> Tomb wrote:
> I call it the world's longest because it includes lots of facts, a
Geez. With friends like this, the M113 doesn't need any enemies... you need to
be pretty careful when you pick out the facts here, or else you'll fall into
the same traps as the author of this page (in the following called
"the ranter" :-) ).
To summarize, the ranter has three main gripes with the LAV-III 8x8:
1) It is too heavy to carry in a C-130, at least for long distances.
True. How the former Swedish Coastal Artillery (they've changed their name
after a recent reorganization, but I always forget their new name) manage to
transport their LAV-III 10x10 up and down the length of Sweden in the
old
RSwAF C-130s I don't know; I suspect they're cheating somehow <g>
2) Wheeled vehicles don't have the cross-country mobility of tracks.
Also
true, though I find the ranter's repeated comparisons of the LAV-III's
mobility with that of French armoured cars from the early 1950s quite amusing.
Technology has advanced somewhat during the past half century,
even in the wheeled-vehicle transmission field <g>
3) The gripe which gets the most attention on the page is the claim that
the LAV-III has vastly inferior protection than the vehicle the ranter
pits as its rival, the M113A3. Here he is quite wrong, and presents an
impressive array of misleading data; I hope that he is being misled by them
rather than attempting to mislead others. Let's take a closer look at this
gripe:
Relevant quotes from the page:
"The LAV-III is only 14mm THICK in its body
Proof:
http://autonet.ca/DriverSource/Stories.cfm?StoryID=867"
"www.snipersparadise.com/equipment/ammunition.htm
The 5.56 AP round penetrates 12mm armor plate of 300 HB at 100 m. The 7.62 AP
round penetrates 15mm armor plate at 300m"
"The LAV-I is designed primarily to defeat the "7.62mm x 39mm" Ball
cartridge projectiles (aka: M1943 Soviet Short) fired typically by the
"AK-47" weapon."
"In regard to #2, defeating artillery fragments, aluminum alloy armor is
superior to steel armor on a weight-per-sq-ft basis. "Back spall" can be
a serious problem when armor is perforated, AND HIGH HARD STEEL ARMOR IS
ESPECIALLY PRONE TO BACK SPALL."
"Compared to the LAV-III's measley 14mm thick steel (little more than
0.5
of an inch), the M113A3 has rolled 5083/5086 H32 aluminum armor that
varies from 1.5 to 1.75 inches (38.1mm to 44.45mm thick), not to mention spall
liners inside the hull. We have not even talked about adding applique' armor
to it yet.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html
So the M113A3 as-is has armor that is 3 times thicker and is thus much
stronger and lighter than the LAV-III's thin steel. "
Finally there's a reference to a book by Foss&Sarson:
"Page 22 describes how a Warrior AFV was hit in the CHOBHAM plate by a
Challenger 120mm tank round and all that happened was a small dent!
Amazing what you can do with a TRACKED armored vehicle with reserve power and
low pressure..."
The total impression is that the LAV-III can be shot through by small
arms AP ammunition, whereas the three times thicker M113A3 armour is proof
against such ammo.
Let's take a look at the quotes again:
"The LAV-III is only 14mm THICK in its body
Proof:
http://autonet.ca/DriverSource/Stories.cfm?StoryID=867"
The link leads to a driver's magazine. The only mention of metal thickness in
the article is this description from the factory:
"A computer-controlled laser cuts the 14-mm (just over ½-inch) steel
plate that goes into the LAV III's "hull." "
In other words, all it tells us is that somewhere in the LAV-III hull
there is at least one steel plate which is 14mm thick. It doesn't say *where*
this plate is, nor does it say that the entire hull is made from a single
thickness of such plate. In fact, this *proof* doesn't tell us *anything*
about the armour configuration of the LAV-III.
But OK; let's assume that the entire LAV-III hull *is* made of a single
thickness 14mm steel plate. It could be true, though personally I suspect that
the front plates are thicker than this. The next quote says:
"www.snipersparadise.com/equipment/ammunition.htm
The 5.56 AP round penetrates 12mm armor plate of 300 HB at 100 m. The 7.62 AP
round penetrates 15mm armor plate at 300m"
If you follow the link you'll find that these AP rounds are made by a company
called "Bofors Carl Gustaf". Hm, wonder where I've heard that name before...
<g> These rounds were designed by some of the guys sitting down the corridor
from my office, though we no longer produce small arms ammo
ourselves - Nammo does that nowadays. But I digress.
A penetration of 12-15 mm sounds rather scary when you only have a 14mm
plate protecting you, doesn't it? Trouble is, you can't compare these numbers
straight away.
Armour penetration is usually measured in mm RHA, ie. the distance which
the projectile penetrates into a standard Rolled Homogenous Armour plate
with a Brinell hardness number in the 350-380 range - I've seen several
definitions :-/ The higher the number, the harder the metal; the harder
the
metal, the harder a bullet has penetrating it - very simplified, but
essentially correct for the plate thicknesses and projectile calibers we're
talking about.
But look at the above quote: "...penetrates 12mm armor plate of 300
HB..."
Not sure why the page says "HB" rather than "BHN", but according to my
collegues these AP rounds were indeed tested against steel plates with Brinell
hardness 300. Against harder steels, they don't penetrate as far.
So, how hard is the steel used in the LAV-III hull? 300 BHN, 380, or...?
Well, according to Jane's Armour & Artillery the LAV-III is built of
"high hardness steel", but it doesn't say exactly which steel. Doesn't matter
all that much; high hardness steels typically have a BHN around 550. This is
quite a bit harder than than the 300 BHN the AP rounds were tested against,
reducing the penetration by at least 15% - so the 5.56 round only
penetrates ~10mm, and the 7.62 round only 13mm into this harder plate.
Suddenly the margin is on the LAV's side... still narrow against the
7.62,
but on the right side.
Next quote:
"The LAV-I is designed primarily to defeat the "7.62mm x 39mm" Ball
cartridge projectiles (aka: M1943 Soviet Short) fired typically by the
"AK-47" weapon." ...
Here the ranter seems to have forgotten which vehicle he is critizising.
The above quote refers exclusively to the LAV-*I* - a design which is at
least 15 years older than the LAV-III we're discussing! According to
Jane's
the LAV-II was up-armoured compared to the LAV-I, and the LAV-III was
further up-armoured compared to the LAV-II... so the LAV-I specs have
nothing whatever to do with the LAV-III specs. On to the next quote:
"In regard to #2, defeating artillery fragments, aluminum alloy armor is
superior to steel armor on a weight-per-sq-ft basis. "Back spall" can be
a serious problem when armor is perforated, AND HIGH HARD STEEL ARMOR IS
ESPECIALLY PRONE TO BACK SPALL."
This quote is quite correct. In fact, spalling can be a serious problem even
when the armour *isn't* penetrated. However, the armour thickness is
determined by the threat which is hardest to defeat - and in this case
the hardest threat is bullets, not artillery fragments, so the fact that
aluminium alloy armour is better than the steel armour against the artillery
threat is irrelevant.
High hard steel armour is especially prone to back spall, but that's why
all modern AFVs have spall liners (soft but strong materials on the inner face
of the armour which catches the spall fragments). For some reason the
ranter seems to believe that the LAV-III doesn't have a spall liner
(unlike the M113A3, which is explicitly mentioned as having a spall liner),
but he never states why he believes this. (OK, the driver's magazine doesn't
mention the spall liner, but a) I don't think that the average reader (or
writer!) of a driver's magazine knows what a spall liner is, and b) the scene
from the factory where the plate thickness is mentioned is far too
early for the spall liner to have been fitted!)
In other words, the statements quoted above are all entirely correct -
but they're not very relevant for the discussion! Next quote:
"Compared to the LAV-III's measley 14mm thick steel (little more than
0.5
of an inch), the M113A3 has rolled 5083/5086 H32 aluminum armor that
varies from 1.5 to 1.75 inches (38.1mm to 44.45mm thick), not to mention spall
liners inside the hull. We have not even talked about adding applique' armor
to it yet.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html
So the M113A3 as-is has armor that is 3 times thicker and is thus much
stronger and lighter than the LAV-III's thin steel. "
Having 38-44.5mm armour sounds a lot better than having a mere 14mm,
doesn't it?
The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. Remember what I wrote about
armour plate hardness above? Aluminium alloys are *much* softer than high
hardness steel, which means that they're correspondingly easier to penetrate.
While I don't have exact data for the alloy used in the M113A3, I know that
you need twice the thickness of the best aluminium armour to
stop a bullet than you need RHA, and you need ~15% less high hardness steel
than RHA to stop said bullet. Taken together, this means that you need 2.3
times as thick top-grade aluminium armour as high hardness steel armour.
The M113A3's armour translates to a mere 16-19mm of LAV-III steel.
Still, 16-19mm is still better than 14mm, isn't it? Well...
...this is where the shape of the vehicle comes in. The M113A3 has vertical
sides and a front which slopes quite steeply, whereas the LAV-III has
sloped sides (IIRC ~30 degrees from the vertical, but don't quote me on
that - I didn't get to measure it last time I stood beside a LAV-III :-(
)
and a front glacis which is far more sloped than that of the M113A3.
Unfortunately I don't have the angles for the glacis on either vehicle.
Now, if a projectile doesn't strike the armour at right angles it takes a
longer path through the armour. At a first approximation, the effective
armour thickness is increased by a factor 1/cosine(angle to the
perpendicular). This means that a round hitting horisontally will find the
sloping side armour of the LAV-III "thicker" than the actual 14mm; if my
estimate of a ~30 degree slope is correct it'll have to go ~16mm through
the armour.
...oops! The M113A3's thinnest armour was only equivalent to16mm when
translated into the LAV-III steel... all of a sudden the M113A3's
comfortable armour advantage (38mm vs 14mm, with rifle AP rounds penetrating
up to 15mm) has melted down to a virtually dead heat (16mm vs 16mm, with rifle
AP rounds penetrating only about 13mm)! Not quite the impression you get from
the ranter's page, is it?
Of course the actual thickness of armour the round has to go through depends
on the exact angle from which the round hits. If the enemy can fire
from above, the LAV-III's sloped armour isn't as good, etc. However,
without exact numbers on the armour thickness - as noted above, there's
virtually no data on how thick the LAV-III armour really is. 14mm high
hardness steel plus spall liner looks like a reasonable minimum.
The last quote, about the Warrior incident:
"Page 22 describes how a Warrior AFV was hit in the CHOBHAM plate by a
Challenger 120mm tank round and all that happened was a small dent!
Amazing what you can do with a TRACKED armored vehicle with reserve power and
low pressure..."
The Warrior is, of course, a tracked vehicle; the implication seems to be that
tracked IFVs can be armoured enough to survive a direct hit from a tank gun.
However, the ranter doesn't tell the entire story. What happened was that the
Challenger hit the Warrior with a HESH round (HEP to you Americans)
-
the Brits used HESH quite a bit during ODS, among other things scoring the
longest-ranged tank-on-tank kill ever recorded (a bit over 5km IIRC).
Now, the HESH round doesn't kill AFVs by penetrating the armour; instead it
sets up a shock wave in the armour which causes scab to spall off the inner
face of the armour and fly off to cause general havoc inside.
The trouble is, if the armour consists of two successive plates with a
space inbetween (so-called "spaced armour") the scab spalls off the
outer plate and is stopped by the inner one. There's a space between the
Warrior's applique and main armours... IIRC the dent in the
above-mentioned
Warrior's hull was caused by the scab from the applique armour.
Some other things to note are: 1) The Warrior weighs 28 metric tons (without
the applique armour, which
IIRC adds another 3 tons), compared to the LAV-III's 17 tons. The
majority of those 11 extra tons consists of thicker armour. 2) If the
Challenger had fired an APFSDS round (ie., a long rod
penetrator), the above-mentioned Warrior would have been very, very dead
in spite chobham applique armour.
Finally, some comments about the Chechen video clip:
The ranter implies that the BTR ran into the ambush only because it was
wheeled, implying that a tracked vehicle wouldn't have suffered this fate.
However, he ignores that: * the cliffs on either side of this particular road
are too steep for a even tracked AFVs to move over * according to at least
some analyses I've seen of this video the BTR was
the lead vehicle of a convoy guard - the trucks it was escorting
couldn't have moved off road even if the BTR had been capable to do so. (I
can't
find those analyses now, though - they seem to be just as dead as the
kavkaz.org site where the video was originally published :-( )
* judging from the size of the explosion in the video the
command-detonated
mine consisted of 100+ kilos of high explosive. That's enough to throw
even an MBT into the air.
In other words, while the ranter does have a point about the
cross-country
capabilities of the LAV, the Russians in the above ambush wouldn't have been
any better off if they had been riding in a heavily armoured tracked
MBT than they were in their thin-skinned wheeled APC...
"Will they [LAVs] stay mobile after enemy fires hit their tires? Why should we
be any different? Because we have a computer screen inside?"
Yes, the LAVs will stay mobile over most types of terrain after enemy fires
hit the tires. Why? Because the modern western run-flat tires are vastly
better than the older Russian no-run-flat tires. The LAV is capable of
moving even if you blow some of the wheels clean off and puncture the rest; if
you break even a single link on the track of a tracked vehicle it
becomes immobilized. Against smaller mines (ie., not the 100+ kg command
detonated variant shown in the video clip), the LAV is actually less likely to
be immobilized than a tracked vehicle is. (I've seen a demonstration
where a Piranha-III 8x8 (ie., a Swiss-built LAV-III) with three wheels
*removed* and the other five flat completed a rough-terrain course... it
didn't go as fast as its "undamaged" comrades, but it didn't get stuck
either.)
And a final musing:
In the middle of the description of the destruction of Mobile Group 100,
the ranter suddenly injects the bit inside [square brackets] below:
"The B-26 bombers arrived from Nha Trang to strafe and drop napalm but
the fighting was at close quarters now and they were ineffective [So much for
a
LAV-III/IAV computer screen's "situational awareness" calling in an air
strike to save you--we still live in a PHYSICAL WORLD where you cannot
just
"mouse-click" reality to conform to your fanciful plans]."
The ranter seems to have missed a couple differences or three between an
IAV with modern C4I and the 1950's French:
1) The situational awareness you get from the modern C4I system and IR sights
makes it harder for the enemy to ambush you, allows you to call air support
earlier, and also allows you to provide much better targetting data to the
supporting aircraft
2) A B-26 isn't *quite* as accurate as a modern a/c dropping
laser-guided bombs
3) Year 2000 rough-terrain wheeled vehicles are quite a bit more mobile
than their year 1950 ancestors...
Kind regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
***EPIC SNIPPAGE***
> Kind regards,
So Oerjan,
Did you send a copy of you analysis to the author of the web page?
> Brian B2 wrote:
> ***EPIC SNIPPAGE***
along
> comes Oerjan and bursts your Zeppelin...
<chuckle> And our newest list members just got a mild demonstration of what
Laserlight meant with his "if people say strange things on this list, they
may actually know what they're talking about" comments ;-) I wouldn't be
surprised if someone else eg. corrects my disecting of the Warrior
anecdote... probably someone who was there at the time :-)
Sorry for the long post, BTW (and the many misspellings, incomplete
sentences etc. too) - I probably should've re-named it "World's Longest
POST on tracks vs wheels" instead... :-(
Later,
I was wondering that myself. But the page's author didn't exactly strike me as
being warm to the idea of reasonable debate on the topic. He sounded
like a propagandist for the Church of the Holy Caterpillar Tread.....
> From: Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net>
> At 8:20 PM +0100 1/9/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Is it perhaps of lighter construction and limited armor thickness? If
anything is Airportable in a C-130, its going to be light. My Daimler
Ferret (yes folks, I own a real armored car) is air portable and air droppable
at 4 tons, but I'd not want to do anything but sneaking around if there were
heavies around looking to kill me.
> 2) Wheeled vehicles don't have the cross-country mobility of tracks.
Well, the ground pressure issue is still the same. 50's and 60's Armoured cars
are a good comparison to the M113 given their relative common 'birth dates'.
> 3) The gripe which gets the most attention on the page is the claim
I agree here. You can make a more heavily armoured Armoured Car. ie the
Italain Centauro (25 Tons) and South Africa's105mm armed Rooikat AC. They
aren't MBT class, but better than the M113 or the LAV for that matter.
The maintenance issue with tracks vs wheels has come way down with the newer
technology tracks. Tensioning a bunch of tracks wouldn't be so bad, but they
still take a lot of work when you have to change one or replace one. I could
probably change a tire on the Ferret if I had to by myself. I couldn't do a
M113's track by myself. I do however wonder about how many lubrication points
the M113 has vs each wheel station on the LAV. If the LAV has lots of bevel
boxes, that's a lot of stuff to keep topped up.
As far as mine resistance, I'd point to the South African's as experts in
survivable Wheeled vehicles. The Ratel and Buffels both are very mine
resistant. A properly set up Armored car can also operate with multiple wheel
stations destroyed. For example, the
Alvis Saracen/Saladin family can operate with two wheels destroyed
and up to one corner station destroyed. I don't think an M113 can operate with
the corner wheel road wheels blown away or the
drive/idler sprockets.
[snip]
> In other words, all it tells us is that somewhere in the LAV-III
Probably the sides or rear. My ferret has 12mm armour on the sides
and 16mm on the front glacis/turret face.
National Defense Magazine lists it as 14.5mm ballistic defense.
"Another feature that the Army agreed to trade off by selecting the LAV was
armor protection, Yakovac explained. He said the Army is
satisfied with the 14.5 mm ballistic protection-7.62 mm in the basic
steel hull and a ceramic appliqué added on top."
Thats protection level, not thickness.
> But OK; let's assume that the entire LAV-III hull *is* made of a
Its not going to be.
> [quoted text omitted]
> If you follow the link you'll find that these AP rounds are made by
*mumble about slope of the armor face*
> But look at the above quote: "...penetrates 12mm armor plate of 300
Again, national defense magazine states something about ceramic above the
7.62mm protection layer.
> In other words, while the ranter does have a point about the
Just like the Saladin.
I agree that this fellow isn't fair and leaves lots of counter arguments
against the M113 out. I'm mostly in favor of the M113 though for the following
reasons.
1. Common with the M2/M3 family as well as the MLRS and other United
defense systems based on the M113. 2. Smaller and more compact, thus smaller
target. 3. Tracks allow better mobility with lower ground pressure in nasty
conditions 4. Long time history in the Inventory allows for better
institutional knowledge and history. (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). 5.
Band tracks have fixed most of the complaints against tracks.
Armor protection is pretty much common with both, so I don't really see the
armor issue being a major factor. If its light and air droppable then it isn't
going to be that well armored or that easy to
make float (look at the M2/3 Bradly/Devers).
I'd would however like to see an increase in the use of medium and heavy
wheeled armor for the US Army for some situations. Perhaps in a Med division
format that is very Cavalry oriented. The self deployable design would be
good. A common design based off of either the HEMMT chassis or one of the
other OshKosh Tactical logistics vehicles would make a lot of sense and keep
cost down.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I agree here. You can make a more heavily armoured
How's the French 105mm armed armored car (AMX-10RC,
IIRC) stack up in the armor protection department?
> 1. Common with the M2/M3 family as well as the MLRS
The MLRS is based on M2 chassis, IIRC. There ain't
any commonality between M-113 and M-2 family that I'm
aware of.
> At 4:43 PM -0800 1/9/02, John Atkinson wrote:
I'm not sure. I'd say compare weights for a rough guestimate. It gives you and
idea of the density of the vehicle. Granted there are some considerations with
regards to weapon mounting and such, but not too much.
> >1. Common with the M2/M3 family as well as the MLRS
I was under the impression that the M113/M2/3 are all a family of
vehicles with regards to many components like roadwheels and other things. I
could be wrong though. Perhaps I'm just extrapolating more from the fact that
all are made by United Defense.
I don't have time to go look, but here's where to find out:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/index.html
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Roger Books wrote:
> Did you send a copy of you analysis to the author of the web page?
After reading that page... do you really think he'll listen to any argument
which doesn't support his point of view?
I don't think :-(
Later,
> Ryan M. Gill wrote:
> To summarize, the ranter has three main gripes with the LAV-III 8x8:
Don't think so; all sources I've seen claim that they are standard
LAV-III
10x10s. (The 10x10 is a couple tons or so heavier than the 8x8 version the US
is looking at.) That's why I suspect that the Swedish armed forces are
cheating - I just don't know *how* :-/
> 2) Wheeled vehicles don't have the cross-country mobility of tracks.
