LAV25 Pros and Cons

[Rockwolf66]

Ok, since the last time I was in a LAV25 was back in 1999 and I don't think that we have a thread on them.

What are the pros and cons of the LAV25 in both real life and for Tw2K?

Pros:
It's relatively fast.
It's easier to maintain than a tracked vehicle.

Cons:
Cramped interior.
Light armor

[Raellus]

PRO: Versatile main gun- can engage soft-skinned and light armored targets, and structures. The coax alone makes the vehicle a mobile pillbox. If they're working, the optics are pretty handy to have too.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Light armor good versus splinters and most of what militia etc. would be throwing at you. Uses standard automotive parts. As mentioned, electronics. NBC sealing, I think. Can haul some cargo on and in.

Cons would be fuel consumption (but then what doesn't face that), light armor (if you're big enough then you might be worth an ATGM or ATR), large profile.

[LT. Ox]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Light armor good versus splinters and most of what militia etc. would be throwing at you. Uses standard automotive parts. As mentioned, electronics. NBC sealing, I think. Can haul some cargo on and in.

Cons would be fuel consumption (but then what doesn't face that), light armor (if you're big enough then you might be worth an ATGM or ATR), large profile.

As above Pro; add on swim. super good idea in a number of cases.
the tight space neg is one shared by all other USA types. ( my Op)
Neg that could be big, no tow system as on the Bradley.
Over all and in most game situations. I would take the 25 over the tracks in a poor supply environment.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Cons would be fuel consumption (but then what doesn't face that), light armor (if you're big enough then you might be worth an ATGM or ATR), large profile.

In fact, the LAV 25 is about the same size as the M-4 Sherman ...

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

Pros:
It's relatively fast.
It's easier to maintain than a tracked vehicle.

Parts commonality with 5ton and 7ton diesels.

The 6V-53T is a common 5.2 liter diesel found in 1ton pickups and some heavy equipment. If in the U.S. parts would be fairly common as would mechanics with experience working on them. This also means that much better filters are available courtesy of the commercial market.

Hit a mine.... lose one wheel, one suspension unit, keep moving.

18tons dry weight means nearly all bridges and roads will support the V.

Amphibious seals and motive systems are a bonus in ETO with significant rivers and canals.

All munitions are NATO common.

Dismounts exit the rear under cover.... can exit while V is in motion.

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

Cons:
Cramped interior.
Light armor

Six dismounts isn't a full squad.

Dangerous roll over hazard on curves.

Two man turret..... Gunner/Commander

720 rounds of main gun ammunition goes fast.

Main gun cannot penetrate modern MBTs.

No ATGM. Crew must dismount a separate launcher.

HUGE side profile is an inviting ATGM target.

Hot muffler high on the body is very visible to thermal imagers.

Wrecker support to change a flat tire.

Packs, duffles, etc must be stowed externally..... a fire hazard.

[LT. Ox]

good post thanks

[Olefin]

definitely would prefer the Bradley for the TOW system - the LAV is a nice vehicle but run into anything bigger than a BMP and you are in big trouble fast - with the Bradley, at least as long as you have TOW's, you can take on a tank and have a good chance at surviving

the LAV-AT gives you the ability to take on tanks but then you only have a pintle mounted 7.62 for everyone else

For me its not the vehicle I want to be in for Europe or Iran where you are still looking at a good possibility of meeting tanks if I have to settle for a 25 mm cannon on the vehicle

[StainlessSteelCynic]

If you're in ANY sort of light armour, you should never even think of trying to take on a tank. Instead, you get the hell out of Dodge.
Even if you're in medium armour e.g. a Bradley or Warrior, you should not be thinking about taking on a tank.
The problem with the TOW on the Bradley is that it made some people (politicians, armchair commandos and some army upper ranks) think that it could take on a tank all by itself. As part of a layered defence/offence, yeah it's really good to have but for a single vehicle (as in the case of a PC group), discretion is the better part of valour.

[Raellus]

I agree with Cynic. If the tank's got one in the chamber and spots the Bradley first, the Brad's toast. The TOW takes at least a few seconds to deploy and the missile's flight time is longer than that of a tank shell. The Bradley would need to have the drop on the tank to stand a chance of winning that duel.

The best way for light armor to deal with tanks is to avoid them.

[Draq]

And most t2k squads probably won't have a whole bunch of TOWs anyway.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

If you're in ANY sort of light armour, you should never even think of trying to take on a tank. Instead, you get the hell out of Dodge.
Even if you're in medium armour e.g. a Bradley of Warrior, you should not be thinking about taking on a tank.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree with Cynic. If the tank's got one in the chamber and spots the Bradley first, the Brad's toast.

I think everyone that has seen the results of the two Brads at the Battle of 73 Easting think that is normal.

The TOW on Brads is for AT defense while on the defense and the Brad is hull down with a long wide open kill zone.

Anyhoooooooooo........ LAV-25.

Pros........... It is a damn crows nest.... You can see for miles from up there.

Cons.... it is a damn billboard...... You can be seen for miles.

