Improving LAV III Survivability

It can be convincingly argued that the LAV III is not the best available armored vehicle with which to equip the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). Nevertheless, since the decision has been made to acquire LAV III variants for this purpose, attention should now be given to maximizing the combat effectiveness and survivability of this family of vehicles. There are two areas of concern that do not seem to have been adequately addressed to date — armor and firepower.

Much publicity has been given to the fact that the standard appliqué armor of the LAV III provides protection against heavy machine gun (HMG) fire. While this information is indeed true, it is also rather irrelevant. The greatest threat in urban combat is not from 14.5mm machine guns, it is from anti-armor weapons like the RPG- 7, which have shaped charge warheads that can punch through the LAV’s hull as if it were made of tissue paper. The German manufacturer of the LAV’s standard armor appliqué has reportedly also developed bolt-on panels that do protect against penetrations by shoulder-fired HEAT munitions. The easiest way to improve LAV III survivability would be to simply discard the relatively useless 14.5mm armor and replace it with RPG panels, but for transport by C-130, the thickness of the RPG armor would almost certainly preclude it from being attached to the sides of the vehicle until after exiting the aircraft. But it should be possible to have RPG armor bolted onto the front and rear of the vehicle. (Of course, this would not pose a problem for transportation by C-5 or C-17, as the larger cargo bays of these aircraft would permit all-around installation of RPG armor panels on the LAV III.)

Armament for the LAV III Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) is a single machine gun, mounted on — and fired from — a Remote Weapons Station (RWS). The RWS will undoubtedly be a useful feature for engaging enemy personnel who are armed only with rifle-caliber weapons, but it is totally inadequate for neutralizing RPG gunners. The U. S should learn a lesson from the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), which has more experience in mechanized operations on the urban battleground than any other contemporary army. IDF infantry vehicles typically mount three or four machine guns, thereby giving the crews the means to simultaneously engage multiple, widely spaced targets. This capability can be crucial to survivability in the urban environment, where RPG teams can be expected to make coordinated attacks on intruding armored vehicles. A vehicle crew that is armed with only a single machine gun cannot respond effectively to a threat of this nature. The U. S. Army learned this lesson at least twice in past conflicts, but seems to have a short institutional memory on the subject, as it reverts to a solitary machine gun for ICV armament. During WWII, halftrack armored personnel carriers were often equipped with one or two.30 caliber machine guns in addition to the standard.50 caliber Browning. Later, during the Vietnam War, the Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicle (ACAV) also was armed with a cupola-mounted “fifty” and a pintle-mounted “seven- 16 ARMOR — The standard appliqué armor on the LAV III does not protect against hand-held antiarmor weapons like the RPG-7 — the primary threat in urban combat. The author argues for additional protection from kits that would withstand attack from RPG-type HEAT warheads (Photo: GM Defense) Installing additional M240 machine guns adjacent to the squad leader’s hatch and both troop hatches would enable the ICV crew to give immediate return fire on multiple RPG teams. This technique has been successful in the Israelis’ recent battles and was a common addition to the M113s in the Vietnam war. (Photo: FN Manufacturing Inc.)

U. S. Central Command, those responsible for actions in the Middle East, admit that some fuel-air explosives were used during Desert Storm but will not say which ones.16 The Naval Air Warfare Center states that the U. S. Marine Corps asked for fuel-air weapons to clear minefields, but the center never confirmed that these weapons were actually used in Desert Storm. Fuel-air explosives have raised the ire of some human rights groups, among them Human Rights Watch. This organization, based in New York, seeks to “protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime.”17 In February 2000, Human Rights Watch published a background paper on fuel-air explosives in which they condemn Russia for their use. Their biggest complaint is that an army cannot control whom it kills when using fuel-air explosives. They also feel that these bombs are inhumane. In this paper, the Human Rights Watch sites a 1993 Defense Intelligence Agency report that describes the effects of a fuel-air explosive: “Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness.”18 Another Defense Intelligence Agency study suggests that the shock wave created by a fuel-air explosive would only cause minimal brain damage, leaving victims of this weapon to suffer for several seconds or minutes until they suffocate.19 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is also opposed to fuel-air explosives, stating that these weapons “blur the distinction between low-yield nuclear weapons and conventional weaponry.”20 “Based on the Russians’ practices in the war in Chechnya so far, we have no faith that they will use fuel-air explosives responsibly,” said Joost Hilter-man, a spokesman for Human Rights Watch. “Their use against populated areas would violate international norms on indiscriminate attacks.” The Russians have proved that use of fuel-air explosives is both practical and effective in warfare. These weapons create problems for both mounted and dismounted forces due to their wide coverage. As technology increases, these weapons will become more powerful and more lethal, drawing the attention of armies, politicians and human rights groups alike. Notes 1“Grain Dust Peril: Latest Grain Elevator Blast Renews Safety Concerns,” Manisha Parekh, Industrial Fire World, July/August 1998. 2Ibid. 3“A ‘Crushing’ Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny 2000,” Lester W. Grau and Timothy Smith, Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, August 2000. 4Ibid. 5Ibid. 6 http://www.wmd-nm.org/members/office/ glossary/index.asp?where=f 7Jane’s Infantry Weapons, 26th Edition, 2000- 2001, Terry J. Gander, RPO-A Shmel rocket flame thrower, pp. 275-276. 8 http://www.rusarm.ru/products/army/ shmel.htm 9Jane’s Infantry Weapons, pp. 275-276. 10“A ‘Crushing’ Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny 2000.” 11“Russia Uses Flame Throwers on Rebels,” Foreign Affairs, June 27, 2001. 12 http://www.hrw.org 13Jane’s Europe News, “UK MoD Takes Explosive New Direction in Urban Warfare,” January 04, 2001. 14Jane’s Defence Weekly, “British Army Seeks Bunker-Buster,” Christopher F. Foss, January 17, 2001. 15Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 47. No.

4. “… And the Dirty Little Weapons,” Paul F. Walker, May 1991. 16Ibid. 17 http://www.hrw.org 18“Backgrounder on Russian Fuel-Air Explosives (‘Vacuum Bombs’),” Human Rights Watch. February 2000. 19Ibid. 20 http://www.cnduk.org/briefing/thermo.htm

CPT Doug Huber, an Ohio State University graduate with a BA in Journalism, served as a platoon leader, line company XO and S5 civil affairs officer in Bosnia. A recent graduate of ACCC, he is currently attending CAS3. Huber is the author of ARMOR’s May-June 2001 cover story, “Mission to Boljevce.” ARMOR — 17 Fuel-Air Explosives from Page 15 six-deuce” at each side of the cargo hatch. The same concept should be applied to the LAV III infantry vehicle by installing a 7.62mm M240 machine gun adjacent to the squad leader’s hatch and each of the two troop hatches. Simple pintle mounts would be the easiest and least expensive method of installation, but would provide the smallest engagement arc. Elbow-type pintle mounts — such as were used on the ACAV — would allow a greater area to be covered by each machine gunner, and therefore would be preferred to the basic pintle mount. The optimum approach would be to install skate mounts like that surrounding the loader’s hatch on M1- series tanks, but this would require a redesign of the top rear of the ICV, adding to the cost and possibly causing a delay in fielding the LAV III.

Considering the current emphasis on urban warfare, and the losses of men and machines to the ubiquitous RPG-7 in places like Somalia, Lebanon, and Chechnya, bolt-on armor that protects against handheld anti-armor weapons is absolutely vital. In addition to this “passive” protection, however, installing pintle-mounted 7.62mm machine guns would not only provide the means for “active” self-defense, but would also greatly increase the offensive capability of the ICV. Incorporating these changes would substantially improve the effectiveness and survivability of the LAV III and IBCT personnel. Unfortunately, the record is not promising. Bolt-on armor was developed for the M113A3, but never fielded, and the multiple machine guns of the WWII half-track and the Vietnam-era ACAV were deleted in the aftermath of those conflicts. However, one can hope...

Stanley Crist served as a tank commander, tank platoon sergeant, training NCO, and scout section leader in the 3rd Battalion, 185th Armor. He has had numerous articles about armored fighting vehicle design published in ARMOR and other defense-related publications.