadian scope of things), extended periods of mobilization are not likely (ie: an unlikely WW3-type large scale conflict). As someone has mentioned previously on this forum, attrition rates in likely future conflict are likely to be low, thus perhaps we should consider a quality vs quantity doctrine. Speed of mobilization has always become an important factor, moreso in todays world of high speed communications.

As far as likely engagements in the future, assuredly urban-warfare will play a large part. The world's demographic (particularily in countries where conflict is likely) is shifting towards cities; where people are massed - warfare is more likely.

Will we be the perpetual peacekeepers? Or will we be part of massive NATO/UN coalitions that take place in high intensity conflicts?

Who are our enemies/potential enemies today? Could the Canadian Forces (in the projected lifespan of the new generation light AFV, ~20-30 years?) be engaged in battle in the Middle East? Eastern-European USSR splinter nations? North/South Korean border war or invasion? Peacekeeping on the West Bank?  Blocking Chinese incursions in Siberia? South American civil wars? Hell, Quebecois partisans or defending against a possble U.S. invasion?

I think it is important that we need to consider where our military will be seeing duty in order to deceide what type of equipment and training will be needed.
thoughts?

 

[Military Brat]

Tanks are still used by our allies like the US and UK because their tanks are far superior to the tanks of our enemies (who mainly have Soviet tanks like the T-72). They still do the job, and they are still around so rather than collecting dust, so they put them to use. But I was recently reading an article saying the RPG-7 can now penetrate M1A2 Abrams tank armour. Most countries we and our allies could possibly have a showdown with, like Iran, Syria, North Korea, have air defense capabilities that would be extremely lucky to take down a fighter jet, especially with all the technology we have to evade AA fire.

Now if I have a choice between sending a column of tanks to wipe out the enemy, which risks the lives of the crew, or a few fighter jets, which has considerably less risk to the crew, I think I'm going to choose the less risky option so they can live to fight another day.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

But hardly a relic as you ascertain. There is a difference.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Sigh.

An RPG-7 cannot penetrate the front or side armour on a M1A2.  It may be able to penetrate the top armour over the engine deck, thats it.

During the second Gulf war, the US Air Force and US Navy flew, literally, thousands of sorties.  They dropped thousand of tons of bombs, launched thousands of missiles and rockets, and knocked out less than 10% of Iraq's armour.  Why?  Because air power cannot do it.  If the US, with all of its technology, and all of the missions it flew, couldn't take out Iraqs T-72 and T-55's, what makes you think anyone else can?  The US would have loved it if Iraq could have been defeated by air power alone. 

The US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia and Australia, plus all of the others, do not have it wrong.  Canada does not have it right.  The day of the tank is not yet over.

 

[Limpy]

How it works Military Brat is unless you have air superiority that idea will fail. They're tanks will keep rolling mostly unopposed while your fighter bombers are caught up in dog fights with enemy aircraft and dodging SAM's and triple AAA. Tank columns especially in the old Soviet doctrine were usually always bristling with SA 9 Gaskins and SA 6 Gainfuls

 

[jrhume]

I think the piece Military Brat is missing is that one rarely has a clear-cut situation requiring only one weapon.  That presupposes a one-dimensional threat.  Few combat situations are so simple. 

Whether the newest RPG-7 rounds can penetrate an M1 anywhere is a moot point.  Someone, somewhere either has or will develop a round that can.  Then the armor will be changed to defeat that threat.  And around we go . . .

For the forseeable future, the most useful force will be one with a combination of tanks, personnel carriers, specialized support vehicles (armored) and mobile artillery along with aviation assets.  The US Army is apparently realigning its divisions into just such units -- an enhanced version of the present Brigade Combat Team.

 

[Pugnacious]

One thing being overlooked is the 'war of attrition' factor.   One modern tnk is approx $60+ million dollars, plus needs 3-4 trained soldgers to man it.
One RPG is around $3.000-$10.000 dollars, and needs only one guy to operate it.   Over time an Army will loose to the RPG based on cost alone.

This has happened all through history over and over again..see light armour archers vs heavy armoured knights. Mongols, Welsh, Japan etc etc.
Knocked of your horse by some peasant with a longbow, and a Bodkin/armour piercing head.

There is another board (military photos) that has posted a huge arry of pics of RPG vs M1.  
It has been summerized that the results of lost tanks where mostly luck of the momnet on the part of the enemy, and also tanks without good infantry cover.

I vote for fast high tech vehicles, ones that can be modular e-quiped to the situation at hand, and also be transportable to the theater of operations.
i'm not sure this new vehickle is good enogh though, and besides which why aren't we making our own stuff here in Canada?  
Surely we have lots of people here that need work, and can do the job.

BTW on topic check out this little beasty that the the Belgian Army is testing to replace their M113's:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17130&highlight=iguana

Cheers!
P.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

And when your aircraft gets shot down thats an even bigger loss in money not to mention the pilot and what you spend in training him.

 

[JasonH]

Kinda sucks from a viewpoint that the flyboys get the fun first because they hafto take out all the aircraft.  I mean, unless a side can win the air I'd hate to be sitten in a trench then all of a sudden get picked off by a heli from 4 or so km's away with it's Chaingun.  That'd suck.

Kinda felt bad when I saw that Iraq vid of the Apache taken out those 4 guys in the middle of the night over an RPG or Anti-air missile.  They had no clue it was commin.  And when you think of modern warfare and you see something like that... from a civvy standpoint wanting to join as an Infantry Soldier... you gulp at that.  I know I did haha.

 

[armyguy916]

I was under the impression that the MGS was gonna be a new artillery gun, but that is just what I heard.  And by reading this post, it looks as if my source of info may be wrong.  It has been before, hopefully someone can correct me, but this is what I heard.
MGS slowly replaces the Leo's, which then we have no heavy tank.  Then the MGS is then in turn used for an arty gun, thus getting rid of the armoured regiment. 
Now I know this is gonna spark up all kinds of juicy posts on here, and like I said, I just heard this info, its not concrete, so don't shot the messenger 
I'm all for the tanks, I don't think we can have modern warfare without them :tank:

 

[nULL]

There is a thread out there which is on the newest RPG round, one that is capable of defeating composite armour. Also, Iraq was a stricken country - first from the devastating Iran-Iraq war, then the Gulf War, then sanctions. A war with a more technologically advanced enemy would seem to be the only certain way of showing the limitations of current equipment, I would think.

 

[Franko]

But I was recently reading an article saying the RPG-7 can now penetrate M1A2 Abrams tank armour.  

Now if I have a choice between sending a column of tanks to wipe out the enemy, which risks the lives of the crew, or a few fighter jets, which has considerably less risk to the crew, I think I'm going to choose the less risky option so they can live to fight another day.

The article you read was incorrect. An RPG-7 CANNOT penitrate the M1A2 turret or hull armour. I don't know who or what your sources are, but they are definatly completly out of their gourd.    :

I have seen shots of a M1A2 that went through a fire fight where it was hit with no less than 7 RPG-7 rounds and was able to keep the crew safe and sound. They fought on and won the fight.

Regards

 

[Pugnacious]

Some intresting things about the M1.

http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/new/07sr01.html

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4863

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=50337

Cheers!
P.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to this debate

Here is the info on the RPG 7 and its various rounds

http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm

 

[Guardian]

People keep mentioning transportability...

Even assuming a combat-loaded MGS is air-transportable by Hercules (I don't know if it is...), for all Canadian intents and purposes, it would be no more strategically mobile than a tank. Why?

1. The Herc is a short-haul transport. Most theatres of operation are overseas - i.e., we won't be sending them by Herc, even if we had enough Hercs and air-to-air refuelers (we don't, anyways...)

2. We have no heavier aircraft of the C-17 or Antonov types. We are also unlikely to buy them - they cost hundreds of millions apiece. Therefore, the idea of a Canadian Army that can dispatch rapid-reaction forces by air is quite literally putting the cart before the horse.

