LAV III RWS versus LAV III with turret

[Kiwi99]

We too had a couple of dudes hit by a barrel after a jundi truck swerved at them.  But we kept them up regardless of this.  When we were ambushed they were able to return a high volume of fire at areas the barrel couldn't depress to engage.  In other contacts the soldiers were able to enage enemy from the air sentry hatch with excellent accuracy. 
We cannot remain 'buttoned up' in our veh and win this war.  We have to be seen as not afraid of the enemy, and we have to be able to respond at all threats immediattly.  Sure, it is dangerous having a guy in the air sentry hatch.  Small arms and IED are a constant threat.  But to "button up" rather than take the chance is not the way to go.  If ya get hit, then ya get hit.  We found air sentries up at all times, day and night, to be effective and a good deterrent to the enemy.  Cameras and RWS do not give the same SA as a guy watching and listening out in the open. 
Besides, if you took all the danger away, then who would want to do this job?

 

[MG34]

We used air sentries as well, I'm not saying don't use them but to take casualties when they could be avoided is just idiotic.
  In the ambushes I was involved in around PBW and in Panjawai the fire coming from the air sentry hatches while making the guys feel good and anle to do something about it, was insignificant compared with that coming from the LAV turret. If the En is able to close within the range of the turret's limitations there was an obvious lack of SA even if the guys are up and observing, not a slam as we were caught in the same manner, the afct is that when on the move the Mk1 eyeball is not as good as a thermal optic.
As far as not being afraid of the En ,well that was proven time and time again over there, the locals don't give a damn about wether there are guys standing up in back all they see is another green monster full of white guys. , you don't win hearts and minds from a LAV.

 

[Kiwi99]

Agreed.  We had issues with the thermal in the heat during ths summer, which in some cases the Mk 1 eyeball a lot better.  The other thing is, and I am sure you will agrre, when you are up and observing, you get that 'gut feel' when something is about to happen.  The guys sitting in the back never got that feeling as they couldn't see really what was going on.

 

[KevinB]

The American's have made a "roof" for the Stryker and put two MG positions in the airsentry hatches -- some have small gunshields
-gives protection for the guys and decent firepower addition -- of course you lose 360 with the cannon (or RWS on the Stryker)

 

[Kiwi99]

I-6, what are there ideas on air sentry guys?  You are in a unique position to see this on a reg basis.  Can you get me a couple pics of this so I can take to my higher?

Thanks dude

 

[McG]

Just out of curiosity, would the LAV-III 25mm with TOW turret have proven useful in any situations in Afghanistan to date?

There are many here who have seen 25 mm rounds plink uselessly into a grapehut.  Had those same LAV had TOW (with an appropriate blast type warhead), then there would instead be stories of the TB getting blasted in the grapehuts by LAV.  So, yes there have been times where this would have been useful.

Incidentally where would you mount them? On the side of the turret?

That is how the manufacture does it.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

There are many here who have seen 25 mm rounds plink uselessly into a grapehut.  Had those same LAV had TOW (with an appropriate blast type warhead), then there would instead be stories of the TB getting blasted in the grapehuts by LAV.  So, yes there have been times where this would have been useful.

Thank you for the direct answer....


Matthew. 

 

[McG]

. . . but there are only so many L7 cannons out there on the battlefield (and they only travel so fast).  Every convoy moving includes LAV 25 turrets.  In many cases, it would only take one or two missiles to convince the TB they don't want to stand-up & fight any more.

 

[Mountie]

This thread is pretty old, but I re-read it and have a basic question.  One of the key arguments against the RWS is situational awareness and the gunner/vehicle commander not being able to do both at the same time.  If he's busy firing at targets how does he effectively command the vehicle? 

So my question is, how is this going for the US Army Stryker crews, the British Army FV432 Mk.3 Bulldog or the various Israeli Defence Force APCs that use RWS's?  The Stryker has been used extensively in Iraq, the Bulldog has been equipped with an Enforcer RWS recently for use in Iraq and the IDF has used RWS's for years in various urban conflicts.  Their newest APC, the Namer based on the Merkava MBT chassis, does have a dedicated crew commander with a pintle mounted 7.62mm MG in addition to the RWS used by the gunner so that may answer some of the situational awareness question.  It obviously works for some of the best armies in the world, just curious how they make it work.  Is it even that different than the old Canadian M113?  I realize their was no RWS, but the gunner/crew commander still had to fulfill both roles simultaneously.

 

[1feral1]

In Iraq we used ASLAV Type 2's and 3's with RWS w/12.7mm M2 QCB, and yes effectively 'in contact' with the En. What makes it effective is familiarity and good/often training/drills and practice, hence when the SHTF, no problems.

OWDU

 

[KevinB]

RWS are the way of the future for forces that wish to reduce crew exposure.

Currently you give up some SA for protection, however a great deal of companies are working this issue.  If you do not use a dismount intended weapon platform you can gain in a number of areas for the RWS, and sensor designs are coming on board that will give 360 degree observation from integrated radar, II and T systems.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I concur with Infidel-6 on this.  RWS or remote operated turrets are definitely the way of the future.  When RWS first started being fielded, the technology to get the situational awareness wasn't there yet.  As the technology increases (and it is) to give better sa around the vehicle, the weight savings and lowering the vehicle's centre of gravity make replacing a manned turret with an RWS, or designing a vehicle from the ground up with one much more attractive.

The Puma IFV and the next generation of the French VCBI are both using unmanned remote operated turrets.

Certain things can go a long way in terms of making a remote system on par with a manned turret:
-Putting independent sights/viewers for the commander,
-Adding protection (i.e. gunshields) around the weapon system which allows the gunner/commander to pop through a hatch and perform IAs on a jammed weapon while under fire, or reloads.
-Designing a 'half turret/remote turret' housing only the weapon system and the ready ammo, that has no turret basket protruding down into the vehicle.  The gunner and commander's position is the best situated for an efficient vehicle layout, not based on the requirements that a turret basket be able to traverse freely. Build an access hatch to the weapons system for the crew inside the vehicle, so they can reload the weapon, or perform IAs and stoppages whilst under armour.

 

[KevinB]

Electric drive weapons - reduce your IA issue greatly and allow for 400% or more increase to reliability over recoil/gas systems.
  Newly designed weapons allow for complete purge of the mechanism from inside, and reloading from under armor.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Electric drive weapons - reduce your IA issue greatly and allow for 400% or more increase to reliability over recoil/gas systems.
  Newly designed weapons allow for complete purge of the mechanism from inside, and reloading from under armor.

Definitely a step in the right direction, as I've heard several horror stories from US Army vets who used the Hispano-Suiza 20mm on the M114 which experienced a significant jam rate. 

Not to say that electric drive is perfect, as I've had my share of nightmare jams on the M242, but I'd say they are more due to taking a legacy helicopter gun and trying to adapt it for armoured vehicle usage, whereby the feed chutes are straining the ammo link assemblies resulting in most of the jams.

 

[Mountie]

Any news and/or pictures of the new LAV-III RWS in Afghanistan or in training?  I've only seen one poor angle picture from a company website.  How is it working out?  I read an article or post on another site that said the vehicle commanders hatch had a C6 or C9 mounted at it in addition to the RWS mounted in the centre.  Is this true?  How is the vehicle being crewed?  Is there a separate vehicle commander and gunner? Does the vehicle commander dismount with the infantry like the US Army Stryker rifle squads do? 

 

[Jammer]

The ELAV (Cdn Engr)...is the only LAV in the fleet that uses the RWS.
It is universal in that it can mount anything up to a MK-19 AGL.
Engrs that I know are not fond of it as it take up too much space in the veh and not enough for engr stores.

 

[Mountie]

The ELAV (Cdn Engr)...is the only LAV in the fleet that uses the RWS.
It is universal in that it can mount anything up to a MK-19 AGL.
Engrs that I know are not fond of it as it take up too much space in the veh and not enough for engr stores.

I'm talking about the 33 extra TUA hulls that were converted to ISC with the Nanuk RWS (Often being referred to as the Bison 2).  I read in a few different articles that they were just recently deployed to Afghanistan.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-2007/GDLS-Canada-lands-order-for-army-LAV-III-ISCs.html

 

[MikeL]

The ELAV (Cdn Engr)...is the only LAV in the fleet that uses the RWS.

The new LAV Hs also just have an RWS and a C6 on a pintle mount

 

[deh]

I am currently in the middle of the LAV III RWS Train the Trainer gunners course, so I might be able to help out a little with any questions. 

In regards to the weapons, the weapon station itself is mounted in front of the gunners hole, slightly off of centre.  Makes learning about inhibit zones fun!  The station itself accepts C6, M2 or C9.  There is a platts mount on the front right of the commanders hatch that will fit a C6 or a C9.

The veh is being crewed as per normal, the numbers do not change.  I can not say what the rest of the forces are doing, but there has been nothing mentioned about the CC dismounting with the sect.  I can't imagine it would be done either, especially not at 2RCR.

We have 2 (sort of) at the armour school right now for this course.  There are five others that are doing the "circus show" as the WO likes to call it, travelling from base to base to get the troops qualified on.  As far as I know they are in Shilo at the moment slowly making their way to gagtown. 

As for the deployment schedule, I am not 100% sure what info is open source and what isn't.  Needless to say they will be showing up in theatre in the not so distant future.  If you want more of the where and when details you can shoot me an email from a DIN email address and I will point you in the direction of the SME who would know better than me what we are allowed to say and what we aren't.  Sorry for the cop out, but anyone who knows me knows I am not huge on the secretive for no reason song and dance, its just the system is so new I do not want to mark time on my organ.  And as well for those who know me, pictures of the high resolution, on the move and firing kind are on the way as soon as I can get them cleared by the Chain o' Command.  Any request for angles or what not and I will see what I can do.  Any questions I will try my best to answer, I am by no means an expert but I am working for them right now and probably have more hands on time than the majority of people out there at the moment.

You can PM any questions or to find my DIN email address.  I am not exactly incognito though, you should be able to find me fairly easily in the address book.

- EDIT -

I should add in a little about the intent.  From the crew who are teaching this course, the LAV III RWS is NOT a replacement for the LAV III with the 25mm turret.  It is going to augment the fleet in much the same way the nyala does.  Low intensity things like convoys and QRF, not full on kinetic ops.  The weight savings from the turret is being spent in up armouring and mine proofing the vehicle.  Everyone can stop screaming bloody murder about the 25mm being taken away, aside from the 30-ish hulls with no turrets that are being converted, there isn't a plan to downgrade the 650 some odd lavs to this standard.  If you would like to have a chat about the cost of developing the system, prototyping and building them and retraining crews vice just buying 30 turrets, I have some ideas on that, but you can unbunch the panties, the LAV III 25 (as it is now being referred to around coy lines to my great dismay) is here to stay.

 

[McG]

The new LAV Hs also just have an RWS and a C6 on a pintle mount

The new LAV H is not yet in service with any nation.  If the first country that decides to buy it wants turrets or 30 mm RWS, then that is what the first production LAV H will have.