Note: I've been in the saddle for the Lockheed Martin Havoc, been gaga over the BAE SuperAV and the CV-90 Armadillo, so spare me a few minutes to be a bit impressed with of all things Textron Turrets...thanks for the link SPUDMAN!!
 |
| This is the tried and true AAV style turret...just upgraded a great deal. |
 |
| Same style AAV turret yet its remote weapon system...I never knew it existed... |
 |
| This is a 25mm remote weapon station that looks capable of fitting onto the existing AAV weapon station. |
 |
| 30mm remote weapon station (Apache chain gun). |
 |
| 30mm Bushmaster caliber remote weapon station. |
 |
| 105mm turret. It looks like the same that was once tested on the V-600. Personally I'm glad to see the institutional knowledge and the work invested preserved for future use. |
 |
| A proposed LAV-Assault Gun offered to the USMC |
My question is why didn't Marines go with a 20/25 mm cannon back when testing the AAV prototypes? They were testing them, maybe it was cheaper to fit it with the MK-19/50cal. These little turrets need thermal sites, all I see is periscopes.
ReplyDeleteUS Army Armored Security Vehicles use the same turret. So what exactly is your point? As far as why they haven't gone with a bigger gun, its quite simple. the theory goes that if you give someone an APC killing gun he'll go after APC/Trucks etc. if he has a 50 cal and 40mm he'll be going after enemy troops...in other words he'll be doing his job of providing firesupport.
Deleteits something thats still debated today and perfectly illustrated with the US Army Stryker vs. the Canadian LAV-III. the Stryker has a rws 50 cal while the LAV-III has a 25mm chain gun. which is better? who knows but each vehicle fulfills the needs of the Army they're assigned to.
Comparing the job of a Armored security vehicles M1117s to a assault vehicle doesn't make sense. M1117s were given enough firepower to deal with enemy infantry. Strykers with 50cal/MK-19s were meant to provide cover for infantry against enemy infantry. Army would never send a stryker to do the job of a IFV. Amphibious (Assault) Vehicles should be able to engage other IFV like BMP. Are Marines supposed to just rely on M1 tanks for cover against enemy IFVs?
Deleteuh what? the AAV is an APC. a vehicles name is irrelevant. its purpose and use is everything. Assault might be in the name but it is and will always be an APC. don't confuse how the Army does business with how the Marine Corps gets things done. again. just like the Stryker, the AAV is an APC, not an IFV. fire support comes in many forms for the USMC. from the Wing that's always there yet i beat up on constantly to artillery to naval artillery to USN aircraft to USAF aircraft to allied fires.
Deletea vehicles name is irrelevant. its purpose and use is everything.
AAV isn't armored to fight IFV so it isn't Armed to fight them. Its not meant for that sort of thing, thats probably why they wanted the Expeditionary Vehicle. For self defense purposes would it maybe be possible to mount a Javelin or something on top, the way they used to mount Dragons on 113s? Back to the turrets though, it seems like the Army could build a nice common family of vehicles by mounting these various turrets on Bradleys or CV90s or whatever new vehicle they come up with. Got everything from APC to IFV to Light Tank covered right there. Edit-didn't see your response before I started typing Solomon.
DeleteI was expecting you to say the AAV was an apc. I always thought the AAV was an IFV that was just amphibious. I guess I am thinking Army doctrine. I assume the LAV-25 does what the Army M3A3 CAV Bradley does.
DeleteYeah, that also brings up why they made some Cav units switch to Humvees, they wanted them to scout and stop tangling with the enemy armor. Not sure what I think of that, surely they could have gotten ASV or Something with more armor than a hummvee....
DeleteMaybe put some Hellfires on a Stryker instead of humvees with tow.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete