Tank vs MGS




 
--
 
July 15th, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 

Topic: Tank vs MGS


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!
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm
Your thoughts?
July 15th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
MGS can not move like Tanks in all the conditions, it cannot replace tanks in the battle fields, but it is well very usefull in occupied cities.
July 15th, 2004  
AlexKall
 
Shes sexy!
--
July 16th, 2004  
yurry
 
Quote:
but it is well very usefull in occupied cities.
Why is that?
July 16th, 2004  
SAINT
 
I think we may need both.. Tanks offer good armor protection for its crew and itself. Whereas, mobile gun system is 'open' and weather itself will cause a toil on the gun system.
July 16th, 2004  
Pollux
 
The 20mm Cannon of my Marders also is top mounted, and i never heard of any damages that were caused by the weather......
but i think, those top mounted guns are vulnerable to rpgs or even heavy machine gun fire......
And those things are the main weapons you have to deal with in a occupied city. So it wouldnt by my choice
July 16th, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 
I think both should be usd but replacing tanks with these i think is a big mistake as MGS are more suited i think to mobile warfare supporting mobile troops, tanks can be used in urban warfare and put an MGS against a tank and i would expect the tank to win! just as long as the MGS doesnt fire a good shot first!
August 6th, 2004  
5CAV
 
MGSs have their place, but they are not a replacement for Tanks.

Tanks are the Lancers -- the heavy Cavalry. You're always going to need some equivalent of heavy Cavalry for shock-effect. MGSs don't have the armor to go head-to-head against MBTs.

I'm not a big fan of tanks in urban areas (mainly because I wouldn't want to take MY tank into urban areas). In urban areas, tanks lose mobility, and they can't take advantage of their reach (gun range).

The current MBTs (Abrams, Leopard II, Challenger, etc.) are designed to be most effective in open country.

MGS may be a better choice for urban warfare. I'm not sure a tank is that much less vulnerable in an urban area, given the numerous opportunities for concealment and close-range attack in an urban setting.
August 6th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Yeah,, but some MGS are so lightly armored that an RPG7 can easily penetrate them.
August 6th, 2004  
cPFC/SAJROTC
 
Are MGS's capable of being retrofitted with armor upgrades like the Humvee or Stryker? By Stryker I mean, the ones currently being deployed to Iraq with the grill like anti-RPG kits

I would be inclined to say that mixing force of tanks and MGS's would be the most suitable way of deploying forces. Because perhaps while the US may phase out tanks, many countries using outdated technology may still have T-80s and other tanks up there sleeve that could probably do an MGS in with relative ease