[GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMik
e Blair said:

Same chassis and the same mechanical spares but not necessarily the armour.
Particularly now as modular armour seems to the
coming thing - but I quite agree, an SPG has no need of serious levels
of armour unless it is an assault gun and they have rather gone out of favour
since WW II

[TomB] Look at the various 6x6 and 8x8 MGSes out now (Mobile Gun
Systems).
One I believe mounts a gun as overbearing as 120mm. Most are 90-105mm.
These are turreted fire support for infantry *generally* with some light
armour to stop small arms (hmm, sounds like an Assault Gun).

The MGSes based on the LAV chassis however have a number of issues related
to fit inside of a C-130 (the size of your transports dictate a lot
about what you move or buy or build). Apparently one of these will not be
within load limits if the vehicle has more than a token ammo and fuel load and
they won't fit if the applique armour is bolted on. (Or at least, that was the
last I read on the subject).

Make no mistake - these are not demolition guns only capable of HE
(although I assume they can fire HE and some can fire cannister as well). They
can take out enemy vehicles quite well too.

The applique armour is the result of them having to deal with forests of RPGs
volley fired in some places in the world. Also, one situation where they may
really come up short (though I'm unfamiliar with any combat
examples) is where a latest-generation MGS comes up against a
second-line
MBT. The MBT has an okay guy, probably slightly less good FC and slower
mobility, but way better front armour. The MGS has a bit more mobility, a
higher profile to shoot at, better firecontrol possibly, but way less armour
if it gets hit. These sorts of scenarios can, however, occur - the enemy
sometimes turns out to have unforseen forces at his disposal.

Much like when people tried to use artillery-based SPGs as
tank-destroyers
(when they had not other choice), putting MGSes against true tanks (and DLD
makes a lovely MGS in both 25 and 15mm so it is tempting) is usually going to
leave the MGS looking the worse for wear unless it can leverage its mobility
and firecontrol and maybe find a good hill or wall to go hull down behind.

TomB

> At 5:42 PM -0400 7/14/08, Tom B wrote:

Is a Matilda or a Churchill used in an Infantry support role an AG Or not?
Some of this is doctrine and design. A tank is a tank based on features. An
armoured car is an AC based on features. You can use all in the AG role, even
a HMMWV supporting infantry with a Recoilless rifle (or an Ontos for that
matter). The question is what is the weapon optimized for if at all? If it's
generic and as variable as your ammo choice (AP vs HE vs something else?

> The MGSes based on the LAV chassis however have a number of issues

The C130 portability issue is a big problem and part of the bugaboo of any
vehicle. Most will NEVER see a C130 as it's method of deployent.

> Much like when people tried to use artillery-based SPGs as

It's going to depend on technique. In theory, a good armoured car can run from
the tanks. In WWII, the AEC armoured cars were rushed into service because the
Germans were using some Captured Stuart Tanks for hitting British Armoured
Cars and the 2 pounders didn't have the range on the Stuarts and could not
outrun those easily (which they could others). When they had the 6 pounder
presented in the AEC heavy ARmoured
car, then the Germans in their Captured M3/M5s....had to turn the other
way or take the drubbing.

In terms of Armoured Car use, the South Africans have their Rooikats which
have apparently taken advantage of a number of T55s. There are also Italian
and French heavy Armoured cars with a large gun.