A bit of news on MGS production

[MikeyD]

Possible good news on the MGS problem front.

If you look at the photos in the AUSA conference link above you'll see what I suspect is the latest MGS vehicle. They have before & after interior shots - whole different autoloader, much roomier looking turret basket. The problematic 'pepperpot' muzzle brake's gone. It looks like they did a major rework to the recoil system. This bodes well for MGS. It look like they seriously tackled each known problem one-at-a-time. Now all they have to do is keep the troops in the field from storing extra boxes of 105mm gun ammo loose in the fighting compartment - I'd bet anything that's going to be MGS's no.1 safety problem.

[Goatsee]

http://www.allieddefensegroup.com/other_mecar_reprint.pdf#search='MGS%20firing%20trials'

Notice the ammo has a steel cartridge case. Evidently to assist auto loading.

[Goatsee]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Goatsee,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am feeling a pro-Stryker sentiment on the behalf of this software company.

Then you don't see so well

I can just about promise you that if the US went to war against Syria in mid 2007 (our chosen time) that at least one, probably two, Stryker Brigades would be used. Whatever MGS vehicles in service would, without a question in my mind, be rushed into battle. Ready or not.

As it so happens, you have misunderstood the news tidbit that Mikey posted. The initial 72 units will be delivered, in part or in full, by 2007. They've already delivered 2, so each month that number will rise. At a rate of about 4-6 a month they'd have the whole run finished before mid 2007 and therefore in time for CM:SF. In Q4 2007 they expect to go into full production based on lessons learned from the first 72, which themselves will be a progression of improvements (i.e. #72 made will not be the same as #1).

Also, a Stryker Brigade has a grand total of 27 MGS (3 per Company, 3 Companies per Battalion, 3 Battalions per Brigade). That means the initial production run, which is due to be completed around the time of CM:SF, is enough to outfit two and a half Brigades. Assuming that some are rejected for frontline service and/or aren't produced, it is near certain that there would be enough MGS vehicles to outfit at least a single Stryker Brigade by the time CM:SF's setting. More likely at least 1.5 Brigades.

So... contrary to Goatsee's opinion, we are being extremely logical and level headed about this. I suggest that Goatsee is the one that is not.

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Goatsee,

Sorry, but you're misreading things. This is the quote:

The MGS LRIP vehicles will be used for various tests and user evaluations through the fourth quarter of 2007.

TESTING is slated through Q4 2007. I'm sure production won't be 100% complete by then, but if it is at a rate of 2-3 a month then there will be some 60 produced prior to Q4. That still means 1.5-2 Brigades worth in time for CM:SF. Unless there was a major reason to keep them out of operations, then I would expect them to be fielded. Your info about the autoloader is outdated, BTW. That was the thing that was holding up the LRIP. With the problem solved (or mostly?), LRIP was green lighted.

Also, I doubt an invasion of Syria would be doable without stateside forces being involved. Since the SBCTs are highly mobile, though not as much in practice as in theory, the chances are a stateside SBCT would be sent over to particpate in ops. I can easily see them taking along MGS vehicles if they were basically combat ready. That is what they did with the first SBCT, so there is reason to support this hypothesis.

And lastly, I have to hand it to you Lewis (Goatsee). I was suspicious around Post 18, though in my defense I didn't see about 10 of your initial posts. The other 18 or so were just to make sure before I started poking around. In all seriousness, and with absolutely no sarcasim, I congratulate you on your progress. Perhaps some day you'll tweak your presentation style to the point that I can't tell that it is you. If you manage to do that you will successfully duck the ban forever instead of a few days or months as has been the case with you the last two dozen times. So keep working on it!

Steve

[hellfish]

Eh?

Anyways, the Strykers won't be at Hood. There's no reason for them to be. All the Stateside Stryker units are in Washington State (Fort Lewis). Then there's one in Hawaii, one in Alaska and one in Germany (plus the 28th Division's brigade, which probably won't be up and running till about 2010).

[Battlefront.com]

RAND did an interesting study about the realities of SBCT deployment. They advocated a strategy of forward deployments as soon as even a hint of trouble was sensed. The report detailed where these areas should be and went into great details about the different lift scenarios. It is clear that SBCTs are far more deployable in a pinch than heavy units and not all that much slower than light units. However, even with forward deployment they are a lot slower than the Army said they would be. The reason is the air lift capacity just doesn't exist (yet). I guess the Air Force is working on that.

