Tank vs MGS

Shadowalker

Shadowalker

Active member
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?
 
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.
 
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.
:rambo:
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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..... :D
 
Sherman,

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!
 
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.
 
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!
 
"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?"

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top