I've been harking on the fact that since WW2, the USMC has been behind the 8 ball when it comes to armored personnel carriers. A visual history will show you exactly what I mean.
Above you see pics of the M75 APC. It served with some distinction during the Korean War, however it was expensive to produce and maintain.
Next up was the M44. A co-produced vehicle, it bridged the gap between the M75 and the M59. Large does not describe it, it rivaled MBT's in size...consider it the original Israeli Namer.
The M59 was the official follow on to the M75. It sought to correct many of the deficiencies found but still was not a satisfactory design. It served in the early stages of the Vietnam war.
The M113. Many believe that this vehicle will serve for 100 years. It would probably still be in front line service except for the scare that the Soviet Union put on the Army by introducing the BMP. The BMP was supposedly the first IFV, but that concept is in my opinion flawed. The Soviets wanted a vehicle that could transport infantry in a nuclear battlefield and allow them to fight from inside the vehicle, not having to dismount. In actual practice supposed IFV always operate in the APC role. Dismounting infantry short of the objective and providing fire support while the grunts take the hill.
The Bradley. The USA's first IFV. Many point to the battle of 73 Eastings as proof of concept. I see it differently. In my reading of that battle Bradley's operated as Tank Killers using their TOW missiles to engage heavy armor from stand off distance and then using superior optics and fire control to take out supporting vehicles. The Bradley will continue but it will be modified and upgraded.
Stryker. The US Army didn't procure the Stryker because it was believed that the Bradley was inadequate, but because they wanted a strategically mobile APC. The concept is flawed and the double hulled stryker weighs as much as the Bradley.
Next up for the Army is the Ground Combat Vehicle and the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (a Bradley and M113 replacement respectively). The Marine Corps has struggled along with the LVTP. That WW2 vehicle served till the late 50's. Next up was the LVTP-5. It served throughout Vietnam to the early 70's. And finally the AAV (originally the LVTP-7 until "renamed" by the powers that be).
This history shows why I believe that at the very least a DRASTICALLY upgraded AAV or ACV is needed ALONG WITH the MPC.
Next up for the Army is the Ground Combat Vehicle and the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (a Bradley and M113 replacement respectively). The Marine Corps has struggled along with the LVTP. That WW2 vehicle served till the late 50's. Next up was the LVTP-5. It served throughout Vietnam to the early 70's. And finally the AAV (originally the LVTP-7 until "renamed" by the powers that be).
This history shows why I believe that at the very least a DRASTICALLY upgraded AAV or ACV is needed ALONG WITH the MPC.
I haven't found good numbers on the Stryker DVH, but I thought it was supposed to only be 2 1/4 tonnes heavier than a base Stryker. That'd put it in the 20 tonne range, IIRC.
ReplyDeleteM2A3s have a combat weight of up to 30 tonnes.
IMHO, the Strykers have performed well overall. Every armored vehicle in the inventory needed a mine/IED resistance overhaul.
Strykers have shown poor off road mobility and a vulnerability to mines. its funny that LAV-25's operated by Marines and Aussies are doing well but Strykers are rolling coffins. as far as weight are you adding everything? not only do you get more belly armor but you also have beefed up suspension and engine. also what is combat weight these days? is it just ammo and troops or does it include RPG nets and anti ied devices?
DeleteHmm.. I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The LAV-25s as currently configured aren't at the Stryker's protection level. So if the Stryker is a "rolling coffin", the LAV-25 is a better-armed pine box. ;)
DeleteAll wheeled vehicles have certain off-road limitations, LAV-25s included. It's a trade-off for superior on-road performance, lower fuel consumption, better ride, maintainability, and so on. The more cr*p you add on them, the worse they get.
I don't know what the combat weight entails these days. Probably depends on who you ask.
as far as the Stryker vs. LAV-25 comparison what i'm talking about is how is a lighter, faster more mobile vehicle able to operate effectively for two different forces that are employing them differently (USMC/Aussie Army) yet the Stryker is getting its guys killed. did you keep up with the news from the one Stryker unit that got sent there? they were almost rendered combat ineffective because they got hit so hard.
DeleteSo it has more to do with how they are being employed and specific circumstances than the vehicle particulars.
DeleteThe LAV-25 is a recon asset. The Stryker is an APC. Apples to oranges.
i knew you were going to say that. thats why i put the Australian Army into the mix. they use it as an APC and a fire support vehicle and a recon vehicle. but even that doesn't quite tell the story because if its being used as recon in Afghanistan then it should be taking more hits than a pure APC type. remember the Army always rolls an MRAP as an anti-ied vehicle at the front of their convoys.
DeleteIf you are speaking about the 5th Bde, 2nd Inf Div's experience in 2007 in Afghanistan, it appears as though the commander dispensed with established COIN theory and went hyper-aggressive.
Deletehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2012/06/the_war_in_afghanistan_and_harry_tunnell_s_stryker_battalion.html
Given the types of bombs the insurgents were using, nothing short of a big MRAP would survive, thought the DVH Stryker apparently is significantly better than the base Stryker.
If used the way 5th Bde's Strykers were used, LAV-25s would've fared just as poorly (or worse owing to their lighter armor).
So the lesson here is you need to adapt to your enemy, and have a selection of tools in the toolbox.
thats the group i'm talking about. but i wish you had used another paper besides SLADE. those guys are left of center. regardless though. the Marine Corps ops in Afghanistan have been labelled as hyper aggressive by US Army and British Commanders but the ied hits on vehicles has been remarkably less than that unit suffered. i will admit that the USMC does ALOT more foot patrols than Army units but they still run quite a few mechanized raids and such. you made good points but my idea is that if you're having to rearmor a vehicle to such a drastic degree then it had issues...consider the Polish experience with the Patria AMV. its a more heavily armored version than other but the only thing they added for Afghanistan was rpg nets.
DeleteLower numbers of IED hits means lower casualties.
DeleteThe Patria AMV is already much more heavily armored than either the Stryker or LAV-25, and has the weight to prove it. Plus, I can't imagine the Polish units were put in the same situations or used their vehicles in the same way as 5th Bde.
Here's another take on Col. Tunnell's (5th Bde's commander) performance.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/11/army-report-blames-lapses-on-stryker-commander-112711w/
Solomon, do you like upgraded Bradleys, without the turret and with a RWS, in the APC role? I recall you mentioning that a ways back.
ReplyDeletebeing a libertarian and a pro-military guy i absolutely love the Bradley with RWS. it would be a simple mod and could get the gear into the hands of troops alot faster than reinventing the wheel. additionally you can add all kinds of tech to it to have virtually new vehicles.
DeleteWhy is stryker being more pounded than the LAV-25?Is it because the LAV as better firepower or is there any outher reason?
ReplyDeleteAs for the GCV what do you think that will be the outcome,Solomon? Foreign design,improved Bradley(whith that 40mm cannon you showed the outher post i hope:)),or the tracked Striker ? I just dont see a totally new IFV being introduced right now...I would like to know your take on this.
As for the Marine Corps MPC and ACV...i have a gut feeling that the Patria/Havoc will win and that Bae systems will pull out a SuperHornet on the ACV(they will put out a ACV that looks like an AAV-7 but its a far more capable vehicle )
stop it! you're messing with my next post!
DeleteIt is true that the Stryker is a lot heavier now than the original design allowed for and it's suffered for it but this is an overall trend, not a stryker specific issue.
ReplyDeleteBradleys are a lot heavier than they used to be too, MRAP weights spiraled out of control and the newer tracked APCs like the Puma and Namer are medium to heavy MBT weights.
The USMC problem is that the trend toward heavy is incompatible with good amphibious performance. IFVs/APCs like to be compact and heavy. Good amphibious performance drives towards big and light. The PT-76 and the recent Chinese amphibs are good examples.
I think that you can make a good case that storming a defended beach with amphibious vehicles is just not going to happen anymore and, if that assumption holds, the whole idea of an amphibious assault vehicle is a waste of time when better, cheaper vehicles can be brought in by LCAC.
This is BB1984 transitioning to a new google account BTW.
have to disagree with you on the big and light. check out the Patria AMV/Havoc that Lockheed Martin is putting together. its coming in at 58,000 pounds! so is the beast from BAE. and it isn't just a case of amphibious assault being dead or not. we can expand that to the other forcible entry options too. are we gonna kill the 82nd because flying C-17's into a heavily defended airspace will kill the division in the air? no. we're going to peel back the forces until we can drop that division close to its objective. so no need to give up on amphibious operations we jsut have to be smarter about how we do it.
DeleteI didn't say amphibs couldn't be heavy, I said that they can't support the levels of armor that are in fashion, which is more related to density. The AMV is a case in point: it is amphibious . . . until you up armor it for IEDs. The Polish AMVs uparmored for A-stan lost their amphibious capability.
DeleteI also didn't say to give up on Amphibious operations, I said give up on the forced entry scenario which is the only one that requires an AAV/EFV. I actually exactly agree with your example: forced entry by airborne assault is out but the concept lives on either through surprise, indirect attack or rolling back the defenses through other means. In these scenarios you don't need IFVs that can swim because you have a lot of other ways to get them to shore.
The BMP was not the first APC.
ReplyDeleteWant to see the very first Armored Personnel Carrier?
Go back to world war one they turned those huge female/male tanks into a tracked vehicle that could haul infantry across no man's land.
It was called the Mark IX.
didn't say first APC, i said the BMP was the first IFV. and on that i'm going off the recollection of armor historians. by my thinking the LVT's that were gunned up during WW2 were the first IFV. they had multiple machinegun locations and transported Marines onto the objective relying on heavy gunfire to keep the enemies head down.
DeleteI also think the BMP is correctly regarded as the first IFV. IFVs have a heavy, turreted armament which rules out both LVTs and the later M113 ACAV, which brought the same concept to Vietnam.
DeleteFirst generation IFVs included the infantry actually fighting from the vehicle with firing ports but later generations have abandoned this.
Stryker lacks fire power. Both Canadian and Australian LAV III employ 25mm. Foreign 8x8 wheeled armors either go with 25 or a larger caliber. It has no organic anti-armor capability either. For a conventional style force on force engagement, US troops are hopelessly outgunned. The Chinese equivalent of Stryker, type-09(aka ZDB09) comes with a 30mm gun plus HJ heavy anti tank missile (roughly equals to TOW). By itself Stryker has no chance of defeating it before itself gets knocked out.
ReplyDeleteIn a simplistic vehicle-on-vehicle engagement, perhaps. But SBCT vs Canadian/Australian/Chinese equivalent, perhaps not as much.
DeleteEvery IAV squad has a Javelin. There are MGSes organic to the companies, Stryker-TOWs higher up. And SBCTs have significant C4ISR resources that most foreign units don't have.
Plus, in a real conflict an SBCT would be just a part of the overall US force structure.
Yes, Called an Amtank wasn't it? Turreted and a short barrel Howitzer I believe. An Mg at at least two points possibly four.
ReplyDeleteIt carried troops so you would be right.
The very first were Chariots?
Called an LTV (A) 1-5 with 6 man crew, Some amtracs of the period of the Okinawa landings had three MG with three sided armor for the gunner it hauled troops. Some had the turret of the Stewart light tank, other models had a 75 mm howitzer added and the British actually placed a towed six pound gun on top of one trails, wheels and all.
ReplyDeleteThe entire reasoning for acquiring the Stryker was for the Interim Combat Vehicle. We just happened to have them on hand when OEF and OIF started.
ReplyDeleteHere are some of the original requirements:
“Interim Combat Vehicle(ICV) shall have the capability of, (1) entering, being transportable in, and exiting a C-130 aircraft under its own power and (2) be capable to immediate combat operations (does not require a full basis load, but is desired).”
“The ICV combat capable deployment weight must not exceed 38,000 pounds gross vehicle weight to allow, requirement (3) C-130 transport of 1,000 nautical miles without requiring a USAF waiver for maximum aircraft weight on fixed runways...”
Criteria one was not met which means two and three moot. The DVH, slat armor and bolt-on Ceramic armor adds several tons and make it too heavy and large for C-130s.
We operated a vehicle that was a copy of the Canadian MOWAG III. We found out that the Stryker wasn't very good in rough terrain. The Canadians ALSO found out the Stryker/LAV III wasn't good enough in cross country situations which is why the Canucks are reviewing bids for the Close Combat Vehicle, so it has vehicles that can keep up with the Leopard II (which the Canadians also found out they needed).
But what do we do? We double down and buy more Strykers.