It remains to be seen what will happen in the future. However, in our backstory I have used the RAND figures (and others) to help develop the timeline. It's a good study, though typically dry. Can be bought at Amazon.com.

Steve

[akd]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Eh?

Anyways, the Strykers won't be at Hood. There's no reason for them to be. All the Stateside Stryker units are in Washington State (Fort Lewis). Then there's one in Hawaii, one in Alaska and one in Germany (plus the 28th Division's brigade, which probably won't be up and running till about 2010).

Fort Bliss, not Fort Hood, and I think the poster was inferring that new Stryker systems would be tested there before fielding to the SBCTs, but I have no idea if Stryker is even considered part of the current FCS program.

The Army continues to move forward in its Future Combat Systems (FCS) program by selecting Fort Bliss, Texas, as the location for the Evaluation Brigade Combat Team, where Soldiers will test and evaluate future combat equipment.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have no problem with the MGS being included, but I do think it odd that 72 of them are enough to warrent inclusion, but the 200 BMP-3s the Syrians have don't make the cut.

[aka_tom_w]

interesting comment

Do the Syrian's really have 200 BMP-3's?

What impact would they have on the battle or the combat simulated in CM:SF?

Its a good question

-tom w

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I have no problem with the MGS being included, but I do think it odd that 72 of them are enough to warrent inclusion, but the 200 BMP-3s the Syrians have don't make the cut.

[akd]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

interesting comment

Do the Syrian's really have 200 BMP-3's?

What impact would they have on the battle or the combat simulated in CM:SF?

Its a good question

-tom w

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I have no problem with the MGS being included, but I do think it odd that 72 of them are enough to warrent inclusion, but the 200 BMP-3s the Syrians have don't make the cut.

</font>

[aka_tom_w]

from this web page

The purpose of this study (edit: this study is NOT the RAND Corp. study Steve is refering to it is another one) is to determine if the United States Transportation Command has the capability to meet the mobile demands of Army transformation objectives and place a Stryker Brigade Combat Team on the ground anywhere in the world 96 hours after liftoff.

Having considered the SBCT’s deployment configuration, available strategic airlift as it pertains to PAA, and throughput requirements, the Army’s transformation objective of deploying a SBCT anywhere in the world 96 hours after liftoff is depicted in appendix 2. 12 Appendix 2 illustrates CONUS based deployments of SBCT’s traveling a maximum distance of 1,325 nmi, with an allocation of 60 C-17s per SBCT going to a destination with a throughput capacity of nearly 5 C-17s per hour.

It is clear based on this illustration that the Army’s transformation objective of deploying a SBCT anywhere in the world 96 hours after liftoff will require additional consideration.

.

Toward an Expeditionary

Army

New Options for Combatant

Commanders (from March 2004)

more SBCT deployment study info here

.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

RAND did an interesting study about the realities of SBCT deployment. They advocated a strategy of forward deployments as soon as even a hint of trouble was sensed. The report detailed where these areas should be and went into great details about the different lift scenarios. It is clear that SBCTs are far more deployable in a pinch than heavy units and not all that much slower than light units. However, even with forward deployment they are a lot slower than the Army said they would be. The reason is the air lift capacity just doesn't exist (yet). I guess the Air Force is working on that.

It remains to be seen what will happen in the future. However, in our backstory I have used the RAND figures (and others) to help develop the timeline. It's a good study, though typically dry. Can be bought at Amazon.com.

Steve

[ January 07, 2006, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[hellfish]

I'd still like to see th BMP-3. I wonder what the criteria for inclusion are? I mean, we've all seen several mentions of the Syrians having acquired at least a few dozen, but we've never actually seen a picture of one in Syrian colors.

[Peter Cairns]

Elsewhere I suggested that the MGS, be included as part of the game TOE, but not in any of the scenarios. You could do the same with the BMP_3, have it so you can use it in your own designed scenarios, but it would not appear in any of the CMSF ones that come with the game.

Of course it could always be part of a later module, or even when done available as a seperate download.

If you had CMSF and liked it would be interested in a iTUNES style facility at a $1 a vehicle....

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

The BMP-3 is still an unknown to us in terms of exact numbers. I've heard a few dozen out of a total contract of several hundred have been delivered, I've also read "it is believed" that Syria has a few hundred (usually cited as 2 or 3 hundred).

The main difference between 200 BMP-3s and 72 MGS is that the MGS would not be subjected to destruction from the air before the battle even started, whacked whenever they moved, and destroyed whenever they were encountered by even the lightest US infantry formation.

Don't get me wrong guys... I love the BMP-3. I almost bought a real one. It's a decent scout vehicle for sure. However, it isn't something we feel is all that important to simulate. Effectively it would be about the same as a BMP-1 vs. a NATO type assault. Smoking heaps of charred metal.

We have to pick and choose wht we put in and what we do not. This is such an obvious candidate to be left out, so out it will be. Maybe included for a Module, I don't know. But no plans to put it or the BMP-2 into CM:SF's first release.

Steve

[hellfish]

Aw...

But if you do ever buy one, I want a ticket for a ride in my copy of CMSF.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I'm confused by your decision logic. How is that that Syrian BMP-2/3s will be hunted to extinction,

yet the T-72/80s won't, especially considering how little room it takes to hide a BMP? Wouldn't real MBTs be top priority targets for squashing? And wouldn't the Syrians be likely to take special measures to protect their best IFVs?

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 07, 2006, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[flamingknives]

John has a point. If you remove one class of AFV due to all conquering airpower, why not remove them all?

[aka_tom_w]

well if we are not even getting BMP-2's then I guess it looks like BMP-3's are out of the question. Its their decision so they can do what ever they like but the "they'd all be destroyed by airpower" line of logic sort of makes me scratch my head when it does not include all syrian AFV types? :confused:

oh well

-tom w

[MikeyD]

I finally got to read Goatsee's article on the Mecar 105mm tank rounds. Very interesting.

Its a bit mind-boggling to think the U.S. was pushing for a standard 105mm gun because of the ammo being already in the supply chain. But by the time the MGS was finally delivered (20+ years since work started on low recoil 105mm gun technology?) the 105mm tank gun round is long out of production and they had to order a new batch of ammo from the Belgians! There's irony in there somewhere, since Belguim was the main source of the 90mm low pressure guns that were in competition with the low recoil 105 gun.

Another thought. The 105mm gun used to have a wide range of ammo types. Smoke, cannister, etc. I wonder if its just been too long a wait to get MGS and we're now stuck with whatever limited ammo types come off the Mecar assembly line. I haven't read anything about MGS's autoloader having the ability to select among five different ammo types. Is it limited to just the two APFSDS & enhanced HE? [EDITED: later reports says there will be 4 ammo types for MGS including a new cannister]

[ January 13, 2006, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Battlefront.com]

The overriding logic is that we can not, and will not, put in every bit of hardware that a side potentially can draw from in real life. That inherently means that some things will not be included simply "because". The next bit of logic is to decide WHICH of those things to include and which of those things to leave out.

Here are the rough logic tests we use in order or importance. Flunking one probably means being left out. The higher up the flunking mark, the more certain it will be left out.

1. Availability - Would the combat force likely have this available to it wihtin the context of the CM:SF setting? This is a simple Pass/Fail test.

2. Commonality - How likely would the player encounter this thing?

3. Uniqueness - Is this thing something that offers something significant that other units do not?

Let's see how the MGS stacks up to the BMP-3...

1. Availability - this is what almost nixed the MGS completely. For a while it wasn't looking like any would be in service by mid 2007. Since that seems to have changed, it passes the test.

The BMP-3 also passes the test because it would appear that Syria has taken delivery of at least some vehicles.

2. Commonality - Since the US force is primarily focused on the Stryker formations, then it is profoundly obvious that Stryker vehicle variants have a high priority for inclusion. If the US player was in command of a Light Infantry force the chances of seeing a MGS would be next to zero. So because of the context the MGS pass this test with an A++ score.

The BMP-3 is a scout vehicle and would be assigned, most likely, to Syrian armored formations, which would get the lion's share of attention from airpower and heavy armored Coalition forces. Therefore, the bulk of the BMP-3s would not likely be in the path of the player's Stryker centric force. On top of that, depending on which number of BMP-3s you believe the Syrians have, the Syrians either have a tiny number (a flunking grade) or a modest number (a middle grade). So it's on shaky ground, but not fatal ground.

3. Uniqueness - MGS once again scores an A++ here. There is no other vehicle in the US inventory that is even remotely like it. As we've seen, the Stryker ATGM is being used for a substitute and is found to be a poor substitute. Therefore, including the MGS introduces a whole new type of experience for the game. It also is a central part of Stryker tactics and therefore has a strong impact on tactics as well as simple functionality.

The BMP-3 scores very low in this test. Functionally, it is not all that different than the aging BMP-1, of which the Syrians have many times more of. The vehicle is more advanced, that's for sure, but it is an incrimental difference and not a fundamental one.

