# Huh? Limitations of wheeled APCs have been made glaringly apparent?



## GAP (30 Oct 2007)

VBCI: France's Wheeled APC
29-Oct-2007 
Article Link

South Africa and its neighbors have used wheeled APCs for many years, due to their suitability on the hard-packed grassland terrain. France's Foreign Legion and Army has had their VAB wheeled APC since the late 1970s, and successfully exported it to 14 other countries. The US Marines gave Swiss firm MOWAG's wheeled armored personnel carriers a big boost at about the same time, by selecting its Piranha for their amphibious Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) family. Interest really took off in the 1990s, however, as US General Shinseki and many European countries made a strong push to displace tracked APCs with wheeled alternatives in many land armies. The limitations of wheeled APCs have been made glaringly apparent on the front lines in Afghanistan, but their usefulness in scenarios where heavy mileage is required and protecting roads is part of the mission set has also been demonstrated on the front lines.

Many European countries are abandoning tracked APCs entirely, for good or ill, and France is joining that trend by replacing its existing AMX-10Ps with the Vehicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie (Armored Infantry Combat Vehicle). This DID FOCUS article looks at the VBCI platform, discusses the program and export opportunities, and follows associated contracts & key events.

France's orders give it a strong base, and an additional order has just come in from that quarter. Still, the VBCI is arriving late to the competitive game. Whether it ends up being fashionably late, or just too late, depends in large measure on one of France's age-old allies – and age-old rivals…
More on link


----------



## Teflon (30 Oct 2007)

> The limitations of wheeled APCs have been made glaringly apparent on the front lines in Afghanistan,



They have? Besides mine getting blown up in the first week I had no complaints! (I really don't think it would have changed a thing if it had been a tracked veh, - well except we wouldn't have been able to tow it out of there without out-side assets)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Oct 2007)

I wonder how this article would sound if we were using strickly tracks.  Maybe something like "Limitations of tracked vehicle APC's have been made glaringly apparent?"

I would have to agree with Teflon.  As we all know the Taliban hate them, they are fast and pack a punch.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Oct 2007)

*Sparky Alert, Sparky alert!!!!!!*


The M577A2 is an M113* "Gavin" * variant with its hull modified for use as a Command Post vehicle.


The M113* "Gavin" * Armored Personnel Carriers have a value of SFR 12 million (USD $9.4 million) and are part of a Swiss army surplus. They are in good condition. As DID has reported, they will join 77 refurbished T-72 tanks from Hungary as the Iraqis move to build up an armored division.


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/?s=gavin


He did a better job of hiding it this time, but this is a one man show to bring down the evil USMC and replace everything with a M113 armed with mulitple 106mm RR


----------



## MG34 (30 Oct 2007)

Sparky is an idiot,anything put out by his 1 man defense studies groups  : should not be taken as either factual or accurate. There is no such thing as a "Gavin" in anyone's inventory, it's another Sparky invention.
 No vehicle will  traverse 100% of the earth's terrain, the LAV III has advantages and disadvantages when faced with terrain, proper planning will overcome most if not all limitations.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Oct 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> . . . . a M113 armed with mulitple 106mm RR



Wasn't that tried an an ONTOS variant?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Oct 2007)

Yep and turned out fairly well for the Tet offensive, however it is not the end-all that Sparky dreams of.


----------



## 3rd Herd (30 Oct 2007)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Wasn't that tried an an ONTOS variant?



"The M50 mounted six recoilless rifles, 3 per side, on a small turret atop its pyramid-like hull. The rifles were actually 105mm in diameter, but were dubbed 106mm rifles to prevent confusion with earlier 105mm rifles. The .50cal spotting rifles were mounted on top of the upper 106mm weapons, and the .30cal MG mount was in the center on the turret roof. Crew access included a driver's hatch in the front of the vehicle and double doors in the rear for the gunner and loader. All of the 106mm rifles on the M50 could be dismounted from the vehicle, but the top outer rifles were specially designated for ground use. Besides the six 106mm rounds stored in the loaded rifles, there was an eight-round ammunition compartment in the vehicle's bottom rear, and four more rounds were stowed in the right rear of the gunner's compartment. The 106mm rifles could only be loaded from outside the vehicle." http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m50ontos.html

Edit to add:

The Ontos Anti-Tank Vehicle
 Peter Brush​


"By any measure, the Ontos was one of the most interesting things to come down the road of United States military armored development. The idea for this vehicle was born in the aftermath of World War II when the U.S. Army perceived the need for a new reconnaissance vehicle. Then it evolved into a tank destroyer for use with the Army on the nuclear battlefields of Europe. Next it was deployed in Marine Corps anti-tank battalions. The Ontos most significant contribution was in the Vietnam war, but in a role much different than the role for which it was designed. This is the story of the Ontos, officially the "Rifle, Multiple, 106mm, Self-Propelled M50 of the antitank company, infantry regiment, Marine Division.............."
http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/central/brush/Ontos.htm


----------



## GAP (30 Oct 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> "The M50 mounted six recoilless rifles, 3 per side, on a small turret atop its pyramid-like hull. The rifles were actually 105mm in diameter, but were dubbed 106mm rifles to prevent confusion with earlier 105mm rifles. The .50cal spotting rifles were mounted on top of the upper 106mm weapons, and the .30cal MG mount was in the center on the turret roof. Crew access included a driver's hatch in the front of the vehicle and double doors in the rear for the gunner and loader. All of the 106mm rifles on the M50 could be dismounted from the vehicle, but the top outer rifles were specially designated for ground use. Besides the six 106mm rounds stored in the loaded rifles, there was an eight-round ammunition compartment in the vehicle's bottom rear, and four more rounds were stowed in the right rear of the gunner's compartment. The 106mm rifles could only be loaded from outside the vehicle." http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m50ontos.html
> 
> Edit to add:
> 
> ...



The few times they were used in a couple of operations I was on, we loved them....for the time and place, excellent!

edited to add: Excellent article....thanks


----------



## Spencer100 (30 Oct 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Sparky is an idiot,anything put out by his 1 man defense studies groups  : should not be taken as either factual or accurate. There is no such thing as a "Gavin" in anyone's inventory, it's another Sparky invention.
> No vehicle will  traverse 100% of the earth's terrain, the LAV III has advantages and disadvantages when faced with terrain, proper planning will overcome most if not all limitations.



Who's Sparky?  Is he the DID website guy?  Sorry if it is a bumb question?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Oct 2007)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Who's Sparky?  Is he the DID website guy?  Sorry if it is a bumb question?



One man crusade

http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html


----------



## Staff Weenie (30 Oct 2007)

You see, I can say this until I'm blue in the face, but mental illness and the internet are just a bad combination.

Time for Sparky to up his meds.....


----------



## Franko (30 Oct 2007)

Wow....forgot about Sparky a while ago, but not the Gavin.       :

Love the pics though....Dreadnaught Gavin







Regards


----------



## Korporaal (30 Oct 2007)

As a ex South African soldier I would choose a wheeled APC over a tracked one anytime.

They did a fantastic job  ;Dfor us, all the way up to LUANDA,(ANGOLA) 2000`ks away from our bases in S.W.A (Namibia) in the late 70`s early 80`s.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (30 Oct 2007)

Korporaal said:
			
		

> As a ex South African soldier I would choose a wheeled APC over a tracked one anytime.
> 
> They did a fantastic job  ;Dfor us, all the way up to LUANDA,(ANGOLA) 2000`ks away from our bases in S.W.A (Namibia) in the late 70`s early 80`s.



Anytime?  Not me.  If I had a choice, I would have to factor in the terrain, the threat, the weather (heavy snow)?  how far I had to travel and many other variables.

Wheels are good for some situations, and a poor choice for others.  Same for tracks.

The one advantage that wheels will always have over tracks is that they are cheaper....which makes them attractive to governments!


----------



## Korporaal (30 Oct 2007)

My experience is specificaly COIN ops, so I was thinking along those lines.

In the late `80`s SA forces came up against Cuban manned T 54 `s and used APC`S to take them out. 
They did  have upgraded Centurians in theatre and were used, but found the close bush (prevented traversing of the turret) and soft sand to be a problem, they used the more manouverable RATEL APC mounting a 75 mm gun.  

Now if I was facing 10 Soviet...oops I mean Russian Tank Divisions, thats a different story.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Oct 2007)

Speaking of LAV 25s (and family), loose a wheel to RPG or a mine, each is independandly operated, and you can keep on going. Loose a track, and you are stuffed, you can only move in circles.

Wheeled APCs and the like do have some advantages.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Korporaal (31 Oct 2007)

We had to leave one tank behind which had been damaged (we wanted to avoid giving  propaganda material to the Cubans and Ruusians ) as the recovery crews couldn`t remove it due to the type of terrain. Would have not been a problem with a lighter APC.


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2007)

WRT the ONTOS.... nice concept but the crew found one point lacking.... the crew had to be out of the vehicle to poerate the guns.

WRT the LAV VS the TLAVs... cheaper to maintain, and can stay in operation for a lot longer than the old (and new) TLAVs
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/m1126-strykers-in-combat-experiences-lessons-01323/#more

Each vehicle has it's place -  Better to have some of each than only one of a kind


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Each vehicle has it's place -  Better to have some of each than only one of a kind



No truer words were spoke.

Which is why I want to see some CV90's to go with the Leo2's


----------

