Anti-Armour capability of the LAV III APC & Coyote.

[Spr.Earl]

Lance,as to ADATS and its a true roll S.A weapon the war head is frag,so in the A.T. roll do we change war heads?

Air to Air and Ground to Air Missiles are only super tech hand grenades to spread shrapnel as one little
piece can drop a multi mil. $ plane

Confused! ???

 

[JBP]

Sorry, yes, it's not wire-guided, but it's TV guided like the American Air to Ground weapon the Maverick missile/bomb.

At least that's what he told me how it'd be used against armour. Air to air they use the radar. Problem is then not only you have your IR signature but the ping from your radar to target you. And as mentioned, once they start firing off, they're a BIG target....

True, it's not a good idea to have as anti-armour and air-to-air I suppose...

I was trying to be hopefull since we won't have an actual tank!

 

[Yard Ape]

I think wire guided should go the way of the dodo and we should invest (if at all) in a FF missile.  That said I think R&D should also go into a round fired from the 25mm that could defeat MBT armour.  What is the effective range of a tank anyway.

25 mm will never be able to defeat a MBT.  I think F&F missiles for recce & APCs should be seen as a self-defence requirement.

I do not think we should go all F&F.  Dedicated anti-armour should continue to used guided missiles (or a missile that could be self/command guided).  I do think laser may be the way to go for this role though.  For our dedicated anti-armour, we should look at replacing TOW with LOSAT in a LAV turret.

MMEV (ADATS development)  will also be critical to our future anti-armour capability at the BG level and up.  There are already several on-going threads on this topic.

 

[MG34]

The 25mm has defeated T72 MBTs,in both Desert Storm and OIF Bradley crews have used 25mm DU-FSAPDS/T to destroy T72 from both frontal and side arcs. The older T series is easy pickings for the 25mm,T55  through T72 were destroyed easily by shooting into and around the gun mantlet,which acted as a bullet trap directing rounds that did not penetrate into the area of the driver's hatch and turret ring. In short a 25mm cannon firing bursts at a rate of 200 round per min will destroy a T72,the Bradley gunners I have talked to stated on average it took 4-9 rounds to brew up a T72 or 1-2 bursts.I am not saying this should be included as a role for the 25mm but it does show it is possible,despite what the powers that be may publish.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I don't want to get in to an argument on the merits, or lack therof, of the 25mm, but where did you receive your information?  You may have been the victim of some of the 25mm propaganda that has been going around.  I've seen plenty of it, and have listed to plenty of soldiers praising the 25mm way beyond what is factual.

I have talked to some of the Bradley boys from GW1, they all reported that they could not penetrate frontal armour of a T-72, even with the DU round.  All aspects of a T55, and side (in some areas and at close ranges) of the T72 could be penetrated, at ranges of 600 m or less.

The TLAP trial also demonstrated the futility of engaging frontal aspect of T72.

Seeing as how the Leo, with its 105mm cannon and about 100 times the KE of the 25mm could not penetrate the frontal aspect of a T72 with the "Dolly Parton" armour at 2000m with the C76, I kind of doubt that the 25 with our APFSDS will do much to it!

 

[MG34]

Perhaps you didn't read the whole post,the shots that penetrated were directed in the area of the gun mantlet the dispursion of the rounds in the burst caused some to deflect down into the bullet trap between the mantlet and the hull.The rounds penetrated the turret ring and drivers hatch. The 105mm of the Leopard of course could not penetrate the front of the turret on a T72 M1,it is only a 105mm after all,no place on the modern battlefield for them anymore to be sure.
During the "Thunder Run" of the 3rd Div. into Bagdhad there are numerous accounts of M2/M3 Bradleys taking out T-72 with the 25mm DU APFSDS,side shots and close range or lucky frontal hits a kill is still a kill would you not agree????

 

[Yard Ape]

Lucky shots do not make a weapon a tank killer.  Recce & APCs need Fire & Forget missiles.

 

[KevinB]

From speaking to a relative that has an inside on the LOSAT / CVEM _ I tend to think that it is a good OPTION for the LAVIII given we have abandonded conventional manuver practise.

However I think the CF had better realise that given our current ORBAT and TO&E we should relegate our selves to recce screens, terrorist hunting and MEU-SOC type missions...

The combat team attack is dea unless we get a huge windfall of cash and equiptment.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

MG34, what I am talking about is your statement

In short a 25mm cannon firing bursts at a rate of 200 round per min will destroy a T72,the Bradley gunners I have talked to stated on average it took 4-9 rounds to brew up a T72 or 1-2 bursts.

I am saying that statements like this perpetuate the myth of the fantastic 25mm, and the POS T72.  Statements like this will be believed by our younger soldiers, and may cause fatal decisions to be made on some future battlefield.

During the TLAP trial, when firing at an T72, after firing literally hundreds of rounds at the frontal arc, exactly one round penetrated the front, just underneath the barrel, through the Soviet version of the mantle.  This round penetrated from a suicidely close range.  Hundreds of rounds fired at the side resulted in about a 5% penetration ratio at ranges under 400 M.  Certainly enough to kill a T72, especially if multiple LAV's were firing at the same broadside target, at close range.

The 25mm is not expected to take on any second or third generation MBT, nor should it be expected to.  The 25mm is almost exactly twice the calibre of the Browning .50, and just because a APFSDS round has been developed for it doesn't mean it can take on MBT's!

 

[Mortar guy]

Sorry, yes, it's not wire-guided, but it's TV guided like the American Air to Ground weapon the Maverick missile/bomb.

I hate to be nit-picky but it isn't TV guided either. The ADATS is a laser beam-rider meaning it homes in on reflected laser energy from the target (like a Paveway LGB). Almost impossible to defeat using decoys, ECM, stealth etc.

As for the ADATS in the ground role, I think it is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. I can't think of too many places where you'll get an 8km shot. I was in the Middle East last year and I noticed that even in the middle of the desert you are luck to get 5km shots. Besides the ADATS taskes about 5 minutes to come into action once it get into a firing position, which is not conducive to fire and movement! Just like Lance said, once they actually test this MGS/TUA/ADATS concept out, they will realize how it will not work.

Alex

 

[MG34]

During the TLAP trials was the M919 APFSDS (DU) round used or just C137??? As the tugsten penetrator on the C137 is not as effective as the long rod DU penetrator of the US round.Remember I am talking about M2 bradleys not LAV 3,different ammo different results.

From a CNN report:

U.S. Bradley fighting vehicles, despite being lighter, wiped out some of the Soviet-vintage T-72 tanks, a significant military milestone.

The secret for success? The Bradleys fired smaller shells, but they were of a particularly punishing variety made with depleted uranium, which pierced the armor of the heavier Iraqi vehicles.

"I had two Bradleys... One destroyed three T-72s and the other destroyed two," Lyle said. "

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/05/sprj.irq.lyle/.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The TLAP trial only fired non DU projectiles, as it was quite clearly stated that Canadian ground troops would never be issued DU projectiles.  Only Canadian and US (non DU) rounds were fired.  Rounds were fired at a T-72, a BMP2, and various helicopter structures to (test the frange).

But, talk to some of the US soldiers.  Almost all agree that the performance of the 25 was exaggerated, although I will admit that many tanks were knocked out by 25mm, very few (not none, however) T72s were knocked out.

Even the DU does not have the mass or sufficient KE to penetrate much more than 200-300 mm of RHA. 

I did read on after action report where three T-72's were taken out by a Bradley company.  The after action report concentrated on the fact that all Bradleys, save two, expended all of their AP, and had to go through the rather lengthy replen drill.  Apparently the entire company was ourt of action for over an hour, and had to be protected by the remainder of the battalion until they were ready for action again.

The 25 is designed to take out similar vehicle types, APC's and IFV's, not MBT's.

 

[MG34]

  I was making the point that despite all the propaganda to the opposite,a 25mm is capable of taking out a tank. Is it recommended ? Not at all but it could be done. That's it nothing more,now if we had a real IFV such as the CV90.......

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Would it be possible to develop a 25mm around that could take out a MBT consistently?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sorry, yes, it's not wire-guided, but it's TV guided like the American Air to Ground weapon the Maverick missile/bomb.


I hate to be nit-picky but it isn't TV guided either. The ADATS is a laser beam-rider meaning it homes in on reflected laser energy from the target (like a Paveway LGB). Almost impossible to defeat using decoys, ECM, stealth etc.

Actually, an ADATS missile is none of these things.   It is laser COMMAND guided- that is to say that detectors on the base of the missile look backwards towards the firing unit and steers itself based on the information it receives.   The missile has no idea where the target is at any time until it's fuse (also a laser in the nose of the missile) detects the presence of a target and causes detonation. The warhead is big enough to kill or seriously damage any MBT in the world.   I would be highly sceptical about using an asset that expensive and scarce in a solely Anti-armour role.   It's anti-armour capability was always really only meant as a self-defense feature and a marketing tool.

 

[a_majoor]

Also the Army has a hyper velocity TOW in testing.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/

http://www.mechaps.com/cgi-bin/pictureArchive.cgi?&A=right_page&id=119

Looks like the HATM is the evolved LOSAT, in a package which fits TOW launchers. This will give the LAV-TOW a much better reach, now all that is needed is a low signature "launch" motor to push it out the tube...


http://www.mechaps.com/cgi-bin/pictureArchive.cgi?&A=right_page&id=119

 

[Zipper]

  I was making the point that despite all the propaganda to the opposite,a 25mm is capable of taking out a tank. Is it recommended ? Not at all but it could be done.

Would it be possible to develop a 25mm around that could take out a MBT consistently?

Now I have to ask. Capable of taking out a Tank? Ok, which one? Certainly not the front armour on most of today's MBT's? Maybe a lucky rear shot? Perhaps damaging the track, or the sights? Or are we talking about older generation tanks like the T-64's, Leopard's, M-60's, etc?

Maybe some clarification is needed? Considering the fact that even our 105mm rounds would be hard pressed to take out a T-72 front on at range.

Other then that, lets hope that they decide to mount TOW on turrets in the LAV's. Or even better, go for CV-90's.

 

[RyanNS]

Now I have to ask. Capable of taking out a Tank? Ok, which one? Certainly not the front armour on most of today's MBT's? Maybe a lucky rear shot? Perhaps damaging the track, or the sights? Or are we talking about older generation tanks like the T-64's, Leopard's, M-60's, etc?

Maybe some clarification is needed? Considering the fact that even our 105mm rounds would be hard pressed to take out a T-72 front on at range.

Other then that, lets hope that they decide to mount TOW on turrets in the LAV's. Or even better, go for CV-90's.

Is the CF considering purchasing CV90's?

 

[Zipper]

Is the CF considering purchasing CV90's?

Not likely. But we can dream can't we?