Australian M113s

[Ozymandias]

Hello everyone. I'm a recently graduated civilian electrical engineer, with zero military experience.

I've been reading about the Australian Army deployments to Iraq. According to wikipedia, 5th/7th RAR didn't deploy with the M113, instead using ASLAV and Bushmaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Muthanna_Task_Group

are wheeled vehicles superior to tracked in the environment the Army is operating in, or is the choice not to deploy the M113 essentially an admission that it is obsolete? According to the DMO website, they are being upgraded, with better armor, turret and a new engine:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/land106/land106.cfm#status

Will LAND 106 make the M113 capable enough to be deployed? According to the defence capability they have been around since 1963:

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/cfb.pdf

I've never bought an APC, but I wouldn't rely on a 43 year old car to get me around, no matter how well maintained the seller says it is. It seems to me that in this current shopping spree of M1A1s,F-35s,C-17s etc that the our mech inf battalion is missing out. What do you think? If a replacement is needed what should Australia buy?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hello everyone. I'm a recently graduated civilian electrical engineer, with zero military experience.

I've been reading about the Australian Army deployments to Iraq. According to wikipedia, 5th/7th RAR didn't deploy with the M113, instead using ASLAV and Bushmaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Muthanna_Task_Group

are wheeled vehicles superior to tracked in the environment the Army is operating in, or is the choice not to deploy the M113 essentially an admission that it is obsolete? According to the DMO website, they are being upgraded, with better armor, turret and a new engine:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/land106/land106.cfm#status

Will LAND 106 make the M113 capable enough to be deployed? According to the defence capability they have been around since 1963:

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/cfb.pdf

I've never bought an APC, but I wouldn't rely on a 43 year old car to get me around, no matter how well maintained the seller says it is. It seems to me that in this current shopping spree of M1A1s,F-35s,C-17s etc that the our mech inf battalion is missing out. What do you think? If a replacement is needed what should Australia buy?

It's a defacto admission that our M113's are obsolete. They have not been significantly upgraded in their entire serviceand the new upgrade will not make them a great deal better. They will have increased protection, mobility and a marginally greater level of habitability and fire control systems.

They will however be severely deficient in terms of protection and fire power compared to virtually any other modern infantry fighting vehicle.

The Government is finally starting to realise the futility of such large upgrade programs on already obsolete vehicles. They have a new project LAND 400 which will consolidate our Armoured vehicle fleets and introduce new armour types. Bushmaster and Abrams have already been chosen and a new IFV and wheeled recon vehicle will eventually be chosen.

My pick would be for the CV-90 tracked IFV if Australia were to acquire a new vehicle for 5/7RAR and 3RAR. Details can be found here:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/

 

[Theodor]

This is my first post, so be nice

Wheeled vs. Tracked

Wheeled vehicles are cheaper to operate and easier to maintain. Wheeled vehicles are generally faster than tracked vehicles.

Tracked vehicles have better cross-country performance in rough terrain, and, can generally carry more armor than wheeled vehicles.

Current operations in Iraq seem to favor wheeled over tracked vehicles (e.g.. U.S. "Striker" brigade). The reson for this may be as simple as, it's easier to hit a vehicle going 15 mph with an RPG than it is to hit one going 50 mph. Speed equals greater survivability. In the case of the ASLAV vs. the M113, the ASLAV's without doubt are more maneuverable, better armed and armored.

I do however have to stick up for the M113. I have as a quick guess well over 2000 miles behind the sticks of an M113 and half as many again the TC (track commander). Of all the tracked vehicles I've crewed, I liked the M113 the best, never once did an M113 let me down. For those of you who have crewed an armor vehicle you know a track can make your life hell. It is long in the tooth as armored vehicles go, however it can still get the job done. It is one of the most widely used armored vehicles in the world for that reason.

 

[icelord]

This is my first post, so be nice

this is not my first post, so does that mean people can be mean?

Wheeled vs. Tracked

Wheeled vehicles are cheaper to operate and easier to maintain. Wheeled vehicles are generally faster than tracked vehicles.

Tracked vehicles have better cross-country performance in rough terrain, and, can generally carry more armor than wheeled vehicles.

Current operations in Iraq seem to favor wheeled over tracked vehicles (e.g.. U.S. "Striker" brigade). The reson for this may be as simple as, it's easier to hit a vehicle going 15 mph with an RPG than it is to hit one going 50 mph. Speed equals greater survivability. In the case of the ASLAV vs. the M113, the ASLAV's without doubt are more maneuverable, better armed and armored.

You hit the nail on the...nail :tomato

its probably alot easier to get a wheeled ASLAV out of the sand then a tracked vehicle, although, if u ever watch the dakar rally you could argue it.

Another reason is that these ASLAVs are in the deployment regiments. most M113s are for chokos:ar15 while phasing out the M113 they get pushed to the reserves, and will most likely remain till the ASLAV gets pushed down the chain. Perhaps if we end up back in the jungle it may call for tracked vehicles, and if they havn't replaced them with a CV90, which looks sweeeeet, then it might be reused

 

[Aussie Digger]

this is not my first post, so does that mean people can be mean?



You hit the nail on the...nail :tomato

its probably alot easier to get a wheeled ASLAV out of the sand then a tracked vehicle, although, if u ever watch the dakar rally you could argue it.

Another reason is that these ASLAVs are in the deployment regiments. most M113s are for chokos:ar15 while phasing out the M113 they get pushed to the reserves, and will most likely remain till the ASLAV gets pushed down the chain. Perhaps if we end up back in the jungle it may call for tracked vehicles, and if they havn't replaced them with a CV90, which looks sweeeeet, then it might be reused

What deployable regiments are these Icelord? I'm pretty sure the Royal Australian Regiment is a "deployable regiment" and it doesn't have ANY ASLAV's on strength... 5/7 RAR is one of our 5x "high readiness" battalions and will be the primary unit equipped with the M113AS3/4 (if and when it's finally delivered). Guess which unit was also the lead battalion for the Op Catalyst deployments to Iraq???

The reason ASLAV's are deployed as they are perfect for the high speed "escort" tasks our Army and the "SECDET" in particular are conducting. They also possess the heaviest firepower of any of our armoured vehicles with the ASLAV-25's 25mm cannon, apart from our Leopards and (within the next few weeks) our Abrams.

As to their armour protection? I don't think without their bar armour system or spall curtains, they possess greater protection than an M113 and compared to the M113AS3/4 they possess significantly LESS armour protection.

They certainly possess far less off-road mobility than M113's and as to the question as to how difficult they would be to "pull" out of the sand, I would counter with the argument that they are far less likely to be struck in the first place and this outweighs any recovery options...

The ASLAV-PC variant (seen here: http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20060811/20060802adf179443_002_lo.jpg)

also operates only roughly the same firepower and fire control capabilities as the upgraded M113AS3/4 will. The Bushmasters which the infantry are actually riding in, have only a flex mounted 5.56mm Minimi for fire support. Significantly less than what infantry in M113AS3/4's would have to support them, let alone the protection and mobility levels difference...

Unfortunately the M113 upgrade program has run into such significant problems that by the time it's ready to be introduced, LAND 400 will be kicking off and it may just be better (as with the Seasprite) to launch straight into LAND 400 and by pass the program for "off the shelf" new build IMV's, such as CV-90 or similar...

 

[rossfrb_1]

I've read a little on the Korea Next (New?) Infantry Fighting Vehicle
Up until very recently there was a very easily google-able link from globalsecurity or some such - not anymore...
Instead a quick google reveals
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/produit/57152_us.html
".....“The new armored vehicles have far better capabilities than the K-200s which the military is currently operating,” Choi said. “It is also superior to the U.S. M2 Bradley and Russia’s BMP-3.”

The 25-ton vehicle, which has a seating capacity of 12, is equipped with sophisticated anti-tank missiles, a 40mm anti-air craft gun and a 7.62mm machine gun, he said. It can move in the water with the help of an automatic airbag system on both sides of the vehicle.

The fighting vehicle is also equipped with a high-tech identification system, dubbed the “friend or foe” system, using an ultraviolet sensor to detect the approach of enemy airplanes, Choi said.

“We expect the KNIFV would be in high demand among Middle East and Southeast Asian countries because of its accessible price of $2.5 million and superior capabilities as compared to foreign vehicles,” he said. The 33-ton M2 Bradley and 18.7-ton BMP-3 cost some $4.5 million. ....."

some eyecandy at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=46231
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48635
I think this is one of those vehicles made from some composite. Seems to come standard with a 40mm canon.
Would go nicely with some K-9s!

rb

 

[Todjaeger]

A few questions and thoughts on Australian M113s & Australian APC/IMV/IFVs in general.

As things stand now, Australia currently deploys 3 types of APC/IMV that I'm aware of, namely the ASLAV, Bushmaster and M113. From what I've read on all of these, none of which are IFVs like the Bradley or BMP. What is the proposed role for the upgraded M113s, will it act as an upgraded & improved APC, or is it supposed to become an IFV? If the goal is to make an improved APC which will see use, then I say go for it, if instead the desired result is an IFV then I would say drop the Land 106 project. Incidentally, anyone have info on the Land 400 project Aussie Digger mentioned? Nothing showing right now on the DMO website.

Regarding the armour protection of M113 vs. LAV III

The LAV III has approx. 10mm steel armour which is rated to protect against 155mm shell fragments and 7.62mm AP rounds.

The M113 has approx. 44mm aluminum armour, with some upgradea adding on titanium/steel applique kits.

From my understanding, steel armour is stronger than aluminum but not as rigid. Therefore steel armour needs more bracing which can reduce the internal volume of armoured compartments. Aluminum, lacking the strength of steel armour needs to be approx. three times thicker to achieve that same degree of protection but needs less bracing. What this means as I understand it is that the M113 armour has the same level of protection as approx. 15mm of the armour used on the LAV III. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

One of the problems of the early M113s in terms of survivability was that the petrel engine would ignite when hit (hmm, sounds like the Sherman all over again...) Also the M113s deployed in Vietnam had to contend with mines and improvised explosives (sound familiar?) which led to many M113 passengers & crew to cover the flooring with sandbags and flak jackets while they rode atop the vehicle instead of inside it.

Is there any word on what sorts of difficulties Land 106 has run into? I can imagine that extending the hull and adding a road wheel isn't an easy modification. How is the re-engining going? I would think that switching from petrel to diesel would improve servivability, but not sure if that is part of the re-engining scheme.

Also, what is the ground pressure exerted by the M113 vs. the ASLAV, since this has a direct bearing on which of the two is more likely to get stuck offroad?

 

[Ding]

Since we are talking about the M113, isnt the Korean KIFV based on the M113? Also the ACV 300 from turkey is based on the M113 as far as i know of. both of these variants comes with 25mm turrets or machine gun or mortar or grenade launchers. Both variants runs on diesel fuel. Since it was developed by Turkey and Korea, why Australia is having difficulties in upgrading its M113?

 

[chargerRT]

How is the re-engining going? I would think that switching from petrel to diesel would improve servivability

i thought the aussie 113's WERE diesel?im trying to think back 15years...:sleepy3

 

[Aussie Digger]

Full details of the Australian M113AS3/4 upgrade program can be found here:

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437

and also here: http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/137.pdf

The aim of the project is to upgrade the mobility, protection and firepower of our existing M113A1's, which are unbelievably obsolete. 350 of these vehicles are to be procured and will equip the 1st Brigade (Mechanised) primarily 5/7 RAR, 1 Armoured Regt, 1 CER, 8/12 Mdm Regt and (eventually) 3RAR when it converts to mech. The M113 is and will always remain an APC, which is what Government has told Army, Army wants...

The upgrade basically entails stretching the vehicle by approx 70cms via a "plug" being inserted after the base vehicle is "chopped in half" an extra road wheel is then added along with the necessary extra suspension components (Torsion bars). This will provide the basis for the A4 variant which is the "troop" carrier variant.

A3 variants will undergo the remainder of the upgrade which provides additional armour protection through the use of "applique" armour, spall liners, the removal of the fuel tanks from inside the vehicle, to "outside" the main armour (and which also frees up significant space within the vehicle) additional "belly armour" (for mine protection) a new engine, transmission/final drive, suspension and braking system, a new 1 man turret with a new fire control system including passive day/night sensors and the existing 0.50cal QCB machine gun and a "ready 200 round bin" for this gun.

The vehicle will then be capable of carrying 10 troops in the rear of the vehicle, plus the crew commander and the driver. It is being given a baseline armour protection against 12.7mm/14.5mm AP ammunition. An additional "heavy" modular armour kit is also being provided to provide protection against light anti-armour weapons and light cannon rounds. As such it has a considerable higher level of protection than that provided by Bushmaster or ASLAV.

The mobility is also being upgraded with a much more powerful yet more fuel efficient engine (Australian M113's came with a Diesel engine in the 60's, we NEVER had the petrol engined variant). The problems encountered so far have included the engine overheating, the braking system failing entirely and the turret not working as advertised.

The engine problem has been overcome only through de-rating the engine and fitting larger radiator's, hoses and a greater cooling fluid reserve. The braking issue has not been resolved to the best of my knowledge. The turret may never be fixed.

The issues mainly have arisen from trying to "take the chassis too far". The weight of the baseline vehicle is now up to 18 tons, the additional modular armour kit adds further undisclosed weight to the vehicle. The cooling and braking systems have not been able to cope sufficiently with the additional weight and the additional engine power (and subsequent heat generated) needed to move the hefty weight.

On top of which the firepower of the upgraded version will actually be less than that now (as the 0.30cal machine gun is being deleted). The Tenix designed turret cannot have another weapon system added as it wasn't designed for it from the start and the ammunition supply is less. The fire control system is better (as there is NONE now) but the weapon is not stabilised and never will be with this system and overall firepower has obviously gone backwards.

My preference if this vehicle HAS to be used and the unresolved issues can be sorted quickly and cheaply would be for the rubbish Tenix turret to be junked and a remote weapon system to be fitted. This would require additional investment but should reduce overall weight, but would add significantly to the firepower that could be operated by this vehicle.

Alternatively a single man turret designed for the 25mm Bushmaster cannon should be purchased and fitted.

If the issues could be resolved and a 25mm cannon fitted, I think Army might actually become interested in it...

 

[Theodor]

One of the problems of the early M113s in terms of survivability was that the petrel engine would ignite when hit (hmm, sounds like the Sherman all over again...)

Diesel engines replaced petrol beginning with M113A1.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

Also, what is the ground pressure exerted by the M113 vs. the ASLAV, since this has a direct bearing on which of the two is more likely to get stuck offroad?

What I found from a quick look.
7.9 - 8.6 (psi) M113A1-A3
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm
http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm

20 - 40 (psi) LAV III
http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm

If the issues could be resolved and a 25mm cannon fitted, I think Army might actually become interested in it...

From the post by rossfrb_1, looks like the KNIFV fits these requirements.

 

[rossfrb_1]

more fuel for the flames

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20402386-31477,00.html"
Brake problems delay army carriers upgrade

Patrick Walters, National security editor September 13, 2006

A $585 million upgrade of the army's M113 armoured personnel carrier - already one of Defence's most troublesome projects - will be delayed at least a year, with its brake system having to be completely redesigned.

After being fitted with new armour and other protective equipment, the redesigned 12-tonne vehicles became too heavy for the existing brake system.
The M113, the army's main land battle transport, designed to take up to a dozen soldiers into battle, has been in service since the 1960s.
A total of 350 of the tracked vehicles are being completely overhauled and were due to re-enter service from November.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson wrote to the project's prime contractor, Tenix, last week saying he still expected the company to meet a contractual deadline of 2010 for all 350 upgraded M113s.
The problems with the M113's brake system are the latest to hit what is regarded as one of Defence's two most troublesome "legacy" projects dating from the early 1990s. The other is the Seasprite helicopter.
The M113 is the third major defence project to experience a serious delay this year, following problems with the Seasprites and the 18-month delay in the delivery of the RAAF's $3billion Wedgetail early-warning aircraft.
There is now doubt that the M113s will ever be put in harm's way, because of the changing nature of military conflict.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the lethal threat to them posed by a new generation of shoulder-fired missiles and roadside bombs.
Defence analysts say that even the upgraded M113 will be obsolete in the face of weapons now routinely employed by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defence Materiel Organisation chief Stephen Gumley confirmed to The Australian that there had been problems with testing and certification of the M113's brake system. "We are expecting of the order of a 12-month delay to the project," he said. "A new brake system has to be designed and a new prototype made and tested."
Dr Gumley said the contract with Tenix to upgrade the vehicles was for a fixed price, with the contractor expected to incur the costs of fixing the brake problem.
The 2000 defence white paper planned for the vehicles to enter service last year."




Unless this is old news being rehashed, then this surely would have to be one of the last nails in this coffin?
Mind you, with ALR 2002 apparently being scrapped for the hornets, would defence be willing to put its hand up for this project as well?



rb

 

[Whiskyjack]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20402386-31477,00.html"
Brake problems delay army carriers upgrade

Patrick Walters, National security editor September 13, 2006

A $585 million upgrade of the army's M113 armoured personnel carrier - already one of Defence's most troublesome projects - will be delayed at least a year, with its brake system having to be completely redesigned.

After being fitted with new armour and other protective equipment, the redesigned 12-tonne vehicles became too heavy for the existing brake system.
The M113, the army's main land battle transport, designed to take up to a dozen soldiers into battle, has been in service since the 1960s.
A total of 350 of the tracked vehicles are being completely overhauled and were due to re-enter service from November.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson wrote to the project's prime contractor, Tenix, last week saying he still expected the company to meet a contractual deadline of 2010 for all 350 upgraded M113s.
The problems with the M113's brake system are the latest to hit what is regarded as one of Defence's two most troublesome "legacy" projects dating from the early 1990s. The other is the Seasprite helicopter.
The M113 is the third major defence project to experience a serious delay this year, following problems with the Seasprites and the 18-month delay in the delivery of the RAAF's $3billion Wedgetail early-warning aircraft.
There is now doubt that the M113s will ever be put in harm's way, because of the changing nature of military conflict.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the lethal threat to them posed by a new generation of shoulder-fired missiles and roadside bombs.
Defence analysts say that even the upgraded M113 will be obsolete in the face of weapons now routinely employed by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defence Materiel Organisation chief Stephen Gumley confirmed to The Australian that there had been problems with testing and certification of the M113's brake system. "We are expecting of the order of a 12-month delay to the project," he said. "A new brake system has to be designed and a new prototype made and tested."
Dr Gumley said the contract with Tenix to upgrade the vehicles was for a fixed price, with the contractor expected to incur the costs of fixing the brake problem.
The 2000 defence white paper planned for the vehicles to enter service last year."




Unless this is old news being rehashed, then this surely would have to be one of the last nails in this coffin?
Mind you, with ALR 2002 apparently being scrapped for the hornets, would defence be willing to put its hand up for this project as well?



rb

Not a good time for defence projects in Australia.

While I can understand that the ADF wants cutting edge equipment, and taking the risks associated with this, what I can't understand is why it would not go off the shelf for many of the items.

Why not buy surplus M2/M3s and ship them into Australia for refurbishment to keep the local industry involved?

I'm a Kiwi and it frustrates me, so I can only imagine how some of you Aussies feel.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Not a good time for defence projects in Australia.

While I can understand that the ADF wants cutting edge equipment, and taking the risks associated with this, what I can't understand is why it would not go off the shelf for many of the items.

Why not buy surplus M2/M3s and ship them into Australia for refurbishment to keep the local industry involved?

I'm a Kiwi and it frustrates me, so I can only imagine how some of you Aussies feel.

The problem is that they've already spent approx $280m to get to this stage, before production has begun, now they'll have to spend another massive amount to get the brakes fixed and then re-test the vehicle.

I was a supporter of this project for a while because something drastically needed to be done to replace the massively obsolete M113A1's which we operate. Unfortunately the main thing this program had going for it, it's timeliness has been wasted by yet another stuffed up project. Cost capped my ARSE!!!

The vehicle itself will not be "cutting edge" even if it is ever actually introduced with it still lacking most of the features of a modern IFV, particularly in respect to armour protection, firepower and sensor capability.

Dr NELSON has shown he's not afraid to make tough decisions. It's time for him to can this project and buy an off the shelf IFV. Tenix has shown yet again it's absolutely amazing ability to win a simple and very staight forward upgrade program for a vehicle that has already been successfully completed on thousands of vehicles around the world and completely stuff it up.

Well done Australian Defence Industry. You've certainly proven you're worthy of large scale investment...

 

[Cootamundra]

I think i'm with you AD, can it! But then again when you're this far in maybe not...

As Whiskey has said we've got a poor record with regards to equipment upgrade projects. I reckon all involved are probably wishing they went with an off-the shelf IFV now. Second hand + refurb's (zero hours) M2's would've been an excellent option. Mind you, considering the $$$s spent I say finish these, hand them over to the Reserves and mothball the rest, then go for an OTS purchase from whomever could supply a new IFV quickest.

Interesting question though, its a bit like the Sprog, do we hold on and finish AND then promise to apply Kinnaird in each and every case from now on? And in the same vein although off topic (sorry) are we going to screw the pooch again with regards to the Aussie Baby Burke?! Mistral will probably win out on the Amphib side of things purely because of recent def project screw-ups.
Coota

 

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}
Tenix has shown yet again it's absolutely amazing ability to win a simple and very staight forward upgrade program for a vehicle that has already been successfully completed on thousands of vehicles around the world and completely stuff it up.

Well done Australian Defence Industry. You've certainly proven you're worthy of large scale investment...

Wasn't part of the problem with Army changing the project goalposts a few times midcourse and Tenix trying to play catch up?
If a design had been initailly settled upon and not changed a few times, then this project might have born some fruit.
(Sounds a lot like the seasprite project actually)

rb

 

[icelord]

Mind you, with ALR 2002 apparently being scrapped for the hornets, would defence be willing to put its hand up for this project as well?

Theres no actual decision on the ALR 2002 not going ahead, although a review is underway, as the electronics of a F/A 18 are different to a caribou, blackhawk or chinooks....who would have thought?

I think i'm with you AD, can it! But then again when you're this far in maybe not...

As Whiskey has said we've got a poor record with regards to equipment upgrade projects. I reckon all involved are probably wishing they went with an off-the shelf IFV now. Second hand + refurb's (zero hours) M2's would've been an excellent option. Mind you, considering the $$$s spent I say finish these, hand them over to the Reserves and mothball the rest, then go for an OTS purchase from whomever could supply a new IFV quickest.

Interesting question though, its a bit like the Sprog, do we hold on and finish AND then promise to apply Kinnaird in each and every case from now on? And in the same vein although off topic (sorry) are we going to screw the pooch again with regards to the Aussie Baby Burke?! Mistral will probably win out on the Amphib side of things purely because of recent def project screw-ups.
Coota

I'd go with pushing the upgraded versions to Reserves, and going with a strong IFV. My choice, the Puma seems to go well, Plus would be a stronger contender then many others, and AD could'nt whine bout lack of firepower, as it can pack whatever punch you like, excluding artillery and cannons or course
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/

And in other Posts i have backed the SEP as a good replacement, if a desire is tracked or wheeled, you get both from this little swede.:sweden
On the downside, its not off the shelf, not tried and i can't find any reference to firepower it would use, and since its sweden, a bow and arrow might be its most offensive weapon, being neutral and all. But according to all accounts, its quiet as hell, with rubber tracks and a low
heat signature, its does well as a recon vehicle.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/

Puma for IFV, SEP for recon...neither gunna happen so no need to worry

 

[NZLAV]

I really think the M113's won't see replacement soon. I think the CV90 won't be purchaed because it has a different roll to an M113. What id the difference between an APC and and IMV??? I would replaced the M113's with ASLAV's. As for the Bushmaster's I do not like that purchase because they do not offer the firepower. What happend if it encounters a vehicle such as a NZLAV or ASLAV, the LAV would rip it to pieces.

 

[Todjaeger]

I really think the M113's won't see replacement soon. I think the CV90 won't be purchaed because it has a different roll to an M113. What id the difference between an APC and and IMV??? I would replaced the M113's with ASLAV's. As for the Bushmaster's I do not like that purchase because they do not offer the firepower. What happend if it encounters a vehicle such as a NZLAV or ASLAV, the LAV would rip it to pieces.

My impression of the Bushmaster IMV is that it was designed to move infantry through rear areas over long distances (fuel range 1,000 km as I recall) It was designed to be able to operate in areas where it might come under fire, but was not really intended to deliver troops in active combat. As for an APC, they were designed to deliver troops while an engagement is in progress. In many instances, the role of APC has been taken over by the IFV which would deliver the troops (though usually fewer) and then stick around to provide fire support.

As for the LAV and various derivatives, that seems to be really more of an armed recon-come-light APC/IFV. While it has the same gun as the M2/M3 Bradley IFV, it has even lighter armour than a M113, sufficient to withstand 7.62mm AP, basically the same level of armour as a Bushmaster. I don't think though it has the V-shaped mine resistant hull bottom. Granted, the 25mm cannon would make a mess of a Bushmaster, a 0.50 cal. MG on the Bushmaster would have an effect on the LAV. Not to mention I doubt a Bushmaster would be by itself.

In the end, I suppose it really comes down to what the different vehicles are used for, and how.

FYI: From what I've read about the origin of the Bushmaster, it was intended to provide long distance offroad transportation across northern Australia.

 

[Aussie Digger]

My impression of the Bushmaster IMV is that it was designed to move infantry through rear areas over long distances (fuel range 1,000 km as I recall) It was designed to be able to operate in areas where it might come under fire, but was not really intended to deliver troops in active combat. As for an APC, they were designed to deliver troops while an engagement is in progress. In many instances, the role of APC has been taken over by the IFV which would deliver the troops (though usually fewer) and then stick around to provide fire support.

As for the LAV and various derivatives, that seems to be really more of an armed recon-come-light APC/IFV. While it has the same gun as the M2/M3 Bradley IFV, it has even lighter armour than a M113, sufficient to withstand 7.62mm AP, basically the same level of armour as a Bushmaster. I don't think though it has the V-shaped mine resistant hull bottom. Granted, the 25mm cannon would make a mess of a Bushmaster, a 0.50 cal. MG on the Bushmaster would have an effect on the LAV. Not to mention I doubt a Bushmaster would be by itself.

In the end, I suppose it really comes down to what the different vehicles are used for, and how.

FYI: From what I've read about the origin of the Bushmaster, it was intended to provide long distance offroad transportation across northern Australia.

Exactly. The Bushmaster was designed to provide armoured protection and mobility for a light infantry force conducting "Defence of Australia" operations across the enormous expanse of Northern Australia. It was meant to provide this mobility for infantry battalions that would otherwise be mounted in un-armoured landrovers or Unimog trucks. Obviously an unsatisfactory situation.

The Bushmaster is not intended as a "fighting vehicle" ie: it is not intended to participate directly in assaults or go up against other armoured vehicles. It is designed to be capable of carrying an entire infantry section (9 men) over a 1000k's without refuelling and carry enough food, water, ammunition etc to allow the section to operate for up to 3 days without resupply. It was also intended that this vehicle be capable of adding to the sections firepower with a MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG or similar without being capable enough (ie: expensive enough) to actually assist in a section attack.

The ASLAV in Australian service is used for reconnaissance or Cavalry tasks (ie: vehicle escorts and light fire support missions). They are also used to provide a "limited" offensive capability (ie: shoot and see what shoots back). They are not designed as an infantry fighting vehicle (again assaulting enemy positions or fighting other enemy vehicles) though unfortunately both ASLAV and Bushmaster have been forced into these roles (to a degree) in Iraq and soon Afghanistan.

The M113AS3/4 was designed to carry an infantry section, provide sufficient armour protection as to be able of "closing with the enemy" and disembarking troops onto an enemy position and providing fire support for them with a heavy machine gun. The difference between an APC and an IFV is primarily in the firepower capacity, the armour protection and troop carrying capacity.

An IFV has much greater firepower and armour protection than the M113 usually does (being normally equipped with light-medium cannons, GPMG's and occasionally anti-tank missiles) but with a reduced infantry component (typically 6 or 7 only).

An APC like the M113 is capable of carrying a FULL infantry section, plus the vehicles crew and support them with a 12.7mm machine gun or similar. The M113AS3/4 upgrade was to bridge this gap somewhat with much greater armour protection than any other armoured vehicle in Australia (besides the Leopards and Abrams of course) whilst still retaining excellent mobility and the full strength infantry section.

The downside was that the existing 12.7mm machine gun was being retained, the existing 7.62mm gun removed and NOT replaced and no actual firepower enhancement was being provided.

The difference between using a Bushmaster, ASLAV or M113/IFV type vehicle is usually one of doctrine. Australia uses and will continue to use a tracked APC/IFV because it is aware of the limitations of trying to use a wheeled vehicle in a close combat "assault" situation.

The cross-country mobility of wheeled vehicles is significantly less than that of tracked vehicles and wheeled vehicles are easier to disable than tracked. Of course tracked vehicles are also more expensive, more difficult to maintain (in general) are heavier and are less mobile on roads. Which is why we maintain a balance I guess.

The NZ Army which has opted for a sole wheeled armoured force with the LAVIII, is no doubt aware of the vehicle's limitations (in the aspects outlined above) and will compensate for this with appropriate tactics or operational taskings, should it ever find itself in a warfighting scenario.