This is new a 155mm on a LAV 3 what status is it at the moment still a paper based concept?
I am not sure of its current status but it was around when the UK was looking at the LIMAWS (G) or Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System - Gun programme. Not sure if it was a contender but it showed up as a concept about that time. M777 Portee 155-mm Self-Propelled Howitzer | Military-Today.com
Would have made sense on a LAV V as they had selected that platform at the time for the utliity vehicle component of FRES.
Though it is true a tank does the job best the reason we see so many 'FSV's in historical wars is that tanks aren't always avaliable to everyone who might benifit from fire support under armour.
We need to recognise war time and peace time see different priorities. There is plenty of resources and personel during a war and a clear need for such fire support under armour, so they get improvised in the field.
In peace time, money and personel are not so freely avavlible and priorities will see such things a FSV's and tank destroyers being packed up, scraped, etc as resources won't strech far enough to maintain these sorts of perephial support systems.
WWII is full of examples of improvised FSV's and tank destoryers, but a more recent example of this process of improvising is the Humvee in Iraq. These patrol vechicals got more passive protection and more firepower in response to real combat conditions. In peace we can expect all this to vanish as resources are reduced and fouced on more demanding programs.
120mm SP mortors were mentioned and these fall into the same catagory. In a long bitter war, it is useful to have organic artillary for those times when support is busy elsewhere or not fast enough. But in peace time, the resources aren't there for every little weapon system that might come in handy at some point.
Ok, I haven't been on here for awhile, but the news about the SP artillary program being scraped bought me back to find out what you guys think. Seems to me that deployed towed artillary is so vurnerable in hight tech war as to be not worth bringing. The little towed systems, the 105mm we have, are worth keeping though. There are places were everything has to be flown in or man handled in and those light guns really come into their own when they are the only artillary around. In our region there are examples of that sort of terrain and it would be silly to throw them out. But, should we be asked again by the UN to send land forces to where ever, SP armoured artillary would be essential to that task force.
Seems to me cancelling that program is a bit short sighted.
The problem with AGS solutions is they tend to lack protection. Tanks are a balance of firepower, protection and mobility. When you sacrifice one you tend to end up with something that gets defeated in battle. A LAV based AGS would have this problem in a big way and Army testing and experiments as part of the A21 initiative showed this decisively. Which was why the M1 was brought in the first place.
That being said with LAND 400 and Beersheba a tank solution with a common chassis and systems to the cavalry vehicle would be an ideal evolution to replace the M1. This would make it much easier to raise, train and sustain proper armd cav regts with a mix of tanks, cav and lift vehicles. Which is the UK’s eventual plan with the FRES SV family.
The G6 is probably the best artillery system fielded since WWII but that doesn’t make it a direct fire vehicle. The turret is not able to traverse beyond 40 degrees either side of the chassis front and it can’t fire on the move.
The South Africans did develop a wheeled tank during the 70s and 80s called “Bismark”. It was about 40 tonnes with 105mm gun (that could be re-tubed to 120mm). But in the end they decided to stick with conventional tracked tanks because despite the huge advantages of wheels for strategic and operational mobility tracks enabled more weight for armour and better tactical mobility. Better to have 10 tracked tanks at the point of contact that win without loss against medium intensity threats than 30 wheeled tanks at the point of contact that suffer 10 vehicles knocked out.
The G6-52 has all those capabilities (MRSI, etc) in spades. I guess the lack of apparent export success is more the market and appearances. The G6 won quite a few sales to the Mid East and would have won to India except for all the BS of doing business in India (corruption). Its been hard for it to compete against domestic programs and against all the cheap US surplus M109s. It was ruled out of LAND 17 because of the 360 degree turret traverse requirement.
The CV90T as it stands now lacks the weight margins to provide the kind of protection needed (even with advanced armour arrays and APS) to not be knocked out by a concerted infantry effort. The CV90 and ASCOD vehicles upgraded for FRES for another 10+ tonnes of gross vehicle weight do. One of these types with a big gun and the latest armour technology would be able to replace the M1 without loss of survivability.
Both these vehicles were developed for the abortive SPH requirement for the US Stryker project. They are self-propelled artillery and either would have been an excellent solution for LAND 17 but neither is a direct fire vehicle. They both lack fire on the move, decent protection and any type of shells other than artillery shells (no APDS).
LIMAWS(G) was a light weight, air portable system so would have not been suitable for a LAV V based vehicle. The Supacat with the M777 and a load of ammo and crew was actually light enough to be lifted by a CH-47D. Though you couldn’t do it in the hot and high air of Afghanistan with a full load of helo armour (a CH-53K could). Also if you didn’t want the truck you could ditch it for more ammo (and a quad bike because that’s all you need to tow the superlative M777) and still use the same gun to fly in and out.
The BAE LWSPH may look like a gun on a truck but it was nothing like it. The gun ordnance is fully operated, loaded and fired automatically and is just carried on the back of the vehicle for transport. I’ve explained this gun about three or four times on the internet since it was made public including in this very thread!
If you want to understand this system I’ve given a blow by blow description here:
Info on the BAe LWSPH (Light Weight Self Propelled Howitzer)??
Nothing wrong with this. Cavalry units often need their own SP mortars more so because they can provide lots of smoke at short notice to cover a rapid withdrawal. But in the cash strapped Australian Army SP mortars and anti-tank vehicles tend to be at the bottom of the list. These capabilities would not be hard to acquire for the ASLAV or Bushmaster (or an ATGW version of the M113AS4, there is a SP mortar M113AS4) but there just isn’t the interest.
My bad, I actually was aware of the Portee nature of the LWSPH and that it was air portable, I just had a brain fart on the LAV SPG in forgetting it was too heavy to be lifted by a Chook.
I see Russia is trialling Centauros and Feccias, I know they are getting on a bit but they would look good in AUSCAM. Any idea if they have been offered up for LAND 400?
Thanks AG.
The Centauro is an excellent anti-tank vehicle. If you are planning on engaging enemy mobile columns in open terrain then a vehicle like the Centauro would be better at it than an M1 tank. This was demonstrated in the A21 experimentation and in previous US Army studies where the enhanced operational mobility of lightweight vehicles means you can concentrate more at any point compared to conventional tracked main battle tanks. So (for example) you would have 30 light or wheeled tanks on hand to hit an enemy unit when otherwise you would only have 10 MBTs.
So the Centauro would make a lot of sense for a Russian army wanting to defend their steppes from invasion. Since the likelihood of the Australian Army engaging in freewheeling manoeuvre warfare in open terrain is close to zero (freewheeling manoeuvre warfare in close terrain is a different story) then this type of vehicle is probably not a good solution.
It’s a long way a coming but I would bet on something similar to the FRES SV emerging as the required need for the LAND 400 cavalry ISR and lift vehicle (whatever it is called tomorrow). There aren’t many wheeled vehicles, even the big ones like Boxer and PIRV, that can carry all the weight needed to enclose the required payload in high protection. If a new wheeled AFV utilising weight and volume saving running gear (hybrid) like an upsized SEP 8x8 was to emerge then it could be a contender.
So basically the ASLAV is a DOA solution and we should have gone for a tracked CAV option instead? Not being argumentative just curious if this is an appropriate extrapolation.
Been a fan of Armoured CAV ever since reading about the Battle of 73 Easting in the early 90s and have thought an ACR would be a good model for 1 ARMD Regt although the 130 odd tanks it would require would be a killer for us. That said having worked with quite a few tankers over the years I get the impression that one thing they are always short of is people, i.e. 3 tanks with 4 crew equals 12 blokes per troop, not really enough when you look at everything they have to do. Mirror the tank troop on a RAAC CAV Trp, 4 tanks + 2 APC/CFV and problem solved.
No the ASLAV is a cavalry vehicle. So it is used for recce and picking on little guys. It’s a very good cavalry vehicle. You stick a big gun on it and use it as a tank you need to keep your distance from any enemy. But we don’t have any such ASLAVs. If we were to buy some they would be great for fighting a tank war across the Nullarbor against an invading Panzer Army from Madagascar but I don’t think that’s likely to happen.
The American ACR is a brigade sized formation. Their troops are squadron/company sized sub units.
The ACR is designed for a particular cavalry role. Our tanks have to do all sorts of things. From leading a rifle company in an attack against a bunker in a jungle through to providing support to cavalry like the tanks in an ACR. So keeping them in their own three tank troops with four per squadron gives the flexibility to dole them out and concentrate them as per need.
Yes I was aware of that, the structure is not dissimilar to our APC regiments, i.e. an RAAC APC section has 4 vehicles and a Trp 15, the US structure has 2x4 tank platoons and 2x6 CFV scout platoons forming the core of each Trp, 3 of these troops and a 14 tank Coy to each Sqn. Just think it would be a good fit for us, obviously 1 Armd would only have sufficient vehicles for a single Sqn but 3 deployable RAAC CAV Sqn sized troops and a RAAC tank Regt Sqn sized Company.
I need sleep I am not sure what I have typed makes sense but I do know what i mean, might try again when I am more awake.
Only on paper. The APC troops are platoon sized organisations just commanded by Captains so as to provide enough umph to tell a RAInf Major company commander how APCs should be used when they lift that company. The APC squadron is still a company sized sub unit commander by a Major. Just happens that the US assigns Captains to command company sized sub units. But it all levels out at the APC RHQ which is the same as the US Army ACR’s three squadron HQs.
The US Army ACR troop has a combat team level HQ with four platoons: two of tanks and two of cavalry (plus a mortar section). So in effect it is the same as an Australian cavalry squadron with one troop detached and two tank troops attached (plus a mech inf mortar section). The only difference is the type of cavalry vehicles issued (M3 Bradleys in place of ASLAVs) and that US tank platoons have four tanks vs Australian tank troops with three tanks.
The US Army ACR squadron combines three of these ‘troops’ with a battle group level HQ, a tank company (same as an Australian tank squadron but with three platoons of four tanks in place of four troops of three tanks) and a self-propelled artillery battery (M109). You could form one out of 2 Cav Regt (-) with most of 1 Armd Regt’s tank troops (10 out of 12) and one SHQ attached plus the mortar platoon of a mech inf bn and a medium battery if we had SPH on inventory.
The ACR organisation would actually be a pretty terrible organisation for the Australian Army. Despite it's combat power, US Cavalry is still primarily a reconnaissance organisation, able to enable the whole recon-pull thing for a US division/corps. In that they are similar to Australian Cavalry, however US Cavalry also has the combat power to fight for information, which is something that Australian Cavalry can't (by doctrine at least) do.
The key thing is, the US ACR at some point hands over the battle to the big, powerful US heavy divisions to fight the main battle to decision. If you formed a similar organisation in the Australian Army, it would end up being about half the combat power in the entire Army. After the ACR had fought the counter-recon battle and found the gaps to send the main body through, who is left to actually fight the main battle? Light infantry? Not particularly helpful. Realistically, in the Australian Army, no commander is going to be able to afford to assign tanks to recon forces as they are needed for the main body.
Another point is an APC troop now, on paper at least, consists of 24 vehicles (three 7 car sections and a three car THQ). A tank troop consists of four tanks, with a squadron having three troops.
That's the plan, but it all hinges on the major actually LISTENING to the Troop Leader, which happens far, far less than it should.