LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[a_majoor]

I think most of us can agree there are multiple possibilities for a wheeled DFSV platform (recce overwatch, escort, "Cavalry", Infantry fire support), I'm pretty sure most of us ALSO agree that the MGS is not the platform to be doing this on.

Part of the problem with this argument is we have halves of two combat teams now: a Medium or perhaps "Cavalry" mounted element on the LAV III, and the Heavy fire support element represented by the Leopard 2A6.

The complimentary halves are missing: where is the mobile fire support with similar range and mobility capabilities to the LAV III (i.e. a Centurio/LAV CV_CT/Rooikat etc.), and where is the HAPC/IFV (Achzarit/Puma) to escort the tanks? (probably the same place all the troops to man them are.......sigh)

 

[McG]

That would put the Arty back in the game

Artillery is certainly "in the game" and more than busy with the calling & controlling of higher fire support (air, howitzer, avn) and controlling airspace over the fight.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kirkhill,

Your unusually fertile mind has produced a lonely little onion in a petunia patch - to fiddle with a song we both may remember from our youth. (For the rest of you, there was a post-1945 ditty that began "I'm a lonely, little petunia in an onion patch . . .")

Was that Flanders and Swan?

As you rightly point out even the most well tended patch occasionally produces a weed or two.  And nobody has ever accused me of lacking fertilizer. ;D

As to your point, and Arthur and MCG....I sit duly corrected

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Given that our Leo 1 and LAV III team worked out, I imagine that the Leo 2 and LAV III will be fine.  All tracks or all wheels in the combat team would have some advantages, but for our small army this duality works out OK.  The force sent to a given conflict can be tailored to suit the threat. 

As for the guns, I would gladly have two FOOs in a combat team, especially if they are also JTAC/FACs.  For heavens sake, though, don't put them in an MGS. 

Going back to the start of the thread, I should remind everybody that I was on mefloquine at the time...

 

[George Wallace]

..................................

Then

Why not assign the MGS to Arty as a combination DFS-FOO vehicle?

Sighting systems, comms and a ready supply of rounds for the FOO to instantly react personally to the Commanders need for Fire Support and also to mark the target for Follow On Fires from any/all available means.  It would recreate the role of the old Horse Artillery which operated on the front line before the days of machine guns and long range rifles.

Kirkhill

I see others have persuaded you on the folly of this already, but a point they missed out on was that if the FOO party is fighting the MGS, then they are not doing their job as FOOs.  On the other hand, if they are concentrating on the job of being FOOs, then that big honking gun is not doing anything.  Either way, to put FOO parties in a MGS would be a waste of manpower and/or equipment.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks George....

I am now reminded of another little ditty learned in the Highlanders in the 80s: "...... Beat me. Hurt me. Make me cry. Masochistic needs within.  Love to feel that burning skin...."  The boot marks are now becoming as permanent as the message: "FOO-MGS Bad".  Seen.  ;D

But as the song says -- "Masochistic needs within" so....

While I understand not giving the FOO a gun of his own (although if I understand naval practices correctly - and that is a long stretch indeed - the Navy has been using "one button" directed fire from prior to the Battle of Jutland.... but I digress as usual) howabout the notion of supplying the Arty with the Assault Guns/DFSVs.  Perhaps they would be less likely to be seen as poor tanks then rather than mobile guns. 

Also, wrt my comment about getting the Arty back in the game, I understand that the Arty is clearly making its presence and usefulness felt these days BUT it is in very small packets.  Are there enough junior billets in the Arty to maintain a sufficient corps of bodies to be able to support a large enough pool to find and train the talented individuals that are capable of providing the co-ordinated fire support necessary for ANY military action - Combined Arms or Special Forces.  The concern is equivalent to whether or not the Army is big enough to support large higher level Special Forces units and formations.

By giving the Arty the DFS role and assigning it in 2 gun sections and 4 gun troops to support inf, armd and recce sub-units and sub-sub-units that would open up an additional number of arty billets doing arty jobs in support of combined arms.


Uncovering and waiting for the next battering...

 

[a_majoor]

Kirkhill, you seem to be thinking about infantry assault guns and SP anti-tank guns on the model of WWII.

Things like the Stg III or Hetzer made sense in those days, since they were relatively cheap and specialized to do jobs that tanks of that era could not do as well. On the other hand, a Gen II tank like the Leopard C2 could sweep the battlefield of all these things and the
Leopard 2 A6M is a massively capable Gen III tank which is even better.

There is a possible place for an integral DFSV in an Infantry battalion; the SBCT is built around integrated company sized sub units with a fire support platoon, and a USMC LAV Coy also has integral fire support in the form of a LAV-TOW (conceptually, a gun armed LAV variant could take it's place). Do we have the doctrine, PY's and resources to do so?

 

[tomahawk6]

Trying to find something for the Artillery to do shows how far down the ladder of priorities it has slid. If it werent for the Afghanistan deployment there might not be any tubes left. It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery. If you are going to play with the big boys you must have artillery. I couldnt quite figure out why the CF hasnt bought HIMARS. It fits into a C-130 and one fire unit is equal to a battery of guns.

 

[Kirkhill]

Trying to find something for the Artillery to do shows how far down the ladder of priorities it has slid. If it werent for the Afghanistan deployment there might not be any tubes left. It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery. If you are going to play with the big boys you must have artillery. I couldnt quite figure out why the CF hasnt bought HIMARS. It fits into a C-130 and one fire unit is equal to a battery of guns.

Agreed T6. Entirely.  And cheaper and more deployable than a flight of Hornets.

As to the Stg III Arthur, what is the MGS BUT a Stg III?  Both were/are direct fire weapons designed to supply intimate support to the infantry, to be readily available to take out fortified positions such as bunkers and houses.  Not to fight tanks.  As you rightly point out a single Wittman in a Leo 2 would slaughter a battery of MGSs.  That doesn't make the MGS any less useful.  It just means it should be kept well away from Michael Wittman clones.  They are deployed with the SBCTs on those grounds. 

Here's the question though - are they manned by infanteers with armoured gunnery courses or by tankers with inf courses or by gunners with armd and inf courses?

A related question for T6 would be: in the old(current?) Cavalry Squadrons there was a battery of M109s IIRC.  Were those Redlegs attached to the Cavalry or were those Cavalry troopers with arty training? Or like the 107mm/120mm mortars that were part of the infantry organization and under the command of the infantry commander but, in practice, when a FOO/FISTV was attached weren't they under the Operational Control of the FOO?  And didn't I here some discussion as to whether the FIST-V was an arty or inf asset?

I am afraid that all of these options leave me more than a little confused - resulting in a fair number of onions in my patch.

 

[tomahawk6]

You are correct. Any artillery battery/battalion attached to an infantry unit is manned by redlegs and they are in a direct support role under the operational control of the unit commander. In our old organization all artillery battalions were under the direct command of the division artillery commander. Battalions could be detached under the operational control of the brigade commander they were attached to. Now for the first time since we deactivated our seperate brigades ,artillery is organic to the infantry brigade. I cant think of any instances where artillerymen operate infantry weapons. The difference is that we have always maintained a large pool of artillery units at division/corps level. Until OIF we had large numbers of FA brigades manned by the NG buit with the demands for MP's in Iraq a number of these brigades have been reclassified as MP brigades. The problem that I see with the CF is that Pres units dont deploy as units and as such you dont need artillery for domestic operations. If the government cleared the way for Pres units to deploy on ops overseas you would see less OPTEMPO issues. Also it would encourage +100% manning of Pres units.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery. If you are going to play with the big boys you must have artillery.

What do you mean was?  They did.

 

[vonGarvin]

Why not assign the MGS to Arty as a combination DFS-FOO vehicle?

There is also precendent in the German Army: the StuG units were part of the artillery, not the armour.

 

[c4th]

Why is the MGS debate not dead?  The Armoured Corps is getting Leo 2's not Strykers.  Unless someone knows something I don't, Canada is not purchasing the MGS platform thus no other arm is going to get saddled with them either.

For those out of the loop, arty and armoured have very real rolls.  Arty is 155 plus everything stacked above.  Armoured is fast approaching 120.

 

[vonGarvin]

For those out of the loop, arty and armoured have very real rolls.  Arty is 155 plus everything stacked above.  Armoured is fast approaching 120.

I note that you neglect to mention the 81mm.  That very useful and effective weapon has been relegated to local defense rolls for the gun lines.  The armour corps has already reached the 120mm barrier with the purchase of the Leo 2A6.

As for the MGS debate, though we aren't getting it, we can still talk about it, its successors and its roles.  That is all.

 

[c4th]

I note that you neglect to mention the 81mm.  That very useful and effective weapon

...

Being a mortarman I did not neglect but deliberately chose not to mention it.  The 81 obviously plays a supporting role to the 777.

"It's better to give than to receive"

 

[vonGarvin]

Being a mortarman I did not neglect but deliberately chose not to mention it.   The 81 obviously plays a supporting role to the 777.
"It's better to give than to receive"

That's just awesome.  Really really awesome. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

It was hilarious to me that the CF was going to give mortars, an infantry weapon, to the artillery..

At the risk of reopening old wounds, are the mortars in the US Army manned by infantry with a distinct MOS indicator?  To ask the question a different way, are the mortars manned by infantryman on a three year stint who then go back to infantry sections or by infantrymen specialized into mortars?

The loss the support platoons was as much about trying to keep nine hollow battalions sustained as it was about finding jobs for artillerymen.  Those nine mortar platoons were taking in a battalion's worth (close to anyway) of infantry platoons. 

For Kirkhill, my understanding from my own short time with the US Army Cavalry organizations was that the guns were manned by gunners, as were the FIST.  The mortars were manned by infantry (same as the mortars in the tank battalions).  We can look at old organizations from WWII for inspiration, but the designation of the crews of Stugs and Canadian SP AT guns may lead us astray.  I'm not sure if the Stug crews were guys pulled off the gunline and thrown in a Stug or were "Stug Crewmen" who happened to belong to the artillery.  Maybe some old Stug crewmen can shed some light here.

 

[tomahawk6]

At the risk of reopening old wounds, are the mortars in the US Army manned by infantry with a distinct MOS indicator?  To ask the question a different way, are the mortars manned by infantryman on a three year stint who then go back to infantry sections or by infantrymen specialized into mortars?

Indirect Fire Infantrymen have their own designator - 11C. The infantry MOS is 11B. That said if the company mortar section/platoon is short an 11B fills the slot. Soldiers are trained as 11B's first and then go on to an 8 week 11C AIT.

 

[Kirkhill]

.... Maybe some old Stug crewmen can shed some light here.

I believe that they had relatively short careers.  Their career paths may be indistinct.

I also understand that the manning of conscript armies for a limited period of warfighting presents a different set of challenges than manning a volunteer army for constant operations in a time of "peace".  The particular question, of manning the MGSs or any DFS system, is as old as the discussion over trade specialization or regimentation.  We have become accustomed to the infantry battalion as a combined arms force unto itself - a mini Regiment if you like.  During the long peace of Pax Britannica (1815-1914) - neither long nor peaceful - Direct Fire Support was the job of the Artillery, the Field Artillery.  They manned the 3-18 pounders and ultimately the Machine Guns that formed on the frontline with the supported troops.  That is the same position that the Royal Tank Regiment was raised to occupy, as opposed to the Cavalry regiments that most commonly DID NOT form alongside the infantry.  They were in reserve, on the flanks or out in front screening and patrolling - accompanied by their own DFS artillery, the Royal Horse Artillery.

Going further back Gustav Adolph's Regiments included "leather guns" that were manned by members of the Regiment and the Regiment was trained to act as a Combined Arms whole.  

But you lot know this better than I do ..... which is why I find it fascinating that after almost 400 years there is still an ongoing debate as to whether to group and train for ease of training and maintenance, platform specialization, or whether grouping and training should be focused on creating organizations that deliver particular effects that can be exploited by the government.  I see the merits in both views.  I also see that historically it has been made to work both ways with both alternatives having pluses and minuses.

I believe, like MCG and others, that there is value in a DFS system that operates in the same environment as the wheeled LAV, just as there is value in having an APC that operates in the same environment as the Tank.  If the Tank and the LAV are fully compatible across the entire spectrum of operations then great, this entire discussion is moot.  But if, as seems to be the case, there are mutually exclusive operations then there is room for discussion of how to fill the resulting gaps. One way is to fill the infantry DFS role with gunners.  It has been done in the past and it might be argued that it was the first task of gunners (or bowmen).  Cavalry has always been an entirely separate entity that specialized in mobile operations and was used to different tactical and operational effect than the infantry. 

 

[tomahawk6]

The MGS is crewed by armor soldiers after a two week training course.