LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[ArmyRick]

Whoa, do I feel foolish. How did I miss the whole recoiless rifle remark.

Zipps buddy, recoiless rifles and tank/mgs guns are too different things completely.

Man I am  :-[

 

[Zipper]

Zipps buddy, recoiless rifles and tank/mgs guns are too different things completely.

I WAS being totally sarcastic. I know it is not a recoiless rifle. It is the same gun that was on the early versions of the M1. I was just trying to get the point across that it is such a bad idea.

With that being said. We are getting it anyway. And no, it is not a Tank replacement. We are as of now, out of the Tank business. No shock, no direct armoured combat ability for us anymore. We are a support, screening, escort, recce force only. Well, beyond infantry tasks that is.

If you read the SBCT doctrine (that their still working on), you note that the stryker forces are for light intensity operations only, unless directly attached to a larger (more capable) force.

 

[PJOsborne]

ahhh yes, the MGS... not my favourite choice for a DF vehicle. it's such a silly fit for the job.. if we ever come to the point where it needs to be used operationally, the shortcomings will present themselves the hard way. the lack of Gyro-stabilised gunsights negate a fire-on-the-move capability. this represents a big step back in technology for the CF.. it's a basic ability of modern armour to be able to fire accurately while moving.

the fact that the MGS is designed with a "Low Profile Turret" is a farce. what's the sense in pretending that you're lowering the silhouette of this monstrosity when the LAV platform it's mounted on is taller than a tank? it's asinine. because of this turret, the crew is handicapped with an 18-round magazine for their gun.. and that'll have many disadvantages in a tactical situation. an autoloader is just one more thing that can break down and fail in combat. Why couldn't we have used the LAV-105 turret? or a composite turret with a 90mm gun? less weight, more ammo, not much of a loss in power.

and why are we trying to make a vehicle fit inside our old CC-130s? why aren't we designing it to fit in our heavy-lifters? or the C-130J?

 

[Franko]

"having 18 rounds for the autoloader's magazine is a shortcoming"

It's actually one of many. If it jams it takes a crew approx 45 min to clear it, which entails the crew to dis-engage from the fight, dismount, then get the jam sorted out, re-load, then get back into the fray.....

At least in the panzers, one person can do the job, not have to dismount. Yes there is only 13 rounds at the ready (most loaders stack the hole for more), and you can do a reload in mere minutes...depending on the skill of the loader.

The biggest thing about the MGS is it has failed most of the trials put to it. The US is thinking of scraping the thing completly....last I recall anyways.

So you know we're going to buy it!  :

Wes....isn't Austrialia getting 60 M1's for about the same price as 66 MGS?

Regards

 

[PJOsborne]

Franko, do you by any chance happen to know the MGS' rate of fire?

thanks.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The document at this link was released a while ago and created quite a stir.  To my knowledge, most of the shortcomings in the vehicle identified in the study have yet to be addressed and it answers many of the questions raised.  Quite frankly, the "birdcage" anti-RPG armour gives me the willies as I picture myself trying to dismount from the burning hulk.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

On another note, comparing M1 and Stryker costs, etc. is an exercise in futility.  The Army leadership has decided that tanks are not required doctrinally and the availability of "cheap" armour is unlikely to change that.  There is a mindset (which I don't happen to agree with, but will suck it up) that the tank's day is done - at least as far as Canada is concerned.  The question becomes:  what are we getting instead?

Has anyone heard any of the latest trial results in the US?

Cheers,

TR

 

[McG]

That study is a POS.  It was written for political ends and draws absolutely ridiculous conclusions (like author whines that the Stryker APC has no 25 mm cannon then preaches the greatness of the M113 because he has a picture of one with a LAV 25 turret.  He does not mention that US M113s don't have 25 mm cannons any more than a Stryker, nor does he mention that the same turret he shows on an M113 has been placed on the LAV III).  There is no recognition that of increased room for soldiers and kit.  There is no mention of the significantly reduced noise.

I think many other aspects of that document have already been called out in this thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25555.0.html

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

MCG:

I'm not sure I agree. The study is a political document - in this case ammunition for a US congressman - and has to be viewed in that light. 

However, it makes very valid points regarding the MGS, which was the point I was trying to make - and the author was referring to the M8 and the MTLV rather than the M113 as he was "preaching the greatness" of various alternative vehicles, so your criticisms of the study aren't overly valid in this context.  With regards to the MGS - the issue at hand - the analysis of the vehicle's ability to be carried via C-130, the shortcomings of the gun, the shortcomings of the coax and the slat armour are all decent criticisms of the vehicle and ones that haven't yet adequately been answered by the "transformation" mafia as far as I've heard.

As it is, I'm waiting to see what the latest US trial comes up with - the entire point might be moot if the rumoured problems have been addressed.  My gut feel is that the MGS is itself a POS, but we'll see - I'm keeping an open mind.

This seems to have been beaten to death on the other thread, so I'll jockey now.  I had at least one friend (far more of a tank supporter than I) flame his career over this debate and it didn't solve a thing!

Cheers,

TR

 

[Zipper]

So then I ask from someone people who know...                      ...what are their views on the whole DFS idea?

I would like to know what those in the Strats think, since their being stuck with it.

This seems to have been beaten to death on the other thread, so I'll jockey now. I had at least one friend (far more of a tank supporter than I) flame his career over this debate and it didn't solve a thing!

And therein lies the problem. If you don't buy into the bad ideas, then your toast. Some of the ideas floating around here about "transformation" are quite good. Unfortunatly some are just plain bad. MGS comes to mind (if the problems are not solved), as does the whole DFS unit. But oh well.

 

[TCBF]

Well, you've probably heard what a few Strats think allready - you probably won't hear all 600.

But I'll give you one - my opinion - here it is:  "Whatever."

I spent four of my five years with the 8 CH(PL) in Germany with my kit ten feet from a Lynx on two hours notice to move for the "4 Cdn Mech Suicide Bde Gp".  Note to self: Never do this again and read "Red Army" by Ralph Peters at the same time.

So now I figure - having done Zgon and Kandahar in a Coyote - that if we at present  have a choice of:

1. Coyote
2. Leo C2
3. MGS
4. AGS XM8

My choice is "Whatever."

It still beats drinking Heineken in a Lynx on an exercise 10 km from the East German border, wondering if .50 APIT will punch through the hull of a T-80U between the 3rd and 4th roadwheel.

So, pardon me for not getting too worked up and joining the Black Hat Mental M_sturbation Society about whatever mounts Canada picks to convince the National Care Bear Gallery that "Canada Matters".  Canada matters alright, but what we really think about AFVs doesn't.

My advice? 

Buckle up, Buttercup, and learn how to be as DEADLY as you can with whatever vehicle fate and the BQ bestow on you.

No offence to the Lynx gallery.  I am a big fan of the Lynx, it was just undergunned, is all.  In 1944, crossing the Melfa, Regtl Recce Tp was equipped with de-turreted light tanks, each with a .50 cal and a .30 cal Browning Machine Gun.  TWENTY THREE YEARS, in 1967, as a Centennial Project (just kidding), we bought, from Food Machinery Corporation, of San Jose, Calif., the Lynx.  Did we put a 20mm on it?  No, we put on it.... wait for it...a .50 cal and a .30 cal Browning Machine Gun.  Thats 23 years of progress folks. 

"You can always get a tank to help you if you need it, right?"

Wrong.  In Recceworld, a friendly tank is like a cop - there is never one around when you need him.

Just give me something I can make work, give me the ammo and time to teach my Troop how to use it, get us over there, then attach us to the Yanks far from our own base camp, so our own Army of ROTO -rooters  (Campoids) can't screw us over.

Tom

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Well, you've probably heard what a few Strats think allready - you probably won't hear all 600.

But I'll give you one - my opinion - here it is:   "Whatever."

I spent four of my five years with the 8 CH(PL) in Germany with my kit ten feet from a Lynx on two hours notice to move for the "4 Cdn Mech Suicide Bde Gp".   Note to self: Never do this again and read "Red Army" by Ralph Peters at the same time.

So now I figure - having done Zgon and Kandahar in a Coyote - that if we at present   have a choice of:

1. Coyote
2. Leo C2
3. MGS
4. AGS XM8

My choice is "Whatever."

It still beats drinking Heineken in a Lynx on an exercise 10 km from the East German border, wondering if .50 APIT will punch through the hull of a T-80U between the 3rd and 4th roadwheel.

So, pardon me for not getting too worked up and joining the Black Hat Mental M_sturbation Society about whatever mounts Canada picks to convince the National Care Bear Gallery that "Canada Matters".   Canada matters alright, but what we really think about AFVs doesn't.

My advice?  

Buckle up, Buttercup, and learn how to be as DEADLY as you can with whatever vehicle fate and the BQ bestow on you.

No offence to the Lynx gallery.   I am a big fan of the Lynx, it was just undergunned, is all.   In 1944, crossing the Melfa, Regtl Recce Tp was equipped with de-turreted light tanks, each with a .50 cal and a .30 cal Browning Machine Gun.   TWENTY THREE YEARS, in 1967, as a Centennial Project (just kidding), we bought, from Food Machinery Corporation, of San Jose, Calif., the Lynx.   Did we put a 20mm on it?   No, we put on it.... wait for it...a .50 cal and a .30 cal Browning Machine Gun.   Thats 23 years of progress folks.  

"You can always get a tank to help you if you need it, right?"

Wrong.   In Recceworld, a friendly tank is like a cop - there is never one around when you need him.

Just give me something I can make work, give me the ammo and time to teach my Troop how to use it, get us over there, then attach us to the Yanks far from our own base camp, so our own Army of ROTO -rooters   (Campoids) can't screw us over.

Tom

    That about sums it up I guess.  Canadian soldiers have learned their civilian leadership hold them in the same regaurd as a tampon (necessary, distasteful, disposable).  If this is not the kit of our dreams, it is not the kit of our nightmares.  Its better to take an MGS than a Cougar, but when the MGS start their deployment, there had better be a weapon mix and doctrine in place that is a little less fantasy based than the Cougar's was (fight like a tank, only without armour or firepower).  I hope that our beloved leaders are going to allot enough funding for training, especially live fire, to get the new crews the experience necessary to master a whole new weapon system, rather than plugging it in to a tank doctrine this MGS cannot fulfill.

 

[ArmyRick]

TCBF, straight from the horses mouth (the Lord Strat's Horse that is)....

 

[Zipper]

     That about sums it up I guess.   Canadian soldiers have learned their civilian leadership hold them in the same regaurd as a tampon (necessary, distasteful, disposable).   If this is not the kit of our dreams, it is not the kit of our nightmares.   Its better to take an MGS than a Cougar, but when the MGS start their deployment, there had better be a weapon mix and doctrine in place that is a little less fantasy based than the Cougar's was (fight like a tank, only without armour or firepower).   I hope that our beloved leaders are going to allot enough funding for training, especially live fire, to get the new crews the experience necessary to master a whole new weapon system, rather than plugging it in to a tank doctrine this MGS cannot fulfill.

So as usual its button up the trap hole and get on with the job. Thats great since that is what you have to do. You'll do it fine.

I'm sure those guys who were looking out of their cougar sights at those Serbian MBT's in Bosnia had much the same feeling as you did Tom.

But then again, if your willing to accept sh!t, then that is exactly what your going to get.

But the way things look from the outside with all the talk about transformation and all, is that we are going over to a force that is made to patrol, peacekeep, and do some rear area protection. The DFS unit was created to make a show of hitting power, but the chances of it ever leaving base is questionable. As for training? Well you'll be lucky if you get the money to launch even one ADAT missle, and made 3 or 4 TOW. Other then that the MGS will put as many rounds down range as the Leo did. Just don't expect to ever do a battle run.

Other then that, its the same as always. Do your job, shut up, and like it.

 

[TCBF]

Speaking of Battle Runs, the LdSH(RC) just did a leo C2 gun camp in Wainwright last week, starting Monday.  They did the battle runs on Wed afternoon, and Troop shoots on Thursday.

It does one's soul good to hear main gun rounds going off.  ;D

Tom

 

[Zipper]

Won't argue with you there.

There still doing them (and spending money on such) even though everyone knows the things are on their way out? Wow.

I would just love to hear that again. Plus the feel of the ground. Sound of the engines...      :'(

 

[patt]

Won't argue with you there.

There still doing them (and spending money on such) even though everyone knows the things are on their way out? Wow.

I would just love to hear that again. Plus the feel of the ground. Sound of the engines...       :'(

ive herd rumors that there keeping them for another couple years or so..remeber just rumors not actual facts!

 

[TCBF]

Prob keep the Leo C2 until the MGS starts showing up.

Tom

 

[Zipper]

Well then I guess it goes back to IF they show up. Who knows if the States is going to be able to fix the problems or scrap it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A friend of mine is a civvie trainer at GDLS and says Canada is not slated to receive it's first four MGS until July 2006.

 

[TCBF]

And remember, there is no plan 'B', so if the program gets cut or delayed, ....... Leo C2.

But they should be able to get the bugs ironed out. 

Tom