Pros.... 25mm can defeat all Pact IFVS.

Cons... Light armor can be hulled by all Pact IFV main guns.

Pros...... x8 wheels, strong suspension, good fuel consumption compared to tracks....

Cons..... get mistaken for a BTR-70 alot........ friendly fire much?

[Apache6]

The operational mobility and fuel consumption of the LAV-25 is excellent compared to anything else in the US. The Stryker was adopted largely based on the successes of the LAV-25 series vehicles. But it's heavier and more thristy.

The LAV-25 gun and sights are equal to the Bradley. They have VERY good thermal sights now. In the first generation T2K they would have only had very good thermal sights. The 25mm and 7.62mm coax can reliably engage mansized targets at 1500m while moving at speed. This is part of the qualification tables.

Fuel consumption is far less then Bradley. And you don't have that TOW system that makes your vehicle commanders think they can take on a MBT. LAV-25s are recon vehicles after all.

Operational employment, not the vehicle, but the Marines in LAV-25s are far more likely to dismount and really scout then the Soldiers assigned to Bradley units, either cav or "mech infantry." The rear "top hatches" for the LAV-25 allow the Marines in the back good situational awareness and the ability to use their weapons. Including Javelins, from the protection of the vehicle.

I'll +1 what someone said about the wheeled chasis being better against mines and IEDs. A tracked vehicle hits a AT mine or large IED, you are more likley to become immobile and more likely to have a armor penetration. The LAV-25 does not have a "proper V-hull" but it's 'boatshaped' and one tire hits a mine it's designed to blow off, and to be relatively easily replaced.

[Olefin]

Oh I am not saying that the TOW lets you take on tanks with impunity - but that TOW means that at the least you have a chance against an MBT - where the 25mm alone means you are dead meat

as for supply of TOW's - per the rules you start with a full ammo load out - and that means you have them for sure, at the least at the start

had a Bradley in my last campaign - and that TOW saved our butts when the time came when we needed it

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Oh I am not saying that the TOW lets you take on tanks with impunity - but that TOW means that at the least you have a chance against an MBT - where the 25mm alone means you are dead meat

as for supply of TOW's - per the rules you start with a full ammo load out - and that means you have them for sure, at the least at the start

had a Bradley in my last campaign - and that TOW saved our butts when the time came when we needed it

Problem I see with the TOW is unless you ambush them at close range (or attack in number) you are in real trouble. At max range you are looking at a flight time over 40 seconds for the TOW, but the tank gun will cover the same distance in less than a second. If the controlling unit is lost the TOW misses.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Originally Posted by Apache6

The LAV-25 gun and sights are equal to the Bradley. They have VERY good thermal sights now. In the first generation T2K they would have only had very good thermal sights. The 25mm and 7.62mm coax can reliably engage mansized targets at 1500m while moving at speed. This is part of the qualification tables.

Don't thermal sights need batteries?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The thermal sights used for turret weapons are powered by the vehicles electrical system.

[Draq]

Originally Posted by Olefin

as for supply of TOW's - per the rules you start with a full ammo load out - and that means you have them for sure, at the least at the start

I always consider the 'full ammo upon spawning' easy-mode. For realism and a real challenge, you'll be lucky to have many main cannon rounds, especially after the Kalisz breakout. But that's just me. I want the players to feel desperate and nervous, that a t-72 could pop over a hill at any time. They'll have to work hard to go from surviving to thriving. That's how I'd want to play.

[Draq]

Let's also not forget the different types of ammo for the 25mm...

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Draq

I always consider the 'full ammo upon spawning' easy-mode. For realism and a real challenge, you'll be lucky to have many main cannon rounds, especially after the Kalisz breakout. But that's just me. I want the players to feel desperate and nervous, that a t-72 could pop over a hill at any time. They'll have to work hard to go from surviving to thriving. That's how I'd want to play.

Agreed. In many campaigns, including the original Escape from Kalisz, the chances of the PCs having just topped off at the division supply dump (after several days of intense defensive fighting) would be pretty slim.

[cavtroop]

As a former Bradley gunner IRL, in a T2k scenario, give me the LAV 10 times out of 10. Less maintenance, much much better fuel economy, better stealth, faster, easier to work on, all of the things said above.

Even if you were to have TOW missiles for the Bradley, an MBT wins a head on engagement every single time, unless you have the drop. And even IF you have the drop on the tank, in a T2k scenario, it'd be better to GTFO than take your chances. The TOW would be valuable in a limited amount of circumstances - any of those scenarios, you'd be just about as good off with a man-portable ATGM like the Javelin, dismounted TOW, or any of the other options.

[Draq]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Agreed. In many campaigns, including the original Escape from Kalisz, the chances of the PCs having just topped off at the division supply dump (after several days of intense defensive fighting) would be pretty slim.

I imagine the higher the value, the more tightly it would be rationed. You're just as likely to see bazookas, panzerfausts, and panzershreks as LAWs, stingers, and TOWs. Everybody is going to bring everything out of the basement, and you get what your army, and allies have to give depending on how many there are, and how bad you might need it. Korean war, Vietnam, panama and Grenada, desert storm, Africa, yugo-break up, soviet invasion of Afghanistan; if it was issued then, it might be issued after Nov 1997.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The thermal sights used for turret weapons are powered by the vehicles electrical system.

I stand corrected.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Problem I see with the TOW is unless you ambush them at close range (or attack in number) you are in real trouble. At max range you are looking at a flight time over 40 seconds for the TOW, but the tank gun will cover the same distance in less than a second. If the controlling unit is lost the TOW misses.

I was a TOW Gunner and we always shoot and scoot, shooting from a position concealment and then moving another position. I believe that most TOW Gunners are taught this.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

I was a TOW Gunner and we always shoot and scoot, shooting from a position concealment and then moving another position. I believe that most TOW Gunners are taught this.

Right, but you can't "scoot" until after the missile's hit the target, right? As a former TOW gunner, you know that it's wire-guided, meaning that you have to keep the target in the crosshairs until the missile hits the target. Moving the vehicle before the missile strikes not only makes guidance much more difficult, but it seriously risks cutting the guidance wires, rendering the missile blind and stupid.

Therefore, during the several seconds between the launch (which produces a pretty noticeable signature) and impact of the missile, an enemy tank gunner may have time to acquire, target, and fire at the attacking Bradley.

[dragoon500ly]

Speaking as a former tanker...with a 40 second engagement at max range, with a M67 105mm gun, an alert crew could get off 6-7 aimed rounds at our heroic missile gunner, switch to a 120mm gun, you can still get off 5-6 aimed rounds, now that is with NATO crews, switching to the WP side, the 100mm gun can fire some 4 main gun rounds before emptying the ready rack. The 115mm is slightly better with a rof of 5-6 rounds. The 125mm, with its two part ammo is the worst, with possible 3-4 rounds.

Now this all assumes that the crew is stationary and scanning for targets.

If your tank is on the move, the reaction drill is a immediate left or right turn, fire your smoke dischargers and engage with all weapons. The rest of your section/platoon will engage the same area, until/unless the missile gunner switches targets.

Another tactic was to use battalion mortars to drop WP onto the suspected missile position.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

during the several seconds between the launch (which produces a pretty noticeable signature).

Doctrinaly was there any way to create duplicate launch signatures. I remember in "Cardinal and the Kremlin", Clancy mentioned that there were dummy stinger missiles that would be used to confuse those looking for the real launcher.

It seems to me that simulating a launch (just the smoke not an actually dummy missile) 30-50 meters away from the IFV would be a perfect job for the dismounted infantry during a long range, hull down engagement.

[James Langham2]

Originally Posted by kato13

Doctrinaly was there any way to create duplicate launch signatures. I remember in "Cardinal and the Kremlin", Clancy mentioned that there were dummy stinger missiles that would be used to confuse those looking for the real launcher.

It seems to me that simulating a launch (just the smoke not an actually dummy missile) 30-50 meters away from the IFV would be a perfect job for the dismounted infantry during a long range, hull down engagement.

Unless you are the infantry getting all the incoming....

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by kato13

Doctrinaly was there any way to create duplicate launch signatures. I remember in "Cardinal and the Kremlin", Clancy mentioned that there were dummy stinger missiles that would be used to confuse those looking for the real launcher.

It seems to me that simulating a launch (just the smoke not an actually dummy missile) 30-50 meters away from the IFV would be a perfect job for the dismounted infantry during a long range, hull down engagement.

There are simulators that are used during training for both TOW/Dragon, and there were plans to use them to decoy enemy fire.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by kato13

Doctrinaly was there any way to create duplicate launch signatures. I remember in "Cardinal and the Kremlin", Clancy mentioned that there were dummy stinger missiles that would be used to confuse those looking for the real launcher.

It seems to me that simulating a launch (just the smoke not an actually dummy missile) 30-50 meters away from the IFV would be a perfect job for the dismounted infantry during a long range, hull down engagement.

there isn't a huge launch signature - there is some of course, but it's not huge by any stretch - unless you're looking at the area where it's launched from, you probably won't notice it, or the missile coming at you. You might notice it if you're really alert, but you might not - if the area the launch is from is dirty or dusty, the signature will be bigger, but it its off the ground like a Bradley/M901 launcher, its harder to detect with the naked eye.

Source: Bradley gunner, M901 ITV commander and dismont TOW user.

Here's one in the desert - most of the signature is the dust behind the HUMVEE

https://youtu.be/2FBrTq_CaOs?t=39

Here is a Bradley
https://youtu.be/WEaTxrds6rM?t=72

notice how quickly the smoke dissipates, just a few seconds. If you're on an active battlefield, it'd be covered with smoke/dust etc and finding a missile launch signature would be very tough. In an ambush situation, you'd have to be looking at or near the launch to see it.

If you factor in the ATGMs that launch with compressed air, they'll have less signature.

EDIT: having said all that, in a T2k scenario, missiles will be ridiculously valuable and used only in specific situations I'd imagine.