USMC's Loss Army Gains

[blacktriangle]

I see the driver gets some sort of seat suspension. Wonder what the chassis' suspension travel's like, because those things will be driven like they're stolen. Can't see it helping the back and spine situation.

Not unlike crews of fast boats. Sounds like a problem for the US VA.

As for a Sheridan replacement, that's what the aim of the MPF program is. Assuming of course it doesn't get shelved. My bet is on GDLS. It's not really light though, just light by US Army standards...

 

[Kirkhill]

FJAG - I see what you're saying but my point is not about the need for an MGS per se. My point is that a DF 105mm can come in handy - with or without a tank attached to it.

A towed 105mm AT gun is not viable because it puts the crew at risk. On the other hand a firing line of AT guns has been usefully employed on battlefields from Alamein to Kursk.

How to get the guns to the field and employ them without wasting crews? I am suggesting eliminating the crews on the firing line. Have them remotely manoeuvered and fired, and autonomously reloaded.

Eliminating the armour would decrease their weight and increase their deployability. I am looking to recreate the Divisional Anti-Tank Regiment - without the wastage in gunners.

 

[medic5]

FJAG - I see what you're saying but my point is not about the need for an MGS per se. My point is that a DF 105mm can come in handy - with or without a tank attached to it.

A towed 105mm AT gun is not viable because it puts the crew at risk. On the other hand a firing line of AT guns has been usefully employed on battlefields from Alamein to Kursk.

How to get the guns to the field and employ them without wasting crews? I am suggesting eliminating the crews on the firing line. Have them remotely manoeuvered and fired, and autonomously reloaded.

Eliminating the armour would decrease their weight and increase their deployability. I am looking to recreate the Divisional Anti-Tank Regiment - without the wastage in gunners.

Wasn't the reason AT guns fell out of favour is that infantry handheld weapons did the job better and lighter and cheaper?

Antitank guns are too heavy, too difficult to move, way too bulky, and is practically as big as a vehicle. In order to build a weapon that can destroy modern tanks, it needs to be massive. Crew deaths is not the only reason AT guns went out of favour. Plus, if it is towed, it requires a mover, which is also heavy, expensive, and hard to resupply. In general shaped charge weapons are just better.

 

[GR66]

I think there could definitely be a role for an MGS-type system but I think the problem is when it starts getting described as either a light tank or an anti-tank gun.

It's a direct fire support weapon. It may look like a wheeled tank, but it's role is different. Something like that could come in very handy in lots of situations.

I'd be happy to see a LAV-based 105mm or 120mm gun system in our Armoured Recce regiments...along with a LAV-based ATGM vehicle. The commonality of vehicle would be good logistically and they would have good ability to self-deploy once shipped to the debarkation port.

You'd still want a Tank Regiment though to do the real tanky things. Horses for courses.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Austrian Experimental ATG N-105 Gun in the 80s mounted a L7 105mm Tank gun on a carriage with a long recoil mechanism. It could be handled by a 6 man crew.



In an army equipping some of its battalions with things like these because they can be deployed further, faster, more frequently (to seize, so that the LAV types can quickly follow up and hold) I wouldn't mind having something like a 105mm HV DFS gun at my disposal as well. The lightest version is something like the N-105 - an L7 without the Leopard 1 or Stryker MGS attached. My next two add ons would be something like this

but perhaps a little more roadworthy and a bit more protection from the elements, and some sort of autoloader



But a little lighter and more in keeping with a DF 105mm.



Get rid of all the armour plate and just cover the sensitive bits with a shroud to keep out the dust and the water.

Keep the tanks with the LAVs. And make sure you move faster than XXX Corps.

 

[medic5]

Sounds like an interesting idea. I'm sure it would work.

The question becomes why this instead of a TOW system in combination with some handheld infantry AT weapons? Since it would need to be a high velocity gun in order to do what you suggest, it would be largely ineffective for anything other than destroying vehicles. Why would we field this instead of systems that we can buy more of, are logistically lighter, man portable, and don't cost millions each? Such a vehicle would be too vulnerable to actually perform in an anti-tank role, but if you add armour you basically get a tank.

There is a reason why every western military largely got rid of anti-tank guns and tank destroyers after the Second World War.

 

[GR66]

A MGS-type system costs more than a missile but the rounds it fires are a lot cheaper than a missile. Save your limited TOWs and Javelins for enemy tanks and use your direct fire support vehicle against lighter vehicles and dug in infantry, etc.

 

[CBH99]

Interesting debate thus far

I would think that the anti-tank gun, as described in the posts above, would be brutally inadequate for modern warfare. Enemy vehicles are faster, more effective armour while maintaining their weight, and are bristling with systems that we did not have to contend with back when the anti-tank gun was used.

Even something as simple as having hydraulically moving turrets proved to be absolutely devastating against the Iraqi's in Gulf War 1, who were desperately trying to hand crank their turrets from side to side as American tanks literally just flanked them, quickly turned their own turrets with zero effort, and blasted away.

The idea of a towed gun, as discussed in other threads, is pretty outdated outside of some pretty basic scenarios we may find ourselves in. Absolutely not ideal against any sort of near peer adversary, especially in the direct fire role. Useless would be the polite way for me to put it.

I would focus on acquiring advanced ATGM systems that are man portable, don't stand out to enemy sensors the way a big armoured vehicle would, can be bought in sufficient quantities, easily replaced, easily trained on, etc.

The cost as of now can be pretty steep, but it doesn't have to be. There are some pretty good systems out there that, with some proper negotiation & incentive to the manufacturer, could probably be procured at a more reasonable cost. (Also keep in mind that US arms manufacturers charge a premium simply because they can... and the Congress members and Senators will make sure the money flows if the company is based in their district.)


My 0.02

 

[FJAG]

And then there's that whole thing with suicide drones and loitering munitions.

 

[medic5]

Essentially a vehicle either needs to be protected or disposable if it is meant to engage the enemy. I don't think using your fancy anti-tank gun in a disposable manner is the best way to go about it. I wouldn't even want SP artillery to be unarmoured in any sort of serious fight, much less a direct fire asset.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The military can devise the doctrine and the force structure and the next government can say "that's nice, but we are sending you over there, because...."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As for AT guns, the Russians seem to think they are useful still and those big AT guns they sold are still very busy around the world. As can be seen in the attached video.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK

In Canadian service the Carl Gustav is an Anti-Tank weapon. In Swedish (and American) service it is an artillery piece. The difference is that it launches a lot more types of rounds than just HEAT. Smoke, Illumination, Anti Structure, Anti-Personnel, Flechettes, HE, Airburst are just some of those that come to mind.

The MGS was a vehicle on which the L7 105mm rifle was mounted. Or the M68 in US service. The M68 was selected not because it was an effective anti-tank weapon, it was, as some old Leopard C1 gunners can attest, but because it was available, it was cheap and it had a ready stock of various ammunitions which would be useful to the infantry in punching holes in things.

The weapon could also be used to kill tanks, if the situation were favourable, but if you wanted to punch a hole in a brick wall it was nice to have on hand.

And, in my opinion, it would have been nicer still if the vehicle could have been manoeuvred remotely into firing position by a dismounted crew under cover.

And if that were possible then it seems to me it would have been possible to effectively group those guns in an unmanned firing line to spring on the flanks of an advancing enemy.

Rommel did it with his dual purpose 88s.

As Colin points out today the Russians and Ukrainians are still doing it.

And WRT loitering munitions et al - I think the watch word has to be "attritable". We need to get used to weapons being tools, consummables that are going to be destroyed - and have to be cheaply and quickly replaced. Without having to replace crews. Better they were someplace the weapon isn't.

 

[medic5]

As for AT guns, the Russians seem to think they are useful still and those big AT guns they sold are still very busy around the world. As can be seen in the attached video.

Are they using AT guns because they want to, or because they lack anything else and they have massive stocks of guns and ammo? Do you think they wouldn't trade all of their AT guns for ATGMS if they could?

OK

In Canadian service the Carl Gustav is an Anti-Tank weapon. In Swedish (and American) service it is an artillery piece. The difference is that it launches a lot more types of rounds than just HEAT. Smoke, Illumination, Anti Structure, Anti-Personnel, Flechettes, HE, Airburst are just some of those that come to mind.

The MGS was a vehicle on which the L7 105mm rifle was mounted. Or the M68 in US service. The M68 was selected not because it was an effective anti-tank weapon, it was, as some old Leopard C1 gunners can attest, but because it was available, it was cheap and it had a ready stock of various ammunitions which would be useful to the infantry in punching holes in things.

The weapon could also be used to kill tanks, if the situation were favourable, but if you wanted to punch a hole in a brick wall it was nice to have on hand.

And, in my opinion, it would have been nicer still if the vehicle could have been manoeuvred remotely into firing position by a dismounted crew under cover.

And if that were possible then it seems to me it would have been possible to effectively group those guns in an unmanned firing line to spring on the flanks of an advancing enemy.

Rommel did it with his dual purpose 88s.

As Colin points out today the Russians and Ukrainians are still doing it.

And WRT loitering munitions et al - I think the watch word has to be "attritable". We need to get used to weapons being tools, consummables that are going to be destroyed - and have to be cheaply and quickly replaced. Without having to replace crews. Better they were someplace the weapon isn't.

Ok, so you line up your unmanned MGS, presumably in some concealment and wait for the enemy.

Do you expect your million dollar vehicle to survive the encounter? Because using a weapon like that in direct fire against armour is suicide. German 88s outranged and outperformed and were magnitudes cheaper than Allied tanks, a 105mm will not outrange any tank gun and an MGS is expensive as hell. Your line of vehicles is outranged, more vulnerable, and can be destroyed by IDF and air strikes.

What happens to the crews after their vehicles are gone? Fight as light infantry while they wait for new vehicles? I think you understand my point.

