Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?

[ironduke57]

That is the german FSCV from Krauss-Maffei. Rheinmetall 105mm Cannon which could fire one and more part ammo. The middle vision block could be replaced by an thermal-or an night vision side. Crew:3 Dismount´s:4. Combat weight:14t (metric). Max speed road: 61km/h. Max speed water: 6,3km/h. Engine: 300 PS 6-Cylinder-Diesel 6V53T from Detroit Diesel. 42 Round´s of 105mm Ammo. Front armour against 14.5mm. Side armour against 7.62mm.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[ArmyRick]

Yeah I have seen that before but like someone else stated, here comes Sparky to tell us about the solve-all-your-problems-do-anything Gavin (Never actually called a gavin but thats another argument).

I wonder if Sparky has actually been in a M113 (as we call them in the rest of the world).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Careful bring logic into Sparky's world is a sure why to be called a "FU*CKTARD", ask me how I know... ;D

On Youtube he calls himself "Dyanimic Para"

Actually if we could get something with the internal volume of a M113, mobility of a CV-90 and protection of a Puma, with a RWS, you would have a winner. Internal volume is the one thing the M113 does well.

 

[ironduke57]

Yeah I have seen that before ...

But not every one as you can see for example at Thucydides post.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[TCBF]

... Actually if we could get something with the internal volume of a M113, mobility of a CV-90 and protection of a Puma, with a RWS, you would have a winner. Internal volume is the one thing the M113 does well.

- Because the M-113 is basically a shoebox on tracks. A flexible battle taxi.
- The best IFV combo of Protection/Mobility/Firepower had it's genesis in the 1967 BMP-1, and that series has improved with age.
- The minute we ask a vehicle to do everything perfectly, we are asking the impossible.  The minute we ask a vehicle to do one thing perfectly (ie: "keep everyone in it alive"), we are building a special purpose vehicle.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have crawled through a couple of BMP I's, I'll pass on being in one thank you.

If safety was the only factor, we would be buying licences for the Namer. Our problem is that the CF is an expeditionary force who historically finds itself in all sorts of odd places with varying missions. The next mission might call for LAV's backed up with IFV's, or we might be involved in a full scale war against a conventional enemy, or carrying out a "true" peacekeeping mission using G-wagons. That's why I have always argued we need to be able to field a light and heavy brigade, because we won't have time to prepare if some major crap goes down.

Of course the winner for internal volume goes to the Amtracs, BTR-50 and the M75

 

[TCBF]

... That's why I have always argued we need to be able to field a light and heavy brigade, ...

- When the LFC Commander visited the 8CH(PL) in Lahr in 1991, the big discussion was where the three squadrons of Leopards would end up once we were no longer "forward deployed" in the FRG.  Our take was that the tanks should go to one spot in Canada. The Army solution was to put one Tk Sqn in each Bde.  We pointed out that it was an un-sustainable solution and that the technical trades who support the leopard could not generate enough trained techs to support three regts, two schools, etc.  We were then told that the tech world said it could be done.  Our Maint WOs and SNCOs expressed their doubts to the LFC Commander...

- The Techs were right, of course, as were we Crewmen, because we knew that after we pulled out of CFE, the CF would shrink (though we did not think it would drop from 90,000 to 45,000!).  What we did not think to consider was the politics: A field force consisting of a Heavy Bde, a Light Bde and an Air-Portable Bde makes the most sense, but in an economic crunch, guess which would be cancelled?  So the trick was to spread the goodies around to try and 'save' them. 

- Then, of course, there are two armies: The Career Army and the Operational Army. Guess which one takes priority? We have to spread those platforms around so the merit list can all experience commanding a wide selection of enablers.

 

[ArmyRick]

Well said.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Sorry to barge in late to this thread.

The Germans in WW2 had a vehicle that basically filled this role: The Sd.Kfz 251/9. This was a fire support variant of their standard infantry-carrying halftrack equipped with a low-velocity 75mm gun (the same one as on their early MkIVs). Each Gepanzerte Panzer Grenadier company had two of these vehicles. For the Germans this was, perhaps, a natural extension of the Infantry Guns found in their Infantry Regiments.

I can see the point in having such a vehicle, but whether it would fit in the Canadian Army is another matter. The 25mm certainly gives integral firepower to the infantry platoon/company and tanks working in a combat team setting provide a tremendous level of fire support. Would the added benefit of a LAV with a Cougar-esque turret outweigh the cost of adding a new vehicle?

I see the main benefit of a dedicated low velocity fire-support weapon during offensive operations to neutralize strong points. If we are conducting offensive operations then perhaps we can dicate the time and place and can thus have a greater chance of being able to call on our tanks to support said offensive operation. Would two or three added systems with low-velocity weapons provide true value-added in a combat team? Would a LAV company go it alone without tanks but with fire-support vehicles?

I think that I would rather see integral anti-tank assets (medium to long range) re-introduced to an infantry battalion before fire support. Having integral anti-tank capabilities means that the tanks can be concentrated instread of spread around to make people feel safer from enemy AFVs.

Having said all that, when I was overseas I saw the potential benefit of MGS as a fire-support vehicle in a tank-less theatre. Seeing as we were able to get tanks into theatre, though, I'd just as soon focus our resources on some other areas to replace aging fleets.

Regarding the distribution of tanks, I see the benefit to having a balanced fleet across the Army - ie having a tank squadron in each CMBG. Specialized brigades can work for one-off operations, but I think that our Army needs to be built with general-purpose as the guiding principle.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Germans stuck the same gun on their 8x8 armoured cars, would have been fun to enter that into the MGS competition  ;D In fact they stuck guns onto just about anything that could move.

I think the main failing of the MGS was trying to make it a tank killer. To be fair the gun used is quite common, and has alot of ammo for it. With a lower velocity gun, they likely could increase the ammo load quite a bit. The Brit' in WWII used a L/V 95 for lobbing "bin's" at the enemy, basically a large charge of HE or HEAT. Postwar you had the 165mm demolition gun and US had the 152mm which fired a useful HEAT, canister and flechette rd, case and shell was roughly the Length of a 155 shell. That particular gun had other issues which I won't get into. I think the shell used the same fuze as the 105mm howitzer.

 

[a_majoor]

While most of the arguments have been disposed of, there is one alternative which wasn't discussed/bashed etc: an APC carrying a large caliber recoiless cannon.

The best known examples are probably the British WOMBAT and MoBAT systems mounted on an FV-432, which fired 120mm rounds. It isn't much of a stretch to imagine an M-113 (excuse me; TLAV) or Bison mounting a 106mm RR. A LAV chassis without the turret (perhaps mounting a RWS with a machine gun) would also fill the bill for an inexpensive, low tech fire support vehicle.

While 106mm RR's still exist, ammunition supply will be spotty at first until a supplier gets on line, and an integrated day/night/thermal sight and laser rangefinder would make the weapons system very effective.

Of course the questions of where it fits in the battalion/battlegroup are still to be answered as well.....

 

[Infanteer]

I'm still wondering how this would beat a combo of an upgunned IFV (30-35mm) that could also be armed with a Javelin.

 

[McG]

While most of the arguments have been disposed of, there is one alternative which wasn't discussed/bashed etc: an APC carrying a large caliber recoiless cannon.

There are other options of a similar nature built on more advanced engineering which could provide greater effects:  http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA389156&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.###
Note: Replace the "###" with a "pdf" to make the link work.

Of course the questions of where it fits in the battalion/battlegroup are still to be answered as well.....

Same with the question of the need.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is the picture of the Sheridan interior, note the 152mm rounds, I think a modified version of such a gun would produced excellent effects in Infantry support. The 2 big issues with this gun were the caseless ammo and screw breech. Replace the breech with a convential version and the case with a brass one, the case is around 6" long. Needless to say this gun is not meant to fight tanks, but such a gun reduces top weight in a turret sigificantly over a high pressurre gun and increases the ammo load as well. The 152mm was well liked by the Infantry for it's HE and cannister rd.



The outside


Same gun, but in the M60A2 turret, note the screw to open breech and the ammo with cases in the turret ring.

 

[ArmyRick]

35mm with Javelin is the ideal to me for section vehicles. The idea behind what I originally posted was a LARGE caliber gun that could fire a whole gambit of ammo. The post about the 152mm is what I was looking at exactly. Things like HE and canister.

 

[a_majoor]

There are other options of a similar nature built on more advanced engineering which could provide greater effects:  http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA389156&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.###
Note: Replace the "###" with a "pdf" to make the link work.
Same with the question of the need.

Interesting. Has any "real" weapon or ammunition been adapted yet for testing? The article is a bit unclear and everything seems to be based on computer simulations. For most vehicles, this would be best adapted to some sort of remote pedistal mount, which defeats the "simple and low tech" call.

BTW, the alternative to RAVEN and other recoiless cannons is the High Low pressure gun, like the German PAW 600 or current 40mm grenades from the M-203. Of course the low velocity rounds give you a high tech pumpkin launcher.

 

[McG]

Interesting. Has any "real" weapon or ammunition been adapted yet for testing?

My understanding is that it was to be ready for testing summer 07 or 08, but I done specifically recall.  There does not seem to be much OS information on it.  The US vision was M1A2 firepower on a lighter than LAV vehicle.

 

[a_majoor]

How the Germans intended to do this task in 1946: the E-25

There are a few ideas worth noting; in particular, the suspension system dispensed with torsion bars and was based on modular units mounted on the outside of the hull for increased interior space and ease of maintainance. In modern terms, the small roof turret would now be an RWS, and the optical rangefinder sticking out of the hull sides would now be a thermal imager sight with a laser rangefinder.

Of course an upgunned LAV with a 35mm cannon and a Gill/Spike or Javelin missile is how we would do this today.

 

[a_majoor]

And a little more historical trivia: the USMC "ONTOS", two nice pictures for modelers or history buffs: