I'm not getting your point. Why does the armored cavalry survive examination, but the combined arms battalion (HBCT)? Is it because the AIFV is only good for scouting?Originally Posted by Compost
I also found his article interesting and based on his view one could create combined arms battalions of Stryker ICVs and M1 tanks. Of course the most glaring drawback is mobility - Stryker can not go where a tank can, but does it need to?
Yes, believe the compromises inherent in the ‘AIFV’ mean that it can be useful for scouting and also rapid exploitation but poor in any role which involves persistent contact or frequent/continued exposure. After reading Simpkin and Owen no longer believe any ‘AIFV’ has to carry an 8 (or 9) man squad. Adequate capacity for both lightweight and medium weight contenders would seem to be at least a 4-man team and at most a 6-man squad/team. With that role and capacity such vehicles might be described as scout carriers and so avoid the troublesome AIFV-label !
Agree one glaring differential is mobility. The Abrams, Challenger and Leopard-2 tanks cannot be loaded into a C-130 nor cross a MLC20 bridge like the Stryker, nor an A400M or MLC40 bridge like the CV9035. Also it seems preferable that scouts be able to go close to and return from wherever adversary or friendly tanks might go. Hence the Stryker M1128 and CV90120T although each seems over powerful and problematic.
Compost,
What's your background? Have you ever maneuvered in an APC or AIFV?
My background is defence analysis. Started with Australian Defence Department in 1960s and also joined CMF (Army Reserve) infantry for more perspective. Did one year tour in SVN as civilian liaison officer. Resigned from CMF in 1970. Continued with Defence in technical areas, project analysis and management until 1990s when left to escape Canberra.
Have had numerous trips/many hours on board M113s in Oz and SVN. During a 1980s Staff College course did a rough track circuit in the turret and then the hull of an ASLAV-25. No experience inside other wheeled/tracked APCs, AIFVs or armoured scouts.
Jcustis,
Here’s a current example. ASLAV is operated by cavalry units in Armoured Corps. ASLAV-25 with 2-man turret is arranged for 3 crew and rated for up to 6passengers on two side-facing bench seats each accessed via a narrow rear door. However ASLAV-25 is operated with 3 crew and up to 4 scouts while ASLAV-25 (Recce) is often operated with just 3 crew. ASLAV-PC (turretless with pintle-mounted MG or RCWS) has 2 crew and cabin is arranged with 2 inward-facing benches for 7 scout troopers accessed via a rear ramp/door.
Stryker may be larger and heavier but wager its most used troop-carrying versions resemble ASLAVs in terms of function and capacity (with say at most 2 more seats). Similarly Bradley M3 has probably been assessed as more useful and successful than Bradley M2.
Interested to learn your view on APCs, AIFVs and armoured scouts.
Actually, the most common Stryker variant is the M1126 ICV (Infantry Carrier Vehicle) with a crew of 2 + a 9-man squad. There are 108+/BDE (4/PLT: 3 of 4 carry 9-man rifle squad, the last carries the 7-man weapons squad, FO and any attachments)[108 is the number in the 27 rifle platoons- there are additional M1126 in IN CO HQs, and other orgs that don't carry rifle squads, but I don't know exactly how they are employed]
The M1127 RV (Recon Vehicle) is used more like you describe. There are 51 in the BDE: 13 in each of 3 Recon Troops (3 x 4 + 1 for the CDR) + another 4 in each IN BN recon platoon. The Recon Troop platoons have a crew of 2+4 dismounts, the IN BNs have a crew of 2, plus 3 x 5-man recon squads that probably sit in 3 of the vehicles, with the last used by the PL for any attachments.
There are also Engineer Squad Strykers (which also carry a 9-man squad, but that includes the crew of the vehicle), Fire Support Vehicles (4-man crew, really a forward observer vehicle), Command Vehicles (heavy on commo, for headquarters types), MGS, Ambulances, ATGM carriers, Mortar Carriers and NBC Recon Vehicles.
I figured as much, and asked that because only someone who has been in M113s and MOWAG-type vehs would understand what it is like to be in one of those turrets.
I've been in M113s and went force-on-force at Shoalwater Bay with some of your 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment boys a bit ago (ASLAVs and Strykers vs. LAV-25s) and although no longer posted there, served in ourr Light Armored Reconnaissance Bns for some time.
I will say this, there's a reason why we joke that the Canadian-built LAV-25s could only fit six troops if they were Canadians. You're lucky to squeeze four pax in there amongst all the other gear and supplies required to fight with.
ETA: And for the record, I think the Corps' LAR units are pound-for-pound the most lethal units available.
Last edited by jcustis; 05-19-2013 at 08:21 PM.
I'm currently reading the book Carnivore which is about a cav scout soldier and his units fight during the invasion of Iraq. The author writes about engaging T-72 tanks with the Bradley 25mm depleted uranium or DU rounds and killing the tanks. My question has to do with the Ground Combat Vehicle and arming it with a 25mm cannon and not something bigger. Could these type of experiences in Iraq had something to do with the idea of arming the GCV with a 25mm cannon? Or, is it simply about going with the status quo? Do U.S. Army armor thinkers believe that in the future the type of armor we are most likely to face will be Soviet design like the T-72 and the DU rounds will be sufficient to destroy the vehicles. The author did say that if the T-72 hit his Bradley with its 125mm the crew would be toast - no suprise there.
Other armies went from 30 to 40 caseless (UK), from 20 to 30 (Germany), added a 100 mm next to their classic 30 mm (Russia) or kept using something in the 23-40 mm range. Most IFV purchases of the last few years appear to have been about 30-35 mm main guns.
I suppose the U.S.Army simply stuck with what's established in its training and ammunition stock system. I have yet to see or meet any source claiming that 25 mm is optimal. The problem is that the autocannon calibre choice is a choice between the devil and the deep sea. It's unsatisfactory in some regards, no matter what.
25 mm does not chew or bite easily through walls unless you use expensive APFSDS, and that's messy in infantry support because of all the sabots. 35 or 40 mm doesn't allow you to carry many rounds. Telescopic ammo such as used by the CTA 40 is more compact, but you could still carry more if you stuck with a smaller calibre.
It turned out to be abandoned the next day when we inspected it, but one night my gunner picked up a BMP-2 in his sights at about 800m, right after the vehicle came to a halt. He hit it with APDS-T (the non-depleted uranium AP round) and the penetrators still went through it like a hot knife through butter. It was a flank shot and not against the frontal armor, but I have no doubt we would have killed it just the same.
I've heard anecdotes of 25mm killing T-55s, but not -72s (or at least I never believed them).
One funny story was when one of our scout team leaders fired a HEAA round from a 83mm SMAW against the flank of an abandoned T-72 at a couple hundred meters. The first round flew over the turret by an inch or so because he failed to adjust a sight setting. The second round hit square in a sponson box, detonated, but barely scratched the hull he was trying to penetrate.
The whole situation was remedied when an industrious young combat engineer corporal and his two subordinates crawled inside with a satchel charge. The resulting explosion of the explosives, and every round and bit of propellant inside the hull, sent the turret somersaulting through the air by a hundred feet or so. This was followed by a dejected scout climbing back aboard his vehicle to face the ribbing of the crew.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks