# Anti-Armour capability of the LAV III APC & Coyote.



## Yard Ape (28 Jul 2004)

Tanks are leaving and there replacments will be too few in number to provide battlefield wide protection of our forces in the face of enemy armour.   This means if we plan to do anything more than fight on the defensive, our APCs will have to be able to protect themselves while the sections are mounted.   In the face of an enemy that practices mixing armour with infantry, we will be slaughtered.

For its own protection, the LAV Coy must be able to reach-out and kill tanks from at least as far as a tank could reach the company at max effective range.

There may be options.   The LAV-25 turret (the one found on our APC & the Coyote) can be fitted with two TOW missile launchers.   With this upgrade, every APC in Canada could kill up to two tanks.   Such a system would not take space from inside the vehicle as additional missiles would only be carried by the Coy Ech (the missiles are only intended for protection unless in a prepaired defensive postion).   In a defensive position, the vehicle could be contribute to the overall anti-armour plan.   A Companies worth of LAV III supported by TUA & MGS could make quick killing of enemy armour in a kill zone.

But the TOW requires the vehicle to sit static while firing.   In a chance encounter with enemy armour,   Infantry & recce/survielance only hope to survive may be mobility & bracking contact.   At the very least, these vehicles should not sit exposed for the time it takes to guide a missile home.   A fire & forget option would be better than TOW.   Is there a self guiding missile that is compatable with the TOW launcher?   If not then perahapse we should look at an upgrade that would but extended range Javelin launchers on the LAV-25 turret in the same configuration as the TOW launchers can be mounted.


----------



## MG34 (28 Jul 2004)

It is not recce's job to kill tanks.The TOW system will not be added to the LAV turret,that much we know and has been told to us time and time again by the powers that be.The current AAP in the Inf Bn has been gutted to the point that it is all but useless.The AAP we had in 4 CMBG with 18 TUA was about the best we ever had it,of course now with the loss of the tank and the adoption of the MGS our AA punch has dropped significantly.
 Infantry vehicles should not have TOW mounted or any other AA system for that matter,the job of the APC/IFV is to get the troops on the objective ASAP,not mix it up with tanks.That is the realm of the DFS organisation what ever it may be.The MGS has the same capabilities as a Leo to kill tanks,which with a 105mm was marginal at best when facing a modern army. The only thing that will make a difference is the purchase of more dedicated Anti Armour vehicles,the Infantry vehicles have  too much to worry about than taking on tanks.The TOW system on the Bradley is not very good,when you start dual tasking controls and sights or cramming dula systems in a small turret you get problems,couple that with training on the system you do not have an effective solution to the problem.


----------



## CF_Lifer (28 Jul 2004)

Wasn't the CF testing out a Direct Fire Support Turret for the LAVS, or STRYKERs?   I cant remember which one, but I think they were using a 105mm Gun weren't they? a LAV MGS? Using a General Dynamics Low Profile Turret? Theres a Picture of the STRYKER Direct Fire Support Vehicle.


----------



## MG34 (28 Jul 2004)

I suggest you read what I posted,the MGS is 105mm you did get that right.


----------



## CF_Lifer (28 Jul 2004)

What did I get wrong? I got it off of http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm 
I agree with you that it is not the Infantry's job to combat tanks as a primary task. And Is certainly not a Recce vehicle's main responsibility. Do you think a 120mm gun would do better than the 105?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (28 Jul 2004)

Yard Ape,

There are no members of the TOW family that are fire and forget.   The TOW NG is not wireguided but still requires tracking.   It is compatibile with ITAS though so Canada could see it sometime in the future.   Sadly TOW is coming to a end.   The US are moving on to the Common Missile System which will be base on Hellfire.   There is the possibility of that being fire and forget.
Having seen both Javelin and Spike trialled over several weeks I would say Javelin is the better missile despite Spike's longer range.   Just my opinion.
Perhaps instead of mounting the entire system to the vehicle, produce a mount where the CLU could be attached next to the gunner's hatch or the back passenger hatch.   I would think the gunner's hatch would be better as the missile has a distinct downward slant when loaded on the CLU and you wouldn't make many friends pointing the exhaust into the back of a LAV.


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Jul 2004)

MG34 said:
			
		

> the job of the APC/IFV is to get the troops on the objective ASAP,not mix it up with tanks.That is the realm of the DFS organisation what ever it may be.


That is true, but 66 Mobile guns & 34 TUA are not enough protection for the army.   Unfortunatly, enemy tanks will not listen when our LAV crew try to explain they are not supposed to fight tanks.   A fire & forget misssile would give our APCs sufficient fire to protect themselves in a chance encounter with enemy armour (an encounter that would currently lead to a slaughter).   You will notice my origional post mentions TUA because it will still berequired for those positions where you want/plan to fight enemy armour.


----------



## patt (28 Jul 2004)

CF_Lifer said:
			
		

> What did I get wrong? I got it off of http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm
> I agree with you that it is not the Infantry's job to combat tanks as a primary task. And Is certainly not a Recce vehicle's main responsibility. Do you think a 120mm gun would do better than the 105?




no, theres already enough problems with the 105 just image how many more the 120 would have


----------



## CF_Lifer (28 Jul 2004)

Hey Patty. I heard they were complaining about the LAV MGS being too Top Heavy....I'm sure changing it with a 120mm would only complicate this problem.


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Jul 2004)

There are well over a dozen threads on the MGS and 120 mm vs 105 mm.   Take your tangent to one of those threads please.

For those who have not seen the TOW system on the LAV-25 turret, I have a picture.   The launchers are in the ready to fire position, and rotate down to the side of the turret when not firing.   The same basic concept could be used for a number of fire & forget missiles.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jul 2004)

Maybe these would fit your bill YardApe

The Italian Israeli 60mm Hypervelocity Muzzle System Cannon based on OtoMelara's 76mm Naval Gun used on the DDH-280s.

It is light enough to use on an M113 with 80 rounds (and still carrying a 9 man crew), fires 3 round bursts, kills T55s for sure at about 1500 to 2000m (that knife fight zone I believe you were concerned about) and also effective, I believe but I can't find the citation, against T72s.  At the time that it was introduced, in the 80's, it was touted as being equivalent to the 105mm APDS fired from the L7.

Currently being considered by a number of armies, including the Italians and the Poles who were looking at it for their 25 tonne Patria APCs.

And it is housed in a "Real" turret.  

On which could be hung CKEM, the replacement for the TOW you were looking for.  The contract has been awarded to Lockheed Martin.   >4 km, 100lb, fire and forget kinetic kill against any and all targets.  Kind of like a shrunken LOSAT.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/m-113/HVMS.html
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-60.html

http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/article.cfm?Id=464


> Seeking to bring about such a weapon is the CKEM (compact kinetic energy missile) program. George W. Snyder, project manager at AMRDEC, said the goal is to design a missile that is half the size of the Losat (line-of-sight antitank missile), scheduled to begin production in 2004. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is building 11 Losats to be tested by the Army's 82nd airborne division. Losat is 9.75 feet long and weighs 174 pounds. Launched from a Humvee truck, it can reach targets out to 4 km. â Å“It will help users understand how kinetic energy missiles perform in the battlefield,â ? said Snyder.
> If CKEM progresses as the Army hopes, it will be 4.5 feet long and weigh 85 pounds. Ideally, officials said, the Army would like it to be 50 pounds. â Å“It won't be the ultra-lethal variety,â ? said McCorkle. â Å“But it may be sufficient.â ?
> Three competitors are vying for a CKEM award: Raytheon Co., Lockheed Martin's missile division in Dallas and a small firm in Huntsville, Ala., Miltech Corp., teamed with the Boeing Co.
> A fourth competitor, Alliant Defense, was eliminated, because its proposed missile was powered by a ramjet, a technology the Army considered too risky.
> ...



Just some more grist for the mill.  Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2004)

http://www.otobreda.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_hitfist_60_te

Here's a link to the Italian turret that combines the 60mm HVMS (auto loader) with TOWs.

Rate of fire 1 rd / 2 sec or in other words 3 rds in 4 secs.

Gun supplied by two 8 round magazines - APFSDS and Variable Fused-HE


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Aug 2004)

I think wire guided should go the way of the dodo and we should invest (if at all) in a FF missile.  That said I think R&D should also go into a round fired from the 25mm that could defeat MBT armour.  What is the effective range of a tank anyway.


----------



## brihard (2 Aug 2004)

Any half-decent tank gun can reach out and touch at 2500m+. Now of course, the tank's optics, the skill of the gunner, adn the stability built into the gunnery system will affect it- some tanks can shgoot quite accurately on the move, whereas others have to stop to have a chance at hitting something.

An American M1 Abrahms can generally knock out a target at 4km+ with it's 120mm Smoothebore. It's probably got the best computerized gunenry system in the world.

Any Soviet-era taank as of or after the T72 series has half decent gunenry systems too. The T-80s and later in particularly had relatively sophisticated systems. I'm nto sure about the inherent accuracy of the 125mm rifle gun they use, though. I'd be much mroe worried about the missiles they can shoot from the 125 tube...


----------



## loyalcana (8 Aug 2004)

Speaking of Fire & Forget missiles any news on the TOW2 Fire & Forget missile?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Aug 2004)

Doesn't the W in TOW mean wire guided.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Aug 2004)

Hence the FOTT (Follow On To TOW) fire and forget project (which was scrapped) and seems to have been replaced by thte CKEM (Compact Kinetic Energy Missile) by Lockhhed Martin.  CKEM in a miniaturized (term used loosely) version of the LOSAT (Line of Sight Anti-Tank) KEM mounted on Hummers.  If the LOSAT KEM has been compared to tossing a telephone pole at a tank at Mach 5 could a Compact version be described as "Tossing a Caber" ;D


----------



## JBP (11 Aug 2004)

Well, there is the option we ALREADY HAVE... And are supposidly going to be beefing up on in the future, around 2007...

ADATS... I talked to an old buddy of mine who is in an ADATS unit on the east coast, I asked him specifically about the problem of enemy tanks since Canada won't have a MBT in the future...

He said this:

Most modern armour (tanks or MBT's) have a firing range of about 1.7-2.5 Kilometers at best. The ADATS can fire from almost 8Km's away... That would give us a wicked advantage over enemy armour, we could be beating them to pieces as they were comming at us!

He said that there ARE problems with the ADATS of course, but that's the general idea, fire+move+fire+move+fire etc... The current ADATS he's using is wire-guided though. Same as TOW. You get the idea.. Then I asked him about the problem with the damn things being so HOT. Thier IR signature is HUUUGGEEE... He said it's true, and has no idea what they're suppose to do about that. Apparently the newer one's being made and set to deliver for 2007-2010 aren't going to be as hot or loud.

That helps with the whole Anti-Armour thing no?

 :warstory:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Aug 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> The current ADATS he's using is wire-guided though. Same as TOW. You get the idea..  :warstory:



A dual role anti aircraft missile/anti tank missile that is wireguided?????


----------



## Lance Wiebe (12 Aug 2004)

The AD boys really like pointing out the range thing.  The range is great if you are engaging aircraft.  But honestly, how many places are there that allows you to observe and engage from 8 Km away?  The other problem is that the ADATS are few in number, have few projectiles, and take a long time to reload.  Also, once they open up, they are suddenly a high priority target, and there are any number of anti-radiation and IR projectiles out there.

While the ADATS will be credible on the defense, they are useless on the offense, or for patrolling.  A one-dimensional weapon.  Anyone that claims that ADATS can replace tanks simply does not understand armour warfare.

Another note.  Ask your buddy how effective the ADATS are against multiple, moving through use of ground, only exposing themselves for very short periods, the way armour is trained to move?  Not all terrain is like IRAQ!  Has anyone done a realistic trial, maybe in Gagetown?  Yeah, right.  No trial would be done, because it would expose the weakness of this idiotic plan to use an air defense asset to replace a tank.


----------



## Spr.Earl (12 Aug 2004)

Lance,as to ADATS and its a true roll S.A weapon the war head is frag,so in the A.T. roll do we change war heads?

Air to Air and Ground to Air Missiles are only super tech hand grenades to spread shrapnel as one little 
piece can drop a multi mil. $ plane

Confused! ???


----------



## JBP (12 Aug 2004)

Sorry, yes, it's not wire-guided, but it's TV guided like the American Air to Ground weapon the Maverick missile/bomb.

At least that's what he told me how it'd be used against armour. Air to air they use the radar. Problem is then not only you have your IR signature but the ping from your radar to target you. And as mentioned, once they start firing off, they're a BIG target....

True, it's not a good idea to have as anti-armour and air-to-air I suppose... 

I was trying to be hopefull since we won't have an actual tank!


----------



## Yard Ape (12 Aug 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> I think wire guided should go the way of the dodo and we should invest (if at all) in a FF missile.  That said I think R&D should also go into a round fired from the 25mm that could defeat MBT armour.  What is the effective range of a tank anyway.


25 mm will never be able to defeat a MBT.  I think F&F missiles for recce & APCs should be seen as a self-defence requirement.

I do not think we should go all F&F.  Dedicated anti-armour should continue to used guided missiles (or a missile that could be self/command guided).  I do think laser may be the way to go for this role though.  For our dedicated anti-armour, we should look at replacing TOW with LOSAT in a LAV turret.

MMEV (ADATS development)  will also be critical to our future anti-armour capability at the BG level and up.  There are already several on-going threads on this topic.


----------



## MG34 (12 Aug 2004)

The 25mm has defeated T72 MBTs,in both Desert Storm and OIF Bradley crews have used 25mm DU-FSAPDS/T to destroy T72 from both frontal and side arcs. The older T series is easy pickings for the 25mm,T55  through T72 were destroyed easily by shooting into and around the gun mantlet,which acted as a bullet trap directing rounds that did not penetrate into the area of the driver's hatch and turret ring. In short a 25mm cannon firing bursts at a rate of 200 round per min will destroy a T72,the Bradley gunners I have talked to stated on average it took 4-9 rounds to brew up a T72 or 1-2 bursts.I am not saying this should be included as a role for the 25mm but it does show it is possible,despite what the powers that be may publish.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (12 Aug 2004)

I don't want to get in to an argument on the merits, or lack therof, of the 25mm, but where did you receive your information?  You may have been the victim of some of the 25mm propaganda that has been going around.  I've seen plenty of it, and have listed to plenty of soldiers praising the 25mm way beyond what is factual.

I have talked to some of the Bradley boys from GW1, they all reported that they could not penetrate frontal armour of a T-72, even with the DU round.  All aspects of a T55, and side (in some areas and at close ranges) of the T72 could be penetrated, at ranges of 600 m or less.

The TLAP trial also demonstrated the futility of engaging frontal aspect of T72.

Seeing as how the Leo, with its 105mm cannon and about 100 times the KE of the 25mm could not penetrate the frontal aspect of a T72 with the "Dolly Parton" armour at 2000m with the C76, I kind of doubt that the 25 with our APFSDS will do much to it!


----------



## MG34 (13 Aug 2004)

Perhaps you didn't read the whole post,the shots that penetrated were directed in the area of the gun mantlet the dispursion of the rounds in the burst caused some to deflect down into the bullet trap between the mantlet and the hull.The rounds penetrated the turret ring and drivers hatch. The 105mm of the Leopard of course could not penetrate the front of the turret on a T72 M1,it is only a 105mm after all,no place on the modern battlefield for them anymore to be sure.
 During the "Thunder Run" of the 3rd Div. into Bagdhad there are numerous accounts of M2/M3 Bradleys taking out T-72 with the 25mm DU APFSDS,side shots and close range or lucky frontal hits a kill is still a kill would you not agree????


----------



## Yard Ape (13 Aug 2004)

Lucky shots do not make a weapon a tank killer.  Recce & APCs need Fire & Forget missiles.


----------



## KevinB (13 Aug 2004)

From speaking to a relative that has an inside on the LOSAT / CVEM _ I tend to think that it is a good OPTION for the LAVIII given we have abandonded conventional manuver practise.

However I think the CF had better realise that given our current ORBAT and TO&E we should relegate our selves to recce screens, terrorist hunting and MEU-SOC type missions...

The combat team attack is dea unless we get a huge windfall of cash and equiptment.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (13 Aug 2004)

MG34, what I am talking about is your statement



> In short a 25mm cannon firing bursts at a rate of 200 round per min will destroy a T72,the Bradley gunners I have talked to stated on average it took 4-9 rounds to brew up a T72 or 1-2 bursts.



I am saying that statements like this perpetuate the myth of the fantastic 25mm, and the POS T72.  Statements like this will be believed by our younger soldiers, and may cause fatal decisions to be made on some future battlefield.

During the TLAP trial, when firing at an T72, after firing literally hundreds of rounds at the frontal arc, exactly one round penetrated the front, just underneath the barrel, through the Soviet version of the mantle.  This round penetrated from a suicidely close range.  Hundreds of rounds fired at the side resulted in about a 5% penetration ratio at ranges under 400 M.  Certainly enough to kill a T72, especially if multiple LAV's were firing at the same broadside target, at close range.

The 25mm is not expected to take on any second or third generation MBT, nor should it be expected to.  The 25mm is almost exactly twice the calibre of the Browning .50, and just because a APFSDS round has been developed for it doesn't mean it can take on MBT's!


----------



## Mortar guy (13 Aug 2004)

> Sorry, yes, it's not wire-guided, but it's TV guided like the American Air to Ground weapon the Maverick missile/bomb.



I hate to be nit-picky but it isn't TV guided either. The ADATS is a laser beam-rider meaning it homes in on reflected laser energy from the target (like a Paveway LGB). Almost impossible to defeat using decoys, ECM, stealth etc.

As for the ADATS in the ground role, I think it is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. I can't think of too many places where you'll get an 8km shot. I was in the Middle East last year and I noticed that even in the middle of the desert you are luck to get 5km shots. Besides the ADATS taskes about 5 minutes to come into action once it get into a firing position, which is not conducive to fire and movement! Just like Lance said, once they actually test this MGS/TUA/ADATS concept out, they will realize how it will not work.

Alex


----------



## MG34 (13 Aug 2004)

During the TLAP trials was the M919 APFSDS (DU) round used or just C137??? As the tugsten penetrator on the C137 is not as effective as the long rod DU penetrator of the US round.Remember I am talking about M2 bradleys not LAV 3,different ammo different results.

From a CNN report:

U.S. Bradley fighting vehicles, despite being lighter, wiped out some of the Soviet-vintage T-72 tanks, a significant military milestone. 

The secret for success? The Bradleys fired smaller shells, but they were of a particularly punishing variety made with depleted uranium, which pierced the armor of the heavier Iraqi vehicles. 

"I had two Bradleys... One destroyed three T-72s and the other destroyed two," Lyle said. "

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/05/sprj.irq.lyle/.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (13 Aug 2004)

The TLAP trial only fired non DU projectiles, as it was quite clearly stated that Canadian ground troops would never be issued DU projectiles.  Only Canadian and US (non DU) rounds were fired.  Rounds were fired at a T-72, a BMP2, and various helicopter structures to (test the frange).

