# Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle



## RequiemVK

In couple of weeks its gonna be the armored conference in valcartier and for this event the armored corps have been able to get their hand on the new vehicle they looking to purchase. So far the info we have its gonna be an armored fighting recon recce vehicle thats suppose to be between the coyote and the g-wagon. During the night the vehicle gonna be in our vehicle compound so I'm gonna go take some picture of it and give my general feeling about the vehicle. So stay tuned for more info in some weeks.


----------



## RequiemVK

Finally the truck arrived, it seem a nice truck with certain flaw. First keep in mind its suppose to be a recon  recce vehicle and not a jeep we have the g-wagon for that. Its suppose to go with coyote when we need some traditional recon. Its a big vehicle look like a mixed between a German Dingo and a Humvee. It have a couple of nice option like remote controlled weapon, positive pressure for NBC, add on armour and add on mine protection. Its made by General Dynamics (who also construct the engineer mine protected truck). I was quite impressed by it, but the space inside is tight without lcv and frag vest, so imagine with them and the engine look a bit underpowered. Here the link to the maker of the truck its name is the Duro APV.

http://www.gdlscanada.com/pdf/duro_apvspecs.pdf

DURO APV
Weights
Baseline weight 	5000 kg
Payload 	2400 kg
Gross vehicle weight (GVW) 	 
with run flat inserts 	7600 kg
w/o run flat inserts 	7400 kg
Curb weight (Level 3) 	6000 kg
Dimensions
Overall length 	5.09 m
Height (over cabin) 	2.00 m
Overall width 	2.16 m
Ground clearance 	0.40 m
Number of seats 	4
Performance
Max. speed on roads 	120 km/h
Acceleration 0-50 km/h 	11 s
Gradient 	60%
Max. side slope 	40%
Vertical obstacle 	0.4 m
Turning circle diameter 	14.5 m
Fuel tank capacity 	140 L
Range on roads 	480 km
Power-to-weight ratio 	33.0 hp/t
Engine
Manufacturer 	Cummins
Type 	ISBe 5.9L Turbo Common Rail
Function 	4-stroke / Diesel
No. of cylinders 	6
Perfomance 	184 kW (250 hp)
Transmission
Manufacturer 	Allison
Type 	1000
Transmission 	5-speed automatic
Driveline and Suspension
Wheel drive 	Permanent, four wheel
Transfer case 	Two-speed
Differential 	Torsen, self locking
De-Dion axles with wheel hub gear, patented roll stabilizer 	 
Brakes 	Hydraulic disc type with ABS
Steering 	Hydraulic power assisted
Tires 	335 / 80 R 20
Optional Equipment

      * Winch
      * Central tire inflation system (CTIS)
      * Air conditioning system
      * Preheat unit
      * NBC overpressure system
      * Runflat tires
      * GPS
      * Add-on ballistic protection kit up to Level 3 STANAG 4569
      * Add-on mine protection kit up to Level 2a STANAG 4569


----------



## blacktriangle

Anyone have more info on this?


----------



## kincanucks

ShawnSmith said:
			
		

> Anyone have more info on this?



What more did you want?  The fuel mileage?


----------



## kincanucks

RequiemVK,

Thanks for the post.  It certainly is a ugly beast.  You can definitely see that it would be a tight fit with FO on.  Again thanks for the info.


----------



## RequiemVK

When i was taking the pictures my Chief Warrant came by and said they were 3 prototype looked at, 1 was supposed to be higher than an coyote ?!, for the other i dont know. But he said this 1 the Duro was the favorite so far. So ...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

My first reaction is that it's too big for recce; maybe my impression would change on seeing one in person.  Personally, I like the VBL - but that's just me.


----------



## Infanteer

Personally, I'd like to see an M1 as the new recce vehicle; especially when recent experience and studies show that commanders will have to fight for their information.

Since when did the Armoured Corps shift from being "the arm of decision" to the "the arm of information"?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

You're not far off, Infanteer.  Back in the days of yore, Div recce had tanks (the FGH were, in the Mulroney delusional days, slated to be activated as a Div Recce Regt using, IIRC, Leopards), on paper, for that very reason.

However, recce is a traditional cavalry (and hence armour) task.  I am all for speed and violence, but there is certainly a place for both stand off and close recce, particularly in a maneouvrist context.


----------



## Infanteer

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> However, recce is a traditional cavalry (and hence armour) task.   I am all for speed and violence, but there is certainly a place for both stand off and close recce, particularly in a maneouvrist context.



The Coyote seems to do the stand-off recce quite well, but close recce seems to require heavier vehicles, not lighter ones - seems we've indeed traded saber for stealth.


----------



## a_majoor

The Duro is an  HMMVW if it were designed and built in the late 1990s as opposed to the late 1970s (when the HMMVW program kicked off). For "Three Block War" and CIMIC, it is certainly a player, but if the push is on for fighting for information (and the ability to drop off dismounts to talk to people when possible), then the smallest and lightest vehicle they should be seriously looking at is the Fennik, and in terms of logistical interoperability combined with the need to fight the most serious contender would be a LAVIII with a four man dismount team in the back (extra space taken by consumables for those 72-96hr missions).

Other recce tasks like convoy escort and rear area security "might" benefit from using the Duro vs the Illtis or G-wagon, but given real world experience something bigger and better is required, the ADI Bushmaster comes to mind, or the American "Buffalo" (If you want more cross country mobility you go with the Bushmaster; while the Buffalo is more road bound it would also make a good Engineering vehicle platform).

Sneak & Peek recce belongs to my trade, and you might argue that long range surveillance and UAVs should be taken by the Artillery. Tell the powers that be to stop smoking that stuff and get you a proper recce vehicle.


----------



## Infanteer

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The Duro is an   HMMVW if it were designed and built in the late 1990s as opposed to the late 1970s (when the HMMVW program kicked off). For "Three Block War" and CIMIC, it is certainly a player, but if the push is on for fighting for information (and the ability to drop off dismounts to talk to people when possible), then the smallest and lightest vehicle they should be seriously looking at is the Fennik, and in terms of logistical interoperability combined with the need to fight the most serious contender would be a LAVIII with a four man dismount team in the back (extra space taken by consumables for those 72-96hr missions).



Agreed.  I also think that equipment should be purchased with the "highest order" in mind rather than the "lowest order" - we can always gear down for Peace Support, Humanitarian, and Intervention ops but it is pretty hard to gear up for warfighting when you're equipped in the manner of a constabulary force.  Instead of saying "hey, this looks like it'd be great for driving around (insert shithole here)" say "hey, this looks like it would really contribute to the combined arms team we've built to fight the enemy".  When we need to gear down, we can go to an open jeep (Iltis/G-wagon) or the trusty black caddies - we don't need big heavy jeeps sealed off from the outside world for SASO (if we want to do that, deploy LAVs).


----------



## Bomber

Nuts to all the complaints, this is a big friggin truck that can finally mount the bigger guns, take a blast, and not tip on a hard corner.  This truck has been trying to get into the Army for a while, some of you might remember this as the Rhino, then the Eagle 4 and now the Duro Armoured Patrol Vehicle.  Being big, boxy, and sealed off seems to fit the job description perfectly.  I don't know, finally some new kit.  Lets enjoy it as the Liberals make a scramble for some Christmas votes.


----------



## Infanteer

Bomber said:
			
		

> Being big, boxy, and sealed off seems to fit the job description perfectly.



What job description?



> I don't know, finally some new kit.   Lets enjoy it as the Liberals make a scramble for some Christmas votes.



Let's not assume that because it's new, it's good for us - is this what we need?  More of our problems probably stem from internal mismanagement than from political neglect - sometimes, I just don't think the Canadian people are getting the 13billion dollar military they deserve.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What job description?
> 
> Let's not assume that because it's new, it's good for us - is this what we need?   More of our problems probably stem from internal mismanagement than from political neglect - sometimes, I just don't think the Canadian people are getting the 13billion dollar military they deserve.



Ahhh, someone's identified the problem - buying equipment before we have fully identified where it fits in to our tactical concept of operations.  Lest anyone think this is a recent problem, we do this all the time:  AVGP fleet, ADATS, Bison (remember MILAPC?), Coyote (the biggest example), LAV III, MMEV, M113 upgrades, AVGP fleet upgrade programme, Coyote "cav" vehicle (Coyote with the radars yanked) - on and on.

I'll be the first to admit that I support the quick purchase of equipment where the requirement - and the solution - are self evident.  M777 seems to me to be a good example.  I'll also support the snap purchase of items where we can borrow the doctrine from allies or where the concept of operations is so glaringly obvious that even the uninitiated can see how they'd be used (Chinooks, for instance).

However, when something hasn't been fully thought through, I begin to question the sanity of that tiny group of "concept" people who drive these things.  Take the G Wagon, for instance.  I cannot imagine it being more ill-suited to close recce and told the Army Equipment Board as much in the late 90s.  Yet, we purchased a "C&R" varient and deployed it - simply because we couldn't afford (politically or financially) to staff a separate project for a proper recce vehicle like the VBL.  The result?  Now we play "catch up" and are looking at yet another vehicle produced by General Dynamics (GM Diesel).  In this case, close recce has been part of our doctrine for many, many years and we should have had the wherewithal to identify the proper vehicle the first time around.

Again, back to my original criticism.  We know what close recce does; why are we looking at such a large unwieldy vehicle with limited armament and protection?  It looks remarkably like a German Dingo, which is certainly not a recce vehicle. There are plenty of alternatives out there.  Oh yeah...never mind...  "General Dynamics".... :

a_majoor:  Fennik is a surveillance vehicle, with much the same role as Coyote.  We used them in Kabul with the Franco-German Brigade - not as effective as Coyote.  As I said earlier, there is, and always has been, a place for close recce within the Armour Corps and close recce and surveillance can function hand in glove operationally if permitted to.  Again, we have done this very effectively on operations.  An argument could be made, in fact, for mixing close and surveillance assets at the troop level.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Since when did the Armoured Corps shift from being "the arm of decision" to the "the arm of information"?



The "Armoured Corps" may be "the arm of decision" or "arme blanche",  inheritors of the tradition of tin suits and clydesdales, but all those other guys on horses and ponies have always been about patrolling and information. Long before even the stirrup was invented.  That's what they did when they weren't fighting, in other words that's what they most of the time.


----------



## a_majoor

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> a_majoor:  Fennik is a surveillance vehicle, with much the same role as Coyote.  We used them in Kabul with the Franco-German Brigade - not as effective as Coyote.  As I said earlier, there is, and always has been, a place for close recce within the Armour Corps and close recce and surveillance can function hand in glove operationally if permitted to.  Again, we have done this very effectively on operations.  An argument could be made, in fact, for mixing close and surveillance assets at the troop level.



I thought the Fennik was more of a 21rst century "Ferret" scout car, which only goes to show you can't believe everything you read in Janes. Even so, it is far more mobile and better protected than a G-Wagon or Duro, and can mount some serious weaponry if needed. If something like the Duro is being considered as a compliment to the Coyotes, then a "Ferret" in a more modern guise would probably do a lot better as the complimentary vehicle.

For many of the reasons alluded to by Infanteer in another thread, I would think the best way to compliment a LAV based surveillance vehicle would be another LAV carrying a dismounted scout team. If the Government and the Army are serious about spending a bucket of money on the Duro (a vehicle of dubious worth in the suggested recce role), they would be better off spending the money for more LAVs instead.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> I thought the Fennik was more of a 21rst century "Ferret" scout car, which only goes to show you can't believe everything you read in Janes. Even so, it is far more mobile and better protected than a G-Wagon or Duro, and can mount some serious weaponry if needed. If something like the Duro is being considered as a compliment to the Coyotes, then a "Ferret" in a more modern guise would probably do a lot better as the complimentary vehicle.



Well, the Fenniks we used were (of course) the German variants - a good looking vehicle.  It has the benefit of a low profile and centre of gravity but ours were not heavily armed and mounted a surveillance suite on a mast.  The Germans thought highly of them, but they weren't as operationally flexible (they didn't have the same sensor capability as Coyote) as Canadian vehicles.  Again, I am convinced that a VBL-like vehicle is the way to go for close recce, much as you recommend.


----------



## Bomber

A great APV "Armoured Patrol Vehicle" which was its own job description, if we use them for close recce then that is our problem.  As a bigger, more robust vehicle that could end our long running "we need hummers thread" I see this thing as great.  And it is home grown.  Unfortunately we will never get the kit that this message forum actually wants.  I want us all to have the greatest sleeping systems, KevinB wants everyone to have more weapons training and SFW's, Bomber for Life just wants comfy boots, all of the armour doesn't want the MGS and wants M1A2's or would settle for 2A6's.  Every piece of kit that we need is long coming like Herc's, Chinooks, C17's, rucksacks, and for once the government kind of gave a little bit of cash and said lets see the wish list.  Stuff needs to be readily available when this fun money comes and this is one of the things.  The Fenneks were not available in time, and VBL's, I don't know, but they just seem real old.  I think Mowag has a 4x4 version of the Coyote on its site, seats 4 with a crew of 2, maybe a decent vehicle and would have commonality.


----------



## Recce41

This veh is one of the maybe vehs, we may purchase. The Armour School is the SME for the new Recce Veh.


----------



## Lost_Warrior

> Being big, boxy, and sealed off seems to fit the job description perfectly.



Isn't the point of a light recce vehicle to be small and open (remove doors, roof, windshield)?  This would be the total opposite of it's intended "job description"...


----------



## Kirkhill

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

Panther Command and Liaison Vehicle

4.7m x 2.0m x 1.95m - 6.5 tonne GVW - 2.9 tonne payload - (2/EH-101?) - 28.6 hp/tonne

Crew of 2(+3)



> It is designed primarily for strategic and tactical mobility with a high level of protection against anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, modular and with tuneable armour protection and stealthy design. In peacekeeping operations, currently undertaken by heavy armour and infantry fighting vehicles, the MLV provides a lower profile while still providing a high level of crew protection. In high intensity conflicts, the MLV can be configured as a scout, command or liaison vehicle or as a weapons platform.



GDLS/MoWag Duro/Eagle IV   (Eagle I was based on the Hummer)

5.0m x 2.2m x 2.0m   - 7.6 tonne GVW - 2.4 tonne payload - 33 hp/tonne

Crew of 2(+2)

The Panther was selected by the Brits. The Yanks are using uparmoured Hummers and looking for something heavier.   The Eagle vehicles are being used by the Danes (in Iraq) and the Swiss and the Eagle IV (Duro) is essentially the same concept as the uparmoured Hummers and early Eagles but on a heavier chassis.

It looks like a lot of other armies are making similar choices.


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The "Armoured Corps" may be "the arm of decision" or "arme blanche",   inheritors of the tradition of tin suits and clydesdales, but all those other guys on horses and ponies have always been about patrolling and information. Long before even the stirrup was invented.   That's what they did when they weren't fighting, in other words that's what they most of the time.



I'll disagree with this - ever since the Egyptians routed the Canaanite army at Megiddo with war chariots, mounted forces have been an maneuver arm, an arm of decision.   Alexander's victories relied on heavy Macedonian cavalry destroying an enemy fixed by the phalanx.   The Huns smashed the Romans with horsemen, and Tariq ibn Ziyad brought Islam to Europe with his mounted warriors crossing at Gibraltar.   The Mongols, the Europeans, the Japanese all relied on mounted soldiers to smash enemy resistance.   Spanish _conquistador_ dominated the more numerous Aztec with steel from the back of the horse.   Islamic kingdoms relied on the Mameluk, Napoleon had his "battle cavalry" and the West (in both Canada and the US) was won by the dominance of mounted units in the field.   Today, when we watch US armoured units destroy the Republican Guard, we are seeing the continuance of battlefield dominance that the mounted Cav has shared with the dismounted Infantry.   Their relationship is symbiotic, not one of dichotomy.

Sure, mounted units served reconnaissance and/or skirmish functions (by nature of their fast mounts), but so did various dismounted Infantry units.   Roman auxilia, Prussian Jaeger, British Light Infantry, and US Army Rangers are examples of this.   Reconnaissance/information gathering isn't a primary task, it is a secondary function of any maneuver force that takes to the field, mounted or dismounted.  Predominance in time and place seems mostly to have been decided by cultural outlook, devision of labour, and geography, but the Huron warrior stalking through the North American woodlands and the Polish Uhlan scouting ahead of Napoleon's _Grande Armee_ basically served the same function - skirmishing, scouting, raiding, and fighting as part of a larger combined arms force.


----------



## Infanteer

Command and Liason, light recce, close recce - I'm seeing alot of terms mentioned here; what is this vehicle supposed to do exactly?  ???


----------



## Kirkhill

Man on horse, chariot or elephant has more mass and greater speed, thus more energy than man on foot.  In a world where the only source of mobile energy was muscle power all of the examples cited were the only method of transmitting sufficient energy to the enemy's formed mass to break it up.  Even with the advent of gunpowder it took a few hundred years to be able to change that calculus from the 1300s to 1916.

I agree, in battle the cavalry was used to break mass.  I argue it was done in the absence of anything better.

However - and ultimately here is where we differ fundamentally I believe - I know you have seen the argument.
  
Armies are not just for fighting wars. They have jobs in peace-time beyond sitting in garrison training for the next war.  They are the primary means by which governments control their territory and their people.  

People concentrated in towns can be controlled by armed people on foot (infantry) at relatively low cost in manpower. As difficult as it is to control cities it is relatively easy compared to controlling wide open spaces.  If the people are on-side with the government and the government's forces enjoy the support of the people then the people will be largely self-policing and heavy-handed methods are not required.  Conversely if the people are not on-side then no amount of armed personnel can keep control of the people indefinitely.  In the open spaces there are many places where individuals and small bodies can hide to hatch mischief.  


Infanteers on foot can't control wide open spaces.  Only the mounted soldier (and here I will include heliborne, ATV-borne, airborne, boat-borne and any other form of transported soldier) can do that and that is done primarily by patrolling.  Patrolling those spaces is a function of peace-time soldiering.   Peace-time doesn't mean the absence of conflict, or the absence of exchanged shots.  Peace-time means the absence of a declared war between states.  When people don't recognize the authority of states then the states need to impose that authority vigorously.  That requires well armed, disciplined supporters of the government that are mounted.

In time of war cavalry may have been massed to provide "breaking power" but in time of "peace" they were the principle means of keeping control of the countryside.  

Policing, in the face of armed resistance, is an army job.

Policing the countryside is a cavalry job.  You can't police the countryside in an M1A2 TUSK.  They are nice to have on hand, even necessary, but not particularly practical when patrolling large areas.  The 10 to 15 MCAD invested in a tank might be better invested in patrol vehicles and a couple of utility helicopters.



Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I know you have seen the argument.



Yes, Kirkhill; we are both very familiar with the terrain.   

Policing as you use the term is used to imply coercive force on an occupied people.  I remain suspicious of the dichotomy you have drawn up with "dismount policing urban areas/mounted policing rural areas".  I'll restate my claim that predominance of the "mount or dismount" in time and place seems mostly to have been decided by cultural outlook, division of labour, and geography.  There are plenty of examples in history that suggest that the dichotomy you raise isn't always the case - the Spartans policed their Messinian helots with the phalanx; most Native Americans (who didn't even have large mammals to mount) used political coercion backed by punitive raids on foot - the Aztecs raided for sacrifice, the Iroquois to decimate a village and take captives to adopt.  In many cases forces weren't either/or but both - the Samurai enforced the cultural mores of the Tokugawa Shogunate from the back of his mount and from foot - they were masters of combat on both levels.  Indeed, cavalry in the West adopted the "dragoon" as a force to accommodate the technological factors of the rifle - mechanization put them back on their mounts for the fight and mixed the "hussar" with the "dragoon" for a fully effective combined arms force.  The M1 is a perfect vehicle to police the countryside with - we've seen the Americans do it in the Balkans on more than one occasion.  We policed Kosovo with our Leopards.

The capacity of coercion is more a factor of social will than the platform available to execute it with.  The Romans pacified the Gauls with the infantry; sure, they hired/co-opted Gaulish horsemen, but in the end, it was the Legion that was forced the issue and subdued the tribes.  The Mongols relied on the mounted warrior to subdue both the vast Eurasian hinterland and the ancient civilization of China.  Often, the countryside was irrelevant; power flows from the cities and towns; it is the center of gravity for an established people and they policed their powerbase with whatever seemed to fit the bill; mounted on horse, camel, or sandal was merely an issue of what was around.

I guess this should get back to the thread at hand.  What are we building and equipping our Army for.  Coercive force obviously; you're correct in pointing out that the Army is built upon coercive force - the headman (in our case state) and the warrior (in our case, the Army) rely on eachother for legitimacy; with no warrior, the headman lacks the imperative to back its claim to authority; with no headman, the warrior lacks legitimacy and becomes a marauding parasite.  Ironic that the United States, which culturally abhorred an coercive, state-backed army (but not a navy) and codified this suspicion in its own Constitution built its strength on the coercive force of its (until recently) mistrusted military forces.

What sort of capability do we want to equip this coercive force with?  The Samurai didn't take a lame horse out of the stable when he was going to trot into an unfriendly village for some Bushido-style "peacekeeping/peace-enforcement"; he put on his best lacquered armour, his fearsome helmet and mounted his best charger.  Should we not adhere to the same principle?  What will this vehicle do for us?  I've argued that we should equip for the "top level" and can progressively gear down if so required.  Close recce?  Can someone explain it to me how we will close recce the enemy in a warfighting scenario?  Please take into account the link I provided that shows that the United States, when fighting in the Gulf (on two separate occasions) simply pulled all of its "close recce" vehicles off the front line due to the fact that they were too exposed.  Is this an effective "warfighting" vehicle?  If not; strike one.

Okay, so we ignore the concept of equipping for war and gearing down for anything else - how will this vehicle add to our capabilities in SASO or peacekeeping?  What can this do that the Coyote/LAVIII/G-Wagon can't?  The Iltis was deemed to be a very effective platform as it was open and offered 360 degree awareness - it was complemented by the Coyote/LAV which is big enough to cow down the more belligerent types.  Is a light jeep exposed?  Sure.  But what is this thing going to offer us; will it survive a stack of mines or a VBIED that we see HUMVEE's succumb to daily?  Will it do any better than a G-Wagon if an insurgent pulls an RPG?  Nope.  Does this really add capability to a SASO/Peace support-enforcement-keeping role that we often find ourselves in?  If not, than strike two.

Is the overarching rationale for this purchase the "Made in Canada" sticker?  If so, strike three.

I'm merely being skeptical here; if somebody can point out how this enhances our capability, then great - maybe we're better off.  But to date, I've seen nothing in the arguments to convince me that it is.  The decision to let our heavy armour capability lie dormant and die a natural death seems to be self-inflicted (we can't blame Trudeau this time); I'm all for making the best of what we have and ensuring that it is used in the most effective way possible, but I won't accept adding another small pony to our stable when what we really need is a fierce charger.  I see "close recce", "mud recce" and "command and liaison" - can we not do this with what we have now?

Anyways, rant off.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

> Command and Liason, light recce, close recce - I'm seeing alot of terms mentioned here; what is this vehicle supposed to do exactly?



As much as possible so that the budget doesn't have to buy and support a multitude of specialty vehicles as I understand it.   This is true for the Brits, Aussies, Europeans and even the Yanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Policing as you use the term is used to imply coercive force on an occupied people.



There you go, you libertarian you.   Always assuming the worst.   Yes policing can be employed as coercion of an occupied people.   That however is ultimately a self-defeating strategy IMHO.   No government can long stand against the will of its people, or words to that effect.   I rather see policiing as a necessary tactic in a troubled community where there are disruptive elements that prevent ordinary folks longing for the simple life (apologies to Paris and Nicole) from going about their daily commerce.   

Most folks will support a government if the government can give them security and prosperity, no matter how corrupt they are.........

Policing is part of giving them that security.

Policing by the army is necessary when the disruptive elements are well armed and organized though in the minority and not enjoying the support of the majority.   If they do enjoy the support of the majority then the army may as well return to barracks because the government has a lot more work to do on the suasion side of things.

You are right to be suspicious of the dichotomy between foot/urban-mounted/rural.   I use this only as a starting point based on historical realities and still true in "ancient" cities where cities are "pedestrian friendly" or not vehicle friendly.     Dispersed garrisons (police or army) of soldiers or police on foot are suitable there.   In modern cities that are vehicle friendly then small patrol vehicles (RCMP cruisers or CLVs) are appropriate as they are in environments like the prairies, or Europe or areas of countries like Iraq that are well served by networks of roads.   Just like the interface between country and city is broadening and the border has moved from the well-defined city wall to the ever decreasing density of the suburbs so the zone that wheeled cavalry can patrol and control is ever increasing.

But cavalry was also responsible for patrolling the areas that roads weren't.   The horse was particularly useful in those locales as well both for carrying small patrols as well as for large rapid intervention forces.   

By necessity the horse was a mult-functional platform. Moreso than the chariot.

Wheeled cavalry resembles the chariot in utility having both utility in patrol and the assault on suitable terrain. Tracked cavalry can be likened to any of the heavy assault forces of history.   So what is available to handle the patrolling abilities of the horse soldier in rugged terrain?   Anything else driven by horsepower? Trucks, ATVs, Helicopters, Aircraft, Boats, Ships, Hovercraft.....?   Any platform that allows the soldier to cover large distances rapidly, but also to endure for extended periods of time supplying presence?

From there is it much of a leap to seeing the entire modern army with its emphasis on mobility as a cavalry force?   As a manoeuvre force?

The M1 is a lousy vehicle to police the countryside.   It needs roads and railways to get it to the scene and over which to move its fuel, tracks and other spare parts even if it doesn't fire a shot and have to be re-ammoed.   The roads and bridges in the Balkans were often too weak, low or narrow to support the M1 constricting its range of movement.   Its need for fuel really limits its range. It is great assault vehicle.   It makes a marvellous relocatable pillbox.   It is a lousy patrol vehicle for the many spaces far removed from road networks.

I do think that we should equip for war.   Full stop.   Agreed.   I also think we should train for war.   Again agreed.   I think that the reason that the military needs to be employed in policing in intransigent or disputed areas is precisely because they are equipped and trained to employ violent means and lethal force in support of the government of the day.  As important they are disciplined and courageous enough (there's a funny word in this day and age) NOT to act violently and lethally until told to do so.   If the enemy is a large state with a large force than the army needs to be able to concentrate sufficient breaking power against that mass as to discourage the activity of the enemy combatants.   These days that does not necessarily require matching them soldier for soldier, tank for tank, aircraft for aircraft.   If the enemy is a mob of heavily armed insurrectionists then the army needs to be able to concentrate sufficient breaking power to eliminate that threat and convince or coerce them into seeing the error of their ways.   The issue is not one of disagreeing on the need for "concentration of forces".   It is the next one on the list "economy of effort".   That economy of effort not only includes manpower and ammunition, ultimately it includes dollars as well.

How about this for an option?   I will stipulate the need for the M1A2 TUSK - a marvellous piece of kit without doubt.   But how about, instead of buying two TUSKs with two crews we buy one TUSK and 4 Patrol Vehicles with 5 crews for the same dollars.   Keep the crews together and rotate them through the tasks.

That would put expenditures into the same range as your ancient Mongols, my border reivers or the French knights at Agincourt - all of whom tended to travel with not a single horse but a string of horses.   The armoured knights only had one or two warhorses capable of carrying them into battle. They generally rode lighter riding horses most of the time, the same type of horses used for patrolling.

Historical analogies aside.

The period we have entered into is one of declining risk of government to government clashes,   the costs for all parties is just too high. At the same time central authority is being challenged all over the place and the need is for authority to reexert itself.   The threat is not concentrated. It is dispersed.   It is not heavily armed, nor compared to a professional military, is it particularly well trained or equipped to slug it out with a professional military.      The dispersed threat demands a dispersed, or at least a highly mobile rapid-response capability.   The lack of concentration on the enemies' parts and the relative low weight of fire that they can produce allows for smaller units to be fielded to counter them.   You yourself, and others, have argued this very point, speaking approvingly of the US Marines move to a small unit unit philosophy dependent on lower rank competence.   

The army needs to prepare for war against a concentrated force, absolutely, but right now there is a demand for forces to exert control over smaller, less well equipped forces operating over vast distances.   Both requirements have to be met.

And by the way, I will also stipulate that in uncertain situations it might be appropriate to lead with an M1A2 TUSK to figure out what is going on. On the other hand a swarm of Micro UAVs with sound, heat, radar and optical sensors might also generate a useful picture.

Cheers.

PS - Made in Canada is a poor rationale for buying kit if that is the only rationale.   On the other hand if it is good kit and gets the job done, at a competitive price, I am all for it.


----------



## KevinB

I'm just shaking my head about this vehicle  -- I could accept it as a LSVW replacement.

 I just get the feeling we are putting our heads in the sand though with the idea of this vehicle as a "recce" vehicle.


Something like the Chenowth DPV or ALSV fits my mind for a light close recce item (and damn they look cool too...)

 http://www.chenowth.com/


Recce in PSO's and Lower to Mid Intensity battles/conflicts has to interact with the populace to gain info.  Recconaisance is NOT surviellance - nor is it driving down a road ignoring, and offending the locals...


I fail to see how this system does anything better than a GWagon or Coyote/LAV


----------



## a_majoor

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'm just shaking my head about this vehicle  -- I could accept it as a LSVW replacement.



If we are considering the "Duro" APV as a potential replacement for the LSVW, we are being rooked again, it has a very small area to put the payload. Might as well buy the Duro truck.

As Infanteer alluded to in the "Trading the Sabre for Stealth" thread, light vehicles like the HMMVW are too vulnerable in a high intensity conflict to be much use to the commander. Given the flavor of the day is Full Spectrum Ops, you could be driving your Illtis/G-wagon/Duro through the market, happily talking to the locals, then turn the corner and be hosed down with RPG and machine gun fire. Some soldiers might be able to exit the burning vehicle, but that patrol is now over, and the information developed (there is an ambush at GR123456) will get stale pretty fast as the Jihadis blend into the urban landscape.

The "LAV with Dismounts" model I advocate would have to be handled differently (park the LAV, let the dismounts walk through the market), and I recognize that after a certain level of attack even a LAV will not be able to protect the recce crew, but in terms of functionality, logistics and the ability for the CF to field and support it, I think this model will go a lot farther than using any warmed over light truck.

Small purpose built vehicles like the Fennik could partially answer the need instead (the masts can be substituted by an OWS with a machine gun or AGL), choosing this solution will place the emphasis more on the "sneak and peek" model since the Fennik and similar vehicles won't have a lot of fighting power. Big patrol vehicles like the ADI "Bushmaster" are not recce vehicles per se, but can also support aggressive recce by transporting Assault troops who can do dismounted patrols, perform close protection tasks and develop HUMINT as a compliment to recce AFVs and surveillance systems.

The real problem here (and I think someone has said this already) is we are considering the vehicle, *then* adjusting our doctrine and TTPs to match the capabilities, rather than having a well thought out Recce doctrine (much less an overarching doctrine) and making the buy based on the needs identified by the doctrine. This would also require a very flexible mindset, since the doctrine might identify we have too few recce assets, and need to re role other units or stand up new ones; or conversely we are overborn with recce assets, and need to re role the current crop of recce units to do something else.

In the mean time, the Duro APV is a great looking truck, and should be featured in the next "Mad Max" movie. For the CF, it might make an acceptable LO or Commander's runner, and this role *would* make sense if we buy the Duro truck as the light logistics vehicle for commonality of parts, training and supply. Otherwise, let's end the farce and put the Duro APV back on the shelf, where it belongs.


----------



## Infanteer

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The real problem here (and I think someone has said this already) is we are considering the vehicle, *then* adjusting our doctrine and TTPs to match the capabilities, rather than having a well thought out Recce doctrine (much less an overarching doctrine) and making the buy based on the needs identified by the doctrine. This would also require a very flexible mindset, since the doctrine might identify we have too few recce assets, and need to re role other units or stand up new ones; or conversely we are overborn with recce assets, and need to re role the current crop of recce units to do something else.



That was the crux of my rant.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How about this for an option?  I will stipulate the need for the M1A2 TUSK - a marvellous piece of kit without doubt.  But how about, instead of buying two TUSKs with two crews we buy one TUSK and 4 Patrol Vehicles with 5 crews for the same dollars.  Keep the crews together and rotate them through the tasks.
> 
> That would put expenditures into the same range as your ancient Mongols, my border reivers or the French knights at Agincourt - all of whom tended to travel with not a single horse but a string of horses.  The armoured knights only had one or two warhorses capable of carrying them into battle. They generally rode lighter riding horses most of the time, the same type of horses used for patrolling.



I'd opt for the two M1A2s for the following reasons:

1)  1 Abrams will be a great force multiplier for a light/medium force in most situations.  2 Abrams would be a fantastic force multiplier (you need 2 incase one is disabled; the second can pull it off).

2)  Would rather have an M1 than 4 patrol vehicles - the M1 will survive a stand up fight; better than having 4 jeeps that our rendered useless (or dead) as the situation shifts from block 1 to block 3 in a snap.

3)  We already have a variety of patrol vehicles - GWagon, Coyote, LAV, black caddies; don't need anymore shaggy ponies as that is all that is in the stable now and we haven't really figured out why we're buying horses yet (no comprehensive doctrine).


----------



## Recce41

The G wagon is and was never intended to be the Recce Veh. It was an intern, it was there to replace the Ilitis. The Coyote is NOT a Recce Veh, it is a Survailance veh. There is two types of ARMOUR Recce. Recce by force and Recce by stelth. As one of the SMEs of Armour Recce at the school. We require a Armoured type cross country veh. 
 One role of Armour Recce is to get to a point and secure it IE Bridge, crossroads. You also require a veh that can get there. Ether as I stated, Force as in AAR role or by Stealth.
Our TTPs are out lined for this. I know I helped write them. This veh is better than a GW.

 :evil: :tank:


----------



## a_majoor

Recce41 said:
			
		

> The G wagon is and was never intended to be the Recce Veh. It was an intern, it was there to replace the Ilitis. The Coyote is NOT a Recce Veh, it is a Survailance veh. There is two types of ARMOUR Recce. Recce by force and Recce by stelth. As one of the SMEs of Armour Recce at the school. We require a Armoured type cross country veh.
> One role of Armour Recce is to get to a point and secure it IE Bridge, crossroads. You also require a veh that can get there. Ether as I stated, Force as in AAR role or by Stealth.
> Our TTPs are out lined for this. I know I helped write them. This veh is better than a GW.



I have no doubts the Duro APV is better than an Illtis or G-wagon, but that is mostly a matter of degree. The crux of the objections to the Duro is that it is not as capable as a Fennik or similar vehicle in "sneak and peek", and it is not at all capable in the Recce by force scenarios. In fact, given the rapidity that situations can change in a Full Spectrum Ops scenario, Recce by Stealth might turn into Recce by force in a big hurry, in which case you will really wish you were mounted in an AFV in the first place....

As for the G-wagon being an interim vehicle, it seems in the CF the interim lasts up to 20 years. Perhaps we could prevail on the powers that be to do it right the first time?


----------



## Kirkhill

> Recce by Stealth might turn into Recce by force in a big hurry, in which case you will really wish you were mounted in an AFV in the first place....



I thought one of the reasons to do recce was to determine where scarce heavy assets could be concentrated?  The alternative is to disperse them widely.  If that is done, if they are deployed in penny packets, doesn't that reduce their availability for effective shock action?

Perhaps there is a case for an all AFV mounted army, although I got the impression that many here supported light forces.  It just doesn't seem reasonable that that will ever be feasible, even if it were desirable.


----------



## Infanteer

Hadji, sitting in the mosque or bazaar with an RPG, would just love for us to get to a point and secure it with a glorified technical.   He's smart, and wouldn't even leave himself open to fire - he'd just lay a VBIED out to vaporize whatever trucks we sent forward.

http://www.dtdude.com/cj_44179.wmv


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Whilst the Duro APV may be a capable patrol vehicle for constabulary type actions, when the proverbial heat gets turned up, its lack of armor and firepower seriously negate its usefulness in a high intensity conflict scenario.   

For those who argue that mounted recce. elements require a vehicle that gives them an element of stealth, I ask that they provide some concrete examples of the successful application of mounted/mechanized 'stealth'/'mud' recce. elements outside of canned training environments in semi-wilderness training areas where the commanders OODA loop allows for ability of recce. elements to report, bypass and piquet enemy positions.   As combat experiences have shown, http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html and based on my personal experience in Iraq, application of time-intensive stealth recce. through the use of light wheeled vehicles (ie. HMMWV) doesn't work in a environent where the optempo is high, a real credible enemy threat exists where they can pass information as easily as picking up a cellphone and saying "Hi Hasan, this is Ibrahim...there are some crusaders in jeeps parked in old man Muhammed's date grove...do you want me to set the IED string out and hit them with an RPG ambush when they move down towards Haditha?"

About the only real application of 'stealth' when it comes to recce. is the application of a dismounted scout/sniper team heavily camouflaged and moving extremely slowly.   To try and play sneaky beaky in a camouflaged lightly armored low-profile vehicle in somebody elses backyard is borderline foolhardy given that today and tomorrow's enemies have learned the value of using irregular forces in all phases of warfare.

I say to heck with the recce. by stealth model and go with a flexible medium armored platform.   In an ideal world a vehicle such as the Swedish CV90 would make an excellent recce. vehicle as would the LAV-25 with a 4 man dismount team.   I'm very interested to see what the Swedes do with the SEV program in that a tracked/wheeled plug and play hull system could provide the 'solution' for the search for an effective recce. platform.


----------



## Kirkhill

> "Hi Hasan, this is Ibrahim...there are some crusaders in jeeps parked in old man Muhammed's date grove...do you want me to set the IED string out and hit them with an RPG ambush when they move down towards Haditha?"



Sorry Matt, but I'm going to be even more of an idiot than usual here and suggest that Ibrahim is doing a fine job of recce by stealth.   

The problem seems to be how do you conduct a stealthy operation when everything about you is designed to set you apart from the civilian population. You wear a uniform, hard hat and armour, drive a vehicle that doesn't blend in with the rest of the civilian traffic,   the gun overhead in particular advertising who you are.     All of that screams "presence", a necessary attribute, hopefully reassuring to some portion of the civilian population, but some might see a presence as a "target".   In that event, I can fully understand the desire to have as much armour plate between me and the incoming RPG.   I think that is why the guys in the Stryker Brigade are relatively pleased with their gear.

Driving any military vehicle on a road is likely to be noticed, therefore it seems that recce by stealth in any urban or suburban environment in a military vehicle is a pretty long shot at the best of times. On the other hand, coming over the fields into old man Muhammad's date grove in the middle of the night in an APV might qualify as a stealthy approach.   Recce may patrol, but not all patrols are recce patrols.     

I'll try to shut up now.   This is your fight.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Sorry Matt, but I'm going to be even more of an idiot than usual here and suggest that Ibrahim is doing a fine job of recce by stealth.
> 
> The problem seems to be how do you conduct a stealthy operation when everything about you is designed to set you apart from the civilian population. You wear a uniform, hard hat and armour, drive a vehicle that doesn't blend in with the rest of the civilian traffic,   the gun overhead in particular advertising who you are.     All of that screams "presence", a necessary attribute, hopefully reassuring to some portion of the civilian population, but some might see a presence as a "target".   In that event, I can fully understand the desire to have as much armour plate between me and the incoming RPG.   I think that is why the guys in the Stryker Brigade are relatively pleased with their gear.
> 
> Driving any military vehicle on a road is likely to be noticed, therefore it seems that recce by stealth in any urban or suburban environment in a military vehicle is a pretty long shot at the best of times. On the other hand, coming over the fields into old man Muhammad's date grove in the middle of the night in an APV might qualify as a stealthy approach.   Recce may patrol, but not all patrols are recce patrols.
> 
> I'll try to shut up now.   This is your fight.



lol...I think I was working on my response to this:   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html (edited to show correct thread) as you typed this response.   See my opinion on 'True Stealth'.

Unfortunately, while coming into old man Muhammad's date grove in the middle of the night would be preferable, there is a greater likelihood that the optempo is going to dictate that you conduct your op during the height of the day...

If we want true 'stealth recce' then lets ditch our uniforms and military pattern vehicles and go with local garb and contract out a bunch of beat-up looking, but serviceable toyota pickup trucks and other local vehicles that will allow recce. forces to achieve 'stealth' in the local environment.


----------



## Kirkhill

> If we want true 'stealth recce' then lets ditch our uniforms and military pattern vehicles and go with local garb and contract out a bunch of beat-up looking, but serviceable toyota pickup trucks and other local vehicles that will allow recce. forces to achieve 'stealth' in the local environment.


  I think the Brits were trying something of that sort in Basra. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34799.0.html 

And thanks for taking my comment in the spirit it was meant.  Cheers

PS your link led me back to this thread.  I'd be interested in seeing your comments.


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I thought one of the reasons to do recce was to determine where scarce heavy assets could be concentrated?   The alternative is to disperse them widely.   If that is done, if they are deployed in penny packets, doesn't that reduce their availability for effective shock action?
> 
> Perhaps there is a case for an all AFV mounted army, although I got the impression that many here supported light forces.   It just doesn't seem reasonable that that will ever be feasible, even if it were desirable.



Here's my idea on the whole thing.

I think recce (or anything for that matter) is going to be done in an environment that presents an interplay between complexity and diffusion.

Mechanization, armour, firepower, logistical sustainment, digitization - these are all force multipliers that act to give professional Western forces (yes - us included) a huge asymmetric advantage when dealing with others.   The enemy either realizes this or doesn't; the dumb ones don't and die pretty quick and the smart ones do and become very capable foes.   We must assume that the enemy will eventually pick up on this (read Biddle's Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare - one can see how Taliban and AQ forces figure out how to avoid US firepower).   Why all our fad military theories like "Information Dominance" assume that the enemy is going to sit around while we get a bead on him is beyond me....

Anyways, the enemy will avoid these asymmetric vulnerabilities by using complexity - dispersing amongst complex human environments, complex physical environments, and complex informational environments.   US surveillance and recce assets were spectacular in templating a Republican Guard Brigade - it was either shot to heck or (in most cases) gave up anyways.   What it couldn't template would be a group of Fedayeen sitting in a village that hold up a divisional advance for a day.

When the tempo drops and we fall into "Block 1-2" type operations (SASO, Peace support, etc) we must assume that the bad guy will have "information dominance" over us.   Matt's example is a good one.   I was fortunate to catch a bit of MGen Bailey's (British Army, Retd) presentation at AUSA - his corresponding paper published by the Institute of Land Warfare, "Over By Christmas": Campaigning, Delusions, and Force Requirements aptly sums up the situation:



> The doctrinal premise of information superiority or even dominance, of speed, fire-superiority and the avoidance of attrition had itself become a party to creating the conditions which those forces had been designed to avoid or render irrelevant.   There is a need to challenge some of the fundamental tenets of our concepts and doctrine.   For example, the notion that we might enjoy information superiority in the decisive operations in which we are currently engaged in Iraq, or information dominance on some future "transparent battlefield" - a term still commonly bandied about - does seem rather unreflective and self-serving.
> 
> ....For example, our opponents in Iraq today undoubtedly hold information superiority over us: They are better able to identify our personnel and what they are doing vice versa - after all, we wear especially procured distinctive dress, camouflaged military uniform.   Expensive high-tech camouflage paint ensures that our vehicles are conspicuous, and these move routinely in large groups between well-identified bases, along predictable and well-observed routes.   Our strategic and operational objectives and our tactical operations are probably better known to the enemy than are his to us.   Our opponents' identities, appearance, means of transport and movements are, by comparison, harder to ascertain and to understand.



I basically see two scenarios - the tempo is either high (warfighting), and thus nobody knows what the heck is going on and you rely on superior combined arms tactics to win the day, or it the tempo is low (SASO, insurgency, etc, etc), and the fact that we are the invaders in an expeditionary setting means that the enemy should be assumed to have information dominance.

In either case, I don't see this type of vehicle as desirable.   We call the LAV the *Light* Armoured Vehicle for a reason - it is light; it is probably the low end of the spectrum when it comes vehicles you'd want to be cruising around in.   We've seen LAV's survive mineblasts (Ethiopia), sniper fire, and IED's (Afghanistan).   The American's also seem to be having favourable performance with them throughout the spectrum of conflict.   The relative weight and speed of the wheeled platform gives it some inherent advantages over its medium (M3) and heavy (M1) brethren, but all seem to be worth sending out.   There is always RPGs, but as the Aussie Infantry Captain at AUSA said to me "Listen, these things have taken out M1's; realistically, unless your in a MBT, you have to find ways other than armour to protect against them" (I'd be interested to see how many RPG's have actually taken out M1s in Iraq).

Conversely, this thing comes in at a quarter to a third of the weight of a LAV/Coyote.   It's lighter than light.   From arguments made on this thread, it's no good for warfighting because the tempo is too high for such a platform to be at the spearhead.   It's no good for lower tempo ops because, as a vehicle with no intrinsic strengths, hadji (who is assumed to have info dominance remember) will see it for as nothing but a target of opportunity.   You are putting four bodies into a vehicle that is vulnerable to plenty of things at all different times.   We are not diffusing or hardening our assets with this.

How to survive contact in complex environments when trying to find information on the enemy (or show a presence) - diffuse or harden (essentially, get as forceful or stealthy as possible).   Harden by bringing in the big boys that can take some punishment (M1 TUSK) or diffuse it by spreading out the forces out amongst a complex environment.   Either do it with dismounts out of a LAV or send in you Light Infantry (who should excel at utilizing complex microterrain while on foot) to conduct you reconnaissance on foot (the Scout/Sniper team is a good example).   It's easier to take four guys out when they are in a jeep than when they are spread out in a street.   It seems that there is no way to harden our diffuse a technical.

Just a few ideas,
Infanteer


----------



## couchcommander

IMO you can't really "hide" in these situations given what has already been mentioned, uniforms, guns, etc (minus some specific examples which I will get to later, ie sniper on overlooking hill). Further, your enemy, the insurgents, are all but indistinguishable from the local inhabitants most of time, right up until the moment where they try and kill you. Given that, whatever force you put out into the field, recce, transport, whatever, is not going to know there are enemy about until they are already under attack (similar to Patton's thinking on recce, ie drive down that road until somebody shoots at you). Thus, whatever force this may be, probably recce or transport, needs to be able to absorb the initial attack with hopefully no or minimal casualties, and be able to launch an effective and immediate counter attack. This basically means you need a vehicle that can take most of what the insurgents can dish out (nothing is 100% effective), turn around and shoot back, ie LAV-III with add on armour or cages or whatever, otherwise you are on the loosing end of the stick (the other option is of course dispersing your foces by dismounting them, meaning that in all likelyhood the intial attack will only kill or wound a few soldiers, and as long as they are fairly well trained (ie not Russian conscripts), they can mount a counter attack) (basically in line with Infanteers thinking).

Does this mean recce by "stealth" in a broad sense is dead? No, I don't think so. Couple of options. First, as mentioned above, an interesting idea might be to send out a sniper well in advance of a patrol, and have him take up a position where he can observe a suspect village. Then, make it known that your patrol is going through there, and watch who leaves, hides, etc, thus severly shortening your list of possible insurgents to gather up and interrogate. (I don't know if you guys are already doing this). 

Secondly, and most interestingly, is either high altitude UAV or Satellite. Both offer you the ability to watch the enemy without him knowing he is under survellance. One could potentionally monitor supply routes 24/7, observe patrol routes well in advance looking for freshly moved dirt, unusual activities, or even while a patrol is in progress to provide advance notice of an impending attack (I think one of our Sperwars even did this in Afghanistan with a German patrol... I don't specifically remember so don't quote me on this). The possibilities are endless. 

Anywho, just some thoughts from a lay man, feel free to shoot me down...


----------



## Lance Wiebe

A lot of really great arguments here.

A couple of thoughts......

"Recce" as we practice and define it is still a continuation of the training we did against the "evil empire".  Recce, or intelligence gathering, today is, to a large degree, going to be done by various means, including UAV's, satellite, helicopter,and other air assets.  Of course, these will not give us all of the information we need.  There will be a continuing need for recce done on the ground.  The very best recce done on the ground is when a recce element parks their vehicles in a zulu harbour, and conducts a recconnaissance foot patrol.  That is the ultimate recce vehicle, black cadillacs.  Those of us that have conducted recce in the past have gone on many three man patrols to gather information, only using vehicles to get us to the closest, safest, position.

Note that I am not talking about surveillance, the Coyote is well suited to the surveillance role, and will be better once the planned upgrades are completed.

So, if my argument is accepted, that "stealth" recce is best conducted "au pied", then we have need for two vehicles.  One to get the team in to a position to conduct their patrol, which can be done by the Gelandewagen, and the other vehicle to be used for the other traditional recce task, patrolling.  Now, my thoughts are that we need a well aromoured, mobile platform to conduct patrols.  It doesn't matter if the patrol is for route security, showing the flag, or whatever.  We need a tough vehicle that can be used, if necessary, to draw the bad guys out, and to intimidate.  Perhaps a tank?


----------



## Infanteer

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> So, if my argument is accepted, that "stealth" recce is best conducted "au pied", then we have need for two vehicles.   One to get the team in to a position to conduct their patrol, which can be done by the Gelandewagen, and the other vehicle to be used for the other traditional recce task, patrolling.



Yes, the jeep to get the boots somewhere is what I was looking for - by armouring it up I feel we give the illusion that the recce task will be executed *from* the platform (doctrine will follow) which seems inapproriate.   A jeep is like a helicopter or a parachute, useful for inserting the boots that will run the recce.

Logically, this infers that "recce" doesn't belong to any hatbadge but rather is a skill (like marksmanship) that should be utilized Army wide by anyone walking point.   Now, of course, those who on point the most (those of the combat arms) are going to need the skills most.   Recce will be done by a Light Infantry Scout Sniper team, a Cav team dismounting its scouts, Engineers clearing routes or Arty guys setting up for the big kill.   As you say, the G-Wagon seems to fit the bill - if something heavier is required, stick them in a CV-90.



> Now, my thoughts are that we need a well aromoured, mobile platform to conduct patrols.   It doesn't matter if the patrol is for route security, showing the flag, or whatever.   We need a tough vehicle that can be used, if necessary, to draw the bad guys out, and to intimidate.   Perhaps a tank?



Ooooo, that was subtle.      Yes sir, tank it is. :tank:


Infanteer


----------



## Recce41

Christ
 My Father spent, his time in a GD jeep and fox for Recce. This was with someone shooting at him.


----------



## C. Ward

This vehicle is not the ideal vehicle for recce but it is definitly a step in the right direction...It is a sin our guys are conducting patrols in Afghanistan using the LUVW (what a waste).  Let's shake our heads and come up with some useful. :threat:


----------



## Unknown C/S

I said it before in the Armour APV post:


     " Like so many other "purchases" the Gov't will pick something up, deliver it to the military and someone will have to figure out how to employ it.
      At what point will the military receive equipment to fit the role? (i.e Here is a coyote now you guys come up with a plan on how it can be used)
      Don't get me wrong, Good piece of kit, but did the corp specifically ask for it??? (But now I'm off on a tangent.......)"

There I've said it, and I won't mention it again....lol. Whoever has got hold of the govt. credit card for the last 6-7 years is doing a good job of buying gifts. Now if those guys/girls would sit down with the end users you could put an end to "really cool" equipment gathering and obtain stuff that suits the role.
   If someone from DND dropped a brand new John Deere combine on my doorstep I would be impressed....I would show all my friends the shiney new equipment, maybe even take them for a ride. I would probably go on and on about the quality and technological advancements compared to other farm equipment in the country (maybe the world!) Then I would sit back and try to figure out what I'm going to do with it...............Maybe take up farming??


----------



## DG-41

I've always thought there was a place for ultralight, mounted recce, that has a light footprint, relatively low observability, and most importantly, speed.

We did it in Stuarts and a number of different armoured cars in WW2, we did it in Ferret, we did it in Lynx, we even did it in Iltis.

No, you can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys, but that's not the point - get out there, make contact (preferably witout being seen yourself) get the information, get it back to the people who need it. Light calvary, as done since the invention of the horse.

Personally, I'd like to see something like a wheeled version of Lynx, and I've done recce in Bison and that rocked.

But independant of WHAT we do it in, I know we can't do it in Iltis any more. Not because the vehicle isn't suitable, but because our Iltis stocks are in such horrible disrepair that it's frightening. I just did a weekend mounted ex in our Iltis, and I'm frankly HORRIFIED at the state of the vehicles. And knowing that I could pick up a troop's worth of brand new German war stock Iltis for $80k at http://www.iltis.ca makes the fact the we are sending troops out in these shitpiles all that much harder to swallow.

At this point, I really don't care what it is we get, as long as we get a lot of them and we get them NOW (and they come with radios)

DG


----------



## Cloud Cover

DG-41 said:
			
		

> I've always thought there was a place for ultralight, mounted recce, that has a light footprint, relatively low observability, and most importantly, speed.
> 
> We did it in Stuarts and a number of different armoured cars in WW2, we did it in Ferret, we did it in Lynx, we even did it in Iltis.
> 
> No, you can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys, but that's not the point - get out there, make contact (preferably witout being seen yourself) get the information, get it back to the people who need it. Light calvary, as done since the invention of the horse.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see something like a wheeled version of Lynx, and I've done recce in Bison and that rocked.
> 
> But independant of WHAT we do it in, I know we can't do it in Iltis any more. Not because the vehicle isn't suitable, but because our Iltis stocks are in such horrible disrepair that it's frightening. I just did a weekend mounted ex in our Iltis, and I'm frankly HORRIFIED at the state of the vehicles. And knowing that I could pick up a troop's worth of brand new German war stock Iltis for $80k at http://www.iltis.ca makes the fact the we are sending troops out in these shitpiles all that much harder to swallow.
> 
> At this point, I really don't care what it is we get, as long as we get a lot of them and we get them NOW (and they come with radios)
> 
> DG



hey DG- i see your point.  btw... exactly who invented the horse? ;D


----------



## DG-41

I think recceguy did.... or at least, he was around when it happened. 

DG


----------



## Kirkhill

Back again.   

If the fight against the evil empire focused on warfare in the field I get the sense that many here are getting bogged down in urban warfare.   In Afghanistan you have to control BOTH the city and the field.   In the city, with lots of people, all potentially armed and short sight lines, it is relatively easy to get a weapon in range of a target.   It is easy for the bad guys in civvies to ID the guy in uniform.   The converse is difficult.   That is why any int gathering has to rely on the goodwill of the locals.   Fighting for info in the city is counter productive.   You create more enemies than you find.   On the other hand - forces in the city are there to Act in support of the government of the day and also to give a sense of security to the locals.   To give the sense of security, they need to be seen, making them targets.   To be able to act they need to survive meaning that they needed to be well protected.   (That does not necessarily mean hiding behind 70 tonnes of armour plate - it can be shooting down incoming bullets, blinding and deafening suspected insurgents, arresting them - jamming IEDs etc).   Protection is necessary but there are more than one form of protection.   A light vehicle in a controlled environment with active defences may be as effective, if not moreso than a tank, and a whole lot more reassuring to the local population.   You are accepting risks that they have to accept on a daily basis just to go to market.   Who makes up the majority of the victims of these IED explosions?   Its not you guys.   Its the local cops, storekeepers, women and children.   What message are you sending about security if you will only leave camp in a tank?

But the other concern I have is that of controlling the countryside.   It is just as critical to verify that large empty areas are indeed empty.   That requires patrolling.   Empty areas, by definition, are devoid of people.   That suggests that the chance of catching a bullet, or an RPG, or an IED are considerably less than in the city.   Long sight lines means that the enemy, if there, has to engage at a distance.   An RPG isn't going to allow that - the gunner has to be within 200m on an open plain and standing up - if he wants to be a martyr that is a great way to guarantee it.   The enemy is going to need heavier, longer ranged, more expensive weapons than that to get the job done and they are harder to come by.   They are scarcer and harder to deploy.   Even IEDs are less effective if there aren't routes that are consistently employed.   In open country, driving across open terrain negates the ability of the enemy to site a prepared demolition charge.   Mine-resistant vehicles negate the efficacy of general mining of the open spaces.   The risk of injury patrolling the countryside in a jeep or landrover is considerably less than patrolling the city and it is more amenable to "stealthy" tactics.

Now if the same level of mobility afforded to unarmoured jeeps can be handled by a bullet proof, mine resistant vehicle, reducing the risk of patrolling the countryside even further, then I would have thought that would be a good thing.

Many here are arguing for bullet-proof, mine-resistant buses, to get you on and off the base (the Aussie Bushmaster). That is the same level of protection as the APV.

If the Bushmaster is a usefully protected vehicle to drive and infantry section from pillar to post, why isn't the APV a usefully protected vehicle for driving 2 to 4 soldiers around open terrain to verify that there is nobody home?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

DG-41 said:
			
		

> I've always thought there was a place for ultralight, mounted recce, that has a light footprint, relatively low observability, and most importantly, speed.



You're certainly entitled to that opinion.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> We did it in Stuarts and a number of different armoured cars in WW2, we did it in Ferret, we did it in Lynx, we even did it in Iltis.



Grouping an M-3 Stuart 'Honey' TANK armed with a 37mm with a degree of armoured protection and an Iltis or a Ferret armed with a 7.62mm that the gunner must be exposed to fire which has little if any armour is apples to oranges. 



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> No, you can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys, but that's not the point - get out there, make contact (preferably witout being seen yourself) get the information, get it back to the people who need it. Light calvary, as done since the invention of the horse.



If you've read 'Trading the Sabre for Stealth', you'd realize that having the ability to go toe-to-toe is the point.   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html   :   
Lengthy recce. processes that have been developed in the laboratory of cold war era exercises and NATO training centers (Ie. US NTC) are out the window given the Optempo rate that forces are using in operations, which doesn't allow for a stealthy infiltration of enemy lines, or against an asymetric enemy.     



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> At this point, I really don't care what it is we get, as long as we get a lot of them and we get them NOW (and they come with radios)



Be careful of what you wish for...



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If the Bushmaster is a usefully protected vehicle to drive and infantry section from pillar to post, why isn't the APV a usefully protected vehicle for driving 2 to 4 soldiers around open terrain to verify that there is nobody home?



If all you're doing is driving around to verify nobody's home, then great, but again, we're comparing apples to oranges.  The Bushmaster isn't designed to operate as an infantry fighting vehicle.  The Aussies are using it in 2 modes:

1.  Motorized infantry.  The infantry has the Bushmaster as part of their organic TO&E and it is used as a battlefield taxi, taking the infantry to their debussing point where they enter the fight on foot.  It is not intended to act as an infantry fighting vehicle in high intensity combat operations.  That is why the Aussies retain and have upgraded their M113s for their mech. infantry battalions.

2.  Motorizing Light Infantry.  For operational purposes, light infantry units are transported aboard Bushmasters as they go from mission to mission.  Much the same model as the motorized infantry, but to allow greater economies, the Aussies use a 'plug and play' model for when their light infantry is in need of a ballistic and mine protected transport vehicle.

The APV is something that you're likely going to have to fight out of and given Canadian doctrine, will be leading the 'tip of the spear'.


----------



## Recce41

Its F$%^ing Recce. Its a veh to find and define the enemy. Not go and attack. Christ I'm Pissed.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Its F$%^ing Recce. Its a veh to find and define the enemy. Not go and attack. Christ I'm Pissed.



Have you gone to to toe with a Republican Guard division as a recce. crewman?   Have you been in the middle of an urban firefight against an enemy that has taken on a civilian guise?   Have you experienced a rate of operational advance that would make Rommel or Guderain green with envy?

Rather than venting here about how you're right and we're wrong, why not back your opinion up with some operational experience that provides a basis for your opinion?


----------



## DG-41

> If you've read 'Trading the Sabre for Stealth', you'd realize that having the ability to go toe-to-toe is the point.ïÂ¿Â½



I did - and the author misses the obvious point of:

"Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*"

"Don't do that"

If light recce isn't appropriate to the job, then don't use light recce. If you need to fight for information, then you want something heavier. If you are going to want information out of a situation that takes away light recce's speed and stealth, then don't use light recce.

But if you need to cover a large area in a small period of time, if you need a small-footprint, low-observable "go out and find the bad guys" force, and especially if you need that force to be highly flexible, highly inventive, largely self-sustaining, and above all, sneaky - then you use light recce.

DG


----------



## Matt_Fisher

It's not that the author misses the point of how a 'stealth recce' model is successful, it's that you're missing the point in that the biggest advantage that US/Coalition forces have is their ability to conduct operations at a tempo that outstretches the opponents ability to re-orient, reorganize and react.  Under this new form of 'lightning warfare', a lengthy recce. model isn't practical.  What is practical is a vehicle that you can fight for your information and survive.


----------



## DG-41

And I'll claim that the ability of "stealth recce" to survive on the battlefield is largely a function of terrain and training, not tempo.

Certainly back when we were prepped for fighting the Soviet Army were weren't expecting a nice, leisurely operational tempo. Neither would I call WW2 (where the Canadian concept of armoured recce was born, developed, and refined) particularly sluggish with regards to tempo.

Stealth recce, or light recce or light calvary or whatever you want to call it has been proven to work in high-tempo operations. The trick is -as with any other arm - to utilize it effectively in the conditions in which it has maximum advantage. I wouldn't expect light infantry to assault a prepared, fortified position without tank support. I wouldn't expect mechanized infantry to go charging through a swamp. I wouldn't expect to put the guns at the lead of the advance, and I wouldn't put tanks, unsypported by infantry, into an urban operation where the enemy was motivated to fight.

Just because any given arm or tactic or doctrine isn't universally valid, doesn't make it *completely* invalid. There's a time and place to fight for information, and there's a time and place to be fast & sneaky.

You're an American, right? It seems to me that the Americans have never really done light armoured recce in the British/Canadian model. Even your Cav units are far heavier than even the heaviest Canadian formations. Y'all *always* fight for your information.

One thing I will readily grant is that it takes a lot of training to make a good light recce crewman. Light recce operates with a level of personal initiative and overall operational freedom more common to larger formations. It takes wits, smarts, and guts to get the info and get back alive when you can't just stand there and slug it out, and it takes a lot of work to get soldiers working at that level. The tradeoff is that the equipment is that much cheaper, and lord knows the Canadian Armed Forces is all about economy....  :

But just because y'all haven't had much success with it doesn't mean success isn't possible.

DG


----------



## Recce41

Matt
 I am not saying I'm right. OOOO I got shot at, so I have been. OOOO I was in Iraq, no I have not but who gives a rats a55.   It is just like our fellas coming from Astan. It is only one type of theatre. Our Doctrine is 2 types of Recce. Recce does not fight battles, maybe the US. But In WW2 American Recce just drove down until they got blown up. The Brits and Aussie, still have our same doctrine.


----------



## Infanteer

DG-41 said:
			
		

> And I'll claim that the ability of "stealth recce" to survive on the battlefield is largely a function of terrain and training, not tempo.



So, the American light cav units are simply poorly trained?   This is why they were pulled out of the line?



> Certainly back when we were prepped for fighting the Soviet Army were weren't expecting a nice, leisurely operational tempo. Neither would I call WW2 (where the Canadian concept of armoured recce was born, developed, and refined) particularly sluggish with regards to tempo.



Yes, and when exercises were conducted at the NTC, the same was assumed.   However, the author of the paper seems apt in pointing out that even the excellent training environment of the NTC is flawed when held up to case studies of operational experience.



> Stealth recce, or light recce or light calvary or whatever you want to call it has been proven to work in high-tempo operations.



Examples please?



> The trick is -as with any other arm - to utilize it effectively in the conditions in which it has maximum advantage. I wouldn't expect light infantry to assault a prepared, fortified position without tank support. I wouldn't expect mechanized infantry to go charging through a swamp. I wouldn't expect to put the guns at the lead of the advance, and I wouldn't put tanks, unsypported by infantry, into an urban operation where the enemy was motivated to fight.
> 
> Just because any given arm or tactic or doctrine isn't universally valid, doesn't make it *completely* invalid. There's a time and place to fight for information, and there's a time and place to be fast & sneaky.



Sure, the American's employed them as flank screening and rear area support.   Is this the roll we wish our Armoured Corps to revolve around?



> You're an American, right? It seems to me that the Americans have never really done light armoured recce in the British/Canadian model. Even your Cav units are far heavier than even the heaviest Canadian formations. Y'all *always* fight for your information.
> 
> One thing I will readily grant is that it takes a lot of training to make a good light recce crewman. Light recce operates with a level of personal initiative and overall operational freedom more common to larger formations. It takes wits, smarts, and guts to get the info and get back alive when you can't just stand there and slug it out, and it takes a lot of work to get soldiers working at that level. The tradeoff is that the equipment is that much cheaper, and lord knows the Canadian Armed Forces is all about economy....   :



Check Matt's profile out - he did plenty of time in the Canadian Reserves to know both sides of the fence.   Don't rely on circumstantial ad hominum attacks and use somebody's position to defend your arguement; attack the arguement.



			
				Recce41 said:
			
		

> Matt
> I am not saying I'm right. OOOO I got shot at, so I have been. OOOO I was in Iraq, no I have not but who gives a rats a55.    It is just like our fellas coming from Astan. It is only one type of theatre. Our Doctrine is 2 types of Recce. Recce does not fight battles, maybe the US. But In WW2 American Recce just drove down until they got blown up. The Brits and Aussie, still have our same doctrine.



Whew, you made me a believer.   Again, the arguement has been presented with a fairly decent supply of evidence to support the conclusions we are making.   If you're going to make an appeal to authority, please back it up more with "I'm pissed!   It's F&$^#N Recce!!"   Iraq seems exactly like opposite theater of Afghanistan - flat desert; in essence, a sandy version of what we prepared for on the plains of Germany.   In fact, it appears to be a dead ringer for the NTC at Ft Irwin.   Why is it that operational expierence is showing that what our Allies have learned in Ft Irwin isn't working on a real-world equivelent?


----------



## Big Red

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Recce does not fight battles, maybe the US.



So the person detonating the IED is somehow going to discern that its a 'recce' vehicle driving by and take pity on them?  In the theatre that the US is fighting in right now every vehicle has to be able to take fire and fight back.  Unless you are hadjied up and riding in an old Caprice or Toyota pickup, you are NOT stealth.


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If the fight against the evil empire focused on warfare in the field I get the sense that many here are getting bogged down in urban warfare.   In Afghanistan you have to control BOTH the city and the field.



No, I don't think I'm getting bogged down in the city.   Much of the work we are dealing with is both urban and rural.   I also refer to the "spaces in between"; hence why I posted the video of the HUMVEE getting nailed on a freeway in an open desert.



> In the city, with lots of people, all potentially armed and short sight lines, it is relatively easy to get a weapon in range of a target.   It is easy for the bad guys in civvies to ID the guy in uniform.   The converse is difficult.   That is why any int gathering has to rely on the goodwill of the locals.   Fighting for info in the city is counter productive.   You create more enemies than you find.



Unfortunatly, I believe (and it is up for debate) that cities, along with other forms of complex physical terrain, are where our enemy will go.   Cities especially are the center of gravity for the irregular insurgent.   He avoids our strengths by going there; the dumb ones who take to the field will face our strengths - we won't even have to worry about recceing them out because the USAF will wipe them off the map.   There is a reason the Americans have fought in Nasiriya, An Najaf, and Fallujah and not in some wadi.



> What message are you sending about security if you will only leave camp in a tank?



That you don't want to die?   I would assume the same message would be sent with a LAV.   If you don't want to harden, diffuse - send your scout/sniper - Light Infantry teams to meld into the local environment.



> But the other concern I have is that of controlling the countryside.   It is just as critical to verify that large empty areas are indeed empty.   That requires patrolling.   Empty areas, by definition, are devoid of people.   That suggests that the chance of catching a bullet, or an RPG, or an IED are considerably less than in the city.   Long sight lines means that the enemy, if there, has to engage at a distance.   An RPG isn't going to allow that - the gunner has to be within 200m on an open plain and standing up - if he wants to be a martyr that is a great way to guarantee it.   The enemy is going to need heavier, longer ranged, more expensive weapons than that to get the job done and they are harder to come by.   They are scarcer and harder to deploy.   Even IEDs are less effective if there aren't routes that are consistently employed.   In open country, driving across open terrain negates the ability of the enemy to site a prepared demolition charge.   Mine-resistant vehicles negate the efficacy of general mining of the open spaces.   The risk of injury patrolling the countryside in a jeep or landrover is considerably less than patrolling the city and it is more amenable to "stealthy" tactics.
> 
> Now if the same level of mobility afforded to unarmoured jeeps can be handled by a bullet proof, mine resistant vehicle, reducing the risk of patrolling the countryside even further, then I would have thought that would be a good thing.
> Many here are arguing for bullet-proof, mine-resistant buses, to get you on and off the base (the Aussie Bushmaster). That is the same level of protection as the APV.
> 
> If the Bushmaster is a usefully protected vehicle to drive and infantry section from pillar to post, why isn't the APV a usefully protected vehicle for driving 2 to 4 soldiers around open terrain to verify that there is nobody home?



Okay, so we're focussing on patrolling - SASO, Insurgencies, Peace Enforcement, Peace Support operations.   We're not broaching the warfighting scenario anymore.   For this, I'll recall KevinB's comment a while back:



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Recce in PSO's and Lower to Mid Intensity battles/conflicts has to interact with the populace to gain info.   Recconaisance is NOT surviellance - nor is it driving down a road ignoring, and offending the locals...
> 
> I fail to see how this system does anything better than a GWagon or Coyote/LAV



If we are going into the countryside to take a peak, we need the open vehicles; ignoring and offending the locals in a box is not conducive to "rural recce".   If the situation is too dangerous, send out a LAV - it seems to have a proven track record in surviving attacks; much more than the technical (in our cases of reference, a HUMVEE).   Deploy your scouts on foot from the back when you want to check things out.   Set up surveillence assets if the situation warrants it.   This was the original context of my argument - this vehicle offers nothing that we don't already have and seems to be a poor attempt to be an "in-between vehicle", unable to supply the full advantage that the vehicle above or below it offers us.


----------



## couchcommander

The problem with traditional light recce given our current operational environment in Afghanistan, as I see it (and hopefully others), is quite simply that we do not have the capability to go unnoticed in military pattern vehicles, no matter how quick, stealthy, or small a foot print they have. The moment they leave the base one should (and usually correctly) assume your movements are being tracked. With this information the enemy can avoid contact with you, or, if you present a target he thinks he can destroy with minimal casualties on his part, engage you when and where he chooses. The fact you are in a Gwagen or DURO will not change this fact. Gwagens and DURO's are simply lighter, easier targets to attack either conventionally with rockets and rifles, or unconventionally with IED's or suicide bombers.   You are still in a highly distringuishable vehicle trying to indentify enemy forces amongst a population that looks exactly the same as they do. They have the ability to decide when you come under attack, not the other way around. 

As I, and others mentioned, this means that you HAVE to be able to absorb this attack, when it happens, where it happens, how it happens, as you will not be in control of the circumstances, and as well have the ability to continue to be operationally effective and not just a unit that needs to be rescued (as you will most likely end up dead if this is the case, which none of us want). 

It was mentioned that using light recce might work better in the country side where the enemy cannot hide so readily. Yes, if this is the case then this is most definately true. However, even in the country you go through villages, winding roads, forests, and especially in afghanistan, mountainous terrain where you can't see around the next bend. 

Whoever mentioned the fact that troops on the ground are still the best intelligence gathering tool I think was absolutely right, and, as many have mentioned, also present a much more difficult target for insurgents. This route, IMO, should be pursued as well. 

Does this mean traditional light recce is done for? No. There are definately streets (many) in urban environments where a LAV will not fit, and in which case you will have to go with the best armoured vehicle you can, which is probably the duro (but hopefully supported by dismounted infantry). As well, light recce still has many applications in more conventional theaters where there is a more clearly identifiable force, and in peacekeeping in general. It's not that it's a bad doctrine, IMO, it just doesn't fit the theater. 

....*awaits beheading*.....


----------



## Britney Spears

One question re: PR value of tanks.

If the local population were generally supportive of the occupation force, or at least, desire some modicum of security for their daily lives, would they not be _heartened_ by the prescence of heavy murder machines? After all, both the insurgents and the local pupolation probably have a much better idea of what the real threat level is, so any psoturing or showmanship on your part isn't going to convince anyone, apart from the insurgents who may decide to step up attacks on lighter forces. 


Ralph Zumbro, in his book _Tank Sergent_, notes in Vietnam that 

1) The best way to anticipate an attack, gauge local enemy activity, and otherwise gather intelligence, was to observe and interact with local civillians. This is obvious. 

2) Friendly local civillians, far from being intimidated,  generally felt more secure, were _much_ happier and more willing to co-operate in the prescence of a visible show of strength and commitment such as a tank.

3) If a group of clean cut young men, walking down the street, become visibly shaken and intimidated when confronted by a tank, then they are most likely insurgents. If they instinctively start to flee in panic upon hearing the turrent motor traversing, then they are definetly insurgents, who have faced tanks in previous battles.  

How's that for "intelligence gathering"?


----------



## Kirkhill

> I also refer to the "spaces in between"; hence why I posted the video of the HUMVEE getting nailed on a freeway in an open desert.



If you are on a free-way you are a target.  That is no place to be doing "recce by stealth".  You are a bump on a log waiting to be knocked off.  You may be doing route recce, you may be doing convoy escort, there may be a hundred and one legitimate reasons why you have to be stuck out there,  there may be other reasons that it is done that are less legitimate (faster and easier to get from point a to b).

What is the difference between driving down a freeway and following a trail in a forest? None.  In both cases you have made yourself observable and told the enemy where he can expect to find you in 5 minutes.

The old instruction to "get off the trail" seems as appropriate now as it did when a kindly warrant whispered it in my ear 20 years ago.  



> Unfortunatly, I believe (and it is up for debate) that cities, along with other forms of complex physical terrain, are where our enemy will go.



I agree that they will go to the cities.  They will also go to the open spaces like Tora Bora - complex terrain but open in the sense of devoid of people therefore with a lower general threat level.  In that environment look to the examples of the SAS (anytime), the LRDG and Popskis Private Army (WW2), American troops in Afghanistan in early campaign with the Norther Alliance in 2002, even current operations with Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan,  they aren't being done with Bradleys and Abrams and as far as I can see Afghanistan is mixed terrain, as much as Iraq is, with the added benefit of mountains.  There are urban communities, mountains and foothills, complex terrain that allow for close approach but equally long sight lines can be found in the desert plains as well as the mountains and foothills.  A 2000m sniper shot or whatever it was is not possible with short sight lines and that was in the mountains.



> That you don't want to die?  I would assume the same message would be sent with a LAV.  If you don't want to harden, diffuse - send your scout/sniper - Light Infantry teams to meld into the local environment.



Precisely.  Unfortunately that is what the locals are risking all the time, in particular the local constabulary, and if you want their respect, a key condition to getting their co-operation I would think is to share some of their risks.  Also unfortunately I don't think you can engender a feeling of security in the local populace by generating a stealthy presence (isn't that an oxymoron? - sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone - not particularly comforting).  Presence seems necessary to generate a secure environment.  Presence means being seen. Unfortunately it also makes you a target. Shared risk however engenders respect.  I remember seeing a photograph from the early days in Basra of a very brave but shit-scared Iraqi policeman on patrol with British troops.  He was hugging the walls, had a rusty AK-47 and was wearing a blue shirt, no armoured vest.  The Brit troops on patrol with him were not just wearing Balmorals, they were also not wearing vests.  His risk was their risk.  They have since been ordered into armoured vests, armoured landrovers and Warriors to reduce casualties.  What effect though has that had on their ties to the locals?

All easy enough for me to say because when I volunteered 20 odd years ago nobody took me up on my offer and shot at me.  Those volunteering today have more than my respect.



> He avoids our strengths by going there; the dumb ones who take to the field will face our strengths - we won't even have to worry about recceing them out because the USAF will wipe them off the map.



Who said anything about fighting in the open? He has already targeted your lines of communication, your stores, your planning areas, your rest and recreation areas.  Where do you suppose his might be?  In the cities where he is always looking over his shoulder? Or out along the ratlines on the borders, over the mountains, across the deserts?  Thats one of the reasons for the current activity in Western Iraq,  smaller cities admittedly are included in the target set but as critical are the wide open spaces around the cities, towns and farms where the smugglers operate.

You are dead right in that when they are dumb enough to get caught in the open then the USAF can finish them off.  Isn't that an argument for patrols with low profiles, long range observational kit and good comms? 

As to the open vs closed vehicle argument, whether this offers anything more than the g-wagen/LAV combo I will plead the fifth and stay shtoom.  Should have done so long ago no doubt.  At a guess though I am going to suggest that there are cultural differences at play here, not just between inf and armd but between hvy and recce.  And in that regard I am all for generating comfort.  Whatever it takes to make the individual soldier as comfortable as possible so that they will get the job done.

Some feel comfortable on foot behind a hill, some in a jeep with guns bristling in all directions, some in small vehicle with a bit or armour, some in a bigger one with a gun, some behind a lot of armour.  Personally the reason that I preferred the infantry was the fact the I have a tendency to claustrophobia and a fear of fire.  I loathed being stuck in back of Grizzly or M113 relying on somebody else to do my seeing for me.  Much preferred life with sore feet.  Thus Calg Highrs and not KOCR across the parade square.

Fortunately there is a need for all those types and each can be appropriately utilized in the right circumstances.

Whiskey asked "who invented the horse?"  Brilliant question.  Nobody invented the horse.  There was no design committee defining needs and wants, features and benefits (that job went to the committee that came up with the camel).  The horse was available.  It was grabbed and utilized.  TTPs took care of where, when and how to use it in different situations with idiots like Edward the Second using it in a bog at Bannockburn or the French in a muddy field at Agincourt.

Back to my well-beloved (but probably stale-dated) tag line - "horses for courses".

Cheers anyway.


----------



## Kirkhill

PS - the Duro appears to be better mine-protected than either the G-Wagen OR the LAV at Stanag 4569 Level 2a (isn't that a 12 lb mine?),  it is smaller than the LAV thus can fit in tighter places and it is more bullet proof than the G-Wagen (don't know how it compares to the LAV).  Yes it sacrifices ease of dismounting, ears in the wind and weapons bristling.  In exchange you get longer range optics, a heavy weapon and ready grenades all of which can be utilized not just under-armour but in a hull-down position.

Exhaling again.


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The old instruction to "get off the trail" seems as appropriate now as it did when a kindly warrant whispered it in my ear 20 years ago.



Umm...okay, where are you going to go now?  What are we aiming it, driving all over the hinterlands where nobody and nothing is?  You're probably not going to need much protection for that - Hadji isn't going to put his IED out in the middle of nowhere.  As well, you're off-road, so your going to lose some mobility in a heavy box; would Kevin's suggestion of a "Chenowith"-style dune buggy be more appropriate for short duration off road missions?  Otherwise, use helicopters to spit out a patrol or fly a UAV over it.  If there are humans around, than the "get off the trail" analogy doesn't work, because you're back on the trail.



> I agree that they will go to the cities.  They will also go to the open spaces like Tora Bora - complex terrain but open in the sense of devoid of people therefore with a lower general threat level.



The mountains of Afghanistan are incredibly complex environment - what they lack in human complexity they probably more than make up for with a much higher variance in microterrain.  Plus, unlike buildings, mountains offer many positions that are nearly indestructible to firepower - they simply have to be cleaned out.  Stephen Biddle's paper goes over this in detail.  If you are fighting in the mountains, you won't be needing a jeep, much less a LAV.  Helicopters, donkeys, and _au pied_ is the way to go.  If you leave the mountains, you are back to the scenario presented by Iraq; incredibly complex urban terrain with empty spaces in between. 



> What effect though has that had on their ties to the locals?



I'm not sure, and I guess that's another debate altogether.  Stick them in a Warrior or stick them into a boxy, enclosed jeep; the effect is going to be the same, no?  You will get the opposite of putting them out on a foot patrol.



> Who said anything about fighting in the open? He has already targeted your lines of communication, your stores, your planning areas, your rest and recreation areas.   Where do you suppose his might be?   In the cities where he is always looking over his shoulder? Or out along the ratlines on the borders, over the mountains, across the deserts?   Thats one of the reasons for the current activity in Western Iraq,   smaller cities admittedly are included in the target set but as critical are the wide open spaces around the cities, towns and farms where the smugglers operate.



I'd argue that yes the cities are where he is, because he doesn't have to look over his shoulder - he just keeps doing what he does as a shoemaker or whatever.  Abu Buckwheat over at Lightfighter has a book coming out on how these insurgent cells operate in cities; he's explained some of it over there.  Small groups of insurgents disperse in a neighbourhood under civilian guise - they come together for an operation, with cells coming together for larger targets.  The complex environment of the city is where they get their "operational screening" so to speak.

If we wish to interdict supplies and/or training in the hinterland, I guess that is another task you wish to analyse.  Wouldn't a LAV with dismounts be more effective?



> You are dead right in that when they are dumb enough to get caught in the open then the USAF can finish them off.  Isn't that an argument for patrols with low profiles, long range observational kit and good comms?



Again, Kev's Chenowith "dune-buggy", or SOC-capable forces in their gun-trucks (pink panther anybody?) are going to be the way to find things if you are going out into the middle of nowhere to find buried treasure.



> As to the open vs closed vehicle argument, whether this offers anything more than the g-wagen/LAV combo I will plead the fifth and stay shtoom.   Should have done so long ago no doubt.   At a guess though I am going to suggest that there are cultural differences at play here, not just between inf and armd but between hvy and recce.   And in that regard I am all for generating comfort.   Whatever it takes to make the individual soldier as comfortable as possible so that they will get the job done.



Comfort takes second place to effectiveness.  The original argument focused on the fact that this vehicle was simply another pony in a stable full of ponies.  Furthermore, it was argued that this pony didn't quite do what the other two ponies did rather well.

For the most part, you seem to be focusing on SASO/Insurgency/Peace Enforcement missions.  Do you think that this capability isn't much to offer in higher tempo warfighting operations?


----------



## ArmyRick

I saw this vehicle when GDLS brought it to meaford for a couple of days last spring.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Umm...okay, where are you going to go now?   What are we aiming it, driving all over the hinterlands where nobody and nothing is?   You're probably not going to need much protection for that - Hadji isn't going to put his IED out in the middle of nowhere.   As well, you're off-road, so your going to lose some mobility in a heavy box; would Kevin's suggestion of a "Chenowith"-style dune buggy be more appropriate for short duration off road missions?   Otherwise, use helicopters to spit out a patrol or fly a UAV over it.   If there are humans around, than the "get off the trail" analogy doesn't work, because you're back on the trail.



I might be going to a position of observation, not driving all over anywhere, looking for what might be on the road or moving towards the road while keeping a safe amount of open ground around me.   And the fact that insurgents can't and won't lay IEDs everywhere is precisely the reason for moving on parallel routes or for keeping to open ground IMHO.

Foot soldiers and helos in the mountains versus jeeps/Duros whatever?   I don't know.   I've driven up the backside of a mountain in a Toyota Celica.   Damnear fell off the other side.   What course are you running your horse over?   Duros, by the way are heli transportable.   LAVs aren't.

LAVs with dismounts more effective in wide open areas? Perhaps.   I'm not doing the job.   Dune buggy, LAV, Duro, or G-Wagen.   As far as I can see all of them can and have been used to advantage in similar terrain.   Armoured Cars were used in the Western Desert in 1940 by O'Connor, cross country, to cut off the Italian army moving along the coast road.   Stirling's jeeps took the fight to the enemy ripping up airfields.   Rommels and Auchinleck's tanks both conducted wide flanking manoeuvres.   The Germans used and Armoured Car as a primary recce vehicle (name escapes me) in the same country.

Comfort? Not physical comfort.   Psychological comfort.

High intensity? What the heck is that anyway? All conflicts have their high-intensity phases, usually concurrent with one side or the other involved in an assault while the other defends.   Do I think it is reasonable to drive forward an assault mounted in jeeps?   No but David Stirling apparently did.   Mounted on foot? No but millions of Russians, Americans, Brits, Canadians, Germans and Aussies have, to name but a few. To hold ground from a hasty defence without armour for 3 days? No but 2 Para did at Arnhem in 1944.

It is a matter of suiting the available tools to the necessary tasks.   And not every job requires or benefits from the application of a sledge hammer.   I have seen a number of mechanics tool kits where they actually have two types of hammers and occasionally a screwdriver.


----------



## Infanteer

I'm not to sure where you are going now.   In an effort to keep the thread on course, I'll stick to my original 2 points:

1)   Do we need this vehicle?   What for?   Does it offer us a capability we don't already possess?

2)   By giving the Armoured Corps a beefed-up technical, there is an implict notion that the recce will be conducted from the platform.   How does your notion of _"longer range optics, a heavy weapon and ready grenades all of which can be utilized not just under-armour but in a hull-down position"_ compare to the information presented that has the Americans pulling their HMMV equipped Light Cav forces off the line?   *Is platform mounted, stealthy, close recce an option that is worth putting our limited resources into?   Is it a capability that is worth our time and effort?*   I quote Lance:



			
				Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> So, if my argument is accepted, that "stealth" recce is best conducted "au pied", then we have need for two vehicles.   One to get the team in to a position to conduct their patrol, which can be done by the Gelandewagen, and the other vehicle to be used for the other traditional recce task, patrolling.   Now, my thoughts are that we need a well aromoured, mobile platform to conduct patrols.   It doesn't matter if the patrol is for route security, showing the flag, or whatever.   We need a tough vehicle that can be used, if necessary, to draw the bad guys out, and to intimidate.   Perhaps a tank?


----------



## Recce41

What I mean by fight is to go looking for a fight. Yes in an ambush, you fight. Recce has 15+ tasks in 3 zones. 
1.RAPZ
2.RAS
3.Screen.
We use the Coyote for all three, but it is not the best veh. It is big, it sucks for RAPZ, RAS yes, Screen thats its high light. It does not matter if you are in a TANK,Coyote, or GW. If you get hit, you get hit. If its your time, its your time. I have learned train of thought from my father. You cannot outrun death.


----------



## couchcommander

Recce41 said:
			
		

> What I mean by fight is to go looking for a fight. Yes in an ambush, you fight. Recce has 15+ tasks in 3 zones.
> 1.RAPZ
> 2.RAS
> 3.Screen.
> We use the Coyote for all three, but it is not the best veh. It is big, it sucks for RAPZ, RAS yes, Screen thats its high light. It does not matter if you are in a TANK,Coyote, or GW. If you get hit, you get hit. If its your time, its your time. I have learned train of thought from my father. You cannot outrun death.



Recce41, 

I think the question I am getting at is as follows:

Is the duro actually going to enhance our ability to perform RAPZ recce in Afghanistan given the terrain and nature of the threat? 

IMO it seems as though this role would be better suited to a combination of armour, dismounted infantry, UAV, and Gwagen when there isn't enough physical space for a LAV. So basically, what does the duro offer that these systems do not (we have shown it will be no more inconspicuous or "stealthy" and will be as susceptible to attack as a big LAV, and really speed does not have a lot to do with things (see Infanteers video of the highway))?


----------



## sjm

As Couchcommander says in a PC kind of way; the best way to find the enemy has always been to drive your overly exposed butt into his killzone.  When it's your turn, it's your turn.

The WWW will tell you many things but Recce by fire is more fun.

Back on page 2 someone was leaning towards the small and fast idea. My favourite by far.

A moving target is harder to hit, take it from there...

The wpn of choice of the "evil-doers" seems to be always accompanied with a few RPGs.

RPGs are manufactured with very low quality control, most of the fuses require "hard" tgts to detonate.

I understand Crown Assets is dumping a bunch of Iltis really cheap.  A quick hunt through a few homegrown museums would turn up enough spare parts to rebuild a small fleet.

I loved the Iltis, what other veh would float through mud and if you rolled it over the driver could upright it while the co-driver got the Perk fired up.

If you coin to blow the Chenowth would be cool, the chicks dig that super charged testosterone dripping dune buggy, dude.


----------



## DG-41

Don't get me wrong, given the choice between survivable and not, I definately lean towards the survivable end of the spectrum. Plus I want a gun. Despite our longstanding fetish for "recce doesn't fight" historically that isn't true. Recce can, has, and will fight when necessary; it just has to be careful about picking its battles and to stand ready to disengage if the fight gets too big.

The gun in the LAV is a perfect recce gun. Small, light, reliable, and still packs a whomp. In fact, I think LAV and Stuart are pretty comparable when it comes to capabilities.

But while I lean towards something a little heavier than Iltis or GWagon (and hey, I *like* Coyote as a recce vehicle) I think you can also go too far on the protection spectrum, especially if you start paying a size or speed penalty. Coyote is probably as big as you can get, and there's a strong argument for going smaller.

I don't think you can count on being able to take a hit, not when Hadji and friends are occasionally killing Abrams. In fact, I don't want to surrender the initiative to the enemy; I want to wrest it away from him and make him dance to MY tune.

Ideally, I think I want something like the old British Fox - similar turret as the LAV, but in a smaller and quieter package. I want the gun, I want it stabilized, I want a thermal viewer, I want smoke grenades, I want enough room for me, my driver, JAFFO, and our kit, and I want enough armour so I can shrug off 7.62 (and 12.7 wouldn't break my heart)

Anyway, back to tactics:

So let's say Achmed (who has gate watch duty) calls Hadji on his cellphone to let him know that the Canadian patrol has just left Camp Hypothetical and it's time to pop the IED he has hidden in the culvert on the patrol route. Hadji takes up his overwatch station, primes his trigger, and his buddy Khalid grabs the video camera and moves to his overwatch station (as per what is becoming doctrine in Iraq).

Our heros come down the patrol route in their stealth recce vehicles, making no more noise than a normal car. Because both the troop leader and the patrol commander did proper detailed map recces as part of their battle procedure, they know the culvert is coming up (although they don't know there's a IED in it) Accordingly, 42F takes up a concealed position of observation on the culvert and the buildings beyond, rather than just bumbling along fat dumb and happy into Hadji's ambush.

At this point, both Hadji and our heroes have overwatch on the killing zone, and neither knows the other is there. Hadji, however, is expecting vehicles to go cruising along over his bomb, where 42F is expecting there to be a bad guy and a bomb at the culvert.

42E spots (perhaps with the aid of his thermal gunsight - I can dream a little) Khalid and his video camera, gets suspicious, and then spots Hadji and his binos. At this point, he doesn't know that Khalid and Hadji are necessarily bad guys, but binos and video cameras in conjuction with a spot to hide explosives warrant further attention. So he contacts the troop leader, who comes up with a plan to sneak two patrols around behind, and then detain and question the two suspects.

Because the vehicles are small enough and quiet enough, this part of the plan is executed. On command, 42E and 42F both pop forward into Hadji's view (but not into his kill zone) and when both Hadji and Khalid react, they cover both targets while the other patrols pop out from behind and nab them.

You could do this in Iltis (with some sort of portable FLIR), you could do it in GW, you *might* be able to do it in LAV (which is getting a touch on the big and loud side) You could also do it in Lynx, Ferret, or Stuart.

So I guess the real question is: how does this new vehicle differ from the recce version of the GW? If it's a little harder, has a lower CG, has a better hatch for the crew commander, has some sort of optics package for the crew commander, smoke grenade launchers, and is similar in size, speed, and noise signature, then I think it's a win.

DG


----------



## Lance Wiebe

IF (that's a very big if) we, as an army, decide that we need a true reconnaissance vehicle to conduct recce as we practised it with Dingo's, Fox, Ferret, Lynx et al, that's one thing.  For a true cross country, highly mobile, light weight platform, it is almost impossible to beat the Weasel family of vehicles.  Working in pairs or in threes, with both 20mm cannon and TOW, it provides its own self-protection when necessary.  I still think that we should have bought this family of vehicles for the Reserves.  Somewhat stealthy, but carrying a respectable stick.  However, they are lousy at intimidating populations, they look like a go cart on tracks.  Cute little devils.

We already have a surveillance vehicle, so no need to cover that any further.

However, if we decide that we need a patrol vehicle to "show the flag" for peace keeping type operations, that's a whole different kettle of fish.  Any vehicle can "show the flag".  The big problem, it seems to me, is that we (Canadians in general) don't want to expose our soldiers to any risk while showing the flag.  So, we need an armoured vehicle.  Not necessarily armed, but protected.

Of course, showing the flag also can mean showing resolve and capability.  Sometimes that capabaility is even required.  So we now need a protected, armoured vehicle that is armed.  We can handle that, with the LAV III, although they end up costing a lot, what with breakdowns and rebuilds and such.  Occasionally, we may need a vehicle that is armed with something bigger than an overgrown machine gun.  Here, our masters are going to fill the need with the awful MGS.  

Here we see the crux of the argument that others have alluded to time and again.  What is good in peacekeeping is not neccessarily good in war, and the opposite is also true.  Tracks are undoubtedly best for mid to high intensity war, while wheels are best for operations other than war.  

As others have said; our masters in Ottawa should be deciding doctrine and requirements before buying equipment ad hoc.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Sorry to burst your bubble there DG, but as someone who's had his share of IEDs and ambushes sprung on him, your scenario is a little too sterile for the real world.

The noise of the engine doesn't really make much difference.   

It's not like the insurgent hadji is alone in the countryside.   It's not like they're exclusively using culverts to hide IEDs in.   The side of the roads in Iraq are literally covered in trash heaps.   It's not too hard to hide an IED built out of 152mm shells in that.   It's to the point where they're casting IEDs in concrete sections of curbing so it's indistinguishable from the sidewalks.   Or Vehicle-Borne IEDs...on a busy road with alot of local traffic it's nearly impossible to tell which vehicle is 'bombed up'.   It's not until you've got a car or truck careening into your vehicle check point and your only defense is to lay a wall of lead in its advance, hoping the driver is killed before he has a chance to detonate. You've got to realize that there are tens, if not hundreds of other people milling about with their daily business.   There are just too many people to be watching all the time.   So, in likelihood he's going to remain hidden while observing you, initiating the IED and afterwards.   You're not going to know where or who triggered the IED.   After the IED goes off, you've then got the choice of detaining dozens of people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.   If you detain them, you're just further pissing off the local population against your presence.   You question the people, but nobody knows anything and if they do, they're certainly not going to tell you anything.

You can do overwatch all day long on these routes, but the insurgents will always have the initiative.   It's about having a vehicle that has the ability to carry a dismounted recce. team, maintain a level of somewhat decent protection, have a protected weapons station (either turret or remote) and maintain decent road and cross country mobility.   When you start talking about a vehicle such as that, you're describing either a LAV-25 on the 'light' armoured spectrum, or if you go tracked you're talking CV-90, M-3 Bradley, Warrior, etc.

Alot of references to British and Australian recce. tactics/equipment being the same as the Canadian, but on the equipment side look at what they're using:
Aussies:   ASLAV-25 and an Aussie version of the Bison.   For longer range SAS, deep insertion type missions they're using a 6 wheeled land rover, but that doesn't fall into the 'conventional' recce. forces we've been discussing.
Brits:   Scimitar and Warrior, both a tracked AFV platform.   The Panther Command & Liason Vehicle (very similar in size/weight/configuration to the Duro/Eagle 4) is not intended as a recce. platform.   It is just as the name describes, a 'command and liason' vehicle...aka OC's rover.


----------



## George Wallace

Like Lance, I too have advocated the Weasel in the past.  It would be a great Recce Vehicle.  It is small.  It is fast.  It will easily fit within a CH 53, CH 47, EH101, etc. All would easily carry three.  Only draw back is our new policy of "NO TRACKS".  A big mistake on our part, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Other advantages of the Weasel is that it is cheap (both to buy and operate), it is low maintenance, it is simple to use, and it fits in with our Reserve recce doctrine.  Even if we buy enough to equip each Armour Unit with a half squadron, it would go a long way to fulfill a lot of needs.  Such as giving the Reserve a new recruiting tool, a new mandate (ship a couple of patrols out with each deployment) and fill a niche that exists presently.

I don't want to hijack the thread, though.  We have to decide exactly what doctrine we are to follow before we start buying new vehicles.


----------



## Recce41

Hello Lance/George
 We at the Armour school do agree with you. But we will not be tracked. The role of the res is close Recce. Get in, dismount, Recce, get out. I may say Recce does not fight, but as I said, it will. But it is one of the last tasks in the 15. It will hold ground, it will attack, it will destroy the enemy. But it is not its primary role. We have to get away from WW2, Cyprus, Germany, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc they are theatres to use, but not to focus on. We have to adapt to the changing sit! 
 In 02 we used Tanks as Recce on the CTCC. This was a Recce by Force. We have to be flex. The plan is the Coyotes in a screen, Tow security, ADATs the air bubble, and the light guys moving forward, fast to spots that were seen by the Coyote, UAV, Air Recce. I and many of us in the Recce Cell at the school, would like a Weasel, but take a light wheeled if we have to. Compared to the big, useless Coyote.


----------



## a_majoor

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Hello Lance/George
> We at the Armour school do agree with you. But we will not be tracked. The role of the res is close Recce. Get in, dismount, Recce, get out. I may say Recce does not fight, but as I said, it will. But it is one of the last tasks in the 15. It will hold ground, it will attack, it will destroy the enemy. But it is not its primary role. We have to get away from WW2, Cyprus, Germany, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc they are theatres to use, but not to focus on. We have to adapt to the changing sit!



Unless we want to go the route of American Armoured Cavalry Regiments and divisions, I am pretty sure the fighting part is being able to effectively fight in self defence. If we want/need to put recce patrols in fast, dismount, recce, get out, then a LAV certainly gives you the speed, and also protects the patrol should they come under contact while getting in, recceing or getting out. It is not perfect protection, but it is far more than any "jeep" or truck derivative can offer.



> In 02 we used Tanks as Recce on the CTCC. This was a Recce by Force. We have to be flex. The plan is the Coyotes in a screen, Tow security, ADATs the air bubble, and the light guys moving forward, fast to spots that were seen by the Coyote, UAV, Air Recce. I and many of us in the Recce Cell at the school, would like a Weasel, but take a light wheeled if we have to. Compared to the big, useless Coyote.



If you believe the Coyote (and LAV) is too big, and tracks are not on, would a wheeled "scout car" like the Fennik or Fox work for you? This class of vehicles offer everything except the ability to carry a usable number of dismounted scouts. If this is the case, we still need a protected means of bringing dismounted scouts in and out of action.


----------



## Recce41

I hate the word Scouts, scouts are a American word to me. We have tooo many US crap words now. TASK FORCE< SCOUTS< and that damn star words for our general rank. 
 Sorry: but anything with a 3 man crew, fast, and can defend itself. I would like a veh that I can turn around on a dime and not a 8 pt turn.


----------



## George Wallace

No doubt you are just as thrilled with the title of this thread "Our 'maybe' new recon vehicle".  8 pt turns aren't as bad as the 28 pt turns we have to do with the LAV family.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No doubt you are just as thrilled with the title of this thread "Our 'maybe' new recon vehicle".  8 pt turns aren't as bad as the 28 pt turns we have to do with the LAV family.   ;D



We could build LAV hulls onto German Luchs 8x8 Recce Vehicle chassis (8 wheel drive, 8 wheel steering, 8 wheel independent suspension), and see a turning circle the size of a coffee cup  ;D

More seriously, if a small vehicle is what we want, then we should be looking at the Fennik or FOX, not a warmed over truck.


----------



## Kirkhill

I seem to recall hearing that the trouble with the Fox was that the turret made her top heavy.


----------



## couchcommander

The fennek looks like it has some real potential, anyone had any first hand experience with it?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Couchcommander:

Look to my earlier posts on this thread.   Fennik _looks_ cool.

It isn't "small", though, and is actually quite wide.   It has the benefit of being low profile, important for "stealth" recce.   If you're looking for a Fox/Ferret-like vehicle, Fennik isn't it.

However, the varient employed by the Germans is a surveillance vehicle - much like Coyote.   IMHO, it's a half-assed version of a Coyote - the surveillance suite isn't nearly up to par.   You can see the mast in the photo of the vehicle posted above.   The version I'm familiar with had only the barest minimum of armament (remote operated MG42 IIRC).

_Edited to correct the weapons system (after Kirkhill's reminder!)_


----------



## Kirkhill

Fennek : Duro

Crew 3 : 4 
GVW (tonnes) 10.0 : 7.6
Payload (tonnes)   3.0 according to Defence Update : 2.4

Protection (calibre) 7.62mm AP (higher optional) : STANAG 4569 Level 3 (Ballistic) + Level 2a (mines) optional

Armament   ROWS:ROWS

Length (m)   5.71 : 5.09
Width (m) 2.49 : 2.16
Height - roof (m) 1.79 : 2.16
Power (kW/tonne) 17.9 : 24
Speed - road (km/h) 115 : 120

Gradient (%)   60 : 60
Side Slope (%) 35 : 40

Turning Circle Diameter (m) 12.6 : 14.5

Range - road (km) 860 : 480.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/specs.html
http://www.mowag.ch/Factsheets/EAGLE_IV4x4_en.pdf

Interestingly the Fennek was designed by DAF of Holland where the 3.29 m mast allows the vehicle to see over the highest points of land in the countryside (the dykes) and the wheels allow it to move rapidly along those same roads on top of the dykes that XXX Corps got shot up on while heading to Arnhem and the SAR got shot up on while operating around the Schelde.

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm   Weapons like this will defeat both vehicles.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35896.0.html  See also the article referred to on this thread and note the words of General Sorenson USA.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.haaland.info/denmark/apc/

From a Danish military vehicles site  - Eagle is similar to the Duro (Both built by Mowag - Duro - Eagle IV) but built on Hummer frames (Eagle I - standard Hummer, Eagle II - enhanced capability, Eagle III = Eagle II plus mast mounted site for Swiss Arty)  Danes using Eagle I I believe.




> Eagle
> 
> The Armoured escort vehicle was bought as a scout vehicle, but showed to be unefficient due to the small windows. The soldier operating the vehicle could not get a good view from inside. Today both this and the Mercedes GD240 with softtop are used as a scout vehicle.
> 
> From 2002 there is intended to buy a new scout vehicle. One of the candidates is the Dutch/German Fennek.
> 
> It is also used as an armoured escorte vehicle. A task more suitable for this armored car.
> 
> The car is in Danish service in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Afghanistan.


----------



## couchcommander

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Couchcommander:
> 
> Look to my earlier posts on this thread.   Fennik _looks_ cool.
> 
> It isn't "small", though, and is actually quite wide.   It has the benefit of being low profile, important for "stealth" recce.   If you're looking for a Fox/Ferret-like vehicle, Fennik isn't it.
> 
> However, the varient employed by the Germans is a surveillance vehicle - much like Coyote.   IMHO, it's a half-assed version of a Coyote - the surveillance suite isn't nearly up to par.   You can see the mast in the photo of the vehicle posted above.   The version I'm familiar with had only the barest minimum of armament (remote operated MG42 IIRC).
> 
> _Edited to correct the weapons system (after Kirkhill's reminder!)_



I remember your post regarding the Fennek, I believe you were not approving of it's sensor suite and that it wasn't very flexible as a result. How does the sensor suite availible on the VBL compare to the Fennek's (or for that matter the Duro's as well), as well as crew protection?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

That was my earlier point.

Fennik (German version anyway) and Coyote are surveillance vehicles, not "close" recce.  For close recce, you're looking for a vehicle that will enable you to put "eyes on" a target, perhaps steered towards that target by a surveillance vehicle.

To my mind, a close recce vehicle's sensor suite is of less importance in such a scenario.  What is more important is the lack of a signature (visual or otherwise), adequate protection, excellent communications and situational awareness, and a modicum of self-protection.  This doesn't suggest a Duro or similar vehicle to me, but it may well to others.  "Close" recce has made more than adequate use of jeeps, armoured cars and similar vehicles since it was invented in WW 2, so anything is possible.  I happen to like the VBL because it is small, has a measure of armour protection and can be fitted with a variety of weaponry.  I've also seen it in use, whereas I can't comment on a Duro.  I do recall that the Baltic States used Eagles in Bosnia and one time and weren't in love with them...  The Danes were using them in Kabul, but I never got an opinion.

My 2 cents, as always.

Teddy


----------



## couchcommander

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Fennik (German version anyway) and Coyote are surveillance vehicles, not "close" recce.   For close recce, you're looking for a vehicle that will enable you to put "eyes on" a target, perhaps steered towards that target by a surveillance vehicle.



lol, I apologizse for not following along here, but how would such a vehicle be employed in Afghanistan (or other counter insurgency operations). Or are you speaking of it's use for other missions? 

I apologize once again but I am just confused (and slightly amused) by the thought of this vehicle trying to "put eyes on" insurgents, without the aid of the ability to say, park behind a building and throw a mast up over it with a thermal imager on top (the amusing bit is when I get the thought of a VBL or something parked at the end of street in Kabul, where the largest thing around is a hut, and this big sign on it saying "You Can't See Me!").  Unless of course you mean to use it to transport a small dismounted recce unit to the area, and for it to go sneaking around (indeed a good thing to do)?


----------



## Recce41

couchcommander said:
			
		

> lol, I apologizse for not following along here, but how would such a vehicle be employed in Afghanistan (or other counter insurgency operations). Or are you speaking of it's use for other missions?
> 
> I apologize once again but I am just confused (and slightly amused) by the thought of this vehicle trying to "put eyes on" insurgents, without the aid of the ability to say, park behind a building and throw a mast up over it with a thermal imager on top (the amusing bit is when I get the thought of a VBL or something parked at the end of street in Kabul, where the largest thing around is a hut, and this big sign on it saying "You Can't See Me!").   Unless of course you mean to use it to transport a small dismounted recce unit to the area, and for it to go sneaking around (indeed a good thing to do)?



Its a lot easier to park a small veh down a alley then a large veh. It is also easyier to park in a hole in the ground, behind a small hill. 
CC what is you military experiance?

 :evil: :tank:


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The Fennek and the Coyote are employed differently.  The Coyote is designed for surveillance, as we all know.  The Fennek is designed to conduct recce.  The mast can be thrown up in seconds, and the crew have a look over the hedgerow, or crest, or whatever.  The mast comes down, and on they go.  

As Teddy said, the surveillance suite is certainly not up to par with the Coyotes, but then again, it is not meant to be, either.  The Coyote takes a considerable amount of time to deploy its mast, it is certainly not going to raise the mast for a look around in every hull down position.  The Fennek can.  The Fennek also only has thermal and day on the mast, no radar.  

I don't think the Germans have totally figured out the best employment with the Fennek.  A friend told me that they have conducted trials with a Fennek working with two Weasels for their light recce, and also using a Fennek with tanks for heavy recce.  What I don't think you'll see is two Fennek conducting advance to contact all by themselves, similar to the way we use Coyotes.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Lance:

You're bang on, of course.  However, in Kabul we certainly used Fennik in the surveillance role.  The lack of radar wasn't a huge deal in built-up areas (there's a lot of clutter on Coyote radar in town) but would be in a different operational setting.


----------



## Slim

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Lance:
> 
> You're bang on, of course.   However, in Kabul we certainly used Fennik in the surveillance role.   The lack of radar wasn't a huge deal in built-up areas (there's a lot of clutter on Coyote radar in town) but would be in a different operational setting.



Are we now using the Fennek or just in co-operatin with the Germans (or whomever owns the thing)?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Sorry, Slim...By "we", I meant the Franco-German Brigade, with whom I was deployed at the time.  Should have been clearer.  The vehicles were German.


