# Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?



## ArmyRick

I was reading on the armoured TAPV thread and someone posted in their the idea of using low-medium velocity weapons for armoured recce.

Then I got to thinking of a crazy idea. The US use a stryker MGS as its close support weapon for assaulting infantry and lets face it, thats a dead horse in the CF.

What about a LAVIII with a low-medium velocity weapons system. Thinking of something similar to the M551 sheridan with its "stubby" 152mm gun-missile launcher. My idea is to have a lower tech (lower cost) but effective platform with a 3-4 man crew (manned by infantry).

The lower velocity platform would not have as much platform rocking as say 105mm Tank rounds would.

The real beauty would be the different nature of ammunition it should be able to fire. HEP or HESH, HEDP, HEAT, Smoke, Illumination, Canister, Gun Launched Missiles (Something better like a fire and forget system not the old wire guided crap shillelagh missile). 

They could probably design a missile that fires up to 6-8 KM away (Their is a 105mm and 120mm Tank gun launched missile MRM, can not remember the exact designation)

The concept would be this would be a LAV Coy Comd fire support weapon. Hangs out in a fire base and uses ammo specific to the mission. If you have an immediate heavy armour threat, Then you would have your leo2 to battle that out. However if we have ever encounter an oppurtunity to fight enemy armour at long range, then maybe this is where the gun launched FF missile would come in. 

Ideally, it would still be tanks that fight the anti-armour battle.

This in my opinion would be a true and much more usefull "MMEV".

It is important though to have a large caliber gun (something 120-155mm). The key is here is for ammo that doesn't require a high velocity. 

Ideas and thoughts?


----------



## tango22a

Army Rick:

When fired the 152mm gun/launcher would literally pick the front end of the Sheridan off the ground. If you ever fired a Cougar with its low/medium velocity (533m/sec) 76mm and experienced the platform rock, the blast and the flash, you would realize that a low/medium velocity weapon is a non-starter even on the much more stable LAV III. When fired at ranges over 2000m using the QFC the recoil from the 76mm would bottom out the suspension. You could almost hear the suspension components scream in agony!


tango22a


----------



## ArmyRick

How is it that the Stryker MGS is able to fire a higher velocity 105mm? This includes APFSDS and it is stabilised. 

The cougar I can see as shaking because it is a smaller vehicle and the hull probably wasn't designed for anything larger than a machine gun/smaller caliber chain


----------



## vonGarvin

The wheel has definitely turned 360.

The tank was originally invented to be a "Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle".  Then tank vs. tank then whatever.  

I would argue that instead of specialised vehicles for each and every case, let's all take a collective breath, step back and really analyse the situation.

I have my own thoughts, but suffice it to say that it's not just tanks or infantry or whatever that we need.  We need a variety of weapons systems, coordinated at an HQ level and synchronised to maximise effect where and when we need it.  That's why we have artillery, tanks, infantry, machine guns, planes, tanks and even bears (if need be, dammit!)






In short, I see no need for a specialised vehicle when we have tanks, artillery, angry penguins, etc on our side


----------



## Franko

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> How is it that the Stryker MGS is able to fire a higher velocity 105mm? This includes APFSDS and it is stabilised.



It FAILED every trial it ever went through...from boiling desert to freezing arctic. 

Talk to a few MGS commanders in Iraq and they'll tell you. I've heard their stories from them and it's not pretty.

The stab is atrocious. The gun also jammed frequently, taking 40+ minutes to allow for safety, taking them out of the fight, causing the crews to dismount...it goes on and on from there.

The suspension was designed for the 25/ 35mm and nothing more. Throw a 105 weighing in at well over 2 tons and have it recoil and say it'll handle the load and forces while driving down the road is pure BS.

Tanks do the job and hit things to 4000m with surgical precision while keeping the crews safe under extremely dangerous conditions where a MGS would be a sitting duck.

Regards


----------



## tango22a

ArmyRick:

Years ago, IMI and Oto-Melara collaborated on a 60mm high velocity gun which was fitted on an Israeli M113. Seemed the cat's a$$ at the time but has disappeared off the sensors into oblivion. Don't know why but I guess ther must have been some hidden problems. Just as there are with the MGS,

tango22a


----------



## TCBF

- The Commies had this same discussion 35 years ago.  

- Their answer? Tanks and BMPs/BTRs.

- It was a good answer, too.  Very deadly and highly cross-country mobile BMPs with high speed BTRs supported by tanks.  They thought of everything except Heavy APCs, but during Chechnia 1, they thought of that, too.

- Our Centennial Project in 1967 was to buy 167 Lynx C&R M113 1/2.  The same year The Comrades introduced BMP 1.

- Whose crying now?  ;D


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> How is it that the Stryker MGS is able to fire a higher velocity 105mm? This includes APFSDS and it is stabilised.


Maintaining a same mass of the reciling parts and using a longer recoil stroke.  The MGS cannon would be striking the turret ring if you tried to put it inside a MBT turret.  This also reduces the potential max rate of fire as the weapon takes longer to return to battery.

The US has also done studies of opening the breach during firing in order to minimize recoil without the high balistic ineffeciencies of recoiless rifles.  The goal was to put fully capable 120 mm cannons on lighter than LAV platforms.


----------



## ArmyRick

DP, I challenge you on your claim and I quote SFC S. Collum (A abrams tanker and currently an MGS crew commander)...

"there are quite a few people who talk a lot of crap to include my own armor guys. its normal for people to not like what they don't understand. i will say that the vehicle does have some flaws that need to be worked out to make the vehicle better but i was asked by the secretary of defense is the vehicle worthy and i told him that as of right now it is as good as it needs to be. its a infantry support vehicle and the dismounts on the ground love it. i have not had a firefight last over 3 minutes. the best thing about it is its maintenance cost, fuel costs, reliability, speed and maneuverability. it were not for the lav we would not have the mgs. i would be stuck on a hummer if it were not for the mgs so the future tankers going to stryker units better be thankful. "

He is also known as Tankcommander33 on youtube. I will trust his comments LONG before I trust yours since he has crewed both TANKS and MGS. I am not advocating the revival of MGS just a new idea for a complimentary system.

Tanks are awesome and I have worked with both Leo1 and 2 (As infantry though fighting alongside). However There are disadvantages, we can't afford the size of the tank fleet we should have. Not every mission that involves a little extra fire power always needs to tie up valuable resources like a tank.

Maintenance cost, no matter how you look at it is huge.

Fuel cost is also huge. 

This idea I am throwing forward would be dedicated to infantry (in a similar fashion to the way US uses Stryker MGS in Infantry battalions). This would be similar to the days when Infantry had 106mm recoiless rifle (which didn't just fire HEAT rounds). 

The TOW system, while far superior to destroying enemy armour is kind of one mission assett except when you employ bunker buster missiles. However it gets a little expensive and certain ammo types are simply not availible in TOW such as 
-Illumination
-Smoke
-Canister


----------



## Fishbone Jones

What's the sense of having a support vehicle with an 18 round main gun magazine?


----------



## TCBF

ArmyRick,

- The high Maint cost in today's new vehicles is not in the power pack and drive train.  it is in the vehicle electronics - Vectronics, if you will.  

- The new high-tech systems reduce some of our techs to diagnostiticians and box changers.  Those boxes fail, go back to the factory and we buy a new or re-built box.  Our techs are smart enough to fix them, but we don't buy the test equipment or internal box -parts and relevant supporting pubs.  I think you know where the money goes there.

- Thus, buying 'lighter' kit does not garuntee one any real savings.

- A direct fire armoured car - which an MGS is - would be an expensive side-show unless it was multi-roled.  Thus, a tank is cheaper: it can do it all.  

- The perfect balance remains elusive, but the BMP3 made a run at it.


----------



## ArmyRick

Recceguy, 

Where did I advocate the MGS with its 18 round magazine?

I said in my original post, a LOW tech vehicle. I would have it set up a manual loader.

I find it is hard to get you crewman types to see my idea from an infantry perspective. Forget MGS. I beleive its a fire support vehicle with way more bells and whistles than it needs (YES it can fire on the move and engage it targets, GDLS has the videos on their web site).

Wrap your noodles around this. Something that can fire a variety of ammo (excluding APFSDS) but is far cheaper and faster than a 60 ton tank.


----------



## TCBF

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> ... I find it is hard to get you crewman types to see my idea from an infantry perspective. Forget MGS. I beleive its a fire support vehicle with way more bells and whistles than it needs (YES it can fire on the move and engage it targets, GDLS has the videos on their web site).
> 
> Wrap your noodles around this. Something that can fire a variety of ammo (excluding APFSDS) but is far cheaper and faster than a 60 ton tank.



- I jokingly called the MGS a "Super Cougar" on this site a few years back.  But, given your parameters (above), I see no reason why a currently manufactured "low-tech 'big-bore' gun turret could not be mated to a LAV hull, or the hull of any new veh we buy to replace part of our 'F' fleet.

- Whether or not such a vehicle would have cheaper life-cycle costs than the Leopards remains problematic, but we don't have to adopt it for the Army as a whole or on a common hull:  I see no problem with 'mission buying' such vehicles for a given operational need.  We have done lots of that in the last seven years:  South African armoured cars, US Armoured trucks, etc.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Recceguy,
> 
> Where did I advocate the MGS with its 18 round magazine?
> 
> I said in my original post, a LOW tech vehicle. I would have it set up a manual loader.
> 
> I find it is hard to get you crewman types to see my idea from an infantry perspective. Forget MGS. I beleive its a fire support vehicle with way more bells and whistles than it needs (YES it can fire on the move and engage it targets, GDLS has the videos on their web site).
> 
> Wrap your noodles around this. Something that can fire a variety of ammo (excluding APFSDS) but is far cheaper and faster than a 60 ton tank.



Sounds like a 106 recoiless mounted on a jeep ;D

Sorry for the hijack. Couldn't resist.


----------



## TCBF

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sounds like a 106 recoiless mounted on a jeep ;D
> 
> Sorry for the hijack. Couldn't resist.



- Where are we going to find 106mm HEP nowadays?   Hard enough in the early eighties, and now that the USMC is out of the ONTOS game...


----------



## vonGarvin

I go back to my original post in this thread. You cannot simply wish to have a dedicated, sole-purpose vehicle introduced into the army like that (insert sound of fingers snapping).  
Yes, TOW cannot do it all, neither can a tank, a bayonet or even a penguin.  That's why we form combat teams and battle groups.  We put together those assets we need for the job at hand, and voila, we synchronise the effects available and get the results desired.  So, forget MGS, forgets Leos, and forget that the quote that was put up here re: MGS commander.  

As an aside, the MGS as used by the US is part of a system that includes Main Battle Tanks, Aircraft Carriers and MX Missiles.  Just saying, is all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Where are we going to find 106mm HEP nowadays?   Hard enough in the early eighties, and now that the USMC is out of the ONTOS game...



Greece?


----------



## TCBF

recceguy said:
			
		

> Greece?



- You got me.  Darn internet...


----------



## Franko

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> DP, I challenge you on your claim...



What do I know after crewing both Leo C2 and Leo 2 for 7 months worth of combat in Afghanistan....might as well toss out everything I know and have been told about MGS from actual US crews as well.     :

You're obviously the armour SME here.

Regards


----------



## a_majoor

At the risk of getting into a gunfight with a knife, I don't think there is a "low tech" solution to the problem that ArmyRick is advocating.

The CV-CT turret is a nice drop in for a LAV 3, mounting a 105mm cannon with an autoloader and capable of carrying 12 rounds in the bustle and another 12+ in the hull. It can also elevate to 420, making it capable of urban ops or being an impromptu artillery piece, and is probably the closest to what is being suggested. 

The downside is it is a high tech piece of kit mated to a vehicle with light armour. I would say this would make a suitable Cavalry or Recce vehicle, not an FSV.

Other solutions are worse. The BMP3 turret was mated to another 8X8 hull, which would need the mother of all FCS and be a logistical nightmare, not to mention making a spectacular bang if it were to brew up. The Centurio "Tank Destroyer" suffers the same flaws as a LAV 3+ CV-CT solution as an Infantry FSV. Turret mounted mortars would make very poor direct fire vehicles, so would any other low pressure gun (the "High Low" pressure gun is similar to the M203 but very scaled up: the ultimate pumpkin launcher). Even hypervelocity guns like the Israeli 60mm or ARES 75 suffered from high barrel erosion and needed to fire a 3 round burst to destroy an 80's vintage tank, advanced high tech ammunition could overcome these problems, but the amount of HE a 60 or 75mm shell can carry is limited as well.

Light vehicles would make excellent Cavalry or Recce vehicles, so there is a place for this kind of thinking, but for Infantry support a tank really is the tool for the job. (Mind you, todays tanks could be improved as well, but we have the "Future Armour" thread for that...)


----------



## McG

There really are a lot of questions that need addressing before delving into the subject of whether the most appropriate weapon for an Inf FSV is medium caliber cannon (20 - 75 mm), reduced velocity full caliber cannon (90 - 150+ mm), reduced velocity medium caliber cannon (20 - 75 mm), or some other system.

What is the requirement for such a system; what would its roles & capabilities be?  What targets must it engage?  Where would it fit in the organization?  What is the supporting doctrine?  How does it fit into each phase of war and through different intensity conflicts?  Do we need to have more vehicles in the battalion, or could we just put different weapon systems on every third section APC?

Once all of this is figured-out, you then have a picture detailed enough to begin constructing the capabilities that would be required of the weapon system(s) for the vehicle (assuming that by the end of the estimate you have still determined that the vehicle is required).


----------



## Mountie

The LCTS-90 mounted on the LAV-III as chosen by the Belgians.  The little brother to the CT-CV 105mm weapons system mentioned a few posts back.  Sort of a Cougar 2.


----------



## Infanteer

I give props to Army Rick for at least trying to start some good ideas going - we don't have enough of that around here these days.

2 Points:

1.  Want a good Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?  We already have one - the LAV III.  The 25mm is a pretty good weapon with a wallop.  It ain't gonna knock down buildings, but it does make bad guys duck.  If the next generation goes to a more ergonomic 30mm/35mm, even better.

2.  Rambler got it right - the less platforms, munitions and vehtronics, the better.  Let the tanks handle the large caliber rounds.  What the Infantry really needs for DFS is a suitable anti-armour weapon.  Try planning a defence against any sort of near-peer foe with today's infantry.  Pretty merde when your biggest weapon is an Eryx with a 600m max range.  T-72s would tear us to pieces if we were the battlegroup in the Brigade who didn't get the Squadron of MBTs for that week.  I'll take a Javelin ATGM that can be manpacked or put on a RWS that's coming to an infantry battalion near you over a low-velocity pumpkin launcher.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Kat Stevens

Just nab a couple of previously owned AMX-10RC and drop them into each company!  ;D


----------



## a_majoor

More on Infantry FSV’s

Why would we need an FSV anyway? The German experience in WWII is probably illustrative. They started the war with a Panzerkampfwagen III mounting a 50mm high velocity gun to deal with enemy tanks and hard targets and a Panzerkampfwagen IV mounting a short barreled 75mm to shoot in assaults. As the war progressed, the Panzerkampfwagen IV was progressively up gunned to deal with more capable threats, while the Panzerkampfwagen III was retired since it could not be up gunned.

The hull of the tank could handle the recoil of larger weapons fixed to the superstructure, leading to a series of Sturmgeschütz as low cost alternatives to tanks. The Panzerkampfwagen IV  hull, being bigger, was also used for a wide variety of platforms.

By 1943/44, the Germans were in deep trouble. The Panther and Tiger tanks were impressive, but expensive, temperamental and limited in numbers. Infantry support was coming to mean shooting at hordes of enemy tanks, so the availability of a low cost, robust fighting platform that could carry a long barreled 75 was a godsend to the German Infantry. The 75 could also shoot a useful HE shell when the need arose, so there was balanced firepower, although the machines had tactical limitations due to the fixed nature of the mount. 

You will note that trying to “improve” on this formula simply led to dead ends like “Ferdinand”; the Hetzer, which carried so little ammunition that it was basically a shoot and scoot platform; and “hunting” Panthers and Tigers, which suffered from the same defects of cost and reliability as the parent platforms.

In the modern age, Generation 3 tanks provide the balance of firepower, protection and mobility to deal with most tactical problems, the main shortcomings have to do with the size, weight and fuel consumption needed to achieve these goals, and excessive focus on the DF task. A Generation 4 tank would achieve these goals in a lighter platform, and have the ability to take on a wider range of targets.

A conceptual design based on the Leopard 2 exists, using a low profile Wegmann turret with about 2/3 the volume of the current turret and a Eurodiesel powerpack which is smaller and lighter than the existing powerpack. Adding a high angle gun mount to deal with targets in the upper floors of buildings and advanced ammunition (Shoot through missiles, TERM, STAFF) to deal with the wider range of targets brings us close to the ideal. The Swedish Strv 2000 concept was much more modular, had a front engine like the Merkava and mounted a 120mm canon and a 40mm coaxial gun on high elevation mounts, and would be perhaps smaller and lighter than an evolved Leopard 2. A Merkava with a high angle gun mount and advanced ammunition would also fulfill most of the wish list.

Tanks that emulate these designs will provide the firepower needs for most tactical situations until tanks themselves were supplemented by something far more advanced like “flocks” of small UACV’s attached to a company to provide intimate support.


----------



## ironduke57

> the Hetzer, which carried so little ammunition that it was basically a shoot and scoot platform;


I wouldn´t call 40 to 45 rounds that small.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Climb into a Hetzer and you realize that the crew could barely see anything out of it. It was a decent SPG and good use of a reliable hull.

The perfect balanced infantry support vehicle has already been built, we just need to convert some newer platforms with the same ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Centurion-AVRE-165-Fosgene.jpg


----------



## Infanteer

The "perfect balanced infantry support vehicle" has already been built - it is call a Main Battle Tank.

Other than that, the Infantry Platoon and Infantry Company have a phenomenal amount of direct fire support.  If my LAV III can't handle it with its turret or the rockets or bombs in the back, than I'll call for a tank.

You guys are trying to shoehorn a white elephant where one isn't required.


----------



## tango22a

Forty pounds of C4 impacting a grape drying house!... I wouldn't want to be inside!

tango22a


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So you believe we should penny packet out our MBT's to support infantry? Acceptable against our current enemy, but not against a enemy with armoured forces. The AVRE style vehicle fills a niche and is dedicated to those paticular tasks, as opposed to the MBT's which will have several competing piroities which will draw them away from the close support tasks. It also means the crews can focus on training with and supporting the infantry. A modern version would have better armour, cameras, digital comms and possibly a RWS or extra MG's.

 So far to my knowledge we haven't come up with a way to fit mine rollers or plows to the Leo 2's or least been allowed to.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Other than that, the Infantry Platoon and Infantry Company have a phenomenal amount of direct fire support.  If my LAV III can't handle it with its turret or the rockets or bombs in the back, then I'll call for a tank ...


or TUA.  I agree, the requirement does not seem to be there for something new.



			
				tango22a said:
			
		

> Forty pounds of C4 impacting a grape drying house!... I wouldn't want to be inside!


You would not want to be inside if the infantry chose to hit it with an Eryx either.  It has been determined to be a pretty effective hammer against those targets.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> The AVRE style vehicle ...   So far to my knowledge we haven't come up with a way to fit mine rollers or plows to the Leo 2's or least been allowed to.


The Leo 2 will not support ploughs, but the roller problem has probably been solved.  But any way, are you proposing an Infantry DFSV or a Combat Engineering Vehicle?  You might want to google "Force Mobility Enhancement" or "FME."



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Want a good Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?  We already have one - the LAV III.  The 25mm is a pretty good weapon with a wallop.  It ain't gonna knock down buildings, but it does make bad guys duck.  If the next generation goes to a more ergonomic 30mm/35mm, even better.


I agree.  Hopefully the LAV Upgrade keeps the medium caliber cannon (or up-guns in the 35 to 40 mm range), and adds a launcher with a family of compatible missiles (AT, "Bunker Buster", UAV, etc).  That would put the whole capability being suggested here onto the back of every infantry section carrier while avoiding the costs (money, manpower, supply & transport space, etc) that would come with a unique vehicle.


----------



## vonGarvin

Infanteer is certianly not advocating penny-packing anything.  In order to have a multi-roled "Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle", we use whatever is available.  In our modern army, we have tanks, we have LAVs with awesome firepower, we have artillery, we have planes, tanks and even penguins if we wanted them.  His argument is that we don't need to dedicate our industrial might in creating a solo-purpose vehicle.  Main Battle Tanks, such as our Leopard 2A6M CAN are more than capable of coming to the fray with more than enough Firepower, Protection and Mobility.


I don't think we need to equip our artillery force with what is basically a _Sturmgeschütz_*.

Note: In WW2, the Germans employed the Sturmgeschütz in the direct fire support role, and they were part of the artillery.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> and even penguins


CSOR or JTF2 trained penguins? There is a difference after all....


----------



## vonGarvin

Neither.  "Run of the Mill" Line infantry penguins:


----------



## dapaterson

Notice how the penguins are all dressed exactly the same - not the slightest bit of variation between them.

I didn't know that 5th Bn, The RCR, was in Antarctica...


----------



## tango22a

DAP:

Don't You know .....That somebody's gonna get you for that one!!


Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## Steel Badger

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> and even penguins if we wanted them.



Oh no. He finally went there. Right back to his fallschirm-stoss penquins!


----------



## Fusaki

MCG said:
			
		

> or TUA.  I agree, the requirement does not seem to be there for something new...
> 
> ...Hopefully the LAV Upgrade keeps the medium caliber cannon (or up-guns in the 35 to 40 mm range), and adds a launcher with a family of compatible missiles (AT, "Bunker Buster", UAV, etc).  That would put the whole capability being suggested here onto the back of every infantry section carrier while avoiding the costs (money, manpower, supply & transport space, etc) that would come with a unique vehicle.



_That_ would be pretty fucking cool.

I'm no expert on combined arms or anything, but as a former LAV3 gunner I'll say that one of those Delco TOW turrets would come in really handy. Even just one TOW turret per platoon, then one more with the LAV Capt in COY HQ would be pretty bad ***.

With integral TOW and some tanks attached, I don't see the need for an infantry direct fire support veh.


----------



## Infanteer

Yup - I got to work with them and they were pretty bad-ass; especially with their optics.  Too bad they are kinda the odd-man out right now - I'm interested to see how we plan to role them into our force structure in the future (I've seen a few ideas).


----------



## TCBF

- Let's just come out and say it: BMP 3

Anti-armour, anti-hel auto-cannon, pumpkin launcher cannon for bunker-bustin' and tube AT missles, swims, tracks, ...


----------



## Journeyman

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> That would be pretty fucking cool.


OK, that _is_ the technical terminology for it.....
But wise words nonetheless. 

I agree whole-heartedly that a "relatively" simple addition of one USMC-type Delco TOW turret per platoon, with one more with the LAV Capt, would provide an incredible increase in integral firepower (and I'm a BIG fan of 'integral'!), and provide a whole world of flexibility to the Battle-Group Commander's planning.

However, "relatively" is in quotes because there's always a training/support bill. Having just read John Conrad's _What the Thunderer Heard_ reaffirmed the logistic bill (yep -- ammo, bean-counters, wrench-turners -- they're all involved with each combat/equipment decision!). 

So ya, I'd ask their opinion too......


----------



## vonGarvin

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Oh no. He finally went there. Right back to his fallschirm-stoss penquins!


Hey, don't dis the Penguins!  They would be as effective as a single-purpose IDFSV.  As Journeyman said, "Someone think of the logistics.  Oh, won't anyone think of the logistics?"


----------



## McG

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Hey, don't dis the Penguins!  They would be as effective as a single-purpose IDFSV.  As Journeyman said, "Someone think of the logistics.  Oh, won't anyone think of the logistics?"


Ooo!  Ooo!  I did, I did! See, I mentioned:





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ... the costs (money, manpower, supply & transport space, etc) that would come with a unique vehicle.


While the logisticians & techs were not explicitly stated, they were implied within the manpower.  The parts & ammunition were implied in consumption of money and S&T space.

... I'm going to get myself a cookie now.  :clown:


----------



## Journeyman

Well, the true measure of brilliance is in how much someone agrees with you


----------



## a_majoor

WRT upgunning the LAV family, I would advocate 35mm, since we could incorporate already existing advanced ammunition (AHEAD), along with bigger and better versions of the usual mayhem. This also would provide ins for other things: a LAV SPAAG using the 35 + AHEAD with some sort of 3d radar, a Coyote II mounting the weapon as an FSV for the recce coy/sqn, and a related program for the Navy to swat incoming missiles (the "Millenium Gun" 35mm revolver cannon). Logistics and economy of scale would help a lot.

WRT 5 RCR; who did you _think_ painted all the ice in Antarctica white?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> and a related program for the Navy to swat incoming missiles


I think you will see the navy go to the Rolling Airframe Missile or the like when its time to retire the Phalanx.


----------



## a_majoor

RAM is good for one of the outer layers, but a gun still rules the final approach, and I doubt you can launch a RAM at a Somali pirate speedboat (but a gun will do wonders....)


----------



## NavyShooter

OK, 

I hope you guys don't mind me jumping out of my lane here, (I'm a sailor...what does a squid know about tanks n stuff anyhow, right?)

How about a platform that may be able to be fitted on a current LAV hull?

Keep the same hull, so most of your ve-tronics remain the same (at least those in the hull.)

Add a new turret.

Instead of the 105mm direct fire guns, how about a twin 120mm....autoloading mortar?

The AMOS:

http://www.patriahagglunds.fi/amos.html

It is capable of being fitted to the LAV III hull.  Provides direct or indirect fire-support out to ranges of 10 Km, with a max rate of fire of 26 rounds per minute.

