LAV 6.0

[Kirkhill]

How it might fit into structure and doctrine I will leave for others to chew on.

Here's another alternative.  A 40mm CTA gun turret with a pair/quad of ATGMs strapped on the sides (conventional turret layout?)

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG01/308040011/Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit

 

[Kilo_302]

Back to the Cockerill 105HP for a moment, I couldn't find much data on it versus the L7 that's mounted in the MGS.

Anyone have any idea whether a Stryker mated with the Cockerill 105HP would have been a better idea than the L7?

I would imagine the mian reason the US went with the L7 (M68A1) on the Stryker is that they had already used the same gun on early Abrams, but it also begs the question: If the MGS is only intended for infantry support, why use a high pressure 105?

 

[Eland2]

Back to the Cockerill 105HP for a moment, I couldn't find much data on it versus the L7 that's mounted in the MGS.

Anyone have any idea whether a Stryker mated with the Cockerill 105HP would have been a better idea than the L7?

I would imagine the mian reason the US went with the L7 (M68A1) on the Stryker is that they had already used the same gun on early Abrams, but it also begs the question: If the MGS is only intended for infantry support, why use a high pressure 105?

My understanding of the situation, and I could be wrong here, is that the MGS uses the M68 105mm gun which has been modified to use lower-powered ammunition. This was done in an effort to compensate for the relatively high centre of gravity of the MGS and the vehicle's narrow stance. A L7 main gun using full-power 105mm rounds might have caused the MGS to tip over (due to recoil forces) if the turret was traversed to the side while the main gun was fired.

 

[Franko]

It's intended role is as a tank destroyer.  Infantry support is a secondary role.

Horrible vehicle, thankfully we never got it.

Regards

 

[GnyHwy]

It's intended role is as a tank destroyer.  Infantry support is a secondary role.

Horrible vehicle, thankfully we never got it.

Regards

I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.

When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably.

Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank.

No, I don't work for GD. 

Cheers,

 

[Franko]

I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.

When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably.

Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank.

No, I don't work for GD. 

Cheers,

It failed for bigger issues, like software issues, auto loader issues, overheating issues. The list goes on and on. I have a friend who actually used them in Iraq and they were horrible from his accounts beyond what I just listed.

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.

When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably.

Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank.

No, I don't work for GD. 

Cheers,

Play 'Devil's Advocate' all you want.  You have hit on some of the major points squarely on the head.  Until you actually have experience siting an armoured vehicle to be able to provide effective fire and still have natural protection, it is difficult to see many of the flaws in their design.

The LAV is a long, 'narrow', eight wheeled vehicle.  The 105mm gun variant has the turret mounted on the rear third of the vehicle.  Unless you are on a parade square with a 10m (thick, not high) wall in front of you, you will find that it is fairly hard to find a firing position that will give you a level platform to fire from and good protection provided by the terrain.  More often than not, you will have to fully expose your vehicle, and many times that will be on a forward slope, in order to fire.  Never a good option for crew survivability in Contact.  If dug in in a static position, as you suggest, one still has to factor in the length of the vehicle and location of the turret.  Firing the LAV 105mm gun over the side presents another set of problems.

The Armour Corps failed the MGS twice that I know of, yet the Government was still willing to purchase it against the advice of the Corps.  It is a vehicle that would/is very limited in its employment.  Probably, as you suggest, only in dug-in positions.  I believe the American experience with their Strykers have come to a similar conclusion.

[PS:  I removed my original post as it needed to be reworked.]

 

[Kirkhill]

I understood the TOW version of the Stryker was the Tank Destroyer.  The MGS was intended to supply Direct Fire Support to the infantry.

As to the value of a Self Propelled Anti Tank Gun - SPATG - I find it interesting that on another thread we were discussing how much of a concern batteries of Towed Anti Tank Guns would be if you found yourselves facing the Russians.

 

[GnyHwy]

Play 'Devil's Advocate' all you want.  You have hit on some of the major points squarely on the head.  Until you actually have experience siting an armoured vehicle to be able to provide effective fire and still have natural protection, it is difficult to see many of the flaws in their design.

 

No doubt it is bad design, probably more so a failed experiment.  It would be tough to site and if you are going to sacrifice crew protection, you might as well go towed and light.

 

[a_majoor]

As far back as 2006 (When I saw it at the AUSA exhibition) Cockerill had a105mm CT-CV turret which could be a "drop in" on a LAV chassis, so the idea isn't all that outlandish.

The CV-CT had a 16 round bustle and another 16 rounds in the back, used a Wegmann "cleft" turret for a very low profile and had the ability to elevate the gun to 420, so it could function both in an urban environment (engaging people on the rooftops), or in an indirect fire role. I don't recall if it had the sighting system and power elevation/traverse to act as an AA weapon vs attack helicopters the way some Gen 4 tanks can, but I suppose that is a matter of refinement of the basic design.

A LAV DFS version could be built using the CV-CT turret, but like everything else, is there the need, the will to do so and the resources available?

 

[Mountie]

How it might fit into structure and doctrine I will leave for others to chew on.

Here's another alternative.  A 40mm CTA gun turret with a pair/quad of ATGMs strapped on the sides (conventional turret layout?)

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG01/308040011/Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit

This is exactly the turret I was talking about, I just couldn't find the picture.  I would think a battle group commander could make good use of a squadron of these.

 

[Kirkhill]

My concern with that turret is the effect of a 155mm Airburst (or a can of paint) on all those neat little moving bits and lenses on top of the turret.

 

[a_majoor]

Here is an interesting picture of the Polish "Rosomak" with a RWS mounted. Normally these have turrets armed with a 30mm cannon (being a licence built version of the Finnish Patria AMV), but there are also versions with an open "bucket" gunshield surrounding the gunner and a mounted HMG.

 

[Eland2]

George Wallace writes:

The Armour Corps failed the MGS twice that I know of, yet the Government was still willing to purchase it against the advice of the Corps.  It is a vehicle that would/is very limited in its employment.  Probably, as you suggest, only in dug-in positions.  I believe the American experience with their Strykers have come to a similar conclusion.

The government of the day wanted the MGS regardless of the Armoured Corps' advice because they wanted a vehicle that could operate like a tank on the cheap, which was the main driver behind their desire to get Canada out of the tank business for good. But you know the old maxim, 'the man who buys cheaply pays twice as much in the end.'

As others have pointed out, the MGS could operate as an effective fire-support platform in carefully-prepared defensive positions. Unfortunately combat is often so fluid and fast-moving that the ability to consistently rely on prepared positions would be a rare luxury.

However, I am skeptical of the ability of the MGS to operate like a tank destroyer precisely because it utilizes lower-powered ammunition. As an infantry fire-support vehicle operating in defilades, the MGS with its less powerful ammunition would probably do OK as the targets would be somewhat softer.

 

[George Wallace]

:goodpost:  Eland2

 

[McG]

I am skeptical of the ability of the MGS to operate like a tank destroyer precisely because it utilizes lower-powered ammunition. As an infantry fire-support vehicle operating in defilades, the MGS with its less powerful ammunition would probably do OK as the targets would be somewhat softer.

How do you define low powered?  The MGS fires the same M900 105mm APFSDS-T round as late M-60 and early M-1.1; it is no more "low powered" than the Leo C2.

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps "low recoil" is a better description.

 

[McG]

Same M68 cannon firing the same M900 penetrator is the same recoil energy and the same terminal effects down range.  With plenty of factual differences between and MGS and a tank, there should be no need to grasp at imaginary differences.

 

[Kirkhill]

Early model MGS? 6 Pdr AT Portee - Western Desert 1942

 

[George Wallace]

Same M68 cannon firing the same M900 penetrator is the same recoil energy and the same terminal effects down range.  With plenty of factual differences between and MGS and a tank, there should be no need to grasp at imaginary differences.

Not all wpns systems having the same cannon, firing the same ammunition, have the same recoil systems. 

I am not a Gunnery God, nor a weapon system designer; but I do know that small fact.  You can fire that cannon without a recoil system and the recoil is going to be much greater than firing that same cannon and ammo with a recoil system.  Different platforms will have different recoil systems.  The cannon and ammo are only part of the equation.