Infantry Vehicles

[GK .Dundas]

During the 70s and 80s it was the M60 which was the main battle tank for the US army in Europe and at home. My FOO party in Germany in the winter of 1980 (or 81) adopted an M60 Reforger tank crew from Texas that had slid down a hill, thrown both tracks and been abandoned by their company. They'd come poorly prepared for a winter exercise, even by Germany's relatively mild standards and needed a lot of heater time.

I heard a couple of variations on a theme on this story. I'd heard that by the time they'd been found the tank had run out fuel and they were slowly starting to freeze to death..
Not a lot of fun.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think you are missing some history, as to what Heavy Tanks and Light Tanks where.
The MBT did absolutely come out of the Medium tank role.
You can see all tanks guns started growing and the T-55 through T-62 and the Pershing to Patton series down here.
*acknowledging the Pershing was designed initially as a heavy tank in WW2.

Western MBT’s however did start taking on some heavier tank characteristics after the 90’s from 105mm to 120mm guns, and more armor - but retained the sole role of the MBT, and when one looks at the lineage of the medium tank, the gun growth 75mm to 76mm to 90mm to 105mm the 120mm change wasn’t really dramatic considering the time line and it was solely based on the penetration needs to fight other MBT’s.

Heavy tanks continued for some time post war as well with the Conqueror, M103 and T10, all supporting "mediums" and light tanks. MBT's have become so heavy it is driving the need for a light tank, particulate in theatres constrained by geography or logistics. The IFV sort of blurs the line and role of the light tank and APC.

 

[ueo]

I heard a couple of variations on a theme on this story. I'd heard that by the time they'd been found the tank had run out fuel and they were slowly starting to freeze to death..
Not a lot of fun.

Saw this sort of thing several times in the early 70's

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The

I had assumed between the UOR's for Latvia, ATGMR, reading on here about mortars being brought back to the battalions, that the CA has acknowledged the need for those (integral ATGM's and Mortars) and "re integrating them" was a current work in progress- therefore any hypothetical discussion of a near future LAV Bn in LCSO was assuming they would be so equipped.

So just to be clear-

1. when you stated that a LAV Bn without attached tanks was only suitable for security tasks in LSCO that was in reference to a "current state" LAV Bn without integral mortars and ATGM's of the appropriate quality and quantity?
2. a doctrinally equipped LAV Bn with proper platoon level anti-armour weapon, mortar platoon, AT platoon would be able to be employed in an LCSO defense without having tanks attached?

Doesn't that depend entirely on the armament of the LAV equipped "Armd Cav" Sqn relative to the state of the LAV Bn it's being attached to?
Like sure, adding a squadron in LRSS/TAPV to a "current state LAV Bn" doesn't really change the equation - less so to a doctrinally equipped one. But a Sqn in @PrairieFella 's Jaguar, or a LAV Desert Viper with a 50mm and twin ATGM added to a "current state" Bn? Or one that has found the PY's for a mortar platoon, but had neither the PY's nor the ATGMR project scope* to stand up a proper mounted AT platoon?

* My cynical guess is that ATGRM is limited to putting a dismounted launcher/CLU into every platoon/troop weapons det.


As always, I'm likely way off base, but the way I see it

• the RCAC has 1/3 committed/equipped to tanks, 1/3 committed equipped to Recce (undergunned CAV), 1/3 looking for a home
• the role the RCAC wants to carve for itself is providing mounted firepower to the army
• the LAV Bn's in their current state lack the punch to mount a defense in LSCO, and the RCIC lacks the PY's to man the doctrinal punch needed

Answer to thought experiment: How to set up a (near) current state symmetrical LAV based CMBG for LSCO in Latvia?

1. Fast track ATGMR to get proper ATGM's at platoon
2. Prioritize PY's/ Reserve integration to get Mortar platoons back
3. Fast track LAV CFV procurement for 65-75 such vehicles
4. Buy everything else needed to scale from sustaining a BG to a Bde

At that point a symmetrical 1/3 of the (mounted) Combat Arms would be
1x LAV LRSS Sqn
1x LAV CFV Sqn
1x Leo Sqn
2x LAV Bn (w/Bn Mortar Platoon, ATGM held at at platoon)

Baseline organization

1 Squadron cavalry screen/ guard

2 Lav BG's "Up" in Cover/ Defense- firepower augmented by Half CFV squadron each, Both Bn's less one Inf Platoon

1 Leo Combat team as reserve/ counterpunch, augmented by 2x Lav Platoons.


No one would confuse it for an American ABCT, and of course it would be better if the CFV squadron was in tanks- but could it hold it's own as a Bde in in a defensive role?

My comment was based on mech infantry battalions as they exist in Canada - not as outfitted by UOR for the eFP. Each Battalion would need at least 20 integral ATGMs in the 4 to 5k range band. They should also have mortar platoons - dismounted mortars exist but they would have to be manned.

A "medium" armoured cavalry squadron equipped with ATGMs would be something useful to add, but they'd really just be centralized Bn AT platoons. Vehicles equipped with cannons between 25mm and 105mm are, in my mind, of questionable value as an added capability for a general war in Europe. I am not saying I would be upset if our LAVs were equipped with 30mm cannons instead of 25mm cannons just that adding another vehicle that has a gun that cannot penetrate MBTs is of marginal utility. The opportunity costs of a new project have to be considered. Just get more MBTs.

There is, perhaps, a role for lighter vehicles with guns under 120mm in theatres other than Europe.

We do need SP artillery.

 

[GR66]

Vehicles equipped with cannons between 25mm and 105mm are, in my mind, of questionable value as an added capability for a general war in Europe. I am not saying I would be upset if our LAVs were equipped with 30mm cannons instead of 25mm cannons just that adding another vehicle that has a gun that cannot penetrate MBTs is of marginal utility. The opportunity costs of a new project have to be considered. Just get more MBTs.

I can see 30mm being worth the expense/effort for the AD/C-UAS role with proximity fuse ammo. If you're going to have your SHORAD vehicles using 30mm then is there not an advantage to having 30mm common across the LAV fleet (as well as with the RCN on the River-Class assuming the rounds are interchangeable between the weapons?). DU rounds - in either the existing 25mm or a hypothetical 30mm upgrade (if politically acceptable for our Government) would also make the LAVs effective against opposition MBTs.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I can see 30mm being worth the expense/effort for the AD/C-UAS role with proximity fuse ammo. If you're going to have your SHORAD vehicles using 30mm then is there not an advantage to having 30mm common across the LAV fleet (as well as with the RCN on the River-Class assuming the rounds are interchangeable between the weapons?). DU rounds - in either the existing 25mm or a hypothetical 30mm upgrade (if politically acceptable for our Government) would also make the LAVs effective against opposition MBTs.

I won't comment on the optimal weapon for a dedicated SHORAD vehicle - such a program will determine that. It could be 30mm. Don't know. What I am saying is that we have hundreds of vehicles with 25mm cannons, and adding another family of AFVs for the direct fire fight with another calibre below 120mm would likely have low marginal return for the European general fight. The M10 is focused on destroying infantry strongpoints in support of light infantry in divisions that do not have MBTs.

I am not an engineer, but I do not think it would be a simple matter to change the existing 25mm cannons on our LAV fleet with a 30mm cannon. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before.

 

[ArmyRick]

I won't comment on the optimal weapon for a dedicated SHORAD vehicle - such a program will determine that. It could be 30mm. Don't know. What I am saying is that we have hundreds of vehicles with 25mm cannons, and adding another family of AFVs for the direct fire fight with another calibre below 120mm would likely have low marginal return for the European general fight. The M10 is focused on destroying infantry strongpoints in support of light infantry in divisions that do not have MBTs.

I am not an engineer, but I do not think it would be a simple matter to change the existing 25mm cannons on our LAV fleet with a 30mm cannon. I could be wrong. I've been wrong before.

To change 25mm to 30mm is simple
1. Erase the numbers 2-5 and replace with the numbers 3-0. Done.

 

[markppcli]

I can see 30mm being worth the expense/effort for the AD/C-UAS role with proximity fuse ammo. If you're going to have your SHORAD vehicles using 30mm then is there not an advantage to having 30mm common across the LAV fleet (as well as with the RCN on the River-Class assuming the rounds are interchangeable between the weapons?). DU rounds - in either the existing 25mm or a hypothetical 30mm upgrade (if politically acceptable for our Government) would also make the LAVs effective against opposition MBTs.

So then we run into a new problem: ammunition.

The role of the cannon on an ifv is dealing with light armour and suppressing dug in enemy. On the m242 bushmaster, and the bushmaster 2 as I understand it, there’s two ammunition bins allowing two types of ammunition to be be selected. If we’re adding a prox fused AD / CUAS round then what are we giving up?

 

[KevinB]

So then we run into a new problem: ammunition.

The role of the cannon on an ifv is dealing with light armour and suppressing dug in enemy. On the m242 bushmaster, and the bushmaster 2 as I understand it, there’s two ammunition bins allowing two types of ammunition to be be selected. If we’re adding a prox fused AD / CUAS round then what are we giving up?

Admittedly the ammo issue is a fairly minor problem.

Most of the turrets won’t simply accept a larger cannon. So you’d be looking at a new turret to take the cannon.

Then if you’re planning on using it for the C-UAS/AD role, you need fire control that can do that.

So realistically since you are getting a totally new turret for this, you could add a third ammo bin

Frankly if one is that concerned about the UAS threat, I’d rather add a 5th LAV with a SkyRanger turret to platoons, and accept the issue of a 35mm ammunition nature being different for those threats.

 

[Kirkhill]

(The US Army) has requested $18.93 million in fiscal year 2024 for the new 30x113mm XM1223 Multi-Mode Proximity Airburst (MMPA) round designed to counter threats from incoming drones and ground troops behind cover, according to budget documents.

Designed to combat both aerial and ground-based threats in a single mission package, the MMPA will eventually replace both the 30×113mm XM1211 High Explosive Proximity (HEP) and XM1198 High Explosive Dual Purpose rounds currently fielded to U.S. troops to deal with the rise of adversary drones downrange

The Army is eying a new all-in-one proximity round for its 30mm chain guns

"With minimal ammunition, the commander and crew are able to defeat three distinct threats.”

taskandpurpose.com

The Army is in the initial stages of testing new, specialized bullets to shoot down small drones, Army officials said on Monday. The service is developing both 30mm and 25mm rounds to be carried by AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, both of which the Army views as a primary system for protecting troops from future drone threats.

“There’s not enough air defense assets out there,” Reim said. “We want all our formations to have the capability against small UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] and also make them more lethal from increasing threats that we’re seeing from our adversaries.”

the Army is testing a 25mm round for Bradley Fighting Vehicles and a 30mm round for Apache helicopters that use proximity sensors to detect and destroy drones, said Army Lt. Col. Saleem Khan, product manager for medium caliber ammunition.

The XM1228 Bradley Aerial Defeat Group Enhanced Round, or BADGER, is a 25mm round that is meant to provide mechanized units protection against drones, Khan told Task & Purpose on Monday.

The BADGER is “really in very early stages of development,” Khan said. The Army will be conducting developmental testing on the BADGER next month, and it is scheduled to undergo live-fire testing this summer (Edit: Summer 2025), Khan said.

Separately, the Army is testing the XM1225 Aviation Proximity Explosive, or APEX, a dual-purpose round for Apache helicopters. Khan said. The 30mm round is designed to airburst so that it can take out drones.

The XM1225 would be the first major enhancement for the Apache helicopter’s 30mm cannon in 30 years, Khan said.

The timeline for fielding the rounds has not been determined, an Army official told Task

With new bullets, the Army wants to turn Apaches and Bradleys into drone killers

With a new bullet designed to explode near its target, Apache attack helicopters may soon be a key defender against drone threats.

taskandpurpose.com

Some 25mm Airburst work has already been done

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2011/gunmissile/Thursday11790_Gloude.pdf

https://ndia.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/2012/armaments/Wednesday14075Reynolds.pdf

I am guessing that you will have a 25mm BADGER multi-mode proximity airburst round in one of your bins before you get new guns or new turrets.

....

There has even been a 25mm solution kicking around since the early 2000s that would be compatible with light battalions and Mission Master UGVs. - The ATK PAWS with the LW25 version of the M242 Bushmaster.

ATK’s Lightweight 25mm Bushmaster Chain Gun on Palletized Autonomous Weapon System (PAWS)

....

Any chance of being able to add a ballistic computer / FCS to the turret? They are available for the NLAW, the CG84, the C16 and other crew-served weapons, and even rifles.

 

[Kirkhill]

Disconcerting sound - Brought to you by the AimPoint FCS - Schhhmk

 

[Kirkhill]

Went looking for the history of the proximity round

The Proximity Fuse: The Gunner's Dream Finally Became Realized

The proximity fuse had long been a dream of Allied scientists. And its use in the Battle of the Bulge would become a milestone.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

Early on the morning of December 16, 1944, the commander of the U.S. 406th Artillery Group, Colonel George Axelson, had a difficult decision to make. The Germans had just launched the offensive that would become known as the Battle of the Bulge, and one of their first targets was the 38th Cavalry Squadron, dug in around Monschau, Germany. The lightly armed cavalry troopers needed help, and the commander quickly called for artillery support from the 406th. Axelson had just the thing: a new, secret artillery shell that had just been issued. The problem was that Allied commander Dwight Eisenhower had not yet given permission to use the weapon. Axelson decided that the emergency trumped the restrictions and ordered his gunners to use the new shell. Minutes later, rounds equipped with a new radio proximity fuse started exploding right over the heads of the attacking Germans. The attack collapsed.

The first practical test came on August 13, 1942. The cruiser USS Cleveland, equipped with proximity-fused 5-inch antiaircraft shells, destroyed two drones in rapid succession. The results stunned Navy officers, particularly those in charge of the drones.

Counter-drone warfare.