DJ & Rob - I agree with you both. I too think as soon as the new vehicle comes on line, and suffers a major setback because of mismatched employment / deployment - it'll quickly get panned. Though I never crewed them - my impression of the Chaffee and BullDog in their respective times were what DJ said - tough little scrappers. I think a design similar to them, with today's technology and gun systems, would produce a pretty onary scrapper for medium engagements where you'd need them quickly before the Abrams would be deployed.
If such a vehicle was built - I wonder which General's name would adorn it?
Gunnie
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
M24 Chaffee Walkarounds
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 04:20 AM UTC
staff_Jim
Publisher
Joined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 12,571 posts
Armorama: 6,599 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 04:49 AM UTC
Schwarzkopf?
hehe
hehe
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 05:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Schwarzkopf?
hehe
:-) Well, Devers didn't really catch on for the M3, perhaps Powell wouldn't either...
Gunnie
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 06:43 AM UTC
Usually it's given to an armor/cav officer. The exception being Sgt. York and Gen Bradley (it was an infantry fighting vehicle though). Prior to that, the Brits gave them US general's names, but since the Army took over that practice, they favored armor/cav names. Heck even Ike & MacArthur didn't get a tank.
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 07:56 AM UTC
Amigos--what I saw recently was the LAV III with a low profile, auto loader 105mm gun. The fire control systems are those of the M-1. The weapon can take on all comers. The firing platform will succumb, in my professional opinion, to mines, indirect, and direct fire. The often repeated statement that she can fit in a C-130 is bogus. While it might cube or weight out the height precludes that possiblity. She goes by C-141/C-17/C-5 or cargo ship. This is a high risk venture. Why the Army did not go back to the M-8 Stingray is a mystery to me.
DJ
DJ
GunTruck
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 08:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Amigos--what I saw recently was the LAV III with a low profile, auto loader 105mm gun. The fire control systems are those of the M-1. The weapon can take on all comers. The firing platform will succumb, in my professional opinion, to mines, indirect, and direct fire. The often repeated statement that she can fit in a C-130 is bogus. While it might cube or weight out the height precludes that possiblity. She goes by C-141/C-17/C-5 or cargo ship. This is a high risk venture. Why the Army did not go back to the M-8 Stingray is a mystery to me.
DJ
Got me there too DJ! Maybe, Stingray made too much sense?!?
Gunnie
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 11:39 AM UTC
Quoted Text
From the pictures I've seen, it looks like another Winnebago (very large camper vehicle for those of you who don't know). Wheels just don't hold up as well as tracks. I still don't think our medium and light tanks need to be able to handle enemy MBTs. With our airpower and heavy ground power, those can take out the big stuff. The light/medium stuff is needed to knock out floors of buildings, push through small inner city roadblocks, and spank third worlders in armored pickups.Amigos--what I saw recently was the LAV III with a low profile, auto loader 105mm gun. The fire control systems are those of the M-1. The weapon can take on all comers. The firing platform will succumb, in my professional opinion, to mines, indirect, and direct fire. The often repeated statement that she can fit in a C-130 is bogus. While it might cube or weight out the height precludes that possiblity. She goes by C-141/C-17/C-5 or cargo ship. This is a high risk venture. Why the Army did not go back to the M-8 Stingray is a mystery to me.
DJ
pipesmoker
Joined: January 31, 2002
KitMaker: 649 posts
Armorama: 379 posts
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2002 - 11:51 AM UTC
Isn't that why the germans built the Brummbar and sturmTiger?
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 02:21 AM UTC
What a question! Why did they build such a diversity of platforms? Time, weight, training were not on their side. To diversify to the extent they did is puzzling. Blaming everything on Adolph goes just so far.
DJ
DJ
pipesmoker
Joined: January 31, 2002
KitMaker: 649 posts
Armorama: 379 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 12:05 PM UTC
DJ
Adolph thougt that bigger was better. Actually, for street fighting I think the Brummbar was a good idea. It would certainly take out a building. And didn't we use the 155mm at zero elevation for the same thing?
Adolph thougt that bigger was better. Actually, for street fighting I think the Brummbar was a good idea. It would certainly take out a building. And didn't we use the 155mm at zero elevation for the same thing?
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 07:28 PM UTC
Ron--direct fire of a 155mm is something to see. The Israelis used it in Lebannon. Level anything it touches. There are so many ideas floating around on the use of a supporting fire system for the Army. I believe they settled on the LAV III chassis because of several factors. One is commonality of maintenance. The biggest challenge/problem you face when you hit the ground is how to maintain and re supply. If you have common vehicle, your parts flow is simplified. The mechanics can work on the same type vehicle greatly easing your personnel flow. The 105mm with the right ammo can put a dent in anyone's day. The quality of the equipment counts, but it is the four guys inside the vehicle and their state of training that is the payoff. If they maneuver correctly and use supporting arms they will do fine. No one anticipates the LAV III going slope to slope with a T-80.
DJ :-)
DJ :-)
Kencelot
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 09:13 PM UTC
Here's a very interesting site concerning the LAV III, not a happy one. Hmmm. I must agree with the writer (Carlton Meyer). I too don't think too highly of a wheeled platform.
"The Germans lost the chance of victory because they had based their mobility on wheels instead of on tracks. On these mud-roads the wheeled transport was bogged when the tanks could move on. Panzer forces with tracked transport might have overrun Russia's vital centres long before autumn, despite the bad roads. World War I had shown this need to anyone who used his eyes and his imagination."
He later wrote that even though the German army was modern, "it had not yet caught up with ideas that were twenty years old." Apparently, the U.S. Army must relearn lessons that are now 80 years old.
Read it all here:
http://www.g2mil.com/LAV-III.htm
"The Germans lost the chance of victory because they had based their mobility on wheels instead of on tracks. On these mud-roads the wheeled transport was bogged when the tanks could move on. Panzer forces with tracked transport might have overrun Russia's vital centres long before autumn, despite the bad roads. World War I had shown this need to anyone who used his eyes and his imagination."
He later wrote that even though the German army was modern, "it had not yet caught up with ideas that were twenty years old." Apparently, the U.S. Army must relearn lessons that are now 80 years old.
Read it all here:
http://www.g2mil.com/LAV-III.htm
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 10:54 PM UTC
I agree that there is a risk factor bringing a wheeled platform into the inventory. However, you do not place single units on the battlefield. Each forms pieces of the mosaic that is a effective combat team. Note I say effective. Nothing is invulnerable. The wheeled platform is supported by infantry, artillery, close air support, and a superb maintenance organization. Fix it, fuel it, feed it and get it back to the battlefield. When people say the LAV IIl with the 105,mm gun will not stand its own against a traditional tank system is probably correct. But, that is not the way you do it! Think combined arms all the time.
DJ
DJ
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.