LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Mortar guy]

2B,

I agree with you 100%. I have been very vocal opponent of the direct fire system of systems here and elsewhere but not because I didn't see a role for the MGS but because the 'concept' was two fingers left of right out of 'er. As I said in the last MGS thread, the MGS is a fairly decent assualt gun and I think what you have described is basically a need for an assault gun. The US Army bought the MGS to do exactly what you suggest - i.e. to support the infantry. If the Army ever screws up and makes me an OC, I would kill to have a troop of MGS attached to my Coy for intimate support. An MGS with HESH or even canister rounds would be ideal for convoy escort, defending firebases, or even FIBUA where they would reduce fortifications and buildings.

However, the direct fire system of systems sees the MGS used as a tank destroyer rather than as an assault gun. Two senior officers intimately involved in the direct fire trials last year actually stood up and said something like: "The direct fire system will usually operate independently and the MGS will act in intimate support of the infantry only as an rare exception."

These officers and others actually think the DFSofS is going to sit back and destroy everything from 8km while the infantry goes forward and mucks out the bad guys all alone. This might work against a BMP company dug in in Suffield but I would argue that it is absolute craziness in most situations we will find ourselves in in Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti or god knows where.

Anyway, all that to say that I agree that the MGS has a place. Now the MMEV....

MG

 

[a_majoor]

That the MGS can be used as an Infantry support weapon is hardly controversial. A Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) is explicitly built around that premise, after all. As a Infantryman, I would certainly want to have that sort of firepower in my hip pocket wherever I go.

The problem isn't so much the MGS (although there are technical reasons I might prefer a different vehicle or turret for the MGS) but the doctrinal concept we are creating for its use. Even if a switched on OC or Squadron commander places the MGS into intimate support for the Infantry company/combat team, where is the armoured "fist" to do the other tasks we expect of armoured formations? I don't suppose anyone is going to step up to the plate and suggest LAV-TOW or MMEV will lead the assault, provide the countermove force or perform the exploitation task?

 

[George Wallace]

I tend to agree with these sentiments about the MGS.  In saying that, I also think that it should be an Infantry wpn, and taken out of the Armour inventory.  Keeping it in the Armour orgs, would not benefit the Infantry to the extent that it should when it is needed.  It also degrades the abilities and capabilities of Armour.  Armour needs a more aggressive and flexible platform than the MGS.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Exactly right.

Despite a potential role as a DFS platform, I still have grave reservations about the MGS.

First, the transition to MGS effectively removes any ability to use armour as a shock weapon, as pointed out very eloquantly in a_majoor's post.

Second, the platform has severe limitations - discussed ad nauseum on other threads.

Third, like Mortar Guy, I think the "system of systems" concept is right out of 'er and that MMEV is a total boondoggle...

I'm hardly in a position to question 2B's assessment from in theatre.  However, I am concerned that we will be tempted to penny-packet MGS out as a infantry "big gun" (which is all the vehicle is - marginally - capable of doing), something a squadron OC has traditionally fought - the concept of mobility and mutual support goes right out the window when vehicles are attached to other arms in ones and twos.  The vehicle's very limited protection places severe restrictions on its use as a mobile "pillbox" and all but precludes its use on the assault in an intimate support role.  It has limited ammunition storage, which limits its tactical deployability and the L7 is a dated gun of restricted utility against modern armour (yeah, I know, it isn't designed to be).

A heavier vehicle (tracked, I suspect) will do all that 2B has gleaned from his time at FOB XXXX without the massive limitations of the MGS.  I have taken some comfort in the realization that the CDS has directed a review of direct fire systems and of the procurement plan.

Cheers,

Teddy

 

[DG-41]

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

 

[Lance Wiebe]

2B, well said.  I agree, and have always stated that the MGS could be useful in defensive roles.  The problem, as I see it, is that it provides limited situational awareness to the commander (a result of being designed with the weapon blocking 180 degrees of his view), and it's accuracy on the move is, well, shall we see not that great.

But as a vehicle to keep in the low ground, ready to run up to any number of fire positions, and support Infantry on the defense, it would be great.  It could also be useful in a blocking role.  But, doesn't all of these uses remind you of the WWII 75 mm guns mounted in half tracks?  Or the M10?  My fear is that the higher-ups will employ it patrolling, as a quick reaction force, or any other number of tasks much better suited by tanks.

