Why do most IFVs lack ATGMs?

[LarsS]

After getting the Marines module and playing a bit with the LAV-25s I started wondering why it lacks ATGMs. Why not have a turrent like the Bradley and combine chaingun with TOWs? I get that the LAV is a much lighter veichle, but still. If a HMMWV can handle a TOW-launcher, why not the LAV? To have a dedicated TOW-variant that lacks the chaingun seems weird to a layman such as myself.

Furthermore, most armies seem to lack ATGMs on their IFVs - including well equipped Western ones. Intuitively it would seem like an added TOW-launcher would be a fairly simple and cheap way to make a Warrior, for instance, much more capable and versatile.

Is anyone able to explain the thinking behind this lack to me? What conclusions can be drawn from real-life combat experience?

[hcrof]

As a piece of complete speculation I would say that it is just that there isn't a requirement for it so making the vehicles heavier and more expensive is a waste. If a second cold war started I suspect that vehicles like the warrior would get it.

I think that historically, because IFV's such as warrior where supposed to work with tank and helicopter support they didn't need an ATGM too badly. Back in those days Britain didn't have a lot of money so couldn't afford to be too lavish with their spending. This is made worse by the fact that I am not sure that britain had a TOW equivilent back when they designed the warrior. Now we can afford it but you don't need TOW launchers in Afghanistan so they put cage armour on instead.

The LAV-25 is a recon vehicle - not designed to engage armour. Putting a TOW on it would probably increase weight enough to make it less mobile - compromising its main defense.

[Kozure]

There are LAV variants with ATGMs, just not the chain gun as well.

There are several reasons:

1) Centre of gravity issues. The LAV-series vehicles are generally quite well designed, but like all comparatively high-silhouetted wheeled vehicles they can tip fairly easily if handled roughly, which isn't unlikely in the stress of combat or when attacked by a IED. Combining a ATGM launcher (and associated sighting/targeting equipment) in the same turrent as the M242 Bushmaster 25mm chain gun makes for a very heavy turret, which would add to the top-heavy issue.

2) Overall weight issues. The LAV-series vehicles are designed to be air-portable. Adding a TOW-2 system and reloads (in addition to the autocannon system and ammunition) adds to the weight of the vehicle, which is probably within the envelope for carrying one, but adds to the problem.

3) Intended "Red Force" opposition. In the 1980s, expected opposition for the US was the heavy mechanized formations of the Soviet Union. Although the LAV-25 was developed in the early 1980s and first deployed with the Marines in 1985, it was never intended to go toe-to-toe with full-on MBT-equipped formations like the Bradleys in the US Army order of battle.

4) Doctrinal differences. The Marine MEU is intended as a rapid deployment and reaction force with a high focus on mobility and adaptability. The choice of a light armoured wheeled vehicle family suits this doctrine. Using variants of the LAV-25 such as the LAV-AT and LAV-M permits the sort of firepower that the mechanized formations of the USMC require without the need to combine the weapons system in the same vehicle. That said, I'm sure in the situation as depicted in Syria, one or two enterprising Marines wouldn't be trying to figure out a way to hook up at least a Javelin system to the LAV-25 turret.

[birdstrike]

Just an assumption, but the old "MG on a tank destroyer" question comes to mind.

Could it be that apart from costs, tactical doctrine wanted to discourage deliberate 'misuse' of these units as AT assets?

I reckon it would be more sound to focus units on a specific task. LAVs with the chainguns operate against enemy troops, while you the LAV-ATs provide overwatch against enemy armor, instead of everyone shooting everything?

[MikeyD]

Also, modern special armor is severly lowering many ATGMs' effectiveness. Britain has already dumped Milan and Swingfire. The U.S. TOW fires increasingly specialized rounds that seem to be good for one job but lousy at another (overflight platter charges and squash head HE). That leaves Javelin. Stryker carries Javelin. Britain and Marines have specialized Javelin units. I understand there's a Bradley type who's turret ATGM box loads Javelin instead of TOW, though I don't know how far along that program's got.

[Dietrich]

Were the LAV-25 to have mounted on its turret a TOW launcher like the M1046 HMMWV has on its roof, it would be dangerous, I think. Sure, the Bradley has two TOW launchers mounted on the side of its turret, but this dual TOW launcher is protected by an armored casing, lessening its vulnerability to MG (remember Soviet-bloc MG calibers go as high as 14.5mm) and even rifle fire. I suppose that were an LAV-25 with an M1046-type TOW launcher mounted on the side of its roof were to come under heavy MG fire, the TOW tube might get punctured and the missile might thus explode.

Besides, the LAV-25's 25mm cannon can put the hurt on even an MBT, unless it encounters said MBT in the classic scenario of face on at more than 2000m.

Also, modern special armor is severly lowering many ATGMs' effectiveness.

Even Mavericks and Hellfires?

[Apocal]

Were the LAV-25 to have mounted on its turret a TOW launcher like the M1046 HMMWV has on its roof, it would be dangerous, I think. Sure, the Bradley has two TOW launchers mounted on the side of its turret, but this dual TOW launcher is protected by an armored casing, lessening its vulnerability to MG (remember Soviet-bloc MG calibers go as high as 14.5mm) and even rifle fire. I suppose that were an LAV-25 with an M1046-type TOW launcher mounted on the side of its roof were to come under heavy MG fire, the TOW tube might get punctured and the missile might thus explode.

Probably wouldn't explode. You see LAV-AT TOW launchers getting damaged all the time in-game though.

Besides, the LAV-25's 25mm cannon can put the hurt on even an MBT, unless it encounters said MBT in the classic scenario of face on at more than 2000m.

Pretty much. Gotten plenty of side and rear aspect kills on even relatively modern Syrian armor with the 25mm, especially massed from multiple sides.

Even Mavericks and Hellfires?

Hellfires, yes, to an extent. Mavericks, no, they are huge missiles.

[MikeyD]

Were the LAV-25 to have mounted on its turret a TOW launcher like the M1046 HMMWV has on its roof, it would be dangerous, I think.

The Marine actually had a plan to re-turret their LAV-ATs with standard Delco 25mm turrets with 'saddlebag' TOW pods on eher side of the turret. The standard 'hammerhead' TOW turret really kind'a sucks, apparently. That project stopped abruptly though. I don't know if the Marines simply didn't have the money or if they hesitated on continuing to rely of TOW for anti-tank work.

Even Mavericks and Hellfires?

I do wonder how Hellfire would do against the most modern armor from the front. Aircraft-fired missiles have the advantage of hitting their targets at odd angles. Big missiles have the advantage of dismantling what they can't penetrate. That doesn't apply when we're talking about turret-mounted Milans on Marders.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

You can bet Hellfire would effectively render anything it hit inoperable, even from the front, even if it didn't penetrate. That thing is a beast.

[Noltyboy]

A Warrior varient used to be able to use MILAN from on top the turret.

But mainly it was due to differing tactics between Brit Army and US army. Note the warrior doesnt have firing ports like bradly does/did.

[JonS]

... making the vehicles heavier and more expensive is a waste. ...

Heh Good point.

Seems like most here aren't familiar with the boondoggle that was the Bradley design and development.

[MikeyD]

Seems like most here aren't familiar with the boondoggle that was the Bradley design and development.

You reminded me of an old Arabic quote that comes up a lot when discussing Bradley development. "A camel is a horse that was designed by committee".

[Cuirassier]

And remember, when the Soviets invented the IFV with the BMP series, they added ATGM's. The Americans probably thought it was a worthwhile attribute to adopt. In fact, the Bradley does the BMP-1/2 one better by mounting two ATGM tubes rather than just a single. Competitive Americans...lol

[Kozure]

Seems like most here aren't familiar with the boondoggle that was the Bradley design and development.

Certainly it was a boondoggle at first, but eventually they got a decent vehicle out of it.

The US military history is littered with vehicles and weapons that died in prototype - the the MBT-70 (predecessor to the M1), the M247 Sergeant York, the MIM-46 Mauler, the AH-56 Cheyenne... etc. Fortunately, most of the time hard lessons learned from these aborted projects were applied in their successor projects.

Not all boondoggles are complete wastes of time or effort.

[Battlefront.com]

Lots of good reasons already listed. One can think of the argument about putting heavier weapons on the Stryker IFV than the .50 or Mk19. They experimented with putting a 25mm cannon on it and decided against it for 4 primary reasons:

1. Ammo took up too much space, which is a problem for a vehicle primarily designed to move infantry and their gear around.

2. The vehicle is not intended to do more than provide support fire for its dismounts. If it can't kill something with the .50cal or Mk19 then it should not be in the line of fire. Leave the bigger stuff to the dismounted infantry with Javelins. Much greater chance of coming out on top and at a lower cost.

3. Problems rising from air transport. Weight and bulk of the weapon and ammo.

4. Cost. There is no incentive (believe it or not!) to spend lots of money on a system which already has more cons than pros. I suppose if this system were less expensive than a .50cal or Mk19 they might have given it some thought, but it's much more expensive so it becomes a VERY hard sell.

Those are the top reasons I remember from discussions surrounding the tests conducted (IIRC) in 2004.

Steve

[dima]

Lots of good reasons already listed. One can think of the argument about putting heavier weapons on the Stryker IFV than the .50 or Mk19. They experimented with putting a 25mm cannon on it and decided against it for 4 primary reasons:

1. Ammo took up too much space, which is a problem for a vehicle primarily designed to move infantry and their gear around.

2. The vehicle is not intended to do more than provide support fire for its dismounts. If it can't kill something with the .50cal or Mk19 then it should not be in the line of fire. Leave the bigger stuff to the dismounted infantry with Javelins. Much greater chance of coming out on top and at a lower cost.

3. Problems rising from air transport. Weight and bulk of the weapon and ammo.

4. Cost. There is no incentive (believe it or not!) to spend lots of money on a system which already has more cons than pros. I suppose if this system were less expensive than a .50cal or Mk19 they might have given it some thought, but it's much more expensive so it becomes a VERY hard sell.

Those are the top reasons I remember from discussions surrounding the tests conducted (IIRC) in 2004.

Steve

Yeah, but.....

Stryker ICV:

Weights 16.4 tons

Carries 2+9 people

Cannot swim

Has at most 40mm grenade launcher

BMP-3

Weights 18.7 tons

Carries 3+7 people

Can swim

Has 100mm HE gun

30mm cannon

Tube-launched ATGM

BTR-90

Weight 21 tons

Carries 3+7 people

Can swim

Has 30mm cannon

AT-5 ATGM (tandem)

Even in Iraq I'd take 100mm gun of BMP-3 + 30mm cannon to take out insurgents hiding in those stone buildings.

Cost-wise it is cheaper to fire 100mm round than to fire Javelin at a building.

I feel Strykers should have 40mm at a minimum and then an MG if space allows. Stryker with only .50 cal is useless against other IFV's and of little use for infantry support.

[Cuirassier]

Dima,

Couldn't agree more. To me, at least, the Russians have always seemed more practical with weapons designs. The BMP-2 is still a great design in my books and I even think the BMP-1 is still a capable vehicle and would take it over a Stryker. The BMP-3 has tremendous firepower and good operational mobility, which are probably among the most important attributes an IFV can have.

Despite this, I don't think the Stryker is useless. Even a modest .50 cal will help suppress defenders. But a 30mm auto cannon and 100mm HE are obviously better.

[Apocal]

I feel Strykers should have 40mm at a minimum and then an MG if space allows. Stryker with only .50 cal is useless against other IFV's and of little use for infantry support.

Those are strong words. The infantry got by with a handful of .30(ish) MGs in each platoon for years and never complained about their effectiveness. With a LRF and stabilization, a 50cal Stryker is pretty much a sniper platform on wheels.

[dima]

Those are strong words. The infantry got by with a handful of .30(ish) MGs in each platoon for years and never complained about their effectiveness. With a LRF and stabilization, a 50cal Stryker is pretty much a sniper platform on wheels.

Well, it is all relative. 40 years ago accepted casualty rate was a lot higher. These days compared to a 100mm HE round shot at a building with enemy .50 cal isn't that effective at keeping the enemy suppressed.

At least in the game I don't see such effect.

[JonS]

... eventually they got a decent vehicle out of it.

Sure, apart from that whole krazy-squad-dance-to-get-all-loaded-up thing. And it's just lucky they weren't needed in the howevermany years between when they were due in service and when it actually arrived

[Battlefront.com]

The thing is... does a BMP-3 or a Stryker have a better chance of survival against a threat big enough to need a ATGM or large caliber cannon? The answer is whatever difference they have is so small that it effectively doesn't really matter. So yeah, I'd take an overall more capable infantry carrying vehicle with a .50cal than a less capable one with a larger gun. If a Stryker Rifle Squad has plenty of firepower to deal with the threats it runs up against, with or without the .50cal in support.

Steve

[dima]

The thing is... does a BMP-3 or a Stryker have a better chance of survival against a threat big enough to need a ATGM or large caliber cannon? The answer is whatever difference they have is so small that it effectively doesn't really matter. So yeah, I'd take an overall more capable infantry carrying vehicle with a .50cal than a less capable one with a larger gun. If a Stryker Rifle Squad has plenty of firepower to deal with the threats it runs up against, with or without the .50cal in support.

Steve

Sure. BMP-3 or Stryker against insurgents in building(s). First RPG round - near miss. Then BMP-3/Stryker starts to fire at a building before the next RPG arrives. Which one will have a better chance to kill the RPG(s) faster.

Second scenario - a column of vehicles travels in mountains. All of a sudden - ambush. RPG's start flying your way. Would you rather fire at enemy in fortified and camouflaged positions with .50 cal or with bigger gun. After all, tanks are used today in Iraq and were used in Afghanistan and all enemy had was RPG's and pickup trucks.

My argument is that when you are against infantry with AT weapons it does matter what kind of gun you have.

[Cuirassier]

I think the firepower of a vehicle is much more important than its carrying capacity, road speed, armor, etc. Compare a Stryker company to a BMP-3 mech company. The Stryker company needs to rely pretty much on the infantry with Strykers helping out where they can. A BMP-3 mech company, OTOH, can deliver its attack with its armor. The BMP's can shoot all day and obliterate strongpoints, making the job for the infantry much easier. Thus BMP-3's have the ability to give much better support to their infantry, whereas Strykers are less likely to be as effective.

[MikeyD]

Extend that scenario.

RPGs start flying, but this time imagine the first round hits! Would you rather the round hit Stryker's slat cage or BMP-3's ammo magazine? For two decades a great deal of expense and effort has gone into moving ammo and fuel away from the vehicle occupants. Big guns and lots of missiles might be very handy mounted on an accompanying support vehicle (MGS). In the actual troop transport it sounds like a tragedy waiting to happen.

We've got to nail down the purpose of the vehicle. Is it safely tranporting troops? Is it providing infantry support? If its both one of those roles is going to get compromised.

[JonS]

Sure. BMP-3 or Stryker against insurgents in building(s). First RPG round - near miss. Then BMP-3/Stryker starts to fire at a building before the next RPG arrives. Which one will have a better chance to kill the RPG(s) faster.

Stryker, since that one has the higher ROF.

Second scenario - a column of vehicles travels in mountains. All of a sudden - ambush. RPG's start flying your way. Would you rather fire at enemy in fortified and camouflaged positions with .50 cal or with bigger gun.

.50 cal. If you don't know where the rounds are coming from, your best bet is to get a lot going back in the other direction.

My argument is that when you are against infantry with AT weapons it does matter what kind of gun you have.

Just so. In most circumstances ROF will trump the king hit.

Win the firefight with high ROF, then destroy the enemy.