Because it's a mortar, not a big gun, it's got a much lower recoil impulse (see the videos) and it's not going to over-stress the platform.

Onboard ammo load is quoted at 84 HE rounds, and it has the capability to carry 6 precision guided rounds (ie STRIX) so you have the added capability of getting PGM delivery.

As an aside, a 105 mm OE 105 F1 High-Explosive (HE) round contains 2 kg of Hexolite 50:50 as it's explosive filler.  A standard 120mm Mortar round contains 2.5 kg of Comp B explosive.

Anyhow, I could be wrong (probably am) but perhaps getting a few of the AMOS mortar turrets would provide the direct fire support you're looking for, while still being capable of a multi-role capacity to do "other" stuff.

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Who knows Navy shooter, you may one day end up serving on a "navalized" LAV  ;D

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0908/index.php?startid=20

OTO Melara is currently developing the Multifunctional Weapon System (MWS), an unmanned turret system weighing 5.5 metric tons for 8x8 wheeled or tracked armoured vehicles, based on the popular 76mm Super Rapid naval gun. 8 ready-to-use rounds are placed on a revolver feeding system around the rammer. A further 24 rounds are stored in the turret. Radar and electro-optical surveillance and targeting systems are also fitted. The MWS can also fire the DART anti-missile guided ammunition up to a range of 8km. The system is also proposed for the C-RAM role.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thucydides said:
			
		

> RAM is good for one of the outer layers, but a gun still rules the final approach, and I doubt you can launch a RAM at a Somali pirate speedboat (but a gun will do wonders....)



Seeing how RAM is replacing a lot of the gun based CIWS systems throughout the world I think most Naval Commands would disagree with you.


----------



## a_majoor

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Seeing how RAM is replacing a lot of the gun based CIWS systems throughout the world I think most Naval Commands would disagree with you.



Hence why I am not in the Navy  

Seriously though, in today's environment being able to deal with small sea borne targets (Somali pirates, Iranian Revolutionary guard speedboats, AQ suicide boaters) would seem to be an asset to any system. If you are going to use a missile, the only one that I know of that can deal with these sorts of targets *along with* aerial threats is the Thales Starstreak (covers 6000m in 5 seconds and has the KE of a 40mm shell on impact), although I am willing to be proved wrong yet again...

Looping back to the DFSV aspect of this thread, a LAV "Blazer" SPAAG with a 25mm gatling gun would also have quite the effect on ground targets, and it is also an integrated system mounting both the gun for short range targets and missiles (Stinger or Mistral) for longer engagements. Now this is not only not a low tech system (per ArmyRick's initial post), it isn't even an Infantry weapons system, but it can conceivably do the job. 

Once again, an argument for the all arms approach.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Oh believe me I would not have any problems seeing several 20-30mmm guns mounted on the upper decks to help counter the FIAC and suicide boat threat at all.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I seem to remember that when you try to design an armoured vehicle specifically for Infantry support, you get this kind of result:


----------



## vonGarvin

You *could* also get something like this, though:


----------



## McG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I seem to remember that when you try to design an armoured vehicle specifically for Infantry support ...


I don't think there is anything inherently leading any infantry fire support vehicle to be a design failure.  A vehicle of any role can turn out to be a flop if you get the design/engineering wrong.

At the same time, a brilliantly engineered vehicle will also be a flop if the role for which it was designed is inadequate or irrelevant.  If there is a requirement for a Canadian IDFSV, then I assume it would be to fill some firepower capability gap at the company or battalion level:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/83079.0.html

So, what is the capability gap?


----------



## Petard

I would say the Infantry capability gap remains an indirect fire support one, as much as it is a direct one.
But who has the manpower to look after it?

I think this gap grew about 2003 when the Battalion's indirect fire capability was given, as a residual task, to the Artillery.
It hasn't ever really worked, IMO, because they don't have the manpower either to look after the higher level capabilities, as well as this one of organic fire support within a Battalion.
Despite force generating indirect fire (and sense) capability for a Battle Group, and deployed Artillery capability continuing to respond to the lowest level of control of the unit it is tasked to support, it isn't always tasked to support a Canadian unit since it remains commanded at the highest level. It still is very much a Brigade level resource.
How many times over the last 3 years have we seen a Troop of M777, or more, tasked to support British, Dutch, or other nationalities? While they are doing that it has usually meant a reduction in firepower available to the Canadian Battle Group it deployed with.
.
Sometimes this doesn't matter, but sometimes it does.
Close Air Support is not always available either.

I know AMOS has been tossed out there, but it is a very complex system by the way. Might I suggest something else?
The image is of GD's direct and indirect fire support vehicle, mounting a 120mm mortar with day/night sights. The advantage it has is the ability to fire truly direct as opposed to just high angle.


----------



## daftandbarmy

You want to give mortars back to the infantry?  Why reverse an ongoing trend to take away the 84mm and 60mm?

Here's an idea: give the tanks a mortar too so they don't get arty envy, just like the Merkava:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm


----------



## TCBF

- Tankers don't want mortars, we want the Infantry and the Bde Recce Sqn to have mortars.
- Most crewmen thought it was abject insanity to take the Mortar, Aslt Pnr and AD Pl away from the infantry, but that was 1990s insanity, when we allowed folks to give up CFE (sure could use Lahr now), build regimental lines at the end of a strategic 14,000 foot runway to garuntee more business to Edmonton International, and hire people before their TQ3 crse was ready to load.
- Once the money started up again, the PYs went to CMTC and other places.


