Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I agree with you totally on your last post however, given the op-tempo of the last decade it kind of makes you wonder who's augmenting whom. Again not disagreeing with you but it would make you think the USMC might want to reconsider a "strike force" option after all that's the reason they kept the LAV-AD around longer then they wanted because they stripped them of their missiles and used the launchers to carry extra DPU rounds for direct ground support (You might remember the video I posted.). After all that's why the USAF has all those nice C-117s. But we have them because they are the best combat troops in the world at what they do and they have not only the past but current history to fall on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM82Vuq3PdM
Note the hot expended shell casings being ejected in the video.

Anyway forgot one for the last post though I'm hesitate to post it as it involves Finland, well OK not really...
FINLAND/MOD XA-180/OCT 2015 should allow for enough numbers to be available as needed. When keys words such as "new external surfacing" are used that tells me a 10% gratis increase in armor protection is probably warranted. General ground performance should probably be looked at as well over the existing UNITS.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/novem...e_forces_.html

USA/BRADLEY/ALL TYPES/MAIN GUN CONSIDERATION...Well I work with a diverse group of folks from the military. We got to talking about the game which lead to the BRADLEY as he served in them in Korea and Iraq. Did we know the main gun is dual feed with an HE and AP belt of ammo? I believe each belt holds either 500 or 800 Rds (Will confirm later today when I go back to work.) with two more belts of each for reload, I believe the simplest fix is to balance equally both types of ammo available to the game units. I do not know if the game engine would (or does now) allow auto target ammo selection much as the gunner does in real life with the auto selector on the real gun. "Jake" did tell me anything less then an up armored HUMVEE type vehicle got the HE treatment and everything else got AP rounds including hardened defensive positions. Just curious, I had this conversation about three weeks ago.

Anyway Good Night-gotta hit it again starting tomorrow.

Regards,
Pat

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I believe the Bradley uses the same feed system as the LAV-25.
It uses 150 or 60 round belts.
Typically a LAV-25 carried a 150 round belt of HE AND a 60 round belt of API loaded (dual feed system after all) with another belt of each aboard for reload. For a total of 300 HE and 120 AP rounds carried.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Just got a minute, but "Jake" was pretty clear on the point that the feed had both a separate HE and AP belt on the gun. I did ask about a combined HE/AP belt and he stood firm on the separate ammo belts as noted above and previously. Of course he noted both have "tracer" rounds interspersed as well on each belt.

Regards,
Pat

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

That's what I said. Two belts, one of HE (150 rnds), one of AP (60 rnds).
As to tracers, the "standard" in 1-in-5.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

What were the rotation times in Afghanistan and Iraq for the two services: USA and USMC. It would seem both services required the same time in-country, if the Marines were deployed to forward areas such as Afghanistan, but was that so, or did the Marines hold to the customary six to nine month deployment?

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

I did use the word "intended".

Ever since Korea (1950-1953) the USMC has been used in sustained operations. While of course they can (and do) do so regularly it's not their "intended" mission.

Some of this is due to the US Army's over emphasis on mechanized warfare. From about 1970 thru the early 2000's the US Army seems to have almost totally forgotten about the need for leg infantry. Everything but their Rangers, Airborne, and the 10th Mountain was so tied to vehicles (helos in the case of the Air Cav) that without them they were basically non functional.

The USMC has always maintained that while infantry may occasionally ride/fly somewhere it's primarily a foot mobile organization.

Then you get something like Afghanistan where much of the terrain is mountains there's no option but to keep the Marines around while the Army reinvents "leg infantry".

During Vietnam the length of an individuals deployment was mandated from Washington, thus was the same for everyone (more or less). As you recall in Somalia the Marines went in first, then left (pretty much) when the Army arrived. The need for large numbers of troops in Iraq/Afghanistan means that given the size of the US Military overall there's no choice but to keep Marines there indefinitely.

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Mobility is often described as a force multiplier, in fact, so much so that it is doctrine. I think, either in the Air or on Land, soldiers and Marines will ride in something to the battle and the better for them too, as speed, agility, we're still talking mobility, will multiply on force effectiveness to identify, close, engage, and defeat the opposition. That is the mission of an infantry unit, be it light or heavy, Marine or Army.

Yes, and the Marines are light infantry, and admittedly so, but today, they ride, not walk. Since the early fights on the plains in the ole West, forts or what we call Patrol Bases today (PBs) are ubiquitous.

So, that and for other reasons, I argue for the IFV in our game to deliver Opfires and reaction fires at ranges of 1km. As the MBT becomes increasingly expensive and limited in MOUT operations, and as the thread of armor forces of equitable strengths ever engaging diminish, the need for an infantry fire suppression vehicle rises.

So, lets have a better modeled AFV/IFV in winspMBT. Here, here and what say you?

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

First...Suhiir sorry for misreading your post on the ammo issue for the LAV-25.

Second...The LAV-25/STRYKER issue is covered on Pgs. 16-17 of this Thread with plenty of references.

Third...Since this whole issue started going back to the pre-EFV stage I've been posting regularly on the topic of what the USMC is trying to do to replace the AAV for years now. The CORPS is addressing the support issue with the ACV/MPC Programs that have been on and off for the last couple of years now, similar to what the USA was going through with the GCV Program all again in this thread. To address this ongoing discussion and what the current and future role is for the USMC concerning it's mission in regards to amphibious operations etc., I leave you with the below ref which Mr. Feickert has been reporting to Congress on for the last few years now (Google it.). You will see AT, 30mm and 40mmGL RWS's discussed within among other issues and it's all current-06 January 2015 was the best I could do on short notice. I can probably also get the RFI & RPI data as well for initial contract requests and requirements but I had a LONG/DAMP/COLD/RAINY DAY ON post earlier tonight so I'll just go to bed good night! Enjoy the read as I have and have a wonderful day!
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42723.pdf

What the hexx! Here's to the LAV-25A2 RFI and Program which is all on track...
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&m...=core&_cview=1
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011combatvehicle/Kayser.pdf

Regards,
Pat

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

It's not mobility that I was referring to earlier. It's being so closely tied to those vehicles you can't operate without them.

For instance, the US Army as a whole doesn't use 60 or 81mm mortars, they use vehicle mounted 120's ... no vehicles ... no mortars.
Same for artillery, it's almost all self propelled.
And I won't even get into the amount of ammo the Army uses with their suppression fire doctrine, without their vehicles they'd run out several times faster then Marines do.

Mobility hasn't been much of an issue since the late 1950's. In general USMC infantry is 1/3 LVT/AAVs, 1/3 helos, 1/3 trucks. And the helos in particular give us outstanding mobility. The US Army has one, count them one, Air Cav division, if it's not in the area then significant heloborne operations are not an option.

While the AAV is a poor substitute for a Bradley or even a BMP it's every bit as capable as a M113 or BTR (in fact somewhat more capable). But again the USMC isn't designed/intended for use in Central Europe. During the Cold War we were primarily slated for Norway, Greece, and Italy.

True actual battlefield mobility is reduced, since only a fool rides a truck or helo when being actively shot at. But on the other hand the USMC isn't tied to the road net nearly as much as the Army. Many's the time we've waded thru a swamp or crossed a mountain to attack from directions then Army KNEW no significant attack could come from when doing joint service training with the US Army.

####################

Yeah, amphibious warfare has been obsolete since the invention of the A-Bomb ... funny how many landing have been made since then by various nations worldwide. The Brits should have known retaking the Falklands was impossible ...

Re: APC Development and related topics.
 

Suhiir, not to be difficult but much of your information regarding Army vs. USMC appears to incorrect. I'm an infantry officer in the Army and I know from personal experience as well as readily available public information that this is so.

The Marines are a light infantry force, high quality, I agree. But four of the army's ten divisions are also light infantry: the 10th Mountain, 25th Light, 82nd Airborne, and 101st. In addition, other divisions have fielded light infantry brigades including the 1st and 3rd Infantry Divisions. Even the 1st Armored Division had a light infantry brigade for a while (that is in the process of disbanding right now with the move back to three brigades per division).

Additionally, every Army division has an aviation brigade that allows them to conduct large-scale airmobile operations. The 101st I believe has two aviation brigades so they can conduct a full brigade air assault, but it is not a capability unique to that division.

You are right that the heavy formations are very road-bound, but that's the nature of things with armored vehicles.

AN the army absolutely does use 60 and 81mm mortars. Every light infantry company has 60s, and light battalions have 81s in the mortar platoon. Additionally, Stryker companies and battalions also have dismounted 60s and 81s in addition to the vehicle mounted 120s.

Not disputing that the Marines are an excellent light infantry force with great history and esprit, but I'd put the soldiers from the 82nd, 101st, or 10th Mountain against them any day in any terrain.

And a final note, the USMC in these extended deployments always has to rely on Army logistics to sustain themselves because they don't have the institutional ability to do it themselves.