Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 144736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2015, 17:30:17 »
Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.

Or this?





If you wanted something bigger than 25mm AND you wanted to lower the profile while maintaining common mechanicals.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 328,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,575
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2015, 18:47:29 »
Or this?





If you wanted something bigger than 25mm AND you wanted to lower the profile while maintaining common mechanicals.

The Airborne Amphibious Stolly  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mr_pCrhTkk
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 148,874
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,731
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2015, 10:34:59 »
The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.

As promised earlier, taken from "The truth about the French Army Pt III: The French Don’t Run" which is written by an American NCO embedded with French soldiers in Afghanistan.  It's a three part series and worth the read.

http://www.breachbangclear.com/contributor-chris-hernandez-on-working-with-the-french-army/  Part 1

http://www.breachbangclear.com/you-do-not-know-what-you-dont-know-and-the-jokes-are-wrong/  Part 2

http://www.breachbangclear.com/the-truth-about-the-french-army-pt-iii-getting-into-fights/ Part 3

Key quotes:

Quote
One giant advantage the French had over us was with their use of tanks. We maintain an armored force that’s fantastic at defeating T-80s crossing the Fulda Gap, not quite so fantastic at fighting insurgents in mountainous valleys. The French had AMX-10s, light wheeled tanks that were perfect for counterinsurgency combat. They were a tremendous force multiplier.

French troops and armor in the Alasai Valley, Kapisa province, Afghanistan, 2009. Photo by Goisque.

One night before a major operation, I was laid out in the dirt on an outpost perimeter. I had fallen asleep at midnight. At 3 a.m. a tremendous explosion woke me. I lay still for a few moments, then asked a Marine on guard, “What the hell was that?”

He answered, “I don’t know, but something went right over our heads.”

When the sun rose, I was stunned to see an AMX-10 halfway up a mountain behind the outpost. A brave and/or stupid tank crew had rolled up a narrow trail in the dark, and hit some Taliban.

I didn’t envy the poor driver who had to negotiate that trail. Or the loader who I’m sure had to walk ahead of the tank, knowing that if he made a mistake his crew was rolling down the mountain. As a former tanker, I can tell you that driving a tank up a mountain in the dark isn’t something cowards do.


Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 269
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2015, 11:58:25 »
Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.

How about Stryker 6.0 Infantry Carrier Vehicles with a RWS for the infantry and LAV 6.0 Armoured Cavalry Vehicles for cavalry to provide fire support.  Maybe even a larger 40mm cannon to replace the 25mm, since space wouldn't be needed in back for infantry.

A light mechanized battle group could look something like this:

4 x Mechanized Rifle Company (15 Stryker ICVs)
1 x Cavalry Squadron (18 LAV 6.0 ACVs in 4 troops, one attached to each rifle company)
1 x Combat Engineer Squadron (2 field troops each with 4 LAV-Engineer)
1 x Direct Support Artillery Battery (4 M777's & 8 Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier Vehicles)

In this set-up the Stryker 6.0 ICV's would provide close in fire support to the dismounts while the cavalry provided medium range heavier fire support.  The infantry would have 3 M2 .50 calibre machine guns and 1 40mm CASW in each platoon.  This would let the infantry focus more on infantry skills (I'm assuming a Protector RWS would require less training and maintenance than the LAV-III turret) and let the cavalry focus on the heavier fire support. 

And for those that are going to start talking about PY's, the fourth rifle company comes from disbanding the light infantry battalions and adding one company to each of the remaining two battalions.  The mortar troop in the artillery battery comes from the left over third rifle company in each disbanded light infantry battalion.  That's a discussion for another time.

We don't exactly have the combat power to fight a large-scale armoured force anyway.  We'd have to pull every tank together just to provide one regiment for a Cold War-era type battle with the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans.  So why not focus on the fight we can do well, the medium-weight fight? 
« Last Edit: September 04, 2015, 15:33:15 by Mountie »

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2015, 14:22:00 »
How about Stryker 6.0 Infantry Carrier Vehicles with a RWS for the infantry and LAV 6.0 Armoured Cavalry Vehicles for cavalry to provide fire support.  Maybe even a larger 40mm cannon to replace the 25mm, since space wouldn't be needed in back for infantry.

A light mechanized battle group could look something like this:

4 x Mechanized Rifle Company (15 Stryker ICVs)
1 x Cavalry Squadron (18 LAV 6.0 ACVs in 4 troops, one attached to each rifle company)
1 x Combat Engineer Squadron (2 field troops each with 4 LAV-Engineer)
1 x Direct Support Artillery Battery (4 M777's & 8 Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier Vehicles)

In this set-up the Stryker 6.0 ICV's would provide close in fire support to the dismounts while the cavalry provided medium range fire heavier fire support.  The infantry would have 3 M2 .50 calibre machine guns and 1 40mm CASW in each platoon.  This would let the infantry focus more on infantry skills (I'm assuming a Protector RWS would require less training and maintenance than the LAV-III turret) and let the cavalry focus on the heavier fire support. 

And for those that are going to start talking about PY's, the fourth rifle company comes from disbanding the light infantry battalions and adding one company to each of the remaining two battalions.  The mortar troop in the artillery battery comes from left over third rifle company in each disbanded light infantry battalion.  That's a discussion for another time.

We don't exactly have the combat power to fight a large-scale armoured force anyway.  We'd have to pull every tank together just to provide one regiment for a Cold War-era type battle with the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans.  So why not focus on the fight we can do well, the medium-weight fight?

So something like this then?




"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 269
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2015, 15:39:56 »
I wasn't thinking of the Stryker MGS, but either a LAV 6.0 with the 25mm turret or a 40mm CTA turret instead.  If you want a light tank type of vehicle I'd go with the 90mm cannon used on the Belgian Piranha (LAV).

Offline Kilo_302

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 5,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 530
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2015, 16:41:31 »
Panhard has continued its tradition of light cavalry type vehicles with the Sphinx and the Crab. You could probably get away with a 90mm on the Sphinx, though I'm not sure where that would fit in doctrine-wise.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/panhards-crab-may-just-be-the-future-of-armored-scout-v-1581746120


http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2015, 17:01:35 »
Cockerill offers a nice array of medium calibre turrets for the discerning Cavalry soldier.

http://www.cmigroupe.com/en/p/cockerill-medium-calibre-turrets





"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Kilo_302

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 5,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 530
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2015, 17:07:49 »
Cockerill offers a nice array of medium calibre turrets for the discerning Cavalry soldier.

http://www.cmigroupe.com/en/p/cockerill-medium-calibre-turrets





My thoughts exactly. But how would such a vehicle fit into current CF doctrine? Or force structure?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 183,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,691
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2015, 17:46:47 »
Display Pips' and bows onto it and call it an LightweightCombatFlexiableFullyIntergratedMulti-taskableAFVHQ, they figure something out

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2015, 17:47:03 »
How it might fit into structure and doctrine I will leave for others to chew on.

Here's another alternative.  A 40mm CTA gun turret with a pair/quad of ATGMs strapped on the sides (conventional turret layout?)



http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG01/308040011/Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Kilo_302

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 5,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 530
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #61 on: September 04, 2015, 19:18:08 »
Back to the Cockerill 105HP for a moment, I couldn't find much data on it versus the L7 that's mounted in the MGS.

Anyone have any idea whether a Stryker mated with the Cockerill 105HP would have been a better idea than the L7?

I would imagine the mian reason the US went with the L7 (M68A1) on the Stryker is that they had already used the same gun on early Abrams, but it also begs the question: If the MGS is only intended for infantry support, why use a high pressure 105?

Offline Eland2

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #62 on: September 05, 2015, 00:55:35 »
Back to the Cockerill 105HP for a moment, I couldn't find much data on it versus the L7 that's mounted in the MGS.

Anyone have any idea whether a Stryker mated with the Cockerill 105HP would have been a better idea than the L7?

I would imagine the mian reason the US went with the L7 (M68A1) on the Stryker is that they had already used the same gun on early Abrams, but it also begs the question: If the MGS is only intended for infantry support, why use a high pressure 105?

My understanding of the situation, and I could be wrong here, is that the MGS uses the M68 105mm gun which has been modified to use lower-powered ammunition. This was done in an effort to compensate for the relatively high centre of gravity of the MGS and the vehicle's narrow stance. A L7 main gun using full-power 105mm rounds might have caused the MGS to tip over (due to recoil forces) if the turret was traversed to the side while the main gun was fired.

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,986
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,031
  • The usual suspect.
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #63 on: September 05, 2015, 07:26:18 »
It's intended role is as a tank destroyer.  Infantry support is a secondary role.

Horrible vehicle, thankfully we never got it.

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2015, 08:10:22 »
It's intended role is as a tank destroyer.  Infantry support is a secondary role.

Horrible vehicle, thankfully we never got it.

Regards

I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.

When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably.

Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank.

No, I don't work for GD. 

Cheers,

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,986
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,031
  • The usual suspect.
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2015, 10:06:50 »
I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.

When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably.

Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank.

No, I don't work for GD. 

Cheers,

It failed for bigger issues, like software issues, auto loader issues, overheating issues. The list goes on and on. I have a friend who actually used them in Iraq and they were horrible from his accounts beyond what I just listed.

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,552
  • Crewman
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2015, 10:16:57 »
I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.

When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably.

Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank.

No, I don't work for GD. 

Cheers,

Play 'Devil's Advocate' all you want.  You have hit on some of the major points squarely on the head.  Until you actually have experience siting an armoured vehicle to be able to provide effective fire and still have natural protection, it is difficult to see many of the flaws in their design.

