Successul trials held for direct fire system

[George Wallace]

I see "Wheels" as playing a role, but in most cases, not a front line role.  I agree with the British idea with their Saxons.  They transport their Troops forward in the armoured Saxons, from Britain to the front, where the troops then transfer to Warrior AFVs.  In essence, they have "armoured" their "Wheeled" CSS, and left the fighting AFVs "Tracked".  To me this makes sense.  I don't see the true benefits of going totally "Wheeled", let alone start mounting a DF system on wheels. 

It is super that wheeled vehicles can move up to the Front faster than Tracks, but once there and engaged with the enemy, their lesser abilities at manoeuvre will be their downfall. 

I look at the MGS as a bigger dinosaur than the Tank.  It is a fall back to a WW II system of Assault Gun or Tank Destroyer that did not survive past the 1960's, due to it's weapons shortfalls and maneuverability being less than a MBT.  It will not be able to replace a Tank in the Advance, Quick Attack, or Withdrawal.  It may be able to provide some role in the Defence.  It will not be able to do many of the smaller tasks called upon MBTs in the Rear, Reserve or Counter Attack.

GW

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The protection of the lines of communication for a coalition would be a good task for the Armoured Cavarly (Coyotes and LAV IIIs).  Not necessarily as glorious as charging across the battlefield in tanks but still an important task.  There is historical precendence for the use of wheeled AFVs in Recce roles (Canada/UK, US and Germany in WW II).  

Linking this back to the thread, I'd like our Cav forces to have an anti-tank capability in a general warfighting scenario, but perhaps missiles would be better.  RAS (Rear Area Security) battles and security operations are probably best fought by our 25mm and 7.62mm systems (along with the small arms of the crews).  TOW, ADATs and MGS may have limited utility in the "three block war."  Long range missile fire may not be the best thing to pin our hopes on in the urban environment.  At least the MGS uses gun fire so perhaps it could find a role there (but I don't think that it can take an RPG hit).  Then again, these trials may prove me wrong and I'm sure that they will learn some interesting lessons regardless.  ADATS and TOW may be more useful as surveillance platforms that as direct fire systems (saves on missiles)!

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that an army without tanks (and tracks) cannot perform the whole range of combat (including perhaps the warfighting block of the three block war).  We are becoming somewhat of a niche army, but I think that we can find a meaningful niche.


Cheers,

2B

p.s. I did have some CV9030 envy in Kabul...

 

[Infanteer]

I disagree. I don't like to use Iraq and Afghanistan as good examples of warfare to come. I would not agree that the road systems there are sufficient to constantly hold up to a high volume of heavy military vehicles and transport. Look at the problems we have with our own road systems in Peace, then compound that with the lack of maintenance and heavy military traffic. Many of the roads in Kosovo and Macedonia were reduced to quagmires.

Honestly George, how can we not look to Iraq and Afghanistan as good examples of warfare to come?  Since 1990, except for a few skirmishes in the Balkans and in Somalia, where else has "future war" taken place?

I'm not too quick to look as Wheel/Track as a +/- thing, leading to the inevitable and ubiquitous debate that has been on-going for years.  Although I don't buy into the argument that the Coyote proves that wheeled vehicles are better in that regards, because you could easily stick that mast on a tracked chassis, I feel that there is a demonstrable utility in having some sort of wheel-capability.  As the US Marine Corps' 1st Marine Division Lessons Learned document point out, the Marines noted that the Light Armored Regiments (LARs) of the 1st Marine Division where able to utilize the mobility of their older model LAV's to strike out from Baghdad and successfully seize the key city of Tikrit and Bayji, more than 200 km away.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-lessons-learned.htm

Obviously, for the interim, we've made our stake in the Wheeled force and it is up to us to figure out how to best configure it to work and be effective.  We can't afford not to because when the flag goes up, we have to be ready to fight the enemy the best way we know how.  Considering that for quite some time, we only really ever had a few squadrons of Leo's, I think we've been out of the Armour game longer then we care to admit - we would never have been committing ourselves to any operational tank maneuvers.

My hope is that the Wheeled Force is truly "interim" and that we can move to a lighter, more effective tracked force (a future model of the CV series or perhaps the US FCS) down the road along with abit of a wheel capability for suitable tasks.  But until then, Cav screening and flanking it is.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Isn't the Coyote great because of the add-on's as opposed to the chassis?

Specifically, if you put the same gear including a telescoping mast on a CV90 chassis, would it not be an even more capable vehicle (although more expensive to operate)?




Matthew.  ???

 

[Zipper]

Isn't the Coyote great because of the add-on's as opposed to the chassis?

Specifically, if you put the same gear including a telescoping mast on a CV90 chassis, would it not be an even more capable vehicle (although more expensive to operate)?

I believe your right. At least that is all they ever talked about when the thing came into service.

Obviously, for the interim, we've made our stake in the Wheeled force and it is up to us to figure out how to best configure it to work and be effective. We can't afford not to because when the flag goes up, we have to be ready to fight the enemy the best way we know how. Considering that for quite some time, we only really ever had a few squadrons of Leo's, I think we've been out of the Armour game longer then we care to admit - we would never have been committing ourselves to any operational tank maneuvers.

I agree with you there. Ever since we brought the 4CMB home from Germany and sent the 8th down to reserve.

My hope is that the Wheeled Force is truly "interim" and that we can move to a lighter, more effective tracked force (a future model of the CV series or perhaps the US FCS) down the road along with abit of a wheel capability for suitable tasks. But until then, Cav screening and flanking it is.

Mine as well. Its not so much an argument of wheeled versus track outright. They both have their place. For myself, it is the fact that we are getting (for all intents and purposes) out of track all together. We've basically pigeon-holed ourselves into operations on road. And well maintained roads at that.

What gets me worked up (and this is that social side of me again ;D) is that we are going with vehicles that have a low survivability against RPG's/heavy MG, and the like. As we've seen in all our operational theatres, the weapons that the "other side" have had access to have been more then enough to kill us outright. Its just been by the kindness of God that we haven't had more causalities to worry about. Wheeled vehicles can only carry so much armour.

As well. The idea of our new "layered" approach in lighter vehicles relying on TOW/ADATS/MGS is just not going to work within alot of the missions we do which are patrol/close contact in nature. The TOW and ADAT are long range support platforms requiring alot of support and protection, and useless within the "urban" environment. The MGS being a cannon is better suited, but once again it may get one shot off before counter fire takes it out.

So no argument about the Coyote and the LAV. Good pieces of kit. Its the rest that are questionable.

Survivability is what worries me most.

 

[George Wallace]

One real advantage of Wheeled over Tracked is "Vibration".  Anyone who has worked tracks knows how much vibration there is in the vehicle.  With all the new electronics that we are installing in our vehicles today, the vibrations caused by tracks would cause serious problems with N/S kit and prolonged VOR rates on operations.

GW

 

[pbi]

On the argument that our CSS would fall behind, again I would disagree.  In all our major conflicts, we have had no problems keeping the bullets, fuel and food flowing in the long haul.  We have our Engineers following up and maintaining the Supply Routes. 

I disagree with this. In both WWII and in the two Gulf Wars, IIRC, Allied ground forces faced serious logistics problems caused by the inability of any logistic system to keep up with the speed and voracious appetite of modern mechanized forces. I am  not suggesting they were brought to a halt, but close to it, especially for fuel.

Anyway, as Infanteer said, wheels are what we've got, so we better start thinking about how to be as effective as we can with them, since we have no way of knowing what we'll be called upon to do next, or where, or against whom. I would love us to have a heavy tracked combat capability, but the days of the MBT appear to be numbered in our Army, and anyway we are probably never going to buy adequate lift to get a heavy force anywhere in a hurry. We're going to medium weight now, and those who have to make this work need to consider what is the art of the possible, vice pining for heavy armour.

Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

We have seen mixed fleets of wheels and tracks in the past; Soviet Motor Rifle Regiments often had the infantry and many AT support weapons carried in wheeled vehicles (BTR-60/70/80 90 series and BRDM anti tank platforms).

After the Persian Gulf war, I attended a briefing where a US Company Commander explained how they drove a company of 16 M-2s and a convoy of 25 HEMMET trucks carrying their fuel and ammunition into Iraq to cut the highway between Basra and Bhagdad under combat conditions. This is probably a better model of the future, "embedded CSS" to allow wide ranging "Cavalry" style manoeuvres. Using my crystal ball, I would think a "Bison" type development of the LAV 3 chassis would be the next logical step to support this.

