My post about the Centauro 2 sparked a bit of debate. Many called it too tall. Others said that it appeared to lack armor. Quite a few thought that it would serve no benefit on the modern battlefield and was designed for "colonial wars".
Make no mistake about it. Mobile Gun Systems are NOT anti-tank vehicles. They aren't designed to go toe-to-toe with a modern MBT! Check this description of what the MGS is suppose to do according to a US Army quick fact sheet...
The Stryker Brigade Combat Team uses the MGS to create openings in walls, destroy bunkers and machine gun nests, and defeat sniper positions and light armor threats. The primary weapon systems are designed to be effective against a range of threats up to T-62 tanksYeah.
They're a direct fire solution to support infantry elements as they maneuver across the battlefield. Bunkers, Machine Gun Nests, Snipers and Light Armor.
Basically you're sending a 120mm shell (of the appropriate type) to quickly, cheaply and effectively destroy an enemy position without having to waste a missile on it. Additionally these are the same vehicles that will be protecting anti-tank missile-men while they're hunting down those beasts.
One last thing.
For all the talk about the height of the Centauro 2, a careful comparison of it against other vehicles on the market will find that its in the sweet spot. With it mounting a 120mm cannon, its absolutely low slung if you look at similarly equipped vehicles.
This isn't a defense of the Centauro 2. It will in my opinion be a very successful vehicle. IT IS a defense of the Mobile Gun System. The Bayou Man did a cost benefit analysis of anti-tank missiles vs. tanks (well worth the read...check it out here) and the uptake is simple. We're back to the days (at least for now) of Tanks, Mobile Gun Systems and Infantry Fighting Vehicles being used to support/transport the infantry...and the infantry will regain its prominence as the "Queen of Battle".