US Army to field lightly armored wheeled vehicles...hmmm...

[AndrewR]

Article

What do you think about this? I'm not sure about the type of vehicle exactly, but it sounds an awful lot like the LAV which the Marine Corps currently uses. I can see the wisdom of this type of vehicle, but I am inclined to agree with the critics that this makes the troops more vulnerable -- I dearly hope that it can withstand a direct hit from an RPG. If not, then it's a wheeled coffin.

Anyone have any links to the vehicle?

 

[SuperTool]

2.5 million bucks a pop? Is that more then a tank?

 

[StageLeft]

Thats like 2-3 mclaren F1s. Give a mclaren F1 a .50 cal machine gun and it can race around the battle field at 1/3 the cost and get there faster Yeah!!

 

[sgtbehymer]

The army is under the assumption that with the signal support and MI support that we have in the field that loss will be few. BUT there is no telling. I have heard that the Hummer may be gone in a few years though, getting too expensive. We should have never gotten rid of the blazer!!!

 

[Stark]

Frontline recently did a show about the future of the army.

For the past 30 years, the army has been training and ready to fight the russians in a european ground war. That army won the gulf war without heavy losses only because saddam gave them 6 months to move armored divisions to the region. The intitial first wave of US soldiers would have been massacred had saddam attacked earlier.

Here are some points the program made:
1. The light infantry that has been deployed all over the world has no armored support.
2. In the past 20 years, more research has gone into wheeled vehicles than tracked vehicles (thanks to our love of 4x4s and SUVs).
3. Tanks don't do well in third world cities, towns, and villiages.

The current head of the army is trying to make heavy forces lighter and make light forces heavier... easier to deploy around the world at a moments notice.

 

[AndrewR]

Main battle tanks are more than $2.5M each -- I want to say they are around $4M.

Skoorb: Last I checked, the McLaren would bottom out trying to clear a small berm. That's a fine idea if war is fought entirely on pavement with paintball guns (since those won't disable the F1 in one shot). Otherwise, back to the drawing board.

Well, if anything, I'd think our involvement in Somalia proved the need for at least some heavy tanks. Of course, I'm not sure how these vehicles would have fared in the RPG maelstrom of Mogadishu, but since I remember reading that Bradleys have a tendency to catch fire when hit with an RPG (aluminum burns, eh?), I'm not too hopeful about these. I need to do some searching for more info on this.

Stark: I understand and appreciate the need for some armor support for rapid deployed infantry. When they stopped a successor to the M551 Sheridan, they stuck it up the butt to airborne troops as far as armored protection is concerned. As for an urban environment, the advantages of armor are diminished drastically but that holds true for these new wheeled vehicles as much as MBTs -- except that with their heavy armor and treads, MBTs are more survivable and maneuverable. The trend I worry about is completely replacing the MBT with this new vehicle, which would be a mistake given the proliferation of portable missiles.

 

[DaBoneHead]

It makes perfect sense.

The emphasis is on deployment... getting to fire-fights fast. For traditional mechanized warfare, these vehicles would be deployed as a support role, leaving the M1's and M3's to lead the spearhead (I wonder if we will ever see this again). Otherwise, for operations like a Timor, or African Intervention, these vehicles would be better able to operate against a low-grade threat than heavy armor... and we could operate these in greater numbers. Resistance to RPG and HEAT rounds will exist. However, weapons designers are getting more clever. Even reactive armor can be defeated today. Leaving the heavy armor of a "land-battleship" like the M1A2-A3 as the only sure defense (except from themselves, it takes a diamond to cut a diamond).

I believe an 80's quote for the cost of an M1 was around 6 - 7.6 million. Today, I think it is at least 12 million. I can look this up, I'll post when I find it.

 

[AndrewR]

This might be the Army's new vehicle, not sure though: Austrian Pandur. Jane's had a brief blurb about the US Army selecting this for a program, but I'm not sure if it's the one mentioned in the article.



<< Leaving the heavy armor of a &quot;land-battleship&quot; like the M1A2-A3 as the only sure defense >>


I wonder if a miniature version of the composite armor used on the new tanks would work to significantly improve the survivability of a vehicle like this? It would certainly be better than aluminum or magnesium though.

 

[pac1085]

Raise the mclaren up 24&quot; or so and put some big tires on it

 

[StageLeft]

And some stickers which say &quot;armor division&quot;

 

[BoberFett]

Let's put this in perspective. If you're not in a light armor vehicle, you're in a humvee or you're humping. I'll take the light armor, thanks.

 

[AndrewR]

True, Bober -- I agree there to an extent. My questioning of this is that this concept has been around for quite some time with the Marine Corps fielding their LAV in the late '80s if I remember correctly. The wheeled armored car is nothing new to the military here or around the world. My problem with the tactic is that, from the sounds of that report, they want to replace MBTs with these lightly armored RPG-sponges.

Everyone knows that armored vehicles (or any vehicles for that matter) are the ones that are shot first, and if they don't have the armor to take it, you're safer walking (Humvee?). My worry is that with the proliferation of weapons intended to take out MBTs (or try to, at least), these LAVs will be quite easily destroyed. An M1 may cost $12M, but if we lose 6 LAVs for one M1, that's the same monetary cost with 5 more dead crews.

Also, with the common availability of antitank mines, these armored cars will be blown to little pieces in a war zone like Kosovo. Abrahms and Bradleys are more likely to survive such a blast (moreso the first) while the LAV will just explode. Granted, the choice between a deuce-and-a-half, a Humvee, or a LAV is easily decided. However, the choice between a LAV and an MBT is quite a bit different. If the plan is to support these LAV brigades with slower deploying MBT brigades, that sounds perfect. I would just hate to see the whizzbang LAV crowd from killing MBT development though.

 

[dcdomain]

What happened to getting machines to fight for humans??? Where the Terminators at?

 

[DABANSHEE]

Anti tanks mines can be taken into account in the suspension/wheel/track design - an Australia Centurian trank hit a land mine in Vietnam &amp; was repaired in about half 'n hour or something (cause the designers took landmines into account) using bolt-on assembly parts that were stored along the rear top of the chassis sides. Some US engineers drove past &amp; they were dumfound &amp; how easy it was to repair - apparently it takes a couple of days in a workshop to repair an M60 with similar damage.

Obviously the Brits learnt something from all their Crusader/Cromwell/Comet tanks that 'brewed up' during the war (speed isnt everything?).

 

[StageLeft]

AndrewR

Do you know this because you've served, or you're a military analyst, or just have an interest in it or a combination of those?

 

[BoberFett]

MBT = Medium Battle Tank???

There will always be a place for the light armored vehicle, I see this as nothing more than a departure from tracked vehicles.

 

[DaBoneHead]

DaBanshee is correct. Rarely is a tank truly destroyed by a landmine, or even an AT round. Most often, they are referred to as &quot;knocked-out&quot;, and almost all are salvageable. The only time this isn't usually true if the vehicle gets hit in the magazine, then all hell breaks lose.

I have yet to read specs on the new vehicles, but I suspect composite armor, and very little aluminum (aluminium for those of British influence).

A side note:

The Centurian was the first tank that had a good gun stablization mechanism -- the first tank that could have a reasonable chance of success when firing on the move. However, the initial tanks didn't have any traversable machine guns on board, thus relying on infantry to deal with infantry. During the Korean War (when they first saw combat), there are stories of these tanks getting swarmed by chinese and having to &quot;button-up&quot; and drive through houses and trees to try to knock the chinese off. So, though the Brits are clever, they too can be shortsighted.

We aren't getting rid of MBT's, just redefining their roles. The M1* is horribly expenive to operate. You have to replace the barrel (120mm) about every 500-650 rounds @ 55K per barrel, and the tank treads only get 1,250 miles before they have to be replaced @ 30K per tread. These things are money pits. The new vehicles will save money, as well as be better able to deal with low-grade threats. RPG's are classified as low-grade, so I am sure they will deploy with adequate protection.

 

[DaBoneHead]

MBT -> Main Battle Tank.

 

[StageLeft]

Damn, this stuff is interesting. Now I know why my dad reads history-of-war books like some sort of vulture.

 

[AndrewR]

Skoorb: I've been reading military history and books about weaponry for the last twenty years (and I'm only 28 ). I also am an officer in USAF but did do one year of Army ROTC before I figured out what a rotten service that is (in terms of how they treat their people -- by far the worst in that regard).

I read another article on MSNBC.com about the same subject, and I still get the impression that this is the first step to eliminating Main Battle Tanks (MBTs ). My other concern is the limited mobility of wheeled vehicles compared to tracked tanks. How do these LAVs do in the desert? I have no idea. I know that they have generally excellent cross country mobility, such as the Humvee, but it doesn't equal a tank. Why not create a replacement for the Sheridan?

Back in the late '80s, they were working on some prototype tanks that were turretless (much like the Swedish one) with a rapid fire gun -- I think similar to the naval cannons they put on cruisers and destroyers these days (OTO-Melara 76mm, whatever the name is). Eliminating the turret would cut down the cost and the weight, and the suspension used in the Swedish S-tank (I think it is) was fast enough to move quite spryly. Big downside is the lack of the ability to fire on the move, however. Nix that.

Another possibility to reduce weight and increase survivability is to put the gun on a rotating mount, but all the crew are in the vehicle body. The gun is remotely loaded and aimed. That combines the advantages of a turretless vehicle (low profile, lower weight, lower cost) with the benefits of an MBT (heavy armor, heavy firepower, tracked mobility). Some research was done into this possibility also several years ago.

One thing that is pointed out in the MSNBC article, which hadn't occurred to me before -- why is the US Army encroaching on the territory of the Marine Corps? As I mentioned, the USMC has deployed LAVs for quite a few years, and they always have an Expeditionary Force close by in a Navy battlegroup (a brigade perhaps?). I can understand the need to augment the Marines on short notice with an Army brigade or two, but the idea of converting the Army into a large Marine Corps doesn't make sense. These medium armored vehicles would have been destroyed by Saddam's tanks as is mentioned in the articles so using the Gulf as an example of the problem with heavy tanks doesn't work.

As for RPGs, they might be a low grade threat, but they can take out a Bradley (or could, at least -- may have improved them now). Also, that doesn't account for something like an AT-3 Sagger which is an old missile, but I don't know the Russians' latest AT weapon (similar to our TOW or Dragon). Further, the mention that tanks can survive AT mines supports the use of them rather than these medium armored alternatives. A LAV is more likely to be outright destroyed by an AT mine since the mine is intended to attack a tank, not their lightly armored little brothers.

DABANSHEE: The M60 is a rather ancient design. I wonder how the M1 handles AT mine hits. Of course, the British are even more heavily (no pun intended) in favor of the massive land battleship concept -- the Challenger is an absolute monster. Doesn't it have a 125mm rifled cannon? It outweighs the M1 series, I believe.

 

[DaBoneHead]

Andrew,

I haven't seen that article, could you link to it?

I knew of some of these recommendations from a while back, but I haven't been keeping up with the development side of things. I can surmise why we would want to do this, that is move to lighter vehicles, and that kind of goes with a shift in national defense strategy.

At one time, the fundamental policy outlining national preparedness centered around fighting two large wars simultaneously: such as one in vietnam and one in europe. As time has passed and the balance of power in the world shifted, we no longer see the need to be able to fight two large wars simultaneously, but instead need to be able deal with numerous regional threats, such as a threat in SE asia, 3 in africa, and a containment force to keep Iraq from picking on its neighbors. The need to deploy forces in many places around the world (possibly into combat situations) dictate an overall change in the structure of our armed forces. No doubt, one day we will look back upon the days of having the Soviet Union as our adversary as being &quot;the good old days&quot;. To get them to their designated areas and to keep them in the field will dictate lighter, simpler machines. The american public would not tolerate putting our soldiers in inferior weapons systems... the first time we suffered a big loss due to bad equipment the public would practically revolt.

But back to the question: I don't think they are actually phasing out MBT's... we spent way too much money on them and we have come up with arguably the best MBT in the world. Fortunately, only a few tanks could challenge the M1A2 for queen of the battlefield, and these tanks belong to the Brits and Germans. Chinese and Russian tanks use Rolled steel for their primary armor, and though lighter, are not nearly as capable. We learned alot from that damned Sherman debacle.