Also
> true, though I find the ranter's repeated comparisons of the LAV-III's
> mobility with that of French armoured cars from the early 1950s quite
Kinda-sorta. The ground pressure problem hasn't disappeared completely,
but with centralized tyre pressure control (you can adjust the pressure of
each individual tyre from inside the vehicle) etc. it has been reduced quite a
bit for modern wheeled vehicles.
An interesting article from Armor magazine some time ago (don't remember
which issue offhand, but can check): During the UN operation in Macedonia,
some of the US posts guarding the Serbian-Macedonian border were
supplied
by the neighbouring Finnish troops during the snowy period - because the
Finnish SISU wheeled APCs were able to negotiate the snow and get to the
posts, while the US tracked M113s either got stuck or turned into gigantic
sleighs (and the weather was too poor for helos to fly out to the posts)
:-/
> 50's and 60's Armoured cars are a good comparison to the M113 given
They're a good comparison to the original M113, sure. Not so sure that
they're a good comparison for the M113A3 or the LAV-III, both of which
are
rather more modern :-/
> 3) The gripe which gets the most attention on the page is the claim
> pits as its rival, the M113A3. Here he is quite wrong, and presents an
> impressive array of misleading data; I hope that he is being misled by
> them rather than attempting to mislead others. Let's take a closer
> Italain Centauro (25 Tons) and South Africa's105mm armed Rooikat AC.
They
> aren't MBT class, but better than the M113 or the LAV for that matter.
Well, yes. But my main point is that the web site author says "14mm armour
on the LAV and 38-44mm armour on the M113A3, therefore the M113A3 is
obviously vastly better protected" without realising that 14mm sloped high
hardness steel gives a very similar level of protection against small arms
fire and shrapnel as 38mm vertical aluminium alloy gives :-/
> The maintenance issue with tracks vs wheels has come way down with the
Does the latest M113s have the newest tracks, though?
> Tensioning a bunch of tracks wouldn't be so bad, but they still take
> the M113 has vs each wheel station on the LAV. If the LAV has lots of
IIRC it has a central lubrication system, but that may be mere hearsay so
don't quote me on that. Even if it is true, I don't know if it works in
practise :-/
> As far as mine resistance, I'd point to the South African's as experts
They are also *very* tall compared to other AFVs - their mine resistance
comes mainly from the boat-shaped hull (deflects the blast to the side
instead of absorbing it) and the high ground clearance.
> In other words, all it tells us is that somewhere in the LAV-III hull
Could be the front as well - it is much better sloped than the sides and
rear, so would give better protection against horisontal hits even with the
same thickness. After all, the glacis plate on an M1A2 Abrams is only 55mm
thick ;-)
(The Abrams' glacis is however sloped by 80 degrees from the vertical, so
the effective armour thickness vs horisontal hits is more than 300mm :-)
)
> National Defense Magazine lists it as 14.5mm ballistic defense.
> was armor protection, Yakovac explained. He said the Army is satisfied
Yep. You know this, I know this, but the web site author thinks that the
Army has gotten the "protection against 14.5mm ammo" mixed up with
"protection by 14mm steel" :-/ (Do you think he'd accept National
Defense Magazine as a more reliable source than Driver's Magazine? Or would he
just claim that NDM is as gullible as the rest of the Army...?)
IIRC the appliqué won't be permanently fitted though (eg. removed for
transport).
FWIW, I've seen a demo of ceramic armour vs our 7.62 AP round at ~5 meters.
Approx. 3mm bare ceramic plate (ie., no front plate etc. to contain the
shattered ceramic material after the hit) on a 0.5" steel (RHA) plate...
the ceramic plate disintegrated completely, but the steel plate wasn't even
scratched :-/
> But OK; let's assume that the entire LAV-III hull *is* made of a
Er... Which of the two above statements isn't going to be - the entire
hull being made of a single thickness of plate, or the front plates being
thicker?
> Armour penetration is usually measured in mm RHA, ie. the distance
I got to the main slope effects further down in the original post :-)
And I *did* say that the above mention was very simplified <g>
> I agree that this fellow isn't fair and leaves lots of counter
AFAIK the Bradley and its derivatives (MLRS, Linebacker, various cargo
carriers etc.) share very few common parts (if any) with the M113.
> 2. Smaller and more compact, thus smaller target.
Agreed. Smaller size also makes it easier to transport.
> 3. Tracks allow better mobility with lower ground pressure in nasty
Agreed. But see the SISU vs M113 anecdote above in this post <g>
> 4. Long time history in the Inventory allows for better institutional
Does the M113A3 have band tracks?
> Armor protection is pretty much common with both, so I don't really see
> the armor issue being a major factor. If its light and air droppable
Interesting - this is the first time I've heard anyone call the M3
"Devers"... most scouts/ cavalrymen I've talked to refer to it as the
"Bradley CFV" (as opposed to the M2 Bradley IFV).
If it is light and air droppable, then it is fairly easy to make float
(floating also requires a relatively light vehicle). AFAIK the Bradley is
neither airdroppable nor amphibious, though - OK, they used to say that
it can swim, but the swim gear was withdrawn from service to prevent anyone
from actually trying to use it <g>
Later,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> An interesting article from Armor magazine some time
I don't often sharpshoot you, but if the Sisu in question is the Sisu that my
company had one of in Kosovo, it's got band tracks.
> Does the latest M113s have the newest tracks,
I've seen old track pulled off display M113s from the early 60s to go onto
operational M113A3s (special circumstances). It's the same track.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >The MLRS is based on M2 chassis, IIRC. There ain't
Completely unrelated families.
I know for a fact that neither track shoes, road wheels, final drives,
transmissions, generators, starters, engines, or any other major components
are
the same. Same motorpool as 1/36 Infantry in Kosovo.
We tried to bum stuff of them but they kept very
little M-113 PLL stock because they only had a few of
them.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >An interesting article from Armor magazine some time ago (don't
The SISU looks like this:
http://www.wendel.se/rswa/sisu.htm
I don't see how you could fit band tracks on it, though :-/
You sure you're not thinking of the Bv206 (eg.
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/armoured/hagglunds2/hagglunds
23.html)? The US Army bought a number of these (or maybe one of the armoured
variants, Bv206S and Bv210 - I don't remember which) some years back,
mainly for use in the Balkans.
> >Does the latest M113s have the newest tracks, though?
That's what I thought. Thanks!
> At 1:21 PM -0800 1/10/02, John Atkinson wrote:
Well phooey. It seems to me that rather than extending the chassis of
the M113, a United Defense chassis common with the M2/3, MLRS, etc
would be the best thing to do. Start with your basic box APC and go from
there.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Well phooey. It seems to me that rather than
Yeah, it would be a good idea. But it would also be
expensive as hell. There's a lot of M-113 FOV stuff
out there.
> At 8:46 PM +0100 1/10/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
The Argies couldn't get their Armored cars to go anywhere in the Falklands but
on the roads. Dropping the tire pressure or not. The Scorpions were not
limited to the roads at all on the boggy terrain.
> An interesting article from Armor magazine some time ago (don't
The Fins probably did something specific to get those to work in the cold
weather and in snow. That is their environment. Likely they are very very
light.
> 50's and 60's Armoured cars are a good comparison to the M113 given
United Defense is making them.
> Tensioning a bunch of tracks wouldn't be so bad, but they still
Which is what any mine resistant vehicle has to do. The ferrets aren't bad
given their age and size. The slope at each wheel station certainly helps.
> Could be the front as well - it is much better sloped than the sides
On the ferret, it is thicker to the front. On the Abrams...well....you go on
thinking that...I suspect its likely thicker.
> Yep. You know this, I know this, but the web site author thinks that
Hmm, dunno.
> Er... Which of the two above statements isn't going to be - the
I don't know of any armoured vehicles with the same thickness all around. Its
far too heavy. I could see the sides, rear and top being that 14mm. Given my
ferret is 12mm on most aspects, a 14mm side and rear seems reasonable for the
LAV III.
> Armour penetration is usually measured in mm RHA, ie. the distance
thats why I only mumbled. :-)
> Agreed. But see the SISU vs M113 anecdote above in this post <g>
Hmm. Why the SISU would be able to get through and US HEMMTs and other things
wouldn't is a good question. I'd like to see the anecdote in greater detail.
> 4. Long time history in the Inventory allows for better
They can. We're talking about a proposed purchase. They could fit
every LAV-III with a toilet, a cooker and a fridge if they wanted
too, but they likely won't do all of those. M-113's don't have
cookers now, but the army is starting to field those. The same goes for basic
automotive components like band tracks. By the time all the LAV's or M113A3's
or what have you are in the field, United Defense will have fixed the Band
Track problems.
> Interesting - this is the first time I've heard anyone call the M3
Its one of those what they called it during development.
> If it is light and air droppable, then it is fairly easy to make
Bradleys don't swim because the whole project suffered from design bloat. They
kept adding things to it that they went over their allowable weight for amphib
operation.
On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 12:12:44 -0800 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
Tell me about it. I was pretty sloppy (since DS2 around here is thought to be
a new character in Star Wars) once with a comment and he nicely dissected my
inane statement. Multiple ways.
BTW, nice analysis Oerjan. I'm jealous of that too.
Gracias,
> At 5:52 PM -0800 1/10/02, John Atkinson wrote:
But think of the savings in logistical load if there were a combat vehicle
common with all of the other Medium armoured vehicles that were already in
inventory (Brady family).
Perhaps they could upgrade the hulls with the newer automotive components too.
Though in looking closely at the UD web site, perhaps they should just improve
on the already working design.
Of course all this aside, the Airborne folks do need the M8 AGS.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> The SISU looks like this:
Saw 'em. Not bad, if a little... tall.
> You sure you're not thinking of the Bv206 (eg.
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/armoured/hagglunds2/hagglunds
23.html)?
Yeah, those.
> At 6:43 PM -0800 1/10/02, John Atkinson wrote:
If it was a Bv206 that was doing the resupply then it makes sense. That thing
has a tiny ground pressure. Look at the overall weight. As the Army technology
site says, they exert less than half of the pressure of a man's foot. No
wonder the M113's were sinking in the
snow and the Finn's were handling re-supply.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> But think of the savings in logistical load if there
Sure. If the US Army could get say, 1/10th the budget
that is sunk into that verdammt F-22 program for our
procurement, maybe we could afford such a thing.
> Of course all this aside, the Airborne folks do need
Hrm... I'm not 100% on this.
If I had my way I'd mount them all in Wiesels.
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:52:20 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> Sure. If the US Army could get say, 1/10th the budget
All you ground pounders want *more* CAS stuff! <grin>
Ever heart the apocryphal story about the Russian... Sorry, Soviet... generals
who met in Paris after the glorious victory (It's a 1970's joke) and one said
sadly to the other, "Did you hear? We lost the Air War!" And the other general
said, Well, two out of three ain't bad."
But John, Once the USAF F-22 clears the air (all one of them at the
mythical projected cost) of enemy aircraft then the enemy '...without air
support..." will surrender lest the single Navy or Marine F-22 (depends
on what day it is in the week) bombs them...
It must be true, it's doctrine! <grin>
Gracias,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > The SISU looks like this:
That's a common trait among wheeled vehicles, I'm afraid :-/
> >You sure you're not thinking of the Bv206 (eg.
OK. For the record, the Bv206 is not a SISU - it doesn't even come from
the same country <g> The Armor Magazine article I referred to was about the
SISU; it specifically commented on the wheeled-vs-tracked mobility
issues.
Later,
> At 6:52 PM -0800 1/10/02, John Atkinson wrote:
I'm not convinced the F22 is a white elephant. Perhaps having worked at
LockMart for a time I'm biased, but I think it or the F23 are good for the AF.
So is JSF imho.
The life cycle development cost for something based on an extant chassis is
very low. Either the Bradly chassis or the M113. Its not nearly the same as
developing a system from the ground up. Also, the development costs get spread
over the export sales too.
> he M8 AGS.
Hmm. Perhaps. Though you can't mount a 105mm gun on a Wiesel.
> At 7:17 AM +0100 1/11/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Well if you want ground clearance. Though, my ferret isn't that tall. 6' tall
x 6' wide by 12' long. Its cozy for two people but not a bad little scout car.
> OK. For the record, the Bv206 is not a SISU - it doesn't even come
Which really helps the tracked argument I think.
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> OK. For the record, the Bv206 is not a SISU - it doesn't even come
I was astounded to see the RSwArmed Forces use BMPs. MT-LBs I can
understand,
they're good vehicles. But making BMP's road-safe is expensive. And the
situation of the fueltanks leaves much to be desired. That RPG-7 on
steroids that is their main gun is I suppose OK, but IMHO a 14.5 would be
better. Hell, so would a Charlie Gustache. Your opinion?
If you read Oerjan's posts, it was a Sisu, and the Bv206 is NOT a Sisu.
> From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I'm not convinced the F22 is a white elephant.
The USAF has NO competition, and will have none for the next 20 years unless
the Europeans sell their newest fighters to the Chinese in wholesale lots (and
since the French are involved, this is possible). The
F-15 can take almost any plane flying and fold it in
half--and that's with evenly matched pilots. Oh,
yeah, and AMRAAMs are the best air to air missles flying. Given the extra edge
the USAF has in pilot training (except, obviously for IFF training since
zoomies can't tell a Blackhawk from a Hind D) over any likely opponent (ie:
The IDF and some European powers are in our league as far as hours they can
afford to let their pilots fly. No one else is.), WTF do they did another
expensive air superiority fighter for?
JSF's big problem is that it's too damn fast. You can't do CAS with a fast
bird.
> The life cycle development cost for something based
Yeah. But we just can't afford it. If you add all the US Army procurement and
R&D programs together and compare it to individual procurement and R&D
programs
(ie: CVNX, JSF, F-22, etc. etc.) it comes in as #8.
Either the first 3 or 4 are aircraft procurement programs. None of which are
for aircraft that the military actually needs.
> >he M8 AGS.
If you're dropping your airborne into a fight where they NEED a 105mm gun,
you're misusing them.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> OK. For the record, the Bv206 is not a SISU - it
I got confused with SUSV. All acronyms look
alike--and I easily confuses the various Scandanavian
nations.:)
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:47:33 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Yes, Ryan, good for the USAF (and remember I was a Zoomie - yeah a medic
but still a Zoomie) and in the very long run Air superiority is still #1 for
mission success. You don't control the air then the 82nd becomes "too
expensive to use" Light Infantry, the real life Reforger mission is a very
bloody exercise (not that the exercises are not always sanitized against
losing transportation craft going down IMO,) **Everything** flown by
commercial or military transportation assets is vulnerable, and you might even
have to look at bring people (as opposed to critical logistics) in by boat
[now that's a loss of logistics carrying capacity that is a nightmare to
planners.]
> The USAF has NO competition, and will have none for
Fortunately they apparently have (as we called him cynically) pilots of the
caliber of "Wong Way" it seems.
The
> F-15 can take almost any plane flying and fold it in
Hmm, can I talk strictly speculatively here? *None* of this would ever happen,
right? And it would be impolite to discuss some of it in 'friendly' company
okay? And I never said it.
Remember the statement - "Countries have no friends"? All planners have
that ingrained in them it seems.
What if the rest of the world tightens up and gets better pilots? The Chinese
aren't stupid just; thank God, busy with more problems then one nation has a
need for solving, saddled with more corruption then the mind can handle (even
for Chinese and Asian history,) saddled with a military
where naval air translates (IIRC) as The People's Army Navy Air Force -
as in the Army owns the Navy that owns those planes,) and a military
leadership burdened with a fair number of their leaders running factories
not Corps. Add on the fight between those wanting to expand/modernize
the economy and those wanting to expand/modernize the Army (at each
other's expense,) plus the usual Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Pragmatist
party faction jockeying and you have a nation that is capable of spasmodic,
intense, regional warfare.
Politically it offers us something to dangle in front of other nations
(Israel, Taiwan, Singapore, selected bits of Africa, any European nation
looking for a new fighter) as in "Well, we can't sell one the F-22 of
course but we *do* have these surplus F-15A's that we might lease to a
friendly government... That ought to make the neighbors a little less
threatening, no?" And, yes, we never learn, do we?
> JSF's big problem is that it's too damn fast. You
I have a perversion to reveal. Yes, security knows. My favorite
airplane of all time is the A-10, although the F15E tempted me for a
while and the F16 tried; but she's just a fashion plate trying to look like
the wholesome 'girl next door' once you get to know her. I guess I'm hopeless.
I like to watch tracked and wheeled things go boom. The short time I was in
the ROTC I wanted, in order, Combat Engineer or
Artillery - really frustrated the Major who eventually left (the year
SOF became it's own entity (well publicly) within a week after it became
public he had orders and was gone a week after that.)
> The life cycle development cost for something based
Neo-Isolationist (half a mind)set - "We just need a reaction force to
mop after the precision strikes. WW3 will not be like WW2, in fact WW3 will
never happen..."
> >he M8 AGS.
Assuming if it's that ugly, the USAF better have some plan for replacing
transportation assets.... And the ground guys sure wil have 'promotion
possibilities". Shudder.
> John
Gracias,
> At 11:00 AM -0500 1/12/02, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> Hmm, can I talk strictly speculatively here? *None* of this would ever
Well, friendly fire incidents have always happened. It happened in WWI, WWII,
Korea, Vietnam, etc. Its only becoming more apparent due to the fact that the
US is getting so big in its missions and is taking so few Red on Blue
Casualties. One could make similar statements about US Apache pilots and grid
references.
> [quoted text omitted]
> What if the rest of the world tightens up and gets better pilots? The
Always keep the ball rolling forwards is what I think. Otherwise we end up
with a situation like that in WWII. Brewster Buffaloes vs Zero's.
> [quoted text omitted]
> I have a perversion to reveal. Yes, security knows. My favorite
I agree, I'm sure the A-10 is a good aircraft. But, the JSF's mission
isn't just CAS. That role more and more seems to be going to Rotary
wing aircraft. Remember the A-6? Its history. We need a new bomb
truck. Granted JSF won't be the same kind of low and slow bomb truck
as the A-6, but, it will be a good replacement for the mix of F-16,
A-4, F-4, F-15, F-18, AV-8, that we currently use. It does so far
seem to be a much much better interservice fighter than past common
aircraft were. The STO-VL capabilites reduces the need for super
massive payload robbing undercarriage weight too.
> >Yeah. But we just can't afford it. If you add all
I agree. But other small conflicts where the Airborne guys are stuck will.
> >If you're dropping your airborne into a fight where
(I know this was John BTW) Well, I'm sure the Airborne guys liked it when they
had light tanks capable of firing multipurpose rounds in support of infantry.
The 152mm Beehive round was highly liked by the 82'd dudes in Vietnam and in
Panama. Tanks can do more than fight other tanks. If they can engage enemy med
and light armor at 4 klicks with direct and indirect fires all the better. HE
rounds are also great for fire in support of infantry when engaging strong
points from more than Arms length away. Sure Karl Gustav and SMAW are good for
that too, but are much shorter ranged than a 105mm in direct fire.
Tanks make Airborne a bit more than too light to fight. Light tanks work great
in situations where there is close order fighting too. Add additional MGs and
add some APC's with more MGs and you've got a force that can throw so much
lead down range that ambushers wish they hand't.
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:47:33 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<sniP>
> The USAF has NO competition, and will have none for
(innocent look on face) Oh, *we* have combat helicopters? What for?
over any
> likely opponent (ie: The IDF and some European powers
The Navy PR guys plus the Top Gun guys are certainly going to want to disagree
with you there. I recently ran across an exchange between
F/A-18 guys (we can do anything better - yawn) and F-14 guys (We are the
fleet air defense) in a series of 'letters tot he editor" postings. Add
to that a USAF video spot from several years ago showing the F-15
besting
the F-14 in (4 on 4) Air to Air training. Stir in Navy video
(animation)
that dealt with the ability of the F-14/Phoenix combination to keep
tactical aircraft (sure looked like an F-15E...) away from the fleet.
Personally in a fighter on fighter (1:1 or 4:4) I guess I'd take an F15C or
maybe an F15E. But I still love those Warthogs for making things (especially
moving things) go boom!
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> The Navy PR guys plus the Top Gun guys are certainly
Yeah, well the F-14 is flown only by the US (oh, yeah,
the Iranians have maybe a half-dozen or so that still
work) and the F-18 is US fighter sold only to our
allies. It's also less capable than an F-15 for pure
air superiority missions.
