# BV206/210 for Peacekeeping/Light Infantry Brigade?



## Matt_Fisher

Currently the CFs operate some 78 BV-206s.   These vehicles were purchased originally for use in the high-arctic and Norway.   During 3 PPCLIs deployment to Afghanistan, the BVs were suprisingly effective.

Having personally seen Norwegian BVs in service during Ex. Battle Griffin '05 I'm totally enamored with these little beasts.   Their mobility is amazing, both off and on road.   They're air transportable in C-130 and CH-47.   Supposedly they've got such a low footprint that they often avoid setting off AT mines.

I think that they'd be perfect for use as a baseline APC, Weapons Carrier, Ambulance, CP etc. for a rapid deployment Light Infantry Brigade or the 'PMs Peacekeeping Brigade'.  

Information on these vehicles can be found at:
http://www.haggve.se/default.asp
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehbv206.htm
http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_25.asp?uSubSection=25&uSection=1

Any thoughts?


----------



## Infanteer

I remember how great the Brit BV was on training when a huge snowfall basically grounded the rest of the fleet.

I've proposed that (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27831.0.html), if Light Forces were required to "pony up", that the Armoured version (BV-S10), being adopted by the RM, would be a perfect vehicle.  It is on the link you have provided, Matt.


----------



## Kirkhill

Actually under the old 1980's defence plan Canada was going to have Hagglunds build a Bv206 factory in Calgary and buy at least 400 of them.  Along with the Bison they were primarily intended to be used by the Militia in their northern and vital point duties.

And given that their foot print is less than that of a man walking, they not only don't detonate pressure triggered AT mines, they also don't detonate many AP mines.

Bv206/Bv206s/BvS10-Viking - lovely suite of kit for light troops in marginal terrain.  And the Bv206 is heliportable under two EH-101s and airportable in C130s and C27s.

Be brilliiant for domestic disaster relief as well.


----------



## Infanteer

Damn Scandanavians seem to be build all the gucci kit.... ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Having sat in a few Light Forces working groups recently, I know that the BV (or equaivalent) is still considered a necessary capability, particularly in complex/mountainous terrain for operations where you would otherwise be conducting dismounted operations.  I had a link to some US Army Chinook vids in Afghanistan, but that ironically showed some of our tan-painted BV's as the self-loading material...I'll post it when I find it again.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill

I remember seeing that Duey.  It showed a Bv206 without the lid backing into a CH-47.

Another argument for something like the CH-47/CH-53?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Mike Sparks and some others wrote a book on the concept of 'Air-Mech Strike'

Mike is known quite widely online for being very curt about his views and my branch of service (USMC) in particular, however he and his colleagues do have some interesting ideas around the BV-206.

For me, a person who's ideas are somewhat less imaginative, I simply envisage the BV as being the key to providing a light infantry based formation with some key ground mobility, at a far cheaper cost than LAV-IIIs or similar APCs.


----------



## pbi

Having used the BV quite a bit (including the CP variant) I am a great fan of it. We still have a few but the last time I saw them, they were mostly hangar queens due to parts shortages. I am all for equipping the light battalions with them and keeping some in op stock.

Cheers


----------



## Britney Spears

source: http://www.geocities.com/bv206s/

From http://www.geocities.com/air_mech_strike/

The war in Afghanistan has seen several combat firsts for the U.S. Military, first use of an armed un-manned aerial vehicle and the first use of the B-1B Bombers in a close air support role to name just a few. Now in Operation Anaconda another first for the U.S. Army, the first employment of helo-based airmechanized forces by a U.S. field commander in combat, complements of the 3rd Battalion of the famed Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group.

On March 15, 2002, the Canadians attached to the U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade 10th Mountain Division, used U.S. Army CH-47D Chinooks to air assault their armored tracked BV-206 airmechanized vehicles into the operation Anaconda fight.

Airmechanization is a relatively new maneuver warfare doctrine extensively developed by numerous European armies. First theorized in the 1930s by Soviet Field Marshall Tuchachevskiy, today the Russian, British and German armies have fielded airmechanized brigade and division sized units. The concept involves the vertical insertion of tracked combat vehicles via helicopter and fixed-wing para-drops. The idea is to use aircraft to break friction with the ground and cross vast treks of terrain and obstacles to quickly gain positional advantage. Once inserted, the mechanized vehicles provide the vertically-inserted force with tracked terrain mobility, protection against small-arms and shrapnel and significant increase in firepower via the heavier weapons carried on the vehicles vice foot mobile troops inserted by parachute or helicopter.

The technical challenge to airmechanization is how to build a tracked combat vehicle that has sufficient protection and weapon capacity yet light enough to transported by helicopter or parachute. Advances in information/reconnaissance technology, weapon lethality versus weight and the increases in aircraft lift performance have all contributed to the boom in airmechanization. Today five other countries beside Russia, Britain and Germany, are in the process of fielding airmechanized brigades, including China. The most expensive part of this concept is the fielding of large numbers of heavy lift helicopters and short field cargo airplanes. The vehicles themselves are relatively inexpensive. In the U.S. Military, the critical air component is already in place with over 600 heavy lift CH-47D Chinook and CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters and 500 plus C-130 Hercules aircraft in the inventory.

But what about the risk posed by ultra-light combat vehicles? Isn't massive armor needed to survive? Lightweight AirMechanized Vehicles (AMVs), like those employed by the Canadians in Anaconda, might seem on the surface to be extremely vulnerable. But surviving on the battlefields of Afghanistan may demonstrate a shift in this traditional paradigm. For example, the greatest risk to vehicle movement in Afghanistan is not Taliban/Al-Quedas Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), but rather the millions of landmines laid throughout the country. The Canadian BV-206 AMV used in Anaconda mitigates this risk by virtue of the very light weight and tracked suspension that results in extremely light ground pressure. This not only contributes to its excellent terrain agility but makes anti-tank mine detonation a very small probability since the BV-206 ground pressure is far below the minimum necessary to set off a typical anti-tank mine. [Editor's note: the big advantage of an articulated tracked vehicle like the BV-206, is all-terrain mobility. The low ground pressure of an articulated tracked vehicle allows it to operate in very weak soil strength conditions and deep snow conditions. Also the powered articulation joint between the two units provides for superior obstacle crossing ability because of the joint locking feature for spanning ditches or gaps and the joint pitch motion travel which allows for the climbing of very high vertical obstacles, ie; slopes in Afghanistan].

Wheeled combat vehicles on the other hand, are extremely vulnerable to land mines due to the high ground pressure characteristic of typical wheeled vehicles. The separate cabs of the BV-206 also lessens the potential casualty effects of RPGs by compartmentalizing the blast areas. The light weight also means that it can approach the enemy from terrain deemed non-useable by heavier armor and thus lessens the chances of moving into a planned vehicular kill zone. These features combined with the lethality of high-tech weapons like the Javelin anti-tank guided missile (50 pounds and 2,500 meters range) and light weight auto cannons and grenade launchers like the M230 or ASP-30 30mm and the Mark-19 40mm make AMVs a deadly package for their size.

Airmechanization, a competitor for the Armys planned transformation based on the Striker wheeled armored vehicle? Intuitively all new ideas are intellectually competitive with older concepts and the same is true of the 3-Deminsional airmechanization idea versus the 2-Diminsional Striker program. But in practical application there is no conflict. As most professional Soldiers know, combat is a combined-arms affair where different weapons, platforms and the specialties of different organizations combine to have a collective greater effect than any one part. The Army's Striker transformation is slated for the light infantry divisions and some of the heavier formations. Airmechanization would be more applicable to the Army's Airborne and Air Assault units where the Striker is not scheduled for fielding. As the European armies who have fielded airmechanized formations will tell you. These agile forced-entry units are battlefield enablers to heavier forces and not necessarily their future replacement.

Like the use of the armed Predator UAV in Afghanistan, this first modest employment of airmechanized forces in Anaconda will undoubtedly generate heated debate on the utility of this new and controversial maneuver doctrine. This historical event may be the catalyst for the U.S. Army to convert its own airborne and air assault divisions along the European Airmechanized models or like the ill-fated Pentomic Divisions of the 1950s, be simply a flash-in-the-pan. Still the question that this event will pose for the U.S. Army as whole is the continued validity of parachuting or helo-insertion of dismounted troops close to the enemy's crucible of anti-aircraft fire, shoulder-fired missiles and RPGs. The American public and our enemies, should know that the U.S. Armys leadership in Afghanistan is not tied doggedly to any written doctrine. The first use of airmechanized forces in combat by an American commander demonstrates the mental agility and creative prowess of a unified effort that will leave "no stone unturned" in its effort to defeat the Al Queda and Taliban, to include employing a Canadian airmechanized force!

Major Chuck Jarnot, 101st Airborne Division Liaison Officer in Afghanistan


----------



## COBRA-6

Interesting arcticle, the pictures didn't show up unfortunately...

Anyone know the unit cost for a BV206??


----------



## McG

Looks like our traffic has overwhelmed Sparky's site.  Follow the link for one of the pictures and you get this:


> The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer. Visit our help area for more information.


----------



## Britney Spears

Eh? They work fine for me, both pics and site.


----------



## McG

Works for me again too.  The site must have gotten better.


----------



## COBRA-6

Just saw the BV206 on the TV show "Tactical to Practical". They were highlighting the development of over-snow veh like snowmobiles/ snow-cats, and were at the USMC arctic warfare school, where they had BV206's... looked like they were having fun!



