Cavguy Posted December 14, 2000 Share Posted December 14, 2000 I am an armor officer and I can tell you no one in the armor school I have met (short of O-7 and above) is thrilled about the LAV either. Congrats on becoming a 19D, best soldiers in the army. You will have superb NCO's and leaders. United Defense sued and got an injunction to stop LAV procurement on the grounds that the Army was biased from the start. I doubt it will be successful though. I would cost more to develop LAV's than to buy upgraded 113's and M8 AGS's. Both can be transported as easily by air and the latter is much more survivable. However, the infantry branch was the proponent on this one - not armor. The results speak for themselves. There was no turret added because a turreted version wouldn't fit in a C-130. The thing is taller than a LAV 25 as is, and that is a hell of a sillouhette. We shall see. On the upside, as a light cav scout (HMMWV's) this is a step up and only the light divisions and 2 ACR are converting to the new system. The heavy divisions are going to remain heavy through 2020 or so. (My opinions are mine and mine only) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Robel Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 I am a former Armor officer and I can understand the uncomfortableness about the LAV, especially when we have M113s lying about ready to be used. However, from extensive gaming, examination of the vehicles, and my experience as a cavalryman with M113/M551 and M113/M60A1 and a tank company commander with M113/M60A1&A3, I have to say that I believe, properly employed these vehicles could successfully defeat the attack of an MRR. However, they are closer to an airmobile infantry battalion then they are an M1/M2 Task Force. You simply can't fight them the same way. I would prefer that the LAV have a a 25mm cannon then the M2 or MK19 and I have serious reservations about the infantry schools determination that the IBCT prevails through dismounted infantry combat, but I still think it can accomplish the mission. I would accept command of such a force with pleasure. Mike Robel LTC, AR USAR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 cavguy, It boils down to money I guess. The Marine Corps went with the LAV b/c of its amphibious capability and low price tag. I think the system has its place but I would rather use a tow-mounted hummer than an LAV. The Army is trying to get faster and lighter it seems so it can help put out 'brushfires' around the world. I did not know about LAVs being too tall for C-130s. We did take some comm versions on trips using 130s but, they did not have their turrets which made them about as useful as a yugo. Can a UH-60 lift an LAV? The Corps uses CH-53Es they had problems lifting LAVs with the older D models. ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ag99 Posted December 16, 2000 Share Posted December 16, 2000 On a positive note, I can see an area where the LAVIII will be more than welcome in a light division. That is in the areas of medical transportation, at the BAS and as ambulances. As a guy who may be at the BAS patching up soldiers we are only a couple of clicks behind the FEBA, it would be nice to have something a little bigger and tougher than a hummer in which to crawl when the arty starts. Also, the ambulances, will benifit. Fast, armoured transport that can go over terrain that a HUMMER can't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.