Personally, the fact that I can't see half of my frontage while moving is the one greatest detriment of the MGS.  There are other faults, but this one is the biggest.  I would like to see the Cockerill turret mounted on the LAVIII chassis before the MGS.......

 

[Kirkhill]

Do any of the WWII buffs around here know what the "exchange" rates were like between MBTs/AFVs and towed AT guns like the 88mm, 17 pdr or even the 6 pdr?  Weren't they essentially used in a similar environment to that envisaged by the MGS?  And didn't have the advantage of being able to fire from what is effectively a "turret down" position or being able to relocate.

Admittedly they were AT weapons first (although the 88 was used for infantry support as I am sure parkie can attest) but that is a function of the ammunition and not the tube, mount or platform, surely?

 

[a_majoor]

But as a vehicle to keep in the low ground, ready to run up to any number of fire positions, and support Infantry on the defense, it would be great.  It could also be useful in a blocking role.  But, doesn't all of these uses remind you of the WWII 75 mm guns mounted in half tracks?  Or the M10?  My fear is that the higher-ups will employ it patrolling, as a quick reaction force, or any other number of tasks much better suited by tanks.

Patrolling, QRF and other tasks can be performed by armoured cars, so long as there is a well thought out doctrine and the crews know and understand what they are supposed to be doing. Getting into a tank duel or assaulting a fortified position is certainly not in the terms of reference there. Recce, flank and rear security, slipping around the enemy, threatening enemy flanks and rear areas are some of the tasks properly designed armoured cars can do, especially if they are part of a properly configured "Cavalry Team".

I am also guessing the people who write this stuff are anticipating technological solutions like "smart rounds" for the main gun (stuff like STAFF [Sensor Target Activated Fire and Forget] and TERM [Tank Extended Range Munitions]). While this would be exciting, it actually chages DF platforms like tanks, assault guns and armoured cars into part time IF platforms, which dosn't seem to be considered in the System of Systems approach the CF is adopting.

 

[AmmoTech90]

I'd dump the sabot and carry HESH and maybe a 105mm version of the new "cannister" round that the US has for the 120mm.  An "airburst" variant would be even sexier to fire just behind/above a ridgeline.  Might be a fuzing nightmare given the loading system but something to think about.
2B

Shouldn't be a big problem with the fuzing.  The 35mm guns had something similiar with AHEAD rounds.  There's three induction coils mounted in the end of the barrel.  You range the target, the first two coils get a specific Mv for the round being firing, the third one programs in the burst time based on the Mv and range to the target.  The round functions at the desired range/time and you get a cloud of metal pellets flying at the target.
Then there's the old US beehive type round where you can set the fuze to function at a certain range (time).  Very similiar to the 76mm Smoke BE on the payload comes out the front instead of the rear.
Unless the autoloader has a problem with the shape of projectiles it shouldn't factor in this.

D

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

First Comment:  If you're going to use it as an infantry support vehicle, why wouldn't you shorten the barrel, lower the velocity, lower the recoil and make it a better-balanced vehicle?

Second Comment:  I still don't like them.  If you need a heavy, well-armed vehicle, then buy the heavy well-armed vehicle and then spend the money to be able to transport them.  We could probably pick up some Challenger 2's for song and if we then invested in proper sealift-then-airlift assets we could get a small troop where they need to go.  Having defensive vehicle seems a little silly if the guerilla enemy is patient and is willing to ambush your forces in transit.  I should add that assault guns/tank destroyers like the StuG-III/Hetzer had frontal armour that could withstand many opposing tank guns.  The MGS has no such capability.  The MGS is more like Marder 2 or 3 which NEVER would've been deployed without the protection of real tanks.



Matthew. 

 

[Mortar guy]

Oh I agree the MGS is far from the perfect solution. As others have mentioned, it is weak in armour, firepower, situational awareness and mobility. However, I think what we might be getting at in this thread is: if we're going to have this POS jammed down our throats, it might best be used as an infantry-support weapon rather than as anti-armour weapon as some rocket surgeons are suggesting.

If it were up to me I would have done things a lot differently. Firstly, I would have kept about a regt's worth of Leopards as history and recent events in Iraq have shown that the tank still has a very large role to play in modern combat. The LTS project was supposed to ensure that our Leopards were able to soldier on until about 2015.

Secondly, I would have initiated a project to acquire a true assault gun/armoured car for LIC. Basically, I would be looking at getting a vehicle that does all the things we have just described: infantry support, patrolling, escort etc. This vehicle should be able to take out light armoured vehicles, bunkers, buildings and infantry but should not be tasked with taking on anything bigger than a BMP-2. My thought on this was that a good solution might be a "Super Cougar" (Supair Cougair in french). OK, when you're done giggling, just hear me out. The Cougar hulls (of which there are over 190) would be put through DLIR like the Grizzlies and then would be refitted with the CMI Mk3 90mm gun and a thermal sight. Voila! A cheap, effective and genuinely air transportable armoured car/assault gun. Granted, the protection and mobility issues remain but I believe that the MGS is seen as having weak protection and firepower because we keep talking about it going up against T-72Ms. The problem isn't so much the vehicle as it is the doctrine. The Super Cougar would also have weaknesses but it would be used solely as an assault gun/armoured car and not part of some pie in the sky direct fire system of systems.

In my opinion, if I was at that FOB in Arsecrackistan, or if I was an OC of a rifle coy, a tp of Super Cougars would be just as acceptable as a tp of MGS but at much less cost. The benefit of this plan is that it's relatively cheap. If you were to also cancel the MMEV, all that money would be redirected to first acquiring a Leopard replacement around 2010 and then a Super Cougar replacement around 2015.

Anyway, there are lots of options other than what we're doing and many of them are cheaper and more realistic.

MG

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The Cougar hulls (of which there are over 190) would be put through DLIR like the Grizzlies and then would be refitted with the CMI Mk3 90mm gun and a thermal sight. Voila! A cheap, effective and genuinely air transportable armoured car/assault gun. Granted, the protection and mobility issues remain but I believe that the MGS is seen as having weak protection and firepower because we keep talking about it going up against T-72Ms. The problem isn't so much the vehicle as it is the doctrine. The Super Cougar would also have weaknesses but it would be used solely as an assault gun/armoured car and not part of some pie in the sky direct fire system of systems.

The problem with this idea is that even the 76mm gun of the old Cougar was far too powerful for both the turret and the hull.  I shudder to think what a 90mm on the POS AVGP hull would be like...  Platform rock was brutal and there were all sorts of stability problems.  I won't get into the effect on the turret, with mantlet cracks, etc., all from the pumpkin launcher.  'Sides we DLIRed some 95 Cougars in the 97/98 timeframe; the rest were left to rot (some can still be seen at 7 CFSD here in Edmonton.  Best not to go there.

If we're going wheels, we need a proper, turreted vehicle with proper protection, situational awareness, a coax that can be reloaded under cover, decent crosscountry mobility (and speed), and a realistic number of rounds aboard.  The MGS has none of this...except perhaps the mobility.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Great replies all.

First off, thanks to the Ammo guy for giving me hope about the "fire just behind the bad guy's head on the ridgeline round."  I'll take 1,000 for starters.

My new-found optimism about the MGS is based on this theatre.  I suppose there is nothing that an MSG could do that a Leo C2 couldn't, except that it would be easier to get the MGS here and it could then roll about with the LAVs, Coyotes and Bisons.  Given the threat, the relatively low number of rounds carried is not a show-stopper in my opinion. 

As for who would crew the thing, I see no reason why it wouldn't be armoured guys.  In fact, I figure it should be.  They have the skill sets already.

As for "penny-packeting" we are fighting a counter-insurgency war.  Platoon groups and company-minuses are fairly standard blobs running around out there.  A fire-team might be all that is allocated to an independent group running around.

I agree with everyone here that the MGS is not a tank and that people who dream of manoeuvering Sqns of these things around the battlefield should take a second sober thought.

I guess long-range anti-tank shots are possible, and in this respect it would be a little bit like the German Nashorn and Marders of WWII.  Once again, however, I see this thing blasting insurgents, not tanks.  I guess a "pumpkin-launcher" might be more practical, but at least with the 105mm you have the option of wasting a rogue T55 or BMP with some degree of certainty.  If we moved theatres to a future "failed state" I suppose the MGS could then have some role against "warlords" with a company group of armour hanging around.

Cheers,

2B

 

[a_majoor]

This is perhaps moving into "Future Armour" territory, but given we like common hulls (LAVs) we could have some pie and eat it too. Picture a LAV III with the CV_CT turret as the base model Fire Support Vehicle (FSV). (There are several threads about this topic with pictures, look it up).

For infantry close support, the FSV would either be attached in platoons to each company, or else held in the Combat Support Coy. This version would be decked out with a modular armour package, so it could survive encounters with enemy HMGs, RPGs and LAW type weapons. The vehicle can carry 32 rounds (16 in the turret bustle and 16 in the "wine rack"), and should be loaded with a combination of some form of multi purpose round (HESH, HEAT-MP), as well as a portion of smoke and canister rounds to reflect the requirements of the infantry. Extra machine guns on the commander and loader's hatches, and a .50 HMG mounted over the main gun barrel provide extra firepower to supress enemy infantry. This would give the company commander the ability to suppress or destroy bunkers, "technicals" and light armoured vehicles, and even have some chance of dealing with the occasional tank. In this case, the defining principle is the size and explosive power of the shell.

Armoured or Cavalry FSVs would be organized in traditional squadrons and troops, dispense with the heavy ceramic tiles (although they might have a stand off cage) and extra machine guns, and carry a different load-out of their ammunition, to reflect the perceived threat. There is no reason they should not carry "smart" rounds to deal with difficult targets, and since they will spend more of their time in the open terrain, it would seem reasonable to invest in APDS-FS rounds to strike targets at long range. In this case, the defining principle is the ability to carry our rapid engagements at ranges beyond the 25mm.

 

[TCBF]

"Do any of the WWII buffs around here know what the "exchange" rates were like between MBTs/AFVs and towed AT guns like the 88mm, 17 pdr or even the 6 pdr?"

- No, but Micheal Wittman HATED anti-tank guns with a passion.  Thought them unsportsmanlike, I think.  He probably killed more towed AT gunners than he did AFV crews.  In other words, a lot.

Tom

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Wittmann's tally of kills has never been surpassed. He is known to have destroyed at least 138 tanks and 141 artillery pieces, along with an unknown number of other armoured vehicles. At the time of his death he held (amongst other decorations) the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords. He is buried in the graveyard of "La Cambe" in France.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, but Micheal Wittman HATED anti-tank guns with a passion.  Thought them unsportsmanlike, I think.  He probably killed more towed AT gunners than he did AFV crews.  In other words, a lot.

Hmm....He hated them.  Sounds like they might have been sufficiently effective to distress him.  On the other hand

He probably killed more towed AT gunners than he did AFV crews.

.

Sounds like a useful piece of kit as long as someone else is manning it.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'm not all that worried about the Taliban coming after us with a rogue T55.  I'm more worried about what they would use the ammo for if they indeed had one.

 

[DG-41]

Fair enough.

But what about the next war?

I've got a friend in the Sudan right now, and his pictures predominantly feature companies of T55s rolling around.

Or if you'll forgive me some wild speculation... how about something like where a group of the ANA splinters off, takes their tanks with them, and we wind up fighting against ex-ANA tanks?

There's no question in my mind that having access to a 105mm or 120mm gun is really useful in an infantry support role. History has shown over and over again that infantry supported by mobile large-bore direct-fire weapons (and protected machine guns - the ability to move a 7.62 MG into a position where it can fire with impunity is equally useful) is in much better shape and will have a much better chance of success than infantry that lacks that support.

But unless these guns are carried with an appropriate level of protection, they are sitting ducks for real tanks - and it's not like real tanks are rare.

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?

DG

 

[vonGarvin]

I'd dump the sabot and carry HESH and maybe a 105mm version of the new "cannister" round that the US has for the 120mm.  An "airburst" variant would be even sexier to fire just behind/above a ridgeline.  Might be a fuzing nightmare given the loading system but something to think about.

Not a nightmare, but a reality.  The Israeli APAM round is designed for just such a scenario.  Google it and check it out.  I believe that there is a 105mm variant being produced, and it is scheduled for trial here in the Great White North.  The fuzing system is done when the target it lased and basically the round sails over the target, detaches into a bunch of "hockey pucks" that descend onto the unsuspecting enemy and detonate above them, showering them with hot love  >