Tank vs MGS - Page 2

August 6th, 2004  
Yep, thats a problem. Even a T55 can easily knock out an avrage MGS. This is why I dont see whaqt they are good for. Sure, thei fast....But I dont care how fast it goes if Im gonna be burried in it.....
August 6th, 2004  

I agree with you.

Replacing Tanks with MGSs is a really BAD IDEA. The bureaucrat who comes up with that one should be required to be on the spearpoint of the next battle in an MGS.

About the only thing I figured an MGS could be used for is to support dismounts in urban operations, but I think you are right on that, as well. They are just too vulnerable to be useful.

Conclusion: MGSs are useless. Tanks rule!
August 6th, 2004  
I dont know if I would totally agree that they are useless, since they could be used as a good Recon force vehicle with their speed. As well as potential anti-personnel support (assuming a RPG counter measure was retrofitted).

Here in Anchorage, we are recieving a Stryker Brigade at Fort Richardson and the Stryker has been discussed repeatedly in the paper. It's APC variant could prove useful when couple with tank support.
August 6th, 2004  
The only time i would want t have an MGS instead of a tank would be with recon/forward deployed troops as at least you have an 120mm gun until the tanks arrive!
August 11th, 2004  
"What do you think of the new idea to replace tanks with Mobile gun systems! I know canada is doing it and britain will probably do it when the challenger is retired!
Personally i dont agree with it as although an MGS is more mobile than a tank it is less heavily armoured and so is more likely to be damaged or destroyed!
Your thoughts?"

In Desert Storm, even if every M1 was replaced by a 120mm-gunned MGS, the results would have been the same. Very few M1s were hit in the first place, thanks to operations taking place in smoke, night, sandstorm, through which Iraqi tanks which had no thermal imagers could not see. Thick armor is definitely nice to have, but there are other ways of protecting one's AFVs.