DSII/SGII-related question: fighting vehicles

What is the difference between an Infantry Fighting Vehicle and a Cavalry
Fighting Vehicle?

> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Indy wrote:

> What is the difference between an Infantry Fighting Vehicle

The second sort has to leave room on board for the horses.

<g> Seriously, I'm not sure. The US M2/M3 Bradleys, in their 'Cav'
configuration, seem to have less room on board for troops - just a 2 or
3 man scout dismount rather than a full squad.

Having delivered my line, I'll retire (run like heck...) and let one of the
actual military types answer you properly...

> Indy wrote:

Here's a cool website on the topic. Brian covered the broad differences. This
page covers some of the specifics.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm

> Jon Davis wrote:

Like lack of room for the horses? I appreciated that.  :-)

> This page covers some of the specifics.

Thanks, Jon!

Mission, Configuration and Crew Size. Infantry seizes ground, Cavalry fights
for information or to disrupt enemy C2 and Logistics. IFV has more room for
troops(dismounts) while a CFV has more Ammo or special equipment. Otherwise
the same to help confuse what type of unit is being seen (by the enemy!)

I think the difference is the boots, the bade, and the Cav unit has fewer
troopers per vehicle.

> Brian Burger wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Indy wrote:

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> This latter part is primarily US army logic. A lot

US Army used to do this as well (WWII recon units were mostly jeeps and
armored cars, with a handful of light
tanks and half-tracks backing them up, like Whermacht
recon units, albeit with less firepower in the armored cars). However, we
missed a modernization cycle in
the 1960s/early 70s due to the Vietnam War.  As a
result there was no time for a leisurely (read:
well-considered) weapons modernization program that
got proper equipment for each role, spaced out over a larger period of time. A
conference of senior officers in the late 70s got together and determined
what the minimum modernization package they _had_ to
sell Congress was in order to restore combat capability to US Army. They
combined the roles of the IFV and CFV because they didn't think they could get
seperate vehicles past Congress and didn't want to hold up the program over
what they felt was a secondary consideration. That's why the Corps of
Engineers pretty much missed out on that modernization cycle and are still
using more or less the same equipment (plus the ACE, which was bought
off-the-shelf) our fathers drove in Vietnam.  The "Big
Five" systems were the M-1, the M-2/-3, the Apache,
the Blackhawk, and the MLRS.

> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Jon Davis wrote:

> Indy wrote:

And from that page:

"The M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle [IFV] is a fully tracked, lightly armored
vehicle that offers significant improvements over the M113 series of armored
personnel carriers. The M2 posses greater power, greater acceleration, and an
advanced suspension for a significant increase in
cross-country speed. Like the M113, the primary purpose of the M2 is to
carry infantryman on the battlefield, and transport and support them with fire
if necessary. The M2 Bradley carries a crew of three (Commander,
Gunner & Driver) and a six-man Infantry  section into combat.

The M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle [CFV] is exactly the same chassis as the
M2 IFV with some minor internal differences. The M3 is a cavalry/scout
vehicle, instead of carrying 6 dismounts in the payload compartment, the M3
carries a pair of scouts, additional radios, ammunition, and TOW and Dragon or
Javelin missile rounds. In fact, the only noticeable differences between the
M2 and the M3 are that the external firing ports for the squad M16s are absent
on the M3."

So, no horses, but the Cav M3 has more missles, radios, and only two warm
bodies. The IFV M3 has a full 6-trooper inf section, and obviously fewer
radios, missles, etc.

A Cav vehicle does on occaision need to be able to hurt what it finds. Popping
a couple of missiles into an armored column (or better yet, nailing their AA
support) should slow it down rather nicely.

> Brian Burger wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Jon Davis wrote:

> At 2:10 PM -0800 3/17/02, John Atkinson wrote:

One has to wonder why we didn't just pick something the British were
doing. The Saladin/Saracen/Ferret combo was a very good extension of
the Daimler/Humber Armored car/Scout car combinations that carried
them through WWII.

> hold up the program over what they felt was a

Yep, they still use the M113. The ACE ceratinly is good for what it does, its
size limits its speed in making lanes through minefields.

Though why they don't order or use the chassis of the MLRS based track as a
basis for a prime mover for Engineer kit and gear is a wonder. The new Grizzly
Armored Engineering vehicle looks to be interesting. Finally a (US) system
that lets an operator perform a deliberate breach of a large obstacle like an
abattis or crib. Something the Germans and the Russians have had for a good
while now.

> At 4:03 PM -0800 3/17/02, Michael Llaneza wrote:

Or nailing the Red Force Scouts before they get a decent spot report back.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> One has to wonder why we didn't just pick something

NIH Syndrome. Driving force of all US procurement problems ever since the
French screwed us over during WWI (foisting all their reject weapons on us...)

> Yep, they still use the M113. The ACE ceratinly is

So, tell me, have you even been an ACE crewman? I have been. Furthermore, I'm
going to be stuck on an ACE next month (big company reorganization coming
up!). I suggest that when I say it's a piece of utter garbage I know whereof I
speak. It's got insufficient dirtmoving power and it's completely unreliable.
It sucks much ass. It's the only only piece of equipment in the US Army that
can be perfectly fine on Friday when everyone goes home for the weekend, and
then you've got a 12' oil slick come 0900 Monday morning. Give me a decent
bulldozer any day.

Oh, and the ACE doesn't create lanes through
minefields.  It _proofs_ them, which is a different
item altogether.

> Though why they don't order or use the chassis of

Cost.

> The new Grizzly Armored Engineering vehicle

Yeah. If we could afford the verdammt thing.

> At 5:33 PM -0800 3/17/02, John Atkinson wrote:

> NIH Syndrome. Driving force of all US procurement

Yeah I know. We at least get some things here. The Mowag based gear
is good. So are the AV-8's. But we build them under license as is
usual. Then there is the FN family of MGs.

> > Yep, they still use the M113. The ACE ceratinly is

Ok, so I was being generous. I didn't know they were so unreliable. I think I
did mention a certain lack of size for its ability to clear a lane.

> Oh, and the ACE doesn't create lanes through

Sorry I'm not using quite the right terminology here, but I am on the same
chapter. Breach the lane with your line charge and then run the ace over it in
the overlapping arcs so everything larger than the ACE (read as wider) can get
through the lane. Granted, you never run a dozer straight through a MF unless
you are bulling your way through
with a desperate in-stride breach. Far better to use proper gear to
make a lane and proof it with a dozer blade equipped vehicle.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> usual. Then there is the FN family of MGs.

Which we only bought after 4 decades of trying to get
our bastardized copy of the MG-34 to work.

> Ok, so I was being generous. I didn't know they were

We've got an ACE in our company right now that has had a CLIII leak in it's
hydraulics system for over a year. There's two miles of hydro line in those
bastards, and not even half of it is accessible without major hull
disassembly.

From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>

> We've got an ACE in our company right now that has had