LAV-AGS on the cover of Popular Mechanics

[minmax]

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;

I don't think it is any easier to move an LAV than it is to move a tank or any large vehicle. The M1 has a lower profile than an LAV for one. If speed is the case the army already has the Sheridan which has both infantry and anti-armor punch. I don't think the LAV is any easier to deploy than any other vehicles out there.

The Marine Corps CH-53Es can lift an LAV which is a plus but that is frought with problems. During Juste Cause the D model 53s could barely lift the LAVs and the E models had one hell of time keeping the LAVs steady. 2 vehicles were dropped into the ocean b/c they began to swing violently which makes rotor heads nervous. Trust me I don't care if there own vehicle is slung underneath. The pilot will dump a load when his craft and crew are in danger.

I guess my point is I still don't think the LAV is the way to go. I think there are better alternatives out there.

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

M. L. Johnson

TAOC DAWG

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by minmax:

I don't think it is any easier to move an LAV than it is to move a tank or any large vehicle. The M1 has a lower profile than an LAV for one. If speed is the case the army already has the Sheridan which has both infantry and anti-armor punch. I don't think the LAV is any easier to deploy than any other vehicles out there.

The Sheridan was retired from combat service in 1997 and currently only serves as a BMP/T-80 VISMOD at NTC. The M8 AGS was to replace it but was cancelled to pay for Bosnia. It was retired because of numerous problems and lack of repair parts.

The LAV is much more deployable from a logistics standpoint. Its PLL load is smaller, support systems less, and can be lifted by C-141's and C-130's. Only the C-5 and C-17 can carry an M1. And when they do that they aren't carrying something else. There simply isn't enough heavy lift in the AF to make air-deploying more than a company of M1's feasible.

[minmax]

How did they get around the turret problem in the C-130s?

I honestly would rather deploy M-1s than something that can't defend itself against other APC let alone tanks.

Given the choice I would want to go into a 'hot spot' with more protection than even an upgraded LAV can offer. Even if it meant less tanks could be deployed rapidly in theatre.

Besides even if you could give the LAV or its newer cousins more firepower. It is still a wheeled vehicle which means terrain is going to be inaccessable which still forces the infantry that it is 'supporting' to dismount and go it alone.

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

M. L. Johnson

TAOC DAWG

[Yuckaguck]

it is less about size then wieght.

ONly one M1 A1 can be carried by a C5 becuase it is TOO FREAKEN HEAVY. I really like the M1, but it is not perfect for every task.

Immagine this. A UN convoy is in some African country in supposedly a safe area when small arms fire breaks out. You want to save as many of the blue troops and civilians as possible. There is no way that a C5 could travel all that distance and land on the small burned out commuter airstrip near by. A c 130 or comparable aircraft just might though. So you can either have the Lav or no vehicle what so ever. In that sittuation I would appreciate a LAV, thank you very much.

-Yuckaguck-