# LAV's and battle phones



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jun 2006)

Like the Leo phone the 031's would use, is there a need for a similar phone on the back of a LAV?


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2006)

No.

Although, someone may decide to do something along those lines.......someone did put them on some of the Cougars, way back when.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jun 2006)

Not even for say a fire base or to get rounds on target more quickly?


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2006)

I am sure the Crew Commander and Gunner have a fairly good handle on that.  They are also on a couple of Radio Nets, so that is another means.......and it has a lot more range than twenty feet of Telephone cord.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jun 2006)

I was thinking more CQB in a valley or tight defile where a radio isn't always handy.  I guess I'm the only one.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I was thinking more CQB in a valley or tight defile where a radio isn't always handy.  I guess I'm the only one.



In a case like that, it may not be a good idea; especially when that vehicle starts firing and reversing out of that spot.  If he doesn't Reverse, then he will probably F___ Off at the High Port, guns a blazing and leave you holding a useless handset.   ;D  (Thinking an Ambush Drill here)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jun 2006)

The tankers were notorius for fucking off at the high port leaving the handset in the hands of the Sgt on the ground.  I just think like the tank (which had the phone) why not utiilze the LAV in a similar manner.  Like I said I guess I'm the only I'm one that thinks it would be a good idea.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2006)

:warstory: I remember watching a young Platoon Officer trying to talk to our Tp Offr on the ITT. Got distracted and tucked it into his webbing instead of putting it back in the box. The Centurion didn't move that fast, but there was no way he was keeping up. The line broke after dragging him through a couple of ruts ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Like the Leo phone the 031's would use, is there a need for a similar phone on the back of a LAV?


Yes there is.  I can say this from experience.  It's a very good way for a dismounted element to talk to the crew commander to indicate targets without jumping on radio bandwidth.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :warstory: I remember watching a young Platoon Officer trying to talk to our Tp Offr on the ITT. Got distracted and tucked it into his webbing instead of putting it back in the box. The Centurion didn't move that fast, but there was no way he was keeping up. The line broke after dragging him through a couple of ruts ;D



Or the story the Crew Commander that I handed my C Sqn tank over to told me after I met a very irate RCR in the Camelot one Saturday afternoon on crutches with a cast up to his thigh and an arm in a cast too:  I guess they were doing a Quick Attack and a voice came on the air that was unfamiliar.  It was not using proper VP and was a little condescending to tankers......something along the lines of "What are you Coffin Jockeys doing, this is________________"  and on and on.  The CC asked the Dvr if it was him screwing around on the IC, and then the Loader and then the Gunner.  None of the crew answered yes, but the voice, which wasn't coming over the Radio Nets, continued in its' annoying way.  The Crew Commander looked back and there was this RCR Cpl on the Tank/Infantry Telephone, having a great time.  The CC turned to the front to see a small twelve foot evergreen, still green and flexible ahead in the field and told the Driver not go over it and to go around it, but instead the Driver straddled it.  The annoying voice still continued over the air as the tank moved forward.  Then the next sentence stopped suddenly, mid-sentence, and there was silence.  When the CC looked back, the telephone was dragging on the ground from where the evergreen stood upright.  He then ordered the Driver to put the peddle to the medal, as the RCR was laid out flat several feet further back from the tree.  It had sprung up and caught him square.

When I walked into the Camelot, that RCR asked if I was RCD, to which I answered Yes.  He then came hobbling towards my group, screaming "I'm going to kill you!", flayling on his crutches.  We left him to his rants and beers.

Moral of the story.  Watchout very carefully what is going on when you use an Tank/Infantry Telephone.  You never know what is going to happen next.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jun 2006)

You know I'm a Cpl and I know not to piss off the main fire power.


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Yes there is.  I can say this from experience.  It's a very good way for a dismounted element to talk to the crew commander to indicate targets without jumping on radio bandwidth.


+1. There's enough people who think they're important clogging the airwaves as it is.

George, now that's funny!


----------



## ArmyRick (14 Jun 2006)

I remember clearing a pocket of woods once in W-wright with a troop of strat leos and I wasn't paying attention to what was going once.  I almost gotten flattened into a rick pancake.

On another occassion, it was really muddy and wet in Pet and a RCR Leo offered us a ride. Half of our platoon jumped on without hesitation.

Tanks and infantry have to work together. End of story.

Phones on the back of the LAV? Nah.


----------



## geo (14 Jun 2006)

while I hate the idea of adding to the radio chatter, pert much everyone has a manpack radio these days and comms is possible at pert much any time.... 

Would the phone be useful - yup, some of the time... but we can make do with the PRCs


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jun 2006)

Perhaps clogging up the airwaves isn't always the best idea though.
As mentioned just a thought from someone who HAS NOT been to A Stan but has seen them used successfully with the tankers on live fire ex's.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2006)

Don't forget, that it really isn't just a phone.  It can work on IC or any of the Radio Nets.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jun 2006)

I knew about the IC but I thought it was just specific to that vehicle (ie not on the net).


----------



## Franko (15 Jun 2006)

Nope. Tank tele had IC and full radio access if needed.

As for a LAV requiring it...not really.

The CC can pick out targets rather quickly with an observant crew, GIB and gunner...and don't forget about the driver as well.

There could be a time and place for it....but I would hazzard to think that those would be far between each other.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jun 2006)

Got this off the Armour Newsletter.  I didn't know that the Americans didn't see the value of the Tank/Infantry Telephone when they built the M1s.



> *Aussies Prefer to Phone*
> 
> The M-1 tanks Australia is buying will come equipped with a phone on the rear fender, so the infantry can easily talk to the tank crew. The external intercom was a Second World War innovation that was missing from the Abrams until quite recently, because M-1 designers in the 1980s assured everyone that the infantry would have plenty of radios for communicating with the tank crews and the phone was obsolete. It didn't always work out that way, and most other nations continued to have the external phone, snug in its own little waterproof box.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jun 2006)

US Marines are doing it as well.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Jan/Marine_Vehicle.htm



> One of the main reasons for the upgrade is precise identification of enemy targets. Prior to the war, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force requested an infantry “grunt” phone in the back of the tank so that Marines could talk to the tank crew over the platform’s intercom, said Gaskill. This phone  is an old handset tied into the vehicle’s intercom system.
> 
> “A three-star general at 1 MEF remembered the M-60 [which used to have these phones] and went out, and bought enough kits to put on the tanks,” Gaskill recalled. It was a “phenomenal success.” The Marine Corps is now looking at trying to put the phone on all its tanks, he said. “We had a debate over whether it should be wireless ... more than probably not,” he said.



As well as:



> The program office is examining a forward observer/forward air controller suite for the loader’s position. “We still trap the FA/FAC radios from the outside of the tank. It does not make a lot of sense, but we have had nowhere else to put them,” said Gaskill. “We are finally getting a lot smarter.”
> 
> The Marines took the spare storage box at the loader’s position, and added a couple of slots where radios could slide in, said Gaskill. “We built 15 prototypes they did not get installed in time to fight the war.”


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Jun 2006)

"Daddy?  What's a tank?"  
"It's something Canada once had.. big and majestic.. they could be used in all kinds of places.  We couldn't get them there so we decided to get rid of them instead of acquiring an ability to move them"

Sorry, the Marine quotes got my brain going...

I was just reading the rules of armour in the Tankers forum and it made me remember when we used to put as much (male) eye candy as we could find into the tank phone to make the Vandoos that much happier....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2006)

Maybe I'm on to something.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jun 2006)

PRR...

With section on their own net - they can talk to "their LAV" and have it engage -- but the CC has a WAY better view of the "scenery" than the guy down below him...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jun 2006)

Of course the CC would have a better veiw, if he's looking in the right place.  The next question I have then is why on the tanks then?  I think if the CC is incapacitated and the gunner is down in the hatch a battle phoen would come in handy.  The cost shouldn't out way the benifits in my opinion.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jun 2006)

Well with the Tango C/S they are not infantry - I would hazard a guess that with either the Sect Comd or the 2I/C commanding the car he should be able to interact easier with the dismounted C/S than an Armoured type would  ;D

 If I wanted to get a LAV firing somewhere in close -- I'd toss a Smoke or launch a 203 grenade at the tgt and say "hey genius - aim at the marker..."

One driver crush a Nalgene bottle of mine - and I must say they are more nimble than a LEO - so I would not want to be near the back door when it descided to jockey...


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> PRR...
> 
> With section on their own net - they can talk to "their LAV" and have it engage -- but the CC has a WAY better view of the "scenery" than the guy down below him...


Failing having a phone on the back, the PRR is probably the best solution one could implement _right now_.  Of course, the ideal would be both.  In the past, what we've done is have the escape hatch open in the back after the dismount and a head set would be there, ready for the dismounts to either (a) talk on the net or (b) talk to the crew commander.  Granted the CC has a way better view of "things" up there, there are times when he or she cannot observe: many eyes are better than one sort of thing.  Also, if the CC has a better view, a PRR now or a PRR *and * a "tank telephone" would allow said crew commander to get the dismounts on target, or talk extensively if there is a "plan" to be implemented, or whatever.  
Someone else mentioned that there are radios everywhere: that isn't the problem. The problem is the radio spectrum is only so big and (stand by for another 'sandwich' analogy), but there is room for only so much meat on the Spectrum Sandwich (OK, if you all flame me, I deserve it for THAT one!).


----------



## KevinB (16 Jun 2006)

But remember I hate the LAV and all things armoured


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> But remember I hate the LAV and all things armoured



That's ok.  I hate nothing more than 
(a) people intolerant of other people's cultures; and
(b) the Dutch

(with apologies to Austin Powers)


----------



## Red 6 (20 Jun 2006)

In the US Army they're called TI (tank-infantry) phones. These were standard equipment on US tanks from the M4 medium through the M60 series. When the M1 came out, the TI phone was omitted. I remember reading in Armor magazine back in the 80's that they couldn't figure out a way to shield the phone from the exhaust heat on the back  of the tanks. Apparently, they figured out a way, since the M1A2 has a TI kit available for it.

On Bradleys, we could use a TA1 field phone hooked into the hot loop connector on the right rear of the hull. You could attach the commo wire there and stick the TA1 in the right rear sponson box. It worked pretty good but we only did it a few times.


----------