So there you have it. The MGS passes all three tests with flying colors, while the BMP-3 passes the first one and stumbles badly on the remaining two. If we release a CM:SF module that focuses more on heavy armor, then the BMP-3 scores better on #2, but still scores poorly on #3. It would, however, probably make it in provided we didn't choose to believe the "few dozen" in Syrian inventory vs. the several hundred. If it was a few dozen it would be out for sure.

You can complain all you want about the way we are going about inclusion/rejection, but our decisions are rational. Not that they have to be. I could just as easily say "the BMP-3 won't be in because I think it is a stupid vehicle" and that would still be just as valid

FHF,

But if you do ever buy one, I want a ticket for a ride in my copy of CMSF.

Not going to happen The crazy Russian that was facilitating the deal used the downpayment (not mine, I assure you ) to fund another business venture. That meant the BMP-3s, a T-38/85, and a ton of spare parts were left sitting in St. Petersberg with no palms greased. Unfortunately, his other venture took a year longer to pay off than he expected. In the mean time the broker (the guy I was contracted with) lost patience and had him arrested and then deported from the good 'ol USA. I have no idea if the broker ever got back his money, but the guy has plenty of it left over so he ain't hurting

Steve

[flamingknives]

You can complain all you want about the way we are going about inclusion/rejection, but our decisions are rational. Not that they have to be. I could just as easily say "the BMP-3 won't be in because I think it is a stupid vehicle" and that would still be just as valid

I'd be happier with that than some crack-pot "US airpower would have annihilated them" cop-out.

Being part of an armoured formation, and hence not engaged by Stryker units, makes more sense due to US situational awareness. Still, surprises are what make up war, AFAICT.

The BMP-3 scores very low in this test. Functionally, it is not all that different than the aging BMP-1, of which the Syrians have many times more of. The vehicle is more advanced, that's for sure, but it is an incrimental difference and not a fundamental one.

Wah!? So having a 100mm gun rather than a glorified RPG launcher, plus a 30mm autocannon, plus (or rather minus) a very different number of dismounts and, for that matter, armour.

No point doing an M113, on that logic, as it's the same as a Stryker.

The BMP3 is a stupid vehicle. But it's there and it looks fun.

[hellfish]

BMP3 is an IFV nearly on par with the Bradley M2A2/M2A3 (it loses big points for lack of armor, gets some back for firepower).

A quick comparison of BMP-1P and BMP-3:

BMP-1P firepower:

Weak 73mm main gun, limited range and firepower

Can be fitted with AT-4 or AT-5 ATGM (getting old..)

Coax PKT

Firing ports for infantry

8 infantrymen

BMP-3 firepower:

100mm smoothbore firing HE, HEAT and AT-10 ATGM.

30mm coax w/HE and AP ammo

Coax PKT

Two front-mounted PKTs

7 infantrymen

Electronics and FCS:

BMP-1P:

Optical sight. Can be retrofitted with FLIR. Manual fire control.

BMP-3:

Optical sight, often has late-generation thermal sight. Rumored to have Italian/French laser rangefinder and digital fire control system.

Can be fitted with ARENA anti-missile system

Protection:

BMP-1P:

Almost none. Frontal arc can protect against 7.62mm AP rounds, but not 12.7mm. Remainder of vehicle has some protection against 7.62mm, but not worth risking your life for.

BMP-3:

Estimated to be proof against at least 14.5mm HMG in frontal arc and 12.7mm elsewhere. Frontal arc might be proof against 23mm.

Can be fitted with reactive armor and/or ARENA system (as above).

I think they're wildly different in capability. I'm sure that any Republican/Presidential Guard force would have access to the BMP-3s and if they're at all more competent than the Iraqis, at least some would survive air attacks.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I think they're wildly different in capability.

couldn't agree more. in my honest opinion BMP-3 is radically different to BMP-1 and BMP-2. what i would like to add to its merits is that it has higher mobility than Bradley and it can fire indirect fire with airburst shells. BMP-3 is like all the Stryker models in one vehicle.

as Steve keeps calling this IFV a recon vehicle, i think he might be thinking about the recon variant.

[hellfish]

The BRM-3 is the recon variant with a GSR - I think it has a dummy 100mm gun too.

Ah... here we go, courtesy of Global Security.

BMP-3 Fighting Vehicle

The BMP-3 [bMP = Boyevaya Mashina Pyekhota - Infantry Fighting Vehicle], which represents a totally different design concept from BMP-1/2, is a light tank that can hold a squad of infantry. It has a 100mm main gun that fires HE to demolish buildings, can fire long-range ATGMs through its barrel, and a 30mm autocannon and a medium machine gun as a single unit in the turret. The innovative BMP-3 armament suite has been subjected to criticism in the Russian military, which has focused on deficiencies in the barrel-fired ATGM. The performance obtained from the 500 horsepower engine powering this 18 ton of vehicle compares favorably to the American Bradley, which has an engine of similar power for a 33 ton of vehicle. The BMP-3, first seen in public during a parade in Moscow in 1990, was built by Kurganmashzavod, developer and manufacturer of the BMP-2 infantry combat vehicle. The hull of the BMP-3 resembles the BMD Airborne Infantry Fighting Vehicle, with a new turret in the center of the vehicle. The troop compartment at the rear of the hull is accessed via a pair of doors in the hull rear. The BMP-3 is fully amphibious, propelled in water by two water-jets mounted at the rear of the hull.

A French SNPE ERA kit and others are available for use on the BMP-3. However, during dismounted troop movement ERA would be a hazard. Thus, passive armor is more likely and ERA application is doubtful. Other options are spall liners and air conditioning. Russian AG-17 30-mm automatic grenade launcher modification is available for use on BMP-3. Russian KBP offers a drop-in one-man turret called Kliver, with a stabilized 2A72 30-mm gun, a 4 Kornet ATGM launcher, thermal sights, and improved fire control system. The Namut thermal gunner's sight is available for use on BMP-3. This uses the French Athos thermal camera. Namut sight has 3x and 10x channels with a night acquisition range of 2,600 meters. Stowed rounds and ATGMs can be passed from the passenger compartment to the gunner for hand loading. This includes ATGMs. The "HEF" (or "HE-Shrapnel") round can be employed in indirect fire mode with air burst to 7,000 m.

VARIANTS

* BMP-3F: Amphibious Armored Combat Vehicle developed for Naval Infantry.

* BMP-3 M1995: ATGM launcher vehicle, with Kornet (AT-14) launcher and autoloader, and thermal sights.

* 9P157: ATGM launcher vehicle, with Krizantema (AT-15) ATGM autoloader, MMW and thermal fire control system.

* BMP-3K: Command variant, with electronic round fuze system for 100-mm gun and a steel hull. Bow MGs are removed. Added radios are R-159, R-143 and R-174. The 1PN71 thermal sight (3.7x/11.5x) has an acquisition range against tanks of 3.0 km. The 1D14 laser rangefinder (73x and 18x sights) has a day light only acquisition range of 10.0 km. The 1PN61 passive image intensifier night sight uses a laser illuminator. In the passive mode, the Generation II (7x) sight has a night acquisition range of 1.2-1.5 km. Using the active laser pulse illuminator, the acquisition range can be extended. Tall Mike Radar has an operating band I (9.0 GHz), and detection ranges: 3.0 km against personnel, 12.0 against moving vehicles.

* BREhM-L: Armored recovery vehicle (ARV).

* BRM-3K: Combat recon vehicle with radar and 30-mm gun.

* BMP-3: UAE upgrade improvements including Namut Thermal Night sight.

Specs

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives,

I'd be happier with that than some crack-pot "US airpower would have annihilated them" cop-out.

That's hardly the main reason.

Being part of an armoured formation, and hence not engaged by Stryker units, makes more sense due to US situational awareness. Still, surprises are what make up war, AFAICT.

True, but again... we aren't including everything so something has to be left out. If we operated on the "stuff happens" rationale for putting something in, then EVERYTHING woudl be of equal standing. Not really productive.

Wah!? So having a 100mm gun rather than a glorified RPG launcher, plus a 30mm autocannon, plus (or rather minus) a very different number of dismounts and, for that matter, armour.

Oh, I agree. But I don't think it offers much of a tactical difference in CM:SF. Yes, superior to a BMP-1 in most ways (it is a much newer vehicle, after all), but not inherently different like the MGS is from everything else. Remember, I was being asked to explain why the BMP-3 is not on our list while the MGS is. My comments were made in that context.

No point doing an M113, on that logic, as it's the same as a Stryker.

An unarmed, under armored, tracked vehicle with a high profile is the same as a Stryker? And you say I'm stretching

The BMP3 is a stupid vehicle. But it's there and it looks fun.

Sorry, that never has and never will be the overriding reason for why something gets into our games or not. You can look back over 8 years of posts and find that we've consistently rejected this as a prime reason for choosing something.

Steve