----------



## Slim

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Sorry, Slim...By "we", I meant the Franco-German Brigade, with whom I was deployed at the time.   Should have been clearer.   The vehicles were German.



10-4 no harm done ;D


----------



## couchcommander

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Its a lot easier to park a small veh down a alley then a large veh. It is also easyier to park in a hole in the ground, behind a small hill.
> CC what is you military experiance?
> 
> :evil: :tank:



Re: the first bit about the small vehicle, yes of course, that much is true. But without a sensor suite and some survellance capability (other than a GIB with a hand held thermal imager), I am just having a hard time seeing where a vehicle such as this would be used, and what advantages it really has over the Fennek (of course I realize we need something smaller than the coyote to go running around in, but I think what I am getting at is maybe the VBL/DURO don't have all the capabilities we need, and are almost too small for our uses (lacking adequate protection (I am not 100% sure on the armouring of the VBL, but I suspect it is lesser than the Fennek), survelliance suites, range, etc.). Though a very small vehicle would indeed to be useful in more conventional situations to "put eyes on", as Teddy said, the enemy, as we have pointed out it is much more likely that the insurgents will have eyes on us first, and we have to utilitize our more advanced technology to try and overcome this. And finally, once again, no matter how small the vehicle, it's still going to stand out, so in reality the difference in ability to hide from the VBL to the Fennek, in Afghanistan, does not seem to me to be a lot. 

Re: my military experience? heh, you're looking at it. Probably why I am confused. 

However, at the same time I have spent the last 4 years studying military history. Basically what it means is I have a fair amount of theoretical knowledge, but very little (none) practical experience, which is why I value the opinion of those of you who have actually used and abused these vehicles, weapons, etc (which, at the same time, being a student, will not stop me from arguing with you if what you're saying doesn't make sense to me... it's not disrespect, I just want to figure out what, and most importantly, why you are saying what you are saying).

Why the :evil: :tank: ?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Recce41 said:
			
		

> CC what is you military experiance?
> 
> :evil: :tank:





			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> Re: my military experience? heh, you're looking at it. Probably why I am confused.
> 
> However, at the same time I have spent the last 4 years studying military history. Basically what it means is I have a fair amount of theoretical knowledge, but very little (none) practical experience, which is why I value the opinion of those of you who have actually used and abused these vehicles, weapons, etc (which, at the same time, being a student, will not stop me from arguing with you if what you're saying doesn't make sense to me... it's not disrespect, I just want to figure out what, and most importantly, why you are saying what you are saying).
> 
> Why the :evil: :tank: ?



Recce41, out of curiosity, why do you use couchcommander's lack of military experience to debase his arguments.  Yet, you respond like this to someone who has experience and doesn't agree with your viewpoint:



			
				Recce41 said:
			
		

> OOOO I got shot at, so I have been. OOOO I was in Iraq, no I have not but who gives a rats a55.



 :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Re: the first bit about the small vehicle, yes of course, that much is true. But without a sensor suite and some survellance capability (other than a GIB with a hand held thermal imager), I am just having a hard time seeing where a vehicle such as this would be used, and what advantages it really has over the Fennek (of course I realize we need something smaller than the coyote to go running around in, but I think what I am getting at is maybe the VBL/DURO don't have all the capabilities we need, and are almost too small for our uses (lacking adequate protection (I am not 100% sure on the armouring of the VBL, but I suspect it is lesser than the Fennek), survelliance suites, range, etc.). Though a very small vehicle would indeed to be useful in more conventional situations to "put eyes on", as Teddy said, the enemy, as we have pointed out it is much more likely that the insurgents will have eyes on us first, and we have to utilitize our more advanced technology to try and overcome this. And finally, once again, no matter how small the vehicle, it's still going to stand out, so in reality the difference in ability to hide from the VBL to the Fennek, in Afghanistan, does not seem to me to be a lot.



Couchcommander:

I'll try to paint a (real life) tactical scenario for you.  You have to remember that any surveillance suite - even the advanced ones in a vehicle like Coyote - have limitations.  I won't get into the specifics, but I cited an example earlier:  radar has extreme limitations when used in a built up area, due to the clutter created by buildings, etc..

A surveillance vehicle is by its very nature a "stand off" platform.  It can acquire and identify targets from extreme ranges and pass that information up the chain for action.  In a lot of cases, though, the "stand off" nature of the vehicle is a drawback.  A target can easily be lost due to variations in terrain or, as I said, "clutter" created by buildings and the like.  IMHO, the ideal combination is a situation where the surveillance vehicle identifies the target, and "steers" a close recce vehicle to provide "eyes on".  The close recce vehicle can provide much more detailed information on the enemy in some cases and maintains _continuous_ contact.

In other words, it's a partnership between the two types of vehicles.  If done properly, the "insurgents" won't have "eyes on" before we do - recce is very good at conducting covert observation posts and the like, particularly if assisted by a stand-off platform.  Work in RPVs and other reconnaissance means and you have a very good system of getting a broad tactical picture up the chain of command very rapidly.

Finally, on vehicles:  I have experience with the Iltis, G-wagon, Eagle I, VBL, and Fennik.  In the system I've described above, the VBL could work very well as the "close" vehicle, IMHO.  Capabilities have to be viewed in the entire tactical context.  However, it isn't the only solution, as I stated earlier - armies have used all sorts of platforms to conduct this task over the last sixty years or so...

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## Recce41

Why, Because it would be like me telling a Gunner how to employ a M777. I have had RMC Students with a full history degree show on phase 3 and 4, and not have a clue how to be a Armour Officer or know anything about anything. So how the rats a55 would some history student know, what would work.
 And you don't require high tech crap to do the job, just a set of binos and the M1 eye ball. Surv crap and not be used if it foggy, rain, smoke, snow, or just plain broken. I have done OPs that were Ks away and then had to pack up and sit on the NAI, to do the task. For just one of those reasons. If you cannot see it, your not doing your job. :evil: :tank:


----------



## couchcommander

Firstly thank you for your reponse Teddy,

I definately see where this would normally be employed, however I still have objections to using this type of doctrine in counter insurgency operations, but i doubt hashing it out over this thread will bring us to agreement on the topic (IMO you want to conduct eyes on survelliance against urban insurgent populations the only real way to do this is with spooks, ie non military personnel able to blend in with the population and thus go unnoticed, working, as you pointed out, in conjuction with regular military survellience. The moment you bring in a truck, everyone knows you are there). This of course would change depending on what type of insurgent we are talking about, the suicide bomber type, or the type roming the countryside in Nissans with AK-47s. In the latter case, yes indeed excatly what you have said would work very well (as long as, what I pointed out before, you had adequate protection against being ambushed yourself, and could indeed go relatively unnoticed). But yea, my opinion. 



			
				Recce41 said:
			
		

> So how the rats a55 would some history student know, what would work.



Because I've spent all day long, for many years, reading about decorated Warrant Officers and the like who end up loosing perspective, objectivity, and an ability to adapt to a changing situation, despite the fact they are indeed VERY good at what they do. They just fail to take into account what they do may not exactly apply to the current situation.


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting perspectives on the Fennik as the Germans use it, but if the surveillance aspect were dispensed with and a more powerful weapons station substituted, then we are now looking at a 21rst century version of the Ferret. I suppose the VBL can do, but it doesn't seem as well developed for the job. I suppose if we really want to do a shopping trip for a small recce vehicle, then the OTOCAR Cobra could also come under consideration, or perhaps a Cadillac Gage V-100 or 150. On the other hand, a "periscope" that allows you to take a quick look over obstructions has a lot to commend it as well.

I am still more inclined towards the idea of a "Patrol LAV" which transports some dismounted patrolmen (since "Scouts" is an Americanism  ). As Recce 41 reminds us, the key thing is to be able to see. The LAV has the mobility to get to where we are interested in seeing (perhaps directed by a surveillance system), can "see" with the FCS, but most importantly, brings some dismounted soldiers into play to do patrols, OPs and so on. Nothing like having eyes on with four extra pairs of eyes.

If getting around and dropping off patrols was _all_ we needed, then a MILCOTS would do, but in addition to moving around and taking a look, the "Patrol LAV" would have the ability to provide a level of protection to the crew, and a weapons system (systems really, since the patrolmen could dismount and bring small arms and anti armour weapons into action)  that allows them to break contact, or take offensive action when the need arises. A small purpose built scout car has these virtues, but very limited ability to carry dismounted patrolmen, and a warmed over truck like the Duro lacks protection, firepower, and troop carrying capability. 

As couchcommander and others have pointed out, anything "green" stands out, so we need to consider that we are operating at an information deficit (not information superiority or a "transparent battlefield") as long as we are operating in an overt manner. Covert operations can be done by regular troops (BGen Frank Kitson created fake Mau Mau gangs in Kenya using British troops, so anything really is possible), Special Forces (SAS and "14 Int Det" were known to work undercover in Northern Ireland), or paramilitary forces (CIA operatives), but this really is way beyond "Armoured" territory.


----------



## Slim

> The LAV has the mobility to get to where we are interested in seeing (perhaps directed by a surveillance system), can "see" with the FCS, but most importantly, brings some dismounted soldiers into play to do patrols, OPs and so on.



I know that this opinion that I'm about to voice is not a popular one BUT...Haing done recce for my entire career in a Lynx, I believe that I am catagorically justified in pointing out that tracks still have wheels beat hands down in the recce mode...Especially in the recce mode as you never quite know what you're going to get into.

I have been in some OP bases that a wheeled veh, no matter how capable, would never have been able to reach.

just food for thought...

Slim


----------



## KevinB

*shamless Plug for ISTAR Patrol LAV - Armoured Crew and Inf dismounts...  ;D

Slim - tracks yes - but short of BV206 we are no longer a tracked Army -- and it ain't a recce vehicle - fine for ski-jorring behind - but not recce.


----------



## Slim

KevinB said:
			
		

> *shamless Plug for ISTAR Patrol LAV - Armoured Crew and Inf dismounts...   ;D
> 
> Slim - tracks yes - but short of BV206 we are no longer a tracked Army -- and it ain't a recce vehicle - fine for ski-jorring behind - but not recce.



Too true old bean

But if we're REALLY in the recce by stealth and mobility business... :


----------



## a_majoor

Slim said:
			
		

> I know that this opinion that I'm about to voice is not a popular one BUT...Haing done recce for my entire career in a Lynx, I believe that I am catagorically justified in pointing out that tracks still have wheels beat hands down in the recce mode...Especially in the recce mode as you never quite know what you're going to get into.
> 
> I have been in some OP bases that a wheeled veh, no matter how capable, would never have been able to reach.
> 
> just food for thought...





			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> *shamless Plug for ISTAR Patrol LAV - Armoured Crew and Inf dismounts...  ;D
> 
> Slim - tracks yes - but short of BV206 we are no longer a tracked Army -- and it ain't a recce vehicle - fine for ski-jorring behind - but not recce.



Kevin is right Slim, although I agree with you with the need for tracks, we don't have them and don't seem to be getting any, so I am trying to offer a solution based on using our current suite of equipment, and things that are in the realm of possibility (the Fennik is wheeled, the Weisel is not).


----------



## Slim

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Kevin is right Slim, although I agree with you with the need for tracks, we don't have them and don't seem to be getting any, so I am trying to offer a solution based on using our current suite of equipment, and things that are in the realm of possibility (the Fennik is wheeled, the Weisel is not).



Sigh...I know. 

What can you do... :


----------



## Jantor

Hello everyone,

  I thought I'd post this link http://igverkenning.nl/for the lurkers (like me  ;D). The website is Dutch so just scroll down to the link called invisible eyes. It's a Rapidshare download movie that shows two Fenniks on a simulated recce. I got this off Militaryphotos.net


Buz


----------



## Infanteer

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Because I've spent all day long, for many years, reading about decorated Warrant Officers and the like who end up loosing perspective, objectivity, and an ability to adapt to a changing situation, despite the fact they are indeed VERY good at what they do. They just fail to take into account what they do may not exactly apply to the current situation.



_"From the experts who brought you the Maginot Line!"_


----------



## couchcommander

Infanteer said:
			
		

> _"From the experts who brought you the Maginot Line!"_



lol, I'm not sure you who were insulting there (probably me), but FYI the Maginot Line held..... it just didn't quite go far enough (and sucessfully tied up most of the reserve strength of the French Army, so after their lines in belgium were pierced, they were ******). so  

Edit: not saying it was a good idea, but still


----------



## Reccesoldier

Am I the only person here who has a problem with doing Recce inside a fishbowl?

IMO all the vehicles proposed so far have the same crucial flaw, they are SUV like varriations, comfortable because the crew is largely removed from the weather and dangerous because the crew is removed from the environment.

To say that Armoured Recce (especially in the mounted patroling role) is the eyes and ears of the Bde is still true, but to have crews bottled up inside a big SUV destroys at least some situational awareness.

Windows make poor armour, windows cause glare, windows can obscure the vision of those inside (driving into a rising or setting sun), windows that can not be rolled down limit hearing, windows that can be rolled down have to be rolled up in danger. 

Windows are for houses not AFV's/APV's

I'd much rather see some modern equivalent of the Ferret or Fox scout car than some soon to be in the dealership for $100,000 yuppie SUV.

I agree with the idea that we have to purchase our equipment to fufill the third block of the three block war, the other two will be served well enough by the warfighting kit.


----------



## George Wallace

I've been away for three days, practicing my "Why things are Seen?" skills and on return, after reading the last few pages of this thread, I see the discussion has been degraded by impute from people who have no "Recce" experience.  Sorry guys, but not to insult you, "If you haven't done the job, don't start commenting on how it should or should not be done!"  I don't mind questions, but don't try to tell someone who does the job, and has the training and experience to do the job, how you figure it should be done.  

CC

You seem to have the idea, as you moniker suggests, that we do our jobs and have fat a$$es in the performance of doing that job.  Sorry, but we do have to get out of our vehicles; and that is quite often.  We have to be able to hide our vehicles for short or long periods of time.  We need a vehicle that we can park on the verges of a road, or in a ditch, and have it virtually disappear, as we do a vehicle patrol (A Route Recce.). 

Andrew

We can not perform that job in an LAV or Stryker Variant.  They are too large and not designed for the role of Recce.  Some of your suggestion is more to do with Mech/Motorized Infantry, not Recce.  A LAV is not a Luchs with the advantage of a Driver in the rear and the same amount of gears in Reverse as Forward.  Reluctantly, the Luchs is the only large vehicle I would accept in a Recce role.

Reccesoldier and I go back a long way, as do Recce41 and Lance, as do a few others here and although many may consider us, with their snide remarks about Warrant Officers and such, as perhaps being "dinosaurs", we have the experience of doing the job both overtly and covertly.  We have some pretty good ideas of what vehicles, wheeled or tracked, would be most suitable for the job.  When Slim and Teddy Ruxpin speak from experience, we listen.  We are open minded and do accept reasonable questions from those who do not have the exerience, but we also do have the right to tell them they are RTFOTL.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fennek : Duro : Puma (Italian wheeled 4x4)

Crew 3 : 4 : 7 (2-3 + 4)
GVW (tonnes) 10.0 : 7.6   : 5.7
Payload (tonnes) ¦nbsp; 3.0 according to Defence Update : 2.4 : undefined

Protection (calibre) 7.62mm AP (higher optional) : STANAG 4569 Level 3 (Ballistic) + Level 2a (mines) optional : small arms and shell fragments

Armament ¦nbsp; ROWS:ROWS:Pintle Mount (or ROWS?)

Length (m) ¦nbsp; 5.71 : 5.09 : 5.108
Width (m) 2.49 : 2.16 : 2.09
Height - roof (m) 1.79 : 2.16 : 1.678 (hull), 1.900 (hatch top)
Power (kW/tonne) 17.9 : 24 : 23
Speed - road (km/h) 115 : 120 : >100

Gradient (%) ¦nbsp; 60 : 60 : >60
Side Slope (%) 35 : 40 : 30

Turning Circle Diameter (m) 12.6 : 14.5 : 12 

Range - road (km) 860 : 480 : Unknown

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

Puma seems to be the only wheeled vehicle that employs the design principles that George, reccesoldier and others have stipulated (ie NO WINDOWS).

Like Fennek and Duro - it can be defeated by any Anti-Materiel Rifle - but it is a less visible target in the field, more visible in town I would think.

Unfortunately it is brought to you by the same people as brought you the LSVW - IVECO.


----------



## Infanteer

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Am I the only person here who has a problem with doing Recce inside a fishbowl?
> 
> IMO all the vehicles proposed so far have the same crucial flaw, they are SUV like varriations, comfortable because the crew is largely removed from the weather and dangerous because the crew is removed from the environment.
> 
> To say that Armoured Recce (especially in the mounted patroling role) is the eyes and ears of the Bde is still true, but to have crews bottled up inside a big SUV destroys at least some situational awareness.
> 
> Windows make poor armour, windows cause glare, windows can obscure the vision of those inside (driving into a rising or setting sun), windows that can not be rolled down limit hearing, windows that can be rolled down have to be rolled up in danger.
> 
> Windows are for houses not AFV's/APV's
> 
> I'd much rather see some modern equivalent of the Ferret or Fox scout car than some soon to be in the dealership for $100,000 yuppie SUV.
> 
> I agree with the idea that we have to purchase our equipment to fufill the third block of the three block war, the other two will be served well enough by the warfighting kit.



Thank you.


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I've been away for three days, practicing my "Why things are Seen?" skills and on return, after reading the last few pages of this thread, I see the discussion has been degraded by impute from people who have no "Recce" experience.   Sorry guys, but not to insult you, "If you haven't done the job, don't start commenting on how it should or should not be done!"   I don't mind questions, but don't try to tell someone who does the job, and has the training and experience to do the job, how you figure it should be done.
> 
> ....
> 
> Reccesoldier and I go back a long way, as do Recce41 and Lance, as do a few others here and although many may consider us, with their snide remarks about Warrant Officers and such, as perhaps being "dinosaurs", we have the experience of doing the job both overtly and covertly.   We have some pretty good ideas of what vehicles, wheeled or tracked, would be most suitable for the job.   When Slim and Teddy Ruxpin speak from experience, we listen.   We are open minded and do accept reasonable questions from those who do not have the exerience, but we also do have the right to tell them they are RTFOTL.



These responses were most likely in response to being written off by others.   Couchcommander (with no experience) and Matt Fisher (probably up there with the most experience seeing how he's been in a war) were both rather snidely derided for raising questions about what we're doing.   Sure, CC may not have the experience, but I think he's been tactful thus far (until provoked) and Teddy has done a reasonable job in steering him in the right direction when wrong.

You are correct, deference and respect should be payed to the voice of experience - I've argued this many times.   But this doesn't mean that it cannot be questioned.   This is a forum for reasoned debate, not blind obedience to the school.   When told that they should, I think it is completely valid to bring up examples of where established doctrine (The Truth) was shown to be completely wrong.   I don't have much experience at all with the concept (worked with the Coyotes a couple time and "recced" around with a jeep - that's it!), but in discussions with those who do, along with some basic intuition and drawing from the data presented in the "Saber and Stealth" paper (which seems to be a credible source) I feel there is a legitimate issue to be argued here and I haven't seen much of an attempt to address the concerns raised in the Article and the arguments that have come out of it (you can basically say that this thread and the Saber for Stealth one are one and the same).

As well, the BTDT's seem to have a diverging opinion on what is needed.   I've noticed that Lance, Reccesoldier, Matt, Slim and Teddy have all given differing ideas on what is needed.   The rest of the soldiers, who may not be directly tied to the Corps, have also provided fair and reasoned input.   All ideas need to be criticised and compared based upon their validity, not on who proposed them.

Anyways, back on track (or wheels, whichever you prefer  ).
Infanteer


----------



## Kirkhill

> Anyways, back on track (or wheels, whichever you prefer  ).



As a hot air fan I prefer Hovercraft.  I empathise with the whine.


----------



## DG-41

> Am I the only person here who has a problem with doing Recce inside a fishbowl?



No, you aren't. I'm very curious about how recce is supposed to work in a mostly-sealed-up GWagon, and I'm planning (at this point, with no experience with the vehicle yet) to do all my crew commanding/troop leading out the hatch.



> We can not perform that job in an LAV or Stryker Variant.  They are too large and not designed for the role of Recce.



I haven't seen/tried a LAVIII variant (so I don't have any feel for the size of LAVIII/Stryker) but I've done recce in Bison and that worked just fine. And when I look at my copy of Jane's, I see a lot of vehicles of similar size and contruction to Bison/Coyote in recce service with other countries.

So while you won't catch me arguing for bigger vehicles over smaller ones, I totally don't buy that something Coyote-sized is unsuitable for the job.

In fact, given the choice between Coyote, or a fishbowl (even if the fishbowl is smaller) I'll take Coyote.

DG


----------



## a_majoor

I will accept that I have an Infantry bias, and the Fennik might be alluring because of the high LCF, but Infanteer is correct in the sense that we are staking out positions without too much definition. 

My bias towards a larger "Patrol Lav" is pretty firmly based on the "Trading Sabres for Stealth" paper, talking to Matt Fisher and reading about the experiences of the SBCTs in Iraq, understanding of recce from my side of the house and the desire to find an "in house" solution to the recce conumdrum. I realize there are lots of people who believe the LAV is too large (and it is a big vehicle to be sure), but size gives you some capabilities you don't get in the "Ferret scout car" analogues that have been proposed, and TTPs can be developed to work around some of the disadvantages of using a LAV. If I wanted to blue sky a bit, the AVGP Grizzley should undergo a total rebuild to become the patrol vehicle, since it has the internal volume for the four man dismounted patrolmen, and can get an updated powerpack, suspension, electonics and so on to give the mobility, protection and firepower we desire in a smaller package.

As for smaller vehicles, I will admit I do not have experience on a Lynx or Ferret (besides seeing them in action in Cyprus and on EX), but besides the catalogue shopping, I havn't really seen the supporting arguments (i.e. a Ferret type vehicle is smaller and less visible, but we need to do X and Y to operatie in humanitarian and SASO OPS because they have distinctive profiles and only carry Z dismounts....). It seems the only thing we really agree on is the fact that SUVs and modified trucks do not have what it takes to be a recce vehicle.


----------



## KevinB

I am going to restate my position again.  

 In trying to encompasse Inffy's and Art's comments on the what - then then the how and why.
In my Infanteers mind (mine not that other guy's mind) recce task are done for a few reasons - but with the end state we wanted to know something about something we did not before.  To do that you need boots on the ground (in general terms I will admit rubber on pavement works for route stuff).

 I gave up prepping for WWIII a long ago - at least as far as memorising the vehicle formations etc of tank divisions versus motorized rifle divisions.  And I still feel that prepping to overtake Europe is insane.  So looking at local conflicts that can escalate into Mid intensity - and extremely localised High Intensity activity.   So anything other than that we can dumb it down.

We need an armoured vehicle that offers increased crew surivivability - specifically a halon type fire supresion system, a robust fire control system able to engage both individual combatants up close, crowds in close, and effectively out range enemy armour or "technical" vehicles to further increase platform survivability.

Secondly it needs to be able to disgorge or carry a dismounted ability (sorry Tread Heads - unless driving down a road ATC;ing you need both a foot borne local protection element and eyes and ears working with black cadillac's) 


And since where are Canadian it cannot be tracked... :


----------



## couchcommander

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I've been away for three days, practicing my "Why things are Seen?" skills and on return, after reading the last few pages of this thread, I see the discussion has been degraded by impute from people who have no "Recce" experience.


I was hoping that fresh ideas might bring alternate perspectives to a situation with which the established military forces seem to have having some difficulty getting a handel on (not you gentlemen, this entire army "transformation" idea that western armies are trying to deal with). 



> Sorry guys, but not to insult you, "If you haven't done the job, don't start commenting on how it should or should not be done!"   I don't mind questions, but don't try to tell someone who does the job, and has the training and experience to do the job, how you figure it should be done.


I apologize if I have offended you or anyone here, I have in no way meant to take away from your abilities. Once again though, in my humble opinion, this might be a time to take in some input from different groups of people to ADD TO your already extensive knowledge. 



> CC
> 
> You seem to have the idea, as you moniker suggests, that we do our jobs and have fat a$$es in the performance of doing that job.   Sorry, but we do have to get out of our vehicles; and that is quite often.



Oh no I had always been under the impression there was a lot of dismounted operations as part of even armoured recce. 

EDIT: The moniker is something I have been using for more than a decade. The inspiration was quite literal, ie I command my couch (and not much else, ) or alternatively it has also been taken to mean I command from my couch (in the spirit of the armchair general or armchair revolutionary, a more derogatory but still humours and acceptable take). There is actually a long history of the couch commander, which I would be more than willing to share.... heh. 



> We have to be able to hide our vehicles for short or long periods of time.   We need a vehicle that we can park on the verges of a road, or in a ditch, and have it virtually disappear, as we do a vehicle patrol (A Route Recce.).



Fair enough, and as I said I can definately see where this would be employed in a more conventional setting or even in a non-urban environment. However, how would this work within a hostile urban environment (or are you saying that we just wouldn't, in which case, fair enough)? One of the two points I have been pushing is that given our current operational environments, the ability of a military vehicle to "hide" (at least in hostile urban areas) is neglegable, regardless of the platform, so (on to my second point), ones focus must then turn to the ability of the vehicle to operate without being able to hide (ie it must have the ability to adequately defend itself and at the same time be able to support dismounted patrols, which, as has been pointed out many times, are one of the best recce tools availible)



> Reccesoldier and I go back a long way, as do Recce41 and Lance, as do a few others here and although many may consider us, with their snide remarks about Warrant Officers and such, as perhaps being "dinosaurs"


My remark was not directed to you personally, however I apologize if it offended you. It was meant simply to point out that there are alternate perspectives that may be worth considering. And though as you mentioned it was a little snide, I felt it was appropriate given the circumstances surrounding it. 



> We have some pretty good ideas of what vehicles, wheeled or tracked, would be most suitable for the job.   When Slim and Teddy Ruxpin speak from experience, we listen.   We are open minded and do accept reasonable questions from those who do not have the exerience, but we also do have the right to tell them they are RTFOTL.



Indeed I agree, I just ask that, if possible, you take the time to explain why something I said was RTFOTL. 

Thanks for your time,


----------



## Infanteer

I agree with Kevin and Art - I think the Armoured Corps, as the other half of the maneuver force in the Army is capable of manning more than an SUV and a camera.


----------



## George Wallace

DG-41 said:
			
		

> So while you won't catch me arguing for bigger vehicles over smaller ones, I totally don't buy that something Coyote-sized is unsuitable for the job.
> 
> In fact, given the choice between Coyote, or a fishbowl (even if the fishbowl is smaller) I'll take Coyote.



Having done Recce in a Coyote, I will argue against it.   It is large.   It is hard to hide.   It is a poor vehicle for Recce, with it's turret located two thirds of the way back on the hull.   It is hard to approach crests to look over, without exposing too much of the turret and vehicle in the process.   On Corners, the driver sees everything before anyone in the Turret, Gunner or Comd, and has the tendency for the whole vehicle to become exposed for the Comd to be able to see and/or employ his weapons. (Should the Comd now sit in the Drivers hole?  ;D )  It has limited cross country abilities (having used Tracks) and is quite noisy compared to a LAV III.   

It has a great Surv package and good sights in the turret.   It is a good Surv Veh.   It is not a Recce Veh.

As I said, the only large vehicle of this type that I would even consider for Recce is the Luchs.   Turret located to the front.   Drivers front and rear.   Transmission has just as many gears in Reverse as Forward, so no need to make 28 Point Turns to escape from a surprise Contact. 

As you have pointed out, I too do not believe Recce can be done from inside an enclosed vehicle with large windows, air conditioning, etc.   The Crew Comd must be able to use all his senses; eyes, ears, smell, etc. to do his job.   This will rule out many of the vehicles being discussed here.


----------



## George Wallace

a_majoor said:
			
		

> My bias towards a larger "Patrol Lav" is pretty firmly based on the "Trading Sabres for Stealth" paper, talking to Matt Fisher and reading about the experiences of the SBCTs in Iraq, understanding of recce from my side of the house and the desire to find an "in house" solution to the recce conumdrum. I realize there are lots of people who believe the LAV is too large (and it is a big vehicle to be sure), but size gives you some capabilities you don't get in the "Ferret scout car" analogues that have been proposed, and TTPs can be developed to work around some of the disadvantages of using a LAV. If I wanted to blue sky a bit, the AVGP Grizzley should undergo a total rebuild to become the patrol vehicle, since it has the internal volume for the four man dismounted patrolmen, and can get an updated powerpack, suspension, electonics and so on to give the mobility, protection and firepower we desire in a smaller package.



I will concede that you have some good points here.  I too would like to see these vehicles integrated into the Infantry and Armour Units.  The Infantry applications are as you stated, but these are more conducive to Assault Troops in an Armour organization, not Recce elements. 

I would employ LAVs (pick any variant) in a Recce organization in the Assault Troops.  (Perferably the LAV Pioneer, or LAV Engineer, variants.)  I would not like to have the Recce Troops equipped with something that large.  (EDIT:  Just to clarify, I am not taking into account the Surv Troops in this statement.)


----------



## George Wallace

KevinB said:
			
		

> In trying to encompasse Inffy's and Art's comments on the what - then then the how and why.
> In my Infanteers mind (mine not that other guy's mind) recce task are done for a few reasons - but with the end state we wanted to know something about something we did not before.   To do that you need boots on the ground (in general terms I will admit rubber on pavement works for route stuff).
> 
> I gave up prepping for WWIII a long ago - at least as far as memorising the vehicle formations etc of tank divisions versus motorized rifle divisions.   And I still feel that prepping to overtake Europe is insane.   So looking at local conflicts that can escalate into Mid intensity - and extremely localised High Intensity activity.     So anything other than that we can dumb it down.
> 
> We need an armoured vehicle that offers increased crew surivivability - specifically a halon type fire supresion system, a robust fire control system able to engage both individual combatants up close, crowds in close, and effectively out range enemy armour or "technical" vehicles to further increase platform survivability.
> 
> Secondly it needs to be able to disgorge or carry a dismounted ability (sorry Tread Heads - unless driving down a road ATC;ing you need both a foot borne local protection element and eyes and ears working with black cadillac's)



OK

Now I see where our arguments are going.   We are on diverging paths.   Kev, as you stated, you, and others (non-Blackhatters), are looking at it from an Infantry point of view, while the Blackhatters are looking from the Armour Recce point of view.   Two completely different styles and types of Recce.

Overly simplified, the Infantry need an "Armoured Bus" to take their Recce Patrols out to their drop off points, and pick them up later, or provide a security factor from a hide, harbour or Fire Base.

The Armour need a vehicle that will take them long distances.   A vehicle that is small, offers good protection from small arms and shrapnel, is fast and quiet.   They do not need to lug around a bunch of 'dismounts' as they are conducting a much different type of Recce.  

Armour Recce needs a vehicle small enough that they can hide in areas permitting cover that vehicles like the LAV family can not hide in.  An example would be:  Can you fit a LAV into your garage at home?  We used to park our Lynx in people's garages, carports, barns, etc in towns and villages in Germany.  It is a lot more difficult with a Coyote to do the same thing, even in some treelines.     
Another case:  Driving down the 401 to Toronto, I have seen large culverts in which I could have parked a Lynx, but would be restricted to parking behind a berm with a Coyote.


----------



## DG-41

> with it's turret located two thirds of the way back on the hull.  It is hard to approach crests to look over, without exposing too much of the turret and vehicle in the process.  On Corners, the driver sees everything before anyone in the Turret, Gunner or Comd, and has the tendency for the whole vehicle to become exposed for the Comd to be able to see and/or employ his weapons. (Should the Comd now sit in the Drivers hole?



Hm, that's an interesting point. As I mentioned, I've done Recce in Bison, and the crew commander's hole in Bison is way forward.

http://farnorthracing.com/armypics/43.jpg

So I didn't encounter those problems.

As far as mobility went, I felt that Bison was almost as capable as M113 (the only tracked vehicle I had recce experience in) and was WAY faster. There was one position I remember getting my carrier into that I probably couldn't have done in Bison without getting a good run at it... but I never felt mobility limited in Bison. Perhaps the extra weight of Coyote is the issue.

Perhaps a little noisy, but that was mostly exhaust note and could be fixed with a different muffler.

And I L-O-V-E-D the room inside a Bison. Give me a troop of Bison and I'd be a very happy camper.



> As I said, the only large vehicle of this type that I would even consider for Recce is the Luchs.



Luchs is an interesting vehicle, and that German concept of the double-ended vehicle (that goes back to WW2) is clever and useful. I'd take that too.

On the other end of the spectrum... the PEIR had an operational Ferret, and I've crew commanded it on a couple of ceremonial and administrative occasions. I don't have a feel for its cross-country performance, but I've got a rough idea for what it would be like on-road. My take on it is that it was very, very cramped, with no room for all the gypsy caravan stuff we usually take with us on an extended op (including the observer!). I could see using it as a patrol vehicle out of a fixed home base, and I can see where the small size and low profile (plus the amazing sight lines) would be useful, but I think Ferret is too small.

So I guess that sets our upper and lower bounds on vehicle size, doesn't it?



> To do that you need boots on the ground (in general terms I will admit rubber on pavement works for route stuff).



Well there's a lot more to it than that in the Armoured Recce case.

Mechanized formations can cover a lot of ground in a fairly short time. It is not unusual for a formation to pick up and move 500km-1000km in one day, especially if the move isn't resisted for most of its length. But as formations get larger, the amount of operational inertia they get gets larger as well. It takes time for orders to propegate and battle procedure to occur, such that there is a signifigant time lag in getting a large formation to start. stop, or change direction.

As a formation commander, if there are decision points in your plan, you need to know all the information you need in order to pick which branch of your decision tree you are going to follow BEFORE you enter into the time lag it takes to send that decision to all your subunits. So if it takes 6 hours from "make it so" to the lead callsigns of your force reacting to that order, then you need to get the information on the decision point *at least* 6 hours in advance, and preferably sooner so you can do some decent analysis of that information.

That means you need a sub-formation capable of scampering out to anywhere within your radius of operation, getting the information you need to make your decisions, and getting it back to you in time so that plans can be implemented based on that information.

The larger the formation, the longer the inertial time lag, and the more frontage you cover, so the more people you need to be able to cover the ground you need to know about.

That is Armoured recce's primary job - going forth well in advance of main formations and gathering the information the formation commander needs in order to carry out his plan.

Now as a side effect, the requirements of that job demand soldiers capable of moving, thinking, and reacting quickly - usually with little real-time guidence from higher formations - and with no support. That bred a generation of supremely flexible, adaptive, and creative soldiers capable of doing a lot more with limited resources than one would otherwise expect. That capability encouraged giving these units a lot of oddball other missions that were poor fits elsewhere but which recce soldiers could take in stride, such that recce's missions got very diverse. As well, clever commanders would make use of the fact that recce was operating so far ahead of his main body to influence the battle in the far distance, and recce was very good at improv. But the other side effect of all this was that nobody outside of recce and formation headquarters ever saw any of this happening, because recce was so far forward.

As we push combined arms operations (and perhaps more importantly, the independant command of combined arms operations) into smaller and smaller formations, we are pushing the need for integral Armoured Recce into smaller and smaller formations, and exposing commanders to recce and their mission earlier in their careers than would otherwise be the case. This seems to be causing some confusion, because nobody seems to be explaining to anybody exactly what recce brings to them before (I guess) Staff College.

The Armoured recce mission shares some techniques and tactics with Infantry recce, and sometimes we do things (that flexibility thing again) that Infantry recce would be completely capable of doing. But we'd do things on the way to that mission, and on the way back from that mission, which are completely outside of the Infantry recce idiom.

When you talk about "boots on the ground" I hear SLOW (and thus CLOSE, because distance and time are the same thing)

DG


----------



## Kirkhill

DG-41, if you liked the Bison how would you feel about the Bison without the hull roof, basically the same height as the Grizzly (about 1.85m or 6 feet)?


----------



## DG-41

As I recall, we spent most of the time with the cargo doors open and the observer out that hatch. The air sentry hatches at the tail end are at the long end of a lever arm with the fulcrum at the suspension, and had a way of catapulting lightweight observers into the air (and almost clear of the vehicle!) when moving cross country.

So that summerizes how we used it.

But I'd want the ability to close the roof, as per Bison, in case of bad weather or incoming mortars, grenades, etc. 

DG


----------



## KevinB

George and DG, I was attempting to blend the recce units - into a method of having Engineer, Armoured and Inf recce blended into a single unit with all present -- I feel this is how ISTAR will end up.
Rationale for my thoughts are that if you have this ISTAR coy doing its thing for the Bde G2 cell , is it not easier to make a bunch of similar subunits that can all complete ALL the tasks that might be assigned to it -- I worked DIV Arty during RV92 and I saw what a complete jugfuck that certain things became when the unit in question attempted to do something it was unsuited for simply due to the fact it was the only one in the area.

Now if we intergrate the recce systems if 63B gets to a site and finds it has to do a bridge recce and scout the surroundign village as well - the Armd crew will have gotten then there - the Eng Sgt can do his bridge stuff and the 031's can muck about the village.
Despite a lot of Armd Recce guys feeling they can do the job of 031 mud recce - they cannot - the same way a 031 LAV/Coyote crew will never do the job of a blackhat crew - experience and training.

I do feel that we do need a light vehicle as well - but I feel the Chenowith Racing DPV fills the bill for a fastlight system with some teeth.


----------



## George Wallace

Kev

I see what you are trying to do, and am arguing against it.  I see the Armd and Inf Recce guys as being completely different animals.  By blending them, we are diluting them even further.  

Armd guys do do Bridge Recces in their Route Recces.  Engr elements are miles behind and will confirm any such Recces should the Bde decide to take that route in its' advance.  

I think we are starting to wind ourselves around an axle trying to pick an all singing, all dancing vehicle for everyone's Recce Vehicle, when we should concentrate on a Veh for Armd Recce, another for Infantry Recce, and a specialized one for Engr Recce.  In the end, should a task require an Engr Recce element to accompany an Armd or Inf Recce Pl/Troop, they will have the proper tools to perform the job.

For Infantry, Armd and Engineer guys to argue amongst with each other over what is the "only" vehicle and what it must do for Recce is turning into a Juliet Foxtrot.


----------



## a_majoor

George, I see your point about "all singing, all dancing", and I will concede there are technical issues that make using a "Patrol LAV" difficult, but I am having a bit of a conceptual issue here. 

IF we get a 21rst century "Ferret", there is almost no room for an observer and little for sustainment kit to keep going for 72 or 96 hours. As well, the scout car can go fast, hide in a ditch and do all the other great things, but in the lower end of the spectrum, it isn't "user friendly", and in the higher end, survivability becomes something of an issue (although if they really want to get you, they will find a way regardless of your platform).

IF we stipulate a LAV or Coyote is too large and has an inefficient layout, then we should write the actual requirments and see where we go from there. I would like a vehicle with a protected volume sufficient to carry a three man crew plus "some" dismounted troops, as well as sustainment supplies for a 96 hour mission. Protection against small arms, mines and shell fragments, and sufficient firepower to defeat enemy technicals, improvised bunkers and light armour. Wheeled mobility to support a road march at speeds of up to 100kph, and a 400km unrefulled range, as well as a reasonable level of cross country mobility. Inclusion of things like a surveillance periscope or a TI with some pretty high powered optics would be nice to have, but probably not essential (or are they?).

This should give us a starting point, have the speed and mobility to get where we are going for that 6+ hour window of advanced information, meet the "Full Spectrum Ops" requirments to go up and down the scale of conflict and still be useful in high intensity ops where the light recce concept has been shown to fail. Now all we need to do is find the vehicle to match.....


----------



## George Wallace

Well, I have mentioned rebuilding the Lynx before, by removing the engine and replacing it with a small MTU powerpack (like the Leopards) thus freeing up the front Diff Compartment for another Fuel Cell and doubling it's road range out to 1200 Km.  That would also free up room in the Crew Compartment by removing the Pillow box and Prop Shaft Housing.  Upgrade the Gunnery and Electronics.  Add some basic Surv Kit and away we go.  Redesigning a vehicle of this size would probably do, but there are already vehicles on the market of this type that could be bought off the shelf.  

In the old days our Lynx would be filled to the ceiling with kit.  The Observers had to remove their seats and would use two cases of C Rats instead.  There is also external stowage like the Americans are seen to be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I would prefer my kit to stay on the vehicle and not be torn off going through a tight alley or tree line or used as "Reactive Armour"  ;D . 

We have been kicking around a lot of ideas on this thread.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

What about the idea of taking the upgraded non-stretch M113/TLAV and putting a Delco/GDLS LAV-25 turret, or 25mm Remote Weapons Station on it, and an applique armor package for wartime?   You'd then have a vehicle that has a low profile, adequate protection level, decent mobility and enough room in the back for between 2 and 4 dismounts or a surv. suite and it'd be relatively cheap to do, considering the amount of surplus M113s out there.


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> What about the idea of taking the upgraded non-stretch M113/TLAV and putting the LAV-25 turret on it?   You'd then have a vehicle that has a low profile, decent mobility and enough room in the back for between 2 and 4 dismounts or a surv. suite.


I saw trials on that back in the '80s.  It seemed a bit top heavy.  Never did hear any real feedback on that one, other than it got dropped.  I think there was even thought of putting something on the lower Lynx chassis.  Of course we then came out with ADATS and put it on a M113 bed.

Problems with the old M113 family (Includes the Lynx) was the straight exhaust provided a large 'signature' cloud and was unmuffled.   If you haven't notice, the LAV III, and probably the Stryker family, are much quiter and have better exhausts than Coyotes.  Their exhaust is also shielded a bit better to hide the Thermal signatures.  A problem that new designs are overcoming.


----------



## DG-41

All these ideas suffer from a fatal flaw though - they be tracked, not wheeled.

I'm not saying I agree with that... but the reality is that we won't be getting anything with tracks on it for a loooong time.

DG


----------



## George Wallace

DG-41 said:
			
		

> All these ideas suffer from a fatal flaw though - they be tracked, not wheeled.



Dam*!


----------



## George Wallace

Been eating too much out of those aluminium Mess tins.....forgot again.

Brings us back to the larger version of the Ferret, the Fox.  The German Fox; the Fuchs.  The French VLB.  The Fennek.  The Puma (wheeled version).


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I remember seeing pics of the M113 with the Bradley turret that the CFs were trialing in the 80's as a potential infantry fighting vehicle to replace/augment the existing M113s and Grizzlies.   I actually saw the test version in the Trials & Evaluations compound in Gagetown in 1996.   I think that at that time, United Defense hadn't worked out the upgraded engine and transmission as well as 'stretch' package, thus the vehicle was regarded as far too underpowered and too small to be of any use for the infantry and the Armoured Corps never considered it as a replacement for the Lynx, which was the recce. vehicle in service at the time.


----------



## Slim

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> the Armoured Corps never considered it as a replacement for the Lynx, which was the recce. vehicle in service at the time.



The Lynx was, in fact, gone by then. I was at the school as a dvr and we were using the 113 for all non-Leo realted training back at that time.

I don't believe that the Armoured Corps ever seriously considered the 113 as anything more than a stop-gap until we could get a new veh to replace them.

I think all eyes were focused on the Coyote even back then...

Cheers

Slim


----------



## Infanteer

Just a question - irregardless of vehicle selected, how will "Armoured Recce" be gathering information?


----------



## Slim

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just a question - irregardless of vehicle selected, how will "Armoured Recce" be gathering information?



Well as things stand right now there are two ways its being done.

One is stand off electronic surveillance, the other is the old fashioned 'Recce By Stealth"


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just a question - irregardless of vehicle selected, how will "Armoured Recce" be gathering information?


If you picked Armour for an MOC, you'll find out.....  ;D


----------



## Britney Spears

Well, see, in most other armies, "Armoured" means TANKS, you know, the one with the tracks, and the big gun and that kind of thing, not Iltises. So you'll forgive us for being a little confused at recruiting.


----------



## Infanteer

I only ask because of this:



> Theme 4: Commanders require human intelligence more than imagery
> Many key leaders commented on the importance of human intelligence.   The special operations forcesteams who worked in support of both the 3d Infantry and 101st Airborne divisions were absolutely vital in this capacity.   Often the most useful information came from captured Iraqi prisoners or from Iraqi citizens.   Colonel William Grimsley, commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division described the difficulty he and his S2 were having in templating the Medina and Adnan divisions until they captured a large contingent of enemy prisoners of war from those units.   What they discovered was that both divisions had spread out their forces from Baghdad to An Najaf rather then deploying them in any strict doctrinal manner.   The reasons behind this bizarre defensive strategy did not become apparent until soldiers were captured and interrogated.   No amount of satellite imagery or UAV feed could have provided the critical insights offered by a handful of captured soldiers.   Because the enemy was not adhering to any doctrine, it was virtually impossible to assess his intent and predict his future actions based on where his forces were arrayed.   This type of predictive intelligence could be obtained only by meeting the enemy face to face





> Theme 6: Lightly armored scouts cannot support high-tempo operations.
> The three brigade combat teams of the 3d Infantry Division were each equipped with brigade reconnaissance troops consisting of 10 HMMWV-mounted scouts equipped with the long-range advanced scout surveillance system (LRASS) and a combination of Mark-19 grenade launchers and .50-caliber machine guns. Operation Iraqi Freedom was the first test of the new brigade reconnaissance assets in combat since their creation following the1996 Goldsmith reconnaissance study. Likewise, each battalion task force included a similarly equipped scout platoon of six HMMWVs.   Perhaps the greatest success of this new design was the LRASS optical system.   Numerous interviews spoke of the incredible capability of the new sight to acquire and classify enemy targets at extreme distances.   The greatest praise came from Colonel Daniel Allyn, commander of the 3d Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division, who related an incident near Karbala where his brigade reconnaissance troop was able to acquire precise 10-digit grids of enemy vehicles and dismounts with their LRASS at a range of 3,600 meters and then pass that information directly to his artillery battalion for a first-round hit.   Despite the successes of the LRASS optical system, the vulnerability of the lightly armored scouts proved to be a significant limitation.   Shortly after crossing into Iraq, most of the brigade reconnaissance troops transitioned from their traditional role of forward reconnaissance to conducting route security or convoy escort for the unit trains. The same thing happened with the task force scout platoons. In a few cases, units attempted to equip their scouts with M113s from their maintenance sections to afford them some measure of survivability. In the majority of cases, commanders simply stopped using their reconnaissance troops for reconnaissance.
> 
> Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Sanderson, commander of 2d Battalion, 69th Armor, could not employ his HMMWV scouts because he saw that they were incapable of screening infront of a moving force.   Lieutenant Colonel Scott Rutter, commander of 2d Battalion, 7th Infantry, chose to keep his scouts only two to three kilometers from his lead forces to provide them some degree of protection.   Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Twitty, commander of 3d Battalion, 15th Infantry, used his scout platoon as convoy escort and employed M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles from his line companies to conduct reconnaissance for the battalion.   He strongly recommended, based on his inability to employ the HMMWVs correctly, that scout platoons in the future should be equipped with M3 Bradley cavalry fighting vehicles rather than HMMWVs.   COL Perkins pulled his brigade reconnaissance troop from the reconnaissance mission when the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) threat became too intense.   The only unit in 3d Infantry Division that had scouts operating in armored vehicles was the division cavalry squadron, 3d Squadron, 7th Cavalry.   However, during a tough fight against incessant RPG attacks, LTC Ferrell found the situation too dangerous to reconnoiter even with the medium armor on his M3 cavalry fighting vehicles.   To solve this dilemma, he placed his tanks forward of the M3s and then ordered his scouts to ride on the tanks in place of the tank loaders.



Both from here, which as we all know is being discussed in the armoured forum.

Is this experience an anomoly or is it a portent of what is to come?   The presenter has real experience in combat and the data seems pretty sound, so I felt compelled to pose these questions to the forum.

Slim states _"stand off electronic surveillance_ and _"old fashioned 'Recce By Stealth"_.   These quotes highlight the opposite - HUMINT and Advance to Contact.   How do we address these disparities?  Do they need to be addressed before we purchase a vehicle?


----------



## couchcommander

Just a quick note, the authour does make note of how useful the survellience systems were, just that vehicles (being light and unable to properly defend themselves), were not suited to the task. The disparity, to me, seems to be the idea of "recce by stealth" by light, small, vehicles.... namely that some of us seem to feel that this is idea is not quite working how how it was supposed to. 

So to rephrase Infanteers question, how do we address this disparity, and should we address this disparity before we purchase new vehicles?


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Slim states _"stand off electronic surveillance_ and _"old fashioned 'Recce By Stealth"_.   These quotes highlight the opposite - HUMINT and Advance to Contact.   How do we address these disparities?   Do they need to be addressed before we purchase a vehicle?



Actually No.   We do not need to address these disparities.   

We have always relied on numerous sources to gather info (Intelligence).   Recce is but one of them.   Humint is another.   SIGINT, IMINT (TUAVs, UAVs, Satellite, etc.), TECHINT, ELINT, COMMINT, INTSUMS and INTREPS from flanking Allied Formations, input from National Sources (NDHQ, etc.), Open Source materials (Newspapers, magazines, TV, Radio, Internet), and numerous other sources all contribute to a Commander's planning.   

What we are concentrating on in this thread is Recce, nothing else.   Leave HUMINT to the HUMINT discussions.   Who cares what kind of photos we can get from a satellite when we are trying to decide on a Recce vehicle for the Recce Troops.   Theme 4 is a 'Red Herring" in this case.   Theme 6 is more in line with what we do and how we have done it.


----------



## DG-41

And for Theme 6, what I can't help but see is crews not experienced in the use of light recce, commanders not sure of how to employ them, and decisions made to protect those troops that perhaps need not have been made were they more experienced in the role.

We've been doing this stuff since WW2, and it works. But it also takes time and training to get right. I don't think that the Yanks having trouble during their first real employment of lght recce really qualifies as a failure of the entire concept.

DG


----------



## Bomber

Mowag makes a 4x4 piranah, lets get that.  Or maybe chop some of the MTVL's into a super Lynx.


----------



## Slim

Bomber said:
			
		

> Mowag makes a 4x4 piranah, lets get that.   Or maybe chop some of the MTVL's into a super Lynx.



Has anyone thought about motorcycles? Have a couple of heavy cars in the recce troop and then a few bikes, which canbe taken just about anyplace you need to go, are inexpensive and can dissapear right into the landscape along with the guys riding them...Say in an OP for instance...


----------



## a_majoor

WRT theme six, I think it pretty much sums up the case for larger and more powerful recce vehicles than the "Ferret scout car" model. The Stryker recce vehicle has many of the virtues that I see being needed in a modern recce vehicle, the only down side in the current configuration is that it places the LRASS unit on the OWS where the standard Stryker Infantry carrier has the defensive weapons. Examples I have seen are protected by a pintle mounted GPMG. A better developed version should address the self defence issue, and the LRASS (if required) can either be moved or co located with the weapon (perhaps an outsized OWS?).



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> And for Theme 6, what I can't help but see is crews not experienced in the use of light recce, commanders not sure of how to employ them, and decisions made to protect those troops that perhaps need not have been made were they more experienced in the role.
> 
> We've been doing this stuff since WW2, and it works. But it also takes time and training to get right. I don't think that the Yanks having trouble during their first real employment of light recce really qualifies as a failure of the entire concept.



As Major Taylor points out in his paper, even in WW II, light Jeep mounted recce was unable to perform the task and only the introduction of "Stuart" light tanks allowed the recce to carry our their tasks. (Not mentioned was the parallel introduction of the "Greyhound" armoured car)

WRT theme four, here I will respectfully disagree with you, George. Since the enemy can and will hide out in the civil population, the ability to dismount and walk and talk with the locals is of paramount importance. Armoured Recce has its place in this scenario, the vehicles can do presence patrols, spot VCPs and other tasks over a very wide area, the dismounted patrolmen increase the flexibility and versatility. Pulling up to the side of the road and having someone walk over and talk to a farmer in his field is a valid recce task in humanitarian and SASO OPS. After all, it will often be a friendly local who will point out the location of the IED or weapons cache, which would be otherwise invisible to any other system. Generating information by "face to face" contact also covers shooting at people who are shooting at you, a very clear indication of their intent.

The Armoured recce casts the wide net (the dismounted patrolmen are simply another tool in the kitbag), and if they develop enough information, more forces can be introduced into the AOR to deal with whatever has been discovered.

(_edited to clarify the "theme four" discussion_)


----------



## KevinB

DG-41 said:
			
		

> We've been doing this stuff since WW2, and it works. But it also takes time and training to get right. I don't think that the Yanks having trouble during their first real employment of lght recce really qualifies as a failure of the entire concept.
> 
> DG



DONT EVER MISTAKE OUR TRAINING FOR US MILITARY EXPERIENCE IN A SHOOTING WAR.


----------



## DG-41

Right, because we have zero experience with shooting wars ourselves.

 :

I would expect, were we to buy an aircraft carrier, that we might experience some teething problems developing carrier ops doctrine. It is reasonable to expect that the Yanks might have some teething problems too when they try something new.

DG


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually No.   We do not need to address these disparities.
> 
> We have always relied on numerous sources to gather info (Intelligence).   Recce is but one of them.



Sorry George, maybe I was a bit unclear in why I put up "theme 4".  In the context that it was written, it was meant to point out that *passive* surveillence means (the article specifically mentions UAV's and Sat. Imagery) were unable to deliver practicle information to the guys on the ground.  I was sort of aiming at surveillence with this example.  We have a great surveillence asset with the Mast, but if taken in the same context as the article it would be spotting out a goatherder or a inactive town.  What is needed is more *active* recconaissance measures, such as cruising up in your mud recce dune-buggy/car and asking somebody what's going on - the locals can be depended on for information of what lies ahead without us having to get shot at; especially when one considers a populace breakdown that LtCol Eyre refers to here.

I don't think reconaissance needs to be seperated into what it can achieve (in the sense of a specific form of intelligence; [X]INT).  As long as the guys on the ground are finding stuff out, whether it is with a fancy sensor (the article mentions the LRASS), the naked eye, or by talking to somebody who is pissed off because insurgents turned his basement into a bomb-making factory, then recce is doing its job.  Does this seem to make sense?

I'm sure Matt Fisher can tell us plenty of differing ways he "recced" stuff during his 7 months in the Sandbox.  As well, our own experience in Afghanistan should highlight the multifaceted ways in which recce forces gather intelligence that is relevent and very usable by low level commanders.


----------



## Infanteer

DG-41 said:
			
		

> And for Theme 6, what I can't help but see is crews not experienced in the use of light recce, commanders not sure of how to employ them, and decisions made to protect those troops that perhaps need not have been made were they more experienced in the role.
> 
> We've been doing this stuff since WW2, and it works. But it also takes time and training to get right. I don't think that the Yanks having trouble during their first real employment of lght recce really qualifies as a failure of the entire concept.
> 
> DG



Pretty lame cop-out to assume that it is a cultural problem in that the Americans simply didn't know what they were doing; especially when the author points out that it was tried in Gulf War I.

Do you have any proof from your own vast operational experience to back up your statement that the Americans "fumbled something that we've been doing for years"?



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> Right, because we have zero experience with shooting wars ourselves.



Last time I checked, the most recent battle honour was "Korea 1950-1953".   Sure, we've been shot at plenty of times, we've had a fill gunfights in the Balkans and we had some limited experience in conducting operations in Kandahar, but other than that I'm at a loss to find out the last time we've conducted sustained combat operations against a foe who is ready to fight.


----------



## George Wallace

a_majoor said:
			
		

> WRT theme six, I think it pretty much sums up the case for larger and more powerful recce vehicles than the "Ferret scout car" model. The Stryker recce vehicle has many of the virtues that I see being needed in a modern recce vehicle, the only down side in the current configuration is that it places the LRASS unit on the OWS where the standard Stryker Infantry carrier has the defensive weapons. Examples I have seen are protected by a pintle mounted GPMG. A better developed version should address the self defence issue, and the LRASS (if required) can either be moved or co located with the weapon (perhaps an outsized OWS?).


Actually, I disagree with your analysis.   To me, it looks more like the most common problem faced by Armd Recce; thier commanders don't know how to properly employ them.   When employed incorrectly, any unit may be found to be lacking in equipment.


			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> As Major Taylor points out in his paper, even in WW II, light Jeep mounted recce was unable to perform the task and only the introduction of "Stuart" light tanks allowed the recce to carry our their tasks. (Not mentioned was the parallel introduction of the "Greyhound" armoured car)


Sorry, but again crap.   He has pull a stunt that many of our poorer journalist friends have pulled.   He has limited his inputed data to what verifies his opinion.   What about the units that used the Lynx II, the Dingo, Otters, Humbers, all light armoured cars used through to the end of the war in Germany?   


			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> WRT theme four, here I will respectfully disagree with you, George. Since the enemy can and will hide out in the civil population, the ability to dismount and walk and talk with the locals is of paramount importance. Armoured Recce has its place in this scenario, the vehicles can do presence patrols, spot VCPs and other tasks over a very wide area, the dismounted patrolmen increase the flexibility and versatility. Pulling up to the side of the road and having someone walk over and talk to a farmer in his field is a valid recce task in humanitarian and SASO OPS. After all, it will often be a friendly local who will point out the location of the IED or weapons cache, which would be otherwise invisible to any other system. Generating information by "face to face" contact also covers shooting at people who are shooting at you, a very clear indication of their intent.


And I will disagree with you.   Armd Recce should not be in built up areas.   They should bypass them.   This is a job for the Infantry and their Recce, who operate more along the lines that you describe.   Even today, we find that the Armour guys are out in some remote location, hidden, putting surveillance on some location, not walking in and talking to the people in that house.   HUMINT is doing things like: having a coffee with the locals, not Armd Recce.

Let's not get the different roles played by the various players confused with each other.   That is a problem here, and it is a problem faced 'in country' by Recce forces whose Commanders don't fully comprehend their role and capabilities.   One does not bring a knife to a gunfight type of philosophy.   Armd Recce is the surgical knife that finds and uses other means to fight the enemy.   SF troops do their thing.   Infantry bring in the guns.   HUMINT does the talking.


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ......... especially when one considers a populace breakdown that LtCol Eyre refers to here.


  We are talking Apples and Oranges here.  LCol Eyre is looking at the "Changing Role of the Infantry", not our new Recce veh for the Armour Recce role.  As I said earlier, two different jobs.  If you want Dismounted Infantry on the ground, you can use any form of "Armoured Bus".  You could use a vehicle similar to the British Saxon, if you wish: http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_armoured_fighting_vehicle.htm
For Armd Recce you need something else.


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Last time I checked, the most recent battle honour was "Korea 1950-1953".  Sure, we've been shot at plenty of times, we've had a fill gunfights in the Balkans and we had some limited experience in conducting operations in Kandahar, but other than that I'm at a loss to find out the last time we've conducted sustained combat operations against a foe who is ready to fight.


Can we hold up your comments on the PPCLI at Medak Pocket?


----------



## DG-41

> Pretty lame cop-out to assume that it is a cultural problem in that the Americans simply didn't know what they were doing;



I'm not assuming anything at all; it is right there in black and white in the article. And furthermore, I'm not just handwaving away their experience as a "stupid american problem" - I see teething problems with troops adopting new doctrine and new techniques upon which they don't have a lot of experience, and commanders nervous about committing troops to actual shooting engagements under those conditons. Hey, fair enough. I've been involved with a unit that re-roled from sabre to recce (aside from some senior NCOs who had done recce time in Germany - and who were a huge help - I was the only recce-trained leader inthe unit at the time) and hell yeah there were teething problems.

And as George has pointed out, commanders not knowing how to employ recce is an endemic problem even in the Canadian army. Sadly, I have lots of experiance here too. Sometimes you work with a commander who makes good use of you, and sometimes you get employed with a commander where you have to explain to him who it is you are and what you can do for him.

And one area that I happen to agree with the Yanks is that on the spectrum of possible recce vehicles, the mission is better served if the vehicle is more towards the armoured car or light tank end of the spectrum than the Hummer/Jeep end of the spectrum. Yes, recce can be done successfully in jeeps, but (in my opinion at least) only when nothing better is availible. The current crop of SUV-alike fishbowls has me very concerned. At least with Iltis, you got a very small, very light, and very open vehicle that could be super-stealthy and fit into all sorts of weird places - meaning that Iltis offered capability that (say) M113 or Bison did not. The SUV-alikes give up the size and openess of the Iltis, but aside from not being rusted out relics with proper radio installations, don't seem to offer any new capabilities.



> Even today, we find that the Armour guys are out in some remote location, hidden, putting surveillance on some location, not walking in and talking to the people in that house.  HUMINT is doing things like: having a coffee with the locals, not Armd Recce.



Well.... this is becoming less true. Armoured recce is doing more dismounted stuff these days (based on what happened in Germany, perhaps we are to some extent *restoring* the dismounted stuff) and with dismounts (or with open vehicles) you open up the potential for more HUMINT-style intelligence. Certainly I'm not above asking a local if they saw a bunch of green trucks go by....

But I do agree that compared to Infantry recce or dedicated HUMINT pers, we do a lot less of it.

There's not a clean division between the various recce missions; they are more like areas along a continuous spectrum. We do dismounted patrolling, but far less than the Infantry and when we do, our patrols are smaller - so the ability to carry dismounts is a nice to have, but not an absolute requirement, and not worth giving up vehicle speed/size/protection/noise in order to get (because that interferes with the primary mission) In many cases, we are supposed to hand over our OPs and patrol bases to the Infantry recce as they move forward, and I would expect the size and frequency of dismounted patrols to increase once they show up. So that skills overlap between the Armour and Infantry recce is a good thing, because when it comes to patrol bases and OPs, we're (supposed to be at least) singing off the same songsheet. The OP and patrol base I hand off to the pongoes should serve their purposes as well as it did mine, so that my counterpart inherits a good, solid, at least partially prepared position and isn't forced to start from scratch.

That's something I wish we practiced more.

But anyway, I don't think the American experience with light armoured recce invalidates the concept, especially given our long and successful history with it. But by the same token, there are clues in the American experience that warn against relying on SUV-alikes as recce vehicles, instead of something more along the lines of Lynx. If we are going to rely on the experience we have doing this sort of operation, we have to use ALL of it and employ the proper vehicle for the job.

DG


----------



## Kirkhill

I asked the question on another thread whether there isn't a problem with confusing task and platform, patrolling and recce and advance to contact.

As George has pointed out everybody does recce, likewise everybody does advance to contact and everybody patrols.  The question seems to me to be the environment in which the force operates and the intention of the operation.

George's light armoured recce, is designed, it seems to me, for working in wide-open spaces where large areas of ground need to be covered, the threat (though heavily armed) is dispersed even if locally concentrated and the recce force (whether patrolling, conducting route recce or surveying enemy positions) has time, space and cover/concealment allowing the use of long range sensors (binoculars even).  The primary weapons of such a force are its radios linked to arty or to assault groups (own troop, or one of the brigade's battalions).

Kevin's Long Range Recce types (minus vehicles of any sort) do the same thing but at a slower pace in complex terrain  with very low population density where vehicles can't go and likewise where the threat of encountering a tank is very low as well.

Once either of these forces run into a concentration of enemy troops it isn't up to them to launch an assault, even to gain information.  They can observe and lead in assault forces or spot an arty raid.

If the enemy moves then recce keeps pace with the enemy to keep them under observation.

However the business of "fighting for information" becomes an "advance to contact" and it seems that with heavy recce force the battalion commanders were in the habit of using that platoon as a fourth manoeuver element, as a substitute for a fourth "troop" (American style), so that they still kept their other "troops" free from the battle and available for manoeuver.  The alternatives then seem to be to accept a reduction in their fighting strength by allocating one of their manoeuvre troops to the advance to contact role, keeping only two troops in reserve.  Or else prevail upon command to allocate them a fourth manoeuvre element.   In any event, once the bullets start flying contact has been made.  What is required now is for contact to be maintained and for those in contact to keep reporting what they are seeing so that the commander can shape the field accordingly.  If you can see the enemy and the enemy can see you what need is there to find the enemy and I always thought of recce's role, regardless of platform, as finding the enemy.

Standing patrols, fighting patrols, presence patrols are something else again and if the environment in which they are conducted is a hostile environment with a risk of engagement by heavy weapons then the force needs to be equipped accordingly.  If heavily armoured vehicles are available, the roads will support them, the streets are wide enough etc... then they may be a suitable patrol platform.  Other wise something else will have to be done.

Now whether you want to teach tank crews to be able to conduct recce in light vehicles or whether you need a separately trained and equipped force ......... Which is more important and easier to train?  The task or the platform?


----------



## a_majoor

> As Major Taylor points out in his paper, even in WW II, light Jeep mounted recce was unable to perform the task and only the introduction of "Stuart" light tanks allowed the recce to carry our their tasks. (Not mentioned was the parallel introduction of the "Greyhound" armoured car)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but again crap.  He has pull a stunt that many of our poorer journalist friends have pulled.  He has limited his inputed data to what verifies his opinion.  What about the units that used the Lynx II, the Dingo, Otters, Humbers, all light armoured cars used through to the end of the war in Germany?
Click to expand...


Since Major Taylor was commenting on the American experience, we will need to go by analogy here (treading very carefully). The initial recce in Operation Torch and other early US actions were based on "Jeeps", which were found to be unsuitable, and eventually withdrawn/supplimented with "Stuart" light tanks and armoured cars like the Greyhound. In terms of performance, protection and firepower, these vehicles are much more comparable to the Dingo, Otter, Humber and other armoured cars used by Commonwealth forces than Jeeps. Since we all seem to be in agreement that SUVs (modern jeep analogues) are not suitable recce vehicles, then we can look at this experience and see what sort of armoured car works best for recce.

In terms of other examining Armoured Recce deployments, Major Taylor also uses Gulf War One and OIF, as well as the experiences in the NTC throughout the 1980s  (where certain assumptions became ingrained in US thinking), so I am not sure if we can really think of this as "cherry picking" data; Korea, Viet Nam and the various small wars between 1945-1991 really did not see much use of armoured recce so there was little data to find there. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Armd Recce should not be in built up areas. They should bypass them. This is a job for the Infantry and their Recce, who operate more along the lines that you describe. Even today, we find that the Armour guys are out in some remote location, hidden, putting surveillance on some location, not walking in and talking to the people in that house. HUMINT is doing things like: having a coffee with the locals, not Armd Recce.



The issue of recce avoiding BUAs will be very difficult to get around, since the bad guys will be prefferentially in BUAs and other complex terrain. Even using the Armoured Recce to throw a sort of cordon around these areas and attempting to monitor the traffic in and out will be pretty time and manpower intensive. Maybe we should be using the various experiences in Gulf War One, OIF, Afghanistan, the Balkens etc. to start thinking more in terms of "Recce +". The terrain and human environments are becoming much more complex than ever before, and the increase in speed also changes the way we do business (the amount of time available is compressed, so you need to go faster and do more things and do them faster). The increasing speed and range also means the Recce elements will be transitioning between environments wether they want to or not, so they must be adaptable.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> George's light armoured recce, is designed, it seems to me, for working in wide-open spaces where large areas of ground need to be covered, the threat (though heavily armed) is dispersed even if locally concentrated and the recce force (whether patrolling, conducting route recce or surveying enemy positions) has time, space and cover/concealment allowing the use of long range sensors (binoculars even).   The primary weapons of such a force are its radios linked to arty or to assault groups (own troop, or one of the brigade's battalions).
> 
> Kevin's Long Range Recce types (minus vehicles of any sort) do the same thing but at a slower pace in complex terrain   with very low population density where vehicles can't go and likewise where the threat of encountering a tank is very low as well.
> 
> Once either of these forces run into a concentration of enemy troops it isn't up to them to launch an assault, even to gain information.   They can observe and lead in assault forces or spot an arty raid.
> 
> If the enemy moves then recce keeps pace with the enemy to keep them under observation.



Small vehicles can do the job, but the ability to have more "eyes on" and sensor aids seems to be the biggest multiplier the recce patrol can have with them. Pulling in more data from Afghanistan, LCol Bank's article in the CAJ ("Three Block Warriors" http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_08/iss_1/CAJ_vol8.1_05_e.pdf) indicates that Infantry sections and platoons are operating with separations of 5-30 Km, so Armoured Recce patrols could potentially have even greater separation, so being self sufficient in terms of protection, firepower and on board capabilities becomes even more pressing.

I am not knocking the knowledge and experience in Recce that George and other Black Hatters are bringing to this debate, but rather thinking of putting together a bigger and better toolbox, consistent with the various "self imposed" limitations the CF is labouring under as well.


----------



## George Wallace

Armour Recce and Infantry Recce do two different jobs.  They share some similarities, but are completely different in their employment.

Armour Recce does use its' radios as its primary weapon.  Saying that, they are equipped with weapons for self-defence and use in emergency situations.  Those weapons are not meant to fight for information.  Speed, stealth and silence are their best defences. 

A Recce Troop will find the Enemy and will do one of several things.  It can call in Arty on the Target.  It can 'mark' and bypass the Enemy and leave it to 'follow on' forces to take out, or it may 'Picket' the Enemy Positions and guide larger forces in to destroy the Enemy.  In an Advance to Contact, Recce uses its eyes and ears, not its weapons.  It passes all its information back so that the Commander can develop his plan to attack or move around.  Recce will probably be told to continue on with their Recce Task, or they may sent out to perform Flank Security, which is more of an early warning device in case of counter attacks than a Blocking Force.  Yes, I suppose they can be used as a Cut Off Force also, if the situation was desperate.  When not in front of a Bde, they may be tasked with Rear Area Security, and become a QRF for any Enemy Heliborne or Airborne landings in the Rear Areas of the Bde.  One of their roles is Convoy Escort.  They are not expected to take on any Armour formations.  

In recent years, Armd Recce has been operating more clandestine in the Surv role.  In some cases EW, SIGINT, or other Intelligence agencies travel with them.  That means they want to keep their presence secret from any locals.  No HUMINT involved there.

I am not experience with Infantry style Recce, so I will leave that to A-majoor, KevinB, and Paracowboy.  As I said, both operate differently, and in different areas of the Bde/BG AOR.  Armd more further out, Infantry closer in.

Canada does Recce differently most other countries.  We rely on stealth more than they do.  The Americans, Germans and French have an attitude of fighting for their information.  The Soviets incorporated Tanks into their Recce forces.   

Since Vimy Ridge, Canada has been the leader in planning from intelligence gathered from numerous sources.  ISTAR, the new buzz word for what we have always done, is the updated version of taking the Armd Recce, Inf Recce, Humint, Imagery, Cloak and Dagger stuff, INTSUMS and INTREPS from all Canadian units and Allied flanking formations, Canada, the Net, etc. to come up with a Plan.  There are dozens of 'organizations' involved with this collection.  Our different Recce organizations are only part of ISTAR.


----------



## Infanteer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We are talking Apples and Oranges here.   LCol Eyre is looking at the "Changing Role of the Infantry", not our new Recce veh for the Armour Recce role.



I made specific mention to the part of the Paper which refers to the aspects of a population that the Army as a whole will be operating amidst - it is applicable to all branches.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Can we hold up your comments on the PPCLI at Medak Pocket?



It was a hasty defence under contact for a day.  As I said, we've had gunfights in the Balkans and other not-so-friendly places, but we haven't conducted sustained combat operations for over half a decade.


----------



## DG-41

OK, so let's say you give me an Armoured Recce Sqn and a (nearly) blank cheque - how would I outfit it?

1) 3 X 8 car troops mounted in some sort of wheeled armoured car, based around the following requirements:

   a) A 4-man crew. Driver, Commande, Observer (aka "dismount boy", the guy that does the dismounted portion of all our obstacle drills) and either Gunner (if the vehicle has a 2-man turret like LAV or a second pintle mount weapon) or "Observer 2" if not.

Why 4 man crews instead of 3 man crews, as is traditional? I've always felt that 3-man crews get stretched a little too thin, especially once we start doing extended OPs or a lot of patrollling. The extra body adds a lot of extra depth and reserve to the Patrol - this is a nod towards a_majoor and friends who think that we could do with a few extra boots on the ground (within limits, I agree - and that limit is 1 extra body per car)

   b) Wheeled, probably 8X8, but smaller than LAV; probably something between Lynx and Bison. I want enough room for 4 guys, their kit, and enough rations/food/water/ammo for at least 48 hours and 96 would be better. Size the vehicle so all that stuff fits inside comfortably. If three of the crew can sleep inside in reasonable comfort with a full load, so much the better. 

   c) Armoured against 50 cal AP, 25mm if that can be done without the thing weighing 50 tons, minestrike and RPG resistant. I don't intend to slug out toe-to-toe with much of anything, but I would like to survive first contact if I can

   d) Capable of 120km/h on highways safely, and reasonable cross-country performance. If it can cross the Lawfield Corridor battle run area (as long as I stay out of the swamps) that's good to go.

   e) I want a gun, but I don't want to compromise recce performance to get it (George's point about the location of the Coyote turret is well taken) Ideally I want a 25mm gun like Coyote, but a 50 cal cupola like Lynx (or M60!) would be OK too. I want to be able to fire the gun when hatches down, and I want it to elevate high enough to shoot helicopters. I also have been tossing around the idea of the 7.62 Gatling minigun as the primary self-defense weapon - it's more compact than the 25mm, and that insane ROF is great for those "Oh Shit!" moments where you want a lot of supressing fire RFN.

   f) I want a thermal viewer for at least the commander, and a second viewer that can be used from the back while the vehicle is moving (perhaps that's a job for Observer 2) would be Sweet Crunchy Goodness too. I'm not talking about a mast-mounted affair like Coyote, but something more like a thermal sight for the self defense weapon and a separate thermal periscope (for the commander if we have a gunner, and for the second observer if the commander is the gunner)  Thermal sights/scopes have gotten cheap (hell, I can buy them off the shelf these days) and they are soooo useful.

   g) I want an enhanced optical spotting system with an integrated DIGITAL colour video camera mounted coaxial to all the thermal viewers. Again, this can be made part of the sighting system for the main gun. I want to be able to record what I see and beam it back to higher HQ. The intent here is not to duplicate or replace a full-bore surv. system like Coyote, but rather to augment the Mk 1 eyeball and make use of modern digital imaging.

What I kinda have envisioned is a 3/4 scale Bison with an M60 cupola on the commander's "castle" structure, and maybe a pintle-mounted C6 with a gun shield (per Vietnam M113-basted Cav gunboats) on the rear quarter

2) I WANT ASSAULT TROOP BACK! Put 'em in 4 X plane-Jane vanillia LAVIII, nothing special. Now I have a reserve I can work with, I've got my extra dismounts, and I have some light engineer/pioneer capability.

Give me that, and I'd be one happy camper - plus I'd be able to accomplish all the missions I'm supposed to be able to handle.

DG


----------



## Grizzly

Good list DG-41. Would amphibious capability be worth adding too? Especially if it takes little or no prep time to use? It may not be useful that often, but it does give greater mobility options to the recce unit and reduces the tendency for water obstacles to dictate when you can go.  
Just my 2 cents....


----------



## KevinB

George - the problem is that Armoured Recce is poaching into Urban / Mountainous areas.  The LdSH Recce had a 3VP Recce Pl attached to them (on Roto II) as they need the 031's due to their poaching...

The Armoured Corp is dying (sorry you dont have armoured without TANKS) attempting to poach Inf and Eng recce is what they are doign with the Coyote and other vehicle's.
The Corps either needs tracks -- or get into CAV feetfirst.


----------



## Kirkhill

Somebody else commented " if it hurts, don't   do it".   

If there is no role for light vehicular recce in the town (armoured or otherwise) don't deploy them in the towns.   Deploy heavy armour, infantry patrols or whatever else works.


Conversely, if infantry are sufficiently adaptable that they can augment the light armoured recce types in the open field then outstanding.... fill your boots.

I am not seeing why every dog needs to be put into every fight.


----------



## DG-41

> Would amphibious capability be worth adding too?



To be honest, I don't know. I'd want a bilge pump, becasue sometimes large volumes of water find their way inside the vehicle.  > But I'm not sure if actual amphib capability is worth the extra complexity, cost, and weight.

I've never swum a vehicle outside of the "here's how you swim one" vehicle training. I've gotten a few very wet, and I've sunk one, but I've never been on a trace where I've attempted to swim something.

Perhaps that's more a limitation of my own experience and the types of training we set up though. Any of you Old Farts ever swim a Lynx in anger?

DG


----------



## couchcommander

I (for as little as it counts), would get behind what DG-41 is saying for an armoured recce vehicle. He seems to have addressed my primary concerns with "I don't intend to slug out toe-to-toe with much of anything, but I would like to survive first contact if I can". 

As well, what has been mentioned, with the infantry recce taking operations in urban areas (transported around in a-majoor type LAV, dismount, go about their business, etc.) and armour trying to stay out of build up areas (and most importantly avoid contact with the population), makes sense (ie if it hurts, don't do it). Once again though, they are still vunerable, however the armouring and vehicle type that DG-41 puts forwards seems to be to be able to afford an adequate level of protection against the road side bombs, mines and such one would find. And, as a_majoor (I think), pointed out no matter how hard you tried you will still find yourself travelling through built up areas, so the level of protection that DG-41 puts forwards seems appropriate in this respect as well (especially if augmented by his assualt troop). 

Furthermore, the point that this vehicle is meant to compliment the Coyote, not replace, is fair enough IMO.


----------



## George Wallace

KevinB said:
			
		

> George - the problem is that Armoured Recce is poaching into Urban / Mountainous areas.   The LdSH Recce had a 3VP Recce Pl attached to them (on Roto II) as they need the 031's due to their poaching...
> 
> The Armoured Corp is dying (sorry you dont have armoured without TANKS) attempting to poach Inf and Eng recce is what they are doign with the Coyote and other vehicle's.
> The Corps either needs tracks -- or get into CAV feetfirst.


Actually Kev, we all know that is not the fault of the Armour Recce guys, nor the Infantry, but of the people who lack the experience in drawing up the "Brick".  Almost every ROTO, if not every ROTO,  has been a bun fight in the manning department.  How many have you seen where feet on the ground were cut so a CWO or Col could be added...back on topic......In Afghanistan we are seeing the requirement more often to blend our assets for a specific task.  This is a good thing and gives us more flexibility and interoperability, plus the familiarity and knowledge of what others in the 'team' do.  It, however, does not mean that we can now have the same vehicle for all to use.  Each will eventually go back to their primary roles.

Moving on to another point.  Recce has lost its' amphibious capability, because we got cheap.  It is a capability that I personally feel it needs, even if it is seldom used.  It gives the Recce guys an additional tool in their survivability on the battlefield.  In Europe (COLD WARRIOR story) the countries are networked with canals and rivers, many with prepared Ford and Swim sites.  If Recce troops were trapped they would often have to swim.  Sometimes, swimming would have been advantageous in the Advance also, in the ability to cross other than where there are bridges.  The Lynx and AVGP could do that.  Now we must hopefully find bridges that are not blown and hopefully not defended and prepped for demolitions (like that will ever happen - the enemy defending a bridge  : ).

Some of the vehicles, suggested so far, will not be able to swim due to their characteristics.  Will they be able to deep ford instead?


----------



## DG-41

But did you ever swim one in anger George?

I'm not trying to prove/disprove that a vehicle must needs be swimmable; I'm genuinely curious.

DG


----------



## George Wallace

DG-41 said:
			
		

> But did you ever swim one in anger George?



We did swim in Europe....Not in anger though.   We did lakes and Fast Water Swim Camps.

One Reforger, our OC gained a lot of respect from the Troops when we overheard him respond to the Bde Comd's order to get all the Screen back over a river as the Engineers were going to blow the bridges at a certain time.   His response was:   "Go ahead.   Blow the Bridges.   All my C/Ss are amphibious."   We almost all cheered in our OPs, as we thought we would have to do some swimming.   To our disappointment, we were DSed across all the bridges.      That brought home the necessity of that capability.  

The most recent argument, that Recce will have to find the bridges and shallow fords, so therefore does not need the capability, doesn't fly 100% with me.


----------



## DG-41

Well one reason that I've got a slight leaning towards "not amphib" is that swimming - at least the times that I did it - wasn't just turning on the bilge pump, dropping the trime vane, and then puttering off across the Rhine. There was all this swim preperation waterproofing crap you had to do first before is was *reallly* capable of swimming.

That's OK if you are doing a planned crossing as part of an operation, but it's not something that could be done on the spur of the moment. And recce is all about the spur of the moment.

It certainly won't break my heart if my dream vehicle *is* amphibious, but if it isn't, I'm not sending it back.

