Prev: Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS Next: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

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

From: "Tom B" <kaladorn@g...>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:42:14 -0400
Subject: [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

-- 
"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
terrible
responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine


Prev: Re: [GZG] Armoured utility vehicles and IEDs in SG/DS Next: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?