LAV III RWS versus LAV III with turret

[Teflon]

My point for the Bradley turret was more room and more available ammo.  Also I'd rather go with it rather than a TUA turret -

Kiwi has way more operational experience with the LAV than I -- but even my trip to Kabul showed clearly that you can't reload during a fight with the GIB's feeding you just based on the range shoots we worked on there.
   

Kiwi et. al. -- what about taking some of the disabled LAV turrets and trying to salvage them?

I6 -Shortly before we deployed on our tour there some of my guys and I had developed a crude prototype of a box that fit beside the bottles to the CC's right in the hull (where the CC normally puts his Ptl bag that held 150 rounds 255mm and in trials it proved we could add 150 rounds to a still loaded primary feed belt in under 3-4 minutes, showed it to the CO but he was too busy to get any real work done. After my present course I doing I will be dusting that project off and putting it out there.







[/quote]

 

[Sig_Des]

He said exactly what I was going to post, so I can only support his claim.  This is indeed the plan for the surplus TUA kits. 

I'll support that. When I was "lent" to PMO LAV, at the Hangar were GDLS was holding LAV hulls w/out the turret, they were talking about the RWS variant, and this was last July.

The vehicles themselves were operational, it would just take some minor changes.

 

[Kirkhill]

True enough.  Good point, and well-taken.

Which makes the turret that much more capable than ANY RWS system.

Not necessarily - The Kongsberg NM221 - built by the same people that are supplying the RG-31 M-151 RWS (seen below)

Key features:

Designed for 12.7mm M2 and MK19 40mm AGL
loading from under armor.
Fully qualified.
Detached line of sight prevents ballistic correction from affecting operator's line to target
First hit probability
Crew Protection - the soldiers operate from within the safety of the vehicle's hull

Customers:

Norwegian Army - M113
Royal Norwegian Air Force - TACTICA

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/dynamicsystems/RemoteWeaponStation/default.asp?page=/ENG/KDA/Products/DynamicxSystems/RemotexWeaponxStation&id=32981

You still have an externally mounted weapon - requiring exposure for servicing - but how many boxes of link can you join together under armour?

To reduce the incidence of having to climb out perhaps you might want to swap the Browning self-loading weapons for chain guns that can fire either the current .50 Cal or else that new airbursting low velocity 25mm that is supposed to replace both the 0.50 and the 40mm grenade.

Here's the ATK .50 Cal Bushmaster  http://www.atk.com/internationalproducts/interprod_50caliberbushmaster.asp

Here's the M307 25mm Airbursting Crew Served Weapon http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m307.htm

Not suitable for a patrol vehicle or a fighting vehicle perhaps, but sufficient for self-defence and to thicken up a fire base?

As to CSA-105s cautionary tale - "There's a hole in the bucket, Dear Liza, Dear Liza......" - I generally prefer flexibility.  IMHO better to have two small, complementary vehicles that can be easily deployed than one large vehicle that is hard to deploy.  Along the lines of Rick's proposal endorsed by George.  A mixed Platoon of transport vehicles and fighting vehicles.

Edit: Or perhaps you could just make the Cavalry/Armoured Troops up to 7 vehicle troops and, when circumstances require attach a Troop to a Company so that the OC can allocate two per Platoon.  You might even differentiate between Infantry Support Troops with 7 Gun Vehicles per Troop and Sabre Troops with 4 Gun Vehicles per Troop.





 

 

[Shamrock]

...how many boxes of link can you join together under armour?

Fewer than you might think before problems occur either from friction or weight of the rounds.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fewer than you might think before problems occur either from friction or weight of the rounds.

How about one at a time to replenish the ready bin? Just keep linking to the tail of the rounds in the ready bin?

 

[George Wallace]

How about one at a time to replenish the ready bin? Just keep linking to the tail of the rounds in the ready bin?

That is rather hard to do, as the end is usually at the bottom of the bin.  That way there is no extra weight placed on the stacked rounds to prevent them from feeding correctly.

 

[baboon6]

Isn't the Bison still needed as a mortar carrier? Can a modified LAVIII do this job? Or am I way off the mark?

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

x

 

[Kirkhill]

That is rather hard to do, as the end is usually at the bottom of the bin.  That way there is no extra weight placed on the stacked rounds to prevent them from feeding correctly.

I seem to recall boxes of 7.62mm link where both free ends were sticking out of the boxes.  The boxes were loaded with 5-10 rounds at the tail overhanging the back of the box, then the links went vertically down the back wall onto the floor of the box and then were laid in in the usual fashion.  To close the lid you just flipped the "tail" in on top of the rest of the stack.  That free tail allowed you to link a new box in while the first box was being emptied by the gunner.

 

[George Wallace]

I seem to recall boxes of 7.62mm link where both free ends were sticking out of the boxes. 

Those are "Machine loaded" boxes that can be fired right out of the can.  The M242 25mm Cannon does not fire rounds straight out of an ammo can.  Each ammo can holds two short belts, stacked in a plastic holder, one belt facing the other.  They have to be unloaded from the ammo cans, flipped and linked together.  It takes several cans to make a complete belt.  The belt must then be manually loaded into the Primary or Secondary ammo box end first.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Hijack definitively NOT over.  Using a WWII story to explain why corps shiboleths must be protected in this age of counter-insurgency and non-contiguous battlespaces adds nothing to the debate.  Applying conventional and symmetric dogma to an assymetrical and decidely unconventional world doesn't cut it either. 

Sorry about the rant - but I am currently a candidate on a LAV CC corse, which is really just a Centurion CC course with the word LAV inserted.  I am struggling with some pent up anti-armoured feelings these days  :

 

[George Wallace]

Hijack definitively NOT over.  Using a WWII story to explain why corps shiboleths must be protected in this age of counter-insurgency and non-contiguous battlespaces adds nothing to the debate.  Applying conventional and symmetric dogma to an assymetrical and decidely unconventional world doesn't cut it either. 

Sorry about the rant - but I am currently a candidate on a LAV CC corse, which is really just a Centurion CC course with the word LAV inserted.  I am stuggling with some pent up anti-armoured feelings these days  :

Ah!  Those "What the heck direction is this vehicle going........the turret is going this way?" days.

 

[Kiwi99]

It seems that this thread has taken a new twist.  I thank all for their input on the topic, it had been noted.  I am not sure if I need a new post for this, but what ways caan we improve LAV III training.  Given the comments by PPCLI GUY, I am about to ask the inevitable question that is going to get me worked over I am sure.  Two questions then;

1.   Why do the Armoured Corps have any influence on how the Infantry trains and operates the turret?; and

2,   Has anyone decided what type of vehicle the LAV III is?   APC,  IFV,  AIVF , etc.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

Kiwi Out

 

[vonGarvin]

It seems that this thread has taken a new twist.  I thank all for their input on the topic, it had been noted.  I am not sure if I need a new post for this, but what ways caan we improve LAV III training.  Given the comments by PPCLI GUY, I am about to ask the inevitable question that is going to get me worked over I am sure.  Two questions then;

1.   Why do the Armoured Corps have any influence on how the Infantry trains and operates the turret?; and

2,   Has anyone decided what type of vehicle the LAV III is?   APC,  IFV,  AIVF , etc.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

Kiwi Out

I'll answer these for you.
Question 1 is half-right.  The Armoured Corps has influence over the GUNNERY training of the turret.  Full stop. The Royal Canadian Armour School is the Centre of Excellence for mounted gunnery, which includes gunnery for the LAV 3.  The actual cell within the school that manages this is the Instructor in Gunnery team, known as the IG Team.  This is a team of 2 captains, 4 warrant officers and 2 sergeants.  This team is still short a couple of Sr NCOs, but is full up on Warrant Officers and is short one officer.  The current IG Team Leader is actually an infantry officer, his 2IC is an armour officer, and the team WO is armour as well.  So, although the gunnery training of the LAV has the Armour School as the Centre of Excellence (as mandated by the Commandant of the Combat Training Centre), there is a healthy mix of infantry and armour officers, warrant officers and Sr. NCOs.
The Infantry School is the Centre of Excellence for LAV Crew Commander training.  Until recently, this course had gunnery training as part of it.  Since Aug 06, however, only the Turret Operator Course teaches gunnery (centre of excellence for this course is the Armour School).  So, an infantry officer or NCM just learning LAV skills would first take a course on gunnery (Turret Operator) and then the officers, NCOs and Warrant Officers would take a crew commanding course. 
FYI: Driver Wheel, Comms and other courses also have the Armour School as their centre of excellence.

Question 2:  We have all decided that the LAV III is a "Light Armoured Vehicle"   Not sure, exactly, but personally I would say it is an IFV.  But that's just me.

 

[vonGarvin]

To sum up (from large to small), the RCAS is C of E for the gunnery of following:
Leopard C2
Coyote
LAV III
T-LAV (1 m Turret)
T-LAV (RWS)
RG-31 (RWS)
LUVW

can't think of anything else right now.  I don't have my books in front of me

 

[Kiwi99]

Are there any Armoured Officers involved with the crew commander aspect of training?  Applying marksmanship principles to gunnery is one thing, but when it comes to any type of armoured vehicle movement it would seem only natural that they be involved with it.  Crew commanding is a challenging skill that armoured corp pers have  a lot of history in, yet the infantry is the center of excellence.  And the 25mm is a big machine gun, machine guns being an infantry specialty, and armour is the center of excellence for it.  I don't mean to be rude, but it should be the other way around.

 

[vonGarvin]

Are there any Armoured Officers involved with the crew commander aspect of training?  Applying marksmanship principles to gunnery is one thing, but when it comes to any type of armoured vehicle movement it would seem only natural that they be involved with it.  Crew commanding is a challenging skill that armoured corp pers have  a lot of history in, yet the infantry is the center of excellence.  And the 25mm is a big machine gun, machine guns being an infantry specialty, and armour is the center of excellence for it.  I don't mean to be rude, but it should be the other way around.

No offence taken.
The gunnery aspect is the bread and butter of the armour corps.  As for fighting an IFV, neither the armour nor the infantry have the depth of experience (crew commanding a tank and crew commanding an IFV are different skill sets: even crew commanding Coyote and LAV III are different).  Still, the Canadian Infantry has been crew commading APCs for quite some time, and there is more similarity between crew commanding an M113 and a LAV III than in crew commading a tank and a LAV III, the turret notwithstanding.
The 25mm is more a belt fed transmission than a machine gun.  In terms of its firing characteristics, given that it does not produce beaten zones like a machine gun does, it is certainly NOT a machine gun (yes, it has a beaten zone, but that is not a principle in its employment, as it is with MGs).
So, the Commandant of the Combat Training Centre has it right: gunnery with the RCAS, LAV III crew commanding with the Infantry School.

I know of what I speak here, trust me and I'll leave it at that.


EDIT: there are no armoured corps officers involved in LAV III crew commanding.

 

[warchild]

As for fighting an IFV, neither the armour nor the infantry have the depth of experience (crew commanding a tank and crew commanding an IFV are different skill sets: even crew commanding Coyote and LAV III are different).  Still, the Canadian Infantry has been crew commading APCs for quite some time, and there is more similarity between crew commanding an M113 and a LAV III than in crew commading a tank and a LAV III, [/quote] 

As I sit here pondering this I just want to make a point about this quote.  How do you know what C/C an IFV is like?  We have never in the CF had an IFV. Kiwi and I talked about this today.  Background.  I was apart of the LAV III IPT (Initial Production Training) and the LAV III UIT (Unit Instructor Training).  The product training started in 99 in WX and the UIT crse was run in CTC 2000.  As my memory serves me there was no Armoured on these crses.  Yes we were administered by the Armoured but it was all 031.  Now what Kiwi and I were talking about today was that when I was on this crse there was 2 major issues.  Firstly the LAV III originail proposed name was the KODIAK but was dropped because it could not be broken into french.  The other main issue was that the Crse WO had taken what essentially was the Bradley PAM and CTL F'd the word Bradley and inserted the word LAV III.  At this time there was huge debate about this.  Why you ask....Canada has never had doctrine to use an IFV (Bradley).  Us 031 guy's were very pumped about this.  Finally we were not going to ride around and fight out of an APC (Grizzly Grrrrrrrr) any more.  This huge mammoth looking LAV III with it's 25 mm were going to go out and destroy, take troops into battle and close with and destroy the en.  Jane's described an IFV as an armoured veh (No spec's on how much armour) that could defend itself and/or fight itself while carring dismounted infantry.  I believe that has changed now but along those lines. I am sure I will be corrected on this if I am wrong.

Now here is where it gets cloudy.  At the end of the course the Inf Chief and director of the Inf came to us in the CTC theater for the end course hug and to brief us on the future employment of the LAV III as we were the pointy ends to go back to our units to give instruction.  Both were very surprised about learning that we were taught the LAV III was an IFV.  There point was that Canada did not have doctrine to use, fight, employ or deploy an IFV.  It had all kinds of this for an APC.  By calling the LAV III an APC would allow comd at all levels to substitute a Grizzly or M113 and insert LAV III.  Also it was less aggressive.  So, up to Hauptmann Scharlachrot's comment ref ......not enough depth of experience.

We have had 1 full year in Afghanistan fighting our LAV III in both offence (TF -106) and the RCR TF that had the flavor of a defensive battle after OP Medusa.  I strongly believe that we do now have that depth of experience to fight our Lav's our way.  As an IFV.  I'll also say that the Armour does not have any wealth of experience fighting the Coyote because it was just used for it's surveillance capabilities (At least on my tour TF 106). I also strongly disagree that there is any similarities between C/C  a M113 to a LAV III other than that they both run on diesel, have a gas pedal and your dismounts get into it up the ramp.  I can speak from experience that, though I have never C/C a tank I found that C/C a LAV III in combat after my PL comd got blown up to be just about the hardest thing I have ever done mentally and physically.

I recognise now that the armoured has their tanks in theater and have moved out of KAF into Panjwai. The summer offensive coming up will give the armoured the offensive fight.  The armoured will then get to take the fight to the TB in a way that has never been done by the CF before.  In saying that perhaps we can then come to an understanding.

The Inf needs now to have a QS,TTP and MLP writting board for the LAV III (and for allot of other Inf roles but that is another thread).  We should get key players from all 3 Inf Reg together for at least a week and go through the whole thing for LAV III.  The pri focus should be on the LAV III been an IFV.  If this could be accomplished then we the Inf could take hold of our veh, develop some IFV doctrine, wrestle the COE from the armoured and move on.  The armoured could then center there attention on there tanks and develop new doctrine for there fight in Afghanistan.  As already stated there is a difference between C/C and gunning a tank vs. a LAV III.  So why then should the armoured continue to have this grasp on all things LAV when there is such a transparent difference now?  If nothing else there MUST be a writting board from both sides and new streamlined drills and procedures for the Inf.  Who knows perhaps after all that we can get the pintle drills and the coax drills to be the same.

 

[George Wallace]

At the looks of things, we are starting to get a little confused in a few areas.  I would tend to think that fighting any 'turreted' AFV with a major gunnery system is pretty much a common experience.  The differences will be in the tactics that the Armour employ in fighting their AFV's and the tactics employed by the Infantry in fighting their AFV's.  Both Arms fight differently, in the majority of cases, but not all.  There are, and always will be, 'Gray Areas'.  In the Cbt Tm, on the Assault, those 'Gray Areas' will show that both Arms will overlap and compliment each other in their employment of tactics and firepower. 

As for turret skills, a factor also in the employment of the AFV, I have seen the lack of them as being a hazard on the battlefield.  On the first BTE the number of "Hot Cannon" Drills being conducted on the Live Fire Assaults was an indicator that the Infantry had some serious Gunnery Training problems.  The delays caused a great deal of consternation on Exercise.  In Battle it would have meant that a vehicle and Wpn system was taken out of the battle and now a liability, if not a casualty as a result.

Armour and Inf both move their vehicles differently at times.  Turret skills should be common.  Now that we have an "IFV" with a potent turret, we are going to see many skills; Gunnery and Tactically, begin to overlap.  Both Branches are going to start finding a lot of commonality in their "Mech" skill sets, and it is already evident in the appointment of HS to his position in the Armd School. 

Creating little Empires, as we did in the past, is going to be counterproductive.  Bun fights are not going to help.  It is my opinion, that Cbt Tm exercises will have to become more prevalent in our training.  Having been in the old C Sqn RCD in Gagetown I have witnessed the total lack of knowledge in the Army of how to operate as one was a serious problem.  2 RCR, 22 Fd Sqn and C Sqn often worked in a Cbt Tm scenario on Exercise and were a very effective force.  When we went to RV's it was horrifying to see the lack of knowledge that the rest of the Army in Canada had in regards as to working in a Cbt Tm.  People did not know how to work with tanks.  They did not know how to move their Grizzly's in a Cbt Tm environment.  The Cougar and Grizzly were not effective training systems for Mech Warfare.

I have witnessed the Bun fights over the C6 Drills.  Then the C9, and later the 25mm Drills.  If you advocate more bun fights, I will disagree with you.  It isn't time to start dividing up our training into little Empires, but to start combining our thoughts and training in the areas that our Cbt Tm brings together the skill sets of both Branches.  Stop the Inf/Armd bun fighting and focus on the Cbt Tm.

 

[vonGarvin]

I also strongly disagree that there is any similarities between C/C  a M113 to a LAV III other than that they both run on diesel, have a gas pedal and your dismounts get into it up the ramp. 

I should have been more clear, perhaps.  My point was not that CC a M113 and LAV III were similar, but rather they are more similar in their employment (at platoon level and higher) than between LAV III and tank and/or coyote.  To illustrate, platoon level "stuff" is superficially similar (to an observer, sitting on the bleachers, watching the platoon attack from a safe distance) between LAV III and APC.  Now, that same observer, sitting on the same bleachers, watching tanks manoeuvre on a "battlefield", would see the differences.


Having crew commanded both M113 and LAV III, I do agree that the similarities pretty well end with dismounts in the back; however, tanks don't have dismounts to worry about (unless they are the intimate support troop, naturally)


You also make some very good points re: IFV.  I don't have much input into tactics of the LAV III (some, not much), but I would agree that there is theoretical and practical knowledge out there now to get us in that right direction.