LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[vonGarvin]

A lot of comedians on this web site. bashing the MGS on and on.

OK, I see. everyone is an expert. Probably none of you have ever seen it in person or know of its capabilities.

The only clowns out there who ever thought of putting the MGS into a tank replacement position was us, the CF.

The yanks are now using MGS in their stryker brigades and the first ones will be deployed to Iraq this spring. They use it exactly as it was meant to be used, an INFANTRY direct fire support vehicle. Yeah, yeah, the Abrams or any other MBT are more capable than an MGS. But they wizz along at 100 KM/H plus.

Oh by the way, it does fire side ways. Without flipping over.

Oh well, maybe us silly canadians better tell the yanks to stop with the upcoming deployment of MGS to Iraq because our "armchair experts" know better.

Here's why we "armchair experts" didn't like the MGS.  Not because of anything about flipping over, whatever, but because of its intended role: tank.  Trust me, I know of its capabilities, and I realise how it is to be used.  Having said that, it may wizz along at 100 kph, but it ain't no Abrams or any other MBT.

 

[Timmy!]

Panzer is a panzer.

MGS will never be a panzer.

Sorry.

 

[ArmyRick]

Command-Sense-Act, I, sir, declare you an non-comedic, real expert 

You are one of the people on these forums to see what I have been trying to say ever since i read the Stryker Infantry company in battle (Yeah, I know, get a life, I read a PAM, but it was curiousity). It was there I first stumbled on seeing the stryker as an Infantry DFSV.

TN2IC, I never said MGS will be a panzer.

Do I think we should get rid of MBT? H*ll no! Keep 'em. In fact make it Abrams or Leo 2 IMO. When you need to fight like a heavy weight, you need a heavy weight.

However the Stryker is a "middle weight fighter" if you will. Fast on its wheels, 105mm is nothing to sneeze at. Its got its place on this modern battlefield.

The Stryker family of AFV have been very successful in all. I have talked to some Yanks first hand who used them (one fellow was a former bradley crewman) and they like the vehicle very much.

 

[TCBF]

A few years back, a Canadian civilian wrote an interesting article in one of our professional journals on how Canada should ditch the Leopard and buy 300 M8 AGS (Armoured Gun Systems) to equip our regular and reserve armoured regiments.

He surmised that having a 105mm gun on a TRACKED, Herc-portable platform would be a good solution for a middle power such as Canada, and revitalize our RCAC Militia units as well.

At the time, we were transitioning from Leo C1 to Leo C2, and most of us poo-poo'd the idea of ditching an MBT.

In any case, the M8 AGS - which claimed to do most of the things the MGS could not - fell by the wayside after 6 or so prototypes were built.

Enter politics:  Did the 'Armor Mafia' in the USA see a light, tracked, tank gun carrier as a threat to future MBT funding?  Did Canada decide to go 'all wheeled' because of it's smoother 'soft power' image?

Good questions.  In any case, we have seen two interesting partial solutions.  If the tracked mobility, size and 'roll out tray' power pack from the M8 AGS could be melded with the advanced FCS/vectronics from the Stryker MGS, we might see a vehicle that actually fills the void - someday.

A few years ago an American commander stated that the MGS existed only because the Stryker APC was equiped with .50 cal/40mm, and that if he had Canadian LAV IIIs with the 25mm turrets, he would not need/want the MGS.  But, just one man's opinion.

In the meantime, the words of the Australian CDS from a few years back still ring true.  On the eve of the announcement of the Australian purchase of American tanks by Australia, he more or less stated that Australia would have loved to have aquired a light, mobile, air-portable, modern, protected large gunned armoured vehicle, but one does not yet exist that combines the mixure of Protection, Mobility and Firepower thought necessary to save Australian lives.  Hence - the tank purchase.

His interview drew amazingly few comments from serving soldiers in Canada at the time.  I wonder why that was?  Ever read any Orwell? "Four legs good - two legs bad!" and so on.

 

[a_majoor]

Various solutions are available, and even in production (although the political capital and "face" of the people pushing MGS will be lost, probably the greatest obstacle to overcome), as a survey of various Army.ca threads will demonstrate.

The quick and dirty solution would be to take LAV III hulls and mount the CV_CT turret; reputedly a "drop in" solution. The turret is a low profile Wegmann design (i.e. the gun is in a slot cut in the turret, allowing it full elevation to 420 as well as the NATO 100 depression angle), mounts a high pressure 105mm cannon with an autoloader and a 16 round bustle for immmediate action. One or more "wine racks" can be fitted so the crew can go to battle with 32 or more main gun rounds. The turret is fullly stabilized, LAV's mounting the turret can fire on the move with the gun traversed 900 and it rolls on and off a C-130 Hercules without modification or disassembly. It exists now and a version mounting a 90mm cannon (due to internal politics) is used by the Belgian army.

For an air portable, full tracked tank solution, we need look no farther than Sweden and the CV 90120. As the name suggests it mounts a full pressure, 44 cal 120mm cannon just like its larger counterparts the Leopard 2 and M1 family, but weighs in at around 30 tonnes rather than 60-70 tonnes like most Generation 3 tanks. The next lightest tank is the Generation 3.5 LeClerc, which weighs 50 tonnes.

Both these solutions meet different needs, the LAV CV_CT would be a DFSV attached to Infantry units in the manner of the MGS for a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, or a Cavalry fire support vehicle backing up recce C/S or doing convoy escorts, rear area security and similar tasks. The CV 90120 is a tank, and has a much better ability to carry out DF tasks in the defence and assault (recognizing it does not have the passive protection of the larger Gen 3 and 3.5 tanks).

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The CV_CT turret looks like it would make the LAV-III extremely top-heavy.  Have they tested it yet?


Matthew. 

 

[a_majoor]

Yes it looks top heavy, but I discussed it with the company rep at AUSA a few years ago, and watched a series of videos which demonstrated the roll on/off capabilities, shoot on the move at up to 900 traverse, firing the weapon at 420 elevation and so on.

If I were the CDS then, we would have these now............

 

[28402 engineers]

Yes it looks top heavy, but I discussed it with the company rep at AUSA a few years ago, and watched a series of videos which demonstrated the roll on/off capabilities, shoot on the move at up to 900 traverse, firing the weapon at 420 elevation and so on.

If I were the CDS then, we would have these now............

if you were the CDS, I'd say we'd be a heck of a lot better off.

 

[bruno]

i thought Canadians remember history better than us yanks! the history i study has a lot of good young kids getting kill in WW2 because army did not upgrade the Sherman tank they had to fight German panther and tiger tanks out gunned, out armored, and inferior gun sights. for Canada to stay with leopard will cause Canadian young to fight enemy armor superior in armor, gunpower, and gun sights. yes MSG is not perfect but no weapon is perfect if you are waiting for perfection you wait in vain. you have a limited defense budget and MSG is best buy for Canada and America

 

[aesop081]

i thought Canadians remember history better than us yanks! the history i study has a lot of good young kids getting kill in WW2 because army did not upgrade the Sherman tank they had to fight German panther and tiger tanks out gunned, out armored, and inferior gun sights.

If you studied your history correctly, you know the reasons why the Sherman remained.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

x

 

[tomahawk6]

Some pic's I ran across of MGS in "injun country" - Tarmiyah, Iraq.

 

[McG]

Any feedback on how well it is performing?

 

[tomahawk6]

So far so good. They havent rolled one yet. ;D

 

[Eland]

Bruno, a couple friendly points:

Capitals usually start sentences.  Countries (Canada, America, etc) are also usually capitalized.

I'm puzzled that you view the Leopard (even Leo 1) as "out gunned, out armoured and inferior gunsights".  My first question is "inferior to what"?  I will refute your claims:

<remainder snipped for brevity's sake>

Good rebuttal, CSA 105.

The MGS is an interesting concept in theoretical terms. Without belabouring the issue of its many deficiencies, let me say this: the MGS has always struck me as a solution in search of a problem which does not exist. It's really the culmination (and an extension) of US Army General Shinseki's 'wheeled medium brigade' doctrine. The doctrine works fine if the enemy force is comprised of light infantry with few or no anti-tank weapons - or where the wheeled vehicles are basically 'battle taxis' which drop troops off at a given point one or more tactical bounds behind the FEBA and will not engage the enemy except in self-defence or at suitable stand-off ranges and in defiles.

For Canada, at least, the MGS was an attempt to solve a political problem. I won't get into details about what that problem is - that's been discussed elsewhere at length.

Even twenty-year old Leopard 2A4's are light years ahead of the MGS in terms of capability. Going for the ones the Dutch had on offer (which includes 40 more or less 'new build' A6 models)
was an extremely shrewd move. The Leo's aren't that much slower than the MGS. I would dare say over really rough terrain, you would find the Leopards capable of negotiating it at much higher speeds and with surprising agility.

Seeing Leopard 2's on the move, one can easily appreciate just how powerful and magnificent the cats really are.

 

[Kirkhill]

the MGS has always struck me as a solution in search of a problem which does not exist. It's really the culmination (and an extension) of US Army General Shinseki's 'wheeled medium brigade' doctrine. The doctrine works fine if the enemy force is comprised of light infantry with few or no anti-tank weapons - or where the wheeled vehicles are basically 'battle taxis' which drop troops off at a given point one or more tactical bounds behind the FEBA and will not engage the enemy except in self-defence or at suitable stand-off ranges and in defiles.

....

Respecfully Eland I would suggest that the Yanks appear to have FOUND a solution for their problem.  They seem to have an enemy that wishes to fight in a manner befitting General Shinseki's doctrine.  The Stryker Brigades seem to be getting an awful lot of work.

This is not to denigrate the role of the Panzers, nor their usefulness for the CF.  That said both the wheeled Stryker/LavIII concept AND the MGS appear to have found application on modern battlefields.

 

[ArmyRick]

In a large, multi-capability army (american) it makes sense to have heavy, medium and light forces.

The MGS has a role in the modern operations but limited thats for sure. It doesn't seem to fit Canada's needs. We have limited $$$ to blow so we need the best overall vehicle (LEO 2 was hell of a good answer).

For those people who critisize its existence, they better check its use within the US doctrine. I have said it many times before, the yanks plan to use it as a Infantry fire support vehicle not a panzer...

Only some of our guys decided we would fight it like a tank.

Has anybody seen the combatreform.com pages? There is alot of pure crap being spewed on those pages about the stryker family of vehicles (the only one even in question on performance is the MGS, the other ones are good to go).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

RBD  while most Cdn troopers will share that opinion of the MGS, I haven't heard the US saying negative things about the beast since they have fielded them in Iraq.  Based on the Stryker, the US Army appears to rave about the vehicle.

They also use the vehicle as a intergal fire support vehicle in a combat team. It fills a niche, where we were planning to use it as an Uber-super wheeled MBT.

 

[geo]

I understand that Colin. 
Very valid point BUT, based on the comment by RBD, there are inherent problems in the beast and it's a POS.  Sooo... I just wanted to know what it's problems were (other than the fact that it's not a tank).

Now that we have decided to maintain and renew our MBT capacity, is there a need for a MGS as an integral fire support vehicle in our combat teams?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think we could use a wheeled gun equipped LAV, but I do agree the MGS is not the answer. If you want to go big, then the LAV 10x10 with the GIAT turret and 105 is a possibilty. However I think that all that is needed is a L/V 76-90mm gun with HE, smoke, HESH, HEAT and cannister.

I wonder if they could be mixed into a unit using the 25mm LAV, giving them some organic fire support?

The other option is using the 120mm  AMOS mortar verison in a turret which I understand can also do direct fire?