It wasn't the same 75 as the mounted on the sherman, just shared the same caliber. It officially was a 75mm, 65-caliber. A shorter version was marketed for a time by AIRES Corps as the AIRES 75...the great selling point was the auto loader. The Scorpion mounted a short-barrelled 76mm, but the Brits used HESH, HE, Smoke and Canister and ignored the AP round. The AMX-13 75mm gun was a near copy of the 75mm used on the Panther.

The Sherman short-barrelled 75mm was designed to meet then current Armored Corps doctrine which held that tanks were not to be used to destroy other tanks, that was the sole preserve of the tank destroyer corps. So when the Sherman went into combat from El Alemain forward, it found itself serously outgunned by the Mark IV, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger combo. It was only when the Sherman was upgunned to the 76mm that it had any chance of taking on the Germans...and even then, it was seriously outgunned.

Information I've got states that the Ares was developed as a show case for their 75mm gun system. The vehicle itself was never turned over to the military for testing and that total production only came to 3-4 vehicles. Their gun was actually turned over to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for testing where it impressed everybody with its high rate of fire, until it was tested on tank hulls and failed to penetrate the old M-47 hull that was used. And the final saw was that the gun failed to penetrate the armor...and that was the end of that discussion.

Ever since then, the discussion has been using a gun of no less than 90mm. Not that the budget people will discuss a light tank.

the LAV- 75 was the US Army's " High Survivability Test Vehicle Light " it was armed with the Ares corps hyper velocity automatic cannon XM274. it had a 12.5 mile range, armor penetration is listed as 350mm at 2000m with APFSDS. It can fire a three round burst. Excessive heat transfer and barrel erosion was a major drawback.

Yes a good Light Tank would be a good start to give the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, and 101st Airborne Divisions some extra fire power. It wouldn't be bad to see some to go to the Airborne Brigade with the 25th Infantry and the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

These could also be used in the Stryker Brigades too. To help add some effective fire power so that they don't have to rely on 105 mounted Stryker and hope if they fire over the side that they don't roll over...

Now the Armor Journal articles I'm looking over state that the APFSDS rounds failed to penetrate the armor on the target vehicle, citing "the shattering of the penetrator on impact as well as the complete failure of other test rounds to penetrate more than 2cm. Failure of the auto-loader in sustained fire, excessive heat damage to the components as well as several breech explosions, again due to the heat. The Ares gun never achieved its designers expectations.

As for the High Survivability Test Vehicle Light, there were 18 designs submitted for that, none of which entered US service. You have to remember that defense contractors come up with multiple designs and try to sell to the military, it is possible to see the same mock-up turret design on multiple hulls, it really depends on what can be cheaply modified by the contractor.

Just one example is a Bradley that was modified to mount a 30m high, boom in place of the troop compartment, you simply opened the over head hatch, raised the boom and activated its sensor package. The "eyeball" mounted CCTV, thermal sights, laser rangefinder and a laser designator. The theory is that the Brad would set up in back in the woods, out of sight, raise the eyeball to scan for targets and designate for Hellfire and Copperhead then retract the boom and move back before the Soviets could figure out were it was. Five were actually built and displayed at various arms shows and around several military bases. There are plenty of pics of the vehicle and at least one book that identifed it as Bradley variant that was entering service. It never entered service, and in point of fact, was never purchased or requested by the US Army. The "LAV-75" falls into this category of vehicle. It was a design concept that failed the early testing process.

Just flipping through a copy of Jane's Armored Fighting Vehicles shows serveral decent designs:

The Austrain SK-105 Kurassier design; combat weight weight of 17,700kg, armed with the 105mm cannon and with a road speed of 70km/hr and a range of 500km

The Swedish Ikv-91; combat weight of 16,300kg, armed with a 90mm cannon; a road spd of 65km/hr and a range of 500km

The UK Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre; combat weight of 8,073kg, armed with a 76mm cannon (30mm autocannon); a road spd of 80km/hr and a range of 644km

The Cadillac Gage Stingray; combat weight of 21,205kg, armed with the 105mm cannon; road spd of 67km/hr with a range of 483km

The Swedish CV-90; combat weight of 22,800kg, armed with a a 105mm or 120mm cannon, road spd of 70km/hr, range of 500km

The Cadillac Gage ASV-150; combat weight 13,408kg, armed with a 90mm cannon, road spd of 100km/hr, range of 708km

These are just a few that I pulled out. There are other designs like the South African Ratel and Rooikat designs that I like...but its enough to give you an idea.

