Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Have you seen the presentation for the MMEV? The Army leadership has been pretty firm about our presenting the message that â Å“the MGS will not replace the Leopard. The MGS is one of a spectrum of vehicles that will displace the Leopard while sustaining our combat capability.â ? The problem is, the â Å“newâ ? vehicles will also â Å“displaceâ ? the M113 TUA and the ADATS. What are the new vehicles? They are LAV III TUA, MGS, and MMEV.
What do they bring? The MGS has the shortest range, but fires on the move and has a higher rate of fire. The TUA has slightly better range & accuracy, but reduced rate of fire. The MMEV may be to only step forward in capability . . . maybe. It will have the greatest range in the Anti-Armour role. However, the intent is to have new missiles developed to give it a range of mission specific capabilities not currently available (much like the CF-18 can have bomb loads configured to a mission). I have heard talk of single purpose munitions (AT or AA specific), scatterable mine munitions, demolition/anti-bunker missiles, and the traditional dual purpose missile. However, we will have few MMEV than we do ADATS (and this means not enough to do all the wonderful stuff promised).
Why is indirect fire not part of the â Å“displace the Leopardâ ? plan? A LAV III with AMOS or AMS would be a valuable asset to an Infantry Company Group without tanks. The breach loaded 120 mm mortars could fire conventional or dual-purpose munitions in indirect & even direct roles. The dual-purpose munitions would give the ability to threaten armour hidden on a reverse slope. Smart munitions could identify and target tanks. If we are not going to have tanks, then at the very least, this is another capability we need to assist in the â Å“displacing.â ?
. . . then again, think what we could do with all the above and tanks.
8) Yard Ape
proud member of:
Apes for Tanks :tank:
What do they bring? The MGS has the shortest range, but fires on the move and has a higher rate of fire. The TUA has slightly better range & accuracy, but reduced rate of fire. The MMEV may be to only step forward in capability . . . maybe. It will have the greatest range in the Anti-Armour role. However, the intent is to have new missiles developed to give it a range of mission specific capabilities not currently available (much like the CF-18 can have bomb loads configured to a mission). I have heard talk of single purpose munitions (AT or AA specific), scatterable mine munitions, demolition/anti-bunker missiles, and the traditional dual purpose missile. However, we will have few MMEV than we do ADATS (and this means not enough to do all the wonderful stuff promised).
Why is indirect fire not part of the â Å“displace the Leopardâ ? plan? A LAV III with AMOS or AMS would be a valuable asset to an Infantry Company Group without tanks. The breach loaded 120 mm mortars could fire conventional or dual-purpose munitions in indirect & even direct roles. The dual-purpose munitions would give the ability to threaten armour hidden on a reverse slope. Smart munitions could identify and target tanks. If we are not going to have tanks, then at the very least, this is another capability we need to assist in the â Å“displacing.â ?
. . . then again, think what we could do with all the above and tanks.
8) Yard Ape
proud member of:
Apes for Tanks :tank: