combatreform.org/lavdanger.htm

1. U.S. Army Chief of 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 Fuzzy Math 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’s 78”+ 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’s combat 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-IIIs are 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”! M113A3/4s are 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”! M113A3/4s can 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 A CLUTCH 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 BEAT THE 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 GAME IS 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 AND WINNING 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