----------



## a_majoor

While the debate seems to have been ended, I found some pics of what ArmyRick may have had in mind. This seems to be an assault gun built around a reworked M-113 chassis, but I can't find the reference to what this was called or who built it.

If it is a reworked M-113, the protection will not be all that great, but there should be enough room for plenty of ammunition. This seems to be a 1980's design, no day/night or thermal sights seem to be included.

Interesting reworking of an old idea though:


----------



## Franko

Can you say Super Gavin?     

Crap...I guess Sparky will be along shortly.       :

Regards


----------



## ironduke57

That is the german FSCV from Krauss-Maffei. Rheinmetall 105mm Cannon which could fire one and more part ammo. The middle vision block could be replaced by an thermal-or an night vision side. Crew:3 Dismount´s:4. Combat weight:14t (metric). Max speed road: 61km/h. Max speed water: 6,3km/h. Engine: 300 PS 6-Cylinder-Diesel 6V53T from Detroit Diesel. 42 Round´s of 105mm Ammo. Front armour against 14.5mm. Side armour against 7.62mm.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## ArmyRick

Yeah I have seen that before but like someone else stated, here comes Sparky to tell us about the solve-all-your-problems-do-anything Gavin (Never actually called a gavin but thats another argument). 

I wonder if Sparky has actually been in a M113 (as we call them in the rest of the world).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Careful bring logic into Sparky's world is a sure why to be called a "FU*CKTARD", ask me how I know... ;D

On Youtube he calls himself "Dyanimic Para"

Actually if we could get something with the internal volume of a M113, mobility of a CV-90 and protection of a Puma, with a RWS, you would have a winner. Internal volume is the one thing the M113 does well.


----------



## ironduke57

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Yeah I have seen that before ...



But not every one as you can see for example at Thucydides post. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## TCBF

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... Actually if we could get something with the internal volume of a M113, mobility of a CV-90 and protection of a Puma, with a RWS, you would have a winner. Internal volume is the one thing the M113 does well.



- Because the M-113 is basically a shoebox on tracks. A flexible battle taxi.
- The best IFV combo of Protection/Mobility/Firepower had it's genesis in the 1967 BMP-1, and that series has improved with age.
- The minute we ask a vehicle to do everything perfectly, we are asking the impossible.  The minute we ask a vehicle to do one thing perfectly (ie: "keep everyone in it alive"), we are building a special purpose vehicle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have crawled through a couple of BMP I's, I'll pass on being in one thank you.

If safety was the only factor, we would be buying licences for the Namer. Our problem is that the CF is an expeditionary force who historically finds itself in all sorts of odd places with varying missions. The next mission might call for LAV's backed up with IFV's, or we might be involved in a full scale war against a conventional enemy, or carrying out a "true" peacekeeping mission using G-wagons. That's why I have always argued we need to be able to field a light and heavy brigade, because we won't have time to prepare if some major crap goes down.

Of course the winner for internal volume goes to the Amtracs, BTR-50 and the M75


----------



## TCBF

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... That's why I have always argued we need to be able to field a light and heavy brigade, ...



- When the LFC Commander visited the 8CH(PL) in Lahr in 1991, the big discussion was where the three squadrons of Leopards would end up once we were no longer "forward deployed" in the FRG.  Our take was that the tanks should go to one spot in Canada. The Army solution was to put one Tk Sqn in each Bde.  We pointed out that it was an un-sustainable solution and that the technical trades who support the leopard could not generate enough trained techs to support three regts, two schools, etc.  We were then told that the tech world said it could be done.  Our Maint WOs and SNCOs expressed their doubts to the LFC Commander...

- The Techs were right, of course, as were we Crewmen, because we knew that after we pulled out of CFE, the CF would shrink (though we did not think it would drop from 90,000 to 45,000!).  What we did not think to consider was the politics: A field force consisting of a Heavy Bde, a Light Bde and an Air-Portable Bde makes the most sense, but in an economic crunch, guess which would be cancelled?  So the trick was to spread the goodies around to try and 'save' them.  

- Then, of course, there are two armies: The Career Army and the Operational Army. Guess which one takes priority? We have to spread those platforms around so the merit list can all experience commanding a wide selection of enablers.


----------



## ArmyRick

Well said.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Sorry to barge in late to this thread.

The Germans in WW2 had a vehicle that basically filled this role: The Sd.Kfz 251/9. This was a fire support variant of their standard infantry-carrying halftrack equipped with a low-velocity 75mm gun (the same one as on their early MkIVs). Each Gepanzerte Panzer Grenadier company had two of these vehicles. For the Germans this was, perhaps, a natural extension of the Infantry Guns found in their Infantry Regiments.

I can see the point in having such a vehicle, but whether it would fit in the Canadian Army is another matter. The 25mm certainly gives integral firepower to the infantry platoon/company and tanks working in a combat team setting provide a tremendous level of fire support. Would the added benefit of a LAV with a Cougar-esque turret outweigh the cost of adding a new vehicle?

I see the main benefit of a dedicated low velocity fire-support weapon during offensive operations to neutralize strong points. If we are conducting offensive operations then perhaps we can dicate the time and place and can thus have a greater chance of being able to call on our tanks to support said offensive operation. Would two or three added systems with low-velocity weapons provide true value-added in a combat team? Would a LAV company go it alone without tanks but with fire-support vehicles?