I think much of this debate is becoming misplaced. Like Infanteer said, we are going to have wheeled vehicles for a generation, so we best figure out the best way to use them. There will be technical changes to the LAV family as the years go by, to increase protection and mobility, new or modified weapons systems, improved sensor systems and so on. Yes, tracked CV-90 style platforms can do most of what the LAV can do, superior in some aspects and inferior in others, but if Santa or Gen Hillier isn't coming down the chimney with them, then we just have to get over it.

 

[Zipper]

Yes, tracked CV-90 style platforms can do most of what the LAV can do, superior in some aspects and inferior in others, but if Santa or Gen Hillier isn't coming down the chimney with them, then we just have to get over it.

Damn if you haven't made me into a CV-90(family) believer Majoor. Sigh.

 

[Maclimius]

We also have to keep in mind what the Government refers to as interim. The ILTIS was an "interim" vehicle. The AVGP familiy of vehicle were "interim" training vehicles never intended for deployment overseas. I recall a crusty old Sargeant discussing his time "well" spent in them on operation. The MILCOTS is an "interim" vehicle that was supposed to only go to reservists. Go figure, that didn't last long. Kind of like the Bison which never did go to reservists. Like it or not, we're stuck with these "interim" vehicles and we just have to figure out how best to employ them.

As for the MGS, in a support role, I'm sure it's fine to get out of the vehicle to fix a jam on the coax, but think about it. If you're using the coax, generally you're using it at a range of no more than 1200m. That's some awfully close support if you ask me.

 

[Zipper]

As for the MGS, in a support role, I'm sure it's fine to get out of the vehicle to fix a jam on the coax, but think about it. If you're using the coax, generally you're using it at a range of no more than 1200m. That's some awfully close support if you ask me.

Tell me about it.

But since the decision is already made to take us all wheeled, niche roll, and MGS. Its no sense arguing about the pros and cons. We all know it is a bad idea, but hey...                    ...we wern't asked.

We're just going to have to do with what we get and hope to God that we're not packing body bags when things get heavier then we can handle.

In other words...            ...somewhere no-one is shooting at us.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"In other words...            ...somewhere no-one is shooting at us."

Why bother then?

 

[Zipper]

Why bother with the MGS? I agree...

Why bother upgrading the military? Because we need one, even if they are equipped with gear that doesn't suit our long term self-determination interests.

Why bother going to someplace people are shooting at us? Because it is our jobs, and serves the interests of our Government. However, the people who make the decisions (the people) will not like us filling body bags because of "light" equipment. We'll have to learn the hard way on that one though.

 

[a_majoor]

The MGS idea can still be saved, just ditch the current turret (From Janes Armour and Artillery 2002-2003):

90 mm assault gun vehicle
Late in 1986, MOWAG demonstrated the AGV-90 in Switzerland and France. This is essentially an improved MOWAG Piranha 8 x 8 fitted with the Giat Industries TS 90 Weapons Station. This is armed with the 90 mm gun with a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun.
    The 90 mm gun fires APFSDS-T, HEAT-T, HE, smoke and canister rounds with 18 ready rounds carried in the turret. A further 25 rounds are in the hull.
    Optional equipment includes a land navigation system. Other improvements include a fuel tank with increased fuel capacity which increases operational range to 1,000 km, a small access hatch in the left side of the hull and a winch with a direct pulling capacity of 6.8 tonnes.
    Combat weight of the AFV-90 is 13,000 kg, length with gun forwards 7.28 m, width 2.5 m and height 2.7 m.
    Significant quantities of the Canadian-built MOWAG Piranha (8 x 8) vehicles fitted with the Giat Industries TS 90 turret were supplied to the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) by the now General Motors Defense. Additional details of this contract are given under Canada.
    More recently, the MOWAG Piranha has been fitted with the latest Cockerill LCTS Mk 8 90 mm turret armed with a Cockerill 90 mm gun and this version has been ordered by Qatar (built by Alvis Vehicles of the UK) and the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), additional details are given under Canada as this forms part of a complete order for 1,117 vehicles.

It's not as if we don't know how to build these things, and having 33 main gun rounds available is certainly an improvement over 18...