OT: LAV 105mm vs Abrams - (Was: Sherman not a tank)

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Cavguy just curious on what 105mm gun you are refering to here as well as ammunition.

I don't have the nomenclature in front of me, but the rifled 105 on the original M1. I have seen the briefings here on penetration, and the 105mm APFDS (DU Sabot)round will penetrate front slope T-80 with force to spare. HEAT is questionable against a T-80, especially with reactive armor. But HEAT is for APCs, not tanks.

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by RMC:

Yes, Hofbauer, 1-4 Cav, the worst cav squadron in the US Army, is located in Schweinfurt on Conn Barracks. If there is a way to break a tank those guys have found it.

I am sure the soldiers there would disagree. I have heard nothing but good things about the unit since LTC H.R. McMaster (of 73 Easting fame) took over as the Squadron commander. A friend of mine was in the OPFOR at Holenfelds and said it was the most improved unit in Europe.

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

I offer my opinion. The army is brain-dead to pick the LAV. They should have used the Bradley and modified it as needed, and the M8 or something like it for the gun system. The army knows the Bradley and how to fight in it. It is also tracked, and long experience has shown the value of tracks in everything but road marches.

It is also 33 tons, guzzles gas, makes a big smoke cloud, too noisy for recon, and it tends to get used as a light tank. Don't get me wrong, the M2 is a great vehicle, but can't bridge the gap between the Light Divisions and Heavy Divisions.

Even half-tracks do not have the off-road mobility in terrain of a tracked vehicle. And it is better armored, enough to deal with MGs anyway, while the LAV can be penetrated by most HMG at combat ranges and from any angle.

According to the design specs it can defeat 12.7mm - .50 cal.

Using LAVs is very much like using BTRs, and the Russians found in Afghanistan that MGs with SLAP ammo (slightly up-market kinetic energy MG rounds) could chew them apart regularly. It also has a turret, and a gun, and an ATGM launcher - just little things like that.

BTR does not have AGTM launchers.

And the weight requirement for the interim system was set just above the weight of current Bradleys. In other words, they rigged the rules so that the Bradley would not pass, but anything even marginally lighter would. Then they were still having problems getting the 105 version of anything to pass the weight tests, so they relaxed the weight tests for the gun-system version. When asked why they would not consider a different chassis for the gun system, standardization of type was given as the reason.

Which gets back to my original point - the IBCT HAS to have a small logistics footprint to be employed by air. The brad requires lots of support and PLL. Remember, the M1 and M2 are NOT GOING AWAY. All Six heavy divisions and 3ACR will still be around with tanks and brads.

And why was the weight requirement set where it was?

I imagine because we can't control the Air Force. Yes, we would love it if they would but 500 C-17s. But the air force isn't going to do that - they have focused on the F-22. We have to deal in the current reality, not what we would like another service to do.

In other words, after blowing about $50 billion on military airlift upgrades without getting a plane that works to spec, they are going to make up for that not working by ignoring and making no use of a huge fleet of capable Brads, and will instead blow tens of billions more on a new fleet of tin cans that fit in a plane older than most colonels. And call it "mobility".

Still better than a light division ....

Besides a new vehicle order, why did the brass not want the Brad? Because it is tracked, and tracked means higher POL usage especially for ordinary road moves and in training, and that means a larger logistical support job. I am talking about 20 ton Brads instead of 19 ton LAV MGS systems).

Exactly. But check your stats - the brad weighs 33 tons.

The army is throwing away off-road movement, turreted gun firepower, ATGM launchers, existing training and doctrine, and spending extra money up front to do it in the tens of billions - to get better gas mileage!

It is not gas mileage. You simply CANNOT support a heavy TF with bradleys by Air alone. The POL requirements alone would take all the airlift available. You CAN support an IBCT. If you have to send a force in by air, which is better - a light division with no armor or an IBCT with some armor?

There is nothing wrong with a focus on greater deployability for a portion of the force. But the single best way to increase that is to fix the military airlift situation, and relying on the C-130 to soldier on instead is a ridiculous answer, when that is the supposed emphasis and point of the whole thing.

We still have to deal with the reality of what the air force can give us.

There is nothing wrong with smart light armor - the Bradley forces proved that in the Gulf, where they did extremely well. But the Bradley was the vehicle to use, not the LAV, because the purpose of light armor is to stop MGs and heavy artillery nearby,

Again, the brad is too heavy and the LAV can stop 12.7mm MG and light artillery.

It sounds to me like your junior officer friends have all of this pretty well figured out, when you say they are "concerned" about things like no tracks and no turret and no gun and no ATGM. They are right. They ought to be livid, not just concerned.

As junior officers, we all have our personal opinions. We give our opinions when asked, but salute and make the best of what we are given. All of the leaders making these decisions are combat vets. They are not out to kill soldiers.

I have seen the Javelin. Yes, I would like a vehicle mount. But the Javelin kicks serious butt over the TOW- I have seen it. (BTW, I had a TOW platoon so I know)

Nor is it too late to plan on flying them places in fixed C-17s, which darn it we paid a royal bundle for already, not C-130s.

There are only 50 C-17s, and only one M1 or M2 can fly on each. By comparison, 4 LAV's can fit on a C-17.

Arg. Can you tell these kinds of screw-ups make me mad?

Not Really Nice post with serious concerns. But consider the following:

- The IBCT has a full BN of Artillery

- A Squadron(BN) of Recon.

- All will use devices developed in Force XXI (UAV's, FCBC2, IVIS, etc.)

Definitely an upgrade from the "too light to fight" light divisions. The heavy forces will still come, but this gives the army something with teeth that can deploy fast enough with what the Air Force has available now to make a difference. As much as I personally like M1's and M2's, they simply cannot deploy and be supported by air - a ship or prepo must be used for anything more than a company. That requires 30 days.

[This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Cavguy:

I don't have the nomenclature in front of me, but the rifled 105 on the original M1. I have seen the briefings here on penetration, and the 105mm APFDS (DU Sabot)round will penetrate front slope T-80 with force to spare. HEAT is questionable against a T-80, especially with reactive armor. But HEAT is for APCs, not tanks.

I figured you were refering to that, the M68 (IIRC on nomeclature) was removed from service for a reason, it could not reliabbly deal with Soviet tanks frontaly Ie, their were several LF tests conducted in the 70s & 80s that confirmed the 105mms inability to deal with Soviet armor frontaly sanatised versions were printed in Newsweek, Janes , etc.

Now this was before KONTAKT-5 ERA which protects vs KE & HEAT rounds, Ie, it adds the equivelent of 250mm RHA & 500 - 1000 vs HEAT so I find it very interesting that suddenly the M68 can deal with T-80 UM's etc. When in 1996 Live fire tests vs T-72s equipped with KONTAKT-5 ERA were immune to the120mm M829 round, that had proved so deadly in the Gulf, vs export T-72s, which had considerably better performance then the M900 series 105mm ammunition

Anyway it should be interesting to see what new 105mm ammunition is developed to deal with KONTAKT-5 & KAKTUS ERA as well as currently the 105 is woefully inadequate vs any tank fitted with K-5 etc.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Rother]

Cavguy, where'd you get the 45 tons for a Bradley? The A1 is 21 tons empty 25 tons combat loaded. A2 from memory is 30 tons loaded. From what I've read the A3 is about 33.5 tons combat loaded. So that would make it about 30 tons empty.

Anyway I think the M551 is the obvious choice instead of a LAV. I remember having Marine LAVs as augmentees at NTC. They couldn't keep up with a M551. I can't think of any vehicle that we have that could go where I took my 551 at NTC. Can you say mountain goat? The LAV, M2 and M113 are all too top heavy and an M1 is just too big.

Rother

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by Rother:

Cavguy, where'd you get the 45 tons for a Bradley? The A1 is 21 tons empty 25 tons combat loaded. A2 from memory is 30 tons loaded. From what I've read the A3 is about 33.5 tons combat loaded. So that would make it about 30 tons empty.

Anyway I think the M551 is the obvious choice instead of a LAV. I remember having Marine LAVs as augmentees at NTC. They couldn't keep up with a M551. I can't think of any vehicle that we have that could go where I took my 551 at NTC. Can you say mountain goat? The LAV, M2 and M113 are all too top heavy and an M1 is just too big.

Rother

You are right, I am mistaken. 30 tons for an M2A3, 25 tons for an A1. The M551 is being retired at NTC because parts aren't available for it anymore, and it has signifignant limitations (read up on 11ACR in Vietnam), high maint cost, and is basically too old. However, you are right, it could go nearly anywhere and you had to really work at it to get the thing stuck. I got to TC one at the NTC, it was a good ride.

[This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

I figured you were refering to that, the M68 (IIRC on nomeclature) was removed from service for a reason, it could not reliabbly deal with Soviet tanks frontaly Ie, their were several LF tests conducted in the 70s & 80s that confirmed the 105mms inability to deal with Soviet armor frontaly sanatised versions were printed in Newsweek, Janes , etc.

Now this was before KONTAKT-5 ERA which protects vs KE & HEAT rounds, Ie, it adds the equivelent of 250mm RHA & 500 - 1000 vs HEAT so I find it very interesting that suddenly the M68 can deal with T-80 UM's etc. When in 1996 Live fire tests vs T-72s equipped with KONTAKT-5 ERA were immune to the120mm M829 round, that had proved so deadly in the Gulf, vs export T-72s, which had considerably better performance then the M900 series 105mm ammunition

Anyway it should be interesting to see what new 105mm ammunition is developed to deal with KONTAKT-5 & KAKTUS ERA as well as currently the 105 is woefully inadequate vs any tank fitted with K-5 etc.

Regards, John Waters

I know this is a cop-out, but I can't reveal specifics because the info is classified. Sufficent to say that it can defeat a T-80 front slope from the info I have been given as an armor officer (brief was summer of 97 with full penetration data on each round (105 and 120) against various soviet tanks and PC's.

In all reality, very few countries deploy the sabot-defeating ERA, and fewer still have T-80 MBTs. The export T-72's armor is inferior, as M3's were killing them with 25mm during the desert (my PSG killed 2).

The IBCT isn't designed to go against T-80 battalions anyway. For example, did you watch the parade of T-55's and T-62's in Kosovo during the conflict? That is the threat the IBCT is going to face, not top of the line Russian armor in doctrinal formation.

Besides, the purpose of the 105mm in the IBCT is as a backup to kill tanks that make it to the battlefield through helicopters, CAS, copperhead, ATACMS, MLRS, etc. If we let a full T-80 formation close with the ICBT unhindered something is dreadfully wrong.

Very few countries have aquired sufficent T-80's/T-90's to be a real threat. And then there is the issue of properly trained crews. For example, the Saudis use the M1A2 but I have never met such lazy soldiers in my life. You have to have the personnel and school systems to develop quality officers and troops, which most countries do not have.

Additionally, many people seem to miss the point. The IBCT is not a replacement armor TF, or anywhere near as capable in a stand up fight. But it can do what the Armor TF cannot, get to the fight in a relevant timeframe (under a week) with enough firepower to deal with the majority of the world's militaries. If we were attaking, say, India and its T-80's/T-90's, we would plan accordingly and bring in the heavies. But for the Sebrians, North Koreans (heck, most of their armor is T-55/62, someone I know spotted a T-34 being used), Iraqis, etc, the IBCT is more than prepared to deal with the armored threats they currently field.

[This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

You are simply wrong about the weight of the Bradley. It weighs 45,000 pounds which is 22.5 (short) tons, not 45 tons. 1/3rd the weight of the M-1, not 2/3rds. It is only 10% heavier than the design spec for the MGS, which in fact was set just below the Brad's weight, to allow anything but the Brad effectively. And the MGS weight spec was subsequently relaxed because the designs were not meeting it. C-17s, incidentally, were supposed to be able to carry two Brads at a time.

My comment on the vehicle that has "tracks, a turret, a gun, and an ATGM launcher" was about the Brad of course. I know quite well the BTR has none of those - just like the LAV. While the BMP has all of them - just like the Brad.

As for Javelin v. TOW, there is no reason whatever Javelins can't be mounted on the Brad in place of the TOWs, including top-attack versions. Or later ATGMs for that matter. And there is also no reason for the squads to have any fewer dismounted Javelins.