The LAV is a long, 'narrow', eight wheeled vehicle.  The 105mm gun variant has the turret mounted on the rear third of the vehicle.  Unless you are on a parade square with a 10m (thick, not high) wall in front of you, you will find that it is fairly hard to find a firing position that will give you a level platform to fire from and good protection provided by the terrain.  More often than not, you will have to fully expose your vehicle, and many times that will be on a forward slope, in order to fire.  Never a good option for crew survivability in Contact.  If dug in in a static position, as you suggest, one still has to factor in the length of the vehicle and location of the turret.  Firing the LAV 105mm gun over the side presents another set of problems.

The Armour Corps failed the MGS twice that I know of, yet the Government was still willing to purchase it against the advice of the Corps.  It is a vehicle that would/is very limited in its employment.  Probably, as you suggest, only in dug-in positions.  I believe the American experience with their Strykers have come to a similar conclusion.

[PS:  I removed my original post as it needed to be reworked.]
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 10:33:07 by George Wallace »
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2015, 10:40:43 »
I understood the TOW version of the Stryker was the Tank Destroyer.  The MGS was intended to supply Direct Fire Support to the infantry.

As to the value of a Self Propelled Anti Tank Gun - SPATG - I find it interesting that on another thread we were discussing how much of a concern batteries of Towed Anti Tank Guns would be if you found yourselves facing the Russians.



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2015, 11:01:54 »
Play 'Devil's Advocate' all you want.  You have hit on some of the major points squarely on the head.  Until you actually have experience siting an armoured vehicle to be able to provide effective fire and still have natural protection, it is difficult to see many of the flaws in their design.
 

No doubt it is bad design, probably more so a failed experiment.  It would be tough to site and if you are going to sacrifice crew protection, you might as well go towed and light.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 202,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,902
  • Freespeecher
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #69 on: September 05, 2015, 11:25:16 »
As far back as 2006 (When I saw it at the AUSA exhibition) Cockerill had a105mm CT-CV turret which could be a "drop in" on a LAV chassis, so the idea isn't all that outlandish.

The CV-CT had a 16 round bustle and another 16 rounds in the back, used a Wegmann "cleft" turret for a very low profile and had the ability to elevate the gun to 420, so it could function both in an urban environment (engaging people on the rooftops), or in an indirect fire role. I don't recall if it had the sighting system and power elevation/traverse to act as an AA weapon vs attack helicopters the way some Gen 4 tanks can, but I suppose that is a matter of refinement of the basic design.

A LAV DFS version could be built using the CV-CT turret, but like everything else, is there the need, the will to do so and the resources available?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 15:56:14 by Thucydides »
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 269
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2015, 11:54:57 »
How it might fit into structure and doctrine I will leave for others to chew on.

Here's another alternative.  A 40mm CTA gun turret with a pair/quad of ATGMs strapped on the sides (conventional turret layout?)



http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG01/308040011/Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit

This is exactly the turret I was talking about, I just couldn't find the picture.  I would think a battle group commander could make good use of a squadron of these.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #71 on: September 05, 2015, 13:38:09 »
My concern with that turret is the effect of a 155mm Airburst (or a can of paint) on all those neat little moving bits and lenses on top of the turret.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 202,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,902
  • Freespeecher
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #72 on: September 06, 2015, 00:08:35 »
Here is an interesting picture of the Polish "Rosomak" with a RWS mounted. Normally these have turrets armed with a 30mm cannon (being a licence built version of the Finnish Patria AMV), but there are also versions with an open "bucket" gunshield surrounding the gunner and a mounted HMG.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Eland2

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #73 on: September 06, 2015, 12:54:35 »
George Wallace writes:

Quote
The Armour Corps failed the MGS twice that I know of, yet the Government was still willing to purchase it against the advice of the Corps.  It is a vehicle that would/is very limited in its employment.  Probably, as you suggest, only in dug-in positions.  I believe the American experience with their Strykers have come to a similar conclusion.

The government of the day wanted the MGS regardless of the Armoured Corps' advice because they wanted a vehicle that could operate like a tank on the cheap, which was the main driver behind their desire to get Canada out of the tank business for good. But you know the old maxim, 'the man who buys cheaply pays twice as much in the end.'

As others have pointed out, the MGS could operate as an effective fire-support platform in carefully-prepared defensive positions. Unfortunately combat is often so fluid and fast-moving that the ability to consistently rely on prepared positions would be a rare luxury.

However, I am skeptical of the ability of the MGS to operate like a tank destroyer precisely because it utilizes lower-powered ammunition. As an infantry fire-support vehicle operating in defilades, the MGS with its less powerful ammunition would probably do OK as the targets would be somewhat softer.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,552
  • Crewman
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #74 on: September 06, 2015, 13:15:38 »
 :goodpost:  Eland2
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.