Reply With QuoteI would still pick an M3A3 over that any day; maybe fit it with some band-tracks.
It give you much better protection, comfort and it has plenty of firepower(25mm+TOW).
Cavalry Fighting Vehicles & Armoured Reconnaissance
Hope this isn't in the wrong forum, thought about putting it in equipment & gear as an AFV is a piece of kit, but as it kind've goes into doctrine I put it here...
Picked up a cheap book off a market stall the other day, 'The Bradley Company', and it goes into mainly M2 and infantry stuff, but theres also a bit on the M3.
Thinking about the M3 and the Cavalry Fighting Vehicle idea it seems to reflect American armoured recce methodology... You carry dismounts with you in every CFV, and the Armoured Cavalry organisations also feature Abrams MBTs and mortar carriers - it seems that they go looking for a fight as in 'recce by fire/in force'. Minituare combined arms forward of your main forces for probing purposes, so to speak.
This got me thinking about the BMP-3.
A) BMP3 has extensive armaments fit - 100mm (not the same as a 120mm MBT main gun but nearly), 30mm (similar to most IFV armaments and the 25mm of the CFV), 7.62mm MGs, gun-fired ATGMs.
B) BMP3 carries up to 7 dismounts.
C) Light weight (relatively) of under 19 tonnes.
Which got me thinking that BMP3 would make a suitable CFV. Its got a close match for the weapons fit of both vehicles, and more dismounts than the CFV employs, in one vehicle.
If you were to equip the dismounts with an infantry ATGM like JAVELIN, that could be fired from a roof hatch, that'd compensate for the only having a 100mm as opposed to 120mm, as well as giving you a dismounted anti-armour option.
The only thing I was thinking was that its a bit big for recce, but then I came across the BMD4 - the VDV/naval infantry version of the BMP3, air droppable, swimmable from ship to shore, at around 15 tons I believe. It has less dismounts (only 4) but this is plenty for recce purposes and the odd ATGM team - its not like you need a whole section in the back is it...
Greece has recently bought BMP3s and is fitting them out with top of the line French electronics I believe, so their experience of it will be interesting. Matching the potent Eastern hardware with Western electronics could bring the best of both worlds, a true world beater.
What do you make of the true role of a CFV (as opposed to armoured recce vehicles like the Scimitar), and how well do you think the BMP3 or (even better it seems) the BMD4 would fulfil it?
To me, it looks like a unique combination of armour and infantry carrier that would be near perfect for such a role.
Regards
BB
I would still pick an M3A3 over that any day; maybe fit it with some band-tracks.
It give you much better protection, comfort and it has plenty of firepower(25mm+TOW).
I think a heavy wheeled vehicle, not compromised by the need to carry troops, would make the ideal heavy armoured recce vehicle.
The Rooikat springs to mind. Long range, relatively heavy armour, high speed, heavy punch.
ehicle idea it seems to reflect American armoured recce methodology... You carry dismounts with you in every CFV, and the Armoured Cavalry organisations also feature Abrams MBTs and mortar carriers - it seems that they go looking for a fight as in 'recce by fire/in force'. Minituare combined arms forward of your main forces for probing purposes, so to speak.
Well, the British/Commonwealth are the main exception to the "Recce by Fire" tactic. That's why the US had light tanks into the 1970s-'80s (not just airborne). They only carry two scouts, though, and the vehicle is noticeably different from the M2 inside. It also has a better/different NBC system fitted.
Which got me thinking that BMP3 would make a suitable CFV. Its got a close match for the weapons fit of both vehicles, and more dismounts than the CFV employs, in one vehicle.
Yes, but the point of "Recce by Fire" is not to get out of the vehicles and start walking around. Dismounts are there to act as scouts.
If you were to equip the dismounts with an infantry ATGM like JAVELIN, that could be fired from a roof hatch, that'd compensate for the only having a 100mm as opposed to 120mm, as well as giving you a dismounted anti-armour option.
The only thing I was thinking was that its a bit big for recce, but then I came across the BMD4 - the VDV/naval infantry version of the BMP3, air droppable, swimmable from ship to shore, at around 15 tons I believe. It has less dismounts (only 4) but this is plenty for recce purposes and the odd ATGM team - its not like you need a whole section in the back is it...
Yes, but the armor of the BMD series is not their strong point. It trades protection for very low weight. Combat experience with the BMD showed this. For British "Recce by Stealth," this is an acceptable compromise, seeing as how the CVR(T) has very little in the way of armor. For front-line "Recce by fire," you need a little more if you want to stay alive.
What do you make of the true role of a CFV (as opposed to armoured recce vehicles like the Scimitar), and how well do you think the BMP3 or (even better it seems) the BMD4 would fulfil it?
The CFV is the equivalent to the CVR(T) series in US service, but it has the scouts because it uses an existing platform of the M2/M3. When the US operated purpose-built recce vehicles earlier, they didn't have dismounts. This was added when the M3 was chosen for commonality, as it was inefficient to leave the whole back of the vehicle empty. The dismounts in the back also have the task of reloading the TOW launch box.
Firing an ATGM from the back hatch of a Bradley, especially when moving, in combat, doing evasive maneuvers would only occur in a movie, or when facing certain annihilation. Dismounting a TOW team on an lp/op and covering a flank from defilade (Bradley) makes much more sense. I'm guessing you've never had the pleasure of being a Scout dismount on a Brad? The affectionate term is JAFO. And it suckedOriginally Posted by Britboy
Tracked vehicle make bad reconnaissance vehicle because they make an incredible amount of noise. Even with "quiet" tracks, the large engines, which are required to move these heavy vehicles make enough sound that anyone will hear it.
Plus having a recon vehicle with heavy weapons give rise to a tendency to duke it out instead of running away or keeping under cover and observing.
Having had the "pleasure" of being inside a running BMP-3, I would say that it won't be my first choice to go into battle.
First it amazing cramped and noisy inside. Makes you sort of "buggy" after about 30 minutes. Second, the 35mm armor didn't inspire alot of confidence in me. Third, I can't really see how you get out of the vehicle quickly, especially if you're the one seated next to the driver. The 100mm gun/launcher is sort of interesting. And I heard it's about 1/4 the price of a Bradley.
I've been drinking a bit, so I may be completely incoherent right now.
There are various schools of thought on armored recce/cavalry operations.
1) Stealth. Light vehicles (light weight, light armament, light armor) dash around and attempt to find the enemy passively (i.e. seeing the enemy without them seeing you in the process). The Germans and Dutch are moving toward this kind of doctrine with the Fennek - which has a mast-mounted sensor, is wheeled, and armed only for self defense. This doctrine presumes that you will find the enemy with your superior technical means before the enemy finds you.
2. Heavy cavalry. The US, France, and, to a lesser extent, Russia are the big proponents of this doctrine. Examples are the US M3 CFV (and the inclusion of M1 tanks in cavalry units, until recently anyways), French AMX-10RC, AML-90 and ERC-90 and the Russian BRM series of recce vehicles (basically BMPs without heavy armament). This school of thought is aggressive - heavy cavalry goes out looking for a fight, assumes it will be shot at, and provides for the recce units to take some punishment, and dish it out as well. This is active recon - like recon by fire.
3. A mix of the above. The Brits are good poster children of this with the Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre series of vehicles. Small, semi-stealthy, poorly armored but relatively well armed for their size. Naturally this is an attempt at a compromise of the above two doctrines.
You've also got to look at unit organization.
IIRC, German/Dutch type units don't have much of a dismounted presence, and also don't have any heavy weapons. IIRC a battalion recon platoon is pretty much 4-6 Fenneks without any supporting arms. The Fenneks can dismount 1-2 soldiers as needed. This is fitting with the passive recon doctrine the German/Dutch forces are oriented towards - sneaking, without much combat power.
The Americans have several levels of armored recon. They have one Armored Cavalry Regiment left (the 3rd ACR) which provides Corps/Theater armored recon capability. These are large units with a roughly 50/50 mix of Abrams tanks and Braldey CFVs. They are obviously a very active recon force. The American brigade and battalion recon assets get "softer" the lower you go on the order of battle. A Heavy Brigade Combat Team has about a 50/50 mix of Bradleys and Humvees as scouts in the Brigade's cavalry squadron - a mix of active and passive capabilities. At the battalion level, the scouts are mounted almost entirely in humvees (IIRC) and are largely a passive recon force. Notice the trend from active to passive from the ACR down to the scout platoon.
The French seem largely standardized. They have light armored brigades, which are brigades made up of 1-2 light tank (AMX-10RCs are basically wheeled light tanks) battalions and 1-2 motorized infantry battalions. At the battalion level, they use VBLs, which are roughly equivalent to uparmored humvees. The French appear to be mostly oriented to active recon.
The Russians are a mix at all levels. The corps/army-level recon battalion is a healthy mix of dismounted scouts, motorcycle scouts, BRDM scouts and BRM scouts. They are often given tanks as attachments as well, I think. Divisional recon battalions are largely the same, but with slightly less dismounted scouts and slightly more BRMs. At the regimental level, the recon company organization is roughly proportionately identical - 1/3rd motorcycles, 1/3rd BRDMs and 1/3rd BRMs. Battalion level scouts are the same, just smaller. Instead of platoons of motorcycles, BRDMs and BRMs, they have sections (a squad of motorcyclists, a single BRDM with a scout team, and a single BRM with a scout team). Often Russian recon organizations are given tank and motorized rifle attachments for extra punch, forming advanced bodies of combined arms teams ahead of the main body.
The British organization is pretty vague to me right now, but IIRC their armored recce regiments are very light on dismounted forces and rely on maneuver and their moderate firepower to find the enemy.
OK. I'm really drunk now, and feel like a complete nerd for writing about this instead of sleeping with many anonymous women like most single guys should be, and I think I lost my point too.
Some people get drunk and horney for wimmin - others get drunk and horney for armour......
Go with the flow Hellfish - a tank will never leave you, sleep with your best m8, or empty your bankaccount!
That's what I thought, too. I was wrong.or empty your bankaccount!
Lokos
Hehe you drive a BMP to work Lokos?
Perchance to dream, BugHunt. Perchance to dream...
Lokos
I've been inside an M3 Bradley and the experience is the same as what you described. Diesel engines are very loud when you're basically sitting inside them.
[QUOTE=DesktopArmor;3261692]
and the vehicle is noticeably different from the M2 inside. It also has a better/different NBC system fitted.
Not anymore. The A3 version is almost entirely identical for the M2/3. Only small tell tales that you would have to know what to look for. And the only difference in the NBC system is in the GPFU.
Does anyone know how USMC organize their LAV-25 recce units(LAR battalions)?
Their vehicles have just been upgraded.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../battalion.htmThe Light Armored Vehicle [LAV] is the Marine Corps' armored reconnaissance asset. LAVs are organized into Light Armored Reconnaissance (LAR) Battalions and are used to gather information well forward of the main MAGTF units, providing the MAGTF commander operational flexibility by giving him stand-off distance. LAR is also used to protect flanks, perform screen missions and raids, and to conduct route and area reconnaissance.
There are four LAR battalions in the Marine Corps, located in Camp Pendleton, Camp Lejeune, 29 Palms, and one in the reserve. Each battalion has four line companies, consisting of 14 LAV-25s, 4 LAV-ATs, 2 LAV-Ms, 1 LAV-R, 3 LAV-Ls, and 1 LAV-C2. The mission of the LAR battalion is to conduct reconnaissance, security, and economy of force operations and, within its capabilities, to conduct limited offensive or delaying operations that exploit the unit's mobility and firepower. The LAR battalion may function as an independent maneuver element, or its subordinate units may support other tactical units. LAR units may support the MAGTF or the GCE.
How are the line companies organized(platoons, dismounts etc)?
Last edited by The Dane; 05-25-2008 at 10:30 AM.
IIRC there are three platoons of four LAVs each, with four dismounted scouts per LAV. The LAV-ATs are their own platoon, the LAV-Ms are the company's mortar section, andthe LAV-R, -Ls and -C2 belong to the HQ element. They can be task organized differently, of course.
Posting Permissions
