New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 131
- Points
- 710
But Garry....If we had Schapp here, we could completely redesign the whole Leopard to fulfil multi-role missions...... 
GW
GW
- Reaction score
- 8,211
- Points
- 1,160
Gentlemen,
I don‘t know which comment finally caused me to return to the discussion but this Troll has become unwilling to walk away.
It seems that every time one of these discussions breaks out it is necessary to prove ones commitment to the cause.
I am not a candidate for flag rank. My military experience is short, only four years with the reserves. I flatter myself that my military knowledge is above that of the average citizen. I am a strong supporter of the military and I am a taxpayer that wants to see my dollars best applied in supplying you with wages and kit so that you can best secure my country for my kids.
Let me recite the military version of the Apostles‘ Creed.
I believe in a strong national security policy
I believe in the ability to project power within our borders, on our approaches and overseas.
I believe in Canadian Forces that can conduct security and stability operations domestically and internationally.
I believe in Canadian Forces that can operate in High Intensity Conflicts.
I would like to see the RCMP expanded with the RCMP able to commit forces abroad alongside the CF in stability and security operations.
I would like to see the Coast Guard expanded to handle surveillance of national approaches and territory as well as all SAR ops.
I want an air force and a navy that can remove threats from our approaches and support our land forces overseas.
I want an army of five regional commands each capable of supplying 2 regular medium/light battlegroups and 2-3 reserve light battlegroups for domestic and foreign security and stability operations.
I want an army with an air transportable capability of 2 small battalions.
I want an army with a high intensity capability based on a heavy armour battle group or a small brigade group that could be reinforced by regional battlegroups and reserve artillery.
I am willing to spend 2% of GDP on defence and 0.7% on foreign aid.
Does this buy me a ticket to the discussion?
Gulf War I proved that our side, the good guys, can win a high-intensity conflict by eliminating grid squares. The enemy countered by declining to stand around in open fields waiting to be clubbed. He now chooses to hide in crowds and use credit cards to hire young boys to detonate bombs, to buy our allies and to get his version of the story out on the media. He has taken away our ability to use the club.
Even in high intensity conflict we have to pick our targets and ensure we only eliminate the desired target and leave his neighbours standing. This is behind the rebirth of the sniper/marksman and the resurgence of the large calibre rifle round.
It is also behind the call by both the British Army and the US Marines to eliminate cluster munitions from the battlefield. They kill too many civilians and friendlies. They restrict own force manoeuvre room. They are too hard to clear up and they give the opposition too many easy propaganda victories.
It is behind the change in American Immediate Action drills such as spraying down everything within 500m after a mine-strike.
Discrimination and precision are the order of the day.
My "beloved MGS", crikey even my wife doesn‘t get called beloved, should be seen as a large calibre sniper rifle. I agree that it makes a lousy tank. I agree that it is probably too expensive. I agree that it is technically-challenged (its new).
But it has one major advantage over the tank.
It is not a tank.
The very qualities that you guys praise in tanks, summarized in the ability to put the fear of god into anybody contemplating becoming an crunchy, are the self-same reasons that they have not been deployed on security and stability operations. Governments, citizens and the UN don‘t want to see tanks in the streets. It doesn‘t make them feel very secure regardless of how it makes you black hats feel.
The MGS, regardless of how you feel, is more likely to be deployed than a tank because it is less threatening, and thus your infantry brethren will at least have fire support from a heavy direct fire rifle.
As to the protection issue. The MGS will supply you with more protection than that afforded to the guys in green hats standing in front of you trying to keep crowds of hungry and angry civilians at bay. All the while waiting for a rifle shot, an RPG round or an IED.
Further to the protection issue, since the CF started with this latest round of unpleasantness in 1992, when two battlegroups deployed from West Germany to Yugoslavia, how many CF members have been killed/wounded because the armour afforded by M113s/AVGPs/Bisons/LAVs had been penetrated. To my knowledge, admittedly incomplete, the only significant case was the soldier in Yugoslavia killed by an RPG/ATGM attack while he was sticking out of an M113. Most injuries appear to have been mine-strikes on unarmoured vehicles. Light armour appears to have been adequate to defeat/deter most attacks.
Again, I think we should have an armoured club for high intensity warfare. If we remove that club from our arsenal then the enemy will reverse flanks and attack us there again.
I even think we should buy some of those Yankeee gas guzzlers they are giving away at fire sale prices. The competition from Germans, Brits, Dutchment and the rest of NATO for barely used tanks is keeping the prices down. When we do buy the tanks then we should buy adequate armoured tracked infantry and engineer carriers as well as transporters, bowsers, spares, mechanics and logistics vehicles to keep up with the wheeled forces on road moves. This tends to push up the price of a few cheap tanks.
I don‘t think that armoured arty is as much a requirement these days as range and precision are increasing flexibility and effectiveness while reducing vulnerability and logistics. Arty yes. Armoured arty no.
My anger with the position often expressed by members of the RCAC, that its tanks or nothing, is that by adhering to that position you will end up denying the army of a lot of other capabilities of which you are custodian. These include but are not limited to tactical driving, gunnery, tactical command of vehicles and groups of vehicles, fire support, maintenance and support of vehicles in the field, vehicle based reconnaissance and combined arms operations.
It is more important that these skills be maintained than any fight over platform.
Chariots and elephants aren‘t in much demand these days. Helicopters, OSVs and jeeps are useful. Horses and mules seem to be making a limited comeback. Tanks and LAVS have their place. Regardless of platform the basic skills need to be maintained.
I agree tanks are good and necessary. Our government doesn‘t. It is more important that the RCAC survive with the necessary skills than constantly fighting about tanks or being "bus-drivers" for the infantry.
Squawk as much as you like. Push to maintain the armoured capability. But learn to play the hand dealt you, bad cards and all.
Finally, on behalf of all tax-paying trolls everywhere, figure out how to convince more of us to support you in your goals. You are not going to win any converts by keeping sympathizers out of the discussion.
TTFE
I don‘t know which comment finally caused me to return to the discussion but this Troll has become unwilling to walk away.
It seems that every time one of these discussions breaks out it is necessary to prove ones commitment to the cause.
I am not a candidate for flag rank. My military experience is short, only four years with the reserves. I flatter myself that my military knowledge is above that of the average citizen. I am a strong supporter of the military and I am a taxpayer that wants to see my dollars best applied in supplying you with wages and kit so that you can best secure my country for my kids.
Let me recite the military version of the Apostles‘ Creed.
I believe in a strong national security policy
I believe in the ability to project power within our borders, on our approaches and overseas.
I believe in Canadian Forces that can conduct security and stability operations domestically and internationally.
I believe in Canadian Forces that can operate in High Intensity Conflicts.
I would like to see the RCMP expanded with the RCMP able to commit forces abroad alongside the CF in stability and security operations.
I would like to see the Coast Guard expanded to handle surveillance of national approaches and territory as well as all SAR ops.
I want an air force and a navy that can remove threats from our approaches and support our land forces overseas.
I want an army of five regional commands each capable of supplying 2 regular medium/light battlegroups and 2-3 reserve light battlegroups for domestic and foreign security and stability operations.
I want an army with an air transportable capability of 2 small battalions.
I want an army with a high intensity capability based on a heavy armour battle group or a small brigade group that could be reinforced by regional battlegroups and reserve artillery.
I am willing to spend 2% of GDP on defence and 0.7% on foreign aid.
Does this buy me a ticket to the discussion?
Gulf War I proved that our side, the good guys, can win a high-intensity conflict by eliminating grid squares. The enemy countered by declining to stand around in open fields waiting to be clubbed. He now chooses to hide in crowds and use credit cards to hire young boys to detonate bombs, to buy our allies and to get his version of the story out on the media. He has taken away our ability to use the club.
Even in high intensity conflict we have to pick our targets and ensure we only eliminate the desired target and leave his neighbours standing. This is behind the rebirth of the sniper/marksman and the resurgence of the large calibre rifle round.
It is also behind the call by both the British Army and the US Marines to eliminate cluster munitions from the battlefield. They kill too many civilians and friendlies. They restrict own force manoeuvre room. They are too hard to clear up and they give the opposition too many easy propaganda victories.
It is behind the change in American Immediate Action drills such as spraying down everything within 500m after a mine-strike.
Discrimination and precision are the order of the day.
My "beloved MGS", crikey even my wife doesn‘t get called beloved, should be seen as a large calibre sniper rifle. I agree that it makes a lousy tank. I agree that it is probably too expensive. I agree that it is technically-challenged (its new).
But it has one major advantage over the tank.
It is not a tank.
The very qualities that you guys praise in tanks, summarized in the ability to put the fear of god into anybody contemplating becoming an crunchy, are the self-same reasons that they have not been deployed on security and stability operations. Governments, citizens and the UN don‘t want to see tanks in the streets. It doesn‘t make them feel very secure regardless of how it makes you black hats feel.
The MGS, regardless of how you feel, is more likely to be deployed than a tank because it is less threatening, and thus your infantry brethren will at least have fire support from a heavy direct fire rifle.
As to the protection issue. The MGS will supply you with more protection than that afforded to the guys in green hats standing in front of you trying to keep crowds of hungry and angry civilians at bay. All the while waiting for a rifle shot, an RPG round or an IED.
Further to the protection issue, since the CF started with this latest round of unpleasantness in 1992, when two battlegroups deployed from West Germany to Yugoslavia, how many CF members have been killed/wounded because the armour afforded by M113s/AVGPs/Bisons/LAVs had been penetrated. To my knowledge, admittedly incomplete, the only significant case was the soldier in Yugoslavia killed by an RPG/ATGM attack while he was sticking out of an M113. Most injuries appear to have been mine-strikes on unarmoured vehicles. Light armour appears to have been adequate to defeat/deter most attacks.
Again, I think we should have an armoured club for high intensity warfare. If we remove that club from our arsenal then the enemy will reverse flanks and attack us there again.
I even think we should buy some of those Yankeee gas guzzlers they are giving away at fire sale prices. The competition from Germans, Brits, Dutchment and the rest of NATO for barely used tanks is keeping the prices down. When we do buy the tanks then we should buy adequate armoured tracked infantry and engineer carriers as well as transporters, bowsers, spares, mechanics and logistics vehicles to keep up with the wheeled forces on road moves. This tends to push up the price of a few cheap tanks.
I don‘t think that armoured arty is as much a requirement these days as range and precision are increasing flexibility and effectiveness while reducing vulnerability and logistics. Arty yes. Armoured arty no.
My anger with the position often expressed by members of the RCAC, that its tanks or nothing, is that by adhering to that position you will end up denying the army of a lot of other capabilities of which you are custodian. These include but are not limited to tactical driving, gunnery, tactical command of vehicles and groups of vehicles, fire support, maintenance and support of vehicles in the field, vehicle based reconnaissance and combined arms operations.
It is more important that these skills be maintained than any fight over platform.
Chariots and elephants aren‘t in much demand these days. Helicopters, OSVs and jeeps are useful. Horses and mules seem to be making a limited comeback. Tanks and LAVS have their place. Regardless of platform the basic skills need to be maintained.
I agree tanks are good and necessary. Our government doesn‘t. It is more important that the RCAC survive with the necessary skills than constantly fighting about tanks or being "bus-drivers" for the infantry.
Squawk as much as you like. Push to maintain the armoured capability. But learn to play the hand dealt you, bad cards and all.
Finally, on behalf of all tax-paying trolls everywhere, figure out how to convince more of us to support you in your goals. You are not going to win any converts by keeping sympathizers out of the discussion.
TTFE
- Reaction score
- 6,429
- Points
- 1,360
Well, all I know is this armoured forum sure is a lot more interesting than mine. I eagerly anticipate the return volley from his overhead smash. :warstory: CHEERS
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 39
- Points
- 330
Kirkhill,
I would agree with most of what you state.
However I would argue that the capability gap filled by the MGS is extremely narrow (almost non-existent) when you add the LAV III and the latest generation of "fire and forget" missiles into the equation.
LAV III and Javelin/Spike will both chew up bunkers rather nicely to a similar range as a 105 round. Javelin/Spike will kill tanks at similar ranges as a 105 and beyond in some cases.
Tanks are useful because of their protection. Their greatest strength is the ability they give a commander to employ them agressively, knowing that they have a decent chance of survival. Exploitation, pursuit, cover on the withdrawal, rolling firebase and intimate support often rely on balancing risk and exposure with the protection and firepower provided by a tank. If it is a "cowering" direct fire support platform that the armour corps brings to the battle, many infantrymen are likely not very interested. We can accomplish most, if not all, of the MGS likely tasks by other means, and at a lesser cost.
I would argue that we would be better off skipping this evolutionary step (a very interim one I would suggest) and waiting for the Future Combat System (FCS) "hover tank" to make its appearance. MGS makes sense in the US Army context when you do not have a 25 mm turret on your LAV. They therefore lose the capability to bust bunkers and suppress objectives at longer ranges, not to mention kill APCs, IFVs, etc. The US Interim Brigade Combat teams have only their anti armour missile systems.
MGS is therefore a significant asset to an Interim Brigade Combat Team. Its utility in the Canadian, LAVIII 25mm chain gun equipped Army is marginal by comparison, provided we buy a Javelin/Spike Gill fire and forget missile system.
I would argue that the Armour Corps should keep their skills alive on the current platform. FCS will likely be fielded in the US Army around the time that we receive MGS. FCS will not suffer the fate of "Commanche" given the "Interim" nature of the IBCT. The protection weakness inherent in the IBCT is one of the major improvements expected from FCS from my understanding.
I can forsee a use for MGS, it is just extremely limited in the Canadian orbat from my point of view. If I was in a US Army IBCT I would be quite grateful for my MGS.
Vehement disagreement likely to follow from MGS adherents.
I would agree with most of what you state.
However I would argue that the capability gap filled by the MGS is extremely narrow (almost non-existent) when you add the LAV III and the latest generation of "fire and forget" missiles into the equation.
LAV III and Javelin/Spike will both chew up bunkers rather nicely to a similar range as a 105 round. Javelin/Spike will kill tanks at similar ranges as a 105 and beyond in some cases.
Tanks are useful because of their protection. Their greatest strength is the ability they give a commander to employ them agressively, knowing that they have a decent chance of survival. Exploitation, pursuit, cover on the withdrawal, rolling firebase and intimate support often rely on balancing risk and exposure with the protection and firepower provided by a tank. If it is a "cowering" direct fire support platform that the armour corps brings to the battle, many infantrymen are likely not very interested. We can accomplish most, if not all, of the MGS likely tasks by other means, and at a lesser cost.
I would argue that we would be better off skipping this evolutionary step (a very interim one I would suggest) and waiting for the Future Combat System (FCS) "hover tank" to make its appearance. MGS makes sense in the US Army context when you do not have a 25 mm turret on your LAV. They therefore lose the capability to bust bunkers and suppress objectives at longer ranges, not to mention kill APCs, IFVs, etc. The US Interim Brigade Combat teams have only their anti armour missile systems.
MGS is therefore a significant asset to an Interim Brigade Combat Team. Its utility in the Canadian, LAVIII 25mm chain gun equipped Army is marginal by comparison, provided we buy a Javelin/Spike Gill fire and forget missile system.
I would argue that the Armour Corps should keep their skills alive on the current platform. FCS will likely be fielded in the US Army around the time that we receive MGS. FCS will not suffer the fate of "Commanche" given the "Interim" nature of the IBCT. The protection weakness inherent in the IBCT is one of the major improvements expected from FCS from my understanding.
I can forsee a use for MGS, it is just extremely limited in the Canadian orbat from my point of view. If I was in a US Army IBCT I would be quite grateful for my MGS.
Vehement disagreement likely to follow from MGS adherents.
- Reaction score
- 8,211
- Points
- 1,160
Hello again Devil
It won‘t be from me that you get any vehement argument on the MGS. I merely suggest that any craftsman make best use of the tools available to him.
I take your point that if the Javelin/Spike is fielded then the MGS may indeed be surplus to requirement, especially if the bunker-busting TOW variant is also fielded. On the other hand rate of fire may be beneficial although I accept that as a marginal gain.
One scenario in which I could see the MGS as being useful is as fire support to a dismounted company on a light role deployment. I think I might rather take up a couple of C130s transporting MGSs than a pair of LAVs to heavy up my line.
Looking at the Italian armoured cavalry platoon of 4 APCs and 2 Centauros, you can come to the same conclusion you do pertaining to the MGS in the American IBCT Orbat. The Italian APCs only mount a 0.50 on a cupola mounted pintle. The Centauro is their main base of fire.
Your comments on the FCS, when are you hearing that they will have the electric tank on line? I thought it wasn‘t until about 2012 and that we were expecting the MGS in service by 2006. Do you have any updates on the vehicle?
And Garry, thank you for the welcome back. I‘ll stop pouting now.
Cheers.
It won‘t be from me that you get any vehement argument on the MGS. I merely suggest that any craftsman make best use of the tools available to him.
