The LAV IN DESERT STORM

usmcgunny0369

usmcgunny0369

New Member
With the adoption of the Stryker by the U.S. Army, the media portrays this vehicle as a brand new concept. I'm not knocking the Stryker or the Army. I'm just saying that the basis for this system did not start with either the Stryker or the Army. I was a member of the U.S. Marine Corps 2nd Light Infantry Battalion of the Second Marine Division in Panama 89' and Desert Shield/Desert Storm 90'-91'. The LAI Battalions have since been renamed/redesignated as Light Armored Reconnaisance Battalions to better describe their mission which is much the same as the Army's Armored Cav. The LAV-25 was of course derived from the Swiss MOWAG Pirranha and the Canadians began using a variant first in their Grizzly. The LAV-25 is still being used by the Marines today and is a great vehicle. It's extremely quick and mobile. True, the armor isn't going to protect against heavy stuff but we were hit by shrapnel from Artillery and it did it's job. Of course it won't stop a direct hit from Arty but I don't know of what light armored vehicle that will. It's main defence is it's speed and it really shines on open battlefields. During Desert Storm, my Battalion was offered the option of bolt-on applique armor. We turned it down as the additional weight and loss of speed would not be a good offset for what additional protect we would have gained.
2845149450085336399S600x600Q85.jpg

I can say this, My Company was sent into Kuwait on a "Pre"G-Day assault to divert Iraqi forces from the breach points, draw out their artillery fire so counter battery radar could pinpoint their locations and reconnoiter any additional breach points. We had 14 Lav's of various variants and 144 men. We were engaged with a Brigade reinforced with tanks for a period of almost 3 days. By the end of Desert Storm, my Company had destroyed 36 tanks, numerous AAA pieces/Artillery pieces and destroyed approximately 1/3 of a Brigade. We didn't lose one LAV although our sister Battalion lost two. Both were fratricide incidents during a running gun battle. One Lav was mistakenly taken out by a Hellfire missile from a A-10 Warthog and the other was lost when it crossed the flight path of a TOW-II missile launched from a LAV-T.
2254785750085336399S600x600Q85.jpg

"Known Distance" LAV-25 of Capt Ken Amidon USMC. Company Commander C Company, 2nd LAI BN, 2nd Marine Division in Desert Storm
 
Last edited:
My personal opinion is that the Army found that Bradley wasn't the Ice Cream Sandwich they thought it was and the 13's in LAVs showed em why.
 
The LAVs are good when it comes ton invading a desert country where you can use your speed and superior firepower.

But if the enemy had better weapons, and if the terrain was a little harsher... These LAVs would be like mobile coffins...

The LAVs are the way to go in Iraq. That's for sure.
 
All armored vehicles have limitations. That being said, the LAV has done well everywhere it's seen action to date. That includes Panama in 89'. We ran patrols in about as harsh terrain as you can get and it did well. No vehicle is indestructible or remains so for long. The race between armor and weapons to defeat said armor is ongoing and leapfrogs back and forth. The LAV doesn't have much to begin with. It's assets are it's speed, manueverability, firepower and it's amazingly quiet for it's type. I would say that's achilles heel would be urban enviroments with narrow streets like I ran into in Beirut in 83'.
 
Yes.
And of course the skills and tactics of the people using the LAV.

If you have the skills to exploit the speed and firepower, you can have very good results. But if you dont have the necessary skills... Heavy armor would be a much better option, as the heavy armor let you survive minor mistakes.

And tell me, can an LAV survive an RPG round?
 
The LAV as we were set up during Desert Storm would not survive a RPG round. My unit was offered bolt on reactive armor that was ceramic plates containing a explosive charge and shaped like a honey comb. My Commanding Officer turned it down because it would have added too much additional weight. In the open terrain of the Kuwait desert our biggest advantage was our speed. My driver was actually able to hit the gas and we were able move faster than a Sagger Missle could track us. In the mean time, one of my TOW missle gunners took the Sagger Gunner out with a TOW II Missle. I understand that the current version of the upgraded LAV has a lightweight system that can pre-detonate a RPG war head before it reaches the armor of the LAV and therefore withstand it. Of course this probably wouldn't help if volley shots are launched at the same spot but hopefully the gunners will take care of the threat by then. I believe we both agree that heavy armor offers a lot more protection. My original statement is the LAV is probably one of the best examples of a light armored reconnaisance or cavalry fighting vehicle. That being said, there is some terrain that even tanks shouldn't be employed. I taught MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) for years and the one point I always tried to emphasize to my students is that Infantry protects armor, not the other way around.
 