Oh, and we are actually producing M1's for sales overseas. I forget their actual designation, but I believe it is the M1A3. I lighter series, that will find its way to our Arab allies. The fact that we would sell some of this technology speaks for how things have changed. Weapons systems like the M1a1 and AH-64D would never have been considered for sale, but times have changed and it fits into our designs to arm our allies with the best we have. It is also a boon to General Dynamics

 

[DABANSHEE]

Yeh, those Challenger's are humungus. They actually evolved out of some Private contract designs Vickers were doing for the Indian Army. Eventually one or 2 of the Gulf states (where there services are mainly made up of Brit contract soldiers/sailors/airmen) decided they wanted in on the 'boys toys' &amp; wanted ones that were up armed &amp; up armoured &amp; basically uped everything. Well anyway the contract was too small to be viable, so in the end the Brits ended up having to put out an order for Challengers too, even though the tank regiments were quite happy with Cheiftens. Actually in someways the Cheiften is a radical evolution (is that a contradiction of terms) of the Centurion, while the Challenger is a radical evolution of the Cheiften. Even though the Vickers 'Indian Army' MBTs are a completely different tank (smaller, lighter, different running gear, drive train, etc), you can definitly see its influences on the Challenger.

Andrew, both the Centurion &amp; the M26 Pershing Tank came out the same year, 1945 (same year as the JSIII - 1945 was definitly the year the MBT was born), the M60 evolved from the Pershing Tank. Which makes it a later design than the Centurion, even though it was based on an earlier design (the Pershing came out at least 6 months before the Centurion, actually a couple even managed to fire off a few rounds in anger, in the closing days of WW11).

In relation to what DaBoneHead was saying, the Centurian had a choice of either a Besa machine gun or fast firing Polsten cannon (&amp; later a Browning M2), mounted co-axle to the main gun (either a 17 pdr, 20 pdr or the 105mm HQF that eventually became the standard NATO tank gun). Well, anyway, both the Besa &amp; the Polsten came with specially made rounds that were ballistically the same as main armenent. It was designed that way so that the secondary armenent could form a part of the gun aiming/ranging system - as the tank rattled up 'n down at 20mph they could fire off tracer rounds from the stabilised turret, then when the tracer hit the opposing target, they could then fire off their main gun &amp; have a good chance of hitting it, straight off.

 

[AndrewR]

MSNBC article from WashPost

DaBoneHead, your estimation of the change in national security policy makes sense. The US' current problems internationally are the 3rd World hotspots and are no longer focused on Europe. With the softening of relations on the Korean peninsula, that threat is minimized. Currently, the largest looming conflicts involve China and the India/Pakistan conflict. Everything else is low key and requires fast reaction.

However, the Gulf War proved that we do have to maintain a sizeable conventional heavy tank force, and I think it makes sense to have them in our arsenal to bolster the firepower of these light vehicles. They are nearly invulnerable to most weapons, and the weapons that can destroy them are non deployable by a ragtag bunch of terrorists (aircraft ASMs, heavy tanks with discarding sabot rounds), which gives them a tremendous advantage. Besides, they can fire all of those depleted uranium rounds and screw up our enemies' DNA!

DABANSHEE: When you mentioned the Centurion, I was thinking of the Chieftain. Now I recall the tank. IIRC, the Soviets were still using that tracer technique to aim their tanks until the T-72 came out. Plus, their export tanks, which is what most of the world has, generally did not include the advanced electronics that the Soviets deployed in their army. I would suspect that Russian tanks barely work any more, however. Their Navy is sinking, and their Air Force is crashing with regularity. It's a bad time for the Russian military (they just sold their big aircraft carrier, Admiral Something-or-rather, to the Indians).

 

[DaBoneHead]

THEY SOLD IT? It was the only other supercarrier in the world... shows you how much I have been out of it!


Face it, everything the russians had is for sale. The thing that has me and associates worried is that they are dumping Su-27 Flankers on the market. Those things give me the heebee-jeebees. If ever they get good pilots behind those machines, it could seriously threaten us. The chinese are snapping them up like hot-cakes...

Not good.

 

[DaBoneHead]

The most successful tank of all WWII was the T34/85, but not just because it was a great tank (and the reason the Germans built the heavy Tigers), but because the Russians based everything from bulldozers to command-vehicles on the same chassis. This allowed for interchangeability in the field. And made them easier and cheaper to produce. It is good to see that they are standardizing on fewer chassis, that alone will make deploying units, and keeping them in field longer, easier. Also, I am betting on layered armor for the future... a layer of composite armor, a layer of ceramic, a layer of aluminum. Something like that can defeat most forms ammunition, and remain lightweight... interesting indeed.

Thanks Andrew.