I take your point that if the Javelin/Spike is fielded then the MGS may indeed be surplus to requirement, especially if the bunker-busting TOW variant is also fielded. On the other hand rate of fire may be beneficial although I accept that as a marginal gain.
One scenario in which I could see the MGS as being useful is as fire support to a dismounted company on a light role deployment. I think I might rather take up a couple of C130s transporting MGSs than a pair of LAVs to heavy up my line.
Looking at the Italian armoured cavalry platoon of 4 APCs and 2 Centauros, you can come to the same conclusion you do pertaining to the MGS in the American IBCT Orbat. The Italian APCs only mount a 0.50 on a cupola mounted pintle. The Centauro is their main base of fire.
Your comments on the FCS, when are you hearing that they will have the electric tank on line? I thought it wasn‘t until about 2012 and that we were expecting the MGS in service by 2006. Do you have any updates on the vehicle?
And Garry, thank you for the welcome back. I‘ll stop pouting now.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
Kirkhill
...I‘m glad something I said urked you into staying in the conversaition, instead of you lulking away...WELCOME BACK.
Garry...I want to be like George?
Thems‘ fightin‘ words
The bigger question is should we be training for war or for peacekeeping?
The MGS is a peacekeeping vehicle...not a war fighting one.
At least a tank can be thrown into a peacekeeping role...such as the case in Kosovo. The Dutch, Brits and Yanks have ‘em here as well.
At 9 million a pop for one MGS and 4 million per M1...which would you go for?
I just can‘t get my head around the Liberals thinking on the way they can justify this spending. Buy the bloody tanks and spend the rest on transport for them I say.
If, however, we end up with the POS MGS...the corps will do like we‘ve been doing for years:
Making do with what we are given
Regards
...I‘m glad something I said urked you into staying in the conversaition, instead of you lulking away...WELCOME BACK.
Garry...I want to be like George?
Thems‘ fightin‘ words
The bigger question is should we be training for war or for peacekeeping?
The MGS is a peacekeeping vehicle...not a war fighting one.
At least a tank can be thrown into a peacekeeping role...such as the case in Kosovo. The Dutch, Brits and Yanks have ‘em here as well.
At 9 million a pop for one MGS and 4 million per M1...which would you go for?
I just can‘t get my head around the Liberals thinking on the way they can justify this spending. Buy the bloody tanks and spend the rest on transport for them I say.
If, however, we end up with the POS MGS...the corps will do like we‘ve been doing for years:
Making do with what we are given
Regards
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 39
- Points
- 330
I‘d rather the LAV IIIs. I can move my troops around inside them if need be, and get direct fire support if required to the same range. For target effects in support of Light Infantry 25mm will match 105 in most cases. Pintle mount a Javelin and we‘re pretty much covered. I‘ll take the dual purpose platform any day.
I read 2012 for FCS. I don‘t know about MGS, but I can‘t believe we would see it 2 years from now.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
It‘s a platform that is pretty much off the shelf Devil39...therefore easily procured, with exception to all the bugs they have to work out.
As for the FCS out in 2012...it may die the same way the Comanche did, cost over-runs and all.
Regards
As for the FCS out in 2012...it may die the same way the Comanche did, cost over-runs and all.
Regards
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 131
- Points
- 710
So the Saturday morning crowd is at it...eh!
The MGS is bad for the Armour Corps if it is going to be used as a replacement for the tank. In such a case it is a complete change of role and doctrine for the Armour Corps. In WW II these vehicles used in the Assault Gun and Tank Destroyer roles were either Infantry or Artillery operated weapons, not Armour.
If we were to use the MGS in the Support Sqn of an Armour Unit, then we have a different story. There they would be used to compliment tanks. That Support Sqn would also have Mortar and TOW assets.
Kirkhill, Armour, as you said: "Regardless of platform the basic skills need to be maintained." To do so, a tank must be used. You are old enough to remember the Cougar. It did not fully fill that bill. Skills were lost. The MGS will further compond that lose.
Garry......who‘s blacker here....(are you the pot or the kettle?)
Franko.....what do you mean , you don‘t want to be me......
GW
The MGS is bad for the Armour Corps if it is going to be used as a replacement for the tank. In such a case it is a complete change of role and doctrine for the Armour Corps. In WW II these vehicles used in the Assault Gun and Tank Destroyer roles were either Infantry or Artillery operated weapons, not Armour.
If we were to use the MGS in the Support Sqn of an Armour Unit, then we have a different story. There they would be used to compliment tanks. That Support Sqn would also have Mortar and TOW assets.
Kirkhill, Armour, as you said: "Regardless of platform the basic skills need to be maintained." To do so, a tank must be used. You are old enough to remember the Cougar. It did not fully fill that bill. Skills were lost. The MGS will further compond that lose.
Garry......who‘s blacker here....(are you the pot or the kettle?)
Franko.....what do you mean , you don‘t want to be me......
GW
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 131
- Points
- 710
Here is more discussion on the Stryker, mostly from the American point of view:
http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002723.html
GW
http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002723.html
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hey George, Garry, Fellas
Well here some info, I have from being at the School.
1. The ADATs may be Armour soon?
2. We are not getting rid of the Tanks fully. The MGS is a fill in, just like the Cougar was. We have to wait for the next Foreign Policy Paper.
3. Only the Armour Corp can give direct support. I have never seen a M109 or Field gun,Tow fire on the move.
4. The Armour Corp may crew the Lavs, as in the British, Ausie and US Armies.
5. One of the Master Gunners here, received a letter from A US Master Gunner. He stated that the Cougar would be the best veh in Iraq. Due to its short barrel, high elev. of the gun, speed, etc. This is from a US Armour Master Gunner. He said tanks are useless.
Kirkman
The problem is not the veh, its not tracked. I‘m a Recce fella, and tanks are there for a reason to support the Inf in the Assult and to protect the Inf when Tanks show up. I‘m one of the old timers here, like George and Garry. And have seen the Armour change.
Well here some info, I have from being at the School.
1. The ADATs may be Armour soon?
2. We are not getting rid of the Tanks fully. The MGS is a fill in, just like the Cougar was. We have to wait for the next Foreign Policy Paper.
3. Only the Armour Corp can give direct support. I have never seen a M109 or Field gun,Tow fire on the move.
4. The Armour Corp may crew the Lavs, as in the British, Ausie and US Armies.
5. One of the Master Gunners here, received a letter from A US Master Gunner. He stated that the Cougar would be the best veh in Iraq. Due to its short barrel, high elev. of the gun, speed, etc. This is from a US Armour Master Gunner. He said tanks are useless.
Kirkman
The problem is not the veh, its not tracked. I‘m a Recce fella, and tanks are there for a reason to support the Inf in the Assult and to protect the Inf when Tanks show up. I‘m one of the old timers here, like George and Garry. And have seen the Armour change.
We‘re getting there- keep reminding ourselves that our Army‘s mission is changing- no more all out warfare, peacekeeping, low intensity conflict.
On the Cougar- I agree, it may well have found it‘s niche in peacekeeping.
As for it‘s previous role, that of keeping Armoured skills alive- I was a Tanker most of my career. When I was finally posted, kicking and screaming, to a Cougar Sqn, I was told that it was a "Tank Trainer". That I understood.
Day one, Matawa Plains. Troop advance to contact. We left the start line, and I noticed we were moving painfully slowly. I asked my driver to speed up. He did, but only a little. I then told my driver to get us moving. We didn‘t speed up much. I also noticed that the turret was pointing in one direction only. Being day one, with a new, young crew, that while we weren‘t exactly as proficient at fire and movement as I liked, that was why we trained...and train we would. During the lull in overwatch as the rest of the Troop moved in, I briefed my Crew on how I expected our vehicle to move. Driver‘s instructions were "on the order to advance, you put your foot to the floor. I‘ll tell you when to take it off. Gunner, you traverse your arcs, whether on the move or not".....
Well, that Cougar took off like a scalded cat, made great time x-country....and even without the electric travers, my gun still moved from side to side. Gunner may never use his right arm again, but the aim was met.
Troop leader was concerned that we were finshed our "bound" while he was still jockeying....but then, troop leaders are still learning....
Speed and violence are not necessarily the Cougars strong point.
Cheers-Garry
PS- George, you are SO older than me...
PPS- Franko, see what you‘ve got to look forward to? Not pretty, is it?
On the Cougar- I agree, it may well have found it‘s niche in peacekeeping.
As for it‘s previous role, that of keeping Armoured skills alive- I was a Tanker most of my career. When I was finally posted, kicking and screaming, to a Cougar Sqn, I was told that it was a "Tank Trainer". That I understood.
Day one, Matawa Plains. Troop advance to contact. We left the start line, and I noticed we were moving painfully slowly. I asked my driver to speed up. He did, but only a little. I then told my driver to get us moving. We didn‘t speed up much. I also noticed that the turret was pointing in one direction only. Being day one, with a new, young crew, that while we weren‘t exactly as proficient at fire and movement as I liked, that was why we trained...and train we would. During the lull in overwatch as the rest of the Troop moved in, I briefed my Crew on how I expected our vehicle to move. Driver‘s instructions were "on the order to advance, you put your foot to the floor. I‘ll tell you when to take it off. Gunner, you traverse your arcs, whether on the move or not".....
Well, that Cougar took off like a scalded cat, made great time x-country....and even without the electric travers, my gun still moved from side to side. Gunner may never use his right arm again, but the aim was met.
Troop leader was concerned that we were finshed our "bound" while he was still jockeying....but then, troop leaders are still learning....
Speed and violence are not necessarily the Cougars strong point.
Cheers-Garry
PS- George, you are SO older than me...
PPS- Franko, see what you‘ve got to look forward to? Not pretty, is it?
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 131
- Points
- 710
Ah!...but I‘m still in the turret!Originally posted by Garry:
[qb] PS- George, you are SO older than me...
[/qb]
George
- Reaction score
- 5,994
- Points
- 1,160
Didn‘t realize they put a turret up in the Regimental Archives. Did they have to reinforce the floor for that? 
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 131
- Points
- 710
Like an Ossifer, That is my ‘Secondary Duty‘ eh!Originally posted by recceguy:
[qb] Didn‘t realize they put a turret up in the Regimental Archives. Did they have to reinforce the floor for that?
Right now I am 21B. Been OPFOR for both BG that have left here, and the 5 Bde BG down in Ft Drum. Getting ready for Gun Camp and individual and Troop Btl Runs. So, yes, Dave, I‘m in the turret again....
GW
- Reaction score
- 8,211
- Points
- 1,160
OK, I get it. Tanks Tanks Tanks. They must select for single-mindedness in the RCAC.
On the off-chance that there is an alternative view out there I will labour onwards.
Devil39 laid out the FCS as an alternative to the MGS but Franko countered that the Yanks might end up doing a "Comanche" on it before it could be fielded. Entirely possible the Americans have a recent tradition of grandiose weapons systems that never make to the field, and those that do often end up looking like camels, ie horses designed by committee.
The fact the current US Army Chief of Staff has basically said he is up to his backside in alligators just now and doesn‘t have much time for Future Systems doesn‘t give much encouragement as to FCS delivery.
One system that you might end up finding in the inventory in the near future could be this Swedish one.
The Yanks seem to be coming more amenable to buying systems off shore, and I would be willing to bet that this one will be on the production line before the FCS. Its listed under new projects at this web site.
http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp
Its a hybrid-electric vehicle with individually driven wheels. It can be tracked or wheeled, do pivot turns in both versions, convert from wheels to tracks and be short-tracked in virtually any configuration. Would that suit you Franko?
One thing the Swedes have going for them that the Yanks are short of is a lot of bright young mechanical engineers that also know what it is like to ride inside a black box while other people make loud noises outside. Courtesy of their national service. Note that the APC version is designed to carry 12 infanteers. As for a gun - you could probably put a LRF 120 on an uprated platform. Would that suit you better?
Still thats all Next Generation. What do we do with what we have?
Devil has got me convinced that the LAVIII/Javelin combination gives the infantry all the fire support/manoeuvre capability necessary for peacekeeping/peace support operations.
Recce 41 infos that the armour is likely to take over all the vehicle driving roles and that the ADATS will be reroled to the RCAC.
With that:
1 Would the RCAC accept RCR badged blackhats or would all the vehicles be held by the RCAC with vehicles/infanteers being cross attached/posted as necessary?
2 Would RCAC also handle light patrol/recce vehicles in the 1-5 tonne classe?
3 If you are driving LAV IIIs, LAV TUAs and LAV ADATS how might you allocate those resources when the infantry is equipped with CG84, Eryx and Javelin?
4 Given the strong ATGM capability backed with the 25mm capability is there a need for a defensive tank calibre rifle in the mix?
