Rother Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 Wolfpack, the LAV is just as tall as a Bradley. The difference is in inches. I believe they use the same turret also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 re: 1-4 CAV. They may be the most improved unit in theater right now but only because they had nowhere to go but up. There were a couple of rotations that almost got scrapped because they couldn't scrape together enough tanks and brads to cross LD. Clancy does mention them but he has them assigned to 1 AD not 1 ID. I don't think it matters though since his "universe" is one in which a second gulf war was fought, a nuke wnet up in Denver etc. I stil thn were headed for trouble with the LAV as an interim system because we tend to keep our interim systems much longer than planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMHPaladin Posted January 28, 2001 Share Posted January 28, 2001 Do you have some kind of a grudge against the 1-4? Lighten up. In regards to Clancy, what in the hell would you rather he wrote? In case you've forgotten, there aren't any major wars going on right now. That means that he has to create something (that, after all, is what fiction is about) that is feasible. I think that his plots are excellent, realistic in light of modern politics, well written, and for the most part well-researched. I have to agree with you about interim systems, however. I sincerely hope that the FCS or a similar program doesn't end up being scrapped because we are perceived as already having a "capable" weapon (the LAV) that negates the need for more purchases. ------------------ 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by KMHPaladin: Do you have some kind of a grudge against the 1-4? Lighten up. In regards to Clancy, what in the hell would you rather he wrote? In case you've forgotten, there aren't any major wars going on right now. That means that he has to create something (that, after all, is what fiction is about) that is feasible. I think that his plots are excellent, realistic in light of modern politics, well written, and for the most part well-researched. I have to agree with you about interim systems, however. I sincerely hope that the FCS or a similar program doesn't end up being scrapped because we are perceived as already having a "capable" weapon (the LAV) that negates the need for more purchases. My understanding was that the rational for choosing LAV was to get an 'off the shelve' model in wide spread use to keep costs down so that the money could be spent on the FCS . I've heard of the 'tupperware tank' in the British Press, is this the same FCS you refer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMHPaladin Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Paul, the "FCS" is the Future Combat System, an acronym for the future tank that the Army is researching. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it, but I'm sure there are plenty of others here who are. Additionally, I understand the desire to purchase something "off-the-shelf" to keep costs down - but what is to keep the government from saying "we have the LAV, which you said was capable before - why do we need to spend money to buy another type of vehicle?" ------------------ 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted January 29, 2001 Author Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by KMHPaladin: Paul, the "FCS" is the Future Combat System, an acronym for the future tank that the Army is researching. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it, but I'm sure there are plenty of others here who are. Additionally, I understand the desire to purchase something "off-the-shelf" to keep costs down - but what is to keep the government from saying "we have the LAV, which you said was capable before - why do we need to spend money to buy another type of vehicle?" The army is fully committed to the FCS, the LAV is being bought for the meantime with the full realization that it does not fill all of the needs of the army. Trust me, no one wants the LAV to stay around longer than it has to! But it is available now, is cheap, and can do the job required during the next 10 years. The army is spending $3b on FCS research this year alone. The concept is a 20 ton AFV that uses revolutionary technologies (described earlier in the thread) to fight and survive on the future battlefield. Don't confuse the FCS with the FSCS/Tracer, which is a joint US/UK scout vehicle project that is currently in danger of being cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Måkjager Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Cavguy , would i be right in repeating what( i think ) you are saying. The LAV is an interim solution until replaced by the FCS some time in the future. The FCS when it come's online will replace the M1 type in service with all Brigades. Until then the LAV will give the US Army the capability to place an armoured force quickly on the ground, whilst still retaining a Heavy Tank force capability with the M1s. This FCS will be lighter armoured vehicle than the M1 because the defensive technologies allow it to operate in the same/similar envoiriment. The value of this lighter vehicle with improved surviability being that the US forces are not resticted by lack of battlefield mobility due to poor local infrastructure. The end result being a hi-tech tank with the ability to be placed in theater quickly with the offensive and defensive systems to operate effectively and provide the maximum possible protection to the crew . Regards Måkjager ------------------ Once an Ubërcabbage Always an Ubërcabbage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted January 29, 2001 Author Share Posted January 29, 2001 EXACTLY! Perhaps I was being too complicated. You hit the nail on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 hmmm it just makes me wonder... Cavguy, if your good ol' M68 105mm rifle will slice through russian K-5 like a red-hot knife through butter, I wonder why oh why does the german army introduce the new L/55 version of the 120mm together with the new DM53 (LKE II) ammunition to significantly increase penetration performance ??? I'm a taxpayer, I want to know why they waste my worthless €'s on superfluous equipment!!...why not simply un-mothball our good ol' M48A5's ? [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 01-28-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: hmmm it just makes me wonder... Cavguy, if your good ol' M68 105mm rifle will slice through russian K-5 like a red-hot knife through butter, I wonder why oh why does the german army introduce the new L/55 version of the 120mm together with the new DM53 (LKE II) ammunition to significantly increase penetration performance ??? I'm a taxpayer, I want to know why they waste my worthless €'s on superfluous equipment!!...why not simply un-mothball our good ol' M48A5's ? [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 01-28-2001).] Markus you know full well the 120mm L55 is to face future threats expected to come from front line Russian 152mm externally mounted gun tank which may well have 90-100cm of frontal KE protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 btw...this is highly confidential but I'ld like to share these with you...I managed to get a hold of germany's super-secret FCS project vehicle... please value these highly...a great many good agents had to risk their lives to get this information... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Paul: "Markus you know full well the 120mm L55 is to face future threats expected to come from front line Russian 152mm externally mounted gun tank which may well have 90-100cm of frontal KE protection." no I don't :0), as a taxpayer I am just wondering why I have to pay taxes so the government gives it to aid russia so they can build their new T-95 - tank so I have to pay more taxes so the Bundeswehr can aquire more new Leo2A5 KWS-n to counter the new threat... ;op p.s.: sorry, nightshift here ... [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 01-28-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Rother: Wolfpack, the LAV is just as tall as a Bradley. The difference is in inches. I believe they use the same turret also. Was I looking at the wrong picture? I assumed that we were talking about the 8x8 wheeled with the 105 mounted in an unmanned turret. It would seem to me that if you're hull down and the only thing showing is your gun, you aren't giving much of a sight picture to shoot at. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rother Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Wolfpack: Was I looking at the wrong picture? I assumed that we were talking about the 8x8 wheeled with the 105 mounted in an unmanned turret. It would seem to me that if you're hull down and the only thing showing is your gun, you aren't giving much of a sight picture to shoot at. Well a LAV is a LAV. A LAV with a 105 instead of a 25 just doesn't have as much live meat behind the gun. It's still almost 10 feet tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Rother: Well a LAV is a LAV. A LAV with a 105 instead of a 25 just doesn't have as much live meat behind the gun. It's still almost 10 feet tall. True, but if you go hull down in a Brad, you're still leaving a good 3-5 feet above your cover, plus 2 crewmen. With the LAVs new unmanned turret, you can poke the gun out and leave your crew behind cover. On the negative side, I would NOT want to be stuck in one of these things knowing how often systems (Especially new US Army systems) go down. Hate to be left blind in that thing. =) ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Just wanted to throw of Cavguys statement that the Bradleys 25mm will kill a T72. I was at a Bradley crewman Medina Ridge (who was your 1st PLT SGT BTW?) and we killed at least 2 T72s with our chaingun. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Splinty: Just wanted to throw of Cavguys statement that the Bradleys 25mm will kill a T72. I was at a Bradley crewman Medina Ridge (who was your 1st PLT SGT BTW?) and we killed at least 2 T72s with our chaingun. WOW , can you tell us where on the T-72 you hit and at what range? BTW as to the hull down question , the externally mounted gun presents a 0.5m^2 target while hull down and the Bradley is probably at least 1.0 m^2 target. I gather that makes a big difference in hitting at range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted January 29, 2001 Author Share Posted January 29, 2001 Originally posted by Splinty: Just wanted to throw of Cavguys statement that the Bradleys 25mm will kill a T72. I was at a Bradley crewman Medina Ridge (who was your 1st PLT SGT BTW?) and we killed at least 2 T72s with our chaingun. SFC Thomas Earley (SSG at the time w/ B/1-1 CAV I believe.) Great 19D and best PSG a cherry 2LT could hope for. Yeah he said the T-72 Armor the Iraqis used was very brittle. Also claimed they had a brad hit front slope by a T-72 125mm without penetration - just a big dent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: WOW , can you tell us where on the T-72 you hit and at what range? I think it was the right front oblique at 750 meters on one and the left side at 900 meters on another,those two were definite kills. We also fired on another tank at maybe 1000 meters but I'm not sure if that was a kill or not. The crew of the first one bailed but were cut down by fire,never saw the crews of the other two ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts