# LAV III RWS versus LAV III with turret



## Kiwi99

I recently put together an After Action Review with regard to the LAV III in Afghanistan.  It covered both good and bad points and ways to inprove the vehicle.  This paper went to Ottawa and was well recieved.  Furthe discussion with PMO LAV made a lot of ref to the LAV III with a remote weapon station for the future.  Personally I am against remote systems as I believe all weapons should be controlled directly by the operator.  I am after feedback from anyone who has used the LAV III, and whatthey believe the pros and cons would be to having a RWS vice a manned turret.  My reasons are as follows;
1.   situational awarness.  Even with LSAS it is limited.  With head out of turret you ca nee a lot more.
2.   stoppages and ammunition resupply
3.   presence.  even on peace support ops you need to be seen so as to not be seen as afraid.
4.   what are the limitations to weapon calibre
5.   the commander assists the driver when driving at night or over bad terrain
6.   navigation more difficult, even with TAV NAV.  the commander needs to see the ground as a camera will not show depth properly
7.   command and control.  where are my dismounts in relation to the vehicle.
8.   protection of the RWS itself.   
9.   in combat you need all the systems to be big and clunky as your fine motor skills deteriorate.  Basing all my situational awareness and gun control off a screen has me concerned.  Periscopes can get shot out, yes, but if your screen goes down, well, what then.

I understand that any system with RWS will have backups like periscopes, etc.  But having to replenish the ammo and fix stoppages when the weapon system is that high off the car sounds uncool, especially if the enemy fire is so intense that raising your head will get you hit.
I am sure that there is pros out there for RWS, lets hear them.


[Edit: A sentence was removed due to OPSEC.]


----------



## Teflon

I have to go with the turret, for alot of reasons many already mentioned in the above post but mainly due the fact that the LAV all ready cost a furtune the way it is, with a RWS the cost would increase and lets face it, this is Canada and our country will only spend so much on the military.  Besides I spent a whole tour riding a turret and in my mind that's where the operators should be - can't beat the Sit awareness of the turret.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Folks, given the technical nature of this thread, let's limit the responses to those with experience on the equipment.   If necessary, start a parallel thread for the sidebar discussions.

Thank you

Army.ca Staff


----------



## MJP

I've read your paper Kiwi, bang up job on it.

I'm with you and Teflon on this one.  RWS is not for a vehicle that requires a massive amount of situational awareness.  I think one thing they forget is that the RG RWS works because you have a fairly decent 360 view around the vehicle from the gunners chair through all the windows.  While a remote weapon system in a LAV won't  (hopefully) prevent the CC from having his head up and getting a read on the situatio.   Only having a few small viewports around the turret would make it extremely hard for him to maintain any sort of SA once he was down.  This of course assuming that they keep everything else the same in the vehicle.


----------



## vonGarvin

There are so many differences between any RWS and "conventionally" turreted vehicles that I cannot see one system being replaceable with the other.  The main advantage for a "conventionally" turreted vehicle is that given current technology, you can have a much bigger weapon with the turreted system, and, as you've mentioned, access to the weapon itself for remedying stoppages and the like.


My $0.02 worth.


----------



## a_majoor

I am rather curious as to why anyone is considering replacing the turret on a LAV with an RWS anyway? What advantages are "they" proposing an RWS will give compared to a turret? 

The only thing that comes to my mind is lower weight/lower profile, which is worth considering, but maybe there are other ways to achieve the same goals (i.e. replacing some items with lightweight substitutes using advanced materials that are just as strong or stronger than steel)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I could see the utility of an RWS on a LAV III chassis if the vehicle was being used in the role that Bisons currently fill (as a CSS vehicle).  Ambs, MRTs, CPs and vehicles carrying PAX in convoys could all benefit from an RWS instead of an exposed crewman.  I think it would be ideal if the option to operate "exposed" was retained, as this would give the crew commander options.  

As for the LAVs in the companies, I think the posters above pretty much nailed it.


----------



## RHFC_piper

Having taken an RG-31 gunners course (pre-deployment) and gunning in a LAV (on turret shift in Panjwayi), I've had the unique experience of using both.   I personally like the RWS system on the RG-31, as it automatically applies the ballistics once a target is lasered, and the IR is quite a bit more advanced than the LAVs (not going into specs), and the optics have a 'zoom'...  But I can see where it lacks.  

As was stated before; the RWS is great for a vehicle like the RG-31 because it's light, and the vehicle has windows to spot targets more easily.  Since I've never used the LAV turret in 'intense combat' (just some pot-shots into Pashmul) and I don't have a gunners course for the LAV, I can't comment intelligently on the effectiveness, in comparison, of SA through the LAV turrets parascopes. But the RWS screen in comparison to the LAVs Thermal or Day scope... I'd rather have the screen.  It has a wider field of view (I found anyway) and a more clear view in both thermal and day (which can be switched at a push of a button).

The RWS currently in use on the RG-31 isn't without it's faults, though... and they've pretty much been covered already;  Ammo reloading, etc, etc.  But I think there can be a compromise and the technology used in the RG-31's RWS could be employed in the LAVs existing turret, or the RWS could be used on a LAV / Coyote as a secondary support platform.

The concept behind the RWS is to keep the gunners in a safe position and not exposed in a turret.  Not that the LAV's turret is completely exposed, but consider the other vehicles the RWS is used on (Hummers, LUVWs someday, RG-31s).  Would you rather stick out of a open hatch?  With that in mind,  wouldn't it be better if the turret crew could be further in the belly of the beast (LAV) and still be able to engage?   The RWS system it's self consumes a lot less space in the vehicle itself;  more ammo could be stored (for use in bins) in the turret itself.  And then theres the bonus of improved optics and a sighting system which applies ballistic automatically, reducing human error, and possibly increasing the effective range of the weapon by applying the correct ballistics for extreme ranges (works for the .50 on the RG-31s RWS).  Just some thoughts.

adversely: What about having an RWS mounted on top of the turret.  With some programming, the system would be able to compensate for the movement of the main turret and add the option of engaging the target with .50cal when in a turret-down possition (with the main turret), or engage multiple targets at once with a .50 and the 25mm.

I could picture this system on a Coyote, with the gunners position replacing the 'bird gunners' position.  Due to the height of the RWS system, and with good placement, the system could be used as 'Air sentry' or 'rear guard' when in convoy, and could provide extra fire power when fighting.  This would provide added protection to the crew as they could travel with 'hatches down' all the time.

Anyway, I don't think we should be looking at this as a 'versus' situation, as the technology is very flexable and can be adapted to suit.  I think the RWS system is amazing and very practical in an RPG / IED rich environment, but has its weaknesses and needs some improvements. Where as, The LAV turret is a powerfull fighting platform proven in multiple engagements, but it needs some upgrades to fight even more effectively.


----------



## George Wallace

RHFC_piper 

Your post starts out saying that you have used both, and later you go on to say you don't have a LAV Gnry Crse.  That invalidates a lot of what you have posted, as you don't really have all the knowledge to truly compare the two.  Looking through a sight and pulling the triggers, does not a LAV Gnr make.  You don't have the intricate knowledge of the sights and equipment to honestly give a comparison.  



> adversely: What about having an RWS mounted on top of the turret.  With some programming, the system would be able to compensate for the movement of the main turret and add the option of engaging the target with .50cal when in a turret-down possition (with the main turret), or engage multiple targets at once with a .50 and the 25mm.


To mount a RWS on top of the turret is ludicrous.  You have already admitted to it making a vehicle top heavy, and the LAV family is 'top heavy', so what would adding another turret on top of the existing turret add up to?......besides a Roll Over waiting to happen.  Not only that, but it would give the crew information overload.  The turret crew already have enough on their plate with their existing wpns, so they don't need another complicated wpn system to add to their distractions.


----------



## Kiwi99

Having been in an enviroment where IED and RPG are plentiful (Panjwai/Pashmul), I loved the fact that I was in the turret.  Given the exposed nature of RWS, and the inability to 'up-armour' the system, it is extremely vulnerable to both forms of attack.  

_MOD note: Sentenced removed due to OPSEC_

  But why put a RWS on with a .50 cal when you can have a turret with a 25mm or bigger.  Honestly, if you are always confined to the vehicle with little or no chance of exposing yourself, where is the fun and adrenaline.  Nobody will join the forces if you take that away.  
As a commander of a LAV III in Pashmul  feb-aug last year, I cannot stress the importance for the commander to be in a turret, standing up, maintainiong all types of situational awareness. Yes, when the RPG and bullets start flying you cannot stand up and are restricted to periscopes.  But it is not impossible.  One of the armies biggest training faults is that we never train hatches down inthe LAV. Having a RWS would not make it any easier.  And if it gets taken out, well then what?
Finally, the RG-31 is great for on the highway, but in Helmend or Panj it is out of its element.  The worst ride ever, no stab on the RWS and that screen lights up the entire car at night.  To use the RG and the RWS as a comparison to LAV and turret is wrong.  That why RWS is on RGs and maybe one day LUVWs; they are not fighting vehicles, they are escort and convoy vehicles.
I am liking very much some of the ideas being presented here, and it is good to see both sides of the argument.


----------



## RHFC_piper

George Wallace said:
			
		

> RHFC_piper
> 
> Your post starts out saying that you have used both, and later you go on to say you don't have a LAV Gnry Crse.  That invalidates a lot of what you have posted, as you don't really have all the knowledge to truly compare the two.  Looking through a sight and pulling the triggers, does not a LAV Gnr make.  You don't have the intricate knowledge of the sights and equipment to honestly give a comparison.



I have fired both, as I stated.  I have a gunnery course for 1 (RG-31), as I've stated.  I agree that fire at the enemy with a 25mm doesn't make me a gunner, as I varified with the statement "I can't comment intelligently on the effectiveness, in comparison, of SA through the LAV turrets parascopes" refering to the fact that I've not had the experience using the full system in intense combat, which a also stated.  This is why this is an oppinion based on comparing experiences.

What I was trying to get at was; Instead of having to apply balistics manually, the RWS applies them automatically once you've engaged the laser on the target.  I personally found it harder to engage targets with the LAV turret than the RWS turret...  Just a personal experience.

Granted the RG-31 gunners course isn't the LAV gunners course, a lot of the theories are identical.   And during work up, we all (section) were given a crash course on the basic operations and theories of the LAV turret, 25mm and coax.  Again, not a gunners course, but it sure came in handy when I engaged 2 targets in Panjwayi while on turret sentry.




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> To mount a RWS on top of the turret is ludicrous.  You have already admitted to it making a vehicle top heavy, and the LAV family is 'top heavy', so what would adding another turret on top of the existing turret add up to?......besides a Roll Over waiting to happen.  Not only that, but it would give the crew information overload.  The turret crew already have enough on their plate with their existing wpns, so they don't need another complicated wpn system to add to their distractions.



I don't remember every posting anything (here) about making it a vehcle top heavy... I actually didn't even consider it (I don't know why, since I've seen the effects on both vehicles)... but it is a good point.  Regardless, the point I was trying to make with that is the possible integration of technologies.  Perhaps the RWS doesn't have to be mounted on the existing turret, perhaps on the back deck. (I know, there are issues with that too.)  All I'm getting at is the technology for RWS is worth the while, and can improve the safety conditions of the crew and improve the ability to engage.

As for the crew "information overload"....  Why does the turret crew have to operate the RWS?  As the name dictates, it's Remote... thus the gunner could be anywhere in the vehicle... Which is why I suggested the RWS gunner position replacing the Air-sentry gunners position in the Coyote.  All that's required is a screen and a joy-stick.

Either way, I think the LAV would benifit greatly from the use of the Optics system on the RWS... perhaps just as an upgrade to the existing system (not on a seperate turret).


----------



## ArmyRick

George, take note. He may not have a a formal LAV gunnery course but if he has fired LAV 25mm/co-ax at REAL targets (not paper targets as most people have done throughout their careers) then I would value his opinion. I would say say piper has some valid points to bring to the table.

I remember being given a crash intro to LAVIII Turret as well and then allowed to try it out in the simulator for my last tour. Never fired live though.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick/RHFC_piper 

Don't take offense when I say, having fired a LAV doesn't give you the intricate knowledge of the system that you would have if you had the Gnry Crse.  Anyone can pull the trigger on any wpn system, and it really doesn't matter where; on the range or in battle.  What I am saying is that if you don't know how to operate the sights and their capabilities, don't attempt to make a comparison (that some here may take as gospel).   Just because I can fire my C7/C8, doesn't mean that I can tell a Shooting Coach all about the intricacies of firing them.  Your input about the RWS, that you trained on, is valid, but I will not accept your having 'fired' the LAV (no matter where), without a thorough knowledge of it, as being a absolutely valid qualifier in comparing the two.  You are extremely and intricately knowledgeable of the one, but not the other (or lesser so of the other).

I will drop that now and move on to your comments of adding a RWS to a LAV/Coyote and say you are full of it.  It just brings us back to all our discussions on the MGS and how it is a POS that does not allow the crew enough SA.  The LAV family are high enough as is.  To add to the top of the turret is ludicrous.  To put anything on top of the turret, the size of a RWS, will take away from the Crews SA.  To put anything like a RWS on the back for the Air Sentries will also take away SA, as well as a good 1/3 of the arcs that the 25 can cover.

Older guys may remember that the first Marders had one, sometimes two, remote MGs mounted on their rears.  One of the very first mods they made was to remove them.  The problems of SA can usually be solved with the removal of remote wpns stations.  They are not all negative, and you will find that we have already put forward some situations and vehicle types where RWS could be valuable.  They would be of value to the B Echelons, but more of a hindrance in the F Echelons, in most cases.   It will all depend on the vehicle and the role.

Your ideas for improvements or conversion to the sighting systems in the RWS may be an improvement to some of the clutter in the LAV turret, and then again, may just add to it.  I know the SAS monitor and added boxes under the CC's seat were more of a hinderance than a help.  However, improvements to the sighting systems are always welcome.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> but I will not accept your having 'fired' the LAV (no matter where), without a thorough knowledge of it, as being a absolutely valid qualifier in comparing the two.





> As was stated before; the RWS is great for a vehicle like the RG-31 because it's light, and the vehicle has windows to spot targets more easily.  Since I've never used the LAV turret in 'intense combat' (just some pot-shots into Pashmul) and I don't have a gunners course for the LAV, I can't comment intelligently on the effectiveness, in comparison, of SA through the LAV turrets parascopes.



Piper seems VERY aware about how far his lanes extend. Doesn't sound like he was trying to pass himself off as a SME at all, what gives?
Personally I think theres a considerable difference between what happens on the range and what happens in theater too

I remember the CDS talking about turrentless lavs. I've only gunned with the RWS on the RG31 and in that medium I like it but replace a lav turrent with it? no way.
Too many problems with it and it takes so much away from the lav.  I'm not sure the optics capabilities of the lav turrent so maybe I can see the $600'000 RWS system up there as an additional piece of kit.


----------



## warchild

I don't believe there is any option with this for a few reasons.  Firstly, the LAV III intimidation is first and formost.  With the 25 (Distance caliber and variety of ammo), there is no better option.  SA is a big issue but for those that have had a read of the paper kiwi is talking about, there are new options proposed for the C/C & gnr with ref to crew protection.  This would nullify the RWS point on protection of the crew.  

Optics.....well there is room for discussion in that.  I really liked the zoom and thermal option in the RG-31 but again I refer to the thermal dew point.  Again the solution would be to incorporate the technologe into the turret for the 25.

Hands down we need to stick with the turret and develop it from there.  I also think that the people that are interested in the RWS for the LAV are comparing it to the Stryker platform used in Iraq.  Still an IFV but with the urban element involved there and the use of their M1's and Bradley's in that environment for support (Iraq has more hardball to drive on) they can get away with it.  In Afghanistan we are our own support.


----------



## Teflon

I have to agree that the zoom ability in the RG-31 RWS is outstanding and that the LAV III turret could certainly benefit from such a feature, the LAV turret already being fairly component tight though I will leave it up to those with better minds then mine to figure out how and if this could be done, hopefully without it being an externally mounted component that could be shot off or damaged easily.

It would have been outstanding to have that zoom ability in my turret over there though!

In the end the optics package in the LAV turret like all veh components I sure will one day be revamped and modified to include such improvements.


----------



## ArmyRick

What about a combination of LAV III and stryker ICV? 

The one advantage I see to a stryker carrier is that  you can squeeze 2 crew plus 9 dismounts (more boots on the ground). Plus from yanks I have talked to, they say they can squeeze alot of extra ammo, weapons and goodies in their carriers. I am also a fan of the stryker 120mm mortar (not as deadly as 155mm but it is far more mobile and it can be brought into action very fast), it would compliment the M777 nicely I thinks.

How about an infantry platoon with 2 x LAVIII (more fire power and fewer dismounts) and 2 x Stryker carriers (less fire power, more dismounts). Ideas on this thought? 

Given that the enemy is currently mostly infantry, the .50 is nothing to dismiss so lightly.

Cheers, Rick (Preparing for a volley of angry replys)


----------



## George Wallace

Army Rick

Excellent suggestion.  I would only change one thought, and that it would still be a crew of three; Dvr, Comd, and Gnr.

I, too, am a proponent of the 120 mm mortar, and its' wide range of munitions and capabilities.  Is the Stryker a turreted mortar?


----------



## ArmyRick

Nope. Its on a pretty high speed low drag turn table with digital bells and whistles. I will drag up a picture of the system in action for you.
http://www.army.mil/-images/2006/12/26/1558/
http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=10434

http://www.primeportal.net/apc/hans-hermann_buhling/stryker_mortar_carrier/

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor

Since every problem has a solution (when you ask me!) here are the short, medium and long term solutions:

Short term: Replace the commander's hatch with an Urden cupola from Israel. This can be locked in the 1/2 open position but is actually covering the commander like a steel umbrella. The commander remains "heads up" but has some more protection compared to hatches open, allowing for improved S/A when under contact

Medium term: Improve the LAV III FCS to incorporate the better features of the RWS system; i.e wider field of view, "zoom" and automatic ballistic calculations. This might involve something simple like changing the camera, or really involved like total rewiring and software replacement, so this requires careful consideration and planning.

Long term: as part of the LAV 3.5 program, replace the Delco turret with a Wegman turret. The Wegman turret is a cleft turret design which allows the weapon to elevate and depress in the slot in the turret roof (one reason western tanks in general are higher than Soviet/Russian ones is the requirment for guns to depress 100. Extra turret hight is needed for recoil in an enclosed design). The crew is seated much lower in the hull, although their heads are still above the turret ring and they can go heads up when they wish. The turret is smaller and lighter, which also reduces the top heaviness factor and reduces overall weight and signature as well. This does not translate into more space for troops and kit inside the vehicle, however.

The LAV 3.5 will also need a diet, so hatches, the ramp and many internal fittings should be replaced by lightweight composite materials wherever possible, but that is a different thread.....


----------



## Mortar guy

I just thought I'd throw in some points on the (planned) way ahead for LAV III RWS as briefed by the PMO. As many of you know, we had originally planned to purchase 74 (IIRC) LAV III TUAs but this number was then reduced to 33. As a result, there were 41 additional hulls sitting around without TUA turrets called LAV III LKs (for "Less Kit"). Now the Army's plan is remanufacture a number of these LAV III LK's with RWS to fill in the role of Bison ISCs that are being remanufactured into Ambs, CPs, MRTs etc. Therefore, the LAV III RWS will not result in us taking turrets off of existing LAV III ISC/CPs.

Hope this helps.

MG


----------



## George Wallace

a_majoor

The turret of the LAV is small enough as is, and to make it smaller doesn't make sense.  It is crowded enough with the equipment that is already in the turret.  It is also crowded and cramped for an average sized soldier, without Body Armour, let alone someone of your size.  

If the turret is to be upgraded, it will have to have a lot of thought put into ergonomics.  It is not a matter of just installing "boxes" where you see an open space, as the crew still have to move the guns throught a full range of motion, as well as perform IA's and Stoppages on those wpns.  A difficult thing to do in the current configuration at times.

Putting the turret crew below the turret ring, makes for quite a 'climb' for the CC to make to get that "heads up" capability.  It will require quite a rearrangement of equipment to achieve the lower turret and crew positioning, possibly the complete redesign or even complete design of a new vehicle.  


Mortar guy

Those sound like sensible purchases/mods.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Mortar guy
> 
> Those sound like sensible purchases/mods.



Agree 100 %.

Taking turrents off of LAVs already in use I don't like but replacing the bison with a LAV is deffinaly a good idea.
Bison needs replacing in a big way.

RWS on the RG31 and any LAV mod needs a STAB too. The CF not taking the stab kits then changing their minds (as per normal CF SOP) was probably pretty costly.


----------



## a_majoor

The point of the Wegman turret design is the roof can be quite a bit lower, hence the crew can also sit lower in the hull, without a long climb up to the hatches.

Since this hypothetical exercise is about getting a new turret, one would hope the designers do indeed consider ergonomics, placement of kit and all the other sundry factors (although we can all think of many places where this was not the case..... :rage The main point here is if we want to get some of the advantages claimed by the RWS, we have to look at some far reaching changes to the design of the turret of an AFV to gain the advantages of the new systems without loosing the good points of the traditional designs.


----------



## KevinB

The LAV needs a LARGER turret - not smaller. Its already too small to do the things you want inside of it.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The LAV needs a LARGER turret - not smaller. Its already too small to do the things you want inside of it.



Full circle?


----------



## KevinB

;D  Too true (but remember I'm the guy that thinks the 011's should crew the LAV's) 

I'd be curious if the Bradley turret would fit on the LAV chassis?


----------



## ArmyRick

No need. There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. See the Kuwaiti Desert Warrior (Its a UK warrior chasis with a delco turret and TOW missile on either side).

I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> No need. There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. See the Kuwaiti Desert Warrior (Its a UK warrior chasis with a delco turret and TOW missile on either side).
> 
> I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.



Several reasons really.  The missiles would have taken up room inside and cut down on the Dismounts.  You would have to expose yourself to reload.  The addition of a missile system to the turret, would have encouraged crews to take more chances in engaging MBTs.  The 25mm was considered as effective, if not more so, than a single guided missile in engaging multiple targets.  

[Edit:  Forgot ......   Money.]


----------



## Bomber

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> I just thought I'd throw in some points on the (planned) way ahead for LAV III RWS as briefed by the PMO. As many of you know, we had originally planned to purchase 74 (IIRC) LAV III TUAs but this number was then reduced to 33. As a result, there were 41 additional hulls sitting around without TUA turrets called LAV III LKs (for "Less Kit"). Now the Army's plan is remanufacture a number of these LAV III LK's with RWS to fill in the role of Bison ISCs that are being remanufactured into Ambs, CPs, MRTs etc. Therefore, the LAV III RWS will not result in us taking turrets off of existing LAV III ISC/CPs.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> MG



He said exactly what I was going to post, so I can only support his claim.  This is indeed the plan for the surplus TUA kits.


----------



## vonGarvin

Of course the Bradley Turret would fit.  For the most part, it's the same turret (shell), but the inside is definately different.  I like the bradley turret, with it's larger ammo bin (sideways!) and the way to get out the back.  But, having our bin the way it is allows for the GIBs to push ammo up, so...
but to talk of 011's in the turret, unfortunately (perhaps), they cannot knit enough of them to crew the LAVs, Coyotes and Tanks.  Besides, what would we do with all those 031's, put them in a combat support platoon? [/sarcasm]
If I were King of APCs (not yet....one day, maybe, but not yet....) the vehicle would have tracks (to give it similar mobility to a tank), be shorter, have enough room for 6 in the back (and their kit!), and would have tons of armour.  In fact, it would look something like this:


(FYI, it's a Marder, and here is some info on it:
Der Schützenpanzer "Marder" ist ein gepanzertes Vollkettenfahrzeug, dessen Panzerschutz und Beweglichkeit auf ein Zusammenwirken mit dem Kampfpanzer "Leopard" abgestimmt sind. Die Besatzung von neun Soldaten kann auf- oder abgesessen vom Panzer kämpfen. Der "Marder" kommt bei der Bundeswehr in der Panzergrenadiertruppe zum Einsatz.
The APC "Marder" is an armoured fully tracked vehicle, whose armoured protection and mobility that is designed to complement the "Leopard" main battle tank.  The crew of 9 soldiers can fight with or without tanks.  The "Marder" in the Federal Armed Forces is used by the Armoured Infantry.)


----------



## Kiwi99

We place way too much emphasis on the rangism of having guys in the back to supply ammo.  Lets look at where the ammo is stored, under the turret.  When you have a full seven guys in the back of a LAV III with all their kit on, incl flak and tac, and all the other kit associated with operations, it is nearly impossible for them to firstly get the ammo out, let alone to the turret.  Sure, if you pull off the line this may be achievable, but not during combat as the turret traverses every which way.
Secondly, when the section is not in the back and you are running low on ammo, you CANNOT get it yourself without sacrificing the effectiveness of your turret.  I speak from experience here when the enemy fire is so intense on your car you cannot climb out of the turret into the back.  There are so many tartgets that the commander cannot crawl back as the turret may HAVE to move unexpectedly. And for the commander will lose command and control in an environment where those two things are paramount. 
So with ammo storage, the more you can get in the turret the better, cause it is useless under the commander where no-one can get it.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> So with ammo storage, the more you can get in the turret the better, cause it is useless under the commander where no-one can get it.


True enough.  Good point, and well-taken.

Which makes the turret that much more capable than ANY RWS system.


----------



## KevinB

My point for the Bradley turret was more room and more available ammo.  Also I'd rather go with it rather than a TUA turret - 

Kiwi has way more operational experience with the LAV than I -- but even my trip to Kabul showed clearly that you can't reload during a fight with the GIB's feeding you just based on the range shoots we worked on there.
    

Kiwi et. al. -- what about taking some of the disabled LAV turrets and trying to salvage them?


----------



## Kiwi99

Kev,
the guys at GDLS and maintainers in the forces have being doing a stellar job getting systems back on the line.  Disabled turrets are fixed and sent back for fitting to LAVS.  There are some though that are too screwed up from IED to salvage.  We learnt a lot with LAV over there that we had worked well in WX but poorly in combat, for example, standing in the turret while attacking an objective.  With ref to LAV TUA hulls and spares, I believe the plan is to fit RWS to them and they will begin to replace the Bison.  It will enable better logistics and all other things as blown up cars can be salvaged to fix  both types.  Can you get me a contact through your network with a STRYKER guy for some dialougue about their issues with LAV chassis, and how the STRYKER works for them?  I got a fair idea that you tend to find yourself in some strange places.  See what you can dig up on STRYKER for me if possible.

Kiwi out


----------



## MJP

And put them onto the hull with missing turrets I-6?  I much rather have them retrofitted to be armoured LAV replacements for the Bisons.  The Bison's did a fairly decent job over there but having two armoured vehicles out there made the job more difficult for the MRT guys who had to carry extra parts for two systems.  One common vehicle makes it that much easier for them.

I also like it for crew survivabilty in a LAV vs Bison.  Driver & CC are much better protected in a LAV IMHO.

and Kiwi beat me......


----------



## KevinB

Kiwi -- PM inbound

Mike -- just an idea I pulled out of my Ass...


----------



## MJP

I just didn't understand what you where getting at....I figured that was it but hate assuming


----------



## KevinB

You hit on it.  I knew a few of the LAV's where INOP due to body damage and figured what the hell.

   Maybe the militia will finally get the BISON now


----------



## Mortar guy

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> ...With ref to LAV TUA hulls and spares, I believe the plan is to fit RWS to them and they will begin to replace the Bison.
> Kiwi out



This sounds vaguely familiar...

MG


----------



## Teflon

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> My point for the Bradley turret was more room and more available ammo.  Also I'd rather go with it rather than a TUA turret -
> 
> Kiwi has way more operational experience with the LAV than I -- but even my trip to Kabul showed clearly that you can't reload during a fight with the GIB's feeding you just based on the range shoots we worked on there.
> 
> 
> Kiwi et. al. -- what about taking some of the disabled LAV turrets and trying to salvage them?



I6 -Shortly before we deployed on our tour there some of my guys and I had developed a crude prototype of a box that fit beside the bottles to the CC's right in the hull (where the CC normally puts his Ptl bag that held 150 rounds 255mm and in trials it proved we could add 150 rounds to a still loaded primary feed belt in under 3-4 minutes, showed it to the CO but he was too busy to get any real work done. After my present course I doing I will be dusting that project off and putting it out there.







[/quote]


----------



## Sig_Des

Bomber said:
			
		

> He said exactly what I was going to post, so I can only support his claim.  This is indeed the plan for the surplus TUA kits.



I'll support that. When I was "lent" to PMO LAV, at the Hangar were GDLS was holding LAV hulls w/out the turret, they were talking about the RWS variant, and this was last July.

The vehicles themselves were operational, it would just take some minor changes.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> True enough.  Good point, and well-taken.
> 
> Which makes the turret that much more capable than ANY RWS system.



Not necessarily - The Kongsberg NM221 - built by the same people that are supplying the RG-31 M-151 RWS (seen below)



> Key features:
> 
> Designed for 12.7mm M2 and MK19 40mm AGL
> loading from under armor.
> Fully qualified.
> Detached line of sight prevents ballistic correction from affecting operator's line to target
> First hit probability
> Crew Protection - the soldiers operate from within the safety of the vehicle's hull
> 
> Customers:
> 
> Norwegian Army - M113
> Royal Norwegian Air Force - TACTICA



http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/dynamicsystems/RemoteWeaponStation/default.asp?page=/ENG/KDA/Products/DynamicxSystems/RemotexWeaponxStation&id=32981

You still have an externally mounted weapon - requiring exposure for servicing - but how many boxes of link can you join together under armour?

To reduce the incidence of having to climb out perhaps you might want to swap the Browning self-loading weapons for chain guns that can fire either the current .50 Cal or else that new airbursting low velocity 25mm that is supposed to replace both the 0.50 and the 40mm grenade.

Here's the ATK .50 Cal Bushmaster  http://www.atk.com/internationalproducts/interprod_50caliberbushmaster.asp

Here's the M307 25mm Airbursting Crew Served Weapon http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m307.htm

Not suitable for a patrol vehicle or a fighting vehicle perhaps, but sufficient for self-defence and to thicken up a fire base?

As to CSA-105s cautionary tale - "There's a hole in the bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza......" - I generally prefer flexibility.  IMHO better to have two small, complementary vehicles that can be easily deployed than one large vehicle that is hard to deploy.  Along the lines of Rick's proposal endorsed by George.  A mixed Platoon of transport vehicles and fighting vehicles.

Edit: Or perhaps you could just make the Cavalry/Armoured Troops up to 7 vehicle troops and, when circumstances require attach a Troop to a Company so that the OC can allocate two per Platoon.  You might even differentiate between Infantry Support Troops with 7 Gun Vehicles per Troop and Sabre Troops with 4 Gun Vehicles per Troop.


----------



## Shamrock

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...how many boxes of link can you join together under armour?



Fewer than you might think before problems occur either from friction or weight of the rounds.


----------



## Kirkhill

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Fewer than you might think before problems occur either from friction or weight of the rounds.



How about one at a time to replenish the ready bin? Just keep linking to the tail of the rounds in the ready bin?


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How about one at a time to replenish the ready bin? Just keep linking to the tail of the rounds in the ready bin?



That is rather hard to do, as the end is usually at the bottom of the bin.  That way there is no extra weight placed on the stacked rounds to prevent them from feeding correctly.


----------



## baboon6

Isn't the Bison still needed as a mortar carrier? Can a modified LAVIII do this job? Or am I way off the mark?


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

x


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is rather hard to do, as the end is usually at the bottom of the bin.  That way there is no extra weight placed on the stacked rounds to prevent them from feeding correctly.



I seem to recall boxes of 7.62mm link where both free ends were sticking out of the boxes.  The boxes were loaded with 5-10 rounds at the tail overhanging the back of the box, then the links went vertically down the back wall onto the floor of the box and then were laid in in the usual fashion.   To close the lid you just flipped the "tail" in on top of the rest of the stack.  That free tail allowed you to link a new box in while the first box was being emptied by the gunner.


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I seem to recall boxes of 7.62mm link where both free ends were sticking out of the boxes.



Those are "Machine loaded" boxes that can be fired right out of the can.  The M242 25mm Cannon does not fire rounds straight out of an ammo can.  Each ammo can holds two short belts, stacked in a plastic holder, one belt facing the other.   They have to be unloaded from the ammo cans, flipped and linked together.  It takes several cans to make a complete belt.  The belt must then be manually loaded into the Primary or Secondary ammo box end first.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Hijack definitively NOT over.  Using a WWII story to explain why corps shiboleths must be protected in this age of counter-insurgency and non-contiguous battlespaces adds nothing to the debate.  Applying conventional and symmetric dogma to an assymetrical and decidely unconventional world doesn't cut it either.  

Sorry about the rant - but I am currently a candidate on a LAV CC corse, which is really just a Centurion CC course with the word LAV inserted.  I am struggling with some pent up anti-armoured feelings these days  :


----------



## George Wallace

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hijack definitively NOT over.  Using a WWII story to explain why corps shiboleths must be protected in this age of counter-insurgency and non-contiguous battlespaces adds nothing to the debate.  Applying conventional and symmetric dogma to an assymetrical and decidely unconventional world doesn't cut it either.
> 
> Sorry about the rant - but I am currently a candidate on a LAV CC corse, which is really just a Centurion CC course with the word LAV inserted.  I am stuggling with some pent up anti-armoured feelings these days  :




Ah!  Those "What the heck direction is this vehicle going........the turret is going this way?" days.


----------



## Kiwi99

It seems that this thread has taken a new twist.  I thank all for their input on the topic, it had been noted.  I am not sure if I need a new post for this, but what ways caan we improve LAV III training.  Given the comments by PPCLI GUY, I am about to ask the inevitable question that is going to get me worked over I am sure.  Two questions then;

1.   Why do the Armoured Corps have any influence on how the Infantry trains and operates the turret?; and

2,   Has anyone decided what type of vehicle the LAV III is?   APC,  IFV,  AIVF , etc.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

Kiwi Out


----------



## vonGarvin

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> It seems that this thread has taken a new twist.  I thank all for their input on the topic, it had been noted.  I am not sure if I need a new post for this, but what ways caan we improve LAV III training.  Given the comments by PPCLI GUY, I am about to ask the inevitable question that is going to get me worked over I am sure.  Two questions then;
> 
> 1.   Why do the Armoured Corps have any influence on how the Infantry trains and operates the turret?; and
> 
> 2,   Has anyone decided what type of vehicle the LAV III is?   APC,  IFV,  AIVF , etc.
> 
> Again, thanks for the feedback.
> 
> Kiwi Out



I'll answer these for you.
Question 1 is half-right.  The Armoured Corps has influence over the GUNNERY training of the turret.  Full stop. The Royal Canadian Armour School is the Centre of Excellence for mounted gunnery, which includes gunnery for the LAV 3.  The actual cell within the school that manages this is the Instructor in Gunnery team, known as the IG Team.  This is a team of 2 captains, 4 warrant officers and 2 sergeants.  This team is still short a couple of Sr NCOs, but is full up on Warrant Officers and is short one officer.  The current IG Team Leader is actually an infantry officer, his 2IC is an armour officer, and the team WO is armour as well.  So, although the gunnery training of the LAV has the Armour School as the Centre of Excellence (as mandated by the Commandant of the Combat Training Centre), there is a healthy mix of infantry and armour officers, warrant officers and Sr. NCOs.
The Infantry School is the Centre of Excellence for LAV Crew Commander training.  Until recently, this course had gunnery training as part of it.  Since Aug 06, however, only the Turret Operator Course teaches gunnery (centre of excellence for this course is the Armour School).  So, an infantry officer or NCM just learning LAV skills would first take a course on gunnery (Turret Operator) and then the officers, NCOs and Warrant Officers would take a crew commanding course.  
FYI: Driver Wheel, Comms and other courses also have the Armour School as their centre of excellence.

Question 2:  We have all decided that the LAV III is a "Light Armoured Vehicle"   Not sure, exactly, but personally I would say it is an IFV.  But that's just me.


----------



## vonGarvin

To sum up (from large to small), the RCAS is C of E for the gunnery of following:
Leopard C2
Coyote
LAV III
T-LAV (1 m Turret)
T-LAV (RWS)
RG-31 (RWS)
LUVW

can't think of anything else right now.  I don't have my books in front of me


----------



## Kiwi99

Are there any Armoured Officers involved with the crew commander aspect of training?  Applying marksmanship principles to gunnery is one thing, but when it comes to any type of armoured vehicle movement it would seem only natural that they be involved with it.  Crew commanding is a challenging skill that armoured corp pers have  a lot of history in, yet the infantry is the center of excellence.  And the 25mm is a big machine gun, machine guns being an infantry specialty, and armour is the center of excellence for it.  I don't mean to be rude, but it should be the other way around.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Are there any Armoured Officers involved with the crew commander aspect of training?  Applying marksmanship principles to gunnery is one thing, but when it comes to any type of armoured vehicle movement it would seem only natural that they be involved with it.  Crew commanding is a challenging skill that armoured corp pers have  a lot of history in, yet the infantry is the center of excellence.  And the 25mm is a big machine gun, machine guns being an infantry specialty, and armour is the center of excellence for it.  I don't mean to be rude, but it should be the other way around.


No offence taken.
The gunnery aspect is the bread and butter of the armour corps.  As for fighting an IFV, neither the armour nor the infantry have the depth of experience (crew commanding a tank and crew commanding an IFV are different skill sets: even crew commanding Coyote and LAV III are different).  Still, the Canadian Infantry has been crew commading APCs for quite some time, and there is more similarity between crew commanding an M113 and a LAV III than in crew commading a tank and a LAV III, the turret notwithstanding.
The 25mm is more a belt fed transmission than a machine gun.  In terms of its firing characteristics, given that it does not produce beaten zones like a machine gun does, it is certainly NOT a machine gun (yes, it has a beaten zone, but that is not a principle in its employment, as it is with MGs).
So, the Commandant of the Combat Training Centre has it right: gunnery with the RCAS, LAV III crew commanding with the Infantry School.

I know of what I speak here, trust me and I'll leave it at that.


EDIT: there are no armoured corps officers involved in LAV III crew commanding.


----------



## warchild

As for fighting an IFV, neither the armour nor the infantry have the depth of experience (crew commanding a tank and crew commanding an IFV are different skill sets: even crew commanding Coyote and LAV III are different).  Still, the Canadian Infantry has been crew commading APCs for quite some time, and there is more similarity between crew commanding an M113 and a LAV III than in crew commading a tank and a LAV III, [/quote]  

As I sit here pondering this I just want to make a point about this quote.  How do you know what C/C an IFV is like?  We have never in the CF had an IFV. Kiwi and I talked about this today.  Background.  I was apart of the LAV III IPT (Initial Production Training) and the LAV III UIT (Unit Instructor Training).  The product training started in 99 in WX and the UIT crse was run in CTC 2000.  As my memory serves me there was no Armoured on these crses.  Yes we were administered by the Armoured but it was all 031.  Now what Kiwi and I were talking about today was that when I was on this crse there was 2 major issues.  Firstly the LAV III originail proposed name was the KODIAK but was dropped because it could not be broken into french.  The other main issue was that the Crse WO had taken what essentially was the Bradley PAM and CTL F'd the word Bradley and inserted the word LAV III.  At this time there was huge debate about this.   Why you ask....Canada has never had doctrine to use an IFV (Bradley).  Us 031 guy's were very pumped about this.  Finally we were not going to ride around and fight out of an APC (Grizzly Grrrrrrrr) any more.  This huge mammoth looking LAV III with it's 25 mm were going to go out and destroy, take troops into battle and close with and destroy the en.  Jane's described an IFV as an armoured veh (No spec's on how much armour) that could defend itself and/or fight itself while carring dismounted infantry.  I believe that has changed now but along those lines. I am sure I will be corrected on this if I am wrong.

Now here is where it gets cloudy.  At the end of the course the Inf Chief and director of the Inf came to us in the CTC theater for the end course hug and to brief us on the future employment of the LAV III as we were the pointy ends to go back to our units to give instruction.  Both were very surprised about learning that we were taught the LAV III was an IFV.  There point was that Canada did not have doctrine to use, fight, employ or deploy an IFV.  It had all kinds of this for an APC.  By calling the LAV III an APC would allow comd at all levels to substitute a Grizzly or M113 and insert LAV III.  Also it was less aggressive.  So, up to Hauptmann Scharlachrot's comment ref ......not enough depth of experience. 

 We have had 1 full year in Afghanistan fighting our LAV III in both offence (TF -106) and the RCR TF that had the flavor of a defensive battle after OP Medusa.  I strongly believe that we *do* now have that depth of experience to fight our Lav's our way.  As an IFV.  I'll also say that the Armour does not  have any wealth of experience fighting the Coyote because it was just used for it's surveillance capabilities (At least on my tour TF 106). I also strongly disagree that there is any similarities between C/C  a M113 to a LAV III other than that they both run on diesel, have a gas pedal and your dismounts get into it up the ramp.  I can speak from experience that, though I have never C/C a tank I found that C/C a LAV III in combat after my PL comd got blown up to be just about the hardest thing I have ever done mentally and physically.

I recognise now that the armoured has their tanks in theater and have moved out of KAF into Panjwai. The summer offensive coming up will give the armoured the offensive fight.  The armoured will then get to take the fight to the TB in a way that has never been done by the CF before.  In saying that perhaps we can then come to an understanding.

The Inf needs now to have a QS,TTP and MLP writting board for the LAV III (and for allot of other Inf roles but that is another thread).  We should get key players from all 3 Inf Reg together for at least a week and go through the whole thing for LAV III.  The pri focus should be on the LAV III been an IFV.  If this could be accomplished then we the Inf could take hold of our veh, develop some IFV doctrine, wrestle the COE from the armoured and move on.  The armoured could then center there attention on there tanks and develop new doctrine for there fight in Afghanistan.  As already stated there is a difference between C/C and gunning a tank vs. a LAV III.  So why then should the armoured continue to have this grasp on all things LAV when there is such a transparent difference now?  If nothing else there MUST be a writting board from both sides and new streamlined drills and procedures for the Inf.  Who knows perhaps after all that we can get the pintle drills and the coax drills to be the same.


----------



## George Wallace

At the looks of things, we are starting to get a little confused in a few areas.  I would tend to think that fighting any 'turreted' AFV with a major gunnery system is pretty much a common experience.  The differences will be in the tactics that the Armour employ in fighting their AFV's and the tactics employed by the Infantry in fighting their AFV's.  Both Arms fight differently, in the majority of cases, but not all.  There are, and always will be, 'Gray Areas'.  In the Cbt Tm, on the Assault, those 'Gray Areas' will show that both Arms will overlap and compliment each other in their employment of tactics and firepower.  

As for turret skills, a factor also in the employment of the AFV, I have seen the lack of them as being a hazard on the battlefield.  On the first BTE the number of "Hot Cannon" Drills being conducted on the Live Fire Assaults was an indicator that the Infantry had some serious Gunnery Training problems.  The delays caused a great deal of consternation on Exercise.  In Battle it would have meant that a vehicle and Wpn system was taken out of the battle and now a liability, if not a casualty as a result.

Armour and Inf both move their vehicles differently at times.  Turret skills should be common.  Now that we have an "IFV" with a potent turret, we are going to see many skills; Gunnery and Tactically, begin to overlap.  Both Branches are going to start finding a lot of commonality in their "Mech" skill sets, and it is already evident in the appointment of HS to his position in the Armd School.  

Creating little Empires, as we did in the past, is going to be counterproductive.  Bun fights are not going to help.  It is my opinion, that Cbt Tm exercises will have to become more prevalent in our training.  Having been in the old C Sqn RCD in Gagetown I have witnessed the total lack of knowledge in the Army of how to operate as one was a serious problem.  2 RCR, 22 Fd Sqn and C Sqn often worked in a Cbt Tm scenario on Exercise and were a very effective force.  When we went to RV's it was horrifying to see the lack of knowledge that the rest of the Army in Canada had in regards as to working in a Cbt Tm.  People did not know how to work with tanks.  They did not know how to move their Grizzly's in a Cbt Tm environment.  The Cougar and Grizzly were not effective training systems for Mech Warfare.

I have witnessed the Bun fights over the C6 Drills.  Then the C9, and later the 25mm Drills.  If you advocate more bun fights, I will disagree with you.  It isn't time to start dividing up our training into little Empires, but to start combining our thoughts and training in the areas that our Cbt Tm brings together the skill sets of both Branches.  Stop the Inf/Armd bun fighting and focus on the Cbt Tm.


----------



## vonGarvin

warchild said:
			
		

> I also strongly disagree that there is any similarities between C/C  a M113 to a LAV III other than that they both run on diesel, have a gas pedal and your dismounts get into it up the ramp.



I should have been more clear, perhaps.  My point was not that CC a M113 and LAV III were similar, but rather they are more similar in their employment (at platoon level and higher) than between LAV III and tank and/or coyote.  To illustrate, platoon level "stuff" is superficially similar (to an observer, sitting on the bleachers, watching the platoon attack from a safe distance) between LAV III and APC.  Now, that same observer, sitting on the same bleachers, watching tanks manoeuvre on a "battlefield", would see the differences.


Having crew commanded both M113 and LAV III, I do agree that the similarities pretty well end with dismounts in the back; however, tanks don't have dismounts to worry about (unless they are the intimate support troop, naturally)


You also make some very good points re: IFV.  I don't have much input into tactics of the LAV III (some, not much), but I would agree that there is theoretical and practical knowledge out there now to get us in that right direction.


----------



## ArmyRick

After reading these topic. I wonder how people would feel with this concept for missions in Afghanistan. The new re-worked Combat team (A-stan specific). Remembering the threat is mostly light infantry in fortified positions (Huts with thick walls).

Combat Team HQ
OC LAV III
2IC LAV III
MBT BC or OC (Command half SQN)
CSM LAV III

Stand Off Combat Group
5 or 7 Car Coyote Troop
4 LAV TUA (As a Tow Gunner I understand the use of this system and the new version is improved so lets use it).
2 Bisons with 81mm (even if if they hop out the back and set it up old school, mind you in a perfect world, I would ask for a 120mm mortar, but we just don't have it  
FOO Det LAV III

Close Combat Group
2 Troops of MBT (8 x Leos)
2-3 platoons of infantry in LAV III

The concept being that once a taliban position is identified, send the Stand Off Combat group in the cover of darkness and set up a fire base. They open up and after a good long fire fight, start having the LAV III/LEOs in the close combat group get in their and lay a smack down.

For those who have been in and served in A-stan, would this work? Or is it too Cold War, germany stuff?


----------



## Kiwi99

I think you bring up one of the most important points here.  And that is the compisition of the combat team.  Given the nature of the war we are fighting (and I have actually heard it called the harder side of peacekeeping), and the ever developing enemy, the requirements at the company level are subject to change.  The one thing that I want to stress is the fact that when a combat team goes out, they go it alone.  We do not have the ability or training in the Air Force to provide CAS, MBT are restricted  due to terrain and enviromental conditions, so you have LAV with other enablers such as mechanics and chimos.  Tanks are great, but mechainically unrelaible.  And, lets face it, if not for Afghanistan, the tanks would be history.  I agree with warchild, new training has to be developed and dare I say it, there is a new generation of combat soldiers thoughout Canada that can be used to assist with this.  I may simple, but if the infantry hold more 25mm than the armoured corp, have used the 25mm in combat more than anyone else, and have adapted the 25mm to meet thier own infantry specific requirments, then they should be responsible for training their gunners and commanders according to an infantry standard and not an armpoured standard.  And before people start losing it, I by no means suggest that the armoured standard is lower than the infantry. We are specialists at what we do, and right now the infantry have become the specialists is using the 25mm.  If the armoured corps wishes to maintain resposibilitry for the 25mm, then the armoued corp should be responsible for all the training.  What might make sense to an armoured dude on a TP, may make no sense to an infantry dude, and the proper point may not be deliverd. But we take the armoured lesson plans and have infantry teach them.   I do not think we are 'bun-fighting' over this, but merely suggesting the army needs to reconsider allocation of system COEs based on what is happening in the present world.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kiwi
Did you know that the Royal Canadian Armour School is centre of excellence for Driver Wheel?  Would you suggest that they conduct all driver training?  They are also centre of excellence for communications yet they do not conduct all comms training.
The QS is held at LFDTS.  The TP is held at CTC.  The courseware is held at the IG Team, which has both Armour and Infantry in its team, and the incumbent Team Leader is an infantry officer with a wealth of LAV III experience and qualifications.   The GUNNERY training is the same for that weapon (the 25mm) across the army: it loads one way, fires one way, and as of Aug 06, there is only ONE gunnery course for the ARMY.  Each corps conducts its own crew commanding training (except the engineers, who use the infantry crew commander course).  


Let me take this to the next level.  The Infantry School is the C of E for the C8.  The Armour Corps has more of them than the Infantry Corps.  So, an infantry dude somewhere is telling them how to fire those carbines BUT no infantry dude alive is telling those armour dudes how to employ them (read: tactics).

There is no need for the army to reconsider allocation of C of E for gunnery of the 25mm.

Trust me, I know of what I speak.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Each corps conducts its own crew commanding training (except the engineers, who use the infantry crew commander course).



Except this muddy ol'enginner which has the Armour CC course  ;D


----------



## KevinB

I will agree with Kiwi on some aspects -- the LAV CC-G course as it came from Gagetown was a shambles -- it jumped around, talked itslef in circles and made us of term no Infanteer was common with.
Everyday the Course WO was on the phone to Gagetown to verify some fact, or in a lot of cases which of the disagreeing "FATCS" in the precise was correct.


As long as the Armoured School is willing to accept input (read corrections) from the 031 side of the house -- let them keep the COE for the LAV, and their incorrect drills for the C6


----------



## George Wallace

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> As long as the Armoured School is willing to accept input (read corrections) from the 031 side of the house -- let them keep the COE for the LAV, and their incorrect drills for the C6



Hey!  What was wrong with the "Half Load" ?    

Actually, I think you will find that the Armour School has been pretty good with accepting input and as a result the C6 Drills were standardized to the Inf format.  I do see a problem with many of the the Lesson Plans coming out of many of the Schools, not just the CAS, and that is the problem of one Instructor being tasked to do all the Lesson Plans, and often handicapped by less than an intimate knowledge of the subject, and in some cases problems with translation.


----------



## Kiwi99

Right, 
before Infidel-6 starts a war about C6 drills (one weapon one drill)  I have another question.  The 3 round burst that is so emphasized in training.  Where did that idea devlop and why?  LAVs in Afghanistan do not abide by it, and i personally had no proble, and nor did my CO if I pumped a 10-15 round burst at the enemy.  But there were cases where this training scar let the enemy get away as junior crews employed it, the enemy waited fort he lull in firing and moved.  Remember, they ARE smart buggers.


----------



## warchild

I am liking the way this topic is going and evolving.  I will deveate away from this topic abit but it hammers home some issues.  GW I agree with what you are saying about drills in the state they are in now.  I will also put my neck right out on the line.  Yes we have to be instructed at the beginning of the LAV training curve when we take non gunners and C/C and teach them the basic drills so that they don't kill themselves.  Once they have passed there CGT and move to Live fire and C/C portion they are at best capable but not experienced.  As we don't very often get to fire live the skill fade is robust. On tour the curve was high but I did not observe alot of drills taught on crse applied to combat i.e. "HE, troops in open, report when ON"   It was more like *&^%^%& 2 O'clock 300 bad guys shoot.  My point was not so much that we have to reinvent the drills for the Inf (Even though my dig about C-6 drills was just that) but as all have said since my last post "Its the way we employ and fight the veh".

ArmyRick

I like what you have there but I would like to add one more item.  UAV's??????  That capability is increadable.  Now ours are not as good as the yanks.  I have heard that CA is going to do a huge upgrade in this area.  When ever I got time to do a proper BP I always went to the TALK to request UAV support.  Taking the CBT TM org that you have laid out, it would be very beneficial to have this assest attached.  The cold war style of fighting is not the model to use in Afghanistan as others have posted.  I agree 100% however we are still training and in my mind debating this because we go with what we have done in the past.  I whole heatedly agree that we need to develop cohesion between the Inf and Armoured due to the fact that we are now actively in offensive ops against the different groups over there.  Doing the style of CBT TM attacks that we do in WX or Gagetown is not even close to the terrain or enviornment over there.  Maneuver warfare is the key.  Tanks cannot get into places that LAV's can go.  This strips your forces.  Using the UAV in a CBT TM can give a commander real time ground, en and force movement.  This would then allow commanders to then adjust i.e. moving tanks to support or for cut off.  Same goes for the TUA with flank sec and pin point destruction of hard points.  Squirters were our biggist problem over there.  

 Command-Sense-Act 105 

You make a fine point in regards to capturing AAR, dissemination of info and having a central "Hub" to exploit that info.  This is exactly why we need to do a writting board.  I wasn't clear on that point before.  Both sides need to reassess CBT TM and maneuver and work out some new ideas on this.  That is what I meant about spending a week.  Inf gets all 3 reg together to combine all experiences over there.  Same as the Armoured (Strats, RBC etc)  Once compiled then both sides meet to pass on that info and from there ideas are formulated.  If that could be accomplished then perhaps the LAV can then be given the IFV role.  

Hauptmann Scharlachrot 

Your point of the C-8 can also be used for the C-6.  

If we never told our students in the Inf that the armoured were COE for the turret and that the drills we teach them were developed and maintained by them....well as GW says it is just a bun fight.


----------



## George Wallace

The three round burst is mainly to conserve ammo and prevent HOT Cannon.  

When the bullets are flying in your direction, I am sure no one is going to get on your back deck and give you shyte for breaking the rules or 'cheating'.  And if they do get up on your back deck, it had better be to use the 'Flex'.


----------



## 1feral1

My comments on RWS and turrets....

On our LAVs, the Type 2 and Type 3's, we use the Norweigan designed RWS for our QCB .50s. Google Australian ASLAV and have a look for yourselves.

These RWS's are well recieved by the operators, and on a recent contact (no OPSEC here - incident publically released to the media - Google if you wanna know the whole story), all managed to keep their heads down will neutralising targets with great effectiveness (and I mean great ;D ).

We have one on our beast, and it sure beats being exposed to angry SAF. 7.62 x 54mm PKM strikes on our vehicles and on the RWS itself did nothing really shy of chipping the paint.

However in our current mission platform, the RWS suits us here. Turret wise, we have our M242s in the standard LAV 25 type turret. Again although not suited for any tall big blokes, the turret does its job, and has been used successfully here too.

We have no 'MG' (a la Grizzly' style) turrets on any of our LAVs. An Australian designed MG turret is used on the new upgraded M113's in service.


My 2 cents.

Wes


----------



## George Wallace

warchild

I have to agree with you on your points about Drills.  Drills are for training and creating the "Team" within the turret, so that everyone knows what everyone is doing.  They are a command and control tool.  Remember, that they are "to insure and instinctive and immediate response to a familiar order".  In every turret I have been in, not on course, we have developed methods to "cheat" and they more resembled your example.  

I had an excellent gunner in the Coyote once, who reacted to my Centurian order "Ranging Sabot, Tank, ON!" with a chuckle as he reported back the range.  What a time to remember Centurian drills, while on the Coyote Gunnery Crse.   :

As long as you and your Gunner are a team, the fire orders you give him don't really matter in combat, as long as they are effective and understood.  By the way, I have never ever used "Report when ON!", so I see there are some differences still.  Usually I was saying "On", and laying the gun in the general area of the Tgt, and getting an instantaneous "On!" back from my Gunner.  Sounds a little time consuming to have to wait for a "Report when On" .......or was that just a general statement on training?


----------



## ArmyRick

Since the aussies RWS on their ASLAV (Can = Coyote and Bison), the yanks use the same RWS on many of their stryker variants and the CF is now using them on our RG-31, we should definately learn from each other IMO.

For those not in the know, it is the protecteor RWS (Can hold .50, a 40mm GL or a 7.62mm MG).


----------



## vonGarvin

3 round burst is for firing on hard targets such as APCs, BMPs, etc.  The "long burst" IS indeed in the training for engaging with HEI-T.  As well, a plan rarely survives contact with the enemy.  As for the drills regarding the C6, wait, out.


----------



## warchild

Just a generalization on my part.


----------



## ArmyRick

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/dynamicsystems/RemoteWeaponStation/ for more info on the RWS that our three nations use (plus more)


----------



## George Wallace

warchild said:
			
		

> Just a generalization on my part.



Seen.


----------



## Kiwi99

Warchild (Red Devils HUA) has it perfectly right.  The army is going through a period of transformation, but not in all areas.  We need to get operators with combat experiance in LAV III turret to sit and talk with the soldiers responsible for writing lesson plans and such. The same is for all kit that has been used recently on Ops in theater, especially that bloody TAC Vest.  There is a large void between these two groups, over which it is extremely hard to share info.  I firmy believe that a meeting would enhance the LAV experiance, and create a more effecient network for knowledge sharing.  We definitley need to eliminate the bicycle tire we presently have, and have a central source and/or office for all things LAV III.  Gunning, crew commanding, driving, dismounting. Skills will only develop so far when elements are spread over the training area.  Good call Warchild.  

As for fighting any turret vehicle being a common experiance, far from it.  I have never been in a tank, probably never will.  But I have been in a LAV III and I will make an uneducated (so dont blade me later) guess that a LAV III crew commander has a lot of things on his mind that a tanker would not. In the old cbt team attacks that we routinley practiced, the armour would punch throuh, and maybe an intimate support element would stay with the inf and their cars.  The nature of conflict that our soldiers are engaing in while in Afghan does not allow that.  the LAV is the punch vehicle, the intimate support vehicle and the transport vehicle.  The inf CC has to worry about all these elements, and where his dismounts are, plus IED and RPG.  And, I will hasten to add, the ever present thought of enemy climbing on the car.  That scraed the hell outta me.   

When it comes to centers of excellence, there are two types. One that has all the knowledge on how things work and how to do stuff according to the lesson plan.  The other that has taken that information and applied it in real time.


----------



## George Wallace

With the exception of dismounts being in back, I would say that any Commander of a turreted AFV has pretty much the same 'problems'.  The tank turret has three Crew, while the LAV III/Coyote have two sitting side by each.  The Tank Gun moves through a good two feet of recoil, the M242 does not move.  Life in the turret can be very much different, yet have all the same concerns, to varying degrees.  Even tankers worry about dismounts climbing on-board, IEDs, Mines, that little guy in the tree line with a RPG, etc.  All CC's do.  It doesn't matter what AFV you are in.  Some just have a bit more protection than others.  Being too far out of a hatch, performing 'Sniper Checks' can be done on any vehicle.  

I have a feeling that you think a lot of skills are peculiar to the Inf only, when they are not.


----------



## Kiwi99

Its not that the skills are common to the INF only, cause as you stated they are not.  But they have been adapted by the infantry to suit the infantry.


----------



## George Wallace

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Its not that the skills are common to the INF only, cause as you stated they are not.  But they have been adapted by the infantry to suit the infantry.



So?  I don't see your point.  We all adapt to our different tasks, roles, different terrain, different Direct Fire Support, different Indirect Fire Support, etc.  What's new?

You guys are going on and saying that all the tactics that were once taught to our Cbt Tms are irrelevant.  I have to wonder if you even know what you are talking about when you say that and wonder if you have ever done any Cbt Tm work and if you have, if you grasped what you were doing?  Tactics are very flexible and you have to adapt them to each situation you are in.  If you don't, then you are predictable and DEAD.  Drills are, and I will say it again, "to ensure that you have an instinctive and immediate action to an familiar order".  Life is not a parade square.  One hill is not the same as the next.  One town is not the same as the next.  

Your saying that learning to fight in the NATO, European theatre, doesn't work in Afghanistan, just tells me that you are not as open minded, flexible and adaptable as you should be.  Adaptation is the key word here.  Reacting instinctively to familiar orders are also key here.  Forget all the gobbly-goop of training for the "Last War".  It is "Training to act instinctively to familiar orders." and that is all that counts.

What I have seen in Afghanistan, is the Infantry have adapted to fighting without the Direct Fire Support of the Armour Corps due to the Government's Fiscal restraint and incompetence.  Without the Armour, the Infantry have had to adapt and use their Zulu Vehicles like they never have before.  This is where I, as and Armour guy, who has been taught from day one to be "Max Flex" and adapt, am getting lost.  The Infantry adapted in the time of need.  So?  The whole Combat Arms have been operating like this for the last fifty or sixty years.  Adapt and overcome.


----------



## Kiwi99

Adapt and overcome is a cliche.  And for the combat arms to have spent the last 50-60 years adapting and overcoming simply highlights the fact that the chain of command has not implemented the required lessons learnt form the adapting and overcoming.  Every unit should be so prepared for the task through planning and foresight that the need to adapt and/or overcome will not be required. Hence, we adapted our techniques from the typical wainwright enemy to Taliban TTPs prior to deployment, knowing full well that if we didn't, we would be in the hurt locker.  

i am not going to touch the cbt team thing, however,  

"  Doing the style of CBT TM attacks that we do in WX or Gagetown is not even close to the terrain or enviornment over there.  Maneuver warfare is the key.  Tanks cannot get into places that LAV's can go". - Warchild

I, and many others can say, that Cbt Team trg in Canada in no way at all prepared us for Afghanistan.  And as yet, the training in Canada has not reflected the changes needed  in order for all command levels to be prepared for the mission.  Fight as you train, so train for the warfare that is happening.
We haver all participated in cbt team operations before, but we are also different ranks.  Lets try to avoid a general overall from the top perspective, and lets see what every element needs to accomplish the mission.
Reacting instinctively to key orders. No.  You reactg because you have an officer worth  his salt who knows what he is doing.  I can attest that many soldiers have sat there listening to orders on the radio ove ra nd over again and wondered where in the hell buddy got his commision. Reacting to orders because you have to is one thing, reacting because you want to is something else.  And the orderrs during training are only familiar because we have so much safety that the commander is limited to what he can do.  Not to mention the fact that the commander is limited to the piece of training ground.  Its alway the same one.
And we have always used our Zulu vehicles with the commanders of the vehicles having the trust of the higher commander not to screw it up.  Not having the armour support was not a resticting factor at all.  In fact, armour would have limited alot of the operations.
Change  is not a bad thing.  Lets give it a shot.


----------



## Kiwi99

Dudes,
lets prevent this from becoming a Afghanistan experiance thread .  I am as guilty as anyone in this.  If it is something that is LAV related or LAV trg related, lets hear it.  But Afghan is not  the be all and end all of LAV experiance. Roger.

How do we enhance trg exercises to give realism to LAV Crews?  
How can the current gunner/CC crse be adjusted to accomadate change?
Does the dvr crse for LAV need to be changed?
Armd crewing LAV so 031 can dismount?

These questions are directed at serving members, with no offense to retired members intended.  Operators and trainers,let me know your issues and together lets find solutions.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Dudes,
> lets prevent this from becoming a Afghanistan experiance thread .  I am as guilty as anyone in this.  If it is something that is LAV related or LAV trg related, lets hear it.  But Afghan is not  the be all and end all of LAV experiance. Roger.


Agreed.


			
				Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> How do we enhance trg exercises to give realism to LAV Crews?
> How can the current gunner/CC crse be adjusted to accomadate change?
> Does the dvr crse for LAV need to be changed?
> Armd crewing LAV so 031 can dismount?


I'll give my answers to these in series.

Training exercises can be enhanced through CO's accepting some risk and by "creatively" reading 381-1.  I've done it with 2 RCR in 2002 on Ex ROYAL FIST, which was a live fire battle group ex conducted over a week with all attacks (save one: the airmobile) conducted at night.  It involved tanks, engineers, 155mm: everything.  As an example of "risk", there we were, formed up in the attack position as a battery mission of 155 (delay) came in barely 400 m to our front: yes, it's been closer in Afghanistan, but remember, this was in 2002.  That mission was 3 rounds a minute for 26 minutes!  Due to the firepower of the LAV, we tried using them as intimate support vehicles (IFVs) and found that they worked quite well for that (though it WAS a one way range only).  The tanks were used as assault tanks, but didn't punch until after we consolidated (25mm will penetrate the rear of a Leo C2, as I understand it!).  Creative, challenging training, collectively, is required, and this is a unit responsibility, not the Individual Training System Responsibility.

For the second, I'm not sure if drastic change is required.  I have to ask you, however, if you are aware of the content of the Turret Operator Course.  It replaces all other previous versions of 25mm gunnery training, be it the Basic Gunner, DP3A Crew Commander (Armd), LAV III Crew Commander, etc.  It takes a soldier not trained at all on the GM Delco Turret and teaches him or her how to react to "be a gunner" as well as the "buttonology" of the right hand of the turret, including remedying misfires and other stoppages.  Graduates of this course are qualified to be employed as a gunner in a LAV III and a Coyote.  Having said that, this graduate is NOT ready for war.  This course is an individual training course, which means that functioning as an effective gunner will take experience at the unit and on collective training: just as you may learn individual field craft and marksmanship does not make you an effective infantryman.
The current LAV III Crew Commander course teaches the candidate how to be a crew commander, and all that entails: crew supervision, issuing effective fire control orders, reaction to fire control orders from the Pl Comd, etc.  There is a range, but it is not the scripted range seen before.  I don't have 100% visibility on it (I'm not in the LAV APC SME cell at the Infantry School).  The current DP3A Crew Commander course is similar in that the ranges are advanced, and include time and accuracy in engagements, time and accuracy in reporting and effective manoeuvre of the vehicle.  Having said that, both courses again do NOT make a graduate ready for war.  Again, both are individual training courses: time and experience at the unit and on collective training are needed.  In the LAV III crew commander course, for example, the graduate is ready to learn how to fight with dismounts (maybe this has to be added to the course), how to manoeuvre with the other three call signs in the platoon, and so on.

I'm no expert on the LAV Driver Course, so no comment.

Armd crewing LAV so 031 can dismount.  *ABSOLUTELY NOT.*  Though it may work in concept, "what if" your crew is sick, goes down, is on HLTA, is tasked to watch from 10 to 2 on its arcs, etc.  Although not all 031 are "turret qual", there are enough to provide some redundancy at the section level to allow for crew rotation within the section if that crew is required for longer periods (say at FOB SHARLACHROT, as an example, in MADEUPLAND).  We cannot "wish away" the LAV Crewing to the armoured corps: they have barely enough to do what they have now: to crew 9 battalions worth of LAVs with crew-redundancy as well is impossible, long term AND short term.  It simply is not practicable, as it would take "generations" to recruit and train enough crews for us poor bloody infantry.

In summation, crewing a LAV III is a unique skill set.  I have it on the highest authority that those who have combat experience, as well as those with extensive training experience, have come together, and continue to do so, with the Centre of Excellence to import UNIVERSAL lessons into gunnery training.  There is no "end state", this is a continuing evolution that will have no end.  Well, until we get the LAV IV, I suppose!  ;D


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Kiwi, I fully realize that you want to keep this thread within the realm of those that have combat experience in the LAV.  In other words, you don't want crotchedy old fogies like me, with our walkers and cold war mentality wading in with our lack of LAV combat experience.

Having said that, you have started a thread that is certainly worthwhile, and I'm sure, you're opening the eyes of some.  I, too, have read the document you and the guys working with you have put out, it is surprisingly similar to other reports I have read about the Marines and their experience in the LAV in Iraq, and the US Army reports concerning the Bradley.  Well done.

I have just a couple of comments.  You know where their coming from, so take them as you wish.....

From the very beginning of the LAV project, I was arguing for one RWS per platoon, with the Mark 19.  The newest variants of the Mk 19, with the auto fuze setting, lasers and stab make an awesome area suppression weapons platform.  They can be loaded from inside the vehicle, and have enough ammo variants to keep everyone happy in almost every situation you can dream of.  While they are not much good for engaging the enemy that are inside fortifications, for enemy in the open, or behind fences, hedges, etc, they are deadly.  Nothing I have read has convinced me that this is not a viable concept.  The capability of putting down HE, HE-Frag, air burst, or even smoke is nothing to be sneezed at, in my opinion.

One of the common points in all of the after action reports I have read is the three round HEI burst being thrown out the window in combat.  While the idea is good, even necessary, when engaging armour with AP or Frange, it seems that 10 or even 20 round bursts of HEI are much more common than 3 round bursts.  Also common to all threads (not surprisingly) is the fact that replenishing HEI is time consuming and relatively labour intensive, and normally has to be completed at the worst possible time.  I don't really have an answer to that, aside from larger ammo bins.  Part of the problem, of course, is that HEI has a relatively small lethal burst radius, therefore, more rounds have to be fired to engage are targets, such as groups of bad guys.  The Mk 19 would be of huge assistance here, I believe.

The Armour School has in the past hosted an armour gunnery conference.  I'm not sure who has attended in the past from your Unit, but many (most) of the points you bring up are valid points, and that may be a forum to bring them up.  Perhaps Hauptmann Scharlachrot can give you more information on the invitees, and when it is being held again.

I am one of those that think that tanks should have been sent over much sooner than they were.  While they have their limitations, particularly in the area of the support they require, I bet that you can think of a couple of situations where it would have been nice to have that 105 Hesh round available!

If and when I get out there again, I'll try to make time to get together with you and the rest of your gang, maybe go out for a brew.  As long as you don't have me working in that refigerator again!


----------



## Kiwi99

Lance,
you are more than welcom any time, so feel free to drop in whenever.  With ref to the MK 19, does anyone know where we stand on this wpn.  I may be wrong, but some higher up said that the grenades that didnt go off were considedered to be mines, and that opens a whole new bag of issues.  I disagree.  We still use the M203, and the dudes raved about it in theater.  Even if there was a pintle mount version.  But, like any procurement process, we will take abattle proven weapon and decide to conduct 10 years of trials on it, another 5 to make sure it gets made in Quebec, and then we might get it.  This thread is not for Afghan vets only at all.  it is for anyone that has ideas for LAV, and wants to help the operators kill the jundi more effectivley.

Kiwi Out


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Kiwi;

Whoever made that comment (and I believe it was the MND) obviously didn't think before he spoke.  As if artillery don't have duds, or tanks, or even the 203.  He spoke without thinking things through, in my opinion.  The Mk 19 is a superb weapon!

Also, I apologise for the misunderstanding, I thought that you were trying to keep the posters to LAV combat vets, I'm glad I was mistaken.

I'll drop in with my walker next time I'm in town.


----------



## hat

Some General Points/Observations based on my experience as a Pl Comd, including Op ARCHER Roto 1:

1.  RE Afghanistan experience:
  a.  Experience isn't monolithic.  Different soldiers had different experiences based on the specific fights they were involved in.
  b.  On a personal note, one of the key lessons learned was that our training works (in a general sense, there's still lots of     
       tweaking to be done).  Prior to deployment we spent a great deal of time doing realistic live-fire training, and it was exactly  
       what was needed.  More than a year prior, we conducted Combat Team Live-fire training.  Yes the terrain available for traces 
       was limited/familiar.  Yes safety was always a consideration.  However, in my opinion, this training is what got us through the 
       tour.  Frequent re-grouping, mixing assets, marry-up drills, drills for admin and replenishment, rehearsals - all of these things 
       apply at the tactical level whether conducting COIN or conventional operations.
  c.  I believe that drills/school learning is a point of departure.  Yes, certain things like LOAC are inviolable.  However, modern   
      soldiers get paid good money to think and apply concepts to new situations.  I have used three-round bursts against point targets 
      (worked very well).  I have also used frontal-fire edge adjust and area engagements (worked equally as well).  I have used LAVs 
      in intimate support and to conduct standoff attack.  I have conducted dismounted ops with my LAVs on a separate task.  All of 
      these methods were appropriate in the applicable circumstances.
  d.  Regarding MK19 specifically, I think it is a good weapon but too susceptible to dust.  However, I like the idea greatly and think 
      some sort of automatic grenade launcher would be excellent for select vehicles.  However, this should not ever replace the 
      60mm mortar, as they are not identical in capability.
  e.  My views on armoured crewing the LAV are that properly trained infantrymen are more than capable and I would rather have 
      armoured guys do armoured things.  Likewise, I would rather have pioneers and engineers, mortars and artillery.  
2.  LAV training in general:
  a.  My biggest complaint has always been with resourcing.  More shooting is required because, the more our crews 
      do the more proficient they will be at gunnery (by this I mean hand-eye coord and getting rounds on target vice slavishly 
      reciting words of command).  More vehicles are needed to ensure troops always have the LAVs to train with.
  b. It takes too long to modify/correct training material.  This problem is not unique to LAV training, but is systemic throughout our 
      courses.  The process of updating and correcting course material needs to be streamlined.


----------



## vonGarvin

Welcome hat
Some good points, I might say.  
As mentioned, the drills should not focus on reciting fire control orders (as you stated), but that also applies to the dismounts.  Remember way back when on Phase II:
"3 section, 200, treeline, left edge, machine gun.  Seen?"
"SEEN!"
"Rapid, fire!"
I'm pretty sure it was more like "THERE THEY ARE!  GET THEM!", if anything was said at all.  Well, not always, but drills are there for a reason: something to fall back on when your brain is thinking of one thing: survival.  If drills are taught well (and if they are effective), then they can then become instinct.  Much like the gunfighter program: trying to get you to do things "as a drill" so you don't have to think about it.  Much like walking home from a bar: you're drunk, but even so, your legs remember how to function (sort of), but well enough to get you home...


----------



## 1feral1

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> .....but some higher up said that the grenades that didnt go off were considedered to be mines, and that opens a whole new bag of issues.



UXOs as mines?

He'll go far in the NDP and Liberal Party, ha! Beyond PC!

It would be a different story if thats what the nature really was, 40mm bomblets, but a bomblet is not a HEDP rd, in this case, an HEDP which failed to explode on impact.

That guy is out to lunch!

Regards from Baghdaddy,

Wes


----------



## Kiwi99

Live fire training is paramount.  More rounds downrange in WX means less time applying drills in combat.  Practice makes perfect, as the saying goes.  
With ref to perparing for the tour, no amount of live fire and time in the field prepares you, especially in a controlled enviroment like WX.  What prepared our soldier was good NCOs, a good warrat, good CSM and OC, and a Pl Comd who was too busy with paperwork (not his fault) to attend training in garrison.  That is what got us through the tour. Low level training concentrating on instinctive shooting, first aid, initiative and section level operations.  And it is the sect comds and WO that are to be thanked for that.
When speaking pf lessons learnt, we must remember that different levels see things differently, and they are opinions, not fact.  
'HAT' brings up good points from a Pl Comd level, but from my level i disagree with some.  But it is dialougue and that is good.  
Which brings us to a new question.  Is LAV III to generic, or should different levels in the chain have different suites and/or add ons.  I believe that what I need in a fight is the most rugged and simple of LAV models, because as a LAV commander in a rifle platoon, thats where I am.  The CO or OC may need some different kit that  would make their job easier and more fluid.  Lets hear some of those ideas.


Kiwi out


----------



## hat

Kiwi and I will always disagree on certain points.  I believe that, while an infantry officer must be a generalist, there are certain fields in which he must have acumen.  More than just tactics, he should be skilled at the application of all the weapons systems organic to an infantry platoon.  Once we move outside this sphere, it becomes acceptable to be more reliant on advice from various specialist, whether they be other officers or NCMs.  That said, I believe in decentralized training and that a good officer does ride top cover to allow his subordinates to do what they need to do (this is not always what they would like to do).  

The overwhelming majority of the operations we conducted were of platoon level or higher.  Most of these required coordination of different supporting assets.  That said, I will never deny that individual, crew and section skills are the firm base without which everything else is impossible.  It is important that this training be conducted not just prior to deployment, but continue while in theatre.

I believe that LAV suites should be as similar as possible to provide the redundancy necessary for combat and ease of training for crews.  Far better to increase the capabilities of all vehicles (in comms etc..) than to try and tailor to the minimum level of capability required by each user group.  I am a big fan of simple, but believe that the LAV could benefit from better human engineering.


----------



## McG

I think the idea of missiles on the LAV is excellent.  I think we also need to think of missiles more broadly than just anti-tank.  Each launcher type should have a range of potential payloads.  Top-attack TOW is probably not the way to go for grape-hut smashing.  However, a missile carrying a HESH or Thermobaric warhead would have smashed those things.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ArmyRick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> The missiles would have taken up room inside and cut down on the Dismounts.
Click to expand...

Missiles only would have displaced dismounts if the basic load exceeded what was in the tubes.  Each vehicle could carry two ready to fire missiles.  Reloading would occur only in a leaguer with missiles carried by the echlon.  Dedicated missile vehicles would carry additional missiles & the ability to reload under armour.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ArmyRick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to expose yourself to reload.
Click to expand...

So don’t reload in contact.  Keep dedicated missile vehicles (like TUA) for this.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ArmyRick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> The addition of a missile system to the turret, would have encouraged crews to take more chances in engaging MBTs.
Click to expand...

The solution to this is training.  Train the crews not to take chances engaging tanks.  Train the crews when to engage tanks and when not to engage tanks.  Otherwise, we may as well use this argument to get rid of SRAAW(L) and SRAAW(M).



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> I am rather curious as to why anyone is considering replacing the turret on a LAV with an RWS anyway? What advantages are "they" proposing an RWS will give compared to a turret?
> 
> The only thing that comes to my mind is lower weight/lower profile


There is also the option of more troops in the back because less space is required for the gunner and CC without the turret basket.



			
				Red_Five said:
			
		

> I could see the utility of an RWS on a LAV III chassis if the vehicle was being used in the role that Bisons currently fill.


+1



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> … the RWS could be used on a LAV / Coyote as a secondary support platform.
> 
> …
> 
> I could picture this system on a Coyote, with the gunners position replacing the 'bird gunners' position.  Due to the height of the RWS system, and with good placement, the system could be used as 'Air sentry' or 'rear guard' when in convoy, and could provide extra fire power when fighting.  This would provide added protection to the crew as they could travel with 'hatches down' all the time.


Much like the German Marder had a RWS to cover the rear arcs.  However, I suspect you are thinking that the surveillance operator (not the gunner) would operate a rear mounted RWS on the Coyote.



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I personally like the RWS system on the RG-31, as it automatically applies the ballistics once a target is lasered, and the IR is quite a bit more advanced than the LAVs (not going into specs), and the optics have a 'zoom'...  But I can see where it lacks.
> 
> But the RWS screen in comparison to the LAVs Thermal or Day scope... I'd rather have the screen.  It has a wider field of view (I found anyway) and a more clear view in both thermal and day (which can be switched at a push of a button).


It certainly would be interesting to integrate a more relaxed view sighting system in the LAV (screen).  Done properly, the day, II, and TI could all be available with the flick of a switch.

Connected to a combat id system, the same screen could graphically mark tgts that are known fdly or tgts which have been tagged as hostile by other vehicles/observers.  The CC’s screen could also be toggled to the CSAM view or a digital map/SAS display.



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> With that in mind,  wouldn't it be better if the turret crew could be further in the belly of the beast (LAV) and still be able to engage?


There are turret systems where the two man turret crew is fully inside the hull yet still traverse with the turret.  However, I don’t think these turrets provide much option for heads-up operation.



			
				Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> no stab on the RWS and that screen lights up the entire car at night.


The RWS could have been bought with a stab.  It needs it even on the hwys.  There were recommendations to block the windows in order to hide the glow of the screen at night (& to hide the contents of the veh from outside observation).



			
				Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Part of the problem, of course, is that HEI has a relatively small lethal burst radius, therefore, more rounds have to be fired to engage are targets, such as groups of bad guys.  The Mk 19 would be of huge assistance here, I believe.


I recall reading that the LAV25 and LAV30 turrets had an option for an automatic grenade launcher (though that will make the turrets a little busy if you also were to take the TOW option).  Has the CF done any testing to compare the effects of HEI from larger cannons (like the 30 mm which would fit in our current turrets)?



			
				hat said:
			
		

> I believe that LAV suites should be as similar as possible to provide the redundancy necessary for combat and ease of training for crews.  Far better to increase the capabilities of all vehicles (in comms etc..) than to try and tailor to the minimum level of capability required by each user group.  I am a big fan of simple, but believe that the LAV could benefit from better human engineering.


I will echo this.  Every LAV should have at least 2 x A+ in the turret (one of these could be a 117F over there).  The OC might want a computer to get the information available in SAS (assuming he is somewhere that it is being used), and the Coy CP probably wants the full ATHENA terminal in the back (but this could be in an RWS vehicle with four radios in the hull).

On the human engineering side, turret space needed to be a bigger factor in the design.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

MCG said:
			
		

> I recall reading that the LAV25 and LAV30 turrets had an option for an automatic grenade launcher (though that will make the turrets a little busy if you also were to take the TOW option).  Has the CF done any testing to compare the effects of HEI from larger cannons (like the 30 mm which would fit in our current turrets)?



The Mk 19 cannot be mounted inside a turret, it pretty much has to be an RWS or a pintle mounted weapon.  Way to much smoke and fumes, it's simply the nature of the beast.  I still think one RWS equipped with a Mk 19 attached to each platoon would be very worthwhile.

There's been tons of tests completed on 25-50mm cannons.  The bottom line is that most countries agree that 35mm is the minimum caliber capable of firing adequate chemical energy rounds.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just out of curiosity, would the LAV-III 25mm with TOW turret have proven useful in any situations in Afghanistan to date?

I was just thinking that if we are making an additional purchase of let's say 20-50 vehicles, it seems like a good time to add that capability if it were deemed advantageous.

Specifically, the Bunker Buster TOW seemed to look like it could provide an immediate fire support role that previously would've required either MGS or an MBT.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_011980.pdf



Matthew.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, would the LAV-III 25mm with TOW turret have proven useful in any situations in Afghanistan to date?
> 
> I was just thinking that if we are making an additional purchase of let's say 20-50 vehicles, it seems like a good time to add that capability if it were deemed advantageous.
> 
> Specifically, the Bunker Buster TOW seemed to look like it could provide an immediate fire support role that previously would've required either MGS or an MBT.
> 
> http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_011980.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew.




And what make it even more top heavy that what it already is  ???


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> And what make it even more top heavy that what it already is  ???



It's 150kg difference....


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ok thought that it would weigh more. 

Incidentally where would you mount them? On the side of the turret? then the you have to have a stand-off distance from the turret to fire them. Also what about the GIB's in the air sentry roll.


----------



## ArmyRick

Nfld Spr, when you go into action/come under contact, your air sentry should be pulling in. The delco turret with TOW has one launch tube on either side of the turret. You would not be able to stow anything on the back of the turret due to BBDA.

To fire TOW, the vehicle has to remain stationary (and preferably in a hull down position) anyways. So the air sentry can duck his arse back inside.


----------



## Kiwi99

Forget LAV III with a TOW on the turret.  Never going to happen, and thats it.  As for the M113, yes, the argument for is a good one, and so are the arguments against.  At the ened of the day you have to be able to get top the fight, fight it, and then either get out or push forward again.  M113 are maintenance intensive, as is any tracked vehicle.  The LAV III not so much, due to its lack of track.  I do not believe the arguments that a track can go places a wheeled veh cannot .  The LAV III can go anywhere it wants, quickly, a lot quicker than a track.  And all you need is someone commanding the veh that has a schmick and a good driver who understands his veh. 

With ref to the air sentry ducking back in...Why?  As long as you are not shooting over the back deck he is perfectly safe and can add his own lil bit of fire onto the enemy.  Especialy true during ambush.  What is the point of having him up if you are not going to use him and his weapon.  

The LAV III platform is solid and dependable, and battle proven.  Suggesting that the Couger be bought back in is another poor idea.  For the reason that they have been sitting somewhere for the last 10 years alone is something.  Let alone the fact that very few people are now qualified.  And if you told me to get out of my LAV and get in one of those I would tell ya to bugger off.  So what if its got a bigger gun than a LAV.  It is not as reliable, lacks the protection required and is a relic of the cold war.  

One thing to keep in mind with the suggestion of M113 and Couger and all these other vehicles is logistics.  Instead of having to supply ofor X number of vehicles, you add another buch in.  The same goes with resupply and ammo redistribution.  keep it simple and smooth and hopefully it all goes well.  

With the TTP from insurgents in Iraq now being seen in Afghanistan, I dare anyone who supports M113 and Couger to go ahead and take said veh to Astan.  We are doing extremely well with what we have, why handicap it with veh and kit older than the troops fighting.


----------



## MG34

Kiwi good points I agree with most of them ,but we have had soldiers killed in the airsentry hatch,it is not a safe place to be under any sort of contact, 4 weer also wounded when the turret was struck by a vehicle and slewed over the back deck hitting them. the idea of remote controled guns and cameras were bounced around so that everyone could remain buttoned up yet still retain SA.


----------



## Kiwi99

We too had a couple of dudes hit by a barrel after a jundi truck swerved at them.  But we kept them up regardless of this.  When we were ambushed they were able to return a high volume of fire at areas the barrel couldn't depress to engage.  In other contacts the soldiers were able to enage enemy from the air sentry hatch with excellent accuracy.  
We cannot remain 'buttoned up' in our veh and win this war.  We have to be seen as not afraid of the enemy, and we have to be able to respond at all threats immediattly.  Sure, it is dangerous having a guy in the air sentry hatch.  Small arms and IED are a constant threat.  But to "button up" rather than take the chance is not the way to go.  If ya get hit, then ya get hit.  We found air sentries up at all times, day and night, to be effective and a good deterrent to the enemy.  Cameras and RWS do not give the same SA as a guy watching and listening out in the open.  
Besides, if you took all the danger away, then who would want to do this job?


----------



## MG34

We used air sentries as well, I'm not saying don't use them but to take casualties when they could be avoided is just idiotic. 
  In the ambushes I was involved in around PBW and in Panjawai the fire coming from the air sentry hatches while making the guys feel good and anle to do something about it, was insignificant compared with that coming from the LAV turret. If the En is able to close within the range of the turret's limitations there was an obvious lack of SA even if the guys are up and observing, not a slam as we were caught in the same manner, the afct is that when on the move the Mk1 eyeball is not as good as a thermal optic.
 As far as not being afraid of the En ,well that was proven time and time again over there, the locals don't give a damn about wether there are guys standing up in back all they see is another green monster full of white guys. , you don't win hearts and minds from a LAV.


----------



## Kiwi99

Agreed.  We had issues with the thermal in the heat during ths summer, which in some cases the Mk 1 eyeball a lot better.  The other thing is, and I am sure you will agrre, when you are up and observing, you get that 'gut feel' when something is about to happen.  The guys sitting in the back never got that feeling as they couldn't see really what was going on.


----------



## KevinB

The American's have made a "roof" for the Stryker and put two MG positions in the airsentry hatches -- some have small gunshields
-gives protection for the guys and decent firepower addition -- of course you lose 360 with the cannon (or RWS on the Stryker)


----------



## Kiwi99

I-6, what are there ideas on air sentry guys?  You are in a unique position to see this on a reg basis.  Can you get me a couple pics of this so I can take to my higher?

Thanks dude


----------



## McG

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, would the LAV-III 25mm with TOW turret have proven useful in any situations in Afghanistan to date?


There are many here who have seen 25 mm rounds plink uselessly into a grapehut.  Had those same LAV had TOW (with an appropriate blast type warhead), then there would instead be stories of the TB getting blasted in the grapehuts by LAV.  So, yes there have been times where this would have been useful.



			
				Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> Incidentally where would you mount them? On the side of the turret?


That is how the manufacture does it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

MCG said:
			
		

> There are many here who have seen 25 mm rounds plink uselessly into a grapehut.  Had those same LAV had TOW (with an appropriate blast type warhead), then there would instead be stories of the TB getting blasted in the grapehuts by LAV.  So, yes there have been times where this would have been useful.



Thank you for the direct answer....


Matthew.


----------



## McG

. . . but there are only so many L7 cannons out there on the battlefield (and they only travel so fast).  Every convoy moving includes LAV 25 turrets.  In many cases, it would only take one or two missiles to convince the TB they don't want to stand-up & fight any more.


----------



## Mountie

This thread is pretty old, but I re-read it and have a basic question.  One of the key arguments against the RWS is situational awareness and the gunner/vehicle commander not being able to do both at the same time.  If he's busy firing at targets how does he effectively command the vehicle?  

So my question is, how is this going for the US Army Stryker crews, the British Army FV432 Mk.3 Bulldog or the various Israeli Defence Force APCs that use RWS's?  The Stryker has been used extensively in Iraq, the Bulldog has been equipped with an Enforcer RWS recently for use in Iraq and the IDF has used RWS's for years in various urban conflicts.  Their newest APC, the Namer based on the Merkava MBT chassis, does have a dedicated crew commander with a pintle mounted 7.62mm MG in addition to the RWS used by the gunner so that may answer some of the situational awareness question.  It obviously works for some of the best armies in the world, just curious how they make it work.   Is it even that different than the old Canadian M113?  I realize their was no RWS, but the gunner/crew commander still had to fulfill both roles simultaneously.


----------



## 1feral1

In Iraq we used ASLAV Type 2's and 3's with RWS w/12.7mm M2 QCB, and yes effectively 'in contact' with the En. What makes it effective is familiarity and good/often training/drills and practice, hence when the SHTF, no problems.

OWDU


----------



## KevinB

RWS are the way of the future for forces that wish to reduce crew exposure.

 Currently you give up some SA for protection, however a great deal of companies are working this issue.  If you do not use a dismount intended weapon platform you can gain in a number of areas for the RWS, and sensor designs are coming on board that will give 360 degree observation from integrated radar, II and T systems.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I concur with Infidel-6 on this.  RWS or remote operated turrets are definitely the way of the future.  When RWS first started being fielded, the technology to get the situational awareness wasn't there yet.  As the technology increases (and it is) to give better sa around the vehicle, the weight savings and lowering the vehicle's centre of gravity make replacing a manned turret with an RWS, or designing a vehicle from the ground up with one much more attractive.

The Puma IFV and the next generation of the French VCBI are both using unmanned remote operated turrets.

Certain things can go a long way in terms of making a remote system on par with a manned turret:
-Putting independent sights/viewers for the commander, 
-Adding protection (i.e. gunshields) around the weapon system which allows the gunner/commander to pop through a hatch and perform IAs on a jammed weapon while under fire, or reloads.
-Designing a 'half turret/remote turret' housing only the weapon system and the ready ammo, that has no turret basket protruding down into the vehicle.  The gunner and commander's position is the best situated for an efficient vehicle layout, not based on the requirements that a turret basket be able to traverse freely. Build an access hatch to the weapons system for the crew inside the vehicle, so they can reload the weapon, or perform IAs and stoppages whilst under armour.


----------



## KevinB

Electric drive weapons - reduce your IA issue greatly and allow for 400% or more increase to reliability over recoil/gas systems.
  Newly designed weapons allow for complete purge of the mechanism from inside, and reloading from under armor.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Electric drive weapons - reduce your IA issue greatly and allow for 400% or more increase to reliability over recoil/gas systems.
> Newly designed weapons allow for complete purge of the mechanism from inside, and reloading from under armor.



Definitely a step in the right direction, as I've heard several horror stories from US Army vets who used the Hispano-Suiza 20mm on the M114 which experienced a significant jam rate.  

Not to say that electric drive is perfect, as I've had my share of nightmare jams on the M242, but I'd say they are more due to taking a legacy helicopter gun and trying to adapt it for armoured vehicle usage, whereby the feed chutes are straining the ammo link assemblies resulting in most of the jams.


----------



## Mountie

Any news and/or pictures of the new LAV-III RWS in Afghanistan or in training?  I've only seen one poor angle picture from a company website.  How is it working out?  I read an article or post on another site that said the vehicle commanders hatch had a C6 or C9 mounted at it in addition to the RWS mounted in the centre.  Is this true?  How is the vehicle being crewed?  Is there a separate vehicle commander and gunner? Does the vehicle commander dismount with the infantry like the US Army Stryker rifle squads do?


----------



## Jammer

The ELAV (Cdn Engr)...is the only LAV in the fleet that uses the RWS.
It is universal in that it can mount anything up to a MK-19 AGL.
Engrs that I know are not fond of it as it take up too much space in the veh and not enough for engr stores.


----------



## Mountie

Jammer said:
			
		

> The ELAV (Cdn Engr)...is the only LAV in the fleet that uses the RWS.
> It is universal in that it can mount anything up to a MK-19 AGL.
> Engrs that I know are not fond of it as it take up too much space in the veh and not enough for engr stores.



I'm talking about the 33 extra TUA hulls that were converted to ISC with the Nanuk RWS (Often being referred to as the Bison 2).  I read in a few different articles that they were just recently deployed to Afghanistan.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2007/GDLS-Canada-lands-order-for-army-LAV-III-ISCs.html


----------



## MikeL

Jammer said:
			
		

> The ELAV (Cdn Engr)...is the only LAV in the fleet that uses the RWS.



The new LAV Hs also just have an RWS and a C6 on a pintle mount


----------



## deh

I am currently in the middle of the LAV III RWS Train the Trainer gunners course, so I might be able to help out a little with any questions.  

In regards to the weapons, the weapon station itself is mounted in front of the gunners hole, slightly off of centre.  Makes learning about inhibit zones fun!  The station itself accepts C6, M2 or C9.  There is a platts mount on the front right of the commanders hatch that will fit a C6 or a C9.

The veh is being crewed as per normal, the numbers do not change.  I can not say what the rest of the forces are doing, but there has been nothing mentioned about the CC dismounting with the sect.  I can't imagine it would be done either, especially not at 2RCR.

We have 2 (sort of) at the armour school right now for this course.  There are five others that are doing the "circus show" as the WO likes to call it, travelling from base to base to get the troops qualified on.  As far as I know they are in Shilo at the moment slowly making their way to gagtown.  

As for the deployment schedule, I am not 100% sure what info is open source and what isn't.  Needless to say they will be showing up in theatre in the not so distant future.  If you want more of the where and when details you can shoot me an email from a DIN email address and I will point you in the direction of the SME who would know better than me what we are allowed to say and what we aren't.  Sorry for the cop out, but anyone who knows me knows I am not huge on the secretive for no reason song and dance, its just the system is so new I do not want to mark time on my organ.  And as well for those who know me, pictures of the high resolution, on the move and firing kind are on the way as soon as I can get them cleared by the Chain o' Command.  Any request for angles or what not and I will see what I can do.  Any questions I will try my best to answer, I am by no means an expert but I am working for them right now and probably have more hands on time than the majority of people out there at the moment.

You can PM any questions or to find my DIN email address.  I am not exactly incognito though, you should be able to find me fairly easily in the address book. 

- EDIT -

I should add in a little about the intent.  From the crew who are teaching this course, the LAV III RWS is *NOT* a replacement for the LAV III with the 25mm turret.  It is going to augment the fleet in much the same way the nyala does.  Low intensity things like convoys and QRF, not full on kinetic ops.  The weight savings from the turret is being spent in up armouring and mine proofing the vehicle.  Everyone can stop screaming bloody murder about the 25mm being taken away, aside from the 30-ish hulls with no turrets that are being converted, there isn't a plan to downgrade the 650 some odd lavs to this standard.  If you would like to have a chat about the cost of developing the system, prototyping and building them and retraining crews vice just buying 30 turrets, I have some ideas on that, but you can unbunch the panties, the LAV III 25 (as it is now being referred to around coy lines to my great dismay) is here to stay.


----------



## McG

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> The new LAV Hs also just have an RWS and a C6 on a pintle mount


The new LAV H is not yet in service with any nation.  If the first country that decides to buy it wants turrets or 30 mm RWS, then that is what the first production LAV H will have.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

I recently returned from Afghanistan last December as a Pl Comd where I had 4 LAV RWS', 7 RG-31s and 1 TLAV in my Pl.
The RG-31 had the Kongsberg RWS system which worked well overall.  We used both the C6 and .50 with this vehicle but I ended up choosing to use the .50 with it strictly for the added firepower since there were no air sentries (there were hatches, but they were not used due to their inability to lie flat among other reasons).  I won't go into detail about the RG-31, but needless to say it was not a good vehicle, even on the highway it had significant drawbacks.  The RWS however was good as it's stability system worked, where the NANUK RWS quite frankly did not.
The LAV RWS uses the NANUK Remote Weapon System which has quite a few drawbacks and needs to be reviewed.  The camera is not independent of the weapon system so when you go to get a firing solution and are at the narrow field of view for the camera, the camera has to zoom out because at longer ranges the weapon system has to tilt up to compensate for bullet drop.  This means it's difficult to see the impact and fall of your rounds, and if your target is moving... well, good luck.  The STAB system barely functions and quite often it's better to just leave it off because as a gunner you will fight with it more often than not if it's on to remain on target.  As well the ammo box being located outside of the vehicle and being so high up meant when you ran out of your initial upload you would have to get out and be on top of the LAV in order to reload.  Not a place you want to be when under contact.

In the end we loved our LAV RWS, but that was more because it was a LAV and less because it was an RWS and it was more versatile and flexible than the RG-31.  There are pros and cons to having an RWS platform, but other than cost and maintenance there aren't many pros a LAV RWS brings to the table above a LAV III with a turret in my opinion.  We couldn't carry any more soldiers or equipment and the drivetrain was the same.  We had more initial protection than your standard LAV III did, but that changed when they were rotating the LAV IIIs for LAV 3.5s overseas.


----------



## Snaketnk

There was a really high Accidental Discharge rate with the RWS gun overseas, none of which ended in the gunner being charged. I've personally witnessed two "ADs" in which the gun decided on its own that it wanted to shoot and firing a round in a really unsafe manner (during readying). Both incidents ended up in UCRs being filed. If you're going to go with a RWS, use a different one.

I'm not sure I'd want to use it as a "combat vehicle" (We were dismounted any time anything happened anyway) but as a patrol/escort vehicle it worked awesomely. One change a lot of us agreed on is to get rid of the RWS, replace it with another pintle-mounted C6, and then add a camera on a mast to investigate anything supicious/use to walk rounds on target if firing at >1000m. It wouldn't make for a very good fighting vehicle in open ground, but for Urban Patrolling it provides an incredible amount of SA and guns pointed in 4 directions, able to react to a threat from any direction instantly (which we found really valuable when a car comes screeching out of a side alley or something). 

One small detail that seems to have a big effect is the placement of the admin box. On the LAV RWS its right between the "turret" area and the air sentries, roughly midway along the top of the vehicle. It was moved there to open up the arcs of the air sentries. On the LAV 25mm, to make up for the loss of the admin box, they mounted huge bins on the side of the vehicle, which make it significantly more difficult to navigate through busy streets/gates/chicanes.

For Urban Patrolling, I'd prefer the LAV RWS, for a "real fight" I wouldn't want to give up the 25mm HEI.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> There was a really high Accidental Discharge rate with the RWS gun overseas, none of which ended in the gunner being charged. I've personally witnessed two "ADs" in which the gun decided on its own that it wanted to shoot and firing a round in a really unsafe manner (during readying). Both incidents ended up in UCRs being filed. If you're going to go with a RWS, use a different one.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd want to use it as a "combat vehicle" (We were dismounted any time anything happened anyway) but as a patrol/escort vehicle it worked awesomely. One change a lot of us agreed on is to get rid of the RWS, replace it with another pintle-mounted C6, and then add a camera on a mast to investigate anything supicious/use to walk rounds on target if firing at >1000m. It wouldn't make for a very good fighting vehicle in open ground, but for Urban Patrolling it provides an incredible amount of SA and guns pointed in 4 directions, able to react to a threat from any direction instantly (which we found really valuable when a car comes screeching out of a side alley or something).
> 
> One small detail that seems to have a big effect is the placement of the admin box. On the LAV RWS its right between the "turret" area and the air sentries, roughly midway along the top of the vehicle. It was moved there to open up the arcs of the air sentries. On the LAV 25mm, to make up for the loss of the admin box, they mounted huge bins on the side of the vehicle, which make it significantly more difficult to navigate through busy streets/gates/chicanes.
> 
> For Urban Patrolling, I'd prefer the LAV RWS, for a "real fight" I wouldn't want to give up the 25mm HEI.


+1 to all your points, I had forgotten about that box that sat directly behind the crew comds/gunners hatches.  It was a minor inconvenience though, and for the job my Pl did which was convoy escort it worked quite well.


----------



## McG

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> For Urban Patrolling, I'd prefer the LAV RWS, for a "real fight" I wouldn't want to give up the 25mm HEI.


It is possible to have both the RWS and the medium calibre cannon firepower.
I had a friend posted to the LAV III LE project as it was getting its momentum - I was disturbed when advised that the project (at that time) believed they had to choose between two extremes of keeping the turret (with all the fire power but several limitations that were undesirable) or a machine gun firing RWS (without the concerning limitations of the turret but significantly less firepower).  At the time, I pointed him to the Samson RCWS with the potential to increase LAV firepower while avoiding all the bad limitations that we did not want from our current turret.  I really did not have a vested intrest in the Samson brand.  My concern was that the project recognize options existed between the two extremes that were being held as the "only possible" options; medium calibre cannon RWS might not be the right decision but it needed to be one of the considered options when making the decision.

In my opinion, for LAV III LE a RWS with medium calibre cannon & machine gun is better than a RWS that can only do machine gun or AGL.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Civvie [possibly dumb] question....

With the LAV chassis upgrades which will allow it to carry significanly more weight, is not possible to retrofit the existing Delco Turret with a 30mm Bushmaster II?

If memory serves, it only weighs about an 50KG  more, + additional weight of ammunition.

Quick thought being that if the difference between the 30mm and 25mm justifies any investment, then you get the best of both worlds with adding the heavier firepower while maintaining the situational awareness.

As I've never fired a 25mm or 30mm at a grapehut, I will now retreat to let those who have comment....


----------



## McG

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Civvie [possibly dumb] question....
> 
> With the LAV chassis upgrades which will allow it to carry significanly more weight, is not possible to retrofit the existing Delco Turret with a 30mm Bushmaster II?
> 
> If memory serves, it only weighs about an 50KG  more, + additional weight of ammunition.
> 
> Quick thought being that if the difference between the 30mm and 25mm justifies any investment, then you get the best of both worlds with adding the heavier firepower while maintaining the situational awareness.


30 to 40 mm cannons can be considered for LAV III replacement (when we get to that) and CCV.  I don't know that up-gunning the turret would be worth the investment as part of a life extension though.  Doing so would certainly not address the concerns of the camp that was arguing that we ought to get rid of the turret all together.

Again, my previous post referencing the Samson was not to say that it or the 30 mm are what we need.  It was simply that we cannot declare the machine-gun RWS to be the only alternative when seriously discussing the option of removing the 25 mm turret from the fleet.


----------

