Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampshade111
The core of this MGV-only U.S. Army concept seemed to rely on two beliefs. The first was that most future wars would be "peacekeeping" operations such as what we saw in former Yugoslavia. Second was this belief that heavy armor is no longer efficient and worthwhile in this age of precision guided weapons. So far, this does not seem to be the case in real life.
|
Actually FCS was supposed to undertake a much wider spectrum of operations than peacekeeping, including conventional warfare against enemy armored forces and what not. Enemy tanks would have been identified and destroyed before they could have closed enough to engage the MGVs, or so was the theory.
The idea behind it was to have a force packing a heavy punch which could be deployed pretty much anywhere in a matter of hours/days, which dictated no heavy armor.
Even so I have my doubts about its feasibility even just from a logistical point of view.
Quote:
|
I would have liked to have seen a few divisions equipped with the MGV, similar to our Stryker brigade combat teams but with superior equipment.
|
The Stryker units seem to have fared reasonably well in practice, give or take some tanks and such being attached for stiffening when necessary. I doubt there is a tactical niche between the Stryker and the heavy forces large enough to make the MGVs cost effective.