Semper Fi Gunny. I was also with 2d LAI/LAR Bravo Co 91-96. I just recently visited our old Unit and got a glimpse of the new LAV's as well as a new Armory that was built. The LAV along with a great crew is an awesome weapon. My crew has its name on the Top Gun trophy and had the opportunity to spank some Bradley's on the range. I think the Army did a great thing bringing in the Stryker, it seems to have served them well.
 
I read once that the USMC lent a couple of its LAV-25 to either the 82nd or 101st Airborne units, does anyone anything about what the airborne thought of the LAV-25s?
 
AVON said:
I read once that the USMC lent a couple of its LAV-25 to either the 82nd or 101st Airborne units, does anyone anything about what the airborne thought of the LAV-25s?
Click to expand...

It was the 82nd. They evaluated it as a replacement for the M-551 Sheridan that was being phased out. As I recall, they liked it but the Army wouldn't buy it for just the 82nd. I think it probably had a lot to do with it being on the Bradley's turf too. The LAV-25 and the Bradley use the same main gun.
 
Amen to that

Got little to add to the Gunny's post about the effectiveness of the LAV in general and specifically in the situation listed.
I was also part of the pre-G assault described here (Co C, 2nd LAI). Agree that speed and maneuverability were a good trade-off for extra armor there and in lots of other instances and that the Bradley would have been a poor choice for the Corps - then and now.
I did a training op in Australia a few years later with LAVs off of MPF and had lots of issues with tires, so I will admit there were days I dreamed of tracks or at least better rubber. But it was always weight, weight, weight.
Semper Fi, Gunny. Great to hear you are still out there.
MB
 
For an extremely short campaign, like the race for Baghdad at the beginning of the war... Trading off armor for manoeuvrability is a good deal...

But for a longer campaign or in a rough terrain where ambushes can happen easily... Armor is priceless, your first mistake wont be the last if you have armor...
 
LeMask said:
For an extremely short campaign, like the race for Baghdad at the beginning of the war... Trading off armor for manoeuvrability is a good deal...

But for a longer campaign or in a rough terrain where ambushes can happen easily... Armor is priceless, your first mistake wont be the last if you have armor...
Click to expand...


Well, armor is nice to have but if you put a lot of armor on an LAV you lose it's primary strength, it's speed and manueverability and you end up with a lightly armed tank.
 
I personal drove a LAV 25 in Afghanistan with the Canadian Military in 2007 and The only problem we could find is the air filter would get dirty fast. (normal its the desert). With the up-armor on it still had great handling and it did what we needed it to do. Even the Cadillac version of the LAV 25 the LAV III was even better. When we got back to Canada. Most of us wished are LAV in Canada had the same armor as what we had overseas.
 
LeMask said:
You need more armor for your LAVs in Canada? ^^
Click to expand...

Every vehicle need more armor. The armor we had did the job when I was there. There is stuff that needs to be upgraded, but for the protection I won't say exactly what needs to be done. When we were there a couple of the LAV toke some blast and the only thing that was missing was the Wheel and the Suspension. And of course the redbull and mars bars!
 
Just that in Canada you dont need any armor, as you are in peace over there...

But it's true that you need enough protection to get good odds to survive an attack...

But I still dont understand why you need to patrol in a country like Afghanistan... isnt there a better way? like actually living right next to the people you have to protect, to see them daily, to spot the new faces when they get inside the village directly...

I dont understand the tactics used.
 
LeMask said:
Just that in Canada you dont need any armor, as you are in peace over there...

But it's true that you need enough protection to get good odds to survive an attack...

But I still dont understand why you need to patrol in a country like Afghanistan... isnt there a better way? like actually living right next to the people you have to protect, to see them daily, to spot the new faces when they get inside the village directly...

I dont understand the tactics used.
Click to expand...

We do that we have FOB (Forward Operation Base) a bit every where in Afghanistan We noticed that even there they were able to plant IED about 1km from the base. There is no way to have a complete control over the situation as its the same as trying to control a State i.e Texas or Quebec(Canada). To large of an area for little troops there. I'Ve even watch on camera one night them planting an IED on the road they know we are watching and they don't seem to care about it. The next morning in less then 800m from the first IED they placed there was another one.
 
Patrolling is a very general term used to describe a unit that is on the move and is doing something other than attacking a fixed enemy position. The most common form of patrol is to gather information. But there are other types of patrols, Recon, Ambush, Contact, Economy of Force, Security and Search and Attack. As long as troops are needed to control an area, troops will be used for patrolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top