Anti-Tank Platoon or Anti-Tank Battery? - 24 Vertical Launch JAGMs on a WAPC

[Colin Parkinson]

What I was comparing is the doctrine of massed fires against an armoured thrust, not gun vs ATGM. The system Kirkhill posted has 24 missiles that it can fire before needing to reload.

The British used to operate a similar system with the Swingfire missile with 2 rails and 14 missiles on the FV328. However the reload and firing time would be much greater. They were for a time held in AT units under the RA and then transferred to the Armoured Corp as guided weapon Troops.

FV438 Swingfire - Wikipedia

 

[Kirkhill]

I know you and others have a hate on for wheels. I don't share the hate.

Nor does the construction industry that spends a lot of its time off-road on lumpy, inaccessible, soft and muddy ground.

Likewise farming, mining, drilling and forestry.

They have tracks. Indeed they do. But the majority of their fleets are wheeled. And their tracks are carried on wheels.

Fuchs is indistinguishable from the Patria CAVS 6x6. Ford's Model T is recognizable in the Prius just as it reflected the horse-drawn surreys it replaced. The 1950s Chinook and B52 are still flying. I don't see a problem with a proven form factor being employed.

As to the too big too tall...

Talk to me about JLTV and Stryker growth, about Boxer and LAV6 ACSV, about Abrams and PzH2000.

I am getting a sense that you perceive everything from a close combat "belt-buckle" fight perspective.

My game plan is to keep you well beyond arms length. And pick you off one by one while I have the time and space to do so. That is one reason why I would be opting to replace JAGM with the Brimstone/SPEAR families and their longer reported ranges.

 

[FJAG]

As to the too big too tall...

Talk to me about JLTV and Stryker growth, about Boxer and LAV6 ACSV, about Abrams and PzH2000.

Saying these other things are tall too, doesn't make this Fuchs variant smaller.

I'm on the "small is better" side when it comes to fighting vehicles. My ideals for recce are:

Hey! Look at that! They're both wheeled!

Fennek and VBL, IMHO, are what TAPV should have been, but I expect their mine resistance is probably lower. The VBL stands at 1.7m; the Fennek at 2.29m; the basic Fuchs at 2.5m; the TAPV at 3.2m; LAV 3.3m (That makes the TAPV and LAV almost twice as high as the VBL.)

I wasn't able to find an actual height for the Fuchs JAGM but by appearance of people next to it, it seems easily as high as a TAPV or LAV.

IMHO, I see something like the Fuchs JAGM could be reduced in height to the vehicle's base height by simply stacking the six quad launchers at forward slopping angles. Technically feasible but not as easy to manufacture. For me, the concept is good and I could see launchers like this (if height reduced) to be a valuable asset in a light cavalry unit acting as a fighting screen using many sensors, precision missiles and artillery.

I'm not sure that I like the Fuchs JAGM as the ATGM component of an infantry battalion. The range is unnecessary there and more and cheaper missiles would probably work as well.

 

[KevinB]

I know you and others have a hate on for wheels. I don't share the hate.

Because we have seen them fail in combat...

Nor does the construction industry that spends a lot of its time off-road on lumpy, inaccessible, soft and muddy ground.

Likewise farming, mining, drilling and forestry.

They get a lot of combat usage?

They have tracks. Indeed they do. But the majority of their fleets are wheeled. And their tracks are carried on wheels.

Just like Lowbeds in the Military for longer admin moves.

Fuchs is indistinguishable from the Patria CAVS 6x6.

Not a good look there.

Ford's Model T is recognizable in the Prius just as it reflected the horse-drawn surreys it replaced. The 1950s Chinook and B52 are still flying. I don't see a problem with a proven form factor being employed.

The difference is the Hook is massively evolved, and the Buff's have been rebuild and reworked to hell and back.

As to the too big too tall...

Talk to me about JLTV and Stryker growth,

Last war vehicles without a purpose.

about Boxer

POS I'd stipulate it was the same stupidity that lead to LAV UP.

and LAV6 ACSV

Nice Divisional CP

, about Abrams

Still a very effective tank even if it is a porky bugger.

and PzH2000.

Awful thing anyway.

I am getting a sense that you perceive everything from a close combat "belt-buckle" fight perspective.

My game plan is to keep you well beyond arms length. And pick you off one by one while I have the time and space to do so. That is one reason why I would be opting to replace JAGM with the Brimstone/SPEAR families and their longer reported ranges.

Hey I prefer to kill people as far away from me as possible - but I don't under estimate the need for close combat vehicles.

 

[Kirkhill]

Saying these other things are tall too, doesn't make this Fuchs variant smaller.

I'm on the "small is better" side when it comes to fighting vehicles. My ideals for recce are:

Hey! Look at that! They're both wheeled!

Fennek and VBL, IMHO, are what TAPV should have been, but I expect their mine resistance is probably lower. The VBL stands at 1.7m; the Fennek at 2.29m; the basic Fuchs at 2.5m; the TAPV at 3.2m; LAV 3.3m (That makes the TAPV and LAV almost twice as high as the VBL.)

I wasn't able to find an actual height for the Fuchs JAGM but by appearance of people next to it, it seems easily as high as a TAPV or LAV.

IMHO, I see something like the Fuchs JAGM could be reduced in height to the vehicle's base height by simply stacking the six quad launchers at forward slopping angles. Technically feasible but not as easy to manufacture. For me, the concept is good and I could see launchers like this (if height reduced) to be a valuable asset in a light cavalry unit acting as a fighting screen using many sensors, precision missiles and artillery.

