LAV III RWS versus LAV III with turret

[ArmyRick]

After reading these topic. I wonder how people would feel with this concept for missions in Afghanistan. The new re-worked Combat team (A-stan specific). Remembering the threat is mostly light infantry in fortified positions (Huts with thick walls).

Combat Team HQ
OC LAV III
2IC LAV III
MBT BC or OC (Command half SQN)
CSM LAV III

Stand Off Combat Group
5 or 7 Car Coyote Troop
4 LAV TUA (As a Tow Gunner I understand the use of this system and the new version is improved so lets use it).
2 Bisons with 81mm (even if if they hop out the back and set it up old school, mind you in a perfect world, I would ask for a 120mm mortar, but we just don't have it 
FOO Det LAV III

Close Combat Group
2 Troops of MBT (8 x Leos)
2-3 platoons of infantry in LAV III

The concept being that once a taliban position is identified, send the Stand Off Combat group in the cover of darkness and set up a fire base. They open up and after a good long fire fight, start having the LAV III/LEOs in the close combat group get in their and lay a smack down.

For those who have been in and served in A-stan, would this work? Or is it too Cold War, germany stuff?

 

[Kiwi99]

I think you bring up one of the most important points here.  And that is the compisition of the combat team.  Given the nature of the war we are fighting (and I have actually heard it called the harder side of peacekeeping), and the ever developing enemy, the requirements at the company level are subject to change.  The one thing that I want to stress is the fact that when a combat team goes out, they go it alone.  We do not have the ability or training in the Air Force to provide CAS, MBT are restricted  due to terrain and enviromental conditions, so you have LAV with other enablers such as mechanics and chimos.  Tanks are great, but mechainically unrelaible.  And, lets face it, if not for Afghanistan, the tanks would be history.  I agree with warchild, new training has to be developed and dare I say it, there is a new generation of combat soldiers thoughout Canada that can be used to assist with this.  I may simple, but if the infantry hold more 25mm than the armoured corp, have used the 25mm in combat more than anyone else, and have adapted the 25mm to meet thier own infantry specific requirments, then they should be responsible for training their gunners and commanders according to an infantry standard and not an armpoured standard.  And before people start losing it, I by no means suggest that the armoured standard is lower than the infantry. We are specialists at what we do, and right now the infantry have become the specialists is using the 25mm.  If the armoured corps wishes to maintain resposibilitry for the 25mm, then the armoued corp should be responsible for all the training.  What might make sense to an armoured dude on a TP, may make no sense to an infantry dude, and the proper point may not be deliverd. But we take the armoured lesson plans and have infantry teach them.  I do not think we are 'bun-fighting' over this, but merely suggesting the army needs to reconsider allocation of system COEs based on what is happening in the present world. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Kiwi
Did you know that the Royal Canadian Armour School is centre of excellence for Driver Wheel?  Would you suggest that they conduct all driver training?  They are also centre of excellence for communications yet they do not conduct all comms training.
The QS is held at LFDTS.  The TP is held at CTC.  The courseware is held at the IG Team, which has both Armour and Infantry in its team, and the incumbent Team Leader is an infantry officer with a wealth of LAV III experience and qualifications.  The GUNNERY training is the same for that weapon (the 25mm) across the army: it loads one way, fires one way, and as of Aug 06, there is only ONE gunnery course for the ARMY.  Each corps conducts its own crew commanding training (except the engineers, who use the infantry crew commander course). 


Let me take this to the next level.  The Infantry School is the C of E for the C8.  The Armour Corps has more of them than the Infantry Corps.  So, an infantry dude somewhere is telling them how to fire those carbines BUT no infantry dude alive is telling those armour dudes how to employ them (read: tactics).

There is no need for the army to reconsider allocation of C of E for gunnery of the 25mm.

Trust me, I know of what I speak.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

<snip>
  Each corps conducts its own crew commanding training (except the engineers, who use the infantry crew commander course). 

Except this muddy ol'enginner which has the Armour CC course  ;D

 

[KevinB]

I will agree with Kiwi on some aspects -- the LAV CC-G course as it came from Gagetown was a shambles -- it jumped around, talked itslef in circles and made us of term no Infanteer was common with.
Everyday the Course WO was on the phone to Gagetown to verify some fact, or in a lot of cases which of the disagreeing "FATCS" in the precise was correct.


As long as the Armoured School is willing to accept input (read corrections) from the 031 side of the house -- let them keep the COE for the LAV, and their incorrect drills for the C6 

 

[George Wallace]

As long as the Armoured School is willing to accept input (read corrections) from the 031 side of the house -- let them keep the COE for the LAV, and their incorrect drills for the C6 

Hey!  What was wrong with the "Half Load" ?   

Actually, I think you will find that the Armour School has been pretty good with accepting input and as a result the C6 Drills were standardized to the Inf format.  I do see a problem with many of the the Lesson Plans coming out of many of the Schools, not just the CAS, and that is the problem of one Instructor being tasked to do all the Lesson Plans, and often handicapped by less than an intimate knowledge of the subject, and in some cases problems with translation. 

 

[Kiwi99]

Right,
before Infidel-6 starts a war about C6 drills (one weapon one drill)  I have another question.  The 3 round burst that is so emphasized in training.  Where did that idea devlop and why?  LAVs in Afghanistan do not abide by it, and i personally had no proble, and nor did my CO if I pumped a 10-15 round burst at the enemy.  But there were cases where this training scar let the enemy get away as junior crews employed it, the enemy waited fort he lull in firing and moved.  Remember, they ARE smart buggers.

 

[warchild]

I am liking the way this topic is going and evolving.  I will deveate away from this topic abit but it hammers home some issues.  GW I agree with what you are saying about drills in the state they are in now.  I will also put my neck right out on the line.  Yes we have to be instructed at the beginning of the LAV training curve when we take non gunners and C/C and teach them the basic drills so that they don't kill themselves.  Once they have passed there CGT and move to Live fire and C/C portion they are at best capable but not experienced.  As we don't very often get to fire live the skill fade is robust. On tour the curve was high but I did not observe alot of drills taught on crse applied to combat i.e. "HE, troops in open, report when ON"   It was more like *&^%^%& 2 O'clock 300 bad guys shoot.  My point was not so much that we have to reinvent the drills for the Inf (Even though my dig about C-6 drills was just that) but as all have said since my last post "Its the way we employ and fight the veh".

ArmyRick

I like what you have there but I would like to add one more item.  UAV's??????  That capability is increadable.  Now ours are not as good as the yanks.  I have heard that CA is going to do a huge upgrade in this area.  When ever I got time to do a proper BP I always went to the TALK to request UAV support.  Taking the CBT TM org that you have laid out, it would be very beneficial to have this assest attached.  The cold war style of fighting is not the model to use in Afghanistan as others have posted.  I agree 100% however we are still training and in my mind debating this because we go with what we have done in the past.  I whole heatedly agree that we need to develop cohesion between the Inf and Armoured due to the fact that we are now actively in offensive ops against the different groups over there.  Doing the style of CBT TM attacks that we do in WX or Gagetown is not even close to the terrain or enviornment over there.  Maneuver warfare is the key.  Tanks cannot get into places that LAV's can go.  This strips your forces.  Using the UAV in a CBT TM can give a commander real time ground, en and force movement.  This would then allow commanders to then adjust i.e. moving tanks to support or for cut off.  Same goes for the TUA with flank sec and pin point destruction of hard points.  Squirters were our biggist problem over there.  

