• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

g-wagon crew commander

Bzzliteyr said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the US LAV-25 has a "point and shoot" fire control system.  All you would really need to know is that the crosshairs is where you want the bullets to go.

If only Gunnery was so simple.  No worries of weather conditions.  No moving targets.  No need to know which order or which buttons and instruments to use to have the computer calculate your aim offs.  No requirement to learn "Gunner's Determination", "retention of sight picture" and correct use of BOT.  No need to learn trigger control/controlled bursts.  If only Gunnery was so simple.
 

Is this what you expect of vehicle commanders?  Magic space wizards?
 
Shamrock said:
Is this what you expect of vehicle commanders?  Magic space wizards?

Take it for the levity it was posted as.

You guys gotta start using the appropriate smilies so other know your intent. It doesn't come out the same, typed on the internet, as it sounds in your head when writing it. ;)
 
Way back when I was CO of SherH, when someone asked to borrow 'our' vehicles, the answer was no.  They could go to Brigade and get 'our' vehicles.  If they wanted a 'yes' they offered to pay our driver or crew commander and if several vehicles, our Lt. The Lt had authority to say no to foolishness.  The reason for this policy--which Brigade agreed with, was to prevent irresponsible use of our training resources.  A lost vehicle was critical to our training, and frequently other Armoured units with whom we frequently shared.  A broken vehicle usually stayed that way for the rest of the year. I knew from experience that vehicles that aren't 'owned' get very rough treatment.  If the conditions were met, I was more than pleased to send the vehicles.  This gave me training opportunities and man days.
Maybe this philosophy still holds today with who ever you asked.
 
sandyson said:
Way back when I was CO of SherH, when someone asked to borrow 'our' vehicles, the answer was no.  They could go to Brigade and get 'our' vehicles.  If they wanted a 'yes' they offered to pay our driver or crew commander and if several vehicles, our Lt. The Lt had authority to say no to foolishness.  The reason for this policy--which Brigade agreed with, was to prevent irresponsible use of our training resources.  A lost vehicle was critical to our training, and frequently other Armoured units with whom we frequently shared.  A broken vehicle usually stayed that way for the rest of the year. I knew from experience that vehicles that aren't 'owned' get very rough treatment.  If the conditions were met, I was more than pleased to send the vehicles.  This gave me training opportunities and man days.
Maybe this philosophy still holds today with who ever you asked.

That is exactly why it is done like that down here also. You want to use our vehicles? You pay the crew, rats and fuel, they'll operate it for you. Even other armour units get the same thing, slightly modified. We'll lend it to you but you need to have one of our guys aboard that'll say no when required.
 
Just picking up on this - I've done some considerable staff work on this in the past for various reasons.

The two documents that define crew commander requirements are B-GL-381-001 Training Safety and and LFCO on vehicles (can't recall the number of the top of my head).

Critically, a vehicle that has separate compartments for crew members is deemed to be a crewed vehicle.  An LUVW is explicitly listed as a non-crewed vehicle (so, for that matter, is the RG-31).

381 states crew commanders are required when coordination is required to move and shoot a vehicle a vehicle in a tactical environment.  So, to me, shooting static from a vehicle that isn't listed as a crewed vehicle doesn't require a qualified crew commander.  The Armoured School may promulgate its own, more restrictive, regulations but IAW my reading of all applicable Army regulations a crew commander is not required.

It's important to hit the books and understand policy - people will default to "SME" status and say "it's policy" when they don't know or have forgotten what specific policy states.  I've had people try to say no to something or try to throw roadblocks up quoting some obscure policy only to blow fishkisses when I asked for the specific reference.
 
recceguy said:
Take it for the levity it was posted as.

You guys gotta start using the appropriate smilies so other know your intent. It doesn't come out the same, typed on the internet, as it sounds in your head when writing it. ;)

You're absolutely right.  We should verify our humor return prior to placing ammo select on asshole.  As this particular image is making the rounds, I had assumed above was making timely reference and engaged in a sutle reference.



 
Infanteer said:
Just picking up on this - I've done some considerable staff work on this in the past for various reasons.

The two documents that define crew commander requirements are B-GL-381-001 Training Safety and and LFCO on vehicles (can't recall the number of the top of my head).

Critically, a vehicle that has separate compartments for crew members is deemed to be a crewed vehicle.  An LUVW is explicitly listed as a non-crewed vehicle (so, for that matter, is the RG-31).

381 states crew commanders are required when coordination is required to move and shoot a vehicle a vehicle in a tactical environment.  So, to me, shooting static from a vehicle that isn't listed as a crewed vehicle doesn't require a qualified crew commander.  The Armoured School may promulgate its own, more restrictive, regulations but IAW my reading of all applicable Army regulations a crew commander is not required.

It's important to hit the books and understand policy - people will default to "SME" status and say "it's policy" when they don't know or have forgotten what specific policy states.  I've had people try to say no to something or try to throw roadblocks up quoting some obscure policy only to blow fishkisses when I asked for the specific reference.

First, I want to thank you for pointing me in the right direction.  I do not have access to 381, and the only mention to requisiteness of AVCC is done in the TP to AVAM.  I still have several reservations about what you've said, but this is not the proper vehicle to address them.  However, IAW your pullquote and the OP's statement:

redseer said:
I've been looking for alternatives to the LUVW-Milcot (Silverado) as PRes Arty for certain live fire exercises, and the G-wagon (LUVW) has been suggested...

redseer said:
Thanks for the insight, it hadn't even occurred to me that they'd think that.  I just want the G-Wagon for it's superior mobility and veh mount radio  Milcots get stuck fairly easily, and only a 1/4 of ours have radios.

That, to me is a fairly obvious application of trying to do co-ordinated fire and movement...

If I leave this part out

redseer said:
..I don't even want to take C6s, just a remote kit.
 
/sarcasm

A reservist with pockets full, walking around base? Never.

/end sarcasm

I feel a mod will soon come in and lay a smackdown as we are kind of straying off topic...
 
Bzzliteyr said:
/sarcasm

A reservist with pockets full, walking around base? Never.

/end sarcasm

I feel a mod will soon come in and lay a smackdown as we are kind of straying off topic...

I concur...

Now lets get this topic back on track...


MILNET.CA MENTOR
 
Back
Top