TankNutDave's Armour Discussion Forums

Welcome to TankNutDave's Forums where Armour enthusiasts from all over the world can come to discuss and chat about Tanks and other Armoured vehicles !


    Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Share

    Poll

    Are mobile gun systems replacements for tanks?

    [ 0 ]
    0% [0%] 
    [ 5 ]
    100% [100%] 

    Total Votes: 5

    Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  KampfpanzerKommandant on Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:53 am

    We've probably have all heard this way too many times. Some time down the road of modern warfare, there is a time when tanks are declared obsolete. First with the introduction of anti tank missiles and the shocking losses Israeli armor suffered at the hands of Soviet AT3 "Sagger" missiles, then again with Israel again when it fought against Syria in Lebanon. The latter of the two put up the argument that "tanks weren't useful under friendly skies, and are too easy to defeat under hostile ones" after how both sides effectively utilized armed helicopters carrying anti tank missiles (the MD500 Defender and AH1 Cobra for Israel, and the SA342 Gazelle for Syria) against tank formations. It's times like this where the tank has been declared obsolete.

    Now with the current threat environment, with asymmetrical guerrilla warfare on the rise and IEDs and RPGs becoming more threatening, military theorists are claiming the tank to be obsolete once again. But unlike previous times, an apparently viable solution has been presented to replace the tank? The solution, so called mobile gun systems. These include vehicles such as the...

    The Stryker Mobile Gun System[url][/url]
    The B1 Centauro
    The AMX-10RC and
    The CM23 Clouded Leopard

    In a modern threat environment, these so called "mobile gun systems" seem very viable. These wheeled vehicles are much easier to maintain and they can limp back home even if a few of their wheels are blown up. They also require far less amounts of fuel and maintenance, and are much lighter then tanks meaning that they can cross bridges and go on roads and terrain that tanks often get stuck in or damage to the point beyond repair. Several are amphibious as well. Also the fact that most of these have smaller guns then most tanks has been proposed to limit collateral damage, which is a problem when firing rounds such as the M1028 canister shot from the 120mm smoothbore gun of the M1 Abrams or other tanks firing other such rounds. They are also considerably more stealthy, producing much less noise and giving off a smaller heat signature then most tanks.

    However, the mobile gun systems are with flaws. The wheels are easy to disable and cannot be protected from anything without severely reducing the mobility of the vehicle. While it is possible to have a larger fleet of mobile gun systems then it is to have a large fleet of tanks, they have much thinner armor and are very vulnerable to anti tank missiles and even autocannon fire as a result. Upgunning these system are very difficult or next to impossible. The recoil of their current guns have called some into question, as some consider the recoil of their 105mm guns to be unacceptable for the chassis they are based on. Also unless they have the most advanced of armor piercing rounds, these vehicles have very inferior anti armor firepower compared to most modern tanks.

    I don't think they're viable replacements for tanks, but I do think these vehicles have their uses. What are your thoughts?

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  takedownroddy on Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:48 am

    Whilst I can understand the logic behind removing MBTs from service, the recent conflicts have, if anything, shown us just how useful tanks still are: Tanks can shrug off hits from weapons that would otherwise annhilate lighter vehicles.

    Its true that man portable anti tank weapons are getting harder and harder to counter, but at leaset a heavily armoured tank has a reasonable chance of surviving a hit from one- replacing tanks with IFVs wont make anti tank weapons dissapear, and I'd much rather be in a Challenger than a Stryker when there is serious anti armour weapons flying about.

    Also, a lot of countries are still using old Tanks- T55s, T72s etc etc- having MBTs to counter these strikes me as prudent, especially considering that these Mobile Gun Systems have trouble with the recoil from even 105mm.

    Yes, I think that Tanks are no longer AS necessary, but I dont think that completely rules Tanks out of service.
    avatar
    Bisley_Bob
    Staff Sergeant
    Staff Sergeant

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  Bisley_Bob on Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:16 pm

    I think with the rise of insurgency warfare the need for heavy armour has never been higher. Being able to withstand IEDs and mines has never been so important, so a lighter armoured vehicle seems insane.

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  KampfpanzerKommandant on Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:57 pm

    Bisley_Bob wrote:I think with the rise of insurgency warfare the need for heavy armour has never been higher. Being able to withstand IEDs and mines has never been so important, so a lighter armoured vehicle seems insane.

    A lot of these Mobile GUn Systems can actually withstand IEDs better then tanks because they are higher up off the ground and their bodies aren't shaped completely flat (sloped armor deflects the blast and the fact that it is farther off the ground means when the force of the blast does reach the vehicle it is significantly reduced). It's part of the reason why Italy's Centauros have been so successful in Iraq and Afghanistan. IEDs kill more soldiers and destroy more vehicles in current conflicts then RPGs do. A tank will take an RPG hit though much better then any of these vehicles will however, even when they have slat armor.
    avatar
    Bisley_Bob
    Staff Sergeant
    Staff Sergeant

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  Bisley_Bob on Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:04 am

    Well I don't know about the others listed above but Stryker has come in for a lot of fire in America over it being so easy for the insurgents in Iraq to destroy. It was made for mobility not armoured protection. The mine protected vehicles are the ones seeming to do well, big heavy beasts like the Mastiff and the Ozzie Bushmaster, they can take a good smacking from IEDs.

    wilmet
    Staff Sergeant
    Staff Sergeant

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  wilmet on Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:46 pm

    isn't this more of a case of "we should have both", using whichever is most suited to a given situation?

    Seems the americans are going this way at least as they'll keep the Abrams for a while yet and use the 105mm Stryker-thingamybob. The frogs will keep the AMX-10RC for another decade as far as I know, some of the fleet (half?) having been upgraded (though with the extra armour it has lost it's amphibious ability), so they're also covered.

    It seems we brits are the ones left lacking, we've got nothing to plug the gap between the 30mm on warrior/CVR(T) and the 120mm on the challies. Bring back the Scorpion!! Twisted Evil

    But seriously, is there plans for one of the FRES variants to be a direct fire, heavy-ish gun equiped platform? I know FRES Scout are supposed to have the 40mm CTA we're getting for warrior...

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  KampfpanzerKommandant on Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:27 pm

    wilmet wrote:isn't this more of a case of "we should have both", using whichever is most suited to a given situation?

    Seems the americans are going this way at least as they'll keep the Abrams for a while yet and use the 105mm Stryker-thingamybob. The frogs will keep the AMX-10RC for another decade as far as I know, some of the fleet (half?) having been upgraded (though with the extra armour it has lost it's amphibious ability), so they're also covered.

    It seems we brits are the ones left lacking, we've got nothing to plug the gap between the 30mm on warrior/CVR(T) and the 120mm on the challies. Bring back the Scorpion!! Twisted Evil

    But seriously, is there plans for one of the FRES variants to be a direct fire, heavy-ish gun equiped platform? I know FRES Scout are supposed to have the 40mm CTA we're getting for warrior...

    Honestly if I was in your position, I would have the Royal Army buy lots of South African Rooikats. The newest versions have more range and terrain crossing capability then any of the above vehicles do. And didn't BAE help Denel manufacture those vehicles?


    This is a Rooikat
    avatar
    Bisley_Bob
    Staff Sergeant
    Staff Sergeant

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  Bisley_Bob on Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:48 pm

    By Royal Army I assume you mean British Army? It might be Royal Air Force and Royal Navy but it 'aint Royal Army! Whilst I'm sure the Rooikat is good, I think what they are after is something above and beyond what is available off the shelf.

    Wilmet - Yes, there is supposed to be a "direct fire" version along with the scout, utility, recovery and others

    E-man 122
    Lance Corporal
    Lance Corporal

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  E-man 122 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:20 am

    A mobile gun system replacing MBT's is like saying that a UAV will replace all F-22 pilots. MBT's have one thing that MGS doesn't have which is human instincts,insight, and the ability look past the obvious. Crew man with IED training can atleast have the eye to spot a potential IED and stop where as an MGS will simply continue and more than likely get hit with the device.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Mobile gun systems-are they tank replacements?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:06 pm