Mech Platoon: CAB or ACR

[Ken White]

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.

[Tukhachevskii]

until you cross the threshold of basic load cube x caliber/capability to enter the realm of diminishing returns and you'll accomplish little; (1)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 :

(2)Agility, speed, unrefueled range and (3)employment.

... 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

[William F. Owen]

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.

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.

The CV 90, while the best of breed currently available still, IMO, is of the wrong breed.

Which is why I want a CV-90 chassis based APC only, not a CV-90 MICV.

For success in combat and survivability of your troops, there are only four critical factors to consider :

Agility, speed, unrefueled range and employment.

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.
Employment is by for the most critical. Employed well, almost any vehicle will do - within reason.

[Ken White]

wording is better. "A high degree of reliable mobility." I like that...

[gute]

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.

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?

[Ken White]

a new MTU 890 series pack @ 1,750hp would be the tank (not least because it can engage Helicopters, carry wounded and has a back door ), the Namer with 9 Infantrymen, a full squad, plus a crew of three and a .50 cal Overhead Weapons Station would be the best available Armored Infantry carrier IMO. In action, the Squad dismounts with ALL its people and the SL or PL fight the dismounts while the PSG (or, better, the senior track commander) controls the track(s) in supporting the dismounts. Obviously, they operate in conjunction with tanks and there should be couple of those nearby should more firepower be needed than the '50s provide.

For a Utility track and a Scout Vehicle, an upgraded M 113A3 with 6 composite roadwheels, hydropneumatic suspension and possibly Soucy tracks if they continue to improve -- Diehl instead of US tracks otherwise. A .50 OWS is all that's required. Overgunned tracked carriers are not tanks but invite misuse because of the weapon capability -- misuse because the vehicle is simply not adequate for the job.

Wilf's CV-90 minus the MICV turret and plus a .50 OWS would do for those who wrongly think the 113 is too old...

My big objection to the CV-90 variant is the weight. It may be slightly more survivable than the 113 but I don't think the added weight is adequately offset by that. The key to any light track is that you are buying mobility, not protection -- so you have to avoid placing them in bad situations. That's not difficult.

Though it is entirely too often forgotten...

In all cases, more range is desirable, best obtained by reducing powerpack size and replacing that cube and weight with fuel or in add-on side armor blister packs (which should be accompanied by a track width change to maintain agility). Powerpacks should be optimized for power and response curve, not fuel economy or mileage. It should be possible to engineer a variable horsepower / fuel demand engine which could be the best of both.

The 113 Scout track is for mobility in terrain or climates where tracks are necessary; for most purposes, a light unarmored but powerful and agile 4x4 wheeled vehicle is an excellent scout vehicle. The lack of armor has the advantage of keeping both the Scouts and more importantly their commanders honest -- they will be careful...

Armor has a flaw, a dangerous flaw -- it cocoons. People are then reluctant to leave their cocoon or to tell others to leave their cocoons and thus a lot of harsh, necessary combat stuff does not get done or isn't done right due to that syndrome. Today, it's easy to forget the guys below are Armored Infantrymen. Fighting dismounted but they weren't called 'dismounts.' I think there's a message in that...

[Uboat509]

When I was in 2 ACR at Ft. Polk, many years ago, the cav guys used to talk about how the M114 would be a better scout vehicle than the M113. The problem with either of these though, that I can see is that while both may be better suited for scouting than the Bradleys, I don't see how either would be particularly suited for screening or guarding or other missions where direct contact with the enemy is expected.

and a .50 cal Overhead Weapons Station would be the best available Armored Infantry carrier IMO.

Call me old fashioned but I dislike these things immensely. There were a number of these on HMMWVs in Iraq that I saw. I sincerely believe that these things encourage the loss of SA. The operator gets focused on just the screen and loses everything else. Even with regular turrets, I saw this in Iraq because gunners were allowed or even required to be so low in the turret that they couldn't see much anyway. I liked gunning and when I was on the gun my turret was always moving. I was always heads up and looking for threats. I saw guys, though, that would get the turret into a comfortable position, sit on the strap and zone out. I never could understand that. I always remembered reading the German tank commanders stressing the importance of being "heads up" in the turret and maintaining SA. Now we seem to be headed back the other way.

[William F. Owen]

Call me old fashioned but I dislike these things immensely. There were a number of these on HMMWVs in Iraq that I saw. I sincerely believe that these things encourage the loss of SA.

I keep hearing this. Surely it's just a matter of sensible application?
They were never and should never be used for anything other than making the weapon they employ more effective, by virtue of control, sensors and in some cases stabilisation.
They are a weapons stations. Used sensibly they have proven immensely useful.

[Ken White]

and of the deterrent effect of certain opponents or would-be opponents actually seeing a pair of human eyeballs on them as well as a restriction of weapon choice (i.e. can't use your M4 to fire a warning shot or just point at a minor menace as opposed to firing a round or few of .50 cal -- which some ROE might preclude) is real and is a serious concern.

Most of that however is offset by the sensors and stabe on the OWS. Proper training will solve some of the problems, so on balance, they're IMO a net plus. The down side is the cost but even that is less than some of the turreted solutions used today.

The SA and other issues that are concerns are not totally restricted to FID and similar ops but loom far larger there than they do in MCO. The larger advantage in a shooting war as opposed to FID is the lower and smaller silhouette and the under armor protection offered. That's my main reason for believing they're the way to go.

I'm not a COIN fan -- and I believe in special purpose equipment for special uses. Thus SO vehicles should have the simplest and best equipment tailored for the use they're likely to put those vehicles to -- and that will change from time to time, place to place and war to war. An Infantry combat vehicle OTOH should be designed to survive in close combat and therefor must meet different considerations and detectability and protection are more important.

[Infanteer]

Interesting thread. To me, the idea of a heavy track and light wheeled vehicle makes the most sense. I love the LAV III and think it is the perfect all around mix but we must never forget that the first letter stands for LIGHT. I've done armoured combat breaches in 'em (with Armoured Engineers and Tanks out front, of course), but that's against a poor enemy. Light Armour and Wheels to me speaks to operational mobility (punching through the breach) rather than tactical mobility (slogging through defences).

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ken White: You must've led a sheltered life, Pete...

Indeed I did. Blame it on my II-S student deferment ... If I recall correctly, the tactics instructor at my Field Artillery Advanced Course who I first heard the term from said something to the effect of, "The Infantry uses the term METT to describe ... "

[Ken White]

to remind us to eat. Now, if we had the superior intellects of all you Kings, we wouldn't need such artifices...

We're still wrestling with OCOKA / COKOA, corridors vs. compartments, topographic vs. military crests and dead space vs. terrain masking -- and with Pigs...

[Pete]

Er, Ken, today Great Satan's Girlfriend discusses the Queen of Battle, which can be read by clicking here.