That is truly intriguing. So why was it given a 105mm gun? The 105 certainly implies the desire to have something much beyond a "just in case" anti-armour capability. 105mm requires a far larger danger close stand-off than say 76 or 90mm, which have historically proved more than adequate.Originally Posted by Eden
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Yep, few things beat a HESH round for dealing with most targets short of an MBT, especially field fortifications. The infantry need an assault gun for Canister, Smoke, and HE-Frag - and especially a rifle at that, in order to make use of HESH. But a 105 (with a few Sabot and HEAT) is probably the way to go, even if bores in the 75-90 mm range have proved effective as assault guns, simply because they'll be used in an AT role anyway if Battalion and Company Commanders are given even a quarter of a chance to do so. But even the short 76 mm is probably sufficient for most assault gun tasks (the LAV-1 Cougar carried those).
As stated in other threads, I'm a LAV/Stryker skeptic, and was in an Army that has used three generations of the vehicle for some 30 years now. A few years of fighting in Afghanistan has led that same Army to try to wean itself off of it which, besides the modest fact that the Army had banked practically its entire future on the vehicle, is pretty hard to do when those same vehicles are built in the country's largest province and in a Parliamentary riding that has long been held by the "Natural Governing Party". Of course, it also helps that the Party in power at the moment does not hold said riding...
The Canadian Army cancelled the LAV-MGS program outright in 2006 in the wake of the Second Battle of Panjwai, and brought old Leopard 1 MBTs out of retirement (MBTs were completely removed from service by 2004) in order to provide close-support to Infantry; the Leopard 2 has now replaced the old Leo 1 in service (unfortunately resulting in the loss of HESH, though). The LAV-III with the 25 mm gun simply could not cross many obstacles (especially Soviet-style Taleban entrenchments), and was too vulnerable to AT fire (partly because someone in Canada decided not to fit them with slat armour). The LAV also proved very prone to getting stuck in mud during winter months, and hull cracks from cross-country ops also developed throughout the fleet. Rebuilt M-113 A3s (of all things
- and a vehicle decidely inferior in most respects to the LAV/Stryker) are progessively replacing LAVs for cross-country ops.
That said, the LAV/Stryker is generally very good for COIN and internal security roles. A LAV-MGS with the 105 mm might be useful for an occasional and brief flare-up of heavy fighting, dealing efficiently with certain urban targets from a safer distance (and sparing the infantry the risk of having to assault in many cases) or with insurgent field fortifications, etc. But the sort of fighting that went on in many Iraqi cities required nothing less than the heavy stuff, not least MBTs. Even if any technical glitches in the LAV-MGs have been resolved, it is still lightly armoured (compared to an MBT), has a low main ammo load, and is not suitable for really rough cross-country ops. But the newer MBTs have the same complicated liquid-cooled suits that the LAV-MGS has, along with delicate and complex electronics (though so far the upgraded Leopard 2 doesn't have problems in particular there).
The MGS costs almost as much as an MBT; might as well put the money into the more capable vehicle, the MBT, except perhaps in limited quantities for certain units and formations.
Last edited by Norfolk; 01-31-2008 at 03:23 AM.
I see Stryker - as it is used - in conflict with MRAPs, a protected motorized infantry vehicle. And the home for the MGS more in a cavalry that infantry unit.
The gun - are these L7s from old Pattons or new ones? Was there ever a competition for the gun system? The CMI CT-CV 105mm seems to be a better system, can even double as artillery.
On the Gavins: I think if they'd invested as many ressources into M113 as they did to convert the Piranha into the Stryker, the M113, esp in version A4 would have been a quite suitable vehicle.
Last edited by Distiller; 01-31-2008 at 07:48 AM.
After I last posted I went off and did a bit of note checking, and the only real advantage of 105mm is that you can get effective "payload" like AP, Flare, and Smoke, but that's about it. Flare isn't much good unless you have high trajectory, so all in all a 120mm mortar turret system seems to be optimum choice if you want something heavier than 90mm. - but I see the doctrinal conflict of having mortars in DIRECT support.
a.) MRAPs are probably what Stryker should have been, given a bit of lateral thinking.
B.) Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no such vehicle as the Gavin.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
In response to:
(b) No, there is no vehicle ever officially christened the "Gavin," but it's been an off-and-on popular nickname for the M113 (which as far as I know has never had an official name) for some 40 years. . .
(a) Perhaps some wish the Stryker had become the MRAP, but I think a lot of the concerns voiced around here over the FOB-mentality in connection with the MRAP (all tied to the oft-stated COIN paradox about force protection not equaling security) are valid, and also if I'm not mistaken the MRAP is less deployable and multi-mission than the Stryker. Some may question the wisdom of basing several combat brigades around the Stryker - I'm sure a lot of people would be stunned if you were to outfit a few brigades entirely with MRAPs.
Matt
Last edited by MattC86; 01-31-2008 at 12:34 PM. Reason: Additional thought. . .
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
Wikipedia: The M113 has never received an official name, but has received a variety of nicknames over the years. The NLF called it the "Green Dragon"; the Swiss referred to it as the "Elefantenrollschuh" or elephants' roller-skate; the Germans called it the "Schweinewürfel" or pig cube.[7][8] U.S. troops tended to refer to the M113 simply as a "track". Some sources have referred to the M113 as the "Gavin" in an allusion to Gen. Gavin, but U.S. forces have never used the name.[7] The Israeli official name for the M113 is "Bardelas" (Cheetah) but the troops call it "Zelda" (another nickname is "Zippo" after the brand of lighters, as the M113 tends to combust when hit by anti-tank weapons). The Australian Army refers to its M113A1s as "Buckets", and the modified M113A1 fitted with 76mm turrets as "Beasts".
Why 105?
I wish I could say the decision to arm the Stryker with a 105mm was the result of the sort of close and careful analysis many on this site like to do in their spare time, but the fact is that the Army had a bunch of old 105 parts and 105mm ammo in warehouses, depots and industry were still tooled up for that caliber, etc. It was pretty much a question of cost and convenience. Also, to remind everyone, the Stryker was supposed to be an interim vehicle, off-the-shelf, to get us through to the FCS.
As for using variants of M113, the Army leadership early on - we're talking 1999 here - decided any new vehicle would be wheeled, not tracked.
Some of the requirements for the primary IAV, the infantry carrier, were the ability to carry a fully equipped infantry squad, commonality of parts across the IAV variants as well as with other vehicles within the IBCT, some baseline survivability requirements, and the capability for intra-theater air transport via C130.
While there are many MRAP variants, I suspect that the ones that can carry a full infantry squad would start to bust your logistics/transportability constraints for the organization.
A Stryker vs. MRAP evaluation would need to be completed at the organizational and operational concept level.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks