LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Rayman]

A couple of the problems I heard mentioned were that it couldnt fire over the side, its weight making it too heavy for a Herc, and the muzzle blast to name a couple. Others were a high center of gravity and problems with the auto-loader and the gun in general. Honestly in my opinion I could see that as being a replacement for the Cougar-ending up in the reserve units as it beats G-wagons and C6's.

 

[geo]

The thing about problems firing over the side.... this is something that we brought up.... not somethig that has been brought up by the US military.  WRT the dimensions of the beast - so what, neither the LAV nor the Stryker fit into the Hercs... though they're all supposed to fit in the back of the notional A400.  At least we now have the C17s
WRT the Muzzle blast... what about it?  is this something we brought up or is this something that has been brought up by the US Army?

 

[McG]

A couple of the problems I heard mentioned were that it couldnt fire over the side,

You've heard wrong.  Another related myth is that the gun is not stabilized.  The gun is stabilized.

... problems with the auto-loader ...

Were on pre-production developmental vehicles.

... a high center of gravity

Is another myth.  MGS actually has a lower CG because the a significant amount of top weight is reduced through the hull being lower.  Other internal design steps were taken to bring down the CG.  Even the heavier 3.5 suspension helps drop that C.G.

Do you have anything substantive WRT the limited production models (the ones which are operational)?  Maybe something that is better than vague rumour? 

 

[Rayman]

I did say this is what Ive heard, as Geo asked what some problems with this beast were. These are things I've seen posted all over the internet. MCG you're probably right, as I'm not sure of these authors credability (like if they actually served with a SBCT or were any way part of it) as they could just be arm-chair-analysts writing an article for a site.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One of it's downfall is a small ammo loadout, something to the effect of 18 rds total, 8 in the nmag and 10 in the hull. Also not equipped with any MG if I recall correctly.

The Centaruiro carries up to 40 main gun rounds or reduced to 20 if carrying 4 dismounts I think.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

MCG
The middle LAV in your picture is the mortar version anyone crawled around it yet? Opinions?

 

[Infanteer]

The American's should probably have them as their Stryker infantry carriers have small arms on RWS.  Does Canada, with a stabilized 25mm turret on EVERY infantry carrier require this?  Is the requirement that big between what a 25mm can handle and what our new 120mm can handle to justify another vehicle system?

 

[McG]

The American's should probably have them as their Stryker infantry carriers have small arms on RWS.  Does Canada, with a stabilized 25mm turret on EVERY infantry carrier require this?

There is not enough tank for support to every company.  MGS could provide something to those that must do without tanks.

 

[Rayman]

That does make sense, but wasn't it cheaper for us to pick up 100 used tanks, than to buy something like 60 MGS(s)? Would it be better for Canada to try and acquire more tanks this way? Being searching the allied markets for surplus machinery. Or is everything else on the market in terms of Leopards more like leprosy?

I do see what MCG means in that its some sort of gun like a tanks...despite the pricey chassis its on its still that added piece for the infantry

 

[geo]

Rayman.... you're bringing up all sorts of points that were discussed in the LEO and MGS thtreads.
Try to do a search.... it's all there... Read!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Rayman.... you're bringing up all sorts of points that were discussed in the LEO and MGS thtreads.
Try to do a search.... it's all there... Read!

Same as other people, that keep rehashing all the arguements. Just about anything you want to know about the MGS, is already here somewhere. This thread, and others, are just going in circles.

 

[geo]

Some rehash... some new.
When these threads got started, the MGS weas on the drawing board or in Prototype form
No army anywhere had any AND Canada had mothballed the Leo C2 fleet - intending to go all wheeled.

Now that we are back in the MBT tank business AND the US has received, trained and fought (?) with the MGS it may or may not be a valid time to consider if an MGS or a LAV based mortar platform might be of desirable.

 

[Kirkhill]

Rayman might be able to do us ALL a service by re-reading all many words written and summarizing the "ifs, ands, and maybes" of those discussions so that we can take another look at the situation in light of current realities, as geo suggests.

Then there were no MGSs and the CF had no prospect of tanks.  Now both are fielded.  Now would be a good time to go over the "fears" and determine which should be consigned to the myth box and which ones have been borne out.

Unfortunately, doesn't some discussion on these types of matters risk rolling into Operational Security issues?

Rayman's as good a candidate as any as he is interested and "virginal" ;D

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Wow.  It is neat and sobering to go back and read what one wrote in the past...

Bear in mind that I started this thread back when we didn't have tanks and I was looking around thinking that we needed some additional firepower over there.  Its all a very much moot point now.

 

[Rayman]

Well... I guess I just got the "Welcome to army.ca" Believe it or not when I first found this site I was looking up info on the MMEV as a friend of mine who wants to go in as a SARTECH and I were talking about the Stryker and such, and I at that time wanted to be AD. I found all the old threads and such with black hatters mad as a Toronto motorist at rush hour that they were replacing the Leo with the MGS. Of course there were people suggesting modifying the Leo with a modernization package that included the main gun firing a 120mm mortar and such. Even I was getting hot under the collar. I may not have hours on a Leo but it doesnt take a retard to see that making a wheeled assault gun fill the roll of a MBT is as some were putting it, dumb. As for what I was saying I guess im only helping by adding a curved section to the circle so...

 

[geo]

too true Rayman
but that discussion was quite some time and many tears ago.

Much has changed - we've signed up for some Leo2 A4s from Holland and are back in the MBT game.
Before rehashing & tearing open some old wounds, you should still read over our lod threads on the subject - It'll fill in most of your questions

 

[Kirkhill]

And Rayman, I wasn't kidding.  It wouldn't hurt to have somebody that wasn't involved on the merry-go-round to go over the threads and try and summarize the arguments for checking against the current reality.

Cheers.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well... I guess I just got the "Welcome to army.ca" Believe it or not when I first found this site I was looking up info on the MMEV as a friend of mine who wants to go in as a SARTECH and I were talking about the Stryker and such, and I at that time wanted to be AD. I found all the old threads and such with black hatters mad as a Toronto motorist at rush hour that they were replacing the Leo with the MGS. Of course there were people suggesting modifying the Leo with a modernization package that included the main gun firing a 120mm mortar and such. Even I was getting hot under the collar. I may not have hours on a Leo but it doesnt take a retard to see that making a wheeled assault gun fill the roll of a MBT is as some were putting it, dumb. As for what I was saying I guess im only helping by adding a curved section to the circle so...

Welcome to our world. Put forth a legitimate discourse, and join the discussion.

Be advised, the posters with experience tolerate questionable postes lightly. If you feel offended, or put upon, be ready to defend your position. They tend to tolerate fools lightly, and posers even less. Best be at least knowedgeable, at the most a SME on the subject involved in the posts. You are dealig with those that do this for a living.

Have a ball ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

OK - I am going to wade in again, having suggested that Rayman do some heavy lifting for us.

Suppose....

The Tank is an Assault Vehicle that may be used for Direct Fire Support
The MGS is a Direct Fire Support Vehicle that should never be used for the Assault

If the MGS is as mobile as the LAVs
If the MGS is as well protected as the LAVs
If the MGS is designed to supply stand-off fire support

If Fire Support is the Primary Role of the Artillery
If the Artillery has historically supplied both direct AND indirect fire support
If the Artillery's howitzers can still be fired in direct and indirect mode
If the Artillery travels with the Infantry in LAV-FOOs in order to supply timely fire support

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.

The Arty Crew would be at least as well protected as the Infantry, Dragoons or Recce units they were travelling with, and by virtue of their longer range (both observation and effects delivery) they would be able to stay one short tactical bound to the rear, to make up in some sense for their increased vulnerability as a high value target travelling in a distinguishable vehicle.

That would put the Arty back in the game and leave the Cavalry free to continue in its primary, historic, preferred and necessary roles of Assault first and Recce second.

I believe there is precedent in the form of Aerial Forward Air Controllers in OV-10 Broncos and such which were "lightly" armed with 70mm WP/RP and other smoke rounds or Light Helicopters armed with 7 packs of 70mm and miniguns.

 

[Old Sweat]

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 . . .")

First, the FOO is the fire support coordinator and provider for the combat team. His/her job is to get the vehicle in the best position to do that. The FOO party must also be able to operate dismounted supporting a ground attack, climb on a helicopter or man a ground OP well separated from the vehicle for protracted periods. The vehicle also requires specialized communications and other gear which would eat into the ammunition space in the MGS. None of these features are generally thought to be good things by our black bereted friends.

Second, no one is suggesting, I hope, that the MGS would operate in others than multiples; single vehicles are a no no. While having more than one FOO would raise the social tone in the combat team no end, again this is a non-starter.

p.s. I have kept the tone light not to ridicule your proposal, but to gently point out the unusual breakdown in your thinking.