I think that I would rather see integral anti-tank assets (medium to long range) re-introduced to an infantry battalion before fire support. Having integral anti-tank capabilities means that the tanks can be concentrated instread of spread around to make people feel safer from enemy AFVs.

Having said all that, when I was overseas I saw the potential benefit of MGS as a fire-support vehicle in a tank-less theatre. Seeing as we were able to get tanks into theatre, though, I'd just as soon focus our resources on some other areas to replace aging fleets.

Regarding the distribution of tanks, I see the benefit to having a balanced fleet across the Army - ie having a tank squadron in each CMBG. Specialized brigades can work for one-off operations, but I think that our Army needs to be built with general-purpose as the guiding principle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Germans stuck the same gun on their 8x8 armoured cars, would have been fun to enter that into the MGS competition  ;D In fact they stuck guns onto just about anything that could move.

I think the main failing of the MGS was trying to make it a tank killer. To be fair the gun used is quite common, and has alot of ammo for it. With a lower velocity gun, they likely could increase the ammo load quite a bit. The Brit' in WWII used a L/V 95 for lobbing "bin's" at the enemy, basically a large charge of HE or HEAT. Postwar you had the 165mm demolition gun and US had the 152mm which fired a useful HEAT, canister and flechette rd, case and shell was roughly the Length of a 155 shell. That particular gun had other issues which I won't get into. I think the shell used the same fuze as the 105mm howitzer.


----------



## a_majoor

While most of the arguments have been disposed of, there is one alternative which wasn't discussed/bashed etc: an APC carrying a large caliber recoiless cannon.

The best known examples are probably the British WOMBAT and MoBAT systems mounted on an FV-432, which fired 120mm rounds. It isn't much of a stretch to imagine an M-113 (excuse me; TLAV) or Bison mounting a 106mm RR. A LAV chassis without the turret (perhaps mounting a RWS with a machine gun) would also fill the bill for an inexpensive, low tech fire support vehicle.

While 106mm RR's still exist, ammunition supply will be spotty at first until a supplier gets on line, and an integrated day/night/thermal sight and laser rangefinder would make the weapons system very effective.

Of course the questions of where it fits in the battalion/battlegroup are still to be answered as well.....


----------



## Infanteer

I'm still wondering how this would beat a combo of an upgunned IFV (30-35mm) that could also be armed with a Javelin.


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While most of the arguments have been disposed of, there is one alternative which wasn't discussed/bashed etc: an APC carrying a large caliber recoiless cannon.


There are other options of a similar nature built on more advanced engineering which could provide greater effects:  http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA389156&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.###
Note: Replace the "###" with a "pdf" to make the link work.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course the questions of where it fits in the battalion/battlegroup are still to be answered as well.....


Same with the question of the need.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This is the picture of the Sheridan interior, note the 152mm rounds, I think a modified version of such a gun would produced excellent effects in Infantry support. The 2 big issues with this gun were the caseless ammo and screw breech. Replace the breech with a convential version and the case with a brass one, the case is around 6" long. Needless to say this gun is not meant to fight tanks, but such a gun reduces top weight in a turret sigificantly over a high pressurre gun and increases the ammo load as well. The 152mm was well liked by the Infantry for it's HE and cannister rd. 





The outside




Same gun, but in the M60A2 turret, note the screw to open breech and the ammo with cases in the turret ring.


----------



## ArmyRick

35mm with Javelin is the ideal to me for section vehicles. The idea behind what I originally posted was a LARGE caliber gun that could fire a whole gambit of ammo. The post about the 152mm is what I was looking at exactly. Things like HE and canister.


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> There are other options of a similar nature built on more advanced engineering which could provide greater effects:  http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA389156&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.###
> Note: Replace the "###" with a "pdf" to make the link work.
> Same with the question of the need.



Interesting. Has any "real" weapon or ammunition been adapted yet for testing? The article is a bit unclear and everything seems to be based on computer simulations. For most vehicles, this would be best adapted to some sort of remote pedistal mount, which defeats the "simple and low tech" call.

BTW, the alternative to RAVEN and other recoiless cannons is the High Low pressure gun, like the German PAW 600 or current 40mm grenades from the M-203. Of course the low velocity rounds give you a high tech pumpkin launcher.


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting. Has any "real" weapon or ammunition been adapted yet for testing?


My understanding is that it was to be ready for testing summer 07 or 08, but I done specifically recall.  There does not seem to be much OS information on it.  The US vision was M1A2 firepower on a lighter than LAV vehicle.


----------



## a_majoor

How the Germans intended to do this task in 1946: the E-25

There are a few ideas worth noting; in particular, the suspension system dispensed with torsion bars and was based on modular units mounted on the outside of the hull for increased interior space and ease of maintainance. In modern terms, the small roof turret would now be an RWS, and the optical rangefinder sticking out of the hull sides would now be a thermal imager sight with a laser rangefinder.

Of course an upgunned LAV with a 35mm cannon and a Gill/Spike or Javelin missile is how we would do this today.


----------



## a_majoor

And a little more historical trivia: the USMC "ONTOS", two nice pictures for modelers or history buffs:


----------

