LAV 6.0

[ballz]

Med Corps:

That is perhaps what is on paper...however in practice both on domestic OPS AND in Afg HSS deployed 1 Coy Medic and 3 Juniors to the Infantry also in Afg each OMLT/POMLT got one too.  Limiting the Inf Coy to two medics (a dismount and a mounted) and putting both those eggs into one vehicle with a giant hit me here on the sides IS bad doctrine and Piss Poor Planning.  Regardless of what Ottawa thinks there ARE enough pte's/cpl's to fill the need.  As stated it's getting the M/Cpl slot filled.  Also don't loose your medic you might not get a new one.  But there are enough to fill out 2 of our CMBGs  With limited augment from the ResF units (that's their function anyway..different discussion i know) well at least there WAS 2 years ago when I got the 3B kick in the ***.

So it goes to reason to make sure you have the room for augments...even if we remove the dismounted medics from the plt level what about translators and other force multipliers?  Having tunnel vision of just looking to put combat arms into the armored vehicle is being shortsighted.    The LAV works for the most part...it's just that the powers with the check book need to listen to the boots and pay attention to the lessons learned to improve it and actually buy it. 



ANY future vehicle needs to have room OR purchase enough so that there ARE enough vehicles to hand out...(like that's going to happen)...It's a change in Corporate thinking that's needed...no one ever thinks about where to put the doc or translator UNTIL you need a band-aid or have to talk to the local wing nuts.

And that's MY arm chair quarterbacking for the Generals for the day.

I can't help but think that you seem focussed on asymmetrical warfare and your experience in Afghanistan. Don't lose sight that our first and foremost focus must be the ability to destroy another well-equipped, conventional force. As we don't have the budget to have a fleet of vehicles for conventional warfare and vehicles for non-conventional warfare, we need to have the former and make do with that kit through our own ingenuity and determination when the latter occurs.

In a conventional setting, the FOO / FAC has his own LAV variant that he rolls in. I do not want medics in my platoon vehicles, that's the best spot for them to get killed. I don't want dog handlers and dogs. I don't want interpreters.

I want combat troops and as many weapons / ammo / etc as we can take on the attack. The medics are safest in the A ech until the fight is won and the area is secured, at which point the troops are going to start moving casualties to collection points. That takes enough time that the medics would be pushed up to the collection point and waiting to receive them for triage and treatment.

Or at least, that's what the book says if I'm tracking it right, and it's a good book.

 

[George Wallace]

I can't help but think that you seem focussed on asymmetrical warfare and your experience in Afghanistan. Don't lose sight that our first and foremost focus must be the ability to destroy another well-equipped, conventional force. As we don't have the budget to have a fleet of vehicles for conventional warfare and vehicles for non-conventional warfare, we need to have the former and make do with that kit through our own ingenuity and determination when the latter occurs.

In a conventional setting, the FOO / FAC has his own LAV variant that he rolls in. I do not want medics in my platoon vehicles, that's the best spot for them to get killed. I don't want dog handlers and dogs. I don't want interpreters.

I want combat troops and as many weapons / ammo / etc as we can take on the attack. The medics are safest in the A ech until the fight is won and the area is secured, at which point the troops are going to start moving casualties to collection points. That takes enough time that the medics would be pushed up to the collection point and waiting to receive them for triage and treatment.

Or at least, that's what the book says if I'm tracking it right, and it's a good book.

:goodpost:

Fairly much as it has been practiced over the years, covering a good majority of foreseeable COA's other that asymmetric.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.

 

[Underway]

:goodpost:

Fairly much as it has been practiced over the years, covering a good majority of foreseeable COA's other that asymmetric.

If that's the case then you need the 25mm to stay where it is.  It's "supposed" to handle enemy APC's and light IFV. 

As for LAV size, the whole section fits into a LAV, just 3 of them are required to operate/fight the vehicle.  Unless I'm reading the book wrong the vehicleis part of the section.  Its the number of dismounts that everyone is discussing.  So the question is do you want more dismounts?  If so is there a different vehicle that should be used?  Or perhaps the vehicles should be crewed by armoured soldiers instead.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.

They worked very well by all accounts.  I've got an article I'll link here when I get home.  The AMX-10 and ERC-90 Sagaie worked very well as they provided a lot of firepower while also being small enough to go places other larger AFVs couldn't get to.

 

[Lumber]

If that's the case then you need the 25mm to stay where it is.  It's "supposed" to handle enemy APC's and light IFV. 

As for LAV size, the whole section fits into a LAV, just 3 of them are required to operate/fight the vehicle.  Unless I'm reading the book wrong the vehicleis part of the section.  Its the number of dismounts that everyone is discussing.  So the question is do you want more dismounts?  If so is there a different vehicle that should be used?  Or perhaps the vehicles should be crewed by armoured soldiers instead.

This is what I was saying earlier on. Get rid of the 25mm and put in additional seats and an RWS. Add an additional LAV to the platoon with the 25mm to be used for fire support. It could be crewed my specialized infanteers, kind of like how we train NCIOPs to be SACs.

**These suggestions are made with the explicit understanding that I'm in the Navy, have practically zero army experience (basic only, really), and ergo really have no f***ing clue what I'm talking about  ;D

 

[MilEME09]

This is what I was saying earlier on. Get rid of the 25mm and put in additional seats and an RWS. Add an additional LAV to the platoon with the 25mm to be used for fire support. It could be crewed my specialized infanteers, kind of like how we train NCIOPs to be SACs.

**These suggestions are made with the explicit understanding that I'm in the Navy, have practically zero army experience (basic only, really), and ergo really have no f***ing clue what I'm talking about  ;D

So basically you want an updated Bison, and one LAV 6 as part of a heavy weapons det?

 

[McG]

Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.

 

[Lumber]

So basically you want an updated Bison, and one LAV 6 as part of a heavy weapons det?

Sounds about right, but now that I think about it, this reminds me a lot of the problems experienced in early WWII when armoured units were spread between infantry units instead of being concentrated in armoured units. So I'm not sure any more. Maybe have all the platoons in a company mounted in APCs with RWS and have a heavy weapns platoon (Squadron?) of nothing but IFVs or even Leopards in direct support?

 

[George Wallace]

......... Maybe have all the platoons in a company mounted in APCs with RWS and have a heavy weapons platoon (Squadron?) of nothing but IFVs or even Leopards in direct support?

That is what is called a "Combat Team".

 

[Kirkhill]

Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.

Or this?

If you wanted something bigger than 25mm AND you wanted to lower the profile while maintaining common mechanicals.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or this?

If you wanted something bigger than 25mm AND you wanted to lower the profile while maintaining common mechanicals.

The Airborne Amphibious Stolly  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mr_pCrhTkk

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.

As promised earlier, taken from "The truth about the French Army Pt III: The French Don’t Run" which is written by an American NCO embedded with French soldiers in Afghanistan.  It's a three part series and worth the read.

http://www.breachbangclear.com/contributor-chris-hernandez-on-working-with-the-french-army/  Part 1

http://www.breachbangclear.com/you-do-not-know-what-you-dont-know-and-the-jokes-are-wrong/  Part 2

http://www.breachbangclear.com/the-truth-about-the-french-army-pt-iii-getting-into-fights/ Part 3

Key quotes:

One giant advantage the French had over us was with their use of tanks. We maintain an armored force that’s fantastic at defeating T-80s crossing the Fulda Gap, not quite so fantastic at fighting insurgents in mountainous valleys. The French had AMX-10s, light wheeled tanks that were perfect for counterinsurgency combat. They were a tremendous force multiplier.

French troops and armor in the Alasai Valley, Kapisa province, Afghanistan, 2009. Photo by Goisque.

One night before a major operation, I was laid out in the dirt on an outpost perimeter. I had fallen asleep at midnight. At 3 a.m. a tremendous explosion woke me. I lay still for a few moments, then asked a Marine on guard, “What the hell was that?”

He answered, “I don’t know, but something went right over our heads.”

When the sun rose, I was stunned to see an AMX-10 halfway up a mountain behind the outpost. A brave and/or stupid tank crew had rolled up a narrow trail in the dark, and hit some Taliban.

I didn’t envy the poor driver who had to negotiate that trail. Or the loader who I’m sure had to walk ahead of the tank, knowing that if he made a mistake his crew was rolling down the mountain. As a former tanker, I can tell you that driving a tank up a mountain in the dark isn’t something cowards do.

 

[Mountie]

Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.

How about Stryker 6.0 Infantry Carrier Vehicles with a RWS for the infantry and LAV 6.0 Armoured Cavalry Vehicles for cavalry to provide fire support.  Maybe even a larger 40mm cannon to replace the 25mm, since space wouldn't be needed in back for infantry.

A light mechanized battle group could look something like this:

4 x Mechanized Rifle Company (15 Stryker ICVs)
1 x Cavalry Squadron (18 LAV 6.0 ACVs in 4 troops, one attached to each rifle company)
1 x Combat Engineer Squadron (2 field troops each with 4 LAV-Engineer)
1 x Direct Support Artillery Battery (4 M777's & 8 Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier Vehicles)

In this set-up the Stryker 6.0 ICV's would provide close in fire support to the dismounts while the cavalry provided medium range heavier fire support.  The infantry would have 3 M2 .50 calibre machine guns and 1 40mm CASW in each platoon.  This would let the infantry focus more on infantry skills (I'm assuming a Protector RWS would require less training and maintenance than the LAV-III turret) and let the cavalry focus on the heavier fire support. 

And for those that are going to start talking about PY's, the fourth rifle company comes from disbanding the light infantry battalions and adding one company to each of the remaining two battalions.  The mortar troop in the artillery battery comes from the left over third rifle company in each disbanded light infantry battalion.  That's a discussion for another time.

We don't exactly have the combat power to fight a large-scale armoured force anyway.  We'd have to pull every tank together just to provide one regiment for a Cold War-era type battle with the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans.  So why not focus on the fight we can do well, the medium-weight fight? 

 

[Kirkhill]

How about Stryker 6.0 Infantry Carrier Vehicles with a RWS for the infantry and LAV 6.0 Armoured Cavalry Vehicles for cavalry to provide fire support.  Maybe even a larger 40mm cannon to replace the 25mm, since space wouldn't be needed in back for infantry.

A light mechanized battle group could look something like this:

4 x Mechanized Rifle Company (15 Stryker ICVs)
1 x Cavalry Squadron (18 LAV 6.0 ACVs in 4 troops, one attached to each rifle company)
1 x Combat Engineer Squadron (2 field troops each with 4 LAV-Engineer)
1 x Direct Support Artillery Battery (4 M777's & 8 Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier Vehicles)

In this set-up the Stryker 6.0 ICV's would provide close in fire support to the dismounts while the cavalry provided medium range fire heavier fire support.  The infantry would have 3 M2 .50 calibre machine guns and 1 40mm CASW in each platoon.  This would let the infantry focus more on infantry skills (I'm assuming a Protector RWS would require less training and maintenance than the LAV-III turret) and let the cavalry focus on the heavier fire support. 

And for those that are going to start talking about PY's, the fourth rifle company comes from disbanding the light infantry battalions and adding one company to each of the remaining two battalions.  The mortar troop in the artillery battery comes from left over third rifle company in each disbanded light infantry battalion.  That's a discussion for another time.

We don't exactly have the combat power to fight a large-scale armoured force anyway.  We'd have to pull every tank together just to provide one regiment for a Cold War-era type battle with the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans.  So why not focus on the fight we can do well, the medium-weight fight?

So something like this then?

 

[Mountie]

I wasn't thinking of the Stryker MGS, but either a LAV 6.0 with the 25mm turret or a 40mm CTA turret instead.  If you want a light tank type of vehicle I'd go with the 90mm cannon used on the Belgian Piranha (LAV).

 

[Kilo_302]

Panhard has continued its tradition of light cavalry type vehicles with the Sphinx and the Crab. You could probably get away with a 90mm on the Sphinx, though I'm not sure where that would fit in doctrine-wise.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/panhards-crab-may-just-be-the-future-of-armored-scout-v-1581746120


http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm

 

[Kirkhill]

Cockerill offers a nice array of medium calibre turrets for the discerning Cavalry soldier.

http://www.cmigroupe.com/en/p/cockerill-medium-calibre-turrets

 

[Kilo_302]

Cockerill offers a nice array of medium calibre turrets for the discerning Cavalry soldier.

http://www.cmigroupe.com/en/p/cockerill-medium-calibre-turrets

My thoughts exactly. But how would such a vehicle fit into current CF doctrine? Or force structure?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Display Pips' and bows onto it and call it an LightweightCombatFlexiableFullyIntergratedMulti-taskableAFVHQ, they figure something out