LAVs vs. M113 Gavins: LTC Tooker v3.0


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LAVs vs. M113 Gavins: LTC Tooker v3.0

  1. 1. LAV-III vs M113A3 D.E. Tooker LTC, ARMOR USAR
  2. 2. PurposeCompare proposed LAV-III Stryker toexisting M113A3 Gavins to determine whichvehicle is the better Light Armored Vehiclefor Army Interim Brigade Combat Team(IBCT) and other contingency force unitmission accomplishment, troop protection andvalue for expenditure.
  3. 3. Outline• Specifications JCS Standard• Characteristics LAV-III Stryker• Characteristics M113A3 Gavin• Additional Information• Summary• Conclusion
  4. 4. Specifications Set By CJCS 1998• Must be C-130 deliverable in combat configuration to unimproved strips• Must carry infantry squad with equipment• Be able to cross-country, swim and ford• Modifiable to carry Armored Gun System, (AGS) or similar weaponry• Hull and running gear ballistic shielded against 12.7mm HMGs• Chassis/frame for multiple adaptations
  5. 5. LAV-III Characteristicsartist’s conception (With 25mm AGS 21+ tons)• Added propulsion unit (x2) not on LAV-III Stryker vehicles because it reduces interior space via unsafe internal fuel tank. Vehicle cannot swim without it.
  6. 6. LAV Characteristicsartist’s idealized conception swimming
  7. 7. LAV Characteristicsactual LAV-III with AGS swimming attempt
  8. 8. LAV Characteristicsactual LAV-III with AGS swimming attempt
  9. 9. LAV-III Stryker Characteristics Actual vehicle w/o AGS (no prop devices) 19-21 tonsWeak .50 cal HMG on slowtraversing remotely aimedpedestal called a “RemoteWeapon System” (RWS) Fuel tanks occupy space where swim props/rudders would have been
  10. 10. LAV-III Stryker Characteristics Actual vehicle to be C-130 air configured withsmall tires and no turret requires excess gear flown on another C-130: is it ready to fight like this? Consider the spare tire. UNSAFE: No side space for Soldiers to exit aircraft in crash-landing; will have to crawl over a pile of strapped-on junk like the spare tire, one-at- a-time
  11. 11. LAV-III MGS 105mm gun CharacteristicsActual heavily burdened 21+ ton vehicle stuck (without spare tire); high ground pressures sink tires into mud
  12. 12. M93 Fox 6x6 LAV CharacteristicsAll Wheeled armored cars fail standard slope tests
  13. 13. LAV type vehicle Characteristics Actual vehicle tire change.Where is that spare? How many can we reasonably carry on an armored car?
  14. 14. Wheeled LAVs in Combat
  15. 15. Wheeled LAVs in MOUT environmentChannelized along easy-to-ambush roads/paths/streets
  16. 16. Grenadan wheeled LAVBurning Tires = Mobility Kill
  17. 17. Wheeled AGS Desert failure note tires not robust against bullets/shrapnel; too soft for rocky and sandy desert use
  18. 18. BRDM note “soft” tires = Mobility kill
  19. 19. Mine Damage Wheeled Vehicle type unknown; note hole from mine blast;easy to predict where wheeled vehicles will go and lay mines Shoulder patch is Russian
  20. 20. Wheeled AGS~ one shot and it’s all over: top-heavy and prone to turn-overs;this vehicle caught on fire afterwards, killing everyone trapped inside
  21. 21. LAV-III Stryker Characteristics Summary• Each situation in the acquisition test, used adifferently configured LAV-III. No singlevehicle meets all IBCT requirements.• Covering vehicle with applique’ or reactivearmor, makes it too large, too heavy to fit a C-130. Even without, vehicle weight reduces fuelload so C-130 can only fly it less than 200miles.• It cannot turn within its own length.• Current weak remote weapon system must be
  22. 22. M113A3 Gavin CharacteristicsArtist conception and actual stretched vehicle (15 tons) with 25mm AGS
  23. 23. M113A1/2 Gavin CharacteristicsArtist conception ~ Standard vehicle (11 tons)
  24. 24. M113A3 Gavin mods
  25. 25. M113A3 Band TrackPermits greater road speeds (up to 55 MPH; same aswheels), longer track life, less noise and less roaddamage. •Band track for 12 ton vehicle tested ‘97 - (2908 Mi) • Band track for 15 ton vehicle tested ‘98 • Acoustic, IR, Projectile & mine blast tested ‘98 - Camp Grayling, MI •Band track development for 25 ton vehicle ongoing
  26. 26. M113A3 Band Track
  27. 27. M113A3 Band Track alt-design
  28. 28. M113A2 with Band Track
  29. 29. Bradley Fighting Vehicle ~ 25-33 ton mod Band Track New Track Technologies
  30. 30. M113A1 Gavin CharacteristicsChinook max out at 12.5 tons; can lift a Gavin Air Assault Capable
  31. 31. M113A1 Gavin CharacteristicsCH-47D Chinook maxes out at 12.5 tons Air Assault Capable
  32. 32. M113A2 ~ Aussies in East Timoroff loading in soft beach sand: no problems! Amphibious
  33. 33. M113A3 Gavin CharacteristicsActual vehicle w/25mm AGS, swimming using tracks, doesn’t need spare tire! Actually Swims
  34. 34. M113A3 ~ “Ultras”in Singapore Army service 25mm auto cannon system
  35. 35. M113A2 ~ Aussies in East Timor fording, wading, swimming at will
  36. 36. M113A2 AIFV~ 12+ t. vehicle25mm AGS turret = real firepower on real, mobile platform
  37. 37. Aussie Army Upgraded M113A3s Gunshielded 40mm turret
  38. 38. M113A3 ~ 13 t. vehicleRPG-proof explosive reactive armor (IDF)
  39. 39. M113A3 (M1064A3) 120mm Mortar trackNote: external fuel cells: can fire 120mm mortar mounted or dismounted, LAV-III cannot
  40. 40. M113A1 ~ Viet Nam U.S. Mech BN Central highlands 1968Note: skirts removed, no swim requirement Combat-Proven
  41. 41. M113A1 Gavin ~ Viet NamRVN Mech company Mekong Delta 1969 Note: M40A1 106mm Recoilless Rifle mounted and skirts on Real Superior Firepower Options
  42. 42. M113A2 Gavins ~ C-5B off-load note: 8+ vehicles, combat-readyonly 5 LAVs on a C-5B, not combat config’dReal Fixed-Wing Air Transportability
  43. 43. M113A2 ~ with SpacedApplique’ armor = real protection
  44. 44. M113A3 ~ LAV III Note: no turretsHeight is the biggest visual give away on the battlefield!
  45. 45. Additional Information• Many nations use the M113 Gavin to replacewheeled vehicles (Australia and Denmark). Somenations continue to use a mix of tracked andwheeled vehicles, but none puts all its assaultvehicles in the wheeled category.• DA has postponed the Congress-mandated “side-by-side” comparison evaluation test with the M113repeatedly citing developmental problems at first,and then claiming it wasn’t necessary. After CEtests proved M113A3 Gavin superiority, writtenreports have been declared “top secret”
  46. 46. M113 Gavin Characteristics Summary• There are literally thousands of M113s invarious configurations around the world today,and they represent a tried and true infantryassault vehicle. M113 Gavins are flexible,resilient and mobile, getting to the fight andbeing in the fight with positional, firepower,mobility and protection advantages.
  47. 47. Alibi?About now you might be wondering why there are nopictures of LAV-III Strykers in difficult combat actioncoming from the Army—only PR stuff. The real picsof them stuck and burning have come from honest,non-Army sources…like the troops forced to usethem!This is because there are none that have been in actionyet. However, the M113 Gavin has been around awhile, is proven in combat, and has a fine history toback its real combat performances which continue aswe speak while the LAV-III Strykers play in mockwar games.
  48. 48. Conclusion• Buying an expensive and impractical LAV-IIIStryker wheeled vehicle which is called an“Interim” Infantry Assault Vehicle when wealready have superior M113 Gavin trackedvehicles is a poor expenditure of Army funds.• Once we have it, the Army will be stuck withit until we have to try to fight from it, and then itwill be costing lives, rather than saving them.