MCab Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I saw the LAV-AGS on the cover of Popular Mechanics yesterday. From what I understand, this is nothing more than a cheap way to get some more firepower to the light brigades. I've also heard it has no stabilized gun. What do you all think? Is there a better way to get tank-killing ability in lighter units? Peace, MCab 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I think the chain gun on the LAV sucks to start with. 25mm is good at making noise but forget any real armor penetration especially on the move. I say TOW mount the whole lot of em and ditch the gun for an M2 especially if your not going to stabilize the mount. The lack of stabilization tells me the military is trying to save a buck without thinking about the practical application. I am sorry this sounds like an oxymoron "tank-killing ability in lighter units". The Marine Corps has touted the LAI battalions as a sort of Rapid Deployment Force. Well I served in LAI and Heavy Armor I say its a waste of time and money. I think this leaner/meaner mentality is a bad/dangerous policy. It did not seem to work in Somalia, Kosovo, or a host of other "Hot Spots" as Commandant Gray put it. ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by minmax: I think the chain gun on the LAV sucks to start with. 25mm is good at making noise but forget any real armor penetration especially on the move. The lack of stabilization tells me the military is trying to save a buck without thinking about the practical application. But do light forces necessarily need 'real armour penetration'? Surely 25mm is a great round for most every day combat situations - I'm sure if it was coming for my dismounted infantry foxhole then I'd be kind of cuddling up in the bottom for the time being... And as for stabilisation: why not fire it from the halt (and well to the rear) and let your dismounts do the maneouvre for you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Robel Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Well, a LAV,no matter how bad it is, is better than a battle dress shirt, even with a kevlar vest or a HMMWV. It is not as good as an M1, but I think I could defeat a T-72/BMP Division with the IBCT in the defense and take out the same combination in the defense. It is a matter of knowing how to fight the systems, use the ground, and use the weaknesses of the enemy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DS CavScout Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 I heard(rumor) at the battle for Khafji, Marine LAV's took out T-55 tanks with only the 25mm cannon. Anyone KNOW if there is any truth to that rumor? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Robel Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 I know that the S-3, 1-4 CAV took out two T-55s with his TOW and then the remaining one with his 25mm. Flank shots into the hull. 25mm can do some damage on the right target at the right angle. Of course, Tom said that he would have rather not have been in that position. The three tanks in question, split the boundry between A and B Troops and were wandering around unmolested. Tom won the Bronze Star with V. We all thought he should have got the Silver Star. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DS CavScout Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 Originally posted by Mike Robel: Tom won the Bronze Star with V. We all thought he should have got the Silver Star. Compared to some of the soldiers I know of that got the SS, he definitely deserved it. That's some quality shootin. Do you know if that was during the breaching operations, or afterwards? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Robel Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 It was after the breach and well afte we passed the 1 (UK) AD. Sometime after day three... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 The LAV is better than nothing but that is not saying much. If you want to keep the LAV great just give it some punch against Tanks and give it a MK-19 to support the infantry better. I think it is foolish to field a weapon system that has no ability to defend itself against a typical foe: Tanks. Yes, in a fighting position I would not want to face a vehicle with a 25mm mounted. I would however prefer to face that over something that carries more dismounts, longer range more accurate weapons, and has a lower more difficult to hit profile. LAVs like BMPs can be taken out using 7.62mm ammunition. The rounds have the velocity to enter but they bounce around inside to kill many with a relatively short burst. Bottom line: If you going to be a bear among the bears why not be a grizzly? ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by DS CavScout: I heard(rumor) at the battle for Khafji, Marine LAV's took out T-55 tanks with only the 25mm cannon. Anyone KNOW if there is any truth to that rumor? Heck, in the CM forum a couple of weeks ago someone claimed their Bradley had taken out 2 T-72s with its 25mm. Penetrated the turret ring apparently. ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by minmax: The LAV is better than nothing but that is not saying much. If you want to keep the LAV great just give it some punch against Tanks and give it a MK-19 to support the infantry better. I think it is foolish to field a weapon system that has no ability to defend itself against a typical foe: Tanks. Presuming the next war the US fights is against an army that fields tanks. There are a lot of hot spots where the armor threat is minimal to non-existent. Think of Somalia, Panama, Grenada - no real need for heavy armor. In many of the situations that will likely arise a tank is overkill. The idea is not to eliminate tanks from the forcepool so much as to provide a mobile force that can either handle it without armor, or manage the situation until the armor shows up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 In hotspots the enemy will use RPG's that can deadline an LAV with a near miss. Also that low-tech enemy may not field tanks but they can flatten tires with something as simple as concrete re-bar. Hey all I am saying is I have seen the LAV employed since 1988 and I found that it did not live up to the expectations placed on it. I think there is a better Light Armored alternative out there. I don't think the LAV is it. ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Re: 25mm gun on LAV and Bradley in the Gulf War ... I am under the impression that the Army used Depleted Uranium ammo with the 25mm guns on the Bradley during the Gulf War while the Marines did not (at that time) use Depleted Uranium ammo with the 25mm gun on the LAV. Can someone confirm or deny this? Are the Marines currently issuing Depleted Uranium ammo for the 25mm gun on the LAV? ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 > There are a lot of hot spots where the > armor threat is minimal to non-existent. Everybody seems to have RPGs. Light armor is extremely vulnerable to them. > Think of Somalia, Panama, Grenada - no > real need for heavy armor. I have to disagree about Somalia and Grenada. One of the biggest problems in Somalia was that the Special forces didn't have much in the way of backup. When everything went to hell, they didn't have anyone capable of extracting them. The situation was too hot for helicopters to pick them up. The other US forces in Mogadishu had only trucks. They tried and failed to enter the city, because they had no armor. The only people in Mogadishu with armor were UN forces. It was only after hours of negotiation that an armored relief column was assembled. Even with armor, they had a tough time entering the city. They lost a lot of vehicles getting in. So many that by the time they got to the Special forces, there was only room for the wounded to ride on the vehicles. The remaining special forces troops had to move out on foot. We really needed armor in that situation. In Grenada, Rangers parachuted onto the airport runway. They were immediately pinned down. They remained pinned down, at the end of the runway, for a very long time. If they had armor, they should have been able to break out quickly. Instead they stayed pinned down while the Marines took most of the island. Armor doesn't just to exist to fight other armor. Its useful for supporting infantry as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 > There are a lot of hot spots where the armor threat is > minimal to non-existent. Think of Somalia, Panama, Grenada > - no real need for heavy armor. Somalia is a bad example. The refusal - on political grounds only - to send M1 tanks to Somalia contributed directly to the unnecessary loss of U.S. Army lives there. > In many of the situations that will likely arise a tank is overkill. In combat there is no such thing as "overkill". As a Marine I despised equipment and readiness decisions that were based on politics or economics. As the current parent of a son in the U.S. Army, I am appalled by them. Quoting myself ... "Sometimes it is entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledge hammer." - Major Holdridge, 1994. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 Some clarifications: I already posted an exaustive thread on this in the CM forum, so you can read it HERE. Read it because it dispels much bad info floating around the boards. The LAV-3 will come in many variants. 1) A Turretless 105mm 2) A scout version with the LRAS-3 Sight and .50 cal or Mk19. 3) The infantry version with Mk19 or .50 cal. 4) An artillery/indirect version 5) plus various service support models. None of the variants will have a turret. There is no 25mm version planned. The weapons will be operated from inside the hull remotely, similar (but supposedly improved) to the TC's .50 on the M1 Abrams. I haven't heard on whether the 105mm will be stabilized or not. One point that many people miss is that the Army is losing *one* battalion of armor in the transformation. All the other brigades are light infantry receiving "upgrades" from using their feet/flack vest to the LAV, which is a darned bit better than what they have now. There are "better" ways to get firepower, but none that fit the maintenance and deployability requirements of the IBCT. The goal is to be able to put a reasonably protected force in theater within a few days. The M8 AGS/M113 combo has been a favored alternative, but was rejected for logistical reasons mainly. Around 2010-2015 the army will begin fielding the Future Combat System (FCS) which will supposedly use leap-ahead technologies to redefine land warfare (if you believe the hype). Again, read the linked post. My 1st PSG, who was with 1-1 CAV in Saudi alleged that they had Bradleys routinely kill T-72's in the desert with 25mm AP. Had something to do with the shoddy export T-72's the Iraqis were using and the higher quality of "service" ammo. Cavguy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 Carter: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DS CavScout Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 Originally posted by MajorH: Re: 25mm gun on LAV and Bradley in the Gulf War ... I am under the impression that the Army used Depleted Uranium ammo with the 25mm guns on the Bradley during the Gulf War while the Marines did not (at that time) use Depleted Uranium ammo with the 25mm gun on the LAV. Can someone confirm or deny this? {/B] I was in 3rd Bde/ 1st AD in the war. My scout platoon was issued the standard APDS ammo. It was just a slug of tungsten(I think) with a soft lead nose. We ripped a few rounds up to see what the projectile looked like without the sabot and casing. I heard(rumor) that USAREUR didn't want to give up the DU rounds in the event the Soviet Union decided to address it's economic problems by invading a weakened NATO country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 16, 2001 Share Posted February 16, 2001 Since the medical community is dealing with tons of cases of Persian Gulf vets who have problems stemming from DU rounds I am glad we never employed that type of ammo in the Chain Guns. I beleive that mixing DU residue with Cordite in an enclosed vehicle is a bad mix. I still think the LAV is lacking in offensive punch neccesary regardless of a tank threat or not. I think my point harkens back to the argument in the horse cav days. The common belief was light cavalry is a waste of time. My own philosophy states you always bring maximum force to bear on a problem. If a ten pound sledge will kill an ant then a twenty pounder will provide twice the killing power. Now don't misunderstand me I don't think we should nuke em all but I think armor should be used to help convince even a small time beligerent that the United States means business. That's my two cents... It ain't over till a grunt puts a flag on it! ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCab Posted February 17, 2001 Author Share Posted February 17, 2001 I think the LAV is not suitable for the job they want. If I'm not mistaken, it's got a high profile. It's wheeled, so cross country mobility won't be as good as tracked. Therefore, it can't provide a mobile defense, especially without stabilization. Also, since it doesn't have stabilization, you can rule out the effectiveness of a spoiling attack while on defense. Also, it's underarmored, so it'll be a coffin in close terrain. An RPG would make short work of it. Do they plan on making these airborne? If so, then the high profile will probably get in the way. Whatever happened to the Stingray? This all seems to be another budget cut attempt. Mis dos centavos. Peace, MCab 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 LAVs the old 25s had to have turrets with 25mm removed to travel aboard C-130s. They are way too heavy for airborne drops. The wheels mean that Amtraks and Tanks are going to negotiate terrain that you will have to find an easier path around. I spent time in the middle to late 80s in and around LAI and I think the Marine Corps and Army made a mistake with this one. I say go back to the drawing board or for the Marines. Why not just adapt Bradleys to Marine purposes. They have TOW, stabilized chain guns, they are tracked, can carry more troops, and they are off the shelf and combat proven. Why should the Marine Corps with its tiny budget spring for R&D? ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elementalwarre Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 Originally posted by MCab: I think the LAV is not suitable for the job they want. If I'm not mistaken, it's got a high profile. It's wheeled, so cross country mobility won't be as good as tracked. Therefore, it can't provide a mobile defense, especially without stabilization. Also, since it doesn't have stabilization, you can rule out the effectiveness of a spoiling attack while on defense. Also, it's underarmored, so it'll be a coffin in close terrain. An RPG would make short work of it. Do they plan on making these airborne? If so, then the high profile will probably get in the way. Whatever happened to the Stingray? This all seems to be another budget cut attempt. ah, no. at least, DoD's estimating $70 billion, or they were when i last looked before the holidays 70 billion ain't pocket change. yes, having some light armor's better than none, but there's a proposal to upgrade M113 APCs instead for quite a bit less has there ever been a test series comparing the two? IIRC, the LAV are to get armor kits which withstand RPG hits. how that helps their wheels, i dunno, but at least an immobilized LAV may 'just' bounce around instead of ripping open under RPG fire 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 Originally posted by elementalwarre: ah, no. at least, DoD's estimating $70 billion, or they were when i last looked before the holidays 70 billion ain't pocket change. yes, having some light armor's better than none, but there's a proposal to upgrade M113 APCs instead for quite a bit less has there ever been a test series comparing the two? Remember, the LAV-3 (or whatever gets finally approved) is the INTERIM vehicle. 1) The $70 billion over 10 years is for the Future Combat System(FCS, not the LAV-3. The LAV is getting $4 billion over 5 years for the IBCT. The army is betting the bank on the FCS being a revolutionary new vehicle with gee-whiz cool technologies that will enable it to be 20 tons, fast, deployable, lethal, and (no kidding) invisible. The army is spending $3b this year to move the technologies from the lab to the field. 2) There was a competition/demonstration between many makes of light armored vehicles that included the LAV-3, M113A3, M8 Buford, Stingray, Commando, and some other similiar vehicles. Most all armor guys would pick the M8/M113 Combo. However, I speculate that it was not picked in order to give the IBCT a common chassis which reduces logistical overhead, a key requirement for the IBCT. Many people seem to be confusing the LAV with the FCS. They are VERY different. [This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 02-22-2001).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuckaguck Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 If I was in Serbia or Iraq or some place like that, I was being attacked, and I had the choice of an M1 and a LAV I would choose the M1 with out much hesitation. However, If I was being attacked and I had the choice of a LAV airlifted in with in an hour, or an M1 that was sitting in California, which could not be brought to me or if it could would take 2 months to bring in by ship, I would want a LAV. Do you get what I mean? The M1A2 is useless if it can not reach the battlefield in time. LAVs can be moved quickly and in larger numbers; so that you can take out the enemy today instead of 2 weeks from now. Furthermore, becuase the M1A2 requires greater supply lines to bring it to the battle field and keep it running, it is easier for an enemy to destroy them when they are sitting on a ship. ------------------ -Walter- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elementalwarre Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 Originally posted by Cavguy: Remember, the LAV-3 (or whatever gets finally approved) is the INTERIM vehicle. 1) The $70 billion over 10 years is for the Future Combat System(FCS, not the LAV-3. The LAV is getting $4 billion over 5 years for the IBCT. The army is betting the bank on the FCS being a revolutionary new vehicle with gee-whiz cool technologies that will enable it to be 20 tons, fast, deployable, lethal, and (no kidding) invisible. The army is spending $3b this year to move the technologies from the lab to the field. 2) There was a competition/demonstration between many makes of light armored vehicles that included the LAV-3, M113A3, M8 Buford, Stingray, Commando, and some other similiar vehicles. Most all armor guys would pick the M8/M113 Combo. However, I speculate that it was not picked in order to give the IBCT a common chassis which reduces logistical overhead, a key requirement for the IBCT. Many people seem to be confusing the LAV with the FCS. They are VERY different. my mistake, of course you're right about the costs - i was remembering the longterm cost, not LAV costs certainly, LAV's not the FCS. yes, logistics demands mean common chassis is a huge advantage, ditto wheels to limit fuel needs i'm still skeptical about wheels being better for any reason aside from logistics, but ok, LAV's better than nothing 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.