US Army Proposes Smaller Squads, Lighter Vehicles (or goodbye GCV?)

jsport said:
Simple understanding of ground tactics (2lt stuff) knows that terms like 'upfront" have no meaning.

It's a term that appears in many official US Army field manuals on armor and infantry operations.
You had no problem with its apparent meaningless usage until just now.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
Simple understanding of ground tactics (2lt stuff) knows that terms like 'upfront" have no meaning.

It's a term that appears in many official US Army field manuals on armor and infantry operations.
You had no problem with its apparent meaningless usage until just now.

"Upfront" never appeared in any ground US Army FM ..am aware of . Likewise assumed up front meant leading an assault. Pic shows no definitive assault simply movement.
 
jsport said:
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
Simple understanding of ground tactics (2lt stuff) knows that terms like 'upfront" have no meaning.

It's a term that appears in many official US Army field manuals on armor and infantry operations.
You had no problem with its apparent meaningless usage until just now.

"Upfront" never appeared in any ground US Army FM ..am aware of . Likewise assumed up front meant leading an assault. Pic shows no definitive assault simply movement.

Are you really going to quibble about "upfront" vs. "up-front" vs. "up front?"

We can make this a teachable moment about the evolution of the English rendering of compound words if you'd like.
But I'd prefer to note your now increased awareness and move on.
 
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
Methinks that isn't an Merkava but is instead a Sherman M51...

Methinks you haven't been following the discussion very closely.

Oh, I've been following it closer enough. You were asked to provide a picture of a Merkava. You responded with a picture of a Sherman M51...

The M-50 Cummins and M-51 were gradually phased out in late 1970s to early 1980s. During the Lebanese Civil War, 75[clarification needed] M-50s were given to the Israeli-supported Lebanese Christian militias – Kataeb Regulatory Forces (19), Tigers Militia (20), Guardians of the Cedars (1), the Lebanese Forces (40), and the South Lebanon Army (35) – in 1976; two tanks were later captured by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which employed them in the defense of West Beirut during the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.[10]
[Source]

So, was it "Peace For Galilee" at all?
 
Someone has the idea that the tanks in that picture are Sherman M-51's. Sorry to disappoint you, they are Centurions. Not too much difference, if you use an old prescription and squint a lot.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
Haven't seen those 113s leading Merkvas into battle yet.
Please value this learning opportunity.
The tanks in that picture are Shotim, ie upgraded Centurions. No Merkava.

During op shalag, the M163s were used against snipers and RPGers hiding in the high-rise buildings in central urban areas, to reach elevations that MBTs could not. Certainly not to lead any MBT into battle.
 
http://www.janes.com/article/64446/bae-systems-readies-first-ampv-for-us-army
 
This thread seems to be the closest fit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPSZ71-YqC8
 
fredymac said:
This thread seems to be the closest fit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPSZ71-YqC8

Please inform if otherwise, but why wouldn't a single 12.7mm AP rd penetrating the grill bring any current JTLV/MVTR to a halt.
 
Any platform other than a tank would probably fail that test. And yet there seems to be a lot of military vehicles out there that aren’t tanks. The idea of fast/mobile with combined arms cover vs sheer armor protection seems to be more accepted among western militaries. Tanks may hang around as long as APS systems work but that still doesn’t address the problem of air mobility and fast deployment. I would guess there are enough war gaming models and exercises which indicate this kind of architecture can work to attract the interest of military planners. Critics can make their inputs to those models (including 50cal bullets) and tank advocates will have their say as well before any real program is ever launched.
 
fredymac said:
Any platform other than a tank would probably fail that test. And yet there seems to be a lot of military vehicles out there that aren’t tanks. The idea of fast/mobile with combined arms cover vs sheer armor protection seems to be more accepted among western militaries. Tanks may hang around as long as APS systems work but that still doesn’t address the problem of air mobility and fast deployment. I would guess there are enough war gaming models and exercises which indicate this kind of architecture can work to attract the interest of military planners. Critics can make their inputs to those models (including 50cal bullets) and tank advocates will have their say as well before any real program is ever launched.
Oshkosh et al proposed sloped frontal armor JTLV and yet here we are w/ marginally survivable vehicle.
Sweden's Archer seems to have at least thought of the problem a flat face engine compartment and one version appears w/ armor and as much sloping as possible. Four wheeled completely unarmored SP possibly operated as UGVs ala Singapore's light SPs comes to mind, if air mobility is paramount and one never travels threatening LOCs.
 
There are two levels of protection in JLTV -- the basic A-level, which is protection against small arms (7.62mm ball), and the add-on B-level, which is somewhere between 7.62mm AP or 14.5mm. Those illustrations aren't showing the B-level kit installed.
 
jsport said:
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
Simple understanding of ground tactics (2lt stuff) knows that terms like 'upfront" have no meaning.

It's a term that appears in many official US Army field manuals on armor and infantry operations.
You had no problem with its apparent meaningless usage until just now.

"Upfront" never appeared in any ground US Army FM ..am aware of . Likewise assumed up front meant leading an assault. Pic shows no definitive assault simply movement.

FM 3-19.4
page 4-59
chapter 4-126

4-126.
Ballistic (Shot Gun) Breach
The order of movement for a shotgun breach has the gunner up front,
followed by the number 1 man, number 2 man, and then
the number 3 man (team leader). After the door is
breached, the gunner moves to the rear of the lineup and
assumes the position of the number 4 man.

The spelling difference between upfront and "up front" is BS nitpicking.
 
TomS said:
There are two levels of protection in JLTV -- the basic A-level, which is protection against small arms (7.62mm ball), and the add-on B-level, which is somewhere between 7.62mm AP or 14.5mm. Those illustrations aren't showing the B-level kit installed.
does the B-Kit look like these? :)
 

Attachments

  • jtlv2.jpg
    jtlv2.jpg
    20 KB · Views: 555
  • JTLV1.jpg
    JTLV1.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 571
'Upfront' is not a term used by contemporary room/building forced entry forces to describe any action. Stack lead, point (position), breacher etc. There is no reference to vehicle travel formation or tactical maneuver formation (the basis for this conversation) which uses the word upfront.

Any term can be found in an FM if one searches enough to find it but 'upfront' doesn't apply, isn't recognized and therefore is confusing and unproductive.
 
Given that some of the JLTVs, like some of the other MRAPs and Humvees, will likely have passive acoustic shot detector and shooter locators plus
autocannon/automatic grenade launchers whose range and lethality exceeds that of most 12.5mm AP shooters, I would think most
snipers and crews would avoid the temptation of going for a low probability mobility kill.
 
marauder2048 said:
Given that some of the JLTVs like some of thr other MRAPs and Humvees will likely have passive acoustic shot detector and shooter locators plus
autocannon/automatic grenade launchers whose range and lethality exceeds that of most 12.5mm AP shooters, I would think most
snipers and crews would avoid the temptation of going for a low probability mobility kill.

In the dispersed/isolated high intensity conflict (or for that matter the empower asymmetric fight of after 2020) the Army brass now claims the Army must fight in, even a utility vehicle which travels even mildly contested LOCs will require the survivability of the above pictured vehicles not the flat grills of the current JTLV. That is not to mention the need for light utility vehicles in contested areas needing max internal storage so lacking in the current JTLV.
 
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1692990-army-to-roll-out-first-new-infantry-carrier
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bae-systems-presents-first-ampv-prototype-to-us-army
 
https://youtu.be/-zS2k_rZxqM?t=179
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/03/02/army_accelerates_armored_multi-purpose_vehicles_290856.html
 
The LW30mm M230 BUSHMASTER Cannon System continues to evolve. The M230, installed on AH-64 APACHE and BLACKHAWK, and other air, land and seaborne weapons platforms is expected to have next generation LW30 (30mm x 113mm) programmable proximity ammunition qualified by 2018 . LW30 programmable proximity cartridge is expected to solve another significant problem on the 2017-era battlefield: The legacy M789 is not optimized for engagement of troops in the open/defilade or against UAVs. The LW30 proximity mode is expected to improve lethality and versatility against UAS and troops in the open. The munition’s point destination mode is designed to defeat the light vehicle threat.

My emphasis.

http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/14-land/728-orbital-atk-day3.html
 
Some slides on LW30 development from Col. Gutierrez presentation at the 2017 NDIA Munitions Executive Summit
* My highlights *
 

Attachments

  • PMCOLGutierrez-reduced-min.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 22
  • lw30-dev-slide3.png
    lw30-dev-slide3.png
    575.9 KB · Views: 149
  • lw30-dev-slide2.png
    lw30-dev-slide2.png
    893.2 KB · Views: 85
  • lw30-dev-slide1.png
    lw30-dev-slide1.png
    613.3 KB · Views: 453
  • lw30-dev-slide0.png
    lw30-dev-slide0.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 540
Is there any reason they're considering the externally powered M230 over ASP-30? Simplicity of production since ASP-30 is still just prototypes, or did the early '90s testing of ASP-30 show that a self-powered M230 had some problems for a light vehicle mount?
 
Kat Tsun said:
Is there any reason they're considering the externally powered M230 over ASP-30? Simplicity of production since ASP-30 is still just prototypes, or did the early '90s testing of ASP-30 show that a self-powered M230 had some problems for a light vehicle mount?

Firing the electrically primed 30x113 ammunition from a gas operated cannon requires capacitors/batteries in the gun itself or an external power supply.
The former arrangement has operational implications since the operator may have to literally recharge the cannon.

External power is more reliable which if you have on hand, as you do with the RWS mounts envisioned for JLTV, you might as well go for an externally powered gun as well.
 
FBO Solicitation Number: W15QKN-17-X-09EF

DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Army, Army Contracting Command-New Jersey at
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 is conducting a market survey on behalf
of the Project Manager Soldier Weapons (PM SW) to identify potential sources
and their capability of manufacturing and delivering a 30mm weapon system
capable of firing 30mm X 113mm ammunition for a quantity of 633 total units for
the years FY2018-FY2023
. The 30mm weapon system is to include a gun control unit (GCU),
gun drive cable, control cable, power cable, flex chute and basic issue items.
No Technical Data Package (TDP) is available for this requirement.

SPECIFICATION: The 30mm weapon system will be mounted via a remote weapon station (RWS)
on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle - Reconnaissance Vehicle (JLTV-RV)
. The manufactured 30mm
weapon system must be link fed, single feed, and capable of firing 200 rounds per minute of linked,
electrically primed and Army qualified 30mm x 113mm ammunition (M789 High-Explosive, Dual-Purpose (HEDP),
M788 Target Practice (TP)). The 30mm weapon system will be powered with 28 VDC, incorporate a 1 hp motor
and include anti-hang fire protection. The 30mm weapon system must weigh less than 200 pounds and have a
recoil of less than 2,000 pounds. Potential offerors will be required to maintain a higher level quality system,
such as ISO 9001 or an equivalent.

* my emphasis *
 
marauder2048 said:
FBO Solicitation Number: W15QKN-17-X-09EF

DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Army, Army Contracting Command-New Jersey at
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 is conducting a market survey on behalf
of the Project Manager Soldier Weapons (PM SW) to identify potential sources
and their capability of manufacturing and delivering a 30mm weapon system
capable of firing 30mm X 113mm ammunition for a quantity of 633 total units for
the years FY2018-FY2023
. The 30mm weapon system is to include a gun control unit (GCU),
gun drive cable, control cable, power cable, flex chute and basic issue items.
No Technical Data Package (TDP) is available for this requirement.

SPECIFICATION: The 30mm weapon system will be mounted via a remote weapon station (RWS)
on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle - Reconnaissance Vehicle (JLTV-RV)
. The manufactured 30mm
weapon system must be link fed, single feed, and capable of firing 200 rounds per minute of linked,
electrically primed and Army qualified 30mm x 113mm ammunition (M789 High-Explosive, Dual-Purpose (HEDP),
M788 Target Practice (TP)). The 30mm weapon system will be powered with 28 VDC, incorporate a 1 hp motor
and include anti-hang fire protection. The 30mm weapon system must weigh less than 200 pounds and have a
recoil of less than 2,000 pounds. Potential offerors will be required to maintain a higher level quality system,
such as ISO 9001 or an equivalent.

* my emphasis *

Higher performance guided 30mm rds is about the least that could be done for ground forces involved in high intensity conflict survival if the autocannon target practice drone otherwise known as Reaper is being offered as a CAS solution.
 
More info on LW30 development (from the 2017 Medium Caliber RDT&E Industry Day).
 

Attachments

  • e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-6.png
    e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-6.png
    446.1 KB · Views: 70
  • e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-10.png
    e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-10.png
    531.4 KB · Views: 73
  • e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-12.png
    e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-12.png
    770 KB · Views: 74
  • e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-15.png
    e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-15.png
    411 KB · Views: 79
  • e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-17.png
    e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-17.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 83
  • e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-19.png
    e340baa78906184663a1fae63e1a4aab-19.png
    424.8 KB · Views: 83
Thank you again for the above posts Marauder2048.
 
marauder2048 said:
OATK's 30mm airburst rounds in action.

A different video with more details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UolMYY7QaA
 
bobbymike said:
Thought that was R. Lee Ermey

The one and only.

Orbital ATK Demonstrates MK44 Bushmaster Chain Gun in 30mm and 40mm Configurations

Company’s Advanced Ammunition Initiative Making Rapid Progress

Demonstration to be Featured on Outdoor Channel’s “GunnyTime with R. Lee Ermey”

Dulles, Virginia 27 June 2017 -- Orbital ATK (NYSE: OA), a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, provided its customer and partner base a live demonstration of its MK44 Bushmaster® Chain Gun® firing a variety of both 30mm and 40mm ammunition during the company’s Bushmaster User Conference at Big Sandy Range, Arizona. The gathering of domestic and international attendees watched as the MK44 guns hit targets before and after a rapid changeover from a 30mm to a 40mm configuration. The MK44 Chain Gun will be featured on the 2017 season premiere episode of “GunnyTime with R. Lee Ermey” on Outdoor Channel beginning Wednesday, June 28, featuring Ermey firing the MK44 Chain Gun with Orbital ATK’s 30mm and 40mm Airbursting Ammunition.

http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/release.asp?prid=267

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8SQDTSG0M0
 
There's some confusing (poor?) editing in that video,
in that it jumps between footage of the 30x113mm M230 variant (of Apache fame) mounted on the MATV or JLTV or whatever the 4x4 is,
and then to the proper 30x173mm MK44 gun (it's this latter one that can up-covert to the Super 40 ammo) mounted to the Dragoon variant of the Stryker.
(the XM813 variant being pushed as a Bradley upgrade will up-convert to the 50mm... )

No fault of the poster, but for shame on Gunny's film crew for being so... inaccurate.
 
From Inside Defense:

Army to award NGCV prototype contract in September

The Army plans to award a contract to help develop the Next Generation Combat Vehicle prototype next month, according to Jennifer Hitchcock, executive director of systems integration and engineering at the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center.
 
Are they still trying to get smaller squads and if so are they still expecting those smaller units to do the same jobs or will they increase the number of squads in the unit?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom