BAE GCV Photos

[gute]

Here is a link to the BAE GCV entry - the vehicle looks like a M2 and M113 made a baby. What imagination they have at BAE This is enough to make a guy cynical.

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/02/fr...id/#more-16487

[gute]

I mean really, is this a f***ing joke!

[gute]

Well I guess I'm the only responding to this so I will continue to have this conversation with myself

Now that I took a big boy pill I get the size of GCV - I believe both Ken White and Wilf (as well as others) have posted that vehicles that are designed to operate/complement the MBT needs to be built like a tank and the GCV design by BAE seems to meet that requirement at 140,000 pounds. I do wonder about the gun size, but I have a feeling that the future Armored Brigade Combat Team (formally the HBCT) will be designed like the current SBCTs with three battalions of GVCs with a platoon of M1 tanks attached to each GCV company.

[Ken White]

I mean really, is this a f***ing joke!

It's NOT built like a tank; as you first noted, it's a cross between a 113 and an M2 / 3. -- which probably means it'll have the worst attributes of all. It's problem is that it'l get used like a tank as were the Bradleys. Bad vehicles all. We ought to buy Namers but won't, not invented here.

Hopefully we'll drop the 'team' bit and just call it an Armored Brigade.

I have a feeling that the future Armored Brigade Combat Team (formally the HBCT) will be designed like the current SBCTs with three battalions of GVCs with a platoon of M1 tanks attached to each GCV company.

Too infantry heavy IMO. Two Tank and two Mech Cos are far more flexible.

That GCV is a bad idea, sounds simplistic but I learned one thing over a lot of years -- if it looks right, it'll work right. If it doesn't, it won't. That thing doesn't even look right, way too much overhang in all directions for one thing. Way too tall for another. It'll be a bear to drive due to all that and that means lengthy and difficult driver training. Overarmed, too. I really doubt it'll keep up with an M1 in tight quarters or cross country...

[carl]

I don't know much about the subject but those overhangs made it look funny. Then when Ken mentioned them it hit me why. It looks like the WWI French St. Chamond tank with a big beanie on top.

140,000# seems very heavy. Do the Army and USMC have the engineering and bridging capacity to handle so many heavy vehicles? I don't know which is why I ask.

"a M-2 and M-113 made a baby"- I laughed like hell at that line.

[Fuchs]

Hopefully we'll drop the 'team' bit and just call it an Armored Brigade.Too infantry heavy IMO. Two Tank and two Mech Cos are far more flexible.

Designations are supposed to mean something. A 2-2 ratio is typically understood to be a mechanised (infantry) brigade; infantry in protected tracked vehicles and main battle tanks, suitable for a wide variety of terrain.

An Armored Brigade would receive a different NATO icon on maps and lead coalition staffs to inadvertently think that the formation is rather meant for terrain that's not so nice to infantry AND to think that the entire formation is suitable for demands of fast operational advances.


Besides; I'm a bit flabbergasted why one of the bigger active armies in NATO would turn away from formation specialization and embrace a standard format. Small forces need to standardise, bigger ones can enjoy the benefits of specialisation.
There should be formations with a focus on mounted combat (with infantry strength for the exception from this rule) and mechanised formations with a focus on slower, yet more thorough dismounted combat (where tanks become assault guns and security vehicles, with infantry being the main hand). I suppose the airborne and 'mountain' forces do not satisfy the need for the latter.


(West) Germany had a 1950's discussion about optimal brigades (divisions were ruled out as too cumbersome and only raised because politicians had promised 12 of them to the West). A universal balanced brigade was favoured, but geographic realities forced us to specialise (South and North Germany are very dissimilar).
In the end, we developed an entirely different culture and tactics between armour and mech inf brigades. The armour brigades turned towards a much, much faster and more daring movement style while the armoured mech thought more infantry-like and emphasised security more. I suspect a balanced standard brigade would not develop such a rich repertoire for an army.

[Ken White]

Designations are supposed to mean something. A 2-2 ratio is typically understood to be a mechanised (infantry) brigade; infantry in protected tracked vehicles and main battle tanks, suitable for a wide variety of terrain.

The US norm was, for years, two Inf, one Tank = Mech Bde; two Tank, one Inf = Armored Bde. The hybrid 2 and 2 is my idea of a better approach. Not telling yet how the Armored Bde will actually be structured.

Besides; I'm a bit flabbergasted why one of the bigger active armies in NATO would turn away from formation specialization and embrace a standard format. Small forces need to standardise, bigger ones can enjoy the benefits of specialisation.

True but that's what happens when one lets the Accountants have too much sway...

...The armour brigades turned towards a much, much faster and more daring movement style while the armoured mech thought more infantry-like and emphasised security more. I suspect a balanced standard brigade would not develop such a rich repertoire for an army.

Same here and I believe your assessment's correct.

[Tukhachevskii]

... Crusader (maybe BAe should look into it. Seems like "outlandish" is their motto)

[gute]

It's NOT built like a tank; as you first noted, it's a cross between a 113 and an M2 / 3. -- which probably means it'll have the worst attributes of all. It's problem is that it'l get used like a tank as were the Bradleys. Bad vehicles all. We ought to buy Namers but won't, not invented here.

If you look at the ass end it has a little Namer in it. Must have been a 3-way.

[J Wolfsberger]

Here is a link to the BAE GCV entry - the vehicle looks like a M2 and M113 made a baby.

And from the look of this beast, they weren't married at the time.

What imagination they have at BAE This is enough to make a guy cynical.

I see a lot of FCS in it. On the other hand, I'm sure it satisfies every single spec in the RFP/contract and provides every feature the Army asked for.

If you ask companies to design to a large set of specifications instead of asking them to develop a design that provides capabilities, this is what you get.

(Of course, getting people to understand the difference between a capability and a design solution that provides it is a whole different challenge.)