LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[JackD]

hi... as a"guest i have been following this argument for awhile. it seems to be hard to find information on this MGS beast on the net. What exactly is wrong with it now - I'm referring to its delay. How is this thing going to be used by the Cdn Armed Forces - Opinion time now - it seems to me to be the wrong beast for the job - too much for infantry support and too little for traditional armoured taskings - by the way does it make economic sense to ditch the leopards and aren't they becoming the appropriate size for armour once more - about 55 tons....

 

[Zipper]

hi... as a"guest i have been following this argument for awhile. it seems to be hard to find information on this MGS beast on the net. What exactly is wrong with it now - I'm referring to its delay. How is this thing going to be used by the Cdn Armed Forces - Opinion time now - it seems to me to be the wrong beast for the job - too much for infantry support and too little for traditional armoured taskings - by the way does it make economic sense to ditch the leopards and aren't they becoming the appropriate size for armour once more - about 55 tons....

Hi Jack.

There are many places to find the info on the MGS. You just need to type it (MGS, LAV, Stryker) into a search engine and you should get quite a bit. However here are a couple.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Armour_school/bulletin/index_e.asp

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm

http://www.gdls.com/

It is not necessarily the beast for the job if "traditional armoured" is what you want. However, the CAF is no longer playing that game. We do not have the funds, personal, support capacity, political will, political correctness, etc to play the "heavy armoured" game. They want us to be a smaller (again), faster, more transportable, less scary army that is able to carry out a wider range of missions (whether their suited to a military body or not) and support our allies (somehow) at less cost.

As for ditching the Leo's. Well considering how much they cost in time and money to keep running, how few techs we have now to do so, and the fact that a "tank" is a projection of power shock weapon which doesn't sit well with the "soft approach" our politicians want, well...

Also, the Leo with its 105mm cannon cannot play in today's heavy armour field as it wouldn't be able to take on any modern equivalent.

 

[George Wallace]

Also, the Leo with its 105mm cannon cannot play in today's heavy armour field as it wouldn't be able to take on any modern equivalent.

[/quote]

This is true to a certain extent.  However, there may not be "modern equivalents" in our next taskings

 

[JackD]

Thank-you for your prompt reply - I was reading retired Wo Lance Wiebe's rebuttal and that seems to say it all. I have checked out the other sites but not much new under the sun there - up to date information on this MGS seems to be scarce. Funny that. So where goes the armoured? Where IS the problem?

 

[Zipper]

This is true to a certain extent.   However, there may not be "modern equivalents" in our next taskings

Very true George. The chances of us operating anywhere where such exists is remote. However to discount it in the long term plan is naive as you know, considering what we faced in Bosnia and Croatia, etc...

So where goes the armoured? Where IS the problem?

That is the question. The second part could have ravings go on for some time.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Very true George. The chances of us operating anywhere where such exists is remote. However to discount it in the long term plan is naive as you know, considering what we faced in Bosnia and Croatia, etc...

Which were T-72s.  A Leopard C2 is more than capable of handling these...

 

[prom]

Which were T-72s.  A Leopard C2 is more than capable of handling these...

exactly.....and for the most part, we are not going to be facing any nation that has a match to it. They will either be stronger or weaker. to play the political game for a second, if we readily deployed our leopards we would have the techs to support them. Where they are home locked we dont need the feild techs to support them..... something go wrong drag me outta the feild and repair.... or park as the way seems to be with this goverment. However to pull their line for a few seconds, if i can feild more LAV's up fire powered that can do some damage for less cost then deploying/replacing leopards. This goverment seems to look at the cost of equipment as being the reason for replacing everything that we have and still has a use. Then they use the loss of lif as an excuse not to go or to pull out. If we recieved what equipment we need, we could worry less about loss of life and more about force projection and deploying what we need for a certain area.  granted untill we get some C-5/17's we will never deploy leopards into a theatre.

I see that we replaced the iltis with the g55..... nice peice of kit..... though not getting great reviews from deployed memebers..... right now they should be in the process of contracting out its replacement.... something that will take out the milcot and make a common chasis for P res and reg..... to me it makes sence to start the process now..... alas teh cupboard is bare......

meh..... rant done

 

[Zipper]

Which were T-72s.   A Leopard C2 is more than capable of handling these...

Hmmm...

Now please correct me if I'm wrong. But I could have sworn I learned somewhere that a 105mm does NOT penetrate a T-72's front armour except under optimal conditions?

If this is so, then I would not call this "more than capable". Especially in this world of 1 shot is all you get.

If we recieved what equipment we need, we could worry less about loss of life and more about force projection and deploying what we need for a certain area.

Actually the government worries not only about lose of life (and voters), but they also avoid anything close to force projecting as possable. We're the good guys remember? We play nice, and hand out candy (and food) and don't scare people with loud machines with big guns. We're (one of...) the worlds only armed aid agency.

Sigh and yes, it all comes down to getting some kind of air transport for us to do anything (but not projecting).

 

[ArmyRick]

ENOUGH WITH THE ARM CHAIRS CRITICS !!! 
Leopards are gonzo.

Prom, who the heck are you and what is your expirience you base your grand ideas on ?

Zipper, I have had some things to say about you before. Now I aint going to bottle stuff up anymore. besides 3 years in the Reserved Armour, what expiriences do you actually have? Any tours? Or is it just crewing cougars and iltus?

I think Ruxpin is in a better position to speak of leopard vs T72. 

Come to think of it, Zipper. I spent several years in 2VP and did lots of CBT team stuff. So I am willing to bet I have seen a bloody tank more than you have.  My point? You try to come off as an expert and I think you are speaking well above your expirience level.

Offended? Want to PM me? Or make a public slam, Go ahead.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Now please correct me if I'm wrong. But I could have sworn I learned somewhere that a 105mm does NOT penetrate a T-72's front armour except under optimal conditions?

A Leopard C1/C2 firing DM-21 (German sabot) rounds should penetrate any T-72 over all arcs.  In fact, we deployed them to Kosovo (so equipped) for precisely that purpose.  I also believe that the Israelis engaged T-72s with 105mm back in 1982, with few problems.  A great deal depends on the round and engagement distance.

For an decent article on the T-72, see here:  http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/T_72

 

[Lance Wiebe]

A Leo firing DM63C will penetrate the T-72, except for the few uparmoured ones. (the ones with the "Dolly Parton" armour)The uparmoured T72 will stop a DM63C at ranges of 2000M or greater, but that's really not the point.  No tank has to be penetrated to be defeated.  Any T72 receiving a DM63C anywhere, at less than 2400 M will be defeated, and out of the battle. 

Of course we, with the Leo, have to use our skills as well as the gun/ammo combination.  The Leo is not that well protected...

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Thanks Lance...  I do remember us looking at very effective Israeli sabot rounds, but they wouldn't sell such "small quantities" to us - and this is when we were looking at deploying a squadron!

For all:  Lance is the acknowledged gunnery/ammo expert here and I will defer to him on all related issues - my memory is a bit hazy on the specifics of what was done for Kosovo, for instance, even though I was heavily involved.

Cheers,

TR

 

[prom]

ENOUGH WITH THE ARM CHAIRS CRITICS !!! 
Leopards are gonzo.

Prom, who the heck are you and what is your expirience you base your grand ideas on ?

Zipper, I have had some things to say about you before. Now I aint going to bottle stuff up anymore. besides 3 years in the Reserved Armour, what expiriences do you actually have? Any tours? Or is it just crewing cougars and iltus?

I think Ruxpin is in a better position to speak of leopard vs T72. 

Come to think of it, Zipper. I spent several years in 2VP and did lots of CBT team stuff. So I am willing to bet I have seen a bloody tank more than you have.  My point? You try to come off as an expert and I think you are speaking well above your expirience level.

Offended? Want to PM me? Or make a public slam, Go ahead.

grand ideas?


funny they didnt seem to grand to me........

as for expirience....... what is the point in it.... really tell me.... cause its just going to come off as some wack idea to you that you so throughly seemed to want to jump on and run over with your MGS..... im neither for nor agnist the procrument of a new system, heck its a great idea....... though to be fair to myself and my previos post.... you tell me how it was so far off target...... seems that what i have expressed is shared by a few people here..... just because my post count is low does not mean that you can jump all over me..... if you still have any problems feel free to PM me and we will deal with it there.

 

[ArmyRick]

You know what I smell, Prom? YOU NEVER SERVED A DAY IN YOUR LIFE IN UNIFORM ! Have you? If you have served, please do enlighten us? How long? What trades? What units or at least what area or brigade you served in? How about tours?

You talk nothing but a bunch of nonsense. You have no real validity to your reasoning or argument.

 

[ArmyRick]

"Then they use the loss of lif as an excuse not to go or to pull out. "

Tell me Prom, when did this ever happen? When did our government ever decide not to send us strictly because there might be casualties?

 

[prom]

tell me when they have not under the liberals have they not sat back longer then expected.... though with them you expect it...... before deciding they would go anywhere...... then they tell the general pop that they are very concerned about the situation and are monitering the situation closely......... they are told we should send x then they send y......


funny that that is the only thing that you could come back on me on...... hmmmm

 

[ArmyRick]

Prom, you are troll.

(1) Iraq. Our government made it clear they did not support the invasion of Iraq. We did not go for simple reasons, they didn't beleive in it.
(2) Afghanistan. Our government committed troops fairly early on (Given our track record). Beleive me, if we had C17s and C5s, we would have been in theater much sooner. Lucky for us the neighbours to our south helped us out.

Prom, it is very obvious you are a key board warrior. I am a soldier. Unlike you, I can say that.

 

[prom]

Prom, you are troll.

thank you it means so much to me that you could see my true self

(1) Iraq. Our government made it clear they did not support the invasion of Iraq. We did not go for simple reasons, they didn't beleive in it.

are we... or were we not part of the battle group patroling the persian gulf? were we not the ranking command of the BG headed up by the Halifax....

(2) Afghanistan. Our government committed troops fairly early on (Given our track record). Beleive me, if we had C17s and C5s, we would have been in theater much sooner. Lucky for us the neighbours to our south helped us out.

again give us the proper tools to do the job and we will do it. we should not have to rely on any ally to give us teh abilty to get ourseleves to and from a BZ.....I do not expect Canada to have the numbers to invade a country.......but shouldn't we have the tools to do the job once we are the ground? answer me this since i do not know anything.... and am a troll as you have so beautifully put it...... how fast were our deployments since '93? was there no so to respond to required assistance? DART delay was one of he most useful delays, it put us where we needed to be. Hati was a quick deployment..... as it was required..... as it is with the kandahar retasking occuring now.... and continuing for teh next few months, i would not be overlly surprised that something will occur that will delay our move....  to use a statement that i ahve seen used here.... we have a cat and try to make it into a dog.....

Prom, it is very obvious you are a key board warrior. I am a soldier. Unlike you, I can say that.

Im glad that it makes you feel great to say things like that, its just funny how quickly you turn to an attack on the lowest poster in the thread. you hit zipper but that was clearly a build up from another thread(s). was i your excuse to hit him? i just want to know...... and again... i give you the option of PMs... though im not sure you know where the button is... afterall im a keyboard warrior. 

 

[muskrat89]

Let's keep the thread on track guys. If you want to insult each other, take it to PMs. Thanks.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry, there's just no where else to put this. Simple request and the next post can go back within arcs.

Prom,

You have not addressed the original request from Army Rick, you've actually skirted it pretty well. To end all this, please just fill in your profile. It will add weight to your statements if you can back it up. Simple solution, n'est pas?