Uploaded by1st_TSG_Airborne
Don Loughlin's Tracks vs Wheels
The document summarizes arguments for why tracked vehicles like upgraded M113A3/4s and M8 AGS would better meet the Army's need for interim brigade combat teams than the selected LAV-III wheeled armored vehicles. It states that M113A3/4s and M8 AGSs are available now, can meet air transport requirements, provide more protection and firepower at a lower cost than LAV-IIIs, which are too heavy, large, and will not be available for years. The document concludes that an initial tracked air-mobile strike brigade would be significantly more deployable than brigades using LAV-IIIs or heavy vehicles like M1s and M2s.
More Related Content
![[Military] [article] [armada international] land based air defence](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/militaryarticlearmadainternationallandbasedairdefence-130514114739-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Similar to Don Loughlin's Tracks vs Wheels
Don Loughlin's Tracks vs Wheels
- 1. U.S. Army Chiefof Staff, General Eric Shinseki in October 99 stated the Army’s URGENT, IMMEDIATE need for Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) globally deployed by USAF aircraft using: 1. USAF C-130 transportable vehicles 2. “Medium-weight” as per SSI Aeromotorization report; 4-6 per USAF C-17 3. Vehicles available NOW 4. Army assumes it must buy new vehicles to meet these requirements
- 2. “STRIKE 1!” No refuelling facilities here: C-130s must carry adequate fuel to return to base However, the LAV-III 8x8 wheeled armored car selected just before November Presidential election results is NOT C-130 tactically air-transportable* 32,000 pounds C-130 payload limit for forward landing strips - 37, 796 pounds combat loaded LAV-III _________________________________ (+) LAV-III 5, 796 pounds too heavy for C-130s *U.S. Army/DOD LAV-III specifications: www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2000/001117-D-0000C-001.jpg U.S. Army TRANSCOM C-130 air transport specifications :www.tea.army.mil/dpe/Aircraft.htm#C130
- 3. It's Still FuzzyMath I Tell Ya! “STRIKE 2!” Even a M113-type tracked AFV with turret is a tight fit in a C-130! LAV-III’s 78.7392”+ height with 39” 105mm Low-Profile turret is 117”+ and thus too tall* to fit inside the C-130’s 102” high limit; (+) C4I, AT, FS variant attachments heights must be added, too 78.7392”+ high LAV-III chassis is larger than LAV-I 39” LPT 105mm gun ____________________________________ M113A4 LAV-III 117.7392”+ LAV-III MGS 102” C-130 roof limit LAV-III w/105mm _________________ LPT 15.7392”+ too high LAV-III MGSs are too high to roll-on/off from C-130s; vehicle will need extensive and costly ($55 million allocated so far) redesign to somehow fit under C-130 roofs *ASCOD w/105mm LPT: www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/specs.html
- 4. “STRIKE 2” continued! LAV-III’s78”+ height, makes it incapable of parachute airdrop from C-130s due to tip-off curb requirements to not strike tail when rolling off rear ramp; more compact tracked vehicles meet this requirement as shown above; M551Sheridan retired in ‘97 and not replaced as promised! - LAV-25s in Army service borrowed from USMC (1989-91) had to have all 8 tires deflated to be C-130 airdropped - 78”+ LAV-III chassis larger than LAV-I based LAV-25s ________________________________ LAV-IIIs are too high to parachute airdrop from C-130s in roll-off condition; vehicle type will not meet 82d Airborne Division’s requirements for a parachute- deliverable armored fighting vehicle to replace combat-proven M551 Sheridan
- 5. “STRIKE 2” continued! LAV-III’scombat loaded weight, 37, 796 pounds and 273 inch length, limits only 3 being carried per C-17, not the 4-6 of a “Medium” weight vehicle 3 x LAV-IIIs per C-17 2-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles per C-17 ________________________________ 0 net gain in air transportability improvement for U.S. Army global responsibilities LAV-III is a LARGE, HEAVY vehicle requiring similar airlift demands as existing BFVs; U.S. Army is still difficult to air-deploy!
- 6. “STRIKE 3!” First LAV-III not to be delivered until half-way through 2002; LAV-IIIs are NOT available NOW, “off-the- shelf”, MGS variant cannot fit under C-130 roof unless major redesign work/funds expended 04/2002 First LAV-III delivered 04/2003 First Brigade fully-equipped 04/2004 First Brigade operationally ready _______________________________ U.S. ARMY URGENT REQUIREMENTS FOR TODAY NOT MET! NO CAPABILITY FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS! Production rate just 0.85 LAV-IIIs per day www.southam.com/windsorstar/wheels/000905/722279.html DESPITE $4 BILLION DOLLAR PRICE, U.S. ARMY NOT TRANSFORMED!
- 7. “STRIKE 1”: LAV-IIIsare NOT USAF C-130 transportable vehicles “STRIKE 2”: LAV-IIIs are NOT “Medium-weight” as per SSI Aeromotorization report; 4-6 per USAF C-17 “STRIKE 3”: LAV-IIIs are NOT available NOW “LAV-III is OUT!” QUESTION? Must the U.S. Army spend $4 BILLION FOR NEW vehicles to meet these requirements?????
- 8. The 21st Century Environment • Urbanization • Increased Access to • Ethnic & Religious Technology Conflict • Increased U.S. Reliance on • Asymmetric Conflict Force Projection • Simultaneous SASO • Reduced Warning Time Operations • Joint, Combined, Multi- • Weapons Agency Operations Proliferation/WMD • Force Protection an Imperative U.S. Army Forces Must Be… U.S. Army Forces Must Be… Responsive --Deployable --Mobile --Versatile --Combat Responsive Deployable Mobile Versatile Combat Effective Effective
- 9. “THIRD BASE”! M113A3/4sare available NOW for units to be made combat-ready as U.S. Army European Command has done with its Immediate Ready Force (IRF); BILLIONS SAVED can be used to upgrade M113A3/4-M8 AGS type vehicles to exceed IBCT requirements Remote weapon station and Rubber, single-piece “Band- squad Tracks” for low-vibration, leader low-noise, no maintenance, displays no HETs, light-on-third- world-roads, high road speeds Applique armors to defeat Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), autocannon fire without cross-country mobility loss, gunshields
- 10. “BASES LOADED”! M113A3/4scan be heli- transported by CH-47Ds 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division Maximizing tracked vehicle weight/volume efficiency, Army CH-47D/F Chinook helicopters can air-transport M113A3/4s over mines, obstacles, avoiding road ambushes as the British Army did with its Scimitar light tanks to be the first NATO force into Kosovo in 1999. British Army Air-Mech into Kosovo FACILITATES 3D TACTICAL BATTLE MANEUVERS!
- 11. “SLUGGER AT BAT”:M113A3 /4 Infantry situational awareness, security and firepower by ability to fight mounted or dismounted if the situation dictates... M8 AGS can shoot-on-the-move (LAV-III MGS must stop to fire) to kill enemy tanks as well as blast buildings, bunkers, dug-in positions
- 12. “HE IS ACLUTCH HITTER”: M113A3/4 M8 AGS Tracked Mobility to advance in the face of enemy fire Tracks overcome fire and obstacles... LAV-III’s Rubber-tired Wheels vulnerable! “Run-flats” at 5mph for 5 miles no life insurance in combat
- 13. “HE HAS BEATTHE ODDS”: TRACKED VEHICLES ARE FAR Tracks pull MORE 2D CROSS-COUNTRY wheels out MOBILE THAN WHEELED from the ARMORED CARS TO AVOID mud…save ROAD-SIDE AMBUSHES, MINES, them from road ambush... OBSTACLES! Tracks swim, fight, move by land, sea or air!
- 14. “WHEN THE GAMEIS ON THE LINE”: TRACKED VEHICLES ARE ACTUALLY LIGHTER AND 28% MORE WEIGHT/VOLUME EFFICIENT FOR AIR-TRANSPORT THAN WHEELED ARMORED CARS! (Official U.S. Army Fort Knox power point slide)
- 15. Conclusions • An Initial tracked Air-Mech-Strike IBCT composed of M113A3/4s, M8 AGSs and Wiesels have superior air-deployability characteristics to an all-LAV-III armored car IBCT. AMS IBCTs are significantly more deployable than AOE or Force XXI Divisional Brigades using all-heavy, 33- 70-ton M1/M2s. • The Tracked BCT provides more combat power per aircraft sortie due to greater vehicle cube efficiency than LAV-IIIs • Tracked Vehicles Have Greater Tactical Mobility and Agility; Wheeled LAV-IIIs have slightly higher range and highway speed if metal/rubber tracks governed, not if band-tracked • M113A3/4 Infantry dismount capability exceeds wheeled LAV-III armored cars • The M8 AGS is “Own the Night”, shoot-on-the-move, capable light tank with a significant advantage in ready rack ammunition over wheeled LAV-III MGS with LPTs • The M113A3/4, M8 AGS Modular Armor System provides greater crew protection than wheeled LAV-III bolt on armor w/o mobility loss • Production Costs of the M113A3/4, M8 AGS, Wiesel are less than wheeled LAV-IIIs... • O&S Cost comparisons between M113A3/4s M8 AGSs, Wiesels and wheeled LAV-IIIs show band-tracked vehicles are cheaper to operate
- 16. “THE TYING ANDWINNING RUNS ARE ON BASE”: Tactics, Techniques and Procedures already in place to support M113A3/4 and M8 Armored Gun System (AGS) operations FM 17-18 8 March 1994 FM 7-7 March 1985 www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi- www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7- bin/atdl.dll/fm/17-18/f1718.htm 7/toc.htm Read them online at the U.S. Army Library web site!
- 17. Conclusions • An Initial tracked Air-Mech-Strike IBCT composed of M113A3/4s, M8 AGSs and Wiesels have superior air-deployability characteristics to an all-LAV-III armored car IBCT. AMS IBCTs are significantly more deployable than AOE or Force XXI Divisional Brigades using all-heavy, 33- 70-ton M1/M2s. • The Tracked BCT provides more combat power per aircraft sortie due to greater vehicle cube efficiency than LAV-IIIs • Tracked Vehicles Have Greater Tactical Mobility and Agility; Wheeled LAV-IIIs have slightly higher range and highway speed if metal/rubber tracks governed, not if band-tracked • M113A3/4 Infantry dismount capability exceeds wheeled LAV-III armored cars • The M8 AGS is “Own the Night”, shoot-on-the-move, capable light tank with a significant advantage in ready rack ammunition over wheeled LAV-III MGS with LPTs • The M113A3/4, M8 AGS Modular Armor System provides greater crew protection than wheeled LAV-III bolt on armor w/o mobility loss • Production Costs of the M113A3/4, M8 AGS, Wiesel are less than wheeled LAV-IIIs... • O&S Cost comparisons between M113A3/4s M8 AGSs, Wiesels and wheeled LAV-IIIs show band-tracked vehicles are cheaper to operate