Command-Sense-Act 105

You make a fine point in regards to capturing AAR, dissemination of info and having a central "Hub" to exploit that info.  This is exactly why we need to do a writting board.  I wasn't clear on that point before.  Both sides need to reassess CBT TM and maneuver and work out some new ideas on this.  That is what I meant about spending a week.  Inf gets all 3 reg together to combine all experiences over there.  Same as the Armoured (Strats, RBC etc)  Once compiled then both sides meet to pass on that info and from there ideas are formulated.  If that could be accomplished then perhaps the LAV can then be given the IFV role.  

Hauptmann Scharlachrot

Your point of the C-8 can also be used for the C-6.  

If we never told our students in the Inf that the armoured were COE for the turret and that the drills we teach them were developed and maintained by them....well as GW says it is just a bun fight.

 

[George Wallace]

The three round burst is mainly to conserve ammo and prevent HOT Cannon.  

When the bullets are flying in your direction, I am sure no one is going to get on your back deck and give you shyte for breaking the rules or 'cheating'.  And if they do get up on your back deck, it had better be to use the 'Flex'.

 

[1feral1]

My comments on RWS and turrets....

On our LAVs, the Type 2 and Type 3's, we use the Norweigan designed RWS for our QCB .50s. Google Australian ASLAV and have a look for yourselves.

These RWS's are well recieved by the operators, and on a recent contact (no OPSEC here - incident publically released to the media - Google if you wanna know the whole story), all managed to keep their heads down will neutralising targets with great effectiveness (and I mean great ;D ).

We have one on our beast, and it sure beats being exposed to angry SAF. 7.62 x 54mm PKM strikes on our vehicles and on the RWS itself did nothing really shy of chipping the paint.

However in our current mission platform, the RWS suits us here. Turret wise, we have our M242s in the standard LAV 25 type turret. Again although not suited for any tall big blokes, the turret does its job, and has been used successfully here too.

We have no 'MG' (a la Grizzly' style) turrets on any of our LAVs. An Australian designed MG turret is used on the new upgraded M113's in service.


My 2 cents.

Wes

 

[George Wallace]

warchild

I have to agree with you on your points about Drills.  Drills are for training and creating the "Team" within the turret, so that everyone knows what everyone is doing.  They are a command and control tool.  Remember, that they are "to insure and instinctive and immediate response to a familiar order".  In every turret I have been in, not on course, we have developed methods to "cheat" and they more resembled your example.  

I had an excellent gunner in the Coyote once, who reacted to my Centurian order "Ranging Sabot, Tank, ON!" with a chuckle as he reported back the range.  What a time to remember Centurian drills, while on the Coyote Gunnery Crse.   :

As long as you and your Gunner are a team, the fire orders you give him don't really matter in combat, as long as they are effective and understood.  By the way, I have never ever used "Report when ON!", so I see there are some differences still.  Usually I was saying "On", and laying the gun in the general area of the Tgt, and getting an instantaneous "On!" back from my Gunner.  Sounds a little time consuming to have to wait for a "Report when On" .......or was that just a general statement on training?

 

[ArmyRick]

Since the aussies RWS on their ASLAV (Can = Coyote and Bison), the yanks use the same RWS on many of their stryker variants and the CF is now using them on our RG-31, we should definately learn from each other IMO.

For those not in the know, it is the protecteor RWS (Can hold .50, a 40mm GL or a 7.62mm MG).

 

[vonGarvin]

3 round burst is for firing on hard targets such as APCs, BMPs, etc.  The "long burst" IS indeed in the training for engaging with HEI-T.  As well, a plan rarely survives contact with the enemy.  As for the drills regarding the C6, wait, out.

 

[warchild]

Just a generalization on my part. 

 

[ArmyRick]

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/dynamicsystems/RemoteWeaponStation/ for more info on the RWS that our three nations use (plus more)

 

[George Wallace]

Just a generalization on my part. 

Seen.

 

[Kiwi99]

Warchild (Red Devils HUA) has it perfectly right.  The army is going through a period of transformation, but not in all areas.  We need to get operators with combat experiance in LAV III turret to sit and talk with the soldiers responsible for writing lesson plans and such. The same is for all kit that has been used recently on Ops in theater, especially that bloody TAC Vest.  There is a large void between these two groups, over which it is extremely hard to share info.  I firmy believe that a meeting would enhance the LAV experiance, and create a more effecient network for knowledge sharing.  We definitley need to eliminate the bicycle tire we presently have, and have a central source and/or office for all things LAV III.  Gunning, crew commanding, driving, dismounting. Skills will only develop so far when elements are spread over the training area.  Good call Warchild. 

As for fighting any turret vehicle being a common experiance, far from it.  I have never been in a tank, probably never will.  But I have been in a LAV III and I will make an uneducated (so dont blade me later) guess that a LAV III crew commander has a lot of things on his mind that a tanker would not. In the old cbt team attacks that we routinley practiced, the armour would punch throuh, and maybe an intimate support element would stay with the inf and their cars.  The nature of conflict that our soldiers are engaing in while in Afghan does not allow that.  the LAV is the punch vehicle, the intimate support vehicle and the transport vehicle.  The inf CC has to worry about all these elements, and where his dismounts are, plus IED and RPG.  And, I will hasten to add, the ever present thought of enemy climbing on the car.  That scraed the hell outta me. 

When it comes to centers of excellence, there are two types. One that has all the knowledge on how things work and how to do stuff according to the lesson plan.  The other that has taken that information and applied it in real time.

 

[George Wallace]

With the exception of dismounts being in back, I would say that any Commander of a turreted AFV has pretty much the same 'problems'.  The tank turret has three Crew, while the LAV III/Coyote have two sitting side by each.  The Tank Gun moves through a good two feet of recoil, the M242 does not move.  Life in the turret can be very much different, yet have all the same concerns, to varying degrees.  Even tankers worry about dismounts climbing on-board, IEDs, Mines, that little guy in the tree line with a RPG, etc.  All CC's do.  It doesn't matter what AFV you are in.  Some just have a bit more protection than others.  Being too far out of a hatch, performing 'Sniper Checks' can be done on any vehicle. 

I have a feeling that you think a lot of skills are peculiar to the Inf only, when they are not.

 

[Kiwi99]

Its not that the skills are common to the INF only, cause as you stated they are not.  But they have been adapted by the infantry to suit the infantry.

 

[George Wallace]

Its not that the skills are common to the INF only, cause as you stated they are not.  But they have been adapted by the infantry to suit the infantry.

So?  I don't see your point.  We all adapt to our different tasks, roles, different terrain, different Direct Fire Support, different Indirect Fire Support, etc.  What's new?

You guys are going on and saying that all the tactics that were once taught to our Cbt Tms are irrelevant.  I have to wonder if you even know what you are talking about when you say that and wonder if you have ever done any Cbt Tm work and if you have, if you grasped what you were doing?  Tactics are very flexible and you have to adapt them to each situation you are in.  If you don't, then you are predictable and DEAD.  Drills are, and I will say it again, "to ensure that you have an instinctive and immediate action to an familiar order".  Life is not a parade square.  One hill is not the same as the next.  One town is not the same as the next. 

Your saying that learning to fight in the NATO, European theatre, doesn't work in Afghanistan, just tells me that you are not as open minded, flexible and adaptable as you should be.  Adaptation is the key word here.  Reacting instinctively to familiar orders are also key here.  Forget all the gobbly-goop of training for the "Last War".  It is "Training to act instinctively to familiar orders." and that is all that counts.

What I have seen in Afghanistan, is the Infantry have adapted to fighting without the Direct Fire Support of the Armour Corps due to the Government's Fiscal restraint and incompetence.  Without the Armour, the Infantry have had to adapt and use their Zulu Vehicles like they never have before.  This is where I, as and Armour guy, who has been taught from day one to be "Max Flex" and adapt, am getting lost.  The Infantry adapted in the time of need.  So?  The whole Combat Arms have been operating like this for the last fifty or sixty years.  Adapt and overcome.