Jackson Posted November 21, 2000 Share Posted November 21, 2000 Army moves from heavy to medium-weight force. “General Dynamics Land Systems, of Sterling Heights, Mich., makes the LAV III. The Army will order 2,131 of the vehicles.” “The basic vehicle has a top speed of 60 mph, can carry a crew of nine soldiers, and will have either a heavy machine gun or automatic grenade launcher as well as anti-tank missiles. The Army will buy other types of the LAV III designed for command and control, engineering or medical evacuation of wounded soldiers. “ This sounds exactly like the WWII German Army’s intended use of SPW halftracks. You know, a halftrack for every occasion. Exactly how many AT missiles can a LAV III carry, anyway? I think a couple of “medium” divisions is a great idea for quick deployment, but are they seriously considering converting all heavy tracked armor to medium wheeled vehicles? http://www.planetgov.com/pgov/SilverStream/Pages/pgContent.html?KEY=USMC112100&TABPAGE=pgNews.html There are more interesting articles located on the sidebar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted November 21, 2000 Share Posted November 21, 2000 The current plan is to also procure a 105mm turretless wheeled "tank". Basically the new IBCT will all use the LAV 3 or variants. The army will still be keeping 3 or 4 heavy armored divisions for the forseeable future. The current plan is to equip 4 to six of these "medium" brigades. Unfortunately, the timeline for procurement completion is 2010, and if it is anything like Force XXI, much will change over the next 9 years. Cavguy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted November 21, 2000 Author Share Posted November 21, 2000 Thanks for the quick reply. In a previous thread it was inferred that the new "wheeled tank" was intended to completely replace the traditional MBT in the next 10 to 12 years. Although, considering DOD procurement and civilian politics, this may take much longer, or not happen at all. What is the "105mm turretless wheeled 'tank'" called? Does it have a designation yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted November 21, 2000 Share Posted November 21, 2000 I understood that the LAV was made in Canada for export up until now. If manufacture switches to Michigan that would be quite a dollar loss for us Canucks. GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson Posted November 21, 2000 Author Share Posted November 21, 2000 Yeah, the current Canadian model is built by the Diesel Division General Motors of London, Ontario. The new LAV III will be called the Plymouth Growler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted November 21, 2000 Share Posted November 21, 2000 Actually the makeup of the new Army is not yet firmed up... much relies on the Politicians involved, etc... the Army is planning on going through a total transition in the 21st Century... equipped with a family of vehicles that are all related... however, no one, the Army included, knows what this new vehicle will look like, it is currently called FCS (Future Combat System) and is expected to begin deployment in 2008 (a schedule which I highly doubt will happen).. Currently the plan is to create several Brigade Combat Teams (BCT's) that can be totally air deployable in 4 days time to any trouble spot in the world... the Army plans on keeping a Heavy Armoured Corp (called the Counter-Attack Corp)for heavy needs... the rest of the Army will transition to the lighter BCT TO&E... both the BCT's and the CA Corp are expected to gradually tranisition to the FCS over a 40 year period. Bil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 21, 2000 Share Posted November 21, 2000 seems to me to be what the russians had with their BTR-60/70/80 series all along. Wheeled APCs make great cheap peace enforcement / peacekeeping equipment in urbanized / moderate infrastructure environment. as for using them to replace tanks...uhm...not sure if I find that a good idea. ------------------ "Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 21, 2000 Share Posted November 21, 2000 seems to me to be what the russians had with their BTR-60/70/80 series all along. Wheeled APCs make great cheap peace enforcement / peacekeeping equipment in urbanized / moderate infrastructure environment. as for using them to replace tanks...uhm...not sure if I find that a good idea. ------------------ "Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 This has been discussed at some length on the TacOps mailing list. The problem with the choice of the LAV III for the IBCT is that it fails to meet the transportability requirements of a rapid deployment force. It does not fit within a C-130 (height is a problem for any turreted variant, and weight is over C-130 STOL limits) which creates serious strategic mobility concerns. I've heard there is to be a review by Congress of LAV III vs. M113 (updated) before anything moves forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 seems to me to be what the russians had with their BTR-60/70/80 series all along. Wheeled APCs make great cheap peace enforcement / peacekeeping equipment in urbanized / moderate infrastructure environment. as for using them to replace grown-up MBTs...uhm...not sure if I find that a good idea. ------------------ "Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 Let me clarify some misconceptions. I am currently in the armor advanced course at Ft. Knox so this is the talk of the town. - All of the LAV's selected are turretless. The 105mm version supposedly has no turret - just a gun that traverses. - There are no plans for the M1A2 to go away until 2025. In fact, extra money has been allocated to upgrade the M1A2 to the new M1A2 SEP package which contains new electronic gizmos, a new engine, and some other mods. By then the Future Combat System (whatever that is) will be fielded. For at least the next 10-15 years there will still be heavy armor in the active force, and lots more in the Guard. - Many tankers here are not happy with the LAV3, although few of us have any direct experience with it. Weak armor, high profile. Most of us had hoped the M8 AGS (light tank) would finally be produced for the tank variant. Having a common maintenance platform will be nice for the motor pool though. - General suprise that we are building a new version of the LAV, the origial scheme was to buy a vehicle available immediately off the shelf. The house favorite (armor captains) was a upgraded 113 and M8 AGS. More survivable and still deployable. Cavguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 From what I read they are getting the LAVIII and then they are going to decide a doctorine for it. Which could bring up several interesting "which came first, the chicken or the egg" type questions. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 One added aspect to "M1A2 SEP" which I've had some acquaintance with is the "Under armor APU" (auxiliary power unit) program, or UAAPU. The basis to this program is that an upgraded APU package can operate to drive the M1A2 ancillary systems without requiring the main engine to stay running as a primary power source. Continuous running of the M1's turbine engine has been a bit of an Achille's Heel to its operating range & fuel burn. As such, pursuit of development programs like UAAPU (by the TACOM research group) are an indicator that the M1 tank series are desired to remain viable in the ground force structure for some time to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 Also, continued development of such vehicles such as Crusader (replacement for M109 )teamcrusader.com is indicative of a continued Heavy force structure... as has been stated, no replacement for the M1 has been identified for the CA Corp... so of course continued development of this vehicle makes perfect sense. Bil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Oak Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cavguy: - Many tankers here are not happy with the LAV3, although few of us have any direct experience with it. Weak armor, high profile. Most of us had hoped the M8 AGS (light tank) would finally be produced for the tank variant. Having a common maintenance platform will be nice for the motor pool though. - General suprise that we are building a new version of the LAV, the origial scheme was to buy a vehicle available immediately off the shelf. The house favorite (armor captains) was a upgraded 113 and M8 AGS. More survivable and still deployable. Cavguy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> _____________________________________________ Here's a message I sent to my Army comerades: Well, it appears we've finally come around to accepting Russian doctrine as it related to the inclusion of motorized infantry into the combined arms team. I don't understand why this is such a new concept for the Army. The Marines have used LAVs with their AAVs and MBTs for quite some time now. Why didn't we equip some of our light divisions much earlier? I also like how the French army is currently reorganizing with independent battalions of all arms being grouped as necessary to form "battle groups" in order to meet specific contingencies. I think that concept would work well in the US army as well (keeping the divisional and brigade commands to form the nucleus of such battle groups, and allocating support assets as necessary; although as such the heavy BNs would have to keep their support assets; as opposed to the new brigade heavy concept being implemented). I also don't understand why we develop our doctrine and equipment around our strategic lift capability, rather than the other way around. As I had said earlier, these middle weight brigades will have to face 3rd world countries (that don't have to worry about force projection) equipped with MBTs like the T-90 and T-80UM (perhaps even export versions of the M1 someday). How many more years are we going to push out of the aging fleet of C5s anyways? I could see the LAVs equipping the light ACR and perhaps DIV CAV squadrons (as an interim scout vehicle), although I really can't comment on the mobility of the LAV (I heard it's not as agile off road as one might expect). I also like the Canadian Coyote (thanks for the article Scott) as scout vehicle with its mast mounted sensors, and I'm sure it would be possible to equip our new LAV with a similar capability. Personally I preferred the extended M113 (with the extra road wheel, and the all rubber/Kevlar track) with perhaps a 20mm or 40mm mounted in a 1 man turret or ACAV setup. I also heard of a new light infantry 25mm low velocity cannon that is supposed to supplant both the Mk 19 and the 7.62 GPMG someday (which would be nice mounted in the ACAV setup on the sides). I also would favor a direct fire capable mortar (similar to the 2S9) mounted on the same vehicle. Such a vehicle could act as a mortar/light artillery/assault gun, much as the 2S9 and 2S23 (and future 2S31) perform for the Russian army (and be capable of firing a 120mm laser guided missile). The M8 Buford would then be the mobile gun platform for brigades equipped as I described. Although I'm sure the Army considered this in their decision, I just wanted to add my thoughts (as a tread head). .....I just finished AOAC. Say hi to CPT McGuire for me if you get a chance........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Seimerst Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jackson: Army moves from heavy to medium-weight force. “General Dynamics Land Systems, of Sterling Heights, Mich., makes the LAV III. The Army will order 2,131 of the vehicles.” “The basic vehicle has a top speed of 60 mph, can carry a crew of nine soldiers, and will have either a heavy machine gun or automatic grenade launcher as well as anti-tank missiles. The Army will buy other types of the LAV III designed for command and control, engineering or medical evacuation of wounded soldiers. “ This sounds exactly like the WWII German Army’s intended use of SPW halftracks. You know, a halftrack for every occasion. Exactly how many AT missiles can a LAV III carry, anyway? I think a couple of “medium” divisions is a great idea for quick deployment, but are they seriously considering converting all heavy tracked armor to medium wheeled vehicles? http://www.planetgov.com/pgov/SilverStream/Pages/pgContent.html?KEY=USMC1121 00&TABPAGE=pgNews.html There are more interesting articles located on the sidebar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Seimerst Posted November 22, 2000 Share Posted November 22, 2000 <ahem> As a Special Forces officer with 7 months to go until retirement at 30 years, I am facinated by this entire issue. I am reminded of the old Bill Mauldin "Willie and Joe" cartoon of WWII fame as these two "dog soldiers" view a passing Sherman and observe,"I don't know Willie, I think a moving foxhole attracts too much attention." The armor community finds itself in the same place as the infantry with it's "Light Fighter" concept-- dubbed by those in it as "Too Light to Fight and Too Heavy to Run". Transitions are always tough and this is going to be especially tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts