- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Mackie,
FYI, the Rooikat was regunned to 105mm some time ago... thus increasing the weight.
WRT the MGS, I believe the 20 tons was the magic number needed to make the vehicle Herc compatible - even then, there appears to be some height issues - things that have to be dismantled to make the darned thing fit inside the box.
FYI, the Rooikat was regunned to 105mm some time ago... thus increasing the weight.
WRT the MGS, I believe the 20 tons was the magic number needed to make the vehicle Herc compatible - even then, there appears to be some height issues - things that have to be dismantled to make the darned thing fit inside the box.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,907
- Points
- 1,160
Of course squeezing the said recoil system into a turret in a manner that allows semi-normal human beings to service it is the interesting part.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
"(I)t's really not much of consequence after a certain point" - true, but is that not the question at hand? *IS* the MGS' weight sufficient to effectively anchor the recoil system the engineers designed? Having watched Cougars, Leos and M1s all rock back on their haunches after firing, I certainly get the impression that a fairly large portion of the recoil energy is being damped out through the hull and suspension, not just the recoil mechanism.
Example ad absurdum - Is it possible to design a recoil mechanism that you and I could hold in place (on a trolley, say) ourselves? Probably, but it would be far larger, with much longer recoil than what is likely practical in the confines of a turret. Trying to manually restrain a 105 with most recoil systems would result in a couple of mashed black hatters...
Example ad absurdum - Is it possible to design a recoil mechanism that you and I could hold in place (on a trolley, say) ourselves? Probably, but it would be far larger, with much longer recoil than what is likely practical in the confines of a turret. Trying to manually restrain a 105 with most recoil systems would result in a couple of mashed black hatters...
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Unlike Artillery pieces, Armoured vehicles do not have "Spades" to dig in and provide some 'support'. Therefore, the vehicle suspension now becomes part of the recoil system.
- Reaction score
- 27,466
- Points
- 1,090
George Wallace said:
Alternatively, you can get a crewman in back who failed his BMI - and have him shift from side to side to help balance the vehicle. >
No names, no pack drill.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,907
- Points
- 1,160
I often wonder that for a wheeled fire support vehicle if somesort of outrigger/spades might be worth it, something that could be used when desirable, but also able to fire without them. I see backhoes deploying moving and redeploying their outrigger in a matter of seconds. If the use of outriggers improved accuracy and 2nd rd follow through it might be worthwhile. Certainly not something you would want to use in a close in fight though.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,907
- Points
- 1,160
Actually I agree with you, a CV90 hull would be my first choice. However as we are mainly talking about wheeled gun systems here, I am trying to think how you could improve them or make them workable.
- Reaction score
- 27,466
- Points
- 1,090
COBRA-6 said:Been hanging out at Maxwells on Elgin Street again have we? >
No, that's what this thread is all about:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66228.0/all.html
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
ArmyRick said:
I'm a little bit hazy on that one......but I don't recall the MGS "Officially" being Cancelled. All I do remember are "Recommendations" that the MGS be cancelled.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Here is some new infomation about the MGS in iraq. Sounds not good.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160981,00.html
New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | January 30, 2008
BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull.
The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof. The gun fires three different types of projectiles, including explosive rounds, tank-busters and a "canister round" that ejects hundreds of steel pellets similar to a shotgun shell.
But while the system looks good on paper and the Army’s all for it, Soldiers with the 4th Battalion of the 9th Infantry Regiment -- one of the first units to receive the new vehicle for their deployment to Iraq -- don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.
More news from our man in Iraq .
"I wish [the enemy] would just blow mine up so I could be done with it," said Spec. Kyle Handrahan, 22, of Anaheim, Calif., a tanker assigned to Alpha Company, 4/9’s MGS platoon.
"It’s a piece," another MGS platoon member chimed in. "Nothing works on it."
The gripes stem from a litany of problems, including a computer system that constantly locks up, extremely high heat in the crew compartment and a shortage of spare parts. In one case, a key part was held up in customs on its way to Iraq, a problem one Soldier recognizes is a result of a new system being pushed into service before it’s ready.
"The concept is good, but they still have a lot of issues to work out on it," said Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Teimeier, Alpha, 4/9’s MGS platoon sergeant and a tanker by trade.
According to a Jan. 28 report by Bloomberg News, the 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language limiting funds for the MGS pending an Army report on fixes to the vehicle’s growing list of problems. The Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation said in his annual report the vehicle was "not operationally effective," Bloomberg reported.
Soldiers here say the searing heat in the vehicles -- especially during Iraq’s blazing summer -- forces them to wear a complicated cooling suit that circulates cold water through tubing under their armor. Ironically, Soldiers often complain the suit makes them cold, Teimeier said, adding to their vehicular woes.
Despite the poor review from DoD auditors, the Army is standing by its vehicle, Bloomberg reported.
"The Army has determined that the MGS is suitable and operationally effective," Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Martin Downie, told the financial news service.
Where there is no debate is in the lethality of the vehicle’s firepower.
But Soldiers in the middle of a tough counterinsurgency fight here in Diyala province say commanders are reluctant to use the vehicle’s lethal gun on enemy strongholds out of concern of killing or wounding civilians. As a result, many of the dozens of MGS vehicles go unused while precision air strikes have become increasingly prevalent -- along with the usual Soldier-driven raids.
That’s got MGS drivers here frustrated. Not only do they have to deal with a complex system that gives them fits, but when it is working, they’re not allowed to employ the vehicle in combat.
"You can kick down doors and risk losing our guys," Handrahan said. "Or I can just knock down the building from a [kilometer] away and call it a day."
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160981,00.html
New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | January 30, 2008
BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull.
The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof. The gun fires three different types of projectiles, including explosive rounds, tank-busters and a "canister round" that ejects hundreds of steel pellets similar to a shotgun shell.
But while the system looks good on paper and the Army’s all for it, Soldiers with the 4th Battalion of the 9th Infantry Regiment -- one of the first units to receive the new vehicle for their deployment to Iraq -- don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.
More news from our man in Iraq .
"I wish [the enemy] would just blow mine up so I could be done with it," said Spec. Kyle Handrahan, 22, of Anaheim, Calif., a tanker assigned to Alpha Company, 4/9’s MGS platoon.
"It’s a piece," another MGS platoon member chimed in. "Nothing works on it."
The gripes stem from a litany of problems, including a computer system that constantly locks up, extremely high heat in the crew compartment and a shortage of spare parts. In one case, a key part was held up in customs on its way to Iraq, a problem one Soldier recognizes is a result of a new system being pushed into service before it’s ready.
"The concept is good, but they still have a lot of issues to work out on it," said Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Teimeier, Alpha, 4/9’s MGS platoon sergeant and a tanker by trade.
According to a Jan. 28 report by Bloomberg News, the 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language limiting funds for the MGS pending an Army report on fixes to the vehicle’s growing list of problems. The Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation said in his annual report the vehicle was "not operationally effective," Bloomberg reported.
Soldiers here say the searing heat in the vehicles -- especially during Iraq’s blazing summer -- forces them to wear a complicated cooling suit that circulates cold water through tubing under their armor. Ironically, Soldiers often complain the suit makes them cold, Teimeier said, adding to their vehicular woes.
Despite the poor review from DoD auditors, the Army is standing by its vehicle, Bloomberg reported.
"The Army has determined that the MGS is suitable and operationally effective," Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Martin Downie, told the financial news service.
Where there is no debate is in the lethality of the vehicle’s firepower.
But Soldiers in the middle of a tough counterinsurgency fight here in Diyala province say commanders are reluctant to use the vehicle’s lethal gun on enemy strongholds out of concern of killing or wounding civilians. As a result, many of the dozens of MGS vehicles go unused while precision air strikes have become increasingly prevalent -- along with the usual Soldier-driven raids.
That’s got MGS drivers here frustrated. Not only do they have to deal with a complex system that gives them fits, but when it is working, they’re not allowed to employ the vehicle in combat.
"You can kick down doors and risk losing our guys," Handrahan said. "Or I can just knock down the building from a [kilometer] away and call it a day."
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
- Status
Similar threads