1. Stryker AGS is not an AT gun
2. AT guns are too big, too heavy, and too vulnerable
3. ATGMs are cheaper, man portable, logistically lighter

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair enough -

Actually I don't expect my million dollar vehicle to survive the encounter. Any more than I expect a million dollar missile to survive its encounter. On the other hand the missile is only going to engage one target. The gun might manage to get a few rounds off and take out a handful of targets.

And the crew? Climb aboard the surviving systems with their buddies and, in ancient parlance, diddie-bop out of Dodge. And draw a new million dollar weapon from the QM.

Agreed Stryker AGS is not an AT Gun. Stipulated and stated previously. Unless circumstances permit - I would argue that that could be dependent on both terrain and the enemy.

"AT Guns are too big". We already stipulated that we are not talking about an AT Gun. We are talking about a 105mm rifle. Preferably self-propelled so that it could keep up with something like the Polaris MRZRs. Something that would do for the Light Battalion that job that the 84mm hand-held, shoulder-fired, recoilless rifle does for the Section/Platoon. Neither rifle is intended to stand in a open field to take on a tank regiment. Their utility is in being able to support the infantry when friendly tanks can't get there. And, in the event that the other side manages to get a light tank into the area, then they have an expedient counter.


"ATGMs are cheaper, man portable, logistically lighter" - Yes. They are man-portable. Some of them. TOW is not. Logistically lighter? Debatable. Some are. Some aren't. Admittedly, with the reduced size and cost of electronics the trend favours your argument. Larger missiles that require a vehicle carrier? I am curious about the cost of remote-controlled/autonomous JLTVs, or even HIMARs. And I wonder about the cost about mounting a 105mm rifle, with auto-loader on the back of a remote-controlled/autonomous JLTV.

"ATGMs are cheaper." Shot for shot? Is that a true statement? Or is it only true if we consider the ancillary costs of delivering those shots? The capital cost of the launcher, the cost of the carrier, the cost of the maintainers, the costs of the transport and supply system for the ammunition (an area which becomes pretty hard to judge in detail), the costs of training, protecting, repairing and replacing the crew?



WRT the attitude towards weapons - we have all been raised to cherish our weapons that Her Majesty's Government has seen fit to issue us. This is an attitude inculcated since Henry VII created the Board of Ordnance to supply his troops and his navy with those new-fangled bronze cannon which cost a King's Ransom. Whatever we do we must not give up our guns, or the ship in which they float. The State might go broke the next time it has to ransom the King.

In the infantry it has always been some version of "your musket - to have and to hold at all costs - take care of it and it will take care of you - it defines you and your role".

But weapons/arms are just tools. No different than an axe, a hammer or a machete.

The Swede's have adopted the Arms Locker where infanteers draw the appropriate weapon to suit the task, The US is going the same direction. The weapon is not worth your life. Nor for that matter is your ship. The requirement should be to protect the crew at all cost. And keep the arms locker full.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You need a mix of guns and missiles, because you can be dam sure that in any extended conflict your going to run out of missiles first and you quickly be husbanding the ones you have left. The 105mm gun on the MGS and AGS (also 120mm) is a DF and AT weapon. The majority of tanks out there currently are older T-55 and T-72s or derivatives. Yes a 105 will struggle against a T-72 frontally, but will take it out from the flank. The 105 allows you to take out a bunker or a cave from from a couple of thousand metres with good accuracy. The infantry supported by a light tank/AGS/MGS will be very happy about that.

 

[Loachman]

It's time we threw "Advancing with Purpose" into the dustbin where it belongs and build a new doctrine from scratch or adopt one from a more successful and invested nation.

And one without a cringeworthy name.

The Tac Hel doctrine pre-Griffon was basically the US Army Air Land Battle 2000 doctrine with Canadian terminology.

Buying a piece of kit that does not match real doctrinal needs and then creating "doctrine" to reflect its capabilities and weaknesses is idiocy.

It's a good job that we almost never do that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And one without a cringeworthy name.

The Tac Hel doctrine pre-Griffon was basically the US Army Air Land Battle 2000 doctrine with Canadian terminology.

Buying a piece of kit that does not match real doctrinal needs and then creating "doctrine" to reflect its capabilities and weaknesses is idiocy.

It's a good job that we almost never do that.

I was having an interesting discussion about the TAPV the other day, with a couple of people who know far more about it than I do, that concluded with something like: "we've recently put into service a vehicle that might have been well suited to the Afghanistan campaign 10 years ago."

 

[Loachman]

It is nuts how ineffective US procurement is for the money that is spent.

'Tis a good thing that we do not share such a problem...

 

[Loachman]

I was having an interesting discussion about the TAPV the other day, with a couple of people who know far more about it than I do, that concluded with something like: "we've recently put into service a vehicle that might have been well suited to the Afghanistan campaign 10 years ago."

In our pre-Griffon doctrine, Chinook was a Corps-level resource, and Slugs were Division-level.

Thankfully, we have enough Divisions again to match the helicopters that we buy.