"This Armored Vehicle Could Join the U.S. Army of Tomorrow" Topic

"The U.S. Army's next-generation infantry fighting vehicle could feature German DNA. German defense contractor Rheinmetall is teaming up with American defense contractor Raytheon to offer the company's KF41 Lynx infantry fighting vehicle to the U.S. Army. The Army is looking to replace its thousands of M2 Bradley fighting vehicles with a newer design that is not only better in every way, but also has the ability to be remotely controlled on the battlefield.

The M2 Bradley was first used by the U.S. Army in the 1980s. The vehicle not only could carry infantry, but also offered enough protection to allow them to remain mounted during an attack. This preserved the momentum of an armored assault, ensuring that the attack did not slow down and that dismounted infantrymen didn't need to be rounded up and board the vehicle to continue an offensive…"

link

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

too big….they still don;t get it..small bridges..small narrow roads…come on think people…

Are vehicles all going to be sharp angles and facets from now on?

Efficiency dictates this shape…

It would work in a Traveller scenario.

The M2's biggest negative besides the firing port weapons system that was replaced with more armor. Based on experience in the field/combat. But the fact it could only dismount 6 I saw/see as a weakness of design, etc.

I believe the current Brads dismount 7 troops now.

It is not so bad when you consider those 28 dismounts are 3 rifle squads plus the command section. Since the Brads have 25mm cannons, 7.62mm MGs, & TOW-2s, there is no need for a weapons squad in the platoon anymore.

Damon.

Didn't know they could now carry 7. But we never had a weapons squad when I was a Rifle PL in the 101, '80-'81 and later as Mech Co Cdr, '87-'89.

We had 3 Squads of 11 + Plt CP of about 3 or 4.

Each Squad had a an M60MG and M47 Dragon + 2 M203 GLs[one for each Fire Tm].

Later we got the M249 SAW for each Fire Tm when I commanded a Mech Co. of M113s. And of course we had the M2 .50 cal on the Track. But we rarely dismounted it.

I.e. :
Sqd Ldr M16

1st Fire Tm :

1 M60 MG
1 M203 GL
1 M249 SAW
2 M16s

2d Fire Tm :

1 M47 MAW
1 M203 GL
1 M249 SAW
2 M16s

+ .50 cal on the track.

Each Mech Co had an M901 ITV Sec. of 2

The M2 Bradley's Heavier Wpns are great but you can't take the Track everywhere or those hvy wpns. E.g. Swamp, Mountains, etc.

The M113 Co could dismount 9 from each 11 man Sqd.

The M2 Mech Plt has 28 dismounts ? They have 4 Sqds instead of 3? The 4th track in a Mech Plt is the Command Track, it didn't carry a full Sqd only Plt CP/HQ. Or did they change that ?

"The M2 Bradley's Heavier Wpns are great but you can't take the Track everywhere or those hvy wpns. E.g. Swamp, Mountains, etc."

Exactly.
Much more difficult to hide than a heavy weapons team also.

but you can't take the Track everywhere or those hvy wpns. E.g. Swamp, Mountains, etc.

Hang on a sec, the Russians managed to send whole mechanised units equipped with armour through Pripyat Swamps in WWII (though the infantry was horse mounted)! It actually gave them a big advantage in terms of flanking the Wehrmacht!

Mountains are more difficult but again if there's roads there's a way.* After all Brits used armour (Stuarts, Shermans and Grants) well in hilly and mountainous terrain in Impal-Kohima. And tanks were used well mountainous terrain in Korea (and indeed both Koreas field around 7500 MBTs between them as well as thousands of tracked IFVs)!

It's a bit like the myth that tanks are no good in jungles or urban areas – both which have been proven wrong multiple times over since WWII.

In the end it's about well integrated combined arms and clearly defined concepts of operation.

*And that is why engineering units are important!

too big….they still don;t get it..small bridges..small narrow roads…come on think people…

Depends on the theatre.

In the developed world (including a lot of developed Asia and Middle East), the road and bridge systems are extremely well developed and capable of handling heavy trucks including B-double type road trains.

SE Asia might be less well developed but even here the number of good paved roads is increasing.

Russian roads are still pretty poor though but given their main MBTs are 46 tons means that most bridges can probably sustain them.

(I know what I just said might seem to point to argument that in that case you might as well use wheeled vehicles but the whole point of tracked is you can get off roads which are obvious choke points).

Hang on a sec, the Russians managed to send whole mechanised units equipped with armour through Pripyat Swamps in WWII (though the infantry was horse mounted)! It actually gave them a big advantage in terms of flanking the Wehrmacht!

Yes that is true, but that was WWII and the Russians had home court advantage, etc., e.g. what time of year was it ?

Also e.g. the "impassible" Ardennes in 1940. There were roads, trails, open areas, etc. And the Germans used them.

And of course with the Pripyat Marshes example, we don't use large numbers of horse mounted troops, at least the US Army since after WWII.

And tanks were used well mountainous terrain in Korea (and indeed both Koreas field around 7500 MBTs between them as well as thousands of tracked IFVs)!

I know I served 22 months there with a US Army Mech Bn. There is a pretty good road net. And weather is important as well. E.g. A dry or even frozen rice paddy can generally be crossed with AFVs. And yes there are even narrow mountain roads. That you could get a column(s) of Tanks and APCs, etc., up and over. Been there … done all that.

In many locations in the ROK, the terrain is dominated by rice paddies with narrow roads. Albeit generally a number of narrow roads. However, like in any closed terrain you can't maneuver and can be easily ambushed, blocked, etc. That is why certain terrain is not considered "good" AFV terrain. Besides getting stuck, breaking a track, etc. Again been there … done that. We likened it to the Market-Garden operation in many locations, i.e. single lane road. "And this is the wide part!" …

It's a bit like the myth that tanks are no good in jungles or urban areas – both which have been proven wrong multiple times over since WWII.

Yes we know that, at least I do, being a former Infantryman. But in closed terrain like that dismounted Infantry has a clear advantage. Just like in MOUT. We were very well trained in executing Anti-Armor Ambushes. And Ambushes in general. Was a Rifle PL in the 101. We knew how to use terrain to our advantage. Even as a Mech Cdr. I was not afraid to dismount if it was tactically feasible and to our advantage. Favored a dismounted night attack in many situations. AFVs can make a lot of noise !

In the end it's about well integrated combined arms and clearly defined concepts of operation.

Now you're talking ! Everyone here has heard me talk about Combined Arms Mobile modern Warfare.

*And that is why engineering units are important!

My experience is there is never enough CEs to go around.

(I know what I just said might seem to point to argument that in that case you might as well use wheeled vehicles but the whole point of tracked is you can get off roads which are obvious choke points).

Yes, but, again …Think Market-Garden …

Something we also have to look at and you touched on it. Many places in the world are getting more built up and increasing numbers of "good" roads. But again in closed terrain a road can be easily ambushed/blocked/mined, etc.

And as always, it generally depends on terrain & situation … Generally "not one size fits all", so to speak … You have to know when to dismount and when not to. "You have to know when to hold'm and know when to show'm!" …

Yes we know that, at least I do, being a former Infantryman. But in closed terrain like that dismounted Infantry has a clear advantage. Just like in MOUT. We were very well trained in executing Anti-Armor Ambushes. And Ambushes in general. Was a Rifle PL in the 101. We knew how to use terrain to our advantage. Even as a Mech Cdr. I was not afraid to dismount if it was tactically feasible and to our advantage. Favored a dismounted night attack in many situations. AFVs can make a lot of noise !

Infantry might have advantage in defense in urban warfare but offensively you need extra firepower – again look at Stalingrad or Budapest or Berlin or Hue or Fallujah. Even in Market Garden the German armour gave them an advantage in street fighting against the paras.

Fallujah is interesting because initially they limited application of firepower to reduce damage to civilian infrastructure. After casualties mounted and progress was slow, they loosened the reins on the heavy firepower.

Having an Abrams pump a 120mm shell into a house was much more successful than having infantry trying to manually clear it.

Again the answer is combined arms teams – infantry with tanks and air power. (Artillery is there but harder to employ in cities cause of closeness between combatants). Today you can also add in drones for surveillance and even firepower.

Scrapping all tanks and replacing them with large vulnerable 20-38 ton wheeled boxes (as promoted in Europe) will not fix the problem with drones or issues with manoeuvrability. That's just cost cutting.

Yes, but, again …Think Market-Garden …

Market Garden and also Korea following Chinese offensive were clear stuff ups at much higher levels.

Market Garden relied on faulty intelligence and poor risk assessment. It was also over ambitious, too complicated and had no contingencies built into the plan.

And the worst thing about Market Garden is that the push along 1 road meant the Germans could really concentrate firepower and small groups of ambushing infantry could cause great delays.

It was basically stupidity whose main selling point was allied overconfidence.

In Korea the advance following Inchon was sloppy – very lazy column security, little coordination between units which resulted in a lack of mutual support and of course poor intelligence. The exception was the Marines whose commander, Oliver P. Smith was berated for slow progress because he was maintaining proper protocols. But of course he was right and his Marines were in a far better position than the rest of the UN forces.

So in both cases the fault wasn't the tanks or how the troops were equipped, it was poor leadership, intelligence and poor adherence to sound military principles.

It didn't discredit the tank in those environments.

Something we also have to look at and you touched on it. Many places in the world are getting more built up and increasing numbers of "good" roads. But again in closed terrain a road can be easily ambushed/blocked/mined, etc.

Agreed.

But the meatbags suffer the same issue….a single machine gun can pin or even mow down a platoon. Same thing with mines or booby traps.

And today it's actually worse due to proliferation of thermal and electro optical systems. You see all that footage of thin lines of Taliban being tracked by airborne systems under most environmental conditions. Or footage of insurgents in Iraqi cities just before a bomb turns them to mush.

Or in Nagorno Karabakh where drones are spotting well concealed bunkers and trenches and smashing them or killing groups of men scurrying around the place.

In the Ukraine the Russians used drones en masse as artillery spotters in urban or semi-urban environments. It made life miserable for the Ukrainian infantry.

So the answer is not just tanks or just infantry or just drones – as it has been since 1939 it's well trained and well equipped combined arms.

Have to agreed with much of what you posted. Especially this –

So the answer is not just tanks or just infantry or just drones – as it has been since 1939 it's well trained and well equipped combined arms.

My comments are not just from what I've read or been taught. But I have trained/operated in the Darien Jungles of Panama with the 101.

The paddies, mountains of the ROK in both temperate and "Artic" conditions[-30 & -40 degrees below with wind chill].

The plains, farmers' fields, villages, towns, forests, of West Germany.

All over the US in all types of terrain. Including swamps, marshes, deep rain forests, tropical environs of the deep South, etc.

As well as the high desert of the Mojave.

I'm saying besides "been there … done that" … But terrain that is considered "bad" for AFVs[tracked & wheeled] is not only because you can get stuck, mired, break or throw a track, etc. A situation of mobility, trafficability, etc., being effected. E.g. by swamps, soft ground, thick foliage , etc. And yes we all know tracked vehicles, have better cross country capabilities than wheeled generally. But either can get stuck based on the terrain and situation. E.g. I've sunk my Jeep crossing a small stream in the ROK, I've got my Jeep stuck in sand, etc., etc.

However, the close terrain on the jungle, urban, etc. limits your LOS/FOF, and makes it easier to be ambushed. And ambushed at close range. Which makes Infantry AT weapons even that much more deadly. E.g. Panzerfaust, Bazooka, LAW, RPG, satchel charges, AT grenades, Molotov cocktails, etc., etc. Whether you are in an AFV, Grunt, truck, etc. Along with making it easier to set up booby traps/IEDs, mines, road blocks, etc.

The closed terrain limits you ability to maneuver, lay down supporting fires, etc. Giving dismounted Infantry an advantage. Tankers/AFVs generally want to avoid that type of terrain, unless the have close Infantry support.

E.g. Moving along a trail with swamps on either side if ambushed, the AFVs can't always pull of the dry ground and maneuver. But the supporting Infantry can. Infantry can cross shallow bodies of water/paddies, etc. Regardless, where many AFVs could/would get stuck. In any kind of closed terrain not just urban, Infantry can set up an effect AT ambush. Whether in the jungle, forests, etc. E.g. VC in Vietnam.

In training we'd not only set up AT Infantry weapons with good FOF/LOS to the road/trail where we wanted to kill the AFVs. But mine the road as well. The lead vehicle hit the AT mine(s). The AFVs behind him have to try to maneuver around him. So we'd also mine the sides of the road if it was passible. Then we'd KO the last AFV in the column. Call-in FA if available, etc.

Yes, Infantry like the firepower support AFVs provide them. As well as AFVs like the protection Infantry provides them in closed terrain.

Even in Market Garden the German armour gave them an advantage in street fighting against the paras.

Of course but if the paras had enough AT weapons some of the AFVs would suffer obviously.

Remember the SS Recon unit under a CPT Grabner that tried to cross the Arnhem Bridge. When the Paras initially occupied the houses covering the bridge and nearby area. Most of that recon unit was KO'd. I briefed Market-Garden at Combined Arms School, being a former member of the 101, it is one of my favorite battles to study. And many of the lessons learned are still valid.

Fallujah is interesting because initially they limited application of firepower to reduce damage to civilian infrastructure.

In Iraq the M1s were retro-fitted with TUSK, Tank Urban Survival Kit. link [note the extra .50 cal] Because many of the battles became MOUT. Not the open maneuvering of the desert. After the Iraqi forces were quickly were destroyed, surrendered or ran away. It became an urban insurgency generally after that. TUSK made the differences with limiting M1 losses. And the M1 could use their firepower to engage an destroy the Iraqis insurgents.

Fallujah … After casualties mounted and progress was slow, they loosened the reins on the heavy firepower.

That is the bane of many troops on the ground … fear of CD limited their use of firepower in many cases.