As for the first question the following book is a useful place to start:Originally Posted by gute
W. Blair Haworth, Jr., The Bradley and How It Got That Way:Technology, Institutions and the Problem of Mechanised Infantry in the United States Army(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999)
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 06-07-2010 at 09:47 AM.
Another good reference is "Why Johnny Can't Dismount:"
I do not buy all of the ideas and conclusions but it makes some good point. Why it has to keep quoting old Richard Simpkin, I just don't know. I keep reading him looking for insight and am almost never rewarded.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I wonder if the better informed know how many M113A3's the US Army has left. Surely, if there's a proven APC out there that has to be it? 2+11pax can't be wrong and the IDF's Zelda variant has to be the best version armour protection wise (nice optional suppresive weapons mounts too). I know the FCS was cancelled but the IFV requirement is still active, albeit having been rolled into a different programme. The Ground Combat Vehicle IFV "looks" impressive (rather reminds me of the KIFV), got all the bells and whistles, and slightly better than the Bradley with 3+9 pax but as I see it its an awefully(sp?) expensive vehicle for an ill-thought out doctrinal/real world requirement. I understand too that the US defence industry needs to be retooled with newer contracts (and don't forget congressional/industrial pork) but ultimately is this really necessary? Would it not be better to re-fabricate and even re-open the M113 production line (amazingly the FAS sight claims that troops "unofficially" call it the "Gavin"; Sparky strikes again!!!) for vehicles with less complexity (thus easier maintenance and a vastly reduced log tail). I can just see in my minds eye a GCV infantry platoon/coy being rendered combat ineffective because some ideeeeiot (said in my best County Cork accent) gave the onboard Vetronics a virus or accidentially sat on a control screen....
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 06-07-2010 at 03:11 PM. Reason: Vetronics not Vectronics and F***ing links!!!
Please not the M-113. It really has reached it's sell by date, though you can still get a lot out of it.
Personally, I'd go for a "turretless" CV-90 2+8, with a STANAG 4569 level 5 in the horizontal and a level 3a and b in the vertical. Blast resistant seating and a belly plate might mean level 4 is possible.
1 x 12.7mm OWS should be sufficient for self-protection.
Hopefully the power to weight ration would stay within limits.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
A reduced CV90 would still weigh twice as much as a M113-class vehicle. A M113-class vehicle (such as SEP/tracked) could get away with half the fuel consumption /100 km.
You can 'up' armor all you wish, add larger weapons
until you cross the threshold of basic load cube x caliber/capability to enter the realm of diminishing returns and you'll accomplish little; they can still be easily killed and will not be able to kill everything they may meet. We got it wrong with the Brad. The CV 90, while the best of breed currently available still, IMO, is of the wrong breed. For success in combat and survivability of your troops, there are only four critical factors to consider :
Agility, speed, unrefueled range and employment.
Although I'm shaking at the thought of responding to the Great Ken White...
... I'd thought I'd give it a go anyway. The comment I have labelled (1) above piqued my interest. So am I right in assuming that you find the concept (if not the practice) of mechanised infantry eesentially sound and ruined only by a sub-standard vehicle (BFV/CFV)? Which leads to my second query about employment (3). BFV and IFV TTPs in general haven't really been well thought out IMO (though FIBUA/MOUT may be the exception thanks to the recent troubles). Generally, the IFV/MICVs tend to follow MBTs and provide some sort of anti-infantry/ATGM protection. They aren't doctrinally or materially equipped for much else. How does one remedy (if that is the case) the situation? Obviously, if you intend your IFVs to cross the line of departure then you really need something the equivalent of a MBT in terms of protection. Firepower is a whole different issue altogether.
This impacts on (2). The power to weight ratio is also going to be a factor in terms of armour protection (active armour may help but you still need a baseline of physical armour) and add to the "diminishing returns" you speak of in your post (of course thats probably what you meant, and if so, I apologise for mis-understanding your statement). As does the issue of whether tracks or wheels are best which, again depends, I suppose, on whether or not you intend your vehicles to leave the assembly area and accompany/carry troops into combat; for the former case (troops debus in the assembly area) then I quite fancy the GPV Captain (2+14pax) whereas for the latter I'd convert however many old Challenger 1 hulls we have lying around, install a europack compact engine (at the front).
I only asked because I was always enamoured with mech units while denigrating line inf as "archaic" until I really tried to get my head around them; the pendulum has now swung firmly the other way
Agree, but there has to be some level/standard of protection applied the problem. The idea of being "invulnerable" is patently stupid. It's what you can get for the Power-to-weight.
Which is why I want a CV-90 chassis based APC only, not a CV-90 MICV.The CV 90, while the best of breed currently available still, IMO, is of the wrong breed.
My wording would be "a high degree of reliable mobility," but I think if we talked around those points we'd be in basic agreement.For success in combat and survivability of your troops, there are only four critical factors to consider :
Agility, speed, unrefueled range and employment.
Employment is by for the most critical. Employed well, almost any vehicle will do - within reason.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
What is the right breed? Is there a vehicle/country out there that got it right? What would it llok like, what would it do, specifications?
Just finished reading this good book. This book answered my question about the limited dismount capability - the 2-man turret. The Army decided not to pursue a one man turret for the M2 and two man turret for the M3 due to cost. Congress and the GAO were skeptical of the vehicle and its role. Former Senator Gary Hart asked the Army why they did not get an APC in the same weight range as a MBT.
Other interesting tidbits from the book:
a War College paper written in the early 70's proposed going away from armor and infantry specific battalions to combined arms battalions of two tank companies and two infantry companies.
Wass de Czege made the case that there are three distinct subgroups of infantry:
armored
regular
light
NCOs argued that the M3 was not suitable for cavalry reconnaissance missions because it is too big, too heavy, too heavely armed and the five man crew is too large. Most importantly, the cav scout should rely on stealth to obtain infomation. Midlevel officers countered and argued that the vehicle had to be heavy to counter the heavy armor threat in Europe. Also, an experienced NCO will not put his crew in a position to be outgunned.
I guess the next step is a Merkava like Combined Arms Tank. A 21st Century MBT-70 that also transports 4-6 troops.
Hmmm
Think there is a dis-connect between too big, 5-man crew and stealth. A 3-man crew like would have been on the XM800 would not have provided any dismount capability.
This discussion also over looks somewhat the role that Cavalry was/did play. That of the Security Force fight (Screen, guard, cover) and economy-of-force. Same unit was expecetd to be able to do both. And I think they could/did.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks