- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Cancel MGS - Buy new Cockeril 105mm design (see link)...
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Hmm. Interesting design. It reminds me somewhat of the GM-Delco-designed LAV-105 turret, which was first seen mounted on a LAV-25 hull. If the MGS could be cancelled (I doubt it will, even if we have a change of government), the wheeled fire support vehicle I'd put my money on would be the Italian-made Centauro. The second-generation iteration of this vehicle has a turret which incorporates a 120mm low-pressure gun. Although Cockerill have a long and solid track record of turret and gun design. Damned if I know why, with all of the engineering talent here in Canada, why we can't do the same, since Cockerill is Belgian, and Belgium is tiny compared to Canada.
Then again a Swedish-built CV120 would be better still, but given Canada's seemingly obdurate and culturally-based aversion to anything tracked, it's a pipe dream.
Then again a Swedish-built CV120 would be better still, but given Canada's seemingly obdurate and culturally-based aversion to anything tracked, it's a pipe dream.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Infanteer said:
Yes, but did he post a picture? ;D
In all honesty, I'd never even heard of the 105mm turret. The 90mm turret, yes. But not the 105mm.
Regardless, I thought the attached .pdf had a significant amount of information that most would find interesting.
M.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,280
- Points
- 1,110
Looks a little CGI.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Rather than rehash everything again, please read:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-281193.html#msg281193
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27491/post-287270.html#msg287270
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16987/post-291632.html#msg291632
While you are at it, maybe give Gen Hillier a call and give him these links as well
Just so you know, at AUSA there were videos of this system firing stationary and on the move, with the turret displaced at up to 900 from the hull centreline. Try that in an MGS!
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-281193.html#msg281193
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27491/post-287270.html#msg287270
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16987/post-291632.html#msg291632
While you are at it, maybe give Gen Hillier a call and give him these links as well
Just so you know, at AUSA there were videos of this system firing stationary and on the move, with the turret displaced at up to 900 from the hull centreline. Try that in an MGS!
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,280
- Points
- 1,110
At the risk of covering some of the same ground as other threads here, what is the role that these vehicles fulfill?
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,280
- Points
- 1,110
What does the "Direct Fire Support" role entail? I hear the term bandied about alot, but have we ever had a DFS role? I've seen tactical tasks that entail provided fire support with direct fire weapons, but not a role as such.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Wait a minute!CBH99 said:
Direct Fire Support? As in a Tank?
No way! There is no way that this veh is going to replace, or act like, a tank. It doesn't have the mobility or protection to be used in any way, shape or form as a tank.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
The airborne community in the uS has tried to get the Thunderbolt fielded with the 82d and would fit in with the Stryker brigades.
The Thunderbolt is derived from the M-8 Buford which was canceled some years ago. It has a 120mm main gun and with a hybrid electric drive the rear compartment could be configured to carry a 4 man fire team.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lighttanks.htm
The Thunderbolt is derived from the M-8 Buford which was canceled some years ago. It has a 120mm main gun and with a hybrid electric drive the rear compartment could be configured to carry a 4 man fire team.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lighttanks.htm
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,280
- Points
- 1,110
CBH99
Are you doubting my profile?
I have been a Tank Troop Leader and a Tank Squadron Battle Captain. We did not have the role of "Direct Fire Support." Tanks and infantry are "manouevre" elements as they combine tactical mobility (in or out of contact) with direct firepower. For a brief time we had a Coyote Squadron without surv gear that was called a Direct Fire Support Vehicle Squadron but it was very transitory without any real doctrine or role.
As a Tp Ldr and BC I was often had the tactical task of providing a fire base for a combat team. This involved providing fire support to the maneouvre elements. This was but one of the tasks that we would do and I will point out that we employed maneouvre to get there (the troop in the firebase was usually the first to have made contact).
DFS, as a role, seems to have been created to give a role for a family of vehicles. Perhaps the the answer has posed its own question.
We assigned the title Direct Fire Support Vehicle Wheeled to the Cougar but never actually employed it that way. I have seen machine gun platoons called Direct Fire Support Platoons.
What is involved in the role of Direct Fire Support? Is it just to be in a firebase? Does anybody go in with the infantry for their assault? Who breaches? Is it an anti-tank system? If so, what advantages does it have over a missile armed vehicle of the same weight class? Is this a Cavalry vehicle in that it would give some anti-tank firepower to recce elements? Will it roll into the insurgent held town and support infantry going block to block?
These vehicles certainly look interesting and I am not saying that they do not have a purpose. I do beleive, however, that at times we want a system because it looks cool but without first having determined a requirement. Getting away from combat team attacks for a moment, what will this vehicle do in the contemporary operating environment that makes it unique from other existing systems?
Cheers,
2B
Are you doubting my profile?
I have been a Tank Troop Leader and a Tank Squadron Battle Captain. We did not have the role of "Direct Fire Support." Tanks and infantry are "manouevre" elements as they combine tactical mobility (in or out of contact) with direct firepower. For a brief time we had a Coyote Squadron without surv gear that was called a Direct Fire Support Vehicle Squadron but it was very transitory without any real doctrine or role.
As a Tp Ldr and BC I was often had the tactical task of providing a fire base for a combat team. This involved providing fire support to the maneouvre elements. This was but one of the tasks that we would do and I will point out that we employed maneouvre to get there (the troop in the firebase was usually the first to have made contact).
DFS, as a role, seems to have been created to give a role for a family of vehicles. Perhaps the the answer has posed its own question.
We assigned the title Direct Fire Support Vehicle Wheeled to the Cougar but never actually employed it that way. I have seen machine gun platoons called Direct Fire Support Platoons.
What is involved in the role of Direct Fire Support? Is it just to be in a firebase? Does anybody go in with the infantry for their assault? Who breaches? Is it an anti-tank system? If so, what advantages does it have over a missile armed vehicle of the same weight class? Is this a Cavalry vehicle in that it would give some anti-tank firepower to recce elements? Will it roll into the insurgent held town and support infantry going block to block?
These vehicles certainly look interesting and I am not saying that they do not have a purpose. I do beleive, however, that at times we want a system because it looks cool but without first having determined a requirement. Getting away from combat team attacks for a moment, what will this vehicle do in the contemporary operating environment that makes it unique from other existing systems?
Cheers,
2B
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
OK Opportunity to jump in here
Evolution of the tank
Point the first - the tank did not evolve from the horse, the tank evolved from the ram - the battering ram to be precise
WW1 was a 4 year siege on the western front. It demanded a siege engine to break it.
Sieges were traditionally the field of expertise of engineers. They sapped the strength from enemy fortifications by digging the ground out from underneath them.
This being a hazardous occupation they also took to throwing big rocks at the walls from a distance.
When this didn't work they created massive armoured devices that were walked up to the walls to punch holes in the walls.
Once a hole was created then the infantry ran through and made merry on the far side.
When gunpowder came along the engineers discovered that they didn't need to dig their saps so big.
They also discovered they could stand back farther when throwing rocks and in some cases they could throw packages of explosives at the walls. Guns originally entered the scene in Europe as siege weapons. Specialist engineers running this ordnance became known as gunners.
Eventually walls to knock down became harder to find and gunners found employment knocking down soldiers and horses. The infantry and cavalry alongside whom they worked appreciated the help but wished the other guy hadn't gone to the same schools.
By the time of WW1 the Royal Artillery (Field and Horse) was operating direct fired guns that were to be used in line with the infantry. Their primary ammunition was the Shrapnel shell - designed to kill troops in the open. Their guns were proofed with an armoured shield that was protection against small arms fire at 400 yards. The rifle armed infantry (SMLE) they were supporting was trained to hit targets at out to 600 yds/m (Close range) and bring effective fire to bear on targets between 600 and 1400 yards (Effective - Massed to create a beaten zone). Long range was defined as 1400 to 2000 yds while Extreme range was 2000 to 2800 yds. UK Fd Svc Regs 1909 (per Richard Holmes "Tommy").
Think about that. Rifles were to be massed to create beaten zones at ranges out to 2800 yds. Guns were armoured on the front to repel rifle bullets at ranges of 400 yds. The guns were expected to be online with the infantry sharing the same risks as the infantry with some accomodation of the fact that they couldn't lie down on the job. The guns were supplying Direct Fire Support.
This helps to explain why the Brits were so slow to adopt the machine gun. The infantry platoon and the arty battery were expected to do the job. Couple that with the argument over whether the machine gunner is a rifle man with a very large magazine or a gunner with derisory balls and you have a weapon that no one saw a need for and no one really wanted.
WW1 demonstrated a problem. Horses didn't hide behind armoured shields, nor did drivers. Mobility kills on guns became too common. The guns couldn't keep up. The infantry lost some, most or their Direct Fire Support.
At the same time, in the target rich environment of WW1 it was discovered that a fast firing rifleman might be a good thing as it took less time to teach a gunner to shoot a machine gun than it took to train a platoon to engage targets at 2800 yards. But there was still that nagging question of whether these guys on the trigger should be gunners, infanteers or (in rare cases) cavalrymen. The solution was to create a separate corps (The Machine Gun Corps) give them a new cap badge and a royal patron. These guys, with their "light" artillery pieces could get on line with the infantry in a way that the shrapnel firing 13 and 18 pounders couldn't.
They still, however couldn't keep up with the infantry when the infantry left the trenches, nor the cavalry in the exploitation. The solution was to create a platform to carry machine guns forward to the enemy walls. Step one - get rid of horses and replace it with the new-fangled internal combustion engine. Step two - add armour all round because the enemy was being unsporting and attacking from the flanks. Step three - add tracks because the skinny hard tired wheels of the day couldn't carry the weight of guns, crew, engine and armour across open ground. This weapon system was originally to be deployed by the Heavy branch of the Machine Gun Corps but someone discovered that there was enough power in the engine to be able to mount a couple of artillery guns.
To prevent squabbles amongst arty, engineers and machine gunners (and the navy - landships donchano) the Royal Tank Regiment was created.
Voila. The tank. The siege breaker. The direct fire support system. The infantry tank.
Cavalry thought this thing moved to slow for their job. Not to mention being noisy and smelly. They did find some use for mobile machine gun batteries mounted in armoured cars to give direct fire support to the geegees, more effective than the Royal Horse Artillery.
After the war, the inclination on the part of the regular army was to do what has always been done with siege engines - pack them up an put them away until the next siege. Nobody wanted the tank. Least of all the Cavalry.
The tank as a Cavalry tool, as a manoeuver system, came along 20 years later in WW2.
When they weren't planning for massive Tank on Tank engagements at Kursk and Fulda Gap then they could make themselves available to go back to their original role of Direct Fire Support to the infantry.
Now the probability of refighting Kursk is pretty slim. Unless your side has air superiority mass formations of 60 km/h targets are not going to survive long. The Cavalry construct is looking less viable.
On the other hand - the armoured siege engine, operating in direct support of the infantry, supplying breaching, protection and direct fire support is looking to be more and more like a useful piece of kit to have available.
Rant ends - Standing by to repel Cavalry. Forming Square. ;D :warstory:
Evolution of the tank
Point the first - the tank did not evolve from the horse, the tank evolved from the ram - the battering ram to be precise
WW1 was a 4 year siege on the western front. It demanded a siege engine to break it.
Sieges were traditionally the field of expertise of engineers. They sapped the strength from enemy fortifications by digging the ground out from underneath them.
This being a hazardous occupation they also took to throwing big rocks at the walls from a distance.
When this didn't work they created massive armoured devices that were walked up to the walls to punch holes in the walls.
Once a hole was created then the infantry ran through and made merry on the far side.
When gunpowder came along the engineers discovered that they didn't need to dig their saps so big.
They also discovered they could stand back farther when throwing rocks and in some cases they could throw packages of explosives at the walls. Guns originally entered the scene in Europe as siege weapons. Specialist engineers running this ordnance became known as gunners.
Eventually walls to knock down became harder to find and gunners found employment knocking down soldiers and horses. The infantry and cavalry alongside whom they worked appreciated the help but wished the other guy hadn't gone to the same schools.
By the time of WW1 the Royal Artillery (Field and Horse) was operating direct fired guns that were to be used in line with the infantry. Their primary ammunition was the Shrapnel shell - designed to kill troops in the open. Their guns were proofed with an armoured shield that was protection against small arms fire at 400 yards. The rifle armed infantry (SMLE) they were supporting was trained to hit targets at out to 600 yds/m (Close range) and bring effective fire to bear on targets between 600 and 1400 yards (Effective - Massed to create a beaten zone). Long range was defined as 1400 to 2000 yds while Extreme range was 2000 to 2800 yds. UK Fd Svc Regs 1909 (per Richard Holmes "Tommy").
Think about that. Rifles were to be massed to create beaten zones at ranges out to 2800 yds. Guns were armoured on the front to repel rifle bullets at ranges of 400 yds. The guns were expected to be online with the infantry sharing the same risks as the infantry with some accomodation of the fact that they couldn't lie down on the job. The guns were supplying Direct Fire Support.
This helps to explain why the Brits were so slow to adopt the machine gun. The infantry platoon and the arty battery were expected to do the job. Couple that with the argument over whether the machine gunner is a rifle man with a very large magazine or a gunner with derisory balls and you have a weapon that no one saw a need for and no one really wanted.
WW1 demonstrated a problem. Horses didn't hide behind armoured shields, nor did drivers. Mobility kills on guns became too common. The guns couldn't keep up. The infantry lost some, most or their Direct Fire Support.
At the same time, in the target rich environment of WW1 it was discovered that a fast firing rifleman might be a good thing as it took less time to teach a gunner to shoot a machine gun than it took to train a platoon to engage targets at 2800 yards. But there was still that nagging question of whether these guys on the trigger should be gunners, infanteers or (in rare cases) cavalrymen. The solution was to create a separate corps (The Machine Gun Corps) give them a new cap badge and a royal patron. These guys, with their "light" artillery pieces could get on line with the infantry in a way that the shrapnel firing 13 and 18 pounders couldn't.
They still, however couldn't keep up with the infantry when the infantry left the trenches, nor the cavalry in the exploitation. The solution was to create a platform to carry machine guns forward to the enemy walls. Step one - get rid of horses and replace it with the new-fangled internal combustion engine. Step two - add armour all round because the enemy was being unsporting and attacking from the flanks. Step three - add tracks because the skinny hard tired wheels of the day couldn't carry the weight of guns, crew, engine and armour across open ground. This weapon system was originally to be deployed by the Heavy branch of the Machine Gun Corps but someone discovered that there was enough power in the engine to be able to mount a couple of artillery guns.
To prevent squabbles amongst arty, engineers and machine gunners (and the navy - landships donchano) the Royal Tank Regiment was created.
Voila. The tank. The siege breaker. The direct fire support system. The infantry tank.
Cavalry thought this thing moved to slow for their job. Not to mention being noisy and smelly. They did find some use for mobile machine gun batteries mounted in armoured cars to give direct fire support to the geegees, more effective than the Royal Horse Artillery.
After the war, the inclination on the part of the regular army was to do what has always been done with siege engines - pack them up an put them away until the next siege. Nobody wanted the tank. Least of all the Cavalry.
The tank as a Cavalry tool, as a manoeuver system, came along 20 years later in WW2.
When they weren't planning for massive Tank on Tank engagements at Kursk and Fulda Gap then they could make themselves available to go back to their original role of Direct Fire Support to the infantry.
Now the probability of refighting Kursk is pretty slim. Unless your side has air superiority mass formations of 60 km/h targets are not going to survive long. The Cavalry construct is looking less viable.
On the other hand - the armoured siege engine, operating in direct support of the infantry, supplying breaching, protection and direct fire support is looking to be more and more like a useful piece of kit to have available.
Rant ends - Standing by to repel Cavalry. Forming Square. ;D :warstory:
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
2Bravo said:
Although Kirkhill has given us a long historical overview, I would suggest that the roles the MGS/DSFV play is "support". Essentially, they are self propelled artillery platforms which allow the commander to reach out and smack someone with about 13 million foot/pounds of energy. This is pretty handy if that someone is in an armoured vehicle, dug into a trench or bunkered in a building. Given that LAV based vehicles do not have the mobility or armour as a tank, then the tactical employment will or should be based on classic "armoured car" or Cavalry, exploiting the speed of the vehicles to fan out ahead of the main body, cover the flanks and rear, or race in to plug a hole in the line.
Of course, you don't do these things in isolation, so something like the SBCT, 2Bravo's Armoured Cavalry or perhaps a Mounted Rifle battalion need to be formed, using similar platforms to give mobility to different arms, then combining them in various proportions to create the desired end result.
Although McG says the MGS can fire off the centreline, there are persistent reports in the media and among posters here that the MGS (or more correctly, the LPT) has a great deal of trouble meeting the design requirements, with trouble selecting and feeding rounds on the move, poor ergonomics for the crew, blast and overpressure issues when firing the gun, excessive weight and some suggestions that the fireing arcs were indeed restricted (if this has been corrected, then all the better). The CV_CT provides a developed technical solution to these problems, and carries twice as much ready ammunition in the bustle to boot. Since we are comitted to a "wheeled" configuration for our forces, then we should take the next step and select the best technical solution. Given the greater capabilities of the CV_CT over the LPT, the answer should't be all that difficult.
No, 2 Bravo - not doubting your profile at all. For a moment there, I thought perhaps you were posing, or someone maybe hijacked your profile. (Not often you hear a Captain from the black berets asking what kind of tasking an armoured vehicle with a 105mm cannon would be used for.) But, I assumed there was some kind of sarcasm embedded in your question - as you put it, the internet is a flat medium. 
You raise some very good questions, 2B. How will acquiring this vehicle enhance our operational abilities? The Cougar was never really employed in the DFS role in the Balkans, and our chances of going up against an enemy similar to what we faced during Bosnia/Kosovo has dramatically decreased, replaced by rag-tag militias and irregular warfare.
However, I do believe we still need to possess the capability that a dedicated DFSV offers. Regardless as to whether or not it is employed in that role or not, having the ability to use that capability when required is always important. The amount of firepower a 105mm cannon possesses may prove to be useful and may require direct employment someday. It also serves as a great deterrent to enemy forces, especially in the urban environments we often find ourselves in.
In regards to your questions about the various uses of the term "Direct Fire Support", best leave that to someone still in the game. I'm with you, in regards to my understanding of the term Direct Fire Support - your question about DFS platoons and whatnot, I'm curious to hear what KevinB, Infanteer, or someone of the like has to say.
You raise some very good questions, 2B. How will acquiring this vehicle enhance our operational abilities? The Cougar was never really employed in the DFS role in the Balkans, and our chances of going up against an enemy similar to what we faced during Bosnia/Kosovo has dramatically decreased, replaced by rag-tag militias and irregular warfare.
However, I do believe we still need to possess the capability that a dedicated DFSV offers. Regardless as to whether or not it is employed in that role or not, having the ability to use that capability when required is always important. The amount of firepower a 105mm cannon possesses may prove to be useful and may require direct employment someday. It also serves as a great deterrent to enemy forces, especially in the urban environments we often find ourselves in.
In regards to your questions about the various uses of the term "Direct Fire Support", best leave that to someone still in the game. I'm with you, in regards to my understanding of the term Direct Fire Support - your question about DFS platoons and whatnot, I'm curious to hear what KevinB, Infanteer, or someone of the like has to say.
- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
2Bravo said:
Or simply hopping on the US Transformation bandwagon without putting any critical thought into certain initiatives within that process and how (and if) they are actually feasible....
What is the MGS being designed for? The US Stryker Brigades are essentially Infantry formations that add a "motorized" element to the equation. The Stryker Infantry carriers shouldn't be compared to our LAVIII due to the fact that they have a crew-served weapon on a RWS whereas our vehicle has a stabilized turret with a fairly respectable cannon on it.
The MGS is meant to be a company-level support gun for the Strykers. This is an infantry gun; essentially like a StuG of WWII fame, meant to accompany dismounted Infantry on the attack (or back them on the defence, I guess).
However, one has to wonder what sort of roles this thing will fill based upon its specs. The LAV units were kept as cordon forces at Fallujah for a reason - you won't see an MGS replacing an M1A1 in an dismounted, urban assault. So accompanying the Infantry in complex terrain (where our fights will most likely be) seems to be out. So, what use does it have then? It could advance behind the Infantry in a complex battle scenario; but this puts your infantry in the "trolling" role, and human tissue isn't as good as Chobham armour in taking fire - so I'm willing to say that this is bad on both the tactical and the moral level (see the Aussie Army Chief's statement). Perhaps it can be used to backstop dismounted Infantry on other tasks - cordons and searches, VCPs, patrols, etc, etc. But one has to wonder if a 105mm MGS will offer us anything substantial over the current LAVIII capability? I could see an MGS being valuable when all you have is a .50 cal RWS, but our mechanized forces have much more than that. I'm not confusing the capabilities of a 105mm gun and a 25mm cannon, but in these above roles, it seems that a 25mm cannon in a good turret should be enough for, say, cement mixers charging a VCP, ambush fire from a brick building on the road, etc, etc. If heavier firepower is required, we have other means at our disposal like the new 155mm Excalibur round from our Gunner brethren or we have to consider that perhaps it is out of the league of a Light, wheeled force - giving Cavalry a longer, heavier lance does nothing to change the fact that you can shoot the horse out from underneath the guy.
So my question (and challenge) to the MGS crowd - the MGS is being adopted due to the fact that we've simply ripped some pages out of US Army transformation planning. It seems that it was never considered if this planning even applied to our current organization and layout. Does the difference between Stryker Carrier/Stryker MGS really apply to our LAVIII equipped forces - perhaps some people with more working knowledge of weapons systems can fill the argument out better. To me, it seems that a DFS requirement of heavier, sustained fire from a stabilized turret with good sensory/targeting capability has already been largely filled out and that the we will not gain anything substantive from a 105mm MGS - there will be no "bang for the buck" on this one. If we want maneuverable armoured capability that provides tactical mobility and heavy firepower, then we are foolish not to buy a modern MBT like the M1A1 Abrams, as this requirement is heavily dependent on protection that a LAV chassis can simply not provide.
If we wanted to add a real addition of capability to a LAV organization, I'd argue for the LAV-based 120mm gun that I discussed before - new 120mm rounds can be used as pretty potent low-velocity DFS while a 120mm indirect-fire capability for a sub-unit seems to be a pretty nice additional capability.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,280
- Points
- 1,110
I'm not sure if the tank evolved or developed out of any branch. I believe that the tank successes of WW I occured when tanks were used en masse and not just to "support" the infantry. The Amiens offensive showed what a combined arms blitzkrieg could achieve.
To me, the "cruiser" tank and "infantry" tank methodology between the wars was a false dichotomy and a blind alley (holy mixed metaphors Batman!). Success went to those tho conceived MBTs that were flexible. They could shoot up other tanks, AT guns and infantry. They could move across bad terrain at some speed and could take some punishment. Was the role of the Panther to provide direct fire support to the infantry?
Properly conceived combined arms (tank/infantry) forces are manoeuvre forces in that they have battlespace. They project a bubble around them in which they will happily destroy the enemy without too much direction required. They can move that bubble around as well and can take the bubble and put it over the enemy. Neither arm in this case is "supporting." Together they are both doing. I consider this to hold even when we attach a pair of tanks to an infantry company for an urban fight.
"Support" to me comes from artillery, aviation, fast air, EW and the other supporting arms. Engineers are a special case since they do both.
To me, the "cruiser" tank and "infantry" tank methodology between the wars was a false dichotomy and a blind alley (holy mixed metaphors Batman!). Success went to those tho conceived MBTs that were flexible. They could shoot up other tanks, AT guns and infantry. They could move across bad terrain at some speed and could take some punishment. Was the role of the Panther to provide direct fire support to the infantry?
Properly conceived combined arms (tank/infantry) forces are manoeuvre forces in that they have battlespace. They project a bubble around them in which they will happily destroy the enemy without too much direction required. They can move that bubble around as well and can take the bubble and put it over the enemy. Neither arm in this case is "supporting." Together they are both doing. I consider this to hold even when we attach a pair of tanks to an infantry company for an urban fight.
"Support" to me comes from artillery, aviation, fast air, EW and the other supporting arms. Engineers are a special case since they do both.
Similar threads