5 US Master Gunner says what he needs is speed and elevation. Presumably he would appreciate flexibility, weight of shot and speed of response. Wouldn‘t the AMOS 120mm twin-barrelled mortar fit his needs? It can also engage targets in direct fire mode. That would be in line with the armament choice of the CIBUA Leopard.
6 Given the mix of vehicles that the RCAC will end up supporting and roles performed how would you feel about having all the existing regiments expanded but converted solely to wheels while the 8CH is stood up as a regular force regiment and made entirely responsible for all tracked/tank forces while based at Wainwright, Suffield or Shilo? By my reckoning if the RCAC takes over all vehicle roles each regiment would have to find 2-3 recce squadrons, 3-5 infantry support/transport squadrons and 1-2 support squadrons before worrying about manning a tank squadron.
I kind of favour the Suffield option above. The opportunity to cross-train with the Brits might fit into some plans I have heard rumoured. Namely forming some type of reaction force with the Brits and maybe the ANZACs.
7 Which is the better organization? Mixed vehicle squadrons/troops that are ready for immediate tactical employment or single vehicle squadrons/troops that are formed into tactical teams as the situation demands?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Cheers all
On the off-chance that there is an alternative view out there I will labour onwards.
Devil39 laid out the FCS as an alternative to the MGS but Franko countered that the Yanks might end up doing a "Comanche" on it before it could be fielded. Entirely possible the Americans have a recent tradition of grandiose weapons systems that never make to the field, and those that do often end up looking like camels, ie horses designed by committee.
The fact the current US Army Chief of Staff has basically said he is up to his backside in alligators just now and doesn‘t have much time for Future Systems doesn‘t give much encouragement as to FCS delivery.
One system that you might end up finding in the inventory in the near future could be this Swedish one.
The Yanks seem to be coming more amenable to buying systems off shore, and I would be willing to bet that this one will be on the production line before the FCS. Its listed under new projects at this web site.
http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp
Its a hybrid-electric vehicle with individually driven wheels. It can be tracked or wheeled, do pivot turns in both versions, convert from wheels to tracks and be short-tracked in virtually any configuration. Would that suit you Franko?
One thing the Swedes have going for them that the Yanks are short of is a lot of bright young mechanical engineers that also know what it is like to ride inside a black box while other people make loud noises outside. Courtesy of their national service. Note that the APC version is designed to carry 12 infanteers. As for a gun - you could probably put a LRF 120 on an uprated platform. Would that suit you better?
Still thats all Next Generation. What do we do with what we have?
Devil has got me convinced that the LAVIII/Javelin combination gives the infantry all the fire support/manoeuvre capability necessary for peacekeeping/peace support operations.
Recce 41 infos that the armour is likely to take over all the vehicle driving roles and that the ADATS will be reroled to the RCAC.
With that:
1 Would the RCAC accept RCR badged blackhats or would all the vehicles be held by the RCAC with vehicles/infanteers being cross attached/posted as necessary?
2 Would RCAC also handle light patrol/recce vehicles in the 1-5 tonne classe?
3 If you are driving LAV IIIs, LAV TUAs and LAV ADATS how might you allocate those resources when the infantry is equipped with CG84, Eryx and Javelin?
4 Given the strong ATGM capability backed with the 25mm capability is there a need for a defensive tank calibre rifle in the mix?
5 US Master Gunner says what he needs is speed and elevation. Presumably he would appreciate flexibility, weight of shot and speed of response. Wouldn‘t the AMOS 120mm twin-barrelled mortar fit his needs? It can also engage targets in direct fire mode. That would be in line with the armament choice of the CIBUA Leopard.
6 Given the mix of vehicles that the RCAC will end up supporting and roles performed how would you feel about having all the existing regiments expanded but converted solely to wheels while the 8CH is stood up as a regular force regiment and made entirely responsible for all tracked/tank forces while based at Wainwright, Suffield or Shilo? By my reckoning if the RCAC takes over all vehicle roles each regiment would have to find 2-3 recce squadrons, 3-5 infantry support/transport squadrons and 1-2 support squadrons before worrying about manning a tank squadron.
I kind of favour the Suffield option above. The opportunity to cross-train with the Brits might fit into some plans I have heard rumoured. Namely forming some type of reaction force with the Brits and maybe the ANZACs.
7 Which is the better organization? Mixed vehicle squadrons/troops that are ready for immediate tactical employment or single vehicle squadrons/troops that are formed into tactical teams as the situation demands?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Cheers all
