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).Originally Posted by William F. Owen
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.
Bookmarks