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

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

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
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).

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
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.

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.
-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
-		  Data Center Operations Group		       -
-		http://web.turner.com/data_center/	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		     One CNN Center SE0813 E   -
- Internet Technologies   --	     Data Center Operations    -
- Hours 9:30am - 5:30pm Mon - Fri     (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc)    -
- Cellular: 404-545-6205	   ( Suwanee and Manassas DCs) -
- Office: 404-588-6191		    e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com  -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-	      Emergency Power-off != Door release!	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------

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