LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[a_majoor]

Lemme ask you this - the situation you saw where you felt the MGS would have been useful: was there any reason why that task could NOT have been done by Leopards?

Please don't think I am arguing against having tanks, but the primary reason in my mind for having a wheeled, LAV based FSV is to compliment the mobility of the LAV equipped Infantry and Coyote "Cavalry". Combat or Cavalry teams, patrols, convoy escorts etc. can all move together. Speed is the modern substitute for mass, and hanging around waiting for the Leopards or M-1s to show up really isn't much good for us.

I would say that there is usually a very good indication that you might need tanks and heavy combat teams, so the commander can "set up" the battlespace with his light and medium forces (i.e. setting up a cordon around the enemy held town or city, putting out flank security etc.) before swinging Thor's Hammer with the heavies. Bottom line; heavy forces are an important element of any balanced manoeuvre force.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Further, the APAM is designed to be integrated in to the IFCS.  There is a piece that attaches to the breech ring that accepts the lased range as inputted in to the computer.  This piece sets the fuse of the round automatically as the fuse passes by the breech ring.  Of course, this means that the round cannot be loaded until the target is identified and lased to.

Problem with the APAM in either 120 or 105 is....well, it has failed two trials that I know of, and has not been successfully exported to anybody as of yet.  Trying to be all things, it masters neither one.  In the AP setting, the canisters are a bit too small for effective use, considering that they blow like a grenade, in all directions.  The intended ground target only gets a minuscule amount of the blast.  In the AM role, 105 HESH is far more effective (as effective as three APAM rounds), and the round is no more effective than the newer dual purpose HEAT rounds.

So, while the literature on the APAM makes it look great, take it with a grain of salt.  One NATO country, which has parked all of its Leopard 1's, are still looking desperately for a 120 round that is as effective as the 105 HESH in the AM role.....

 

[George Wallace]

Please don't think I am arguing against having tanks, but the primary reason in my mind for having a wheeled, LAV based FSV is to compliment the mobility of the LAV equipped Infantry and Coyote "Cavalry". Combat or Cavalry teams, patrols, convoy escorts etc. can all move together. Speed is the modern substitute for mass, and hanging around waiting for the Leopards or M-1s to show up really isn't much good for us.

But we aren't fighting with Combat or Cavalry teams.  Convoy escorts don't necessarily require a MGS for support, nor will it be a valuable support platform.  It would have the speed to keep up with a convoy, yes, but to actually provide an effective defence on an open road in an ambush......no.  It would be the first vehicle targeted and taken out quite easily, in all seriousness.  

With the conditions of the roads there, I doubt that a Convoy really has that great a speed advantage, that a Leopard or M-1 would not have any problems with keeping up.  Only on open, flat, well surfaced hard standing would the LAVs be able to use their advantage of speed.

 

[a_majoor]

STAFF (Sensor Target Activated Fire and Forget) was supposed to detonate and fire a self forming fragment down at the target below, which is sure to give most AFV crews a really bad headache >

DRES in Suffield also has been working on the warhead aspect, I remember seeing in an older version of this page some description of creating multiple Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) in a "shotgun" pattern. This would be useful for anti helicopter/anti air if warhead is oriented "forwards" and for an anti personell "airburst" munition if oriented to fire "down". http://www.dres.dnd.ca/ResearchTech/Products/MilEng_Products/index_e.html

 

[vonGarvin]

One NATO country, which has parked all of its Leopard 1's, are still looking desperately for a 120 round that is as effective as the 105 HESH in the AM role.....

Germany?
The HESH round is great.  I mentioned the APAM as for a HE round that detonates "above" the target, which is behind cover.  But without hijacking the thread, aren't high trajectory weapons good for that?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Civvie Question:  What exactly is wrong with the Rooikat?  If you want wheeled DFSV, why force yourself to use a LAV-III chasis that was designed to carry troops and is therefore much higher, presents a much larger target and because of its internal volume requires an equal weight of armour to be more thinkly spread than a more compact design? 

Ergo, why not just order baseline Rooikat and then fit out the electronics/communications gear to match the LAV-III set-ups?

My understanding on the new 105mm version is that it fires full pressure 105mm NATO rounds (as opposed to reduced pressure) and has significantly better armour protection (at least stated protection) than LAV-III or Centauro (23mm vs 12.77mm across frontal arc is my recollection).

Thanks in advance as always gentlemen....


Matthew. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The MGS could actually be useful for convoys reacting to ambush.  If the bad guys can hit the MGS then they can hit anything else over here.  A pair of MGS with a LAV Platoon based convoy could, however, hammer the ambushers.  If one is hit that is of course a bad thing , but it would have been a Coyote/LAV/Bison truck hit anyway if the MGS wasn't there.

I don't want to downplay the threat of failed-state T55s, but it ain't my number one fear.  With a troop or pair of MGS in a company then a platoon of rogue T55s advancing to attack said company would have a bad time.  If they sit still then the airforce and AHs will be all over them like a pack of fat kids on a spilled box of Smarties.  If we are someplace without CAS and AHs then I don't want to be there.  I'd much rather we face three T55s then one hundred odd 100mm IEDs.

If we are going to fight OIF again (the invasion part), then my previous reservations stand.  For counter-insurgency, which we are fighting and look to continue to do so, I do see a place.

Cheers,

2B

 

[a_majoor]

Civvie Question:  What exactly is wrong with the Rooikat?  If you want wheeled DFSV, why force yourself to use a LAV-III chasis that was designed to carry troops and is therefore much higher, presents a much larger target and because of its internal volume requires an equal weight of armour to be more thinkly spread than a more compact design? 

Ergo, why not just order baseline Rooikat and then fit out the electronics/communications gear to match the LAV-III set-ups?

My understanding on the new 105mm version is that it fires full pressure 105mm NATO rounds (as opposed to reduced pressure) and has significantly better armour protection (at least stated protection) than LAV-III or Centauro (23mm vs 12.77mm across frontal arc is my recollection).

Thanks in advance as always gentlemen....


Matthew.   

In the ideal world, I would be heading down to "Honest Jan's AFV emporium" and picking up a troop of Rooikats at lunch, but alas, there are many considerations which speak against this course of action. On the military side of the house, the biggest problem is logistics. We have a very small army to begin with, so the number of units we would want might be too small to interest the supplier, much less ensure we have a stock of spare parts and trained mechanics and techs. If everything is based on substantially the same chassis, then we are far better off in supply, training and so on. (In reality, we have actually pooched this aspect, having fleets of rather incompatible LAV variants. At least we can correct this by standardizing future variants on the LAV III).

The other side of the house is political. We already have a proven supplier in Canada (GDLS in London, ON), attempting to get a new product from a different company would require negotiating industrial offsets or licencing the product to Bombardier or something similar to satisfy various policy and political requirements. There would be many groups competing for the political gravey dripping off a military contract of this size, making the process even longer and more costly (see threads about the Iltis). By the time a Rooikat C-1 actually appeared in the hands of the troops, the Taliban might be using fuel cell powered Toyota Land Cruisers with electromagnetic rail guns bolted to the load bed.....

In the end, the best solution is actually to go with "good enough", and work on the doctrine and TTPs instead.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Civvie Question:  What exactly is wrong with the Rooikat?

The Rooikat is an exceptionally well designed and effective vehicle.  Problem is, it's billed as an "anti-tank" platform.  And we all know that in the new troika  of vehicles, anti-tank is the role of the MMEV and the TOW.

There is no doubt that the Rooikat can do the same job as the MGS, or the Centuaro, or the CV-CT, but for whatever reasons, our political leaders have announced that we were going to tack on to the US buy of MGS.  When, of course, the production line leaves low rate production and starts going full steam ahead.

The Americans, by the way, have put out tenders for 105mm HEP rounds for the MGS.

I just hope that the new political masters conduct a thorough review of the MGS, and after such a review, scrap it in favour of something that will actually do the job effectively. (like the CV-CT & Rooikat.....)

Mind you, that would mean a surplus of L7/M68 barrels that we would have to sell along with our tanks.......

Oh, and as another aside.....I also heard that GD has the marketting rights to the Rooikat in North & South America,...did anyone else hear this?

 

[Eland]

I also worry about this sort of scenario:

1) Enemy probes position

2) Enemy probe is fired on by MGS

3) Enemy brings tanks to the next probe - nothing fancy, T55 would do just fine.

4) Doh!

I don't know how many unaccounted-for T55s are running around Afganistan... so maybe on *this specific mission* the risk of encountering enemy tanks is low enough that the MGS's lack of protection isn't a factor. But I'd hate to have to play tank and discover that the enemy counters with REAL tanks of his own.

DG

Well put. The inability of the MGS to survive encounters with tanks (besides its lack of transportability in a C130) is the biggest objection I have to it. There is one thing that would save the MGS in an encounter with T55's. That is the fact that most Third World T55's are poorly maintained and their crews poorly trained. The T55 is a pig even for experienced crews to operate well. South African troops equipped with Eland armoured cars mounting 90mm guns were able to take out enemy T55's all the time. They were able to do so by taking advantage of their enemies' lack of training and ability to react quickly to threats.

On the other hand, if you encounter some T55's which are well maintained and crewed, and have ERA and other improvements, you're screwed.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

My point here is that we are in Afghanistan and we are fighting a war here.  It is being fought in a way that is different from our comfort zone (Normandy 44). 

:warstory: This is my second time here and both times I have seen a requirement for something like the MGS.  A Leopard C2 would have fit the bill, I suppose, during the first tour.  An MGS, however, could have achieved the same effect and we might have actually brought some as opposed to the Leopard we left behind.

It pains me to say this, but I don't think that a Leopard or M1 would make it down some of the valleys that we have been going down on this tour.  TAdd to that the reality we haven't brought tanks here in the first place.

I want the MGS primarily for the ability of the 105mm to fire a nice big HESH round at an insurgent hiding in a rock pile.  I also like the ability to make big obvious holes in the walls of compounds if required.  I want it to be able to turn and blast the insurgents firing on the convoy that it is moving with.  That it can also spark a T55 is a bonus for other situations.

Lance,

The "over the ridgeline" targets I'm thinking of are either small groups of men running after setting off an IED or maybe a mortar crew firing from the reverse slope.  How practical would the round be?

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

2B:

If they can do what you are looking for in 25mm caliber (XM25 shoulder-fired, low velocity and the XM307 crew-served, high velocity)......

For that matter could the same fire control system be retro'd to the LAV to enable the Bushmaster to fire these rounds.  It wouldn't get you your big hole but it might get you over the ridge-line...

If it were available.

Edit: 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/becker.pdf   This was from 2002. 
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003fuze/hiebel.pdg   and this was from 2003

and by 2004 they had successfully trialled 40mm rounds  www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004guns/wed/alacv.ppt (may need to save and open this one)

Maybe AmmoTech90 or Lance can offer current comments.

 

[George Wallace]

As I have said before, there is a role for the MGS as the old WW II Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun/Ant.  There is no need of it to be Armour.  It could easily be an Infantry wpn.

The Infantry have lost their TOW and Mortars.  This is the role I see the MGS as filling or supplementing.

In all seriousness 2B, I would see 120 Mortars being more effective in the cases you have cited.  I am sure TOW or Mortar variants of the LAV III would be much more easier to transport on Deployment, than a MGS.  I would love to see us have the 120 Turreted Mortars, but straight 120s would do (and be much more easily transportable).  We already have TOW UA, so why not use it? 

I look at the MGS as a compliment to the Infantry's Anti-Tank capabilities, not a capability for the Armour Corps to fill.

 

[DG-41]

Err...

As much as I dislike the MGS, as much as I think we'd be better served with Rookiat (a better armoured car) and/or Leo2 (an actual tank, not a tank-wannabe) if the choice truly is "MGS or nothing" I'm in no hurry to see the Corps hand those off to the Infantry.

If the Infantry are going to be specialzing in the light role, it makes a whole lot of sense to have the crews on the vehicles be blackhatters - not just the MGS, but the LAVs as well.

It strikes me as foolish to spread the Pongoes even thinner, learning *yet another*vehicle and weapon system, when we have black hats who are already (mostly) trained for the job.

DG

 

[TCBF]

So, we have come back to the "Super-Cougar" or "King Cougar" I joked about a while back.

How many of you witnessed the Fire Power Demo NATO put on for the locals in FRY years ago, where Cougars outshot Challenger?  Would the Cougar fit the bill now?  What about a less technically challenging 105 turreted LAV?  Or, are we back to the AGS?

 

[vonGarvin]

If the Infantry are going to be specialzing in the light role, it makes a whole lot of sense to have the crews on the vehicles be blackhatters - not just the MGS, but the LAVs as well.

I see some problems with that: first of all, if the crew is not the same trade as those in the back (eg: armour guys crewing LAVs for Infantry or Engineers: wouldn't work for FOOs: they do their "Foo'ing" from the turret), then they are useless in every situation except when on the move.  Also, who can help man the turret during the OP watches, etc on a 24/7 period? ("Sorry, dude, can't sit in the turret tonight from 0200-0400: I'm not qualified....hey, look, the machine that goes *ping*!")
One possible solution: make a new trade, call it "combat arms", basically a 'melange' of the current armour/infantry trades?
Another: split the infantry into two: Panzergrenadier and Jäger (Armour Infantry and Light Infantry).  It could work, and it does work for the Germans ("Oh look, the Germans are made at me.  Help me, Smithers!").  In all seriousness, the "light" infantry could focus on their light stuff, and the mech-warriors could focus on mech stuff.
Just my thoughts, they were free, and you get exactly what you paid for them

Garvin out

 

[reccecrewman]

Well, look at history and we can see new pieces of kit introduced that people balked at their introduction or they were misemployed by leadership. A good example that jumps into my mind is the advent of the Battlecruiser. World War I was a horrible display of modern weapons with outdated tactics that only produced unprecedented casualties on the battlefield for little or no gains. The Navies of world powers however were always on the cutting edge of technology. By WWI, all modern Navies had done away with wooden ships and had upgraded to steel. They went from sail, to coal fired to diesel and oil propelled in a 40 year span.  The German optic industry produced range finders and the British were constantly upgrading their Battleships to be the best armed and fast as possible.  Admiral Fisher came up with the concept of a very lightly skinned ship, but guns of the same size and calibre of the Battleships.  His idea for employment was that of a ship that was capable of recce (radar and voice comms not available at the time) but had enough firepower to effectively throw punches with the enemy while using its outstanding speed (gained from lack of armour) to disengage and get back to the main Battlefleet for them to go forward and engage. Fantastic idea, BUT, when the fleets took posession of these new Battlecruisers, they were grossly mis-employed. Narrow-sighted Admirals didn't look at these ships as the outstanding recce vehicle they were, but rather another big ship to join the Battlefleet and join into main actions.

The Battle of Jutland in 1916 showed with disastrous results what this sort of thinking spelled for the Royal Navy; Admiral Jellicoe (Grand Fleet Commander) had Admiral Beatty take his advance guard of 5 Battlecruisers to go out on an advance screen to seek out the German High Seas Fleet which British intel said was breaking out onto the North Sea. However, upon finding the German fleet, Beatty's orders were to engage and deliver the opening shots of the battle and wait for the Grand Fleet to join the action. Within minutes, the HMS Indefatigueable and HMS Queen Mary were sunk due to deep hits that set off their propellant charges in their magazines, HMS Invincible would suffer the exact same fate shortly after. This tragedy never should have occurred - Beatty's Battlecruiser Squadron should have immediately disengaged and beat a retreat back to Jellicoe's Battlefleet and let his 16 battleships and accompanying vessels take care of the Germans. With their average speed of 33 knots and the German battleships being an average speed of 23 knots, they could have easily disengaged and saved the lives of almost 3,000 sailors.

As mentioned before, I agree the MGS has a role in the Army, but it should be the as already mentioned assignment of an Infantry vehicle. With the world powers still building heavy armour, the only solution is for the Corps to counter with heavy track of their own. This is a cheap cop-out to give the Corps these Strykers and say we have armour. It can be a good piece of kit if employed in the right way. Give the Infantry the MGS and the Corps.................... new Leopards.  : *sigh* Never gonna happen..................

 

[warrickdll]

Direct Fire support for use (mainly) with infantry is always a great idea and having an MBT provide this is usually best - except when:
- The MBT is too heavy for use (the US Army used Tank Destroyers in Korea in locations where the MBTs could not be used, as did the USMC in Vietnam with the Ontos TD)
- The MBT is too heavy for transport
- The MBT is too expensive to fill all the DFS needs
- And, I guess a few other considerations (speed, operating cost, etc)

Whether the MGS fulfills the DFS role where the MBT fails... well there are other threads for that. But a DFS vehicle in common with the IFV is great if an MBT is not an option.

Having a dual DFS/anti-tank capability also seems like a great idea - though there are plenty of historical examples of having too limited an ammo supply (see the USMC Ontos or the early German Stugs).

Mentioned several times in this thread is whether the Armoured branch would be able to figure out that the MGS is not a tank. I don't see why not, since they have always been capable of using recce vehicles and apc dozers without trying to use them as the Iron Fist - much like the infantry was always able to somehow Not attach bayonets to mortars.


As for another branch using them... well - if a direct fire cannon on a vehicle that carries no dismounts isn't Armoured branch then what makes it anyone else's?!

...
One possible solution: make a new trade, call it "combat arms", basically a 'melange' of the current armour/infantry trades?
Another: split the infantry into two: Panzergrenadier and Jäger (Armour Infantry and Light Infantry).  It could work, and it does work for the Germans ("Oh look, the Germans are made at me.  Help me, Smithers!").  In all seriousness, the "light" infantry could focus on their light stuff, and the mech-warriors could focus on mech stuff.
...

Infantry is Infantry. Mechanized or Light - no need for different trades - especially in the CF where a Light Battalion can deploy with vehicles, and a Mech Battalion can deploy without (I do like the combined Armoured/Infantry trade idea but I can hear the squeals already). As for the Germans - the Stugs were meant for the artillery.

 

[George Wallace]

As for another branch using them... well - if a direct fire cannon on a vehicle that carries no dismounts isn't Armoured branch then what makes it anyone else's?!

What then is your opinion of who should own TOW UA, or Mortars, or back a little further the 106.  All have been mounted on wheeled and Tracked vehicles.  In WW II the Infantry had numerous 'Funnies' mounted on the Universal Carrier Chassis and other chassis'.  All of these following your logic should have been Armoured?


Historically, this type of vehicle has been either Infantry or Artillery Anti-Tank.

 

[warrickdll]

I know I differ from most others on this - but TUA - Armoured, Mortars - Artilley, and Assault Pioneers - Engineers.

Historically, yes (Infantry or AT Arty) but why be restricted by that? No one from WWII will be manning the MGS.