3. Since, accepting the two previous points, we won't be flying our own stuff, could we borrow from allies? Well, in an international crisis, the Yanks and everyone else will be using their own transports, and we will find it very difficult to borrow (most of our allies feel thay don't ahve enough strategic lift). Ditto for hiring civilian transports - demand on those will be so high we'll never see them, because we don't have the funds to outbid our allies for the contracts.

4. Therefore, the air-portable Canadian Army concept is dead. If we're going to get to a combat zone, it'll have to go by ship. Leaving aside the fact that Canada has no such vessels of its own, this means that having lighter armoured vehicles is less important. If it's going to take us four weeks to get there anyways, why not take heavier kit like tanks? We'll be better protected once we're in combat.

In a thread in the Armour forum, I made the point that the MGS can't support the infantry in the assault because it's vulnerable to fire. A MBT can roll through a prepared defensive position, punching holes and disrupting enemy cohesion. Try that in an MGS - a .50 cal will knock it out. So the Canadian Army can no longer close with and destroy a prepared enemy on its own.

Any way you look at it, it's a bad idea.

 

[Kirkhill]

Guardian,

The only real counter I can offer to your comment about sealift allowing the transportation of heavier kit (I would include Heavy IFVs as well as MBTs and Engineer Vehicles) is the need to carry support vehicles as well.

The USMC transports tanks along with their MEUs but my understanding is that they expect to use the tanks primarily in supporting the landing operation.  Once on shore they are not expected to voyage far inland.  Iraq was the exception, perhaps.

The types of operations that we are likely to be involved in are more likely to require lengthy road moves to get to the area of operations. Think perhaps of Gulf War I, or Kosovo, or for that matter Somalia and Rwanda.

Ships would be used to transport the Battlegroup/DemiBrigade to a port with facilities adjoining a road network.  The vehicles would be off loaded, formed up and moved by road.

Any move much over a hundred miles ? is going to be very wearing on tracked gear, (suggestions on max distance from those that REALLY know about tracked vehicles).  That means that in addition to the Tanks you are probably going to want to carry on those ships an equivalent number of Tank transporters.  They are considerably bigger than the tanks themselves.  They will need additional MRT and MRVs as well as requiring additional fuel transporters.  Not to mention bodies.

By Contrast the wheeled vehicles can self-deploy, use less gas and require less support.

Now before people get on my case about the need for tanks.... I agree, I am a convert Franko and Slim..... Tanks, Tanks, Tanks

I am just pointing out that when you talk about easily changing MGS for Tanks because MGS has the same footprint inside the vessel and weight doesn't matter so much, it ain't necessarily so.

Having said all of the above, I do happen to like the idea of Heavy Armour accompanying a BattleGroup on a Peace Support Mission, even if they never leave the vehicle park at the port. Nice to have on hand.

I also agree with everything said by Guardian about airlift.

And I would add that in most scenarios sealift will get a Battlegroup on the ground faster than airlift, and it will get there in a formed up unit all at once, not in dribs and drabs over 2 weeks to a Month.

 

[Guardian]

Kirkhill,

That's a good point about the road moves and the logistic footprint.... Tracked vehicles require a bigger logistics footprint and more service support, I agree. There's an inherent tradeoff between getting your troops to the line faster (i.e., wheeled combat vehicles) or slower, but with heavier equipment (tracked). Which one is preferable? Probably, it will depend on the situation.

If we're going to go, and there's going to be combat, and we won't be the first ones into the breach, I think we should accept the fact that we'll take longer getting there by sealift and take advantage of the extra time and space that sealift provides - let's bring the heavy stuff.

That said, your point about the Marines mixing tanks into their units is excellent - they always have that spanner in the toolbox, so to speak.

Having said all of the above, I do happen to like the idea of Heavy Armour accompanying a BattleGroup on a Peace Support Mission, even if they never leave the vehicle park at the port. Nice to have on hand.


We did this in Kosovo, after all. And you're right about the unit arriving all at once - didn't think about that....

 

[Guardian]

Oops, I added that part at the end of the quote - should have read:

Having said all of the above, I do happen to like the idea of Heavy Armour accompanying a BattleGroup on a Peace Support Mission, even if they never leave the vehicle park at the port. Nice to have on hand.

Apologies...