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually under the old 1980's defence plan Canada was going to have Hagglunds build a Bv206 factory in Calgary and buy at least 400 of them.   Along with the Bison they were primarily intended to be used by the Militia in their northern and vital point duties.
> 
> And given that their foot print is less than that of a man walking, they not only don't detonate pressure triggered AT mines, they also don't detonate many AP mines.
> 
> Bv206/Bv206s/BvS10-Viking - lovely suite of kit for light troops in marginal terrain.   And the Bv206 is heliportable under two EH-101s and airportable in C130s and C27s.
> 
> Be brilliiant for domestic disaster relief as well.



With the renewed emphasis on the Militia as a dom-op force, I think this would be a great addition to local armouries... something like the Bv206 would give us outstanding mobility for far less cost than other APC/LAV's options out there... snowstorms, ice-storms, floods, forest-fires... even operating in urban disaster areas... at roughly the same cost per-person carried as a G-Wagon... not a bad idea


----------



## ArmyRick

I am a big fan of the viking myself (the RM armoured BV210).


----------



## Good2Golf

BritS, thanks...those were the pics I was looking for.  Good article from and Air Assaulter in Ft. Campbell...huah!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## CommonSenseNCO

Honestly, save the BV fo winter time, it's awesome. In Afghanistan the boys didn't want it. In the snow, it's the best thing since snowshoes.


----------



## tomahawk6

The cost is around $30,000.


----------



## Kat Stevens

If you've got a spare $42K Cdn, you can buy a BV 206 on Stony Plain Road in Edmonton...

Kat


----------



## Highland Laddie

What about using the BV for the Reserve Inf Coy groupings going overseas with the Reg Force Task Forces ? I hear allot about the potential roles of the Reserve Inf types on the TFs (beyond mere gate guard duties), but no discussion of the vehicles to be used. 

If the LAVs are predominately being used (rightly) by the Reg Force Inf, what type of vehicle for the R31 types? The Bisons are utilized for other tasks, and the use of the older Griz (now being sold off) or M113 stretch version would introduce another vehicle type to be maintained. Use of these vehicles by R031 types would involve substantial 'delta' training for Reservists to operate, or would involve detaching Reg drivers from their units (obviously not a favoured idea for many reasons). Use of the BV could be done without detaching Reg drivers from their units, and involve less training for Reservists than the LAV, Bison, Griz, or M113 stretch. The BV would also provide some good mobility for R031 types for PRT duties and aggressive patrolling, etc. 

Any thoughts by others, or has anything else been discussed for vehicle types to be used by R031 types on the TFs? The lack of discussion or points on this is somewhat concerning. Cheers, and flame away!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

A couple of things to add to this discussion...

First, our BVs are very old - so old that we've had trouble keeping them serviceable and (at one time) resorted to shuttling the fleet across Canada between the Light Battalions as part of the IRF(L) task.

3 PPCLI had substantial numbers of BVs with them precisely because they were the IRF(L)-designated unit when APOLLO lit up.  In the main, if I remember correctly, we deployed TOW BVs - the alternative was TOW Iltis.  Mark C (when he stops looking at houses) can sort me out here.  I can say that they were NOT sent because they represented any type of "special" capability, although they would have come in handy if the BG had stayed long enough to see snow (which is why we also deployed winter kit).  They were sent because that's what 3 PPCLI had at the time.  I was also told that the BVs had significant problems with the dust at KAF and were not well liked.

Contrary to the article, our BVs are not armoured and are not APCs by any stretch of the imagination.  They are (smallish) tracked carriers bought YEARS ago and meant for Arctic ops - that's all.


----------



## Infanteer

http://www.haggve.se/default.asp

Which is why we should re-invest into the BV-S10.

I could see this being useful for the Reserves as well.


----------



## Pearson

it's good to  go in soft, swampy terrain too. I remember Brave Lion, hoofing it through swamps in the valleys , sinking to our knees, following BV tracks a couple inches deep. More than a little aggravating. 

I was impressed.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Got side-tracked drooling over the CV-90...   ;D

The S-10 appears to be a better vehicle for the purposes of this discussion.   However, I still have trouble seeing it in an APC-type role.   Hagglunds still markets it as a cargo carrier.   Even with the add-on armour, I don't see how it is much better (aside from fitting in a Chinook, etc.) than the M-113 as a combat (vice support) vehicle.   I tend to look at it more like an M548...armour or not.

As for use by the Reserves, I see a number of problems.   First, any tracked vehicle is maintenance-heavy.   If we were to take BVs and distribute them to the units (rather than warehousing them centrally), the maint burden would be extensive.   Secondly, mobility in and out of urban areas (deploying to exercises, for instance) is problematic for a slow, tracked vehicle.   Third (and finally), if the BV isn't really an APC, what role would it have within infantry units?   As I said earlier, we bought the original BVs as an oversnow vehicle designed to deploy to the Norwegian flank...   With that task gone, the job for even an up-armoured BV is problematic.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Teddy,

from what I saw when I was in Norway for Battle Griffin this year, the Norwegians had little or no problem using the BV 206s in the reserve role.   The inf. battalion that my LAR unit was attached to, 2/25 was motorised with Norwegian BVs and Norwegian drivers.   The BV crews were comprised of reservists, some of whome had not served in uniform in several years, were recalled for active service for a couple months, given a week refresher course on the BV and then get attached to the Marines with their vehicles.

The BV itself utilizes a form of rubber band track which is relatively maintenance free compared to a Leopard or M113.   We had a higher rate of mechanical breakdown with our LAVs than the battalion had with the BVs.   The BVs cross country mobility was phenomenal.

When compared to the M113, the BV is significantly cheaper to maintain and operate, has better cross country mobility in difficult terrain (snow, swamp, greater range of gradients) and due to its lower ground pressure, is resistant to setting off AT mines.

Inf. units do not need APCs to increase their ground mobility dramatically.   Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan where light units such as the 101st and 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain, etc. are using HMMWVs as squad/section carriers.  In Norway the Marines have used the BV to motorise their infantry battalion in much the same way that 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade (TF Tarawa, of which I was a part) motorised the 2nd and 8th Marine Regiments in 5 ton trucks in Iraq.

Given the increased focus on arctic sovereignty patrols and areas with a high proportion of AT mines that the CFs may find themselves operating in, I think that the BV fleet needs to be reviewed and either the fleet upgraded or replaced with more modern versions.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Matt:

All true and good points.  I'd never argue that there's NO place for a BV.  It is, new and properly maintained, a very useful piece of kit.  For Arctic warfare, I agree completely that a replacement for our old ones would be in order.

However, for use as an "airmobile" APC or as a Reserve vehicle, I'd suggest that there are better choices out there. 

Can you picture (for instance), four BVs parked at the Kelowna Armoury?  The maint/log burden makes my head spin.  I've also done some time with the Norwegians and their reserve system is somewhat different than ours - most will have been trained as conscripts full time earlier in their careers.  Besides, driving the vehicle isn't the issue - supporting it is.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> However, for use as an "airmobile" APC or as a Reserve vehicle, I'd suggest that there are better choices out there.
> 
> Can you picture (for instance), four BVs parked at the Kelowna Armoury?   The maint/log burden makes my head spin.



What would you suggest as a workable 'airmobile' apc?  Wiesel 2 comes to mind, but it doesn't have the range of terrain capability that the BV does, and you cannot put an entire section of troops into it (with kit).

IRT Kelowna Armoury (or any other reserve location independent of a regular maintenance facility), I don't think that parcelling out equipment to the reserves in that manner is a very workable solution either.  I remember the maint. nightmares we had in the BCDs trying to maintain a troop of AVGPs.  Either go hard or go home...
My Marine unit has a company worth of LAVs in Quantico, which is supported by a fulltime and reserve maint. section.  What I'm getting at is economies of scale.  It isn't justifiable to have a full-time maintainer supporting 4 BVs at a reserve location, however if you've got an actual company/squadron worth, it becomes easier to arrange a maint. section to support those vehicles.  Additionally, the lack of EME/maintainer elements in Canadian reserve units is another drawback.  

I could get into a whole tirade about the current ineffectiveness of the Canadian reserve system, but that would be hijacking the very thread I started...In a reserve setting, I believe that a vehicle such as the BV would best be pooled at the Area/Brigade level and used on an as needed basis.  Additionally, until the reserve units get a definite tasking such as mountain/arctic ops, I don't see acquiring large numbers of BVs for them to use is particularly practical or useful to equip the reserve forces.  Now with that said, the BV may be a potentially excellent vehicle for dom ops type usage (snowstorms, floods, urban disaster, etc.).


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> What would you suggest as a workable 'airmobile' apc?   Wiesel 2 comes to mind, but it doesn't have the range of terrain capability that the BV does, and you cannot put an entire section of troops into it (with kit).



Actually, I'm not sure I would suggest an airmobile APC.  We used the Wiesel to great effect in Kabul (both the cannon and TOW varieties) and it is easily transportable by heavy lift helicopter.  My feeling is that heliborne infantry use helicopters as their mobility - armoured vehicles should be present (if at all) to add firepower on the ground.  Wiesel does that very well.


----------



## gaix

Hi,
Just come across this discussion on the BV206 and S10...

I have found another articulated vehicle like them, known as the "Bronco"... it's manufactured in Singapore and is has a huge order for the Singapore Army. They have made many variants of the original troop carrier Bronco.

I understand, too, that it has given the S-10 a good run for its money and it is a strong contender (and competitor to S-10) in countries such as Finland and France. Besides, it has much superior armour, higher payload (5tons for the Bronco vs S-10's 2.8tons), operates just as well over various terrains (including snow/artic)... and are cheaper.  

Here's a website i found on the internet:
http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_intro2.htm







Hope you'll find this useful... Cheers.

gaix


----------



## maxxevv

gaix said:
			
		

> Hi,
> Just come across this discussion on the BV206 and S10...
> 
> I have found another articulated vehicle like them, known as the "Bronco"... it's manufactured in Singapore and is has a huge order for the Singapore Army. They have made many variants of the original troop carrier Bronco.
> 
> I understand, too, that it has given the S-10 a good run for its money and it is a strong contender (and competitor to S-10) in countries such as Finland and France. Besides, it has much superior armour, higher payload (5tons for the Bronco vs S-10's 2.8tons), operates just as well over various terrains (including snow/artic)... and are cheaper.
> 
> Here's a website i found on the internet:
> http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_intro2.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you'll find this useful... Cheers.
> 
> gaix



You mean this ???  http://www.stengg.com/upload/3044EfhjWheIDRO0NHh.pdf 

There's a video too though : http://www.stengg.com/upload/31451XWaPBcUA8QJWmK.wmv


The specs certainly look more impressive. The range and payload itself is really impressive.


----------



## Kirkhill

The problem I see with the Bronco is that even in unladen mode a CH-47 could only carry it for a short distance.  Combat loaded I don't think it could get it off the ground.  

The BvS10 on the other hand can be lifted by CH-47 underslung.   The Bv206S is even more portable as is the unarmoured Bv206.

In our north the combination of a Bv206/BvS10 force moving on the ground via open ground, frozen lakes and rivers, or even via muskeg, supported by CH-47s capable of lifting them over obstacles to recommence the patrol, conducting resupply and evacuations seems to be an alternative to "Chindits with mules and Dakotas".

Cheers.


----------



## old fart

CommonSenseNCO said:
			
		

> Honestly, save the BV fo winter time, it's awesome. In Afghanistan the boys didn't want it. In the snow, it's the best thing since snowshoes.



I don't entirely agree....yes they have their limitations but I can tell you that I managed on a few occasions to get a BV 206 to the top of Mount Kent in the Falkland Islands...They are not perfect but are certainly a very useful bit of kit and can be used within reason on some varied and otherwise impossible terrain.

We were certainly glad we had access to them, although the arse end was blown off one when it strayed off the cleared track and was taken out by an Argy AT mine and turned into a four poster bed left as a warning at the side of the track.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk

I remember seeing a BV/206 while i was enemy force for one of the SQ courses and at first sight  i didn't think much of the Vehicle, But when i actually got to see it move and perform, I was very impressed with it, It moved Alot faster then i had thought it would have and was very versatile.


----------



## Bartok5

The BV 206 is an outstanding piece of kit, despite its inherent limitations.  They are reliable (Mercedes engine), versatile, agile, and capable of winter mountain-climbing feats that you wouldn't believe until you see it first-hand.  I rode in one straight up the side of a glacier in the Yukon a few years ago and was instantly sold.  Conversely, they didn't handle the rocks and sand of Afghanistan all that well when we air-mech assaulted two of them onto the Whale Feature in the Shah-i-Kot 3 years ago.  The rocks got into the the road wheels resulting in thrown tracks.  The new track and tensionable suspension that we have may make a difference there - I can't say until we put it to the test.  

We have 20+ BV variants in 3 PPCLI and they are THE solution for winter mobility.  Cat's arse.

Mark C


----------



## COBRA-6

For what it's worth, the Italians have a number of armoured and un-armoured BV206's deployed in Afghanistan with KMNB HQ. They're from an Alpini Brigade and use them as their deployable HQ/CP vehs.


----------



## Sandbag

Mark C and others who have bv206 in their units,

Do you use the 206s a lot or are they "hangar-queens"?  The Army is looking at getting rid of them unless their is an op reason for keeping them.  Would love to hear your comments and particularly your substantion from an op, not trg, perspective.  Please give it to me off line or in this forum, your choice.

Sandbag


----------



## GK .Dundas

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The problem I see with the Bronco is that even in unladen mode a CH-47 could only carry it for a short distance.  Combat loaded I don't think it could get it off the ground.
> 
> The BvS10 on the other hand can be lifted by CH-47 underslung.   The Bv206S is even more portable as is the unarmoured Bv206.
> 
> In our north the combination of a Bv206/BvS10 force moving on the ground via open ground, frozen lakes and rivers, or even via muskeg, supported by CH-47s capable of lifting them over obstacles to recommence the patrol, conducting resupply and evacuations seems to be an alternative to "Chindits with mules and Dakotas".
> 
> Cheers.


 I wonder if you might develop this idea a little further ,I think you may be on to something quite important.

  Best reguards , Gordon


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I think that with the renewed interest in arctic sovereignty/defence, a renewed BV 206 fleet is looking more and more appealing, perhaps with the option for pre-positioning the fleet strategically in the NT/NU (in conjunction with other stocks needed for a regional response TF)around all-season airstrips where you could fly-in a TF organization to marry up with.


----------



## Kirkhill

My basic point was compatibility - I just wanted to emphasize that whatever we buy, for whatever task, it is not sufficient just to look at an individual component (like the Bv206) in isolation from other elements of the system within which it might be employed.

In this particular case, I am shamelessly stealing ideas put forward by others on this site and that yankee chap that keeps on ranting about Gavins and the Air Mech Battle.  Don't like his conclusions about the M113 vs LAV but he does have a point about air mobility.

I have been brought to see the world as consisting of two primary environments.  Settled and Unsettled.  The settled areas have all the cities, fields, roads and people.  The unsettled areas have none of the above.  As the world urbanizes and people give up nomadic lifestyles they move into the settled areas.  While the settled areas are expanding somewhat, the settleable areas are broadly limited by geography (lack of heat, too much heat, lack of water, too much water or snow etc).  The net effect is that while the earth's population is growing it is my belief that overall more of the earth is becoming UNinhabited, unsettled.

Such open areas, historically, have become havens for people that don't like the restrictions of urban life and prefer to live by their own rules, outside the law.  They often end up at the very least as threats to trade and commerce.  Occasionally they grow as communities and become large enough and successful enough to challenge existing communities and force themselves onto the world stage as a new country.

Any government that wants to protect its settled citizens, and also protect its resource base as well as trade and commerce needs to be able to control both its settled areas and its unsettled areas. In some respects controlling the settled areas in easier than the unsettled areas in that, IF the government is supported by its citizens, then the settled areas are in large part self-policing.  Citizens control the behaviour of other citizens through gossip and disapproving looks more effectively than police and courts, or the army, can control behaviour.  Even in rural areas where farms are miles apart the presence of a fence and the knowledge that a farmer might be in the area watching acts as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour by most citizens.

In unsettled areas there are no such checks.  It then falls to the government to create that sense of "territoriality" by establishing a presence in the unsettled areas.  One way to do this is by establishing a regular, and frequent programme of surface patrols.   This was the original concept behind the Mounties.  They put a man in uniform, indicating he had the support of the state behind him, on a horse, to give him mobility, and then sent him out to meet people and remind them of whose territory this was, whose laws were in effect and the consequences of disobeying those laws.

This is the much derided constabulary duty ( "when constabulary duty's to be done, to be done, a policeman's lot is not an 'appy one, 'appy one" - pace Gilbert and Sullivan).

While much emphasis is being put on controlling people in urban settings, internationally (domestically things are pretty well in hand), that is after all where a small number of terrorists can have a great impact and can blend in relatively easily with the crowd, there is also a threat from all those wide open spaces that governments aren't controlling.  The unsettled areas, both on land and at sea, while they may not be able to support millions of people they can easily support tens and possibly even hundreds in isolated communities.  These areas need to be patrolled.  The navies of the world handle the high seas.  These are rightly seen as international territory - everybody's problem, everybody's responsibility and controlling them is in the interest of a large number of very wealthy governments.

On land the problem is more complex because all the land between settled areas has been carved up by borders to create jurisdictions for governments of settled areas.  These borders offer them areas in which to expand, to harvest resources and to communicate with neighbouring settlements.  They also are areas that they have to ensure that people follow their laws.  Poor countries, with few resources and large territories can't do this and need help (whether they realize it or want it or not - if they can't control their borders and a threat to their neighbours arises within their jurisdiction then they can reasonably expect that their neighbour will take action to eliminate the threat - just as a frustrated neighbour may trespass to cut down the weeds in an untended vacant lot).

One means by which Canada can contribute to "securing" the world, permitting trade and commerce and reducing the opportunities for outlaws to get established, is by contributing to this patrolling of the wilds, just as it contributes to patrolling the high seas.

This patrolling does not require large concentrated bodies of troops.  It does require large numbers of troops.  It does require a strong, mobile reaction force to back up the patrols.  It also requires patrols to be strong enough to discourage action by anything less than a force supported by state assets.  By this I mean that the patrol needs to be big enough to handle a few guys with machine guns and RPGs on its own.  If somebody is able to organize a platoon of tanks to oppose the patrol then things are moving rapidly beyond the realm of your run of the mill constabulary duties and somebody needs to make a phone call.

The characteristics of these types of constabulary patrols are presence, mobility and personal contact.  

Presence demands that somebody be in the area to assert the government's claim.  Mobility is necessary to make best use out of that individual and allow territory to be covered.  Personal contact is required to allow those in the area to decide whether they find the government's representative trustworthy.  If there is no personal contact they will ultimately assume the worst.

So we need troops on the ground in wild areas.  They need the means to move where there are no roads and no gas stations.  And they need to be able to reside in their areas of interest for extended periods of time.  They also need timely support.

Helicopters are often touted as a solution to this type of problem but I see them as only part of the solution.  A pure helicopter force fails on the personal contact front and is severely challenged on the presence front.   The folks on the ground don't get a chance to meet the inhabitants of that noisy beast flying overhead at all hours and are thus likely to start thinking nasty thoughts, to the detriment of the crew's welfare.  As well helicopters are expensive to operate therefore patrols are likely to be infrequent.

By contrast a surface force is relatively cheap to keep in the area.  It doesn't require gas to keep it from crashing, just to move it.   The options for supplying mobility to a force are wheels, tracks, hulls and aircushions.  Aircushions are almost as expensive as helicopters.  Wheels are useful in many parts of the world and not so much in others.  Canada is one of those areas where they are not so useful.  That leaves tracks and hulls.  Both of these are useful both domestically and internationally.  They allow much of the unsettled area of the world to be patrolled by exploiting rivers, and lakes as well as some very difficult terrain, regardless of season.

However they suffer from limitations.  Boats can only travel on water.  They don't cross land so well.   Tracks, generally, can't travel great distances before they were out, they tend to be slow and, for all their capabilities, there is terrain that they can't cross.  

The Bv206, which marries the hull of a boat with tracks can handle most terrain in most seasons but it is slow, requires gas and needs tracks and repairs as much as any vehicle.  While it can cross water it can't compete with a boat on water.

Fortunately it and rigid hull inflatable boats are both transportable by helicopters.  By marrying a Bv206/RHIB force with a helicopter like the CH-47 to lift them over obstacles then there is very little terrain that could not be patrolled.  The CH-47, together with smaller helos like the CH-146 and fixed wing aircraft like the C27J/C295/C130 could support a Bv206/RHIB based force in the field indefinitely.  It would also allow the force to be repositioned as needed to increase its area of influence. The aircraft are all capable of carrying the Bv206 and the RHIB and may be capable of airdropping them.  The CH-47 can recover them from anywhere to a suitable landing strip where they can be reloaded onto the aircraft.

Unfortunately the Bv206 and the RHIB are not armoured and thus at risk to small arms fire from discontented locals.  There are however armoured versions of the Bv206, theBv206S and the BvS10 which handle and maintain similarly to the Bv206 and are air portable.  The Swedes have also developed armoured patrol boats (Stridsbats) that are probably sufficiently similar to the RHIB that forces trained and organised on RHIBs could also manage to operate with Stridsbats after some conversion training.  They too fall in the weight envelope for air deployment.

What all of this suggests to me is an opportunity to create this light infantry force, equipped to operate in hostile terrain overseas in armoured vehicles and supported by CH-147/CH47/C27J/C130J, but which could usefully train domestically and simultaneously enhance national sovereignty claims by conducting patrols in our own bush and arctic.  Operations of such a force in conjunction with Naval assets, whether JSS, amphibious transports or troop carrying ice-breakers could also be part of the mix.  The Stridsbats/RHIBs would function equally well operating from those vessels in the arctic, on the Great Lakes or amongst West Coast islands.  They would be equally at home on the St-Lawrence, Lake Winnipeg or the MacKenzie river.   Internationally they would work in any of the worlds tropical rivers and deltas.  Borneo, Malaya and Vietnam were all riverine wars.  Iraq has its own riverine problems - in fact most settled areas are characterized by the presence of rivers.  

There would be employment.  If only to assist in supplying port security to the Navy.

Ramble ends.  

You asked for it Gordon. ;D


----------



## GK .Dundas

Well that will teach me to keep my mouth shut! ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

George, nice post! 

I fully agree with you, we are looking for effects, and you've laid out nicely how effects can most effectively be provided, including cognizance of the ever-present requirement to make the personal link with those you are trying to assist.  Last Eid (al-Fitr), I and a couple of other guys did a little tour around the outskirts of Kabul in the Cruiser...came through many little villages to the South and North.  You'd me amazed at the smiles, greetings and the impression I believed that we left using just a few words of greeting in Dari that we gleaned from liaising with AFG gov't folks during regular ops.  Nothing can replace the face to face interaction and experiences built with a respectful meeting between folks.  The most lasting impression for me was having a small Corolla wagon stuffed with about 8-10 young Afghan teens drive by during Eid...they were probably wondering what was up coming around the corner of the little track in the Wahdi and almost (well not quite) scraping bumpers with a few 6'+ Canadian soldiers in PPE dismounted taking pics of the local area.  About 20 minutes after our initial Dari greetings, "Eid mubarak!  Che thourastee? Khub khubastee?" and the wide smiles that cracked over the fellows' faces, both groups were on their way with, I'd like to think, a greater appreciation of each other.  This is something that no helicopter (eek, dare I actually say this as an aviator  ) could achieve, nor racing through streets in a HUMVEE, LAV, RG-31, etc....  I'm one air force officer who fully agrees that there is absolutely no replacement for boots (said respectfully) on the ground!!!  BV-206 (optimized for taking rocks in the tracks, etc...) would very nicely fit in as a patrol vehicle in many theatres.