I'm not sure that I like the Fuchs JAGM as the ATGM component of an infantry battalion. The range is unnecessary there and more and cheaper missiles would probably work as well.

Fennek is a Jeep.
Fuchs/Boxer/CAVS/ACSV are trucks that can vertically stow and launch 6 foot missiles.

Mix and match would be fine with me.

A troop such as I described

1x Rover (Fennek)
1x CP (ACVS)
1x APC (ACVS)
1x Rdr (ACVS)
1x 60 Seaknight (ACVS)
2x 24 JAGM-MR (ACVS)

Then add

3x 2x Fennek

As stipulated previously LAMs and sUAS for everybody.

...

And C-UAS capable RWS on everything but only the one vehicle with an active sensor.

Although maybe active sensors on some of the UAVs.

 

[Furniture]

Saying these other things are tall too, doesn't make this Fuchs variant smaller.

I'm on the "small is better" side when it comes to fighting vehicles. My ideals for recce are:

Hey! Look at that! They're both wheeled!

Fennek and VBL, IMHO, are what TAPV should have been, but I expect their mine resistance is probably lower. The VBL stands at 1.7m; the Fennek at 2.29m; the basic Fuchs at 2.5m; the TAPV at 3.2m; LAV 3.3m (That makes the TAPV and LAV almost twice as high as the VBL.)

I wasn't able to find an actual height for the Fuchs JAGM but by appearance of people next to it, it seems easily as high as a TAPV or LAV.

IMHO, I see something like the Fuchs JAGM could be reduced in height to the vehicle's base height by simply stacking the six quad launchers at forward slopping angles. Technically feasible but not as easy to manufacture. For me, the concept is good and I could see launchers like this (if height reduced) to be a valuable asset in a light cavalry unit acting as a fighting screen using many sensors, precision missiles and artillery.

I'm not sure that I like the Fuchs JAGM as the ATGM component of an infantry battalion. The range is unnecessary there and more and cheaper missiles would probably work as well.

I suspect "forward launching" adds both length, and complexity.

The people who made the system aren't dumb, so I suspect they tried to make a VLS as small and portable as possible. Sometimes a longer reach/bigger gun is just bigger.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There's "TD" which means a particular kind of AFV, and "TD" which means a set of TTPs and/or doctrine. You can do the latter without the former.

 

[Furniture]

Last war vehicles without a purpose.

I'm just a weather dude, but back in the Senator chats you were criticizing them for not being JTLVs... So, is the JTLV a platform from the last war, or the standard against witch all future personnel transport should be judged?

As a missile platform, how is the proposed ATGM platform worse than a Hummer TOW, or M113 TOW?

 

[KevinB]

I'm just a weather dude, but back in the Senator chats you were criticizing them for not being JTLVs... So, is the JTLV a platform from the last war, or the standard against witch all future personnel transport should be judged?

I find no purpose to to the Senator other than a bank truck.
It’s neither fish nor fowl.
The JLTV is purpose built for COIN related activities, not a LSCO.

As a missile platform, how is the proposed ATGM platform worse than a Hummer TOW, or M113 TOW?

M113 TUA went out with the Dino’s, it was obsolete when the Bradley came on line.
Hummer TOW offered light forces mobile AT capability, its hit obsolescence circa GWOT as however Javelin offers more range that can be used anywhere and on any time.

I see wheeled “APC’s” as PMV’s, for non direct combat at this juncture of LSCO’s.
Leaving vehicles either going to very light, or a medium/heavy tracked system.

 

[FJAG]

M113 TUA went out with the Dino’s, it was obsolete when the Bradley came on line.

Despite my many prior posts in favour of IFVs, I'm now questioning their usefulness in mechanized LSCO operations. The issues are the number of dismounts available; their level of protection in prolonged close combat; the weapon systems they carry and how those effect the crew to dismount ratio.

Not there with an expressible yet; just tossing it around.

 

[KevinB]

Despite my many prior posts in favour of IFVs, I'm now questioning their usefulness in mechanized LSCO operations. The issues are the number of dismounts available; their level of protection in prolonged close combat; the weapon systems they carry and how those effect the crew to dismount ratio.

I see the conventional IFV as an Infantry assault formation vehicle working with tanks - after the sensor war and fires war has been won in the local area.

Not there with an expressible yet; just tossing it around.

I am at the point where I think the Next Gen CFV requires having multiple different turret designs.
1) A somewhat conventional turret with Chain Gun and ATGM (NLOS F&F) (I’m favoring the 40mm CTA cannon).
2) DE C-UAS and maybe a conventional gun
3) Gun C-UAS and Anti-Personnel (GAU-19 type)
4) SHORAD Missile and Gun (probably at Coy/Squadron HQ level)
5) C-RAM Minigun (which might not be able to hold significant dismounts due to ammo and FCS) I’d like to have at Coy/Squadron level, but due to range and mass needed I think it has to be an ‘extra’ at Platoon/Troop.
6) C-RAM/UAS Mini-Missile
7) UAS launcher

All of which would also have some semblance of an APS as well. And the ability to stores EBikes

The Control vehicles for the AD/C-UAS/C-RAM would be at Coy/Squadron and BN levels.
As well as a host of Squadron and BN support systems.

With that I’m coming to a point of a specific Calvary trade that drives, CC’s and Guns those CFV. Dismounts will require a blend of Engineer, Infantry, Infantry Recce, Comms and ADA to provide the expertise needed.