Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 178

Thread: Mech Platoon: CAB or ACR

  1. #41
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    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.
    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

  2. #42
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Agree with Wilf. There is a loss of situational awareness

    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.

  3. #43
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Megalopolis
    Posts
    83

    Smile Best APC? M-113 Gavin

    Quote Originally Posted by gute View Post
    Why was the Bradley designed to only carry 6 troops - force the U.S. Army to have buy more of them?

    What is the best APC/IFV out there? Which modern army seems to get it right when it comes to combined arms warfare?
    G: Great question. Most of the professional & technical media runs from the answer because it's surprisingly simple & old-fashioned.

    My humble answer is, in my own opinion, the M-113.

    This Track has delivered us over a half century of Dominance in Land Warfare & we're utilizing them now more than ever. I find the M-113 Gavin very well suited for HIC, CD, MSCA, LIC, SASO, SOSRA, SORO MOUT, FIBUA, MOOTW, MARAATAPOOC, COIN, FSO, RSTA, RCO, or any other scenario in which we must move protected in an excellent track.

    The M-113 Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle (informally known as the M-113 "Gavin" according to the Federation of American Scientists & others) is by far Superior. Again that's just my opinion. Some of my friends might prefer to crawl, walk, run, truck, fly, drop, rope or teleport into battle & I say God bless them. The M-113 is just my own personal favorite & I love how many of our allies have them. Yes, that's saved our own collective butts when we lacked the foresight to bring our own.

    The lesson learned for me is to "not leave home without it" in diplomacy or war-fighting.


    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/m113-iav.htm

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

    http://www.rense.com/general26/gavin.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_ar...sonnel_carrier

  4. #44
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    I looked up composite road wheels. The set that I found from Lancer was 422 pounds lighter than aluminum. I don't know how much lighter the Soucy track is, but the Economist pointed out that M113s using a Soucy track were getting about 4 MPG, and the Soucy can use a lighter suspension design as well.

    The key question left is how much engine you need. These lighter parts could mean using a smaller engine for the same speed or the same size engine with a greater top speed.

    As for optimizing a vehicle for efficiency verses power, there are some companies that are working on camless valvetrains. Basically, they can shut themselves off instead of idle, purr along quite efficiently, and then put down a lot of power, because they have no limitations from the grind of the cam lobes and no parasitic loss from having to turn two or four cams, especially in DOHC configuration.

    The downsides are that they are loud, can't go over 5,000 RPM, are expensive and require a 48V electrical system.

    One last point on the rubber tracks... There was a newspaper article around a few years ago stating that TARDEC was looking at putting fiber optics in an Abrams, along with the gun from FCS and a rubber track. They anticipated being able to save something like 3,000 pounds in copper wire alone.

    Perhaps we may reach a point where things start to get lighter instead of heavier.

  5. #45
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
    I've read of 2ACR in 1991 leading with M1s vs M3s (IIRC, at 73 Easting).

    Never seen anything about it in 2003. By then, most or all should have been at least M2A2, right?
    All active units had M2A2's (ODS) by 2001. I know b/c I was in the last priority "legacy/AOE" division and we even had them then. 4ID/1 CAV had the A3 version by the late 90's,IIRC. They also had the M1A2's.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  6. #46
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Sparky Bait

    WTF with the "Gavin". No one but Sparky has ever called it that. Never heard it once in 13 years of active duty.

    My M113 experience and argument here. It's simply a vehicle beyond its time. I haven't heard a single serving soldier advocate for more of them over our newer vehicles.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  7. #47
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Megalopolis
    Posts
    83

    Default you have now

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
    WTF with the "Gavin". No one but Sparky has ever called it that. Never heard it once in 13 years of active duty.

    My M113 experience and argument here. It's simply a vehicle beyond its time. I haven't heard a single serving soldier advocate for more of them over our newer vehicles.
    you have now

  8. #48
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    The 113 was good in Vietnam, once they got the diesel versions in-country, but it tended to be used more as an armored scout vehicle and fire support platform (ACAV configuration, anyone?) than it was as a transport. And they had the same reliability problems there that CavGuy mentions in his linked thread. Was it effective in its day? No question. Could we do better today? I'd say so.

    And it was never officially tagged the Gavin.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  9. #49
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default The M113 "Zelda"

    here amongst the Ptarch, the M113 is called the Zelda - cool chicks name, not some old Generals name! - It's a culture thing.

    For me, what the M113 shows is the art of the possible. It certainly crushes the idea that coming up with an effective APC is the dark art that so many make it out to be.
    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

  10. #50
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default M113s Russian cousin...

    ...IMO the Soviet/Russian MTLB is probably the eastern bloc's...sorry, I mean eastern europe's equivalent (at least re: 2+11 pax). It's light ground pressure footprint is truely phenomenal. If the Russian's could get half decent crew ergonomics going it might even best the venerable M113 "Gavin" (tongue-FIRMLY-in-cheek).

  11. #51
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default The M 113 is conceptually a good vehicle, far better than many I could name.

    It is in fact 1950 technology and it is in fact out of date, no question. It suffered in all versions from various shortfalls.

    All of which were and are identified. All of which were corrected / are being corrected OR could easily have been -- but to do so would have killed the need for the Bradley in its time or the FCS more recently.

    Thus the US Army deliberately did not consistently upgrade the 113 as they could have and arguably should have and as many other nations with less money very effectively did and still do. That's Army politics at work.

    Produce the 113 with todays technology and you have a vehicle that would be reliable, have great range, is quiet, has a low silhouette and is adequately survivable when properly employed. It would also be cheap...

    Steve Blair's comment on Viet Nam reliability is correct and most of the problems were due to (1) the flawed US tracks (we don't do them that well...); (2) the electrical system; the voltage regulator spec was wrong and all the early versions overcharged and thus over heated the batteries' (3) poor maintenance. Armor did a reasonable job in that latter, Infantry did not.

    There may be a better all round utility track out there but I haven't seen or heard of it. It is not a good combat vehicle due to the aluminum armor -- though IIRC, some composite hull trial versions have been built. -- and Steve's right, no one ever called that a Gavin except Sparky and his readers...

  12. #52
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Produce the 113 with todays technology and you have a vehicle that would be reliable, have great range, is quiet, has a low silhouette and is adequately survivable when properly employed. It would also be cheap...
    Hmm, maybe if you think one million or two was cheap.

    The modern equivalent is the tracked SEP version, and the project starved (almost) because the 8x8 fashion and MRAP fashion stripped it off cash.
    Its 6x6 version (there was one 6x6 and one band track version) was turned into a 8x8 version.

    http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co..._Summer_lg.jpg

    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/

    http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/gr...agg_sep_4s.pdf

  13. #53
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default For a tracked vehicle today

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Hmm, maybe if you think one million or two was cheap.
    it is...

  14. #54
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Wilf, they heard you...

    "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."
    LINK.

  15. #55
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Funny dat! - actually, the "AFV-rats" have been discussing this for a while. Nice to see it happen though.
    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

  16. #56
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Funny dat! - actually, the "AFV-rats" have been discussing this for a while. Nice to see it happen though.
    And they are already looking into putting a 25 mm gun on it….won’t be long and they’ll put a turret on it.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  17. #57
    Council Member Chris jM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    And they are already looking into putting a 25 mm gun on it….won’t be long and they’ll put a turret on it.
    Serious question, from someone with little AFV knowledge:

    If you can put a 25mm M242 cannon with a co-ax MG on a RWS (at least, that's how I read the article - correct me if I'm wrong) why have a turret at all? Have I missed something, or is technology replacing the need to have a self-contained platform mated to the primary weapon system for small calibre weapons?
    '...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
    Donald Kagan

  18. #58
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris jM View Post
    If you can put a 25mm M242 cannon with a co-ax MG on a RWS (at least, that's how I read the article - correct me if I'm wrong) why have a turret at all?
    You can put a fair few 30mm cannons on an RWS, and yes, good question, but the issue resides in application. What are you using the vehicle for and why? Strapping weapons on hulls usually is not a challenge, within reason. Why do it is the real question.

    Example: the UK could have fitted 2x TOW missiles to every Warrior MICV (Delco Turret). Would that have been a good idea? Technically possible. So what?
    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

  19. #59
    Council Member Chris jM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Why do it is the real question.

    Example: the UK could have fitted 2x TOW missiles to every Warrior MICV (Delco Turret). Would that have been a good idea? Technically possible. So what?
    Self-defence? Allow the Warrior the ability to engage enemy AFVs as it moves to the assault to drop off it's infantry component?

    Having 30mm/25mm is an easier argument - you then have the ability for the vehicle to provide both self-defence out to 2km+ and provide rather potent fire support to the dismounted element.

    I'm guessing your point will be that such a weapon system enables the vehicles to be used in roles they were not intended for. If that is the answer, surely good doctrine, very good training and knowledgeable leadership would allow for the vehicles to be used properly without forcing them to forego a huge capability?

    On the same topic but different strand, what is the benefit to a turreted vehicle as opposed to a RWS? I imagine a turreted wpn has a far greater ammunition capacity and can reload/ cycle through different ammunition types quicker - but other than that?
    '...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
    Donald Kagan

  20. #60
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Picture I took of a Namer on a live firing exercise, in the Negev, today. The more I study it, the more I like it.
    Note the .50, RWS beside the Commanders hatch and the manual FN-MAG. The commander can also mount a 60mm mortar, next to his hatch.
    Sorry it's a small picture,
    IMG_0779 RESIZE.jpg
    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

Similar Threads

  1. Platoon Weapons
    By Norfolk in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: 09-19-2014, 08:10 AM
  2. Redundancy in small unit organization
    By Presley Cannady in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 07-31-2014, 09:00 PM
  3. Size of the Platoon and Company
    By tankersteve in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-31-2014, 01:20 PM
  4. Abandon squad/section levels of organization?
    By Rifleman in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 06-29-2014, 04:19 PM
  5. Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization
    By Norfolk in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 306
    Last Post: 12-04-2012, 05:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •