While I’m a big fan of ATGM on IFV, I’m not sure that’s the right road for the LAV 6.0, I think it would be better to have a Coy Armor Defense Section with LAV-JUA (Javelin under armor) to support the Rifle Coy’s in the event they got engaged by Armor.
Boy! You got me thinking again. I tend to default back to what I learned. (And yes, that takes me back to the 3.5" rocket launcher for anti-armour)
I started up around the time the first Carl G's replaced the 3.5. At that point we had M72, Carl G, 106 mm recoilless and SS11 for anti armour work. M72s went down to sections. Carl G's were more specialized weapons dets within the coy. The 106 and SS11 were at battalion and there were discussions and trials to move them into a specialized brigade anti-armour company. In Europe in 1964 B Coy 3 R22R was turned into a bde anti-armour coy with 106s, Entacs and SS11s. It kicked around until 1970 when they were moved into Bn anti-armour platoons. Tanks were of course the main anti -armour system.
All that to say that there is always a dividing line between what becomes an every soldier weapon and what becomes a specialist weapon and and where the line is drawn. Factors such as ease of use, practical range, weight, desire to concentrate at decisive locations or distribute widely, etc.
For me, the trade off point comes at the Carl G. It and the lower level M72ish, Panzerfaust 3 are all coy level weapon. I actually prefer the reloadable RPG concept. A lightweight reusable launcher with multiple simple and smaller and equally lightweight projectiles just seems to make sense to me.
Everything above that becomes a specialist det weapon at either battalion or brigade/div. There's a lot of learning and thinking to do as to what "direct fire" weapons should be used and how they should be organized (IMHO within the battalion) and precision "indirect" fire weapons should be organized (again, IMHO as brigade/div artillery resources intimately tied in with forward observers/controllers.)
Like you, I'm not sure if the turret of a LAV ISC is the best place for anti-armour missiles. Personally, I think that if the LAV is put into a position where it needs to use the missile then it has been improperly deployed. It's not an IFV that's designed to tangle. As a secondary point, if we deploy missiles on a LAV ISC turret then for much of the fight, most of these would be sitting idle and be a wasted resource. OTOH, there should clearly be specialist anti-armour carriers (whether LAV or other) which have no other purpose than anti-armour work.
🍻
