IBCT version of LAV III in TacOps

[mattwagner]

From what I've heard so far, the infantry carrier version of the LAV III to be used in the IBCTs will be armed with M2 .50 machineguns or MK19 Grenade Launchers instead of the turrented 25mm Bushmaster. Also, in press reports, Pentagon officials claim it will have 14.5mm AP protection all around. All the other info I've come across say that the rear and side rear areas of the LAV III be can be peirced by 14.5mm rounds.

I'm curious as to how such LAV's will be modeled in TacOps. I've read a couple articles on http://www.strategypage.com/ by Michael K. Robel on using LAV(LAV-25) brigades. He talks about the LAV based brigade having greater offensive capability than a AGS/M113 equivalent force. One of the advantages is the 25mm vs the M2 .50 used by the M113s... Seems like this is a serious issue in their previously perceived effectiveness. Another interesting finding was the LAV brigade being more effective in attacking an opfor motorized infantry regiment than an M2/M1 BTF due to greater infantry strength. With the loss of the 25mm, wouldn't the LAV's ability to provide overwatch support for the infantry be greatly reduced?

[mattwagner]

Here are the links to the articles:

http://www.strategypage.com/tt/lavorags.htm

http://www.strategypage.com/tt/WARGAMIN.htm

There are some other related articles in the AAR section.

[mattwagner]

I ran into this http://www.strategypage.com/articles/ibct_files/ibct.htm

article which is basically all the other articles combined. Some quotes:

"Because the LAV is not armored to protect against anything larger than 7.62mm machine gun fire or 152mm artillery bursts at ranges of greater than 50 feet, it relies on its speed and stealth to avoid decisive engagement..."

"Do not adopt as the primary combat vehicle of the battalion the LAV-APC armed with a small caliber weapon. The primary combat vehicle of the battalion should carry a 25mm or 30mm cannon in order to provide sufficient support to the dismounted infantry force and kill the enemy’s supporting vehicles before they close to within 1,000 meters."

ARGH.

I have some personal concerns about the future of the IBCT as I recently enlisted with the MOS of 19D, Cavalry Scout with Fort Lewis as my first duty station. Here are some quotes that make me feel real good:

"The recon/counter-recon phases saw the scout platoons stripping off the enemy recon elements though casualties were usually heavy."

"The medium Scout Platoon is more lethal than the heavy TF Scout Platoon, but the temptation to use it to fight is much greater, since they are not in HMMWVs."

It's not that I wasn't expecting such things in this type of job, but I'm not exactly itching to participate in a real world test. I guess there is still a little over a year before the first IBCT is scheduled to be operational, so maybe some things will change by then.

Another interesting thing about the press releases on the LAV III is that add on armor can make it RPG resistant, but I have read that such add on armor does not yet exist. I also ran into some info that even the M113 has the same capability but the US Army hasn't seen fit to bother with it.

Anyhow, I sometimes wish the AGS had been chosen instead. It would definitely make me feel more at ease. I hope they outfit the reconnaisance LAV with more than just a peashooter.

[minmax]

I served as a cav scout with 6th Tanks and 1st LAI battalion. I can speak to the speed and manueverability of the LAV-25. The 25mm sucks plain and simple not even stabilization was a measurable improvement. The light armor means that rounds will enter the troop compartment and ricochet around killing all on board. Adding armor is going to take away the LAV's only defense speed. Center of gravity also causes concerns. 500 pound heads installed a fix on the suspension that makes it safer but that is still a very relative term. Armored Hummers were our best vehicles for scouting because of a lower profile and great speed. The MK-19 is a nice improvement but it will limit effective engagement range. M2's are good but not very accurate beyond 1500 meters (I think the rounds start to tumble). The LAV is a good idea that is being employed in the wrong mission. It is good for supporting grunts but I don't want to take on some APC with punch. Forget tanks they can pummel LAV's before they even see them coming. Anyway that's my reflections on the LAV.

------------------

M. L. Johnson

TAOC DAWG

[Mike Robel]

Glad you liked my articles.

I also ran tests with a 7.62mm version of the LAV and was relatively successful. The key point here is that you MUST dismount to fight. Only that lets you use your javelins to any effect. Short bounds, massive use of overwatch fires and suppression of the enemy with artillery and screening your own force with smoke are crtical.

[Mike Robel]

Oh, the 7.62mm protection was based on publisehd data about the LAV-25. The LAV III apparently has better armor.

On the other hand, my friend Al Huber states that the LAV III, even in its turrettless version, exceeds the capability of the C-130.

While i think the LAV based unit would be effective, I probably, if I got to make the decision, go with the M113/M8 combination.

[mattwagner]

I once ran into an article from Soldiers about the RPG-7. The author wrote a bit about the Soviets fighting the Mujahadeen. Generally, it said that when faced against rpg attack, dismounting and having the carrier provide overwatch would ensure destruction of the carrier. I believe the article said that the Soviets would drive around the enemy in ever widening circles while firing at them, in order to dodge the rpg's. In the case of an urban environment, that wouldn't be feasible. The Chechens would use snipers and machineguns to pin down the the dismounts while hitting the carrier with a half dozen rpgs.

I have been under the impression that vehicles in an urban environment with insufficient dismounts was a big no-no, as per the Iran-Iraq war. The LAV ICV is supposed to have 9 dismounts, but the reconnaissance version will only have 2 or 3. I would imagine that a recon vehicle would have a far greater chance of engaging the enemy, especially in an urban setting. And wouldn't the enhanced information gathering equipment be of less use due to limited range?

[Allan Wotherspoon]

The Canadian Forces Infantry Journal has published several articles on the LAV III. Check out this link:

http://www.brunnet.net/infsch/journal/32/32-lav3-a.htm

This article discusses the protection level of the LAV III.

Allan

[mattwagner]

Another thing on the IBCT's...

Pentagon officials are claiming that the BCT's are not limited to peace keeping missions, and have sufficent firepower and protection to fight against conventional forces. What I am wondering is why the Reconnaissance version of the LAV does not have any greater anti tank capabilities than a ICV LAV.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/bct/Annex-A-Appendix-3-Recce-31-Jan-00.htm

"3) The MAV Reconnaissance vehicle must possess the same armament as the MAV Infantry Carrier (ICV)."

with the rationale being:

"... With this mission profile, the armament of the platform will be used in a defensive role only, enabling the platform to provide suppressive fires in order to disengage from direct combat..."

I can understand this line of thought, as I've read a bit about scouts having a tendency to engage the enemy rather than immediately breaking off(though I was under the belief that in many cases you simply wouldn't have a choice). Yet, this would also seem to imply that the infantry carrier has insufficient offensive capability as well, and when engaged, only has the option of running away!

A T-72/80 versus an LRAS3 equipped LAV and 2 or 3 scouts, or a T-72/80 versus a LAV and 9 grunts... doesn't seem like much fun either way.

[mattwagner]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Allan Wotherspoon:

The Canadian Forces Infantry Journal has published several articles on the LAV III. Check out this link:

http://www.brunnet.net/infsch/journal/32/32-lav3-a.htm

This article discusses the protection level of the LAV III.

Allan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the link Allan. In the article, it states that even with the addon armor, the LAV III would still be vulnerable to RPG's. So I guess the IBCT LAV's will be uparmored at the factory with this system and the addon armor they talk about in the press releases is a newer version.