The South African Rookiat is a good example of how its done. Has a relatively low profile, wide tyres, a wide wheelbase, fast and long ranged. Armour is a little better than the Stryker, but most importantly, they did an outstanding job of keeping bloat away. Has a 76mm because its all they need, nor does it have tons of electronics, and has a 360 degree firing arc- even with the 105 version. Its honestly my favourite armoured scout car out there.

How many of these A/C designs were tested in the pre-Stryker run-up? I recall being told that there were a lot (2 dozen?) of foreign & domestic vehicles collected, and each turned over to a team of NCOs to run through their paces.

There were a lot of US designs and 5-7 foreign designs. But from almost the beginning of the tests, all you heard about was how great the Stryker was.

In these tests, there is a very high if-its-not invented-here-its-no-good.

Sounds like when they tested and later fielded the M16. Then the M4 trials. Seems their minds were already made up...

Lee,

As you no doubt know, the Stryker is based on the Canadian-built LAV III, developed from a licenced version of the Swiss Piranha. So it's a little open as to what "here" means!

Tony

Yeah, but there is some more back story. The US Military had kept an eye on the LAV/Piranha line since the early 1980s. When it was tested for both US Army and Marine Corps use as the LAV-25. The only reason the Army didn't buy it then was because the M2/M3s were in their final phase of development and about to deploy. The LAV-25 was adopted by the Marine Corps though.

It was more of logistical decision that the Army didn't want to focus on two vehicle that in many minds did the same thing as they replaced the M113 and that line of variants. Yes, granted the LAV-25 was suppose to go to help create Medium Force that could move quickly while the M2/M3s were going to Heavy Force units.

The Medium Force was put on hold for another decade or so...

The US Army has however trialled the LAV25 in the field, a number were loaned from the USMC and used alongside the M551 Sheridan in the First Gulf War by 3/73 Armor. After the war they were returned. Source Osprey M551 Sherridan

What minds? ;)

the TO&E clearly state that nobody above squadron level is authorised a working brain. its right there in black and white...:D

And nobody below is authorised to use theirs.....

One platoon out of how many deployed in PGI? The biggest draw backs that the LAV-25 had as far as the Army was concerned came down to two points...It was Canadian...and even more chilling, it was used by the Marines first!

And that was the end of that discussion!

Gentlemen, may I remind both of you that you are violating National Security by confirming what many people already suspect?

:p

Meh, what do I care? I'm Australian... :D

Two of my favorite authors (at least on the military) are James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi, authors of the "Dirty Little Secrets..." series and "How to Make War". How are some...

During WWII one of Britain's most critical war materials, right after ammunition, was tea. They stockpiled 150 million tons of tea at the height of the war...thats about 6 trillion cups of the stuff!

The armies of WWII went into action with two rather odd types of units (and these units are still around today). These are the mobile bakery and mobile butchering detachments which are able to process large amounts of raw material into rations. A typical mobile butchery could provide half-pound meat rations from a typical animal: 40 head of cattle would provide 40,000 rations; 80 pigs would provide 24,000 rations and 240 head of sheep would provide 19,000 rations. A field bakery, depending upon the season and weather conditions could provide between 15,000 and 19,200 rations of bread (1 pond per ration).

What does "USA" really mean? During WWII, the US shipped thousand of trucks to the Russians. Needless to say, these military vehicles had "USA" painted on them. One popular "translation" concocted by the political officers was that USA meant "Ubiyat Sukensyna Adolfa or..."Kill that son of a bitch Adolf!"

As the US Army advanced across France in 1944, it entered ground familiar to the oldermen, the battlefields of WWI and there are two stories that came out.
A regimental commanding officer was pouring over some maps when he came across some familar village names. Turning to his operations officer he asked, "Major, any chance we can go around this town? Back in 1918 I made some pretty tall promises to a young lady there and I'd rather not run into her just know."
A pillbox in Lossarine, in NE France was taken by American troops twice, once in each world war. On one of the walls is written a doughboy's name and a date in late 1918. Just under it appears the same name with a date in late 1944. Beneath that is scrawled "This is the last time I want to be in this damned bunker."

Yeah that is the damn thing about both of those wars. Closed enough together for some of the young men who fought in the first one, to be either recalled duty, still on active duty, volunteer for return to duty. I bet that happen lot more than people realized.

What a change from the hell of Trench Warfare to Blitzkrieg! Its also a stat that you don't see any real info on.

Yeah I know what you mean.

Think about the guys who served in WWII, get recalled to fight in Korea and then have a couple of tours in Vietnam....

Sad but true. The US Army needs to develop a better idea threshing machine to separate the wheat from the chaff of Joe's ideas. The operating assumption is that the wheat-to-chaff ratio makes idea that comes from below not worth the trouble of examining. There are exceptions, of course, such as when the leadership desperately needs a new idea or when one is talking about small units with a fair experience base. For the most part, though, Joe's ideas are considered chaff.


Webstral

Yeah I know there several troops who fought in Korea and then did tours in Vietnam. The main difference was that they weren't far remove from what they had done WWII when they fought in Korea. Of course, the fighting was slightly different depending on if they had served in the Pacific, France, or Italy during WWII.

Then to go into Vietnam which was totally a different animal all together.

The sad thing is many of the lesson that were learned in Korea and Vietnam have been relearned many more times. So much so that the lessons that we had retained from Europe and North Africa in WWII are fading away fast.

Looking over the information that at some sites. Looks to me that the Army is not transforming from Mechanized/Armor heavy that they were before 2003 starting after 1991 in which their was movement to create light and medium forces to balance out things out which by 1991 seemed to be on the way out.
Now there seems to be more units that are would have been considered light and medium type combat than less and less of the heavy units.

I looked at this with mix feelings. Granted the last several year many of the old heavy units and others have gone into theater with-out the equipment that they had trained with for years. It is one of those things when you look as recently as 2008 I think it was when the Russia Army invade Georgia, a nation that had been seeking entry into NATO at the time. There were several lesson that one would of thought, that would still validate having a good share units still organized as heavy units.

The one thing is if we do let things go because the we believe that the use of the heavy units isn't going to happen. The idea that any Divisional command should be able to support any mix of troops that the Army decides to throw together for this mission or that mission. Or the next time the US has to send military forces over somewhere where we will have six months or longer build up period and have the leisure to rotate troops as we see fit.

Then it is sorely misguided. Granted rotating troops from front-line position to rest/refit position is all too important, but if anything what modern operation going back to WWII at time has shown there is no Front line. It is wide and flexible area that can change at time within hours, if not faster.

Yes it would be sad if the 3rd ACR was order to convert to any of the new model of Brigade Combat Teams. It still has a unique and very important role that it can fill. What is left of the few ACRs in the Nation Guard all have seemed to have been converted to other function much like the 2nd and 11th ACR in the Regular Army have been.

In some sense the Infantry/Airborne/Air Assault Brigade Combat Teams are much like the former Light Infantry/Airborne/Air Assault Brigades of the pre-modular Army with the modification that they now have Special Troop Battalion made up of what used to be Divisional Support units and Forward Support Battalion with an reduce Artillery Battalion as part of the Brigade organization. With the reduction of one Infantry Battalion out and replaced by a Cavalry Squadron that they still trying to figure out what it should be. One of the sad thing is 10 years ago some of these Infantry Brigades were Mechanized or Armor Brigade under the old system.

The Heavy Brigade Combat Teams well there has been lot of debate and harsh tones over how these units lost 1 Battalion either Mechanized or Armor depending on what the Brigade was task original. Now for say the US Army of 1980s or early 1990s that would be true, but 2003 they had 3 line companies. What was lost in the transition was 1 Battalion and 1 Artillery Battery. What the Brigades gains was that Armor Brigades receive one Mechanized Company and the old Mechanized Brigades got one Armor Company. Along with having the Artillery, and Support Battalion assigned to support the Brigade full time. They also received Engineer Battalion that on paper was parsed out, Special Troop Battalion from divisional assets, and again Cavalry Squadron.

With the new Stryker Brigades they keep the same 3 Infantry Battalions, the Cavalry Squadrons which the RSTA missions started out as. They still have full Artillery Battalions. What they gained on paper wasn't really a gained since many of these Brigades were originally 'Separated Brigades' or 'Enhance Brigades' depending on how you want to word was Special Troop Battalion which were largely operated independently prior or as part of the Support Battalion already assigned to the Brigade. Yes, these Brigade seemed to take what had worked with ACRs and mold it to the Infantry unit that could be sent anywhere in number of days with number of aircraft were ready to use.

Yet they still didn't go to the ACR extreme where the each Infantry Battalion was compose of Engineer Company, Artillery Battery, and Support sub units like the Armor Cavalry Squadrons were broken down to. This is one of the points missed with all three organization of the new Brigade Combat Teams. In some ways the Heavy Brigades are much better organized, but their is room for more improvement.

Then their are still units like the 1st Mechanized Division, 3rd Mechanized Division, and even the 10th Mountain Division where they have one or more of their component units based else where from the Division while the Divisional Command still has nominal control. Then their is the 2nd Infantry and 25th Infantry Divisions where Divisional HQ doesn't necessarily have operation control of the Brigades. Even though in theory they will be used with those Divisions. I am sure there are other units that have Brigades scattered. Such as the 1st Armored and 4th Mechanized that may have units still at Fort Hood. Then again Fort Hood at one time was home to III Corps and 2 Division that had Division HQ, Divisional Support, Aviation and two of the three Combat Brigades there at one time a past that GDW worked with.

Honestly, I remember when I was in, there wasn't much believe that we would have time build up our forces in either Germany or Korea if the balloon went up. The only ones who seemed to believe who were the ones who promoted the idea of have round-out Brigades and other sub-units to make the Army appear larger than it really was. It was game played by both side during the cold war. The 6th Polish Airborne/Air Assault Division for example for most of it life under the Warsaw Pact never amounted to much more than reinforce Brigade. Or the fact that depending on the material you read, one could be led to believe that French and English Divisions weren't much better. In fact, the standard Soviet MRD and TD had about two-thirds of the strength of US or German Division.

Even the Germans it seem never pleased with their Divisional organization. I have read at one time standard Panzer/Panzergrenadier Brigade had up to 5 line Battalions. Or the fact that their Airborne Division was largely administrative organization when it exist since it three Brigades were already tasked to one of the III Corps. Or that their Mountain Division consisted of only one Light Brigade with special Panzer Brigade and Panzergrenadier Brigade.

In fact, largely since WWII many of the Divisions on either side was just a number games. The Soviets and Pact forces had a larger number of Divisions, but the question was always how much of fight some of the Pact forces would put up. While on NATO side it was always a question of where would they be able to stop the incoming Soviet/Pact horde before the front line troop could get reinforce. The second most important question is how far into Germany the French would allow the Soviets/Poles push before they popped nukes. Which was followed by a third question how far the US/UK were willing to allow the Soviet/Poles go before they started popping nuke and then where.

It seems that Soviets believed that the US may used the Vistula River as an line to drop nukes in order to slow Soviet reinforcement, or that how they war-gamed it with the Polish. You know you can't nuke an allies territory right. Ironically one has to wonder if the somehow the US Seventh Army and other units of the CentAG were able to stop the Soviet/Germans/Czech forces in Southern West Germany, and were able to go on the offensive cutting off forces in Northern German and forced them into retreat, which if turned into offensive deep into Poland. Would it be the Soviets using the Vistula River as last ditch stopping line to keep NATO out of Soviet territory?

I don't know...just some thoughts and ramblings.

You know, I've been thinking about all the talk about light, medium, and heavy cav units, and how they should be equipped and all. Pros and Cons of tracks vs. wheels, heavy and light versions of the same, and so on and so forth. Even have talk of other forms of "cavalry" missions by different sorts of troops on a number of other threads (be it horse, bike, or even helibourne fireforces). What sort of makeup would you pick as the ideal cavalry force (Given a set sort of mission), with whatever equipment and organization existing or not?

Ouch! Ask a tough one why don't you!!


The equipment needed would be based on the mission and terrain expected. Sooooooo

For the heavy division recon squadron....two troops of air cavalry, I have no arguement with. Two ground troops equiped with armored cars (4 or 6 wheels, armed with at least a 90mm) and a third ground troop with tracked vehicles (M-3/M-1A1). This would give you sufficient ground troops to cover a division front, two lightly armed and fairly mobile to get in and sneak-n-peek and a third heavy troop with the firepower to support. I can also see three heavy ground troops at the division level...and then a independent troop of wheeled at the brigade level.

For the ACR.....heavy is the only configuration that allows it to perform its missions.

For the LCR...this is for the XVIII Airborne Corps, so I think wheeled vehicles would be the best choice.

Back in '72 I has an old SFC as my NCOIC at the Inital Receiving Point at the reception station. Kids would always ask him about his war experiences and all he would tell them was his whorehouse experiences.. He had combat bars from his cuff to his elbow. Well I went to his retirement ceremony, the only time I ever saw him with his decorations other than his CIB with two stars. They read off his record per se, not how many times he was busted back from Master Sergeant though.

This man, who was an alcoholic btw, and I then realized why, was in 16th Infantry through out North Africa, Sicily, Normany (Omaha Beach) and on to the end of WW2.. then went to Japan Occupation forces (where a vast majority of his whorehouse stories came from I think). He was in the 24th Infantry Division initally, and was in the 1-21 Infantry (Task Force Smith) that was sent to stop the North Koreans.. he wound up in hospital in Japan for six months and went back to Korea as a replacement in the 1st Cav. He was still in country in '53.

After Korea he was in the fore runners of the Special Forces. He spent five tours in RVN, his first in 1956 as an advisor.. his last in 1970, as an advisor..

The man had two DSC, five Silver Stars and several Bronze with V devices.. as well as seven or eight purple hearts.. and ppl wondered why he drank?

He actually retired as a Master Sergeant, being promoted just before he retired, and not enough time to get in trouble again, and they dried him out..

I often think of Sergeant Johnson. I was a young buck at the time with two tours under my belt, and he was an inspiration to me as an infantryman.

Grae

You back then a good NCO could be busted several time with hopes to raise back up through the ranks. In today Army if you get busted from NCO rank you will probably at best make Specialist 4 and barred from re-enlistment.

I know of one E-5 who was in my Company in 1988 who was promoted back to E-5 for the third time. This was toward the end, a couple months later another E-5 got busted for something trivial compared what the previous E-5 was busted for and he was only busted to E-4, but was barred from re-enlisting again. Not that he cared, he came from well off family, but it still amazed me that in short time the Army and Officers had started to change policy.

Yeah, the army has changed a lot in the past few decades, and not always for the better. Seen some really strange things go down, including some that frankly disgusted me. While in we had a SGT play air guitar with a M4 and sprayed a room full of joes- killing one and crippling another. Busted to Spec4, made sergeant again a year later. A year later, a Sergeant goes into a club, gets carded like everyone else, gets a number of a girl he meets. 6 months later, and nothing more than phone contact, gets booted because her fake id didn't say she was 17, upon chaptering out with a General OTH (I was his escort), he asked the brigade commander what made him so different, and with a straight face, the commander said, "He was a good christian, he obviously didn't mean any harm, your not." (The soldier was jewish, and when he cried foul.. (and I did) the reply from the EO guys was a "So what, its true")

He was playing air guitar with a load F*#$ing weapon. Wow, and they only busted him down to Spec 4. Mind boggling, there was time he would spent time out at military outpost in Kansas for log and reduction in grade would of been to E-1...

Then compare it to what they did to the sergeant that didn't know he was talking to underage minor and his response from the Brigade Commander that is just outrageous.

Yeah, that and the stunts that was being pulled in USAREC was getting out of hand that talked me into not staying in. Had a station commander (amongst other less savory things) who held bible study classes in the station, and while he couldn't require us to attend, he could require us to be in the office during that time frame. Pretty sad when no one saw anything wrong with that, and the Recruiting School's motto according to all the instructors was "Deny Everything, Admit nothing, Demand Proof." The mid 2000's was just a bad time all in all.

That just boils my blood. :pissed2:

While I'm about as atheistic as it's possible to be, I've got no problem with others believing whatever they want, provided they don't try and drag me into it as well (I spent two hellish weeks in a small car with a Muslim who tried converting me the entire time - not fun). As far as I'm concerned, the military is about one thing - defeating the enemy. "Voluntary" bible study groups have no place in that mission and should be done only in a soldiers downtime.

I can totally relate, almost word for word (I say almost because I've never been stuck in a small car for two weeks with a proselytising Muslim).

Dear God!!!:screams:

The SGT and his love of air guitar should have been fast tracked to Private E-1 and introduced to his new duty station at Fort Leavenworth for the next 10-20 years. As for the Brigade Commander AND the EO people...ya'll should have gone straight to the IG!!!

DITTO!!!!!!!:mad:

Talk about abusing your authority! This should have been an IG complimant, complete with web-cam of this jackass ordering everyone to attend...

Ah- but that's the catch, we wasn't ordered to attend; that's clearly against the rules- we was however required to be in the station at that time for "professional reading", you know, regs, bulletins, etc. Dude is a recruiting 1SG now. Al this was happening back when the military was shutting down all the "underused" religious programs. While I was at carson I was one of the ones attending services at the Air Force Academy when they shut the program down, for lack of fund they said, and tripled the evangelical groups funding. One of the few times I agreed wholeheartedly with the NY Times when they threw a fit over it.

Just the kind of person that you want to chose to do the first walk through of a minefield....what an arsehole!

Thats the new Army for you. Do I miss being in? Yep. Did I love being in? Despite the patent falsehoods, lies, and deceit that was coming in to vogue, Yes. I think I did good things, I served my country - something all too few these days wish to do, and did good things for those in other countries just by being there. But it is a crying shame things have gone the way they have.