But, talk to some of the US soldiers.  Almost all agree that the performance of the 25 was exaggerated, although I will admit that many tanks were knocked out by 25mm, very few (not none, however) T72s were knocked out.

Even the DU does not have the mass or sufficient KE to penetrate much more than 200-300 mm of RHA.  

I did read on after action report where three T-72's were taken out by a Bradley company.  The after action report concentrated on the fact that all Bradleys, save two, expended all of their AP, and had to go through the rather lengthy replen drill.  Apparently the entire company was ourt of action for over an hour, and had to be protected by the remainder of the battalion until they were ready for action again.

The 25 is designed to take out similar vehicle types, APC's and IFV's, not MBT's.


----------



## MG34 (13 Aug 2004)

I was making the point that despite all the propaganda to the opposite,a 25mm is capable of taking out a tank. Is it recommended ? Not at all but it could be done. That's it nothing more,now if we had a real IFV such as the CV90.......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Oct 2004)

Would it be possible to develop a 25mm around that could take out a MBT consistently?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Oct 2004)

Sorry, yes, it's not wire-guided, but it's TV guided like the American Air to Ground weapon the Maverick missile/bomb.


I hate to be nit-picky but it isn't TV guided either. The ADATS is a laser beam-rider meaning it homes in on reflected laser energy from the target (like a Paveway LGB). Almost impossible to defeat using decoys, ECM, stealth etc.

Actually, an ADATS missile is none of these things.   It is laser COMMAND guided- that is to say that detectors on the base of the missile look backwards towards the firing unit and steers itself based on the information it receives.   The missile has no idea where the target is at any time until it's fuse (also a laser in the nose of the missile) detects the presence of a target and causes detonation. The warhead is big enough to kill or seriously damage any MBT in the world.   I would be highly sceptical about using an asset that expensive and scarce in a solely Anti-armour role.   It's anti-armour capability was always really only meant as a self-defense feature and a marketing tool.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Also the Army has a hyper velocity TOW in testing.
> 
> http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/
> 
> http://www.mechaps.com/cgi-bin/pictureArchive.cgi?&A=right_page&id=119


Looks like the HATM is the evolved LOSAT, in a package which fits TOW launchers. This will give the LAV-TOW a much better reach, now all that is needed is a low signature "launch" motor to push it out the tube...


http://www.mechaps.com/cgi-bin/pictureArchive.cgi?&A=right_page&id=119


----------



## Zipper (29 Jun 2005)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I was making the point that despite all the propaganda to the opposite,a 25mm is capable of taking out a tank. Is it recommended ? Not at all but it could be done.





			
				CFL said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to develop a 25mm around that could take out a MBT consistently?



Now I have to ask. Capable of taking out a Tank? Ok, which one? Certainly not the front armour on most of today's MBT's? Maybe a lucky rear shot? Perhaps damaging the track, or the sights? Or are we talking about older generation tanks like the T-64's, Leopard's, M-60's, etc? 

Maybe some clarification is needed? Considering the fact that even our 105mm rounds would be hard pressed to take out a T-72 front on at range.

Other then that, lets hope that they decide to mount TOW on turrets in the LAV's. Or even better, go for CV-90's.


----------



## RyanNS (29 Jun 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Now I have to ask. Capable of taking out a Tank? Ok, which one? Certainly not the front armour on most of today's MBT's? Maybe a lucky rear shot? Perhaps damaging the track, or the sights? Or are we talking about older generation tanks like the T-64's, Leopard's, M-60's, etc?
> 
> Maybe some clarification is needed? Considering the fact that even our 105mm rounds would be hard pressed to take out a T-72 front on at range.
> 
> Other then that, lets hope that they decide to mount TOW on turrets in the LAV's. Or even better, go for CV-90's.




Is the CF considering purchasing CV90's?


----------



## Zipper (30 Jun 2005)

RyanNS said:
			
		

> Is the CF considering purchasing CV90's?



Not likely. But we can dream can't we?


----------