As for the LAV design spec v. 50 cal, you evidently did not read what I said. Yes, the LAV is rated to stop standard AP from 50 cals at about 500 yards (+) and from the front. But slightly up-market AP rounds increase the armor penetration of .50 cal above what standard ball AP can do. This was a critical issue during the war in Afghanistan.

The Afghans had a limited supply of Russian-designed 14.5mm AA MGs, which could hole the heavily armored Russian helo gunships (the Hind in particular). But they had many more .50 cals available (via Pakistan for one thing), which were not proving effective against the Hind. So they went to slightly upmarket AP ammo, that costs marginally more and delivers better penetration. Or rather, our intel guys told Paki intel guys to tell the Afghans this was all they needed to do, more like. It worked.

And as a byproduct, the Afghans found that their HMGs could now chew the shinola out of the light Russian APCs, and the BTR in particular. Which is a lot easier than getting close enough to RPG one. It is not rocket science and the technique is definitely "out". Any government and most serious paramilitaries in the world can buy up-market improved AP ammo for 50 cals. It effectively gives the 50 cal armor penetration abilities comparable to the Russian 14.5mm AA MG, which can penetrate the LAV but not the Bradley.

As for the LAV vs. artillery, let's just say I wouldn't want to be in one if the enemy arty guys have 155mm HE. The side and rear armor on a LAV is rated to stop an AK-47 round, and that is about it.

As for the inter-service cop out, that is just that, a cop out. Spending $70 billion on new LAVs to work with C-130s is horsefeathers. You could easily spend a fraction of that and fix and expand the C-17 fleet enough to fly brigades in Brads, and still have lots left over for the new gadgets to make the force more effective. Since you then do not need to buy a whole new fleet of LAVs, the army's budget situation for everything else would be looser, not tighter.

As for the idea that the smaller logistical requirements of the wheels vs. tracks is essential, I can put my assessment bluntly as a prediction. Everything you save on less POL weight flown to the theater with the LAV, you will lose on excess demand from *medical* flown to or from it, compared to the Brad, in any case hot enough that the deployment time actually matters. In cases that simply are not that hot, all you will lose is one news cycle and a pittance of expense.

[Paul Lakowski]

Firstly the original Bradley weight 22.5 tons but the A2/3 version with all the add on armor is ~ 30 tons.

The Bradley A0 armor is poor offering all kinds of weak spots where HMG ammo can penetrate at ~ 1km

LAV III is vunerable ~ 1km or more to HMG, however the addon 'Mexas expandable armor' package features NERA plates over most of the vehicle that should offer immunity to 12.5 API & most 14.5 API hits , while the HEAT protection may well be at the RPG-7V level [ especially if this is an angled hit]. Its possible some RPG-7V side hits might get through.

In the future this kind of armor will get better.

As to 105mm APFSDS penetration it would have great difficulty getting through K-5 equipped late model T-72Bs etc but since this armor only covers about 1/2 the target profile penetration is still possible at range.

Finally ICB is to replace light infantry DIv not M-1/M-2 Div. Personally when I saw the French 6th Light armor divison in the late 80s I just figured every one would have one by the end of the century,just made sence ....Guess I was wrong about that one too

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 01-26-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

So take off the 7.5 tons add-on armor, start from the original, and replace it with modern stuff that is more capable if you want. Do you think that kind of modification is going to cost 70 billion dollars???

Why can't anyone acknowledge that it is stooopid to not use a fine light armor platform just to pay tons for a new one to do about the same job? Why does everyone *want* to blow $70 billion to get *less* firepower? Do people here have any idea what $70 billion buys in the way of readiness, spares, more high-tech vision and communications equipment, etc?

If the whole idea is smarter and higher tech weapons, why is all the money going into the tin can part we already paid for, instead of the gadgets, and why is the whole affair built around C-130s fer crying out loud?

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Cavguy:

I know this is a cop-out, but I can't reveal specifics because the info is classified. Sufficent to say that it can defeat a T-80 front slope from the info I have been given as an armor officer (brief was summer of 97 with full penetration data on each round (105 and 120) against various soviet tanks and PC's.

Cavguy: Thx for the post I find this very interesting looking back at my files from 70 - 80s & the numerous quotes from Starry & others about the inadequacy of the 105mm & need for the 120mm & the quotes on the LF tests concering the 105mm's failure on the frontal arc vs the 'lateset' Soviet MBTs, these are from 83 - 85 this is before KONTAKT-5 which became available in 1985 uknown to NATO etc. So Despiter the breifs I am skeptical (I also remeber the threat briefs we got in 85 & our life expectancy ).

Was yours one of the 25mm hits that penetrated the turret ring?. I understand :LAV's arn't suposed to engage tanks but I also dont see the need to give it an 105mm either (why not the 76mm) unless tanks are considered a real threat, as IIRC the Hvy Bn of Abrams & M2's would deal with any OPFOR AFVs anyway long before they got to the Lts. I agree but ERA is becomeing more available & being independantly developed in several countries as well sop it remains a factor in any assessmanmts IMHO.

Eithewrway the Lts are more in line with our current police stance anyway & with the fall of the USSR the days of the massed tank battles may be over. Many countries are

exploreing cheaper alternatives Ie, state of the art FCS medium main gun & light chassis etc future developments should prove interesting .

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Do you think that kind of modification is going to cost 70 billion dollars???

Why can't anyone acknowledge that it is stooopid to not use a fine light armor platform just to pay tons for a new one to do about the same job? Why does everyone *want* to blow $70 billion to get *less* firepower? Do people here have any idea what $70 billion buys in the way of readiness, spares, more high-tech vision and communications equipment, etc?

If the whole idea is smarter and higher tech weapons, why is all the money going into the tin can part we already paid for, instead of the gadgets, and why is the whole affair built around C-130s fer crying out loud?

$70 billion is $10 billion more than the army's entire annual budget. Where did you get that figure? The army is spending $4 billion to outfit with LAVs (read the press release <a href=http://www.gdls.com/releases/gdls-pr200024.html>here</a>). And I say again, the six heavy divisions and ACR will remain as is with M1/M2 for the heavy threat.

The IBCT is still far superior to using a light division.

Listen, I don't think the LAV is the whole answer. You are right, 14.7mm is a challenge. the LAV is an APC, it transports infantry to the battle zone and supports the infantry, it is not an IFV like the Bradley, which has infantry and can fight. The 105mm gives AT capability to the IBCT force. If all the Battlefield Operating Systems available to the IBCT are used, it won't have to get in a stand up, knock down fight. I think we can make it work until the FCS is fielded. I don't think someone intentionally slighted the bradley, it just is too heavy and maintenance intensive to fit the bill. The Bradley is an excellent IFV.

In a perfect world the military would get equipment that only it wants. But in the real world congressmen, lobbyists, and interservice rivals fight for "their" way. The air force is not going to get much more lift capability. That is just the way it is, which is what we have to deal with. Write your congressman. I agree with many of your points. But the armored force will be irrelivant for most future conflicts unless it can deploy some sort of medium force quickly by air AND support it.

The C-130 requirment makes sense to me. It is the most common AF cargo aircraft, and over 60% of the AF's lift capability. We need to use it. Whatever the limitations, that is what we have to deal with. Even if pres Bush bought us 100 C-17's at $250 million each we wouldn't see them for another few years. We LAV is the INTERIM solution until the force fields the FCS.

And yes, I would love an external AGTM on the LAV, I believe it will be forthcoming.

[This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Cavguy: Thx for the post I find this very interesting looking back at my files from 70 - 80s & the numerous quotes from Starry & others about the inadequacy of the 105mm & need for the 120mm & the quotes on the LF tests concering the 105mm's failure on the frontal arc vs the 'lateset' Soviet MBTs, these are from 83 - 85 this is before KONTAKT-5 which became available in 1985 uknown to NATO etc. So Despiter the breifs I am skeptical (I also remeber the threat briefs we got in 85 & our life expectancy ).

Remember some of this was paranoia to secure more funds for better stuff - and we hadn't actually crawled inside a T-80 at this point. Since 1989 we have gotten in almost every Soviet MBT with the general reaction of "what a cramped piece of crap!" and found out that they weren't all they had been hyped up to be. Hell, actual BMP-2's and T-72's are used at NTC during the battles that we have aquired on the secondary market. Additionally countries such as Kuwait have the BMP-3 which we have a good look at. (decent IFV, but too small internally for most americans, I think they manned them with midgets)

Was yours one of the 25mm hits that penetrated the turret ring?. I understand :LAV's arn't suposed to engage tanks but I also dont see the need to give it an 105mm either (why not the 76mm) unless tanks are considered a real threat, as IIRC the Hvy Bn of Abrams & M2's would deal with any OPFOR AFVs anyway long before they got to the Lts. I agree but ERA is becomeing more available & being independantly developed in several countries as well sop it remains a factor in any assessmanmts IMHO.

Eithewrway the Lts are more in line with our current police stance anyway & with the fall of the USSR the days of the massed tank battles may be over. Many countries are

exploring cheaper alternatives Ie, state of the art FCS medium main gun & light chassis etc future developments should prove interesting .

I was in high school in 91', my 1st platoon sergeant was an M3 scout section sergeant(SSG) at Medina Ridge, he relayed the stories of Bradleys defeating T-72's with 25mm under 1000m.

You are right here. With the possible exception of another middle east war or a india/pakistan conflict, massed armor conflict is largely over.

The army has decided to not field a next generation MBT to develop the FCS, which is a "revolutionary" FCS. MG Bell, CG of armor branch, likened it to the change from the horse to the tank. A new paradigm as described in the first post. Some of the technologies included will be:

- Non line of sight weapons, a tube launched copperhead, for example.

- A "rail gun" that shoots hyperaccelerated rounds instead of HEAT/SABOT

- IR/Thermal masking that will severely reduce or eliminate signature in most sights.

- The ability to destroy incoming AGTM's and deflect incoming SABOT.

- New camoflague that uses electronics to reduce visibility to the eye (sorta like cloaking)

- Integrated information systems with UAVs, AWACS, JSTARS, socuts, etc for real time targeting and intel.

The army just got funding to spend $3b next year to move this technology from the lab (where it works now) to making it work in the field. They are betting the farm that this will pay off and change warfare forever. We shall see how successful they are. If it does work we should see the first FCS's produced in 2010-2015 timeframe. The M1A2 SEP, M2A3, and LAV will hold the line until then.

[This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Stoffel:

He Cavguy,

This discussion is going on at the tacops page.

You can find it at:

tacops@perilpoint.com

Many specialist have debated about this issue overthere.

Sorry for the rest of you my previous message was in Dutch.

[This message has been edited by Stoffel (edited 01-26-2001).]

Stoffel; It keeps sending me to a perilpoint home page. Whats the route to the discussion group?

[Stoffel]

Hi Paul I found the right url.

Send a mail there with title,subscribe tacops.

Majordomo@perilpoint.com

[KMHPaladin]

In regards to the 105mm gun... something in the back of my mind is telling me that firing "sabot" rounds through a rifled barrel is very detrimental to the tube. I have very few books with me at school, so I can't follow this up - anyone have any clarification? I apologize if this is silly, but like I said something is nagging in the back of my mind.

In regards to the 1-4 Cav, my recollection is that Tom Clancy highlights this unit in his latest book. While I realize that a novel is not a reference source, I sincerely doubt that an author with the research knowledge that Clancy has would highlight a "problematic" unit as some have described it. If H.R. McMaster is in charge, I would be shocked if that was the case.

To reply to Jason Cawley,

I offer my opinion. The army is brain-dead to pick the LAV. They should have used the Bradley and modified it as needed, and the M8 or something like it for the gun system. The army knows the Bradley and how to fight in it. It is also tracked, and long experience has shown the value of tracks in everything but road marches.

If you want to save money, how is purchasing two vehicles ("used the Bradley and modified it as needed, and the M8 or something like it for the gun system") superior to one (LAV)? A viable solution might lie in modifying the Bradley chassis with an entirely new turret (I don't have enough knowledge to state whether that is true), but to think that the Bradley could operate as a light tank is wrong. I agree that I would rather see a "light tank" like the M8 as opposed to a "heavy armored car" like the LAV, but then again I don't do Army Procurement.

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

KMHPaladin

Harkik@rpi.edu

"We have the enemy surrounded. We are dug in and

have overwhelming numbers. But enemy airpower is

mauling us badly. We will have to withdraw."

-- Japanese infantry commander, SITREP, Burma

[This message has been edited by KMHPaladin (edited 01-27-2001).]

[Måkjager]

I think that there are several factor's at play in the choice of the LAV vs a tracked vehicle.

Strategic mobility and reaction time.

We have all seen the effects of a conflicts such as has happened in recent years..Bosnia , Kuwait etc.

Have the politicans decided that they need a Rapid Reaction Force that can be placed in area's of potential future conflict quickly, and hence give pause for thought to the hostile intentions of the aggressor......we are on the ground now...mess with us and our Bigger Brother will sort you out.( ie the HT Brigades)

A bit like prevention is better ( and cheaper) than the cure.

Lower maintance and purchase cost for a fleet of wheeled vehicles compared to the tracked class.

Inter-operability.

Currently a buzz word floating around but a fact for future peace keeping / enforcement / prevention operations.

The LAV isd based on the Mowag Piranha III which is in service with the US Marines , the Canadian , Australian , NZ ? , Saudi , Danish , Swedish , Chilean , Swiss and Irish defence forces amongst others.

By chosing a vehicle that shares parts with other end users the task of supplying the Operational Forces becomes easier if there is a standard to comply with.

The logistic tail is smaller as you mb do not need the large tank transporters to save the milage on the M1/M2

As for the MGS ... when i seen the first pix last week i went wow but having thought about it mb the Army would have been better off having that automatic 75mm gun that they developed back in the early 80s instead of the 105. I think again that the inclusion of the 105mm gun is to give pause for thought to the "enemy" rather that actually fight him ( against MBTs anyway).The best means of engaging a tank is another tank unless you have swarms of Apache's

For the future there is more likely to be more conflicts happening in urban terrian as the worlds population and towns and cities grow. The ability of the MBT and heavy IFV to operate to their maximum will be degraded as the close nature of cities negates the effectivness of their long weapon range coupled with the fact that an urban setting crawling with hostiles armed with AT weapons will not be a nice place for any AFV.

Regards

Måkjager

[Paul Lakowski]

Maintenance is a biggy and I've heard that LAV maintenance is a fraction of that of a similar tracked AFV, maybe even 1/10th the cost. In these cost concise times this is important.

[Cavguy]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Maintenance is a biggy and I've heard that LAV maintenance is a fraction of that of a similar tracked AFV, maybe even 1/10th the cost. In these cost concise times this is important.

It isn't so much the cost but the supplies and tools required - the more reliable=less tail. Also a common chassis equals more common parts which reduces logistical overhead.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

"If you want to save money, how is purchasing two"

The army already has Bradleys, coming out of its ears in fact. No purchasing involved. It would be a matter of upgrading part of the existing fleet to the light-brigade's specs, that is all. Which would be way cheaper than buying entirely new LAVs. "Cheaper maintenance" is a joke; we are adding an entire new vehicle type and planning to buy them by the thousands before they are through. We are still going to maintain the Brad fleet, wherever we put the things. Not using something you already paid for to save money is the kind of "economy" that will backrupt you in a hurry.

As for the urban environment scenario, in an urban environment you will want a *turret*, the ability to shoot from inside the vehicle in any direction, armor that stops HMG rounds from any angle at point-blank, and a gun that will shoot through the side of light buildings. The Bradley already has all of the above.

As for the weapons of the future, non direct fire weapons are already here, and alas not just for us. We have, but moreover Bofors will sell to anyone with hard currency, terminally IR guided heat-warhead 120mm mortar rounds, that fire from any existing 120mm mortar tube, and require only minimal new crew training. The warhead will distinguish burning, dummy, and live vehicles, and raises the normally innaccurate mortar to a 50% hit probability weapon. The standard HEAT warhead on them will penetrate 2 feet of rolled steel with an attack angle of straight down. These are available today to every country in the world willing to pay the cost of the rounds.

There is nothing wrong with the smart weapon light armor idea. But the Brad would be a much smarter and cheaper way to do it.

As for the cost figures, I am just going by the financial press reports, in which the companies are drooling over how much they are going to be paid to make the new LAV tin cans.

[KMHPaladin]

Jason, if you want to leave the Bradley as it is and expect it to operate as a "light tank" it will fail. It was designed as an Armored Personnel Carrier or Scout and with its current armament I do not believe that it could accomplish the same thing that the LAV could. Additionally, a Bradley would be tougher to airlift and would have a bigger logistical "tail." Finally, if you want to upgrade the turret, you're going to be spending just as much R&D money as well as production money, and given our bureaucracy, it will take another 10 years to get it done.

To say that the military doesn't know how to use the LAV is also incorrect. How long have the Marines used the LAV? I sincerely hope that interservice rivalry would not get in the way of information-sharing.

I'm sorry, but I doubt a mortar with 50% more accuracy could kill a tank with even a small degree of regularity.

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

KMHPaladin

KHarkins@voicenet.com

"We have the enemy surrounded. We are dug in and

have overwhelming numbers. But enemy airpower is

mauling us badly. We will have to withdraw."

-- Japanese infantry commander, SITREP, Burma

[Pvt.Tom]

I was wondering, does anyone know if the US Military looked into German experiences with the Puma ect in WWII when they were deciding on the LAV? Probably a good source of info on 8 wheel vehicles in combat.

[Guest machineman]

On that line of thinking, there are (shock!) more militaries than the US around, and some of them have had similar vehicles to the LAV. What do the South Africans think of their Rooikat, for example. They must have had plenty of 'brush fire' war experience with them since they came out in '89.

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 01-28-2001).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

"If you want to save money, how is purchasing two"

The army already has Bradleys, coming out of its ears in fact. No purchasing involved. It would be a matter of upgrading part of the existing fleet to the light-brigade's specs, that is all. Which would be way cheaper than buying entirely new LAVs. "Cheaper maintenance" is a joke; we are adding an entire new vehicle type and planning to buy them by the thousands before they are through. We are still going to maintain the Brad fleet, wherever we put the things. Not using something you already paid for to save money is the kind of "economy" that will backrupt you in a hurry.

The Bradleys are alread accounted for in the Heavy brigades. It would make more sence to recondition them for some role in the heavy brigades .

As for the weapons of the future, non direct fire weapons are already here, and alas not just for us. We have, but moreover Bofors will sell to anyone with hard currency, terminally IR guided heat-warhead 120mm mortar rounds, that fire from any existing 120mm mortar tube, and require only minimal new crew training. The warhead will distinguish burning, dummy, and live vehicles, and raises the normally innaccurate mortar to a 50% hit probability weapon.

Perhaps in there dreams but not in the real world.

The standard HEAT warhead on them will penetrate 2 feet of rolled steel with an attack angle of straight down. These are available today to every country in the world willing to pay the cost of the rounds.

Which ones? where? About 1 to 1.2 meters is about the best penetration your going to get out of a heavy 6 inch warhead today and 0.8 meters out of a 4 inch warhead.

There is nothing wrong with the smart weapon light armor idea. But the Brad would be a much smarter and cheaper way to do it.

As for the cost figures, I am just going by the financial press reports, in which the companies are drooling over how much they are going to be paid to make the new LAV tin cans.

That will probably end being as well protected as the Bradleys but not 15 years old.

You should understand this much by now, the purchase of weapons only accounts for 10% of defence budgets, while maintinance is easly 1/3 of the cost...and wages account for something like 50%[ I think R& D is the rest]

[Wolfpack]

Okay, here's a question that nobody has asked yet, but having been a Brad crewman, I was wondering. What is the silhouette of the LAV? The Brad has a very high one (Of course, because it's designed to carry men around). We know that a low silhouette is better on a battlefield, and one thing I have seen about the LAV that I like is the turret design. If you can use the advantages of terrain, it seems like it would be damn effective. Can you see this thing in a hull down aspect?

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

It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.