> or maybe an F15E. But I still love those Warthogs
No argument. But neither the F-22 nor (regardless of
what the propaganda dept of the USAF say) the JSF is designed to do what the
'Hog does.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> (I know this was John BTW)
In Vietnam the 82nd Airborne wasn't actually fighting as airborne, but as
conventional light infantry. As for Panama, yes having 152mm was good. But we
would
have mopped up regardless. Wog-bashing doesn't
require the best-equipped army in the world (See:
British military of the late 19th century).
> Tanks make Airborne a bit more than too light to
Airborne are always going to be too light to fight--or
too heavy to jump.
> work great in situations where there is close order
Add some APCs and you've got the 4th ID (M).
> John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> The F-15 only excels in situations where BVR kills
That's generally a given in real combat.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
It wasn't true in Viet Nam, was occassionally false in Operation Desert
--- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> > That's generally a given in real combat.
If we plan to fight as we did in VN, we plan for failure.
> was occassionally false in Operation Desert
When?
> and won't be true if there isn't absolute
The USAF has a record of making BVR kills even if told that the target is
friendly.
> the time. For nations with a second rate (instead
Who has even a second rate air force that the US is likely to go to war with
in the next 15 years?
> It is only a given in naval combat over the high
If it's a warzone, then there is no civil aviation. If there is, then someone
pretty much comitted suicide.
> > It is only a given in naval combat over the high
There was no civil aviation over the Balkans for most of the 90's? Amazing.
> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
> > If it's a warzone, then there is no civil
Not while we were shooting up the place.
The militias in Bosnia did not have an air-to-air
capability.
You just made my point.
<g>
David
> -----Original Message-----
> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:
No, I didn't.
Chain of Logic:
1)I assert that the F-15 is the best aircraft flying.
2)Someone else claims this is only true when BVR kills are allowed.
3)I point out that BVR kills are allowed in a war zone.
4)You claim that this isn't the case because of civil aviation.
5)I point out that in warzones civil aviation doesn't fly.
6)You claim that this wasn't the case in Bosnia.
7)I point out that this became the case once the USAF got involved.
You claim I made your point? When did you join the discussion? My point was
that dogfighting isn't how the USAF fights. You counter with the comment that
BVR kills didn't happen between Bosnian militias. No
shit--does this take a Military Science Degree to
discover?
Granted, in wars between shitty little tribal militias who have no military
aviation of significance then civil aviation can fly uninterrupted. But the
USAF is not a shitty little tribal militia. It defines the term "military
aviation of significance"[1]. Therefor your statements are irrelevant.
Bite me.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Richard and Emily Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
Viet Nam was a problem because noone had an overall view of where all of the
US aircraft were, and there were enough US planes, all over the place, that
there was no easy way to know without actually looking, that the target was
north vietnamese. Most of the aircraft in the skies were american, so they
were forced to verify their targets. In a central european WWIII scenario, the
same thing happens over Germany if the AWAC's are forced back (except that
there is a larger percentage of soviet planes). The unavailability of reliable
IFF forced the US to fight the kind of air combat that its aircraft were only
marginally capable of operating, but at least they didn't shoot down their own
aircraft.
> > was occassionally false in Operation Desert
When Canadian pilots were almost told to engage what later turned out to
be returning USN F/A-18's.
> > the time. For nations with a second rate (instead
That question cannot be answered until after the fifteen years has expired.
China and India are possible, but unlikely and renewed tensions with Russia
are not completely beyond the realm of possibility, until the economic, legal,
and political systems appear to be working (just not likely).
> > It is only a given in naval combat over the high
Not all combat is in warzones. The USS Vincennes only thought that it
> At 1:23 PM -0800 1/12/02, John Atkinson wrote:
No but its nice to take a few casualties as possible. If you've got the
firepower, use it.
> > Tanks make Airborne a bit more than too light to
Which is why some form of Air portable armor is always nice.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Well phooey. It seems to me that rather than extending the chassis of
> the best thing to do. Start with your basic box APC and go from there.
There's just one small problem with this approach: A Bradley is much too
big and heavy to carry in a C-130 (another ten tons or so compared to
the LAV family vehicles), so the resulting vehicle family wouldn't be of any
use for the US's "rapid-deployment" medium brigades since they're
supposed
to be C-130-deployable :-/
Regards,
> At 05:13 12/01/02 -0600, you wrote:
Amazing.
> David.
Or over the gulf?
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:14:04 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> or maybe an F15E. But I still love those Warthogs
Agreed but it's trying to meet the needs of the USAF (Interdiction,
strike and back up Air superiority - stated or not) and the USN (sink
ships, knock down stupid enemy fighters, maybe support Marines if the Harriers
aren't still around) and (finally) support the ground troops. Strictly my
jaundiced read of course.
The Warthog was CAS first everything else third.
Gracias,
> >> or maybe an F15E. But I still love those Warthogs
> The Warthog was CAS first everything else third.
The F-15 is (IMNSHO) undoubtably the best _high altitude_ interceptor,
but I would venture to say that I would never get into a knife fight (low
altitude) with a Warthog with ANY bird.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> > You sure you're not thinking of the Bv206 (eg.
It wasn't. The article (or letter, don't remember which and didn't have
time to check at work - will try again tomorrow) specifically discussed
the SISU, and specifically commented on it having wheels as opposed to the
tracked M113s and M2s :-)
Regards,
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Saw 'em. Not bad, if a little. . . tall.
If you want cross-country ability, you *need* ground clearance whether
you
*want* it or not :-/
> OK. For the record, the Bv206 is not a SISU - it doesn't even come
Ryan, please explain how an article describing how wheeled SISUs could get
where tracked M113s couldn't "helps the tracked argument"?
Regards,
> Alan Brain wrote:
> I was astounded to see the RSwArmed Forces use BMPs.
If you had seen how well-funded (NOT!) the Swedish armed forces are, and
compared their funding with how much they paid for those several hundred
BMP-1s, then you wouldn't be surprised at all :-/
Sure, the BMPs aren't the best vehicles available, but they're a LOT better
than soft-skinned roadbound trucks - and the purchase cost for a
soft-skinned road-bound trucks is likely to be higher than that of a
refurbished BMP-1...
> MT-LBs I can understand, they're good vehicles.
Except for an unfortunate tendency to spit out all the cog wheels from the
gearbox every now and then <g> Also, although the BMP-1 doesn't have
very
good armour it still has more than twice as much of it as the MT-LB :-/
> That RPG-7 on steroids that is their main gun is I suppose OK, but IMHO
Agreed.
> Hell, so would a Charlie Gustache. Your opinion?
Nope - not for the *vehicle's* armament; you have to dismount to fire
the
CG. The squad carried inside the BMP has at least one CG though :-)
Later,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> There's just one small problem with this approach: A
Excuse? If you rip off the freakin' turret, how much
does it weigh? I bet it fits into a C-130 a lot
better, too.
> At 10:03 PM +0100 1/13/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Sorry that arose from the assumption that we were talking about BV206's doing
the resupply and not SISU's.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> There's just one small problem with this approach: A Bradley is much
Gladly :-)
> If you rip off the freakin' turret, how much does it weigh?
Let's see:
Combat weight for the M2A3 is 36,886 kg.
The M4 C2V, which is built on a stripped-down Bradley hull (no turret,
no sideskirts protecting the tracks, armour protects only against small arms
and shell splinters), is listed as having a combat weight of in the
25-29
(metric) ton range. Not sure how much stuff they've put into it though -
the heaviest (29 ton) version sprouted a 10m tall telescoping sensor mast, for
example. However, I don't think that you can't get much lower than 25 tons if
you still want room for an infantry squad and protection against
small-arms fire.
An MRLS chassis is essentially an extended M2 chassis without the armour
and superstructure (the crew's cabin is armoured against small arms and shell
splinters, but it is rather smaller than the crew compartment of an M2 or M4);
it weighs just over 18 tons (not counting the rocket containers!).
Maximum payload for the C-130J (currently the largest and most capable
C-130
version) is 18,955 kg.
So, well... if you strip both turret, armour, and most of the superstructure
off the Bradley, turning it into an open truck on tracks, it
is *just* light enough to be carried in a C-130. If you put an armoured
superstructure back on the chassis, eg. to use it as an APC, it becomes too
heavy for the Herkybird.
> I bet it fits into a C-130 a lot better, too.
How much money did you say you bet? :-)
The main problem with carrying Bradleys in Herks isn't their *height* -
it
is the *width*. The main cargo door of a C-130 is 312cm wide. A Bradley
hull is 328 cm wide... and removing the Bradley's turret won't make it any
narrower <g>
By removing all the side armour you can shave the Bradley down to 297 cm
(the MRLS and M4 are both this wide), which would fit - but again
comparison with the M4 suggests that the stripped-down Bradley is still
much too heavy for a C-130J.
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 7:35 PM +0100 1/14/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Hmm. Good points. Exactly what is air portable in a C-130 and is
still armoured?
I know my Ferret is. Is the CVR(T) series of vehicles? What in US use is?
> At 10:09 PM +0100 1/14/02, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
If'n we'd just bought a whole bunch more C5-D's rather than that
Boeing contraption we'd have heavy lift coming out of our ears. I got a
glimpse at that Bid specification at Lockmart years ago when working there. It
was very interesting the ideas that Lockmart's engineers had come up with.
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 12:33 AM +0000 1/15/02, Robin Paul wrote:
Nope, it was an upgrade of the C-5 that added new wings (stronger,
lighter, better) with a glass cockpit and newer avionics for better crew
performance, as well as 4 of the engines used of the 777 (GE90s or P&W4084s).
The new upgrades and changes in desing allowed longer
flights between re-fueling, faster time to cruising height, and
faster cruise speeds (at the longer ranges) with a heavier payload (3 M1s as I
recall). They even redesigned the rear doors allowing for placement of two
large pallets across rather than one for simultaneous exit from the aicraft
(say a 2.5 ton truck and a 155mm howitzer. There was also a concept for a
slung from the ceiling pallet trapeeze that ran the length of the cargo area
for additional bulky but low weight cargos.
It was quite a plane and much more there than the C17 was at the
time. It still had a large degree of commonality with the C-5A and B
already in the inventory. Cost was lower per unit than the C-17 too.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> By removing all the side armour you can shave the Bradley down to 297
The maximum payload of the C-130J is 18,955 kg - so basically everything
lighter than that is OK. (Well, lighter than that and narrow enough and low
enough, but most things that are lighter than 19 tons are narrow enough.
Low enough depends on what turrets you put on them.)
The CVR(T) series is IIRC only around 8 tons each so they're OK too; pretty
much everything derived from M113s (unless you put a very tall turret on
top of it), the SUSV/Bv206... and also the LAV-III IAV, at least as long
as it doesn't have the appliqué armour. IIRC it is slightly too heavy with
the appliqué armour fitted.
Later,
Took me a while to dig through the old Armor mags... fortunately I could do so
at work claiming that I was looking up references for some of the
projects I'm working on and have people think it was work-related
projects ;-)
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Kinda-sorta. The ground pressure problem hasn't disappeared
The armoured cars (AML-90) the Argentines used in the Falklands were
designed in the late 1950s, and didn't have any centralized tyre pressure
control.
In other words, this example says no more about the capabilities of modern
armoured cars than the 1954 An Khe ambush described on the "world's longest
page" webpage :-/
> An interesting article from Armor magazine some time ago (don't
> were supplied by the neighbouring Finnish troops during the snowy
Hm. My memory is slipping :-( The article doesn't mention the Finns
doing the resupply runs to US outposts; that part I heard from some of the
Swedish members in the Macedonian NordBat. (Swedish UN forces are
mission-trained by the armoured regiment on the other side of the hill
from
where I live, so ex-NordBat soldiers are quite common in the bars around
here :-/ ) Sorry 'bout that; "I heard that..." isn't nearly as
compelling evidence as printed matter!
What the Armor article does say is that the SISUs (XA-180s) could drive
when even the US M113s were immobilized. (The US Bv206/SUSVs were still
operating, of course! :-) ) The article can be found on-line at:
http://knox-www.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ja96/4wheeled96.pdf
> The Fins probably did something specific to get those to work in the
They added snow chains, but that's it. I would've thought that tracks gave
better traction than wheels+chains, but appearently this isn't always
the case <shrug>
> That is their environment. Likely they are very very light.
A bit heavier than the M113 IIRC... not particularly light, no. The
XA-200
has an empty weight of 14 tons, but it is somewhat bigger than the
XA-180
discussed in the above article.
> Could be the front as well - it is much better sloped than the sides
It's not just me thinking that <g> The upper glacis (ie., the nearly
horisontal expanse in front of the turret) is only 55mm thick, but it is
very heavily sloped - 80 degrees from the vertical - which makes its
*effective* thickness somewhere in the 350mm RHA range against horisontal
hits. The fuel cells on either side of the driver are designed to absorb
hits that penetrate the glacis, too, and the *lower* glacis (the
inwards-sloping bit below the headlights) and the turret front are both
much thicker.
However, if you can attack the M1 from above it is quite easy to punch holes
through it... aim for the engine deck if you can, otherwise go for
the center of the glacis plate to kill the driver and wreck the controls.
Yes, even M1A2s are vulnerable in built-up areas...
> Agreed. But see the SISU vs M113 anecdote above in this post <g>
See reference above.
> If it is light and air droppable, then it is fairly easy to make float
> (floating also requires a relatively light vehicle). AFAIK the Bradley
*Why* the Bradleys are too heavy to swim isn't very relevant, is it? All
that matters to the users is that they can't swim. (The Bradley isn't
air-droppable either, but AFAIK no-one has ever claimed that it is <g>)
Later,