DG


----------



## George Wallace

You have lost me.  With the Amphibious capability, even fording is faster.  Don't forget that when we are at "Swim Camps" we are overly Safety Conscious.  Operationally the vehicles will be prepped for Amphib Ops at all times.  Combat Loaded they would not require all those sand bags for ballast and weight distribution.  Drain plugs would be properly installed.  

If you don't have that capability, then you must still spend time preparing for Fording.  If the river/canal is too wide for Bridgelayers (which we soon won't have.) then you must wait for Engineer Bridging or Ferry equip to be moved forward; a much longer process and most likely impossible to do if you are well forward of the FEOT.


----------



## a_majoor

DG-41, I like your description of a patrol vehicle and I think we could get about 80% of the way if we could only hang on to the AVGP Grizzly and put it through an extensive refit. A new drivetrain and suspension will address mobility, noise and logistics (better fuel economy, more reliable parts), the Gage "1 Metre turret" can be replaced with something along the lines you suggest (Urdan makes some very good cupolas, or an OWS), and a second gun/imagery mount can be placed by one of the rear cargo hatches to "check six". Since this is a recce vehicle, the marine drive and bilge pump should be reinstalled.

The crew commander sits far enough forward to do corner drills, and the section compartment in the rear can hold the patrolmen, kit, electronic gear and so on. I will hold out for two patrolmen, for a crew of five (driver, CC, observer/gunner, patrolmen X 2 [secondary duties include manning the rear gun while mounted]). The weapons arrangement is a bit of a lash up and the basic armour protection (7.62mm AP) is minimal, but if we want to spend the time and effort, spall liners, ceramic tiles and a DAS could also be added. 

Of course, we also need those AVGP hulls.....

_edit: found a picture of the 80% solution on the CASR site:_


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Phew.  That was a hard slog catching up on this thread.

I am a bit of a mutant Canadian officer in that I spent some formative time at the US Armor School.  While many Canadians point to the "fighting for information" bit as the big difference there is more than that.  While "Cavalry" might fight for information, the "Scouts" at all levels do not as a rule.  A Scout Platoon for a Task Force (think Battle Group) or a Scout platoon in a Cav Tp did not roll around shooting everything up.  That was done by the tanks or HMMVW AT Platoons in Cav organizations and by Company Teams in the Task Forces.

The big difference, to me, between US Scouts and Canadian Recce at the lowest level was the inclusion of dedicated dismounted scouts in each vehicle.  Five man crews were standard for US Scout vehicles and organizations.  Three crewed the vehicle (whether a M3 Bradely or HMMVW) and two were scouts.  This gave the Scouts a fairly good organic dismounted "sneek and peek" capability without having to denude the vehicle of its crew.  It did make the vehicle bigger.

"Steath" recce is often just "recce by death."  Even small vehicles are seen when they advance.

Where am I going?  Good question.

I would like to have two scouts (we can come up with some nice Canadian name if it bothers us, I guess Mounties is already taken, maybe we call DisMounties) in the back of the Coyote along with a smaller OCS.  I think that it offers alot across the spectrum as a recce vehicle and two dismounts per vehicle would increase that flexibility.  Tracks and amphib are great, but at this point I'll take what I can get.  The Coyote and LAV 25 family seem to be doing well in the theatres that they are sent to (ie the trouble spots in the world).  It wasn't perfect, but no system is (the CV9030 with a mast looks nice...)  

The Bison-style recce vehicle would also be an option.  Still, I like having the turret capabilties (both the optics and the firepower).

If we are going to have a smaller "jeep style" vehicle to patrol areas then I vote for an open top and sides.  Armour the bottom and put armour up to about armpit height around the cab.  Focus on mines and IED with some small arms protection. 

 I figure, however, that Coyotes can do the same thing (patrol an urban or rural area).  You can still smile and wave from the hatches and with ten men in the Patrol you can stop and get out to talk/patrol alleys/etc and still have fully manned vehicles.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Recce41

Fellas
 We purchased the Recce Ver. of the Mamba. I hope the D&M tech cannot go, to do the training. I put my name in, 2 months in SA the to Astan for 2 months.


----------



## George Wallace

Any good links, Dave?


----------



## John Nayduk

Here's a link I found.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=16w1ksxjsurw9?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Mamba+APC&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc05a&linktext=Mamba%20APC


----------



## a_majoor

The Mamba is certainly larger and more capable than the Illtis, G-wagon or Duro, but the size and carrying capacity certainly seems to support a different model of recce than "sneak and peek".


----------



## KevinB

http://www.csir.co.za/plsql/ptl0002/PTL0002_PGE082_PROJ?DIVISION_NO=1000024&PROJECT_NO=3610590


----------



## Spanky

Is the Mamba the vehicle that has been chosen or is it still in the selection process?  Is it going to replace the G-wagon C&R or augment?  On operations or nationally as well?
It sounds like it may in general use sooner as opposed to later.  How many are we getting?  Just curious.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Might it be the RG-32 variant of the Mamba, also made by BAE Systems' Alvis OMC in South Africa?
http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/Default.aspx?tabid=647
Product brochure:  http://www.403.co.za/bae/RG32M.pdf

Looks a little more G-Wagen/patrolesque than the APC version of the Mamba and is 2 metres shorter than the Mamba/RG-31 Nyala which the CFs are currently using.


----------



## Recce41

Its the 32, as far as I was told by the D&M fellas. I'm one of the last True Recce/CADMs fellas here at the school. So I hope to score the SA and Astan trip. I would be better than, Recces down the Lawfield.


----------



## Infanteer

A question for you Armoured Recce types; what's your opinion on something like the Chenowth for a "close recce" vehicle?  Maybe as something to detach off from a Troop of LUVW or Coyotes in a harbour for sustainment?

www.chenowth.com


----------



## Recce41

Its a nice lil kick ass veh. It would be great for Light Recce, just as back in the old 1st troop (para) days. Or for a LO or Sig veh. It could be loaded up in a MLVW and used in the A2 or B esh.


----------



## Infanteer

I looked at it not as a "LUVW"-type vehicle, but rather as an ATV-plus.  Although SOC units seem to like it for DA things, I'm a little leery about it considering that Iraq has turned IED's from a battlefield occurence to a major form of offence.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

For deep strike SOF 'Direct Action' type missions, the Chenowth has certainly found a role as a fast weapons carrier.   It's extremely lightweight (able to put into a CH-53 or CH-47, or be airdropped from   a palletized parachute setup), able to mount a .50 or MK-19, or even TOW on, and very fast and capable of traversing difficult DRY terrain.   So for a mission where you require a 'fast attack vehicle' ie. raiding an airfield (ie. Israelis at Entebbe), destroying a fuel dump, SCUD launcher hunting (SAS in Iraq) or hitting other point targets in a suprise, fast, hard hitting, get-in/get-out raid type mission in the enemy's rear areas, it's great.

However, as a dedicated recce. vehicle as part of a more conventional force for use in an offensive or patrol role, I'm a bit more leery.   It has NO protection and very little room to stow kit, POLs, rations or water.   Also, from conversations I've had from guys that use these, they're maintenance intensive in that alot of the running gear, shocks and struts are exposed and get damaged very easily, thus creating a logistical nightmare for units that don't have sky-high SF operating budgets.

To throw in my 2 cents, I say they'd be great for somebody like JTF-2 or the new JATF in an offensive weapons carrier mode for raid type missions where you need a lightweigh, easily air-transported motorized platform, but for conventional armoured recce, there are better vehicles out there.


----------



## a_majoor

So Matt, if the Chenworth is overly specialized for doing recce, is this the "upper boundry" for a recce vehicle? http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35535/post-289802.html#msg289802 , or would you go farther than this?

In the Full Spectrum Ops environment, I am curious as to what sorts of changes you would make to the LAR organization and equipment, given your practical experience?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

As I was discussing with Infanteer at AUSA, the US Army's had considerable success using Gage-Textron's modernised V-150 Commando as an armored patrol/convoy escort vehicle.  It's smaller than a Coyote/LAV-25, able to mount a variety of weapons platforms and has the provision for a team of dismounted riflemen to be carried.  

The Chenowth is a very specialized vehicle and fills a role in SOF Raid missions, but not a practical choice for a mech. recce. vehicle.

Your idea which CASR also touched on regarding the Grizzly is an interesting one, but it seems that CLS has made the decision that the Grizzly's time is done.

In an ideal world, something like a recce'ized version of the CV90 would be great for mech/armoured formations and for the light formations who require as much of a lightly armoured, air portable weapons carrier as they do a recce. vehicle, the Wiesel should be considered.


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> For deep strike SOF 'Direct Action' type missions, the Chenowth has certainly found a role as a fast weapons carrier............To throw in my 2 cents, I say they'd be great for somebody like JTF-2 or the new JATF in an offensive weapons carrier mode for raid type missions where you need a lightweigh, easily air-transported motorized platform, but for conventional armoured recce, there are better vehicles out there.


(Just shortened Matt's quote, to use as a ref.)
I agree with what Matt is saying, that this would only fill a role in a very small percentage of 'specialized' Recce Tasks.   As Matt pointed out it is basically unarmoured and would not offer much protection for the traditional Armd Recce tasks that would be faced a large percentage of the time.   His points on the Cadillac Gage Commando being used for Convoy Escort would be worth a further look at, if the MPs are going to take on a larger role and cover some of these tasks, but again not a vehicle that the Recce guys would find suitable to conduct their tasks.   I think the Grizzly option may be good for the Infantry Recce Platoons and Armd Recce Asslt Troops, and the odd men like RRB and D&S guys.

I am impressed that we are looking at the Nalay (or whatever we are calling that Mamba variant), but then again, like the G-Wagen it may not be 'the Recce Veh' that we need.  I'll wait out on this one.  I am used to doing Recce in open Jeep and Lynx.  Both had their advantages.  The Lynx had some armour protection.  The Jeep was close to the ground, should you want to bail out.  Etc., etc.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In the Full Spectrum Ops environment, I am curious as to what sorts of changes you would make to the LAR organization and equipment, given your practical experience?



Based on my observations, Marine Corps LAR battalions will largely be parcelled out with each company being attached to either a battalion or regimental sized task force organization.

Within the company, I'd like to see our 81mm mortars replaced with 120s as the 81s cannot cover the frontage that our company will occuppy when deployed.  Our AT/TOW vehicles desperately need replacing of the M-901 Emerson turrets.  I would like to see a rifle platoon added which would mimic the Canadian 'Assault Troop', be equipped with Bison APCs and have a strength of 3 Marine rifle squads.  However this is not such a priority for the MC, so realistically, I'd prefer to see the mortar and TOW sections be given a secondary tasking where you consolidate weapons platoon into the 2 Mortar carriers (sans mortars) and an LAV-Logistics (which is normally attached to the mortar section as an ammo carrier) and form an expedient assault troop.  When conductin SASO operations, our TOWs were only really useful as a mounted OP with their long range thermal and optical sights, otherwise they didn't have much use.  Due to ROEs, our mortar section was only used for illum missions at night and the majority of the time, their location at our FOB didn't allow them to cover the ground in which the line platoons were operating.


----------



## Recce41

Matt
 What a waste, mortars can do a lot, and quicker that mud gunners with a 777. As for it being a Spec veh. I would take one, add a lil, extras such as a side rack, a lil bigger engine, and upgrade the front end.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I'm not disagreeing that mortars are a tremendous asset, it's just that our 81s range cannot cover the frontage that our company takes up.  If we went with a 120mm mortar our mortar section would be much more capable of providing fires for the entire company, not just portions of it which they're within supporting range of.


----------



## George Wallace

The 120 has a very versatile and wide variety of munitions, and it would be an asset in any Armour or Infantry org.  But now we are straying off the track.......


----------



## DG-41

> But now we are straying off the track...



It's good for Recce to get off the roads once and a while. 

DG


----------



## Allen

Back to the subject of the Nyala, here is today's story from CP:



> Canadian army to buy 50 light-armoured vehicles from South Africa
> 
> Stephen Thorne
> Canadian Press
> 
> Friday, November 18, 2005
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian army is buying 50 light-armoured vehicles from South Africa, and expects delivery early next year so the next deployment of soldiers can use them in Afghanistan, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> The $120-million purchase has been deemed an "urgent operational requirement," and will boost the safety of soldiers patrolling the dangerous region where 2,000 fighting troops are to deploy in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> In total, Defence is spending $234 million on new equipment for the mission, including new radios, hand-held satellite phones and diesel-powered all-terrain vehicles, senior government sources said Friday.
> 
> Delivery is expected in February or early March, coinciding with the start of Canada's newest mission in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.
> 
> The military has been using several of the Nyala mine-resistant vehicles initially purchased from South African national police since Canada first sent about 2,000 soldiers to fight the war on terrorism around Kandahar in 2002.
> 
> The area is one of the most heavily mined regions of the most heavily mined country in the world. Insurgents have also stepped up roadside and suicide bomb attacks on allied forces in the area in recent months.
> 
> Two Canadian soldiers suffered minor wounds when a roadside bomb exploded next to their armoured patrol in Kabul in September. The military has since decided to add reinforcing plates to its existing armoured vehicles.
> 
> Four of the seven Canadians who have died in Afghanistan in the last three years were killed by set explosive devices - two by anti-tank mines and one by a suicide bomber.
> 
> Billed by its makers - South Africa-based BAE Land Systems - as a "highly adaptable, multi-purpose, four-by-four," the 11-man vehicles are ballistically reinforced, jeep-like troop carriers.
> 
> "This vehicle offers a high degree of protection against vehicle mines and small arms," says one supplier, Paramount Group.
> 
> Earlier this week, the government decided to postpone the combined purchase of $12.1 billion worth of helicopters, transport aircraft and search-rescue planes.
> 
> The South African purchase is different because the vehicles are considered essential to the mission the Canadian troops are undertaking - hunting Taliban and al Qaida fighters in the desert and mountains near Kandahar.
> 
> The Nyalas are being purchased "off the shelf," without any special requirements.



http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=1fa39a45-e8ee-4581-8b94-6d4abcf09618

I don't get the impression that these vehicles are to be used for "recce"; more like a more mine-resistant substitute for the APC.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/land-stalker.htm

Rafael is just announcing their new Advanced Scout and Recce Vehicle.  It marries the Toplite surveillance system and the Valuk 6x6.  The concept looks vaguely familiar.



> Rafael Presents Advanced Stalker ASRV (Armored Scout Reconnaissance Vehicle) on VALUK 6x6
> 
> 
> (Source: Rafael; dated Nov. 7, web-posted Nov. 17, 2005)
> 
> 
> HAIFA, Israel --- RAFAEL Armament Development Authority displayed a new ASRV - Armored Scout and Reconnaissance Vehicle, together with Sistemska Tehnika (Slovenia) at the Defense exhibition in Gornja Radgona, Slovenia.
> 
> The ASRV is a multi-task reconnaissance vehicle based on the VALUK 6X6 vehicle from Sistemska Tehnika Slovenia. The ARSV is equipped with Rafael's newly developed Remote Control Weapon Station (RCWS) and a Surveillance system based on Rafael's TOPLITE electro-optic (EO) day/night targeting & acquisition system. Both are mounted on a mast and are fully operated by a Battle Management System (BMS) which can slave the RCWS to the EO.
> 
> The TOPLITE enables observation, target detection, reconnaissance and identification by using various sensors including 3rd generation FLIR, CCD and a laser range finder. TOPLITE features both manual and automatic target tracking.
> 
> Rafael has extensive experience in the field of reconnaissance and surveillance. Its systems are deployed and operational.
> 
> 
> Rafael designs, develops, manufactures and supplies a wide range of advanced defense systems. These leading edge products include naval, air and ground precision weapons, electro-optic systems, electronic warfare (EW) systems, Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) systems, acoustic defense systems, armored protection and training systems.
> 
> -ends-


----------



## Fishbone Jones

November 18, 2005 - 18:08

Canadian army to buy 50 light-armoured vehicles from South Africa

STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian army is buying 50 light-armoured vehicles from South Africa, and expects delivery early next year so the next deployment of soldiers can use them in Afghanistan, The Canadian Press has learned.

The $120-million purchase has been deemed an "urgent operational requirement," and will boost the safety of soldiers patrolling the dangerous region where 2,000 fighting troops are to deploy in southern Afghanistan.

In total, Defence is spending $234 million on new equipment for the mission, including new radios, hand-held satellite phones and diesel-powered all-terrain vehicles, senior government sources said Friday.

Delivery is expected in February or early March, coinciding with the start of Canada's newest mission in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

The military has been using several of the Nyala mine-resistant vehicles initially purchased from South African national police since Canada first sent about 2,000 soldiers to fight the war on terrorism around Kandahar in 2002.

The area is one of the most heavily mined regions of the most heavily mined country in the world. Insurgents have also stepped up roadside and suicide bomb attacks on allied forces in the area in recent months.

Two Canadian soldiers suffered minor wounds when a roadside bomb exploded next to their armoured patrol in Kabul in September. The military has since decided to add reinforcing plates to its existing armoured vehicles.

Four of the seven Canadians who have died in Afghanistan in the last three years were killed by set explosive devices - two by anti-tank mines and one by a suicide bomber.

Billed by its makers - South Africa-based BAE Land Systems - as a "highly adaptable, multi-purpose, four-by-four," the 11-man vehicles are ballistically reinforced, jeep-like troop carriers.

"This vehicle offers a high degree of protection against vehicle mines and small arms," says one supplier, Paramount Group.

Earlier this week, the government decided to postpone the combined purchase of $12.1 billion worth of helicopters, transport aircraft and search-rescue planes.

The South African purchase is different because the vehicles are considered essential to the mission the Canadian troops are undertaking - hunting Taliban and al Qaida fighters in the desert and mountains near Kandahar.

The Nyalas are being purchased "off the shelf," without any special requirements.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n111863A


----------



## Sandbag

My apologies for not reading all posts before answering, but the NYALA is not at this time becoming our new recce vehicle.  The LUVW C&R is still going to be that beast.  The NYALA is being purchased as a mine-resistant vehicle to carry troops in situations where the LAVIII is not going to be used.  Most people on this site are aware of the configuration of the unit going over and as such the Light Patrol Vehicle (LPV) coy needed something a little bigger than the LUVW that would get them into ops.  This was the quick solution, for an immediate op requirement.
Cheers
Sandbag


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Probably the reason the thread is named "Our '*maybe*' new recce vehicle", but not a big deal. With the way things change daily anymore, it's hard to tell what we'll be using or doing six months from now. Thanks anyway.


----------



## bossi

Interesting - a friend of mine sent me an e-mail suggesting it might even be the CASSPIR ... (?)
Thus, I'm left wondering whether the DND news release specified "11 person crew", or whether the journalist made a "leap in logic" ... (i.e. the CASSPIR is listed as 14 crew, the NYALA as 11 ... )

Sure leaves me wondering if DND isn't just simply sub-contracting acquisition advice to SFU ...

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp1-casspir.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp1-casspir2.htm

Nyala:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-31
Casspir:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casspir

P.S.   LMAO at quote from Widipedia ... which clinches this debate, in my cynical mind ...


> "... It is finding favor with nongovernmental organizations requiring *a vehicle with a non-aggressive appearance* to protect their personnel against the threat of landmines.  ..."


 :


----------



## Sandbag

It is confirmed as NYALA and will be shipped directly to theatre and outstanding quote from Widipedia ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

A few questions.

What are the diesel powered ATV's?

Do we have a recent good pic of this Nyala vehicle and will it really carry 11 troops? Isn't that more than a LAV III?

$120 million for 50- there must be more included in the deal.

And: notice he isn't saying "hunting and killing" anymore?

Cheers


----------



## John Nayduk

The South Africans have a long histroy in mine protected vehicles.  I saw a number of them in Namibia when I was there in 1989.  I spoke with some SA and SWATF soldiers who had been in vehicles that hit mines.  The fact that they were still around to talk to me says something about the vehicles.  I think it should prove to be a good purchase for us.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/Default.aspx?tabid=652
http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/Default.aspx?tabid=648
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-31

BAE Systems, which recently bought the South African company OMC, is in the process of reorganizing that business unit.  The BAE marketing types that produce their websites appear to be confused/confusing about their own product line.

This blurb taken from their corporate website suggests that they consider the RG-12 to be the Nyala.  



> Light Armoured Vehicles (such as the Wasp Rapid Deployment Reconnaissance Vehicle).
> 
> Mine-protected Vehicles (such as Casspir, Mamba, RG-31, Okapi and Kobra).
> 
> Police and Security Vehicles (such as the Scout and RG-12 Nyala)



http://www.na.baesystems.com/landArmaments.cfm

Both the RG-12 and the RG-31 are armoured buses but the RG-31 seems the more likely choice as it apparently has better off-road abilities and is armoured against heavier mines than the RG-12.


----------



## Kirkhill

Back to the DUROs for a moment - the UK is ordering them as comms vehicles and bomb disposal squad carriers.



> Over 100 DURO Vehicles for the United Kingdom
> 
> 
> (Source: Mowag AG; dated Oct. 31, web-posted Nov. 18, 2005)
> 
> 
> At the end of July the Defense Procurement Agency in the UK signed up for the delivery of 35 multipurpose military-type DURO vehicles from MOWAG GmbH. This is the third contract with the British Army within the last nine months. In total, 101 DURO vehicles have been ordered. Following completion of production and delivery of these three contracts, 198 DURO will be in operation in the UK.
> 
> At the beginning of 2003 MOWAG GmbH took over the DURO business sector from Bucher Industries. During the past two years MOWAG has further developed the original vehicle concept and is now present in the important 12 tonne market segment with the DURO III.
> 
> Of the 198 vehicles ordered or already delivered by/to the UK, 124 are the smaller DURO II version with a maximum GVW of 9 tonnes, of which 6 vehicles are for ammunition disposal (mine clearance and bomb disposal) and 118 vehicles as carriers of communications systems.
> 
> Of the 66 larger DURO III vehicles, 48 will also be applied as communications vehicles, whereas 18 DUROs will be equipped for bomb disposal. A number of these DUROs are already in operation with the British Army in Iraq for bomb disposal missions.
> 
> Apart from the UK, in 2004 and 2005 Germany has already acquired a total of 30 of the further developed armoured DURO III P vehicles. These vehicles have proven their performance and reliability in Peace Keeping missions with the German Bundeswehr in Afghanistan. Based on the good experience gained in Peace Keeping missions abroad, MOWAG GmbH expects further orders from both the UK and Germany.
> 
> The CEO at MOWAG GmbH, Simon T. Honess, is very pleased with the close cooperation with the UK, and stated: "The three current contacts are proof of the customer's trust in the performance and reliability of the DURO, as well as the real partnership between the British procurement agencies and MOWAG GmbH."
> 
> This trust is also reflected in the fact that MOWAG is the only off-shore (non-British) company with a long-term Option Contract with the (UK) Procurement Agency.
> 
> When asked to address the significance of these contracts for MOWAG GmbH, Honess stated: "With the further development and successful marketing of the DUROs, we have managed to establish a second independent product line in a completely different segment in parallel to the successful PIRANHA family of armoured wheeled vehicles. The creation of a second main pillar in parallel to the PIRANHA was also the strategic target when taking over the DURO segment from Bucher Industries. I am convinced that the DURO will be the source of much gratification for us in Kreuzlingen".
> 
> A large number of suppliers in Switzerland are also profiting from the current sales success of the DURO, as more than 80% of the vehicle parts are produced in Switzerland.
> 
> 
> MOWAG GmbH of Kreuzlingen develops, designs, and manufactures technologically advanced special vehicles for military use. Far more than 10'000 armoured wheeled vehicles of the MOWAG PIRANHA, MOWAG EAGLE, and MOWAG DURO series are fielded all over the world. Since October of 2003, MOWAG is part of the General Dynamics European Land Combat Systems group, and employs a qualified staff of more than 500 in its Kreuzlingen site.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16775233.1132588580.Q4HuJMOa9dUAABdad3k&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Mountie

Looks great.  I've wondered for a while when this vehicle was going to be looked at.  But why is the Army procuring the RG-31 and looking at the Duro APV?  Aren't these two vehicles relatively similar, although the Duro looks live a a 4-crew vehicle and the RG-31 carries 6-10 depending on variant.


----------



## a_majoor

From what I could tell (and this is mostly a SWAG), the Duro is being offered to replace/suippliment the G-wagon C&R, while the RG-31 is a sort of M-113 on wheels battle taxi for use in theater. 

The Duro has not been selected (as far as I know, this entire subject is still up for discussion on the official net), so for now we are using the G-wagon and various versions of the Coyote for recce.


----------



## George Wallace

Well, as we have done historically, we may have to acquire a variety of vehs for Recce.  In WW II, our Recce Regts operated a wide range of vehicles within their organizations.  We used the Otter, the Fox, the Lynx II, Staghounds, White Half-tracks, jeeps, etc. to accomplish our role.  One thing we were always taught was "Flexibility".  Restricting ourselves to one "all seeing, all dancing, does everything" vehicle may in fact take away any flexibility we may have had.  It may be a good thing to acquire a variety of vehs.  Keep the Coyotes in the Surv Role and bring in a mix to do the Mud Recce and other Recce Tasks.


----------



## Lost_Warrior

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlarv.htm

It looks like Canada is getting into the market for an actual, non Coyote sezed armoured recce vehicle.

It certainly looks like an interesting venture.  It would be even nicer if the Reserves get a few of these so we can actually be "armoured recce" with a true armoured recce vehicle.


----------



## a_majoor

For more discussion on this topic see:

Armoured Recce Vehicle: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36019.0.html

Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35535.0.html

"Trading Saber for Stealth" or "Are We a One Trick Pony?": http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html


----------



## Dana381

According to GDLS Canada it's $60.3 million for 50 RG-31's not $120 million.
http://www.gdlscanada.com/news/releases/07-12-2005.asp

A little easier to swallow but still 4 times that of the LAV (according to army guide) 
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=1055

Is it That much better than A LAV that it deserves such a high price tag? I'm A civilian and don't know these things, I'm just asking because it seems like it may be more feasible to buy more LAV's which are made in Canada and keep our money here at home? 

Please don't take this as another Civilian trying to under-fund the CF. I think that Canada should spend WHATEVER is Needed to defend our country. I just like to see them shop at home because of the far reaching economic benefits. 

I appreciate your patience and love this site, It's very informative on whats going on in the CF.
Thanks!


----------



## Kirkhill

Dana:

Welcome to the site -  I think if you do a bit more searching you will find that while a bare-bones LAV may cost 284,000 a LAV with turret, comms, and defensive aids costs more like 2-4 million.

Similarly with the RG-31.  The bare vehicle is in the 100,000 range but the Remote Weapons Station alone can cost an additional 250,000.

This phenomenon is also true of ships and aircraft.  The vehicle itself is becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the actual system cost.

Cheers.


----------



## Dana381

Thank's Kirkhill. That makes more sense, I assumed those were a basic LAV III fully equipped with the turret and comms. I was wondering how they would stack up against mines compared to the RG-31. I still like to see them shop at home though, I wish there was a Canadian made counterpart.


----------



## Black Watch

mant, that thing is uggly


----------