2 more ¢...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## EuroTrash

Would anyone happen to know if the BV-206 is road legal in Canada?
I see an increasing number of these are being decommissioned and refurbed for civilian use.
I'm intrigued and wondering if they might be useful here at home (NU) but I would need to be able to use it on roads to access the back country.


----------



## orange.paint

I did my BV-206 course in 2001 with the RCR.I decided it should be driven like a tank (as a leo was the only thing I knew how to drive at the time besides LSVW).The Mcpl who was the instructor let me go as I zigged and zagged pedal to the medal.When we stopped he looked at me laughed and said yep typical armoured guy...slow the f*ck down! Every section member is now impailed on their bayonets in the back.

It was an amasing vehicle easy track maintance although they did get chewed up pretty quick.

They also worked very well going up to the RRB's in Bosnia,thank god I wasnt involved in that but they apparently worked very well.


----------



## UberCree

EuroTrash said:
			
		

> Would anyone happen to know if the BV-206 is road legal in Canada?
> I see an increasing number of these are being decommissioned and refurbed for civilian use.
> I'm intrigued and wondering if they might be useful here at home (NU) but I would need to be able to use it on roads to access the back country.


I have been told by a distributor that it is considered an off road all terrain vehicle (similiar to a quad) for registration and insurance purposes.  If you tried to take one on road I imagine you would need a class 4 license because of the seating capacity.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to the use of the Bv206 family - This is the Bv206's big brother the BvS10 or the Viking in Royal Marine service.



> Vikings Complete First Convoy Mission in Afghanistan
> 
> 
> (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Oct. 31, 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> The first ever operation involving the new Viking armoured vehicle has been successfully completed by Royal Marine Commandos in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> Operation Zina saw thirty-three Vikings complete a 10-hour combat move into Helmand province from their base in Kandahar airfield. During the journey Royal Navy Harriers provided force protection and helped clear the route ahead of the convoy, which was also supported by armoured fighting vehicles from Denmark and Estonia.
> 
> The route included notorious areas of Kandahar City and Gereshk and despite some heavy surveillance from suspected Taliban the journey was completed without incident.
> 
> Vikings are armoured all terrain vehicles able to operate anywhere in the world in temperatures ranging from -46c to +49c. They are crewed by two men who act as driver and gunner and are armed with a General Purpose Machine Gun among other weapon systems.
> 
> Being able to operate over deep sand and boulder fields, the Vikings have the mobility to operate anywhere in Helmand province and can carry a section of Royal Marines into battle, offering significant protection to their passengers and crew.
> 
> The operation was led by Major Jes Hermer Royal Marines, Officer Commanding the Royal Marines Armoured Support Squadron based in Bovington, Dorset. He said:
> 
> "We first started working on the Viking project six years ago and have gone through lots of tests and adjusts.
> 
> "This convoy is the result of all that hard work. The operation has been a great success against a significant threat from Improvised Explosive Devices and snipers. I am very proud of the way my men have performed."
> 
> The Vikings are now patrolling throughout Helmand province and their ability to go anywhere at speed will be a tremendous asset to the Royal Marines.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34

Now to see how it holds up to dust and rocks.


----------



## ArmyRick

I have seen some interesting test pics of the vikings going through crazy terrain (mountain, snow, ocean, rocky desert), it really does appear to be a versatile vehicle...

BUT, IMO it is not a close combat vehicle (Dount dismount the troops 10 feet from the objective with this one!)


----------



## gelan

I was a BV driver when I was in 3 RCR, and that beast is amazing. Mud, Sand, Snow, Water (yes, it's excellent for amphibious ops) nothing would stop this thing, except rolling it. Which is very easy to accomplish, while I didn't do so myself, a couple other drivers found this out while doing a monthly parade and test drive of it... ;D 

I'm surprised that they aren't used more than they are.


----------



## The Rifleman

We (British Army) had problems on Mount Igman during the savage winter of 1995 during the Bosnian war. Winter track was not biting and our warriors, CVRT and 432s were not performing. Our Land Rovers were ok using snow chains but they were not armoured. We took delivery of a handfull of BVs so that we could keep our resups going until a break in the weather(they were considered armoured but I think I preferred the Land Rover myself!).

The Bv was an essential piece of kit at that time and I'm glad we could borrow them from the Royal Marines


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Caught some footage of British troops in battle over in Afghanistan, in the background was a BV210 on the reverse slope giving fire support.


----------



## The Rifleman

That was probably the new Viking version. They are mounting .50 cal on them now so they make graet mobile fire support bases.


----------



## The Rifleman

try this link to see the Viking in Afghanistan

http://www.operations.mod.uk/afghanistan/viking.wmv


----------

