- Reaction score
- 1,419
- Points
- 1,040
Mortar guy said:MGS in the US Army will be manned by tankers.
Thanks. Thought it sounded odd when I heard that it would be manned by infantrymen.
Cheers
Mortar guy said:MGS in the US Army will be manned by tankers.
Desert Fox said:If the MGS (Stryker) had its bugs worked out, and it was proven to be stable (ie not overly top heavy) then i would fully endorse it. The LAVIII has proven itself in A-stan.... The MGS would give us a new capability... a desent balance between an MBT and a LAVIII.... the relative ease with which the MGS can be air transported is an attractive feature, however, it is not and can not and should not replace the MBT...
Desert Fox said:....... i can post pictures too, however, in mine I am wearing arid CADPAT, and the pic wasnt taken in some training area.....
ArmyRick said:Mortar Guy, are you sure about your statement that MGS will be manned by tankers in the US army? In the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams They list 3 MGS as part of every stryker infantry company. So basically these tankers will be posted to the Infantry?
. . . or maybe buy RWS LAV III to replace the Bisons that the regular force have, then cascade those Bisons to the PRes?Eland said:Considering how cheap the Bisons are, we ought to be buying them by the bazillion for reserve infantry units, with engineer, signals, CP and field ambulance variants for the support units.
Are you certain? I thought Second generation LAV were still being offered to export markets & that the USMC was considering expanding its fleet.George Wallace said:Those [Bison & Coyote] production lines are closed down and the expense of retooling would outweigh the practicality of building them.
Was the Cougar too much for the PRes?George Wallace said:Even the stripped down Coyote version is too much for the Reserves to handle.
It is still alive, but all the way back to the concept development stage (so no longer committed to ADATS on a LAV III).davidhmd said:MMEV is a moot point, that project died with the MGS.
but not employed as a tank.Mortar guy said:MGS in the US Army will be manned by tankers.
Canada had the intent of replacing the MBT with a combination TUA LAV, MGS LAV and MMEV LAV. Okay, so TUA existed along side tanks for years. However keep in mind that the US SBCT will employ a combination of MGS and TOW.Desert Fox said:. . . thats the problem with the MGS, Canada has the intent of using it to replace the MBT.
Actually, they will use it where forces would previously have gone with nothing. Much of this project was inspired by the first Gulf War. A division of light infantry held the farthest flank (no tanks) and, had Iraqi armour attacked, the Americans could very well have suffered catastrophic causalities. This is why light forces were converted to the SBCTs. The US will not use the MGS to replace tanks, but it will use the MGS & Stryker TOW where the absence of tanks would have cause great problems in the past.Desert Fox said:Where as our American friends use it with the MBT., rather then in lieu of....
The LAV TUA should be the "tank destroyer," but why not both roles (or some sub-set of both roles) for the MGS? Don’t feel constrained by the capabilities of LAV MGS either. The DFSV-Wheeled might be something else entirely.George Wallace said:Employment of the MGS is another question. Do we employ it as a Tank Destroyer or as an Assault Gun?
Some mix of turrets & RWS would be nice though. Different bits for different functions, but still on a common platform.tomahawk6 said:The Stryker has performed quite well in Iraq and has proven to be survivable in an urban environment. I think the Canadians should stick to the LAV as it suits your operational needs. The Stryker is only armed with a .50 cal which has worked fine, I would rather have the 25mm gun that is found on the Marine LAV.
MMEV is a moot point, that project died with the MGS
It is still alive, but all the way back to the concept development stage (so no longer committed to ADATS on a LAV III).
a_majoor said:Quote from: davidhmd on December 01, 2006, 08:18:11
So what sort of concept are they developing now? MMEV as originally conceived seemed to be an amalgamation of 3 or 4 ideas (long range fire support, air defence, long range surveillance and battlefield network node), so it would be interesting to see which one(s) they pick.
Why can't we have both? Each has its own role.Captain Scarlet said:"Why are we sending 30+ year old relics to fight when we could have these wonder machines?"
Two words why we can't have both: limited resourced (read: money)MCG said:Why can't we have both? Each has its own role.
Well, we already have the tanks (sunk cost), and we had money for the MGS last summer . . . so it seems money is not the barrier . . .Captain Scarlet said:Two words why we can't have both: limited resourced (read: money)